Quote:
“The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life.”
Through looking at this again, it seems he was describing a moral subtype and logical subtype of the "intuitive type", which he later would describe as the types introverted intuition, extraverted logic and introverted intuition, extraverted feeling. Seems like he would see the 16 IM(information metabolism) types before he saw the personality differences between IM types. Does that make sense to anyone else?