When I added the posts above about the complexes being about "projection", I knew there must be more to it, but at the time had just enough to build a working basic explanation of how they surface.
Continuing to research and put things together, and gaining more of a perspective from a discussion I've been having; I can now add more to this.
The shadow complexes are '
constellated' in response to specific threats to the ego. The ego has
boundaries; both external ones (against all that is not self), and internal boundaries (between the conscious and unconscious). These boundaries are manifest as our defenses. Particularly against painful emotions that can be damaging to us. When these defenses are challenged, then the ego's integrity is at stake.
So from what I gather, the
Opposing Personality is a reaction towards the ego and especially its heroic dominant perspective and persona being
opposed or obstructed. Obstruction might also be when ego's connection with the anima is obstructed.
The
Senex/Witch is the reaction against
negation and vulnerability. Negation would seem to be a challenge to the parental authority of the auxiliary perspective, and vulnerability would be from threats to the child. Hence, this post
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5177&p=190859&viewfull=1#post190859 (from "A Closer Look at the Auxiliary Function") where intimidating the child triggers both the witch and trickster (which is the "mirroring" dynamic I have been discussing lately).
The
Trickster is a reaction against being
controlled or put upon. (child feels burdened, parent feels powerless).
Hence, here also, the Parent figures in tandem with the Trickster.
An example of the child being intimidated and the parent overwhelmed is like a 14 year old, where on one hand, the grownups are still saying you're too young for a whole bunch of rights they enjoy (negation); but on the other hand, you're now old enough for them to be putting more responsibilities on, and always saying "you're TOO OLD for..." whatever aspects of youth you're trying to hold on to. (most likely, shirking responsibilities, or using childish means of getting your way).
I called it the "vacuum" or "void" age. You would think we would have the best of adulthood and childhood, but instead, it seems like they're trying to give us the worst of both; the best of neither.
So at an age like 17, where you're still in this inbetween period, and given more responsibilities, but still not yet much of an adult's rights, you might point out "I'm old enough to go to war, but not to vote, drink, etc."
You use the double-standard to try to bind the other person.
The
Demon is basically a reaction against a threat of
ego death: the removal of its boundaries.
So, it might erupt when the ego feels totally helpless, especially when the anima is under strong attack.
The Demon and Trickster are also said to appear at times when there is danger of ego disintegration. This is when the ego's boundaries (mainly, in this case, its defenses) are breached. We would then be left defenseless agains damaging emotional content. So the larger Self dispatches these last stands to protect its integrity. This might occur during trauma, where demonic figures appear in dreams threatening to destroy you in some way, or the the person's ego might confuse itself to bind him from taking action that might expose him to more trauma.
From here, there is a debate as to whether these complexes surface only in those kinds of severe instances, or in everyday situations.
The way they were originally conceived is more the former, and our own Sim (formerly here, at least; still at Perc) is one who leaned that way. Beebe, of course, introduced the latter view.
For now, I believe it is a combination of both. You could say the everyday constellations of the complexes are miniscule versions, for when the ego's boundaries feel threatened in more miniscule, everyday ways, especially by emotional pain.
It is true, that the Trickster and Demon, as discussed by Donald Kalsched
were originally more about trauma.
I have also seen a notion that the whole shadow (which originally to Jung was one single archetype) was more likely what we know as the Opposing Personality. Sort of like four-process theory, where the inferior is considered the whole shadow, this is basically a five-process theory.
I found this review of one of Kalsched's books by Beebe where he provides a bit of rationale for having four shadow complexes rather than them being "blurred into a master mythologem like Jung's dark Mercurius, who too easily becomes a metaphor for the whole shadow in all its shape-shifting aspects":
http://www.global-elite.org/MKUltra/Donald Kalsched - The Inner World of Trauma.html)
Seeing now that the original concepts were about trauma made me have to consider if the Trickster and Demon were necessarily the best archetypes to assign to the negative child and negative anima roles. (There were actually hundreds of archetypes to choose from. The ones we discuss are just those Beebe chose to represent the ego's cognitive dynamics).
Still, for now, apparently, it seems there are miniscule versions of the energies that hail from this space for lesser threats, that are nevertheless seen as grave to the ego's position.
Hence, both the 7th and 8th functions as brain hemisphere lateral alternatives or "mirrors" of the dominant and aux, as well as shadows of the tertiary and inferior. (Even though it should be pointed out that Lenore Thomson does not take it this way; it's the connection of the two theories that I'm making).
Again, when these complexes are triggered, the feeling will likely reach us by way of the associated functions.