# Does Intuition really exist?



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Knowing a kitten will become a cat is not Ni. It is not intuition. It is knowledge. It is experience. It is logic. It is engineering. It is conservation of an idea. Moving it from one place to another. It has to be learned.
> 
> Jung took a lot from Kant. Time and space are intuitions. Ni is like replacing the object with a primordial symbol. Like this great movie I recently watched Embrace of the Serpent. The Indian asks how many banks does this river have. The white scientist says two and explains his logic. Math. Experience. And the Indian says the river is an Anaconda. It has many more bends in our dreams. That is Ni. It is like primitive thinking. It projects a primordial "dream" or unconscious image on objects.


Why are they mutually exclusive? Without intuition you cannot understand that what is right in front of you will/can be something else over time, because intuition doesn't see just a cat, intuition also sees what a cat represents conceptually just like your example about the river. Ironically, what *you* are doing is categorizing things into two different boxes, when they're actually interconnected.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Knowing a kitten will become a cat is not Ni. It is not intuition. It is knowledge. It is experience. It is logic. It is engineering. It is conservation of an idea. Moving it from one place to another. It has to be learned.
> 
> Jung took a lot from Kant. Time and space are intuitions. Ni is like replacing the object with a primordial symbol. Like this great movie I recently watched Embrace of the Serpent. The Indian asks how many banks does this river have. The white scientist says two and explains his logic. Math. Experience. And the Indian says the river is an Anaconda. It has many more bends in our dreams. That is Ni. It is like primitive thinking. It projects a primordial "dream" or unconscious image on objects.


Ultimately, what I described is a mighty fine example of Ni. How the correlation of events produces another "certain" event. And, to quote SocionicaSys, Ne is about the essence of events and Ni about the relation of those essences. Converging, ever converging it is.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Ultimately, what I described is a mighty fine example of Ni. How the correlation of events produces another "certain" event. And, to quote SocionicaSys, Ne is about the essence of events and Ni about the relation of those essences. Converging, ever converging it is.



That is an algorithm a computer could figure out and it has no intuition. You are describing logic/reason/judging functions. Intuition and perception lets the thing paint itself. It doesn't categorize it. What is being described is a lab experiment. That isn't Ni.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Verity said:


> Why are they mutually exclusive? Without intuition you cannot understand that what is right in front of you will/can be something else over time, because intuition doesn't see just a cat, intuition also sees what a cat represents conceptually just like your example about the river. Ironically, what *you* are doing is categorizing things into two different boxes, when they're actually interconnected.


The river is based on unconscious data with no refinement. The cat is a concept that is constructed. A computer could do it. A computer could not project a primitive archetype from its unconscious on a river though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Minx said:


> snip


Then I don't understand what you were trying to say at all, and why.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The river is based on unconscious data with no refinement. The cat is a concept that is constructed. A computer could do it. A computer could not project a primitive archetype from its unconscious on a river though.


I agree with this - the cat is something else, it is not Ni. It is _construct_, the end point. Nor is it unconscious._ Knowing_ my mother will *eventually* die is not Ni. 

Poor ex;.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The river is based on unconscious data with no refinement. The cat is a concept that is constructed. A computer could do it. A computer could not project a primitive archetype from its unconscious on a river though.


No. You may be able to break the noticeable physical attributes of both down into algorithms, but they require outside interference to actually evolve over time like they do in reality, since computers currently lack intuition. Movement and processes over time are impossible in theory. You are arguing that a cat is a static object while a river is not, which makes no sense; Both a cat and a river evolve over time because they actually do, not because of a logical relationship that you can currently create/break down in a computer. To see how they are affected by reality, you can abstract both into primitive archetypes, and by doing this you see where things will go. This cannot be done by a computer(you would need an AI) because it's not logical.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Minx said:


> I agree with this - the cat is something else, it is not Ni. It is _construct_, the end point. Nor is it unconscious._ Knowing_ my mother will *eventually* die is not Ni.
> 
> Poor ex;.


It's only poor if you take it literally and fail to see the transformative action that takes place. You may think that cat is a distinct category, but how a kitten develops into a cat, that is within the realms of Ni, definitely. It is transformative. Similarly, thinking that a river is a static category and that only its swirling notion is what makes it dynamic is also seeing it as an utterly static concept. A river represents movement, but time also moves and propels objects into the future. They do not remain the same throughout and understanding how a kitten grows into a cat is examplary of this. You focus too much on the words themselves, not the concept that reside behind those words, what they represent. 

It's not about what a cat is or what a river is, but it is about what they do, how they change and move. At some point a river meets the ocean too and becomes a part of the ocean. Seeing that is also a part of Ni.



Verity said:


> No. You may be able to break the noticeable physical attributes of both down into algorithms, but they require outside interference to actually evolve over time like they do in reality, since computers currently lack intuition. Movement and processes over time are impossible in theory. You are arguing that a cat is a static object while a river is not, which makes no sense; Both a cat and a river evolve over time because they actually do, not because of a logical relationship that you can currently create/break down in a computer. To see how they are affected by reality, you can abstract both into primitive archetypes, and by doing this you see where things will go. This cannot be done by a computer(you would need an AI).


The problem is that he thinks change is an intrinsic aspect of a river (because it literally moves and changes due to its inherent flow) and is thus different from the inner nature of a cat which remains a cat once mature. I could argue this belies a fallacious attitude as to what a cat is too, since a cat ages and changes over time even though we do not quite have the same concept for those changes as we do kitten to cat. A better example that serves as a similar analogy is probably how humans are infant into child into adolescent into young adult into adult into elder.

Their issue is how they focus on A and B, not the action between A and B.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Entropic said:


> It's only poor if you take it literally and fail to see the transformative action that takes place. You may think that cat is a distinct category, but how a kitten develops into a cat, that is within the realms of Ni, definitely. It is transformative. Similarly, thinking that a river is a static category and that only its swirling notion is what makes it dynamic is also seeing it as an utterly static concept. A river represents movement, but time also moves and propels objects into the future. They do not remain the same throughout and understanding how a kitten grows into a cat is examplary of this. You focus too much on the words themselves, not the concept that reside behind those words, what they represent.
> 
> It's not about what a cat is or what a river is, but it is about what they do, how they change and move. At some point a river meets the ocean too and becomes a part of the ocean. Seeing that is also a part of Ni.


I knew it. I knew you were going to quote me, AHA.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Entropic said:


> It's only poor if you take it literally and fail to see the transformative action that takes place. You may think that cat is a distinct category, but how a kitten develops into a cat, that is within the realms of Ni, definitely. It is transformative. Similarly, thinking that a river is a static category and that only its swirling notion is what makes it dynamic is also seeing it as an utterly static concept. A river represents movement, but time also moves and propels objects into the future. They do not remain the same throughout and understanding how a kitten grows into a cat is examplary of this. You focus too much on the words themselves, not the concept that reside behind those words, what they represent.
> 
> It's not about what a cat is or what a river is, but it is about what they do, how they change and move. At some point a river meets the ocean too and becomes a part of the ocean. Seeing that is also a part of Ni.


That is my point; the Cat is not transformative - ''transformation'' in what you are described has happened - it is has been painted. It is fast; it is gone. Piecing together 'knowledge' about (X) kittens to cats is not intuition. The cat is pieced together, but it is not Ni. Ni has passed - it is unrelated to the cat. It is gone.

Death is known - it is a fact; there is no Ni there; this is experience - Ni has percieved already and left.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Minx said:


> That is my point; the Cat is not transformative - ''transformation'' in what you are described has happened - it is has been painted. It is fast; it is gone. Piecing together 'knowledge' about (X) kittens to cats is not intuition. The cat is pieced together, but it is not Ni. Ni has passed - it is unrelated to the cat. It is gone.
> 
> Death is known - it is a fact; there is no Ni there; this is experience - Ni has percieved already and left.


Intuition is basically the motor that use experience to make judgements. Experience usually is a processes occurring over some time I guess.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

The problem with the cat example is that anyone with some biology knowledge will know that every lifeform has a beginning and an end. So you can't use it as a reliable example of a specific function.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Intuition is basically the motor that use experience to make judgements. Experience usually is a processes occurring over some time I guess.


Indeed - it is an eye. The mind(s) eye, as stated - and it cannot 'see' itself. Your eye cannot 'see' its 'seeing'. (Ni) is feeding info - it is producing it; not making it. (Ni) does not create - it substitutes // fills gaps // imagines - it happens like a brain-cognitive-talk. It is like the involuntary unconscious ''directions'' telling my toes to move.

Thus, that cat is a poor ex; the ''transformation'' is knowledge; experience - it is known. The cat is not a result of (Ni) - it is a residue constructed, or left-over. Ni has left.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Entropic said:


> The problem is that he thinks change is an intrinsic aspect of a river (because it literally moves and changes due to its inherent flow) and is thus different from the inner nature of a cat which remains a cat once mature. I could argue this belies a fallacious attitude as to what a cat is too, since a cat ages and changes over time even though we do not quite have the same concept for those changes as we do kitten to cat. A better example that serves as a similar analogy is probably how humans are infant into child into adolescent into young adult into adult into elder.
> 
> Their issue is how they focus on A and B, not the action between A and B.


Yes.



Minx said:


> That is my point; the Cat is not transformative - ''transformation'' in what you are described has happened - it is has been painted. It is fast; it is gone. Piecing together 'knowledge' about (X) kittens to cats is not intuition. The cat is pieced together, but it is not Ni. Ni has passed - it is unrelated to the cat. It is gone.


You are confusing* the abstract understanding of processes* that are dependent on time and force with* principles unaffected by time*. Entropic brought up_ an example _of how Ni might manifest, not an explicit principle that relies on a set of premises such as the prior intellectual knowledge that a cat will age.



Mordred Phantom said:


> The problem with the cat example is that anyone with some biology knowledge will know that every lifeform has a beginning and an end. So you can't use it as a reliable example of a specific function.


I agree it's problematic because it opens the door to false interpretations, but it is still a perfectly valid example.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Minx Yes, because I purposefully ignore FAT whenever he quotes me because he always quotes me because he wants to be a contrarian. I have absolutely no interest in arguing with him because he is not looking to actually have a logical argument in the first place; he is looking to be disagreeable only. Since you actually agree with him and thought his reasoning sound, I will thus quote you. 

With that said, what @Verity wrote is the correct way of seeing what I wrote. You think it is a matter of logical deduction which belies your own cognitive biases here, but it is not a matter of deduction but it is a matter of observation. Death is not merely a static concept as you like to think, though it does suggest how you have a static style of cognition; however, death too, is a transformative state of being. Death is not the end point but death is equally much the beginning. Ever seen the movie The Fountain? I highly recommend that you do, as it explicitly deals with those things and demonstrates how death is not an end point but rather a new beginning on another journey and another aspect of our existence. Our consciousness as we know it may not linger on, but our experiences and the impact that we had in life definitely do. The fabric of our bodies is used by other organisms and the relationships we formed and ideas that we planted will continue to reverberate; death is not final, not by a long shot and so the cycle continues. Similarly, death or the destruction of something, is the seed for the new and the novel. In order to rebuild we must first tear down, just like how the phoenix rises from its own ashes. 

And to be perfectly clear, I am not a believer of the afterlife, but I do recognize how there is more to us after death and how what I did now will continue to reverberate many years from after I'm dead. Great artists such as Mozart died long time ago but yet we remember him and are moved by his art. Every human impacts this world in a similar way, no matter how small or minuscule.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Verity said:


> You are confusing* the abstract understanding of processes* that are dependent on time and force with* principles unaffected by time*.


_Ahhh_. Now it is* clear,* darling.

It mostly stem(s) from me not reading the ''cat'' example (&) using *Fear's* _critique_. Resulting in my improper understanding(s), it seem(s) you are referring to ''_parochial-like_ ignorances'' (i.e., The sun rises' (&) sets) - or (Ni) may have _manifested._

_Fair enough _- I was incorrect // _misinterpreting_ - I tried to say this (via) my first point; although - it is was misunderstood. As I do not convey coherently _pace_ Typology™, as I am wholly ignorant of it + rarely venture to this side of the forums and still relatively new.

Go easy on me, boys.

________________

Com.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Thanks all for your responses... Still reading.



Mordred Phantom said:


> The problem with the cat example is that anyone with some biology knowledge will know that every lifeform has a beginning and an end. So you can't use it as a reliable example of a specific function.


That's true but when I (Ni-devaluer) look at a kitten, it wouldn't occur to me that it would one day become an adult cat, even though I have some knowledge of basic biology as you note and I have two cats myself . I'd sooner think something like "Lol, that kitten looks like a unicorn" or "Lol, it looks like a cloud" before I thought about the transformation across time. I'd think about the commonalities of different species or something, looking at its features and thinking how they are similar to other species, maybe start thinking about how its eyes evolved for enhanced night vision (which is why cats have such big eyes), carnivore/omnivore eyes vs. herbivore eyes, or something like that instead of thinking of the transformation across time. It's not that I don't factually know that a kitten becomes a cat, it's that that fact wouldn't occur to me upon looking at a kitten.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

God, this thread was _delightfully _challenging and mind-boggling to get through. Some days I think I'm good at logic/intuition (in the Socionics sense) and then I read stuff like this... HAHA, nope.

I enjoyed the discussion and learned quite a bit from it! Thanks, everyone! :happy: (Please carry on if you want to)


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

The point I keep making is that people are focusing on two states of a cat: a kitten / a cat. Ni isn't about those, but rather about predicting and being aware that a kitten will definitely become a cat. Or the fluvial effect of a river on its environment. Or how death changes not only the one who passed away, but everyone involved. In short, I think that you could say that change and forecasts thereof = Ni. Hence:

Tzeentch = Ni
(but I guess his lies could also be NeTi...fml a lie within a lie!)
LOL!


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Entropic said:


> (...) I could argue this belies a fallacious attitude as to what a cat is too, since a cat ages and changes over time even though we do not quite have the same concept for those changes as we do kitten to cat. A better example that serves as a similar analogy is probably how humans are infant into child into adolescent into young adult into adult into elder. (...)


Yeah, the distinction between cat and kitten is ultimately arbitrary. Btw, they have those more refined distinctions for cats too. Kitten, adolescent cat (yes, same word), adult cat, senior cat, and then there is one after senior cat (my older cat is 15 lol so she is in that oldest category ). The distinctions between these are usually pretty logically defined, but they are still ultimately arbitrary, as it's a continuous spectrum that is divided up into discrete categories.

Not unlike, for example, the electromagnetic spectrum divided up as below:

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/VisibleLightSpectrum.jpg

Or even specifically the visible portion divided up into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, etc. This is again ultimately a continuous spectrum that is divided up into discrete categories.

Though I just realized this example (of EM spectrum) is not about change across time at all. Lol. :crazy: :crazy: 

I had some other relevant point to make btw but I forgot, so.. Yeah.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Time and space are projections. They are supernumerary. They are not in the experience. They are redundant. When one refers to time what they are really referring to is objects. Like aging. Or erosion. These are physical changes. Aging is just chemical and physiological changes. And space. I am not moving my hand through "space" I am moving it through molecules, air, etc. Nobody actually perceives time and space. It does not touch a sense organ. It does not come from "out there". It is not in experience.
> 
> Well we are in a debate about what something is or isn't so yeah.


I was pointing out your double-standard(your hypocrisy, if you will.).
I'm finally seeing that you are talking about perceiving in the literal sense of looking at something specific. Then we are talking semantics. No wonder we are talking around each other. Your reasoning seems to be this:
1. Time and space are concepts/projections.
2. Concepts are not perception.
=
Time and space are not part of perception.

Maybe I need to point out how _inductively _faulty that _deduction_ is.

Let's look at the definition for perception. 
_Perception: the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses *or of the mind*; cognition; understanding._

Perception is therefore not *limited* to actually physically seeing something.

Now let's look at the definition for conception.
_Conception: a notion; idea. Concept: a directly conceived or intuited object of thought
_

You are saying that these are not related and I'm saying that they are, because perception encompasses conception. It's called intuition, everyone has it. This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that perception might encompass_ everything_.

Introverted Intuitives automatically compare what sensory forces they are perceiving in reality(Se) to a concept that they are perceiving in their minds(Ni), removing everything unnecessary, and by doing that it perceives a pattern as to where something will go and where it has been(because we already have the concept inside our minds, according to Jung, but I'm not sure if the collective unconscious is brought up in Socionics, so let's leave that for the moment). Now, you could argue that the sensory forces in reality are also projections, but that just proves my point.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Verity said:


> I was pointing out your double-standard(your hypocrisy, if you will.).
> I'm finally seeing that you are talking about perceiving in the literal sense of looking at something specific. Then we are talking semantics. No wonder we are talking around each other. Your reasoning seems to be this:
> 1. Time and space are concepts/projections.
> 2. Concepts are not perception.
> ...


Psychology distinguishes between sensation and perception. Sensation requires outside stimulus. Like a bug landing on my leg. That is a sensation. Perception could be a hallucination. It does not require sensation. No outside input. Perception does not even encompass sensation. Time and space are perceptions, not sensations. 

The difference between conceptions and perceptions. Descartes with the Chiliagon. 

So I should say that nobody actually has a sensation of time and space. 

I disagree with perception being understanding. A person cannot perceive a Chiliagon. That eludes them. Though they can conceive it and understand it rationally. Conceptually.


René Descartes uses the chiliagon as an example in his Sixth Meditation to demonstrate the difference between pure intellection and imagination. He says that, when one thinks of a chiliagon, he "does not imagine the thousand sides or see them as if they were present" before him – as he does when one imagines a triangle, for example. The imagination constructs a "confused representation," which is no different from that which it constructs of a myriagon (a polygon with ten thousand sides). However, he does clearly understand what a chiliagon is, just as he understands what a triangle is, and he is able to distinguish it from a myriagon. Therefore, the intellect is not dependent on imagination, Descartes claims, as it is able to entertain clear and distinct ideas when imagination is unable to.[SUP][1][/SUP] Philosopher Pierre Gassendi, a contemporary of Descartes, was critical of this interpretation, believing that while Descartes could imagine a chiliagon, he could not understand it: one could "perceive that the word 'chiliagon' signiﬁes a ﬁgure with a thousand angles [but] that is just the meaning of the term, and it does not follow that you understand the thousand angles of the ﬁgure any better than you imagine them."[SUP][2][/SUP]
The example of a chiliagon is also referenced by other philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant.[SUP][3][/SUP] David Hume points out that it is "impossible for the eye to determine the angles of a chiliagon to be equal to 1996 right angles, or make any conjecture, that approaches this proportion."[SUP][4][/SUP] Gottfried Leibniz comments on a use of the chiliagon by John Locke, noting that one can have an idea of the polygon without having an image of it, and thus distinguishing ideas from images.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Henri Poincaré uses the chiliagon as evidence that "intuition is not necessarily founded on the evidence of the senses" because "we can not represent to ourselves a chiliagon, and yet we reason by intuition on polygons in general, which include the chiliagon as a particular case."[SUP][6][/SUP]


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Psychology distinguishes between sensation and perception. Sensation requires outside stimulus. Like a bug landing on my leg. That is a sensation. Perception could be a hallucination. It does not require sensation. No outside input. Perception does not even encompass sensation. Time and space are perceptions, not sensations.
> 
> The difference between conceptions and perceptions. Descartes with the Chiliagon.
> 
> ...


Then you are disregarding the actual definitions in favor of your own to support what you believe is true. 

I'm saying that Ni synthesizes the perception of real sensations(this is why Extraverted Sensation is labeled as Extraverted Perception) with the perception of a concept in your mind(no, this isn't rational), but somehow you can't seem to understand this fundamental concept.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> *Psychology distinguishes between sensation and perception.* Sensation requires outside stimulus. Like a bug landing on my leg. That is a sensation. Perception could be a hallucination. It does not require sensation. No outside input. Perception does not even encompass sensation. Time and space are perceptions, not sensations.


whats this?


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

When you sense a bug landing on your leg, you are perceiving it landing on your leg through sensation.

Btw, I'd like a source for this statement: 


FearAndTrembling said:


> Psychology distinguishes between sensation and perception.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Verity said:


> Then you are disregarding the actual definitions in favor of your own to support what you believe is true.
> 
> I'm saying that Ni synthesizes the perception of real sensations(this is why Extraverted Sensation is labeled as Extraverted Perception) with the perception of a concept in your mind(no, this isn't rational), but somehow you can't seem to understand this fundamental concept.


So you don't want to talk about conceptions without perceptions?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Verity said:


> When you sense a bug landing on your leg, you are perceiving it landing on your leg through sensation.
> 
> Btw, I'd like a source for this statement:


But I can perceive it without that sensation. Without a bug actually landing on my leg. Thus the distinction between concepts.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But I can perceive it without that sensation. Without a bug actually landing on my leg. Thus the distinction between concepts.


sure you can kind of experience a bug landing on your leg in 2 ways, one visual and one by the pressure on your leg. But also I can envison it from reading it here.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But I can perceive it without that sensation. Without a bug actually landing on my leg. Thus the distinction between concepts.


Then you are imagining it, and imagination is also a part of perception per definition. You are still making a circular argument. The differance between sensation and perception in psychology is the *theoretical* differance between a bug objectively landing on your leg(unbeknownst to you) and you experiencing/imagining a bug landing on your leg. That distinction does not apply here.

I.E. That the bug creates a sensation on your skin objectively is not the same thing as you perceiving the sensation of a bug on your skin. What you experience is not the bug on your skin, but the signals that are sent from your leg to your brain. Theoretically, our eyes do not see anything, only our brains. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

is this relevant?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

myst91 said:


> I would assume it feels like what you spoke of here:


Ideas are like space exploration, etc. that wild stuff that Ne egos post about on this forum. What I posted is not ideas.



> In a sense, any IE is in conflict with any other IE by virtue of not being the same information type. Anyway, prioritizing certain IEs over other IEs does solve some of the issue.
> 
> OK, I don't actually have time to read the thread so I'll stop here with my commentary.


Yes, in this case prioritizing preserving of the wholeness over dividing up of the wholeness. I meant to say this is a philosophical conflict more than anything; If I'm an Alpha NT, I don't feel any internal psychological conflictedness between Ne and Ti. :tongue:

That's fine, thanks.


----------



## Wainoxg (Oct 24, 2020)

counterintuitive said:


> I'm skeptical that Socionics Ni/Ne or Jungian Intuition really exists. It's simply not physically possible to perceive things that aren't there.
> 
> Moreover, when people talk about getting gut feelings, hunches, ideas out of nowhere, seeing possibilities, and other things like that, I wonder why they are not more skeptical of them. If I woke up one day with a gut feeling or idea/possibility in mind, I'd be very skeptical of it. I don't think I've ever experienced that tbh. So given this, how do so-called Intuitives judge these gut feelings and ideas?
> 
> ...



It's simple really, everything implies everything else. Intuition just taps you into that or at least Ne does. Things even imply other things that aren't necessarily manifest


----------

