Ni and Negative Capability

[silverchris9]

I've said this on like five different threads, but I figured I'd actually make a full thread about it.

I think that Ni relates to Keats' idea of Negative Capability. Negative Capability is defined as that state "when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason." Ni seems to be related to this capacity to work productively in uncertainty. Just as Se lives in a very certain, defined world (external statics of objects involves the least mental manipulation of any of the functions, it is the most directly attached to the external world, it is pure sense perception taken as fact), and this produces many if not most of the qualities we associate with Se (decisiveness, confidence, resoluteness), Ni lives in a very uncertain, undefined territory (internal dynamics of fields is the most mental function, the function furthest from the objective world; also, a great metaphor can be drawn to "undefined" functions in mathematics or to Heisenberg uncertainty in physics), and as such takes to situations of uncertainty where there is a lack of facts or certainty like a fish to water.

The obvious example is poetry, much of which is written by Ni-egos. Poetry (especially American poetry, which is heavily Emersonian) is all about throwing away the old forms and disregarding old certainties and reevaluating everything through one's self. When Whitman talks about "creeds and schools in abeyance" he is using an external metaphor for an internal process of not believing in anything that we consider to be certain, like religion. Similarly, when Rimbaud talks about becoming a "seer" by a "rational derangement of the senses," he is also using an external metonymy for an internal process; to stop believing in that which we take for granted is like not receiving information from any of our senses. And the thing is, poets, like Keats and like Shakespeare, work productively in the uncertainty that results from the disavowal of basic conceptual assumptions. They make their own discoveries with the aid of intuition, and above all they describe things even as they recognize that what they describe is contradictory. But in the metaphorical act of "speaking" the contradictory world, they in some ways create order out of chaos. They make valuable observations by trying to describe the world without any of the old conceptual models, without any facts or certainties.

There's also a good comparison to contemporary physics (more a gamma NT activity than a beta NF one, in general); we discovered that the old conceptual models were rubbish (that was largely Einstein's doing, I suppose), and now we're trying to build new ones, to conceive of a world made of strings rather than particles or some craziness like that.

This also relates to the principle weakness of Ni-superego (especially in delta STs): a lack of Negative Capability. An inability to work productively in situations wherein there is uncertainty and and mystery and doubt and a lack of facts. So LSEs can't really operate if you don't give them any facts to work with. They can deal with some blurring of the boundary lines, but when you tell them that the boundary lines we've assumed all along actually don't exist, and that none of the "facts" apply, they can't work effectively. This is a principle source of conflict between LSEs and IEIs. The IEI says that life is inherently uncertain, mysterious, and that's okay. The IEI has to believe this, because otherwise, life is boring. The LSE, on the other hand, says that life is full of indubitable or at least obvious facts, and we have to deal with those facts. The LSE has to believe this, because otherwise, life is nonsensical, and you can't make any progress.

In summary, there are some situations, including, possibly, the state of socionics in the West, in which there are no clear-cut facts, no basis or foundation of data that is commonly agreed upon as true, no certainty. True tragedy is one of these situations. It is in these situations that Ni-egos shine, and Ni-polr types have the hardest time. Ni is the function most suited to uncertainty, lack of clarity. Thus Ni is an intellectual/spiritual/psychological pioneer just as Se is a physical/practical pioneer. Ni makes strangely accurate guesses by observing the situation with minimal givens. Ni as a mode of thought works productively in uncertainty. It is "I don't know the facts, but I have a guess." In situations when the facts are truly unavailable/nonexistent (rather than the Ni-ego was just too lazy to go find the facts), Ni shines.

Some related thoughts. (feel free to stop reading here)

I've been generally considering this in terms of IEIs, beta Ni, which is paired with another very abstract function, Fe. But Te is the second most concrete function (after Se). So this produces two possible hypotheses about ILIs and gamma Ni. Either a) gamma Ni manifests this quality to a lesser degree than beta Ni, because it is "grounded" as it were by Te, or b) there is a sense in which Fe represents a sort of certainty just as Te does, and ILIs/gamma Ni has a similar sort of uncertainty, just related to a lack of Fe-certainty (for which I do not have a name) rather than a lack of Te-certainty (which we can call "facts" or "data"). Maybe part of the clue to hypothesis b is in Falstaff, who, Harold Bloom says, has perfect faith in language, where Hamlet has no faith in language (that is, he's in doubts, mysteries and uncertainties, even about the language of which his thoughts about doubts, mysteries, and uncertainties is comprised). Since Falstaff is clearly an Fe-leading type, maybe he in some way exemplifies the "Fe-certainty" I'm questing after.

How does this all relate to Ne? Isn't Ne also capable of being in mysteries and uncertainties? But "irritable reaching after fact" is pretty much a perfect xEI description of Te-seeking/valuing. What is the difference between Ne dealing with uncertainty and Ni dealing with uncertainty? Maybe both of the intuitive functions are good with this kind of stuff? I don't really have answers here.

How does this differ from or relate to Descartes' Radical Doubt, which to me is a much more LII sort of thing. How does it relate to rationalism or the lack thereof?

I'd also love a delta perspective on this, especially LSE. It must seem like just the opposite to LSEs, like IEIs are creating confusion where there is none or something (whereas I find that LSEs are clinging to an illusion of certainty where there is none). I remember Ryu made a blog post once that very much influenced by view of Te, wherein he argued that delta Te most purely seeks the truth, and from an aspectonics POV, this makes sense to me: delta Te is the closest thing to the objective world that will submit to mental manipulation. It is, in some ways, the perfect marriage of objective and subjective, or the limit of objectivity that will still submit to be taken subjectively, that can still be examined as a mental "object" or fact. But I can't quite get my mind around how deltas view these facts as essential and primary to nature, and yet my theories on life tell me that facts are just as essential and natural as uncertainty (see: wave-particle duality--or in this case wave-particle conflictality, lol), just somehow from a different angle. If I'm going to become magic and type transcendent like Shakespeare (or at least do a good job of making Te-valuing characters as more than stereotypes), I really want/need to figure this out.

[Blaze]

you're a trip silverchris. nice post. love how you think about your conflict, so IEI. i guess your conflict is lucky.

you ask how does Ne look at things? Ne is glad that things are not certain, since Ne wants to manipulate, morph, and change things. Ne works around obstacles that won't move, always looking for a better way. if this mouse trap won't work then i'll just try that one. when Ne is blocked by the unchangeable and is faced with the issue of acceptance, that can be a temporary frustration. when something offers little to no mystery, or possibility, that sucks. Ne looks at uncertainty as a puzzle i think.

[Brilliand]

you ask how does Ne look at things? Ne is glad that things are not certain, since Ne wants to manipulate, morph, and change things. Ne works around obstacles that won't move, always looking for a better way. if this mouse trap won't work then i'll just try that one. when Ne is blocked by the unchangeable and is faced with the issue of acceptance, that can be a temporary frustration. when something offers little to no mystery, or possibility, that sucks. Ne looks at uncertainty as a puzzle i think.

I think this is Rational/Irrational (leaning toward Pe) rather than Judicious/Decisive. That is, I think that SLEs are more likely to relate to this than LIIs are.

I've described creative in the past as trying to account for all possibilities, to limit uncertainty.

[Beautiful sky]

Ne see one thing (one important thing means) not the plentitude of things and opportunities, that's when Ne is in the third spot. One significant idea that is novel and facinating.

"More important what it means, how it corrects our previous
perceptions or our future. Intuitive types build a general
understanding of the world, where objects and people are
worthless without their connections to other people and
objects, without their past and future, without their hidden
qualities and meanings. An object or a person by itself is
not attractive to an Intuitive type. More important is why
this object or person came to his/her life at this stage of
life, what hidden meaning this object/person brings with it,
how it changes the future or the past. Often times Intuitive
types can easily tell how a certain object, quality or process
will develop over time just because they always trace
objects, qualities and processes in time, and just know the
rules."

[Brilliand]

More important what it means, how it corrects our previous
perceptions or our future. Intuitive types build a general
understanding of the world, where objects and people are
worthless without their connections to other people and
objects, without their past and future, without their hidden
qualities and meanings. An object or a person by itself is
not attractive to an Intuitive type. More important is why
this object or person came to his/her life at this stage of
life, what hidden meaning this object/person brings with it,
how it changes the future or the past. Often times Intuitive
types can easily tell how a certain object, quality or process
will develop over time just because they always trace
objects, qualities and processes in time, and just know the
rules.

Where is this from? It sounds like a description of specifically.

[Beautiful sky]

Where is this from? It sounds like a description of specifically.

It's more Ne; it's also similar to Ni; Ni primary can also access Ne. Just like I can access Ni easily.

Ne "They see the
potential, not yet
apparent."

Ni is time.

I see the potential of this forum as being the forefront of Socionics and assistance with type in the future for not only people interested in Socionics reference but also for serious students of Socionics.

[Brilliand]

Ne see one thing (one important thing means) not the plentitude of things and opportunities, that's when Ne is in the third spot. One significant idea that is novel and facinating.

sees one thing, yes - that is "objects" the attribute of all Xe elements. But curiously, I disagreed with this statement... because while sees one thing at a time, I would expect it to see things more often if in a stronger position (i.e. 1st spot rather than 3rd spot). So how is this that sees less when in a stronger position?

[silverchris9]

you're a trip silverchris. nice post. love how you think about your conflict, so IEI. i guess your conflict is lucky.

lol. Thanks. I just like talking about LSEs because I feel like I understand them fairly well, if only for the reason that I can normally take what I would think, flip it inside out in a way that wouldn't be harmonious, and that's the LSE take on things. It's a great way to make both sides clearer by contrast.

you ask how does Ne look at things? Ne is glad that things are not certain, since Ne wants to manipulate, morph, and change things. Ne works around obstacles that won't move, always looking for a better way. if this mouse trap won't work then i'll just try that one. when Ne is blocked by the unchangeable and is faced with the issue of acceptance, that can be a temporary frustration. when something offers little to no mystery, or possibility, that sucks. Ne looks at uncertainty as a puzzle i think.

But do you want to deal with a certain amount of givens, or are you cool with no givens at all? It's probably just selfish aristocracy speaking, but I like to think Ne is a little closer to the ground than Ni. But I could be way off there.

I've described creative in the past as trying to account for all possibilities, to limit uncertainty.

This is closer to how I'd like to see Ne (for the sake of everything fitting neatly into my system. But I accept that Ne might not fit into my system. But certainly it seems that the way Ne helps delta STs is to allow them to account for every possibility, which makes them not have to face the unknown, but without having to deal with the sort of vibes of unknown-ness that you'd get from Ni's seemingly random predictions. Also, Ne possibilities seem to be concerned with essentials of things, and thus what is possible according to the facts of the case or the evidence at hand, whereas Ni tends to be (in my opinion; I recognize that this may be invalid) less tied to the facts and hand.

[Blaze]

This is closer to how I'd like to see Ne (for the sake of everything fitting neatly into my system. But I accept that Ne might not fit into my system. But certainly it seems that the way Ne helps delta STs is to allow them to account for every possibility, which makes them not have to face the unknown, but without having to deal with the sort of vibes of unknown-ness that you'd get from Ni's seemingly random predictions. Also, Ne possibilities seem to be concerned with essentials of things, and thus what is possible according to the facts of the case or the evidence at hand, whereas Ni tends to be (in my opinion; I recognize that this may be invalid) less tied to the facts and hand.

this sounds right for delta quadra or for Ne in the creative position. i do believe that Ne is more reality based than Ni. Ni is the more intuitively intuitive function lol. i guess i wanna say that uncertainty is not a preoccupation of alpha, at least not for ILE. ILE is pretty chaotic and while possibilities are always being developed for a way around things. they're like little time bombs that go off at opportune moments. you always have something to offer up. i am not sure if this is a strategy to combat uncertainty. to my mind, you never know what's going to happen anyway....so you plot a strategy, knowing that it may or may not work out and knowing that even if it doesn't you have some other trick up your sleeve.

so perhaps you are right in that the above describes a back door approach to handling uncertainty; that Ne can function that way for others around an Ne leading. so if that is the case it's folks with Ni in the superego block who benefit from that back door approach most. but the Ne leading doesn't worry about uncertainty much.

[marooned]

This is closer to how I'd like to see Ne (for the sake of everything fitting neatly into my system. But I accept that Ne might not fit into my system. But certainly it seems that the way Ne helps delta STs is to allow them to account for every possibility, which makes them not have to face the unknown, but without having to deal with the sort of vibes of unknown-ness that you'd get from Ni's seemingly random predictions. Also, Ne possibilities seem to be concerned with essentials of things, and thus what is possible according to the facts of the case or the evidence at hand, whereas Ni tends to be (in my opinion; I recognize that this may be invalid) less tied to the facts and hand.

My issue with this is that the way being resistant to uncertainty is being described, it seems to apply more to PoLR than super-id. I think in the case of Delta STs the bolded part would have more to do with strong, valued than or . (just my $0.02, but I've been thinking this since the beginning of this thread, and finally decided just to say it)

[silverchris9]

My issue with this is that the way being resistant to uncertainty is being described, it seems to apply more to PoLR than super-id. I think in the case of Delta STs the bolded part would have more to do with strong, valued than or . (just my $0.02, but I've been thinking this since the beginning of this thread, and finally decided just to say it)

I think you may have a point. I'm having trouble articulating the difference between Ni-polr's fear of uncertainty and Ne-polr's fear of uncertainty. The best way I can say it is to focus on internal and external. Ne-polrs fear external uncertainty that undermines an internal system (both Fi and Ti, while not normative at their most basic level, do tend to create normative systems or "rules"). Ni-polrs fear internal uncertainty/instability that undermines external judgments. For instance, an LSE usually wants to judge a thing as true or false absolutely. But then along comes Ni-ego and says that well, yeah, from this angle it's true, but then also from this angle it's false, and then from this other angle, it's true AND false... that annoys LSEs. That's sort of a weak example, but perhaps where I'm going is making sense?

Do you see the uncertainty I'm describing as being something that Ne-polrs would be uncomfortable with, but with which Ni-polrs would be more comfortable?

In the bolded part I was trying to emphasize the relationship to Te or Ti, but the more I think about it, I do begin to doubt it. But then what is the difference, again, between uncertainty on an Ni level and uncertainty on an Ne level?

[Azeroffs]

Just some thoughts..

first off, as I understand it, Ni-base types function and flourish within uncertainty, but I think Ni is misconstrued as being described as uncertainty. Ni types have an imagination which penetrates uncertainty in order to dissolve it. These types are fully aware of the infinite uncertainty (Ne-id), but they want to look beyond that in order to find certainty. Often, they produce insight but must relinquish to the idea that nothing is certain which is why they are characterized as such. This is why they value bold, confident, and grounded Se types who deal with everything as if it is certain. It allows them to take a step out of their mind and just act on their insight.

Ne-base types love uncertainty. It gives them direction and purpose for discovery, analysis, novelty, etc. They need to experience reality in full as imaginary constructs are meaningless and assumed realities are counter-intuitive and block their sense of purpose.

In a word each:

Se: Known
Ni: Imagination
Ne: Unknown
Si: Experience

you can kinda see how they compliment, how Ns and Ss are strong at their respective elements, how they want to expand their valued strength, and how they want to escape their devalued strength especially in the case of irrationals.

[marooned]

I'm just not sure about this. I'm not sure if PoLRs have a fear of uncertainty at all.

Ni-polrs fear internal uncertainty/instability that undermines external judgments. For instance, an LSE usually wants to judge a thing as true or false absolutely. But then along comes Ni-ego and says that well, yeah, from this angle it's true, but then also from this angle it's false, and then from this other angle, it's true AND false... that annoys LSEs. That's sort of a weak example, but perhaps where I'm going is making sense?

I'm also not sure about this. So far the type I associate with wanting to judge something as absolutely true or false (the most) is LSI. I don't know that LSE has an issue with this, as they just navigate in their universe of ever-changing facts/info/events and feel entirely able to interpret all of it practically and concretely (at face value). I think that Delta STs are fine with something being both true and false depending which way it's looked at (although in a more concrete viewing of things I guess it couldn't be both). They probably like to see it from more angles (Ne super-id). They would probably not be fond of mystical interpretations of things though that don't match up with the facts^TM as they see them, and find such interpretations a waste of time and/or nonsensical if they're presented as the "one truth on high" of things, or something. And they can be critical of what they see as ignorant and misinformed opinions.

I think that PoLR is more afraid of uncertainty and things popping up seemingly out of nowhere to get in the way of their goals and therefore they try to account for everything that could go wrong beforehand ( HA) out of a paranoia that anything could come up to foil everything.

I mean, these are the stereotypical ways I've found the distinction to be viewed.