Ni/Se vs Si/Ne Thoughts on Epistemic Assumptions
May 5, 2018 1:23:24 GMT -5 by nymph
ayoungspirit, Nexet, and 2 more like this
Post by nymph on May 5, 2018 1:23:24 GMT -5
Phibious
--------------------------
The Se/Ni acausal account focuses on things that will unfold similarly because they have similar structures or, in some sense, matching identities. Likewise, how ideas will encapsulate other ideas as nested categories, or match to isomorphic ideas. There's no mechanism that makes matching things unfold similarly, it is taken as a given. This replaces causality as the core assumption, notice how each version gets one free assumption you just have to accept.
Examples include:
Your mind and your brain share identity; they do not and cannot affect each other, but match up in their behavior because they are a mental and material half of the same object.
Archetypes play out in the world's events. This is not us projecting our psychology, and this is not the archetype reaching down to shape reality, rather, the same story naturally appears in psychology and in the world separately. Different objects just tend to isomorphize.
Synchonicity works the same way, you saw the same four digit number twelve times this moring, it's not psychological and there is no causal connection or biasing of the scales of chance, it is natural for the same event to echo in many ways, possibly at many levels, without causal connection.
I have less ability to explain this oscillation at an everyday, more practical level, but:
You run into a situation, it has a Way It Is in itself, which subscribes it to several categories. It's This Sort Of Event, and That Sort of Place, and it necessarily takes from the traits of those general categories, these define and constrain its behavior, so there's a degree of understanding through that. Notice how these categories depend on taking the event as a whole, you can't mentally reduce it to pieces and still gain understanding by assign it to the right categories. Perhaps jelle | TiSe (II-I) can clarify or correct this somewhat.
-------------------------
The Ne/Si causal account looks at how events will be set by their causes, or how some ideas will logically force other ideas. For events, a backstory is an explanation and for ideas, justifications tend to come in long chains. If-then-if-then, because-therefore-because-therefore.
Examples include:
Matter causes the mind, or vice versa. Alternately, both exist on their own and affect each other back and forth.
If two events keep matching up, they probably share some causes or are otherwise affecting each other. Without related causes, this is possible only by chance, which rarely holds up over time.
The best way to predict the future is to ask what the effects of the current situation will be, and then to ask what the effects of those effects will be. This is often more accurate when compared to similar chains of events from the past.(edited)
I’m reading such a good book about Spinoza and parallelism and it traces exactly what I have been saying about causal and acausal frameworks and Ne/Si vs Se/Ni. When I say causal btw I do not mean simply materially causal. Logical entailment is a bit like abstract causality. Acausal on the other hand is regarding structural similarity or identity/meaning. There are concrete and abstract versions of both. Both are required for a coherent world view but you can use very little of one or the other. --Jelle, at some point
The Se/Ni acausal account focuses on things that will unfold similarly because they have similar structures or, in some sense, matching identities. Likewise, how ideas will encapsulate other ideas as nested categories, or match to isomorphic ideas. There's no mechanism that makes matching things unfold similarly, it is taken as a given. This replaces causality as the core assumption, notice how each version gets one free assumption you just have to accept.
Examples include:
Your mind and your brain share identity; they do not and cannot affect each other, but match up in their behavior because they are a mental and material half of the same object.
Archetypes play out in the world's events. This is not us projecting our psychology, and this is not the archetype reaching down to shape reality, rather, the same story naturally appears in psychology and in the world separately. Different objects just tend to isomorphize.
Synchonicity works the same way, you saw the same four digit number twelve times this moring, it's not psychological and there is no causal connection or biasing of the scales of chance, it is natural for the same event to echo in many ways, possibly at many levels, without causal connection.
I have less ability to explain this oscillation at an everyday, more practical level, but:
You run into a situation, it has a Way It Is in itself, which subscribes it to several categories. It's This Sort Of Event, and That Sort of Place, and it necessarily takes from the traits of those general categories, these define and constrain its behavior, so there's a degree of understanding through that. Notice how these categories depend on taking the event as a whole, you can't mentally reduce it to pieces and still gain understanding by assign it to the right categories. Perhaps jelle | TiSe (II-I) can clarify or correct this somewhat.
-------------------------
The Ne/Si causal account looks at how events will be set by their causes, or how some ideas will logically force other ideas. For events, a backstory is an explanation and for ideas, justifications tend to come in long chains. If-then-if-then, because-therefore-because-therefore.
Examples include:
Matter causes the mind, or vice versa. Alternately, both exist on their own and affect each other back and forth.
If two events keep matching up, they probably share some causes or are otherwise affecting each other. Without related causes, this is possible only by chance, which rarely holds up over time.
The best way to predict the future is to ask what the effects of the current situation will be, and then to ask what the effects of those effects will be. This is often more accurate when compared to similar chains of events from the past.(edited)
. So there's value in just matching patterns too without seeing how they relate causally. In this sense, acausality is *not* woo. But when you apply it "larger" ways it seems strange. Same idea though. I'll work on getting these ideas into a proper post, I promise. 
