Originally Posted by
Bertrand
I think there's a misconception that Ni is more or less "deep" depending on where it falls... but I think how "deep" it is is more a function of IQ and study (and passion). For example, I know Ni users who only get into trouble with their Ni, despite very "creative" (expanded dimensionality) use of it. I think what you're seeing from me is actually just very well elaborated role Ni. But role Ni is in many ways the expression of the traditions of the culture I found myself in. In other words, Ni dom explores for its own sake, Ni creative has a more targeted "vision" they seek to implement, Ni activating is steadily running in the background coming out to play as the situation demands, Ni suggestive gives structure to what would otherwise be a mess... Ni role is just trying to make sense of the world in a way that stays true to "norms" in other words, its not particularly self serving. It has this aspect of being "the voice of the past" (or traditions). In other words Ni role has its own unique structure that can be more or less advanced and what you're seeing here is just a sophisticated expression of Ni role. The misconception is that any sophisticated expression of Ni must be Ni dom or Ni aux, but the reality, as I see it is, Ni in any position can have a sophisticated expression--rather the position informs the overall structure of how that Ni functions from within the organism. And when Ni role turns in on itself in a complex way you get people like Jung and Peterson. I don't use Ni to convince myself of stuff the way Ni valuers do. I use it as guardrails and as a kind of delimiter on what is real but based on what tradition and culture dictate... I feel like Ni valuers have this ability to convince themselves of basically anything. And while since what I'm saying here might be unusual it might look like that, inasmuch as I'm misunderstood; I feel like I have a radically conservative approach to Ni, so conservative it looks like its running ahead... But its really not, its always looking backwards...
dimensionality expands the way in which Ni can be used but at its core Ni can go relatively deep without added dimensionality, in fact I think the weirdest expressions, but the most personally meaningful ones are deep expressions of low dimension Ni. Higher dimensionality in Ni just seems delusional to me, like when my ILI friends have wacky theories about shit. It may seem that this right here is a wacky theory, but from my point of view its actually in line with very traditional views of human wisdom... so traditional it seems wacky in a post modern world, but I would say my worldview in a lot of ways is primitive which is why I don't at all mind classical expressions of ideas. When Jung and Peterson try to dig up ancient collective wisdom in symbols, religion, shamanism, etc I feel like they're doing something different than say what people like Sam Harris are doing when they philosophize. Sam Harris is treading into the future with his, what I think are, ungrounded but appealling in virtue of their contemporary timeliness, whereas J/P is going into past trying to excavate a timeless wisdom that died and was buried along time ago. This is rooted in their own inability to creatively advance via Ni itself, but a way to via Si and Te refine the Ni of the past that has been embedded in our culture and that resonates with them. This process is so novel and rare that anyone does it it seems like they're running ahead but that is predicated on two misconceived assumptions 1) that "ahead" means Ni, which subtly denigrates Si "progress" and 2) that Ni is somehow superior in its ability to think or to synthesize a body of knowledge to Si and therefore anything sufficiently advanced or novel cannot be Si--in other words that there are creative limits on Si and I do not think that is the case.
I think there's a reason Ni is probably rare, because its usefulness is very limited and most Ni egos miss the mark and are kind of dangerous (Sam Harris, with his bad ideas, and EIEs with their lynch mobs, etc). If you think about it Jung and Peterson were delta to the core in their values and what they achieved and what they were trying to vindicate which is something greater than their own personal vision (Ni valuing) it was more like the voice of the earth (Ni role)
I think what we see a lot in ILI and IEI is just low level use of expanded dimensionality of Ni which comes out as what we "expect" Ni to look like: which is basically people who are neurotic. This probably sounds pretty neurotic but its more an attempt to unwind what I see as a complex misconception so I'm trying my best; I genuinely just want to explore this issue in a productive way...
One example I can think of to demonstrate low dimensionality high depth or cultivation would be Kobe Bryant. Pretty sure he's LIE but he's also one of the best basketball players ever. He's what Se looks like when this happens. Its rare and interesting but it doesn't mean he must be SLE or LSI, etc. In the same way egos with high potential may have it unrealized but they may also use their relatively underdeveloped function in nevertheless creative ways. In the end what it looks like is master of the fundamentals (Kobe, me, etc) vs unskilled creativity (every ILI convinced he's an anime)
one way to think about Si dom and Ni role is to think how there's an inherent conservatism to it that stays grounded in personal experience and any Ni elocutions are going to reflect that. Whereas Ni egos differ in character, they run ahead in a way that's hard to wrap ones mind around if you're not paying attention but they are iconoclastic and reacting to something (in the case of beta) whereas Si is trying to vindicate the past and is reactive in the sense its trying to stay true to something. So even though Sam Harris' philosophy can be kind of trite, it is radically progressive in the sense that it is not grounded in respect for the past the way say Jung's analytic psychology is. Ni has this ability to detach completely, whereas Si is grounded in a phenomenological and historical experience. Its the difference between banal progress and highly creative traditional approach
there's also a presupposition that higher dimensionality Ni is "right" and that "role" Ni could never be better, but that's like saying Kobe Bryant could never beat a SEE at basketball. Nietzsche has this entire passage on how "useful mistakes" are the foundation for our concept of truth--the difference to me between role and ego Ni is that role is not trying to make new mistakes but master the old ones, whereas Ni egos function to provide new ones. in that case they're the ones most likely to be off-base; yet they are also the ones, in sufficient numbers, who occasionally make a useful mistake (this is their evolutionary role--their service to humanity). But if your goal is no mistakes (e1), that is role Ni
this last paragraph is my palpable feeling towards philosophy and religion in general, and it is dominant Si with role Ni. the expression was provided via Ne and Te