next to impressionism i sympathize with the term naturalism, but my understanding of the word is idiosyncratic, erm, i mean it totally differs from / practically opposes / wikipedia's definition of naturalism. well wikipedia has actually a whole bunch of definitions for the word. so why not invent my own: let's call it idiosyncratic naturalism, lol. by which i basically mean my understanding of Ni (or one major aspect of it). aligning life with the subject, projecting the functional aspect of the subject (it's intrinsic movement, it's growth patterns and related themes, like transformative principles/intrinsic functional modulations = as perceived by Ni) onto and into external structures/conscious ways of life, thereby designing them so they facilitate growth, anticipate the subject. furthermore: sympathizing with the subjects of external nature (biology) and being an advocate for their nature, by creating infrastructure that harmonizes with nature - "organic design". this is where I see the connection between my understanding of Ni and wikipedia's more literal/sensorical/exclusively materialistic/non-metaphysical naturalism. one could also associate naturalism with the "popular darwinism rap", which is an advocate of extroverted perception's superficial view of nature's life - it looks at the violent interaction of entities and intents to multiply it's principles for the hell of it: "let's sort out the weak and meak" no true understanding or intrinsic groth and evolution at all, it's really more like anti-evolution ... that's just the opposite of what i have in mind.