Personality Cafe banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Recently, I was bored. It was a sun shiny, sun shining day (which isn’t the norm in Scotland) so to entertain myself, I went for a walk. As I walked my mind drifted from subject to subject, never really settling itself on any one thought. Eventually, as I was walking up a hill I remember a thought I had a few days ago whilst sitting in a friend’s car that I thought was very interesting. The thought was: Isn’t it strange that onomatopoeia is different depending on your language?

This lead to me thinking about a conversation I read here in this very café. The premise of it was that some guy (INFP, I think) was trying to change the way we looked at the whole cognitive functions, and another guy (ENTJ) tried to help that guy but it ended in a communication breakdown. The INFP was wandering through the idea like a drunken badger, and the ENTJ donned his suit and went turbo teacher mode, demanding a thesis and other silly things badgers don’t really care about.

However, within this conversation the ENTJ realised that he was indeed, talking to an intoxicated badger. He was then able to see that the problem was the ENTJ was speaking Ni & Se and that the INFP was speaking Ne & Si. He then went on to explain in depth about the process of Ni & Se and how it differs immensely from Ne & Si and the problems that arise during the battle, if they should ever encounter.

His description of Ni & Se and how they interact was enlightening, very well written and swift. His Ne & Si wasn’t bad at all by any means. It was however lacking in confidence and substance on the subject and this was shown; especially when he highlighted the fact that he didn’t really understand Ne & Si as well as he did the other perceiving functions. Which is fair, he never uses them. In his description he said that Si uses axioms and Ne takes those and goes forward with them and stuff, you know?

This helped me understand what Si was incredibly; I understood finally what I used Si for. His description was a lot better than I give credit for. Anyway, using this knowledge of individual axioms I was then able to understand a lot of what goes on between Si & Ne and why one necessitates the other. For the remainder of the night, I walked back and forth pondering the subject in my ponder cave.

But I digress, sort of. The thought I had whilst I was walking up the hill, about onomatopoeia, it made me realise that if humans can’t even decide on how we depict a sound in a language, then how can we possibly achieve world peace? It’s a jump, but it connects. It scales, everything does no matter how small the problem is its bigger cousin has the same premise and trouble, and the only difference is that the consequences are much larger.

I then realised that I was using my Si & Ne whilst thinking about this thought. In that I had found a basic truth, an axiom and from that point expanded upon it. I was able to line my original point with something seemingly unrelated and much more of a serious problem and make a connection between the two. With this connection, I was able to make various implications and other axioms which would spawn from them.

This is my real life example of Si & Ne working together to come to a conclusion. With this I was then able to compare it to the structure of an onion. At the centre of the onion lies the smallest layer, it is a basis of the onion and with it other layers are built around it and as each layer increases in size and becomes a different layer, each layer is still an onion and related to the first layer regardless of how large the onion becomes. When you find an individual layer of an onion, the other layers are often implied. With this layer, there was a centre, and possibly a larger layer of the onion. This makes up an entire onion and encompasses the subject.

I had found that we disagree on what external sounds, sound like. This was a layer within the onion whose weight was really not substantial but thought provoking. This layer however implied the centre of the onion; humans can’t agree on small things that affect us all e.g. Colour hues, prices, rules etc. With this I was able to imply the larger layers of the onion; humans will always be in conflict over the larger things e.g. Laws, Religion, Philosophy etc. These layers then make the entire onion; Human subjectivity is the source of most if not all conflicts.

I conclusion, I hope this was helpful for people to understand and show that Si & Ne isn’t just taking an idea and then finding new things with it. It’s also about taking already existing ideas and showing what they imply and their place within the onion. Thank you for reading, if there are any discrepancies or inconsistencies please comment and help me help you help me to help you. Or perhaps show me where I am completely wrong which the case is so often.

Stay curious.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top