Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 23:16:19 GMT -5
My current understanding of Ni is a sense of congruence or incongruence with an internal image. I can't see what it is I'm comparing to what I'm trying to communicate right now, but I know whether or not what I'm typing is congruent or incongruent with whatever it is. For example, I changed, the third word of this post from conceptualization to understanding. Not because I saw the actual mental process I was implementing and thought "understanding is a better word to describe this phenomenon than conceptualization", but because I purely thought conceptualization is wrong, understanding is right. Understanding was a better representation of the mental (doing it again)...activity (there it is) I was doing. Any time I mentally go "Ni is..." that's when I think I'm doing Ni. I think the operant word is "is" in this case. Ni tries to get a sense of what things are, not physically, but mentally. Ni seeks to create an understanding of the nature of things mentally. I think I'm using Ni whenever I try to form a conceptualization of something.
I think Ni compares current conceptualizations against preexisting ideals to try to find a match. I'm comparing the last sentence with my Se experience of reality? This is more stream of consciousness at this point.
I think my Ni at this point is trying to form a mental representation of itself. I'm looking for what it is I'm looking with, but I can't see it because it's the tool. It's like trying to measure a ruler using the ruler itself.
I think I need to realize that my Ni is more of a creative function than a (doing it again, looking for the word to describe an idea) experiential function.
I think intuitive functions don't really see things that actually exist as much as they create (abstract) new data, that can either reflect actual reality (Se) or not (Ne). I don't really perceive the internal image with Ni, I more see the deficit or equivalence between the internal image and whatever I'm comparing it with. I've used Ni in the past expecting to see Ni with it, but I don't think that's possible. Ni/Se seeks to form mental models/abstractions out of real experience and Ne/Si seeks to form catalogs of past instantaneously formed models/abstractions. Another example of Ni would be when I was typing that last sentence and I thought that what I was typing didn't measure up to...something...but I don't know what. I think I said it right initially, Ni tells me when things don't measure up to what they could be (I think that's it) and Te seeks to form an understanding of how a system works (in the case the system would be my mind). Which is why I'm stuck in this NiTe loop of *makes a model* "not good enough" *makes a model* "not good enough".
I think Ni compares current conceptualizations against preexisting ideals to try to find a match. I'm comparing the last sentence with my Se experience of reality? This is more stream of consciousness at this point.
I think my Ni at this point is trying to form a mental representation of itself. I'm looking for what it is I'm looking with, but I can't see it because it's the tool. It's like trying to measure a ruler using the ruler itself.
I think I need to realize that my Ni is more of a creative function than a (doing it again, looking for the word to describe an idea) experiential function.
I think intuitive functions don't really see things that actually exist as much as they create (abstract) new data, that can either reflect actual reality (Se) or not (Ne). I don't really perceive the internal image with Ni, I more see the deficit or equivalence between the internal image and whatever I'm comparing it with. I've used Ni in the past expecting to see Ni with it, but I don't think that's possible. Ni/Se seeks to form mental models/abstractions out of real experience and Ne/Si seeks to form catalogs of past instantaneously formed models/abstractions. Another example of Ni would be when I was typing that last sentence and I thought that what I was typing didn't measure up to...something...but I don't know what. I think I said it right initially, Ni tells me when things don't measure up to what they could be (I think that's it) and Te seeks to form an understanding of how a system works (in the case the system would be my mind). Which is why I'm stuck in this NiTe loop of *makes a model* "not good enough" *makes a model* "not good enough".