Twisting my words, twisting typologies, cant understand what is being said to you etc etc. Useless wall of textI didn't say Se saw possibilities in that last post. I was granting you that Ni saw the possibilities, but the primary perspective was Se "emergent data", and that thus the two functions work together. The way you're taking it, the athlete (which is a field good for Se types) would have to in effect "switch gears" when he "uses Se" to see "what is" before him, and then "use" Ni in recognizing where it's going. That's actually the way the "folk typologists" (remember that term?) who are misled use the concepts. But that's not what it's about.
That's talking about physical motion, not the type of "motion" Jungian iNtuition deals with (i.e. conceptual). Are you suggesting that each person "uses S" when seeing something, and then "uses N" when he sees its position in physical space change (physical motion)?
Is that really what Jung meant, or is that your or someone else's idea?
Just seeing something move is neither S nor N. This is the common mistake many make, leading one to wonder how N's could "see", since they have to "use" an unconscious or less conscious function; and in order to see as good as an S, they would have to "develop" their "Sensing". That's just like F="emotions", T is "thinking" meaning "thoughts", Si="remembering", Fe="considering others". (The worst definitions of those experts you criticize!)
S, as we are discussing it as a type preference, means that though we all see "what is" equally, I prefer to pay more attention to that which is; and where it came from or is going is less relevant to ego's preference. N means that I see what is, but prefer to pay more attention to where it came from or is going, than just focusing on it for its own sake.
And "where it came from/where it's going is NOT spatial as that article is talking about. At least, not necessarily. If I see something already moving, and then try to figure the trajectory or possible places it can end up (momentarily taking my focus off of the physical object and particular locations in the process and conceptualizing about them instead), that is iNtuition. But just seeing it move from one place to the other is not iNtuition!
It has nothing to do with visual "motion". It's "where it came from or is going" in concept, not in space.
Of course, its as I said...
I don't see how he's "right" and they're "wrong". "Closer" to what? Mainstream psychological knowledge? They don't seem to be embracing him that much. The main problem I can see with the interpreters is not clarifying things enough. (And some of those oversimplified definitions, when they do attempt to clarify). But with Jung, clarifying can be hard.