# Si - Recalling and comparing to the past



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Not directly.


Obviously, hence my question on clarification. 


@_emberfly_

Do you think that I'm an extremist? If so, why? Please be clear and specific with your answers. I have ASD and I don't always understand intent. Thank you.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

emberfly said:


> This is exactly what I think of everything Jung has ever written.
> 
> 
> Maybe Jung's bullshit work is a metaphor "like the Bible." Not to be taken literally except by extremists.





emberfly said:


> I really couldn't disagree more.


If Jung personally came out and said "I want my concepts to be taken literally in order for my readers to understand exactly what I mean when referring to such a concept", would you still disagree?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> If Jung personally came out and said "I want my concepts to be taken literally in order for my readers to understand exactly what I mean when referring to such a concept", would you still disagree?


Of course.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

emberfly said:


> Of course.


Very well, at least you're honest. So it pretty much just comes down to you not liking how Jung defined and explained his concepts because from your point of view it doesn't match up with reality as you see it. Am I right, or have I misunderstood?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Very well, at least you're honest. So it pretty much just comes down to you not liking how Jung defined and explained his concepts because from your view it doesn't match with reality as you see it. Am I right, or have I misunderstood?


Not really. It doesn't matter how I see reality. Reality doesn't change based on my perception of it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

emberfly said:


> Not really. It doesn't matter how I see reality. Reality doesn't change based on my perception of it.


Well as long as we have no complete proof or evidence to substantiate this theory empirically, then one can not state whether or not Jung's work was "Bullshit" or invalid. If you don't agree with his concepts then there must be a reason. Now you can state that "Jung's concept of Si is not found among people in reality" but then I can argue that I have met many people who do fall under Jung's concept of Si, this would inevitably lead us to debating whose view on reality is more correct since we would both be sharing two different views on reality in reference to how the cognitive functions exemplify themselves among the human species. 

So if I may ask, why do you disagree with Jung's concepts, and how they are defined by him, even if Jung stated "I want my concepts to be taken literally in order for my readers to understand exactly what I mean when referring to such a concept"? If it has nothing to do with how the theory holds up in reality, then what issue do you personally take with it?


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> I have always seen that Se is the function that is not focused on details, but rather, focused on how details contribute to the overall harmony and beauty of something.


That does make sense. For instance I really like this image:








There is a certain oneness in it. It looks warm and beautiful as a whole.

That's also why I dislike this image:








The tracks and plants mess up the unity of the image. For me, this spoils the whole image. It ruins the perfection the upper picture has.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Well as long as we have no complete proof or evidence to substantiate this theory empirically


I'm not sure that's an accurate assumption at all. I would invite you to read anything @reckful has ever written.



> Now you can state that "Jung's concept of Si is not found among people in reality" but then I can argue that I have met many people who do fall under Jung's concept of Si, this would inevitably lead us to debating whose view on reality is more correct since we would both be sharing two different views on reality in reference to how the cognitive functions exemplify themselves among the human species.


Yes, sure.



> So if I may ask, why do you disagree with Jung's concepts, and how they are defined by him, even if Jung stated "I want my concepts to be taken literally in order for my readers to understand exactly what I mean when referring to such a concept"? If it has nothing to do with how the theory holds up in reality, then what issue do you personally take with it?


I would rather not talk about my personal opinion of his works.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

emberfly said:


> I'm not sure that's an accurate assumption at all. I would invite you to read anything @reckful has ever written.


Trust me I have read everything he has written on the subject and wholeheartedly disagree with his stance on the matter. For the obvious reason that statistics isn't formal proof, nor empirical evidence, of whether or not cognitive functions as Jung defined them exists in reality. The day that such proof/evidence does surface then it'll either prove or disprove with 100 % certainty where such concepts exist as Jung defined them.



> I would rather not talk about my personal opinion of his works.


Very well, I respect your decision to not share such information.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Trust me I have read everything he has written on the subject and wholeheartedly disagree with his stance on the matter. For the obvious reason that statistics isn't formal proof, nor empirical evidence, of whether or not cognitive functions as Jung defined them exists in reality. The day that such proof/evidence does surface then it'll either prove or disprove with 100 % certainty where such concepts exist as Jung defined them.


I don't agree with the vast majority of what he says, either. He seems to take a very willfully ignorant approach to the functions (although clearly extremely well-read). By that I mean it's like he rejects anything that he can't observe with his own eyes or read in a chart or data table somewhere.

But the functions the way that Jung defined them seem totally off (at least some of them. Others, like Te and Fe, he seems to get right).

He seems to have gotten Si very very wrong. Ni as well he seems to have butchered. Hell, let's just say he got all of the perceiving functions completely wrong.

Or just did a poor job of describing them in clear terms (typical Jung, really). He seriously impresses me with his ability to fill up hundreds of pages with words and no content.

He reminds me of my ESTJ friend who can talk for hours and hours about absolutely nothing. Just nothing. So many words come out of her mouth, but she doesn't even say anything. It's immaterial.

That is Jung but in writing. And with much bigger words and more complex grammar.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjaws said:


> That does make sense. For instance I really like this image:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly I prefere the second picture. I don't know if this picture analysis would be an indicator of Si/Se.

Colors are just so much intense in the second picture, and the perspective is awesome. We can see the mountain on the background, the landscape looks vast.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

westlose said:


> Honestly I prefere the second picture. I don't know if this picture analysis would be an indicator of Si/Se.
> 
> Colors are just so much intense in the second picture, and the perspective is awesome. We can see the mountain on the background, the landscape looks vast.


It does have an endless quality to it. What I mean to say is that the objects break the continuity, which I dislike. It draws your attention away from the vast amount of sand and onto the tracks/plants.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

reckful said:


> But she's way off there. That's an OK characterization of the way Jung viewed Se, but it's certainly not how he viewed Si. On the contrary, Jung explained that Si "is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, _sub specie aeternitatis_, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. ... We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day."


When I read this I'm thinking of the same objects in two ways, that is one sees or experiences the object as it is right now, and the other sees the object through all it's position across time. For example one sees a table and the other sees the tree-->table-->decaying object simultaneously.

Which then confuses me as intuition is what deals with seeing the possibilities of where something has come and where it is going.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ksara said:


> When I read this I'm thinking of the same objects in two ways, that is one sees or experiences the object as it is right now, and the other sees the object through all it's position across time. For example one sees a table and the other sees the tree-->table-->decaying object simultaneously.
> 
> Which then confuses me as intuition is what deals with seeing the possibilities of where something has come and where it is going.


It's not surprising that you're confused, since Jung said that _both_ introversion _and_ intuition involved (to some degree) being oriented by the archetypes of the collective unconscious — and the spoiler in post 15 has some recycled reckful (from another forum) on the issue of WTF the difference might be between an N-dom's orientation by the archetypes of the collective unconscious and an introvert's orientation by the archetypes of the collective unconscious.

And the short answer is: it's not entirely clear.


----------

