Ni and Negative Capability

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

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?

Until I reached this part I was going to write exactly the same - I think it's Ni, but also very IEI perspective. There's poetry I enjoy, and I think exactly what poetry you like is too individual to be ascribed to type, but I'd say a lot of what was said there is Fe-related. I completely agree with Ni as dealing with uncertainty - creating entire story out of a fact (idea? it doesn't have to be real) or two is what Ni-imagination is about, or at least mine is. Whereas Ne, I think, is more about making up these ideas. Randomly placing the dots vs connecting them? Ne places the dots and often the way of joining them is obvious, while Ni joins what it has, which allows it to predict where other dots will be. Ne-dots might appear seemingly out-of-the-blue... it seems as random to me as "seemingly random Ni predictions" mentioned earlier must seem to others. Discrete vs continuous, states vs change. There doesn't have to be a dot at the end for Ni to work, just as there doesn't have to be a line for Ne - but without them, they run wild (probably are a lot more creative, too).

I think Ni types are pretty much doubtful, but actually in the opposite way of Ne and what you described there as Negative Capability. I think they're continuously looking for a certainty they can't provide themselves. That mysterious thing they all the day have the feeling that exists "out there" is like what keeps them carry on. They see so many possibilities and so many people with ideas, so many "I got it" and "evrikas" that they are distrustful of all this bazaar and are continuously searching for that one and only reference, the standard where you can compare everything and tell its value.

This above is what it appears to me at least, and I think they go practically the opposite way than Ne types, in a way: Ne's have the continuous feeling that people relate to de-facto standards and overlook the details, the difference that other things - foreign things, unknown things which appear from time to time - make always and break all the establishments. I think Ni types put that on the fact that we didn't find our reference, yet, and this is our problem.

This is how Ti appears to me . Looking for absolute truth, one and only one unchangeable reference. I think the reason we get this idea of each other - because I know LII and ILE who felt like that about me, and I about them - might be because of static/dynamic misunderstanding.

I won't use the same reference for considering different issues; often it'll change midway, together with the issue, if these are even separable. Yes, reference is importance - context is everything. Dots might be independent, but points on line are not. No, I'm not looking for *one* ultimate reference, or whatever. It would be like limiting myself to a single dimension.

I can see where you're coming from with "they think this is our problem" - I had enough arguments with aforementioned Alphas for that. It seems to me as if they used one and only one reference regardless of whether they're discussing fantasy, politics or quantum physics. It'd be more accurate to say I think their problem is often not considering any context, or dismissing it as unimportant. This probably has some benefits (completely absurd/fantastical, random ideas), but overall seems ineffective.

[silverchris9]

Regarding the question of how what I describe differs from Ne, I think the difference is really encapsulated in terms of internal and external.

Ne-valuers work productively in situational uncertainty. I define situational uncertainty as uncertainty about what will happen. For instance, it's uncertain how the bacteria will react to being put in an environment with chemicals x, y, and z. This is wonderful, fruitful uncertainty for Ne-valuers. Ni-valuers do their best to eliminate situational uncertainty. But it can also apply to things that seem more "internal". For instance, what will the meaning of the metaphor in line 1 of the sonnet turn out to be by the sonnet's end?* Situational uncertainty is an external uncertainty insofar as it is concerned with how events external to the self will unfold.

Ne-valuers work less productively in conceptual uncertainty. I define conceptual uncertainty as a state wherein the relationships between signifiers and signifieds is unclear. For instance, in socionics, it's unclear what the IMs mean; there's no "objective definition" of the IMs beyond aspectonics, which is not that objective after all, because no one can agree on what exactly internal, external, fields, objects, statics, and dynamics mean. But that can also apply to things that seem more "external". For instance, if you receive unclear instructions from someone which leaves it unclear as to what objects or actions the individual terms in the instructions pertain. Ni-valuers work productively in conceptual uncertainty; we'd probably guess what the person was referring to by piecing together the system and concluding, "oh, he must mean x when he says y." Conceptual uncertainty is an internal uncertainty insofar as it is concerned with how the self should perceive the world.

I understand that the words "uncertainties" and "mysteries" might seem to pertain to Ne/"situational uncertainty," but as Keats means them, they refer to "conceptual uncertainty".

Some further thoughts:

Ne-valuers see "situational uncertainty" as an opportunity. An LII sees an uncertain situation as an opportunity to gather valuable data. Ni-valuers see "conceptual uncertainty" as an opportunity. An ILI sees, for instance, the uncertainty as to what matter is composed of as an opportunity to discover a new and more accurate paradigm (or "conceptual framework") for matter: maybe string theory, maybe something else. Experimental science is more Ne: questions about what will happen providing valuable data. Theoretical science is more Ni: questions about what data means, or better yet, how we should think about the data in the first place providing valuable opportunities to find a way of seeing things that better accounts for all the facts. Note that Ni is more abstract that Ne here: Ne is closer to the physical object by experimenting on actual things; Ni is farther from the physical object by focusing on questions of perception, or how to see.

Ni-valuers (especially betas) tend to try to remove "situational uncertainty" as quickly as possible, by deploying Ni to say "this is what will happen." Ne-valuers (especially deltas) tend to try to remove "conceptual uncertainty" as quickly as possible. I don't know how they do it though.

Ni-polr pertains to difficulty reading ambiguous signs. This obviously has many implications. It helps flesh out our understanding of why caretakers are don't like victims, whereas aggressors do. Caretakers see ambiguous signs as confusing, unnecessary, and unpleasant. Aggressors see ambiguous signs as an opportunity for resolving the uncertainty, which they find pleasurable. It also relates to the Aeneid, wherein Aeneas (a portrayal of and commentary on the LSE Caesar Augustus) constantly has trouble reading signs.

Introverted judging functions (Fi and Ti) try to make static forms (which often turn into rules) which are used by alphas and deltas to overcome conceptual uncertainty. For instance, when an ESE runs up to an LII and tells them about their day, they want help with interpreting unclear signs. The LII uses Ti to give them generalized rules that are applicable to all situations, since it's unclear what rules apply to this particular situation (if that makes sense). The Ti-style "universal laws" must be applicable to this particular uncertain situation, and as such resolves the uncertainty. I have a similar or analogous thought about how the extroverted judging functions deal with situational uncertainty, but I'm too tired to finish that idea.

Also, I've gotten a little bit clearer idea of how Ni-polr manifests in ESEs relative to this. I hope to post about it soon.

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 factsTM 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.

Interesting. I think that LSIs are the most interested in judging a proposition absolutely true or false, creating universal laws that are true or false always (just as Fi tries to create bonds that resist external change, so Ti tries to create laws--which bond two concepts just as Fi bonds two individuals--that resist external change). I think that LSEs are the most interested in assuming that something is absolutely true or false. In other words, it seems to me that LSIs are interested in resolving conceptual uncertainty by determining what is true and what is false, which is not that different from determining what exactly a given sign means. LSEs on the other hand, seem to me more interested in dismissing conceptual uncertainty and assuming that "the facts" are "the facts," that facts are absolutely trustable and secure, that certain givens are just givens.

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.

Good point. That's a clarification I should have made. Ni is interested in dissolving uncertainty, but not by trying to establish "facts" or running after a logical "reason" for something to have happened. Ni dissolves uncertainty by "feeling it out," determining what "must be" the case, not because of correspondence (as discojoe is fond of saying) but because of coherence; it only "makes sense" if sign a means x and sign b means y.



*I provide this example from my experience, although I may not have explained it well. In one of my English classes, I have a seminar leader who is IEE. While she generally likes my analysis of poetic imagery, she tends to say that I skip to the "meaning" of the poem too quickly. Instead, she suggests that I evaluate the meaning of each device, and then come to a conclusion about the whole poem, rather than reading the whole poem, skipping to "what the poem means," and then reading each device in the light of that meaning. I see this as an Ne-Ni conflict, or at least analogous to an Ne-Ni conflict: Ne wants to delay a conclusion about the "theme" or "message" of a poem; Ni wants to delay a conclusion about the "meaning" or "purpose" a specific device. It's a subtle distinction, and maybe non-existent, but I think it may be valuable.

Incidentally, one of my classmates who I know to be SEI absolutely adores her. When he mentions it, I internally smile and think: semi-duals!

[silverchris9]

Another note on Ne vs. Ni and uncertainty:

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that you could hypothetically put any kind of uncertainty on a sliding scale from Ni to Ne, and while things at the extremes would be pretty clearly something for Ne to deal with or something for Ni to deal with, things in the middle can be seen from either viewpoint, and engaged productively from either viewpoint. A good example of something in the middle comes from the music thread. To me, "use of eclectic, "random" melodic structures, styles, and concepts within the same composition" produces uncertainty. You can come at it from an Ne point of view, which is more like "oooh, what's going to happen next, surprise me, how's it going to unfold, etc." or you can come at it from an Ni point of view, which is more like, "how does this come together; what's the unified whole under all this chaos; what's the general impression I get from all these swooshes and changes and differences." Both types are likely to think that the other missed the point: the Ne person is likely to chide the Ni person for focusing too heavily on the meaning (in the sense of the unified impression given by all this chaos) and ignoring the variety, and Ni person is likely to chide the Ne person for focusing too heavily on the variety and ignoring the meaning. The reason I provide this example is because it shows a type of uncertainty that both Ne and Ni types can enjoy, but that they would be likely to come at (even if subconsciously) from different perspectives. Poetry is another example. Actually, most art can probably be interpreted either from a perspective that focuses on signfiers and signifieds or from a perspective that focuses on how things will unfold/resolve/end.

Also, I don't know that Ne really tries to overcome situational uncertainty (which is just another way of saying external uncertainty), but Ni definitely tries to overcome conceptual uncertainty, only by a slow and careful method. I guess the best way to say it is just to focus on the fact that Ni-valuers want situational uncertainty (which is just another way of saying internal uncertainty) resolved ASAP (and are thus willing to take the possibly less nuanced route to fixing it), but are willing to linger a little longer in conceptual uncertainty, while Ne-valuers are the opposite.

Also also, this has lead to some interesting reflections on the difference between Ne/Si types and Ni/Se types. One interpretation of Ne/Si is to say that they want their uncertainty external to themselves and their sensations internal. That is, they want all the mysteries to be in the outside world: what would Paris be like? How does DNA work? What reasons could she have for behaving that way towards me? They want as few mysteries as possible on the inside; they want clear relationships between signifiers and what they signify. Although wanting clear signified-signifier relationships also seems to relate to Ti somewhat, so I need to find the difference between the Ti version of signifier-signifieds and Ni signifier-signifieds.

Ni/Se types, on the other hand, want no uncertainty in the outside world: "this is how we deal with things, these are the rules, I know what course of action to take, and if I don't, I can figure it out ASAP." They like their uncertainty to be of a more internal character: "what is the meaning of life? What does it mean for me to take this action or that action? What does Wallace Stevens mean by the phrase, 'the hum of thoughts evaded in the mind'?" They want clear, immediate information about how things will turn out, but are willing to think a little longer about what certain things "mean".

Ne ennui is external: it occurs when the outside world seems like it holds no surprises. An example would be "I hate this town; I've already seen everything and everyone in it, and now there's nothing new to experience." Ni ennui is internal: it occurs when it seems like the patterns (which, as mental conceptions, are "internal") will never change. An example would be "I'm sick of life; everyone will always behave the same and no one will surprise me. It's not that I want people to surprise me just because I want someone to do something random; I want people to surprise me so that I have to shift my inner conception of how people work, 'cause once I understand something perfectly, it becomes sort of boring." Ne ennui occurs when there's a lack of external uncertainty. Ni ennui occurs when there's a lack of internal uncertainty. Also, this relates to what Wallace Stevens (ILI) means when he talks about ennui of the first idea: the "first idea" is the Theory, Form, or Idea of Everything (and therefore is Everything), and if one understands the the Theory of Everything, then one becomes hideously bored. Also, I'm beginning to see the shades of a perspective wherein a gamma Ni type might see Gamma Ni as more abstract than Beta Ni, in a way, precisely because of its objectivity.

Also, this implies that Freud was an Ni-ego, because he was all about the relationship between the signifiers in our lives and what they signify about our consciousness.

Language metaphor: when I talk about signifiers and signifieds, I don't actually mean that Ni really works in that way, focusing on what is signified by a given sign. What I mean is that the relationship between signifiers and signifieds is a great analogy for how Ni works. Also note that Ni does not seek a static relationship between signifiers and signifieds; it assumes that the signifier, the signified, and the relationship between the two, is all in constant flux, and that rather than trying to pin them down and make them unchanging, we should instead track the flux, guess where they're going next, figure out how the relationship changes and is changing. It's more of a second-order theory: rather than "this is how x works" it's "this is how x changes".

Math metaphor: Ni is concerned with the graph of the derivative rather than the graph of the function (because Ni sees the function as inherently too erratic to be graphed productively).

Also, this is curiously similar to Lenore Thompson.

I need some Ti to come in and clean this up, because it's just a series of random, unfocused observations/thinking out loudness.