• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jung Si explained, theory about the Jung Si type

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
Young does not say that memory is not included in introverted sensation brother. You are wrong. Your quote is taken out of context. I even give you multiple quotes by Jung and Jungian therapists who say quite the opposite as you.

Your coming in with a bunch of straw man arguments to deflect. You were wrong. Your straw man arguments themselves show how shaky your foundation is here...if Jung never mentions cognitive functions, like you say, then he never said that introverted sensation is not memory.

But he does say that introverted sensation = memory/image/feeling wrapped up into one...read the book bro.
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,853
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Young does not say that memory is not included in introverted sensation brother. You are wrong. Your quote is taken out of context. I even give you multiple quotes by Jung and Jungian therapists who say quite the opposite as you.

Your coming in with a bunch of straw man arguments to deflect. You were wrong. Your straw man arguments themselves show how shaky your foundation is here...if Jung never mentions cognitive functions, like you say, then he never said that introverted sensation is not memory.

But he does say that introverted sensation = memory/image/feeling wrapped up into one...read the book bro.

The guy LITERALLY said "Will and memory, for instance, are not included."
If you can't understand that, well, I'm sorry for you then. I can't reduce to a more simple form than this. It is directly stated, it doesn't matter how much fancy words you find or whatever context you want to imply (tip: The context was "psychological types"). Its quite hypocritical of your part to say "Jung was the originator of that idea and provided the most basis for its truth" and then tell me to read the "please read other people", the "Jungian therapists" or even saying you can pull a Von Franz quote to argue against a Jung statement.

Sincerely, I don't know why you decided to hate me nor what drivens you so desperately to subtly suggest I am a "pretentious douche" with more directly "You cannot possibly be right at all", "you were wrong", "you have shaky foundations", whatever, but I am getting tired of your personal attacks disguised as arguments.
 

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
The guy LITERALLY said "Will and memory, for instance, are not included."
If you can't understand that, well, I'm sorry for you then. I can't reduce to a more simple form than this. It is directly stated, it doesn't matter how much fancy words you find or whatever context you want to imply (tip: The context was "psychological types"). Its quite hypocritical of your part to say "Jung was the originator of that idea and provided the most basis for its truth" and then tell me to read the "please read other people", the "Jungian therapists" or even saying you can pull a Von Franz quote to argue against a Jung statement.

Sincerely, I don't know why you decided to hate me nor what drivens you so desperately to subtly suggest I am a "pretentious douche" with more directly "You cannot possibly be right at all", "you were wrong", "you have shaky foundations", whatever, but I am getting tired of your personal attacks disguised as arguments.

Lol dude...you are taking a quote about will and memory that has nothing to do with the introverted sensation function and posing it as a straw man argument.

read above....young wrote 40 pages on how introverted sensation is based on impression and defines impression as memory/image/feeling in one synergistic new thing.

You are in denial.

Don't take the fact that I am literally proving you wrong as hate for you. I just think that if there is misinformation called out. But that's another straw man argument.

I think you're being incredibly myopic and stubborn, but that doesn't mean that I hate you young lad.
 

Koto

Active member
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
301
Lol dude...you are taking a quote about will and memory that has nothing to do with the introverted sensation function and posing it as a straw man argument.

read above....young wrote 40 pages on how introverted sensation is based on impression and defines impression as memory/image/feeling in one synergistic new thing.

You are in denial.

Don't take the fact that I am literally proving you wrong as hate for you. I just think that if there is misinformation called out. But that's another straw man argument.

I think you're being incredibly myopic and stubborn, but that doesn't mean that I hate you young lad.

Irrespective of whether you're right or wrong, this reads as quite condescending; not a great look for someone claiming not to be pretentious. It doesn't take a genius to point out that referring to someone as 'young lad' in this context is unnecessary unless trying to provoke, and telling someone that they're wrong, simply in denial, and that everything they say is a strawman argument, is not going to lead to any sort of meaningful discussion, not to mention myopic in itself. Everyone is always going to think that they're right and that others are wrong and just don't get it, and they can think that if they want to, but it becomes problematic when they start attacking others rather than just agreeing to disagree, or leaving the situation alone. There's a difference between clearing up misinformation and trying to dunk on someone.
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,853
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Lol dude...you are taking a quote about will and memory that has nothing to do with the introverted sensation function and posing it as a straw man argument.

So sensing is not a function?
Because that is the only case where you can dismiss that quote. However, sensing is a function, Si is a type that has Sensing as function, and if memory and will are not included in the functions, therefore memory is not included on Si.

You are in denial.

Except that this is started with me saying Jung has a quote (and putting it) saying functions got nothing to do with memory and you are denying it. So you are the one who is in denial here.

Don't take the fact that I am literally proving you wrong

Except that you didn't, you are denying the quote right in front of you.

I think you're being incredibly myopic and stubborn
Ok, so your list is growing, now I for you I am a:
- "Lad"
- "Myopic"
- "Stubborn"
- "Pretentious douche"

And you are not personally attacking me??? You noticed how you are using "you" on every phrase and leading me to do the same on the 1-2 lasts posts? This is because I explained with clarity my point on the last page.

Stop distorting interpretations to fit whatever your beliefs are and stay to your word - if "Jung was the originator of that idea and provided the most basis for its truth" and if Jung said "The four orienting functions naturally do not contain everything that is in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included." then memory is not included.

I think I am reaching to a point where I need to say that, if Jung said will and memory are not included on the four functions, then Jung stated memory is not included on the four functions. It can't be more obvious than that.
 

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
This would be accurate if it were not the literal truth. All my post declares is that I refer to this person as a brother and that i posted 40 pages of material disproving their argument.

Again, nothing personal. Just facts. I get it that you're friends, that being said - read the material please.

I think you're acting a bit over-sensitive. That's fair. We all can be emotional at times...but you're reading way more into that and projecting way more into it than is there. Now you're going to tell me how my opinion about you being over-sensitive is an insult and how I should be targeted and harassed for politely stating my view since it's diametrical opposed to your ego's sense of self-worth?

Again dude....reading way more into it than is actually there...painting shadows on the wall...no one is insulting you. Sounds like you're gas lighting.
 
Last edited:

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
I cordially point to the fact that you still have not provided any evidence what-so ever that Jung said impressions and memories are mutually exclusive. None. The quotation that you post does not negate the fact jung discusses for 40 pages how introverted sensation is directly related to sensory impressions and sensory impressions are memories/images/feelings in one. Your quote isn't even related to that notion. All your quote is saying is that memory and will are not cognitive functions. That is all. You completely misunderstood the quote.

And on the flip side, I have provided 40 pages of evidence showing that Jung affirmatively states the opposite.

The reason I called you bro and lad was because before in my previous posts when I didn't you were taking offense. If you take offense to being called bro and lad, my apologies, but based on your tone and your attitude towards me, it felt like that would warm up the conversation a little and make it more friendly since you were over-reacting so dramatically to me disagreeing with you - accusing me of hating you and wishing ill-intent.

Really it's about the argument, not you...your argument is wrong.

Your position is still refuted. Can we continue to debate now without you throwing out straw man arguments and deterring from the actual subject matter. You do understand that makes it seem like you are deflecting?

EDIT:
I never called you pretentious, I never called you a douche. I referred to you as lad and bro to bring warmth into the conversation since you were being so defensive and cold and taking things so personally....but I never once called you a derogatory term. You are imputing those on to yourself and then gas lighting. And yes, your argument is incredibly myopic and stubborn. So what? I can voice my opinion on how I think that you're not seeing the big picture here and how you refuse to admit that you are wrong. How is that an insult?

You know you can always agree to disagree and be a bit more cordial instead of accusatory and inflammatory? You can always chose to concede that you disagree with me and move on?
 
Last edited:

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
Also, your argument that me citing others that have noted that Jung said these things too, other Jungians for instance who assert the same claims as me and quote jung in their books, and that that basis makes me a hypocrite, as you accused me of being (mr name caller), makes zero sense what so ever. It shows that you’ve now resorted to name calling.

It just substantiates my claim too and proved due further that your argument is wrong. So don’t call me a hypocrite for no reason please. It’s inflammatory.

see this is why you project on to me. You are the one calling people names when they disagree with you. You are the one hating.
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,853
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Ok, ok, you're getting too far so its time for me to stop being so soft and time to take a heavier tone then (because only apart from the hypocritical part I were actually soft)...

First, a lot of people can be "Young". I think teenagers are young lol. Its written Jung, some spell Young, but it writes as "Jung".

I cordially point to the fact that you still have not provided any evidence what-so ever that Jung said impressions and memories are mutually exclusive.
This is an example of the straw man fallacy you are accusing me of.
"The straw man is a logical fallacy that replaces something (a person, a viewpoint, an argument) with a distorted version that blows the original out of proportion to make it easier to attack." (https://thinkbuthow.com/straw-man/)
"an argument, claim, or opponent that is invented in order to win or create an argument" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/straw-man)

On the example, I never said anything about impressions a single time. I didn't said anything about impressions, I never said Si was not about impressions, you're trying to deviate me from the original claim which is no function is related to memory to "Vendrah is denying the fact that impressions and memories are mutually exclusive", which characterizes your point as a straw man fallacy. You are distorting the original point from "memories" to "impressions", which also characterizes as deterring and deflecting from the actual subject, which is memories, not impressions. You do understand that you are deflecting?

Now let's talk about projection...
see this is why you project on to me

He also defines impression as a memory/image/feeling in one.
So you mix memory with impression in one and then...
You are confusing an impression for a memory.
Say I am confusing impression for a memory (but it is you who is mixing it from the beginning). Except that the person who stated impression as memory it was you. I didn't confused them any time, because I didn't even talked about the word impression - but you are acting as I did on your straw man fallacy. So your argument is fallacious.

In other words, Jung defines introverted sensing as the cognitive function whose modus of operation is deep internal impressions triggered by external datum. That is a fact.
Well, I guess you haven't understood Jung then. Because otherwise you would know that Jung does not see introvered sensing as a cognitive function - he sees it as a type. There is not a single line of Jung referring Si as a cognitive function. Your referring of Si as a cognitive function shows how shaky your foundation is here. Read the material please! So this is not a fact.

And on the flip side, I have provided 40 pages of evidence showing that Jung affirmatively states the opposite.
40 pages of material? I don't even have access to that and I don't even know precisely which part of the book you're talking about, but if it is Jung's description of Si, then there is no affirmation that Si is memory at any time.

Also, your argument that me citing others that have noted that Jung said these things too, other Jungians for instance who assert the same claims as me and quote jung in their books and that that makes me a hypocrite, as you accused me of being (mr name caller) makes zero sense what so ever.

It just substantiates my claim. So don’t call me a hypocrite for no reason please. It’s inflammatory.

Well, you said
"Jung was the originator of that idea and provided the most basis for its truth"
While you used Myers and said that you could even use others to debunk a claim made by Jung. So you are treating Jung not as a basis for its truth of the theory, but rather Myers or the others.

And now for the last time... Sensation is one of the four functions. Si is the type on which the attitude type is introversion and the function type is sensation. And this is the Jung's quote:
The four orienting functions naturally do not contain everything that is
in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included.
Stop gaslighting me ("It is a covert type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their judgments and reality.1 Ultimately, the victim of gaslighting starts to feel unsure about their perceptions of the world and even wonder if they are losing their sanity." (https://www.verywellmind.com/is-someone-gaslighting-you-4147470) ). I am not crazy, Jung said memory is not included on the functions!

My claim and I stay with it is that none of the four functions are related to will or memory because Jung expressively says so. Its not about impressions or anything else, stop projecting that on me. You are being on the denial and need to accept the fact that Jung said that memory is not included on one of the four functions (differently from some communities "stereotypes"). This is directly stated by Jung, it is there as a clear fact in front of you being said LITERALLY, this is not any interpretation of me or anybody else (it is there for anyone who can read). If you want to make Si or any function as memories, go make into your own part of the theory re-making Jung (or migrate to "dichotomy" MBTI, there the relationship probably exists).

I'm done here. I made my point and explained it on the best way I could in different ways. I am tired of your offenses and accusations (of things you do to me and then say I did to you), I will let the MODs decide the fate of the thread because I know they don't want me to throw the offenses back.
EDIT: Just to be clear, Im not posting anything else till a MOD shows up unless they don't in a week.
 
Last edited:

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don’t mix memory with emotions lol!, Jung discusses how impressions relates yo the sensory function and then discusses how memories feelings and images are entangled together. That is not the same as a mixing. And then he goes on to relate it to introverted sensation. Did you even read my reference - Jung’s own words.

regardles I think your still using straw man argument albeit probably by accident. When you paraphrase my argument you completely distort it and change it from the main point and take the entire discussion off track. This is all demonstrated in my first paragraph.

yes we can agree to disagree.
 

Lazinc

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
31
memory/feeling/thoughts and that it's very very deep.
Jung has already told people not to confuse sensation and feeling

"First of all, then, we must make a careful distinction between feeling and sensation, which is a sensory function. And in the second place we must recognize that a feeling of regret is something quite different from a "feeling" that the weather will change or that the price of our aluminum shares will go up. I have therefore proposed using feeling as a proper term in the first example, and dropping it-so far as its psychological usage is concernedin the second. Here we should speak of sensation when sense impressions are involved, and of intuition if we are dealing with a kind of perception which cannot be traced back directly to conscious sensory experience. Hence I define sensation as perception via conscious sensory functions, and intuition as perception via the unconscious."
 
Last edited:

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think you are confusing a definition of introverted sensation with how introverted sensation functions in relation to memory and feelings.

You're also confusing feelings, with the feeling function.

This was the same issue with the debate above. Taking a word....that means one thing, and then assuming that word means something else is not the argument in itself here.

Jung writes 40 pages on how introverted sensation involves deep sensory impressions, and then he goes on to describe for 40 pages on how impressions involve memories and feelings.

How you took that and made it about the feeling function is not something even related to the discussion.

The feeling function is about ordering values not feelings or emotions.

Introverted sensation most certainly does involve feelings...all cognitive functions involve feelings....and memories.

And also my source is a more recent later source, so if there was a contradiction, it would be safe to say that the later source is more accurate since he wrote it later in his life.

I'm finding it really strange that people are taking quotations from Jung and misapplying them, taking them out of context, without actually even knowing what the terms mean.

Do you really believe that the introverted feeling function is the same as a feeling like sadness? That is not what the cognitive function feeling is at all. Please let me know if that is what you think and we can begin there.

Again...all functions involve memories and feelings. All Jung says is that he is not defining a function according to memories and feelings...he is not saying that memories and feelings do not relate to cognitive functions. The fact that this is so misunderstood on this thread goes back to my statement on hubris.
 
Last edited:

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
Jung has already told people not to confuse sensation and feeling

"First of all, then, we must make a careful distinction between feeling and sensation, which is a sensory function. And in the second place we must recognize that a feeling of regret is something quite different from a "feeling" that the weather will change or that the price of our aluminum shares will go up. I have therefore proposed using feeling as a proper term in the first example, and dropping it-so far as its psychological usage is concernedin the second. Here we should speak of sensation when sense impressions are involved, and of intuition if we are dealing with a kind of perception which cannot be traced back directly to conscious sensory experience. Hence I define sensation as perception via conscious sensory functions, and intuition as perception via the unconscious."

Please read the following in its entirety and then I will debate with you any issues you have with the statement that introverted sensation directly involves deep sensory impressions that are deep inseperable feelings/memories/sensations.

 

Lazinc

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
31
The feeling function is about ordering values not feelings or emotions.
Jung called Introverted Feeling emotional introversion, see what I posted in my profile.

When Jung talked about Freud he said that Freud's "sense of values" was shown by his love of precious stones, jade, malachite. He collected objects.

What people don't understand is that value means emotional attachment to something. Jung was not referring to the modern meaning we have of "values".

"Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is FELT while there it was thought."
 

Lazinc

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
31
Please read the following in its entirety and then I will debate with you any issues you have with the statement that introverted sensation directly involves deep sensory impressions that are deep inseperable feelings/memories/sensations.

You must be confusing introverted sensation with the "feeling-sensation".
 

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
Jung has already told people not to confuse sensation and feeling

"First of all, then, we must make a careful distinction between feeling and sensation, which is a sensory function. And in the second place we must recognize that a feeling of regret is something quite different from a "feeling" that the weather will change or that the price of our aluminum shares will go up. I have therefore proposed using feeling as a proper term in the first example, and dropping it-so far as its psychological usage is concernedin the second. Here we should speak of sensation when sense impressions are involved, and of intuition if we are dealing with a kind of perception which cannot be traced back directly to conscious sensory experience. Hence I define sensation as perception via conscious sensory functions, and intuition as perception via the unconscious."
The Introverted Sensation Type

The following is directly from Jung's mouth and discusses how feeling and sensation are related. Notice that this does not negate anything that Jung has said before....There is literally 40 pages of Jung describing how feeling and internal sensation and memories, through impressions, work dynamically together to form the introverted sensation's dominant personality.

What do you al not understand about this? I'm confused....I think the problem here is you assume an equation like introverted sensation = impression /memory/feelings impressions is a statement of definition which is a huge logical error on your part. In reality it's a statement about relationship. When we say that A = c + b + d, are we saying that A = c? I'm so confused at the limitation of logic displayed here and it goes back to spreading misinformation or pretending to be an expert on Jung when in reality you are just reading a few pages from him and misunderstanding everything.

I mean it's clear from your argument and the other poster that you both do not even understand what an impression is? Please since you are so good at finding definitions, find where Jung defines impression and post it here and in the process it should click.


"The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert's characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.

Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality alienating subjectivity of this type. But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula-all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.

If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.

Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If he has any aptitude for objective reason, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is ready to grant his sensations reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-believe and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule he re-signs himself to his isolation and the banality of the world, which he has unconsciously made archaic.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. The real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality that contrasts glaringly with the well-meaning innocuousness of the conscious attitude. So long as the individual does not hold too aloof from the object, his unconscious intuition has a salutary compensating effect on the rather fantastic and overcredulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic, the archaic intuitions come to the surface and exert their pernicious influence, forcing themselves on the individual and producing compulsive ideas of the most perverse kind. The result is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion."
 

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
At this point we're beating a dead horse...

but here it is..
Introverted sensing is focused on the subjective impression the stimulus or object gives. When a Si-user sees an object or gets a sensation from the outer world, he absorbs an impression of it, a subjective recollection, memory, or symbol of the object. Carl Jung said of Si that it is “guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from the outside.”

Jung directly injects impression/memory/emotionality into the idea of introverted sensation. A subjective impression will always have a memory/feeling/image that is entangled and inseparable that is what makes it arbitrary and subjective.
 

MaxMad244

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
157
MBTI Type
INTJ
Jung called Introverted Feeling emotional introversion, see what I posted in my profile.

When Jung talked about Freud he said that Freud's "sense of values" was shown by his love of precious stones, jade, malachite. He collected objects.

What people don't understand is that value means emotional attachment to something. Jung was not referring to the modern meaning we have of "values".

"Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is FELT while there it was thought."

Jung specifically states that emotionality has nothing to do directly with the feeling function. Someone can be a feeler and demonstrate no apparent emotionality what so ever.
 

Lazinc

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
31
Jung specifically states that emotionality has nothing to do directly with the feeling function. Someone can be a feeler and demonstrate no apparent emotionality what so ever.
I refer to internal feelings, not emotional expression.
 
Top