Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok so sensing is information that emerges from the five senses, sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste.

All human beings do this. All human beings also possess intuition which allows them to think about concepts not based on direct experience. This is an evolutionarily fascinating trait in humans that they do not have to use direct experience in order to make decisions.

Intuition, therefore, is something that diverges from sensory experience. In other words, one using intuition places doubt on their own sensory experiences.

I like to compare Si and Ni this way which are completely different attitudes in my opinion. One who is a sensor and Si-dominant (SJ) TRUSTS his or her experiences based on the five senses. NJs, or Ni-dominants, do the exact opposite. They do NOT TRUST their own experiences because direct experience is only one frame of reference. So because of this behavior, an intuitor, especially an Ni dominant as mentioned naturally diverges from his or her experiences as opposed to converging on them like an Si-dominant would.

This concept fascinates me because I have a completely different mindset with Ne and Si when it comes to comparing myself to Ni-dominants like INFJs that have the mindset of Se and Ni. When it comes to intuition or divergent thinking, it all starts based on my concrete experiences and observations of the tangible world.

The divergent thinking begins when I see how my own direct experiences could be turned into something different and novel that I have yet to experience. These idealizations of what my experiences could become can be either good or bad depending on the situation. Sometimes they are the source of my stress and indecisiveness, other times, they give me hope and inspiration to do something awesome!

So in the previous paragraph, I explained how introverted sensing or converging reflection as I like to now call it also leads to diverging the objective world as we know it
(extroverted intuition). In the case of Ni, we now have diverging reflection meaning that one is taking all different sorts of standpoints based on his or her experience. After this reflection occurs, the divergent thinking power of Ni, when switching to the outer, objective world, sees convergence. I imagine Ni-dominants are like people who aspire to be puppeteers, pulling strings behind the scenes so that the objective reality falls into place as they predicted.

If I'm not mistaken, Ni-Se is an attitude that easily understands the concept of multiple realities existing at once. As one with Si and Ne, it's harder to grasp because I have a converging frame of reference on one particular reality that I know and trust well.

So in a nutshell:

Sensing = Convergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings have truth."
Intuition = Divergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings are only one way of looking at something which is limiting.

No matter what type you are, you do BOTH convergent AND divergent thinking.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Sensing = Convergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings have truth."
Intuition = Divergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings are only one way of looking at something which is limiting.

No matter what type you are, you do BOTH convergent AND divergent thinking.
But you will generally trust one over the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
But you will generally trust one over the other.
Correct. I think when one type of perception is trusted more than the other, the other often emerges limited in playful situations as well. You can't be doing one type of thinking all of the time. Otherwise you'd live a pretty unsatisfying life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
If I'm not mistaken, Ni-Se is an attitude that easily understands the concept of multiple realities existing at once.
That's an interesting way of looking at this. More specifically, to me, it comes off more like "reality depends on the mental perspective I'm in." But I barely have a particular conception of reality the way an Si type would - I subvert having this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
NJs, or Ni-dominants, do the exact opposite. They do NOT TRUST their own experiences because direct experience is only one frame of reference. So because of this behavior, an intuitor, especially an Ni dominant as mentioned naturally diverges from his or her experiences as opposed to converging on them like an Si-dominant would.
I TOTALLY agree! I don't trust my past experiences when it comes to determining the course of my actions at all. I can't stand doing stuff "the way it has always been done." I get very neurotic when I have to do this and keep in mind how to go through it all. This is a huge issue for me when it comes to studying for tests I've come to discover through this stuff, amazingly. Ritualism is my worst nightmare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Actually, I kind of think of the cognitive functions like instincts that you either trust or you don't to interpret reality and yourself in their simplest form. That way, they can't be related to factors like IQ, etc. that people on this site get such a kick out of trying to find a correlation between - they are only as reliable as they are for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HandiAce

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
I like to compare Si and Ni this way which are completely different attitudes in my opinion. One who is a sensor and Si-dominant (SJ) TRUSTS his or her experiences based on the five senses. NJs, or Ni-dominants, do the exact opposite. They do NOT TRUST their own experiences because direct experience is only one frame of reference.
(loved this post, by the way)

Not just the five senses, trusts their perception of theories too. Si:

If I am aware of something, it exists.
If I am not aware of something, it doesn't factor into my perception of reality until I am aware since I, well, can't see any of its effects because that would make me aware.
If I can't be aware of something, it doesn't exist. If it affected me at all I would be aware of it (even if not by name). Claims of things outside the senses or "mortal comprehension" are therefore bullshit and irrelevant.

The concept of not trusting your own perception sounds ridiculous. What are you gonna trust? Nothing that you know of, of course, since you can perceive that. Stuff you don't know about? But you don't know what it is! /Si is confuzzled
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
@HandiAce - Awesome clear to-the-point well laid out post. ^^ I definitely like how you explain all this. I agree with you. I don't know if I feel like I'm actively not trusting my perceptions. It's kind of like I acknowledge them briefly and just brush them out of the picture. They don't "matter" to me, I've got other things to think about... the "diverging" part as you so wonderfully put it. Exploring the possibilities. For me, possibilities always come first. That's how I view my reality. I guess that does sound weird when I say it like that. I don't understand how a person doesn't do this. @[email protected]

@Owfin

If I am aware of something, it exists.
If I am not aware of something, it doesn't factor into my perception of reality until I am aware since I, well, can't see any of its effects because that would make me aware.
You have successfully imploded my brain. Because for me... if I am not aware of something, it's because I haven't looked into that idea yet. To me, a lot of things could exist and I'd better start looking into it. Does that make sense? o_O If I am aware of something, then... well, what? I'm aware. It's there. But that doesn't mean I trust it, because there's all these other things that could be there too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
You have successfully imploded my brain. Because for me... if I am not aware of something, it's because I haven't looked into that idea yet. To me, a lot of things could exist and I'd better start looking into it. Does that make sense?
But you can't know you haven't looked into an idea if you don't know what that idea is, see. I agree with you on your third sentence. Yes, there may be something completely out of my perception. But I can have no idea what, which means that it's just a motivation for learning. Darkness itself does not have any properties other than the absence of light. You can feel around in the darkness and discover objects, but there is no properties of the darkness itself than can tell you anything about its contents, assuming total darkness here. And I'm not saying that things only exist if I understand them fully. Cavemen didn't understand that lightning was electricity, but they could still see it was there. But say there is a world where there was no such thing as lightning Consider these humans when they discover electricity. A scientist notes the behavior of electricity, and thinks that under certain conditions in the clouds, it might be possible to make electricity shoot from the sky. Even though it has never physically appeared, it can be comprehended as an idea, and in that way it is "real", it is a specific concept one can grab hold of. But without specificity... it's just a probability. And not even that. More like the quantum mechanics idea of a particle taking infinity paths. You can see the end particle. But you can't know anything about "the particle on the path". Sorry if my attempt at an explanation confused you more.

If I am aware of something, then... well, what? I'm aware. It's there. But that doesn't mean I trust it, because there's all these other things that could be there too.
But you do trust that it is there, at the very least in that form. And if there isn't anything else that you can perceive nor can affect anything you see (like a black hole's effect on gravity, or footprints of an invisible person), it doesn't exist in the reality that you can touch and feel and live in and be affected by. And other than weird intellectual playing around, is there really anything you can do with a "reality" outside of that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
@Owfin - Well... I suppose a way of looking at it is like this (now that my brain is thinking more coherently, I think):

I do not trust what I perceive. I don't doubt what I do perceive, though (well, doesn't that sound nice and confusing). Like, for instance, I'm in a city, it's raining, there's a young woman with an umbrella who is frowning, is talking on her cell phone, and has tears in her eyes. I don't doubt that it's raining, there's a young woman, and she appears to be crying. However, there's still an overwhelming feeling of, 'The reality of the situation is probably not what I am perceiving.' Enter the ideas and possibilities. I trust that the possibilities are more likely to be true than what I am observing. Eh, maybe that's not really intuition versus sensing or anything of those things at all. I dunno. XD It's what I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
The concept of not trusting your own perception sounds ridiculous. What are you gonna trust? Nothing that you know of, of course, since you can perceive that. Stuff you don't know about? But you don't know what it is! /Si is confuzzled
It's more like...I generally don't take things at face value. I'm always looking for what's behind what I'm perceiving in the external world. What does it mean? What's not being said or shown or heard? Surely, surely there is more than what's simply in front of me. I expect there to be something more. I expect to perceive some underlying meaning or pattern to what I'm experiencing, so when someone tells me to simply take something at face value, I have to work very hard to do that. I can do it, because, after all, I can and do use Se...but because Se is inferior, I have a hard time consciously doing so. To take something at face value, I have to work hard to temporarily shut off my brain and just experience whatever it is. That doesn't stop a little voice from the back of my head from saying, "But of course, that's not all there is to it..." anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,583 Posts
It's more like...I generally don't take things at face value. I'm always looking for what's behind what I'm perceiving in the external world. What does it mean? What's not being said or shown or heard? Surely, surely there is more than what's simply in front of me. I expect there to be something more. I expect to perceive some underlying meaning or pattern to what I'm experiencing, so when someone tells me to simply take something at face value, I have to work very hard to do that. I can do it, because, after all, I can and do use Se...but because Se is inferior, I have a hard time consciously doing so. To take something at face value, I have to work hard to temporarily shut off my brain and just experience whatever it is. That doesn't stop a little voice from the back of my head from saying, "But of course, that's not all there is to it..." anyway.
See, I'm the exact opposite to that, I have to actually stop what I'm doing and start thinking about what I can't see right in front of me. I've always wondered how Ni users manage to do this automatically without thinking about it. Do you never take a moment to just observe and instead dive straight into all this hidden meaning stuff? (not meant as an insult, I'm just generally curious)

My English teacher is always trying to get us to find hidden meaning in poems and stories, and he could literally write paragraphs on why one word was used. You can tell who the Se/Si dominants are because they just can't do that as easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
My English teacher is always trying to get us to find hidden meaning in poems and stories, and he could literally write paragraphs on why one word was used. You can tell who the Se/Si dominants are because they just can't do that as easily.
Many of my English teachers did this, but I don't tend pick out tiny details or single words in a story and place extreme amounts of importance on them. I'm more likely to pay attention to the story as a whole and what it is trying to say (overall meaning), guess where the story is leading next, or analyze the why behind what the author was making the character do. For one word or object to stand out, it would likely have to be mentioned multiple times or show up as a pattern or reoccurring theme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
See, I'm the exact opposite to that, I have to actually stop what I'm doing and start thinking about what I can't see right in front of me. I've always wondered how Ni users manage to do this automatically without thinking about it. Do you never take a moment to just observe and instead dive straight into all this hidden meaning stuff? (not meant as an insult, I'm just generally curious)

My English teacher is always trying to get us to find hidden meaning in poems and stories, and he could literally write paragraphs on why one word was used. You can tell who the Se/Si dominants are because they just can't do that as easily.

What I think is the difference is that we do a lot of our observing subconsciously. When I do that kind of assignment, it's like I'm not really aware of what it actually says before I've got some kind of interpretation. Then I sort of have to analyse everything once again to actually have conscious evidence. It may sound a bit redundant, but since everything happens in a matter of seconds, I think it's fine.
 

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
But you will generally trust one over the other.
After finally getting a hold of Jung's book, it's a long and difficult tale on how I secured it, this is actually how he describes it. Or rather this is the impression I got.

That someone either trusts more of what their senses tell them and they go over that input, or they trust the gut instincts of their intuition.

See, I'm the exact opposite to that, I have to actually stop what I'm doing and start thinking about what I can't see right in front of me. I've always wondered how Ni users manage to do this automatically without thinking about it. Do you never take a moment to just observe and instead dive straight into all this hidden meaning stuff? (not meant as an insult, I'm just generally curious)
The way ive always understood it is that with Se you perceive the object, (or idea), the object is what it is and any speculations that come afterwards are more to do with a conscious effort on your part, like for example you said you stop what you are doing and then start thinking about it, possibly tertiary Ni at play here.

For me I see Ni as essentially you see the literal object or idea as a dim background effect, instead you get all these bits of potential information, in fact it's all about potentials.

In that sense these implications and future system building ideas of what might happen becomes the object, you perceive it and it instantly becomes associated with the intangible, and probably tangible, notions of anything that could relate to that object or how other things might relate to it, but it is instantaneous and these bits of information and speculations come flowing in without you really being that aware of them.

Say I pick up a paintpot that has a bronze effect to it, before ive even picked it up the very idea of it in my mind is not of what it looks like, but rather a series of what's, why's and maybe's.

How and why did they put metal filings into this paint to create that effect? What do I want the paint for? What particular effect do I want to achieve? What would happen if I combine it with this colour?

And then it becomes more convoluted, I picture what I believe the factory it is made in might look like, all the people, their lives, maybe life is one big factory in the modern world...etc.

And it can go on like this. Also this happens in the blink of an eye, im presented with this mass of potentials and information and speculations and I can get so caught up in this that the physical nature of the object is almost forgotten... it simply becomes these instinctive ideas, then before I know it ive thought all this and maybe even anaylised it a bit with Ti before ive even realised ive picked it up from where it sits.

I suppose this could compared to a personalised impression of it as with Si but the way in which it is formulated and for what purpose is very different.

This might sound a bit like Ne, but the difference is all these things are related, I could even try to break down each step of information as it comes, but it's hard when it is such a large amount in such a flash of perception. It's also a tad obsessive, as I cant help but pursue this train of perception and sieve it down to some finalised idea or thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
See, I'm the exact opposite to that, I have to actually stop what I'm doing and start thinking about what I can't see right in front of me. I've always wondered how Ni users manage to do this automatically without thinking about it. Do you never take a moment to just observe and instead dive straight into all this hidden meaning stuff? (not meant as an insult, I'm just generally curious)

My English teacher is always trying to get us to find hidden meaning in poems and stories, and he could literally write paragraphs on why one word was used. You can tell who the Se/Si dominants are because they just can't do that as easily.
English classes used to bug me for those reasons as well.

WorriedFunction said:
In that sense these implications and future system building ideas of what might happen becomes the object, you perceive it and it instantly becomes associated with the intangible, and probably tangible, notions of anything that could relate to that object or how other things might relate to it, but it is instantaneous and these bits of information and speculations come flowing in without you really being that aware of them.
That's a very Ni-Se attitude in my opinion, especially the bolded part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
@Owfin

your post made me think of something. for a while now i've seen people say, "yeah, but that's not intuition--just knowing is", but what if there is a frame of mind that is related to intuition? a way of thinking and viewing the world that doesn't rely purely on "notions out of the blue"? while Ni diverges from reality, i think that it also attempts to create or impose a pattern on reality to aid it's own understanding--even if that pattern doesn't actually exist and i know that it doesn't, it can still tell me something about what i'm looking at.

Darkness itself does not have any properties other than the absence of light. You can feel around in the darkness and discover objects, but there is no properties of the darkness itself than can tell you anything about its contents, assuming total darkness here. And I'm not saying that things only exist if I understand them fully.
i'm not going to say that in a case like this i'd be any good, but it does show the difference in the states of mind between P-dom users of completely different functions. i wouldn't rely so heavily on what i can see but more on letting my mind attempt to make some sort of "mold" for this situation--letting my mind impose a pattern. of course there are some downfalls to this--one could allow themselves to ignore the weak parts of the mold they're seeing, such as verifying and checking the "if's" that hold the pattern together against reality, and if this isn't done that's when you get the "conspiracy theorist mind-set". like if you had a situation with five factors and you allowed your mind to put them together into a "shape" on a sudden whim... almost like this is what it's supposed to be, but let's take a negative shot showing what it would be in an opposite way of thinking... i don't know lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
After finally getting a hold of Jung's book, it's a long and difficult tale on how I secured it, this is actually how he describes it. Or rather this is the impression I got.

For me I see Ni as essentially you see the literal object or idea as a dim background effect, instead you get all these bits of potential information, in fact it's all about potentials.

In that sense these implications and future system building ideas of what might happen becomes the object, you perceive it and it instantly becomes associated with the intangible, and probably tangible, notions of anything that could relate to that object or how other things might relate to it, but it is instantaneous and these bits of information and speculations come flowing in without you really being that aware of them.

Say I pick up a paintpot that has a bronze effect to it, before ive even picked it up the very idea of it in my mind is not of what it looks like, but rather a series of what's, why's and maybe's.

How and why did they put metal filings into this paint to create that effect? What do I want the paint for? What particular effect do I want to achieve? What would happen if I combine it with this colour?

And then it becomes more convoluted, I picture what I believe the factory it is made in might look like, all the people, their lives, maybe life is one big factory in the modern world...etc.
This is very similar to how I think. Almost everything has potential behind it, what-ifs, possibilities, what might happen, questions as to why and how. I've never seen Jung's explanation of Ni, but this is interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Do you never take a moment to just observe and instead dive straight into all this hidden meaning stuff? (not meant as an insult, I'm just generally curious)
Whenever there's a lot of things happening at once, I do have to stop and observe, but I'm not looking at the individual pieces of information (that's why I had to stop in the first place...there was too much raw data entering my brain and I was feeling overwhelmed). Instead, I'm looking for a pattern to emerge from all the chaos so I don't feel like I'm going to drown.

There are times that I do stop and "smell the roses" so to speak. It only lasts for a moment, but it's a pleasant pause to stop and suddenly realize how wonderfully warm the sunshine is and how beautiful the day is. There's no hidden meaning in these moments, I just experience the world for what it is. But as soon as that moment is over, my brain is automatically assigning meaning to that moment.
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
Ok so sensing is information that emerges from the five senses, sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste.

All human beings do this. All human beings also possess intuition which allows them to think about concepts not based on direct experience. This is an evolutionarily fascinating trait in humans that they do not have to use direct experience in order to make decisions.

Intuition, therefore, is something that diverges from sensory experience. In other words, one using intuition places doubt on their own sensory experiences.

I like to compare Si and Ni this way which are completely different attitudes in my opinion. One who is a sensor and Si-dominant (SJ) TRUSTS his or her experiences based on the five senses. NJs, or Ni-dominants, do the exact opposite. They do NOT TRUST their own experiences because direct experience is only one frame of reference. So because of this behavior, an intuitor, especially an Ni dominant as mentioned naturally diverges from his or her experiences as opposed to converging on them like an Si-dominant would.

This concept fascinates me because I have a completely different mindset with Ne and Si when it comes to comparing myself to Ni-dominants like INFJs that have the mindset of Se and Ni. When it comes to intuition or divergent thinking, it all starts based on my concrete experiences and observations of the tangible world.

The divergent thinking begins when I see how my own direct experiences could be turned into something different and novel that I have yet to experience. These idealizations of what my experiences could become can be either good or bad depending on the situation. Sometimes they are the source of my stress and indecisiveness, other times, they give me hope and inspiration to do something awesome!

If I'm not mistaken, Ni-Se is an attitude that easily understands the concept of multiple realities existing at once. As one with Si and Ne, it's harder to grasp because I have a converging frame of reference on one particular reality that I know and trust well.

So in a nutshell:

Sensing = Convergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings have truth."
Intuition = Divergent thinking. ...or "My experiences and/or observations of my surroundings are only one way of looking at something which is limiting.

No matter what type you are, you do BOTH convergent AND divergent thinking.
I agree, except it's not a Ni/Se & Ne/Si difference you're describing here so much as iNtuiton vs. Sensing. In brief, Si focuses on the inner experience, the subjective impressions of sensing information over the sensing information. Se Se focuses on the literal experience of the sensing info. Ni focuses on the "impression of an impression", or what the impression implies over the impression itself. Ne focuses on what external experiences imply over what they are as well. This means Ne types DON'T start with their tangible experiences or observations either, because what they are experiencing & observing in the moment is not tangible or "real" to begin with, but projections from the unconscious about how things fit into a whole pattern or relationship that is emerging. It's certainly an external focus, but on "invisible" external things, things seen with the mind's eye & not experienced via the 5 senses. You know that info that Ni has an impression of an impression on? It's "Ne info" or the "external objects" that Ne perceives, not "Se info". They'll focus on their impression of an impression of an intangible possibility. You see how abstract that is from concrete reality?

Jung on Ni said:
Although this intuition [Ni] may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities [Ne], but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.

From the sensing perspective, in order for something to be valid, it has to connect back to the tangible, which is what you're doing here. From the intuitive perspective, it does not. What is tangible is only a manifestation of these concepts of reality. So the tangible is valid when it fits into the pattern or concept of the inner nature/workings of reality, otherwise it's something of a fluke; in a similar way, intuitions are seen as sort of magical hunches to sensing types when right, but delusions when wrong.

Most people experience their iNtuition as that kind of "hunch", and these can be strong even in the inferior form. N types tend to see it as simply different ways of looking at reality, because reality is not static or predetermined, so you can give it a different interpretation which will affect how it develops without opposing supposed "facts".

As a Ne type, I relate to the bolded above. That's certainly true of how I "see" things. I DON'T start with concrete experiences and observations of the tangible world though. I start with perceiving intangible patterns & relationships, which sort of pop out to me, and then these imply future, possible developments. You get the "Christmas tree lighting up" effect. Sometimes following these ideas is like playing that carnival game where you try & hit the animal on its head as it pops out of the hole. You can barely get one before the next comes. This is very distracting from focusing directly on observations of the tangible. You miss a lot of details because of it. I CAN & DO sometimes perceive tangible stuff of course, but this is far less "real" for me, and therefore less interesting. I only really note what has strong implications to be something else; what is "inspiring". Because of this, I remember things in terms of their "gist", the over all picture that inspired your ideas, not any details. This means I don't consider the future in terms of what has been literally, but in terms of what pattern/relationship/possibility that moment evoked immediately, not in retrospect. You focus on the big picture as it is forming, not on what has happened or is happening in that one moment. When you get those ideas, it's because something filled in that missing piece of the big picture you've been working on in the background. In these moments, tangible things can be very interesting.

Even when I think about the past, I don't consider what actually happened much (I CAN do this & sometimes do, but not often). I think about what possibilities I was thinking about then, and how those did or didn't pan out. I don't remember what a person said exactly, I only remember my impression of what that means in the grand scheme of things (often then it takes a Fi value form - this implies something good, bad, or inbetween). I also think about "Fi stuff", but that's a different thread :p.

Now, what is true of Ne/Si is the idea that the past feels more static than it does to the Ni/Se, although it's less static for the NP than the SJ, and it's more static for the SP than the NJ. For the SJ, what happened is what happened, because you cannot change facts. But the NP didn't experience the past as facts to begin with. Since the NP tends to see the past/present as a cage, they focus on how to change it. This may look like a divergence from Si impressions, that they note tangible things & facts & then think about what could be, but that's not their process (and I think this is what some are saying when they say they ignore "perceptions" - they mean present/past perceptions of the tangible). The Si info is still only ONE interpretation of many still, and even the past reality can have several possible ways of being interpreted. The NP simply doesn't focus on interpreting the past as much because it's not able to be changed in the external reality (only in the mind). Ne has more of an external focus than Ni, because it's about real world possibility over understanding possible meanings.
So the NP wants to change external reality, and the past is closed to that. In a weird way, this gives NPs a timeless quality. They don't really see anything in terms of past, present or future, just hypothetical zones where something could be. We usually call this "the future" since it sometimes doesn't exist yet. Whereas the NJ thinking is timeless in that it exists across past, present & future, but not so much in hypothetical zones. This means it's considering what is the essence of reality across time vs what has actually happened in a literal way. This obviously allows for future projections, which makes it seem mostly future-focused as well.

Anyway, I hope that cleared up my view on why, from my perspective, there is no diverging because I don't start with tangible/factual info & then consider the future possibilities. Instead, I consider the overall pattern of reality & how it's developing, and then possibilities spring forth from it as ideas.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top