@Janie - I knew when I wrote it that it sounded very non-TiNe, and actually I probably am a rather atypical TiNe. There was a thread about TiNe and emotions, everybody who joined seem to express the same thing, that they often did not feel very much or even that they could design their emotions to fit their intellectual understanding.
It is so contrary to how I am and I end up not wanting to post about because I was not in the mood to stand out against my species.
You wrote about experiences that are on the borderline between physical and emotional. I find it really hard to imagine an emotional state that isnt physical. I will leave a door open that emotions can be felt otherwise, but until now the people who say they do so havent been able to make me understand how they then identify their feelings and where.
When I wrote about the bodily felt experiences I had hoped that somebody would join in as I found it interesting if this is or is not about Si, so I am very happy that you commented! My thought was since I am (as far as I know) the only TiNe with conscious Si, could that explain why I am "different"? Although it makes sense somehow, since Si must in part be about "internal sensing", my association to Si is something rather "dry" and unemotional, and more about what is sensible.
Among jungians it is considered that the degree of emotions has nothing to do with type, do that T-types can be just emotional as F (but when it comes to examples they often divert from this, where it suddenly has everything to do with it...). I saw that Auburn said somewhere that what matters here is seelie/adaptiveness vs unseelie/directiveness. But now I am getting into another subject - although, as my point is, emotions and physical sensing is interwoven, so being sensitive to bodily felt emotions or not must imply considerations about both the attitudes and S and F. I tend though to think that it to some degree transcends type (because of the exceptions to whatever rule)
@animal - I once wrote how I felt about the Si description (the old forum, just after I had been typed). Later Auburn made it clear that part of Si I could identify very much with, but as I wrote it was a Si that was in service of Ti and Ne (I can be in total agreement with my Si-lead friend about most subjects, but the big difference is that I can wallow in esoteric, mystical, religious, translogic things, and he couldnt care less about these things. But I can very easily agree with his reasons to refute it all). I look forward to see more about Auburns ideas on how functions appear depending on their position in the stack.
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?
@animal It's been a while since I read the Si profile, but from what I recall there was some things I felt should be changed--at least based on my own experience.
Unfortunately, though, I haven't had time to participate lately, and I don't have time to write much right now. But if I can, I'll see if I get a chance to look over the profile and say some things. From what I remember, the biggest things that I experienced differently than what was described were:
--Compartmentalization or modularity: For a large part I relate to the part about Si being fairly context-specific, i.e. that each bit of information has its certain location within the worldview-tapestry (as opposed to Ni, where bits of information are more abstract and so might pop up all over the place). But I don't experience that there are boundaries between where one piece of information ends and another begins. So to me the Si tapestry doesn't feel like a bunch of discrete modules, it feels more like different-colored fuzzy splatters that blend & blur together near their edges. i.e. if a red splatter is over here, and a blue one is over there, of course there's going to be some purple in between them (Sometime I'll try to explain what I mean a bit more clearly).
--The Si myth: Again I'd have to look back at it. From what I remember there were some strong parts. But the more I've thought about it, I think I almost experience the Si myth as something like a sense of how I'm rooted in the evolutionary past and/or interconnected with the part of the earth I inhabit. Or something like that. I didn't relate much to the parts about ritual, dogma, etc. I know the entire myths can be a bit slippery though.
--Collections: I collected some things as a kid...but in general, I accumulate things more than I collect them. I'm not that deliberate about it, don't curate things, and I've learned not to be too sentimentally attached to anything because otherwise I'll probably lose it sooner or later.
--Connection of Si (and probably Pi more generally) with senses other than sight: The topic of this thread, and a horse I've already flogged to death in the past.
--From what I remember there were some parts of the Ni profile I related to a lot, which made me wonder if some of it might be more general Pi stuff. For example the part about metaphors and visual aphorisms.
Maybe there are a few more things I'm forgetting...I'll have to look back over it and think about it some more.
@sekundaer Good. But maybe I didn't mentally draw the Venn diagram correctly for physical, emotional, etc., so I will try here to clarify. I don't mean that my emotions are not experienced physically (as in bodily). I cannot claim that I experience anything *not* through my body. Because, I mean, well, it is my body, for as long as I'm alive. Just that, some sensations are physiological, without an emotional component. For example, I notice I feel cold, and that I have goosebumps. Or that I feel like I'm running a fever (I'm not right now!) and my face feels flushed. Or that I'm hungry. However, physical sensations can also be caused by "purely emotional" reasons. That doesn't mean not physical, just that, for example: Someone makes a joke about me and my crush, and my face gets flushed, etc. That's what I meant by that. And other occasions can be confusing or misleading combinations. Such as someone with CPTSD who believes themselves to be hungry, and then they realize that it might actually be an emotional flashback causing inner emotional emptiness to be felt in the stomach area. Or something like "broken heart syndrome". I hope that makes sense. (I could go on, but the language I would use to try to express it would likely end up meaning different things to Ti vs Fi users.)
I don't know a whole lot about the rest of the stuff. But re: Si (I know this is an Si thread, anyhow), I tend to associate to it the same as you, with impressions of objects outside of the self, which are "dry" as in not emotional--"factual" and only subjective as far as the limitations of the individual human's memory/"archive".
I would also look forward to seeing something on how functions show up depending on their position in the stack. Perhaps you relate to feeling like high Si users take Si much more seriously than you; that although you can use it pretty well, it's just in service of your higher functions? That's how I feel (or used to, if I don't have Si). It could also be beyond type, too; like, anyone can be highly in touch with their body, or have a good memory, and there are techniques to get better at these, that anyone can learn and develop. I could also see being in touch with the body as Se, come to think of it, too.
@Janie - I just want to say that its very clear what you wrote, and I havent replied because I wanted to contribute with something that has to do with Si, and since the bodily sensed emotions is probably a dead end, I have nothing meaningful to write, other than thanks for your comments. BTW, I am not so sure I wouldnt be able to understand your Fi-language if you went on where you stopped. All in all I am a bad representative of my type, I find myself at home in Ti, but not as not-Fi, and also as Si, but not as in not-Ni. But definitely as not-Se!
@sekundaer thanks. Maybe at some point we will know whether being in touch with what goes on in one's body (and if that includes emotionally as well as non-emotionally) is a part of Si or not. I suppose it might depend on the system; in Socionics it seems to, more than in CT--which is one of the reasons I always get classed as a Delta in that system.
TBH, you may very well understand what I would say about Fi and how it differs from Ti--if only I wouldn't be too lazy to express it the best I can. Interestingly, however, as that topic belongs in another thread, such thread just got some activity and I replied to it. I don't know if you've read through the "[Ji] Three TiNe talking *about* their feelings?" thread, but pretty much all I have to say about it, I've added over there. 🙂