The reason that Ni is related to time

[Hitta]

Most retarded socionics theorists typically trying to explain Ni as something relating to time. And while Ni does relate to time, this is a gross oversimplification of what Ni does.

In model B the context becomes much more clearer. Both intuitive functions are what I'd call the functions of relativity as they relate to how one views him/herself in relation to the environment, and how one views the environment in relation to the self. Basically the way one tags the meaning of the environment to the self will directly impact the potentiality that one gives the objects in the environment. Both functions basically revolve around how one views the flow of everything.

(-Ni) and (+Ne) functioning typically relates to the type of people are are rather philosophical and introspective. They typically see time and space as this infinite spectrum (+Ne) with unlimited potential. Time, so to speak, runs through their mind. The beta feelers are typically more spontaneous and dreamy. They typically have a romanticeqse personality, as their secondary functioning revolves around localization and roots from common sense derivatives. Alpha thinkers on the other hand, typically have a more long winded approach. Everything is globalized, as they actually attempt to see the root of the infinite spectrum.

(+Ni) and (-Ne) functioning is typically on the opposite end of the spectrum. +Ni is extrospective and adaptive. Typical philosophy is more ingrained in the wave of humanity, thinks of self as loyal to the hive. They tend to see things in a more restrictive, bound to whats in front of their face sense, adapting with the moment. Gamma thinkers typically have a down to earth common sense mind. They make good accountants, statistical mathematicians, stock brokers, etc. In business hierarchies they are usually the man behind the man, as they are extremely loyal. Delta feelers have a very motherly down to earth personality. They attempt to treat everyone as equal, while ironically hold on to their conforming persona. Disagree but accept is the slogan of Delta feelers. They may even go at great lengths to help others conform to their goals through positive reinforcement.

[Reuben]

I actually like the Beta NF better than the rest of the intuitives.

Very clear writing hitta, good job.

An example of beta NF: I sit alone waiting. The leaf falls, and whispers its silent descent - you did not come.

An example of alpha NT: It is imperative that we find the theory that unites all theories of the universe!

An example of gamma NT: My advice is this - do not invest in china now, the value-to-wealth differential is slowly growing wider as we speak.

An example of delta NF: Why do you behave this way? I detest it... but we must always tolerate different people in the society.

[DividedsGhost]

Both intuitive functions are what I'd call the functions of relativity as they relate to how one views him/herself in relation to the environment, and how one views the environment in relation to the self. Basically the way one tags the meaning of the environment to the self will directly impact the potentiality that one gives the objects in the environment. Both functions basically revolve around how one views the flow of everything.

This is what I thought too. Not that this has anything to do with your post, but its abstract is also a contradiction to the relations though; it suggests intuitive egos can form a successful relationship with any type through how they view and associate with them. And that's probably true - f the hypothetical relations.

[The Ineffable]

Both functions basically revolve around how one views the flow of everything.

Ne does not deal with a flow, unless you figuratively call how things mesh together in a whole like that, a continuous topology, which is however not conencted to time, changes, etc (not by itself).

[Hitta]

Ne does not deal with a flow, unless you figuratively call how things mesh together in a whole like that, a continuous topology, which is however not conencted to time, changes, etc (not by itself).

How one views the potential of objects is always directly related to how one one views the flow of their reality.

[The Ineffable]

How one views the potential of objects is always directly related to how one one views the flow of their reality.

But they are different things, Se and Ne for instance (force, momentum, potential) are merely vectors, they determine only a rectilineal potential path, which does not coincide with a continuous flow, but some instances along it.

[DividedsGhost]

But they are different things, Se and Ne for instance (force, momentum, potential) are merely vectors, they determine only a rectilineal potential path, which does not coincide with a continuous flow, but some instances along it.

Conceptually, yes, but in the scope of the ego's philosophy, its action has to come from an influence/understanding of the ID. It's a philosophical duality. Explaining one without the other function counterpart is more incomplete, more conceptual.

Do you disagree on this philosophical arrangement then?

[Hitta]

if objects don't have intrinsic value how do they flow?

[Hitta]

the idea of the 'flow' sounds more like Si imo. do you think it would be more 'correct', as it were, to refer to Si that way rather than Ne? PS: also, 'flow' does not sound like a characteristic of a static element. maybe you meant sth else tho, dunno.

Ni and Ne are philosophical tags. Ni and Ne both relate to the potentials of things, its how the mind philosophically categorizing the world. The essence, so to speak, of what one sees. Ne relates to one views the potential of objects in the world. Ni on the other hand, is a little bit more different to put into words. It breaks down into how the world views the potential of the self(yes I know this sounds cheesy). It is kind of the essence of how one feels, the center of the self; how one sees themselves moving through from moment to moment..... the perspective. +Ni types have a merged perspective, more localized, ingrained within the parameters of the web of the collective conscious. This causes a contained vision of objects because their viewpoint is ingrained within the confines of the collective conscious. -Ne is basically dependent potential. -Ni is the outsider/observer perspective. -Ni dominates feel unique, different. Because of this their perspective is rather uncontained and unbound, they tend to have a more open energy, as they think of everything as being possible and constantly changing. They have a more globalized view of the collective conscious because they themselves feel distinct from it.

To answer your question, its a different kind of flow. Also note that Si and Se are mirrors of Ne and Ni, as they have dimensionality vectors between them(when one of them is conscious/valued, the other set is unconscious/valued). The flow you mentioned is actually connected. I'll make a graph explaining that later.

[The Ineffable]

if objects don't have intrinsic value how do they flow?

Ha! You touched a sensitive point. I wrote a small article about it, actually starting off your other thread. I copy an excerpt from it, now that you and felafel brought it up...

"The unconscious information (of opposite Dynamicality) is a necessity, an immediate consequence of the conscious one. The awareness of intrinsic properties implies the extrinsic, and the other way around, although the conscious can use only one at a time. To use the classical mass VS weight example, mass is a (Static) subjective property assigned to the body, but it implies and is deduced from weight, whithout which mass would be just a meaningless label. On the other hand, weight (Dynamic) has no conclusion without mass, the assumption that the body itself has something inherent to it that makes it behave like that."

The point is that we can perceive a property only dynamically, based on the evolution and interactions of the objects (rea or imaginary), though we continue to identify the object having that property statically (inside it), a subjective approach [1]. These two views are however opposite sides of the same coin, one can't be conscious along with the other in the same instance (and the same object/property, of course). Although the action is directly affected by potential or power, its awareness makes the static perception its slave (and the other way around [2]). The better team makes the victory, but the victory makes the better team - it's just a matter of orientation of the conscious.
---

[1] - this is besides the point, merely a reminder of this implication: Static, Fields and Internal are all subjective aspects.
[2] - in the latter I in way agree with you, the intrinsic value determines the outcome, though I can't see how the flow can be determined from it, in fact it is necessary to ignore/dismiss the development as irrelevant.

[The Ineffable]

Do you disagree on this philosophical arrangement then?

No, I agree with it. My idea was that flow (but also interactions, extrinsic and synthetic properties, consequences, time, etc) falls wholly into one of the two partitions - namely Dynamic, therefore excluding Ne.

[FDG]

Seems rather overcomplicated.

[krieger]

internal dynamics of fields.

QED

[Hitta]

[Hitta]

Model is for intuitive dominants.

[rat1]

I actually like the Beta NF better than the rest of the intuitives.

Very clear writing hitta, good job.

An example of beta NF: I sit alone waiting. The leaf falls, and whispers its silent descent - you did not come.

An example of alpha NT: It is imperative that we find the theory that unites all theories of the universe!

An example of gamma NT: My advice is this - do not invest in china now, the value-to-wealth differential is slowly growing wider as we speak.

An example of delta NF: Why do you behave this way? I detest it... but we must always tolerate different people in the society.

Its ok reuben we like you even though we hate you

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I agree completely and you're a genius hitta.

If you showered more and were in better shape, and were gay- I would totally suck your cock right now. Damn. You are one smart dude.

(sorry im being too much like Reuben)

[DividedsGhost]

internal dynamics of fields.

QED

It's more like this:

example

INTJ      EGO: Ti Ne
INTJ SUPEREGO: Se Fi
INTJ  SUPERID: Sx Fx
INTJ       ID: Tx Nx

[krieger]

no it's not.

[InvisibleJim]

Problem. As Ni and Ne dominants both have relatively strong use of the opposing attitudes element, does an Ne dominant also have a reasonably competent ability to visualise such time aspects and also is an Ni dominant reasonably competent at bouncing off ideas? Is the only difference which comes first? Is the time difference moot? I wonder anyone can gauge theory without strong test points for proof.



I don't think that Ni is time related as is often described. It is however representative of a highly exclusive and insular thinking and interpretation structure regarding ideas and theories.

[DividedsGhost]

no it's not.

Okay, so you internalize dynamics. Then how do you do things like feed yourself, move your body, and make money?

[Hitta]

Okay, so you internalize dynamics. Then how do you do things like feed yourself, move your body, and make money?

All dynamic elements have an internal quality. The mechanism is kind of hard to put in exact words, but I'll give it a go anyways. Dynamic elements are the way that static elements relate back to other elements. In terms of personality, this means back to the self. They are kind of like the actual narrative of the person's view on the static elements, which roughly translates to how things flow through our perceptions. They are our perceptive filters so to speak.

[krieger]

Okay, so you internalize dynamics. Then how do you do things like feed yourself, move your body, and make money?

[DividedsGhost]

All dynamic elements have an internal quality. The mechanism is kind of hard to put in exact words, but I'll give it a go anyways. Dynamic elements are the way that static elements relate back to other elements. In terms of personality, this means back to the self. They are kind of like the actual narrative of the person's view on the static elements, which roughly translates to how things flow through our perceptions. They are our perceptive filters so to speak.

Postulate: Reality is causality (undetermined).
Postulate: Causality must have causes (or causation).
Conclusion: Events are due to causes; dynamics are statics and statics are dynamics.

Postulate: Reality is not causality (determined).
Postulate: Reality remains the same.
Conclusion: Reality is constant.

Then how do we study behavior? What is constant and what is causal?

Speculative philosophy of history asks at least three basic questions:

What is the proper unit for the study of the human past — the individual subject? The polis ("city") or sovereign territory? The civilization or culture? Or the whole of the human species?

Are there any broad patterns that we can discern through the study of the human past? Are there, for example, patterns of progress? Or cycles? Is history deterministic? Or are there no patterns or cycles, and is human history random? Related to this is the study of individual agency and its impact in history, functioning within, or opposed to, larger trends and patterns.

And what is more important in analyzing behavior, how things are now and going to be (constant) or how they were (non-deterministic)?


Focusing on one aspect of pre-defining dynamics as storytelling through describing static elements, is just a focus. Why should I accept your (constant) focus as truth over mine?

[DividedsGhost]

If you can't answer simple questions, others won't listen to you. Good thing that's my goal.

[krieger]

If you can't answer simple questions, others won't listen to you. Good thing that's my goal.

[Hitta]

Postulate: Reality is causality (undetermined).
Postulate: Causality must have causes (or causation).
Conclusion: Events are due to causes; dynamics are statics and statics are dynamics.

Postulate: Reality is not causality (determined).
Postulate: Reality remains the same.
Conclusion: Reality is constant.

Then how do we study behavior? What is constant and what is causal?



And what is more important in analyzing behavior, how things are now and going to be (constant) or how they were (non-deterministic)?


Focusing on one aspect of pre-defining dynamics as storytelling through describing static elements, is just a focus. Why should I accept your (constant) focus as truth over mine?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[717495]

If we're saying alpha and beta are more similar by way of intuition, then that would mean they both have the same intuition in theory, with different focuses. But I don't think that they do, in theory alpha/beta are similar by way of Fe/Ti focus, but use different intuitions, which is already a given (I think?) Since all people think, feel, intuit, and sense.

[krieger]

lol. INFp Ti...

[DividedsGhost]

Nah, I expected this from you actually. You seem to prefer trying to make things personal in an effort to make your opponent look under-confident rather than making a good argument. You rarely engage people constructively when they attempt to refute your claims.

If you'd actually make an effort, you would see I'm not contradicting you, but including it in a broader system.

[DividedsGhost]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Point is, the ego feeds into the unconscious and the unconscious can overpower the ego.

If we're saying alpha and beta are more similar by way of intuition

How did you reach that conclusion?

[717495]

lol. INFp Ti...

lol @ ENFp Ti

How did you reach that conclusion?

OP said that.

[krieger]

Nah, I expected this from you actually. You seem to prefer trying to make things personal in an effort to make your opponent look under-confident rather than making a good argument. You rarely engage people constructively when they attempt to refute your claims.

If you'd actually make an effort, you would see I'm not contradicting you, but including it in a broader system.

try harder to sound coherent.

[DividedsGhost]

try harder to sound coherent.

I love you too.

[Hitta]

If we're saying alpha and beta are more similar by way of intuition, then that would mean they both have the same intuition in theory, with different focuses. But I don't think that they do, in theory alpha/beta are similar by way of Fe/Ti focus, but use different intuitions, which is already a given (I think?) Since all people think, feel, intuit, and sense.

How exactly do you think that Alpha intuition differs from Beta intuition?





That's Bukalov's model by the way.

[InvisibleJim]

I'm sorry sir.

I'm too busy pretending we can use a very generalized cognitive model to predict specific behavior!

[Beautiful sky]

Tcaud's statement that Ni is the effect (or at least his theory seems to make sense in the scope of what happens) of Te and Fe is somewhat correct because if you think about it, Te and Fe are dynamics of fields as in they perceive events in sequences, externally, these two functions kind of feed Ni, but Ni itself is the long reflection, internally, of these external happenings. So, in essence to be an Ni base, this type must be more pronounced in the individual than Te or Fe, but gets it's external events from Te or Fe.

[DividedsGhost]

This is ludicrous.

You're exchanging model A with a system of plus/minus that thinks beta and alpha intuition is the same. Your idea goes against Jung's functional concepts.

[InvisibleJim]

Ne-Si individuals who love categorization perspectives are always going to attempt to understand the Ni-Se action/movement/presence perspectives by applying a categorical definition and critiquing the category in which it lies when it is an irrelevant distinction.

[Hitta]

This is ludicrous.

You're exchanging model A with a system of plus/minus that thinks beta and alpha intuition is the same. Your idea goes against Jung's functional concepts.

No, I'm just completing the model, and I don't really care if Jung has an aneurysm over it.