question for Si-Ego types: preception of objects

[consentingadult]

I was having a discussion with Cyclops, in which he explained about how he experiences Si. He said: "Like, I am always relaxed in my head. I can spend hours not actually doing anything at all and still feel at peace" and "My 'head' is aware of things that are around me and how I feel physically, and it's just taking in things as they are."

Well, 'taking in things as they are' is just a bit too vague for me, to which he elaborated "So I suppose in my head, i'm not really thinking about anything, i'm just aware of either how I feel, or that and the things in my room, like now. Not how they will change, but just what they are for what they are ... And being aware of those things is enough to occupy my mind"

Especially the bold part struck a chord with me, because it reminded me of an experiment I did almost 20 years ago. Let me tell you what happened:

One night I was reading on the philosophy of space and time and relativity theory, took some scrap paper and started playing around with Einstein's famous U=MC2. After doing some deductions I arrived at an expression in which speed was expressed in s/m (if I recall correctly). So I thought I had made an error somewhere in the deduction, since I 'knew' speed is always expressed in distance travelled per time unit. I went over it again and again for about two hours, but I couldn't find the error. Then, it suddenly hit me: what I fool I was for thinking movement should always be expressed in distance travelled per time unit; I realized you can also describe movement in time taken per distance unit, or even m/m/s, or whatever. There are many ways to describe movement or change, it very much depends on the reference framework you are using.

So I fooled around some more with the equations, until suddenly someting totally unanticipated happenend. All of a sudden I was seeing reality around me, all the objects, the table, the coffee cups on it, the furniture in my living room, with the sense of space and time ELIMINATED FROM IT. I was seeing 'objects as they were' and for the first time I realized my default mode of looking at reality was with an implicit sense of space and time, i.e. objects to me are always somewhere in space and time and in relationship to other objects. Now, for the first time in my life, I saw reality as it 'really' was: each object was sufficient in its own right, unrelated to the other objects, which existed in their own right as well. To me, this was a thrilling discovery, a peak experiene that went far beyond that magnificent orgasm I had when I had sex with a girl for the first time (probably due to lack of oxygen), and also much more magnificent than that near-death experience I once had. It felt like God had shown me a higher level of reality (and that for an atheist!), it felt like a revelation of the true nature of reality!

I won't bother you with what happened afterwards, but let me suffice by saying the feeling left me and never came back to me ever again. I've had many things in my life that I felt bad about but that I in some way overcame and learned to accept or shrug off, but not this particular experience, and I can't think about it without getting tears in my eyes.

Now my question to Si-ego types is: what I have just described above, is that a description of how leading and/or creative Si types feel all or most of the time?

[Mediator Kam]

I slightly agree with what cyclops said, but I don't see how this is representative of Si, like this is "the key to Si". Or maybe I am missing the point.

Your description is quite strange and I am having a hard time understanding how you would feel something like that.

[ArchonAlarion]

I experience Si as if I've melted into the liquid churnings of the physical world.

Seeing Si is similar to the butter fly effect. That one small change or action will have an effect on every other action in space and time. All the interactions of physical objects are coalesced and everything affects everything else, like pulling upon the strings of reality.

Thats how I see my Si agenda

[duality is cringe]

Weird thread.

[Creepy-male]

Reading way too much in to it.

It's just when you shut down. Ne is naturally hippin-and-a-hoppin' from mental train to cerebral trainwreck and then past the corner store, Si is just.

Obviously, we Ne-heads can't verbalize it so well, what with it being a vital function, but seriously. It's not romantic or amazing in any way.

I shall retype myself ISE.

[Rubicon]

Reading way too much in to it.

It's just when you shut down. Ne is naturally hippin-and-a-hoppin' from mental train to cerebral trainwreck and then past the corner store, Si is just.

Stfu!

Isn't "reality as it really is" more an Se concept? The elimination of context and all that?

I don't think I really relate to seeing things that concretely. I'm usually more aware of how something makes me feel, and why it makes me feel that way. Or what things I associate it with in my head. When I'm super tired .. or in my head, things can just wash over me without any meaning being attributed to them really ... but everything still feels connected with each other - it feels more like seeing things in impressions rather than objects in isolation.

Perhaps I'm not an SEI though.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Put in a contrast between Si and Se, I would say that Si sees things as they are and Se sees events. So I suppose Ne sees many events whereas Se sees one.

These are very basic examples and I haven't the inclination these days to debate context of presentation/language and theory on the forum. Perhaps that will change.

I do think it is difficult to explain functions in a tangible way for an individual, especially a dominant function. Such a conversation can become very in depth and will never be to the satisfaction of all others. IMO there aren't even universally agreed definitions of functions yet, except for those that are highly abstract and don't do much to relate to actual practicallity of day to day living and inner thinking, and some people even disagree with them.

Also including how functions manifest differently such as Si-Te and Si-Fe and Xe-Si combinations (amongst other super ego combos).

However I don't see what I am saying (considering it is just a small part of conversation) is Se (as some people have mentioned). But at the same time I'm not willing to debate it on the forum, because I see it as a mostly futile project and also one which isn't something that I am currently devoting some of my life energy to, that is being applied elsewhere just now pretty much fully, but I thought i'd make a post nonetheless.

But I do think the state of mind consentingadult reached is an interesting one. It opens other possibilities to discuss those who consider drugs and certain machines that tap into the brain waves to have an effect on which function a person is or can experience.

If someone wishes to discuss such things, I would say go ahead.

Also, i'm aware that Diana thinks i'm anything but ISTp. And i'm aware that she doesn't listen to anything I say and that her opinion of me is that i'm a "total bastard" and such things, because she told me on a thread that was (I think) lost during the 2 week window, so for me any conversation at least with her will be futile, which is another reason why i'm not really keen on discussion, at least of this. Although I did manage to make a fairly long post.

Edit: But that isn't to say people can't put forward their own views (or that I object to it! Just that i'm going to involve myself as a focal point of the discussion) and try to express how they experience their Si, not at all!

[marooned]

I thought Se sees discrete, tangible, concrete "objects" and their properties. It can see qualities and attributes of objects as well, e.g. "that dude over there is a lazy bum!" or "that idea is lame" etc. (Ne would see the potentials of these objects, the hidden qualities that are abstract... change the conditions and the lazy bum can blossom into an annoying salesperson.)

Te sees events... events imply something dynamic.

?

[consentingadult]

One of the things that people need to keep in the back of their mind, is that we are not discussing Cy's type here, but my question of how my state of mind mentioned in the example relates to Si. In the discussion I had with Cyclops, he said a lot more than I quoted.

Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently: what does an Si type do (mentally??) to arrive at that Si state? In order to be able to do that, we must of course first define what an Si state of mind is. To me, Si is about eliminating all that is not required. It is also about discomfort avoidance, but in a good and effective way (since many types can do discomfort avoidance, but in many cases this has an unwanted side effect that usually causes more problems than that it solves).

[consentingadult]

I thought Se sees discrete, tangible, concrete "objects" and their properties. It can see qualities and attributes of objects as well, e.g. "that dude over there is a lazy bum!" or "that idea is lame" etc. (Ne would see the potentials of these objects, the hidden qualities that are abstract... change the conditions and the lazy bum can blossom into an annoying salesperson.)

Te sees events... events imply something dynamic.

?

'lazy bum' and 'annoying salesman' are not a properties of an object, they are value judgements of the subject.

[ArchonAlarion]

how about, "green table" and "loud explosion" for Se examples?

Yeah and Si is more about events and Se is more about how things are.

dynamics of fields vs statics of objects.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

how about, "green table" and "loud explosion" for Se examples?

Yeah and Si is more about events and Se is more about how things are.

dynamics of fields vs statics of objects.

Then by your logic Se dominants don't create events and get involved in things, and Si dominants don't sit around on their ass experiencing their own environment or their own internal bodily sensations. :-)

And by loki, Se is about identifying lazy bums (so Te isn't about efficiency because how many ESTj's tolerate lazy non productive people) and Ni doesn't identify which things Se dominants do or are going to do is lame (apparently Se does this for itself).

[marooned]

'lazy bum' and 'annoying salesman' are not a properties of an object, they are value judgements of the subject.

yeah. it's not very object.ive.

[ArchonAlarion]

Then by your logic Se dominants don't create events and get involved in things, and Si dominants don't sit around on their ass experiencing their own environment or their own internal bodily sensations. :-)

And by loki, Se is about identifying lazy bums (so Te isn't about efficiency because how many ESTj's tolerate lazy non productive people) and Ni doesn't identify which things Se dominants do or are going to do is lame (apparently Se does this for itself).

wtf?

everyone participates in events.

and the lazy Si stereotype can be true, but is one product of the element

and no its not about your internal body sensations at all.

external dynamics of fields

what the fuck does that have to do with what you said?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

wtf?

everyone participates in events.

and the lazy Si stereotype can be true, but is one product of the element

and no its not about your internal body sensations at all.

external dynamics of fields

what the fuck does that have to do with what you said?

You do not understand. And you possibly need more experience with the types to see how they typically behave.

The point of this thread, I think, is to address real life examples and situations, not to regurgitate "dynamics of fields" which i've already explained as something which is highly abstract, and to the point of meaning..everything but something. If you want to debate technical definitions, my advice is to compare it to reality and perhaps take it from there.

And what you said, is in contrast to how types typically behave. If you can't see what I meant when I previously quoted you, then how can I explain it further, or why?

[marooned]

And by loki, Se is about identifying lazy bums (so Te isn't about efficiency because how many ESTj's tolerate lazy non productive people) and Ni doesn't identify which things Se dominants do or are going to do is lame (apparently Se does this for itself).

I feel like communicating with you is nearly impossible.

[consentingadult]

I feel like communicating with you is nearly impossible.

That's odd. I always feels de-stressed, clear-minded and 20 pounds lighter (as in walking on air) after talking to Cyclops

(No offense, must be explainable by Socionics. Weren't you SLI yourself?)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I feel like communicating with you is nearly impossible.

There is no point in moving the issue. I made a post, you made a sort underneath in contradiction to what I wrote, and with a question.

So I respond, and question what you are saying in a way with a direct example of how your definition of these functions is flawed.

Deal with that and respond accordingly. Communication with me or others is easy: You correct me, you agree with me, or you follow on the conversation with another piece of interesting information. But you've done none of this.

[ArchonAlarion]

You do not understand. And you possibly need more experience with the types to see how they typically behave.

The point of this thread, I think, is to address real life examples and situations, not to regurgitate "dynamics of fields" which i've already explained as something which is highly abstract, and to the point of meaning..everything but something. If you want to debate technical definitions, my advice is to compare it to reality and perhaps take it from there.

And what you said, is in contrast to how types typically behave. If you can't see what I meant when I previously quoted you, then how can I explain it further, or why?

By that sort of thinking you cause further confusion and mistypyings within the community.

That way of describing Si is extremely small and petty sounding. Its one of the reasons I thought I was Si role.

However, thats not what Si is as I've explained and now that I understand the elements I'm certain I value Si.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

By that sort of thinking you cause further confusion and mistypyings within the community.

This is just rubbish. How often do I type people in the "community". And how often within those typing do I use this as a typing procedure? I'll answer a)rarely b)i don't

That way of describing Si is extremely small and petty sounding. Its one of the reasons I thought I was Si role.

Wait..you are INTp again? Ah.. You were typing yourself from a role function do you mean?

Oh, and it's already been said a few times by myself at least, that it is a small and simple part (the "definition" of said functions, and also that this is not the op's point of the thread). Why don't you get over it?

However, thats not what Si is as I've explained and now that I understand the elements I'm certain I value Si.

See above. Who knows what type you are. And..I see no need to move the issue (although I may have contributed to it) it's moving to silly theoretical nonesense imo. Infact it hasn't..the post i'm responding to is sort of..bland.

Just to add: Not that there is anything wrong with theory, but in this case there is no point. My overall context of my posts explains why I think so in this particular instance.

On a more interesting note, I just got chatted up by a female who's been admiring me from afar for a while. She's OK and I type her as ESTj. I kept my phone on in the pub and used it's internet access to reply periodically whilst others where out for a cigarette.

[ArchonAlarion]

Umm... I meant by describing Si in that way you cause confusions for noobs thar bud.

And I said "thought I was" Si role.


And you're making Si sound like petty bullshit and its pervasive here to think of it like that.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Umm... I meant by describing Si in that way you cause confusions for noobs thar bud.

And I said "thought I was" Si role.

OK cool. Although I personally disagree (again, I said I wasn't wanting to get involved in such a theoretical discussion, but.. I think what I wrote was pretty simple for a short one sentence, the opposite of confusion it could be said. And.. Again..not the full conversation, so no need to be picky with it I hope!

And you're making Si sound like petty bullshit and its pervasive here to think of it like that.

That's your opinion, I think Si is pretty powerful tool if used..correctly, but.. If it really was petty bullshit, then there's no real need to sugar coat it, so to me that's not really an argument or a valid point..if such an interpretation of what I write..by you for example, was true.

[marooned]

There is no point in moving the issue.

You mean YOU think there's no point to it. I find the tone patronizing.

So I respond, and question what you are saying in a way with a direct example of how your definition of these functions is flawed.

No. You responded by misconstruing what I said, and by seemingly adding things into it that aren't there and that don't at all necessarily follow.

And by loki, Se is about identifying lazy bums (so Te isn't about efficiency because how many ESTj's tolerate lazy non productive people) and Ni doesn't identify which things Se dominants do or are going to do is lame (apparently Se does this for itself).

I was trying to give an example about Se being about discrete concrete objects, obviously it was not a very good example (which ConsentingAdult actually pointed out rather well without warping anything I said). The bolded part is something I did NOT say, and it's complete nonsense as far as I can tell, so I don't really appreciate you attributing it to me. And the manner in which you did it comes off as rather insulting.

Deal with that and respond accordingly.

This is also patronizing as far as I'm concerned. I don't need you to tell me to deal with something--what I deal with or don't deal with is not any of your affair.

Communication with me or others is easy: You correct me, you agree with me, or you follow on the conversation with another piece of interesting information. But you've done none of this.

I like how you've expanded this to include others. I'm wasn't talking about "others"; I was saying that I find communication with YOU to be nearly impossible. And it's because of things like the bolded part above.

[consentingadult]

@Cyclops and Loki:

just leave each other at peace, your communication styles are so similar that it makes sense the two of you are colliding

[Creepy-Cyclops]

A long post by you. Too long for me to respond bit by bit just now.

So.. The bolded part. I said it. However, it's what you implied by your post. If you can't see how then you can't imo connect the dots.

Also, saying you find me (almost?) impossible to communicate with, is completely useless if you don't explain how to communicate with you. I did this. And your previous post still I think avoided the issue anyway.

You find it insulting, I say you are easily offended and can't handle the facts.

That I included the word "others" in my last part is my perogitive. I don't do what you ask or rather, what you mean to ask, by way of knowing by a crystal ball.

And yes, it was a poor example you provided, and I pointed it out. Sort of ironic considering the way the thread turned out.

Edit: saw CA's last post. I could delete this one but decided to leave it, meh.

[marooned]

Fine. Nevermind.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Fine. Nevermind.

You are..possibly interpreting my words through Fe. There's no real emotion in them, just words to be taken at face value. If you can do that or not is something else, it's not something I see an INFp do very often (although I'm.. sure it ain't impossible..)