User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 132

  1. #61
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    Se is a general attitude. It is not the act of absolute perception, which is why it is required to be and can only be paired with functions such as Ti/Te/Fi/Fe. This attitude leads to the things Jung describes, of them perceiving the objective realm abnormally clear. They don't get bogged down in thought, they are always pushing forth. It is why Se has tert/inferior Ni, they still have intuition, in a classical sense - but they refuse to let it clog up their future perceptions.
    Are you just making this up? Imma guess yes because none of the functions are "attitudes". They'll promote attitudes and ways of life but by themselves they're designatiors for kinds of cognitive content. Identifying a type as having "Se" uppermost in their cognition indicates where--inside or outside--they'll focus, and on what kind of content. It also makes a claim about what that type will not focus on.

    But more than that there's the vital functional element of degree of consciousness. It's one billion times more important than imaginary function stackings or "use of" or "developing my" because cognition doesn't exist without it. It is positively required for consciousness that consciousness be partisan. There must be a relatively impersonal drive toward one kind of perception/judgment because without some such "preference" how does anything come into consciousness? If you're not driven there, how do "you" get there?

    No real proof offered. It seems like the conceptual requirement exists anyway. I saw it in a vision.


    But whatever. Any kind of built in weakness in one kind of dominant consciousness will be mirrored in every other kind of dominant consciousness. (Or at least that's so if one kind of perception, for instance, is NOT a corruption of another kind.) Which would seem to suggest that cognition itself is a maladaption of some kind.

    Maladaption for what? Seeing the face of God?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #62
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Are you just making this up? Imma guess yes because none of the functions are "attitudes".
    Perhaps. The extent of the conversaion as been stretched beyond what I consider objective experience. Wanna talk subjectively and interpersonally at this point, will address you ASAP.

  3. #63
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    *was really drunk when posted, doesn't even remember posting, still intends to respond*

  4. #64
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    Yeah. I'm near my infancy of study. It seems to be a well-thought out system, and the subsequent dogma shows it - some of my primary concerns. Still intriguing, nonetheless. A lot of free information floating about.
    The fact that you are so against it as a dogmatic system doesn't suggest Se-Ni preference for you, to be honest. You'd be clearly situated in alpha so your function preferences are in no specific order Ne, Si, Ti, Fe. This aso holds true in Jungian typology and MBTI too based on what I've observed thus far. You don't think like how I think an ISTP would think. There is no Se-Ni cognition. You seem to strongly favor Ne and Fe as your preferred function perspectives, at least as reasoning processes in these posts you've written.

    Hm. Perhaps they are more somber about it given they've experienced it before/recently.

    I disagree with your concluding assessments. Ni in the dominant position does not mean you utilize intuition well inherently. It means you are intermingled with the aspects of Ni Jung describes at elevated levels. Bad intuition is also not a facet of tertiary/inferior intuition, such as paranoia or what you speak of. I'll touch on it below.
    What does it mean to utilize Ni well? To utilize any function perspective is simply the ability to use it in a manner that is not childish and exaggerated. If you read Jung, you will understand that he makes clear on two things: the inferior is always contrasted by the dominant and the inferior can thus never become egoic or differentiated because the reason the inferior is the inferior at all has to do with that it acts as a counter-balance in the psyche. If Ni is conscious, then Se must be unconscious in order to create balance between the two perspectives. He also makes clear on that the dominant perspective is always more advanced than the inferior and this is because we possess conscious control over the dominant function. This is what it means to have a function as one's dominant perspective to begin with, that it is egoic. We have control over its perspective and content and we can direct it as we choose. We cannot with the inferior since Jung also notes that the unconscious acts independently of consciousness.

    B is what is described in the video, on the whole. C is what Jung ascribes. They could, but they would no longer be Jungian cognitive functions. They are meaningful from an arena of psycho-therapeutic thought, for identification of patient mentalities and isolating the variables that cause them cognitive distress.
    I entirely disagree. Jung is describing all of them and he is describing them at a level where all these perspectives are united. Dominant intuition is the result of both A, B, and C. They are not separate instances. That you think they are honestly belies your own preference towards Ne rather than Se, that I began suspecting when you wrote your example of Se in the posts prior. What you wrote didn't reflect Se.

    From a realm of self-identification... I'm starting to believe that was never the purpose of the system upon outset.
    Or perhaps the problem is that you aren't understanding the system well enough to fully apply it to yourself, and you lack the insight and awareness of your own internal workings to do so?

    It is perhaps an irksome concept, particularly from my idolized point of view, but take this: "His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate."
    No, Se is not about possibilities. Se sees things exactly for what things are. It is a red mug. Someone is drinking from the red mug. Se never explores the possibility of the content of the mug, or why someone would drink from the mug, or the purpose of the mug or why it's red. That's intuition. There is no possibility-seek when it comes to Se. You are describing Ne, not Se. The fact that you don't understand what I am describing and why it is Se just further suggests that you are biased towards Ne and you think Ne is Se. Ne sees what things could be, Se sees what things are, Ni sees what things mean, Si sees whatever Si sees. I don't understand Si as a perspective.

    Considerate of all possible futures, all possible perceptions, is what he alludes to.
    Yeah, and that is how intuition, especially Ne, operates.

    Hm. I see it, and will be thinking about it over the coming stretch of time.
    It does not capture the push-pull between sensation-intuition, at least not my understanding of intuition-sensation. Se sees what things are, Ni sees what things mean. What you quoted has nothing to do with this dynamic, especially since in order to see what things mean, we must first see what things are and vice versa.

    One facet of intuition I am jelly of, the interplay of personal dynamics. I've sat next to someone of interest, thoughts churning, afraid to express them. Textbook repression of intuition.
    Why is this textbook example of repressed intuition? If anything, I would say this is an example of Fe, especially with how you express that you actually want to socially interact with these people. Textbook example of repressed intuition is when I write a long post analyzing the symbolic content of fiction, posts it on a forum and I get a "tl;dr I'm thinking too much" response, because they fail to see the symbolic content I am myself noting. They find the perspective irrelevant and meaningless being focused on the as-is content. To them a sword is just a sword rather than all the meanings I see the sword representing. That they refuse to see this meaning is an example of repressed intuition, not whether they feel unable to speak up or not.

    This would ruin the pleasurable, sensationalist mind I strive for.
    This really seems to be coming from the perspective of Fe, seeking group unity and group harmony. My inferior functions are Se and Fi. Piss me off enough and they will erupt and I will become aggressive and brusque in my manners such as telling people to stfu because they are a fucking pain in the ass and are annoying the hell out of me. The reason why this is Se with Fi inferior eruption is because it has the force of Se behind it, instilling a sense of action in the present moment but done so perhaps from an idealistic perspective especially because it's backed up by somewhat immature and therefore idealistic Fi values, although not as idealistic as genuine inferior Fi. I just want people to do what I want, simply put. It's the childish immaturity if inferior Se because I expect people to follow my sense control and what to do in the physical environment which is close to nil, but in those moments I feel like I have a lot of control. It's only afterwards that I realize how exaggerated, immature and childish my outbursts are.

    A nine can use the three ideal for growth, a five can use the two ideal for growth, and etcetera. I am not one to think you are locked into anything regarding the psyche - at least, in a sense that a captain can't steer his ship.
    No, you cannot. If you think this is how enneagram works you are severely misunderstanding enneagram. Enneagram is not about something akin to "I decide to integrate now" as if growth is something you can consciously control with your will. Integration occurs as a natural process of self-growth which stems from the realization of the core type's holy idea and connecting to this idea existentially. I have been integrating lately and this is noticeable because I have become very active and working towards achieving a specific image in order to fulfill myself. I have also started to look to plan for my future and actually act on that and I utilize the knowledge I gather and what I know in a practical manner such as what I read bout human physiology and I will bring this up when I see my doctor later this year, because it's relevant in order to minimize the health risks I will experience. It's a good example of 5 moving towards 8 and my 4 wing moving towards 1.

    I didn't decide to integrate. What did happen was that I decided what I wanted to do and work towards that. That was a push towards self-fulfillment which resulted in self-growth, and this also meant that I would move in the direction towards integration as a result. Enneagram explains these behaviors. People mistake enneagram for cognitive behavioral therapy or similar when it's not. It doesn't explain how to integrate because that's not the point. It explains what happens when you integrate and it labels your experiences as integration/disintegration.

    The irrational functions - Ne, Se, Ni, Si. The rational functions - Te, Fe, Ti and Fi. The former are irrational because they depend upon experience, they will never be perfectly in tune with reality unless you can accumulate one hundred percent of the universe's energy (or something ). The latter are rational because they are worked out from the experience the aforementioned. The irrational functions expand the scope of the mind both good and bad, the latter personally interprets it.
    No, that's not how it works at all. Jung notes that all introverted functions actually derive their perspectives a priori, whereas extroverted functions do so a posteriori. What it means to lead with an irrational function is that you simply have no control over the content that you perceive. This is why Jung labels it irrational. You don't sort, you don't categorize, there is no logical process involved. All you do is simply that - perceive reality as filtered through your dominant perspective. Judgement functions do not operate like this. They exist within the realms of logical thought in the sense that both thinking and feeling are about categorization. This is why Jung calls them rational because they are essentially rationalization processes. They help us to make sense of the world by rationalizing it. Perception doesn't work this way. Perception is simply taking in data without trying to make sense of this data.

    This is what I have gathered so far, at least - I have much more study to do regarding the subject.
    Why do you make incorrect assertions if you haven't studied enough to actually be sure they are correct or not and in line with actual theory?

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  5. #65
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Aww.

    Okay, fine. I'll play. Would you care to comment on the difference between "convert" and "reformulate"
    Rather irrelevant point to make considering the context. Instead of throwing red herrings, why don't you try to engage seriously with the questions I posed? Regardless, the fundamental difference is that you do not understand what I am actually expressing with this sentence:

    I do believe there is input from somewhere and I do not believe that we can experience this input in its purest form because upon experience itself, we will reformulate it to make it fit our minds.
    By this I actually mean that we do engage with the pure content but we select which part of the content we choose to engage with. By "experiencing input by purest form" I am referring to the idea that we can consciously experience objects in their totality, the key word being "conscious", and this is what I do not believe is possible. You don't seem to suggest this at all. The way I understand your concept of conversion seems to be based on some kind of Pe logic where A transforms into B, but once it is B, the meaning is structured within the logical structure of B. It is now acting independently of A. I do not believe this is true.

    As I already wrote in response to superunknown and how I think his assertions about the A, B, C claims are wrong:

    I entirely disagree. Jung is describing all of them and he is describing them at a level where all these perspectives are united. Dominant intuition is the result of both A, B, and C. They are not separate instances.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  6. #66
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    By this I actually mean that we do engage with the pure content but we select which part of the content we choose to engage with. By "experiencing input by purest form" I am referring to the idea that we can consciously experience objects in their totality, the key word being "conscious", and this is what I do not believe is possible. You don't seem to suggest this at all. The way I understand your concept of conversion seems to be based on some kind of Pe logic where A transforms into B, but once it is B, the meaning is structured within the logical structure of B. It is now acting independently of A. I do not believe this is true.
    Wriggling ain't gonna do it, bro. Whatever's in your head is not what was in the world. You're saying it, and I'm saying it. Nonetheless, there is a very strong BELIEF held by probably all people, but certainly by people relying on extroverted judgment, that the world really is what it really is and you can see what it really is. It's reliable.

    Now I forget exactly why we're having this conversation, but how this all related back to REPRESSED extroverted sensing is... dunno, some damn stupid thing about "data"? Oh wait, some claim by me that repressed means converted. Which was trying to be a way of saying, say, where there's some person dealing primarily in introverted intuition, extroverted sensing is not missing. It's not absent in some fashion that somehow doing more Se would fix. It's already present as unconscious content and orientation.

    What's missing is Si. But Se... that's present as an unconscious filter in Ni. This makes less sense for "functions" as ideal objects. But talking about people who have their own experiences and chug along processing information--the intuitive structural models they create in their heads assume an Se world. The physical experiences--reading a book, listening to a song, riding a motorcycle, seeing a face--these are stored within the Ni as empty spaces that someone doing Se can fill.

    That nifty complaint that the weakness of Ni is lack of Se... it is teh misguiderment.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #67
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Wriggling ain't gonna do it, bro. Whatever's in your head is not what was in the world. You're saying it, and I'm saying it. Nonetheless, there is a very strong BELIEF held by probably all people, but certainly by people relying on extroverted judgment, that the world really is what it really is and you can see what it really is. It's reliable.
    It's not wriggling. It's seeing a different meaning in the words you are not seeing. This alone suggests a preference towards Pe in your ego to me. You aren't seeing the Ni depth of wanting to see the universal source as much as you keep want to split hairs and separate based on external qualities. Hair-splitting I personally find rather meaningless since it misses the point about what cognition is about, in my opinion.

    Now I forget exactly why we're having this conversation, but how this all related back to REPRESSED extroverted sensing is... dunno, some damn stupid thing about "data"? Oh wait, some claim by me that repressed means converted. Which was trying to be a way of saying, say, where there's some person dealing primarily in introverted intuition, extroverted sensing is not missing. It's not absent in some fashion that somehow doing more Se would fix. It's already present as unconscious content and orientation.
    No, the point I was making was much grander than simply pertaining to sensation or intuition. It's about the very fundamentals how cognition operates.

    What's missing is Si. But Se... that's present as an unconscious filter in Ni. This makes less sense for "functions" as ideal objects. But talking about people who have their own experiences and chug along processing information--the intuitive structural models they create in their heads assume an Se world. The physical experiences--reading a book, listening to a song, riding a motorcycle, seeing a face--these are stored within the Ni as empty spaces that someone doing Se can fill.
    And herein you show that you don't understand how Ni-Se operate. It is not "emptiness" Se can fill. Se doesn't fill anything. It's just a different kind of apprehension of data, in other words, reinterpretation of data. You could equally argue that Ni is in fact filling Se. Therefore, not conversion, as you keep suggesting. A does not turn into B. A and B are the same. It is simultaneously both Ni and Se data but the focus lies on Ni, not Se. Se is the focus that is repressed. It would in fact be even better to drop the extroverted and introverted attitudes together when speaking of functions this way and just simply talk about intuition, thinking, feeling and sensation. This becomes evident when you start mixing in Si as if it is even relevant to the point when it's not.

    That nifty complaint that the weakness of Ni is lack of Se... it is teh misguiderment.
    I would assume that's the complaint people who are not genuine Ni types would suggest. The inferior is never a "lack" - it is a repression of perspective.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  8. #68
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    It's not wriggling. It's seeing a different meaning in the words you are not seeing. This alone suggests a preference towards Pe in your ego to me.
    Yeah well, Se.

    Oh, we're you meaning Ne?

    How rude!

    No, the point I was making was much grander than simply pertaining to sensation or intuition. It's about the very fundamentals how cognition operates.
    Was it that part about how we choose? The um.... By this I actually mean that we do engage with the pure content but we select which part of the content we choose to engage with.

    So, this fundamentals part, the part where there's still a we that does some choosing... that's the fundamentals?

    And herein you show that you don't understand how Ni-Se operate. It is not "emptiness" Se can fill. Se doesn't fill anything.
    Inferior Se does. Unless consciousness is fundamentally divorced from the unconscious (no, really, that's a good one to look up, because someone will try saying it is) then consciousness is shaped by what it leaves out.

    As mentioned, but I'll add in some bad words because, hey, this conversation got snotty a while back, dumb motherfuckers will tell you the functions are distinct items. They're things we use. And in so speaking, they push cognition back into the mystery world of the "we" that "uses". Functions become tools and "we" sit behind them, magically driving. Meanwhile, thoughtful and likely even handsome gentlemen can take another tack.

    "Functions" is another name for qualities of cognition. Actual cognition works on bundles of cognitive items, like memories or experiences or particular feelings or thoughts, or even records and streams of raw data. Aspects of these bundles are more or less appreciated consciously. Other aspects stay on the dark side of the moondle. But they're still there. And they influence what conscious appreciation can do with the illuminated aspects.

    In other words, gaps. The structure of Ni conceptual models retain an imprint of the world as being a world of Se, or worse.



    How's that for fundamental, eh? There are no functions and consciousness is a veneer. BUT TELL ME MORE ABOUT OUR CHOOSINGS I"M SURE THEY VERY IMPORTANT
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #69
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    @Kalach your Ni hate is actually rather amusing.
    Was it that part about how we choose? The um.... By this I actually mean that we do engage with the pure content but we select which part of the content we choose to engage with.

    So, this fundamentals part, the part where there's still a we that does some choosing... that's the fundamentals?
    It's not about choice. We never "choose" as in that we actively decided to align our ego a certain way through the use of intention of will. By fundamental I mean that the idea I was applying is not limited to sensation and intuition but to cognitive functions as a whole as psychic processes.

    Inferior Se does. Unless consciousness is fundamentally divorced from the unconscious (no, really, that's a good one to look up, because someone will try saying it is) then consciousness is shaped by what it leaves out.
    Or perhaps an even better way of understanding it is that consciousness is shaped by what we want to perceive.
    As mentioned, but I'll add in some bad words because, hey, this conversation got snotty a while back, dumb motherfuckers will tell you the functions are distinct items. They're things we use. And in so speaking, they push cognition back into the mystery world of the "we" that "uses". Functions become tools and "we" sit behind them, magically driving. Meanwhile, thoughtful and likely even handsome gentlemen can take another tack.
    And I honestly see no problem with this perspective per se, because the ego does indeed use the functions as defense mechanisms, and when we cognitively reason, it is apparent that we do so from one or a few perspectives over other perspectives. Thus, we utilize a function perspective over other function perspectives.

    "Functions" is another name for qualities of cognition. Actual cognition works on bundles of cognitive items, like memories or experiences or particular feelings or thoughts, or even records and streams of raw data. Aspects of these bundles are more or less appreciated consciously. Other aspects stay on the dark side of the moondle. But they're still there. And they influence what conscious appreciation can do with the illuminated aspects.
    Actual cognition? Why separate the functions and their perspectives as unrelated to other forms of cognition? It is evident that functions are a part of human cognition because they play a dominant role in our reasoning processes.
    In other words, gaps. The structure of Ni conceptual models retain an imprint of the world as being a world of Se, or worse.
    It's still not a "gap" in that kind of sense. The inferior doesn't fill a gap in the dominant perspective. It is the dominant perspective that fills the gap of the inferior. That's why it's dominant and not inferior.

    How's that for fundamental, eh? There are no functions and consciousness is a veneer. BUT TELL ME MORE ABOUT OUR CHOOSINGS I"M SURE THEY VERY IMPORTANT
    This discussion would be so much more meaningful if you actually understood what I was implying and understood the theory better but you are free to jest and I will simply jest you back.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  10. #70
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    @Kalach your Ni hate is actually rather amusing.
    Isn't it tho. I'm so cute.

    However... there's a quote somewhere from Jung, specifically from his Psychology of the Unconscious, and it'll turn up eventually, but its about how the study of psychology cannot be the study of consciousness. Consciousness is a presentation of personal conceits, few or none of which directly describe the functioning of the mind.

    And functions as we know them appear most prominently in the conscious mind. You do the math.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] INJs and Extraverted Sensing
    By Martian Manifesto in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 02-10-2017, 04:38 AM
  2. Video: Inferior Extraverted Sensing in Dominant Intuitives
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2016, 01:31 PM
  3. [Se] Ni Doms, Inferior Extraverted Sensing and Incorrect Conclusions
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-28-2015, 12:59 PM
  4. [JCF] Extraverted Sensing and Introverted Sensing - Se vs Si
    By Domino in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-28-2014, 12:36 AM
  5. [Se] Understanding and Developing Extraverted Sensing
    By wolfy in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 12:38 PM

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