Is Ni reverse perception?

[EntangledLight]

Or...

if you accept that sense data exists outside of you, then once in a while you might like to consciously fashion some coherence over time for it. You might like to imagine that threaded through the stream of sense data there are reoccurring forms.

And you might like to start screwing with those forms. You might like to alter the combinations in which you imagine you could find them. And after some time, screwing around like this, you'll eventually start deciding what these forms really stand in for if anything at all.

Etc.

And doing that consciously is "using" Ni (and judgment).

But, in my humble estimation, perception doesn't and can't exist only at the conscious level. No one, for instance, can "do" conscious Se without some idiosyncratic unconscious information in the background that makes the Se "yours". That unconscious information would be lower level Ni. And likewise, there is no conscious Ni without lower level Se since no one makes idiosyncratic connections between bundles of concepts without some unquestioned starter data of the "out there" seen first.


But it seems like in the OP you might have set up extroverted perception as the "real" perception, in which case, yeah, Ni is one of the "reverse" perceptions.

^^

this.

 

[cascadeco]

This is how my mind works, but only began to work that way as a late teen/grown up, I don't have any marvelous 3 year old baby seahorse stories, as my Ni is tertiary.

lol, I don't have any marvelous 3-yr-old stories either. I don't even remember the majority of my childhood, or what teachers/fellow students thought about me or said to me. Details.... no recollection. My memory sucks.

 

[Kalach]

^^

this.

I noticed however reading back over mine own magnificent words, it's not entirely clear why that stuff isn't Si. Discovering forms in the stream and screwing around with them in your head is Si too. Different content, obviously. ("Obviously"?) But same process.

It's interesting though. I think perception cannot possibly exist if it lacks either of S or N. Which is to say, there is literally no way to appreciate a sense datum if there is no way to connect sense data. For consider: if you can't connect a sense datum with anything, then you can't make associations with prior sense data, nor can you determine even whether the incoming datum has any form at all, so what's there to 'appreciate"? Ergo, you positively require (a) senses and (b) some cognitive tool for associating sensations. What's really interesting, perhaps, is that condition (a), the senses, are neither S nor N, and (b), the cognitive tool, is neither the S nor the N alone, but the two of them together functioning as a unit.

So interesting then that some people have the unit as Ne/Si and others have it as Ni/Se.

 

[EntangledLight]

I noticed however reading back over mine own magnificent words, it's not entirely clear why that stuff isn't Si. Discovering forms in the stream and screwing around with them in your head is Si too. Different content, obviously. ("Obviously"?) But same process.

It's interesting though. I think perception cannot possibly exist if it lacks either of S or N. Which is to say, there is literally no way to appreciate a sense datum if there is no way to connect sense data. For consider: if you can't connect a sense datum with anything, then you can't make associations with prior sense data, nor can you determine even whether the incoming datum has any form at all, so what's there to 'appreciate"? Ergo, you positively require (a) senses and (b) some cognitive tool for associating sensations. What's really interesting, perhaps, is that condition (a), the senses, are neither S nor N, and (b), the cognitive tool, is neither the S nor the N alone, but the two of them together functioning as a unit.

So interesting then that some people have the unit as Ne/Si and others have it as Ni/Se.

yeah. to me it's always been easier to reconcile if you think of both as two parts of one whole (when in reality, there aren't two parts, there's not even a division; it's more like an oddly shaped thing where one area get's more conscious attention). and even then, to notice that the inferior isn't going to be the "smaller" piece, but the larger one since your consciousness itself would be like a child compared to the rest of your mind (in which case, none of us are really a type, or if we are, the type we claim to be is really the opposite of our true selves, but all of that would hinge on what you called the "true self").

in any case, i think you're right in saying that neither are S or N, at least to begin with. it's just "something" that may become S+N, and not in a ratio form such as 85% N and 15% S, but in the way that each is changed depending on the makeup of the individual. so, if you have S in the inferior, it's still S but it won't be or function the same way S would for an S-dom., that is, having S unconsciously will be different that having it consciously.

to me, it would make since if it was just some nebulous thing (no need to label or define it yet), and depending on how one's psyche was structured, that "thing" would begin to have human perception projected onto it, separating certain pieces from each other in a fashion that our minds can understand that we then call N and S (a human convention), and then from there it would be in it's purest form in whatever area had the most concentrated conscious energy (but even then, "purest" may be a bias because we think that our conscious selves are our real selves, in reality it's just the sides we're most acquainted with), with it's opposite falling into a realm that is relatively "un-human", in the process of doing so it (i think) would be fundamentally changed.

so, maybe for an S-inferior, they wouldn't pay as much attention to sensory detail or to a stored vision of reality (in the here-and-now sense that is taken and morphed into a more intimate image--Si), but it would still, i think, act as an unconscious base on which the intuitions can now spring from or connect.

and when you think about it, if you could envision each P-function as having two sides, it seems as if one side would always connect to another in some sort of similarity, while simultaneously having the other side oppose that connection and fall into a similarity with side of another function.

 

[Kalach]

I think actually it's better to go with patterned cognition than with top-down type structures. Which is to say, top-down type structures such as functions don't exist, but collections of cognitive products, like memories or individual thoughts and feelings, do. And these products are typed. The more conscious they are, the more closely their content matches what you'd expect from some type structure. The less conscious they are, the less structured their content, and also the less well maintained. Why type exists isn't explained by some such picture of the mind, but such a model does give some form to how "functions" interact. Cognitive content is bundled together, and therefore influential in how the other is shaped or formed, but only some of it is attended to.

There remain some big gaps in this manifesto, however..

 

[Eric B]

Pi as a whole is “reverse perception” in the sense that we usually think of perception as taking in data from an external object, which of course is Pe. Pi draws from internalized data, and then measures the external objects by it.

So Ni is starting with an internalized conceptual pattern, such as an archetypal model of something, and then connects objects or events together with them.

 

[Little_Sticks]

More concretely. A stop sign is red. You perceive the perception of red as true, but you don't accept the red as true. This is straignt perception.

But, if you were to let to let the external be accepted as true, you then trust that the redness is outside of the psyche. It isn't a perception anymore, but an intuition. And you could easily color that intuition however you like. You could accept that the stop sign is actually yellow instead of red, even though it is red.

It's hard to explain.

But since this process is all internal, except for the initial external, and it is intuition, I'd have to call it Ni.

If so, I suck at it.

Maybe this will mean something to you:

Pretty much. But I don't think it's about accepting red as yellow though, but recognizing that there is an objective distinction (what we scientifically refer to as wavelengths, although that still could be argued an over-simplification of a very complex/dynamic process that involves us all) between red and yellow; and one that can cause various impressions among different people and things. This understanding or linking of these impressions external to the self would be Ni and it is subjective in that it deals with something completely abstract about reality, even though it uses objective distinctions (Se) to base this linking of impressions on.

Then the impression of red or yellow meaning something particular to the self would relate to distorting this objective distinction into forming a personal distinction about it (Si). And in the case of Ne, it would be about taking a personal distinction (Si) and aiming to create or enforce its meaning into the world in some way (Ne). I guess technically Ne is also considered objective because of this, although it is not dealing with concrete distinctions like Se, but more abstract ones (Si) that relate directly to the self.

It makes sense to me this way, although I don't know if I really believe in personality types because of this, but perhaps modes of relating and dealing with the world.

 

[EntangledLight]

i think i get what you're saying Kalach. although to me it seems as if we (might... are?) saying the same thing, but just focusing the discussion on different aspects (such as an overlying process and how to distinguish the differences between each in order to have a better understanding of each, whereas you seem to want to start on the internal "blocks" that would comprise one overlying process... which, if i had the knowledge to do so, seems to be the better method).