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?
