Sounds it could be right.Originally Posted by CR400AF
I read in the Tavistock lectures Jung saying that he knew Einstein personally, and they had many times met at his home discussing psychology and physics.
Here is a video of Einstein making jokes.
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)
That's like a standard response from dynamic type. His associative glue is more apparent than his analytic side.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
He was probably creative. He lacked particular organizational skills and seemed to be quite open to new things. He was not reclusive either. Hence this probably makes him look like an ILE. Especially this theoretical perspective taking although he showed clear rigidity of it in his personal life. "You do this" ILI Se suggestive that seems bit strange but quite characteristic of them. (While ILE's are not submissive where they function there is probably this private side where they are bit submissive - for the sake of comfort or something).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I thought he could be ILE based on the clip, but I don't know. Just wanted to give more typing material. What do you think?
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 didnt find a complete English version so the following are machine translated. But there should be English versions since I am on my phone now I haven't search yet.
In "Principles of research -- Inaugural address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences":
Machine translation:Start from intuition to get the essential principles and then use logic rules to do deductions. It's Ne->Ti instead of Ti->Ne.The theorist's method involves the use of the general premise as the basis, the so-called "principle", from which conclusions can be inferred. Therefore, his activities are divided into two parts: first, he must discover the principle; Second, he wants to draw conclusions from these principles.
...
However, the first of these tasks, that is, to establish the principle and use it as the basis of deduction, has a completely different nature. There is no way to learn and apply systematically in order to achieve the goal. Researchers must be aware of the general characteristics that can be expressed by precise formulas in the complex empirical facts, so as to explore the general principles of nature.
This seems to be how Ne and Ti cooperate to find new relations: get the essence of things via Ne, then underlying relationships are more obvious, and they get verified by Ti logic.Once this expression is successfully formed, conclusions appear one after another. They often reveal unexpected relationships, far beyond the real scope of drawing these principles. However, if these principles used as the starting point of deduction are not obtained, individual empirical facts are useless to theorists;
This quote from https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/def...al_Physics.pdf is aobviously irrational.We have now assigned to reason and experience their place within the system of theoretical physics. Reason gives the structure to the system; the data of experience and their mutual relations are to correspond exactly to consequences in the theory. On the possibility alone of such a correspondence rests the value and the justification of the whole system, and especially of its fundamental concepts and basic laws. But for this, these latter would simply be free inventions of the human mind which admit of no a priori justification either through the nature of the human mind or in any other way at a
The "free invention" seems intuition and in detail Ne since about the essence of objects. The "reason" he refers is Ti.
ILE has demonstrative Te so he also check it with experiments.
He should be Ti valuing since his thought experiments are mostly checking logical consistencies.
Reply With Quote
