saved.at Gilly bolstering his point by reusing "resting state" as an actual quality Bale wanted in the situation. Anyway I've been trying to put into words a functional viewpoint of the situation that involves Bale valuing Ne/Si instead. I just think that all this talk of "boundaries" is a bit misleading, like Se/Ni people are the only ones with "boundaries" lol.
I think that the way Se works is regulating external static boundaries so the dynamic nature of Ni can fester internally, unchecked..and that in turn, Ni's process validates Se's right to be static, giving it subjective value.
In turn, I think Si works a bit differently because the external unfolding of the field (which contrasts with Ni's internal unfolding) surrounds the internality of Ne, and ties back to it in support, the internal static subjectivity validating the directions that Si mutates or whatever.
I've wondered before if Si seems more "laid back" as opposed to Se because Si, having the field nature, is mutable, changeable, and seemingly accommodating, and you can more or less discern this more easily due to it having an external nature. While with Se (also external) all you see is objects in sharp disparity.
But actually I've been wondering about which functions can be termed as describing "boundaries" and why....perhaps you have the ones Se imposes statically as objects, and Si itself is also a boundary? However the notion I've been entertaining (and that makes sense according to my observation of people interacting with alternate thought processes) is that field functions tend to "eat" their corresponding object brother...and what I mean by that is,
You can have an Se valuing person who isn't that great (ie, uncontrolled, spontaneous, shakey, not ego function) at imposing Se boundaries natively, but still loves it (ie, a Beta NF)...and you can have an Si ego person who wields Si inherantly...and that what happens in their interaction, is that whenever the Beta NF strikes out on a mission or has a whim for Se (temperaments will play a role in how the energy to do so is exerted), the Si ego's Si will "eat" their (the Beta NF's) effort so to speak...because because you can contain objects within a field...and the interaction won't fit together for either person, but the Beta NF will feel frustrated because their effort to impose Se (which would lead to regulating the chaotic Ni) will simply be relativized into the Si-er's corresponding chaotic externality. It would be frustrating for the Beta NF because their static boundaries become nothing more than objects that fit into Si's constantly changing field connections.
I've heard Ne being referred to as "random", but in my mind it isn't random...given the accuracy, speed, and depth with which an Ne ego navigates through a ton of internal objects, ideas, and picks anchors to govern the unfolding of Si..you could refer back to the thread in which Sappho asks for opinions on her type...I said:
and then also what Riddy has mentioned about Ne:
So, you can kind of contrast the way an Se-er goes about navigating the external boundaries optimally, Ne-ers do this also, but internally. (Ne-ers are such internal baddasses ) So perhaps the reason people get the impression that Se-ers are more visibly "forceful" is because of the nature of internality vs externality...the Ne process is just not going to be as apparent...and I can see how Si sort of is a "boundary", due to it's external nature, (just a more connected one than Se)...but somehow to me the nature of Ne signals that it is in itself a sort of boundary...like an anchor, or the root of a tree...and I think that Ni in it's chaotic festering unintentionally violates Ne's solidariness by "eating" it, too...the Ne anchor becomes nothing more than a relative internal point, quality, or object, in a sea of Ni...and you can see how this would play out in an interaction...what comes to mind is an Si Ej trying forcefully to impose some Ne in their internal state which in turn regulates the Si externality very methodically...and might end up regulating others...and the Ni Ip goes "psh" and floats away...and you can see the point of view for each person, right? The Ni Ip is operating from a different thought organization system, and might not appreciate being regulated continually...but in the Ej's point of view they may be a leech, someone who floats along passively, someone who gets out of responsibility for their actions due to a very relative, chaotic internal vision...and even such a passive person may intrude on others by having the Ip nature bleed with little boundaries (inconsistant employment of Se)...and anyway, you get the point, but it's like, those aren't really because there are so many points of view and situations and contexts to navigate with these base definitions that I feel unconfident esposing specific "real life" examples, which makes it hard to respond to that when people request it, but I tried, so please don't hate
So I think both Se/Ni and Si/Ne can feel violated by trespassing of their respective boundaries..and that a seemingly otherwise laid back Si valuing person can go batshit when someone treads on that...in addition, Bale, being an Ti valuer as well, would seemingly have a rather rigid (consistant) outlay for how these principles apply and when and where..it reminds me of Gilly's way of justifying Bale in this thread...he seems to me to be referencing the fundemental connections of the principles of why Bale would do such a thing..."priorities of on set behavior"...to me that referenced, Bale's inner static, rather rigid perception of what the principles of onset behavior should be...(Ne + Ti)...having someone tell him to "calm down", relativizes the behavior into a wider context, making it fluid...I've seen Beta NFs react to a Si-ers imposition of some static Ne principle by seemingly tying it together with their Ni...added to that is the fact that a Beta NF will also have their Fe, assessing the dynamics and kind of filling the internal situation subjectively as they see fit...so the Si-er reacting to the inner Ne breach will be relativized into this chaotic, overarching Ni state, and perhaps flouted or manipulated as "unreasonable" or "throwing a tantrum" or told a "calm down" to undermine the Ne-er, making their case for the breached Ne boundary meaningless...and also, not trying to stereotype, but I've also see Si-ers tell some Se valuing person to "relax" about their imposition of Se...and it's not just that behavior you see, but rather how the field function effectively "eats" the object function...I haven't examined the judging functions for validity with this concept so right now I'm limiting it to Ne/Si and Se/Ni pending further investigation...
But basically I'll try to condense my point into, Bale's "tantrum" can be seen as maybe a repeated offense that seemed little but built up...due to his perception of external Si process...it has a way of building on itself so to speak, due to the field dynamic nature...but that doesn't mean he necessarily expressed his perception, instead perhaps giving a person leeway to see if they changed the offensive behavior..but eventually it could build up and really tamper with the Ne anchor of perception, leading to him reasserting his (not always explicit) boundaries seemingly violently, which may have to do with his internal state, so it's not reasonable imo, taking the internal state of a person into account, to simply say "He was a little bitch and this is unacceptable"...because a person's reactions are largely determined by their inner and outer perceptions and reactions to an environment OVER TIME...so I can see why he'd be seen as a lunatic by some, but I can also see how his reaction is justified...I've seen Ne/Si valuing people get very paranoid and rigid around Ni/Se'ers...because the Ni/Se, being themselves, will make the Ne/Se'er's internal anchors arbitrary...it won't lead to the corresponding Si process which protects and regulates the Ne principle...I mean how would you feel if the things that needed to be very static and clear for you were constantly put in flux by someone else...it's a very messy feeling and can lead to neurotic policing of your internal and external environment...of course there is an alternate viewpoint by the Ni/Se person so this isn't a criticism of them, etc. But yeah, it seems to me that Se leading people would be more consistant about the external boundaries being regulated...leading to NOT a "tantrum" or "aggression", but rather someone that appears less overtly aggressive because the outward display of disparity is already established, given the nature of Se as an external function. A display of Ne may seem very arbitrary given it's internal nature especially if the corresponding Si process isn't there to support it. so Bale's reaction, in my opinion, is due to his sporadic application of Si (which may be a charisteristic of ENxps in general) that is, he likes it but is not able to apply it in the natively consistant way of an Si ego Ip....and also, I think that his aggressive reaction may actually be protecting the Si process that he goes towards.
I hope this makes sense, cause I'm going crosseyed rereading it..
That's what I was getting at with the Ne disrupts and breaks apart Ni and Se disrupts and breaks apart Si. The other direction wouuld be like you say, "eating it up". Basically, the non-valued Pi causes the objective and boundaried qualities of the valued Pe to be lost in a sea of temporal relativity.