# Si, Ni, time and physical tranformation



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I've been thinking about how I think Si in socionics fails to apprehend a time or truly dynamic aspect in how it's currently defined. While one can argue that subjective sense perceptions such as comfort etc. are dynamic in the sense that they are changeable, I do find it troubling that socionics does not account for that Ne has no chronological awareness (static perception), devalues such perception due to Ni being in id block if we speak about Ne ego, or again devalues it over personal sensations if speaking about Si ego, leaving Ni the only element in socionics that has awareness of time, both past and present. I know some Jungian Si ego types at least, find this aspect of socionics difficult to reconcile because socionics' Si seems frankly, along with perhaps Se, have the most one-dimensional depiction out of all the elements and personally to me, that doesn't make much sense. If Ni is able to perceive changes over time, so must also Si be. So what would the difference be, then? I was sent a PM recently by a person who was wondering if they are Ne or Ni ego, and their example was how they described the future implications pesticides have on carrots and how pesticides are going to change the underlying physical nature of carrots. 

One can say this is indeed some kind of chronological awareness, but it's not awareness of time in the sense Ni is aware of time. Ni is more about premonition and prediction, such and such will happen in the future, looking more at direct actions e.g. this person is going to win the election, that boat is going to sink, the star is going to die, this person will contract heart disease etc. I'm reminded of the debate I posted some time ago where the ILI said, and with great confidence, that when looking forward the next election, they will increase their votes and thus also their mandates in the government, which will have the consequence of increasing their political influence and thus also increase the likelihood of being able to go through with many of their future changes. Ni with Se then, is more about action either in the present to attain some future goal, or to look forward to the future in order to attain a goal in the future. 

Si with Ne then, would arguably look more at physical transformation, so rather than focusing on action in the present or the future, would look into how various options and possibilities shape the current physical reality. I insist that Si must contain some kind of transformative nature or it does not fit the basic definition of Pi. Ni and Si are dynamic elements and must therefore both in their own way deal with change. Saying that Si is about comfort, experiencing heat, the taste of food etc. just doesn't cut it. I'd argue that's just poor and not very differentiated sensation. Obviously we all got tastebuds and most people like to eat tasty food, though of course some people will downplay the experience of such sensations and pleasure derived from physical sensations in general, which I'd say is typical of all the intuitive types. Saying that Si is about food, comfort etc. then, feels extremely inadequate because how does this per se make it a dynamic kind of cognition? 

I can for example look at my grandma, Si creative, and see how Si can play a role when it comes to food with her, but if anything, it's less to do with food as a pleasure or food as a comfort, but more to do with certain ideas that she then associates with certain kinds of foods. The problem then becomes that when I look at my stepmom, also Si creative but they share opposite bases (ESE vs LSE), her idea of food is very different from grandma's (different quadra values). Her focus is on sufficient management of resources and less about so to say, taking care about people. For example, one of the things she kept telling me was the importance to for example, not waste water by always closing the tap and not let it run when you are not using any water, or always making sure when you laundry that the machine is full because again, anything less would be a waste of resources (unneeded use of water and detergents). When it comes to say, matters of food or even comfort for her, her notion is very different from grandma's. Yet both are Si creative and focus on food for example, only really fits grandma here and I'd argue this is a quadra difference, and a big one. This just cannot be logically reconciled if reducing Si to be about food and comfort. If anything, stepmom was always super keen to make due with the most minimal that she could (grew up very poor so that's likely why). So how does her Si become so different from grandma's Si? You can argue it's -Si vs +Si. Delta quadra would want to minimize unpleasant Si experiences but how does that actually logically translate? Wouldn't that mean trying to remove negative Si experiences so if arguing using stepmom as an example here, that she would rather try to do the opposite e.g. create a feeling of not feeling impoverished? LSEs are obviously great at managing resources in a strategic way, so creating a fake or false sense of abundance shouldn't be too difficult, one would think. 

I do think MBTI has a point with that there is a certain aspect of the past when it comes to Si, in that Si is sensation and as such must build on direct experience and that the Si type tries to recreate some kind of sensory archetype by repeating the same experiences over and over, finetuning them in this particular way and here - and + do come in that - would obviously try to diminish negative ones over positive ones. Just as a random thought, Im reminded of that Scientology promotional video (haha), where they use the example of someone who ate bad eggs and from then on always avoided eating eggs due to the sensory experience associated with it. I actually think that's much closer to what Si really is about (can't find it on Youtube, but it's whatever, I think what I got to saw was actually insider material anyway, and don't ask me why I saw that lol). 

So from this perspective I think Si also makes more sense when situated in the super-id position, in that many super-id Si types often have problems observing physical transformation. Ni doesn't care about how I as a physical object, or for the matter, other objects physically change. That we age is of course inevitable and is an aspect of how humans have come to understand time, but I've written in the past that there is a certain timelessness to Ni, that Ni in a sense, situates itself outside of time. It's less that Ni sees time and changes in itself, but more that Ni is apt at finding symbolic archetypes that in a sense, all stand the test of the time. To go back to Jung and his archetypes for example, say the eternal child or the elder, these are archetypes that are timeless because you will find them in various eras expressed by very different people. So when Ni predicts future and change, it's more that Ni hones in on these timeless archetypes and recognizes those patterns. It's like Jared Diamond's theory about societal rise and collapse, where he thinks there are essentially the same rules that occur every time, before a society collapses. That to me is more of an Ni perspective, looking outside of time and finding the same patterns across time. Si on the other hand, would actually be interested in the genuine transformative change. I think this also makes more sense when you think about how socionics links Si with health and internal sensory harmony. If one is acutely aware of how objects physically change, one also gains a lot of deep insight into how to preserve and maintain such objects, of course here, including the physical body. I just think it's absurd to say Si does not have some kind of chronological awareness. Si and Ni likely experience time differently in this sense, in that Ni feels more detached from it and Si is probably more so say, grounded by its affects. In such a way I think it's almost better to view that none of them per se deal with time, as much as they are both capable of observing two different aspects of how time affect people. 

This is just a rough idea of how I think Si and time could better be incorporated into socionics, but some thought would be appreciated. What do you think @Word Dispenser @To_august @Pancreatic Pandora or any other people I forgot to mention but still feel they got something meaningful to contribute? I especially welcome Si ego types to this discussion, since I think discussion the nature and perception of a certain element helps if you yourself are acutely aware of it in your cognition.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Well, I think that all of the functions have an opposing counter-function. Si is Ni's counterpart. 

If Ni is about understanding symbolic, transformational change _outside_ of personal experience, being impersonal yet subjective. Although, I would argue that the symbols always align with the Ni-user.

Then would Si _not_ be about understanding change/time through _personal_, _objective_ symbolism and/or sensing experiential data?

As an Ne-dom, I notice patterns over time. When something has happened more than once in a similar way, I prepare for it happening again in a similar fashion. When it doesn't, I might be surprised and unsure of how to react in the situation, because I wasn't able to see how it would necessarily play out. This isn't me exploring with Ne, though, this seems to be a poor way of attempting to manufacture an Si understanding through Ti. It depends on the situation. The new and unfamiliar is normally exhilarating and interesting to me, but when I come up against a familiar pattern that suddenly goes in a way I least expect, it is jarring. 

This sounds similar to an Si attempting to repeat patterns, but that's not the same for me, I don't think, because this is happening independently of me, if that makes any sense.

For an Si-dom, I think that they observe patterns in a similar way, but they use present context in order to make sense of where the future might lead, and they more accurately understand the fine-tuned slight differences, and contexts within those experiential data streams.

Or something.

Just adding my thoughts.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Fe and Te are also dynamic elements though, and they're not described as having a time aspect to them either? Dynamic only means there needs to be an awareness of some sort of flux, rather than something that is fixed in time. Static elements take snapshots of reality, while dynamic ones track events as they progress. Speaking from my own, albeit sporadic, experience of Si : I can actually feel my body reacting to things like lighting, textures, music, esthetically pleasing sights. It's hard to explain because it's weak, but yeah I can sense my internal level of tension or relaxation shifting according to the physical context and know how to regulate this by keeping to sensory fields I know I'll react well to (this is why I decided on EII finally). And I think this is the reason Si is averse to overt conflict also, because it leads to bodily tension, whether you're aware of it or not. That is dynamic, it's tracking a process as it's happening in real time. And I'm actually really curious to know if devalued Si types can experience this as consciously, or at least focus on it?

So I'd agree it's pretty simplistic to talk about it with regards to food and comfort, and those LSE vs ESE examples you gave... I don't really see that as Si related. But I don't think the definition disregards the dynamic-ness of it?




wikisocion said:


> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.


I like what you said about them being sensory archetypes, that's definitely how I experience my own Si, and see other Si ego types functioning like as well. I've noticed I have specific senses of how lighting should be (soft and warm or I feel oppressed) or the right degree of design minimalism (if things/rooms are too elaborate my mind clutters, too simple/basic and it feels dreary), which kind of is seeking out my own archetypal idea of sensory experiences I guess, similar to Ni playing out it's symbolic archetypes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Merry blues said:


> Fe and Te are also dynamic elements though, and they're not described as having a time aspect to them either? Dynamic only means there needs to be an awareness of some sort of flux, rather than something that is fixed in time. Static elements take snapshots of reality, while dynamic ones track events as they progress.




Yes, you are right about Fe and Te, but they are also not types of perception. What I take more issue with is that if one contains a specific element, I think the opposing element needs to contain something that represents another aspect of this. 



> Speaking from my own, albeit sporadic, experience of Si :





> I can actually feel my body reacting to things like lighting, textures, music, esthetically pleasing sights. It's hard to explain because it's weak, but yeah I can sense my internal level of tension or relaxation shifting according to the physical context and know how to regulate this by keeping to sensory fields I know I'll react well to (this is why I decided on EII finally). And I think this is the reason Si is averse to overt conflict also, because it leads to bodily tension, whether you're aware of it or not. That is dynamic, it's tracking a process as it's happening in real time. And I'm actually really curious to know if devalued Si types can experience this as consciously, or at least focus on it?


Hm, no, not really. I can't say I actually relate to what you describe at all. If I experience say, a headache, I can be oblivious to that I have one until I notice that I do, but then I get so focused on the headache that I can't think or focus on anything else. I think I tend to think more on the more visceral sense of pain though, which I associate with Se in that Se always seeks to experience things exactly as they are, in their wholesomeness. Si does not so Si would be less focused on the actual pain and more focused on the internal sensation of discomfort pain causes, I think? 



> So I'd agree it's pretty simplistic to talk about it with regards to food and comfort, and those LSE vs ESE examples you gave... I don't really see that as Si related. But I don't think the definition disregards the dynamic-ness of it?


Yeah ok, I was kind of rambling and perhaps it's not at all Si related, just that I know both are Si creative so if the definition holds true, it should be as applicable to both of them and one is very focused on comfort and the other one isn't. 



> I like what you said about them being sensory archetypes, that's definitely how I experience my own Si, and see other Si ego types functioning like as well. I've noticed I have specific senses of how lighting should be (soft and warm or I feel oppressed) or the right degree of design minimalism (if things/rooms are too elaborate my mind clutters, too simple/basic and it feels dreary), which kind of is seeking out my own archetypal idea of sensory experiences I guess, similar to Ni playing out it's symbolic archetypes.


That's interesting. Can't say I relate to or understand that at all.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Hm, no, not really. I can't say I actually relate to what you describe at all. If I experience say, a headache, I can be oblivious to that I have one until I notice that I do, but then I get so focused on the headache that I can't think or focus on anything else. I think I tend to think more on the more visceral sense of pain though, which I associate with Se in that Se always seeks to experience things exactly as they are, in their wholesomeness. Si does not so Si would be less focused on the actual pain and more focused on the internal sensation of discomfort pain causes, I think?


You are right about Si, when I get physically hurt what is causing me discomfort isn't the sensation, as much as the realization that my body has being severely harmed. As an Si my body is almost like a pristine sanctuary, I am extremely sensitive to body changes, to the point that I can tell accurately time without external feedback. Very little changes in the environment, sounds, smell, etc, can cause restlessness, and emotional issues can trigger spikes of fever or migraines. There's a palpable relationship between my body and my mind, as if it was a separate person. Whereas the Se people I know seem to be more oblivious of their body as an entity, but use it as a conduit.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

The things that I more or less attribute to Si in my personality: extreme weirdness with food(don't touch different food together on the plate, don't eat drippy food, don't drink after me, the food on your plate grosses me the fuck out), sensitivity to spaces I'm in(warehouse feels different than a morning sunset, which feels different than the spastically clean office decorations, each of these places has almost a literal feeling to it, the area I'm in changes me mentally), and some other stuff I can't recall at the moment.

All things are decidedly irrational, strongly irrational enough to be irrational in the colloquial sense, possibly sensory, and evoke some sense of harmony. If I were to describe Si in terms of my experience, I would not do it as system socionics does it, which is to say that Si is the "space" in between boundaries. No,no, this makes for a pretty theoretical conception, but in the end, it doesn't line up(mostly because it makes Si static, which I think is the whole misunderstanding). Merry Blues's notion of sensoric fields is much closer.

Why don't I want my food to touch? Because they will blend and that will potentially be very gross. Why will that be gross to me? Why is the blending of foods grosser than any single flavor? I don't know. My mind just doesn't accept it. Things are meant to be a certain way when it comes to this, and that's that. Do not change my experience, I cannot accept anything else. I would have to be very hungry to forget about this.

Why do environments change my mindset? This is a more nebulous thing, and potentially more related to the concept of fields. In MBTI, there is talk of atmosphere due to Si. This is largely what I'm about to describe, that atmosphere is actually just the dynamics of spacial relationships. Dynamics is the tricky word. What ARE dynamics of spacial relationships? After all, a thing is placed in a certain spacial relationship with one thing, and that's it. That's how they are placed, and that's how they affect the environment. Badabing badaboom, I move an object here, I move an object there, all I am doing is changing the static situation. But no, the dynamics are more of an attentive mindset than this. There is a general sense of the room, of the sensoric objects. A good Si user will say, you know, it's not such a big deal if you mix food or do this or that thing differently, it's not going to disrupt the experience(aka the sense), or you should decorate your room this way, it's going to help with that tension you're having. You should have a drink, try to calm down. Etc.

The dynamics are context, the dynamics are a literal field(via a feeling for me, like some sort of inner tension, inner predictions of discomfort) that you perceive that gives you information about the things out there that are going to affect you in here(in your body). So instead of perceiving reality as object 1, object 2, object 3, it's more like a force-field bubble around your environment zooming and popping in and out that you perceive, whose charge and nature you can change by changing the amount of electricity(attention) you're putting into it.

I think I'm not a high dimension Si user though, so I can listen to Si in the moment, but creating a lasting comfort is something I really can't do and sometimes actively try to ignore so I can get on with it. Listening to Si often feels like a provision I really shouldn't be making sometimes. It's kind of the succubus, just do what you want and don't worry type of function.

This could all be a huge misattribution though.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

> Yes, you are right about Fe and Te, but they are also not types of perception. What I take more issue with is that if one contains a specific element, I think the opposing element needs to contain something that represents another aspect of this.




Why not see Ne as the opposing element and not Si? I'm thinking of that Jung quote about how intuition sees whence [something] came and whither it is going, in other words, the causal links between objects. Ne being static, it perceives causal links that are relatively permanent, like the internal structure of an object or concept and all the possibilities linked to it. Ni experiences causality as it's happening, it sees events pouring into each other and the direction they're going in, which is what gives it that time element. In my opinion it's hairsplitting to try and apply chronological awareness to Si, although I do like what Kyusaku said about telling time through a sort of body clock. The ability to regulate tension/relaxation of one's own body is about internal "rhythm", pacing yourself, not in relation to an outcome like Ni but more in terms of your personal equilibrium.





> Hm, no, not really. I can't say I actually relate to what you describe at all. If I experience say, a headache, I can be oblivious to that I have one until I notice that I do, but then I get so focused on the headache that I can't think or focus on anything else. I think I tend to think more on the more visceral sense of pain though, which I associate with Se in that Se always seeks to experience things exactly as they are, in their wholesomeness. Si does not so Si would be less focused on the actual pain and more focused on the internal sensation of discomfort pain causes, I think?





> Yeah ok, I was kind of rambling and perhaps it's not at all Si related, just that I know both are Si creative so if the definition holds true, it should be as applicable to both of them and one is very focused on comfort and the other one isn't.




Yeah no I got that, it was a good example of how a simplistic definition makes things inconsistent. I think Si may not necessarily look like the person is seeking comfort in the colloquial sense, because what is pleasurable is so particular to Si. Earlier today I was watching my LSE uncle absentmindedly fiddling around with his keychain and he saw me looking and told me he really liked the way the weight of it felt in his hand. Si users are probably filled with these sorts of sense impressions, but they're hidden. It could be in the way someone prefers to sit in a particular position or the inexplicable satisfaction they get when looking at the gnarly tree in their backyard. Perhaps these are simplistic examples, but the point is it's hard to see from the outside and they'd never think to tell you because when would it ever come up in casual conversation? "Hey man I was wondering, do you also feel a soothing calm when you look at those little rainbow squiggles made by the reflexion of the sun in a swimming pool?"


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Woops. My previous post got lost due to power interruptions.
Second try.

Socionics for some reason is determined to attribute awareness of time to one particular element. I understand this way it is easier to type people, but...ugh. There's just something that doesn't compute.

This reminds me of a woman who's been typed as LIE, and while there was an argument for her to be an LSE, she insisted that she is Ni ego and provided the following example. Once she's been walking with a friend and while passing by a retail kiosk she made a comment that soon it will be moved to another place and later it indeed happened. She deemed the place, where that kiosk was located, cease to be beneficial in terms of running a successful business, as the place was far from being crowded, not many people were passing by, and building area appeared nearby bringing disadvantages in the form of dirt and noise and other concurrent things. I had difficulty seeing this as Ni. It seemed just awareness of how physical environment was, how it changed and logical reasoning concerning outcomes of such a change. Nevertheless, people agreed on Ni, becauze the time. Idk, maybe I'm wrong, but I used to think that Ni has to pick up on symbolic patterns and concepts rather than concrete physical stuff.



> I do think MBTI has a point with that there is a certain aspect of the past when it comes to Si, in that Si is sensation and as such must build on direct experience and that the Si type tries to recreate some kind of sensory archetype by repeating the same experiences over and over, finetuning them in this particular way and here - and + do come in that - would obviously try to diminish negative ones over positive ones. Just as a random thought, Im reminded of that Scientology promotional video (haha), where they use the example of someone who ate bad eggs and from then on always avoided eating eggs due to the sensory experience associated with it. I actually think that's much closer to what Si really is about



Lol. This is actually true. Negative physical experiences have strong influence on me and are retained for rather long periods of time. Like, once I got poisoned with boiled corn on the cob and since then couldn't even look at corn products without cringing inside. This aversion started with a single episode of negative experience and lasted for 8 years or so and only recently I gave corn another try. I think this is what -Si does at its basic level.

I had an idea that probably there's no such thing as sensing or ethical archetype, but rather a huge database of archetypes, with each of them encompassing all possible information (symbolic, ethical, sensory etc.), and when certain cognitive pattern abstracts information it overlaps with a corresponding area of the archetype and thus became influenced by it. Inasmuch the patterns that access the same archetype differ the result also would be different. Just this morning I was walking down the alley and, while observing the sky above of an intense dark-greyish colour, got the feeling of doom. There's nothing sensory about doom in itself, as it is an abstract concept, but my sensory abstraction could be influenced by the archetype of doom, and that's the reason it surfaced. Maybe I'm just rambling with these speculations. 




> _Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) *happening in one time*, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects._


Why _"in one time" _particularly? Where does it come from? Processes seen as happening _at a certain period of time_ is a characteristic of a _static _aspect, _not a dynamic_ one, which see things how they are at a concrete time in their momental state.

Both 'Pi's are dynamics of fields. Fields delineate interconnections and interrelationships (one object/process as compared to other objects/processes), while dynamics delineates motion, development, change of process as a whole, undivided into stages as distinct from static. The main difference is that Ni is internal (aka intangible) and Si is external (aka tangible). In other words, dynamics of fields deals with relationships of abstracted information (in case of Si it is abstracted tangible information from everything we can hear, see, touch, smell etc.) and its development and change, but none of this concerns time per se. Probably dynamics in general has this quality, 'cause change and evolvement imply they take certain time to happen.

Te and Fe are dynamic too, but it is different. It is dynamics of _objects_, which concerns their properties, essence in and of themselves, without respect to other objects/processes.

Idk why Si should be reduced to awareness of comfort or health or body per se. I buy the aesthetic part of it and comfort in the meaning of personal _psychic _comfort, as Si has this harmony seeking aspect in itself. But once it starts telling that I should track health issues and have special affinity for food, it's just... meh.
As for now I didn't get why one element specifically should be responsible for the aspect of time as I don't think it's the central part to eather of them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I never saw this <_<



Cryo said:


> Woops. My previous post got lost due to power interruptions.
> Second try.
> 
> Socionics for some reason is determined to attribute awareness of time to one particular element. I understand this way it is easier to type people, but...ugh. There's just something that doesn't compute.
> ...


No, actually, I see. Si notices the physical integrity of things, how to physically preserve. From the logic of creative Si, I suppose she noticed how the physical integrity and ability to preserve the kiosk was no good due to the aspects you mentioned. It was, so to say, disharmonious with the rest of the environment, and from the perspective of base Te, this is bad business.


> Lol. This is actually true. Negative physical experiences have strong influence on me and are retained for rather long periods of time. Like, once I got poisoned with boiled corn on the cob and since then couldn't even look at corn products without cringing inside. This aversion started with a single episode of negative experience and lasted for 8 years or so and only recently I gave corn another try. I think this is what -Si does at its basic level.


Yeah, that makes sense to me. 



> I had an idea that probably there's no such thing as sensing or ethical archetype, but rather a huge database of archetypes, with each of them encompassing all possible information (symbolic, ethical, sensory etc.), and when certain cognitive pattern abstracts information it overlaps with a corresponding area of the archetype and thus became influenced by it. Inasmuch the patterns that access the same archetype differ the result also would be different. Just this morning I was walking down the alley and, while observing the sky above of an intense dark-greyish colour, got the feeling of doom. There's nothing sensory about doom in itself, as it is an abstract concept, but my sensory abstraction could be influenced by the archetype of doom, and that's the reason it surfaced. Maybe I'm just rambling with these speculations.


No, I get what you mean because I can think that too but less... physical? I mean, I can see a cross and be like, "faith", but it's less a feeling? lol. It's more just that, an impression. English language doesn't suffice because then I was going to try to explain how I experience it, and I end up using the word "feeling" too, LOL. 



> Why "in one time" particularly? Where does it come from? Processes seen as happening at a certain period of time is a characteristic of a static aspect, not a dynamic one, which see things how they are at a concrete time in their momental state.


I'm not entirely sure, and this bugs me out too, hence, I wonder if it's like, Augusta seeing Si from her base Ne (static) that is causing this issue? Aren't there enough Si ego types who are into Socionics who find this odd, too? Why has no one else asserted or attempted to correct or rectify? fml. 



> Both 'Pi's are dynamics of fields. Fields delineate interconnections and interrelationships (one object/process as compared to other objects/processes), while dynamics delineates motion, development, change of process as a whole, undivided into stages as distinct from static. The main difference is that Ni is internal (aka intangible) and Si is external (aka tangible). In other words, dynamics of fields deals with relationships of abstracted information (in case of Si it is abstracted tangible information from everything we can hear, see, touch, smell etc.) and its development and change, but none of this concerns time per se. Probably dynamics in general has this quality, 'cause change and evolvement imply they take certain time to happen.
> 
> Te and Fe are dynamic too, but it is different. It is dynamics of objects, which concerns their properties, essence in and of themselves, without respect to other objects/processes.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I found a couple of peculiar things here:

1. Augusta admits in her Si description that Si is about past experience (hurray, it overlaps with the MBTI, in fact, it's almost exactly the same aspect they are referring to!) and how to recreate past experience in order for others to experience it, as well. She uses the example of an artist here, which I wonder is inspired by the fact that Jung used an example of the artist in his Si description.

2. Jung notes that Si is about resisting temporal influence. This is what he writes:



> The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form *but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. *


So from the way I read this is that a) Jung notes that archetypes in themselves are timeless (duh), and 2) the way Si notes archetypes is that it wants to preserve the core nature of them, which is why I think Jung wrote that the Si type concerns itself with idols and why MBTI SJs are stereotyped around being concerned about tradition which is to say, less about being conservative in a political sense, but more that the Si type will try to preserve the meaning and resist any outside influence of whatever sensory aspect they deem to be important. This quote by Jung here comes to mind, regarding inferior Ne:



> 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.


I was actually thinking about a Swedish politician who is likely an SEI, and who happened to for once, fit the SJ stereotype. He endorses a very conservative view of society and is very Islamophobic (his entire party is based around this idea), and I think weak Ne and especially inferior Ne, shows in his idea that Islam is going to to somehow ruin the idea of Swedish-ness he experience/d. Essentially, the way I understand it seems to be that he thinks that Islam is in this case, an outside force, a dangerous possibility, that can potentially (hah, notice the language here also) undermine (!) this idea of Swedish-ness he endorses. Specifically because he is alpha quadra and also therefore +Si, his focus goes in particular on holding onto the positive aspects of Si that he has, to reinforce and maintain those, rather than reducing or removing negative influence. 

Of course, the ideas the Si ego type will resist will ultimately differ a lot based on their past experiences, but I like how the descriptions can finally to a degree, begin to overlap in this way.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

kitsu said:


> And I think this is the reason Si is averse to overt conflict also, because it leads to bodily tension, whether you're aware of it or not. That is dynamic, it's tracking a process as it's happening in real time. And I'm actually really curious to know if devalued Si types can experience this as consciously, or at least focus on it?


I'm taking this out of the general context now, but it does make a lot of sense. I have never thought about it in this way.

In dimensionality, the first one is experience, so yeah, anyone can experience it. However Se takes priority over Si in Beta-Gamma. Not sure about Gammas, but for me as Beta some "overt conflict" is a great way to resolve interpersonal tension. I think that in a way it also helps to establish power hierarchies. Betas generally want to be equals with their friends, but sometimes it shifts in favour of one or the other and I suppose that this is a good way to resolve it without letting it create a long-term conflict.


----------

