teatime , I've been trying to answer this with reference to your original Ji vs Ni framework, but found that whatever I was trying to say has more to do with Ti specifically rather than Ji generally. I think perhaps Ti and Fi are different enough to warrant different TOE approaches. My impression is that Ti aims for a TOE detached from personal experience/influence, and that is therefore generally/universally applicable. For Fi (and I'm using a very specific case from my experience), the TOE is much more personal, with criterion not based on supposedly neutral, logical grounding, but on what one values in one's life. (Perhaps I'm talking out of my ass here, especially since I'm still reacquainting myself with the theory. Fi people,I'm curious what you have to say.) Ni also personal, but has less to do with personal values and more with the accumulation of personal experience. If I'm to generalize about Ji, I guess I'd say that while Ji is concerned with more static, core principles through which judgement can be made, Ni seeks more general, adaptable/dynamic patterns as a TOE. I don't know, however, if elaborating on this distinction I just made would show that the two sides of the dichotomy aren't really that different from each other.
I feel like when we talk about the TOE of Ji (irrespective of whether we are referring to Ti or Fi), we are talking about a general system or philosophy for assessing whatever may take place. So I can see Ji's TOE as more of a philosophical (logical or moral/ethical) framework that informs each person on how to assess a given set of experiences. This contrasts with Ni's TOE which has more of an experiential map where the terrain involves the accumulated Se experiences that the Ni user is attempting to integrate into a massive network.
So the Ji's TOE isn't as much about the content of experience as much as it is about generating a proper (philosophical) framework regarding how to assess it (and making sure that whatever experience takes place genuinely adheres to the general philosophical framework that Ji surrounds itself with). However, Ni's TOE revolves heavily around the content of experience as it attempts to take all the raw experience that is built up within the psyche and to integrate it and abstract it into a wider network/system of content-based and contextual integrations.
These are my initial impressions regarding the distinctions between Ji and Ni's unique TOE frameworks.
Last Edit: Aug 28, 2017 19:17:32 GMT -5 by mikesilb
mikesilb, at one point I wrote: "I don't know, however, if elaborating on this distinction I just made would show that the two sides of the dichotomy aren't really that different from each other." I would like to engage with the distinction you made between Ji and Ni to see if it holds up. You describe Ji as a "general system or philosophy" and "[the process of generating] a proper (philosophical framework", which is then used to assess experiences, even if "the JI's TOE isn't as much about the content of experience". I can agree with this, but run into a problem: I don't see where the Ji's framework would come other than from experience. If it does derive from experience, like Ni, then I'm not sure how we're to differentiate it from Ni in their interpretive function: Ni's "wider network/system of content-based and contextual integrations" doesn't exist for its own sake, but also is a plane through which the world is interpreted - like Ji. What, then, is the difference?
Linus , that sounds like a great idea! I will attempt to make an Ni description and see if it helps in anyway towards differentiating. I will try to do this within the next couple days (since I am hitting a bit of a busy stretch).
The only other thing that I can say right now is that I feel that Ni is absolutely dependent on the Se that comes in to generate its framework. Se's real life experience is critical towards generating the type of Ni TOE's that we are talking about here.
On the flip side, I feel that while Ji would work in lockstep with Pe and Pi, it would seem that Ji's logical or ethical framework might be formulated from an internal vantage point that is not directly based on the experience that can come in. I almost want to say that Ji is 'instinctually systematic' in terms of how it judges anything that comes from Je, Pe, or Pi from a reasonably hardwired set of logical or ethical rules (that would be as instinctive as say, riding a bike, to apply). So Ji has a general system (already in place) of how to logically/ethically assess anything that experience throws at them. It's that 'natural/instinctive' system that separates it from Ni.
Ni is more prone to 'grow' as Se provides further input.....while Ti/Fi is more prone to 'flex' (almost analogous to a muscle) as it may experience an outer or inner event and needs to assess it either qualitatively or quantitatively.
These are my initial thoughts of the distinction. At the same time, I will supply a personalized Ni description very soon as well!
Thanks for your feedback here!
Last Edit: Aug 30, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5 by mikesilb
Hi just thought I'd come make a few quick remarks here, but the bulk of what I want to say probably belongs in its own post (which I haven't had much time to write out properly as I can be persnickety about things like that).
As for Ti having a TOE, I think this is a mistake to characterize Ti as having some kind of theory of its own. The content of Ti is always changing, as its a judging function. It's the actor, and it acts upon existing (Pi) or new (Pe) data -- it doesn't have any data of its own except what its acting on at any given time.
"Theory of Everything" as it relates to cognition would likely refer to a person's ontology (the entire web of beliefs that constitutes the "self" and knowledge of "what is" at any given time), I'd think. For anyone, I think it makes the most sense to say that would be Pi. So, as NeFi, your ontology (TOE) is seated in your Si and consists of concepts/abstractions that order your perceptual experiences (facts, events, percepts) in a syntactically coherent "linear" fashion. While your *exploring* process is not linear, and clearly exceptionally abstract, a person's ontology must be ordered in some organized fashion. Since yours is Si, it is linear (not unidirectional, which is different) and often chronological in nature. Of course we can and do use concepts/theories seated in Pi as lense and benchmark for future use of our judging functions, and so the wheel turns. While you used your Ne to find things to "stock" your Si library, your Ne also has no TOE. As it isn't the site of your personal ontology.
If we apply this same logic to Ni as the seat of an Ni users ontology, we can see how Ni being conceptual, is less syntactical thus Ni as an ontology can come across as cryptic or simplistic because it is syntactically parsimonious.
Here's an analogy that might be useful, albeit highly oversimplified:
If we consider N functions as concept acquisition/application (x is some property of y, e.g. "there's a red chair from which I can extract the concepts of redness and chairness") the N functions are a lot like modal logic. However, the way they are stored differ vastly as Ne is stored in an Si databank, and Se is stored in an Ni databank. Being an S function and experienced as facts and events, it's going to be highly linear and syntactically complex, because it stems from an experiential/"exploring" process. We might say an Ne users TOE is like conditional logic.
In contrast, Se users store their linear event/perceptual/experiential data in Ni and because a conceptual databank is going to be based on meanings and not connections, it's structured more like concepts that are subsets of other concepts with decidedly less focus on how they are connected causally. Thus Ni is a lot more like set theory/logic. (Yes, Ne/Si also utilizes sets but the sets in well developed Ni tend to have more levels, thus you get a huge interest in metaphysical subject matter with Ni leads. The word meta itself suggests conceptual levels and higher-order thoughts about thoughts. And yes, Se/Ni also uses linear, causal syntax, but depending on the type of the person, there will be more or less focus on that sort of structuring.)
Ni meanings derived from other meanings and applied to other meanings, may or may not give rise to some mystical impulse, but the point is that it is meaning-rich so I think it's mistake to say that Ni has no semantic content (it's often described as ghostly impressions lol, which I think is silly). Where Si stocked by a healthy Ne will be semantically prolific, at its best -- Ni semantic/conceptual content is profound, foundational, an holistically wide-reaching, and not nearly as idiosyncratic as conveyed in most theories, from what I can see. Ne/Si is more likely to be idiosyncratic (as its based on individual experience), Ni only seems so because of the lack of proper causal syntax connecting those ideas for many (yet, surprisingly, most of us agree on basic ontology, thus you get the "pack instinct").
This is also not saying that the N functions are logical rational processes in the Jungian sense, in case that wasn't clear. It's just an analogy to demonstrate structure of content and different "webs" of beliefs and ways of seeing the world.
Hope that clears the subject up for you a bit and let me know if you have more questions about Ni, though I'll make a separate post as a I had a few visual representations to run by the group.
Oh and a separate note on Ti and its relation to Ni: I think that a strong and well-developed Ji in general will tend to amplify any N process (take Elon Musk or myself as Erifrail mentioned in a recent discussion in Discord). Helios is another example, or Mike who is TeNi but strongly identifies with Fi, seems to have a very well developed Ni function and both have synesthestic cognition like me. Synesthesia is a great example of non-causal concepts nested within other concepts as a part of ontological foundations. Why should 9 be dark blue? It just is for some synesthetes. Synesthesia I'm finding overwhelming evidence occurs in those with heavy Ni. I've been documenting it since I joined the group, here, and elsewhere. This also demonstrates the connection to Se, I think.
Just an aside, really. Not super relevant to the question at hand but it was touched on briefly elsewhere so I thot I'd throw it in for good measure.
Jelle, I REALLY like the comparisons you chose. That's the impression I had, but I hadn't made the comparisons. Those work really well!
Regarding my question of Ji and TOE, I've just heard so many people claim that INTPs have a theory of everything, and I know I myself have had them in the past (but they are too abstract to explain). Of course, many of those people could be typed incorrectly.
Also, when I was younger I had a lot of synesthesia going on. Not so much now though. And it was likely to be different from what Se-Ni users experience. I like movies where those elements are used. Think movies made by the Coen Brothers. Now that you mention is, synesthesia is a lot like features from sets, very semantically categorized. Do you have the link to the study where you were n?