I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509Originally Posted by Tallmo
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.
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.
Of course it is not. I was referring to Jung's approach. I should have been clearer.Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point.
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.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.
When I use those words I am only referring to the character of the Si-sensation, not to something intuitive.
Here it is:If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.
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.
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)
I described it above.
No, they're not good attempts. In socionics Si has nothing to do with the concept "old".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.
Jung is contradicting himself here then. He said "Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface", but here he says it's the surface and not the depth. In socionics sensing is external and therefore about surface information.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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote