Quote Originally Posted by SecondBest View Post
As far as understanding my own psyche, there is only one division - that between ego and grace. These two terms I use based on my own understanding of concepts in Buddhist philosophy and Catholic mysticism, respectively.

Ego, I associate with: desire, attachment, ambition, hope, drive, passion, suffering, et al.

Grace, I associate with: stillness, letting go, discipline, acceptance, et al.

The interplay of these two forces is what interests me in myself and in turn, if I care to, I will apply this in understanding others, but only among the elements that are already familiar to me, if that makes any sense. The understanding of these concepts are not guided by training, schooling, system building, or any of the like. They are guided by an understanding found from trial-and-error, pain, and post-pain analysis. Suffering and emotion are the foundations of this "system." It's tough to explain but this is a very rough idea.

Any other type of system building, I find, is essentially a defensive act. Logical thinking, in my pov, is the act of separation that begins with the initial separation an individual has made within themselves, within the world they see, or between themselves and the world. At any rate, logical thinking, the foundation of system building, is at its heart an act of separation. And at the heart of separation is something that comes part and parcel with it - protection.

Not that protection is a bad thing. I guess what I'm saying is that if you really want to understand something/anything in the most thorough way, whether it's yourself or others, personality theory, economics, philosophy, et al. - in my experience, there is absolutely no substitute for the combination of trial-and-error, pain/failure, and analysis. The protection/logical system that comes almost effortlessly out of THAT cycle will be the most thorough and complete system you will have regarding any subject or topic.
Ha! That's such a Dom-Fi post.

I love this site. And I love MBTI, because it so elegantly describes why it's impossible for many of us to understand each other - we're so trapped by our leading function - it literally dominates us and our understanding of EVERYTHING. It's like we can only respond to one type of content in a given situation. Like being colour-blind. It's so interesting to observe. The genius of Jung was to look beyond his preferred prism and to embrace the idea that other ways of looking at the world had equal validity, unlike his predecessors, people like Freud and Adler, who pathologised difference. We forget what a phenomenally creative act that was. I think it's beyond arrogant to suppose that we can equal that achievement, especially when no one has even come up with a valid criticism of the system as yet.