Carl Jung on Introverted Sensing Si

[Creepy-male]

Oh, I'm pretty good at telling how others are feeling. Nearly a sixth sense.

The problem is with the introvert spam, I guess. You either get it and resonate or don't and think I'm a martian. Much like how people think you're a crazy emo, or crazedrat is a belligerent asshole, or I'm a kooky weirdo sociopath.

Interpersonal relationships are fine too, but I would say I tend to be a bit too aloof around people that either don't interest me or draw in too quickly (that said, I love how ILEs are your best friends of ten years after five minutes of talking).

Sorry in advance if this turns into an extended threadjack, Yake.

[Waddlesworth]

Gosh, you're all so dumb.

[Creepy-male]

Gosh, you're all so strange.

Fixed.

Why can't you all be more like Carla?

[Waddlesworth]

Fixed.

Why can't you all be more like Carla?

I prefer "Gosh, you're all so silly."

[leftylib]

I was thinking Jung's Si description was interesting... I haven't finalized my thoughts on the matter. But in any case, I do think it's important to consider whether Jung's Si and Socionics Si are the same thing; and if they overlap, to what degree? To simply say "Si is this" and post a Jung description is not a critical evaluation of the matter. And had you switched it to being "Ni" I think people would have recognized the source anyway (I hope anyway) and so it wouldn't have worked. The main question is why are you so insistent that Jungian-defined functions = Socionics IM precisely, or are you? I need to look into it more and that's why I'm not giving an opinion, because I'm being lazy, but my suspicion so far is that there is some overlap. I also have been thinking about Ni pertaining to time for a while, and haven't finalized my thoughts on this either.

well the si description has a lot in common with ni since ni is always matching things to unconscious meanings.

[leftylib]

The key question is: is it clear, reading Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition description, that they complement each other? And not just "they complement each other because they're supposed to".

In socionics, the very nature of and means that they complement each other. It is as much part of the nature of an IEE to seek above all in other people, as it is to provide . It's not something that "just happens" - it is an integral part of it.

Personally I think that to assume that Jung is the One True Source of socionics is a sign of intellectual laziness - much easier to assume that all you have to do is to read Jung rather than try to understand how socionics differs from it, in its own terms.

Can we really say that Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition types really, necessarily, complement each other? I doubt it.

actually in socionics Sis 4th function of Ne is considered their vulnerable function. I think Si can be proccupied by Ne, underminded by it and fragmented by it which is why they pair with Ni partners who can help them obtain more depth or peace or whatever.

lefty
enfj
4w5

[Creepy-male]

In Jung's Psychological Types he says the following on Introverted Sensation:


"Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensastion transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day."


This description of Si is the only place where time as pertains to a function is mentioned explicitly in the book. The Ni description does not mention time, only the Si description.


This is another relevent passage in the Si description:


"Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."


This is something I had personally noticed about Si, and was delighted when I read it in Jung's words.


I was gonna play a prank on you guys and switch out the references to Si with Ni and later reveal what I had done, but I think you get my point anyways.

I don't know what to make of this.

It seems too mystical sounding, and not scientific enough to get a grasp of it in terms of personality. How am I supposed to spot when a person is seeing something as a million year old conciosuness sees them?

And now I am confused on the difference between intuition and sensation... I always thought intuition was about seeing the big picture and being abstract.... where as sensation was about your 5 senses and the concrete in the moment sensation you experience.

[Brilliand]

actually in socionics Sis 4th function of Ne is considered their vulnerable function. I think Si can be proccupied by Ne, underminded by it and fragmented by it which is why they pair with Ni partners who can help them obtain more depth or peace or whatever.

lefty
enfj
4w5

Wait what? Does Si here mean creative

[jason_m]

It's settled. Jung was ILI.

Jason

[Creepy-male]

It's settled. Jung was ILI.

Jason

/thread

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't know what to make of this.

It seems too mystical sounding, and not scientific enough to get a grasp of it in terms of personality. How am I supposed to spot when a person is seeing something as a million year old conciosuness sees them?

You don't spot it directly. Its something you notice people doing by their behaviors and expressed thoughts. Also remember that it is idealized. What Jung is getting at is that Si takes in vast amounts of concrete data, and using Ne, "jumps" through time. Ne/Si is like a compressed file on a computer.

Si can handle many details, but you can only stretch the chronological distance it covers by so much. Therefore Ne comes in, zips up the Si, and shrinks the packet of Si into an abstraction. Then this abstraction becomes a component in a wider pattern.

So Si>Ne perceives "long distance chronology" as discontinuous (Static) and each point on that discontinuos chronology can be expanded into a playing field of external interactions.

The entire concept of Time (as perceived by Si/Ne) is compressed, so that each layer is experienced simultaneously (When thinking abstractly that is). Si experiences the external actions and reactions between objects. The effects an action has on objects lingers and can be perceived or traced back to long after the actor has perished.

Ne is abstract and Si is involved. What you should be getting from this is that the complementary elements work together.

And now I am confused on the difference between intuition and sensation... I always thought intuition was about seeing the big picture and being abstract.... where as sensation was about your 5 senses and the concrete in the moment sensation you experience.

That has little relevance to socionics.

[Enters Laughing]

That "million year old consciousness" bit is about how types are very much in tune with the physical background...the "age-old subjective experience" bit is about how objects regardless of their time give out the same impressions...they do not mean that types are particularly bothered with the flow of time itself as an abstract phenomenon.

I do agree that Si and Ni are both about Time in the sense they are both concerned with the perceiving of processes though .

[Creepy-male]

You don't spot it directly. Its something you notice people doing by their behaviors and expressed thoughts. Also remember that it is idealized. What Jung is getting at is that Si takes in vast amounts of concrete data, and using Ne, "jumps" through time. Ne/Si is like a compressed file on a computer.

Si can handle many details, but you can only stretch the chronological distance it covers by so much. Therefore Ne comes in, zips up the Si, and shrinks the packet of Si into an abstraction. Then this abstraction becomes a component in a wider pattern.

So Si>Ne perceives "long distance chronology" as discontinuous (Static) and each point on that discontinuos chronology can be expanded into a playing field of external interactions.

The entire concept of Time (as perceived by Si/Ne) is compressed, so that each layer is experienced simultaneously (When thinking abstractly that is). Si experiences the external actions and reactions between objects. The effects an action has on objects lingers and can be perceived or traced back to long after the actor has perished.

Ne is abstract and Si is involved. What you should be getting from this is that the complementary elements work together.

Thats nice but, I think I first should attempt to understand what Si and what Ne is first before juggling these in a theory of complementary elements. I mean if I spend to much time concerned with understanding them working together, how will I be able to distinguish which is Si and Ne, if I can't make that distinction I won't truely understand the relationship and role of them working together, I'll just understand some jungian function mixture thing.

I think also its important to spot it directly in some manifestation, otherwise you are just find facts to fit your theory.... you should be able to observe it in practice and recognize it or else it just seems like your coming up with something to explain something that may or may not hold as true.

That has little relevance to socionics.

Really I think its extremely important to understand what the meanig of the words "Sensing" and "Intuition" mean in the context of jung. I mean jung doesn't distinguish between sensing and intuition because he got tired of using the same word... theres a divergence between the ideas.... intuition represents an idea..... sensing represents an idea. I think if you can't even understand what idea is being represented by these words your probably just lending to your own confusion, and possibly getting ahead of yourself trying to grasp an even bigger idea without a solid foundation of understanding.