Does Archon spew Ni everywhere?
I'm curious why many of you believe me to be some Ni ego (or Ni valuer in the case of Cyclops)
Like, for rizzo, what about me suggests Ni?
And if you want to get all specifimacal, how am I coming across as Fe creative, Te creative, or IJ temperament (In the case of Cyclops)
...
(Cyclops)
...
Go!
The end is nigh
Ni isn't "badass" at all. Therefore you can't have anego.
Ni smells like badass.
?
The end is nigh
Fixed.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
It's still quite amazing to me anytime anyone treats Cyclops' opinions legitimately.
As far as I recall, Archon's description of Si once seemed more like Ni...and his description of Ne and Si interaction seemed confused. Also, considering that he seems to believe that an individual uses their four quadra functions (in different quantities) while not using the other four functions (for example, claiming that niffweed isn't an INTp because he doesn't 'exude Se'), I don't place that much weight on his ability to type himself (especially knowing how he apparently views the functions). In addition, after reading and weighing up the analysis of people who have met him, the ENTp typing does not seem likely.
It amazes me that you don't.
Hehe Archon, I suspect you are Ni dominant! Not Ni valuing! But it's OK, be what type you are brother :-), I'm just some person really who posts on the socionics internet, maybe sometimes says something worthwhile but maybe not.. I am pretty sure I don't always get it right (but I hope sometimes I do). I do think Tom is an Ni valuer.
Sorry if i'm wrong.
And want to say.. I don't want to be someone questioning peoples types at random, recently I just post here for fun and such in my little ole life. Not to say I don't make some considered posts, I do try at times, as I think we all do. What's important I reckon is that you are happy with the type you have, and even more importantly, happy with your life and such.
I like you and I imagine it would be cool to hang out with you (but maybe not cool to hang out with me, lol)
Gulanzon, thanks :-)
I would hang out with you Cyclops even if we disagree lol
The end is nigh
What I'm assuming SubT is referring to:
Imo there are four macro elements which I have to make names for
Ne/Si
Se/Ni
Fe/Ti
Te/Fi
You cannot have Ne without Si. They build from eachother, so you obtain Ne information inferred from Si and the Si is given an interpretable form via Ne information.
Its like a landscape of playdough. Without something to put the playdough into obvious shapes, to "individuate" parts of the vast playdough soup, separating one part from another, than its just gonna be brownish goop.
And without the playdough, there is no tangible manifestation of these forms we wish to see. Just empty space.
So Si is the playdough. In a pure Si world there are no objects. No individual parts. Its just one big chaotic maelstrom of matter. Ne is how we differentiate and separate objects from eachother; from the Si flow.
So we Ne/Si-ers have an interesting deeply ingrained philosophy where we don't mind if individuals are sacrificed to the many... In terms of the physical world.
Let me elaborate:
To us, the world is a stream of rock, water, dirt, metal, fire, light, vegetation, flesh, etc.
Its okay if these things are melded together, systhesized, liquified and melted into the fluid "background".
Like when you use solder. The solder actually fuses with the circuit board, melting and becoming "one" creating a new material.
You can see this with Ne/Si architecture. Its smooth, rippling, fluid, organic. We sacrifice individual parts to strengthen the sum.
We kill the Se to feed the Si.
However, we still retain individuality through Ne. The Ne is like points of luminescence under the surface of a pond. Its there, but buried. Latent, inside, internal, potential, abstract, etc. The thing that separates objects from one another, what gives people, places, things an individual status is Ne for us. We separate the colorful flow of Si with abstractions that divide the Si into independent objects which we can now see as separate things.
This contrasts with the Se/Ni peeps, who individiate based on Se and the summation is Ni.
Thats why Se types (Ni ego types especially) need piercing stabs of physical stimulation to keep them from falling into an abyss of Si. The way Si destroys and melts the physical individual suffocates them. They can't find the Ne, so all Si is to them is a blanket of mud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Ne/Si is like (or at least a close analogy). The perception is of a directly tangible context (the sheet), where objects are separated from eachother by indirect abstractions. We cannot "see" the forms directly. the objects are not seen as tangibly discrete and separable. That would involve taking out scissors and cutting the sheet. Instead, although we can divide out the objects by perceiving their internal forms, physically or demonstrably, they are blurred around the edges.
Without its Ne counterpart, Si could not exist in any interpretable form. It would be similar to the sheet without stuff under it. Empty, void, formless, and flat. However right before all Ne was extracted, we might see a chaotic, rippling maelstrom composed of matter and energy.
Without its Si counterpart, Ne also cannot exist. Imagine, if you had suddenly snatched the sheet off the objects and they then disappeared. The "home" or tangible manifestation of these abstract forms has been removed so they cannot exist. Now the Ne collapses back in on itself into a singularity and then into void. Without the Si to reach out, grab, expand, and hence diversify into, the Ne must self-apply, reducing Ne to zero.
When working in unison, these elements are able to exploit and fuel eachother. Si gives Ne a context to not only manifest tangibly, but also to explore, diversify, and generate more Ne forms. Ne gives Si diversity and objectivity. Ne, being an object element, coalesces lumps of the Si flow into a luminescent node of Ne. these nodes are recognizable objects, separable from on another by virtue of the Ne installation of conceptual associations.
Ne/Si can play off eachother from both sides of the coin. We can manipulate the Si flow, melding and transforming it into such a way that bulbs of Ne begin to glow and brighten inside of it. We can also select, insert, and cluster Ne forms into fields of Si, thus causing the subjective nature of Si to mutate into a perceptably new and alternate enviroment. One could imagine the projects of an ISTp craftsperson for the former and the poking/probing acts of an Ne ENTp infantile for the latter
Representations of Ne>Si:
Representations of Si>Ne:
Can't see how Im not describing Ne/Si.
The end is nigh
I don't believe that Si as an abstract entity would be without form without Ne (although it's a moot point - healthy individuals use all eight functions, and not four). Si is like the warping of space-time by an object of mass - and in this sense it is tangible. The sheet analogy is unnecessary.
First of all don't try to pull the "unhealthy" card on me and apply it to my theory.
Secondly, the space-time deal seems legit although more explanation would be nice
And umm, because the elements don't exist outside of your head, Si is without form without Ne. If you cannot perceive objects than the subjective context has no form. You are becoming confused because you are thinking the elements are things loitering around outside of your cognition. They do not. They are passive input filters formed in your psyche. If you cannot (for some odd reason) perceive objects, then the subjective elements would be simply indecipherable.
The end is nigh
I wasn't saying that you were unhealthy. If you are interested in finding out your type according to your theory, and not Model A, I suggest that you make that clear in the initial post in this thread, or even ask for the thread to be moved to the "Other Personality Typologies" section to prevent people coming into the thread and making Model A observations about your type. Also, I thought it was Ashton who made popular the branch of Socionics that says each individual uses four functions only, not all eight.
You keep saying that Si forms can only be seen indirectly, and I don't know why. Just because you can't see gravity doesn't mean you cannot measure it directly (at least at the Earth level...I am aware that there are universal forces that dampen the real strength of gravity). And again, are you implying that Si is a subjective function? I think by "subjective context", you mean unique to each individual...if that is the case, then aren't all the functions "subjective"?
Si is like the wrinkles on a sheet of paper, only the paper doesn't exist. It is like the bends in space-time that occur as the result of the presence of mass - the forms do exist and they are tangible. With pure Si, it is possible to perceive such a form without the use of objects, it just wouldn't be a very helpful or useful way of describing Si. It would be like using a dot to represent the shape of a pyramid.
Y'know where physics ended up when it delved too small? Everything is a wave. You don't have an edge - it's just that a certain distance from your body (maybe a nanometer, though I'm making up that figure) you're so faint as to not matter.
Pe cuts off the body with a definite edge and calls it good. Pi takes into account the fading out. The results? Pe sensing is quite good for smacking things, touching/not touching things, poking holes in them and such. Pi sensing is good at regulating what environments will influence the body - because the environment really does influence the body, in a smooth, gradient manner. Pi would be more handy for avoiding poison ivy, or toxic fumes - things with truly indistinct edges, or a leeching effect (which doesn't quite make sense with sharp edges).
I'm not even sure which system I'm using any more - I may have mixed Classical and Archonian. Best-case, it's correct under both.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
My type in model A is also ENTp (or at least, the closest approximation)
Idc what Ashton is supposed to have done, and if I have parallel beliefs to him, fine, if not, also fine.
I'm saying that Si makes the Ne forms tangible.
Ya know those toys with pins, and you press your hand underneath it and the pins make the shape of your hand? Ne is your hand and the pins are Si.
Si is a field element, and I use the word subjective interchangeably with field. objects (hence objective) are the things that exist separate from the observer's mind. Fields require connecting the objects together, but these connections are entirely mental constructions/interpretations and hence do not exist "objectively". Ti and Si are demonstrable, by virtue of being external elements, but they are still based on "assumptions" of the relations of objects to eachother and the observer.
Like I said, Si is the external dough that you mold to create Ne abstract forms (or rather, you perceive being coalesced into Ne), and Ne is what is injected into the Si mold to give it an interpretable form as something other than a blob.
Then take the dough analogy and complexify it to see this elemental symbiosis as it occurs "irl".
The end is nigh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
