skylights
i love
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Andy said:I'm also starting to see just hoe incompatible the two views are. For example, you regard functions as perspectives, while I think of them as motivations/concerns. To me, a perspective is something tht gets processed through the functions, where as to you it is the functions!
Thus, if asked to define any given function, we would be most unlikely to even agree on that, let alone how they all interlate.
Motivations/concerns? I'll have to think on that. For now, it doesn't seem like it would really be incompatible. It might be another good way to put it. I would think one's motivation or especially concern could be their perspective.
I didn't say the perspective is the functions, but that the functions are perspectives. There's a bit of a difference there. We have many different kinds of perspectives on things. The functions would be the perspectives dealing with our cognitive processing (input--S/N; computation--T/F). So yes, other perspectives will be processed through these perspectives.
The thing being emphasized in the term "perspectives" (which I got from Sim), is that what the functions should not be thought strictly in terms of, are behaviors or skills sets. That's what confuses a lot of people, when they try to type others, or even themselves, by behavior/skill descriptions of functions (which are very common attempts at shorthand definitions). Anyone can engage in any one of those. We need the internal context in which he is engaging in them (could be an archetypal manifestation of a function, a left/right brain alternative, just a normal human reaction not associated with a differentiated function, etc), which sounds like it is best described as a perspective. "Motivation/concern" sounds good too.
it's been interesting to keep up with this thread.
to throw in my two cents, i would assume that perspective would apply mostly to the Perceiving functions and motivation/concern to the Judging functions.
to put it in way, way oversimplified terms...
NF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what could be.
SF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what is.
NT is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what could be.
ST is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what is.
i like your four-quadrant mirror setup because it's mathematically pleasing, but being a very visual person, your graphic leaves me with so many more questions than answers...
like, do the Parent and Child, and Senex and Trickster connect with one another (as implied by the hands?) and what exactly is implied by the Anima being the mirror of the Hero? and the Parent seems to be under the control of the Hero, while for a Ji aux i feel like the Hero is more often under the watchful eye of the parent. for me, i feel like Te is much more of an "arm" to Ne than Fi is. Fi's the stubborn one being all hey be nice, whereas Te's a helper, helping me organize the Ne mess. and so on...
your grandma's place sounds neat.