1 Comment

This is good. Realizing I might have mistaken Ni for Ti. I’ve been fighting archetypes thinking they were arguments. I’ve been frustrated and fixated on trying to prove she is wrong in a Ti manner.

An Ni proposition is more dangerous than a Ti foundational thesis. It’s unfalsifiable. It’s gripping because of its eerie metaphysical dimension. the only barrier to it’s becoming truth is the mass adaption of its perspective. Then it can become real, preformed in the material world in an Se manner. The beliefs will inform the facts, and therefore the deductive Ti analysis on the nature of humans and things will have no choice but converge with the outlook of the founder Ni user.

ITS perspectives. It’s can be like a parasite once you have been exposed to looking at the world in a certain way by a skilled Ni user. Something you can’t unsee. A method of reeding into situations you can’t go back to being ignorant of. Damn my minds blown. You have helped me with a dilemma, a fixation ive hard for years since I read her book.

-entp

Expand full comment