Understanding Ne

[Cat King Cole]

I think this is important, considering the compound fiasco that just erupted into the "second date" thread. is a fairly straightforward function to understand and see in action, especially in the dominant position (though it looks a little different in creative position).

Dominant is centrally about forming abstract, general ideas. While this is a generic human skill, :ne: does it in a unique way. The images it forms can be verbal, visual, mathematical; whatever. I use "images" in a generic sense. When a type is talking to you about their ideas, they will use analogies and metaphor to paint a picture in your head, and emotive language to convey their sense of fascination. Being an Irrational function, it's all about impressing their imagery and level of interest on you. When you're talking to someone with and you're receptive to it, you find yourself mentally activated and very, very curious as the groundwork of ideas is built up and then resolved.

In the semantics study, one recurrent theme is "insight". likes to think of the world in terms of simple, highly abstracted ideas, which might be referred to as "essential ideas". The more specifics and facts are shedded, the more generalised the idea can become, and highly abstract, broadly applicable ideas are what moves toward. These ideas then tend to be communicated to others. This also falls under the topic of "understanding the main point". This tendency to look for "key", abstract ideas also produce's 's attitude to time: that it can be catabolised into critical points when various things were set in motion or determined.

In the creative position, is delivered as a final product, rather than a public process. creatives will deliver packages of polished insight, as opposed to the dominant presentation of a stream of things the speaker has found really interesting. When an XII delivers you and you're receptive to it, you'll think something like "Huh, that's interesting! You're quite right!"

Of course, dominants ar EP temperament. Their level of interestingness is proportional to their level of interestedness. A mentally activated dominant is fascinated and fascinating, but these states come suddenly an burn out quickly (on a micro scale, for perhaps tens of minutes; on a macro scale perhps for around a week). The rest of the time, you'd be looking for someone who openly shares their volumes of ideas and knowledge on a wide variety of things, and tends to draw lots of superfluous analogies (on this forum, hkkmr's connecting Socionics information processing to SVDs is an example).

Cognitive styles are also useful in distinguishing ILEs and IEEs. ILEs have a much clearer internal sense of reasoning, and will tend to produce clearly constructed ideas (I believe Y because of P, Q and R reasons): Gulenko likens this to formal logic, as thoughts have clear components and sources. IEEs will tend more to speaking in facts and general ideas, associating things with other things they know: Gulenko compares this to a fractal, as component parts are likened to other component parts within the overall idea, or to other ideas, without any catabolism into discrete logical parts (also consider that a fractal can be zoomed in on indefinitely: an IEEs ideas often reduce to larger "atoms" than an ILEs--in my own mind I've likened it to juggling onions, where an ILE is more like synthesising new molecules out of readily apparent atoms).

To flesh the cognitive styles out more, considering the rambling communication styles of users like Traveler and Anndelise, which explicitly reduce to fairly large concepts, or implicit refer to them, versus users like hkkmr and ephemeros whose ideas can be traced back to very simple ideas. From the outside in, you could say that IEEs produce "facts and connections" while ILEs produce "reasoning and arguments". Of course, argumentation is a skill and NTR, but this is looking at how thoughts are presented outside of a defensive position or a debate.

[Cat King Cole]

My argument is plenty fleshed out. Don't just cherry pick the topic sentence of the introductory paragraph as a "no duh" statement and throw the rest of the post away.

If I need to be more explicit, yes, any human being is capable of abstract thought. Metaphor and analogy are generic speech techniques. will use these techniques to paint a picture in your mind's eye the same, or in a similar manner, to how the dominant themselves have thought, or are thinking about it.

You do raise the point that other types tend to use their own figures of speech for central attribution. dominants for instance tend to expressions of "X is all about Y" (directly or implicitly), while tends more to association ("X reminds us of Y"). Endemic to however, and I reiterate, is using emotive language to draw you into the speaker's sense of fascination. "What's really curious is..." "I find it really interesting that..." "This lead us to the powerful idea that..."

[Cat King Cole]

Rick's already done the work for me with his ILE & IEE pages and his summary of the Semantics text. If anyone remains unconvinced, go check those pages out and reflect on people you know.

[consentingadult]

Dominant is centrally about forming abstract, general ideas.

To solve Ashton's complaint, it might be better to say something to the effect of "Dominant Ne is centrally about recognizing and describing essence and integrating it into a framework of essences". This also is more in line with the static nature of Ne.

[Cat King Cole]

I still thnk it becomes clear what I mean in the context of the rest of my post. I'll just clean up some of the logical connections.

"This is a generic human skill, however does it in a certain way" or something.

[consentingadult]

I still thnk it becomes clear what I mean in the context of the rest of my post. I'll just clean up some of the logical connections.

"This is a generic human skill, however does it in a certain way" or something.

You are making the same mistake all leading Ne-types do: assuming that other people will connect the dots too, or worse, that they are going to read all that you have written

[Beautiful sky]

is not about forming abstract and general ideas; they can see how existing ideas fit into either systems or relationships/their feelings, but not form an actual idea. Ne types look for ideas in objects; they are an extraverted perceptual function and as such they exist in the immediate experience of the object.

http://socionic.ru/index.php/2010-10...vskij-kuleshov

Ne is an idea collector; for my type, you can tell us what you want and our minds automatically search locals, places, references for information or resources; we are great at finding people who can do a job well. Just all out finding the potential for each person/object.

[krieger]

Ne is about representations of objects with a finite number of properties. the information is bounded, but one is fully conscious of the information. one does not just "point" at the object but truly keep it in mind, lucidly.

Ne differs from Se in that the specification of the object is underdetermined in the sense that some of the properties are not filled in. these "voided" properties are a potential area for rumination, ranging over options.

Ne differs from Ni in that Ni concerns unbounded information, potentially infinite properties, but unconscious and loosely referred to rather than truly "grasped". In Ni, only the reference rather than the object itself is consciously cognized.

[Beautiful sky]

I'll give you a good example of myself in use of Ne. I get into these strange patterns where I may become interested in a particular object, let's say cooking knife; I will search extensively, gathering as much information about them as I possibly can, even going to all kinds of stores to find and learn about them. The actual going after an object in this fashion is Ne at work.

[krieger]

the tricky thing about Ne is that the Creating (Focal) version of it is actually a more pure version of it than the Accepting (Diffuse) version. Accepting Ne places an emphasis on Ne's counterpart function Si. it basically doesn't firmly lock down which object is being kept in mind, but ranges over possible ones very quickly, Si's concrete token referent only being the fixed standard.

[Beautiful sky]

Is this a plus/minus system you're talking about in reference to Accepting or Creating?

[krieger]

no.

accepting = 1st function
creating = 2nd function

[Beautiful sky]

I keep which object is being kept in mind. When it's knives it's knives.

[Beautiful sky]

The tricky thing about Ne is that you can't stand your situation for long; you can't stand your stuff, your clothes, your shoes, your material things, and you just want to go after and discover something new. It nags at you. My regimented boyfriend, who let's me cook something different every night, also keeps me from taking off and exploring after something new because I have to get home and make dinner and sometimes that's like a chain around my neck. In that case, I'm glad he has to go away on a business thing for a few days and in which case, I take full opportunity to do some Extraverted Ne stuff.

[somavision]

This is a fine thread and i enjoyed the eesence of your post CKC
For me Ne is the reduction of one into dscirete units of static potential before reintegraing back into a hiolistic possibility matrix. for example
1 divides into 4 (each of which has a value of between a and f) once all the permuatations have been considered, potential proections can be mapped and considered, again held in a static state whilst outputs are considered.

It is from these permuatations that the maxim of Ne being the element of novel connections.

bearing this in mind, it is perhaps important to remember that it was dali who invented the lobster phone. Dali was not imo an Ne type.
yet it was Tim Vine (ILE IMO) who invented the Flag Hippo
What conclusions can be reached from this...
Ni is like a pretentious Ne perhaps? where permuatations becoming an encompassing truth.
Speculative perhaps, bullshit almost certainly.
Maybe Ne could be better summed up as a cup of tea. you have the information... there is a cup... it is of tea. Being a brit I assume that this referes to a cup filled with tea and hot water ready to drink. this is based of course on heuristic ( i like this word) reasoning. But what if it's not, what if it is the holy chalice of Mr T (cup of T) or something else less fabulous, no milk, green tea, lapsong suchong or something weird like that, a cup with just tea leaves, a tiny dolls house cup, a trophy style cup filled with tea, a tournament where people play the golf like game 'of tea' crap that's it.

But generally placing these discrete concepts that are contained within physical or abstract objects in different configurations and giving them different possible values, allows a greater capacity to measure potential. It's this ability to dissect 'objects' down from the immediattely apparent which give Ne types their relative strength... I believe anyway... perhaps.

For example, a while back I worked with an SLE comedian (very famous in the uk) and it was very apparant despite his wit and humour, hat he had great difficulty in dividing a disabled person as an object beyond his disability... To the comedian he was physically disbaled and he attributed to him the stereotypes he expected from a disabled person, as i do with tea, however he seemed unable to get past what was expected of a disability, it interested me.

Good post CKC

[Saberstorm]

I have to disagree with Consenting Adult. Essense should be about Introverted Intuition. The philosophical concept of Property is what Extroverted Intuition is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(philosophy)

We must first use the word object with justification. I use the word being instead because it is neutral as to whether it refers to a field or an object.

Essense is about the identity of the being in question. Property is about a being's nature - conceptualized in such a manner that can be transposed over to other entities. To get that Ni is about essence which is an identity that cannot be transfered, and Ne is about property which is a transposable or transferable conceptualized nature of a being, we need only take an idea, like what is a church, example, to see that its essence is that it is the visible Body of Christ. That is "essentially" a church. That is its non-transferable id. Its properties that can be extracted and include things like people, pews and priests.

Ne is a creative, associative function of the imagination that combines properties, not essences, into new configurations. Ne makes a snowmobile by combinding (in the imagination) the observed properties of tanks, motorcycles, and a snowskis. The essence of these things is irrelevant - the new configuration uses the properties of skis, treads and motorcycle to become a new idea. The essence of the tank was lost, and so too was the essence the motorcycle when Ne formed the concept of the snowmobile from them.

Ne canibalizes properties, digests them and remakes them. It therefore destroys essences. Ni takes essences and fully elaborates on them, enlarging our understanding without destroying the original being in question. I am too tired to spell check.

[consentingadult]

I have to disagree with Consenting Adult. Essense should be about Introverted Intuition. The philosophical concept of Property is what Extroverted Intuition is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(philosophy)

We must first use the word object with justification. I use the word being instead because it is neutral as to whether it refers to a field or an object.

Essense is about the identity of the being in question. Property is about a being's nature - conceptualized in such a manner that can be transposed over to other entities. To get that Ni is about essence which is an identity that cannot be transfered, and Ne is about property which is a transposable or transferable conceptualized nature of a being, we need only take an idea, like what is a church, example, to see that its essence is that it is the visible Body of Christ. That is "essentially" a church. That is its non-transferable id. Its properties that can be extracted and include things like people, pews and priests.

Ne is a creative, associative function of the imagination that combines properties, not essences, into new configurations. Ne makes a snowmobile by combinding (in the imagination) the observed properties of tanks, motorcycles, and a snowskis. The essence of these things is irrelevant - the new configuration uses the properties of skis, treads and motorcycle to become a new idea. The essence of the tank was lost, and so too was the essence the motorcycle when Ne formed the concept of the snowmobile from them.

Ne canibalizes properties, digests them and remakes them. It therefore destroys essences. Ni takes essences and fully elaborates on them, enlarging our understanding without destroying the original being in question. I am too tired to spell check.

It's a matter of definitions, to which you and I clearly disagree. The definitions in my version of socionics:

Ne:

•Understands the underlying essence (permanent traits) of humans and things
•Understands similarities and difference between phenomena (genus and differentia), sees reality as pluriform
•Can estimate the potential of people and things, and foresee possible outcomes
•Responsible for feelings of interest and boredom
•Speculates why things happen, but sees specific events as static and unchangable

Ni:

•Estimation of time passed, understand how a proces unfolds over time, predictive capabilities
•Understands how things change en evolve over time and throughout history
•Sees individual events as part of a continuous flow, singular view of reality
•Foresees the unavoidability of future events and connections to the past

[717495]

and both perceive what could be called 'essence'—just in qualitatively divergent ways, i.e.:...

Thx. This is a good explanation.

[The Ineffable]

Ne is about representations of objects with a finite number of properties. the information is bounded, but one is fully conscious of the information. one does not just "point" at the object but truly keep it in mind, lucidly.

Ne differs from Se in that the specification of the object is underdetermined in the sense that some of the properties are not filled in. these "voided" properties are a potential area for rumination, ranging over options.

It is precisely the other way around. Se perceives objects concretely and distinctly based on a selected array of attributes, leaving the unknown in the field of its conceptual compatible peer, Ni. Your second paragraph actually partially explains this complementarity between Se and Ni, potential attributes are left to the hypothetical and do not affect empirical perception directly.

Ne instead, is a perception of the objects through an unlimited array of attributes, hence it is impossible to talk about Ne and distinctness. Ne information correlates objects by its nature, it is impossible to tell where one ends and other begins, Ne-leading types aiming to have all objects interconnected in one or several big wholes.

A quick overview of the classical extensive definitions of the IEs, and less evidently the type descriptions, tells you I'm right.

[krieger]

you're not good at this bolt. just give up and walk away.

[The Ineffable]

you're not good at this bolt. just give up and walk away.

labcoat =

[krieger]

no bolt. most people are not idiots. it's just you.

[The Ineffable]

no bolt. most people are not idiots. it's just you.

You would make me feel like an outcast if I had the sense of belonging, dear labcoat.

[Radio]

Here's an example of Creating , in my opinion:

It's like when you look at a Dada or surrealist montage-- I just love taking fragments from everyday reality and recombining them. Everything in the natural world is so amazing, but because we're used to seeing it in one way we take it for granted. We can see an anthill or a roach or a flower or anything, but we have this frame where our mind recognizes an anthill and then moves on, without taking the opportunity to have the sense of awe that we could have if we really looked at it. The montage is about taking pieces of reality and rearranging them-- creating new frames to make you have to stop and look at things in a fresh way. It's basically taking pieces of everyday reality and rearranging them to show people the magic that is inherent in all of these things already.

http://pitchfork.com/features/interv...al-milk-hotel/

[The Ineffable]

Here's an example of Creating , in my opinion:

It's like when you look at a Dada or surrealist montage-- I just love taking fragments from everyday reality and recombining them. Everything in the natural world is so amazing, but because we're used to seeing it in one way we take it for granted. We can see an anthill or a roach or a flower or anything, but we have this frame where our mind recognizes an anthill and then moves on, without taking the opportunity to have the sense of awe that we could have if we really looked at it. The montage is about taking pieces of reality and rearranging them-- creating new frames to make you have to stop and look at things in a fresh way. It's basically taking pieces of everyday reality and rearranging them to show people the magic that is inherent in all of these things already.

You describe Ni very accurately, IMO. However, you claim that it is Ne Creative, I know that LIIs use imagination pretty much, for instance from IRL I know that LIIs and ILIs alike tend to be very interested in Sci-Fi. ALthough I think there are different reasons for it, I would like to hear the opinion on this description of other LII users, but not the ones I type Ni (Krig, Crispy, Archon, Yaroslav, etc) or Fi Ego.

[ArchonAlarion]

Ne is about representations of objects with a finite number of properties. the information is bounded, but one is fully conscious of the information. one does not just "point" at the object but truly keep it in mind, lucidly.

Ne differs from Se in that the specification of the object is underdetermined in the sense that some of the properties are not filled in. these "voided" properties are a potential area for rumination, ranging over options.

Ne differs from Ni in that Ni concerns unbounded information, potentially infinite properties, but unconscious and loosely referred to rather than truly "grasped". In Ni, only the reference rather than the object itself is consciously cognized.

+1

I have to disagree with Consenting Adult. Essense should be about Introverted Intuition. The philosophical concept of Property is what Extroverted Intuition is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(philosophy)

We must first use the word object with justification. I use the word being instead because it is neutral as to whether it refers to a field or an object.

Essense is about the identity of the being in question. Property is about a being's nature - conceptualized in such a manner that can be transposed over to other entities. To get that Ni is about essence which is an identity that cannot be transfered, and Ne is about property which is a transposable or transferable conceptualized nature of a being, we need only take an idea, like what is a church, example, to see that its essence is that it is the visible Body of Christ. That is "essentially" a church. That is its non-transferable id. Its properties that can be extracted and include things like people, pews and priests.

Ne is a creative, associative function of the imagination that combines properties, not essences, into new configurations. Ne makes a snowmobile by combinding (in the imagination) the observed properties of tanks, motorcycles, and a snowskis. The essence of these things is irrelevant - the new configuration uses the properties of skis, treads and motorcycle to become a new idea. The essence of the tank was lost, and so too was the essence the motorcycle when Ne formed the concept of the snowmobile from them.

Ne canibalizes properties, digests them and remakes them. It therefore destroys essences. Ni takes essences and fully elaborates on them, enlarging our understanding without destroying the original being in question. I am too tired to spell check.

Yes, the snowmobile example is spot on. The more extraverted, sociable, and "creative" I am, the more I am likely to be discussing ideas/objects in such a way, to an extent other types do not.

and both perceive what could be called 'essence'—just in qualitatively divergent ways, i.e.:

Descriptors

Comparmentalization - The action or state of dividing or being divided into compartments or sections.
Modularization - A self-contained component (unit or item) that is used in combination with other components.
Aggregate - A whole composed of many particulars; a mass formed by the union of distinct particles; a gathering, assemblage, collection.
Atomistic - Chiefly Philos. and Psychol. A theoretical approach that regards something as interpretable through analysis into distinct, separable, and independent elementary components.
Tensor - Math. An abstract entity represented by an array of components that are functions of co-ordinates such that, under a transformation of co-ordinates, the new components are related to the transformation and to the original components in a definite way.

Descriptors

Emergent - Science. An effect produced by a combination of several causes, but not capable of being regarded as the sum of their individual effects.
Apperception - Psychol. The action or fact of becoming conscious by subsequent reflection of a perception already experienced; any act or process by which the mind unites and assimilates a particular idea (esp. one newly presented) to a larger set or mass of ideas (already possessed), so as to comprehend it as part of the whole.
Gestalt - A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
Holistic - Of or pertaining to holism; characterized by the tendency to perceive or produce wholes.
Attractor - Math. A point or set of points in phase space which represents the state or states towards which a dynamic system evolves with time.

Good thematic analogies, as always.

Here's an example of Creating , in my opinion:

It's like when you look at a Dada or surrealist montage-- I just love taking fragments from everyday reality and recombining them. Everything in the natural world is so amazing, but because we're used to seeing it in one way we take it for granted. We can see an anthill or a roach or a flower or anything, but we have this frame where our mind recognizes an anthill and then moves on, without taking the opportunity to have the sense of awe that we could have if we really looked at it. The montage is about taking pieces of reality and rearranging them-- creating new frames to make you have to stop and look at things in a fresh way. It's basically taking pieces of everyday reality and rearranging them to show people the magic that is inherent in all of these things already.

http://pitchfork.com/features/interv...al-milk-hotel/

Nice example.


Sorry for the useless affirmations, but I really appreciated these posts, coming into this thread expecting garbage.

[Beautiful sky]

coming into this thread expecting garbage.

Negativist

[ArchonAlarion]

I'm a global positivist and local negativist

[Beautiful sky]

I'm a global positivist and local negativist

That's quite understandable if you are because Fe tends to act the opposite of that.

[The Ineffable]

Essense is about the identity of the being in question. Property is about a being's nature - conceptualized in such a manner that can be transposed over to other entities. To get that Ni is about essence which is an identity that cannot be transfered, and Ne is about property which is a transposable or transferable conceptualized nature of a being, we need only take an idea, like what is a church, example, to see that its essence is that it is the visible Body of Christ. That is "essentially" a church. That is its non-transferable id. Its properties that can be extracted and include things like people, pews and priests.

The essence, the way you define it, is the identification through Se. That is the function through which it is entailed a clear and distinct identification for every *object*. However that is a selection, the sufficient properties that can make this identification. Sufficient and comprehensive, but nothing more. Ne is an extended perception of the same nature, they are almost the same, except that Ne is contextual and therefore cannot conform a convention - the limited selection I was talking about. This selection is limited to the external attributes (that are limited), the extended perception is unlimited, since there are no external bounds to define it.

Take for example the iceberg, for a man without former knowledge about it:
- Se is the tip of it, which is sufficient to identify and deal with it. What is underneath is left to the imagination and can be anything.
- Ne is the perception of an ice body floating on water, nature of which is dependent of formerly seen similar objects [1]. If the subject ever seen ice floating on water, then he "sees" the part underneath, however not exactly as it is, but as blurry image that fits all his experience the best. For instance, although speculated, he woud definitely not see how deep it emerged, the actual depth can be detected only through Se - direct sensory perception. The represented object being generally inaccurate, for instance most people would not imagine the part under the water going as deep as it usually does.

This is the reason why Se types are perceived as using conventions and being narrow-minded by Ne types, and the same reason that makes Se types perceive Ne types as vague and mixing things up for no justification.

As a Ne type, I feel compelled to tell you that your description of essence jumps out in my face as completely fake, as the actual reason why people don't actually see the essence of things: they stick to some arbitrary distinctions, believing they convey the actual truth about an object. But this is subjective, I expect Se Egos naturally vieweing the matter from a totally opposite angle. Again, I point you to a concrete situation where this difference matters, in law: argumentum e contrario VS analogy. This conflicting pair of Bodies perception, in my opinion obviously for any reasonable person, comes directly from the contrary nature of Ne and Se.

Ne is a creative, associative function of the imagination that combines properties, not essences, into new configurations. Ne makes a snowmobile by combinding (in the imagination) the observed properties of tanks, motorcycles, and a snowskis. The essence of these things is irrelevant - the new configuration uses the properties of skis, treads and motorcycle to become a new idea. The essence of the tank was lost, and so too was the essence the motorcycle when Ne formed the concept of the snowmobile from them.

Again, that is most likely Ni, but not Ne. Ni is associated in Socionics with imagination and imaginary configuration, and that is for good reasons. Ne is a direct perception of interleaved objects.

One thing to be clear: imagining things, combining properties to create new meanigful forms is Fields processing. Everyone who claims the opposite is wrong by definition. Yes, experimenting different configurations, trying things out empirically - with no guarantee that it will reveal something - in different manners is Bodies, and for good reasons it can be associated with Ne, but doing it internally and obtaining sense, meaning, is Fields ("Introverted").
---

I think that your usage of "essence" is partially correct, it is related to the Static cognition.
---

[1] - although it is not constructed internally from concepts.

[ArchonAlarion]

So in your iceberg example, isn't the "essence" of the iceberg, as objectively sensed, fractured so that its property of "ice on water" can be compared to another example which has the property of "ice on water?"

I see snowmobile for the first time, and determine its inner workings/function based on my previous experience of things similar to it (such as tanks, motorcycles, and snow skis) - Ne, right? Same thing as iceberg...?. Are you saying that the reverse process of seeing such vehicles separately, and then imagining them combined into something like a snowmobile is Ni related?

I think I do both pretty consistently. Not entirely sure it's something type related, but maybe if some have a greater tendency not to and get along fine then it could be.

[Saberstorm]

I was trying to describe the creation of the snowmobile through the blending of diverse elements into a new whole... not its identification by comparing it to similar ideas. The imagination that made the snowmobile, that is what I was trying to explain. I could buy that what I described is Ni.

In any case what I was trying to say is that the Church is the "visible body of Christ" which is not visible per say, for it is the totality of believers and their souls at work building on the great commision, not the building. It is the "not visible" aspect of a church. The essence is lost if it is just a building. That is why I tried to pick something like a church and not an iceberg. The total spirit of the church is the essence, it is its "vibration." That vibration would be a blending of fields... and when that vibration is lost, then so to is its essence. Essence would be used in the sense of "metaphysical" identity.

There is not much "metaphysics" to an iceberg, the fact is that it is the outward property of water to freeze and then float. An iceberg is one of the many mutable forms of water. Not much "essence" there, just a changing property. The shape of the iceberg might be Se, its Ne would be its property that it is a form of frozen water, I do not see much Ni to it, except as its role in fate - the totality of changes and subsequent cascades of future changes brought about by its "magnificence." Si would be the localization of the changes inside the viewer, in terms of discomfort.

But back to the church, the shape of the "holiness of God, manifest in the hearts of believers" is something different. That is entirely non-material... yet it is something in socionics. I would say that it is the blending of fields... and thus Ni.

Oh, and I am totally not into being a smarty pants. I am still learning. In many ways, I am writing to clairify my own ideas and to seek their refinement. I am not trying to either correct others, nor proclaim the truth of anything. My bad for being a smarty pants...