[NF] why is introverted intuition so hard to verbolize?

[chado]

ok so i keep reading that ni doms can tap into the metaphysical,eg plato on thoery of forms,and people always say ni is hard to describe what does this mean?,they say that ni goes so deep that it cant be described can any ni doms give some personal experiences thanks?

 

[indra]

It is hard to verbalize because the scope of its presentation is as wide as a rock is narrow (no discredit to geologists)

 

[VagrantFarce]

How can you verbalise that which is ...unverbalisable?



Ni is unconscious perception, and attempts to relinquish itself of any sort of inner conceptual footing - so trying to conceptualise it can be like trying to catch lightning in a butterfly net. All you can ever do is catch glimpses of it in the corner of your eye, and try to point it out to others. In many ways, we tend to define it in terms of its undefinability, because that's its real distinguishing characteristic.

I like what David Lynch says about ideas, which I think correlates strongly with Ni:

Lynch: "I like to think of it as, in the other room, the puzzle is altogether - but they keep flipping in just one piece at a time."

Host: "In the other room...?"

Lynch: *points* "Over there."

Host: "In a sense David, there's always another room somewhere."

Lynch: "That's a beautiful thing to think about."

 

[rmrf]

Language plays a crucial role in our thoughts. We see and describe the world in terms of sets of Objects that are described with words. So naturally most of our thought processes are verbal, insofar as you can describe with words what you are thinking, even if you are not necessarily having an internal monologue.

Introverted Intuition transcends this, it looks beyond the literal meaning of things, and deals with the 'thing' itself, rather than symbolic or semantic meaning. It is hard to verbalise almost by definition, because it is to look beyond verbal/symbolic meaning, and connect things abstractly. It gives a creative and abstract inspiration for 'pointing you in the right direction', and is expanded on through thinking/feeling.

 

[jakopic]

Ni is the hardest function to understand, this is why:
When people want to simplify Se they say it is the receiver of the physical world; through the senses, it takes the outside data of the real world. I would say Ni works in a way that is abstracting from the real world objects. Ni is creating its own reality on things, its own unique inner world.

A bit of jung on abstraction:

...for me, abstraction has the meaning of an energic depreciation of the object. In other words, abstraction can be expressed as an introverting libido-movement

 

[raissaroars]

Instead of an inner world of feelings, like Fi, an inner world of structured logic, like Ti, and an inner world of memories and past sensory sensations, like Si, Ni is an inner world of ideas. It's impossible to describe because it doesn't exist; it's to abstract and imprecise, sometimes to a point it's even annoying. The only way one could find out if they use Ni is by understanding how it acts and how it happens in real life. The hard thing is that, even this way, understanding Ni is very, very hard.
I'd say both Lynch and Tarkovsky have attempted to describe Ni. However, as an introvert function, Ni is still extremely subjective and personal.
All I can say as a Ni-dom is that I "absorb" the outer world without even realizing how and getting """"""""vibes"""""""" is part of my everyday life. I'm constantly processing information without even knowing it. Oh, and most Ni users have a clear "vision" of how they believe/want something will work out.