functions as concrete / abstract

[Tallmo]

All functions can be concrete / abstract according to Jung.


This is the most interesting stuff I've found recently. Functions tend to develop from concrete to abstract. It might sound weird to talk about "abstract sensing" or "concrete intuition", but I feel that for me this was just because I was not used to these words in this context. The actual phenomenon shouldn't be that hard to grasp and I think Jung's distinctions make sense. Most of us are used to distinctions like "concrete/abstract thinking". I hope people can be patient enough to consider this with an open mind.

This can help us understanding functions better, how we develop or avoiding too simple generalizations ("Se is always rough").

The concrete version of a function is more "primitive" and probably more common among simple people or "primitives". It's connected to sensation. It should also be found among people of the opposite type (like thinkers who suppress their feeling and then if they become neurotic it can erupt in a primitive form.

Abstract/concrete should be understood as a property of the function and not connected to sensing/intuitive type. That's at least how I understand it. Because even intuition can be concrete.

I have given this some thought before posting this, but I don't claim to understand everything. Jung mentions these things in only a few words and I had to search through chapter XI to find it here and there. I feel this is very valuable stuff and I just want to get a concise post out of this to make it more clear to myself and hopefully it can benefit other people as well.

The text is basically copied from Jung, and then I added my own comment.


SENSATION

Concrete: Contaminated, mixed up with other elements. Body sensations, affect. Perceptual image of concrete objects. Mixed up with ideas, feelings, thought. It is sensuous, reactive.

Abstract: A sensation separated from the other psychic elements. "pure", refined sensations. Picks out the most salient sensuous attribute. Aesthetic. Example: picks out the "brilliant redness" of a flower and makes it the principal content of consciousness. Is found chiefly among artists. Not reactive, connected to the will. Refined by an aesthetic sensation attitude.

My comment: So sensation develops from raw, mixed sensations towards refined, "aesthetic" sensations. For example by doing artistic work or refining your sensations with maybe food or wine tasting etc. I think this is pretty straight forward. I myself feel that my sensation has developed from more mixed or reactive towards more distant, aesthetic, like focusing on the aesthetic nuances from an object like the certain quality of the snow on the street etc.

Jung also thinks that primitive sensation is mixed up with the other function. So like you sense a flower and at the same time you know what it is and have a feeling reaction. All very primitive, like a child would react.


INTUITION

Concrete: concerned with the actuality of things. A reactive process, responds directly to the given facts. Fantastic

Abstract: Perceptions of ideational connections. Needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim. Symbolic

My comment: This is more difficult. Obviously intuition can be concerned with objects around us (concrete).
Let's try this example to illustrate it: I see a flower and I react with the intuition that I could pick it and give it to my girlfriend. I see that possibility. If this intuition is abstracted it wouldn't be concerned with the actual flower anymore neither with my girlfriend but maybe just by the idea of giving or supporting love.
Or if I run out of money and then I see an empty bottle and I intuite that I can collect bottles to make money. That would be concrete. Abstracted it would not be about the concrete situation anymore but just some idea about value potential or something like that.

Does this sound right? Any ideas?


FEELING

Concrete: Ordinary, simple feeling. Affective "feeling-sensation", subjective, personal value. Most clearly seen in neurotics with differentiated thinking.

Abstract: Rising above the individual contents it evaluates. A "mood" that embraces things in a broad sense and thereby abolishes them (just like abstract thinking does). Universal, objective value.

In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discriteness of things, but only with the universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents.

My comment: I meet my buddies and we have beers and we have all a nice social, Fe atmosphere. (concrete, connected to certain people). Abstracted this would just be a general mood of "inclusiveness" or "belonging" that could be about many things, not just my buddies. This feeling could then be refined without the presence of my buddies, it has become a more "universal value"


THINKING

Concrete: Concrete concepts related to sensations.

Abstract: Singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Logical reasoning detached from objects.

My comment: This should be the easiest to understand. We can think about concrete situations were the thinking is connected to specific objects or a situation. Abstract thinking rises above this and becomes intellectual/ pure logical.


SOURCES:

Jung: Psychological Types
Chapter XI: Definitions. Abstraction, Concretism, Sensation, Intuition, Feeling, Thinking
Chapter X: Extroverted sensation

[Sol]

> all functions can be concrete / abstract according to Jung

S perceives physical reality directly, what is never abstract. abstract is opposite and relates to an imagination (N)

[Ikite iru]

S perceives physical reality directly, what is never abstract. abstract is opposite and relates to an imagination (N)

This should be pinned at the front page of this site

[godslave]

The concrete version of a function is more "primitive" and probably more common among simple people or "primitives". It's connected to sensation. It should also be found among people of the opposite type (like thinkers who suppress their feeling and then if they become neurotic it can erupt in a primitive form.

Abstract/concrete should be understood as a property of the function and not connected to sensing/intuitive type. That's at least how I understand it. Because even intuition can be concrete.

Functions dichotomies are well established is socionics (Static / Dynamic - Extroverted / Introverted and External / Internal). With that said, any subjective unexterionalized thought is by definition abstract. However those kind of thoughts can not be considered as concrete as there are, that doesn't make any sense.

Now, here is the major issue imho. Jung had his model and a type basically incarnates one function (T, F, S, N) + a libidinal attitude (extraversion / Introversion) so four functions and eight types even though towards the end of his life Jung considered a secondary function for each type and typed himself as an Introverted Thinking Type with Intuition (basically NT).

When you take the functions in isolation without the concept of blocking and inclusion of eight functions in a model of psyche, it is understandable to extrapolate outside the domain the functions in order to explain the complex phenomenon relative to the Type within the psyche. Jung had to incorporate within the limits of his model the whole panel of the human experience in order to correlate the complexity of a given type with empirical observations.

There are from our point of view some overlaps between functions that Jung couldn't conceive as such because of the limitation of the his model (he said mixed with external elements). He came up with that abstract/concrete extra dichotomie as a compensation for those overlaps. Modern Jungian based Typology like socionics includes new enhancements that can not be compatible with the original model, just like we can't run most modern softwares in an old computer from the 90's.

SENSATION

Concrete: Contaminated, mixed up with other elements. Body sensations, affect. Perceptual image of concrete objects. Mixed up with ideas, feelings, thought. It is sensuous, reactive.



Abstract: A sensation separated from the other psychic elements. "pure", refined sensations. Picks out the most salient sensuous attribute. Aesthetic. Example: picks out the "brilliant redness" of a flower and makes it the principal content of consciousness. Is found chiefly among artists. Not reactive, connected to the will. Refined by an aesthetic sensation attitude.

My comment: So sensation develops from raw, mixed sensations towards refined, "aesthetic" sensations. For example by doing artistic work or refining your sensations with maybe food or wine tasting etc. I think this is pretty straight forward. I myself feel that my sensation has developed from more mixed or reactive towards more distant, aesthetic, like focusing on the aesthetic nuances from an object like the certain quality of the snow on the street etc.

Jung also thinks that primitive sensation is mixed up with the other function. So like you sense a flower and at the same time you know what it is and have a feeling reaction. All very primitive, like a child would react.

The so called primitive (archaic) sensations as depicted here are more reminiscent of the instinctive attractions/repulsions to sensory data commun to most animals (they live in a world of interpretations) and are tied to the archaic layers of the human brain while the cognition is tied to the neocortex (we live in a world of representations) which is more complex and "refined".

I'll add that we must not forget in the light of our modern knowledge the role of the brain chemistry (neurotransmitters) involved in that complex interaction. It seems like there is an attempt to amalgamate the cognitive part of sention with some parts of the brain involved in the acquisition of said sensations , one would be abstract (cognition) and the other would be concrete (raw sensations).

I prefer to make the distinction between 1) the hard wired functions of the brain (common to every human being) and their development (hyper/hypotropia etc..) and 2) the neuronal structure/connections within the neocortex which are unique to each human being (like fingerprints) but of which the structure might be similar to people who share the same sociotype (??) (hypothesis).

INTUITION

Concrete: concerned with the actuality of things. A reactive process, responds directly to the given facts. Fantastic

Abstract: Perceptions of ideational connections. Needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim. Symbolic

My comment: This is more difficult. Obviously intuition can be concerned with objects around us (concrete).
Let's try this example to illustrate it: I see a flower and I react with the intuition that I could pick it and give it to my girlfriend. I see that possibility. If this intuition is abstracted it wouldn't be concerned with the actual flower anymore neither with my girlfriend but maybe just by the idea of giving or supporting love.
Or if I run out of money and then I see an empty bottle and I intuite that I can collect bottles to make money. That would be concrete. Abstracted it would not be about the concrete situation anymore but just some idea about value potential or something like that.

Does this sound right? Any ideas?

We can think about concrete things (objects) but while in that process of thinking we are just abstracting from within or without so to speak. The representation (or imagination) of a concrete object like for instance the image of a car doesn't mean that the imagination itself is a concrete phenomenon, it is still abstract and (re)created in the mind's eye.

FEELING

Concrete: Ordinary, simple feeling. Affective "feeling-sensation", subjective, personal value. Most clearly seen in neurotics with differentiated thinking.

Abstract: Rising above the individual contents it evaluates. A "mood" that embraces things in a broad sense and thereby abolishes them (just like abstract thinking does). Universal, objective value.

In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discriteness of things, but only with the universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents.

My comment: I meet my buddies and we have beers and we have all a nice social, Fe atmosphere. (concrete, connected to certain people). Abstracted this would just be a general mood of "inclusiveness" or "belonging" that could be about many things, not just my buddies. This feeling could then be refined without the presence of my buddies, it has become a more "universal value"

That explanation seems more related to the genesis of personal values and how they are objectified in society (actualization of moral standards). However that concrete/personal abstract/universal relativity is an obvious extrapolation that doesn't make sense to me, I don't understand it. Why and how would the concreteness of a value be more subjective and its abstractness be more universal ? What about the people's opinion in regards to the universality of those values ?

This reminds me the saying that universality is to be found within us not outside of us. Also, Ethics and moral values are elevated through arts. Like in ancient Greece, people would go to theater watch the tragedy (play) and then debate about it in the forum (that was a citizen duty almost mandatory !) and through that cultural event people would form opinion on ethical and other philosophical questions. But I digress.

Anyway, again the limit of the model hits the wall and extrapolation and intuition takes over. It's resolved in socionics with the blocked functions concept and the 8 functions model.

THINKING

Concrete: Concrete concepts related to sensations.

Abstract: Singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Logical reasoning detached from objects.

My comment: This should be the easiest to understand. We can think about concrete situations were the thinking is connected to specific objects or a situation. Abstract thinking rises above this and becomes intellectual/ pure logical.

Again that concrete concept/ sensation relation doesn't make sense. It makes sense when T and S works together like in all STs but not as an intrinsec dichotomy within the Ti function. Again, that's an illustration of some extrapolations due to the limits of the model vs an eight function model.

Anyway , sorry for the rambling and note that I don't know what I'm talking about (it wouldn't be fun if I did ) !

[Tallmo]

@godslave
I knew this thread would create misunderstandings so I think I have to mention right away that abstraction here means a process by which all contaminations and irrelevant contents are discarded so that the function in its purest essence remains. Abstraction works according to the essence of that function in use. At the same time the connection to particular situations and objects is lost, so it becomes more universal and objective. This process can happen to any function.

We can think about concrete things (objects) but while in that process of thinking we are just abstracting from within or without so to speak. The representation (or imagination) of a concrete object like for instance the image of a car doesn't mean that the imagination itself is a concrete phenomenon, it is still abstract and (re)created in the mind's eye.

I was talking about intuition here. Did you really mean to write "think about". Anyway, I'll just clarify once more what concrete/abstract intuition would mean:

Intuition is frequently used to make associations / connections in the real world, real situations. I already gave examples in the OP. Intuition seems to work by some unconscious connections, we don't really know how. The thing to understand here is that the concrete situation in which the connection is made, can be discarded so that only the unconscious connection remains. That would then be "abstract intuition". This intuition has no situational content anymore, only the symbolic essence of intuition, that magic connection.

Of course we all know that intuition is always abstract in the sense that it is "about imagination". But even imagination can be disconnected from its irrelevant contents so that only the unconscious connection remains.

Why and how would the concreteness of a value be more subjective and its abstractness be more universal ? What about the people's opinion in regards to the universality of those values ?

If feeling is connected to a situation it is more subjective. The warm feeling among my friends while having a beer. Afterwards we remember that situation in the bar and how nice that particular moment was. Abstracted there is no situation anymore. Only a feeling of togetherness or whatever but without a situation. That also means that it is more universal.

What about the people's opinion in regards to the universality of those values ?

I think Jung would have answered that these values (for example an abstract "mood" of togetherness) exist as psychological phenomena in us, and in that sense it is objective. But we are not talking about philosophical values here, but psychological.

Anyway, again the limit of the model hits the wall and extrapolation and intuition takes over. It's resolved in socionics with the blocked functions concept and the 8 functions model.

Socionics doesn't deal with this at all. There is nothing about the development of single functions. That's what we are talking about here. I know it's tempting to say what you say, because it's harder to focus on single functions.

Again that concrete concept/ sensation relation doesn't make sense. It makes sense when T and S works together like in all STs but not as an intrinsec dichotomy within the Ti function. Again, that's an illustration of some extrapolations due to the limits of the two function model vs an eight function model.

Even intuitives (NTs) can "think about something". Should be obvious, it's not like all intuitives are living on another planet, but they work and solve problems in the real world. Being NT doesn't necessarily mean that your thinking is abstract but only that your thinking is linked with intuition (for example ILEs taking into account the broader situation). Abstracted thinking has no content anymore, just thinking for the sake of thinking.

Anyway , sorry for the rambling and note that I don't know what I'm talking about (it wouldn't be fun if I did ) !

Helps me understand this much better when I try to clarify, so thanks. Your comments came pretty fast considering I would expect it to take at least some weeks to let this sink in. This topic actually takes some work to understand.

[Lycantrope]

All functions can be concrete / abstract according to Jung.

SENSATION

Abstract: A sensation separated from the other psychic elements. "pure", refined sensations. Picks out the most salient sensuous attribute. Aesthetic. Example: picks out the "brilliant redness" of a flower and makes it the principal content of consciousness. Is found chiefly among artists. Not reactive, connected to the will. Refined by an aesthetic sensation attitude.

Let me just comment that it is not necessarily "pure" or refined since, Se types may also refine their taste. But rather Si is what makes an impression on the subject. For Se types, according to Jung in this book, they seek for the "intensity of the sensation". But in the case of Si types, you can't quite tell what will make an impression on each different person because this sensation is very subjective and related to the individual and different individuals may have different things that attracts them. However, as a general rule, Si types will seek that impression of familiarity: basically be selective about the sensse impression, ignore most details and abstract from it the few key impressions leading to the nostalgia of how they used to be. Extraverted sensing types then are generally more 'non-selective' and will take all sensations until the object is left "empty" so to speak.

[Tallmo]

Let me just comment that it is not necessarily "pure" or refined since, Se types may also refine their taste. But rather Si is what makes an impression on the subject. For Se types, according to Jung in this book, they seek for the "intensity of the sensation".

Both Si and Se can be abstracted in my opinion.

Have you read what Jung says about Se? I forgot to include it, but here it is:

It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation.

Jung really wants to emphasize that objective sensation can still be abstracted. I think the example about "brilliant redness" could apply to abstract Se.

But in the case of Si types, you can't quite tell what will make an impression on each different person because this sensation is very subjective and related to the individual and different individuals may have different things that attracts them. However, as a general rule, Si types will seek that impression of familiarity: basically be selective about the sensse impression, ignore most details and abstract from it the few key impressions leading to the nostalgia of how they used to be. Extraverted sensing types then are generally more 'non-selective' and will take all sensations until the object is left "empty" so to speak.

I don't entirely agree with this. If Si types seek familiarity it could be because of Ne problems or Se ignoring or maybe because Si is undeveloped and mixed up with feeling. Si in itself is some unconscious nuance that seems to impregnate the world. I wouldn't say that it relates to the individual though. It's universal in the sense that it comes from the collective unconscious, but I think I know what you mean. One can't really tell from the outside what's gonna make an impression or not.

But Si (and all introverted functions) are considered "abstract" because they move away from the object, and as you said Si focuses on impressions.

Si types are selective because they ignore the object in order to let those inner impressions develop. But this is part of general introversion. But this can be taken even further to the actual abstraction of Si, making it pure and aesthetic. I don't think most Si types do this. Probably only artists.

I also think that the selectiveness is maybe more on the outside, while they can be very irrational on the inside.

Anyway, the thing about Si and nostalgia is something I have problems with. I kinda know what you mean though. But I agree that Si can make a "magical" or "numinous" impression, if it is strong.

[The Reality Denialist]

INTUITION

Concrete: concerned with the actuality of things. A reactive process, responds directly to the given facts. Fantastic

Abstract: Perceptions of ideational connections. Needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim. Symbolic

My comment: This is more difficult. Obviously intuition can be concerned with objects around us (concrete).
Let's try this example to illustrate it: I see a flower and I react with the intuition that I could pick it and give it to my girlfriend. I see that possibility. If this intuition is abstracted it wouldn't be concerned with the actual flower anymore neither with my girlfriend but maybe just by the idea of giving or supporting love.
Or if I run out of money and then I see an empty bottle and I intuite that I can collect bottles to make money. That would be concrete. Abstracted it would not be about the concrete situation anymore but just some idea about value potential or something like that.

Does this sound right? Any ideas?

This seems Ne. I would say.
Will it rain? Ni version.

[Tallmo]

This seems Ne. I would say.
Will it rain? Ni version.

Yes, my example was probably Ne, concrete and abstract. Ni is too hard for me to do. Abstracted intuition is only about that symbolic link that would be the essence of intuition without any real situation or context (at least that's how I suspect it is). Pretty difficult, but I think I can see it in Ne, but with Ni it feels too confusing at the moment. Maybe later I get some clarity. One possibility is that abstract Ni only focuses on that archetypal process behind reality, for example the process that leads to rain. But without any connection to weather or rain anymore! Concrete Ni on the other hand will feel that it is more an actual process connected to the weather. (the intuition is still contaminated by the actual situation) Or something like that?

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes, my example was probably Ne, concrete and abstract. Ni is too hard for me to do. Abstracted intuition is only about that symbolic link that would be the essence of intuition without any real situation or context (at least that's how I suspect it is). Pretty difficult, but I think I can see it in Ne, but with Ni it feels too confusing at the moment. Maybe later I get some clarity. One possibility is that abstract Ni only focuses on that archetypal process behind reality, for example the process that leads to rain. But without any connection to weather or rain anymore! Concrete Ni on the other hand will feel that it is more an actual process connected to the weather. (the intuition is still contaminated by the actual situation) Or something like that?

I suppose it is pretty simple rain will stop but rain will also come. You can not prove it 100 % but you know it. It is almost certain variables are dealt with limitation especially in the ancient times but it was good enough to be very rough with it. You could acknowledge rain's regenerative and destructive potentials too. Put two-ish and two-ish together we can go even further. This has some interesting links ancient flood myths - this topic has gained further abstraction that we all can acknowledge.

[godslave]

@godslave
I knew this thread would create misunderstandings so I think I have to mention right away that abstraction here means a process by which all contaminations and irrelevant contents are discarded so that the function in its purest essence remains. Abstraction works according to the essence of that function in use. At the same time the connection to particular situations and objects is lost, so it becomes more universal and objective. This process can happen to any function.

First of all, thank you for having taken the time to answer me, I appreciate the quality of your response.

So, I took out the old grimoire and went back to chapter XI to review the definitions. This is how I view it : It seems to me that abstraction here is indeed the essence of what a function is supposed to produce. It's almost like a trans-contextualized synthesis abstracted from the situation treated by the function. The situation, context and objects are almost like raw material needed to produce (via process of association) the abstraction but once the essence is extracted from the object as if its energetic content has been sucked out by the subject's libidinal attraction, like you said the connection is lost because it has serve its purpose. I would add that once the abstraction is created and surface to consciousness it is integrated to the function production but somehow find a place back in the unconscious because that's where abstractions belongs.

I was talking about intuition here. Did you really mean to write "think about". Anyway, I'll just clarify once more what concrete/abstract intuition would mean:

Intuition is frequently used to make associations / connections in the real world, real situations. I already gave examples in the OP. Intuition seems to work by some unconscious connections, we don't really know how. The thing to understand here is that the concrete situation in which the connection is made, can be discarded so that only the unconscious connection remains. That would then be "abstract intuition". This intuition has no situational content anymore, only the symbolic essence of intuition, that magic connection.

Of course we all know that intuition is always abstract in the sense that it is "about imagination". But even imagination can be disconnected from its irrelevant contents so that only the unconscious connection remains.

Yes I meant "think about" i.e. engage in a cognitive process relative to the object . It seems like when the abstraction is extracted from intuition what remains is interestingly enough a new concretisation in the form of symbolic object. It is indeed tempting to draw a parallel with visual/calligraphic based system of writing like hieroglyphs and chinese ideograms etc, in fact the very word "ideogram" could very well be a product of an abstracted abstraction.

If feeling is connected to a situation it is more subjective. The warm feeling among my friends while having a beer. Afterwards we remember that situation in the bar and how nice that particular moment was. Abstracted there is no situation anymore. Only a feeling of togetherness or whatever but without a situation. That also means that it is more universal.

It sounds like nostalgia. Maybe that feeling is an abstraction, however does it need the recalling of the situation to trigger the feeling ? I would say not necessarily but maybe being exposed to a situation similar to the original one ( from which the abstraction has been extracted) could because I think that there is a kind of intrication that remains between an object and its essence, the presence in consciousness of one recall the other from the unconscious. Maybe if a similar object is brought to attention the abscration kicks in from the unconscious because of those similarities in context and/or objects and since we are talking about a feeling there is some sort of resonance occurring via trans-contextual association and the feeling of nostalgia is triggered. What you call "universal" is what I understand as something deeply rooted in the unconscious that can be invoked by the subject's corresponding function.

I think Jung would have answered that these values (for example an abstract "mood" of togetherness) exist as psychological phenomena in us, and in that sense it is objective. But we are not talking about philosophical values here, but psychological.

It seems like you are saying that psychological phenomena are universal and thus objective, it's a stretch in terms of encapsulation but fair enough ahah !Btw, there is indeed a philosophical extrapolation on the term "objective" which is in French "Objectivisation". What does it mean ? Well, here is an example : we are four in a car on a trip and I'm freezing so I say : " It's freezing cold here ! " and I take the initiative to increase the heating of the car. What I did is an objectivisation of my own sensation to the external world, a subjective sensation rendered universal, I projected in the environment my own subjective sensations and jugement. The other three passengers didn't felt the same thought because it wasn't objectively that cold and the temperature in the car was objectively adequate. Anyways, I digress...

Socionics doesn't deal with this at all. There is nothing about the development of single functions. That's what we are talking about here. I know it's tempting to say what you say, because it's harder to focus on single functions.

I agree, as a matter of facts, I made an abstraction of socionics for the sake of this discussion. It is true that socionics doesn't go beyond internal logical consistency and a structuralist approach of the model of Psyche regardless of the socionics school's Model.

Even intuitives (NTs) can "think about something". Should be obvious, it's not like all intuitives are living on another planet, but they work and solve problems in the real world. Being NT doesn't necessarily mean that your thinking is abstract but only that your thinking is linked with intuition (for example ILEs taking into account the broader situation). Abstracted thinking has no content anymore, just thinking for the sake of thinking.

Obviously so. Now, about absctracted thinking (or abstracting-thinking) Jung said that it "brings into relief a content that is distinguished from other irrelevant elements by its intellectual, logical qualities." It roughly sounds like Holographic-Panoramic form of thinking where getting a full grasp of the object in its entirety through all the angles is emphasized. As a reminder understanding means standing under (like one metaphorical floor below) and looking up to the object thus getting a wider angle of view. So what is extracted via abstraction is some kind of "pure" structure of which the essence is integrated in the unconscious. Now, I don't know if we can call it a principle or if it comes in image, in words or even devoid of all this things. (There is a Ti bias in there imho).

Helps me understand this much better when I try to clarify, so thanks. Your comments came pretty fast considering I would expect it to take at least some weeks to let this sink in. This topic actually takes some work to understand.

Thank you, I'm kinda the same, in general I like to explain stuff to my relatives when they ask me to, it enhances my understanding as I go. The topic is indeed quite deep, we have to go with Jung's flow and again make abstraction of all the socionics interferences.

[BrainlessSquid]

All functions can be concrete / abstract according to Jung.


This is the most interesting stuff I've found recently. Functions tend to develop from concrete to abstract. It might sound weird to talk about "abstract sensing" or "concrete intuition", but I feel that for me this was just because I was not used to these words in this context. The actual phenomenon shouldn't be that hard to grasp and I think Jung's distinctions make sense. Most of us are used to distinctions like "concrete/abstract thinking". I hope people can be patient enough to consider this with an open mind.

This can help us understanding functions better, how we develop or avoiding too simple generalizations ("Se is always rough").

The concrete version of a function is more "primitive" and probably more common among simple people or "primitives". It's connected to sensation. It should also be found among people of the opposite type (like thinkers who suppress their feeling and then if they become neurotic it can erupt in a primitive form.

Abstract/concrete should be understood as a property of the function and not connected to sensing/intuitive type. That's at least how I understand it. Because even intuition can be concrete.

I have given this some thought before posting this, but I don't claim to understand everything. Jung mentions these things in only a few words and I had to search through chapter XI to find it here and there. I feel this is very valuable stuff and I just want to get a concise post out of this to make it more clear to myself and hopefully it can benefit other people as well.

The text is basically copied from Jung, and then I added my own comment.


SENSATION

Concrete: Contaminated, mixed up with other elements. Body sensations, affect. Perceptual image of concrete objects. Mixed up with ideas, feelings, thought. It is sensuous, reactive.

Abstract: A sensation separated from the other psychic elements. "pure", refined sensations. Picks out the most salient sensuous attribute. Aesthetic. Example: picks out the "brilliant redness" of a flower and makes it the principal content of consciousness. Is found chiefly among artists. Not reactive, connected to the will. Refined by an aesthetic sensation attitude.

My comment: So sensation develops from raw, mixed sensations towards refined, "aesthetic" sensations. For example by doing artistic work or refining your sensations with maybe food or wine tasting etc. I think this is pretty straight forward. I myself feel that my sensation has developed from more mixed or reactive towards more distant, aesthetic, like focusing on the aesthetic nuances from an object like the certain quality of the snow on the street etc.

Jung also thinks that primitive sensation is mixed up with the other function. So like you sense a flower and at the same time you know what it is and have a feeling reaction. All very primitive, like a child would react.


INTUITION

Concrete: concerned with the actuality of things. A reactive process, responds directly to the given facts. Fantastic

Abstract: Perceptions of ideational connections. Needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim. Symbolic

My comment: This is more difficult. Obviously intuition can be concerned with objects around us (concrete).
Let's try this example to illustrate it: I see a flower and I react with the intuition that I could pick it and give it to my girlfriend. I see that possibility. If this intuition is abstracted it wouldn't be concerned with the actual flower anymore neither with my girlfriend but maybe just by the idea of giving or supporting love.
Or if I run out of money and then I see an empty bottle and I intuite that I can collect bottles to make money. That would be concrete. Abstracted it would not be about the concrete situation anymore but just some idea about value potential or something like that.

Does this sound right? Any ideas?


FEELING

Concrete: Ordinary, simple feeling. Affective "feeling-sensation", subjective, personal value. Most clearly seen in neurotics with differentiated thinking.

Abstract: Rising above the individual contents it evaluates. A "mood" that embraces things in a broad sense and thereby abolishes them (just like abstract thinking does). Universal, objective value.

In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discriteness of things, but only with the universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents.

My comment: I meet my buddies and we have beers and we have all a nice social, Fe atmosphere. (concrete, connected to certain people). Abstracted this would just be a general mood of "inclusiveness" or "belonging" that could be about many things, not just my buddies. This feeling could then be refined without the presence of my buddies, it has become a more "universal value"


THINKING

Concrete: Concrete concepts related to sensations.

Abstract: Singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Logical reasoning detached from objects.

My comment: This should be the easiest to understand. We can think about concrete situations were the thinking is connected to specific objects or a situation. Abstract thinking rises above this and becomes intellectual/ pure logical.


SOURCES:

Jung: Psychological Types
Chapter XI: Definitions. Abstraction, Concretism, Sensation, Intuition, Feeling, Thinking
Chapter X: Extroverted sensation

This is very cool. I think the abstract version of the functions applies mostly to the dominant function. Over time, it is not just a way to solve problems but a life perspective

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You mentioned Se not always being rough. Yeah I get that, but then what functions are responsible for somebody choosing to act out on a dark impulse? If for the sake of arguement people can't weasel out of that and say 'it's not type related' then I would say that is definitely more closest to Se even if the people talking about it obviously mean 'unhealthy Se.' Unhealthy Ni is probably psychoanalyzing something in a way that's delusional or completely deconstructive, "diarrhea of the mouth", you talk to other people in such a heartless and sadistic way you give the impression you don't care if they get cut up by a serial killer in fact you're clearly gleefully cheering it on.

In a 'healthy SLE' /cringes at that phrase - but in a healthy SLE, you would get somebody who can maneuver other people intelligently - especially since they have 4D Te as well. They would know not to stupidly cut people up or boss or bully people around in a way that could get them in trouble but then again they also have Fi PoLR so naturally it would be easy to make the mistake no matter how nice they tried to act with their 2D Fe. It doesn't seem to stop some of them from trying though. Even though in much of society roughness clearly doesn't work or achieve any results, but being two-faced and manipulative does instead. So the smart ones would know how to milk their 2D Fe for all it's worth etc. This kinda comes down to not viewing people as their primary function and nothing else as well.

Ni Intuition is based on what physically Se is most likely to occur, sensing danger and circumstances before they happen etc. It's related to the storytelling/fan fic archetype well because of this but a lot of romantic vampire RPG adventure stories comes across Ne and Fi and Delta as hell. Your example wasn't bad but it was a lot of Ne mixed in with Ni not a pure Ni-Se example. Pure Ni-Se is more like 'Oh shit dude, that rock is gonna fall on you- move outta the way!' The SLE doesn't move out of the way and he dies anyway because he is some arrogant bad-ass and the IEI turns into an EII instead and laughs at him. How did the IEI know what he was talking about? He was being too imaginative and not being like a logical God like Alive is.

[Tallmo]

This is very cool. I think the abstract version of the functions applies mostly to the dominant function. Over time, it is not just a way to solve problems but a life perspective

I also think this is very cool. Absolutely, because the base function is the most differentiated and conscious. Yes, a life perspective going towards more refinement. Human development seems to go in that direction.

[Lycantrope]

It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I said Se types may also refine their taste. But anyway, perhaps you got it wrong when Jung talked about Se being abstracted, it can be put this way "even in his most abstract sensations, he submits himself to the principle of objective sensation". Meaning even the most subjective of Se types sensations are ignored and the object is given priority. Basically reinforcing that both types have sensation and the sensation is one cognitive function in his theory (unlike other typology systems), it's the orientation that changes.

An introverted sensing type wouldn't be able to completely repress Se or else they would go "blind" and have no access to external reality. Conversely, an extraverted sensing type wouldn't be able to get the object's impression without Si.

I don't entirely agree with this. If Si types seek familiarity it could be because of Ne problems or Se ignoring or maybe because Si is undeveloped and mixed up with feeling

I don't know, this is all very speculative to me. Read the part where he says: "introverted sensing sees object as a million year old conscience would" and see what you get out of it. This is what I got out of it, that it will be more traditional/nostalgic etc. Not so prone to seek a variety of sensations but stick with the ones who made an impression throughout life.

Jung really wants to emphasize that objective sensation can still be abstracted

Maybe that's true, I'll read into it again later but as of now, what I understand is that he meant Se types still have abstract sensation and Si types still have concrete sensations, as they can't be completely "sublimated"(it's a word he likes using a lot). In other words, there are no pure extraverts and introverts, he talks about this at the beginning, way before the description of the types. But just because Se types can have abstract sensations, that doesn't necessarily means he is saying extraverted sensation per se is abstract.

[Tallmo]

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I said Se types may also refine their taste. But anyway, perhaps you got it wrong when Jung talked about Se being abstracted, it can be put this way "even in his most abstract sensations, he submits himself to the principle of objective sensation". Meaning even the most subjective of Se types sensations are ignored and the object is given priority. Basically reinforcing that both types have sensation and the sensation is one cognitive function in his theory (unlike other typology systems), it's the orientation that changes.

An introverted sensing type wouldn't be able to completely repress Se or else they would go "blind" and have no access to external reality. Conversely, an extraverted sensing type wouldn't be able to get the object's impression without Si.

I don't understand what exactly you are saying. There is no need to mix Se and Si in this discussion about abstraction imo, but you seem to do it in some way.

To summarize, this is how I see it:

If Se is abstracted then it is refined and everything irrelevant is discarded. You get purified, aesthetic sense experience from the object.

If Si is abstracted then it is refined and everything irrelevant is discarded. You get a purified, aesthetic sense experience from the subject.

Do we agree on this?

I don't know, this is all very speculative to me. Read the part where he says: "introverted sensing sees object as a million year old conscience would" and see what you get out of it. This is what I got out of it, that it will be more traditional/nostalgic etc. Not so prone to seek a variety of sensations but stick with the ones who made an impression throughout life.

Just to be clear: You mean million-year old consciousness? You wrote "conscience".

No, it's not about tradition or nostalgy. It's very different. Si is not related to the personal consciousness in that way. Si senses the "mirror world" of the psyche. These sensations go back into the psyche's evolutionary past, a million year old repository. That's why for example some vague nature sensations can make a huge impact, even though they might be unimportant from an Se standpoint. In any case, even though the sensations appear in the environment (projected) they are not the same as the here-and-now direct impact from the object (Se). It's as if an ancient "patina" has been painted on the environment.

Maybe that's true, I'll read into it again later but as of now, what I understand is that he meant Se types still have abstract sensation and Si types still have concrete sensations, as they can't be completely "sublimated"(it's a word he likes using a lot). In other words, there are no pure extraverts and introverts, he talks about this at the beginning, way before the description of the types. But just because Se types can have abstract sensations, that doesn't necessarily means he is saying extraverted sensation per se is abstract.

It seems like you think that abstracted Se has something to do with introversion. Why would it? It is just a refined version of Se, still extraverted, but some irrelevant stuff has been discarded, as he says in the example about the brilliant red flower, in my first post.

But just because Se types can have abstract sensations, that doesn't necessarily means he is saying extraverted sensation per se is abstract.

Of course. Se can be concrete or abstract. Wasn't this clear in the OP? Abstraction is a process that functions can undergo. A development.

[CR400AF]

All functions can be concrete / abstract according to Jung.

Recently, I also paid attention to this one term. In chapter 11 of Psychological Types, Jung defines abstraction. There are some terms in his definition that confused me a bit, and I tried to analyze them.

Many of my ideas related to this concept are primitive.

how we develop or avoiding too simple generalizations ("Se is always rough").

Agree.

Abstract/concrete should be understood as a property of the function and not connected to sensing/intuitive type. That's at least how I understand it. Because even intuition can be concrete.

When I read about the concept of abstraction, one of the main questions I had was what role does it play in our understanding of function?

Now, a rough understanding I have is that it is somewhat related to the degree of development and differentiation of our functions. It's not related to the introversion/extraversion of functions.

First, we obviously cannot think of sensory functions as concrete and intuitive functions as abstract. This is the dichotomy within Socionics regarding Abstract/Involved. The concept of this dichotomy is quite different from the one Jung uses here.

Second, Jung makes a certain degree of connection in this definition between the concepts of abstraction and introversion, and assimilation. This is where the confusion is most likely to arise. If one were to understand Jung literally and mechanically, as MBTI does, one could easily encounter difficult contradictions here.

Jung said: "I call an attitude abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates a portion of the object". (para. 680) In paragraph 768, Jung wrote: "Introjection is a process of assimilation, ...... . Introjection is a process of extraversion". If one sticks with the literal meaning, there will be a logical conflict. When I first came to this paragraph last month, I find that I need to analyze the definitions here to make it more clear.

However, if we try to think about it carefully, I think it's logical and understandable. Essentially, each function deals with the objective world no matter whether it's introverted or not. Jung referred to them as ectopsychic functions in the Tavistock lectures.

This reminds me of a common misunderstanding between Ti and Te, although this misunderstanding is not as related to this concepts as the misunderstanding of sensing and intuition (see the notes at the end, this example is just used to show that extraversion≠concrete). As @Tallmo has pointed out, many of us use the word "concrete/abstract thinking". However, it's a common misinterpretation that Te is concrete thinking while Ti is abstract thinking. An example is that some socionists refer to Te as the "action logic" or the "practical/business logic". Such naming of the Te element is somewhat misleading.

In paragraph 577, Jung pointed out that the criterion to decide whether thinking is extraverted or introverted is the criterion of the judgment rather than the content of thinking:

Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge—does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is the direction the thinking takes in drawing conclusions—whether it is principally directed outwards or not. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since my thinking may be preoccupied with a concrete object either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought through it. Even when my thinking is preoccupied with concrete things and could be described as extraverted to that extent, the direction it will take still remains an essential characteristic and an open question—namely, whether or not in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, or generally accepted ideas.

Similar arguments could also be found in paragraph 578. Hence, Te can have idealistic content. On the other hand, Ti can also think about concrete contents. Naming Te"algorithmic/business logic" is misleading such that it represents a simple generalization that misled the readers to differentiate Ti and Te according to the contents of the thinking. Aushra's descriptions of Ti/Te are also somewhat problematic. Probably, these are the most problematic definitions by Aushra since she is an ILE who has Ti-creative and Te-demonstrative.

Hence, there are no logical conflicts between the concepts of abstract/concrete and the concepts of introversion/extraversion in Jungian terminology. Although Jung's claims on the relationship between abstraction and introversion are also somewhat misleading and confusing.

Now, I try to further resolve Jung's claim on the relationship between abstraction and introversion (para. 679). The following arguments may be seriously flawed since I haven't thought about it deeply yet. Jung mentioned the relationship between abstraction and differentiation (para. 677). According to Jung's definitions of differentiation (para. 705) and concretism (para. 697), concrete functions are somewhat primitive. This relates to the idea of the differentiation and development of our functions. It's logically clear that the process of abstraction:

1) It clarifies the relationships (thus introverted) between various elements and abstracts certain elements from the contents of other elements. Hence it relates to the process of differentiation.
2) It assimilates some aspect of information from the world to us.

Hence, it's both introverting and somewhat assimilating (para. 680). However, this is out of the scope of our discussions on cognitive functions. It's in the scope of the development of our functions. That's why there are no logical conflicts. I know nothing about alchemy and I haven't read through the theory of individuation. But as far as I'm concerned, if you literally follow the definitions, the development of our ego consciousness could also be understood as an introverted process. It's like another world. The typology based on the cognitive functions has its scope and it's important to be always reminded of the scope.

As a result, I currently understand the abstract/concrete aspect of the functions as something related to the differentiation of our functions. With the development of a function, it will be more and more abstract no matter whether it's an introverted function or not. This is my current state of understanding. It might be flawed since I haven't got any deep insights yet.

I also haven't come up with many examples yet.

Notes: Of course, I should also point out that in this post, I discussed more about a common misconception about Ti/Te. I don't think this example is the best example to discuss this concept. The example of feeling and intuition is clearly better. Because, what Ti/Te functional analysis is about can be relevant to the real world whether it is highly abstract or not. This example is clearly not as appropriate as the sensing and intuition example.

On the content of a function, Jung here speaks of abstraction, by which he means that he is separated from the content of other functions and thus gets differentiated. Whereas in the example of Ti/Te, the question of whether the content involved is concrete refers to the target content of the subject's analysis using Ti/Te. There is a difference between these two concepts. I gave this example more to show that intrversion/extraversion should not be confused with the concept of abstraction. It would certainly become another misunderstanding to mistakenly believe that any highly developed function would not be able to make perceives and judgments about concrete things.

Because I introduced a concept that is not exactly the same, I will now try to reorganize my understanding of these three concepts:

1) The abstract/concrete concept described in this post: I understand it to be concerned with the degree of development and differentiation of functions. The more developed and differentiated the function is, the more abstract it is. That is, such a function is better able to distinguish its own elements from those of other functions.

2) Another related but not identical misunderstanding: the concreteness of what a judging function (eg. Ti, Te) is judging is not absolutely related to both the degree of differentiation of the function and the introversion/extraversion.But this is probably a similar misunderstanding I have noticed so I discussed it in this post. (I think this probably relates to what @godslave wrote.)

3) Introversion/extraversion: one of the most fundamental concepts in Jungian typology.

[CR400AF]

FEELING

Concrete: Ordinary, simple feeling. Affective "feeling-sensation", subjective, personal value. Most clearly seen in neurotics with differentiated thinking.

Abstract: Rising above the individual contents it evaluates. A "mood" that embraces things in a broad sense and thereby abolishes them (just like abstract thinking does). Universal, objective value.

In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discriteness of things, but only with the universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents.

My comment: I meet my buddies and we have beers and we have all a nice social, Fe atmosphere. (concrete, connected to certain people). Abstracted this would just be a general mood of "inclusiveness" or "belonging" that could be about many things, not just my buddies. This feeling could then be refined without the presence of my buddies, it has become a more "universal value"

I just thought about my inferior Fe. I only recognized that I'm subconsciously influenced by Fe after I learned Jung and Socionics. But when I thought about it again, it seems that it's not abstract. I am impressed by the emotion brought by literature, music, or the environment. But I merely understand what's solely the emotional atmosphere.

As for abstract intuition, I find it hard to describe. Perhaps it's not easy to describe abstract thinking also. Intuition is irrational and it's something just there. I guess that if a function (mostly the Leading) is very differentiated and hence abstracted from other elements, it's not necessary that it must not cooperate with other functions. However, the manner such cooperation happens might be different from other functions. Nonetheless, it should be very important to study what abstract functions or pure functions are like in order to learn Jung's ideas.