User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 132

  1. #71
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Here we go...

    Individuality belongs to those conditional actualities which are greatly overrated theoretically on account of their practical significance. It does not belong to those over-whelmingly clear and therefore universally obtrusive general facts upon which a science must be primarily founded. The individual content of consciousness is, therefore, the most unfavourable object imaginable for psychology, because it has veiled the universally valid until it has become unrecognizable. The essence of consciousness is the process of adaptation which takes place in the most minute details. On the other hand, the unconscious is generally diffused, which not only binds the individuals among themselves to the race, but also unites them backwards with the peoples of the past and their psychology. Thus the unconscious, surpassing the individual in its generality, is, in the first place, the object of a true psychology, which claims not to be psychophysical.

    --Jung, Psychology of the Unconscious.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #72
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Doesn't actually rule out functions, more's the pity. But kinda does suggest it's foolish to think dominant cognition is merely what a person straightforwardly believes or perceives it to be. So what is it? Inferior cognition too--what's that?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #73
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    What I think this means is investigating cognition is a matter of discovering relatively impersonal mechanisms behind personal psychology. Functions isn't that mechanism because it's not a mechanism. It's four hoses pouring content on a magical controller. Complexes could be that mechanism, but in accounting for type, complexes still need to have magical function properties. Certain cognitive aspects of individual complexes are always more likely to be promoted into consciousness than other aspects, and why that happens isn't explained.

    Nonetheless, complexes make it harder to understand functions as discrete hoses you operate like a tool, ambiguous expression intended. And probably gives more purchase on such arcane questions as what is inferior Se.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  4. #74
    WhoCares
    Guest

    Default

    Oh fuck. She needs a bra on! And she must be an S type with those annoying irrelevant details and over-explaining everything like I'm a fucking moron. I think my inferior Se is working just fine. And he's not boring because he's an INTJ, its because he's a middle aged Australian male. They're all like that....

  5. #75
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    You know you want me.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #76
    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
    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.
    What said that I was ever interested in the study of the consciousness? I was merely offering my point of view of what forms or formulates consciousness which is very much in line with Jung's idea of what consciousness is, in that he defines consciousness as the ability to cognitively intend or wills. Not once did I make any remark regarding how to study the human psyche. I would in fact say it is fallacious to focus too much on one or the other; the proper study of the psyche considers the totality of the psyche including its neuropsychological basis, consciousness, unconsciousness and a plethora of other factors that may or may not play a role in the formation of human psychology.

    Therefore, when it comes to the dominant function perspective, what makes it dominant is again that it is situated within consciousness, that is, we are capable of directing or intending this perspective with our wills. When any function is differentiated into consciousness, it thus results in the need for the unconscious content to counter-act this differentiation and balance it out with the completely opposite perspective. Because this perspective is threatening to our dominant ego perspective, we actively choose to repress it. Again, that is a matter of ego intention or direction of will power, and the more we differentiate our dominant perspective the more its opposite function and attitude will be repressed.

    But whatever, this is going nowhere as you are clearly not understanding my point of view so I won't continue bothering. All this can be found in Psychological Types, the Tavistock lectures and elsewhere anyway.

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

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

  7. #77
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I wouldn't say I don't understand your point of view. I suspect it of being uniformative. My one and only reason for thinking so is it sounds like there're people behind your persons. Choices and intentions and directions are acts of a personal consciousness, but where did that personal consciousness come from? From other choices and intentions and directions?

    Plus you dismissed the mind/body problem as a non-question. It's the last man standing of all the great philosophical questions.


    Your welcome.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #78
    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
    I wouldn't say I don't understand your point of view. I suspect it of being uniformative. My one and only reason for thinking so is it sounds like there're people behind your persons. Choices and intentions and directions are acts of a personal consciousness, but where did that personal consciousness come from? From other choices and intentions and directions?
    See, this is the problem. You claim to understand but you actually don't. People behind the reasons? Why must there be such a thing? Reasoning processes have causes, they don't occur out of nowhere. Personal consciousness is a combination of various neurological processes although the process itself is still poorly understood. Which essentially also refutes your second statement:

    Plus you dismissed the mind/body problem as a non-question. It's the last man standing of all the great philosophical questions.
    It is only an issue if you see it as an issue and if you see mind and body as two separate concepts. I don't, neither did Jung. I see the mind being the cause of body as I'm a monist, not a dualist. The mind-body problem is based on Cartesian dualistic logic but I do not share such a view of the world to begin with as I see everything ultimately having a singular cause. This is how Ni operates. It takes Se data and tries to see how it all ties together.
    Your welcome.
    Your poor attempts to corner me are quite amusing. The only reason you don't think my point of view is informative is because you do not share my type of cognition and this is why this discussion is going nowhere.

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

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

  9. #79
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    See, this is the problem. You claim to understand but you actually don't. People behind the reasons? Why must there be such a thing?
    Didn't you say there were?

    As in:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I would say they are derived from neither. Functions are not unconscious or the creation of the unconscious since Jung makes a very clear case to separate conscious and unconscious content of the mind. Rather, functions are innate abilities of how humans understand the world just like we are genetically capable to see with our eyes. As we grow as human beings, we need to find ways to cope with the world and functions play a role in that functions act as an ego defense mechanism. It helps us to make sense of the world around us and sort out the information that we perceive. To take on a specific function perspective over that of another is thus the result of ego conscious preference since it is a perceived choice that we made, even if are not aware of this choice per se. Awareness is separate from consciousness in this context.
    Function as tools, the ego as chooser... no?

    Reasoning processes have causes, they don't occur out of nowhere. Personal consciousness is a combination of various neurological processes although the process itself is still poorly understood. Which essentially also refutes your second statement:

    It is only an issue if you see it as an issue and if you see mind and body as two separate concepts. I don't, neither did Jung. I see the mind being the cause of body as I'm a monist, not a dualist. The mind-body problem is based on Cartesian dualistic logic but I do not share such a view of the world to begin with as I see everything ultimately having a singular cause.
    So, obviously, does everyone else, except religious people who believe in spirits and gods. The problem isn't that the world and people are physical all the way through. It's how one becomes the other. There will, possibly, eventually be a one-to-one mapping of brain events to cognitive events (and that by the way will be one hell of a map since the person will NEVER be able to confirm or deny since a large number of those events will be unconscious, but still perhaps one day there can be a mapping predictable enough that conscious cognition can be seen in the map before it arrives in the mind) but that isn't ever going to mean that the qualitative experience of cognition is described in physical terms. The two are different kinds of terms.

    This is how Ni operates. It takes Se data and tries to see how it all ties together.
    Oh it does not.

    Your poor attempts to corner me are quite amusing. The only reason you don't think my point of view is informative is because you do not share my type of cognition and this is why this discussion is going nowhere.
    My poor attempts to corner you have little to do with cornering you. The extent to which all of this is about you is the extent to which you keep announcing the bountiful fullness of my not smartness. You could leave off that and protect your ideas with conceptual development.

    Although, given how I've developed ideas in the past, on this very forum no less... yes, you should carry on being a pugnacious twerp. It can work for you too.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #80
    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
    Didn't you say there were?

    As in:
    I would say they are derived from neither. Functions are not unconscious or the creation of the unconscious since Jung makes a very clear case to separate conscious and unconscious content of the mind. Rather, functions are innate abilities of how humans understand the world just like we are genetically capable to see with our eyes. As we grow as human beings, we need to find ways to cope with the world and functions play a role in that functions act as an ego defense mechanism. It helps us to make sense of the world around us and sort out the information that we perceive. To take on a specific function perspective over that of another is thus the result of ego conscious preference since it is a perceived choice that we made, even if are not aware of this choice per se. Awareness is separate from consciousness in this context.


    Function as tools, the ego as chooser... no?
    No, they are not tools. They are perspectives that we view the world through and they help to define our ego structure since it is through the lens of the dominant that we understand the world.

    So, obviously, does everyone else, except religious people who believe in spirits. The problem isn't that the world and people are physical all the way through. It's how one becomes the other. There will, possibly, eventually be a one-to-one mapping of brain events to cognitive events (and that by the way will be one hell of a map since the person will NEVER be able to confirm or deny since a large number of those events will be unconscious, but still perhaps one day there can be a mapping predictable enough that conscious cognition can be seen in the map before it arrives in the mind) but that isn't ever going to mean that the qualitative experience of cognition is described in physical terms. The two are different kinds of terms.
    Why must they be different?

    Oh it does not.
    Oh yes, it does. You don't understand it does because I highly doubt you are an actual INTJ cognitively.

    My poor attempts to corner you have little to do with cornering you. The extent to which all of this is about you is the extent to which you keep announcing the bountiful fullness of my not smartness. You could leave off that and protect your ideas with conceptual development.
    Perhaps I wouldn't come across that way if you actually attempted to seriously consider what I am trying to convey to you and you fully understood this. I can predict numerous reasons why, and one of them is directly linked to your actual intelligence level, meaning yes, I am smarter than you and it would perhaps do you well to accept this fact so we can move on beyond this trite and simple basic level of discussion. It would help if you stopped to try to outsmart me when it's clear I have a better understanding of Jung and the theory than you do.

    Although, given how I've developed ideas in the past, on this very forum no less... yes, you should carry on being a pugnacious twerp. It can work for you too.
    Whatever floats your boat. Just because other people on this forum are receptive to your ideas it doesn't mean they are logical, correct or even good interpretations of the original theory. They could for all I know, simply lack the knowledge and understanding in order to scrutinize your ideas properly as I am now.

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

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

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