Ni and Subjectivity

[KDude]

-Tangent - The other day I saw someone say that the function that they least liked was immature Ni....does anyone have an example of that? I just have an impression of Ni being labeled as "weird"...at least I label mine as that...Does that mean mine is immature?

Immature Ni would be in SPs (but then, all types who use the function might have their negative and positive moments, I guess). Inferior Ni in an ESP could be delusions of grandeur or mystical rebirth, for example.. seeing themselves as special for experiencing or surviving an intense Se experience. I guess it could be positive too. Have you ever seen Pulp Fiction? I think when Sam Jackson's character got saved from the gunshots in the beginning, and went on this whole trip about God saving him, then that could have been his Ni acting up. His character seems a mix of ESTP and ENFJ. In this case, it was mostly positive and made him reassess where he wanted to take his life. The same "suspicions" and gut feelings could be as simple as someone jumping to awful conclusions if their boyfriend/girlfriend hasn't shown up or come home. If they latched on to it, they might think the relationship is bad.. they might even go out and search for their spouse.. knocking down doors, thinking they're with that "bitch". This is the kind of Ni you wouldn't see in NJs much.

 

[INTP]

According to jung, all of the functions live in the realm of the collective unconscious.

where did he say that? i never heard such a thing said anywhere, instead i have read something from jung that kind of contradicts this

 

[Impact Calculus]

where did he say that? i never heard such a thing said anywhere, instead i have read something from jung that kind of contradicts this

These universal, instinctive traits that everybody has access to don't live in the collective unconscious? Does he not describe this in the first couple of paragraphs of psychological types? Also, isn't the collective unconscious the instinctive realm of the psyche?

 

[INTP]

These universal, instinctive traits that everybody has access to don't live in the collective unconscious? Does he not describe this in the first couple of paragraphs of psychological types? Also, isn't the collective unconscious the instinctive realm of the psyche?

not in 1-5 paragraphs of introduction, not in the foreword notes on different editions, not in description of 'function'. in chapter X he says:

Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension(A psychic process by which a new conscious content is articulated with similar, already existing contents in such a way that it is understood.) of the object I have proposed the term archetype.

he also says this in chapter X:

Auch Einer, the novel by F. Th. Vischer, gives a rich insight into this side of the introvert's psychology, and at the same time shows the underlying symbolism of the collective unconscious, which in this description of types I am leaving on one side, since it is a universal phenomenon with no especial connection with types.

he does however say this:

(introverted sensation) It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas.

(Ni) Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort.

which doesent imply in any ways that functions live in collective unconscious, on the contrary, it says that some functions 'reach out' to the collective unconscious or have bias from it.

so it seems that he does not say the things you claimed in the first few paragraphs, but if you are able(which i kinda doubt) to find where he says those things, would be nice.

if functions were living in collective unconscious, we wouldnt be able to consciously use them. not to mention that in jungs model its just the functions(STNF) we all have access to, not the function attitudes(Se Si Ne etc).

 

[Impact Calculus]

not in 1-5 paragraphs of introduction, not in the foreword notes on different editions, not in description of 'function'. in chapter X he says:



he also says this in chapter X:



he does however say this:





which doesent imply in any ways that functions live in collective unconscious, on the contrary, it says that some functions 'reach out' to the collective unconscious or have bias from it.

so it seems that he does not say the things you claimed in the first few paragraphs, but if you are able(which i kinda doubt) to find where he says those things, would be nice.

if functions were living in collective unconscious, we wouldnt be able to consciously use them. not to mention that in jungs model its just the functions(STNF) we all have access to, not the function attitudes(Se Si Ne etc).

I said "according to jung" not "jung explicitly said this". I never said "He confirms everything that I've said in the first couple of paragraphs"; It was merely referencing how he described them. I also described this for the functions, not the attitudes.

And yes, they don't link to types. Obviously differentiation can't exist within the collective unconscious.

Although, in light of all of these assumptions, even what I meant isn't necessarily true.

 

[Little_Sticks]

So I understand that Ni is mostly pushing away details to perceive the core idea behind something, the meaning behind the surface appearance. How is this subjective though? I understand how all the other introverted functions are except for Ni.

Because the meaning behind things can have different delineations of meaning, depending on the nature of the observer. In other words, the actual formulation of an idea about the experience of reality also depends on the subjective orientation with it.

Simply put, let's assume there is an objective reality. Since our mind is a part of that reality, our thoughts have some kind of affect on it, we could say; some things happen.

1. Because our mind is a part of reality, having thoughts about reality can change aspects of it in certain ways that we will be unaware of (aka Newton's Third Law).
2. The mind interprets these supposed objective distinctions in some way. For example, a popular question is whether or not colors exist (does the mind create it?); no one seems to argue against the idea of wavelengths of light being the objective distinction behind why we see color, but we can't be certain that any idea we have about those distinctions existing in the objective world is anything in particular (colors). I suppose you could argue that the idea of seeing color then is a very very simple example of Ni.

So what Ni sees can find a core idea behind something, but it can still be subjective (i.e. colors), and it can still be only one way of many to understand our experiences (e.g. polarized types of thinking).

I would wager that what really happens is that people who identify with Ni end up transcending the function and seeing something that truly is or is very close to the core idea behind something (or at least encompasses an understanding of all ideas about something in order to understand something greater about them). Whether we should call this Ni or not, is then somewhat questionable, but perhaps moot anyway.