Am I describing the functions properly?
Sept 10, 2016 4:18:42 GMT -5 by Aqua
sitbone, ayoungspirit, and 1 more like this
Post by Aqua on Sept 10, 2016 4:18:42 GMT -5
Hey guys, I've just thought of a way of describing the Jungian functions from a self-watching exercise while writing that makes them more understandable to me but I'd like some input from you all in case I'm way, way off.
PE is about particulars while PI is the line that circumscribes a certain mass of data to make it a whole or give the particulars meaning vis-a-vis each other. In other words, PI is the assumption that certain particulars are connected. It makes disconnected data meaningful. Hence the map symbol. It assumes that it is looking at one reality/describing one terrain. PE doesn't assume this, not even NE. NE just notices objective similarities which similarities are themselves disparate data. Hence why they say you cannot have one without the other. PE without PI is meaningless data while PI without PE is pure imagination or superstition. So I think PI can be symbolized as an inner eye at the centre of the mind or the 6th chakra in the yoga tradition while PE is many-eyed.
Because there is PI, JI can induce a certain internal order to the PE data...why? Because there is already the inherent PI assumption that the data is connected. JI assumes that this connection is not random but logical or ethical. Without the PI meaning, JI wouldnt know where to focus its unconscious induction in the constant flow of data. Is it all connected or just some of it and which part of it? OK, this may be more true of TI but I'm not sure why it cannot be true of FI too, especially if this induced order is based on goodness/attraction. JI is the assumption that there is inherent order to the "meaningful" data, existing independently of the person. That some inherent order supports this reality, whether logical or ethical (or by order of goodness/beauty etc, whatever feeling does).
So TI and FI never think they are imposing order but merely discovering it. Order is independent of our agendas it assumes. They look into the essence of things drawn to this order they assume is there. To JI this is truth. JE is the opposite assumption and like PE, does not presume any inherent order to the data gathered by PE. Just the opposite: there is no order inherent to these things. It thus feels free or sometimes even compelled to rearrange stuff. So JI might be more likely to think of the nature of things that it somewhat respects (FI) or takes for-granted (TI) while JE thinks in terms of utility, whether logical or ethical.
Examples: For FI, they may end up respecting the life in things that others might not. For example, I, an FE user, firmly believe in the protection of the environment but for me it is never for its own sake, not for the sake of an inherent goodness to the rest of nature: rather the goodness of nature is predicated on its usefulness to humanity as a species. Hence, FE is all about people and very specifically so, while FI extends its "concern" so to speak, does not necessarily have this bias towards people when it comes to discerning goodness or value in things, although it might discern that people are most important. It's possible that many FI environmentalists fight for the environment for the sake of the environment while FE environmentalists may fight for it merely for the sake of people, now or in the future: the common good as it perceives it. Or even against it if this cause it sees as detrimental to the good of people (like the need for industrialization in poor countries). For FE, the assumption is that people are a unit or form units and the unit is always more important. For FI, the assumption is that the order of goodness is inherent to things in themselves.
I can't think of good examples for TE and TI. But I do know that TE doesn't look at the world and see "order". For it, order comes from the arrangement you give it depending on what you want out of it. Which puzzles me as it is always accompanied by FI. They seem like they couldn't be more antagonistic. But I guess since FI can tell what is "better" or more important (valuable) based on its induced inherent order, it allows TE to shove off or move the less important for the sake of the more important. Otherwise TE might be very cold-blooded in its operations.
I don't know how to separate Si and Ni yet. They circumscribe data differently based on different assumptions but I'm not clear on what assumptions these are.
I do this because this is how I understand things...I have to see them for myself. So far, a lot about SI and NI is accepted from authority so it's tenuous in my mind. But I'm happy I can see PI at least. This happened as I was considering an induction vs deduction debate in my field. Before we gather data for inductive analysis, we chose which data to gather and lots of people complain of a certain arbitrariness in this choice of data in this particular field I refer to, as it is not in the sciences and does not follow the scientific method. It then occurred to me that PI is the data-selector in us. It seems to me that PI is the first step in understanding--I used to think it was PE. But PE is indiscriminate. Without PI, it's impossible to do anything meaningful with PE data. PI tells us we are looking at one thing.
PE is about particulars while PI is the line that circumscribes a certain mass of data to make it a whole or give the particulars meaning vis-a-vis each other. In other words, PI is the assumption that certain particulars are connected. It makes disconnected data meaningful. Hence the map symbol. It assumes that it is looking at one reality/describing one terrain. PE doesn't assume this, not even NE. NE just notices objective similarities which similarities are themselves disparate data. Hence why they say you cannot have one without the other. PE without PI is meaningless data while PI without PE is pure imagination or superstition. So I think PI can be symbolized as an inner eye at the centre of the mind or the 6th chakra in the yoga tradition while PE is many-eyed.
Because there is PI, JI can induce a certain internal order to the PE data...why? Because there is already the inherent PI assumption that the data is connected. JI assumes that this connection is not random but logical or ethical. Without the PI meaning, JI wouldnt know where to focus its unconscious induction in the constant flow of data. Is it all connected or just some of it and which part of it? OK, this may be more true of TI but I'm not sure why it cannot be true of FI too, especially if this induced order is based on goodness/attraction. JI is the assumption that there is inherent order to the "meaningful" data, existing independently of the person. That some inherent order supports this reality, whether logical or ethical (or by order of goodness/beauty etc, whatever feeling does).
So TI and FI never think they are imposing order but merely discovering it. Order is independent of our agendas it assumes. They look into the essence of things drawn to this order they assume is there. To JI this is truth. JE is the opposite assumption and like PE, does not presume any inherent order to the data gathered by PE. Just the opposite: there is no order inherent to these things. It thus feels free or sometimes even compelled to rearrange stuff. So JI might be more likely to think of the nature of things that it somewhat respects (FI) or takes for-granted (TI) while JE thinks in terms of utility, whether logical or ethical.
Examples: For FI, they may end up respecting the life in things that others might not. For example, I, an FE user, firmly believe in the protection of the environment but for me it is never for its own sake, not for the sake of an inherent goodness to the rest of nature: rather the goodness of nature is predicated on its usefulness to humanity as a species. Hence, FE is all about people and very specifically so, while FI extends its "concern" so to speak, does not necessarily have this bias towards people when it comes to discerning goodness or value in things, although it might discern that people are most important. It's possible that many FI environmentalists fight for the environment for the sake of the environment while FE environmentalists may fight for it merely for the sake of people, now or in the future: the common good as it perceives it. Or even against it if this cause it sees as detrimental to the good of people (like the need for industrialization in poor countries). For FE, the assumption is that people are a unit or form units and the unit is always more important. For FI, the assumption is that the order of goodness is inherent to things in themselves.
I can't think of good examples for TE and TI. But I do know that TE doesn't look at the world and see "order". For it, order comes from the arrangement you give it depending on what you want out of it. Which puzzles me as it is always accompanied by FI. They seem like they couldn't be more antagonistic. But I guess since FI can tell what is "better" or more important (valuable) based on its induced inherent order, it allows TE to shove off or move the less important for the sake of the more important. Otherwise TE might be very cold-blooded in its operations.
I don't know how to separate Si and Ni yet. They circumscribe data differently based on different assumptions but I'm not clear on what assumptions these are.
I do this because this is how I understand things...I have to see them for myself. So far, a lot about SI and NI is accepted from authority so it's tenuous in my mind. But I'm happy I can see PI at least. This happened as I was considering an induction vs deduction debate in my field. Before we gather data for inductive analysis, we chose which data to gather and lots of people complain of a certain arbitrariness in this choice of data in this particular field I refer to, as it is not in the sciences and does not follow the scientific method. It then occurred to me that PI is the data-selector in us. It seems to me that PI is the first step in understanding--I used to think it was PE. But PE is indiscriminate. Without PI, it's impossible to do anything meaningful with PE data. PI tells us we are looking at one thing.
?
Please bear with me folks!