Type my functions [ArchonAlarion split]
An Ne/Ti speaks like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jxrtes
Here's my own current understanding, and I don't vouch it as the truth or anything because it's so heavily based in a hypothesis about cognitive structure, obviously none of which I have the expertise to prove. I'm also more interested in the social aspects of socionics.
I think It's slightly more subtle than what you're claiming. The SEI will perceive the dog and cat as objects because that's what they are. Individual, independent and static. He hasn't really taken interest in them and is using Se to initially observe and catalogue them.
When the dog comes closer to be petted, or when the SEI takes interest, he enters the SEI's sensory field. Then aspects of the dog - like the dog's back - begin to be understood and manipulated as a field, similar to the SEIs own body.
Another example. When someone is drinking juice, the juice is perceived as an Si field in interaction with the person's taste buds but the hard glass is perceived as Se. If you splash the juice on your face, it's perceived as direct contact and through Se. The sticky residue is perceived as an Si field.
Those are simple examples (just for demonstration) that integrate into more complex systems depending on intelligence and other qualities.
Ne acquires glimpses into the nature of objects directly, upon sight of an object. For example, I see a mathematical problem, and without reference to an established system or any guide, the equation's form itself suggests how to manipulate the symbols to arrive at an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jxrtes
It's hard to describe any intuition, but I'll try to contrast it with Ni. Ni is similar to Si, except, instead of a physical body, Ni collects information into an intellectual body, and incoming information is made to fit or is assimilated into the system. This body could be a set of memories, experiences or even part of the individual's life-narrative. As such it is dynamic, constantly morphing and even slightly changed by the information it absorbs. An Ni dominant gravitates towards intellectual harmony in the same way an Si dominant gravitates towards sensory harmony. Unassimilated information represents danger and must be either investigated or avoided altogether.
Ne is the opposite of Ni. I see a piece of information, and rather than making it fit into a framework, I give it the complete benefit of the doubt. I think, which system best categorizes it? rather than how do I categorize it within my system? Since it's not always possible to categorize something, whether because it's too complex or because too many possibilities are present, Ne winds up with a chaotic intellectual life and no intellectual harmony. As a rule, whatever value the object has doesn't come from my own impression of it, but seems to derive from outside - from properties the object itself has.
An Ni/Fe speaks like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strrrng
The corruption will flood and suffuse us all eventually, no matter how hard we fight the current. Memories will fade, hopes will be sullied, people cleansed, killed, freed. We all lose ourselves somewhere along the way -- between our sense of duty and feeling of purpose, between expressing the truth and selling a good story, between fulfilling roles and changing the established order. Everyone falls -- often as nothing more than dried out vagrants in the desert, gasping as the stale fumes and particles are swept into us -- and lost foot-steps form the stencils that the cement for the buildings of tomorrow will be poured into. Innocents will die, the undercurrent will take care of them; the noble will perish in the silent darkness of the night ocean. Those who have been swept around and tossed back to shore will tell the tales of those formidable waters; memories will be enveloped in the relentless ripples of the waves that stole who we were yesterday and threw us into who we were to become tomorrow. It isn't some idealistic search against the current -- Fitzgerald got that shit wrong. It's an ineluctable venture into the endless land of tombs that we are compelled to set out upon, because fighting for our lives makes us feel like we are actually affecting something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strrrng
Writing is only substantial when the phenomena captured are swiftly sifted through the mind, commuted through the heart, and spit out through the ink. People really shouldn't bother writing if they think of things to jot down, sit around and word-smith, or restructure a paragraph several times for the best "feel." Motherfuckers don't even know what a feeling is these days. Like I've said before, words are bullets that penetrate into, and explode within the mind, their fragments coruscating into sporadic images and associations at lightning speed. You can't "know" what you write, you don't see the ideas just before they transfer to the paper; you just react as the impetuses hit you, striking with the tip of the pen in every direction of impact. Are people supposed to read your mind and linguistically masturbate their way to a level of "comprehension" of some neat idea that may or may not affect them? No. Read something once -- your immediate reaction is the sole beacon of quality. Write shit once, because the moment is the only thing worth capturing. Don't sit around, weaving in and out of time, slipping phrases into the empty spaces at arbitrarily-chosen intervals. Every perception, reaction, feeling -- they all need to be compressed into one pithy ball of substance. Put all the powder in the bullet, meld it together, and send it into someone's head. Don't break it down and show them how it's designed and what its purpose is and blah blah. People want to see shit, not be lectured about it. So many "writers" -- they forget this. They get carried away with things like imaginative poems, intricate storylines, eloquent syntax. There's nothing to define good writing by and you can't "become" a writer. It's just a potential, a sphere of energy that is either shattered and released or danced around and pointed to. The real writers are the ones who unlock windows of humanity, and let people feel a transitory breath of fresh air, catch a wistful glance into the vast horizon -- they actually create an effect in people that won't pass with the day and get tossed into the congestion of their dreams, only to be faintly recalled some years later. Take the timeless and evince it, take the universal and make it personal, take reality and the soul and smash them together until nobody can tell the difference anymore. That is what a real writer does.
Neither you nor I have the metaphoric attraction that Strrrng has. The Ni is obvious; His abstractions are subjective, and continuous. They are not module, you cannot break them up into smaller concepts, they are not replicable, they do not fit into a framework. His writing style is completely different. To me, the difference between static and dynamic is obvious. Your words are broken up into clearly separate, discrete parts, He has a single continuing train of thought.
My abstractions are not personal, they can be replaced, stored, modified, sythesized, and fractured. They are "module"
So if you will agree that Strrrng is at least conveying Ni, I am pretty damn sure I don't write like that and tbh as interesting as what he said is, I find myself often skipping through his big blocks of text because there is no associative concepts I can latch onto.
Do you see the difference?