# Thread: Time, Change, and the Nature of the Dynamic IEs

1. ## Time, Change, and the Nature of the Dynamic IEs

This came from a conversation with leckysupport, and I thought I'd post it here.

Te and Fe monitor changes in individual objects. Te monitors external, directly observable changes in individual objects, while Fe monitors internal, inferred changes in individual objects. They do this one at a time, without reference or comparison to other objects.

Si and Ni monitor changes in relationships between objects. Si monitors changes in explicit, directly observable relationships between objects, while Ni monitors changes in inferred relationships between objects which are not directly observable. Long periods of time are not directly observable, and thus fall under Ni. Short periods of time are directly observable, and so fall under Si.

So, when Te sees a bowling ball rolling along, it sees that the ball is rotating at X revolutions per minute, and travelling at Y speed, etc. Si sees how the bowling ball interacts in directly observable ways with other objects, such as the floor and pins. It sees how the bowling ball bounces off the floor, creating a Te effect in the floor (the floor flexes slightly). It sees how the ball impacts the pins, creating a Te effect in the pins (the pins go flying).

Ni, on the other hand, sees how the bowling ball interacts in ways that are not directly observable with other objects. It sees how the bowling ball interacts with the floor over the long term, creating a Te effect (the ball wears down the finish on the floor). It sees how the bowling ball interacts with the pins symbolically (which is of course not directly observable), drawing comparisons to a cannonball knocking down soldiers, or mankind cutting down forests, etc.

I'm wandering from my point somewhat. To sum up, Te and Fe monitor changes in individual objects, and Ni and Si monitor how those changes affect other objects. Si monitors how objects interact in observable ways (limiting it to short-term interactions), while Ni monitors how objects interact in non-observable ways (including but not limited to interactions between objects separated by long stretches of time or space, or symbolic interactions, etc.).

The following section I'm not certain about, and I would appreciate input from Ni and Si Egos:

Hypothetically, the "future version" of a present object could be considered as a separate object. The interactions between a present object and a "future object" which are separated by too much time for the interactions to be immediately apparent, would be considered with Ni. The interactions between a present object and a "future object" which is close enough in time for the interactions to be immediately apparent, would be considered with Si. In both cases, the changes in the present and future objects themselves are considered with Te (or Fe, as the case may be).

The same would be true of "past versions" of objects, as well as objects separated in space by large or small distances.

2. I just posted something that might relate to the OP: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/680004-post14.html

3. Removed at User Request

4. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
This came from a conversation with leckysupport, and I thought I'd post it here.

Te and Fe monitor changes in individual objects. Te monitors external, directly observable changes in individual objects, while Fe monitors internal, inferred changes in individual objects. They do this one at a time, without reference or comparison to other objects.

Si and Ni monitor changes in relationships between objects. Si monitors changes in explicit, directly observable relationships between objects, while Ni monitors changes in inferred relationships between objects which are not directly observable. Long periods of time are not directly observable, and thus fall under Ni. Short periods of time are directly observable, and so fall under Si.
This is nice. I love Ti. Yes, I totally agree. Short periods of time would fall under the purvey of Si, whereas Ni would be more concerned with things at a non-observable distance, ranging from several days to several weeks/months (say, the outcome of a military encounter, to use a classic example), to several years, to the grand historical thrust of all the cosmos (okay, maybe that's a little much, lol.)

So, when Te sees a bowling ball rolling along, it sees that the ball is rotating at X revolutions per minute, and travelling at Y speed, etc. Si sees how the bowling ball interacts in directly observable ways with other objects, such as the floor and pins. It sees how the bowling ball bounces off the floor, creating a Te effect in the floor (the floor flexes slightly). It sees how the ball impacts the pins, creating a Te effect in the pins (the pins go flying).
I like this quite a lot.

Ni, on the other hand, sees how the bowling ball interacts in ways that are not directly observable with other objects. It sees how the bowling ball interacts with the floor over the long term, creating a Te effect (the ball wears down the finish on the floor). It sees how the bowling ball interacts with the pins symbolically (which is of course not directly observable), drawing comparisons to a cannonball knocking down soldiers, or mankind cutting down forests, etc.
Hmmm... I think it might be clearer to say that Ni sees how the bowling ball's interaction with the pins in turn interacts, on the mental landscape, with cannonballs and soldiers, people and trees, etc. In fact, analogy may be one of the purest "static" representations of Ni: x is to y as a is to b--your understanding of relation one (x is to y) impacts your understanding of relation two (a is to b). They have a dynamic relationship upon one another in your mind. Note that this reflects the airiness of Ni intellectually: the two relations (R1 and R2) reinforce the concept of each other, they sort of bounce off of each other to go up higher, but nowhere in this process have we tested the validity of anything, or proven any of the motions forward we've made have been at all true or accurate. We just sort of let the one conception play off of the other, in a totally logically invalid way; it's basically a circular definition (R1 is like this aspect of R2; R2 is like this aspect of R1). This is why Ni needs a thinking function, be it Ti or Te, to sort of put the brakes on the process and substantiate at least part of it. It "grounds" Ni.

Also, a big part of Ni is forecasting where the larger relation (R3, the relation between R1 and R2, lol) is going, so as to anticipate its own conclusion and thereby metaphorically "skip steps." It's nice to come back in with Ti and trace the steps that led from the initial information to the sudden "Ni revelation" that's like twelve steps forward, to see if the Ni idea really is grounded in anything besides the Ni-ego's head, lol. In other words, Ti makes sure that the conclusion really is derivable from the premises. Of course, if the information aspects thread is to be believed, the whole point of Ni "emergence" is that the conclusion is not derivable from the premises, the totality/conclusion is more than parts/premises. But I digress.

I'm wandering from my point somewhat. To sum up, Te and Fe monitor changes in individual objects, and Ni and Si monitor how those changes affect other objects. Si monitors how objects interact in observable ways (limiting it to short-term interactions), while Ni monitors how objects interact in non-observable ways (including but not limited to interactions between objects separated by long stretches of time or space, or symbolic interactions, etc.).
Agreed, and well stated.

The following section I'm not certain about, and I would appreciate input from Ni and Si Egos:

Hypothetically, the "future version" of a present object could be considered as a separate object. The interactions between a present object and a "future object" which are separated by too much time for the interactions to be immediately apparent, would be considered with Ni. The interactions between a present object and a "future object" which is close enough in time for the interactions to be immediately apparent, would be considered with Si. In both cases, the changes in the present and future objects themselves are considered with Te (or Fe, as the case may be).

The same would be true of "past versions" of objects, as well as objects separated in space by large or small distances.
Totally, as far as Ni. IEIs, for instance, are frequently focused on the relationship between the self that is too far in the past to have much experiential memory of and the self that is too far in the future to accurately forecast, and then the self in the present moment, the only self that can be "experienced" in an Se fashion. Volumes and volumes of ink has been spilled on the identity debate, that is, does I = I, even though multiple variants of "I" exist in different "locations" in time. And it really does reduce to Heraclitean flux (and the Platonic solution, which Aristotle quickly marched in and said was laughably unnecessary, an answer to an improper question): what is the constant across change? Does it exist? This is the sense in which Ni is related to time, because Ni, being more attuned to the long-term ways in which things vary, is also equipped to search for, and predisposed to doubt of, that which subsists throughout change (and of course, change necessarily occurs over time, although the idea of timeless causation is philosophically interesting).

So, um, in summary of all that ranting, yeah, Ni totally views past and future variants of the same object as different objects in a field relation to one another.

...that is, if they are the same object at all. ooooh! spooky! Heraclitus!

5. and are imperative and Rational, I don't think that they monitor something.
Te and Fe are functions of measurement. They make determinations that are inherent in the data that one has immediate access to. This is different from Ti and Fi, which are contingent on elaborate networks of conclusions as to what exists behind the scenes occasioning the data.

6. Removed at User Request

7. Originally Posted by silverchris9
Hmmm... I think it might be clearer to say that Ni sees how the bowling ball's interaction with the pins in turn interacts, on the mental landscape, with cannonballs and soldiers, people and trees, etc. In fact, analogy may be one of the purest "static" representations of Ni: x is to y as a is to b--your understanding of relation one (x is to y) impacts your understanding of relation two (a is to b). They have a dynamic relationship upon one another in your mind. Note that this reflects the airiness of Ni intellectually: the two relations (R1 and R2) reinforce the concept of each other, they sort of bounce off of each other to go up higher, but nowhere in this process have we tested the validity of anything, or proven any of the motions forward we've made have been at all true or accurate. We just sort of let the one conception play off of the other, in a totally logically invalid way; it's basically a circular definition (R1 is like this aspect of R2; R2 is like this aspect of R1). This is why Ni needs a thinking function, be it Ti or Te, to sort of put the brakes on the process and substantiate at least part of it. It "grounds" Ni.

Also, a big part of Ni is forecasting where the larger relation (R3, the relation between R1 and R2, lol) is going, so as to anticipate its own conclusion and thereby metaphorically "skip steps." It's nice to come back in with Ti and trace the steps that led from the initial information to the sudden "Ni revelation" that's like twelve steps forward, to see if the Ni idea really is grounded in anything besides the Ni-ego's head, lol. In other words, Ti makes sure that the conclusion really is derivable from the premises. Of course, if the information aspects thread is to be believed, the whole point of Ni "emergence" is that the conclusion is not derivable from the premises, the totality/conclusion is more than parts/premises. But I digress.
Dude, awesome. I have a hard time describing Ni, buried deep down in my Id as it is, so this is cool. Plus, it makes a lot of sense of the behaviour and thought processes of my IEI best friend growing up.

Originally Posted by silverchris9
Totally, as far as Ni. IEIs, for instance, are frequently focused on the relationship between the self that is too far in the past to have much experiential memory of and the self that is too far in the future to accurately forecast, and then the self in the present moment, the only self that can be "experienced" in an Se fashion. Volumes and volumes of ink has been spilled on the identity debate, that is, does I = I, even though multiple variants of "I" exist in different "locations" in time. And it really does reduce to Heraclitean flux (and the Platonic solution, which Aristotle quickly marched in and said was laughably unnecessary, an answer to an improper question): what is the constant across change? Does it exist? This is the sense in which Ni is related to time, because Ni, being more attuned to the long-term ways in which things vary, is also equipped to search for, and predisposed to doubt of, that which subsists throughout change (and of course, change necessarily occurs over time, although the idea of timeless causation is philosophically interesting).

So, um, in summary of all that ranting, yeah, Ni totally views past and future variants of the same object as different objects in a field relation to one another.

...that is, if they are the same object at all. ooooh! spooky! Heraclitus!
Neat. I was concerned that it might be too static and Ne-ish -- viewing time as composed of a bunch of individual static moments put together in sequence. But they way you describe it is more flowing and dynamic, so it may be an example of Ne and Ni approaching the same question from different angles.

Originally Posted by Pied Piper
Definitely not. Se and Ne are functions of measurement.

Then Fe and Te are action functions, and finally, what Krieg actually said refers to Si and Ni.
I don't like being a nitpicker, but it's spelled "Krig". It's Norwegian, not German. Think Vikings.

8. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Definitely not. Se and Ne are functions of measurement.
Irrational functions don't make determinations. They don't "judge". They recognize and identify. Their focus is on entities rather than facts.

9. Removed at User Request

10. Originally Posted by Pied Piper
Oh yeah, sorry, "krieg" feels natural, so I many times correct to "krig", but this time I missed .
At least you're pronouncing it right in your head. So many people pronounce it so it rhymes with "dig".