Si - how to discover it

[Tallmo]

If you are SEI or SLI you might be interested.

This is a "method" of how be more aware of Si base

Because one is sitting in the middle of the base function it can be hard to discover. There is nothing to compare with.

Try this:
I look at the world around me, (houses, trees, the road outside my window etc), and I just try to see it as what it is purely visually, that is only as shapes, colors, objects. Like looking at a technical drawing basically.

And then I notice, this is not how I really see things. The Si component is missing. The "depth" and the "organic" feeling of the objects around me. That I am normally constantly in tune with, without even reflecting upon it.

It's difficult to become aware of it, but for me it helps to do this contrasting exercise.

[para]

Si is something along the lines of 'subjective explicit qualia'.

[Chakram]

And then I notice, this is not how I really see things. The Si component is missing. The "depth" and the "organic" feeling of the objects around me.

Could you elaborate on this point?

[Tallmo]

Could you elaborate on this point?

Yes. I'll reply tomorrow. No time right now

[Tallmo]

Originally Posted by Tallmo
And then I notice, this is not how I really see things. The Si component is missing. The "depth" and the "organic" feeling of the objects around me.

Could you elaborate on this point?

Si is a contamination of the pure visual experience of the environment. Normally I don't separate these things, but by forcing myself to see the environment purely visually (things, colors, stuff), i realize that there is a contamination. Si itself is not visual, but it comes together with the visual experience. It gives a certain character to the things we see that is hard to describe.

This is only about the visual experience, but it works the same way with comfort etc.

[Chakram]

Si is a contamination of the pure visual experience of the environment. Normally I don't separate these things, but by forcing myself to see the environment purely visually (things, colors, stuff), i realize that there is a contamination. Si itself is not visual, but it comes together with the visual experience. It gives a certain character to the things we see that is hard to describe.

This is only about the visual experience, but it works the same way with comfort etc.

I think I know what you are trying to convey, but could the same not be said of any IE? They all contaminate objects, just using different criteria or in the way they are related back to the user.

[Tallmo]

I think I know what you are trying to convey, but could the same not be said of any IE? They all contaminate objects, just using different criteria or in the way they are related back to the user.

That's possible. But I can only speak for Si. I don't know how much other IE bases are experienced in contrast to the visual environment.

[Olimpia]

I look at the world around me, (houses, trees, the road outside my window etc), and I just try to see it as what it is purely visually, that is only as shapes, colors, objects. Like looking at a technical drawing basically.

That sounds like a good description of the Se lens actually ^^'

[Tallmo]

That sounds like a good description of the Se lens actually ^^'

Yes it is very hard for me to do that. (Although I wouldnt say its actually Se). But it provides a contrast

[consentingadult]

This is how I discovered Si:

[Tallmo]

This is how I discovered Si:

One could apply the same method and contrast the sensation of comfort/pleasure with the pure physical sensation of the water. I try doing this also. Like last night in my bed I feel the comfort sensation of my body against the sheet. And then I try to disregard this comfort and just focus on the pure physical sensation of the sheets.

[consentingadult]

One could apply the same method and contrast the sensation of comfort/pleasure with the pure physical sensation of the water. I try doing this also. Like last night in my bed I feel the comfort sensation of my body against the sheet. And then I try to disregard this comfort and just focus on the pure physical sensation of the sheets.

The thing with the jacuzzi is that when in it, I'm able to let go of thoughts and feelings, especially when I turn the bubbles on. The feeling of comfort is not so much arrived at because of the sensation of bubbling water against your body, but of you yourself 'becoming part of the water', so to speak, there no longer seems to be much of a 'self'. I guess it works like a sort of regression to the womb. It is different from, e.g. being massaged: when you receive a massage, it feels good too, but you do not become one with the massage therapist. At least I don't ;-)

[Tallmo]

The thing with the jacuzzi is that when in it, I'm able to let go of thoughts and feelings, especially when I turn the bubbles on. The feeling of comfort is not so much arrived at because of the sensation of bubbling water against your body, but of you yourself 'becoming part of the water', so to speak, there no longer seems to be much of a 'self'. I guess it works like a sort of regression to the womb. It is different from, e.g. being massaged: when you receive a massage, it feels good too, but you do not become one with the massage therapist. At least I don't ;-)

This seems to me to be influnced by the unconsciousness of your suggestive Si. Its really the childish function.

[consentingadult]

This seems to me to be influnced by the unconsciousness of your suggestive Si. Its really the childish function.

I guess it is.

[Myst]

Si is a contamination of the pure visual experience of the environment. Normally I don't separate these things, but by forcing myself to see the environment purely visually (things, colors, stuff), i realize that there is a contamination. Si itself is not visual, but it comes together with the visual experience. It gives a certain character to the things we see that is hard to describe.

This is only about the visual experience, but it works the same way with comfort etc.

I don't know if the pure visual experience is not contaminated anyway : P of visual illusions, distortions and the like. But ofc as long as it's in parallel enough with the actual environment it's good enough and we can call it objective enough.

Your whatever characterisation of things sounds like umm, are you like, mixing it with memories of other feelings and similar experiences? Or like focusing on just the feeling of enjoying it (or on disliking it)? I think I do the latter more.

I guess in my identification of things when I'm familiar with something my having experienced it previously plays a heavy role for me with handling stuff more efficiently/faster/more effortlessly. But for me that's neither of the above two options (as mentioned by me). More like I just absorbed the thing and so now I'm familiar with it so it speeds up things. It's not very conscious but I guess I could isolate this layer from the pure objective perception and identification of things. At the same time there's that objective one too, though. That's unrelated to that absorption.

And imagine that's the same for everyone...

Though for me I'm not so aware of the former layer but I am if I try to look a little harder at how I experience stuff. Then I see how fundamental a role it plays. But until them I'm like hey isn't it natural to see the environment around you objectively I mean it'll always be impossible for me to imagine how it wouldn't be like that for some people. I get it some people are very absent-minded and pay less attention or whatever bc they tune out here and there but that's all I can imagine. I can't imagine your thingy about the certain character of objects. Other than I guess spatial arrangement that helps with navigation and knowing objects and whatever, but other than that no.

Try this:
I look at the world around me, (houses, trees, the road outside my window etc), and I just try to see it as what it is purely visually, that is only as shapes, colors, objects. Like looking at a technical drawing basically.

And then I notice, this is not how I really see things. The Si component is missing. The "depth" and the "organic" feeling of the objects around me. That I am normally constantly in tune with, without even reflecting upon it.

This also kind of sounds like you removed focus from personal feelings and you just try to see things in a technical & clinical & impersonal way. Like things are no longer animate but just inanimate. (My default)

One could apply the same method and contrast the sensation of comfort/pleasure with the pure physical sensation of the water. I try doing this also. Like last night in my bed I feel the comfort sensation of my body against the sheet. And then I try to disregard this comfort and just focus on the pure physical sensation of the sheets.

I think I do both easily, comfort sensation vs pure physical sensation (as far as it can be pure and objective). The former is what makes me fall asleep fast.

But I'd dislike it if I were to approach everything like that during the day..... it'd be the antithesis of me. (And probably of most people's. : p) I mean, yeah, I sometimes want to, but then for a pretty large amount of the time I don't want to, bc I want to instead focus on the task or goal I'm doing and for that I'll want discipline and being unaffected by the environment beyond a point. Like, I prefer to just stay in control of the feelings and sensations, I'll put them in their place (where I want to put them), disable them, diminish them, etc., instead of following them.

If I just look at things as objects or just, objectively, that helps me with that and helps for the goal plus it's just normal and natural for me. But then yeah the focus on comfort or whatever pleasure is also just normal and natural when I want that. It would be pretty bad if I just sensed food in the objective way lol. Or my position for the chair I'm sitting in. And so on, there's many little things where I do want to have more than just objectively registering things. I would imagine this is the same for everyone though some people would want to do it more than others maybe sure.

The thing with the jacuzzi is that when in it, I'm able to let go of thoughts and feelings, especially when I turn the bubbles on. The feeling of comfort is not so much arrived at because of the sensation of bubbling water against your body, but of you yourself 'becoming part of the water', so to speak, there no longer seems to be much of a 'self'. I guess it works like a sort of regression to the womb. It is different from, e.g. being massaged: when you receive a massage, it feels good too, but you do not become one with the massage therapist. At least I don't ;-)

I personally don't pay attention for long to the sensation of the water - I imagine most people don't bc of the sensation becoming habituated and just simply the person getting bored with focusing on one type of sensation - and I'd be soon pretty bored sitting in there. I'd try and start to have thoughts to pass the time when I normally don't have them But I'd be better off not staying in there too long bc all that extra thinking or more like scattered thoughts coming up is just draining too mentally. I.e. if there are too many clouds on the sky (clear sky: thought-less, empty mind, cloud = thought). A few little fleeting clouds is okay, more is draining.

That would be me disliking the Default mode network so to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network - this is also what deals with the "self".

Funny for you it's the opposite, i.e. it turns off and then you are able to immerse in whatever sensation of being in that "womb". Oh and I'd be bored of that sensation too pretty soon even if I managed to feel that way.

My SEI GF and I visited her brother (ILE) and his GF (SLE) in Ibiza two weeks ago. So my GF cooked dinner, and the SLE woman asks my GF questions on how my GF cooks, and somewhere in that discussion my GF says she never tastes the food while cooking, to the bewilderment of the SLE, for how can one cook without tasting now and then? To which my GF replied that she knows how it tastes. It's not that my GF follows recipes to the letter, or something, she rather improvises at it, it's all in the wrist, so the speak. It's the same phenomenon Tallmo is talking about, but then applied to food and flavors, instead of e.g. colors and textures.

I also prefer to cook without tasting it too often, I guess if I'm really unsure I'll do that but otherwise not. And often I don't need to go outside or even really open the window to know how to dress for the weather. I sometimes do go check the outside (open the window / look at temperature/humidity reports) when I really need to but usually don't have to. And stuff like that. Doubt this is truly type related though lol. But it does seem like a skill, not everyone seems to have it.

[consentingadult]

My SEI GF and I visited her brother (ILE) and his GF (SLE) in Ibiza two weeks ago. So my GF cooked dinner, and the SLE woman asks my GF questions on how my GF cooks, and somewhere in that discussion my GF says she never tastes the food while cooking, to the bewilderment of the SLE, for how can one cook without tasting now and then? To which my GF replied that she knows how it tastes. It's not that my GF follows recipes to the letter, or something, she rather improvises at it, it's all in the wrist, so the speak. It's the same phenomenon Tallmo is talking about, but then applied to food and flavors, instead of e.g. colors and textures.

[Tallmo]

My SEI GF and I visited her brother (ILE) and his GF (SLE) in Ibiza two weeks ago. So my GF cooked dinner, and the SLE woman asks my GF questions on how my GF cooks, and somewhere in that discussion my GF says she never tastes the food while cooking, to the bewilderment of the SLE, for how can one cook without tasting now and then? To which my GF replied that she knows how it tastes. It's not that my GF follows recipes to the letter, or something, she rather improvises at it, it's all in the wrist, so the speak. It's the same phenomenon Tallmo is talking about, but then applied to food and flavors, instead of e.g. colors and textures.

I don't see how it could be the same, but maybe I didn't understand. If you apply this to food, it means tasting it and separating the pure taste from the Si inner sensation of it.

For example, when I drink wine I don't really register what it actually tastes like. Only how it sort of feels in my mouth (more Si related)

[The Reality Denialist]

For food if we know that there is a preferred amount of spice per certain portion size you can deduce there that if you add this much to it then it might objectively taste more like it. That actually sounds more like Ti/Fe.

Also interesting to note: humans tend to sense mentally and physically in logarithmic manner meaning that we reach point of saturation sensitivity pretty fast and initial amounts contribute more to it than the next same amount of incremental adding. I wonder if this contributes to false beliefs in homeopathy.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How I see Si-egos is they just naturally melt into reality so easily or something. They just become so easily part of the picture. They might internally feel like outcasts because of their introversion but environmentally and physically its just like they morph into everything so well.

Bndonics 101:

There are four ****** functions: Ni, Ne, Fi & Fe

And four str8 man functions: Si, Se, Ti & Te

Si is a str8 man function, so it's inherently physical & external. Internal in the person, but has a natural externality that extends outward to everything (which also makes sense cuz its paired so well with Ne)

[consentingadult]

How I see Si-egos is they just naturally melt into reality so easily or something. They just become so easily part of the picture. They might internally feel like outcasts because of their introversion but environmentally and physically its just like they morph into everything so well.

Bndonics 101:

There are four ****** functions: Ni, Ne, Fi & Fe

And four str8 man functions: Si, Se, Ti & Te

Si is a str8 man function, so it's inherently physical & external. Internal in the person, but has a natural externality that extends outward to everything (which also makes sense cuz its paired so well with Ne)

I'm curious, how does this apply to women? Do they have other functions, or are they reversed, e.g. Ni, Ne, Fi & Fe for straight women, and the others for lesbians? It would fit Jung's concepts of anima and animus in a way ;-)

[Rebelondeck]

@Tallmo The input-data preferences of Si-types are the same as Se-types. They both acquire each piece of information as an entity unto itself in contrast to N-types who tend to look at information relativistically. Simplistically, N-types prefer to gaze at the forest while S-types the trees. Si-types tend to be more engaged and interactive with their environments (so I agree with them being as you say "constantly in tune") while Se-types tend to observe in a sort of detached fashion. Of all the types, SXIs certainly seem to be the most aware of the quantitative details (especially anomalies) of their environments, people in general and their own bodily functions - sometimes to the point of euphoria and other times to the point of paranoia. All Ips seem to be rather sensitive to what goes on around them....

a.k.a. I/O

[Tallmo]

Si-types tend to be more engaged and interactive with their environments (so I agree with them being as you say "constantly in tune") while Se-types tend to observe in a sort of detached fashion. Of all the types, SXIs certainly seem to be the most aware of the quantitative details (especially anomalies) of their environments, people in general and their own bodily functions - sometimes to the point of euphoria and other times to the point of paranoia. All Ips seem to be rather sensitive to what goes on around them....

Ok, yes I agree that Si types seem to be focused on the environment. That's what an observer sees and that's what they think themselves. But strictly speaking they are actually focusing on the inner component "projected" onto the environment.

So my perspective in this thread is more introverted than usual, but it is necessary in order to understand Si. Just to make it clear.

[Rebelondeck]

........But strictly speaking they are actually focusing on the inner component "projected" onto the environment.

So my perspective in this thread is more introverted than usual,.........

You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Myst]

You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

a.k.a. I/O

I thought unhealthy XSI is described that way........ and SXI is like a lot more adaptable relaxed Ip the unhealthy form of which is a lot of laziness and apathy

You sound like mixing MBTI with Socionics

Not that I care lol, I don't think either system is great at all but I'm just surprised

[Rebelondeck]

I thought unhealthy XSI is described that way........ and SXI is like a lot more adaptable relaxed Ip the unhealthy form of which is a lot of laziness and apathy

You sound like mixing MBTI with Socionics

Not that I care lol, I don't think either system is great at all but I'm just surprised

My descriptions aren't based on Socionics nor MBTI models; most on this site would not agree with the SLI description that I've posted. I find that SXIs tend to be ambivalent until their space is invaded or threatened and some of them see threats where there aren't any; some can really get paranoid especially when they've been alone for too long. XSIs tend to be set in their ways but their standards and principles can be rather flexible so long as logic and practicality is maintained. SXIs have been known to go out in a blaze of glory just on principle (more than a few times based on false assumptions) while XSIs tend to flee so they could think and perhaps live to fight another day but I'm sure the next time would be from ambush. XSIs also seem to never be as certain of their information as SXIs tend to be.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Tallmo]

You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

a.k.a. I/O

No, I was saying that introverted sensing is about sensing impressions, but these impressions are not really connected to the environment, even though they are activated by the environment and perceived as being "out there". So the person is more focused on an "image", "reflection" of the environment, than the environment itself.

(Then there are of course also other Si-impressions, that are not felt in the environment, such as body sensations, tiredness etc.)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm curious, how does this apply to women? Do they have other functions, or are they reversed, e.g. Ni, Ne, Fi & Fe for straight women, and the others for lesbians? It would fit Jung's concepts of anima and animus in a way ;-)

I was thinking more like the ******/str8 function thing is universal. Because regardless of a person's orientation and gender, Ni/Ne/Fi/Fe is psychological and emotional and Te/Ti/Se/Si is physical and logical. But u made an interesting point lol.

[The Reality Denialist]

Looking outside of window at the scenery sounds like two rarely actively applied SEI functions Ti and Se.

Anyway, if you have sensed something then you have probably stored those experiences internally and it becomes subjective when recollection happens. So I say it is probably subjetive layer maybe to a point where experiences start to come together. Straight shape might become bit rounded or spikes or something else based on recollection. Is this totally off?

[Tallmo]

I don't really know how to answer the things that came up

Si is basically a parallel sensory experience running alongside with the outer experience, being attached to it. I see a tree, visually, but it always comes together with the additional introverted component (Si).

This introverted component is hard to describe, but good candidates for descriptions are words as: organic, genuine, old, patina, sensory depth, (see Jung)

This is what Socionics is referring to when they describe Si as "aesthetics".

[Myst]

I don't really know how to answer the things that came up

Si is basically a parallel sensory experience running alongside with the outer experience, being attached to it. I see a tree, visually, but it always comes together with the additional introverted component (Si).

This introverted component is hard to describe, but good candidates for descriptions are words as: organic, genuine, old, patina, sensory depth, (see Jung)

This is what Socionics is referring to when they describe Si as "aesthetics".

Actually that's not what Socionics sources refer to, ever. Jung is different here.

I knew someone who told me once that he had a parallel thing running in his head while also being aware of his environment. Like idk, images, imagery of it. Same person told me he once was driving in winter and there was snow outside, the window was not open but it was like he was smelling the snow anyway.

(And no he didn't type as Si lol and there is no point in categorising this, to me)

[Tallmo]

Actually that's not what Socionics sources refer to, ever. Jung is different here.

I'm saying that's the phenomenon behind what Socionics calls "aesthetics" and Si. Socionics never explains it or doesn't know it.

The things I have explained in this thread are normally not something one is aware of. I hope you understand that. It's not like "I have a parallel thing running in my head". It's only through carefully observing and analyzing that one can draw that conclusion.

[ashlesha]

The things I have explained in this thread are normally not something one is aware of. I hope you understand that. It's not like "I have a parallel thing running in my head". It's only through carefully observing and analyzing that one can draw that conclusion.

Yeah. I lost it when my brain was injured and I only came to this realization when somebody else talked about it and until then i only knew "something essential is missing" or "a part of me is gone" and couldn't give it a name.

Because of that, I was going to argue that it's universal. But I guess if I'm 4D Si it's allowed lol. (I still feel it must be universal but I'm terrified of an argument because I'm so emotionally invested.. I'll go with it. )

You don't wanna see things without contamination, at least not as more than a thought experiment, trust me dude....

[Exodus]

I don't really know how to answer the things that came up

Si is basically a parallel sensory experience running alongside with the outer experience, being attached to it. I see a tree, visually, but it always comes together with the additional introverted component (Si).

This introverted component is hard to describe, but good candidates for descriptions are words as: organic, genuine, old, patina, sensory depth, (see Jung)

This is what Socionics is referring to when they describe Si as "aesthetics".

You're not doing a very good job of describing it, that's for sure. Si is about how your things are affecting you, i.e. for better or worse. It's a sense of whether something is of high quality or not, whether it induces comfort and pleasant sensations, or whether it is distressing, uncomfortable, disruptive to your comfort and equilibrium.

Jung was not very good at describing Si either, he turned it into Ni.

[Tallmo]

Si is about how your things are affecting you, i.e. for better or worse. It's a sense of whether something is of high quality or not, whether it induces comfort and pleasant sensations, or whether it is distressing, uncomfortable, disruptive to your comfort and equilibrium.

Yes, how things are affecting you is Si. You are basically saying the same things as I did but with other words. But It is also experienced in the environment, you are constantly leaving out this part of Si when you talk about it. Other than that our views are fairly close. You can of course say that this is also "how things are affecting you ".

The visual environment affects us and creates an inner sensation. But it is experienced as "outside". This is what Si-artists work with.

Jung was not very good at describing Si either, he turned it into Ni.

I know that you think so, you have said it many times. But he has an extremely good understanding of Si. Very introverted and analytical. Haven't you read what he says about the contrast Si vs Ni at the beginning of the Ni section of chapter X? It should be enough to see that he can tell them apart.

[Exodus]

I know that you think so, you have said it many times. But he has an extremely good understanding of Si. Very introverted and analytical. Haven't you read what he says about the contrast Si vs Ni at the beginning of the Ni section of chapter X? It should be enough to see that he can tell them apart.

I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509

Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point. Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.

If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.

[timber]

I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509

Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point. Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.

If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.

give me a break hotel use your imagination and expandf your lexicon here. Just because you want to play word association in sheer BLACK AND WHITE, doesn't mean the rest of us need to.

ofc you could apply the words old and depth to both Si and Ni. Si doesn't just deal with the present moment reality, it has a time component just like all the other IEs do.

Depth is found in the persons perceptual awareness that goes in many deepening layers. A flavour tips off a feeling on the tongue tips off a physiological reaction tips off a feeling state tip[s off a arousal, fear, ect. There is depth there that isn't readily apparent. The same perceptual awareness is expanded to the awareness of other people. A shifting posture reveals a pain in the interlocutors leg, ect.

Old is just the same as all object ware out in time and the depth filled knowledge of how and why and what that means in regards to objects including the body is also a function of Si. Example, the Si massage therapist feeling the structure of parchment old skin.

In regards to how tallmo is using these terms absolutely they are found within Si. Si is habits as much as anything else.

These are just descriptors and I'\m actually surprised you of all people are getting caught up in it. Being obtuse isn't a great quality.Personally it furthers my distaste for alpha NTs, they just quibble over everything.

[Tallmo]

I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509

The problem here is that Si is very hard to describe (from the inside), to isolate the actual impression. Yet, one can try. It's very easy to misread this stuff.

Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point.

Of course it is not. I was referring to Jung's approach. I should have been clearer.

Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.

You are making too fast conclusions based on my words. "Depth" (of sensation) and "old" are good attempts to describe Si, but as usual they are not enough unless the real psychological phenomenon is familiar enough. You have to know how Si actually is experienced.

When I use those words I am only referring to the character of the Si-sensation, not to something intuitive.

If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.

Here it is:

Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content.

Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.

(Jung, chapter X, beginning of section 8. "Intuition")

So, here finally Jung is giving an example of "body sensation" in connection to Si. I think it is pretty clear that he has understood Si correctly.

[Sol]

I look at the world around me, (houses, trees, the road outside my window etc), and I just try to see it as what it is purely visually, that is only as shapes, colors, objects.

Se

> The Si component is missing.

Si is your relation to what you see from your sensory comfort, your relation to that objective. Also all inner sensations alike pain, touches, ... - as those are your reactions on objective materia

> It's difficult to become aware of it

it's not. Si is the degree you like the material world from sensory point: aestetical, sensory pleasure, sensory comfort. and all inner sensations alike mentioned above

I suppose you need to read a normal Socionics book. The only such in English is by Filatova. When after years you talk about related to you base function as "difficult to become aware of it" is either Si is not your strong function or you do not understand the basics of the theory.

[ashlesha]

Well ok this just occurred to me so I'll point to it being universal. At least some theorists think foot fetishes have to do with early childhood experiences with feet. We obviously don't all have foot fetishes, lol. But if you believe in that sort of psychology, then nobody JUST sees a foot, whether you sexualize them or not. There's a million unconscious associations with everything. Some cultures sexualize boobs and some don't, but everybody sees more than just fleshy sacks of fat without any surrounding info. If they have a healthy brain, anyway.

[Myst]

Well ok this just occurred to me so I'll point to it being universal. At least some theorists think foot fetishes have to do with early childhood experiences with feet. We obviously don't all have foot fetishes, lol. But if you believe in that sort of psychology, then nobody JUST sees a foot, whether you sexualize them or not. There's a million unconscious associations with everything. Some cultures sexualize boobs and some don't, but everybody sees more than just fleshy sacks of fat without any surrounding info. If they have a healthy brain, anyway.

I recall @Ananke described Se as having a lot of unconscious associations

So I guess it depends on who you ask