• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Which Function Is Closest To The Unconscious And Why?

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What did I say that made you say this?

And what is this theory of yours?

It was this, to begin with: "I can just know, understand and feel things beyond my own experience in the most bizarre way," combined with the fact that you list yourself as an INFP. What you described is Ni, not Fi. At least the Si type is in familiar surroundings when confronted with unconscious content. The Ni sees it as bizarre, and distances this unconscious content from the ego.

It's not a theory really, it's from my reading of the type descriptions. Your statements reminded me of something I've known for a while.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
It was this, to begin with: "I can just know, understand and feel things beyond my own experience in the most bizarre way," combined with the fact that you list yourself as an INFP. What you described is Ni, not Fi. At least the Si type is in familiar surroundings when confronted with unconscious content. The Ni sees it as bizarre, and distances this unconscious content from the ego.

It's not a theory really, it's from my reading of the type descriptions. Your statements reminded me of something I've known for a while.
Hmmm.

But I not sure how much I'm combining subjective experience and objective judgement of the situation. By saying it's "bizarre" I imagine that I was comparing what I know of others' internal experience of their minds with my own. I don't find the immediate experience itself uncanny.

It is interesting that you see that, though. I never imagined I could come across as Ni.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hmmm.

But I not sure how much I'm combining subjective experience and objective judgement of the situation. By saying it's "bizarre" I imagine that I was comparing what I know of others' internal experience of their minds with my own. I don't find the immediate experience itself uncanny.

It is interesting that you see that, though. I never imagined I could come across as Ni.

At any rate, if I hadn't seen your INFP I would have thought you were another type.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I can just know, understand and feel things beyond my own experience in the most bizarre way. I know exactly how it would feel to be in love, despite never having been anywhere near feeling it in life - I know it because I can literally create and experience the feeling itself in my head (and body). I can't really justify or explain this in any objective manner, but I feel like I'm connected with the very depths of my mind, to a place that's universal among all human beings. It's like being able to delve deep into the 'muscles' of the mind (that are funadamental to all human beings); to be able to see and understand how each sinew contracts and expands; and even to be able to manipulate them to some degree to create certain feelings/impressions/reactions within myself. I'm sure that probably sounds like BS to everyone else but I assure you it's very real to me.

And I don't know if that makes it closest to the Unconscious or not. :shrug: It being a Judging function might complicate things a bit.

:yes:

Just as a side note, when I was much younger my mom & sister would insist I could not understand something because I had never been in love, and that my view would change after I had experienced it. Generally, it has not changed me. It was quite close to what I expected it to be, so much so a thrill can be lost as it doesn't seem all that new (& it's as if I've lived things more intensely in my head).

I also had insight beyond my age into things so that I coud give advice & find it worked for others, despite never having experienced what they were going through. I never really knew how I knew these things also, but when I think about it, I did use myself as a sort of testing ground for many human experiences, often using fantasy or some kind of art (music, literature, etc) to stir some reaction & then analyze it. From there I had concepts of what is significant, good, beneficial, detrimental, etc, for people. Fi is not the stirring up of emotion or exploring fantasy or experiencing some art, but it's the assignment of meaning to these inner experiences, and that is rational judging, although nothing like Je or what most people think of judging as.

----------

After reading Jung, I think Si is less connected to the unconscious collective than Fi or even Ti in a conscious way (er, if that makes sense). The way Si connects to it is when the unknown looms like scary monsters (metaphor), and the stored concrete impressions are what they use to sort of beat those down. The tangible & factual things which seem to arbitrarily strike the Si type do so because they hit on those unconscious images though, but the person apparently doesn't make a direct connection consciously. But objects & facts & experiences, etc, are held to have meaning in & of themselves because on some level they are symbols to the Si type. The person focuses more on the impression these objects give them & what those impressions mean than the literal use or meaning of the object, but they often conflate the two so that they don't see how others don't see how an object (or fact or experience) "obviously" means something very specific. What I think is going on there is a heavy, heavy influence of the unconscious, but not an awareness of it. Odd combo. Si-dom are actually very odd. INPs can be very odd in part due to Si also...

----------

Concerning Ne, it seems the individual also often does not consciously experience intuitions as arriving from the background of their own mind. I see this in Ne-doms. Possibilites are REAL like objects to them, not projections. This occasionally makes them seem delusional.

Ne:
Jung said:
Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision...

....by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object.

He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
:yes:

Just as a side note, when I was much younger my mom & sister would insist I could not understand something because I had never been in love, and that my view would change after I had experienced it. Generally, it has not changed me. It was quite close to what I expected it to be, so much so a thrill can be lost as it doesn't seem all that new (& it's as if I've lived things more intensely in my head).

I also had insight beyond my age into things so that I coud give advice & find it worked for others, despite never having experienced what they were going through.
I understand why people react like that because it just sounds like hubris. There's just no way to explain it without coming across as an idiotic know-it-all :D. Besides, people just don't want to believe that it's possible. For that reason, I mostly keep it to myself (even on TC as well). However, like yourself, I do give a lot of advice about things I have no experience of.

I never really knew how I knew these things also, but when I think about it, I did use myself as a sort of testing ground for many human experiences, often using fantasy or some kind of art (music, literature, etc) to stir some reaction & then analyze it. From there I had concepts of what is significant, good, beneficial, detrimental, etc, for people. Fi is not the stirring up of emotion or exploring fantasy or experiencing some art, but it's the assignment of meaning to these inner experiences, and that is rational judging, although nothing like Je or what most people think of judging as.
:yes:

I've even done that in dreams and learnt something useful from it. It's a detachment from the restrictions of conscious/immediate thoughts and feelings and a lapse into a sort of meditative, unbound mental state - and there are a variety of ways to achieve that. But like you say, the crucial part for Fi is assigning meaning to it.

What I think is going on there is a heavy, heavy influence of the unconscious, but not an awareness of it. Odd combo. Si-dom are actually very odd. INPs can be very odd in part due to Si also...
But to what degree is Ni aware of it? Doesn't Pi read the transmission of information but not the information itself - like trying to pick up a TV signal? :thinking:
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
But there is something very strange about Fi, and I say this as a dominant user. I can just know something's a certain way without having any rational reason to believe it to be so. I can just know, understand and feel things beyond my own experience in the most bizarre way. I know exactly how it would feel to be in love, despite never having been anywhere near feeling it in life - I know it because I can literally create and experience the feeling itself in my head (and body). I can't really justify or explain this in any objective manner, but I feel like I'm connected with the very depths of my mind, to a place that's universal among all human beings. It's like being able to delve deep into the 'muscles' of the mind (that are fundamental to all human beings); to be able to see and understand how each sinew contracts and expands; and even to be able to manipulate them to some degree to create certain feelings/impressions/reactions within myself. I'm sure that probably sounds like BS to everyone else but I assure you it's very real to me.

Judgment. It's the new perception.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But to what degree is Ni aware of it? Doesn't Pi read the transmission of information but not the information itself - like trying to pick up a TV signal? :thinking:

To me, it sounds like Ni skips to the symbol as a mental image and disregards any object stimulus, hence more of a detachment. The object has no meaning in & of itself then, and it leaves no impression that could be connected directly to it, which is why their insights feel mystical. Their subconscious is supposedly more conscious. It's like visual metaphor, supposedly. That's what it sounds like to me anyway :shrug: .

Oh, and I'll add that what we both described as Fi is often described by others who also type as INFP and who relate most to Jungian Fi than any other of his types. The pattern is very clear. Those who don't see Fi that way are those who don't use it & don't grasp it. They tend to confuse it with Ni when they also aren't a type with Ni.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
After reading Jung, I think Si is less connected to the unconscious collective than Fi or even Ti in a conscious way (er, if that makes sense). The way Si connects to it is when the unknown looms like scary monsters (metaphor), and the stored concrete impressions are what they use to sort of beat those down.

Do you have a Jung quote to back up this claim?
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Do you have a Jung quote to back up this claim?

You'll notice I said, "I think", as in, that's my interpretation, but here is partly what it's based on:

Jung on Si said:
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. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
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....
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.

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.
 
Top