how does a Si dom live in his own world?

[WeddingMood]

introverts live in their heads, how do Si dom people live in their own world?

 

[Korvinagor]

To my knowledge, Si-doms live impressionistically. A world of personal archetypes, history, and mythology. As a result, I imagine it manifests itself in a variety of different ways.

 

[Yama]

To my knowledge, Si-doms live impressionistically. A world of personal archetypes, history, and mythology. As a result, I imagine it manifests itself in a variety of different ways.

Yes, it's very personalized. Instead of seeing the world through rose colored glasses or the like, I see it through a color that nobody can see but me. Nobody looks at anything quite the same way I do. It's very hard to describe. From objects to people to atmospheres and moods to places etc, everything has its own feel that's very specific to me and effects how I look at it, interact with it, think about it, etc.

 

[Poki]

Knowledge and detail creep

 

[GavinElster]

While you can certainly paint it colorfully, the idea behind Si is very simple -- the most basic form of consciousness we have is of sense impressions, and the old argument that "I'm not sure what blue really looks like to you!" seems to illustrate the point.

Jung had some mystical tendencies, but there's a very basic sense in which Si is something we all reckon with, and some just raise it to the highest position.

 

[Yama]

While you can certainly paint it colorfully, the idea behind Si is very simple -- the most basic form of consciousness we have is of sense impressions, and the old argument that "I'm not sure what blue really looks like to you!" seems to illustrate the point.

Jung had some mystical tendencies, but there's a very basic sense in which Si is something we all reckon with, and some just raise it to the highest position.

... And in the dominant position, there is more complexity to it than just the simple sensory impressions that everyone does. That's why it's the dominant. Everyone uses every function, but not equally. My Ne is nothing like dom Ne. Impressions are, after all, very subjective and personalized. Though I am happy you relate Si to impressions and not just "memory". Sense impressions is a much better way of describing it. Though the way dom Si interacts with these impressions is quite different than other positions.

 

[Poki]

... And in the dominant position, there is more complexity to it than just the simple sensory impressions that everyone does. That's why it's the dominant. Everyone uses every function, but not equally. My Ne is nothing like dom Ne. Impressions are, after all, very subjective and personalized. Though I am happy you relate Si to impressions and not just "memory". Sense impressions is a much better way of describing it. Though the way dom Si interacts with these impressions is quite different than other positions.

I was just explaining something like this to my son. My sense impressions are VERY shallow and i run with them. Si digs in deep with them.

 

[GavinElster]

And in the dominant position, there is more complexity to it than just the simple sensory impressions that everyone does.

Well the emphasis was more on the second part -- the fact that sense impressions carry inherently a subjective factor -- the closedness of sensory experience of one individual to another is to me at the heart of why we'd think something called Si exists. Once we know there's a good motivation for defining such a thing, we then have grounds to discuss how it looks in different positions.

I don't think personally that "sense impressions" conveys either simplicity or complexity inherently in the phrasing, because that depends on what the impressions are.

I tend to agree with Jung that memory, will, etc are not features of a given function.

 

[Agent Washington]

Well the emphasis was more on the second part -- the fact that sense impressions carry inherently a subjective factor -- the closedness of sensory experience of one individual to another is to me at the heart of why we'd think something called Si exists. Once we know there's a good motivation for defining such a thing, we then have grounds to discuss how it looks in different positions.

I don't think personally that "sense impressions" conveys either simplicity or complexity inherently in the phrasing, because that depends on what the impressions are.

I tend to agree with Jung that memory, will, etc are not features of a given function.

All perceiving functions are sense functions. Functions of the senses. Because they are perceived according to the individual, it is therefore a subjective sense function. This is where language limits us and I think it would help by giving different functions features so that it's more descriptive and less ... vague.

I'll probably try not to add too much to this because I haven't actually read Jung.

 

[GavinElster]

Because they are perceived according to the individual, it is therefore a subjective sense function.

Well the thing is there's a subjective aspect to it, but there's equally a not-subjective aspect, as these are conveying something about whatever object is perceived. I think the idea is actually perfectly clear, I just might have to explain it a few different ways.

The subjective factor simply comes from the fact that I could reach out, if you were here, and touch your brain in theory -- but I could not touch your perception of the color red. At the same time, that you can perceive red corresponds to the fact that there is a red object presumably out there. Unless you are dreaming (which is relegated to the activity of the unconscious, not the conscious).

 

[Agent Washington]

Well the thing is there's a subjective aspect to it, but there's equally a not-subjective aspect, as these are conveying something about whatever object is perceived. I think the idea is actually perfectly clear, I just might have to explain it a few different ways.

The subjective factor simply comes from the fact that I could reach out, if you were here, and touch your brain in theory -- but I could not touch your perception of the color red. At the same time, that you can perceive red corresponds to the fact that there is a red object presumably out there. Unless you are dreaming (which is relegated to the activity of the unconscious, not the conscious).

Yes, and my point was that everyone who uses sensory perception does that. And there is not a single person who doesn't use sensory perception.

What idea is so specific to Jungian Si function in particular?

 

[GavinElster]

Yes, and my point was that everyone who uses sensory perception does that. And there is not a single person who doesn't use sensory perception.

What idea is so specific to Jungian Si function in particular?

Well of course everyone employs sensory perception; that's because everyone also employs what Jung/other sources call "sensation", and in particular employs all 4 functions. The part that makes it introverted, not extraverted, in emphasis, is the emphasis on the aspect of sensation inaccessible to an external observer.

Just because everyone's sensation involves this aspect in a rudimentary capacity (sufficient for defining, but not sufficient for understanding the deeper aspects of Si) doesn't mean that aspect is emphasized in everyone's cognition to the same degree. A painter like van Gogh may exploit this principle to the highest degree, where the subjective factor intimately and deeply influences their paintings, whereas to a hockey player, yes it's still TRUE that their sensation of the hockey puck is inaccessible to an external observer, but that doesn't imply he/she is tapping into this aspect of sensation in a deeper way.

 

[Psyclepath]

Knowledge and detail creep

That's judgment, my dear.

 

[Poki]

That's judgment, my dear.

What's judgement?

 

[Agent Washington]

Well of course everyone employs sensory perception; that's because everyone also employs what Jung/other sources call "sensation", and in particular employs all 4 functions. The part that makes it introverted, not extraverted, in emphasis, is the emphasis on the aspect of sensation inaccessible to an external observer.

Just because everyone's sensation involves this aspect in a rudimentary capacity (sufficient for defining, but not sufficient for understanding the deeper aspects of Si) doesn't mean that aspect is emphasized in everyone's cognition to the same degree. A painter like van Gogh may exploit this principle to the highest degree, where the subjective factor intimately and deeply influences their paintings, whereas to a hockey player, yes it's still TRUE that their sensation of the hockey puck is inaccessible to an external observer, but that doesn't imply he/she is tapping into this aspect of sensation in a deeper way.

Nice example, I'll keep that in mind

 

[Agent Washington]

...floats back into this post

...

Si is kinda like the aggregate of concrete experiences. I think it basically helps to look at Ni in comparison with Si, in that Si and Ni are both synthesizing sense experiences of any events into some kind of personal significance; Si does so on a more concrete level, and Ni does so on a more abstract level.

I feel like how Ni works is that it sifts through a database of meanings and quickly accesses that meaning, which is what makes Ni so potent and fast in some situations (usually social - unless their Ni is off-base which can't be helped). Si works directly with the database of sensory impressions, and unlike Ni, which synthesizes meaning, synthesizes impressions of concrete things.

I think Ni and Si are both capable of flashes of insight; it's just that as a perceiving function, the source of the flashes of insight are very different.