Directed psychic energy - or why Jungian type exists

[fluffy]

So the thing about type is that your type has energy going in a certain direction.

Take this as an exercise if you will, where do you put your attention, where does your mind go when occupied with anything.

Are you focusing internally or externally.

Are you making decisions about inside or outside things. Or are you just observing them.

Are these decisions about good or bad of the affair state or about acting on something and or resolving some understanding.

Are the observations you make about stimuli (body or world) or abstract realization / insights.

-

This is how it works with me:

I am always in a state of internal observation of the unconscious. That is I wait for ideas to enter the head space. Sometimes I stare into space.

I look at the world and think what to do.
Again if I don't know I stare at the problem.

I can feel good or bad about what to do,
about the way things are, about anything, but I am always involved with it in some way.

Normally I don't see well, but when I do there is an extreme amount of details. The energy flows through me like a translucent crystal.

In the reverse order:

People can feel energy not flowing through them but more like a glow toy, radiate from inside.

Make decisions objectively by how others feel and be detached from them.

Hold a thought in the head and manipulate it without losing track of the loose ends, seeing it from all sides.

Observe the world and realize many potentialities in the environment itself.

-

These are not traits per say. A trait can be asymmetrical and is a fix non moving part. Type can be flowing into you or be generated from inside you. So the unconscious is always generating things for me, ideas I must be quiet for them to come to me. Others the ideas go into them from the outside world itself.

Thinking also is about, for me, making something. The other way is generating more and more structures of thought. It can make things but is more than anything putting it together in the head first. Manipulating all the parts there. I cannot, I must draw it or intuited it. I scribble and write notes, nothing fleshed out before hand.

The flow then in the stimuli like music needs to be loud or feel loud. I get feeling from music but I like the chills and vibrancy of it. I rarely think of the words or sing along. It's the rhythm that matters. I don't feel my heart beat or my breath or the blood flow. That's the opposite of what I do. I am not body aware. I am tying but I seem to feel more translucent to them.

The detachment part where people can see this or that event and not feel much is not me. I feel attached to many things. I cannot watch some shows because of it.

 

[fractalwalrus]

So the thing about type is that your type has energy going in a certain direction.

Take this as an exercise if you will, where do you put your attention, where does your mind go when occupied with anything.

Are you focusing internally or externally.

Are you making decisions about inside or outside things. Or are you just observing them.

Are these decisions about good or bad of the affair state or about acting on something and or resolving some understanding.

Are the observations you make about stimuli (body or world) or abstract realization / insights.

-

This is how it works with me:

I am always in a state of internal observation of the unconscious. That is I wait for ideas to enter the head space. Sometimes I stare into space.

I look at the world and think what to do.
Again if I don't know I stare at the problem.

I can feel good or bad about what to do,
about the way things are, about anything, but I am always involved with it in some way.

Normally I don't see well, but when I do there is an extreme amount of details. The energy flows through me like a translucent crystal.

In the reverse order:

People can feel energy not flowing through them but more like a glow toy, radiate from inside.

Make decisions objectively by how others feel and be detached from them.

Hold a thought in the head and manipulate it without losing track of the loose ends, seeing it from all sides.

Observe the world and realize many potentialities in the environment itself.

-

These are not traits per say. A trait can be asymmetrical and is a fix non moving part. Type can be flowing into you or be generated from inside you. So the unconscious is always generating things for me, ideas I must be quiet for them to come to me. Others the ideas go into them from the outside world itself.

Thinking also is about, for me, making something. The other way is generating more and more structures of thought. It can make things but is more than anything putting it together in the head first. Manipulating all the parts there. I cannot, I must draw it or intuited it. I scribble and write notes, nothing fleshed out before hand.

The flow then in the stimuli like music needs to be loud or feel loud. I get feeling from music but I like the chills and vibrancy of it. I rarely think of the words or sing along. It's the rhythm that matters. I don't feel my heart beat or my breath or the blood flow. That's the opposite of what I do. I am not body aware. I am tying but I seem to feel more translucent to them.

The detachment part where people can see this or that event and not feel much is not me. I feel attached to many things. I cannot watch some shows because of it.

Here's the issue that I see with how certain iterations of the theory are presented. How can someone create anything from within, without having a reference point from without? I brought up the philosophical assumptions underlying MBTI in @BurnedOut 's thread on the topic, but can you even prove that there is a subjective and objective world that are separate in the first place? That being said, when one looks deeper into the definitions of the functions, one can see distinctions. Take, for example, Ti vs Te. If Ti is concerned with logical consistency and Te with logical efficiency, I can see how those things can be distinct. It's kind of like an "I think therefore I am, " vs a "How can I game this to get the best outcome?" Well, where does one get the information necessary to determine the best outcome? Usually, empiricism and past experiences of whatt makes something efficient. Perhaps it is a matter of deductive vs inductive reasoning, though the two can be related.

 

[fluffy]

Here's the issue that I see with how certain iterations of the theory are presented. How can someone create anything from within, without having a reference point from without? I brought up the philosophical assumptions underlying MBTI in @BurnedOut 's thread on the topic, but can you even prove that there is a subjective and objective world that are separate in the first place?

It is not that subjective and objective are separate. It is about where you are going in relationship to them. We have two ways of judging and two ways of perceiving. All four have a strength of going inside or outside orientation. Thinking can be weaker outside than inside or weaker inside than outside.

Thinking as would be has two directions. The one where you are in constant feedback with the environment and the other where you have an internal feedback process going on within. The first cannot immediately disconnect from what it is doing well the second can disconnect and go deeper and deeper into thought. There is a tendency to do one or the other. Interacting with the world or just with yourself.

There may be what Jung called the pure thinking type but that type is doing something different than what MBTI is presenting. As I have had time to think more by myself I spent less time in the feedback loop with the environment. But I cannot think as deep as an introverted thinker can.

This is what I believe happens to all the rest as well. S N and F - a orientation weaker in the direction for subjective or objective or a pure type.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Here's the issue that I see with how certain iterations of the theory are presented. How can someone create anything from within, without having a reference point from without? I brought up the philosophical assumptions underlying MBTI in @BurnedOut 's thread on the topic, but can you even prove that there is a subjective and objective world that are separate in the first place?

It is not that subjective and objective are separate. It is about where you are going in relationship to them. We have two ways of judging and two ways of perceiving. All four have a strength of going inside or outside orientation. Thinking can be weaker outside than inside or weaker inside than outside.

Thinking as would be has two directions. The one where you are in constant feedback with the environment and the other where you have an internal feedback process going on within. The first cannot immediately disconnect from what it is doing well the second can disconnect and go deeper and deeper into thought. There is a tendency to do one or the other. Interacting with the world or just with yourself.

There may be what Jung called the pure thinking type but that type is doing something different than what MBTI is presenting. As I have had time to think more by myself I spent less time in the feedback loop with the environment. But I cannot think as deep as an introverted thinker can.

This is what I believe happens to all the rest as well. S N and F - a orientation weaker in the direction for subjective or objective or a pure type.

This "orientation" you speak of is how I remember MBTI and, more specifically, Jung referencing the topic. Lines can get blurry, however, since inner directed thought would still have had to be fueled by external objects at some point in time. However, when you say that extroverted thinking is driven by external objects in the moment (which is how I recall it as working as well), it becomes more distinctive.