"Subjective" in Jung/Socionics has a slightly different meaning than in everyday speech. Si as "subjective" means that there is an unconscious component (from the subject) in the sensing experience, but it doesn't mean that it has something to do with "personal memory" etc.
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)
Gotcha, makes sense, it kinda "just happens" without you thinking about it too much, which is why Si-types are slaves to their Si-impressions, eh? Like not being able to let go of certain things, Is that true for you?Originally Posted by Tallmo
But would this unconscious component eventually influence their personal memory?unconscious component (from the subject) in the sensing experience, but it doesn't mean that it has something to do with "personal memory" etc
There are threads about seemingly unhealthy Si-types (ex: skinny and fat SEIs, messy SEIs) and I think it has to do with this "subjective" or what is pleasant "to them". So while one SEI may overindulge, another may not due to their own subjective impressions. Is this correct?
I think those things go much beyond Si as a function. People have individual ways to develop and put their base function to use in life. Some live in more "primitive" ways, others are more "cultivated". Even people of the same type.
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)
@Tallmo are you good at story-telling? I find that a lot of SEIs are good story tellers and can vividly recall many facts and details (in a way to convey an experience) from their past
Not really. My memories are too vague. But yes, people remember what they focus on, so I am sure type relates to type of memories. That's only natural. In my experience ESI can have a very good memory for details, like the color of a toothbrush. I don't even remember the color of my current toothbrush.
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 see, so then as an Si-user, what do you focus on and how do your memories manifest, then?
I guess, when I say "memory" I'm more referring to things like- "What does this remind me of?" "What intangible qualities does this thing bring to mind?" "What does the object/place/sight/sound mean to me?" That's the type of memory I'm referring to.
I still don't really understand why you try to link Si and memory, since Si has nothing to do with memory. But if a person focuses on something he might remember it. That's true for anything. I might remember my Si sensations, or often I don't.
However, Si is about experiencing a certain "quality" or "soul" in physical objects. Not deep and abstract as Ni experiences it, but still very genuine. So it definitely makes an impression on the person. Maybe that has something to do with what you are saying.
Si and memory is MBTI and they had of course read Jung but misunderstood him on Si. Because of that the internet is now full of worthless "Si" descriptions.
All introverted functions seem to be connected to primordial images. To me it's obvious with regard to Si and Ni, but I still don't understand Fi and Ti. There's a lot to learn.
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