Personality Cafe banner
61 - 80 of 105 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
@Neverontime, I see that your biggest problem is directed toward the use of will in those definitions, so I will present this to make it much more clearer how the will operates in an extravert in contrast to an introvert:

Extraversion:


Introversion:



As we can see abovez the extravert is characteristic of letting nature "sway" them, while the introvert bestows their own value on the object of their free choice. Nevermind the fact that he again is using abstraction to identify the introvert, which by the way he never once uses abstraction to describe an extravert except to state that the most abstract an extravert could get would still never leave their concrete reality, therefore it is still representable instead of irrepresentsble, and in this case it is still a form of concretism more so than abstraction:
Hmmm... A possible counterpoint to this is in the definition of Extraversion:

Extraversion is active when it is intentional, and passive when the object compels it, i.e., when the object attracts the subject's interest of its own accord, even against his will.
* emphasis his
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
Hmmm... A possible counterpoint to this is in the definition of Extraversion:



* emphasis his
I think we should look at the quote in its context:

In a sense, therefore, extraversion is a transfer of interest from subject to object. If it is an extraversion of thinking, the subject thinks himself into the object; if an extraversion of feeling, he feels himself into it. In extraversion there is a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object. Extraversion is active when it is intentional, and passive when the object compels it, i.e., when the object attracts the subject’s interest of its own accord, even against his will. When extraversion is habitual, we speak of the extraverted type (q.v.).
The bold is the sentence right before what you quoted, and it states that the object is still the one doing the determining, not the individual. I would like to also point out the difference between the types and the concepts. Extraversion isn't the same as the extraverted type, therefore extraversion is determined by the object, whether intentional (active) or not intentional (passive). This is shown in a clearer context here:

It will be seen from the arguments which follow that the “less impassioned and more active” type describes the extravert, and the “more impassioned and less active” type the introvert. Either can be active or inactive without changing his type, and for this reason the factor of activity should, in my opinion, be ruled out as a main characteristic. As a determinant of secondary importance, however, it still plays a role, since the whole nature of the extravert appears more mobile, more full of life and activity than that of the introvert. But this quality entirely depends on the phase in which the individual momentarily finds himself vis-à-vis the external world. An introvert in an extraverted phase appears active, while an extravert in an introverted phase appears passive. Activity itself, as a fundamental trait of character, can sometimes be introverted; it is then all directed inwards, developing a lively activity of thought or feeling behind an outward mask of profound repose. Or else it can be extraverted, showing itself a vigorous action while behind the scenes there stands a firm unmoved thought or untroubled feeling.
Here it is clear that the introvert possesses their extraversion in an active way, while the extravert possesses their introversion in a passive way. The clear thing that separates extraversion from introversion, is that extraversion whether intentional or not is determined by the object while introversion whether intentional or not is determined by the subject. Even the most active extraversion still follows its own principle of allowing the object to be the sole determinant while repressing the subjective side.
 

· Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
@PaladinX by concept I mean idea/value/perception, probably not the best word but all I could think of to represent all these.
@Shadow Logic

My biggest problem is the inconsistencies that arise when I try to apply Si to the original quote

The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.
Doing so contradicts these statements

The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one

Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.

In accordance with this conception, the process of the will would be an energic process that is released by conscious motivation. A psychic process, therefore, which is conditioned by unconscious motivation I would not include under the concept of the will.
He clearly states that only a differentiated function is capable of direction and an unconscious motivation, such as unconscious functions, would not be included under the concept of the will.

In the Sensation definition he states that abstract sensation is always associated with the will ie. with a sense of direction.

Therefore, abstract sensation must be differentiated sensation, otherwise it wouldn't be always associated with the will.

I'm not disputing that extraverted functions are tied to concrete ideas or concrete perceptions, or that Jung ever referred to them as concretistic and introverted functions as abstracting. I said that in that particular quote I believe he means differentiated sensation.
It doesn't matter if my understanding of his terms for will or abstract or concrete are all completely and totally arse about tit, it's all there in those quotes, in accordance with his own use of the terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinX

· Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
This typology thing needs a paradigm shift...*sigh*

I cannot wait for the day when people stop comparing functions which shouldn't be compared.
Why do people compare Se and Si? Is it because they both have the word "sensing" in it?
Didn't it occur to anyone that these functions are misnamed when you actually consider what role they play in the psyche?

And everyone just keeps repeating the same old meaningless lines..."Yeah, Se is sensing via the five senses and Si is abstract sensing..." - not
Ne is abstract sensing.
Se and Ne are the sensing functions, that's the filter through which information is perceived and absorbed.
Ni and Si are the functions for sifting information.
Ti and Fi are for classifying, grouping and labelling the Ni/Si content.
After all of these processes one has a product, a thought which one conveys via Fe or Te.

People put their awareness unequally on the four steps of the sequence. One puts more emphasis on gathering information, the other on its delivery and so on. Thus the dominant function emerges, the process of which our conscious mind is the most aware of, that is. Consequently we can then differentiate cognitive types.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
@PaladinX by concept I mean idea/value/perception, probably not the best word but all I could think of to represent all these.

@Shadow Logic

My biggest problem is the inconsistencies that arise when I try to apply Si to the original quote



Doing so contradicts these statements



He clearly states that only a differentiated function is capable of direction and an unconscious motivation, such as unconscious functions, would not be included under the concept of the will.

In the Sensation definition he states that abstract sensation is always associated with the will ie. with a sense of direction.

Therefore, abstract sensation must be differentiated sensation, otherwise it wouldn't be always associated with the will.

I'm not disputing that extraverted functions are tied to concrete ideas or concrete perceptions, or that Jung ever referred to them as concretistic and introverted functions as abstracting. I said that in that particular quote I believe he means differentiated sensation.
It doesn't matter if my understanding of his terms for will or abstract or concrete are all completely and totally arse about tit, it's all there in those quotes, in accordance with his own use of the terms.
Its not that extraverted functions are tied to concrete things, but they are specifically defined as concrete functions and never once in any where in psychological are the extraverted functions defined as abstract nor are differentiated functions ever described as abstracted. I think you are twisting "associated with the will" and "directed by the will" to mean one in the same when they are clearly not. Not only that but Jung specifically states that's concrete sensation is what he was first talking about when first defining what sensation is:

47. SENSATION. I regard sensation as one of the basic psychological functions (q.v.). Wundt likewise reckons it among the elementary psychic phenomena. 77 Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus. It is, therefore, identical with perception. Sensation must be strictly distinguished from feeling (q.v.), since the latter is an entirely different process, although it may associate itself with sensation as “feeling-tone.” Sensation is related not only to external stimuli but to inner ones, i.e., to changes in the internal organic processes. [793] Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense perception— perception mediated by the sense organs and “body-senses” (kinaesthetic, vasomotor sensation, etc.). It is, on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect (q.v.). Because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of physiological impulses. It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function. [794] A distinction must be made between sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation and abstract (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements.
He even goes on to separate sensation from feeling to describe specifically what sensation is by itself, and then states that concrete sensation is that, that it is the function that mediates perception between sense organs and bodily senses. He defined an abstracted function clearly, and went on to define a differentiated function separately, there is a reason for that, so people wouldn't confuse them.

I had a much longer post with references from other chapters to prove my point but I just saw it as a waste of time and pointless, so I'm just going to say that your interpretation doesn't hold up to the book as a whole, nor does it hold up to how all the concepts are defined, nor is it consistent with the definition at hand that we are discussing, And I think you are holding that "will" statement to strongly that its warping your whole interpretation instead of seeing if your interpretation holds up. Nevermind the fact that this is Jung's definition section, so its even more unlikely that he would use abstraction in a way that he never once used it at all in the whole book, not even in its own definition, but all of a sudden he wants to use it for sensation, it just doesn't hold up. I'm going to just assume that we will have to agree to disagree, because an agreement on terms just seems unlikely at this point.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
@Shadow Logic fair enough. I've not read the rest of his book so I could have misinterpreted this quote.

Hopefully @reckful might explain to me what Jung means here.
You are correct and Shadow Logic is confused, and I've corrected him before, but it doesn't seem to have done much good.

In the spoiler is a recycled post from mid-December, but I'm not hopeful that it's going to convince Shadow Logic.

 
Using Jung's example of what an abstract sensation is:

The concrete sensation of a flower, for instance, transmits not only the perception of the flower itself, but also an image of the stem, leaves, habitat, etc. It is also directly mingled with the feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of it provokes, or with the scent-perceptions simultaneously excited, or with thoughts concerning its botanical classification.

Abstract sensation, on the other hand, immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, as for instance its brilliant redness, and makes it the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all the other admixtures alluded to above.
An abstraction, like the above example, would not necessarily mean the same thing to the average person as having an interest in abstract topics.
As I noted in post 220 (replying to Shadow Logic):

Jung explains that "abstraction," in its most general sense, means "the drawing out or singling out of a content ... from a context made up of other elements." But then he goes on to explain that he uses "abstraction" in two more specific ways in Psychological Types. And the first kind of abstraction that he talks about is irrelevant to this discussion, since it involves the differentiation of a function that happens when it's separated from the other functions in the unconscious and brought up into consciousness (e.g., to be someone's dominant function).
The "concrete sensation" and "abstract sensation" Jung is describing in that passage you quoted relate to that first definition of concrete/abstract — where functions are "concrete" (and mixed with the other unconscious functions) in their unconscious form and become "abstract" when they're differentiated and brought up into consciousness. Immediately before the sentences you quoted, Jung says:

Jung said:
Concrete sensation never appears in "pure" form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed "aesthetic" in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation.
If you take Jung to be talking about concrete/abstract in the second sense (the one we've been talking about in this thread), then Jung would be saying that extraverted sensation "is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts," and that introverted sensation is always a "differentiated kind of perception" — and neither of those statements is consistent with Jung's view of Se and Si.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
@reckful, before I respond to your post I just have one question: Are you stating that sensous sensation is an undifferentiated function, as described below?:

As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, 34 i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function. Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing), and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love. To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions. Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
@reckful, before I respond to your post I just have one question: Are you stating that sensous sensation is an undifferentiated function, as described below?:
For ease of reference, here's the full paragraph under discussion:

Jung said:
A distinction must be made between sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation and abstract (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. Concrete sensation never appears in 'pure' form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed 'aesthetic' in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation. The concrete sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. Abstract sensation is found chiefly among artists. Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.
As previously explained, the "sensuous or concrete sensation" that he refers to in the first sentence is undifferentiated sensation, which he contrasts with "abstract" sensation — by which he means, in the context of that sentence (and paragraph), differentiated sensation (whether introverted or extraverted).

Both Se and Si, in their differentiated form (as in an Se-dom or Si-dom) — like every function in its differentiated form — are "associated with the will" and "separated from the other psychic elements." And both Se and Si, in their undifferentiated form (as in an Ni-dom or Ne-dom) — like every function in its undifferentiated form — are "reactive" (rather than "associated with the will") and mixed up in the unconscious with "the other psychic elements" (e.g., "feelings" and "thoughts" in the case of undifferentiated sensation).

So it makes no sense — and is emphatically inconsistent with Jung's many descriptions of the ways functions differ in their differentiated and undifferentiated states — to interpret the "abstract" and "concrete" forms of sensation that Jung is discussing in that paragraph to mean introverted and extraverted sensation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
For ease of reference, here's the full paragraph that you and @Neverontime have been debating (from the Sensation definition):



As previously explained, the "sensuous or concrete sensation" that he refers to in the first sentence is undifferentiated sensation, which he contrasts with "abstract" sensation — by which he means, in the context of that sentence (and paragraph), differentiated sensation (whether introverted or extraverted).

Both Se and Si, in their differentiated form (as in an Se-dom or Si-dom) — like every function in its differentiated form — are "associated with the will." And both Se and Si, in their undifferentiated form (as in an Ni-dom or Ne-dom) — like every function in its undifferentiated form — are mixed up in the unconscious with "the other psychic elements" (e.g., "feelings" and "thoughts" in the case of undifferentiated sensation).

So it makes no sense — and is emphatically inconsistent with Jung's many descriptions of the ways functions differ in their differentiated and undifferentiated states — to interpret the "abstract" and "concrete" forms of sensation that Jung is discussing in that paragraph to mean introverted and extraverted sensation.
Good, that's what I expected of you. Now I'm going to present to you what sensuousness really means by Jung, which differs greatly from your subjective interpretation:

One may have already begun to wonder whether by “sensationalism” James merely meant an extreme empiricism, i.e., an intellectual sensationalism as surmised above, or whether by “sensationalistic” he really meant “sensuous”— the quality pertaining to sensation as a function quite apart from the intellect. By “pertaining to sensation” I mean true sensuousness, not in the vulgar sense of voluptas, but a psychological attitude in which the orienting and determining factor is not so much the empathized object as the mere fact of sensory excitation. This attitude might also be described as reflexive, since the whole mentality depends on and culminates in sense-impressions. The object is neither cognized abstractly nor empathized, but exerts an effect by its very nature and existence, the subject being oriented exclusively by sense-impressions excited by the object.
So sensuousness to Jung is that who is guided by sense impressions excited by the object and is oriented by the mere fact of sensory experience which coincides with Jung's extraverted sensation description:

As sensation is chiefly conditioned by the object, those objects that excite the strongest sensations will be decisive for the individual’s psychology. The result is a strong sensuous tie to the object. Sensation is therefore a vital function equipped with the strongest vital instinct. Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations, and, so far as lies within the power of sensation, they are fully accepted into consciousness whether they are compatible with rational judgments or not. The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation produced by their objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes which excite any sensations at all make their appearance in consciousness.
So far Jung is pretty consistent and you on the other hand are not consistent I'm saying that sensuous sensation is an undifferentiated function. I mean I thought it was pretty obvious that a sensation focused on sensuous properties, hence the name sensous sensation, would not be referencing to an undifferentiated sensation which would negate its own properties, which obvioisly sensous sensation doesn't do, nor was ever refered too. I don't even care about your reasoning, what I care about is your proof, so if you have something to say to counter, I expect a reference with your response.

Back on topic though, here's so more quotes about sensous functions and abstract functions that you obvious either haven't read or skipped through like most people I come across:

One might speak in this case of a continual unconscious abstraction which “depsychizes” the object. All abstraction has this effect: it kills the independent activity of the object in so far as this is magically related to the psyche of the subject. The abstracting type does it quite consciously, as a defence against the magical influence of the object. The inertness of objects also explains the trustful relationship of the empathetic type to the world; there is nothing that could exert a hostile influence or oppress him, since he alone gives the object life and soul, though to his conscious mind the converse would seem to be true. For the abstracting type, on the other hand, the world is filled with potent and dangerous objects that inspire him with fear and a consciousness of his own impotence; he withdraws from any too intimate contact with the world, in order to weave those thoughts and formulas with which he hopes to gain the upper hand.
All abstractions kills the independent activity of the object in relation to the psyche of the individual. This is introversion, and not extraversion since extraversion delves into the object and never kills its relation to it which coincides with this:

For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido (v. Introversion). [680] I call an attitude (q.v.) abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates (q.v.) a portion of the object, felt to be essential, to abstract contents already constellated in the subject. The more abstract a content is, the more it is irrepresentable. I subscribe to Kant’s view that a concept gets more abstract “the more the differences of things are left out of it,” 4 in the sense that abstraction at its highest level detaches itself absolutely from the object, thereby attaining the extreme limit of irrepresentability.
BTW, let me point out that Jung never once stated that a differentiated function was an abstracted one, but he did say that abstraction is an introverted movement of libido focused on devaluing the object. Which is exactly what he explains when describing abstracted sensation, when the abstract sensor forgoes the object just to abstract (extract) the one most noticeable sensous property of the flower, its brilliant redness. He obviously stated this is solely an introverted process, not an extraverted one, hence why he called it an introverted attitude and not an extraverted one, but yet you have problems with reading comprehension it seems. Let's continue though:

.
One might speak in this case of a continual unconscious abstraction which “depsychizes” the object. All abstraction has this effect: it kills the independent activity of the object in so far as this is magically related to the psyche of the subject. The abstracting type does it quite consciously, as a defence against the magical influence of the object. The inertness of objects also explains the trustful relationship of the empathetic type to the world; there is nothing that could exert a hostile influence or oppress him, since he alone gives the object life and soul, though to his conscious mind the converse would seem to be true. For the abstracting type, on the other hand, the world is filled with potent and dangerous objects that inspire him with fear and a consciousness of his own impotence; he withdraws from any too intimate contact with the world, in order to weave those thoughts and formulas with which he hopes to gain the upper hand.
Using this quote again to point out a different fact, all abstract types devalue the object quite consciously. This is referencing to the association of the will, it is associated to the will through the use of having conscious control in abstracting content away whereas concretism and extraversion are both reactive to outside data, which means not being associated with the will. This does not discount that both extraversion and introversion are directed by the will when differentiated, but only one is associated by the will when it is using its process. This is the difference between differentiation and abstraction, which Jung tried to show, and you clearly failed to understand and comprehend:

Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. Instead of immediately discharging his reactions he prefers to elaborate them inwardly for a long time before finally coming out with the finished product. His constant endeavour is to strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships.
This right here shows more exactly what Jung meant when he talked about abstract sensation and presented its example, that the introvert, not the extravert, will strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships, hence the "pure" form statement that concrete extraverted functions lack but abstract introverted functions are wholly defined by:

1. ABSTRACTION, as the word itself indicates, is the drawing out or singling out of a content (a meaning, a general characteristic, etc.) from a context made up of other elements whose combination into a whole is something unique or individual and therefore cannot be compared with anything else. Singularity, uniqueness, and incomparability are obstacles to cognition; hence the other elements associated with a content that is felt to be the essential one are bound to appear irrelevant. [677] Abstraction, therefore, is a form of mental activity that frees this content from its association with the irrelevant elements by distinguishing it from them or, in other words, differentiating it (v. Differentiation). In its wider sense, everything is abstract that is separated from its association with elements that are felt to have no relevance to its meaning.
Which differs greatly from the extravert. The last point I have to make which goes against your subjective interpretation, is that you are wrong that extraversion including concrete/sensuous sensation doesn't mix in other elements which is proven by Jung below:

The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects. For the same reason these contents will have undergone little elaboration and are therefore easily understood; the quick succession of immediate reactions produces a series of images that show the public the path he has followed and the means by which he has attained his result.
The quick reactions of the extravert's will tie in worthless psychic contents to the object through projection, worthless being synanymous too irrelevant which would bring up the point of abstraction which strips away all of these worthless/irrelevant psychic content. This above quote proves wholeheartedly that Jung meant extraverted sensation when he was talking about sensuous/concrete sensation:

A distinction must be made between sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation and abstract (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. Concrete sensation never appears in “pure” form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed “aesthetic” in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation. The concrete sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. Abstract sensation is found chiefly among artists. Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.
So talking about being wrong, the only one between us two is you that is wrong which I have proven clearly with every quote I presented from Jung. All you did with your statement was prove to me that you have never read all of psychological types or else you wouldnt be subjectively interpreting the book so falsely or you suffer from reading comprehension problems which I always suspected of you.
@Neverontime, excuse my conversation with @reckful, but I advise you to read every quote I presented to him, and read it carefully and clearly because tpJung states exactly what he means. If you want more quotes to prove the point I will be happy to provide, because trust me I have so many quotes that refer directly to what we are discussing at my disposal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
You're in over your head, @Shadow Logic. And as I told @Neverontime, past experience has shown that trying to educate you is a waste of time. So I'm going to leave some of your latest post unaddressed. None of it undercuts anything I said in my previous post.

None of it.

You say this:

BTW, let me point out that Jung never once stated that a differentiated function was an abstracted one, but he did say that abstraction is an introverted movement of libido focused on devaluing the object.
Here come the relevant portions of Jung's definition of Abstraction, @Shadow Logic. Maybe have a cup of coffee first, because I've pointed this out to you before (in other threads), and it obviously failed to register. And @Neverontime also told you this in her first reply to you in this thread, although she didn't point you to the Abstraction definition.

Jung specifically notes that he uses "concrete" and "abstract" in two different ways, the first involving the undifferentiated and differentiated forms of the functions, and the second involving extraversion and introversion.

Are you ready? Here's Jung:

Jung said:
ABSTRACTION ... is the drawing out or singling out of a content (a meaning, a general characteristic, etc.) from a context made up of other elements whose combination into a whole is something unique or individual and therefore cannot be compared with anything else. Singularity, uniqueness and incomparability are obstacles to cognition; hence the other elements associated with a content that is felt to be the essential one are bound to appear irrelevant. ¶ Abstraction, therefore, is a form of mental activity that frees this content from its association with the irrelevant elements by distinguishing it from them or, in other words, differentiating it (v. Differentiation). ...

Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions (q.v.) in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition (qq. v.). Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values; similarly with sensation and intuition. Hence, not only are there abstract thoughts but also abstract feelings, the latter being defined by Sully as intellectual, aesthetic, and moral. To these Nahlowsky adds all religious feelings. Abstract feelings would, in my view, correspond to the 'higher' or 'ideal' feelings of Nahlowsky. I put abstract feelings on the same level as abstract thoughts. Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation (q.v.), and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition (v. Fantasy and Intuition).
So that's the first way he uses "concrete" and "abstract" — in connection with the difference between the undifferentiated form in which each function is found in the unconscious (where it's fused with the other functions) and the differentiated form that each function is capable of taking on if it's separated from the other functions and raised into consciousness (e.g., the differentiated Se of an Se-dom).

And then Jung goes on to say that he also uses "abstraction" in a second way:

Jung said:
In this work I also associate abstraction with the awareness of the psycho-energic process it involves. When I take an abstract attitude to an object, I do not allow the object to affect me in its totality. ... My aim is to disembarrass myself of the object as a singular and unique whole and to abstract only a portion of this whole. No doubt I am aware of the whole, but I do not immerse myself in this awareness; my interest does not flow into the whole, but draws back from it, pulling the abstracted portion into myself, into my conceptual world, which is already prepared or constellated for the purpose of abstracting a part of the object. ... 'Interest' I conceive as the energy or libido (q.v.) which I bestow on the object as a value, or which the object draws from me, maybe even against my will or unknown to myself. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido (v. Introversion).
Here's a passage for you to ponder from Jung's Se-dom description:

Jung said:
His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. Indeed, true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract his sensations may be.
The Se-dom never deviates from "his principle of concrete sensation" no matter how "abstract" his sensations may be (because he's "differentiated [them] to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity").

How can you possibly make sense of that sentence without understanding that the "concrete" that Jung is referring to is not the opposite of the "abstract" that Jung is referring to? The Se-dom's sensations are "concrete" in the sense of being extraverted (and I know you wouldn't disagree with me about that) but they're also likely to be quite "abstract" — abstract not in the sense of being introverted but in the sense (as Jung mentions earlier in the same sentence) of being "differentiated" from the other functions (and therefore aesthetically pure).

Most of the quotes in your latest post are quotes where Jung simply uses "concrete" and/or "abstract" only in the extraverted/introverted sense, and so what? I'd be the first to agree that he uses them in that sense much more often that in the undifferentiated/differentiated sense.

And your quote from the James chapter is irrelevant in two different senses. First, because Jung uses "sensuous" in a different way in that passage than in the "sensuous or concrete sensation" sentence (from the Sensation definition) we were discussing (and ditto for your next quote about the Se-dom's "sensuous tie" to the object); and second, because Jung goes on to say that he doesn't think the Jamesian philosophical duality under discussion at that point ("idealism" vs. "materialism") really corresponds well to Jung's E/I types.

The issue that you and @Neverontime were debating was: in which sense was he using the terms in that paragraph from his Sensation definition? And she and I have both pointed out to you why your interpretation doesn't work in the context of that paragraph, and your latest post just ducks that issue.

To revisit several sentences from that paragraph...

Jung said:
Concrete sensation never appears in 'pure' form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts.
Surely you don't disagree that Jung thought that an undifferentiated, unconscious function was typically fused with the other functions, while the essence of differentiation into consciousness involved the separation of the function from the other functions.

So if you assume "concrete sensation" means "extraverted sensation" in that sentence, what sense does it make? Why would Jung say that Se is "always mixed up" with "feelings" and "thoughts," whether it's differentiated or not?

Jung said:
Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed 'aesthetic' in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation.
Similarly, if you assume "abstract sensation" means "introverted sensation" in that sentence, what sense does it make? Why would Jung say that Si is a "differentiated kind of perception," detached "from all admixtures of thought and feeling," when there's no question that Jung thought that Si would be differentiated in an Si-dom and undifferentiated (and accordingly mixed up with T and F) in (for example) an Ne-dom?

Next point: The functions that Jung said were "associated with the will" were the differentiated functions, not the introverted functions, and the functions Jung said were reactive were the undifferentiated (unconscious) functions, not the extraverted functions. In his Differentiation definition, Jung explains:

Jung said:
Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.
And in Chapter 7, Jung explains:

Jung said:
The superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply "happen" to one.
So... honest to freaking God, Shadow Logic... what sense can it possibly make to interpret this sentence (from the paragraph you and @Neverontime have been debating)...

Jung said:
Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.
... to mean that Se (regardless of whether it's differentiated/conscious or undifferentiated/unconsciousness) is a "reactive" function, while Si (regardless of whether it's differentiated/conscious or undifferentiated/unconsciousness) is "always associated with the will, i.e., with a sense of direction"—??

I'll tell you how much sense that makes, Shadow Logic. It makes no sense.

The "concrete sensation" that Jung was characterizing as "reactive" was undifferentiated sensation (whether extraverted or introverted), and the "abstract sensation" that Jung was saying was "always associated with the will" was differentiated sensation (whether extraverted or introverted).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
Before I continue, are you saying that in this statement Jung is referring to an undifferentiated function:

.The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects. For the same reason these contents will have undergone little elaboration and are therefore easily understood; the quick succession of immediate reactions produces a series of images that show the public the path he has followed and the means by which he has attained his result.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Before I continue, are you saying that in this statement Jung is referring to an undifferentiated function:
Well, "projection" is a process that Jung generally associated with unconscious contents, but not always, and even in cases where unconscious contents are being projected, I don't know that it makes sense to say that a particular "function" would have to be involved.

So... no. Or rather, "not necessarily."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
^ Well, "projection" is a process that Jung generally associated with unconscious contents, but not always, and even in cases where unconscious contents are being projected, I don't know that it makes sense to say that a particular "function" would have to be involved.

So... no. Or rather, "not necessarily."
So you agree that the extravert "projects" valuable and worthless psychic content into the object, that the extravert will react with winsome manners as well as dour thoughts and affects?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object.Instead of immediately discharging his reactions he prefers to elaborate them inwardly for a long time before finally coming out with the finished product. His constant endeavour is to strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships.

This right here shows more exactly what Jung meant when he talked about abstract sensation and presented its example, that the introvert, not the extravert, will strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships, hence the "pure" form statement that concrete extraverted functions lack but abstract introverted functions are wholly defined by:
I have a question. If the subject at hand is extraverted sensing, why bring in extraverts as types? Don't extraverts include all EJs as well as EP? Doesn't that, for instance, include you, who are an Ne type, not Se?

It seems to me to quote a sentence that is talking about extraverted types, and then apply that to extraverted sensation, which is what it seems you are doing. (Sorry if I'm wrong, I read all these posts on my tiny phone screen...)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
I have a question. If the subject at hand is extraverted sensing, why bring in extraverts as types? Don't extraverts include all EJs as well as EP? Doesn't that, for instance, include you, who are an Ne type, not Se?

It seems to me to quote a sentence that is talking about extraverted types, and then apply that to extraverted sensation, which is what it seems you are doing. (Sorry if I'm wrong, I read all these posts on my tiny phone screen...)
The discussion is focused on concretism as synanymous to extraversion, especially in the context of concrete sensation as defined in the definition of sensation. To show that concrete is related to extraversion, while also showing that abstraction is related to introversion I have to present descriptions of extraversion and introversion to prove the point I'm trying to make. If Jung says that extraverted functions are immediately reactive to external data then that would apply to all extraverted functions, if Jung says that the extravert is immediately reactive to external them that would apply to all extraverts. So my argument focuses on first showing what separates extraversion from introversion, so we can understand first what makes up extraverted functions in contrast to introverted ones, preventing us from discarding any information that is attributed to all extraverted or introverted functions. Once we can understand what are the constant properties of extraversion and introversion, then it makes it easier to identify extraversion and introversion within other concepts such as concretism and abstraction.

Pretty much I have a principle of staying consistent with the source at hand to clearly see how the whole sources information interrelates with each other. To discuss about the two different attitudes of sensation, I find it best to define the the two different attitudes separate from sensation, so we know what are the properties and therefore the rules the come with those attitudes that must be applied to all the functions that share those attitudes. Knowing the properties and rules of the concepts presented by Jung helps box in our conversation/discussion preventing subjective interpretations from misconstruing the concepts as defined by Jung.

I also present it to show exactly where my reason derives from because I think it is an unintellible act to declare a statement/conclusion without referencing or explaining exactly where my reason is derived. Not only does it help others to understand my position, but it also gives others references that they may not have known about before therefore increasing the Jungian knowledge of those who lack it to that degree.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
The discussion is focused on concretism as synanymous to extraversion, especially in the context of concrete sensation as defined in the definition of sensation. To show that concrete is related to extraversion, while also showing that abstraction is related to introversion I have to present descriptions of extraversion and introversion to prove the point I'm trying to make. If Jung says that extraverted functions are immediately reactive to external data then that would apply to all extraverted functions, if Jung says that the extravert is immediately reactive to external them that would apply to all extraverts. So my argument focuses on first showing what separates extraversion from introversion, so we can understand first what makes up extraverted functions in contrast to introverted ones, preventing us from discarding any information that is attributed to all extraverted or introverted functions. Once we can understand what are the constant properties of extraversion and introversion, then it makes it easier to identify extraversion and introversion within other concepts such as concretism and abstraction.

Pretty much I have a principle of staying consistent with the source at hand to clearly see how the whole sources information interrelates with each other. To discuss about the two different attitudes of sensation, I find it best to define the the two different attitudes separate from sensation, so we know what are the properties and therefore the rules the come with those attitudes that must be applied to all the functions that share those attitudes. Knowing the properties and rules of the concepts presented by Jung helps box in our conversation/discussion preventing subjective interpretations from misconstruing the concepts as defined by Jung.

I also present it to show exactly where my reason derives from because I think it is an unintellible act to declare a statement/conclusion without referencing or explaining exactly where my reason is derived. Not only does it help others to understand my position, but it also gives others references that they may not have known about before therefore increasing the Jungian knowledge of those who lack it to that degree.

Thanks! You may not realize this, but most people trying to follow any discussion on this forum lose track of all the threads over time, so it gets confusing to have random quotes, and and ripostes across multiple pages. I'd have to go back several pages to pick things up again. So I appreciate your taking the time to summarize/clarify for me. (I'm no Ne type, so I find it hard to follow where you are going with all your threads sometimes.) :)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
Thanks! You may not realize this, but most people trying to follow any discussion on this forum lose track of all the threads over time, so it gets confusing to have random quotes, and and ripostes across multiple pages. I'd have to go back several pages to pick things up again. So I appreciate your taking the time to summarize/clarify for me. (I'm no Ne type, so I find it hard to follow where you are going with all your threads sometimes.) :)
No problem, and I've been told its hard to follow where I'm going from a few others on this forum. For the most part I only care about correcting certain misinterpretations of the cognitive functions most of the time I post, other times I'm focused on clarify what a cognitive function is, or how to identify it. When I use quotes they are mostly for clarification or correction, so mainly in response to the one I'm in discussion with to reference them to the source to be more precise.

I'm glad I got to clarify it for you though.
 
61 - 80 of 105 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top