This doesn't seem that relevant to be honest. So we could argue about the exact way which it operates, and pick precise phrases to describe it. The effects are still the same. I didn't say anything about an understanding between the conscious and unconscious though. Although if you want Jung's word for it, he did state that intuition is basically perception of the unconscious.
It is not simply perception of the unconscious, it is
existence at the unconscious. This is why Jung chose the term "intuitor" from the massive lexicon that is the English language.
The highlight of the comment was showing that you seem to believe Ni strips objective meaning away from perception intentionally. This is closer to Ti than Ni. Ni is closer to existing in this world stripped of objective reason, in constant appeal to the psyche rather than what reality evidences.
I don't think an extroverted function has any desire, but it is "merging" with the environment in some way, rather than a subjective reflection of it, as is the case with introverted ones. Since an extroverted function is orientated "outside" the user, a side effect would be that what is seen is thought as what it really is.
Since the extrovert's focus is largely external, so follow do their interests and value placements. For example, Jung pegs Charles Darwin as a Te type, a type only swayed by the most objective of logics - nature. Contrast against Immanuel Kant, one he calls Ti, who is swayed by the subjective nature of logic itself.
What you say does hold some weight, though. Jung pegs Se users as marked atheists, likely stemming from this void in external perception of godly figures.
Agreed about Te. But technically then, it isn't the Ni per se, but the Se. Which backs up what I said about those using the extroverted functions being more convinced.
How Se? I don't quite follow, presuming you aren't thinking Ni is completely internal and never manifests itself outside of the mind.
Also, when I say extroverted functions, I do point more towards Je, and in particular Te, simply because it judges. I fail to see how Ni could make its user think they are seeing the absolute truth. It only perceives.
I don't know. Jung makes it pretty clear Ni is the type that feels it has "a priori" knowledge embedded within its perceptions, that it is simply uncovering truths long buried within its psyche, that these 'truths' are the truths the most ancient and wise of perceivers would develop. It is utterly convinced its perception is the end-all be-all of existence - again, contrast against Se, who's attitude is "I'll believe it when I see it", going so far as to explicitly cause cognitive dissonance by suppressing perceptions sprung up beyond the actuality of reality.
I remember coming across this thread when I was an ENTP:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t296002-11/ and thinking "lol, look at all those ISTJ's that think they're INTJ's. Surely any self-respecting intuitive thinker would have shed such notions as white supremacy and the inferiority of all other races". Then I 'realized' I was ISTP, and that thinking/understanding are far, far removed from the sensor/intuiting dichotomy. Now that I've read and can generally comprehend Jung, it is
glaringly apparent these people likely are legitimate INTJ's.
The correlation between this thread and what Jung has written is intrinsically expressive of what to expect regarding users of introverted intuition.