User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 35

  1. #21
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Ok you guys lost me long ago, but what I meant is that:

    human emotion can be a guide to subjective feeling. Human emotion tho can be no guide to the objective claim of thinking. Since humans evolved from animals and invented thinking as in rationality and reason the first time in the late 16th century, every of our action is motivated by emotion or feeling cause that is what we are. Even the intention of being as objective as possible and following the scripture of rationality as good as we can, basically is an attitude, so a subjective preference, cause not everybody does that by nature. Everybody tho has subjective preferences by nature.

    That means that the feeling and the thinking function are generally out of sync or in a different dimension. Thinking is like a code of conduct or a religion or a scripture you adapt in your live to control your emotions. Of course there may be people who have a lot lesser trouble with their emotions, but does that mean those are actually the real thinkers ? Or are those the real thinkers who managed to control their strong emotions via thinking ? So is the one who has it naturally or the one who mastered it the thinker ?

    Jung already was wrong here imo, all along. You cant compare apples and banana. But I agree that eyeryone shares a subjective and an objective approach to the nature of his judgement and that not everyone has them properly separated everytime. the question that remains tho is: is it necessary to seperate them for your personal growth or is the mastering of the inseparable the desired goal ?
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #22
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK; that was a mistake when I said "shadow is in the ego". I meant either "in the psyche", "in relation to the ego" (i.e. what's outside the ego in the psyche).

    As for "direction", that was "direction towards a goal". Not direction in orientation
    (which would be how I was taking it). Else, undifferentiated functions would have no e/i attitude.

    What's in the shadow (unconscious) is the perspective of the opposite orientation of each function from what's allocated for each type.
    Shadow isnt the only thing that exists outside of ego. Also shadow does not equal personal unconsciousness, personal unconsciousness is where complexes are, shadow is just one of these complexes. Ps. Im not talking about archetype of shadow or national shadow, but personal shadow(even tho the personal shadow has roots in these).

    Also, its not the opposite attitude which is being repressed, its the opposite function. T type represses F, N type represses S, because they are in conflict with the function that ego sees as yourself.

    Now if we go back to this idea of undifferentiated functions working as a doorway to the contents of the personal unconscious. Now if you as an INTP have undifferentiated F and S, one of these can work as a doorway for the other, and voila, this is how the archain condition is born. Now you must keep in mind that the contents created by the undifferentiated functions may not be unconscious, even the process of undifferentiated functions may be conscious, its just that they are not directed by conscious thoughts, but are triggered by the unconscious. For example an ENFP might not be able to stop his Si popping onto the surface and bringing all sorts of grim subjective facts to the consciousness, while ISTJ has far better control over this, but cant stop his Ne from making all sorts of grim and paranoid connections between things, leading to grim thoughts. Naturally other undifferentiated functions can also play a role in this, for example the grim subjective facts popping in ENFPs head may lead to distorted thinking and can even start leading his Ne to make paranoid connections between things. But the point is that this process doesent start from Ne with ENFP, but other functions being triggered and led by the unconscious come into consciousness, then affecting Ne.

    We just talked about this what the attitude of tye function even means, its that T function has both subjective and objective perspectives in it, its not that one of these is more unconscious, its just that one is seen as more trusted and is therefore the starting point of the process of thinking. For example i can see the objective perspective in the thinking process in me, but i just dont feel that this sort of superficial thinking can be trusted as things rarerily are what they seem to be. My INTJ friend has no understanding on the superiority of subjective thinking, because he sees things in far more superficial ways and has trust on that what he sees is what he sees..

    If i may ask, why do you have so strong opinion about this beebean model to be superior? I mean, you clearly arent wery well educated on jungian point of view, so how can you make the judgment that beebees model is superior? To me, it sounds like judgment coming from undifferentiated Fe leading your Ti..

    And yes, some people think that undifferentiated aux and tert has no orientation
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #23
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Also, its not the opposite attitude which is being repressed, its the opposite function. T type represses F, N type represses S, because they are in conflict with the function that ego sees as yourself.
    And e preference represses i, and i represses e. It's both.
    Jung originally conceived of it as four functions, S, N, T, F, with one dominant, and a dominant attitude of e/i that sets the orientations of the dominant function, and by extension, the attitude of the others. Again, it is not eight hard, fixed function-attitudes.
    We just talked about this what the attitude of the function even means, its that T function has both subjective and objective perspectives in it, its not that one of these is more unconscious, its just that one is seen as more trusted and is therefore the starting point of the process of thinking. For example i can see the objective perspective in the thinking process in me, but i just dont feel that this sort of superficial thinking can be trusted as things rarerily are what they seem to be. My INTJ friend has no understanding on the superiority of subjective thinking, because he sees things in far more superficial ways and has trust on that what he sees is what he sees.
    Hence, the untrusted version of the process is less conscious.
    If i may ask, why do you have so strong opinion about this beebean model to be superior? I mean, you clearly arent wery well educated on jungian point of view, so how can you make the judgment that beebees model is superior?
    That's what seems to really explain the most about type dynamics, and how several archetypes come into play in us along the lines of type. It gave a place for the other four function-attitudes, besides just shrugging them off as apparently unused by the type.
    I draw out of the theories the principles that make sense to me (the "subjective" perspective), and match them together in the way that fits best (Ne).

    It takes a lot of time to digest Jung. But I can draw out of him the concepts or principles I need along with those of others. (cont'd next).
    To me, it sounds like judgment coming from undifferentiated Fe leading your Ti..
    How is that Fe? What does this have to do with shared (objective) values? I might "value" the theory, but that is not F. To suggest it is, is what Vicky Jo does, except that she always made it Fi instead of Fe. This is one of the main reasons I avoid the term "values" regarding F of either stripe.

    The ego favors its dominant frameworks, and invests a lot of value and emotional energy into it. I see a Jungian theory, and see expansions of it that really seem to fit, based on internal principles. If you have eight possible function/attitude combinations, then all eight should figure. If four are missing, then it seems incomplete. That's my Ti perspective.

    Your insistence that we have to follow strictly Jung's original, pure theory and add nothing to it (e.g. Jung said this, that settles it) is drawing upon an external (objective) standard, and thus would really fit an "oppositional" Te backing up your Ti. Your internal principles are satisfied with Jung alone; eight-process models such as Beebe and Thomson obstruct this, and therefore the Opposing Personality Complex is constellated, seeking to oppose the threat to your view by turning back to the external principle/standard. Hence, this constant criticism of those two. (And this is unconscious, so you don't even realize you're doing it. You think you're just maintaining your normal Ti perspective).

    That's how Beebe's model works. Seems simple enough to me, and explains a lot.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #24
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    And e preference represses i, and i represses e. It's both.
    Jung originally conceived of it as four functions, S, N, T, F, with one dominant, and a dominant attitude of e/i that sets the orientations of the dominant function, and by extension, the attitude of the others. Again, it is not eight hard, fixed function-attitudes.
    Hence, the untrusted version of the process is less conscious.
    That's what seems to really explain the most about type dynamics, and how several archetypes come into play in us along the lines of type. It gave a place for the other four function-attitudes, besides just shrugging them off as apparently unused by the type.
    I draw out of the theories the principles that make sense to me (the "subjective" perspective), and match them together in the way that fits best (Ne).

    It takes a lot of time to digest Jung. But I can draw out of him the concepts or principles I need along with those of others. (cont'd next).
    How is that Fe? What does this have to do with shared (objective) values? I might "value" the theory, but that is not F. To suggest it is, is what Vicky Jo does, except that she always made it Fi instead of Fe. This is one of the main reasons I avoid the term "values" regarding F of either stripe.

    The ego favors its dominant frameworks, and invests a lot of value and emotional energy into it. I see a Jungian theory, and see expansions of it that really seem to fit, based on internal principles. If you have eight possible function/attitude combinations, then all eight should figure. If four are missing, then it seems incomplete. That's my Ti perspective.

    Your insistence that we have to follow strictly Jung's original, pure theory and add nothing to it (e.g. Jung said this, that settles it) is drawing upon an external (objective) standard, and thus would really fit an "oppositional" Te backing up your Ti. Your internal principles are satisfied with Jung alone; eight-process models such as Beebe and Thomson obstruct this, and therefore the Opposing Personality Complex is constellated, seeking to oppose the threat to your view by turning back to the external principle/standard. Hence, this constant criticism of those two. (And this is unconscious, so you don't even realize you're doing it. You think you're just maintaining your normal Ti perspective).

    That's how Beebe's model works. Seems simple enough to me, and explains a lot.
    Well i ment that its not Ti that represses Te, but yes E types repress introverted opposite function, aka the inferior function.
    It sounds like you are misinterpreting the basics again, repression = 'pushes threatening(to the ego) thoughts back into tye unconscious.'
    And we should be clear that these defence mechanisms are processes which operate on unconscious level and tend to deny or distort reality to protect the ego from anxiety.
    Now when it comes to Ti Te thing, as we already discussed, this orientation of function is just about whether the objective or subjective point of view is the trusted starting point. The opposite point of view(of the same function) isnt threatening to the ego in any way, its just not seen as the trusted point of view to start with.
    For example, as you mentioned me using jungs quotes to make points. This you claim to be Te and claim that im doing it unconsciously. But this isnt Te and im not doing it unconsciously. You see the starting point in my thinking started from the subject(*i used to believe in 8 function theory and thought i was using Fi at one point of life heavily(we discussed about this before), then went "hey wait a minute, this isnt Fi, but Fe leading my Ti" and disregarded tje 8 function theory due to subjective thinking, and then saw what jung said about all this stuff and it matched), now even tho im using these jungs quotes to make up a point, its not Te since it started from the subject, not from jungs work. This me quoting jungs work is just the objective perspective to Ti. Now as i mentioned before about the E functions starting from object, going to subject and back to object, same thing happens here but it starts from the subject and leads back to the subject. And how this goes back to subject? Im building the original subject using the object. There is nothing unconscious in this process. You see, if i were to read jung before i disregarded the 8 function theory, i wouldnt had seen jungs work as trusted 'just because jung says so'. Does this make any sense to you?

    And i dont purely follow jungs theory and add nothing to it, im just keeping my own theories where im mixing psychology from other authors to it away from this topic because, well the topic title says why.

    Anyways, "extraverted feeling has to undergo a process of differentation before it is finally denuded of every subjective trimming."(page 335). Anyways, im going to sleep now
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    OK, I'll ponder more on the "subject-object-subject" cycle. As I said, it has been taking me time to digest Jung's concepts, and I'm about ready to integrate this one.

    But right off the bat, what I see as the explanation, is that once again, this does not deny what I have said about there being only four functions, with the attitudes something applied to them, rather than being inherent in eight separate units.

    Remember, the Beebean concept is about complexes (personalized archetypes), which are what attach themselves to the functions.
    So the Opposing personality is the part of you that is "turning up the volume" on that "objective" opposite leg of the Thinking cycle. No, it does not become the "starting point", but then that is precisely why it is a shadow complex. It focuses on the opposite of your normal starting point.

    And you are a bit threatened by it, as you see a bunch of people who agree with or follow Beebe or Lenore, and in your apparent estimation, don't seem to be thinking for themselves upon the original Jungian principles. That is an apparent Te threat to the Ti perspective. So then, your OP constellates, and turns up the volume on the objective aspect of the theory to try to set us straight. That aspect of Oppositional Te is not the threat to your ego. It is what your ego is using to "back up" (the "positive side" of the OP in Beebe's theory) your normal subjective starting and ending point, and oppose what you do feel obstructed by from the outside world. (And the OP, while on the "shadow" side is generally close to consciousness, since it is on the borderline, like the anima, which is the bridge to the unconscious, plus it also shadows the dominant function).

    I'll also look into the "suppression/repression" distinction, but suppression is used for an attitude within a function when Jung says:

    The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation, although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulant.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #26
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, I'll ponder more on the "subject-object-subject" cycle. As I said, it has been taking me time to digest Jung's concepts, and I'm about ready to integrate this one.

    But right off the bat, what I see as the explanation, is that once again, this does not deny what I have said about there being only four functions, with the attitudes something applied to them, rather than being inherent in eight separate units.

    Remember, the Beebean concept is about complexes (personalized archetypes), which are what attach themselves to the functions.
    So the Opposing personality is the part of you that is "turning up the volume" on that "objective" opposite leg of the Thinking cycle. No, it does not become the "starting point", but then that is precisely why it is a shadow complex. It focuses on the opposite of your normal starting point.

    And you are a bit threatened by it, as you see a bunch of people who agree with or follow Beebe or Lenore, and in your apparent estimation, don't seem to be thinking for themselves upon the original Jungian principles. That is an apparent Te threat to the Ti perspective. So then, your OP constellates, and turns up the volume on the objective aspect of the theory to try to set us straight. That aspect of Oppositional Te is not the threat to your ego. It is what your ego is using to "back up" (the "positive side" of the OP in Beebe's theory) your normal subjective starting and ending point, and oppose what you do feel obstructed by from the outside world. (And the OP, while on the "shadow" side is generally close to consciousness, since it is on the borderline, like the anima, which is the bridge to the unconscious, plus it also shadows the dominant function).

    I'll also look into the "suppression/repression" distinction, but suppression is used for an attitude within a function when Jung says:
    Was just about to go to sleep again, so cba to asnwer anything long now. But the reason why jung uses suppression in that situation is because its not unconscious defence mechanism to protect the ego, for example if i see a pig flying, im like 'wtf, that cant be true' and i suppress this idea of pigs flying. If it was about repression, i wouldnt think that this cant be true, therefore i wont believe this or let this effect my thinking or understanding about the world, but it would just more like erasing the whole thing from my conscious mind, its not about consciously pushing some feeling, idea, thought or what ever away, but is unconscious, therefore consciousness cant recall the thing.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    "Thinking that is governed by feeling I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as a thinking dependant on feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favour of the aims of feeling."
    -Carl Jung [Psychological types, page 482]

    For INTP, this would seem like Fi(8th function according to this), for ENTJ it would seem like Fe(8th), for INTJ it would seem like Fe(7th) and for ENTP it would seem like Fi(7th).

    But its not 7th or 8th function, its just thinking unconsciously following feeling.

    Same can happen with other functions:
    "Fusion of psychological functions, of thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, feeling with intuition, and so on, is archain."
    (Psychological types page 413)

    These functions, which are fused with other functions are undeveloped/undifferentiated.

    "Differentation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from the whole. So as long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions -thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc- that it is unable to operate on its own, it is archain condition i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.[my note, differentation isnt yes or no thing, but function can be more or less differentiated]. Without differentation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends of elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed."
    [Psychological types page 424]

    As a conclusion, shadow functions arent your normal functions in opposite orientation, but any of the 4 function that is in archain condition, fused with other functions.
    He lost me on talking about goals or direction. An undifferentiated function is capable of being directed. Its like steering 2 carts at once. Its not the easiest thing because you have to know how those 2 functions interact together. But if feeling leads thought then you can count on feeling leading thought and guide thought through feeling. Requiring differentiated function sounds like a "simple" person who cannot manage complexity. I have used thinking to get the affect of feeling before...and I can use thinking to get the affect of others feelings. Maybe this is manipulation, I dont know Non differentiation seems like a much more complex structure to understand. Maybe I just dont understand.




    To me to understand people is to understand both the way differentiated works as well as undifferentiated.




    And concious and unconcious is an interesting topic because it can be used to "explain" what we dont see as if we can see it.
    Other: Your unconcious is saying XYZ...right
    Me: beats me, its not concious...believe what you want...I prefer to remain unknowning until it becomes concious and I actually know as opposed to guessing. You may be right, you may be wrong My guess is that you are right some times and wrong others...yet you always believe you are right.


    edit: My thinking is...your logic makes sense, but that doesnt mean its applied correctly.
    Im out, its been fun

  8. #28
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, I'll ponder more on the "subject-object-subject" cycle. As I said, it has been taking me time to digest Jung's concepts, and I'm about ready to integrate this one.

    But right off the bat, what I see as the explanation, is that once again, this does not deny what I have said about there being only four functions, with the attitudes something applied to them, rather than being inherent in eight separate units.

    Remember, the Beebean concept is about complexes (personalized archetypes), which are what attach themselves to the functions.
    So the Opposing personality is the part of you that is "turning up the volume" on that "objective" opposite leg of the Thinking cycle. No, it does not become the "starting point", but then that is precisely why it is a shadow complex. It focuses on the opposite of your normal starting point.

    And you are a bit threatened by it, as you see a bunch of people who agree with or follow Beebe or Lenore, and in your apparent estimation, don't seem to be thinking for themselves upon the original Jungian principles. That is an apparent Te threat to the Ti perspective. So then, your OP constellates, and turns up the volume on the objective aspect of the theory to try to set us straight. That aspect of Oppositional Te is not the threat to your ego. It is what your ego is using to "back up" (the "positive side" of the OP in Beebe's theory) your normal subjective starting and ending point, and oppose what you do feel obstructed by from the outside world. (And the OP, while on the "shadow" side is generally close to consciousness, since it is on the borderline, like the anima, which is the bridge to the unconscious, plus it also shadows the dominant function).
    But you see, complexes are not personified archetypes in general, its just that they can accumulate over the years around some archetype. I suggest reading this:

    Complex An emotionally charged group of ideas or images. (See also Word Association Experiment.)

    [A complex] is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.["A Review of the Complex Theory," CW 8, par. 201.]

    The via regia to the unconscious . . . is not the dream, as [Freud] thought, but the complex, which is the architect of dreams and of symptoms. Nor is this via so very Z"royal," either, since the way pointed out by the complex is more like a rough and uncommonly devious footpath.[ Ibid., par. 210.]

    Formally, complexes are "feeling-toned ideas" that over the years accumulate around certain archetypes, for instance "mother" and "father." When complexes are constellated, they are invariably accompanied by affect. They are always relatively autonomous.

    Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," ibid., par. 253.]

    Complexes are in fact "splinter psyches." The aetiology of their origin is frequently a so-called trauma, an emotional shock or some such thing, that splits off a bit of the psyche. Certainly one of the commonest causes is a moral conflict, which ultimately derives from the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one’s nature.["A Review of the Complex Theory," ibid., par. 204.]

    Everyone knows nowadays that people "have complexes." What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us.[Ibid., par. 200.]

    Jung stressed that complexes in themselves are not negative; only their effects often are. In the same way that atoms and molecules are the invisible components of physical objects, complexes are the building blocks of the psyche and the source of all human emotions.

    Complexes are focal or nodal points of psychic life which we would not wish to do without; indeed, they should not be missing, for otherwise psychic activity would come to a fatal standstill.["A Psychological Theory of Types," CW 6, par. 925.]

    Complexes obviously represent a kind of inferiority in the broadest sense . . . [but] to have complexes does not necessarily indicate inferiority. It only means that something discordant, unassimilated, and antagonistic exists, perhaps as an obstacle, but also as an incentive to greater effort, and so, perhaps, to new possibilities of achievement.[Ibid., par. 925.]

    Some degree of one-sidedness is unavoidable, and, in the same measure, complexes are unavoidable too.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," CW 8, par. 255.]

    The negative effect of a complex is commonly experienced as a distortion in one or other of the psychological functions (feeling, thinking, intuition and sensation). In place of sound judgment and an appropriate feeling response, for instance, one reacts according to what the complex dictates. As long as one is unconscious of the complexes, one is liable to be driven by them.

    The possession of complexes does not in itself signify neurosis . . . and the fact that they are painful is no proof of pathological disturbance. Suffering is not an illness; it is the normal counterpole to happiness. A complex becomes pathological only when we think we have not got it.["Psychotherapy and a Philosophy of Life," CW 16, par. 179.]

    Identification with a complex, particularly the anima/animus and the shadow, is a frequent source of neurosis. The aim of analysis in such cases is not to get rid of the complexes-as if that were possible-but to minimize their negative effects by understanding the part they play in behavior patterns and emotional reactions.

    A complex can be really overcome only if it is lived out to the full. In other words, if we are to develop further we have to draw to us and drink down to the very dregs what, because of our complexes, we have held at a distance.["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 184.]
    For example personal shadow has its roots in shadow archetype, but also in national shadow(for example in usa, part of national shadow could be robbing the land from native americans).

    Also it should be pointed out that complexes are in personal unconscious and they dont come through from your dom function, but naturally can have effect to dom functions way of thinking when coming through undifferentiated functions(remember that they work as a doorway).

    About this turning on the volume thing. As i already mentioned, the shadow comes through from undifferentiated functions. This is where we get back again to our inferior, its the Fe(or Ne) that gives the amplification to thinking if it comes from unconscious. Naturally the subjective factor can be amplified by the objective factor of same function also, but this doesent come from shadow. But in this case the starting point is Fe, its a judgment of value that starts this thing, but the subjective factor of F also has an heavy influence with this, as i think its wrong to mislead people. But its not just blindly leading my Ti(altho this might happen and has happened to me before), its an conscious choise to use my Ti to 'set things straight', and this objective factor(quotes from jung) is not unconscious and shadow is. Also i dont see this 8 function model as a threat to me, but a threat to others who it might mislead like it misled me.

    This shadow and anima being close to consciousness isnt the case with analytical psychology, this is some beebean this and is most likely due to anima amd shadow having different meaning from jung. In analytical psychology, in order to get in touch with anima, you need to deal with personal shadow complex first. This i have also experienced
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #29
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    But in this case the starting point is Fe, its a judgment of value that starts this thing, but the subjective factor of F also has an heavy influence with this, as i think its wrong to mislead people. But its not just blindly leading my Ti(altho this might happen and has happened to me before), its an conscious choise to use my Ti to 'set things straight', and this objective factor(quotes from jung) is not unconscious and shadow is.
    The only problem is that you yourself never know, if you are really being objective at a given time or if its not just another undifferentiated T fueled by F, which appears to you as objectivity.

    You can then have the claim that T - objectivity is only reachable if a vast amount of people would define its criteria together. Then again you'll have some kind of crowd differentiation when you notice how a crowds opinion shifts an otherwise objective approach at defining objectivity into their own wanted direction.

    Therefore you will hardly ever be able to define objectivity. And that basically explodes all scientific certainity function models or all this stuff can hold, at all. So the question is: how deeply can you analyze that ? isnt there a point when you have crossed a border after which things become blurry and uncertain and every analysis you draw from there is only just another set of subjective criteria.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #30
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Also i dont see this 8 function model as a threat to me, but a threat to others who it might mislead like it misled me.
    Well, that's what I meant. That "misleading" was a perceived obstruction, and this led you to focus more on the objective source (Jung).
    This shadow and anima being close to consciousness isnt the case with analytical psychology, this is some beebean this and is most likely due to anima amd shadow having different meaning from jung. In analytical psychology, in order to get in touch with anima, you need to deal with personal shadow complex first. This i have also experienced
    Like I keep saying; Beebe put his own spins or extensions upon Jung's theory. I do not see what is wrong with that. Jung was just a man, who was not perfect, and who has since left us, so we have to try to continue his legacy the best way we see fit.

    Jung himself was said to have even changed some things later one.
    Like I should have asked you this before. In a similar debate with Functianalyst on PerC recently, I pointed this out, with the quote:
    "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types."

    Do you know where he said this? I can't find it, and it seems to be something later than Psychological Types.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. [E8] Another view on the 8
    By entropie in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 01:00 AM
  2. What was Socrates view on morality in The Republic?
    By WobblyStilettos in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 11:57 AM
  3. Help with jungian dichotomies vs. cognitive functions
    By Scytale in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-09-2008, 01:23 PM
  4. Shadow function prioritization: a model
    By narticus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 01:23 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