# Ni future orientation



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

why is Ni time oriented, in particular, towards the future?

what makes Ni this way?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

The way Jung seems to define intuition, intuition allows us to see where an object came from or where it is going (possibility). This can not be immediately sensed, nor thought or felt.
Intuition is not interested in what is immediately present, rather the possibility of things which can include what could possibly happen next. Interestingly this could also apply to the past, how an object came to be (again possibility).


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> why is Ni time oriented, in particular, towards the future?
> 
> what makes Ni this way?


I would just like to add to what @Ksara said. The difference between Ne's future predictions and Ni's future forecasting comes down to the different ways in which both types deal with this possibility. Ne is focused on generating more and more possibilities, so when it gets an idea for the future, it tends to receive multiple different ways a situation/object/thing could play out. For instance, it might look at a sword and think about it potentially being used to defend someone against attack, as a ceremonial weapon, or to be melted down into something else, and it considers these simultaneously (at least as much as the brain is capable of doing so). Ni, on the other hand, deals with the realm of inner possibility, and uses inner "objects" as the materials with which it forms intuitions. In Jung's words, it deals with the "images of the unconscious", which seem to be more commonly referred to today as archetypes. So Ni would look at the same sword and notice (via unconscious Se) that there are stains of blood on the blade, that it's a little bit rusty, and that we have encountered this weapon in a dimly lit basement filled with cobwebs. Ni synthesizes all this sense data and matches it up with an archetype that suits it, i.e., it is a murder's weapon and we should probably take it to the police. Instead of looking at all potential outcomes, Ni cross-checks the sensory information garnered by Se and cross-check that with the patterns it has observed in the world (its archetypes) and formulates a guess about how things will pan out. This disparity exists sheerly by virtue of the direction of each intuition: extraverted (the many), or introverted (the one).

I should note that in this example, Ni sounds like basic deductive logic. In some sense, it is, except most Ni-doms are rarely aware of Se's unconscious data collection, so, at least in that example, the INJ would not experience their premonition as the product of deduction. However, Ni's penchant for archetypal thinking lends it some certain advantages, as it can compare any situation to the storehouse of patterns it has accumulated over its life and find the situation that best matches its current experience. This is where the prophet comparison comes from. The Ni-dom might find himself in a situation that he recalls reading about in a book, and, remembering how that situation turned out, he might take steps to avoid the mistakes the characters in the book made. This comparison might seem a lot like Si on the surface, and this is where Jung is a bit hazy on the difference. He makes reference to the collective unconscious in his section about Ni, and he talks about Ni having direct access to the unconscious images of our species--these fundamental archetypes that all humans are born with innate knowledge of. Where as Si deals with what it itself has experienced, Ni is divorced from personal experience through these use of archetypes, collective unconscious or no. I realize that's vague and hard to draw a distinction, but there isn't really any easy way to explain it, especially if you don't readily accept the collective unconscious. I think INJs might be more inclined to accept Jung's collective unconscious (especially INFJs) simply because of their experience with Ni, but I can't really back up that claim.

Hope this helped.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@KalimofDaybreak
I think I may disagree with you example of Ni 
To me defining what something is comes under thinking, and using archetypes suggests introversion.
Cross checking from the past to draw recognition/definition/meaning of an object is a thinking process. @PaladinX often has good examples from Jung that highlights this.

The way Jung describes Ni there is no focus on 'the one', actually it seems very similar to Ne exempt this possibility generation is in context of inner objects as you stated. A dominant Ni type is captivated by the inner objects that come to them from the unconcious, they chase object after object just like Ne does in the outside world. Ne is looking for new possibilities, Ni is searching for possible ways of viewing life.

I also think, just like Si, Ni is concerned with a persons inner state. Rather than it being felt in all of it's intensity, Ni observes a symbolic symbol representing this inner disturbance. Jung gives a good example of a man feeling giddiness:


> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades.


What is interesting to note, a strong Ni user does not associate this image with themselves. Actually they can be so far removed from reality that they may not even notice their own bodies, the physical effects they have on others or the innervations felt within themselves, that is the man may not even recognize he was giddy.

I think when such a symbol has an associated meaning this is when judgment has been considered. Depending on how well the auxiliary is developed this may happen conciously or unconciouly. When unconcious (as the mind is focused on perceiving the inner symbol) it may be experienced as a sense of knowing, or a sense of 'this is the one' or some profound meaning attached to the symbol.
Perceiving the possibility is intuition, defining what it means is thinking, understanding what it's worth is feeling.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> @KalimofDaybreak
> I think I may disagree with you example of Ni
> To me defining what something is comes under thinking, and using archetypes suggests introversion.
> Cross checking from the past to draw recognition/definition/meaning of an object is a thinking process.
> @PaladinX often has good examples from Jung that highlights this.


I'm curious, why would you consider archetypes to be a facet of introversion in general? I only remember Jung referencing them specifically with Ni (he did with Fi as well, but a little differently).



Ksara said:


> The way Jung describes Ni there is no focus on 'the one',


That was my bad--I was using Michael Pierces definition of introversion and extraversion there. Basically I was trying to say that Ni is discriminating and trying to zero in on 'the' answer with respect to the future, whereas Ne is including and tries to perceive more and more potential outcomes.



Ksara said:


> actually it seems very similar to Ne exempt this possibility generation is in context of inner objects as you stated. A dominant Ni type is captivated by the inner objects that come to them from the unconcious, they chase object after object just like Ne does in the outside world. Ne is looking for new possibilities, Ni is searching for possible ways of viewing life.
> 
> I also think, just like Si, Ni is concerned with a persons inner state. Rather than it being felt in all of it's intensity, Ni observes a symbolic symbol representing this inner disturbance.


I'll be honest, this is the part of Ni I have the hardest time wrapping my mind around. While what Jung describes happens to me on occasion, I tend to just ignore my body all together. I'll see images that regard my inner cognitive state, but I've found that when I'm thinking, I just forget I have a body, and I won't even be aware of it until a something new interacts with my body (although it has to be a pretty profound sensation for me to notice it). I've often felt like a consciousness leashed to a body, and I've had experiences where my arms or legs weren't where I'd thought I felt them.



Ksara said:


> What is interesting to note, a strong Ni user does not associate this image with themselves. Actually they can be so far removed from reality that they may not even notice their own bodies, the physical effects they have on others or the innervations felt within themselves, that is the man may not even recognize he was giddy.


Random thought: do you think this same unawareness can apply to the state of the mind as well? I'm almost woefully ignorant of what I'm feeling at times; I usually only know from how people react to me or if I take the time to think about how I'm sounding outside of my head. I remember one specific time when I was grouchy and because I had stayed up really late the night before and I didn't even know it until a few days later when my mother mentioned how awful I was that day.



Ksara said:


> Perceiving the possibility is intuition, defining what it means is thinking, understanding what it's worth is feeling.


After reading over what I wrote again, I'm still a little unclear as to what specifically you disagreed with. Did it seem like I was doing too much defining of objects or something else?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm curious, why would you consider archetypes to be a facet of introversion in general? I only remember Jung referencing them specifically with Ni (he did with Fi as well, but a little differently).


Well there is a chance I have made an assumption here, maybe I saw that word archetypes with Fi, Ti or perhaps Si reading Jung and made that link myself? I do tend to do this without realising ><



> That was my bad--I was using Michael Pierces definition of introversion and extraversion there. Basically I was trying to say that Ni is discriminating and trying to zero in on 'the' answer with respect to the future, whereas Ne is including and tries to perceive more and more potential outcomes.


This is the part I disagree with. The way Ni is described reading Jung, there is no mention of zeroing in on 'the' answer, or reducing down of possibilities at all. In fact Jung makes a comparison between Ni and Ne and how they have the same bend towards possibilities, what differs is Ne focuses on external objects where as Ni is focused on inner objects.



> I'll be honest, this is the part of Ni I have the hardest time wrapping my mind around. While what Jung describes happens to me on occasion, I tend to just ignore my body all together. I'll see images that regard my inner cognitive state, but I've found that when I'm thinking, I just forget I have a body, and I won't even be aware of it until a something new interacts with my body (although it has to be a pretty profound sensation for me to notice it). I've often felt like a consciousness leashed to a body, and I've had experiences where my arms or legs weren't where I'd thought I felt them.


I think for an extreme Ni dom they won't recognise the images seen within as related to that inner innervation as there isn't that relation to the body, which is why intuitives can feel a disconnect from their body and at time have hypochondrial tendencies (such as forgetting they have a body ). Essentially suppressed sensation.

I find with myself when I'm in my head thinking the world around me doesn't exist haha. I have absolutely no recollection of what just happened around me.



> Random thought: do you think this same unawareness can apply to the state of the mind as well? I'm almost woefully ignorant of what I'm feeling at times; I usually only know from how people react to me or if I take the time to think about how I'm sounding outside of my head. I remember one specific time when I was grouchy and because I had stayed up really late the night before and I didn't even know it until a few days later when my mother mentioned how awful I was that day.


I think yes. It takes a lot of energy for the brain to be conscious, and far to much energy to be conscious of everything. When our conscious mind is focused on something, how can we also be consciously aware of another aspect that is now functioning unconsciously? And this is where I think types comes about, our dominant attitude is where our attention tends to naturally fall, and so is the most conscious aspect of ourselves and as a result have a refined control over this aspect.
Well in my head I'm not good at splitting my attention and so can be unaware of other aspects. This is just my speculation however.




> After reading over what I wrote again, I'm still a little unclear as to what specifically you disagreed with. Did it seem like I was doing too much defining of objects or something else?


Really it was the example you gave of the sword. To me the process you described for Ni was a thinking process. Thinking synthesises, relates to the past, defines and adds meaning to what is perceived.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Ksara said:


> Well there is a chance I have made an assumption here, maybe I saw that word archetypes with Fi, Ti or perhaps Si reading Jung and made that link myself? I do tend to do this without realising ><


My recollection is that, yes, Jung did seem to associate introversion with a stronger connection to the archetypal realm. He may not have used the word "archetype" in every case. He often spoke of inner images arising in the mind or, in the case of Si, images projected onto physical reality (cars that appear as demons and trees as elves, or something along those lines).


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

Indeed, some people with Ni dom function tend to think about the future, but it is not like Ni function only does that. Ni is a function to perceive a connection between arbitrary objects in your mind. Then, it (the connection) might be judged by Fi function and give you a result. The result of objects perceived by Ni function and judged by Fi function will always be a situation in your imagination. This situation is probably unique (never exists in outside world) because it was constructed by arbitrary objects in your mind. If you observe more closely, actually it is only people with Fi-Ni combination who their most concern is the future of themselves, while Ti-Ni people will be more drawn into philosophy or pseudo sciences. A philosophy one creates is not always created through a vivid imagination, but rather by re-structuring those arbitrary objects in the mind into a kind of symmetrical pattern that, by a standard, will satisfies him. Whether it is imaginable or not doesn't matter. And whether it exists or not doesn't matter as well.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm curious, why would you consider archetypes to be a facet of introversion in general? I only remember Jung referencing them specifically with Ni (he did with Fi as well, but a little differently).





Jung on the definition of Image said:


> The primordial image (elsewhere also termed the 'archetype' [54]) ...
> 
> ...
> 
> The degree of psychological efficacy belonging to the primordial image is determined by the attitude of the individual. When the general attitude is introverted as a result of the withdrawal of libido from the outer object, a reinforcement of the inner object or idea naturally takes place. This produces a very intensive development of ideas along the line unconsciously traced out by the primordial image. In this way the primordial image indirectly reaches the surface. The further course of intellectual development leads to the idea, which is merely the primordial image at the stage of intellectual formulation. Only the development of the counter-function can take the idea further, i.e. when once the idea is apprehended intellectually, it strives to become effective in life. Hence it attracts feeling, which, however, in such a case is much less differentiated, and therefore more concretistic, than thinking. Thus the feeling is impure, and because undifferentiated, is still fused with the unconscious. Hence the individual is unable to reconcile feeling so constituted with the idea. In such a case, the primordial image, appearing in symbolic form in the inner field of vision, embraces, by virtue of its concrete nature, the feeling existing in an undifferentiated, concrete state; but at the same time, by virtue of its intrinsic significance, it also embraces the idea, of which indeed it is the mother—thus reconciling idea with feeling. Hence the primordial image appears in the rôle of mediator, once again proving its redeeming efficacy, a power it has always possessed in the various religions. What Schopenhauer says of the idea, therefore, I would prefer to apply to the primordial image, since the idea—as I have elsewhere observed under 'Idea'—should not be regarded as something wholly and unconditionally a priori, but also as something derived and developed from antecedents. When, therefore, in the following excerpt I am quoting the words of Schopenhauer, I must ask the reader to replace the word 'idea' in the text by 'primordial image': he will then be able to understand my meaning:[56]


And they are littered throughout Jung's description of the introverted types.


* *







Jung on the General Attitude of Consciousness of the Introverted Type said:


> The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object—incorrectly, at bottom—since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation.





Jung on Introverted Thinking said:


> But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life.





Jung on the Introverted Thinking Type said:


> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images.





Jung on Introverted Feeling said:


> Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images.





Jung on the Introverted Feeling Type said:


> One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one's own existence. In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive object. But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation. Such, however, is not always the case, since very often the deficit remains unconscious; whereupon the unconscious feeling-claims gradually produce symptoms which compel a more serious attention.





Jung on Introverted Sensation said:


> Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world.





Jung on Introverted Intuition said:


> Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be—to borrow from Kant—the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.








Also, how does your example of a murder weapon demonstrate Ni over what Jung would call undirected or passive thinking?



Jung on the definition of Thinking said:


> To my mind, a simple stringing together of representations, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking[72] is not thinking at all, but mere presentation. *The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one's intention or not.*
> 
> The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition. Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. *In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.*


To me it sounds like you've unconsciously linked up the representations of the stain and such to the concept of "murder weapon." While there is certainly an element of intuition here (ie intellectual intuition), it's not quite the same thing as Ni.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> why is Ni time oriented, in particular, towards the future?
> 
> what makes Ni this way?


Ne perceives possibilities due to 'pattern impressions' experienced previously by the individual. 
Ni perceives possibilities due to 'pattern impressions' already present in the psyche. 
The emphasis on Ni's future orientation may come from Jungs example of prophets in his Ni description.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Mizmar said:


> My recollection is that, yes, Jung did seem to associate introversion with a stronger connection to the archetypal realm. He may not have used the word "archetype" in every case. He often spoke of inner images arising in the mind or, in the case of Si, images projected onto physical reality (cars that appear as demons and trees as elves, or something along those lines).


Well its good to know I wasn't making stuff up 

I don't quite get Si, I'm wondering if this is an example. I've been watching the series the Vikings. There is one character a priest from England who was captured by the Vikings and brought back with them. He was immersed in their culture and learnt about their gods. As the series progresses he starts to lose faith in his god (the apparent one true god), that is he feels he sees the gods of the Vikings. When thunder strikes he sees Thor's hammer. He sees another god hanging from a great tree, the power of the ocean another god. Even seeing ravens he sees them as if the gods are watching him. Whilst these beings aren't physically there this character seems to see, hear, and feel their presence as if they have been sensed and exist.

Do you think this is Jungs idea of an Si dom?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> Also, how does your example of a murder weapon demonstrate Ni over what Jung would call undirected or passive thinking?
> 
> To me it sounds like you've unconsciously linked up the representations of the stain and such to the concept of "murder weapon." While there is certainly an element of intuition here (ie intellectual intuition), it's not quite the same thing as Ni.


After reading what you posted, I'm inclined to say there isn't much difference between what I gave as an example and undirected thinking. How do you think Ni would response to the situation described? It may be that my understanding of Ni is not as complete as I had thought.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Well there is a chance I have made an assumption here, maybe I saw that word archetypes with Fi, Ti or perhaps Si reading Jung and made that link myself? I do tend to do this without realising ><


Yeah, @PaladinX cleared this up. It's been a while since I gave Psychological Types a good read through (and it's on loan at the moment, so that gets annoying. )



Ksara said:


> This is the part I disagree with. The way Ni is described reading Jung, there is no mention of zeroing in on 'the' answer, or reducing down of possibilities at all. In fact Jung makes a comparison between Ni and Ne and how they have the same bend towards possibilities, what differs is Ne focuses on external objects where as Ni is focused on inner objects.


Would you say that Ni's future forecasting is the result of it mixing with the judgment function, then? I've had a hard time reconciling this idea of Ni basically being Ne with its ability to 'predict the future', and I've always found myself more skeptical of the latter.



Ksara said:


> I think yes. It takes a lot of energy for the brain to be conscious, and far to much energy to be conscious of everything. When our conscious mind is focused on something, how can we also be consciously aware of another aspect that is now functioning unconsciously? And this is where I think types comes about, our dominant attitude is where our attention tends to naturally fall, and so is the most conscious aspect of ourselves and as a result have a refined control over this aspect.
> Well in my head I'm not good at splitting my attention and so can be unaware of other aspects. This is just my speculation however.


Interesting. Because Ni is introverted perceiving, it seems like it would have a heightened awareness of the inner mental climate while at the same time capable of being entirely ignorant to it. I guess it would be like Si in that respect--I can't imagine that Si is always aware of the whole body. Could Ni be recognized as a heightened awareness of what's going on in the mind, then?



Ksara said:


> Really it was the example you gave of the sword. To me the process you described for Ni was a thinking process. Thinking synthesises, relates to the past, defines and adds meaning to what is perceived.


Yeah, in hindsight it was a bad example. I'm finding that Ni tends to be rather slippery when I try to describe it.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Indeed, some people with Ni dom function tend to think about the future, but it is not like Ni function only does that. Ni is a function to perceive a connection between arbitrary objects in your mind. Then, it (the connection) might be judged by Fi function and give you a result. The result of objects perceived by Ni function and judged by Fi function will always be a situation in your imagination. This situation is probably unique (never exists in outside world) because it was constructed by arbitrary objects in your mind. If you observe more closely, actually it is only people with Fi-Ni combination who their most concern is the future of themselves, while Ti-Ni people will be more drawn into philosophy or pseudo sciences. A philosophy one creates is not always created through a vivid imagination, but rather by re-structuring those arbitrary objects in the mind into a kind of symmetrical pattern that, by a standard, will satisfies him. Whether it is imaginable or not doesn't matter. And whether it exists or not doesn't matter as well.


I actually really like your description of Ni/Ti here. I think symmetrical is a good way of putting it; I have in my brain images floating around that are absolutely meaningless outside of my mind, but part of the way I feel satisfied with an argument I've made in philosophy is if the abstract 'shape' of the argument is complete or something like that. It's weird to explain, but that's essentially what it is. Here's an example: the letters INFJ, to me, are trapezoidal--the I and J are 'shorter' than the N and F. INFP, on the other hand, has the same shape, but is inverted, so the I and P here are taller than the N and F. This my weird way of superimposing the function stack over the letters themselves (for some reason, the perceiving functions are short and the judging functions are tall).

If that didn't make any sense, I apologize. I don't really have any good way of explaining it.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Ne perceives possibilities due to 'pattern impressions' experienced previously by the individual.
> Ni perceives possibilities due to 'pattern impressions' already present in the psyche.


May I ask why? Is this based on a source, or are you implying Ne-Si and Ni-Se tandems?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> May I ask why? Is this based on a source, or are you implying Ne-Si and Ni-Se tandems?


Not tandems, no.

Jung, Intuition definition:

"Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective form: the former is a perception of unconscious psychic facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the latter is a perception of facts which depend upon subliminal perceptions of the object and upon the thoughts and feelings occasioned thereby."


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I actually really like your description of Ni/Ti here. I think symmetrical is a good way of putting it; I have in my brain images floating around that are absolutely meaningless outside of my mind, but part of the way I feel satisfied with an argument I've made in philosophy is if the abstract 'shape' of the argument is complete or something like that. It's weird to explain, but that's essentially what it is. Here's an example: the letters INFJ, to me, are trapezoidal--the I and J are 'shorter' than the N and F. INFP, on the other hand, has the same shape, but is inverted, so the I and P here are taller than the N and F. This my weird way of superimposing the function stack over the letters themselves (for some reason, the perceiving functions are short and the judging functions are tall).
> 
> If that didn't make any sense, I apologize. I don't really have any good way of explaining it.


Interesting. Can you explain how did you manage to have those shapes representing functions? If my previous post was true, then you must have a standard that makes you come to those shapes. Maybe you value some functions higher than others?


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Not tandems, no.
> 
> Jung, Intuition definition:
> 
> "Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective form: the former is a perception of unconscious psychic facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the latter is a perception of facts which depend upon subliminal perceptions of the object and upon the thoughts and feelings occasioned thereby."


Thanks for the quote, but I don't see how that explains your statement. how is "experienced previously" really different from "already present? and how is it related to the quote you provided?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Ksara @PaladinX @KalimofDaybreak

I think that Ne and Ni perceive the future differently. Ni being introverted, when understanding the future, sees one possibility and want to explore that possibility first. If you see the flow of events from A to B, you can from there understand C as well. Now we are speaking if intuition because it's dealing with a "from whence it came and whither it goes"; we can't actually know the nature of C because C doesn't exist yet outside of what we can perceive in our mind's eye. Ni would be interested in exploring what C actually is. Ne though, it feels limited just understanding C. Why do C when we can have E, F and G as well? And where do these lead? Here we see how Ne keeps generating possibilities upon possibilities upon possibilities. It's extroverted or "shallow" because little prominence is given to the actual exploration of these possibilities within themselves, but it is the act of generating them that is of the greatest importance. When Ni generates a possibility it wants to explore it in depth first, hence Ni is so much more strongly associated with inner imagery in the first place. Ne tends to at best, pay the intuitive archetypal content lip service via its own attempt at mimicry mocking. 

I would say that this is the perception that Ni seems to zero itself on the one possibility, and I would say that this isn't entirely inaccurate because it's not so much a thinking process of going "nope, nope, not that one either, nope" kind of thing. It's more that Ni builds itself on Se and Se deals with the actual and the here and now. Depending on what happens here and now, there will be a bunch of different outcomes. I tend to think that the idea of parallel universes is an Ni kind of construct, because the idea is built on that every variation will create a different outcome, but all of these outcomes are reflections of the same actual reality in which we experience ourselves to be situated within. If you want an example of this kind of thinking in practice, I highly recommend the movie Mr. Nobody. It captures the INTJ mind in a nutshell (it also presents with an Fi dilemma, but the point with this post here is to highlight how Ni understands future possibilities). So yes, zeroing on THE ONE future is probably at some level affected by a Ji function supporting Ni, it is not wrong to say that Ni is still very much limited or "zeroing" compared to Ne. Mr. Nobody focuses on three different outcomes and some variations of these outcomes and really seeks to explore each outcome in great detail. This is why the movie at some point also mentions the Butterfly Effect because it's relevant in order to understand the plot:






Ne, on the other hand, is a rejection of Si content. Si being introverted, is very reality-removed despite being sensation. Ne feels limited by the Si archetypes and want to break out of them, just like a prisoner feeling bored to being confined within the prison area. All these dull grey walls do not lead to any creativity or inspiration, which is what Ne seeks. It's interested to understand what lies outside the prison walls. This is why I think in fiction, continuing on the theme of parallel universes and the like, Ne stories are often those based on an idea of breaking out of the boring known reality and being thrust into this amazing world of fantasy and adventure where anything is possible. Exactly like how Alice tumbled down the rabbit hole, and I would say the entire story of Alice in Wonderland is a great example of Ne in general (Ni doesn't think of trying to put all those kinds of disparate ideas together that you see in Alice in Wonderland). A broom isn't just a cleaning tool, but you can use it to fly, too. I think this Disney song (which also exemplifies the attitude in the actual) represents this attitude well:






It's interesting to note how that with Alladin in particular, everything returns to "normal" when he loses his powers and control over the Genie. 

So to me at least, there's this extreme on/off tendency in the Si/Ne axis between reality itself and the magic that reality offers but it is never truly grounded because the one function that would do that which is sensation, is introverted. Se/Ni is the more realistic or "limited" axis out of the two. 

Another thing I experience which is a big difference between Ne and Ni is that there is a sense of timelessness to Ni. When you get really consciously in touch with the archetypal world of the unconsciousness that Ni offers you, you feel like you are in touch with this incredibly forceful sublime and universal power; it feels otherworldly. I mean, it really cannot quite be put into words except that it feels like you can see the end and beginning of time simultaneously at once, kind of like what happens on Mr. Nobody. There's a stretching of time where time itself ceases to exist. This clip from True Detective is a good example of the perception though offered in an extremely cynical way: 






Ne just doesn't work that way. Ne would never say time is a flat circle lol, and really mean it as in, the lives and stories we live are constantly reproduced, over and over and over, as a symbolic way of saying that the human experience is fundamentally limited by our own natures. I think an Ne type would first of all find the statement itself nonsensical, but secondly and most of all, it would come across as too reductionist and limiting to their own perception. If Ne is interested in understanding time, I would say this is a much better representation of it, seeing the potential in time and how much or little you can use time:






There is a finite nature to it, in a way. I like the socionics dichotomy static/dynamic here. Ekko's sentiment towards time is extremely static, but Rust's is dynamic.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Interesting. Can you explain how did you manage to have those shapes representing functions? If my previous post was true, then you must have a standard that makes you come to those shapes. Maybe you value some functions higher than others?


I can't really explain it. I've just always imagined them this way. I don't really have a standard for them--it's just how my brain perceives them in my mind. I tend to assign shapes in a similar way to lots of other stimuli, like seeing a pattern of crystalline bubbles when a certain rhythm and pitch of music is played.

I forget where, but I remember reading at some point that Ni is somewhat correlated to synesthesia. I actually have grapheme synesthesia, so when I see letters my brain associates them with a color, for instance, 'reybridge' is red and maroon in color. Some other words have more pronounced images, though, like when I see 'Ni' I'm more reminded of a pale blue sky, just before the sun rises. I have no reason to associate any of these things, but it's something that I've always done.

I get the impression that this might be what Jung was talking about when he described Ni.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

Entropic said:


> And herein lies the error and the problem; you need to question your definitions because they are not accurate, in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, i was wrong about you are a Ne dom if you really don't like to understand something from The World. But then my definition of Ne/Ni will be stronger because you are an INTJ, right? It satisfies my definition that INTJ is not the type who like to understand conceptual objects exist in The World.

No you can not, even imagination needs objects to be included in the imagination. In the ice cream case, you have to know the taste of the ingredients in the first place so that you can imagine them.

Well, nothing is true though. You just need to find one system that is most perfectly dividing functions. I have my system, and this doesn't need to be different to what Jung really meant, but you can see it as a different way to explains cognitive functions. I want to share it to you guys so that we can have the same perspective about cognitive functions and types. Aren't you annoyed that everyone have their own subjective understanding to functions and types? Why don't we have one firm system that if it is used by everyone, we all can have almost exactly the same understanding about types?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> What if one was perceiving possibilities due to "pattern impressions" experienced previously by the individual, which became part of the psyche, but then _evolved and integrated_ within one's psyche? They're "still objective in origin." Is it Ne or Ni?


That would be Ne. 



> Not sure how much of "primordial image" really remain pure and uninterrupted by the external world over the course of one's life.


I don't see why it would change over the course of a lifetime. Instincts don't. 



> In a way it seems many of the stuff we think are "already present" and "not previously experienced," could be in fact "objective _in origin_" when closely analyzed.


Maybe. But then, when closely analyzed, would we find that things we believe to be objective in origin, are in fact, not so? 




> I wouldn't take that statement as that "passive" though. One can be very active and look for that perception via unconscious, in hope of having it given. Brainstorming could be one.


An active perception is still a perception. It's not consciously created, even when it's consciously sought.




> Basically asking if you think it's possible for "pattern impression" to be neither "previously experienced" nor "already present." If it's newly derived from what is already present, then it isn't "already present." Do you think it's possible? If so, is it Ne or Ni?


I don't know if it's possible. If it were, I would put it under Ni though, since it's not objectively given, it's still subjective in origin and determined by subjective content.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

First off, sorry for the late response. You know how it goes.



Entropic said:


> No, I think I get where you are getting at, I think.


I was thinking that Ni deals with observing the self (the mind, body, etc.) through the use of intuition. I think Jung's principle of seeing images associated with innervations applies to the mind as well; I see images of what's going on in my head all the time. There is also the aspect of Ni observing the unconscious images and perceiving the possibilities therein, which seems to be the core thrust of Ni's functionality.



Entropic said:


> Yup. The only other instrumental song I can think of right now is probably something like this (I think the video content really puts the nail in the coffin):


Yeah, this is good.



Entropic said:


> Weird. I don't feel much per se. Awe, perhaps? It feels more detached and objective, like I said, though I guess it's ironic I'm using the word "feeling" to describe it. I suppose it's more a state of non-feeling or lack of feeling, than there being a presence of. And yes, they do though again, I can't compare to much because I usually experience great difficulty visualizing physical images in my mind to begin with, and the more detail the more difficult it becomes.


Perhaps a state of transcending the need for feelings? That would explain the difference--as a Te type it makes sense that you would try to rid yourself of feelings, or at least go beyond them, because they don't present a useful way of understanding the universe to you, or not as useful as logical analysis. As a Feeler I think I'd be more inclined to include them in my visions, because for me they do present a way to understand the universe through analysis of meaning.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Okay, i was wrong about you are a Ne dom if you really don't like to understand something from The World. But then my definition of Ne/Ni will be stronger because you are an INTJ, right? It satisfies my definition that INTJ is not the type who like to understand conceptual objects exist in The World.
> 
> No you can not, even imagination needs objects to be included in the imagination. In the ice cream case, you have to know the taste of the ingredients in the first place so that you can imagine them.
> 
> Well, nothing is true though. You just need to find one system that is most perfectly dividing functions. I have my system, and this doesn't need to be different to what Jung really meant, but you can see it as a different way to explains cognitive functions. I want to share it to you guys so that we can have the same perspective about cognitive functions and types. Aren't you annoyed that everyone have their own subjective understanding to functions and types? Why don't we have one firm system that if it is used by everyone, we all can have almost exactly the same understanding about types?


I have an idea. Explain to me, in your terms, Ni.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I was thinking that Ni deals with observing the self (the mind, body, etc.) through the use of intuition. I think Jung's principle of seeing images associated with innervations applies to the mind as well; I see images of what's going on in my head all the time. There is also the aspect of Ni observing the unconscious images and perceiving the possibilities therein, which seems to be the core thrust of Ni's functionality.


Can you explain further? 


> Perhaps a state of transcending the need for feelings? That would explain the difference--as a Te type it makes sense that you would try to rid yourself of feelings, or at least go beyond them, because they don't present a useful way of understanding the universe to you, or not as useful as logical analysis. As a Feeler I think I'd be more inclined to include them in my visions, because for me they do present a way to understand the universe through analysis of meaning.


Hm, feelings are important to me though, but more at a personal level. Difficult to explain.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Can you explain further?


I'm using subject two ways here: to refer to self--feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything that happens within the mind and body; and then to refer to the unconscious/subjective parts of the person--archetypes, memories, as well as thoughts and feelings (these two kind of overlap, categorically). Ni observes all of this through the intuitive faculties, although I think that association might be a more appropriate term here. It associates those things with the objects of the psyche, be it images, ideas, feelings, whatever; it depends on the person. Being intuitive, though, it is still possibility-oriented, and and so more than just being a function of self-perception, it observes the interactions and connections between the objects of the mind.



Entropic said:


> Hm, feelings are important to me though, but more at a personal level. Difficult to explain.


I think I get it. It's not so much a universal feeling, but what _you_ feel.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm using subject two ways here: to refer to self--feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything that happens within the mind and body; and then to refer to the unconscious/subjective parts of the person--archetypes, memories, as well as thoughts and feelings (these two kind of overlap, categorically). Ni observes all of this through the intuitive faculties, although I think that association might be a more appropriate term here. It associates those things with the objects of the psyche, be it images, ideas, feelings, whatever; it depends on the person. Being intuitive, though, it is still possibility-oriented, and and so more than just being a function of self-perception, it observes the interactions and connections between the objects of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I get it. It's not so much a universal feeling, but what _you_ feel.


By "observe", would you mean more "understand" or "experience oneself through"?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Entropic said:


> By "observe", would you mean more "understand" or "experience oneself through"?


Yeah. I say observe because it's a perceiving function, but understand is probably better.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I have an idea. Explain to me, in your terms, Ni.


I posted a rule set about cognitive functions before, you can see it. Here if you are too lazy to find it.



> Fundamental
> 
> 1. Judging Function is a function to change or create an 'Object'.
> 2. Perceiving Function is a function to gather an 'Object'.
> ...


Ni is a function that perceives a Conceptual Object (see point 3.4 in the rule set) in your mind. You can not aware of it though since it is done subconsciously. But you can have a prove of Ni usage by observing one's behaviors. You can see in the rule set that extroverted judging function is a function that changes an object (can be absolutely anything) exists in The World (see point 4.1 in the rule set). So, Ni function can be detected by intuitive perceiving the results the person have made. When he changes a Conceptual Object exists in The World, then he used Ni. While Si doms tend to create or change something exists in The World to be something that is physically specified. Ni people don't work that way. They don't care about the physicality of something they are implemented to The World. They only care about the conceptual objects they want to put into The World. It might be seen by others like something unorganized at first, but if by any chance you can see through their motive, it has a pattern. And this pattern is that Ni doms people want to implement into The World. 

For an example, a governor that is an xNTJ want to implement a Conceptual Object which is "A city where everyone can experience a park" object to The World. Right before he was consciously thinking about it, he actually used Ni (it is a conceptual object) function subconsciously. But this can not be proven by other people until he has resulted something that satisfies the pattern. Then he mobilizes his men to build one park. Is he an xNTJ now? Not yet. For others, he may build that one park just because he had a promise to someone to build a physically specified park like that one, who knows. He may even destroys a park instead of build it because that old park doesn't have any visitor, and this won't satisfy his objective. At this moment, no "A city where everyone can experience a park" object can be perceived by others yet. So then he builds more parks all around the city no matter the physical specification of those parks, as long as the conceptual object is there, then he will be satisfied. Except he has more conceptual standards to be included. The more he uses Ni-Fi, the more standards he will includes though. And finally people can see the Conceptual Object he was used to think by using Ne function.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. I say observe because it's a perceiving function, but understand is probably better.


Observing seems so detached to me. It made me think more of type 5 and it made it difficult to understand, hence I asked if these things fit better.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> I posted a rule set about cognitive functions before, you can see it. Here if you are too lazy to find it.


No, I saw it, and I don't appreciate being called lazy. I wanted you to expound upon it.



reybridge said:


> Ni is a function that perceives a Conceptual Object (see point 3.4 in the rule set) in your mind. You can not aware of it though since it is done subconsciously. But you can have a prove of Ni usage by observing one's behaviors. You can see in the rule set that extroverted judging function is a function that changes an object (can be absolutely anything) exists in The World (see point 4.1 in the rule set). So, Ni function can be detected by intuitive perceiving the results the person have made. When he changes a Conceptual Object exists in The World, then he used Ni. While Si doms tend to create or change something exists in The World to be something that is physically specified. Ni people don't work that way. They don't care about the physicality of something they are implemented to The World. They only care about the conceptual objects they want to put into The World. It might be seen by others like something unorganized at first, but if by any chance you can see through their motive, it has a pattern. And this pattern is that Ni doms people want to implement into The World.
> 
> For an example, a governor that is an xNTJ want to implement a Conceptual Object which is "A city where everyone can experience a park" object to The World. Right before he was consciously thinking about it, he actually used Ni (it is a conceptual object) function subconsciously. But this can not be proven by other people until he has resulted something that satisfies the pattern. Then he mobilizes his men to build one park. Is he an xNTJ now? Not yet. For others, he may build that one park just because he had a promise to someone to build a physically specified park like that one, who knows. He may even destroys a park instead of build it because that old park doesn't have any visitor, and this won't satisfy his objective. At this moment, no "A city where everyone can experience a park" object can be perceived by others yet. So then he builds more parks all around the city no matter the physical specification of those parks, as long as the conceptual object is there, then he will be satisfied. Except he has more conceptual standards to be included. The more he uses Ni-Fi, the more standards he will includes though. And finally people can see the Conceptual Object he was used to think by using Ne function.


Okay, explain Ne.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> I posted a rule set about cognitive functions before, you can see it. Here if you are too lazy to find it.


No, I saw it, and I don't appreciate being called lazy. I wanted you to expound upon it.



reybridge said:


> Ni is a function that perceives a Conceptual Object (see point 3.4 in the rule set) in your mind. You can not aware of it though since it is done subconsciously. But you can have a prove of Ni usage by observing one's behaviors. You can see in the rule set that extroverted judging function is a function that changes an object (can be absolutely anything) exists in The World (see point 4.1 in the rule set). So, Ni function can be detected by intuitive perceiving the results the person have made. When he changes a Conceptual Object exists in The World, then he used Ni. While Si doms tend to create or change something exists in The World to be something that is physically specified. Ni people don't work that way. They don't care about the physicality of something they are implemented to The World. They only care about the conceptual objects they want to put into The World. It might be seen by others like something unorganized at first, but if by any chance you can see through their motive, it has a pattern. And this pattern is that Ni doms people want to implement into The World.
> 
> For an example, a governor that is an xNTJ want to implement a Conceptual Object which is "A city where everyone can experience a park" object to The World. Right before he was consciously thinking about it, he actually used Ni (it is a conceptual object) function subconsciously. But this can not be proven by other people until he has resulted something that satisfies the pattern. Then he mobilizes his men to build one park. Is he an xNTJ now? Not yet. For others, he may build that one park just because he had a promise to someone to build a physically specified park like that one, who knows. He may even destroys a park instead of build it because that old park doesn't have any visitor, and this won't satisfy his objective. At this moment, no "A city where everyone can experience a park" object can be perceived by others yet. So then he builds more parks all around the city no matter the physical specification of those parks, as long as the conceptual object is there, then he will be satisfied. Except he has more conceptual standards to be included. The more he uses Ni-Fi, the more standards he will includes though. And finally people can see the Conceptual Object he was used to think by using Ne function.


Okay, explain Ne.


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> No, I saw it, and I don't appreciate being called lazy. I wanted you to expound upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, explain Ne.


His argument is extremely reminiscent of the results of a thread of the same title that showed up in INTJ forums. Insulting tone, only goal is to advocate, and accusations are extremely similar (Ni users are Ne). It wouldn't surprise me if you're arguing an alt account given the similar connections. I wouldn't waste your time.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> No, I saw it, and I don't appreciate being called lazy. I wanted you to expound upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, explain Ne.


Ok, i am sorry. I was not insulting really, i know that feel when someone gives me a link or reference rather than he puts it directly on the post.

Ne is a function that perceives Conceptual Objects from The World. Conceptual objects can only be perceived by Ne function. Like other functions, you use Ne subconsciously. When you are thinking or feeling about something that exists in the world, you are already in a judging state, because whatever you are thinking or feeling, it changes your mind (introverted judging function). In other words, Ne is to understand anything outside your mind, because everything you understand are always conceptual objects actually. Ni perceives a conceptual object connecting objects exist in the mind, while Ne perceives a conceptual object connecting objects exist in the world. That is why i said Ni dom people don't like to understand the world outside them. They are more to create their own conceptual object and implement it to the world. In another hand, Ne dom people don't like to create their own conceptual object. They are more to absorb information exist in the world and Burn them into their mind. That is why Ne-Ti people tend to seek objectivity, because no objectivity is gathered from the mind but from the world. They think the truth must be based on objects exist in the world. While Ni-Te people don't care about objectivity, when they believe something will works and satisfies their standards, they will accept it and implements it to the world as soon as it is possible.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

Lelu said:


> His argument is extremely reminiscent of the results of a thread of the same title that showed up in INTJ forums. Insulting tone, only goal is to advocate, and accusations are extremely similar (Ni users are Ne). It wouldn't surprise me if you're arguing an alt account given the similar connections. I wouldn't waste your time.


Please don't give someone an impression that i actually insulted him when actually i didn't. I really think there is nothing wrong with laziness that doesn't make anything worse.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Ok, i am sorry. I was not insulting really, i know that feel when someone gives me a link or reference rather than he puts it directly on the post.


You're fine, I understand.



reybridge said:


> Ne is a function that perceives Conceptual Objects from The World. Conceptual objects can only be perceived by Ne function. Like other functions, you use Ne subconsciously. When you are thinking or feeling about something that exists in the world, you are already in a judging state, because whatever you are thinking or feeling, it changes your mind (introverted judging function). In other words, Ne is to understand anything outside your mind, because everything you understand are always conceptual objects actually. Ni perceives a conceptual object connecting objects exist in the mind, while Ne perceives a conceptual object connecting objects exist in the world. That is why i said Ni dom people don't like to understand the world outside them. They are more to create their own conceptual object and implement it to the world. In another hand, Ne dom people don't like to create their own conceptual object. They are more to absorb information exist in the world and Burn them into their mind. That is why Ne-Ti people tend to seek objectivity, because no objectivity are gathered from the mind but from the world. They think the truth must be based on objects exist in the world. While Ni-Te people don't care about objectivity, when they believe something will works and satisfies their standards, they will accept it and implements it to the world as soon as it is possible.


Okay, I think I'm getting a feel for your system. I suspect that we've been talking about the same things with different language, which has been confusing. It seems to me that your idea of a conceptual object could be equated with 'possibilities' in Jung's terms. What Jung writes in Psychological Types is that intuition perceives possibilities either in the mind with mental objects or in the world with tangible objects. (Objects, of course, refers to anything.) It seems to me that what you've done with Ni, saying that it aims to create its own conceptual objects, is to combine its introversion with that possibility-seeking function; it's introversion divorces it from the real world, and thus it is more interested in creating its own meaning/possibilities/objects within the realm of the mind, hence your statement that Ni types aren't objective. It seems that you've done the same thing with Ne, condensing the process of seeking possibility into one phrase, perceiving conceptual objects in the world.

I don't think these ideas are inherently wrong, but I think your language creates a bit of confusion when it interacts with the vernacular. If I might suggest some changes to make things clearer:

Unless you're married to the idea of conceptual objects (or if I've just missed what you were getting at with that idea), it seems like it would make things easier to rename this to 'possibilities'. Ne perceives possibilities within the world, Ni wants to create its own possibilities. With that, I also think you might want to rephrase that Ni statement to "Ni wants to perceive possibilities _apart from the world_". That allows room for what Jung says about Ni perceiving the possibilities of the unconscious archetypes, which is pretty big for his understanding of Ni, and also matches the nature of archetypes being separate from experience. I also think it's important to note that it isn't so much that Ni types don't want to understand the world outside them, but that they understand it through their subjective experience. Ne on the other hand would experience itself through objective experience.

Those are my thoughts for now, though I imagine more will come.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

I think of Ni as a "passive perceiving function". My understanding is that it tries to narrow things down with a reasonable degree of certainty based on, well, intuition (or "gut feeling"). It's almost defined to be a filter - a voice that's like "I know how this is going to end".


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> You're fine, I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may look at my previous argument with @PaladinX.



> For example, when you see some cars, it is intuition that makes you perceive a rule where all cars have 4 tires. It is something that connects those cars, and you perceive that connection subconsciously. The rule is real and exists in the world, because if there is no such a rule, then the physical view you are seeing must not be like the one you are seeing (some cars with 4 tires). If you are using 'possibility', it sounds like the one perceived by an intuition is a physical object actually. It is possible that there are 4 tires on a car i will see next time. I think it is not the work of an intuition, but rather a logic.


That is Ne to run to perceive the "all cars must have 4 tires" object. Like i implied, the word 'possibility' sounds more to an outcome of a logic rather than something that is perceived in the first place. You think of possibilities, not perceive them. Because as soon as you know that it is a possibility, you have just used a judging function actually. But with 'conceptual object', you won't confuse it. Of course the arrangement of a possibility is a conceptual object, but the possibility itself may be a physical object representing that arrangement. People can relate the word 'possibility' to both the arrangement and the representation. It is double meaning. While conceptual objects are those objects perceived even before someone knows that there is a possibility can be made based on it.

And Ni, at least in my term, is not a function to understand anything exists within outside world. If you try to understand it, whatever your understanding looks like, with logic or inductive reasoning, then it is Ne function that was working.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reybridge said:


> You may look at my previous argument with @_PaladinX_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And to reiterate, your "possibility" is a false equivalence.


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Please don't give someone an impression that i actually insulted him when actually i didn't. I really think there is nothing wrong with laziness that doesn't make anything worse.


Don't imply someone else is being lazy and you won't get called out for it. Lazy is an insult. Own your words if you're going to use them.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

Lelu said:


> Don't imply someone else is being lazy and you won't get called out for it. Lazy is an insult. Own your words if you're going to use them.


I am lazy as hell and don't have any problem if someone calls me lazy. But still i am productive far more than those who calls me lazy irl. So, lazy is not an insult. I would argue that the word 'lazy' should be divided into 2 categories:
1. Lazy to do something that doesn't make anything worse when it is not done.
2. Lazy to do something that makes something worse when it is not done.
The latter is actually more appropriate to the word 'unproductive'. And people use 'lazy' to refer to both situations. In fact, someone might be productive and lazy (in first point), or, unproductive and lazy (in first point).


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> And to reiterate, your "possibility" is a false equivalence.


I don't see anything wrong though. It is true that you can refer the word 'possibility' to something that is Physical Object.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Some Socionics theorist call Ni 'time' and Ne 'intuition'.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> That is Ne to run to perceive the "all cars must have 4 tires" object. Like i implied, the word 'possibility' sounds more to an outcome of a logic rather than something that is perceived in the first place. You think of possibilities, not perceive them. Because as soon as you know that it is a possibility, you have just used a judging function actually. But with 'conceptual object', you won't confuse it. Of course the arrangement of a possibility is a conceptual object, but the possibility itself may be a physical object representing that arrangement. People can relate the word 'possibility' to both the arrangement and the representation. It is double meaning. While conceptual objects are those objects perceived even before someone knows that there is a possibility can be made based on it.
> 
> And Ni, at least in my term, is not a function to understand anything exists within outside world. If you try to understand it, whatever your understanding looks like, with logic or inductive reasoning, then it is Ne function that was working.


With the car example, though, it seems that the same argument could be made depending on what process was used to determine that it had four tires--Ti could just as easily deduce that it did, that argument being that 'all cars have four tires' was an outcome of logical deduction after observing the world for your entire life, creating the logical principle that most cars will have four tires, and thereby concluding that any time you look at a car of X qualities, it must therefore have four tires. I get that's not what you're saying, but I guess my point is that there are more than one ways to perceive a conceptual object, otherwise an ISTP wouldn't ever be able to make such an assertion, even though any human being clearly could. In the same way, I don't disagree with you that Ni is unconcerned with the outside world, but you've left out that INxJs _have_ to interact with the world somehow, and they can't only do that through Je or Se. They might come across that way, but even when I'm in my Fe-mode I'm still using my Ni to intuit things about a person.

Which brings me to my next point: are you an extravert? Your theory seems to presuppose that a conceptual object can be inherent to the world in some way, which is a point I'm inclined to disagree with. (The reason I ask if you're an extravert is because that is a very E assumption to make. David Hume is a good example of this if you're into philosophy at all.) Granted, I am an introvert, so I want to shy away from such statements, but, and speaking from experience here, the very fact that Ni would perceive an conceptual object in the world would seem to indicate that the line is a bit less distinct than you're assuming. Now, I realize that you're going to contest this point, but hear me out:

First, let's prove that I am Ni-dominant:

1) The dominant function is the cognitive mindset, perspective, or 'mode' that a person most easily adopts.
2) As you said, the irrational functions are unconscious, so Ni can be defined as unconscious perception of the inner world via the intuition. (Unconscious here meaning uncontrolled.)
3) My default state of mind is passive self-observation, wherein I see images flash through my mind (ones that I did not conjure myself) that can be associated with all manner of internal phenomena.
4) Premises 2) and 3) are equal.
; I am an INxJ.

(Notice that this a deductive argument based in personal self-experience--I have not used any logic in understanding my default state of mind other than what has been necessary to generate this argument.)

Hopefully you don't have any problems with those assertions. Anyway, moving on to Ni being able to perceive C.O.s in the world:

1) Ni directly perceives the objects of the mind, esp. archetypes, inherited knowledge, the collective unconscious etc.
2) These mental objects make up the bulk of the perceptions of Ni.
3) It is possible that an object in the world will match one of these archetypes.
4) Ni has thereby perceived the object in the world through the archetype.
; Ni can perceive objects in the world.

(The reason I made the argument about my own Ni dominance is because I'm basing this argument in my own personal experience.)

Compare that to Ne:

1) Ne directly perceives objects in the world.
2) From these objects, Ne derives C.O.s.
3) It is possible that one of these C.O.s matches an archetype found in the unconscious.
4) Ne has thereby perceived the archetype through a C.O. in the world.
; Ne can perceive inherited archetypes.

My point with both of these statements about intuition is that your separation of C.O.s in the world and C.O.s in the mind seems a little too legalistic. Remember, we're dealing with people and how we think; hard rules don't always apply. Anyway, my point is not say that Ni or Ne could flow in its other direction, but that it will perceive a C.O. of the opposite kind in an indirect fashion, through the use of its own process: Ni views the world through archetypes, Ne views archetypes through the world. People with these dominant functions will learn to use them to observe their opposite realms because they cannot consciously use the opposite.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Some Socionics theorist call Ni 'time' and Ne 'intuition'.


Honestly, I've never really known how to deal with this distinction. I don't dislike it, per se, but it just seems strange to me. That said, I like the thought that I have time inside my head.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> With the car example, though, it seems that the same argument could be made depending on what process was used to determine that it had four tires--Ti could just as easily deduce that it did, that argument being that 'all cars have four tires' was an outcome of logical deduction after observing the world for your entire life, creating the logical principle that most cars will have four tires, and thereby concluding that any time you look at a car of X qualities, it must therefore have four tires. I get that's not what you're saying, but I guess my point is that there are more than one ways to perceive a conceptual object, otherwise an ISTP wouldn't ever be able to make such an assertion, even though any human being clearly could. In the same way, I don't disagree with you that Ni is unconcerned with the outside world, but you've left out that INxJs _have_ to interact with the world somehow, and they can't only do that through Je or Se. They might come across that way, but even when I'm in my Fe-mode I'm still using my Ni to intuit things about a person.
> 
> Which brings me to my next point: are you an extravert? Your theory seems to presuppose that a conceptual object can be inherent to the world in some way, which is a point I'm inclined to disagree with. (The reason I ask if you're an extravert is because that is a very E assumption to make. David Hume is a good example of this if you're into philosophy at all.) Granted, I am an introvert, so I want to shy away from such statements, but, and speaking from experience here, the very fact that Ni would perceive an conceptual object in the world would seem to indicate that the line is a bit less distinct than you're assuming. Now, I realize that you're going to contest this point, but hear me out:
> 
> ...


Well, about the car example, i agree that even the 'all cars must have 4 tires' rule is the result of some kind of logic. But it is not logic since there is no premise stands for it. It is more to a result of inductive reasoning, a.k.a Fi. But, then there must be something that triggers the Fi so that it generates that rule. Whatever it is, it exists and is a C.O that Ne actually perceives. Some objects don't have any name though, so deal with it. There are more ways to perceive C.O, sure, but they are always perceived by Ne since they are exist in The World. It is equivalent to Se function which can perceive the shape of a table in some different angles. Se gives different images when you see the table from some different angles. But it is still the same table. For an ISTP, like someone said in this thread before, may be you, a person will uses all cognitive functions, it is just the frequency of the usage that makes his type his type. An ISTP may uses Ne function, but he will uses Se function far more frequently than Ne. When an ISTP understands a C.O in The World, he must uses Ne. Nothing dramatizes Ni/Se to be able to understand C.O in The World. That is why an ISTP doesn't like studying. But it is not that he can not. xNxJs interact with The World mostly via Se/Je actually. They have their own C.O, and they try to implement it into The World. They changes the world without much conceptual inputs from the world. Yes, it can be done. They will use Ne or even Si if the situation forces them to though. Nothing is wrong with it. 

If you intuit something about a person you are meeting, you are using Ne function actually.

I am not an extrovert. But yes, a C.O may exists within Objects in The World. The very simple example is the laws of nature. They are C.O.s and always be there whether or not you understand them. The World and The Mind are equivalent. It is only the realm that differs. Why do C.O.s only inherent to the mind, and not to the world? It is very I assumption to make then. In my definition, everything are symmetrical, no function has any special feature.

I don't know you well, so i can't judge your type.

Well, Ni dom people can have a similar perspective about something as they who use Ne. But it is not that they perceive it from The World. For an example, you have an idea to be written into a blog and you write it. Later, you find another article with the same topic and the same conclusion as you did in your blog post. Although you have a similar perspective to that another article, you were not perceiving that another article when you were writing your blog post.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> Well, about the car example, i agree that even the 'all cars must have 4 tires' rule is the result of some kind of logic. But it is not logic since there is no premise stands for it. It is more to a result of inductive reasoning, a.k.a Fi. But, then there must be something that triggers the Fi so that it generates that rule. Whatever it is, it exists and is a C.O that Ne actually perceives. Some objects don't have any name though, so deal with it. There are more ways to perceive C.O, sure, but they are always perceived by Ne since they are exist in The World. It is equivalent to Se function which can perceive the shape of a table in some different angles. Se gives different images when you see the table from some different angles. But it is still the same table. For an ISTP, like someone said in this thread before, may be you, a person will uses all cognitive functions, it is just the frequency of the usage that makes his type his type. An ISTP may uses Ne function, but he will uses Se function far more frequently than Ne. When an ISTP understands a C.O in The World, he must uses Ne. Nothing dramatizes Ni/Se to be able to understand C.O in The World. That is why an ISTP doesn't like studying. But it is not that he can not. xNxJs interact with The World mostly via Se/Je actually. They have their own C.O, and they try to implement it into The World. They changes the world without much conceptual inputs from the world. Yes, it can be done. They will use Ne or even Si if the situation forces them to though. Nothing is wrong with it.
> 
> If you intuit something about a person you are meeting, you are using Ne function actually.
> 
> ...


Quick question: have you studied Socionics?

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you are and extravert, you definitely seem to prefer a Pe function of some sort by saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. My point in asking that question was that it's very easy to fall into your own cognitive biases when working a theory like this, and you seem to have done so here. With your laws of nature, for instance, it is equally valid for someone to say that the laws themselves do not exist, and that instead they are observed patterns that we have artificially lumped together for ease of reference or some other reason. The same could be said of math--some people say it actually exists, others say it does not. Who's right? I don't know.

Here's another example to illustrate this. If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? Most people have probably heard this question before and concluded that there is no answer, but neurologically speaking, there is no sound unless someone is there to hear it, because sound is nothing more than waves of environmental energy that humans perceive and then assign meaning to. The same could be said of your C.O.s.

It also seems that your understanding of the cognitive functions is a bit off from what Jung originally wrote. He never asserted that the functions controlled _what_ a person thought, but rather _how_ their brains processed it. I don't think it's correct to say that Ne can only view C.O.s in the world, because Ni can do the same thing, but in Ni ways, just like Ne can view objects in the mind through Ne ways. That's what I was getting at with my little lists earlier.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Quick question: have you studied Socionics?
> 
> Anyway, regardless of whether or not you are and extravert, you definitely seem to prefer a Pe function of some sort by saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. My point in asking that question was that it's very easy to fall into your own cognitive biases when working a theory like this, and you seem to have done so here. With your laws of nature, for instance, it is equally valid for someone to say that the laws themselves do not exist, and that instead they are observed patterns that we have artificially lumped together for ease of reference or some other reason. The same could be said of math--some people say it actually exists, others say it does not. Who's right? I don't know.
> 
> ...


I haven't studied socionics, i don't like studying much. I only study something that support whatever i am doing. This is the most efficient way to deepens my understanding about a subject.

No, you can not type me as a Ne user just because i were saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. If you do, i think your mind is just being tired. There is no right and wrong even for physics. There only a framework of thinking that is better than other. And the better is the one that can predicts more accurately.

Well i know you are talking quantum physics. I know about it quite well actually. Even if i don't know about it, you can not prove my definition wrong just because you know quantum physics and i don't. My definition explains The World in another framework different to physics, and so does Jung's. So, they are not comparable. But you can compare my definition with Jung's.

No, Ni is not the function to perceives C.O.s in The World. I don't mind if my definition is different to the original one. That is the reason i created this definition though. But whether my definition is more true than the original one doesn't depend on how similar or different it is to Jung's definition. People who think like that will accept everything that label Jung's name on it really. I see people tend to be biased in understanding Jung's one. It is because the system is not clear enough. In your understanding, what is "Ni ways" and "Ne ways" anyway? What is the base difference so that there has to be a dichotomy dividing them? I guess what you mean by Ni is the person with Ni as the dominant function? If so, then it is true indeed that Ni dom people can perceive C.O.s exist in The World by using Ne function.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> No, you can not type me as a Ne user just because i were saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. If you do, i think your mind is just being tired. There is no right and wrong even for physics. There only a framework of thinking that is better than other. And the better is the one that can predicts more accurately.


But that's what I'm saying. Assuming that objects/patterns/whatevers exist in the world is very Pe thing to do. And I never said Ne, I was referring to both Ne and Se.



reybridge said:


> Well i know you are talking quantum physics. I know about it quite well actually. Even if i don't know about it, you can not prove my definition wrong just because you know quantum physics and i don't. My definition explains The World in another framework different to physics, and so does Jung's. So, they are not comparable. But you can compare my definition with Jung's.


I was actually thinking more epistemologically, although I guess metaphysics could also be a decent category. And what I was saying has nothing to do with the subject I was talking under. And my point wasn't to prove you wrong with that section, but do illustrate that both ways of looking at an idea (whether it exists in the world or in the mind) are equally true, so isn't enough to just say that Ne perceives C.O.s in the world and Ni perceives C.O.s in the mind, because that statement presupposes that objects _can_ be inherent to the mind or world, and neither side is technically true.



reybridge said:


> No, Ni is not the function to perceives C.O.s in The World. I don't mind if my definition is different to the original one. That is the reason i created this definition though. But whether my definition is more true than the original one doesn't depend on how similar or different it is to Jung's definition. People who think like that will accept everything that label Jung's name on it really.


And you have to ask why that is the case. Jung's theory was carefully thought out by studying mythology, culture, philosophy, and the people he interacted with. If you don't care if yours is different, that's fine, but you must understand that a lot more goes into creating a valid theory than just thinking it up, and I have no reason to believe that you've based your thinking in intense study of human thought.



reybridge said:


> I see people tend to be biased in understanding Jung's one. It is because the system is not clear enough. In your understanding, what is "Ni ways" and "Ne ways" anyway? What is the base difference so that there has to be a dichotomy dividing them? I guess what you mean by Ni is the person with Ni as the dominant function? If so, then it is true indeed that Ni dom people can perceive C.O.s exist in The World by using Ne function.


I would say that the theory itself is clear, but the application is a bit dodgey.

The base difference is I vs. E. They're both intuition, but inwardly focused or outwardly focused. I don't see them as being separate functions, but two sides of the same coin. Ni or Ne ways are the just methods that those functions use in perception.

And like I said earlier, if you don't mind your definition being different, that's fine. But you also need to understand the limits of what you're saying. Ni _has_ to be able to perceive C.O.s in the world because xNxJs and xSxPs don't use Ne consciously. Same things for xNxPs and xSxJs and Ni.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

To give a simplified metaphor that is in no way exact, but makes a good lie from which to build a better framework: Ni to Ne is over the event horizon vs spreading the protons.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> But that's what I'm saying. Assuming that objects/patterns/whatevers exist in the world is very Pe thing to do. And I never said Ne, I was referring to both Ne and Se.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Pe has nothing to do with saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. Talking, writing, riding, eating, all activities we do are our judgement towards the world. The base information to support extroverted judgement must be an introverted perceiving function, this will be my next point in the rule set. So, it will be more appropriate if you have labeled me as Pi/Je for that, even though it is a blunder judgement to label someone as anything just because he said one random sentence.

Yes, you can say that the world is actually your mind. You can also say that your mind is actually the world if you think as someone else. It is just that the world and the mind have to be separated in a such way so that they fit the word 'extroverted/introverted'. And it is in my rule set point 5.1 that separates them.

"Why"? Do you mean why i created a different definition? Well, it is because i was annoyed that people tend to have different perspective about functions and types. It is because they tend to arbitrarily interpret functions, and i think it may be not the people fault, but the definition itself has multi-interpretations. So, why don't we have the more firm definition so that people will far more likely to hold the same understanding about functions?

What is inward and outward anyway? Didn't you say that nothing is inherent to the world nor the mind? And neither is true? I agree that Ne and Ni have the same algorithm to perceive objects though.
Why is it just because a function is out of the first function it has a different function? I mean, only types with Ne function in the first four order will use Ne in a conscious mind? If so, then i would call the "conscious Ne" as CNe and "subconscious Ne" as SNe, can i? What is the real Ne? It will just make the definition less firm. If you want a firm definition, then a function must not function differently no matter what. And as my previous hypothesis said, all perceiving functions are done subconsciously. This is the best explanation so that all functions are defined firmly.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> I think Pe has nothing to do with saying that C.O.s can exist in the world. Talking, writing, riding, eating, all activities we do are our judgement towards the world. The base information to support extroverted judgement must be an introverted perceiving function, this will be my next point in the rule set. So, it will be more appropriate if you have labeled me as Pi/Je for that, even though it is a blunder judgement to label someone as anything just because he said one random sentence.


I find that the things we say without thinking are the truest expressions of the way a person thinks, actually, but all of this is beside the point. I made an off-hand comment about something I had once read and thought may be applicable, and I don't really to go further in depth here because it would be a waste when the real issues of this argument have yet to be acknowledged and discussed. And, as an aside, can you really qualify actions as judgment? I have hard time buying that, since they have nothing to do with cognition.



reybridge said:


> Yes, you can say that the world is actually your mind. You can also say that your mind is actually the world if you think as someone else. It is just that the world and the mind have to be separated in a such way so that they fit the word 'extroverted/introverted'. And it is in my rule set point 5.1 that separates them.


You could, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that one can interpret a phenomenon like a disease (to use Thomson's example) two different ways: as a group of disparate symptoms linked together only for ease of treatment (the introverted view) or as something that is actually *real* in some sense (the extraverted view). This is kind of what I was getting at with my statement that you seem Pe to me: it is fully within the scope of extraverted perception to assume that the things it observes really exist in some form.



reybridge said:


> "Why"? Do you mean why i created a different definition? Well, it is because i was annoyed that people tend to have different perspective about functions and types. It is because they tend to arbitrarily interpret functions, and i think it may be not the people fault, but the definition itself has multi-interpretations. So, why don't we have the more firm definition so that people will far more likely to hold the same understanding about functions?


I meant you need to ask why people swear by Jung so much. It's not arbitrary; he was a scholar, and he knew what he was doing. Unclear as he might have been, he did his homework on what he was doing, so if you're looking for "empirical" cognition, Jung is a good place to start. I'm arguing that some people take his word as gospel, but then again when people disagree they need to have good reason to do so.



reybridge said:


> What is inward and outward anyway? Didn't you say that nothing is inherent to the world nor the mind? And neither is true? I agree that Ne and Ni have the same algorithm to perceive objects though.
> Why is it just because a function is out of the first function it has a different function? I mean, only types with Ne function in the first four order will use Ne in a conscious mind? If so, then i would call the "conscious Ne" as CNe and "subconscious Ne" as SNe, can i? What is the real Ne? It will just make the definition less firm. If you want a firm definition, then a function must not function differently no matter what. And as my previous hypothesis said, all perceiving functions are done subconsciously. This is the best explanation so that all functions are defined firmly.


Inward and outward are just the directions of a functions attention--just a different way of saying introverted or extraverted.

Consciousness/unconsciousness is how aware of the function a person is, so CNe or SNe is a false distinction. Both are the "real" Ne, just one happens to be within the conscious awareness and the other is below conscious awareness.

As I said earlier in this response, I don't feel like the core issues of our disagreement have been addressed. So for all intents and purposes, please ignore everything that I just wrote, because these can be resolved if we address the main points:

1) I don't disagree with you simply because you're not Jung--I just want to get this out of the way now.
2) You seem to be assuming that the function used affects the material of our thoughts, which I disagree with. As far as I understand it, functions are merely a process through which we metabolize information.
3) I also disagree with the premise that a functions direction (I or E) precludes it from interacting with the opposite world. As Ni-dominant, I can verify that I interact with the world through my Ni, though that process has been jerry-rigged with Fe to make the process smoother. I don't disagree that Ni does not by nature view the outer world, but any dominant function will need to form strategies for dealing with the other direction in some way, and any person will attempt to maintain their dominant perspective as much as possible.

Those are what come to mind right now.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I find that the things we say without thinking are the truest expressions of the way a person thinks, actually, but all of this is beside the point. I made an off-hand comment about something I had once read and thought may be applicable, and I don't really to go further in depth here because it would be a waste when the real issues of this argument have yet to be acknowledged and discussed. And, as an aside, can you really qualify actions as judgment? I have hard time buying that, since they have nothing to do with cognition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All we say without thinking is Fe function, where 'thinking' simply means a logical deduction. Any action is a judgement. If you can not accept that action is a form of cognitive function, then by a simple logic there is no reason you would accept judgement as a part of cognitive functions as well.

Instead of me, it is actually you who is the Pe dom/aux to me, to be specific it is Ne. You like to understand things. Whether you are satisfied with it or not has nothing to do with Ne, it is introverted judging function that makes you satisfied or not with something you understand. And the very sign that someone uses Ne function is that he will absolutely uses concepts he gathered before for a judgement towards the world in the future. Because for what he understand something if it is not to be used later, right? By "it is fully within the scope of extraverted perception to assume that the things it observes really exist in some form.", is it the definition of Pe to you? If it is, then i am not wrong to say that Jung's definition tend to create ambiguous interpretations among people, like this. I once found someone who thought that Ne is a function that makes you imagining something, and Te is a function that makes you judge something based on external information. I mean, Jung's definition is not necessarily wrong, it is just that it is not firm enough to make people interpret it the same way. And if it is not actually the definition of Pe to you, then what is the base definition of Pe in your understanding?

Sure he was a scholar, and so do some other normal people. What do you mean by "empirical" cognition? I disagree with a reason though. I stated it in my previous post right? The reason Jung's definition is disagreeable is because it makes people tend to interpret it differently. I think people want to fix Jung's in their own way.

Just a direction right? So, Ne is a function that perceive information that is directed outwardly. By "outwardly", you mean toward a realm outside the mind, no? Then, what does the object it perceives? It is something that exists "outside your mind" of course.

If there is Ne function that function within and below the conscious awareness, there is a difference that perfectly dividing. Because no Ne function within conscious awareness is below conscious awareness, right? Then there should be another dichotomy to explain this accurately. But this dichotomy is not explained in Jung's definition. So, it is whether you interpret Jung's definition in your own way like what people do, or Jung's definition has a crack.

To response to your points of disagreement:
1. Then you are one of those people who have Jung as someone who is absolutely right. I can not argue with this. You wouldn't accept anyone argument who is not Jung though.
2. By "function used affects the material of our thoughts", you mean to process the material of our thoughts right? No process has no effect. And for introverted judging function, the effect is to affect the material of our thoughts, because introverted function is directed inwardly (toward a realm inside the mind) just as you said. We are actually on the same boat here.
3. By "any dominant function will need to form strategies for dealing with the other direction in some way", then just like SNe and CNe, you need to divide "a dominant function that has successfully dealing with the other direction" and "a dominant function that has not successfully dealing with the other direction". Seriously, what the hell is this? Functions don't change their function. And perceiving function doesn't work to form any strategy anyway.


----------



## roly poly (Feb 28, 2015)

Okay, let me take a stab at this...

Once, my lecturer put potential exam questions onto the the board. I only wrote down 3 questions out of 10, knowing that 2 of these 3 would come up on the exam. I was right. I knew this because of the way the course was conducted. The lecturer addressed this topic in this way, alluding me to a past experience in which a situation whose conditions were the same played out in a certain way, meaning this situation which is affected by the same conditions as the last will play out in this way. 

I have also had experiences where past, present and future have been one. I grant you wanted to know specifically about Ni premonitions, but these to me are only a fragment of the overall time-dimension in which Ni unfolds and understanding this may help to shed light on premonitions. I experience the continuum of time through the medium of symbolism (could probably call this the archetypes). That is, I don't think time is just linear. The points at which new experiences occur (events that shape the course of history) are a result of certain motivations and can be explained best by using symbols and metaphors. A thing's purpose can be understood by relating its causal circuit to the meanings that serve to identify it. The points at which causality and these "meanings" or "predicates" intersect, is the point from which little secrets of the universe, or the collective unconscious can be extracted, woven together and articulated.

A Walter Benjamin quote comes to mind:



> A historical materialist cannot do without the notion of a present which is not a transition, but in which time stands still and has come to a stop. For this notion defines the present in which he himself is writing history. Historicism gives the ‘eternal’ image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience with the past


Walter Benjamin, _Theses on the Philosophy of History_, XVI.

And in an earlier fragment Benjamin says:



> History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogenous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now


 Walter Benjamin, _Theses on the Philosophy of History_, IV.

I do not wish to flout or proselytize Marxism here, only simply to point out that the past and the future can be altered by our interpretation of it and that change coupled with the determined is the medium through which this occurs. Benjamin's work is a complex critique of the mechanisms that influence the collective unconscious, but it is a sort that aids us, I think.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

reybridge said:


> All we say without thinking is Fe function, where 'thinking' simply means a logical deduction. Any action is a judgement. If you can not accept that action is a form of cognitive function, then by a simple logic there is no reason you would accept judgement as a part of cognitive functions as well.


Then show me this logic if it is so simple. This has been my problem with this discussion: you're not arguing against my points with logic or explaining how you've arrived at the conclusions you did, you're just working with your own system of logic without justifying it.



reybridge said:


> Sure he was a scholar, and so do some other normal people. What do you mean by "empirical" cognition? I disagree with a reason though. I stated it in my previous post right? The reason Jung's definition is disagreeable is because it makes people tend to interpret it differently. I think people want to fix Jung's in their own way.


Jung considered himself an empiricist.

I don't want to fix Jung's definition for my own purposes, but any interpretation will always be biased.



reybridge said:


> Just a direction right? So, Ne is a function that perceive information that is directed outwardly. By "outwardly", you mean toward a realm outside the mind, no? Then, what does the object it perceives? It is something that exists "outside your mind" of course.


But we're not talking about objects, are we? Conceptual objects was the subject of discussion.



reybridge said:


> If there is Ne function that function within and below the conscious awareness, there is a difference that perfectly dividing. Because no Ne function within conscious awareness is below conscious awareness, right? Then there should be another dichotomy to explain this accurately. But this dichotomy is not explained in Jung's definition. So, it is whether you interpret Jung's definition in your own way like what people do, or Jung's definition has a crack.


I'm operating off of John Beebe's eight function model.



reybridge said:


> To response to your points of disagreement:
> 1. Then you are one of those people who have Jung as someone who is absolutely right. I can not argue with this. You wouldn't accept anyone argument who is not Jung though.


Anyone with logical sense will know that Jung was not absolutely right. I will accept someone who is Jung if they have sufficient reason to be in discord with him (for example, I like Beebe's model and other variants of Jungian typology), but you have yet to show me that you do beyond "Jung was unclear." I know Jung was unclear. _Why_ do you think the way you do? What evidence support your claims. If you can't give me any answers there, then I have no reason to assume you to be correct.



reybridge said:


> 2. By "function used affects the material of our thoughts", you mean to process the material of our thoughts right? No process has no effect. And for introverted judging function, the effect is to affect the material of our thoughts, because introverted function is directed inwardly (toward a realm inside the mind) just as you said. We are actually on the same boat here.


I'm not disagreeing with this, but that's not what I meant. I get the impression that you think a function can only think about certain things, that Ne can only think about C.O.s in the world, Ni can only think about C.O.s in the mind, etc. That's a point of contention between you and Jung; Jung never supposed functions affect _what_ we think, but _how_ we think about things.



reybridge said:


> 3. By "any dominant function will need to form strategies for dealing with the other direction in some way", then just like SNe and CNe, you need to divide "a dominant function that has successfully dealing with the other direction" and "a dominant function that has not successfully dealing with the other direction". Seriously, what the hell is this? Functions don't change their function. And perceiving function doesn't work to form any strategy anyway.


Let me rephrase: a person will attempt to maintain their dominant perspective as much as possible, yes? So they will then devise ways to use that function when understanding the world. For instance, I've noticed that when I look at objects I link them back to an archetype in my head (I realize archetype is Jung's word, but I can't think of any better way to explain it). In Jung's terms, this is Ni, even though it is operating outside of its usual realm. And you're right, perceiving functions don't form strategies, but people do. I have full agency in how I use my functions, if not when, where, why, and what.

This discussion is growing long and not really getting anywhere. I just want to clarify that I'm not angry with you and I'm not upset in any measure. We clearly have our differences of thought--I'm fine with that. I don't want you or anyone else to think that this is just another internet yelling contest. That said, I do feel like we're going in circles because we are on two difference wavelengths of understanding, and it's getting to the point where I'm not wanting to respond to your points as I did in the beginning. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a private message at a later date, but for the time being I need a break. (And I don't want to continue filling up this thread more than necessary.) Again, I want to emphasize that I haven't tried to be angry or short with you, and if I have I apologize; that was not my intention. At any rate, I will probably not respond to this thread for a while so I can think about other things, but feel free to message me if you want to continue.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> why is Ni time oriented, in particular, towards the future?
> 
> what makes Ni this way?


All functions are time oriented. That's because we process information. But our brains also do well with spatial orientations (well, some more than others). But without time, nothing changes. So even spatial orientation only has value if there is time as well.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

I... think I might butcher this question lol. 
take from it whatever might be... relevant, I guess. 


* *




Time as an important factor because it eventually shrinks, condenses. And then it explodes. 
I think of people as starting off vague, sucking in. And then they specify and develop a sort of micro-Truth (a direction pops into mind) which some nurture. I think a lot of people vaguely move around this specific "Truth" or go astray from it, for whatever reason. Some people say they have multiple "Truths". Stick with it for long enough, feed it and it'll grow, sometimes it becomes a timeless entity. And what a goal: to create something far, far older than you'll ever be. Allows your mind to live centuries beyond you. 

But I think each of us has a very specific sort of "truth", not exactly "destiny" but the ability to just expand in a very powerful way and unique direction. With that in mind, it's hard for me to not... seek that. And it's a future oriented perspective, sure. I tend to follow little lines leading in different directions but all towards a large, singular goal, knowing where it'll roughly be. I don't care for being jack of all trades, I don't care about what I might miss out on. I want that one, single ball of light that's there, right at the end of that long, long path even though I cannot physically see it. It's the biggest reason why I'm future oriented, I think. And you can push me into any awkward corner you'd like, but I'll stubbornly still somehow leak through and go towards it again. 

tl:dr I think it's singularity which makes Ni future oriented. Everything connects at a point. Single extend further into the future than multiple, changing. 

Like I said before, it's blind sight.


----------



## roly poly (Feb 28, 2015)

Peter said:


> All functions are time oriented. That's because we process information. But our brains also do well with spatial orientations (well, some more than others). But without time, nothing changes. So even spatial orientation only has value if there is time as well.


Here's a hypothesis: Ni and Si are mostly time oriented and Ne and Se are mostly space oriented.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Then show me this logic if it is so simple. This has been my problem with this discussion: you're not arguing against my points with logic or explaining how you've arrived at the conclusions you did, you're just working with your own system of logic without justifying it.


Here is that simple logic.
Premise 1: Any judgement towards the world are done by actions.
Premise 2: You don't accept action as a part of cognitive functions.
Conclusion: Then you don't accept judgement towards the world as a cognitive function.
Question: What is Je then if it is not a judgment towards the world (a judgement directed outwardly)?



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Jung considered himself an empiricist.
> 
> I don't want to fix Jung's definition for my own purposes, but any interpretation will always be biased.


Any interpretation may be biased, even that 1 + 1 = 2 is biased because what exactly is "1", right? But you can minimize those biases by creating a more firm clear system.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> But we're not talking about objects, are we? Conceptual objects was the subject of discussion.


Object can be *absolutely* anything, even you agreed with this. So whatever it is that Ne (or Se) perceives it is an object. And since Ne is directed outwardly (towards the world), then Ne is function that perceives any C.O exists in the world.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm operating off of John Beebe's eight function model.


Then that part of John Beebe's eight function model is not compatible with Jung's definition, it makes Jung's definition unclear.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Anyone with logical sense will know that Jung was not absolutely right. I will accept someone who is Jung if they have sufficient reason to be in discord with him (for example, I like Beebe's model and other variants of Jungian typology), but you have yet to show me that you do beyond "Jung was unclear." I know Jung was unclear. _Why_ do you think the way you do? What evidence support your claims. If you can't give me any answers there, then I have no reason to assume you to be correct.


What have i done? I do create the rule set i posted before. The fact that someone brain is scanned while his brain is active doesn't spot a specific function he was really using. That someone needs to have a clear system to identify the function he really used. So, the procedure is you create a clear system then you prove it with scanning. If someone who his brain was scanned doesn't have a clear understanding about the system, then how can it be a prove? Someone with a different interpretation about that system will have a different result when he is scanned. What is important about a system or a framework is not the "prove" alone, but the clearness of that system so that all people can understand it almost in the same way. Gravity is true not only because the earth pulls anything down, but also because the definition of gravity itself is clearly a force which tries to pull two objects toward each other. It is clear. Almost no multi interpretations can be made here.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm not disagreeing with this, but that's not what I meant. I get the impression that you think a function can only think about certain things, that Ne can only think about C.O.s in the world, Ni can only think about C.O.s in the mind, etc. That's a point of contention between you and Jung; Jung never supposed functions affect _what_ we think, but _how_ we think about things.


A function doesn't think. A function just does processing an input and resulting an output. If you think about any function (not only cognitive function), you will always have these parameters:
- Input
- Algorithm
- Output
If one says that a function doesn't affect something, then it is not a function that he refers to. And a cognitive function doesn't affect *how* we think about things, because the function itself is the "*how*" we think about things.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Let me rephrase: a person will attempt to maintain their dominant perspective as much as possible, yes? So they will then devise ways to use that function when understanding the world. For instance, I've noticed that when I look at objects I link them back to an archetype in my head (I realize archetype is Jung's word, but I can't think of any better way to explain it). In Jung's terms, this is Ni, even though it is operating outside of its usual realm. And you're right, perceiving functions don't form strategies, but people do. I have full agency in how I use my functions, if not when, where, why, and what.


No, you are just dramatizing that people must use a specific dominant function no matter what. If people think or act outside of its realm, then the one that must be changed is the definition of the function instead of the function they choose to use. This is very arbitrary. The definition of a function should be firm and absolute, just like the definition of gravity.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> This discussion is growing long and not really getting anywhere. I just want to clarify that I'm not angry with you and I'm not upset in any measure. We clearly have our differences of thought--I'm fine with that. I don't want you or anyone else to think that this is just another internet yelling contest. That said, I do feel like we're going in circles because we are on two difference wavelengths of understanding, and it's getting to the point where I'm not wanting to respond to your points as I did in the beginning. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a private message at a later date, but for the time being I need a break. (And I don't want to continue filling up this thread more than necessary.) Again, I want to emphasize that I haven't tried to be angry or short with you, and if I have I apologize; that was not my intention. At any rate, I will probably not respond to this thread for a while so I can think about other things, but feel free to message me if you want to continue.


So do i. There is no reason for me to get angry by this discussion. I actually appreciate it that you have been responding to my arguments this far. And i don't really care about what people think of this discussion. They have their own life.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

roly poly said:


> Here's a hypothesis: Ni and Si are mostly time oriented and Ne and Se are mostly space oriented.


Nope. It's not specific to either one. The orientation depends on the subject but always time is there as well. Without time there is nothing going on any other orientation.

So time is a universal orientation, a requirement.

You can say that Se focuses on processing real time information, happiest while living in the moment.

Si focuses on storing information for future recall and then using lots of information from the past to decide what is going on in the present.

Ne focuses on the future, by predicting all (as many as possible) ways that events can develop into the future.

Ni focuses on the future too, but by predicting the most likely way that an event will develop. It can do multiple ways too, but only because it allows for some unknown (that it knows are unknown in that moment) factors that have significant influence on how an event can develop.


So to go back a little bit to the original question (why is Ni focused on the future?).... the simplest answer is because that's what it's suppose to do. We have functions that focus on the past and present. These have different names. N focuses on the future. Both Ne and Ni do. The diference between them is that one keeps its options open while the other prefers to narrow it down to 1 option.


----------

