@nebnobla
I assume your default urge upon reading this will be to write me off, but bear with me for just a second (and go slow if necessary). I've refined this to the best of ability, but do not hesitate to ask for clarification. And if something's redundant, tell me. A lot of what you're seeing from me/will see isn't me attempting to change you, but me searching for common ground. If it's not working out just tell me to fuck off. I take no offense. I recognize you're under no obligation to respond immediately, or at all.
I'm still pushing because 1) it's irresistible 2) I'm convinced that if we reach common ground it'll have the effect of an H-bomb in the best way possible. Blarraun actually just inadvertently identified this H-bomb conception of mine
here, with
Camera obscura/Pinhole projector. If we mirrors align we could illuminate something entirely unknown to both of us. (Imagine if we were all in the same room right now!?!?
)
Every interaction I have with you feels like I'm looking into a mirror at my stereoisomer. This has never happened to me before. Fucking evil twin.
(^Meant in the best way possible, with a complete sense of awe. When things are beyond words I tend to use profanity
).
Knowledge is a weight that holds you back while it's the gravity that keeps me stable as a 360° arch (a silo is an imperfect yet conceptually suitable example of such a structure, no? A fullerene is the perfect example.);
Your lean towards determinism vs mine towards subjective compatibilism; Your removal of imperfections vs my inclusion of them; Your preference for the micro and mine for the macro. Manic experiences. It goes on. I am the empty space in your system and visa versa. I want to dumpster dive your mental interior.
There are two divergent ways of assessing the world: determining what it is, and determining everything it is not. One is based on the assumption that everything is false; the other that everything is true. Both stop at the exact same ultimate endpoint,
because the ideal system contains no false dichotomies. 
My truth is, that every INTP is doomed to produce huge amounts of random thoughts, about everything. This is like evolution creating a huge amount of random different designs based on spontaneous, instantaneous environmental factors; Of course, a few small percentage (much less than 1%) of those designs are in correspondence with nature, and the rest die off. This is analogous (not identical) to filtering legitimate thoughts--It is your responsibility to impose a selection on your ideas, as you are prone to come up with all sorts of ideas that seem to make sense, e.g. in a microsystem, although may not be consistent with the overall structure. If the incorrect ideas get into your concept map, and new ideas build dependencies on those ideas that may be incorrect, well--then your in big trouble.
This is the best description of the differential use of the interaction between thinking and intuition I've ever seen. I've described my ENTP experience
here, where Ti uses Ne as a go-for, forming a phallic mental probe. Without it Ti is useless, lost, and starving.
You describe the
same interaction but for an entirely different purpose; Ne is like an annoying housefly that won't go away!
I could not imagine going back and revolutionizing foundational concepts, it's much easier to perform maintenance on the "outer-ring" concepts in the grand concept map, i.e. the ones that other ideas are not dependent on.
For me, the foundational concepts
are the outer ring concepts! This whole mess is akin to top-down vs bottom-up regulation of trophic structures!
Your going to produce lot's of bullshit ideas in your life, there is no one on earth that has perfect thoughts every second. WIth INTPs, sometimes we can think an entire train of thought without analyzing it's logical merit. When I'm unsure about somethings logical merit, I look at the patterns that I swear by and stay "close to the border" of my grand concept map, i.e. my thoughts are not too farfetched or far-gone with respect to everything else I believe I know for sure. This also allows me to identify contradictions, inconsistencies, lies, etc, coming from other entities, in a second.
Your description thus far has been amazingly useful.
Tangent: I wonder if the proposed stereoisomer relationship is the result of the accuracy of the cognitive functions used by Socionics. e.g. the Socionics INTp uses Ni instead of Ne.
I am a scientist; I believe things "happen to be" in nature. I.e. I am an animal and I over-think, no polarity here; the ability to think is an object of being an animal, they are not on the same level of logical hierarchy. I've always been an animal, or rather,
"a union of segregated regions with differing proportionalities of nanomachines that collectively operate a vehicle, fuelled by the cannibalization of other sorts of these unions." This is how I think of an animal--I don't think of it as just
one thing, I must understand this thing on the most fundamental levels such that it is consistent with everything else, i.e. only using common factors can things be effectively compared such that legitimate logical concepts may be deduced. The first paragraph of my post here talks about this animal thing:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18286
Hey, you're not the only scientist here.
The benefit of Ecology is that it lies, on the macro-scale, at the juncture of agency and physics. I don't think of an animal as one thing either, but as part of one thing. Do you see where the boundary between our divergence lies now? Common factors and induction as well as deduction work in both directions.
And my understanding of emotions are clear--they are merely manifestations of differing proportionalities of chemicals (structures, i.e. 3D shapes..) in the brain based on stimuli picked up by senses and interpreted by the brain (a computer), etc. Any other interpretation I believe may put them on a pedestal, i.e. put them too high on the order of logical hierarchy on concepts that describe the universe, which may lead to incoherent models.
Your understanding of
your emotions.
Emotion for me is an uncontrollable driving force that must be reconciled. I'll bet the farm Fe-Si behaves in the same manner as Ne & Ti.
And I am plagued in angst; but I feel like I am on the downhill now. For years I held an angst that was a product of my thoughts and ideas, but I feel like they are crystallizing now; it's beautiful. It's my meaning of life. When every Idea is crystallized, when everything is entirely predictable and ordered, entropy will cease to exist, and time will become meaningless. I think my point of life is to stop time in this manner; mind you, it is a futile thing--our brain may not possess the processing power to do so, and even if a supercomputer figured it all out, well, then it probably means that we are in a simulation that is moderated by a similar supercomputer, which means we are in a permanent prison; a program, not a reality.
My question specific to this paragraph is: Do you believe that the downhill turn might end and reverse course in real time creative union?
My version of your goal of order and predictability is identifying alternative states of dynamic equilibrium that can be shifted into once the whole system is understood.
No lie, this is the best brain sex I've had in two years.
The best non-autoerotic brain sex ever.
Tangent: Game Theory. This will sound counterintuitive, nuts, and backwards as hell, and you should ignore it, but consider that time can be converted to mass through the act of choice. You can choose to exchange mass for time with the caveat that both are inextricably linked to agency through motion; the placement of energy in physical space.
)