If that so, then I fully agree. I'm just having a hard time interpretting the metaphor as an insight in the real nature of things, as I gather Ne uses to, but like I said, a symbolic convention, something we can/like to believe to draw a specific conclusion.Originally Posted by thehotelambush
The way I interpret is that he is commenting on all the things human beings have in common, their essence -.
The only thing that comes to my mind right now to exemplify to you the distinction I make between the Ni-ish symbolism and Ne-ish insights is the Beta-ish "I am my own god" [1], that is not intended to be naturalistic, but symbolic, conventional, social, practical, although probably correct from a certain perspective. Just that perspective always falls out of the scope of Ne, which is naturalistic, "what *truly is* a god?", "can a man be a god?", etc.
The same difference in scope I see between Alpha and Beta when it comes to cosmology in general. I would be interested to hear from you how you perceive that message as some insight into the nature of things VS a deep analysis in their meaning to us.
I'm sorry, but I always associated eclecticism with Ni and Fi. I personally don't see how it can be associated with Ne (from the Socionics reference), since it (eclecticism) deals with "interesting" combinations, possibilities, it picks freely bits and pieces that ought be genuine in themselves for a reason (in them, in the things), combined by the use of imagination, in the eye of the beholder.appreciation of eclecticism, how his expectations are often confounded by what happens - typical
Like you, I think Ne is seeking (or rather is) the hidden true essence of things, additionally I gather that Ni deals with the possibilities that make sense [2] for us, therefore my conclusion is that they diverge, not in scope, but in method, from each other. I don't see any reason to view alternate realities as Ne instead of Ni, especially when we know that ILE is best at seeking what's really out there by insights and revealings [3], instead of being exceptionally proficient in personal creativity.
---
[1] - when it applies, of course, eg Nietzsche. Meaning <expr> => Beta, not Beta => <expr>.
[2] - like Fi, it's an inner, cultural, familiar sense, not strict and regulatory, like the External Introverted functions (Ti, Si).
[3] - that doesn't exclude the uncommon or surprising, of course.
Reply With Quote
--> perhaps Normalizing 
) I 
(as per tcaudilllg)
