Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Se versus Si touch

  1. #1
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,181
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Se versus Si touch

    Hello everyone! Back with a new thread 😌

    I'm interested in how 's touch differs from 's, how are they like in comparison, with what motive or incentive?

    You could give practical examples with the specific type representatives (for instance, S ignoring versus demonstrative makes a huge difference) or talk about it in theory, either is good.



    That is all, thank you


  2. #2
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Si is sensations and Se is force. If you hug someone that is Se. The sensation of being hugged is Si.

  3. #3
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seems like Aushra divided the IMs as 8 dimensions - is kinetic energy and is space. With people observe the power, strength, to some extent utility, of things in the outside world. It is how we can observe levels of mobilisation and mobilises ourselves too. (Whereas with you can observe potential energy, i.e. what something can become, or what it can produce, rather than what it is or what level it is at.)

    With we observe the relationship between things in a space (whereas is in a time.) Some practical example: when we are with we can see the subjective relationship between things, but we are not necessarily judging them, we are just contrasting them. When you have a cheeseboard and taste many types of cheeses, will help you feel the differences between them and their effects in your mouth.

    With you observe the force or power of something - when you are drawing the bowstring for archery you will use it to observe the kinetic power of the arrow and how much energy is required. Or if you cross a busy road even, you must see the speed of the cars/where they will soon be et cetera.

    I do not like practical eg, but I gave some there.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  4. #4
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se = physical touch
    Si = sensual touch

    Si is not concerned with the physical object at all, only the immediate impressions from it.

    Si senses what's going on on the inside.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  5. #5
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,578
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se is BDSM and Si is Kama Sutra

  6. #6
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually Si base doesn't usually show that much sensuality. Because everything is sensuality, so it is not demonstrated in any special way.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  7. #7
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,181
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by totalize View Post
    Seems like Aushra divided the IMs as 8 dimensions - is kinetic energy and is space. With people observe the power, strength, to some extent utility, of things in the outside world. It is how we can observe levels of mobilisation and mobilises ourselves too. (Whereas with you can observe potential energy, i.e. what something can become, or what it can produce, rather than what it is or what level it is at.)

    With we observe the relationship between things in a space (whereas is in a time.) Some practical example: when we are with we can see the subjective relationship between things, but we are not necessarily judging them, we are just contrasting them. When you have a cheeseboard and taste many types of cheeses, will help you feel the differences between them and their effects in your mouth.

    With you observe the force or power of something - when you are drawing the bowstring for archery you will use it to observe the kinetic power of the arrow and how much energy is required. Or if you cross a busy road even, you must see the speed of the cars/where they will soon be et cetera.

    I do not like practical eg, but I gave some there.
    is also space, otherwise you cannot have powerful and expansive kinetics in the first place! as a contrasting process is a nice idea. What I want to know is how this transfers to the feeling on skin.

  8. #8
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    imo there isn't an "Se hug" nor an "Si hug". Se and Si are information elements.
    But I suppose if pressed one could say that one difference may be between hugging a person with the intent to get information about their body and it's static traits, vs hugging a person to feel out the relational dynamics between your body and their's. (Se = static object; Si = dynamic field)

    (edited to add: rereading the thread and I'm not sure why 'hug' stuck in my head rather than 'touch' as the OP's question, sorry about that, but the above would still apply...touch used to gain info about the traits of what's being touched vs touch being used to figure out the relational dynamics between toucher and touched.)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  9. #9
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    is also space,
    don't think so, this doesn't seem to be what original socionics texts say, or even modern ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    otherwise you cannot have powerful and expansive kinetics in the first place! as a contrasting process is a nice idea. What I want to know is how this transfers to the feeling on skin.
    you don't need to observe what is in space to be expansive or visa versa - expansion comes from extraversion. extravert is inclined to change object, whereas introvert changes relation between object(s)/subject(s).
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  10. #10
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    imo there isn't an "Se hug" nor an "Si hug". Se and Si are information elements.
    But I suppose if pressed one could say that one difference may be between hugging a person with the intent to get information about their body and it's static traits, vs hugging a person to feel out the relational dynamics between your body and their's. (Se = static object; Si = dynamic field)

    (edited to add: rereading the thread and I'm not sure why 'hug' stuck in my head rather than 'touch' as the OP's question, sorry about that, but the above would still apply...touch used to gain info about the traits of what's being touched vs touch being used to figure out the relational dynamics between toucher and touched.)
    If you think of it, moving the finger is Se and sensing the environment is Si. Touch is essentially both.

  11. #11
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Si senses anything on the inside. It can be body reactions, state of alertness, impressions from the environment. But Si does not sense the environment, strictly speaking, only the impressions from it.

    It's a psychic fact that the environment gives rise to inner impressions. Materials, trees, stones, surfaces, dust, liquids etc give rise to inner impressions. That's just how the human mind has evolved. Si is about sensing all this.

    Especially erotic touch gives rise to strong inner impressions. So Si is very sensitive to this. Being touched this way one can feel that the person is detached. Everything is on the inside and the object itself secondary. Some people would say it's boring.

    When a person gives you an "Si touch" they only touch you physically to the extent that inner impressions are evoked in them (and maybe in you). This can be called a sensual touch.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  12. #12
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^Yup.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se touch


  14. #14
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Se touch


    bad examples

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    bad examples
    agree. Se touch is not good. they like s&m

  16. #16
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    agree. Se touch is not good. they like s&m
    Se touch is hugging, being direct about it. Si is almost religious about it. If we are doing this meta thing. Not more to say. Ni and Si are almost the same in that it is meta.

  17. #17
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se is like kamasutra
    While
    Si is missionary

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •