to me, the annoying thing about Pi is that it is ultimately semantic.
with that in mind, there is this sense that we Pi'ers remember the interpretation first and the actual experience less. all the associatedness IS what the thing is, rather than a construct, and rather than a higher order integration of a construct in a kind of statistical, inductive way. we forget the presence, the exploratory energy, that keeps us connected to the reality of the moment.
for me personally, Si is the only function i still have a lot of trouble with (in terms of fully connecting with in others or feeling really clear on what it would add to my own processes). there's a kind of weird feeling in it that feels inherently fundamentalist, whereas i like to keep more space open for swooping, emergent context and perspective to disclose new spaces. instead of this sense of like slicing thru the orders of information, there's this different way of it being absolute unto itself. the leveliness of perspective as an ongoing creation seems hard to maintain space for. there's a lot of attachment to details, when for me, context is privileged. i can see the messiness and sometimes wastefulness (efficiency-wise) of my way, and it can be tough to steady without a lot of self-observation and metacognition to pay attention to how the meaning is being made, but it's still hard for me to let go of to fully embrace Si.
i just don't understand how proportion and perspective really work with Si, at their best. and i know i find Si that isn't at its best pretty scary. all the false equivalences in the presidential campaigning, and not seeming to relate directly to the reality of the situation just kinda make my head spin, like we struggle to get to common denominators to do any kind of functional math.
with that said, many great sj contributions out there, to be sure. even if in other moments, the false equivalents and proportion issues allow the he-said she-said to replace reality really quick. and the general cognitive conservatism of Pi wanting to assume, to understand based on assuming and identifying so fully and at times blindly with its own assumptions, rather than creatively, critically examining. in the end, we are all using models to orient our understanding, but losing the dialectic between direct experiences misses one of the most crucial forms of error correction.
