Wow what a complex but interesting topic to jump into - thank you for the invite Fae!
Here are a couple of notes I made while reading through the thread:
This might explain another Si trait, which I’ll call here rhythmic soothing for now, where a given sense-trigger is positive enough to encourage its perpetual re-triggering. I find myself doing this by replaying songs that I enjoy for ungodly cycles, or it could be anything.. like walking a certain path or basically any activity.”
> This is 100% me. I tend to walk around in circles if needed be to calm myself or to cope with something and listening to the same song over and over and over is also something I do all the time. It’s giving me a sense of prolonged / stretched out experience of something that otherwise might vanish in a moment. It gives me the opportunity to feel intensely (physically and emotionally speaking).
“Naturally being “Ne” in the moment may create new positive moments/episodes, which are then reinforced later by rhythmic soothing — so the two working in tandem creates a complete circle/loop; feeding into one another.”
> Yep. This loop is pure energy medicine, much more effective than any chemical/allopathic stimulants or medicines in my view...
“I have no Fe (faithfulness to the context), so I rely on Fi (faithfulness to the subject) to provide an authentic response.”
> Yes I’m very much like this, the object is evaluated in an internalised and subjective manner, resulting in a unique interpretation and thus adding value to the greater ‘context’ (of all interpretations).
“Si is also the point at which I feel the veracity of the data. Many times I disbelieve my eyes. Ne doesn’t have the same Yes/No element Se has. It takes me a while to stand by what I saw or internalize what others say (the data has to match).”
> 100% me. In fact in my ‘teachings/presentations’ I regularly say “seeing is NOT believing” contrary to popular belief because what you tend to see/experience is attached to the context you see/experience it through/within and so any conclusions will be incomplete and most of the time illusionary (think optical illusions), therefore not reliable enough for it to be/become rigid truths as such.
@Animal said that she doesn't care for sensory details for the sake of the details such as tastes, smells, shapes/forms. With me it's the direct opposite. I experience almost everything on a sensory level (thoughts and emotions including). In fact one of the reasons I like to call on the rhythmic soothing aid is to prolong a momentary experience so that I can fully immerse myself into its sensory 'primalness' and interpret it at its very basic vibrational level. This is some kind of a shortcut to 'validating' the integrity and/or authenticity of the information. I can basically tap into my 'sense' of the truth to know/believe the proposed/presented possibility of a 'truth'. It helps me navigate the 'construction' of the world, even though at a core level I'm always referencing everything as just 'one version of the truth/reality'. This makes me very flexible cognitively I believe, giving me the talents of a resourceful and apt ideas generator and problem solver. Thanks to this 'talent' I don't have the typical hoarding and rainy day 'safety measures' put in place either (such as worrying about having money savings or food supply for the week or whatever; with an 'I can always think of something or manifest/actualise what I need when I need it' type of confidence/attitude). [*which, by stereotype, should also seemingly be at odds with my primary Self-Preservation instinct in the enneagram - the SP instinct in theory is very 'resources careful or sensitive' - except they don't account for people like me who are resourcefully confident; which is yet another reason why I advocate against any and all kinds of stereotyping that doesn't allocate for the billions of variants in every archetype, but that's another story...]
I gotta say, this discussion in mind-blowing!! I wish I had more time to write something, because I do have some thoughts I wanted to add about my patterns of experience with the subject of repetition and somatic evocation. Also, I've had some ideas I've suspected about the relationship of Ne & Si to the subject of health: recognizing deviation from homeostatis vs. hypochondria, etc. I'll try to make time to write something at some point.
I did want to add that it seems like the idea onto which @auburn, @animal, myself and others have been converging seems quite in line with some of Jung's descriptions of Si:
Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside.
Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.
Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences.
If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.[collapse]
this labyrinthine thread
there's so much in this thread. i've split it into three branches:
Pardon for any posts that have not been split up properly-- Feel free to let me know and I'll see about moving them to the right thread. 🙂
@ animal and @bera, I'm so grateful for your descriptions!
Animal said, "What has happened before will happen again, and things that have happened over and over will repeat the same cycle. To me, that is flow."
I think the lack of this this is where the SiNe scarcity mentality comes from. Thematically the same events may occur, I blieve that, but I;m less inclides to thin the same psychical opportunities will arise again. Si is a farmer, and scientist and it wants to ensure you can duplicate results. I don't think you necessarily meant the same physical opportunities, but I think assumptions about the material universe are embedded. Si's more linear, causal trajectory of the physical world makes it conclude that No, it will never be quite like this again. Hence Si nostalgia. (I get emotional thinking about my kids growing up)
@Fae, I'm glad you brought up the way you see the EQs. I go back and forth on this, and I too, often entertain the idea that any function can obtain data. We'd have to say information was coming in via Pe every time we entered a room and looked at the faces, every time we read, etc. Seeking information/objects =/= taking in information/objects. (Also, I think you should make a second thread where we can explore Fx pairing and flavoring more.)
@Gabriella Winters, this is just perfect, "I can basically tap into my ‘sense’ of the truth to know/believe the proposed/presented possibility of a ‘truth’. It helps me navigate the ‘construction’ of the world, even though at a core level I’m always referencing everything as just ‘one version of the truth/reality’."
Finally, I don't think I remember ever reading Jung's Si description (shame). But that's exacted what I meant when I said all kinds of ideas and experiences get mapped onto an object. (*feels lame and lack of forward progression for not reading the OG source*)
I'll also add, after reading the split thread on Ti and aphorisms, that I often murmur little aphorisms to myself as kind of comfort. Either to take in more of what I like and soak it in or to brush off what I really don't like.
I also relate to Gabriella's Si photographic abilities. My metacognition as a child was more concerned with how mental projection worked as a process and at a physical level, than I was about thinking about the meaning of my thoughts or grouping them thematically. Rather, I'd (1) trace them back linearly to see how I ended up on a certain topic, or (2) try to understand how mental processes worked. Se/Ni seems to be more concerned with the effects of mental processes on the user (particularly when combined with Fe/Ti, as both T and N are are in a sense self-removed). I think they may examine their thoughts from a more objective distance.
Here's another idea I just had after that discussion with scientism on Ni's and Si's weird sci/fi-ish abilities.
So far, for about a year now, I've viewed the functions in the way I described before: parallel meaning-makers, or 'proto-philosophies' as I've often called them on the Dischord. But here's a second way that also makes sense to me that has occurred to me in the latest discussion: just thought I'd share it because...whatever, ha ha!
So our senses and everything pick up and store info from the external world as well as info from within (whether you conceive that to be just the body or something more spiritual): the primary data I mentioned. This is processed by our brain and nervous system and recombined into an inner replica of reality; a model. My thinking is: what if our CFs primarily describe our act of consciousness upon this replica already formed, rather than the active-makers of it? This way, all 8 are already starting from an abstracted level, at least one level removed from the raw data pool (sense-data/memory) which has been converted into a replica/model etc
For example, even the literal Si holographic retrievals are not extracting discrete info but entire scenes, frozen/encapsulated as such. The info on Gabi's or Shelley's or Tea's or Arwen's notes, for example, isn't retrieved separated from the note-pad on which it was acquired; Rather, it's retrieved together as if a section of time--a scene from life--was frozen with it's literal, immediate context in tact. Packed away so that the Si-user can in the future, project that scene; in this case, the book/note-pad in front of their mind's eye and read it in a way very similar to how it appeared when the information was acquired. It seems to me what happened was an act of consciousness (Si) literally marked out a scene and froze it in place and context, in the memory. Like it wasn't 'making up' the scene, so much as marking it?
It just occurred to me, my SiTe husband does not have my same holographic memory retrieval skill. That's always been my superpower. His memory in general is much worse than mine.
With Se, the user must make sense of the most pertinent objects in the frame in a single synchronic episode, and how the objects relate to one another. They’re forced to relate to one another when they occur together.
I been listening to some two lovely youtube tarot readers in the past few days (I'm officially cured of my Christian tarot-phobia, having now an understanding of it via CT and CFs). It seems a very Pe thing and even more especially, an Se thing. I wrote a post in another thread that followed from reflection of the things described/explained by @Bera, @scientiam, and @Auburn. However, it applies here too, given what we're discussing, so I'll repost it then continue with my comment. Here goes:
I wonder if it would be correct to say that Si and Ni are two ways of tracking events: One (Si) follows a literal chain of causation ala ‘This specific event A directly caused/created that specific event B which caused C’ while another follows patterns of occurrences over time (the cycles/themes y’all talking about), i.e ‘Type of event A always happens after Type of event B which always happens after C’. One sees reality as unfolding as a causal chain and another sees it as unfolding as a looping pattern.
So Pe would see the same thing but from the other end: The results of the causal chain or the manifestationsof the archetypal loop in real time. Se might say, ‘Specific events 1,2, and 3 are happening in this context X: What repeating loop are they manifesting?’ Whereas Ne might say, ‘Type of thing/event X is happening here and there and waaay over there too (i.e. in separate contexts 1, 2, and 3)! What causal chain is producing this pattern?’
Whereas Si/Ni would track the chain/loop themselves, seeking to uncover their results/manifestations in a singular time frame, present or future.
So we might go even further and say, ‘S’ isn’t about ‘sensoriness’ even though strong S types tend to have a rich relationship with ‘sensoriness’: it would only be a by-product of what S really is vis-a-vis N, which is: Reality. S looks directly at real events, with the understanding that they are either manifesting a hidden pattern (Se/Ni) or causing a manifest pattern (Si/Ne). On the other hand, N does not look at real events but their types/abstractions, with the understanding that they produce real events (Ni/Se) or are themselves produced by real events (Ne/Si). The two pairs of Pi/Pe would be mirror opposites.
So, back to tarots: They seem to be an attempt at mimicking life as seen/processed via Pe eyes, especially Se/Ni eyes, and matches your description quite well. They are picked randomly but their relationship to each other is presumed to not be random at all. At least, this is what the tarot readers seem to be doing and I think I've seen Bera do it tons of times too.
It's demystified tarots for me because it now seems like a Pe game with the added component of serving as a screen for the unconscious to express itself, as happens in writing, painting, and other forms of art. It seems a Pe approach to the psycho-spiritual, and as a Christian I've always done something similar with the Bible. I open it randomly when I need some kind of message, and then see meaning in the page I land on. It's like Pe forcing an aha through its playful randomness and meaning-seeking.
This is why I will order the same thing again and again and then one day realize I don’t like it as much as I think I do. This is why if I haven’t heard a song in years, I might slowly embellish it. When the song replays in my mind, it has harmonies that were never there, the vocals are better, it has added nuance that was never there. I’m sometimes surprised at its simplicity when I hear it again after so long.
I do the same thing: I eat the same meal from the same restaurant every Saturday, or every few days, for months at a time until I don't want to eat it any more. Only then will I switch it up. At the same time, though, I'm much more literal than you describe when it comes to music and movies or stories I've read.
My recollection of the chains of events (and song) is very literal. Often, I'll hear the beginning of a soundtrack from a different room and immediately tell that it's a movie and not a song and what movie. I've spooked my family with this once or twice because they didn't pick up on it as immediately. I can often sing along to songs I haven't heard in a decade when it happens to come on. And my recollection of shows/stories/movies I've seen with interest, or things people have said in debate/argument is extremely literal too. I can also tell where the story is going from a slight change/shift at the earliest point it happens. It's how I started my GOT rant so early, LMAO.
I wonder what determines what types of things we Si users retain the literal chronology for: It seems we all have things for which our Si seems particularly amped, but these things are not the same.
Sorry I'm not addressing the more complex points in the last few posts, but I just wanted to point out, about the posts on page 2 -
I have suspected for a long time that Si/Ne users (regardless of the specific type) are more likely to enjoy disparate sensory pleasures for their own sake and find meaning in that enjoyment, whereas Se/Ni users (regardless of the type) are more likely to seek holistic patterns beneath the experiences. Pi is what creates the 'map' - so if that map is sensory (Si) then it can place sensory experience on a subjective map. If the map is intuitive (Ni) it will be more based on abstract intangible patterns, coming from 'behind' the Se interactions with objects.
Pe doesn't have to "enjoy" or judge something as good or bad. It simply perceives what it perceives "out there." The sensory world 'is what it is' for Se. Whereas Si internalizes that experience and makes it subjective. So why would Se, specifically , be focused on pleasure - if things 'are what they are' and Ni is what places it somewhere on a map, to give order and pattern to it? Ni internalizes 'the pattern' that is behind it, while Si internalizes the experience of sensation itself.
So interpreting Se as a type that "enjoys this thing and that thing" for the sake of experiencing pleasure, seems to me like a Si user projecting their own internalized experience of the sensory world and assuming that Se experiences it the same way. Whereas an actual Se user wouldn't internalize the experience of sensation in a subjective way, because they don't have Si. Although they still may be overwhelmed by sensations "out there" since they perceive them as they are.
Yes, as an addendum, to think that Se is necessarily tied to the senses and the physical is as wrong as to say that Ne is necessarily untied to the senses and the physical. As we have seen again and again, Se users are perfectly capable of being in their heads. Concrete exploration of novelty doesn't have to take the form of physical exploration of novelty, though it might, of course. As a case study, I draw your attention to one of my mathematics teachers from my undergraduate degree, whom I believe to have been SeFi (alt. TeNi, classic gamma manic scowl for sure). He was completely lost in his head and could sit staring at space for hours on end; he also was the best at visualising complex geometrical shapes in his head, in a very concrete and detailed way.
I also have a problem with the idea of 'novelty' because it sounds, once again, disparate. I am not invested in 'this thing and that thing,' disparate things that aren't connected to each other. As @bera explained so well on page 1, it's about finding the patterns underneath, and for me this expands to seeking what is timeless and eternal. The pattern that unfolds before me, will unfold throughout time and space, ad nauseum. (Or that is what I perceive.)
Most people - regardless of their first function - are more interested in 'new things' than me, in big and small ways. For example I listen to the same playlist on repeat for months, and work on the same projects for decades. I've been like this since I was a child - obsessive, with hyper-focused tunnel vision. The Se eyes show this intense focus, but only moment to moment. For me, the intense focus goes on for a lifetime.
Someone could argue "Within the interests you're exploring, there are always new aspects" -- but isn't that the case for all humans? Anyone who does anything moment to moment is doing something 'new.' Again, 'novelty' sounds like Ne users, who are interested in disparate experiences and 'what-ifs' - imposing that idea on Se. I am much more holistic in my interests - I'm not interested in taking on anything new if it isn't directly connected to the ongoing projects that relate to the web of interests I've had since I was a child. I realize that I'm bizarre and probably unique in this way, but when I look around at other Se users, I don't see that they are more interested in 'random novelty' than, say, Ji or Pi leads.
Humans in general need stimulation, but being Se lead does not make someone's locus of interests more spread out than the next person, nor does it make them prefer novel experiences to familiar or in-depth ones. In fact, saying someone "prefers" or "seeks" novelty implies judging functions, since it requires a J function to prefer or seek something. Pe just perceives what is there and Ji & Je decide what will be valued, sought and preferred. Pi places it into a map, and as we already discussed, the Ni map is holistic and aphoristic while the Si map has more attunement to disparate sensory stimulus and the internal resonance with it.
I am probably going to be a lone warrior on this point.
I see the gripe, believe me. Though I would say that seeking novelty need not take the form of the disparate, random novelty you so abhor. In pursuing novelty, one can pursue and intensify the most salient avenues for fruitful exploration, finding the features that are important, this seeking for novelty can take the form of seeking the best way to update our stagnant and corrupt maps and systems.
Yes, perception requires judgement, but so does judgment requires perception, without data to work with judgment cannot operate on anything, there is nothing to parse and organise. It is problematic to say that Pe just sees what is, as what is is not obviously there, as our best cognitive science and artificial intelligence research has shown us. The problem of seeing a world turns out to be highly non-trivial. As I have said, I think Pe navigates and shifts different salience landscapes (read, what shines forth and calls your attention), and the different Pe functions do this differently. It is highly problematic to equate Se with just using one's senses, and a lot of Se's devaluing comes from this erroneous assumption. Erroneous, too, for it leaves Ne people blind, deaf, and wholly disconnected from physical reality, which some are too be fair, but that's beside the point 😛
Addendum: The force of Eros, the force to ascend the hierarchy of Being, to reach the highest yet untapped potential, has often been called the creative advance into novelty. The fact that novelty is possible, true creativity, is as far as I am concerned, a miracle. But I'm not Pe so I perhaps value such things more. One can't have art without novelty.
I'd also like to say "random" is the view of a person who doesn't share the process, not necessarily what's happening. All it indicates to me is that they can't see the pattern the allegedly 'random' person is chasing due to the Se apriori assumption of closed/absolute contexts. But this is just an assumption, folks: tis no truer than the Ne apriori assumption of abstract-able and loose contexts. I find the idea that I go around just 'randomly' pursuing novelty extremely alien. Everything that sparks my interest does so because it's connected to a wave I was already on. There's a reason it and not another thing grabs me or 'shines' as Faeruss says and that reason is no more random than the one that makes one thing and not another grab Se: tis an 'aha'. Ne users are not mindlessly going through life just chasing whatever bs happens to be crossing their path.
I also am not sure I understand ascribing 'disparate' things to Si/Ne. It seems clear to me that is true of Si and Se and not Ni or Ne. Se's absolute contexts seem like discrete things to me, which is why they think Nes are random, i.e, jumping from one separate thing to another separate thing. But Ne doesn't share this view of separateness between these contexts at all. It assumes they may be produced by a singular underlying causal mechanism, like many ripples on a water surface that might result from one stone dropping in and disturbing it. Again, this seems like the distinction btw S and N, not Se/Ni and Ne/Si. The things one oscillation takes to be discrete are the things the other takes to be connected, and vice-versa.
All it indicates to me is that they can’t see the pattern the allegedly ‘random’ person is chasing due to the Se apriori assumption of closed/absolute contexts.
Yes I agree with this completely! "Divergent" is different though; this assessment came from Ne users themselves. And "disparate" was a reference to the conversations in this thread about appreciating pleasures, which is connected to Si. Notice that I did not use the word 'random.'
Personally I disagree with the idea that the two functions on an axis are completely unrelated and separate matters. Where there is a Ne user, there is Si in their psyche, and vice versa. Every person has Pi regardless of which functions are conscious, so personally when I'm describing how a function works I also keep in mind the axis since it is part of their holistic psyche, even if unconscious. So this explains why Ni users don't seem 'random to me' at all. This isn't about S vs. N - there's a clear difference in how Ni and Ne users communicate, regardless of the first function. In wolfpit chat, it was generally agreed that there's less topic hopping, less divergent thinking, etc. Divergent vs. holistic thinking is a distinction between the Ne/Si psyche as a whole and the Se/Ni psyche as a whole, in any order, which has been explored at great depth on this forum and continues to be.
What you said makes perfect sense. I agree completely. I just get sick of descriptions that reduce Pe to a few specific types of enjoyment - such as "Se users like sports, fun and new thrills." Especially when I don't see this kind of pattern showing up in reality. The fact that some Se users like these things doesn't mean that it makes up the basic meat of the function. So that's why I was pushing for going back to basics. "What is Pe? What is it actually doing?" It's definitely more than just 'seeing what's there,' but I don't like when personal taste is ascribed to it on the level of making 'novelty,' 'escaping boredom' and 'thrills' the basis of the function.
There are so many ways that flow, focus and sensory attunement can manifest.. for instance I take long walks with headphones, listening to intense sets of songs that I put together for the purpose of processing certain emotions, or getting inside the mind of my fictional characters. Enneagram fours don't seek happiness or pleasure but, rather, explore suffering and its expression. So I use my senses to immerse myself in emotion and delve into any tragedy that affects me. The Se is still there, but it's not serving a need for pleasureful thrills, due to my personal inclinations. The specific thing that is "sought" will be different for each person, and enneagram motivation plays a part here - but Se is the primary function that allows a Se lead to discover and seek the experiences they desire. We mustn't assume everyone desires to "escape" or "be happy."
I'll copy a post of mine here that I think is relevant regarding Pe:
Will is not just about Je.
Will comes from inspiration.
Pe is the catalyst. The inspirer. The spark behind will. The force that drives us forward. The propellor.
The reason I like “Volition” for Se more than for Ne, is basically because of what @faerie said:
Se goes after bounded objects (what you say hunting or going after ONE thing at a time) whereas Ne follows an unbounded “object” which is more diffuse, but Ne follows it no less obsessively. This is why “volitional force” makes sense as a descriptor for Se, because the ‘push’ is very concrete, applying to bounded objects and focused hunting. There should be another similar word to describe the obsessive pursuit style of Ne.
Both types are inspiration driven, but Se finds bounded objects and pursuing and hunting something concrete, more interesting. This can include studying something, mastering a project – but Se is geared toward concrete tangible results in the real-world realm. This hunt makes life inspiring. The thrill of the hunt.
I cannot pretend to describe the parallel for Ne, so I will leave that to the Ne leads – but I will share my theory – based on observing them from outside – which is that Si ‘grounds’ Ne by bringing them back into their body. This happens through enjoyable, pleasurable physical sensations, among other things. Se does not rely on ‘internal experience of sensory pleasure’ to bring them into the sensory realm. The hunt itself – the pursuit of concrete results – is pleasurable.
"It just occurred to me, my SiTe husband does not have my same holographic memory retrieval skill. That’s always been my superpower. His memory in general is much worse than mine."
I suspect that me partner is also SiTe and he too doesn't share the same 'holographic memory' recalling super-power, so I'm wondering if it could be something to do with having a developed/conscious Ne in the mix as well? Just thinking out loud though and not really yet sense how all that fits together... ?
"Enneagram fours don’t seek happiness or pleasure but, rather, explore suffering and its expression."
Would this be the case with Si 4s as well though (if such 4s exist)?
As an Enneagram three with a four wing and Si, I do very much indeed seek pleasure (in the suffering too), and to me the 2 aren't contradictory (seeking pleasure and exploring suffering). I think your Se/Ni might be looking to explore the internal 'meaning' of the suffering, while my Ne/Si is looking to explore the internal 'feeling/sensation/experience' of it. Both 'exploring' suffering and its expression in their own (internalised?) ways perhaps? So in my mind if a 4 has Si then I believe they could be experiencing the whole pleasure-suffering paradigm differently from the way you're internalising it? ?
I think you're right - and I love that way of looking at the way it might be experienced differently.
I didn't mean to suggest at all that an Ne/Si user couldn't be a four lead, or have strong four influence in a fix or wing. And in the case that they do, then they would also have an inclination toward using whatever functions they have to explore suffering in some way.
In my post, I was trying to paint a picture of how some parts of the Se description (here and elsewhere) still apply to me, even though I am not wired for 'pleasure' or 'seeking happiness.' Fundamentally, I do agree that my psyche is Se, with or without vultology. But I was just trying to demonstrate how Se might manifest in someone with different motivations. Using myself as an example since that's the experience I'm sure of.
I have no problem imagining someone with similar (enneagram) motivations to myself, being Ne/Si and using those functions to reach similar states or explore similar inner experiences - but I would have to ask them exactly how it works for them. Personally, I think it would be clumsy to associate a certain function with 'pleasure' and 'stimulation.' But I do think that Si users - as a pattern - are more attuned to the disparate sensations and how those feel inside their body, as many on this thread have outlined. There are many ways this could be used to explore suffering... I mean, just thinking about it, my mind fills with sensual masochistic imagery.
The common Ne description is written for a 7 with a 2 fix, like @shelley-lorraine - which is why I am not surprised that she relates to it. But Pe has many other manifestations that are commonly ignored, and I am trying to draw attention to those.
Yes that's exactly what I was trying to articulate, that with different functions (but potentially same drives/motivations), sone might explore the realm of 'suffering' differently. I do explore this realm too, through my 4 wing and in my case this exploration is a lot more in the masochistic dimension than in the 'philosophical / meanings' dimension. If/When we meet an Ne/Si 4 we should certainly ask!
That said, I haven't read the literature on Se, but from the little I understand I do agree with you that the pleasure seeking and internalising sensation is more closely related with Ne/Si than Se/Ni - which in my mind also makes sense conceptually too. That a person that explores stimulants via Ne would more likely want to use Si to help 'make internal sense' of the potentially random, yet oftentimes fluid and not-at-all-random-below-the-surface concepts. Versus the person who explores stimulants via Se would likely want to use Ni to help 'find internal meaning' to the potentially random, but oftentimes not-at-all-random sensory data they're drawing in constantly. Something like that. But honestly I feel way out of depth with all this, so just 'feeling my way through' the whole Se/Si thing still ❤️
As an Enneagram three with a four wing and Si, I do very much indeed seek pleasure (in the suffering too), and to me the 2 aren’t contradictory (seeking pleasure and exploring suffering). I think your Se/Ni might be looking to explore the internal ‘meaning’ of the suffering, while my Ne/Si is looking to explore the internal ‘feeling/sensation/experience’ of it. Both ‘exploring’ suffering and its expression in their own (internalised?) ways perhaps? So in my mind if a 4 has Si then I believe they could be experiencing the whole pleasure-suffering paradigm differently from the way you’re internalising it?
That's interesting! I also think I internalize experience per se. Aub and Tea don't think so, but I do think there's a serious link between the attraction to this type of thing and Si use. My spirituality has a very sensory dimension to it that is concentrated around the heart (sometimes gut/plexus).
There are many ways this could be used to explore suffering… I mean, just thinking about it, my mind fills with sensual masochistic imagery.
Wow, I'm not even 4 anywhere in my stacking, but I still relate to this as a possible Si/Ne thing. My daydreams are heavily masochistic. I shared one of them in the CT discord, and I think in your group as well, wherein I described being beat up, nearly left for dead by my fictional captors, so immersed in the fantasy that I feel the pain and the blood dripping just short of for real. I have many such daydreams that involve physical pain and suffering.
Yeah, to be clear I'm not limiting any of this to 'four.' There's also something in sevens, @shelley-lorraine and @gabriellawinters, that causes a kind of dichotomy around 'pain' - they either avoid pain or seek pain - so masochism in various ways is common for 7s. It is very common for 1s to put themselves through torture and be attracted to masochism too. You both have 7 and strong 1 in your tritype. We can talk about this further on the other forum though, because I don't want to digress too much here - but 7 and 1 would have a lot of reason to be masochistic in very clear ways, including physically.
In my post I used myself as an example since I'm the person I know best, and pointed out that Se - as I understand it - manifests in ways that fit my personality; but the descriptions often emphasize sports, thrills and food. By extension I'm sure Si/Ne includes a wide range of people with a wide range of motivations, so I would find it interesting to see how the basic "What Si is" and "What Se is" would manifest for different people. But in the end, the very basic meat of the function will still be consistent with everyone who has that function.
ya, I didn’t think you were limiting exploration of suffering to 4, I was more interested in the differentiation you were making between the Se and Si manner of exploring it.
When I first saw this thread I immediately wanted to contribute to it as a Si-user. But I found there was so much to say that I never got started. Now I will write a little bit.
I remember Si was the most strange of all the functions as Jung described it. It was so cryptic and unclear one got the impression that Si-users must be strange beings, but I remember he wrote that their object of attention was their subjective sense perceptions, a private world unknown to most other people. With some examples that sounded rather bizar, probably from some of his patients with heavy pathology. Maybe this was because Jung was not a Si-user himself?
I am sure I am much more aware of how feelings are experienced at all time in the body than most people. I get a felt sense about everything I experience. If this bodily sense is blocked (in some kind of pressure) I cant assess memories very well because I somehow archive memories due to feeling tone/quality. If it has anything to do with Si I am not sure. I have many years of practice trying to cultivate an ability to make use of such sensations, so as it can be used as a way of knowing. Some has this as a natural ability, but it can be learned/trained by what was called "Focusing" by Eugene Gendlin, a professor in psychology, it is a skill that has to do with listening to the wisdom of your body. (it is not about becoming "focused", but is a metaphor from old times when you had to adjust your camera so that the initial blurred, diffus, unclear picture came into focus)
One can find answers to a lot of things by this listening, which is a (patient) listening to the "felt sense" which is not the emotion in itself but the felt sense that can be found around or behind the emotion, or thought, or experience one have had. Even dreams can be delt with by getting a felt sense about aspects of the dream until a "felt shift" in the body is felt, which usually accompany new insights into a subject. Actually there is no limits to the usability of it, it could even be a path to gain understanding of CT). I could write a lot about this, but here is a link about this particular use: http://previous.focusing.org/philo.htmlhe
The main link to the Focusing Institute is: http://previous.focusing.org/
It sounds strange to many people, especially male academics perhaps, and I am not sure that it is something that everybody can be taught as Gendlin maintained. I think it is to a large degree a matter of type. Some people, more women than men (in my experience), can do it immediately, some already do it without having any name for it, some just didnt know that it was that easy to just listen to the body instead of the thoughts.
Since I have only known about vultology for about a year I have not much idea about the relation to type. (There was a 7-level scale developed to measure the level of focusing ability from interviews, it might be of interest (EXP Scale)).
I found this the other day:
Novel or extreme external sensations can even seem intrusive to SJs (especially ISJs), causing them to switch from Si to their less preferred Se function. SPs may feel similarly put off when admonished to “listen to your body” or “notice when you are full,” as doing so would require a greater focus on Si than Se. https://personalityjunkie.com/extraverted-sensing-se-vs-introverted-sensing-si/
Of cause it must be something that extroverts tend to do less than other, but I dont think that it is necessary more difficult for them. Maybe they can have a more immediate experience than an introvert absorbed in his thoughts.
I think that the challenge for Fis is to not get too absorbed into overwhelming emotions but to step back a little bit, so that a more subtle sensing can take place instead of the raw emotion.
I would be curious to find out if this is something that is more natural for the Si-Ne axis.
But it seems to me like something that a NI would like to delve into, the experience is often like a holistic sense of everything about a topic. With insights that transcends what could be known by thought. Sounds Ni to me.
Now that Se has been cleared up more in Auburn's description I'm curious to return to this thread 🙂 I think my protests about Se here were made clear and the ones that matter were accounted for in the Se description, but I'm wondering how do Si users feel about the Si description now? Or is there something you would add?
I'm asking out of my own attempt to understand Si better.
I am sure I am much more aware of how feelings are experienced at all time in the body than most people. I get a felt sense about everything I experience. If this bodily sense is blocked (in some kind of pressure) I cant assess memories very well because I somehow archive memories due to feeling tone/quality. If it has anything to do with Si I am not sure. I have many years of practice trying to cultivate an ability to make use of such sensations, so as it can be used as a way of knowing. Some has this as a natural ability, but it can be learned/trained by what was called “Focusing” by Eugene Gendlin, a professor in psychology, it is a skill that has to do with listening to the wisdom of your body. (it is not about becoming “focused”, but is a metaphor from old times when you had to adjust your camera so that the initial blurred, diffus, unclear picture came into focus)
One can find answers to a lot of things by this listening, which is a (patient) listening to the “felt sense” which is not the emotion in itself but the felt sense that can be found around or behind the emotion, or thought, or experience one have had. Even dreams can be delt with by getting a felt sense about aspects of the dream until a “felt shift” in the body is felt, which usually accompany new insights into a subject.
Reading especially this part of this post, had me scratching my head, like ' @sekundaer is TiNe? It sounds like he's describing my Fi!'
Then towards the end I started to understand how this was in fact being described in the context of Si. And be a challenge for Fi users (although I do not relate to ever having had that particular problem, I've been stepping back from, analyzing and archiving my emotions since I was little). For me the challenge (and this is a known "thing" for Fi leads) is that when having to make new decisions, I only truly know the right decision for me *after* I've made it, because only then can I actually feel how the result sits with me, which is how I judge things.
It really has me thinking now. Lately, I've been becoming increasingly aware of thoughts/feelings/chemical reactions that happen in my brain/body as I catch them happening, whereas before they always did happen, I just kind of took them for granted, or was unconscious of them, or at least never questioned them or thought about how other people may experience different ones, which contributes to their different sense of reality than mine. I feel like it's my Fi bumping up against Si. I'm not really sure exactly where the boundary is, but I can definitely feel how the physical and psychological are interrelated. The extensive impact of the gut microbiome on so many aspects of heath--including depression and anxiety--is a good example and something important to me currently. Some instances when I "listen" do seem borderline physical (Si) and emotional (Fi). Others are obviously one or the other. I know I am not supposed to have Si, at least in CT, but it's kind of hard for me to see myself as not having it, especially in light of the fact that I identified with "INFP" for 3.5 years until coming here, and attributed many of my things to Si. Very interesting. I will check out the website.