I notice you don't say what the value of fantasy is.
And instead there's the focus on imaginary suffering drawn over supposed concrete details.
yer killing me here marm.
But people do suffer in the event of nuclear bombs or nuclear fall-out. This isn't imaginary. It's safe to say that when people conceive, there will probably be a baby. It's also safe to say that when there's a nuclear war, there will be mass suffering.
What if it happens in space?
See. You people have no imagination at all. You hear "nuclear war" and it's all earthside armageddon, all in black and white film, with trees and houses suddenly blowing flat. How about if they just blow up Canada? Let's say Al-Q in a last ditch effort gets a suitcase bomb onto a beach in Ontario and boom. Canada complains to the US. The US blows up everything in Waziristan and everyone shuts down immigration for a while. Was that nuclear war enough for ya? Or did it have to be an exchange of ballistic missiles?
But here I am fantasizing again, no offence Canada. I'm a little excited.
That's Fi. That has NOTHING to do with Si.
Are you sure you're not an Ne type?
What if? What if this, what if that.
I still don't think suffering in Canada is good, what havoc that would take on the environment, and some of the fall-out would inevitably come to the U.S. anyway.
I don't think you understand me at all.
While we're here, what do you suppose Fi works with? It's a judgment that uses feeling as reason, but we've all heard again and again how feeling is fleeting. So what is it that Fi stews upon to create that judgment?
In my case, facts, in your case, what if scenarios.
Was it you who liked the French language?
Traitor.
THINK HARD BEFORE YOU COMMIT!!!
FACTS IS SI, WHAT IFS IS NI.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PHONE A FRIEND
In context, no, what if isn't Ne.
But, what facts are these you speak of? Remembered facts? With details? Rooted in time and place? Collated with and from factual imagery and compared to other memories?
The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world?
But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality.
His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.
In fact, according to Jung, I am the one using Ni:
Nothing about "what if."