# Confused about Introverted Sensing... Again



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I thought I had it this time. Well, I do have the general idea. I want to make this general idea a bit more accurate, though. 

Everywhere I go, people say Si is like _remembering. _It's always described as you see something, you are reminded of some experience from the past. And then I get some people saying, "No, that's not Si", and I am inclined with believing them. I know that Si isn't _memory. _However, I'm having a hard time completely understanding what the heck it is. How does it perceive? O_O @Owfin, could use your help? >.<


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I saw someone on the forum (it might have been Owfin) describe Si as what is perceived as real = real for the Si-user. This is may align itself with what is actually objective or not; it depends on the individual. So it's not memory persay, but past experience plays a big part in it (Si-users, correct me if I'm wrong). I've always thought of it as a framework of subjective experience that all new experiences are tested against, just as all new ideas and facts are tested against my framework of subjective Ti principles.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I saw someone on the forum (it might have been Owfin) describe Si as what is perceived as real = real for the Si-user. This is may align itself with what is actually objective or not; it depends on the individual. So it's not memory persay, but past experience plays a big part in it (Si-users, correct me if I'm wrong). I've always thought of it as a framework of subjective experience that all new experiences are tested against, just as all new ideas and facts are tested against my framework of subjective Ti principles.


You're right, Si is just projecting your own idea of reality into reality. Put a Se user and a Si user in front of a fire, and the Se user would say "It's orange, it has hints of red, smoke is rising from it" and the Si user would say "It's comforting, because it's warm. Warmth is comforting." Though that's just the Si-user's own perception of comfort (likely not the same as another Si-user's). That analogy also comes from Owfin... the Queen of Si, she is. xP


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

I actually derived a lot of my ideas from @_LiquidLight_ and @_TaylorS_, don't give me all the credit.

I'm starting to see how "remembering" seems to have evolved. When outside information comes in, Si relates it to what it knows things to be already, because, well, it being new information coming in there is bound to be _some sort_ of difference from what was thought of as "what there is" before (to an extroverted perceiver I imagine having to "check" outside information with internal perception is very strange). "Remembering" isn't an entirely wrong descriptor but it doesn't properly convey that it isn't "evoking what _was_", but "evoking what is".


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Yea Introverted Sensation is just subjectivity of sense perception. Favoring what you get out of an experience rather than the actual components of the experience itself. So because this is subjective, it means that an experience might bring back a memory or something from within, but not necessarily. It could just be as simple as only focusing on one aspect of a sensory experience. 

For example I have heard many Si-doms describe places by temperature i.e. Chicago is cold and Miami is hot or Seattle is grey. Now a Se-type might do this too, but I think these associations have more personal significance for the Si-type (like I went to Chicago and it was cold, so now when anyone says Chicago I think 'cold.') Objectively Chicago isn't always cold, in fact its often hot and muggy in the summertime, but the Si-type would, to me, have a tendency to take their own perception more strongly and downplay the objective criteria and therefore Chicago becomes 'cold.' Or Seattle becomes grey (which is really a subjective way of looking at it anyway, because grey means something different to each person) when in reality Seattle is a very beautiful city with lots of evergreen and deep blue water, white puffy clouds, etc., but this subjective idea of 'grey' becomes what sticks in the person's mind and they downplay all contrary external data. This is why Si needs Ne, to help remind them that things may not always be what you perceive them to be. To give them a sense of possibilities beyond the limited scope of their perceptions.

My examples about cities are probably not good ones, but definitely it becomes very clear when you look at art or photography. Oftentimes a Se-type might look at a picture from a Si-type and wonder "why did you take that picture?" because the image communicated something to the Si-type that the Se-type, choosing not to project anything from within but take his sensual perceptions at face value, doesn't see. 

I showed this picture a while back but when I first saw it, my first impression (as a Se-type was) wow this is a messy, barren room with a weird pillow. Why would anyone take this picture, much less put it up on a website?








Until I found out the photographer, who I know to be a Si-type (INFP I believe) was taking pictures of spaces where people had just died. The emptiness of the space represented something that only she understood, and I can never know what she saw that made her take these pictures, or choose these particular images, or frame them the way she did, etc., (with Se its all a lot more academic - you can look at an Ansel Adams picture and technically understand what he was trying to do). She probably couldn't explain it either. It's just a way of looking at things via your five senses that is heavily influenced from what's within (of course that could be memories, or emotions, or whatever, but might also be something else - could be something really abstract, or even something archetypal like 'evil' or 'fear' or 'home').


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm not about to contradict what's already in this thread. I'll just add that the memory thing is so misleading. So many MBTI descriptions talk about what good memories conscious Si users have, and that's total crap. My memory is swiss cheese, objectively speaking. But Si does, in fact, rely on a certain kind of memory. Here's the way I visualize Si.

Imagine a Si user's perception is an impressionist painter. Each experience is stored as one of these paintings.










It's not a photograph, but it is an image of the Si user's interpretation, or impression, of the experience. Still, the Si user sees it as truth, because it's all we have. So when there's another experience somewhere down the line that's similar, a new painting is made, then that old painting is pulled off the wall and compared to the new one. Anything that's different is questioned. The Si user is disinclined to accept the differences, and will favor the first painting, because despite the imprecise impressionism of the painting, he/she still sees it as truth.

As was mentioned by @LiquidLight, we conscious Si users need to become more comfortable with our Ne in order to recognize that there's something more to reality than our default perception of it. Once we recognize that we're inclined to be so subjective and imprecise in our perceptions, the discrepancy between reality and our perception is easier for us to notice.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Yea Introverted Sensation is just subjectivity of sense perception. Favoring what you get out of an experience rather than the actual components of the experience itself. So because this is subjective, it means that an experience might bring back a memory or something from within, but not necessarily. It could just be as simple as only focusing on one aspect of a sensory experience.
> 
> For example I have heard many Si-doms describe places by temperature i.e. Chicago is cold and Miami is hot or Seattle is grey. Now a Se-type might do this too, but I think these associations have more personal significance for the Si-type (like I went to Chicago and it was cold, so now when anyone says Chicago I think 'cold.') Objectively Chicago isn't always cold, in fact its often hot and muggy in the summertime, but the Si-type would, to me, have a tendency to take their own perception more strongly and downplay the objective criteria and therefore Chicago becomes 'cold.' Or Seattle becomes grey (which is really a subjective way of looking at it anyway, because grey means something different to each person) when in reality Seattle is a very beautiful city with lots of evergreen and deep blue water, white puffy clouds, etc., but this subjective idea of 'grey' becomes what sticks in the person's mind and they downplay all contrary external data. This is why Si needs Ne, to help remind them that things may not always be what you perceive them to be. To give them a sense of possibilities beyond the limited scope of their perceptions.
> 
> ...


Good post. Is that why Si can sometimes feel like Intuition, especially when the person cannot really "explain" her idea behind it?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

MCRTS said:


> Good post. Is that why Si can sometimes feel like Intuition, especially when the person cannot really "explain" her idea behind it?


Well all introverted functions are 'abstract' in that way. It's really no more different than a Ti-dom having trouble explaining his theories, or a Fi-dom not being able to explain what she values and why. Introverted functions just happen within the psyche of the individual without much outer reference (in the case of Si, the sense perception simply acts as a stimulus) and as such are very difficult to correlate to the outer world. So its no surprise that when people try to apply outer world definitions to these things, they often get mixed up for one another.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Yea Introverted Sensation is just subjectivity of sense perception. Favoring what you get out of an experience rather than the actual components of the experience itself. So because this is subjective, it means that an experience might bring back a memory or something from within, but not necessarily. It could just be as simple as only focusing on one aspect of a sensory experience.
> 
> For example I have heard many Si-doms describe places by temperature i.e. Chicago is cold and Miami is hot or Seattle is grey. Now a Se-type might do this too, but I think these associations have more personal significance for the Si-type (like I went to Chicago and it was cold, so now when anyone says Chicago I think 'cold.') Objectively Chicago isn't always cold, in fact its often hot and muggy in the summertime, but the Si-type would, to me, have a tendency to take their own perception more strongly and downplay the objective criteria and therefore Chicago becomes 'cold.' Or Seattle becomes grey (which is really a subjective way of looking at it anyway, because grey means something different to each person) when in reality Seattle is a very beautiful city with lots of evergreen and deep blue water, white puffy clouds, etc., but this subjective idea of 'grey' becomes what sticks in the person's mind and they downplay all contrary external data. This is why Si needs Ne, to help remind them that things may not always be what you perceive them to be. To give them a sense of possibilities beyond the limited scope of their perceptions.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your explanation. I've been struggling with Si and what the heck it means. But yes- when I looked at that picture, I immediately started to draw ideas about who was just laying there. I was thinking that someone had just slept there and had a warm, dreamy night's sleep and now has gotten up to start the day. (Sadly, I then read someone died there.) But nonetheless, I in no way just saw a pillow and a messy sheet. I immediately inferred a story around the picture. interesting!


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> I showed this picture a while back but when I first saw it, my first impression (as a Se-type was) wow this is a messy, barren room with a weird pillow. Why would anyone take this picture, much less put it up on a website?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder...are Si users more attracted to abstract art than Se users?


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> I wonder...are Si users more attracted to abstract art than Se users?


I wouldn't know, but I'd sort of suspect the opposite. Se users can at least appreciate the aesthetic value of the art, while Si users just see something meaningless.

Ne/Ni is what you really need to appreciate abstract art, I think.

I could be totally wrong, though.


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

Of course, Ni/Ne users might consider abstract art to be ever so much BS as well. After all, in a very fundmental way, it kinda is meaningles lol :kitteh:


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

The movie Sideways showcases Si perfectly to me. Here is a clip of one of the characters explaining what it is she loves about wine. I'd say this is pure Si...


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Tenebrae said:


> I wouldn't know, but I'd sort of suspect the opposite. Se users can at least appreciate the aesthetic value of the art, while Si users just see something meaningless.
> 
> Ne/Ni is what you really need to appreciate abstract art, I think.
> 
> I could be totally wrong, though.


I would think that Si-types are among the most likely to create or admire abstract art. The example of a Si-dom that Jung uses is Van Gogh, who is incredibly abstract. It sort of depends on how you define abstract, but I think with Se, the abstraction might be more noticeably grounded in the real world.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I would think that Si-types are among the most likely to create or admire abstract art. The example of a Si-dom that Jung uses is Van Gogh, who is incredibly abstract. It sort of depends on how you define abstract, but I think with Se, the abstraction might be more noticeably grounded in the real world.


Oh, I agree they're the most likely to _create_ it. It just doesn't seem likely that they'd _admire _it, to me.

Si is highly personal, so it seems like it might require more intuition to understand someone else's Si.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Tenebrae said:


> Oh, I agree they're the most likely to _create_ it. It just doesn't seem likely that they'd _admire _it, to me.
> 
> Si is highly personal, so it seems like it might require more intuition to understand someone else's Si.


Well, I was referring to both creating and admiring it. But you may have a point there. (FYI, I find abstract art rather pretentious unless the artist really did intend a certain meaning in their work. Slinging paint like Jackson Pollock does nothing for me.)


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Well, I was referring to both creating and admiring it. But you may have a point there. (FYI, I find abstract art rather pretentious unless the artist really did intend a certain meaning in their work. Slinging paint like Jackson Pollock does nothing for me.)


But that's a Se-way of looking at it, "slinging paint." Because we as Se-types are just really looking at the surface level impression. The more something stimulates us the more we are drawn to it. So if the pattern of the paint slinging or the colors or whatever were interesting, Se might be engaged by it (or if there was some vague image being displayed), but Se doesn't want to find meaning in an experience from within (that's what Ni is for). With Si the stimulus is always downplayed in favor of the subjective experience, so Si could very well see something in Jackson Pollock (like an expression of anger or passion) that where the Se-type would have to intuit that rather than have a sense of it from his sense perception.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> (FYI, I find abstract art rather pretentious unless the artist really did intend a certain meaning in their work. Slinging paint like Jackson Pollock does nothing for me.)


Hahaha! Yeah, I definitely agree! Art is all about communicating your innermost thoughts and feelings, right?

I wonder if NT and NF types have different views on abstract art, though. NFs might place more value on an intended meaning... Hm.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> But that's a Se-way of looking at it, "slinging paint." Because we as Se-types are just really looking at the surface level impression. The more something stimulates us the more we are drawn to it. So if the pattern of the paint slinging or the colors or whatever were interesting, Se might be engaged by it (or if there was some vague image being displayed), but Se doesn't want to find meaning in an experience from within (that's what Ni is for). With Si the stimulus is always downplayed in favor of the subjective experience, so Si could very well see something in Jackson Pollock (like an expression of anger or passion) that where the Se-type would have to intuit that rather than have a sense of it from his sense perception.


Agreed. I'm just proving more and more that I have Se, lol.



Tenebrae said:


> Hahaha! Yeah, I definitely agree! Art is all about communicating your innermost thoughts and feelings, right?
> 
> I wonder if NT and NF types have different views on abstract art, though. NFs might place more value on an intended meaning... Hm.


I wouldn't know. Maybe it wouldn't be all that different, but since feeling is lower in the stacking, art might speak to them at a more primal level? Or maybe they would take a more analytical approach? (Bah, this is just a bunch of BSing on my part. XD)


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

I think it's also fair to guess that many who appreciate abstract art (or any abstract expression) were very possibly exposed to it by someone else who already appreciates it, in a sense are "taught" to appreciate it. Your average Si user will probably look at the slung paint and go "it's slung paint, move along" but if he were raised by parents who value such art he too might look and say "indeed what emotional expression!" I imagine, by extension, one can find some way to use any introverted function to value such art, if one chooses to do so.


----------



## rainybisto (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm going to pin Jung's interpretation of Si. It's related to imagination and hallucination. They're typical to be seen in artists, musicians, and engineers. I don't see how this could be translated into "tradition", though, except when it's derivative from Te or Fe (facts and social norms). Ne also wasn't depicted as imaginative, it's more about taking opportunities as they appear (like typically understood SP risk takers). I think Jung's depiction could work more with the concept of function tandems. MBTI is a good self assessment tool, but I wouldn't equate their function descriptions with the ones in Jung's psychological types.



7. The Introverted Sensation Type
The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object [p. 502] did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, every-day expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.
Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] 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 his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.
His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion. [p. 505]


----------



## rainybisto (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm going to pin Jung's interpretation of Si. It's related to imagination and hallucination. They're typical to be seen in artists, musicians, and engineers. I don't see how this could be translated into "tradition", though, except when it's derivative from Te or Fe (facts and social norms). Ne also wasn't depicted as imaginative, it's more about taking opportunities as they appear (like typically understood SP risk takers). I think Jung's depiction could work more with the concept of function tandems. MBTI is a good self assessment tool, but I wouldn't equate their function descriptions with the ones in Jung's psychological types.



7. The Introverted Sensation Type
The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object [p. 502] did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, every-day expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.
Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] 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 his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.
His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion. [p. 505]


----------

