SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
I guess it all depends what was contained in the ellipsis you used. Jung was describing pathological cases. It is hardly fair to categorize that behavior over to the entire population of Si and then make an equivalent opposite in Ni..
The point was to illustrate how subjective Ni was, especially in unhealthy functioning cases. It is not so subjective as to see visions of its own that have nothing to do with reality. But to drive the point home that subjectivity of perception was a factor, I've used the quotation from Jung to back my claim up with. Now, keep in mind, I am not saying that it need be that subjective per se as it is in pathological cases--the only point was that it can be quite subjective.
It is hardly fair to categorize that behavior over to the entire population of Si and then make an equivalent opposite in Ni..
Read the disclaimer, this has nothing to do with the 'population', but only with the unconscious tendencies. We talk about the population to better understand the unconscious tendencies. What the Ni and Si have in common here is the introverted perception--the factor from which subjectivity of perception stems from. The difference between Ni and Si (one is abstract and the other concrete) is not relevant to this problem.
I daresay that whether an Ni explanation is "reasonable" is a subjective judgment which I don't believe belongs in the context of this essay...
Ni explanation canot be reasonable, because Ni is pure intuition--it is just hunches. It is what Jung called an 'irrational' function (check my definitions). An INTJ could be reasonable, but then he would be reasonable by virtue of his Te, the rational function. But then again, we're forgetting something here. This is not about people, but about unconscious tendencies. All we know is that Ni is an irrational function, Te is rational. And we also know that perceptions of Ni tend to be subjective due to internally focused factor of perception. See Jung's referrence to introverted perception in his exegesis of Si.
Either the judgments you are referring to are pathological cases and don't apply to the rest of INTJs, or it is normative. If it is normative for INTJs, then frankly, how dare anyone say that a reasonable explanation doesn't even exist! ...
What are you forgetting here?
That's not intellectually fair! Of course a reasonable explanation exists! Just because some people don't get it doesn't mean a reasonable explanation doesn't exist. That is a very arrogant thing to say. A reasonable explanation exists at least in the mind of the INTJ....
Keep in mind, irrational in the Jungian sense of the word does not mean counter to reason, but only means not having used reason to arrive at the conclusion. As I have mentioned later in the essay, Ni judgments are often dismissed as meritless because the Ni has not supported them with argument, yet despite this, the ideas of the Ni are often sound. This means that the idea the Ni has propounded can indeed be supported with argument, yet he just has not managed to find a way to accomplish this.
I later came to learn, after knowing her for a couple of years, that these hunches were based on stored up information that she had actually taken in a long time previous to the time when she got the hunch - sometimes years. I'm talking about amazingly minuscule trivia. She was not in touch with the logic at the time of the hunch, and was not able to explain it to me, but a logical, reasonable explanation did exist..
This is quite different from what Ni dominants do. She seems to be relying on perceptions of memory, on perceptions of concrete notions. Whilst INJs on something rather abstract. ISJs penetrate to the deepest essence of concrete things and that is why they are able to memorize them to every detail and know how it all relates to their senses.
Yet Nis actually have intuitive light onto the deepest archetypal essence of all things, that is how they are able to predict the future simply by hunches. They are able to see patterns intuitive that are difficult for us to discover with rational argument. Difficult, but possible indeed, granted that their insights were sound.
"Its prophetic foresight is explained by its relation to the archetypes, which represent the laws governing the course of all experiencable things."
So, in short, there are laws explaining how all things work, we technically could figure them out step by step with logical analysis, yet Nis skip that part and grasp it all with their intuitive perceptions.
If one must insist that Ni isn't based on a reasonable explanation, then I must insist that that only refers to pathological cases.
Ni is an irrational function in the Jungian sense of the word. The discoveries it makes can be justified rationally, but this is not the method Ni employs. As it goes by pure perception.