# Thread: The Relief Function -or- Why no one ever thinks or feels anything without one.

1. ## The Relief Function -or- Why no one ever thinks or feels anything without one.

The top two functions are always a perception and a judgment function. Perception does nothing at all without a focusing principle, the judgment function. The judgment function rejects or promotes among the perceptions encountered, and the two top functions cycle, batting perception and conclusion back at one another. Why do they keep cycling? Because every so often the tertiary function breaks the cycle by introducing a foreign element, a wholly different type of either perception or judgment, something that has been simmering all along following the beat of the dominant/auxiliary cycle.

Now, I don't know why exactly, but it seems to me the dominant/auxiliary cycle would simply wind down to a halt after some time if there were not this third element introduced, a wildcard perspective on the contents of that cycle.

If this is true, then which tertiary functions go with which dominant/auxiliary functions are just as ordained as the dominant and auxiliary themselves.

Yea or Nay?

2. Originally Posted by Kalach
Now, I don't know why exactly, but it seems to me the dominant/auxiliary cycle would simply wind down to a halt after some time if there were not this third element introduced, a wildcard perspective on the contents of that cycle.
So the tertiary is some kind of a motivator.

Originally Posted by Kalach
If this is true, then which tertiary functions go with which dominant/auxiliary functions are just as ordained as the dominant and auxiliary themselves.
I dont understand your wording :p

3. Are you saying that if you were the puck on an air hockey table, the dominant and auxiliary functions would be the 2 goals, and the tertiary function would be the air that flows on the surface allowing the puck to glide back and fourth?

4. Most models I've come to understand define the tertiary function as part of a cycle or being more prone to cyclic motion between function than the auxiliary or inferior. It is the same on the introversion/extraversion scale as the dominant and thus doesn't allow for the person to expand beyond their preferred realm.

To answer Tesla's analogy, I think it would be more fitting to imagine the tertiary as the hand that reaches for the puck when it's out of reach for both people. (if we were to fit it to Kalach's idea, that is)

5. oy vey...

6. I don't know what I mean exactly. I haven't found the logic to go with the intuition yet. However, the basic intuition is something about the origin of type in a person. Following matthew's point, I wonder if I haven't gotten it backwards.

My original claim, assuming it applies to anything, applies to mature personalities. It's the fairly straightforward claim that a dominant and auxiliary function need a tie-breaker if they are to maintain a vital, mature generative interaction. (And this claim is really not much more than suggestive model theory.)

But re Matthew's point, a thing I forgot: tertiary temptation.

Tertiary temptation is a live issue for more or less everyone. The tertiary shares the same orientation as the dominant and it fulfills in a shallow, safer way the role the auxiliary is supposed to fill: it is perception if the dominant function is judgment and it is judgment if the dominant function is perception. So I wonder which exists first. That is to say, I wonder which function gets most conscious workouts early in life, the tertiary or the auxiliary? And I wonder why the auxiliary still gets to be more conscious than the tertiary.

In short, I wonder if it's not true that type exists in the person way, way, way before the person is even aware of it, well before they mature even. And I wonder that because there's a really obvious logical point that functions cannot exist in isolation, but riding along on top of that I have an intuition telling me that functions cannot exist simply as pairs either. The functions, it seems to me, positively need to exist in groupings of at least three, and possibly four.

Or maybe this is just a point about having consciousness that actually works, suggesting that with only two functions present, the consciousness won't sustain itself.

Why not?

Who knows. It's an intuition and I don't even know what it applies to.

Thoughts?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•