Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Perception. [Ne vs Se] vs [Ni vs Si]

  1. #1
    Seed my wickedness Existential Ibuprofen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    ILE LEVF/#unfit4lyfe
    Posts
    7,075
    Mentioned
    304 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Perception. [Ne vs Se] vs [Ni vs Si]

    Perception aka streams

    Extraverted perception:
    Mode: Waves
    Style: Ne [manifestation: fictional, goal: to impose fiction to reality (views, science etc) via role]
    Style: Se [manifestation: factual, goal: to become a man of fiction aka legend via role]

    Introverted perception:
    Mode: Undercurrents
    Style: Ni [manifestation: development , goal: to give guidance for attainable goals via role]
    Style: Si [manifestation: sourcing, goal: to develop masterful conditions or piece of work via role]
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  2. #2
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,378
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    Si is actually more focused on the external world than Ni or Ne, but Si is kind of investigative. It wants to look into a thing and ask itself... what is this thing, really? What can this thing do, how can it potentially impact everything else?
    There's the stupid example you usually hear - is this a good toilet seat, is my chicken baked properly, etc.? A more interesting example would be... what does this person I'm speaking to really care about? What is missing from this picture, what is hidden from it? What truly is the actual answer to this question, the answer which is not yet known...? What is the true nature of this particular thing, am I perceiving it accurately? Etc. Answering these questions is... you could call it an internal process, really it's more of a bringing fourth of information. Si references a breadth of possible ramifications of a thing to round out a definition of it. In alot of ways Si is about attempting to pierce through the veil and perceive objective reality.
    TBH Si is more objective and "external" in a sense than Ne is, but that gets ignored because Si is internal in relation to Te, which it's closely related to.
    I don't get why you think this is Si?? You are talking about something here that involves Feeling judgement and intuition and even thinking. You mention "objective reality", but that is Se, not Si. Si is sensing your impressions, like the experience of comfort or certain aesthetic impressions.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  3. #3
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,378
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    No, Se is the direct perception of objective reality. Se is integrating information into the self, and this is information of the most external kind. Si is as I said ascertaining perception. As a limited, subjective human you do not have direct access to perceive in full objective reality. When you perceive something, you must immediately doubt you're perceiving it accurately and search for more information about the thing, allowing you to more fully perceive it. That is not integrating information, it is searching for possibilities and contextualizing the perception.
    So you ascertain what objective reality is - it is a process that requires participation.
    Any sensory function automatically deals with perceiving objective reality, the difference with Si is merely that the subject has input.
    TBH you people just have very simplistic concepts of Si: "this is a good toilet seat". I'm not sure I have ever heard any of you describe Si in a way that was actually compelling. Ni on the other hand has been very romanticized.

    It is merely searching for more information with some input from the subject, it can integrate with thinking, feeling and so on, but is not thinking... it is internal perception, if you read carefully again and read this post for better clarification, you will see what I am saying.
    I don't see any connection to Jung /Socionics understanding of Si in what you write. You seem to be talking about something different. Si has nothing to do with "ascertaining what objective reality is"
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •