The Perceiving Functions (Part 1): Locations in Time
Isn’t it fascinating that we always associate the Perceiving functions with locations in time? Typically, and generally, intuition is seen as future-oriented while sensing is associated with the present (in the case of Se) and the past (Si). This has a lot to do with intuition’s link to ideation, projection and, in the case of Ni, planning. On the other hand, Si is associated with experiences, details and memory. Finally, Se is always about being in the moment, enjoying the world as it is right at the second it is perceived.
I disagree with this totally.
Perception is divided into two separate facets: introverted perception, and extroverted perception. This distinction exists for a reason: Jung states that extroverted perception looks outward at the world whereas introverted perception merely looks at the world as reflected in the self. They fulfill two very different jobs: Pe collects information from the outside world; Pi collects the absolutes that we hold to be true. Much in the same way that the judging functions work in tandem to ....judge information, Pe and Pi work to establish the positions from which we act, the facts and worldview (the stories) that inform our decision-making processes, in depth (Pi) and breadth (Pe). It is for this reason that an Pi and Pe are attached to one another: they both fulfill roles that are necessary to us.
It is for this reason, because of this fundamental framework of perception as a collector of facts and synthesizer of worldview (vs. judgement as a defender of the same) that the notion that they have specific temporal orientations based on their nature is bizarre. Yes, one can assume that Ne and Se are used to pick up on the immediacies, but they are also used to gather any sort of information before it can be parsed. The difference between the two is the amount of baggage that comes with such collection: Se aims for purity and specificity whereas Ne establishes connections and associations immediately. This leads to different roles for Ni and Si: Ni, unlike Se, builds new connections over time and overwrites the factual with the symbolic while jettisoning extraneous information; Si counteracts Ne by slowly scraping away excess connections and reducing interpretations down to the fundamental knowledge of that which is true. Because of these subtleties, the assessment that Ni is about the future while Si is about the past makes some sense, but the true distinction is between the types of narratives constructed by these functions.
Let’s quickly use a metaphor to better highlight these differences. Ultimately, there are two strains of perception, two strains of storytelling: Se-Ni reasoning, and Ne-Si reasoning. When Ne-Si starts crafting its view of reality at the Ne end, information is manipulated in much the same way as hot glass. The matter is unstable, relatively easy to manipulate, wonderfully reactive to stimulation. However, each view is manipulated individually and is impossible to modify: once formed, it must be shattered to be replaced. The more complex an individual view, the more fragile it is; on the other hand, more fundamental views are more utilitarian and less complex in order to guard against fragility. Because these views are constructed once and then used until rendered obsolete from outside pressures, they can easily be holdovers from different periods; worldviews and opinions established during childhood, or a fundamental understanding of what home is that resists new outside influence. This is particularly true, I’ve found, of opinions about safety; they are formed early, then either remain childlike for long periods or are shattered and updated with something more resilient (the most resilient view being, of course, “No one is safe, ever”, because it’s impossible to disprove). I will note, however, that while individual views obviously influence the way one acts, the diversity of human experience is such that this is not the case for the mechanism of belief-forming itself: this is, after all, a tool shared by all Ne-Si and Si-Ne users from ENxPs to ISxJs.
Se-Ni functions slightly differently. This sort of reasoning brings to mind clay rather than glass; they are created slowly over time. The initial resource is not as flexible as blown glass (clay is what it is), but it can be built on (even if truly changing a truth requires that it be broken, same as Si) and expanded, building towards a unifying understanding. The focus is on this construction rather than the fundamentally fixed nature. In essence, the Si view is established then crystallizes, while the Ni view is built and coalesces. This, to return to my initial point, is the basis for the past/future distinction between the functions, as a Si-Ne user will generally either see the future as a continuation of the present (conforming to the nature of their collection of blown glass), or see it as a source of possibility (positive or negative), reflecting the views that they have yet to construct based on new evidence. Ni-Se users, on the other hand, will look at the past as the basis of their viewpoint, and at the future based on the orientations of their constructions, factoring in more open-mindedness than is expected of Si and more purpose than is intended by Ne.
