User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 77

  1. #31
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Interesting discussion - especially the descriptions of Fi. I'll just throw this out there.

    Is it possible that Fi permeates the subconscious, but as a judging function is somewhat steered from the conscious mind? A bit like a ship on the ocean?

    And then Ni and/or Ne also permeates the subconscious, but as a perceiving function tends to be driven from beneath its waters like a deep ocean current?

    In this way it is difficult to compare which sits more deeply in the whole of the mind because it might even depend on the individual. What do you think?

    Edit: Just something else to consider: I wouldn't underestimate just how much Se and possibly Si uses the subconscious. It is an established fact that our minds take in far more information through our senses than what our conscious mind processes. Think of the concept of intuitive physics like when a racecar driver responds to concrete stimuli faster than it could be described. Same is true for firefighters, martial artists, musicians, etc. One big aspect of learning complex music is to be able to internalize most of it so that you don't have to consciously process it. That aspect could be Si, and then consider improvisors who create complex ideas instantaneously which could be Se.

    The only functions I have trouble relating to the subconscious are Ti/Te, but that is not to say these do not have an interesting relationship that does employ its use.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  2. #32
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    First of all, if all people are unique to the core, there is no collective unconscious. If there are aspects of the unconscious that we all share, we can do so only because we share some fundamental commonality. It's not something that get passed around. It is recreated in each cognitive system because all cognitive systems share some same human structure.

    Second, judgment is not a free-standing function. Perception is the seedbed of judgment, and without it there is nothing to judge. A question then is whether perception can exist without judgment. If it can, then the universal unconscious consists of the fundamental form of what we can to see. We should note of course that "see" is not here objective. The fundamental forms dictate how we see.

    But if perception cannot exist without judgment, then the universal unconscious is the fundamental forms we all of us choose to see. The choosing and the seeing here cannot be objective either. They'll be givens that we do not see or choose beyond.

    So, which comes first, perception or judgment?



    Caveat: this seems a backwards way of determining the universal unconscious. Sure, if there is some commonality between all peoples--say for instance, if everyone has a type--then we could work backward to a shared core, but that seems like it'd miss some elements....
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    You'll notice I said, "I think", as in, that's my interpretation, but here is partly what it's based on:

    "Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons."
    Of course the Si type is unaware of this fact, that's why it's called the Unconscious and not the Conscious mind. But the Si is close to the Unconscious in terms of how it colors his perceptions, as described there by Jung.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #34
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Fi or Ne

  5. #35
    Member justwannabeMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    girl
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Inferior Functions.
    “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

  6. #36
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    First of all, if all people are unique to the core, there is no collective unconscious. If there are aspects of the unconscious that we all share, we can do so only because we share some fundamental commonality. It's not something that get passed around. It is recreated in each cognitive system because all cognitive systems share some same human structure.

    Second, judgment is not a free-standing function. Perception is the seedbed of judgment, and without it there is nothing to judge. A question then is whether perception can exist without judgment. If it can, then the universal unconscious consists of the fundamental form of what we can to see. We should note of course that "see" is not here objective. The fundamental forms dictate how we see.

    But if perception cannot exist without judgment, then the universal unconscious is the fundamental forms we all of us choose to see. The choosing and the seeing here cannot be objective either. They'll be givens that we do not see or choose beyond.

    So, which comes first, perception or judgment?
    This doesn't make sense from the very beginning. And yes, I tried on several readings.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #37
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    It's a response to several inadequacies in the discussion thus far. First, the unconscious that all these functions are proposed closest to: I saw no one define it. Second, apparently people don't know that judgment is always judgment about something.

    Judgment functions do not exist by themselves. They are actively constructed over perception in the same orientation, and reactively applied when perception is oppositely oriented.

    In fact, "functions" are coarse-grained models of the persistence of certain formal qualities of cognition within the complexes of an individual. Saying "function this" or "function that" disguises the majority of the story of cognition.



    Source: me.

    Possibly by way of Jung.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #38
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    It's a response to several inadequacies in the discussion thus far. First, the unconscious that all these functions are proposed closest to: I saw no one define it. Second, apparently people don't know that judgment is always judgment about something.

    Judgment functions do not exist by themselves. They are actively constructed over perception in the same orientation, and reactively applied when perception is oppositely oriented.

    In fact, "functions" are coarse-grained models of the persistence of certain formal qualities of cognition within the complexes of an individual. Saying "function this" or "function that" disguises the majority of the story of cognition.



    Source: me.

    Possibly by way of Jung.
    But I HAVE defined it - at least implicitly: the unconscious is the part of the psyche that one is not conscious of. Are you sure you've carefully read every post in this thread?

    As for the rest, you seem concerned that the discussion hasn't covered consciousness of (judgment about, perception of) this or that. It is just free-floating judgment or perception. So, for example, if I were to say that Pe and Pi are spontaneous elements of cognition, whereas Je and Ji are controlled elements of consciousness, that wouldn't be good enough for you.

    What do you mean by "function this" and "function that," and what does it have to do with the OP?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #39
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    But I HAVE defined it - at least implicitly: the unconscious is the part of the psyche that one is not conscious of. Are you sure you've carefully read every post in this thread?
    I have read none of them carefully.

    *proud*


    What sense does it make to ask which function is closest to your own unconscious?

    So, for example, if I were to say that Pe and Pi are spontaneous elements of cognition, whereas Je and Ji are controlled elements of consciousness, that wouldn't be good enough for you.
    Spontaneous and controlled with respect to the ego, perhaps?

    I'm interested in the impersonal aspects of cognition. The personal aspects, if personal means the parts of cognition you can consider yourself directing, are the thinnest skein over the top of the whole.

    What do you mean by "function this" and "function that," and what does it have to do with the OP?
    I propose to believe that functions do not exist. I believe the principal structures in the mind are complexes--feeling-toned bundles of cognitive items (memories, feelings, judgments, images, etc) wrapped around an archetype. These complexes, insofar as they include conscious elements, have function qualities, which is to say the cognitive items in the complex are conditioned toward given kinds of content. For each person there's one dominant kind of conditioning, and a lesser second (auxiliary) kind of conditioning, and so on, corresponding to type "function" order. In that sense "functions" exist. But talk of using these "functions" is misplaced. How it happens that given kinds of conditioning occurs is indeed a splendid question, and one for which I have no answer, but if it is "functions" operating in the background over the top of cognitive content, then cognition is not a matter of cognition, it's a matter of whatever is running the functions. And that particular ghost does not exist.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #40
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Interesting discussion - especially the descriptions of Fi. I'll just throw this out there.

    Is it possible that Fi permeates the subconscious, but as a judging function is somewhat steered from the conscious mind? A bit like a ship on the ocean?

    And then Ni and/or Ne also permeates the subconscious, but as a perceiving function tends to be driven from beneath its waters like a deep ocean current?
    Could you explain this further?

    In this way it is difficult to compare which sits more deeply in the whole of the mind because it might even depend on the individual. What do you think?
    I personally think the potential usage is the same but there is an element of choice in how the individual applies it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    First of all, if all people are unique to the core, there is no collective unconscious. If there are aspects of the unconscious that we all share, we can do so only because we share some fundamental commonality. It's not something that get passed around. It is recreated in each cognitive system because all cognitive systems share some same human structure.
    Agreed.

    Second, judgment is not a free-standing function. Perception is the seedbed of judgment, and without it there is nothing to judge. A question then is whether perception can exist without judgment. If it can, then the universal unconscious consists of the fundamental form of what we can to see. We should note of course that "see" is not here objective. The fundamental forms dictate how we see.

    But if perception cannot exist without judgment, then the universal unconscious is the fundamental forms we all of us choose to see. The choosing and the seeing here cannot be objective either. They'll be givens that we do not see or choose beyond.

    So, which comes first, perception or judgment?

    Caveat: this seems a backwards way of determining the universal unconscious. Sure, if there is some commonality between all peoples--say for instance, if everyone has a type--then we could work backward to a shared core, but that seems like it'd miss some elements....
    These thoughts crossed my mind too. I think we can safely say no function can operates exclusively and removed from input from other functions. However, I don't think this means this discussion is without merit. We still distinguish the functions individually in the theory, so I think we speak about them in similar terms when it comes to what parts of the mind they access.

    I think it's impossible to determine whether Judgement or Perception are more or less dependent on the other. You are a Perceiving dom and I a Judging dom and I think we would struggle to even comprehend each other's primary processing method (IMO even more so than the differences in function preference). It is so ingrained, one cannot step outside it and view it objectively. I will say, I often think with MBTI discussion, Perceiving doms have this attitude that they are, "just seeing things how they are" and that this somehow makes their views more honest, unfiltered and unfettered than Judging doms. But Judging is not always as cerebral, deliberate and complicated as Perceiving doms tend to believe it is - there can be a clarity and immediacy in the instinct too.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

Similar Threads

  1. [Ni] guys which cognitive function is likley to?
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-22-2017, 05:24 PM
  2. Which function is the hardest for you to grasp?
    By Hard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 11:30 AM
  3. [JCF] Which function is most inclined to use flow charts?
    By SwimmerGal97 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-08-2015, 05:09 PM
  4. Which function more likely to land you in the Psych Ward: Ne or Ni?
    By mysavior in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 12:56 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Which type annoys you the most, and why?
    By KLessard in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 05:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO