not sure if anyone can truthfully describe his own inner process. it might all be fabulation. but i like to give it another shot.
my "mad genius" is, when i am digging in my perception, trying to make conscious or crystallize what i have gained over time, in subconscious insights about reality and self. i come up with new questions or new containers (structures, frameworks), to fill with such data. the containers evolve with incoming data. enough data was collected to create a leap in the structure (but i may be unaware of this, until i begin to play around).
i gain subconscious data, by staring at the conscious objects, and being sensitive to all associations that come up. this only amounts to something extraordinary, when there is a method, which lies in selecting the various conscious objects to stare at, at once, or in which order i examine them. this is guided by the framework of expectation, which is a frame work of trial and error.
the collection of objective objects that i take in seems unjustified. to use a food metaphor, which totally grosses me out by the way, because i am not talking about objective sensor stuff like food, but just as a metaphor: there is nothing in mentos that says "i should be examined together with coke" .. but something inside, something that is subjective, intuits that it will be a promising mix. the metaphor is lacking, because it could be assumed, that the intuition about the explosive potential is based in objective knowledge about the properties of mentos and coke, which would result in a hunch about how they might relate chemically. that's not what's guiding the mix though. it's a preference for explosions, over any other sort of reaction that might be possible. there is nothing in mentos that says: "i should amount to an explosion, once i find my proper place in live." the experiment is not guided by a random curiosity about what might happen, when the oddest possible things are mixed. i don't give a fuck about random reactions, because i don't care about the interactive life of objective objects to begin with. but i'm on a quest for: what is going to amount to something great, something transcended? and that without prior knowing of what an explosion is. finding out, what such greatness looks like, how it would unfold in the manifest world, is the conscious result or product of the intuitive process/search.
what i actually talk about is ideas, perceptions, subjective perspectives, purely speculative artificial comprehensions or interpretations of supposedly objective objects - objects such as charles manson - there are plenty of ways to speculate about what his spirit is like, right? what is it, to see life as he does? you come up with those speculations, from your subconsciousness. such speculations are to me, what chemical molecules are to the explosion loving chemist in my metaphor. my mind wonders, what inspired but unfounded speculations - that come up while staring at which things - would most likely ignite a break through in perception, when brought together into the mind, into a fusion? then i stay with that mix for a while, i animate the virtual subject and judge what it's up to, or i try to improve on it, by adding to it. what if i put charles manson, adolf hitler and nietzsche into one body*? what do they have to tell me about the reality of the human condition, or about zoomed in aspects, such as what is it, to hold an ideology, or what is it, to manifest a unique/unconventional will? (*btw, manson hitler and nietzsche are an unauthentic/random mix, chosen for the sake of giving an example, because i can't come up with a genuine example, that could be communicated - not all spirits have famous names on them, for example when i am scanning my friends, seeking for what makes them tick, what transpersonal spirit is revealed, when several of my friends are combined into a "type"?)
within what i have described, i am not concerned with logical synthesis of philosophical thinkers. i do that too, but it's a different construction site, all together and i go there less frequently. that would be Te stuff. i mostly do that, when i read what people have to say, but i don't go there a lot, i don't read very much. (i have like only 20 books on human interiors, 5 books may be highly logical).
what i described seems to be an interaction of Ni and Se. Ni is what is seeking, Se is the trial and error process of looking at various objects. or perhaps it's just RAW S. no e to it. i don't bother to be too objective, i just stay long enough with the object (S) until subjective speculations are ignited.
usually i would just hang out in my life and look at whatever presents itself. this creates insight about those things, but it's limited to what happens. although there is a special value in seeing, what subjects present themselves together, naturally. this is totally mandatory to making intuition into something smart.
i rarely have the mental energy to set up such experiments of unreal fusion in my mind. it's not something that is unavoidable for my type. someone who is less smart might not do it at all, ever. i am not sure, if i did this before my 20ies. a certain desperation is needed, for me to sit down and to try very hard to create new insights, out of "thin air", which is how this arbitrary configuration of various memorized objects seems to me.
) might call this "flow" ( 
