I've been scanning (not reading closely, I admit) this article.
One of Jung's key emphases was that the "dark side" of human nature needed to be "integrated" into a single, overarching "wholeness" in order to form a less strict and difficult definition of goodness.(41) "For Jung", says Satinover, "good and evil evolved into two equal, balanced, cosmic principles that belong together in one overarching synthesis. This relativization of good and evil by their reconciliation is the heart of the ancient doctrines of gnosticism, which also located spirituality, hence morality, within man himself. Hence 'the union of opposites'."(42)In a comment reminiscent of our 1990's relativistic culture, Jung said of Hindu thought: " Good or evil are then regarded at most as my good or my evil, as whatever seems to me good or evil".(101) To accept the eight polarities within the MBTI predisposes one to embrace Jung's teaching that the psyche "cannot set up any absolute truths, for its own polarity determines the relativity of its statements."(102)Jung taught that the mandala [Sanskrit for 'circle'] was "the simplest model of a concept of wholeness, and one which spontaneously arises in the mind as a representation of the struggle and reconciliation of opposites."(104)In conclusion, to endorse the MBTI is to endorse Jung's book Psychological Types, since the MBTI proponents consistently say that the MBTI "was developed specifically to carry Carl Jung's theory of types (1921, 1971) into practical application."(105)
My main question: If we are proponents of MBTI, are we endorsing relativism?
Secondary questions: Is that endorsement active or passive? Does it matter if we are endorsing relativism or not? Is this just another variant of social/individual desires to control others?