User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 35 of 35

  1. #31
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    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.
    You are mixing things up, my thinking is my most differentiated function, that why its dominant function. So its not that my thinking isnt capable of thinking without feeling(or other functions). And its not that you are neccessarily unconscious about the product of undifferentiated functions, i already explained all this.. rest of that doesent make any sense, propably due to misinterprations of things said in this topic. This objective point of view is simply a point of view that is in line with things in external world. Here with the quotes from jung. Like i already told here, im not unconscious about the quotes of jung, the quoting is intentional and are here to prove a point. I never claimed that this objective point of view of Ti(which 8 function model claims to be Te) is unconscious, on the contrary, i have explained it in quite a depth why it is not unconscious. Also my Fe telling that its wrong to spread information that may mislead people is not unconscious, its not that this archain condition of functions always happens. And even when this does happen, its the undifferentiated functions that are incapable of working without other functions. For example typical INTP thing might be that in order to trust Fe, you need to think it through. With this(as i have already explained) its the feeling that is incapable to work without thinking. Luckily i have learned the value of pure feeling after banging my head on the wall because F didnt make sense to T and have learned that even tho it doesent make sense to T, it doesent mean that its not true or valuable, therefore its a good idea to trust my Fe at times. This gaining an authority over ego for F is where differentation of the function comes from. Now this in mind, read the topic again.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #32
    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
    Well, that's what I meant. That "misleading" was a perceived obstruction, and this led you to focus more on the objective source (Jung).

    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.
    But why do you say that its Te even tho im concentrating on the objective aspect? I mean its still the subjective factor that this objective one is feeding and where the motivation started from. Also its just because of the nature of this topic that im putting so much weight on jungs quotes. If i were to mix some views that i got from mixing jung to neuropsychology and cognitive psychology of today, it wouldnt be jungian view anymore, but my own view. This topic afterall is about jungian view.

    When it comes to beebe changing jungian terms in order to get his own point of view to work is wrong in so many levels. For example jungians have treated many people over the years using these concepts of jung and things built on jungs concepts, this kinda means that the basic structure is working, now then there comes this one guy claiming that almost 100 years of validation of these concepts are wrong, just so that he could fit some of those in his subjective view. Now there is another thing about this, he has built his idea of typology on jungs work, but now changes the basis of jungs work(to which he based his work on), it takes away the whole structure of his work also, since he structured his view of typology on jungs work. Thats like climbing to a tree, finding a strong branch to set on and cut down the tree that the branch is on, the attempt to still stay on the branch is doomed to fail.

    But i do know that beebe has some good points about typology, its just the 8 function model and trying to fit archetypes to functions. Also im pretty sure that you dont have complete understanding about beebes work, so this is more against your views on his work rather than his work. I remember reading some of his articles about his typology and some of the stuff goes quite much against jungs views and basics of typology. Also for example i see marie von franz much more trusted person when it comes to analytical psychology than beebe and her view of this shadow manifesting from inferior(and undifferentiated functions) is much more plausible explanation than beebes opposite attitude equals shadow, which sounds quite ridiculous if you have any understanding on jungs typology.

    I dunno where that quote is from, but jung first recognized that there are two definite types, introverted and extraverted type, then noticed that there are definite differences inside these types, which led him to this function thing. This was before 'psychological types'. Also the book has been revised many times and has been added some seminar talks from later in jungs life, latest from 1936, which is about 20 years after the original release of the book. There havent been any changes in the basics, but addition to them. Jung was quite careful not to write a book that is based on nothing, you know he was quite well known psychiatrist(chairman of psychoanalytical(freudian) association) at his time, so his work wasnt some self help book type of stuff that just talks about how he thinks its good to think or something like that. He had his reputation to protect and naturally discussed about these things with other analysts in high status of his time before releasing anything.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #33
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    "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?
    Psychological Types– page 523, paragraph 913.

  4. #34
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    But why do you say that its Te even tho im concentrating on the objective aspect? I mean its still the subjective factor that this objective one is feeding and where the motivation started from.
    Because there's one Thinking function, T, and e/i are only descriptive of how it's being oriented. So if there's a loop, basically, as you describe it, then both orientations are there, and the i/e preference simply denotes which one you started from, as you said.

    Also its just because of the nature of this topic that im putting so much weight on jungs quotes. If i were to mix some views that i got from mixing jung to neuropsychology and cognitive psychology of today, it wouldnt be jungian view anymore, but my own view. This topic afterall is about jungian view.

    When it comes to beebe changing jungian terms in order to get his own point of view to work is wrong in so many levels. For example jungians have treated many people over the years using these concepts of jung and things built on jungs concepts, this kinda means that the basic structure is working, now then there comes this one guy claiming that almost 100 years of validation of these concepts are wrong, just so that he could fit some of those in his subjective view. Now there is another thing about this, he has built his idea of typology on jungs work, but now changes the basis of jungs work(to which he based his work on), it takes away the whole structure of his work also, since he structured his view of typology on jungs work. Thats like climbing to a tree, finding a strong branch to set on and cut down the tree that the branch is on, the attempt to still stay on the branch is doomed to fail.

    But i do know that beebe has some good points about typology, its just the 8 function model and trying to fit archetypes to functions. Also im pretty sure that you dont have complete understanding about beebes work, so this is more against your views on his work rather than his work. I remember reading some of his articles about his typology and some of the stuff goes quite much against jungs views and basics of typology. Also for example i see marie von franz much more trusted person when it comes to analytical psychology than beebe and her view of this shadow manifesting from inferior(and undifferentiated functions) is much more plausible explanation than beebes opposite attitude equals shadow, which sounds quite ridiculous if you have any understanding on jungs typology.
    So Beebe's theory may be different from Jung's; does it really contradict this specific aspect of Jung's teachings that these successful "treatments" that proves his theory is "working" are based on?
    I dunno where that quote is from, but jung first recognized that there are two definite types, introverted and extraverted type, then noticed that there are definite differences inside these types, which led him to this function thing. This was before 'psychological types'. Also the book has been revised many times and has been added some seminar talks from later in jungs life, latest from 1936, which is about 20 years after the original release of the book. There havent been any changes in the basics, but addition to them. Jung was quite careful not to write a book that is based on nothing, you know he was quite well known psychiatrist(chairman of psychoanalytical(freudian) association) at his time, so his work wasnt some self help book type of stuff that just talks about how he thinks its good to think or something like that. He had his reputation to protect and naturally discussed about these things with other analysts in high status of his time before releasing anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Psychological Types– page 523, paragraph 913.
    So his conception of the functions and attitudes separately was before Psychological Types, but that book is where he bound the attitudes to the functions like that?
    Funny, as the section of the book online (Chapt. X) seems to follow the older conception. (He still speaks of people as "introverts" and "extraverts")
    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

  5. #35
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    You are mixing things up, my thinking is my most differentiated function, that why its dominant function. So its not that my thinking isnt capable of thinking without feeling(or other functions). And its not that you are neccessarily unconscious about the product of undifferentiated functions, i already explained all this.. rest of that doesent make any sense, propably due to misinterprations of things said in this topic. This objective point of view is simply a point of view that is in line with things in external world. Here with the quotes from jung. Like i already told here, im not unconscious about the quotes of jung, the quoting is intentional and are here to prove a point. I never claimed that this objective point of view of Ti(which 8 function model claims to be Te) is unconscious, on the contrary, i have explained it in quite a depth why it is not unconscious. Also my Fe telling that its wrong to spread information that may mislead people is not unconscious, its not that this archain condition of functions always happens. And even when this does happen, its the undifferentiated functions that are incapable of working without other functions. For example typical INTP thing might be that in order to trust Fe, you need to think it through. With this(as i have already explained) its the feeling that is incapable to work without thinking. Luckily i have learned the value of pure feeling after banging my head on the wall because F didnt make sense to T and have learned that even tho it doesent make sense to T, it doesent mean that its not true or valuable, therefore its a good idea to trust my Fe at times. This gaining an authority over ego for F is where differentation of the function comes from. Now this in mind, read the topic again.
    Well thanks professor for going down onto my level again .

    This objective point of view is simply a point of view that is in line with things in external world.
    In essence I am saying: I dont believe that humans are capable of objectivity. Imo that idea is illusionary. What you said in the quoted sentence, proves that point again. Cause even if objectivity was there to measure only things in the external world, you need a sensor beforehand to sense that objective data. And that would need the premise that our way of perception is always objective and I doubt that, strongly. We dont even know whats objective and if the way we perceive the World is anyhow in line with what the World actually is. Same applies to the interpretations of psychology.

    To me the belief in thinking is just another form of religion which denies yourself the true nature of humanity. I may be extreme in that, but if you want to treat that with real objectivity, you have to go way further than before.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

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