User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 60

  1. #11
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    You left out all relevant stuff from your quote and took it out of the context, so i thought you were referring to that guy who made an hypothesis of jung being a "pure type", which he meant that jung was all types.

    Anyways, now that i got to read what your quote was actually about, its pretty clear that you dont understand what jung says there.

    First of all, with pure Te type, jung speaks of Te type, whos aux and tert are undifferentiated.

    This has nothing to do with archetypes or making an distinction between man and the type..
    I am not saying that Jung talks about functions as if they were archetypes or that he talks about a "Te type." How much clearer do I need to be?

    Let me pull some definitions of the word "archetype":
    An archetype (play /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol or term[1] or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.

    A very typical example of a certain person or thing.
    This is all I mean. Let's please use the word "ideal" rather than "archetype," then, if that'll let us move on with some more discussion of the overall point in the OP.

  2. #12
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    You didn't read what all of what I had to say before you replied?

    I am not saying that Jung talks about functions as if they were archetypes or that he talks about a "Te type." How much clearer do I need to be?

    Let me pull some definitions of the word "archetype":


    This is all I mean. Let's use the word "ideal" rather than "archetype," then, if that'll let us move on with some actual discussion.
    Yes i read what you said, but what tou said didnt make any sense and wasnt relevant to archetypes in any way, so the conversation seemed something like this to me:

    -hey whats up?
    -dog
    -what? I asked whats up, dog is up?
    -cat
    -wtf are you ok?
    -dont you listen what im saying god damnit
    ...

    Anyways, you left out something:

    "Collective unconscious is common for all mankind. Structures within collective unconscious are called archetypes, archetype is a symbol producing structure=
    Inherited parts of the psyche, structuring patterns of psychological performance linked to instinct or hypothetical entity, are irresentable in itself and only evident through its manifestations"

    Anyways jung didnt describe just eight archetypes, he saw archetypes everywhere, for example birds building nests or singing in certain way due to genetic memory is archetypal behavior.

    The nurturing instinct of a mother is archetypal behavior. Archetype of mother.
    The fact that people build a social mask that he displays to others, which isnt the true self, is archetypal behavior. Persona.

    Etc etc.

    This is totally different from functions, which are about judgment and perception(cognitions). Archetypes are what potentially distort these perceptions and cognitions(or actually color complexes, which control/distort cognitions).

    What do you mean with the ideal?

    Why not just call them functions?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Yes i read what you said, but what tou said didnt make any sense and wasnt relevant to archetypes in any way, so the conversation seemed something like this to me:

    -hey whats up?
    -dog
    -what? I asked whats up, dog is up?
    -cat
    -wtf are you ok?
    -dont you listen what im saying god damnit
    ...
    Just to answer..."animal"
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #14
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    Just to answer..."animal"
    Animal is up?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #15
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Anyways jung didnt describe just eight archetypes, he saw archetypes everywhere, for example birds building nests or singing in certain way due to genetic memory is archetypal behavior.

    The nurturing instinct of a mother is archetypal behavior. Archetype of mother.
    The fact that people build a social mask that he displays to others, which isnt the true self, is archetypal behavior. Persona.

    Etc etc.

    This is totally different from functions, which are about judgment and perception(cognitions). Archetypes are what potentially distort these perceptions and cognitions(or actually color complexes, which control/distort cognitions).

    What do you mean with the ideal?

    Why not just call them functions?
    Fair enough, yeah, and thanks for the clarification.

    I'm not so read-up on the psychology-technical details of some terms, so I'm not sure what's really meant by "archetypes" or, in a very strict sense, even by "functions." (I've got Robertson's Jungian Archetypes but I'm only about a quarter of the way through. I should pick it and some other resources on the subject back up.)

    I think that some of the common definitions of some of these terms are a bit more loose than when they are used by Jung or by psychologists. So, my use of terms like "ideal" is an attempt to actually convey my main point, without all of the nitty-gritty psychological connotations that might have led to the sort of confusion and mismatch like the one that you and I have had here. (As an aside, I'm still trying to grasp why, say, "the extraverted intuitive" could not be said to be an archetype, though..)

    My main point is: I believe we should try to remind ourselves that functions aren't superpowers (see my highlighting of the 'or at least think you know' portion of that wiki quote), that they merely describe orientations (or, perhaps, that the functions themselves are things that we orient ourselves to--a subtle difference, one that might also be worth discussing?).

    That's what I'm mostly looking for comments on here, but the deviation into what is meant by "archetype" has actually been useful too. From my perspective, my post is supposed to be a simple "reality check"--however that gets across.

  6. #16
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Fair enough, yeah, and thanks for the clarification.

    I'm not so read-up on the psychology-technical details of some terms, so I'm not sure what's really meant by "archetypes" or, in a very strict sense, even by "functions." (I've got Robertson's Jungian Archetypes but I'm only about a quarter of the way through. I should pick it and some other resources on the subject back up.)

    I think that some of the common definitions of some of these terms are a bit more loose than when they are used by Jung or by psychologists. So, my use of terms like "ideal" is an attempt to actually convey my main point, without all of the nitty-gritty psychological connotations that might have led to the sort of confusion and mismatch like the one that you and I have had here. (As an aside, I'm still trying to grasp why, say, "the extraverted intuitive" could not be said to be an archetype, though..)

    My main point is: I believe we should try to remind ourselves that functions aren't superpowers (see my highlighting of the 'or at least think you know' portion of that wiki quote), that they merely describe orientations (or, perhaps, that the functions themselves are things that we orient ourselves to--a subtle difference, one that might also be worth discussing?).

    That's what I'm mostly looking for comments on here, but the deviation into what is meant by "archetype" has actually been useful too. From my perspective, my post is supposed to be a simple "reality check"--however that gets across.
    If you have hard time seeing whats the difference between type/function and archetype, read the definition of archetype i gave for you, its stated there, i know the definition is pretty hard to grasp in its full meaning, so read it multiple times with thought.

    Anyways type is something that a person is, archetype is something that everyone has. Function is something that creates thoughts and perceptions, archetypes are something that are able to distort or/and guide these thoughts or perceptions. Bla bla bla
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #17
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Anyways type is something that a person is, archetype is something that everyone has. Function is something that creates thoughts and perceptions, archetypes are something that are able to distort or/and guide these thoughts or perceptions. Bla bla bla
    This clears it up, thanks!


    This thread on PerN is an example of exactly why I emphasized "think you know". Observe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEa7v...embedded#t=58s
    "lol intuitives only need three points and they magically got it, while sensors need every single detail of everything because they are dumb."

    Yeah, let's just not talk about the fact that intuitives can be wrong about the patterns they perceive.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    INTP:
    What is the point in nit-picking the word archetype when Bologna's meaning is simple. He wants to talk about distinguishing between behavior and type. It's the difference between describing a duck in relation to a human (more archetypal distinctions) versus describing what both a duck and human are capable of (behavior).

    Jung argued for both in his studies. He did not take sides; arguing for one over the other would go against what he knew about religion and philosophy. His types weren't intended to be just behavior; I don't understand your narrow obsession with definition here.

  9. #19
    Junior Member Mephisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Ni has an attitude where the world as sensed (what we see, hear, smell, touch) is illusory and merely a phenomena which blinds us from what is. I think Kant is a classic Ni user when he insists on "things-in-themselves" and "numena" which cannot be known but are also truer. Seeing it as opposite to Se, which is immediate experience and trust in sensation, the Ni drawback is very awkward, very counter-intuitive, and a bit ascetic. The pairing of Ni and Fe makes for the prophet attitude..."I just see the right thing to do!" The pairing of Ni and Te makes for pragmatic calculation of a world that the Ni sees as half-real. To them, though the world of phenomena is a trick of an evil genius of the universe, still the world can be used in a way that produces an expected result.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    This is part of my point.

    Jung's passages are littered with snippets like the following:

    "In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type"

    The point is that even Jung makes a distinction between the type and the man, which we don't tend to do. We get to the point where we claim that Ni-users have a complete grasp of Ni, for example, which they may not.
    The question is, did Jung believe that someone can be a pure type?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 03:58 PM
  2. If you're in the stock market, keep in mind
    By Tantive in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-21-2010, 10:25 AM
  3. What are Fun Things to do in the Rain?
    By Vizconde in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 02:04 PM
  4. Help--How to Keep from Sleeping in Class!
    By rivercrow in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-21-2007, 01:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO