Carl Jung on Introverted Sensing Si

[ArchonAlarion]

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.

[Creepy-male]

SPOILER WARNING: SOCIONICS IS NOT JUNG.

[ArchonAlarion]

You're right, socionics is a typological theory and Jung was a very very smart psychologist.

[ArchonAlarion]

Once again, you demonstrate more concern over who made what, and less concern over the actual content of what people say.

Also I'd like to point out that you would not (nor would anyone else) have made that comment if I had replaced Si with Ni in the passages lol.

So predictable.

[Creepy-male]

Wait, what?

The problem here is that the two are totally different systems.

That's like saying that Enneagram and Socionics are interchangeable.

Or that socionics is a way of studying schizophrenics.

[ArchonAlarion]

Nope, not really.

The human physiology is one system in a bigger system composed of smaller systems.

Basically you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the description. Augusta derived the elements directly from Jung, but modified them based on her personal observations. She also tried to make connections where there were none. Its called being a human being.

Jung for instance was overly harsh on Te and Fe because he felt they were aggrandized in contemporary society and he wanted to take them down a peg.

The rest of his descriptions are mostly right on.

So the real question is, who's content makes more sense?

Do you want me to post some of his Ni description?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This has been discussed many times before.

Jung' describes the introverted intuitive as being somewhat removed from the concrete world and time as it is generally perceived - e.g. "But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective."

But Gulanzon is quite right.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jarno]

The Ni description does not mention time, only the Si description.

Well in his book Tavistock Lectures he calls intuition 'Time'.

And if I remember it correctly he mentions Time for Ni in his book psychological types at least once. (yes I agree it's not much)

But then again, time isn't that a great definition for Ni. Future is a better word etc.

Though I agree that Jung has some other akward ideas about Ni. But whatever, he uses dichotomies so he gets at the right type anyways.

[marooned]

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.

[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.

[xerx]

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.

I don't think Jung is describing "time" in the strictest sense. He's describing the Si [introverted] function's connection with an underlying metaphysical reality that's ultimately related to his theory of archetypes.

In socionics "discrete jumps in time" is now closely associated with Ne. I think they got a lot of backlash to the Ni = time thing, and they admitted they were wrong. It's likely that the metaphor they used to describe Ni was too Ne based, and this mostly irritated the Ni types.

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

I can actually see this as a possible description of an SEI - but a very artistically inclined one, perhaps a genius. Nobody that socionics really fully pertains to anyway.

You're right, socionics is a typological theory and Jung was a very very smart psychologist.

How do you know Augusta wasn't smarter?

[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.

[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.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

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.