What do you mean that they have "little meaning"? As a sensing function it is of course rooted in actuality, and more specifically in impressions/ sensory depth.Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Si-perspectives by themselves have little meaning although the common theme is "roots in actuality".....
a.k.a. I/O
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)
As @Adam Strange seems to have also implied above, input (Si) by itself doesn't produce output that others can use; there also needs to be rationalization which, of course, skews the final product.......
a.k.a. I/O
Having 1D Si means not being able to understand the internal processes of the body, and many of these people are hypochondriacs. If they have a headache, for instance, they might irrationally interpret it as brain cancer, when all they really needed was a walk in the park.
Si-seeking types are also clumsy and uncoordinated. Often, they won't notice objects that are right in front of them, even when they're looking for them; the eyes send the signal to the brain, but the brain doesn't interpret it. If any of this sounds bizarre to you, it's because your Si is stronger than theirs.
Si dual-seeking behaviour: being in awe of people who can do the above things well.
No. Can't speak for ILEs, but as far as IEEs are concerned, the sight of an SLI an interaction is like feeling the weight being lifted of your shoulders. They make things look so easy, but in a way that an IEE says, "is it that simple, why didn't I think of that?". "Awe" is not in an IEEs dictionary.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
In awe of = impressed by. You're allowed to use the word that way.
Ever not noticed your keys were in your hand before? It's bad lol.
I know what you mean, although Si types are not necessarily good at noticing objects either. Si is not about objects after all. Si is strongly linked to just taking in the environment in an impressionistic way, not caring so much what actual objects are around. I think that's something Si seekers seem to want.
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
Reply With Quote