Hmmm, yes it is difficult for me to get away from drawing a conclusion.Of course, this adds Je into it, because you're describing some reasoning in there too by "making sense" of things (being a Ji-dom, it's hard to fathom NOT thinking rationally first & foremost). Si-dom are often described as enjoying reviewing what they know, which is really just going over it, not arranging it in any order according to logic or value.
Similar to how Je judges using external criteria & seeks to create & establish viable systems, Pe creates & searches for what is possible in reality; whereas Pi explores internal impressions & interpretations, making it less visible, much as Ji is about creating & perfecting systems in concept & also less visible in action. For the P types though, things just pop up & are followed, which is easiest to imagine when you think of it in terms of Se-doms exploring literal sensory experiences. J types use lines of reason to explore things, because they're trying to make sense, not just experience or become aware of.
So p-types are primarily about the experience/impression in and of itself? And is this (ie. the bolded) why the perceiving functions are said to be "irrational" and the judging "rational"?
This is where I get confused about how aspects of Fi and Ni cross over. Of course perceiving and judging are completely different processes but there are elements that resemble one another. Especially with phrases (implied or otherwise) like:And my long-winded way of interpreting this:
The Si type perceives their subjective impression of tangible experience & facts & even people ("the object"). Their impression is still of the literal objects, but they prefer to focus on their own interpretive view of them. This is why Si is compared to impressionistic art; it's reality through the highly idiosyncratic view of the individual. It is colored by the unconscious, which determines what details the individual responds to & focuses on. Ni ignores all this in favor of going directly to the "image" from the unconscious that stirs the impression of the object. The image amounts to a symbol representing the essence of that object. This is why the Ni type experiences their iNtuitions as "objective", because it's not about their personal impression (as it is with the Si type), but an image representing a universal, core "truth" about the object arising from the collective unconscious. However, the individual is still interpreting this image & its "truth", and that's when it becomes highly subjective (as does every introvert's experience of the collective unconscious).
the essence of things
How are the Ni "images" and "essence" differ to the Fi versions? I mean, when you look at it both Ni and Fi are very interested in uncovering the inherent nature of things, right?
And how does this "collective unconscious" work? Are you saying that Ni does have an objective view of some universal truth (ie. the "image" itself is genuinely apt and not a subjective construction) but that view can be clouded by interpretation?
Also interesting is that you effectively describe Sensing vs. Intuiting, as direct vs. indirect/mediated modes of perception (rather than simply literal versus conceptual) - but also that Sensors are perhaps more personal in their contact with the object.