John Beebe on the Archetypes

[Eric B]

For example the theory goes that you and I as intp would fall back on Ni to criticize/demoralize others (senex/witch), or when in complete meltdown, express oruselves through Fi (demon).

Personally this is what I am most interested to see examples of in practice.

Well, I think my issues with those "assigned" functions is how these roles were determined to start with. They're all just made up. Why is the sixth function the Trickster function, while the second function is called the Parenting function? Why aren't these something else? Who decided this?

It just seems very made up to me. And if someone else made up a different system, we'd be nodding and saying, "Oh, yes, I see how that function can be used that way." Or... maybe not.

Maybe I can see if you label one thing a Parenting function, the opposite of Parenting would the Senex thing... but it's all arbitrary to begin with rather than derived from real life. I used both functions (Ne and Ni) and other functions as well to guide the parenting of my children and of myself.

It makes a lot of sense to me, now, and Lenore even helped me see how it works as well. (Her interpretation of Beebe's model is another thing she's added after the book, so you won't see it in there. You can find her articles on it on the Personality Pathways site, though).

Once you understand what the arms and spines are, that's when the whole thing falls into place. Mirrors and parallels again; (NOT "mirrors and smoke"!).
The ego has its operating charter, the dominant function. The opposite function and attitude are rejected, and become inferior. We on one hand consciously reject it, but on the other, feel an incompleteness without it. We project it onto potential love partners. This begins the "spine"; which deals with the ego's relation to self.

The ego chooses an auxiliary function, which it places int he rejected opposite orientation like the inferior. Since the dominant is the operating charter; what is the purpose of the aux.? To reach out to others. It is mirrored by the tertiary, which is the opposite function, serves an opposite "childlike" role, and, like a sort of double negative; is in the dominant attitude. The ego then often runs to it to defend the dominant way of seeing things. Thus, the "tertiary temptation" is born. Now we see the development of the "arm", which deals with ego's relationship with others.

The "other four" are just the rejected opposite orientations of the primary four. And they are picked up by the rejected negative aspects of the primary four archetypes (which Lenore also points out are actually complexes).

Another thing I was beginning to grasp more today, is the fact that the shadows are about projection. Berens associates the inferior with "projection"; but in reality, any archetype not under conscious control will end up projected onto others.
I'm still trying to fully understand this, but I think examples I could give, is that in those posts where I awhile ago mentioned fictional characters who were "opposing personality" figures to me; the OP is apparently something I project onto them. Or their personalities resonate with this complex within myself. Likewise, Ni will resonate with this really disgruntled part of myself that picks out negative significance in events. I then project it on the world. I've felt guilty about personal ethics, and when someone appears high and mighty (self-righteous), I project this evil complex onto them, which then leads me to seek to knock them down from from their lofty position. I'm trying to figure how I project the Trickster on others. Probably involves arguing over facts and such (feeling double-bound by them, and trying to double bind others, in return).

Shadows are ultimately supposed to be "owned", and seen as part of one's self, which leads to the process of individuation (which has been popularly misconstrued as "developing all the functions"). This I'm also now trying to understand more.

John Beebe - The Spine and its Shadow - Portal Psychologii Analitycznej C.G. Junga - Polish Journal of Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung - Psychoanaliza - Archetyp - Sny - Pomoc psychologiczna - Polski psycholog

interesting article again.

Oh, wow; another Beebe article I hadn't found yet. [EDIT: I see that this is the same as some of the ones below; just a different site].

Here are the ones I had collected over the past year or so (plus the two linked earlier):

The basics, and how he evolved the model:

http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+One+-+The+Spine.pdf
http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

Some other informative articles:
"TYPOLOGY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRITY: An Interview with Dr. John Beebe", In Touch August, 2000 http://www.centerpointec.com/files/typology_Development.pdf

"A Jungian Analyst Talks About Psychological Types: A Visit with John Beebe" - DVD (transcript online at A Jungian Analyst Talks about Psychological Types)

Type templates you can use to see which ones fit you best:
Wellness Resources of Vermont
He introduced his model in "A new model of psychological types" (1988), C.G. Jung Institute of Chicago.
One extensive printed article by Beebe is "An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue" in the Theory & Psychology journal, offered for a price or subscription, at: An Archetypal Model of the Self in Dialogue -- Beebe 12 (2): 267 -- Theory & Psychology. He even analyzes Woody Allen's movie Husbands and Wives in light of the archetypes.

"UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES", Chapter 4, Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis, Joseph Cambray and Linda Carter (Editors), Hove and New York: Brunner Routledge, 2004, pp. 83-115. is like a more detailed and in depth version of "Evolving the 8 Function Model"

Here, in a typology discussion, I try to outline the 32 possible shadow function roles: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/844121-post68.html

I also just today began looking up Donald Kalsched, whom I heard was a likely influence on Beebe's theory. In his page on his book on trauma; you can see the root of some of the archetypes:

Donald Kalsched - Specializing in Early Childhood Trauma

 

[Jaguar]

It just seems very made up to me. And if someone else made up a different system, we'd be nodding and saying, "Oh, yes, I see how that function can be used that way." Or... maybe not.

I used both functions (Ne and Ni) and other functions as well to guide the parenting of my children and of myself.

Take Dr. Allen Marshall for example - mid 1990's.
He came up with a theory similar to Beebe's only his theory is that the functions are linked.
That means whenever you developed your Ne, your Ni came next.
Now of course you'll say, "no way" did you develop Te with your Ti.
But that's you. Another INTP might say they did.

It's going to depend on your personal level of conciousness.

Theoretical constructs aside, parental and environmental pressures will have an even greater influence on what functions were, and are, developed.
What happened in your house as a child could have led you to develop certain functions that you are consciously aware of, but other INTPs are not.

 

[Totenkindly]

btw, just to be clear, just because I seem down on Beebe doesn't mean I'm down on this thread.

I found it rather hard to find a collection of Beebe's work, most of it was scattered throughout various seminars instead of being consolidated... and since he's a more noticeable figure in the MBTI community nowadays, I think it's worth having a centralized collection of links to his stuff.

 

[sculpting]

It's their way of avoiding what? Intimacy. Depth. Getting to know people on their own.
It tells me they're terrified of not only who they really are, but who others are.
So by having a paint-by-numbers theory they can stand even farther away from people.

Take you, for example. You don't really think I believe you're like Tater, PeaceBaby or Beefeater do you?
Not on your life. You have your own vibe. It's very distinct to me.
I sure as hell would never be so arrogant as to tell you how you think.

Only you know that, buddy.

You are correct in this-having a paint by numbers allows me to analyze people from a distance and categorize. It is purely defensive. As a kid I could not trust others enough to connect via Fi-thus I use Te in a hyperanalytical defensive manner. I could not trust others to not be emotionally manipulative, so instead I learned to Fi "value" logic and rely upon Te to analyze behavorial patterns. It is a learned skill. But then with Fi I move much more close and appreciate the individual beauty and uniqueness of the person and how they fit within whatever external framework I built-realizing if they dont fit, the framework is wrong, not the individual.

It has made it hard to connect and trust others emotionally-although I am learning how to do this.

For the record, Te is not my most developed shadow function.
It's near the bottom-bottom-bottom for me... and it took a literal "do it or die" life circumstance for me to actually commit to using.

I hate the thing.
Hate it.

I think my feelings are somewhere in-between. Te is more similar to Ti than Ti is to Fe, I guess, but it's so inside-out it's almost a completely different way to thinking.

Te is goal-oriented. It is an application of power, making things conform to the predetermined concrete rational ideal in order to achieve congruence. Ti is essence-oriented. It explores and seeks what is within, the underlying nature, based on what already is apparent. Whereas Te wields power to bring about the desired outcome, Ti abandons power and takes what already exists to figure out what it must be inside.

Both are detached functions, the "self" is irrelevant.
But going in COMPLETELY opposite directions.

This is almost exactly how I feel about Fe-when I can find the healthy variety-it feels so very wrong and fucked up, yet I understand how incredibly effective it is. I HATE using Fe. Even the healthy version as it drags me away from what defines me-Fi I guess. I feel like I am being enslaved?? Just assuming the mindset seems to violate some weird notion/value of "fighting" for a cause. It is weird. Like turning inside out.

Again, my issue is not particular "shadow functions," it's the conjuration of an entire "shadow type" based solely on my strongest first four functions and the theoretical derivation thereof.

That is what I think is entirely arbitrarily.

This sounds right-I recognize individual functions, but not the whole type in myself.

I would suggest that under massive stress you might see a progression. First we try and use our normal dom/aux functions, then progress into the tert/inf functions if those fail, then under massive stress we dig deeper into those subconscious functions. But the stress has to be massive to push us there? What I feel as a shadow Fe is basically dissasociation. Bad? Good? or just an tool? It is a case of using my functions and not letting them use me...once I understand, it is easy to predict and modify my response. I can also let others understand so they can predict as well. I dont think the majority of other enfps reach this point of digging into those shadow functions. Maybe 20% of us? I do it about 3 or 4 times a year. I'd suggest a BPD does it much, much more often.

I'm wanting to make up my own alternative Mbti-based function system now. I'm sure I could come up with something internally coherent if I worked on it Whether it reflected any particular reality would of course be as nothing compared to the inherent beauty and unity of the system itself...

Ni Ni Ni Ni

All the bullshit I make up has to be supported by what I see or I trash it-Si people libraries at work. Even one contridictory data point observed externally? Wrong. However oddly, it doesnt have to be internally consistent-I can recognize "leaks" and "holes" but if the predictions it makes are true it still has utility and is of value ,even if it needs constant remodeling. I guess this is the my odd tert Te approach though. It's kinda leaky...

Shadows are ultimately supposed to be "owned", and seen as part of one's self, which leads to the process of individuation (which has been popularly misconstrued as "developing all the functions"). This I'm also now trying to understand more.

Eric these links were awesome-I will read in more depth.

A question based upon the above. I can only base this on my own observations-a decidely un-INTP approach so please forgive-but to me Fe used as massive stress induced shadow feels nothing like when I tap into Fe and try and use healthily. I still HATE using healthy Fe-but I can recognize it's value, thus will try and listen to it as I have sort of figured I may need to do this to keep growing...and not pissing people off.

Jung mentioned the transcendant function/individuation. This sounds like learning to use the opp attitude of a specific function. Ne doms learn to tap into bits of Ni for instance.

When observing individuals how do we know how far along they actually are in that process? Maybe some of the issues we see in function definitions and subjective descriptions are because some people have started that process? Thus it isnt a "pure" function anymore?

Also-would we even be aware? Like a complex equation I see the two functions combining to create something with a different flavor almost??

(Notice all the question marks..This is Ne probing as I really am not certain on any of this.)

 

[Eric B]

Eric these links were awesome-I will read in more depth.

A question based upon the above. I can only base this on my own observations-a decidely un-INTP approach so please forgive-but to me Fe used as massive stress induced shadow feels nothing like when I tap into Fe and try and use healthily. I still HATE using healthy Fe-but I can recognize it's value, thus will try and listen to it as I have sort of figured I may need to do this to keep growing...and not pissing people off.

I don't think it's a matter of trying to "use" a "healthy" version of the function. Like Lenore has mentioned; the products of undifferentiated functions are capable of reaching consciousness, provided they are connected to the ego's operating charter of the differentiated dominant function. It's when they aren't so linked, that the functional product then remains conflated with the archetypal complex.

So whatever you're doing to try to "use Fe" does not have to be seen as healthy Fe "use". When it erupts in the unhealthy fashion; it is likely linked to the archetype. According to Beebe and Berens, it can have positive use at times; like as backup for your dominant Fi. Again, this makes sense if you realize there are only four functions; one of them Feeling, which can be used in an internal or external orientation.

Another aspect I was thinking more of today, based on things Lenore illustrated to me, and then the Kalsched link made them click; is that the shadows are primarily about protecting the ego. Especialy the deeper shadows; the Trickster and Demon. They split off information or experience damaging to the ego. Like Lenore described to me a hypothetical INTJ who is double-bound by a fear of being hurt that leads him to mirror others intentions negatively (a defensive Fe). He wants intimacy, but always messes it up. Therefore, the Trickster complex protects him from being hurt again.

From the Kalsched link:

What dreams reveal and what recent clinical research has shown are that when trauma strikes the developing psyche of a child, a fragmentation of consciousness occurs in which the different "pieces" (Jung called the splinter-psyches or complexes) organize themselves according to certain archaic and typical (archetypal) patterns. Typically, one part of the ego regresses to the infantile period, and another part progresses, i.e., grows up too fast and becomes precociously adapted to the outer world, often as a "false self." The progressed part of the personality then caretakes the regressed part.

Together, the "mythologized" images of the "progressed vs. regressed" parts of the self make up what I call the psyche's archetypal self-care system. The "system" is archetypal because it is both archaic and typical of the psyche's self-preservative operations, and because it is developmentally earlier and more primitive than normal ego-defenses. Because these defenses seem to be "coordinated" by a deeper center in the personality than the ego, they have been referred to as "defenses of the Self."

The self-care system performs the self-regulatory and inner/outer mediational functions that, under normal conditions, are performed by the person's functioning ego. Here is where a problem arises. Once the trauma defense is organized, all relations with the outer world are "screened" by the self-care system. What was intended to be a defense against further trauma becomes a major resistance to all unguarded spontaneous expressions of self in the world The person survives but cannot live creatively. Psychotherapy becomes necessary.

As early as 1920, Freud was shaken by the extent to which a "daimonic" force in some patients resisted change and made the usual work of analysis impossible. Subsequently, clinicians working with the victims of trauma or abuse have readily recognized the "daimonic" figure or forces to which Freud alludes. Fairbairn described it as an "Internal Saboteur" and Guntrip as the "anti-libidinal ego" attacking the "libidinal ago." Melanie Klein described the child's fantasies of a cruel, attacking, "bad breast;" Jung described the "negative Animus" and more recently, Jeffrey Seinfeld has written about an internal structured called simply the "Bad Object."

Most contemporary analytic writers are inclined to see this attacking figure as an internalized version of the actual perpetrator of the trauma, who has "possessed" the inner world of the trauma victim. But this popularized view is only half correct. The diabolical inner figure is often far more sadistic and brutal than any outer perpetrator, indicating that we are dealing here with a psychological factor set loose in the inner world by trauma -- an archetypal traumatogenic agency within the psyche itself.

No matter how frighting his or her brutality, the function of this ambivalent caretaker always seems to be the protection of the traumatized remainder of the personal spirit and its isolation from reality. It functions, if we can imagine its inner rationale, as a kind of inner "Jewish Defense League" (whose slogan, after the Holocaust, reads "never Again!"). "Never again," says our tyrannical caretaker, will the traumatized personal spirit of this child suffer this badly! Never again will it be this helpless in the face of cruel reality....before this happens I will disperse it into fragments [dissociation], or encapsulate it and soothe it with fantasy [schizoid withdrawal], or numb it with intoxicating substances [addiction], or persecute it to keep it from hoping for life in this world [depression]....In this way I will preserve what is left of this prematurely amputated childhood -- of an innocence that has suffered too much too soon!"

Here you can see the roots of the "Demonic Personality Complex" archetype. (And the regressed part is probably the anima; and Beebe likely extracted the Puer, Senex and Trickster from this as well).
Lenore seems to follow suit in believing it's only in severe cases of trauma, or at the stage when the ego is ready to individuate (the Trickster double-binds the ego with situations it cannot solve with its dominant outlook).
But they do inpractice seem to come up under less forms of stress as well; plus the good side of the archetypes.

Jung mentioned the transcendant function/individuation. This sounds like learning to use the opp attitude of a specific function. Ne doms learn to tap into bits of Ni for instance.

I haven't heard of transcendant function yet. Individuation is simply when you own the complex (which the larger Self speaks through, in claiming its rightful place as the center of the psyche; which the ego thinks it is), and then are able to receive more input from the associated complex.

When observing individuals how do we know how far along they actually are in that process? Maybe some of the issues we see in function definitions and subjective descriptions are because some people have started that process? Thus it isnt a "pure" function anymore?

As the concept of the functions are not really as behavior-focused as we make them out to be, that probably can't be answered.

Also-would we even be aware? Like a complex equation I see the two functions combining to create something with a different flavor almost??

(Notice all the question marks..This is Ne probing as I really am not certain on any of this.)

I'm still coming to understand this stuff better, so it's hard to say. It's not about functions combining. It's just bringing more of the Self into consciousness.