I've been thinking that a way to think about sensation vs intuition (i.e. What Si and Se have in common versus what Ni and Ne have in common) is: What is Discrete (sensation) and connected (intuition) in the data.
So, as we've often said on the chat, Se is very 'present', approaching a thing as a thing. And then the next thing as a thing. And so on and so forth.
Ne approaches the objective world with an assumption of connectedness, maybe this is why it feels introversion-ish to its users (I still think introverts fundamentally see the world as one thing--whether it's a map, morality/value tree or logic-tree). Ne is one more level removed from the thing, as it has to be. To see how thing one and two are connected, you have to sacrifice the richness with which you see each on its own. The more connections, the less of the thing as a thing you see.
Ni takes in the discrete data of Se and fits it into its meta frame of connections across time. Si takes in the data of connections and sorts from it, all that is discrete across time. Still have trouble imagining how Si builds the data of discrete things (across time) from present connections.
It seems like an inverse process with the wrong end of the lens in and the other wrong end of the lens out. But that can't be true, because we've evolved 8 functions and not 4 or 6 for a reason. Just a thought.
Si takes in the data of connections and sorts from it, all that is discrete across time. Still have trouble imagining how Si builds the data of discrete things (across time) from present connections.
It seems like an inverse process with the wrong end of the lens in and the other wrong end of the lens out. But that can't be true, because we've evolved 8 functions and not 4 or 6 for a reason. Just a thought.
I have some ideas that might either help to clear this up or muddy it further. We'll see. I feel like I have a pretty clear internal understanding of how Si works/what the experience of it is like. But unfortunately my understanding is mostly nonverbal and I don't feel like I've exactly found the right words for it yet.
I think of Si's data organization as one that's based on the traces that all of my interactions with the objective world have left on my mind-body. In other words, it's an internal view of the world that's informed by the history of how my whole being has reacted to the accumulation of its past encounters with external reality. The Discrete bits of information about the world it holds are the caricatured details of all these past encounters; the traces on the mind-body is the underlying structure of how they're recalled and indexed. (I hope this makes sense!)
Here's sort of an exaggerated scenario to explain what I mean:
Let's suppose I have chronic pain in my ankle. When I focus on the pain, perhaps I recall a narrative about how that pain came to be: maybe I was walking through the forest on a sunny autumn day and tripped over the root of an aspen tree. Perhaps I suffered a sprain from which I never fully recovered. Now, if someone asked me about the circumstances of the day when I sprained my ankle, I might be able to recall hundreds of discrete details surrounding the event e.g. --It happened three years ago on September 7th, at about 2 in the afternoon. --It was on Crooked Tree Mountain, where I'd been hiking through the forest for about 45 minutes. The reason I might remember all these details is because the situation left a big, obvious trace on my mind & body. Maybe I had been hiking on the exact same mountain three days earlier, but nothing bad had happened on that earlier trip: it didn't leave a distinct enough impression for me to find that memory, in particular.
Most of the time, Si's operation is not quite so obvious. Here's an example from my life that's much more obscure & difficult to explain. I can remember how I learned to count to 20 as a little kid because each of the numbers left a slightly different visual-somatic impression on me. The single-digits were generally brighter and more energized; the numbers from 15 through 20 were deep, dark-colored and calm. Because I was so young/impressionable and hadn't yet learned this information, it etched traces into that formed the path I still use to retrieve this data. I've reinforced them so much over the years by retrieving this information again and again. I know this sounds sorta crazy but I can't find a better way to explain it right now.
But if you look at a lot of Si-heavies, they often seem to have very good memories for certain information, and rather lousy memories for other.
Why is this? We are good at remembering information that left concrete traces on us, whatever that is. If Si is like a record-player, the grooves on the record are like the somatic traces from which it retrieves its stored data. The stored data is like is the music--the details and narratives.
Here's a way I sometimes think about S vs. N, but it's kind of roundabout and I'm not sure if it addresses this topic directly.
N is liquid, whereas S is solid. If we think of Pi as an accumulated, viscously-flowing mass of something, then Ni might be like a river (liquid), and Si more like a glacier (solid).
Like a river, a glacier is made up of precipitation that accumulates over a long period of time. It flows much like a river, initially forming into small tributaries that gradually merge together as they flow downhill. But because a glacier is solid, ice from the glacier's different tributaries never fully blends together in quite the same way that liquid water does. Notice how, in the image, the glacier on the left is made up two branches that merge together. But even far downstream from where they've merged, you can still see how ice on the left side of the glacier came from one tributary, while ice on the right side came from another. You can even count the lateral lines (the lines of rock going down the middle) and tell how many tributaries came together to form that particular glacier. Moreover, big, solid masses of things tend to form cracks and faults...crevasses, as they're called on a glacier. This reflects the fact that in Si's organization, large masses of data often tend to split apart and crack under their own weight into separately indexed topics. (However, the crevasses only go about 30 m deep, and underneath them the glacier is one solid mass. This seems sort of Si-ish as well, as the different bits of data are underlain by a visceral impression of the mass as a whole worldview-thing).
Unlike a glacier, a river does not show its history in quite as apparent a way: even as its different tributaries flow together, the water is quickly blended
Wow, that was really beautiful, Hrafn . I really enjoyed reading that. Esp the glacier metaphor. Thanks.
Si is an enigma to me. I have never related to the index/library/cabinet image at all. So much that I often wonder if that's an Si + Ti image rather than just Si?
I don't know, but clusters of events attached to or around a thought/feeling/idea is more like what my memory is like, like they described in the ADHD article I linked: the disorganized mind library.
You don't see a cabinet anywhere in my mind but if a memory is triggered, it pops into consciousness with all these events attached to it, a cluster of stuff. The thought of something neat and tidy like a cabinet or library does not feel natural/authentic to me in a visceral way, just like mathematical shapes do not feel natural/authentic to me. They feel artificial or mechanical or contrived, things that only exist in our creative imagination, but I'd never feel life/the world was actually built/structured that way, that they are a reflection of nature/reality.
And that's I think because my mind has no structures that are that geometric/linear/tidy. I'd say my memory is like clouds of events that remain out of sight until recalled to the present by relevant stuff/triggers. Their arrangement is not structured (like a cabinet/library image suggests) but rather is just the clustering of stuff around certain ideas/feelings/particular memories. There's no neat organization to them whatsover.
I think they are connected to each other, these clusters of discrete 'items', by thin threads of Ne (so, this thing in cluster X easily connects to this other thing in cluster Y, causing cluster Y to pop into conscious thought when dealing with cluster X subjects etc etc). The only thing neat in that linear way in my mind is logic per se. But even logic is kinda 'out there' kinda thing, a tool.
I have never related to the index/library/cabinet image at all.
Yeah I haven't either, and I personally think it's not that good of metaphor for Si, at least not from my experience...Maybe it comes from the mbti stereotype of Si leads being organized and secretarial. If anything I could see how it might apply to someone like a "detective" shade of SiTe II--
On the other hand, I do tend to remember a lot of contextual details attached to particular memories. This helps me to find out how they fit in/interact with all the other overlapping memories. But it's certainly not why I remember them, and it's not typically even how/why I call them into consciousness.
I generally relate a lot to what you've written here, too:
You don't see a cabinet anywhere in my mind but if a memory is triggered, it pops into consciousness with all these events attached to it, a cluster of stuff. The thought of something neat and tidy like a cabinet or library does not feel natural/authentic to me in a visceral way, just like mathematical shapes do not feel natural/authentic to me. They feel artificial or mechanical or contrived, things that only exist in our creative imagination, but I'd never feel life/the world was actually built/structured that way, that they are a reflection of nature/reality.
And that's I think because my mind has no structures that are that geometric/linear/tidy. I'd say my memory is like clouds of events that remain out of sight until recalled to the present by relevant stuff/triggers. Their arrangement is not structured (like a cabinet/library image suggests) but rather is just the clustering of stuff around certain ideas/feelings/particular memories. There's no neat organization to them whatsover.
But on the other hand, I think I'm pretty good at finding a lot of memories. That's not to say they're organized in any neat or rational way. It's more like, if I live in a cluttered house, I'll lose track of lots of the junk in there. But through years of living there I'll be able to find my way around and know where a lot of the important stuff is. I'll still lose track of stuff, and every now and then I'll stumble on something I'd forgotten about completely.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make things cheap. --Leonard Cohen
I'm glad, Hrafn ! Look at that! It's not Si-Ti at all! Ha. I wonder where that image comes from then, super interesting! Seems our minds are similar except you keep better track of the memory clusters than I do.