# Help me with my developing Ne



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Blue Flare said:


> If you value Ni, then forget about Ne, as it's one of those functions that aren't natural for you.





ephemereality said:


> It honestly sounds more like a case of an xSFJ trying to access inferior Ne than an INFJ trying to access shadow Ne?





mushr00m said:


> Its just not possible no matter how versed in neural theory you are. Whatever are your top 4 preferred functions, the other 4 will exist as unconscious, it cannot work otherwise, you can't have both opposing attitudes consciously.


With respect to the points you've made in these posts, the op stated that Ni needed to be turned down in order to access Ne, that Ni couldn't be kept turned down for long and attempting to be conscious of both was extremely difficult. What was written in the op isn't common, but it doesn't conflict with the theory either, since the op is aware of the difficulty maintaining the unnatural function perspective.

A lot of Jungs work centred around integrating opposites within the psyche being part of the individuation process. Holding opposites together in consciousness is part of the initial stages involved in developing the transcendent function. Which he describes as a complex function made up of the other functions, which mediates between the opposites, uniting their energies into a common channel. His active imagination technique focuses on bringing unconscious contents into consciousness. Unconscious material can't be integrated, it has to be made conscious first. He also mentions development of the transcendent function making the shift from one attitude to another organically possible. 

I don't think that an Ni dom wanting to practise mental exercises to help improve Ne is so far fetched that it's impossible. Ne might be one of an infj's weakest functions, but it is still present within their psyche. It might come to a point where Ne develops so far and then it can't go further without sacrificing the dominant perspective. 

I think it would be interesting to look at possible ways of bringing other function perspectives into consciousness.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> With respect to the points you've made in these posts, the op stated that Ni needed to be turned down in order to access Ne, that Ni couldn't be kept turned down for long and attempting to be conscious of both was extremely difficult. What was written in the op isn't common, but it doesn't conflict with the theory either, since the op is aware of the difficulty maintaining the unnatural function perspective.
> 
> A lot of Jungs work centred around integrating opposites within the psyche being part of the individuation process. Holding opposites together in consciousness is part of the initial stages involved in developing the transcendent function. Which he describes as a complex function made up of the other functions, which mediates between the opposites, uniting their energies into a common channel. His active imagination technique focuses on bringing unconscious contents into consciousness. Unconscious material can't be integrated, it has to be made conscious first. He also mentions development of the transcendent function making the shift from one attitude to another organically possible.
> 
> ...


But that would go against the introverted nature of the psyche which itself has nothing to do with the functions themselves. The way I understand individuation would be more finding a balance between conscious-unconscious, or Ni and Se, not Ni and Ne. If one is Ne and Ni, then I would argue that it is more an issue of not having a psychic attitude on the I/E scale to begin with.

With that said, I am not even sure I can trust that what the OP claims is Ne is actually Ne. It could well be something else entirely that makes even more sense given the current theoretical definitions that are currently developed.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> But that would go against the introverted nature of the psyche which itself has nothing to do with the functions themselves. The way I understand individuation would be more finding a balance between conscious-unconscious, or Ni and Se, not Ni and Ne. If one is Ne and Ni, then I would argue that it is more an issue of not having a psychic attitude on the I/E scale to begin with.
> 
> With that said, I am not even sure I can trust that what the OP claims is Ne is actually Ne. It could well be something else entirely that makes even more sense given the current theoretical definitions that are currently developed.


You could very well be right in what you're saying. I don't agree or disagree at this point. I just think the op's questions could still be answered, whether or not her reasons for asking are actually correct. The op comes across to me as very much an infj, but also with something else that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm trying to say, that I don't perceive it as a typical 'clueless newbie' thread, if you see what I mean. I'm curious myself as to what might be going on here.

If you remember, I posted a thread a while ago that went against people's existing understanding of the functions. Which initially, ellicited a similar reaction from other members saying that it was impossible and I didn't know what I was talking about. Had it not been for yourself and a couple of other members supporting me in that thread, then that discussion wouldn't have got the time of day. 

I appreciate that you might not wish to make any further posts in this thread (although I think that would be a shame), but if you or anyone else was able to answer the questions presented, it could become very helpful and informative. The op might decide that it isn't Ne after all, but not without the information she's requesting in order to see it for herself.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> You could very well be right in what you're saying. I don't agree or disagree at this point. I just think the op's questions could still be answered, whether or not her reasons for asking are actually correct. The op comes across to me as very much an infj, but also with something else that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm trying to say, that I don't perceive it as a typical 'clueless newbie' thread, if you see what I mean. I'm curious myself as to what might be going on here.
> 
> If you remember, I posted a thread a while ago that went against people's existing understanding of the functions. Which initially, ellicited a similar reaction from other members saying that it was impossible and I didn't know what I was talking about. Had it not been for yourself and a couple of other members supporting me in that thread, then that discussion wouldn't have got the time of day.
> 
> I appreciate that you might not wish to make any further posts in this thread (although I think that would be a shame), but if you or anyone else was able to answer the questions presented, it could become very helpful and informative. The op might decide that it isn't Ne after all, but not without the information she's requesting in order to see it for herself.


Sure, I don't think that's an impossibility and I see what you are saying though the way I understand how it works now, I've moved away from the idea of that kind of attitude-mixing. If one is preferring intuition and is introverted, then intuition is going to become introverted as well. What you propose then is that she doesn't actually change her dominant perspective as much as she changes her introversion-extroversion axis, and I am not sure that's possible once a person has individuated to that point. Hence Jung would argue that the introverted type is XiXiXeXe rather than XiXeXiXe. 

If a person is changing between Ne and Ni, then it seems more likely to speak of something of undifferentiated nature. From what understand, Jung even thought it to be desirable for an introvert to bring all functions into consciousness i.e. for an INFJ it would be NiFiTiSi as much as it would be possible to do that. I am also not sure that changing perspective does itself lead to individuation as it seems to be more like spinning around on the same axis rather than moving or progressing forward. 

And what ideas I support or not is of course related to whether it makes sense to me. I can be open to ideas but given that they seem to make sense. The OP doesn't really suggest much that makes it possible to theoretically discuss it from a deeper vantage point without knowing what Ne is here, for example. I would normally not question people's understanding but I think there was reason to do that especially after how the OP described Te. 

As for the OP's type, I have my opinion but I leave that for now.


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> Holding opposites together in consciousness is part of the initial stages involved in developing the transcendent function. Which he describes as a complex function made up of the other functions, which mediates between the opposites, uniting their energies into a common channel.


Yes this sounds very familiar to my mental process.



> His active imagination technique focuses on bringing unconscious contents into consciousness. Unconscious material can't be integrated, it has to be made conscious first.


This is fascinating, I'll have to read up on his active imagination technique.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Sure, I don't think that's an impossibility and I see what you are saying though the way I understand how it works now, I've moved away from the idea of that kind of attitude-mixing. If one is preferring intuition and is introverted, then intuition is going to become introverted as well. What you propose then is that she doesn't actually change her dominant perspective as much as she changes her introversion-extroversion axis, and I am not sure that's possible once a person has individuated to that point. Hence Jung would argue that the introverted type is XiXiXeXe rather than XiXeXiXe.
> 
> If a person is changing between Ne and Ni, then it seems more likely to speak of something of undifferentiated nature. From what understand, Jung even thought it to be desirable for an introvert to bring all functions into consciousness i.e. for an INFJ it would be NiFiTiSi as much as it would be possible to do that. I am also not sure that changing perspective does itself lead to individuation as it seems to be more like spinning around on the same axis rather than moving or progressing forward.
> 
> ...


I understand. I don't want to derail the entire thread with a debate about individuation and the possibility of unconventional function development. It wasn't what was being asked after all. 
I'm sure that topic will be covered in it's own thread, at some point.
@Gemfish 
Hopefully, you might get some Ne dom input soon to answer your questions and help you understand Ne. It's better coming straight from the horses mouth, imo. But if not, feel free to pm me and I will try and help.


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> Hopefully, you might get some Ne dom input soon to answer your questions and help you understand Ne. It's better coming straight from the horses mouth, imo. But if not, feel free to pm me and I will try and help.


Lol, the Ne doms are all off pursuing their own creative ideas, I'm sure.

Thank you for your kindness, I may do that. I find INFPs are often magic at helping people to see themselves.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_Gemfish_ - I find it so interesting and troubling that I have to measure the comings and goings of this post, as not to tread into a subject or a point that you have or will banish out of hand. I've never encountered such a police state on this forum. I will tread lightly, so as to be heard.

I can speak for Ne. I don't understand why you'd want to develop it, if such a thing is possible. You have an intuitive function... and more to the point it is the same function, introverted. Thus you are using Ne (given that you are an Ni-dom) right now, simply in an introverted attitude. Orient that intuition to the OBJECT, let it shape and alter in real time.... compel it to weigh emergent perceptions equally with 'archaic' (stole this from @_ephemereality_, and I hope I did so correctly) ones. When your first instinct is to humor, or 'try on', another conceptual perspective as it is presented to you, you are developing (or at least using) Ne. 

I get the feeling that will be a tall order for you. Perhaps a good way to think of Ne is as 'forgetful'. Forgetful, specifically, of it's paradigm, world view, platform, truths, whatever. Like someone with a foggy long term memory.... who can only vaguely recollect an old friend, but looks brightly and expectantly at all as if they were first meeting. That is how Ne deals with concept and archetypal comprehension. Old friends and new are put on equal footing, in terms of our visions and perceptions of the nature of things. Ne is thus profoundly, even willfully, naive. The idea of anything is taken as it comes, again and again.

We aren't this way with sensory things, so avoid such a conflation. Also, avoid conflating this with rational processes... such as logic or esteem judgments of any kind. 

Also, it would seem distinctly more expedient / desirable / possible to evaluate your relationship with Se, which serves Ne's role of perceptual induction - and brings you back from la la land into a semblance of functional reality. 

----------

The following is in direct violation of Thread Protocol 187.9 B Subsection 23, which prohibits interesting off-topic conversation:

The idea of 'developing Ne' seems so peculiar to me, and I am not certain that I consider it possible for an INFJ. I am pretty firmly (as firmly as my brain will let me be) in the 4 functions camp. The idea of us all possessing all 8 functions seems so......... literal ...... to me. Like functions become some sort of set of boxes to put all behavior in. The problem with that is there is a great deal of overlap in what sorts of ostensible manifestations any particular function, or function pairing, can have. 

I can dismiss something because there is no evidence, for example, but the real reason I am saying that is because I don't think that it is a logical thing. I also happen to know that there is no evidence for it... 

So, I say, "There is no evidence for that, so forget it" and someone like you would say, "That's Te". Well, it isn't. I just pointed out some expedient thing to manipulate the crowd against it, because I didn't think it made sense. That's Fe and Ti. 

It also feels somewhat circular to say that you couldn't exist in your field without Te. I could just as easily say that you, lacking Te, exist well in your field - thus you needn't possess Te to exist in your field. Circular. I'd tell you that I am perfectly capable of thinking empirically, at least by your standards, but you'd just tell me that this is because I use Te. That is fallacious as an argument. It begs for a better understanding of Te. Specifically one that does not rely on face-value interpretations of behavior or shallow definitions of functions.


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

arkigos said:


> @_Gemfish_ - I find it so interesting and troubling that I have to measure the comings and goings of this post, as not to tread into a subject or a point that you have or will banish out of hand. I've never encountered such a police state on this forum. I will tread lightly, so as to be heard.


I find you finding it so interesting and troubling to be interesting, entertaining, and accurate.  Perhaps I should consider chilling a little, eh? I wonder how I got the idea, before I even posted, that there are some here who routinely attempt to shut down new ideas and close the doors to possible knowledge (something I don't think, incidently, that Jung would appreciate), often appearing to us outsiders as a police state themselves. Not including you in that contingiency, as I haven't read enough of your posts to know whether or not I'd consider you an offender. You seem to be more thoughtful than most from what I have seen of you so far. At least you have addressed the actual topic. 



> You have an intuitive function... and more to the point it is the same function, introverted. Thus you are using Ne (given that you are an Ni-dom) right now, simply in an introverted attitude. Orient that intuition to the OBJECT, let it shape and alter in real time.... compel it to weigh emergent perceptions equally with 'archaic' (stole this from @_ephemereality_, and I hope I did so correctly) ones. When your first instinct is to humor, or 'try on', another conceptual perspective as it is presented to you, you are developing (or at least using) Ne.
> 
> I get the feeling that will be a tall order for you. Perhaps a good way to think of Ne is as 'forgetful'. Forgetful, specifically, of it's paradigm, world view, platform, truths, whatever. Like someone with a foggy long term memory.... who can only vaguely recollect an old friend, but looks brightly and expectantly at all as if they were first meeting. That is how Ne deals with concept and archetypal comprehension. Old friends and new are put on equal footing, in terms of our visions and perceptions of the nature of things. Ne is thus profoundly, even willfully, naive. The idea of anything is taken as it comes, again and again.


This confirms what I have already experienced and gives me a lot more to think on. It did feel like forgetting, actually. I think your analogy is dead on. This gives me a place to start from, which is what I was hoping to find, and will serve me well. Thank you. I like how you get to the meat of how the function actually orients itself and operates. So that will be an exercise I can do in a variety of ways, which is ironic because I thought my first question would be the hardest for anyone to answer. I'm very curious what your opinion or input would be on any of my other questions, but I'll understand if you have no more desire to post on my thread. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Gemfish said:


> I find you finding it so interesting and troubling to be interesting, entertaining, and accurate.  Perhaps I should consider chilling a little, eh? I wonder how I got the idea, before I even posted, that there are some here who routinely attempt to shut down new ideas and close the doors to possible knowledge (something I don't think, incidently, that Jung would appreciate), often appearing to us outsiders as a police state themselves. Not including you in that contingiency, as I haven't read enough of your posts to know whether or not I'd consider you an offender. You seem to be more thoughtful than most from what I have seen of you so far. At least you have addressed the actual topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We come from such a fantastically different place on this that I am not sure how to answer the questions in a way that will preserve the basis from which they are offered. I can't guarantee that they will still mean what they are meant to mean once I've sent them on their way.

However, I will comment on the 'if Ni correlates to time, does Ne correlate to space' question. First, I have no idea what that means. People keep saying that Ni is 'time' intuition. That means nothing, objectively. Does that mean that Ni is willing to make predictions based on the orientation of it's intuition towards universality? I could see how Ni sees things in an eternal sense... but, I don't get how 'time' is so quintessential to this. Perhaps it is an apt shorthand to those possessing Ni. It means nothing to me in and of itself. 

Ne has nothing to do with space... at least as I understand the word in context. Space is a physical consideration, a real thing, and neither Ni nor Ne has anything to do with it I can only imagine. Ne answers the question, "What is the nature of this?" just the same as Ni does, just in a more objective and adaptive attitude. That's it. 

I've heard 'intuition of possibilities' vs ' intuition of time' ... but I think both are the 'intuition of nature' with Ni perceiving this on an eternal (and thus 'time' oriented?) scale... with Ne perceiving this in real-time (thus possibility oriented)? That's all I got.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm not really sure how to teach someone to develop Ne when they possess Ni instead of it. How does one teach someone to see with their ears? (And no, echolocation doesn't count...) An ENTJ could plausibly in a way grasp Ni and Ne by simply having an undifferentiated intuition function, but an INFJ by definition differentiates to Ni. So the only way I could see this working at this point is going back in your development in a sense to the point that even your intuition is undifferentiated...... you would need to let go of your introversion. You would need to change your entire outlook on things. You can't just go through the public university system and expect to come out a Te dom, you can't just go to a filmmaking workshop hosted by Seth MacFarlane and expect to come out an Ne dom, you have to make it true for yourself.


----------

