[MegaTuxRacer]

See, that's the type of thing you can't read and apply to your situation intuitively. I've never read descriptions of Ni, or most introverted functions for that matter, and been able to say, "YEAH, I can relate to that perfectly." Again, it's one thing to understand something in theory, quite another to recognize it being put into practice.

I actually agree with this. The best definition for intuition in general that I can think of is simply knowing something immediately and without any justification, and even that doesn't sound entirely correct. It's such an abstract concept that I think it has to be experienced to really understand it.

[Abraxas]

I actually agree with this. The best definition for intuition in general that I can think of is simply knowing something immediately and without any justification, and even that doesn't sound entirely correct. It's such an abstract concept that I think it has to be experienced to really understand it.

See, I have to disagree here. I think, to really understand something, you have to be able to explain it. If you can't describe it, then how do you really know that you understand it? Knowledge consists of three parts: justification, truth, and belief. Without the justification, you can't claim to know a thing by the current dictionary definition of knowledge.

It might be my Te playing a part here. I have to externalize all my insights, and then re-feed them through my mind again. I might read something and think, 'okay, I get this.' But, for me to be certain, I think, 'if I get this, I should be able to explain it myself, in my own words.' Granted, my own interpretation might not be as accurate as the original information, since it's being re-processed, and you have to figure that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... etc etc. You know what I mean.

But nevertheless, it's just a compulsion I have. I have to teach what I know, because I have this sense that to teach a thing is to completely learn it.

[Sanskrit]

Okay, so I'm almost halfway through this article.

... I have to share with you the pain I am experiencing. Seriously.

*fade in monotone voice*

"...The historical factor represents a vital need, to which a wise economy must respond. Somehow the past must become vocal, and participate in the present. Complete assimilation to the object, therefore, encounters the protest of the suppressed minority, elements belonging to the past and existing from the beginning. From this quite general consideration it may be understood why it is that the unconscious claims of the extraverted type have an essentially primitive, infantile, and egoistical character. When Freud says that the unconscious is "only able to wish", this observation..."

*fade out - fade back in*

"...ad absurdum of the conscious attitude, i.e. a collapse. The catastrophe may be an objective one, since the objective aims gradually become falsified by the subjective. I remember the case of a printer who, starting as a mere employé, worked his way up through two decades of hard struggle, till at last he was the independent possessor of a very extensive business. The more the business extended, the more it increased its hold upon him, until gradually every other interest [p. 425] was allowed to become merged in it. At length he was completely enmeshed in..."

*fade out - fade in*

"... Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. The extraverted feeling type is a classical example of this, for he enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with his entourage, yet occasionally..."

*drool starts to form as his eyes roll back and he slips into a coma*

*fade out - fade in*

"... The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my..."

*slowly fade out*

Jung has tendency to drivel on into metaphorical and contrived complex sentences that likely made more sense to him than anyone else. It is blatantly and face-slappingly evident he was strongly intuitive type as well. This of course means that what ever he was trying to explain, he was trying to explain for himself from his point of view first and foremost. Easier to read for INFJ and INTJ than any other type however. But even then it is matter if Ni conversion from one Ni language to another, leaving the process laborious.

[bethdeth]

See, I have to disagree here. I think, to really understand something, you have to be able to explain it. If you can't describe it, then how do you really know that you understand it? Knowledge consists of three parts: justification, truth, and belief. Without the justification, you can't claim to know a thing by the current dictionary definition of knowledge.

It might be my Te playing a part here. I have to externalize all my insights, and then re-feed them through my mind again. I might read something and think, 'okay, I get this.' But, for me to be certain, I think, 'if I get this, I should be able to explain it myself, in my own words.' Granted, my own interpretation might not be as accurate as the original information, since it's being re-processed, and you have to figure that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... etc etc. You know what I mean.

But nevertheless, it's just a compulsion I have. I have to teach what I know, because I have this sense that to teach a thing is to completely learn it.

Errrr yeah.....


That's what Ni is all about.."knowing"...but not necessarily being able to explain it. You don't have to externalise yourself for yourself to understand unless you are into tail chasing.

[WamphyriThrall]

See, I have to disagree here. I think, to really understand something, you have to be able to explain it. If you can't describe it, then how do you really know that you understand it? Knowledge consists of three parts: justification, truth, and belief. Without the justification, you can't claim to know a thing by the current dictionary definition of knowledge.

It might be my Te playing a part here. I have to externalize all my insights, and then re-feed them through my mind again. I might read something and think, 'okay, I get this.' But, for me to be certain, I think, 'if I get this, I should be able to explain it myself, in my own words.' Granted, my own interpretation might not be as accurate as the original information, since it's being re-processed, and you have to figure that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... etc etc. You know what I mean.

But nevertheless, it's just a compulsion I have. I have to teach what I know, because I have this sense that to teach a thing is to completely learn it.

And what better way to explain something in your own words? Of course to be able to do so, experience is necessary. Which is why you get answers all over the wall when Ni-doms (a subjective perceiving function) describe how they experience it. It's like travel to another country. Reading someone else's stories is one thing, but it means nothing to you personally. Not until you travel and do the same things will you be able to put the experience into your own words, words that make sense to you first and foremost.

This is one reason I've never been a fan of memorizing information verbatim, and instead summarizing in my own words, usually full of metaphors, mnemonics, acronyms, and other abstractions that wouldn't make any sense to an outsider looking in. Truly, each brain is a world.

[Abraxas]

Errrr yeah.....


That's what Ni is all about.."knowing"...but not necessarily being able to explain it. You don't have to externalise yourself for yourself to understand unless you are into tail chasing.

How does Ni provide a justification?

There are many variations of knowledge and no universally agreed upon definition of it. I'm just going off Plato's definition.

Example:

Justified true belief is one definition of knowledge that states in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, a subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

Does intuition count as a valid justification?

I'm not sure if it does.

[MegaTuxRacer]

Am I the only person that gets incensed by the attitude of America when September 11 rolls around? September 11, once an innocuous day like any other has turned into an excuse by America to hate an entire group of people because they hate us. "Remember those who died" by killing more for the he'll of it? We are solving no problems. We are actually creating them. It absolutely infuriates me how such blind patriotism turns the whole of a nation into a mob of blood-thirsty lunatics. We have turned September 11 into a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have justified their cause and solidified their resolve. We have done nothing but bleat like a bunch of sheep. We are nothing but an orchestra being played. It sickens me.

[Abraxas]

I just ignore it until it goes away, as it does eventually.

At least, until next year.

[MegaTuxRacer]

I just ignore it until it goes away, as it does eventually.

At least, until next year.

I just find the whole collective attitude destructive. It is not good to literally hate entire groups of other people. Or that September 11 somehow gives God greater justification to bless America or that God blesses America specifically. Do people think God has a clipboard with a list of countries to bless? Do they think he has a gold star next to countries that need to be blessed more? It's just one of those absurdities that is really difficult to ignore. Anyways. Rant over.

[Sanskrit]

This is one reason I've never been a fan of memorizing information verbatim, and instead summarizing in my own words, usually full of metaphors, mnemonics, acronyms, and other abstractions that wouldn't make any sense to an outsider looking in. Truly, each brain is a world.

Also what Jung does a lot. It takes several reads and sometimes a lot of backtracking to get the idea Jung is trying to illustrate. This way of speaking appeals to some though, and to intuitive people it is perhaps the most efficient way to learn written information.