Discourse on Intuition

[Logos]

Imagination is not limited by something such as accuracy, but accuracy has its own merit.

Do you limit your imagination to only the known? There is also the unknown, perhaps fantasy, and sometimes visions which we desire and design.

I do not limit my imagination to the known, but the statement of the imagination as a real representation of a concept is subject to accuracy.

Can you see the object, or can you see a image of the object? I asked "do you see" not "do you see it".

Maybe I can't see it, but sometimes I can definitely see something.

Take away the direct object marker then. My meaning remains the same even if it changes your silly game of semantics.

[Brilliand]

Logos does hit on one thing that I thought was a problem with the explanation - that is, a source of confusion; the words meant to be examples of abstraction are used in a way that implies that they "describe their referent" - that the things the word symbolizes, not the word itself as a symbol, are being discussed. I recognized the problem and glossed over it in my head, but perhaps that is what Logos is harping on.

As a more detailed analysis:
"The world is round": is(world(the),round) -> This is a Thinking step (that you could actually skip and still understand the phrase, but it helps wiht analysis)

"world" means planet Earth, "round" is suggested as a property of it -> this is an Intuitive step

Earth is this planet here underneath me -> Sensing step (relates the phrase to the real world)

The conversion of the words to their referents is Intuitive; Sensing is needed to make the phrase matter in reality.

[mu4]

I do not limit my imagination to the known, but the statement of the imagination as a real representation of a concept is subject to accuracy.

Concepts are a imagination. They can be a imagination of reality. Concepts can be inaccurate as well and they are often anything but known.

Take away the direct object marker then. My meaning remains the same even if it changes your silly game of semantics.

Your meaning doesn't remain the same, because you still refuse to differentiate the object itself vs the concept of the object.

It's not a semantic game.

[Logos]

Concepts are a imagination. They can be a imagination of reality. Concepts can be inaccurate as well and they are often anything but known.

You are missing the point entirely. Your imagination is limited by the definition of certain concepts. It is impossible for example is conceptualize or imagine a circle that is at the same time a square. Although Ne is an abstraction of imagination, it is a concept with defined limitations of what Ne entails, and is thereby made subject to accuracy.

Your meaning doesn't remain the same, because you still refuse to differentiate the object itself vs the concept of the object.

It's not a semantic game.

Seeing is a verb that acts in conjunction with objects and is not a concept of the object. The "it" is implied in the very nature of the statement "I do not see" when it is used in reference to "the earth is round." Were you to use "I do not see" as a separate thought from the statement "the earth is round," then you would have a better case. But even the statement "I do not see" by itself begs the question of 'what.' "You do not see...what?" whether that be objects of our senses or mental abstractions. Ne, as an external function, cannot operate without objects.

Logos does hit on one thing that I thought was a problem with the explanation - that is, a source of confusion; the words meant to be examples of abstraction are used in a way that implies that they "describe their referent" - that the things the word symbolizes, not the word itself as a symbol, are being discussed. I recognized the problem and glossed over it in my head, but perhaps that is what Logos is harping on.

Yes.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Why can't imagine the earth is square as well as a circle? Flat and also round.

There is some statue in France, it might be in Paris, which tries to represent an object in four dimensions. We can visualise such an object within the confines of our three dimensional understanding far better than we can physically create it.

Maybe this is what hkkmr is getting at, can't say for sure though.

[Brilliand]

In common English, words are usually assumed to refer to the most concrete thing they can refer to. This is probably due to the influence of Sensors. While I usually think of such references in terms of the C++ operators & (reference-to) and * (object referred to by), there are English equivalents, which can be used similarly to Prolog statements.

In plain English: "The concept of a tree" can't be considered to refer to a particular tree, "The concept of the concept of a tree" is clearly even more abstracted, and "The thing that the concept of a tree is a concept of" is... a tree.

This is an Intuitive operation - "concept" is one of those words preserved in English for use where Sensing can't be allowed for. Anything conceptualized in this manner is related to Intuition (specifically Ne), as opposed to Sensing - although Logic and Feeling can certainly be involved.

"Tree," while in a way a concept, is too close to reality to be strictly Intuitive - it can be implicitly related to the nearest tree. Also, it is necessary to consider how abstracted the person is who is thinking about the concepts - if the concept of me thinks about the concept of the concept of a tree, then I am (conceptually) using Intuition; but if if it is always true that "the 'I' that I am talkign about is to the tree that is being conceptualized as I am to that tree outside" then, while Intuition is being used heavily, the issue at hand has still not escaped from Sensing.

[Brilliand]

I frequently use my imagination as a test of accuracy - it's a decent rule of thumb that if I can imagine it, it's plausible; if I can't, it isn't. Of course, imagination is not limited by the confines of experience - in Ne creatives at least, it is limited by the base function; my Ne can conceive of anything that is consistent within my framework - if I try to imagine something that doesn't make logical sense to me, I fail, because eliminates every possibility.

Question: Is the ILE base function subject to this as well?

Why can't imagine the earth is square as well as a circle? Flat and also round.

A cylinder?

I think hkkmr is taking the "normal" position in this thread - defending that the thread's material is not null and void for the reasons that Logos poses.

[Logos]

Why can't imagine the earth is square as well as a circle? Flat and also round.

You are confusing concepts, namely square, circle, flat, and round. I never said that you could not imagine the earth as not being flat and round. Your floor being flat does not make it a square. I never in fact mentioned the earth in my original statement. I said "It is impossible for example to conceptualize or imagine a circle that is at the same time a square". You are incapable by the nature of the concept of a circle and a square of imagining the earth as both a circle and a square, or properly, as a sphere and a cube.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I frequently use my imagination as a test of accuracy - it's a decent rule of thumb that if I can imagine it, it's plausible; if I can't, it isn't. Of course, imagination is not limited by the confines of experience - in Ne creatives at least, it is limited by the base function; my Ne can conceive of anything that is consistent within my framework - if I try to imagine something that doesn't make logical sense to me, I fail, because eliminates every possibility.

Question: Is the ILE base function subject to this as well?

I can't answer your question, but you make a good point.

Those with information elements at their roots will be in a better position to consider such things in comparison to those with judging at their core.

Pure information doesn't always have to make sense, aiding perhaps in being able to perceive the idea of a square also being a circle, or other things that's been discussed. The rules come after the perception.

To go back to your question, although my dominant function isn't Ne, it's a perceiving one and I can relate to what i've wrote above.

I think hkkmr is taking the "normal" position in this thread - defending that the thread's material is not null and void for the reasons that Logos poses.

Ah. I've found a lot of what's been said interesting. It doesn't have to tick all the boxes, some is good too.

[mu4]

You are missing the point entirely. Your imagination is limited by the definition of certain concepts. It is impossible for example is conceptualize or imagine a circle that is at the same time a square. Although Ne is an abstraction of imagination, it is a concept with defined limitations of what Ne entails, and is thereby made subject to accuracy.

No, imagination can create concepts, representative of the unknown. They may not be detailed, or describe reality in detail, but these concepts still can be imagined. These are not limited by concepts, but destroy them entirely, explaining them away.

Contradiction can be observed of the real against existing knowledge, but often there is a solution to the contradiction within the unknown.

Take quantum mechanics and the two slot experiment, here something contradictory to existing knowledge and prediction is observed. But one can imagine the unknown or give name to it in order to explain the contradiction that is not a contradiction. Call it the "hidden variable" or what not.

What we know we do not know can also be imagined and named.

The real offers contradiction to our abstraction, when this happens, how do we explain this apparent absurdity? Is it the real that is wrong or the concepts?

Imagination may be limited for you, but I assure you, it is not as limited for those that observe the real and conceive of the unknown. Theoretically I have the advantage in both.

Your limitation is that you take abstractions to be real. So a object that is both a circle and a triangle is fantasy made from poor propositions. It is you that miss reality does not conform comfortably to your abstractions and concepts. Perhaps it is reason that is limited.

You should know better then to use reason against intuition. Men better then you or I have made more complete arguments.

Ne, as an external function, cannot operate without objects.

It is a object function, yes, it does not need objects, it needs only the real. Objects can be conceived from the real.

[mu4]

You are confusing concepts, namely square, circle, flat, and round. I never said that you could not imagine the earth as not being flat and round. Your floor being flat does not make it a square. I never in fact mentioned the earth in my original statement. I said "It is impossible for example to conceptualize or imagine a circle that is at the same time a square". You are incapable by the nature of the concept of a circle and a square of imagining the earth as both a circle and a square, or properly, as a sphere and a cube.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Because this is the meaningless of debating a circle that is a square. You are limited by concepts which are not real, when concepts are only placeholders to be explained away when they become cumbersome.

[mu4]

I frequently use my imagination as a test of accuracy - it's a decent rule of thumb that if I can imagine it, it's plausible; if I can't, it isn't. Of course, imagination is not limited by the confines of experience - in Ne creatives at least, it is limited by the base function; my Ne can conceive of anything that is consistent within my framework - if I try to imagine something that doesn't make logical sense to me, I fail, because eliminates every possibility.

Question: Is the ILE base function subject to this as well?

I don't think it is limited by , rather my is limited by my .

I would say my is limited by my and . This would describe the flow of information in a process type, which is Te-Si-Ne-Ti-etc...
Where as for a result type it is, Ti-Ne-Si-Te-etc...

[Nexus]

There are two parts to a tree.

One part is its physical existence: that which reflects light and creates a sensory impression on the brain, allowing it to be physically perceived. The green leaves, the branches, the trunk, the bark...these are its external traits.

But it has internal traits, too, and these are precisely what the words that I use to describe the tree represent. When I say those words, an image is conjured in your head, a vague generalization of what a tree looks like. But that is not a real "tree." That is intuition: the vague representation of that which innumerable physical entities are actual manifestations of.

In this sense, language is a manifestation of human intuition. It is symbolic. It takes physical creates (sounds and pictures) and uses our capacity for symbolic interpretation to attach meaning to them. A leaf is not actually a tangible thing; it is a term that is used to refer to a "type" of thing.

Now there is another kind of intuition, one which examines not names of things, places, or any other kind of proper kind of tangible existence, but the processes that these things can be observed as parts of. Take the verb, "run." It is not the act of running in any specific sense; it refers to the abstract process that all instances of "running" have in common: the movement of the legs such as to propel the physical body. "Running" refers to all instances of this particular kind of movement that take place.

This is intuition. This sense of "sharing" qualities, or "not sharing" them, is what is examined by intuition. Intuition takes tangible, physical qualities, and abstracts them so that what is being observed might be related to other instances of the same physical qualities

Example: many people relate Ni to nostalgia in some ways. Here's why: we often find ourselves in a place, or hearing music, or speaking with a person, or performing some activity, and it reminds us of something we have experienced in the past. This "reminding" is the association of qualities of the present moment with qualities of another place in time. This is the "connection," the line between the past and the present, that is drawn upon making an association. Say I find myself in an airplane, looking out the window. In this situation, I am simultaneously bombarded in my own mind by feelings of wist, of times that I have flown to college, back home, to visit grandparents, to go to their funerals, to see friends, to leave them...the awareness of the "similarness" brings me back to all of these circumstances that share the abstraction of "looking out of a plane window" and brings all relevant experiences to the surface.

Next installment: Intuition as an "internal" element.

I think what you are describin gis mental intuition vs vital intuition.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Contradiction can be observed of the real against existing knowledge, but often there is a solution to the contradiction within the unknown.

Ah, that is interesting... Yes, my can deal with things that my has not drawn conclusions about. Then it is free.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You could be right. I've often seen him (Logos) as all Ti, so much that the Ne doesn't seem to be there. It's like ego Ti-Ti makes more sense than Ti-Ne. Maybe it is really Ti-overly focusing on the minute issues, Ti-Se.

Other reasons for considering LSI that come to mind: He complicates things unnecessarily, which is something ISTj intellectuals do, but INTj's do not. See all the other INTj's in socionics who's explanations are simple and concise. See Brilliands recent dissertation in comparison to Logos on this thread. I'm aware that Rick has also noticed this difference in the LXI's. I suppose there may be some LII's who aren't as easy to understand, like maybe Labcoat, but the abstraction of intuition is at least there more than Logos, among other things, he doesn't complicate the matter, more than is necessary for the difficulty involved.

[Nexus]

I've often believed that Logos was LSI too, since I got to this forum...probably more than many of the so-called 'core' LSIs, but not so much for his lack of intuition as for his consistency...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

I think Logos is LSI, for more than one reason:
- he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;
- he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.

Interesting. I'm convinced (not just by what I quoted, but by your examples as well).

Ne is internal. It's written in the canons of Socionics.

While I see that you want to correct him on his own terms, this is a simple mistake; he should have said "Extratim."

[mu4]

INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

[Brilliand]

Yes, LIIs enjoy simplicity and minimalism, afaict. I wonder how these relate to Ne vs Se.

It may be the connection of Intuition to language - that we are more capable of packaging our thoughts into symbols. Interestingly, the poetic language is not usually recognized as "normal English"; it seems that despite the Gamma nature of world commerce, the language it spreads is inherently .

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Sorry, but I could not refrain .

Anyway, I think the "objects" naming of extroversion is odd (what I also told ArchonAlarion). There's a lot of confusion about it - not that I fully understand extroversion.

I think the idea is actually slightly different - and, as I currently see it, flat-out wrong for Je functions. "Objects" refers to the static perceiving functions - bits and pieces that aren't moving - i.e. they aren't actions, they're things. Ji, being the connections between these things, is "Fields."

As I recall, Archon (and myself at a previous date) justified this for Je by calling Je "a thing that is moving."

[Nexus]

It may be the connection of Intuition to language - that we are more capable of packaging our thoughts into symbols. Interestingly, the poetic language is not usually recognized as "normal English"; it seems that despite the Gamma nature of world commerce, the language it spreads is inherently .

It is probably because types are used to extravertedly sharing intuited potentials, which require a big vocabulary to describe... types use other means to communicate

[Logos]

I think Logos is LSI, for more than one reason:
- he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;
- he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.

These are insightful:
Establishment.
Backing up with authority. He's trying to convince me with that .
He keeps the tail between his legs while there is a possibility to contradict "the law" - the things which he values most. Somehow in opposition to LII - the law has to prove itself. Actually I almost have no doubt after a forum search.

Ne is internal. It's written in the canons of Socionics.

Pretty interesting how you deal with things. As far as I though, my case is the reverse. That "plausible" drives my interest in things, I don't care about accuracy until I'm interested in something, so the hypothetical things I overlooked are still plausible for me for later times.

You could be right. I've often seen him (Logos) as all Ti, so much that the Ne doesn't seem to be there. It's like ego Ti-Ti makes more sense than Ti-Ne. Maybe it is really Ti-overly focusing on the minute issues, Ti-Se.

Other reasons for considering LSI that come to mind: He complicates things unnecessarily, which is something ISTj intellectuals do, but INTj's do not. See all the other INTj's in socionics who's explanations are simple and concise. See Brilliands recent dissertation in comparison to Logos on this thread. I'm aware that Rick has also noticed this difference in the LXI's. I suppose there may be some LII's who aren't as easy to understand, like maybe Labcoat, but the abstraction of intuition is at least there more than Logos, among other things, he doesn't complicate the matter, more than is necessary for the difficulty involved.

I disagree with your assessments, but would you mind if I copied this for and discuss it in another thread in What's My Type? Thanks.

I don't think it is limited by , rather my is limited by my .

I would say my is limited by my and . This would describe the flow of information in a process type, which is Te-Si-Ne-Ti-etc...
Where as for a result type it is, Ti-Ne-Si-Te-etc...

That's a good assessment of how primary and creative function work. While your is more flexible than mine, for me, my is limited by my . We are seeing this in the thread.

Interesting. I'm convinced (not just by what I quoted, but by your examples as well).

Et tu Brute?

While I see that you want to correct him on his own terms, this is a simple mistake; he should have said "Extratim."

That was my meaning.

It may be the connection of Intuition to language - that we are more capable of packaging our thoughts into symbols. Interestingly, the poetic language is not usually recognized as "normal English"; it seems that despite the Gamma nature of world commerce, the language it spreads is inherently .

's focus on concepts also helps to write concisely in generalities that lend themselves well to simplicity.

[Logos]

It is a object function, yes, it does not need objects, it needs only the real. Objects can be conceived from the real.

That was how I was using objects in my language games.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Because this is the meaningless of debating a circle that is a square. You are limited by concepts which are not real, when concepts are only placeholders to be explained away when they become cumbersome.

I'm not debating circles and squares. It was a misquoted example. I don't want to explain away circles. I like circles. I kinda love circles, especially concentric ones. Even my HA is a . Don't make the circles in my life disappear.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

I'm not debating circles and squares. It was a misquoted example. I don't want to explain away circles. I like circles. I kinda love circles, especially concentric ones. Even my HA is a . Don't make the circles in my life disappear.

Let's have the typing thread, old friend. I am sorry to have opened old wounds... but this matter can only be resolved in argument.

[Logos]

I don't mind, you may copy any of my relevant posts in the official thread.

About Cyclops's post, I think somehow the context of this thread should be kept, as he did not quote anything and the meaning would be lost without it.

True enough. A misunderstanding or misrepresentation then?

The thread has been made.

Let's have the typing thread, old friend. I am sorry to have opened old wounds... but this matter can only be resolved in argument.

I prefer discussion. Arguments are why we cannot have nice things on this forum.

[Brilliand]

I prefer discussion. Arguments are why we cannot have nice things on this forum.

I stand corrected.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[aestrivex]

An empiricist wouldn't say "It is a fact that it has not always been a fact that the world has been considered round

Because once there was no humans, and no roundness either." ...unless of course they were giving an example of a non-empirical statement.

source?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mu4]

How Ne and Ni value mystery is very different. Ne's don't value it for it's sake. But Einstein sees it as magnificent, something great and deep and - important - unified! Don't neglect this. For Ne's, there's not one mystery, but more (fragmented), not important until they don't prove potential, they find "something" in them.

I disagree with Ne types not valuing mystery for its own sake, I think there are those that are attracted or even worship mystery, and others who seek to comprehend it, and even some that would obscure it. I also think Ne is somewhat holistic as I think it provides insight into what is missing that would complete a whole. ILE's are typically dedicate to the study of the unknown, but to understand it although not necessarily to know it.

Metaphorically, the Ne is not interested in the cave itself, but that it may contain something interesting, to enter it Ne needs to find a coin or spot of blood not far. Those strict objects which are hidden in the cave are the interest of Ne, the pile of gold or bodies, when those are uncovered than it's over.

Ni's are interested in the cave as it can hide secrets, the whole idea of a cave, the fact that it hides something inside, unimportant of what it hides. The Ni is the explorer, the systematizer of caves, the speleologist, the unifier of cave exploration (especially crossed with Te).

It's a great difference in exploring a cave and being a cave explorer.

Understand that uniformity (symmetrical) dichotomy on both J and P (Dec/Jud and Mer/Ser), and you'll see things more clear.

What is the Ego, what is the Id.

Bohr's obfuscation of quantum mechanics was more a example of cave "hiding" with a predictable formula. "The mystery cannot be revealed! The cat is neither dead or alive!"

A example of Ni leading, Ne ignoring.

I think your ideas about Ni and Ne are often spot on, but you ignore the location of these functions within the mental and vital rings.

The Ne types often say "There's something hidden in the cave!" Such as a "hidden variable".

Einstein - "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Mystery to be comprehended not hidden! But perhaps, never to be "known" or "predicted".

, but not or

I think once you correct this mistake you will see the types a bit more clearly.

[Brilliand]

How Ne and Ni value mystery is very different. Ne's don't value it for it's sake. But Einstein sees it as magnificent, something great and deep and - important - unified! Don't neglect this. For Ne's, there's not one mystery, but more (fragmented), not important until they don't prove potential, they find "something" in them.

I view the entire field of possibilities as something that can be sliced like butter. I'll take for granted that Ne loves discovery whereas Ni loves the unknown for its own sake - I don't know whether that's true or not (Edit: I find Hkkmr's answer to his insightful). But it isn't true that Ni has a monopoly on seeing all knowledge as a whole; Ne does not have to be fragmented.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mu4]

@hkkmr: Ne's are driven by changing interests.

I agree with the first == Ne, a variable which you perceived as useful somehow. I don't agree with the second == Ne! It's like saying "I'm interested in caves because I am able to explore them". I don't say it's Ni, but it has no insight. Ne has to perceive a potential, the nature of the hidden thing to deserve exploring, they follow a thread of connections. The simple fact of being hidden is of no importance!
I hope we both agree that Ne types are not interested in what other people hide, unless something of interest.

But what about this: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Einstein

The mysterious is not hidden, it's merely "unknown". To experience it is perhaps , to comprehend it is perhaps . We can often experience what we do not know or comprehend, we can call this experiencing mystery.

It does not have to, but usually is. Extroverted functions are applied, introverted are generic.

Applied vs generic are not terms I would apply to extratim or introtim.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

I think you're all insane. Or at least those who think a circle can be a square. That's all.

This is something that even Ti-heavy thinkers such as Kant, Leibniz, and Spinoza denied was possible.

[Nexus]

This is something that even Ti-heavy thinkers such as Kant, Leibniz, and Spinoza denied was possible.

'
you can map the points of a circle onto a square by distorting the image. a square is also possibly a very low-resolution circle