No, the inferior/tertiary functions are in the subconscious (ID) the further down the chain you go. Therefore the 'Sensing function' for an intuitive is 'primal', is instinctive and subconscious. Moreover, the conscious ego 'Intuitive function' is complex, elaborate and in the conscious foreground. The opposite is true for a Sensing dominant.
The information 'type' dealt with from Intuition is the management of ideas, the information 'type' dealt with from Sensing is the management of sensory information.
Thanks. If I need to break out another thread let me know because I'm having some difficulty with this. Okay, so consciousness, in this context, could be compared to a gradient, on one end the conscious and the other end the subconscious. The sensor's sensing function in the conscious and the intuition in the subconscious. This is reversed for the intuitive.
Here is the issue I'm having. These are perception functions so I assume this is the means by which we become aware of our internal and external environment. Do I misunderstand what is meant by perception in this context?
I can understand the intuitive perceiving ideas about their internal environment directly, since ideas spontaneously arise but, I can't comprehend how they would perceive ideas about the external environment without first processing sensory data. I understand that intuitives are more comfortable with dealing with abstractions of the environment but underlying that must be the raw sensory data even if it is combined with their own internal ideas so rapidly not to be easily noticeable. This leads me to think that there must be some pathway or level of communication between the sensing and the intuition which for some reason is preferred by the intuitive. Is it that these functions are simply acting in concert and so we have a difficulty defining where one starts and one ends? If that is the case then how can we even begin to think about them individually? If they are so intertwined then the examples must become muddled by the influence of the other functions.
On the other hand, an argument could be made that all understanding of at least the physical world is a form of abstraction and that we are incapable of comprehending anything but an abstracted form regardless of being a sensor or an intuitive, in which case the difference between sensors and intuitives would be the degree to which they are comfortable with abstraction. I suppose the intuitive having their intuition seated in the conscious means that they naturally delve into deeper layers of abstraction than the sensor who has more comfort with lower levels of abstraction. I just have a really difficult time accepting that sensors are dealing with raw data and if they are not, what is it then? Even the consideration of an object requires abstraction. Physics teaches us that the physical world we see around us, is in some sense an illusion and not as "solid" as we perceive it to be. Where do you draw the line and say this is sensory perception and this is intuitive perception in that context? In one instance, could you say a sensor names an object and tends to accept it as it is named? (Even an object and its naming is an idea. We do not perceive the true nature of the object.) While the intuitive naturally adds layers of abstraction and symbolism to the object. The problem is, that I think everyone does this to varying degrees. I'm terribly confused. Am I just barking up the entirely wrong tree and mixing in ideas from unrelated disciplines?
What I really should have asked is what is the definition of sensory information versus intuitive information? I have even noticed that we can name intuitive information as ideas. What is the corresponding name for sensory information?
