Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
Decided that the best way to frame the perception perspectives is simply
S=SPACE
N=TIME
Where S was said by Jung to “register reality as real" or cover "what is", N was connected to time; "where it's heading". This does not explicitly mention space for S, but when you think of it, all sensory perception is spatial. We see or hear waves that come to us through space, smell particles that flat to us through space, and touch and taste things we reach out through space and take. This occurs in time as well, but all the perceived objects are experienced through space. Time is where occurs the "idea" of them.
Like you can have a tangible unit like a building or even our bodies, but if every part (or our cells) are replaced one by one, then is it still the same material? What passes down through time is really an "idea" that the tangible "here and now" parts simply make up instant by instant. Matter itself may actually be waveforms that transfer from one string to another as the forces of acceleration or inertia "push" all the energy of the string from one location to the next, relative to other objects. The best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Nothing's actually "moving" except an "image", conveying, essentially, an "idea" programmed into the electronic circuits. Again, functions are by nature "mixed together" or "undifferentiated in reality, and only separated out by our consciousness.
Hence, both S and N are involved in these examples. But to divide them, S is the spatial (random access) aspect, while N is the sequential (causative) aspect.
So, "What is" refers to what is sitting there in space, while what "could be" implies a time element; what could take on a tangible shape in the future, or even what could have been, in the past.
So now, to factor in the attitudes, extraversion deals in the "environment", while introversion is about the individual. Both space and time consist of linear "dimensions", of biploar "directions", by which every conscious entity immersed in it divides reality. (and I've been expressing the functions and attitudes themselves as divisions of reality). Space has three (randomly accessible, again), and time has one, which is one way.
So Se is basically what you experience in the immediate environment, as you look out into any of the three dimensions of space. Again, the visual and audial waves, olfactory particles, and gustatory and tactile contact.
Si is the same spatial data, but stored individually in memory.
So Ne then involves what you experience when following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line. Hence, what "could" happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen. (Of course, things can change, and so Ne remains "open").
So then Ni (what I devised all of this to continue to try to get a better understanding of and way of expressing) also looks at the dimension of time, but its inferences do not come from the timeline, but rather from the individual, which is the unconscious. This is the domain of the "archetypal" (images that are collective, and not tied directly to our external experience), and what do we often describe archetypal images as? "Timeless"! (meaning pervasive through time; not on our individual timeline of experience).
The way this was once described to me, was that while N overall dealt with patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another; Ne attempts to understand a situation (or otherwise disparate external elements) in terms of a pattern (a larger arrangement that give them meaning; and also "stored in memory"), while Ni begins with and looks outside of the pattern (the existing arrangement of elements) and infers what's being left out; what it doesn't it into account.
This was helping me get a better understanding of the difference, but for some reason wasn't totally clicking. Me, in my Ti fashion, needed a better system of parallel, like S, T and F all handle the same things (tangible, mechanical and anthropic or "soul"-related), but the "e" attitude determines what "is", is "true" or is "good" from the environment, while the "i" attitudes determines them from within the individual.
The obvious word I took notice of for N was "pattern", and it was tempting to simply define "N=patterns". But I held off from that, because for one thing, "patterns" could be sensory as well, such as a "pattern" on a fabric, or music. (Actually, these, especially the latter, are timelike as well as spatial/tangible, and with visual patterns, you can think of them as timelike, in it requires time to compare one part to another and see the markings look the same).
Also, because I thought the general N description, and Ne sounded similar: involving comparing one thing to another. And Ne dealt directly with the external pattern, making me think then that Ni was inferring from a "subjective pattern" (and I think I had at that point said that here). But instead, it looks "outside" a pattern. So what really was the common "element" that tied both attitudes of iNtuition? It's clearly not the "pattern". If anything, it made Ne sound internal ("patterns stored in memory", which also makes one think of Si) and Ni sound external ("outside the pattern").
So upon reading Beebe's book, where he pointed out Jung associated N specifically with time, that got me thinking more about it. Space and time together to make make sort of a partial "trinity" reflection, with space compared to the "Son" who appeared physically in space, and the "Spirit" who afterward came over the time since, to indwell man. I for some reason had not directly associated S with "space", because I realized time was involved as well. But just in the past few days, "trying on the idea", it really fits!
Ne's patterns "stored in memory" by which it actually does its looking down through the dimension of time is precisely what makes it work with its opposite tandem mate, Si. Hence, both are associated in the new "Intentional Styles" model, with "Inquiring"; which is basically going mentally through time to access previous spatial experience.
Se's immediate space orientation then works with Ni's immediate "outside the pattern" awareness, and hence are called "Realizing".
Since all of science (including psychology) realizes naturally that we deal in space and time (in addition to impersonal mechanics, and personal affect), putting for the functions in these terms (again, one or the other preferred by our divisions of reality) would have a better chance of proving the theory is not some pseudoscience or ridiculous idea like astrology.
S=SPACE
N=TIME
Where S was said by Jung to “register reality as real" or cover "what is", N was connected to time; "where it's heading". This does not explicitly mention space for S, but when you think of it, all sensory perception is spatial. We see or hear waves that come to us through space, smell particles that flat to us through space, and touch and taste things we reach out through space and take. This occurs in time as well, but all the perceived objects are experienced through space. Time is where occurs the "idea" of them.
Like you can have a tangible unit like a building or even our bodies, but if every part (or our cells) are replaced one by one, then is it still the same material? What passes down through time is really an "idea" that the tangible "here and now" parts simply make up instant by instant. Matter itself may actually be waveforms that transfer from one string to another as the forces of acceleration or inertia "push" all the energy of the string from one location to the next, relative to other objects. The best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Nothing's actually "moving" except an "image", conveying, essentially, an "idea" programmed into the electronic circuits. Again, functions are by nature "mixed together" or "undifferentiated in reality, and only separated out by our consciousness.
Hence, both S and N are involved in these examples. But to divide them, S is the spatial (random access) aspect, while N is the sequential (causative) aspect.
So, "What is" refers to what is sitting there in space, while what "could be" implies a time element; what could take on a tangible shape in the future, or even what could have been, in the past.
So now, to factor in the attitudes, extraversion deals in the "environment", while introversion is about the individual. Both space and time consist of linear "dimensions", of biploar "directions", by which every conscious entity immersed in it divides reality. (and I've been expressing the functions and attitudes themselves as divisions of reality). Space has three (randomly accessible, again), and time has one, which is one way.
So Se is basically what you experience in the immediate environment, as you look out into any of the three dimensions of space. Again, the visual and audial waves, olfactory particles, and gustatory and tactile contact.
Si is the same spatial data, but stored individually in memory.
So Ne then involves what you experience when following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line. Hence, what "could" happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen. (Of course, things can change, and so Ne remains "open").
So then Ni (what I devised all of this to continue to try to get a better understanding of and way of expressing) also looks at the dimension of time, but its inferences do not come from the timeline, but rather from the individual, which is the unconscious. This is the domain of the "archetypal" (images that are collective, and not tied directly to our external experience), and what do we often describe archetypal images as? "Timeless"! (meaning pervasive through time; not on our individual timeline of experience).
The way this was once described to me, was that while N overall dealt with patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another; Ne attempts to understand a situation (or otherwise disparate external elements) in terms of a pattern (a larger arrangement that give them meaning; and also "stored in memory"), while Ni begins with and looks outside of the pattern (the existing arrangement of elements) and infers what's being left out; what it doesn't it into account.
This was helping me get a better understanding of the difference, but for some reason wasn't totally clicking. Me, in my Ti fashion, needed a better system of parallel, like S, T and F all handle the same things (tangible, mechanical and anthropic or "soul"-related), but the "e" attitude determines what "is", is "true" or is "good" from the environment, while the "i" attitudes determines them from within the individual.
The obvious word I took notice of for N was "pattern", and it was tempting to simply define "N=patterns". But I held off from that, because for one thing, "patterns" could be sensory as well, such as a "pattern" on a fabric, or music. (Actually, these, especially the latter, are timelike as well as spatial/tangible, and with visual patterns, you can think of them as timelike, in it requires time to compare one part to another and see the markings look the same).
Also, because I thought the general N description, and Ne sounded similar: involving comparing one thing to another. And Ne dealt directly with the external pattern, making me think then that Ni was inferring from a "subjective pattern" (and I think I had at that point said that here). But instead, it looks "outside" a pattern. So what really was the common "element" that tied both attitudes of iNtuition? It's clearly not the "pattern". If anything, it made Ne sound internal ("patterns stored in memory", which also makes one think of Si) and Ni sound external ("outside the pattern").
So upon reading Beebe's book, where he pointed out Jung associated N specifically with time, that got me thinking more about it. Space and time together to make make sort of a partial "trinity" reflection, with space compared to the "Son" who appeared physically in space, and the "Spirit" who afterward came over the time since, to indwell man. I for some reason had not directly associated S with "space", because I realized time was involved as well. But just in the past few days, "trying on the idea", it really fits!
Ne's patterns "stored in memory" by which it actually does its looking down through the dimension of time is precisely what makes it work with its opposite tandem mate, Si. Hence, both are associated in the new "Intentional Styles" model, with "Inquiring"; which is basically going mentally through time to access previous spatial experience.
Se's immediate space orientation then works with Ni's immediate "outside the pattern" awareness, and hence are called "Realizing".
Since all of science (including psychology) realizes naturally that we deal in space and time (in addition to impersonal mechanics, and personal affect), putting for the functions in these terms (again, one or the other preferred by our divisions of reality) would have a better chance of proving the theory is not some pseudoscience or ridiculous idea like astrology.