Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time

[Ginkgo]

Damnit.

I just realized that I was wrong.

 

[miss fortune]

I like the fact that you used an artistic analogy. Some time ago, I had a PM with a pal and I used a symphony orchestra as my analogy. I suggested that ALL the FA's were playing simultaneously with the volume of the instruments rising and falling from our consciousness, but still playing all the while. Just because we hear the violins and horns peaking, doesn't mean the piano isn't playing in the background.

Like yourself, I don't much care for having a rigid picture of how we operate. To me, the brain flows with ease. It doesn't stop at toll booths to yell, "Hey baby, punch my card so I can head to the next stop!"

very true... I can't picture how any single function can work seperatly from any other- none can stand on their own- they need the support of others in a way- they're just building blocks, they're not the be all, end all.

Damnit.

I just realized that I was wrong.

*ruffles the potato's hair*

it happens to the best of us from time to time

 

[Eric B]

Changing the nomenclature in every book ever written on the topic will clarify nothing. We already have all of the following being used by different authors, to represent the same thing:

Function Attitudes
Jungian Processes
Jungian Functions
Cognitive processes
Mental processes

Take your pick.

We're not arguing as to the names of the concept, we're arguing on words to describe them. What are function attitudes, or processes?

Do you recall this exchange?
Look familiar?

Definition of a process by Linda V. Berens:

Source: Dynamics of personality type: understanding and applying Jung's cognitive processes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ca...&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

And I still do not knock the term "processes" like you claimed; though I do shun "activities the system engages in as it functions in day-to-day life...They are best described using verbs that indicate actions." That's my one disagreement with her.
But even she describes them in terms of "Philosoph[ies] of Life" in that book on the top of the page for each process, and those seem to be her best descriptions of them.

The Philosophy of Life that engages...
Se: There is always more to be experienced, and opportunities don't last.
Si: There is always a comparison to be made, and if it is familiar, it is to be trusted
Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed
Te: Everything can be logical, structured and organized
Ti: Everything can be explained and understood in terms of how it works
Fe: Everything can be considered in terms of how it affects others
Fi: Everything can be in harmony or congruence

This is all I am suggesting by calling them "perspectives". Notice, those aren't "activities" or "behaviors", though they will influence those things.

What are you talking about, Eric? I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them. I always have. It is you and Sim who thought you'd be cute and say, "Oh, no! Let's rename them all something else." Frankly, you and Sim remind me of Victor.

You and Sim:

Perspective!
Perspective!

Victor:

MBTI trance!
MBTI trance!

I've known Beebe's work for years.
Just know some of us are not Beebe fans, and let's move on.
I do not enjoy going over the same material, ad nauseam.

You approve of every author? That's funny; you sure don't approve of Lenore and Beebe.

You still need to show how calling the functions perspectives is the same thing as calling the whole MBTI a trance! "Trance" is meant as a pejorative to knock the whole thing. Your criticizing of certain people's expressions of the theory is closer to what Victor does than anything else.

So rather than entertain the possibility Beebe's work is crap, or the possibility that an INTP can use Fi without being "demonic," your only solution was to play a name-changing game. All I can tell you is this:

Read my sig line.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about. The problem is not Beebe's work; it's certain interpretations of it or ways of expressing it that need to be ironed out. He has acknowledged that the functions can step outside their archetypal carriers and operate independently of them, so I did not need to reject Beebe to realize that an INTP can engage the products of Fi (a better way of putting that).
The name change was an alternative to the confusing "using skills/behavior/activities" lingo that begs the question of where it really fits in a given type in the first place. I wish you would stop making it more than that.

Again, your slamming the guy for no reason at all is more like Victor. He only goes further and extends it to the whole theory.

Wasn't it Lenore who came up with the "perspectives" terminology?

I don't remember her using the term directly, but the use of it seen here was greatly influenced by her. From what I understand, it was Sim who coined the term.

Here's her own description of what she calls them:

To put this somewhat differently, the functions represent four different ways that our unconscious emotional subsystems are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations, moving them into the stream of consciousness. As such, the functions aren't cognitive processes. Rather, they make our emotional energies available to the operations of the executive brain.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-1.html#question
[Note: while she is rejecting the term "cognitive processes"; I am not pushing that point!]

 

[Jaguar]

We're not arguingas to the names of the concept, we're arguing on words to describe them.

If you're going to get your panties in a wad over this, hell, call them your little "perspectives."

And I still do not knock the term "processes" like you claimed; though I do shun "activities the system engages in as it functions in day-to-day life...They are best described using verbs that indicate actions." That's my one disagreement with her.

Then disagree with Linda. Just like I disagree with the fear mongering of Lenore. Lenore is afraid of her own shadow. Literally. But you are sounding a bit like a parrot when you keep squawking about "perspectives" thread after thread.

But even she describes them in terms of "Philosoph[ies] of Life" in that book on the top of the page for each process, and those seem to be her best descriptions of them.

We both have the book, Eric.
You are taking her too literally. She first defines a process in that book which I already posted. The "philosophies," are merely an additional way of looking at the processes. What if in lieu of the word, "philosophies" she chose the word "instruments" and used a symphony orchestra analogy. Then what - would you run around the forum telling people to use the word, "instrument"? Let's hope not.

The Philosophy of Life that engages...
Se: There is always more to be experienced, and opportunities don't last.
Si: There is always a comparison to be made, and if it is familiar, it is to be trusted
Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed
Te: Everything can be logical, structured and organized
Ti: Everything can be explained and understood in terms of how it works
Fe: Everything can be considered in terms of how it affects others
Fi: Everything can be in harmony or congruence

I agree with all of them, depending on the situation.
I can't even imagine saying only ONE of those is my "Philosophy of Life." Like I said, I think you are taking her a bit too literally. She already defined a process and she even wrote:

No single process operates in isolation.

Which also implies no "Life Philosophy" operates in isolation, either.
She's just giving the reader one more way to look at Ne, Se, or any of the other processes.

You approve of every author? That's funny; you sure don't approve of Lenore and Beebe.

This is what I wrote:

I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them.

The operative word is processes, Eric. Processes. Don't play games. We both know Lenore's Beam-Me-Up-Scotty book is not about the processes, per se. It is about Personality TYPE, and all her incessant babbling about Captain Kirk. If someone wishes to buy a book to learn the processes, that sure isn't one to buy.

You still need to show how calling the functions perspectives is the same thing as calling the whole MBTI a trance! "Trance" is meant as a pejorative to knock the whole thing.

It's merely the redundancy of it all, Eric. You and I end up in many of the same threads, so I see how many times you tell people to use "perspectives." The same can be said of Victor who repeatedly uses the same words "trance" or God help us all, "Cognitive Dissonance." It's the repetitive nature that is annoying. Kind of like when you would start your posts with, "Lenore says."

Your criticizing of certain people's expressions of the theory is closer to what Victor does than anything else.

Then you don't know his style.

The name change was an alternative to the confusing "using skills/behavior/activities" lingo that begs the question of where it really fits in a given type in the first place.

It's confusing to you, perhaps. Or you just don't like it. You might also one day realize that not all people fit cleanly into a given type. Even the MBTI handbook remarks not everyone is a clear type.

As to Beebe, my criticism of him was exactly his own. At least the guy was honest and admitted his "rigid hierarchies" even existed. That was always my problem with him. That means I am no more critical of Beebe than he was of himself.

 

[highlander]

The operative word is processes, Eric. Processes. Don't play games. We both know Lenore's Beam-Me-Up-Scotty book is not about the processes, per se. It is about Personality TYPE, and all her incessant babbling about Captain Kirk. If someone wishes to buy a book to learn the processes, that sure isn't one to buy.

Well, I happen to like her book a lot. It's not so bad on the processes - there is some great and insightful stuff in there - but yeah it's better on type I suppose. I liked Star Trek and don't like those examples though. lol

 

[Kalach]

Skimmed the thread, realised everyone was using just one process to approach the issue, decided to call the majority of participants retarded.

(a) it seems you're all attempting to define consciousness... that, after all, is what answers the question of how many processes are conscious at any given moment, and:

(b) are you all not seeing the deep and abiding influence of your dominant functions on this debate? More particularly, how you're all making moves to make other people function as your dominant function functions...

^ there, for example, is me suggesting that everyone discover a global perspective. (Hello, Ni)

And above we have Eric looking for an adequately descriptive word. (Good evening, Ti.)

And Jag saying such things are foolishness because adequate description is less important than actual truth. (willkommen sie, Herr Te.)



This is why they're called "dominant". They dominate your functioning. (Or, at least, they're evident as a dominant concern in your public presentations.)

Do they dominate by being the one most often jumping to the front of the order in a serial swapping of function dominance or do they do it by so imprinting their imperatives and perspectives on the functioning of the "other" functions that those functions don't have a distinct identity....

Well, I don't know, yes, it is an interesting question.

 

[Jaguar]

Skimmed the thread, realised everyone was using just one process to approach the issue, decided to call the majority of participants retarded.

Despite the fact a mod once locked you out of a thread for calling people "retarded," here you are entering a conversation and the first thing you do is call the participants, "retarded." It's impossible to take you seriously. Grow up, Kalach. You've been behaving like this for far too long.

 

[Kalach]

Okay, Dad.


Hug?

 

[Zarathustra]

Despite the fact a mod once locked you out of a thread for calling people "retarded," here you are entering a conversation and the first thing you do is call the participants, "retarded."

*The majority of participants.

It's impossible to take you seriously.

I take him seriously. To an extent. With qualifications... I'm not sure how seriously he takes himself, though...

The pink elephant in any thread Kalach walks into is that he always likes to tell people how dominant the dominant function is, and how they don't realize it, but, what I always wonder is whether he realizes that, relative to others, his dominant is obviously extremely dominant; hence, why he feels the need to constantly remind others how dominant the dominant is... and does he realize this???
Nevertheless, I find his perspective useful in filling out my global perspective. (Kon'nichiwa, Misuta Ni.)

Grow up, Kalach. You've been behaving like this for far too long.

This is why I question whether Jag is an ENTJ or ENFJ.

I consider him an ENxJ, which would imply two dominant functions, and add a new wrinkle to your obsession, Kalach...

Do they dominate by being the one most often jumping to the front of the order in a serial swapping of function dominance or do they do it by so imprinting their imperatives and perspectives on the functioning of the "other" functions that those functions don't have a distinct identity....

That is an interesting question...

Why could it not be both...? (Oh, bonjour a nouveau, monsieur Ni...)

 

[Jaguar]

Okay, Dad.
Hug?

No hug, Gramps.

This is why I question whether Jag is an ENTJ or ENFJ.
I consider him an ENxJ, which would imply two dominant functions, and add a new wrinkle to your obsession, Kalach...

If you would actually type someone based upon whether or not a person says, "Grow up," rather than factoring in age, I can't take you seriously, either. If you really want to be told to "Grow up," then maybe I should invite my ESTJ pal who is in his 50's, to join.

 

[Kalach]

That is an interesting question...

Why could it not be both...? (Oh, bonjour a nouveau, monsieur Ni...)

Conceivably it is both.

But maybe a distinction between products of consciousness and consciousness itself is in order. The consciousness gives rise to the product and handles it, but the consciousness itself is some other ongoing system that includes conscious and unconscious processes for that handling.



The whole system operates according to a fixed order, dominant > auxiliary > tertiary > inferior, but which product assumes priority at any given time is, I dunno, the joy of being a dynamic system operating under more than one perspective and more than one imperative and certainly under changing conditions. Or something.

I dunno. I'm taking it for granted that functions can't exist in isolation, but can be more or less influential in determining the nature of conscious (and unconscious) product.

However, it seems like the whole distinction between product and process, or the job of trying to describe that distinction, gets fubared by, I guess, some kind of uncertainty principle--once some product of consciousness is conscious it becomes something other than what it was when it was forming out of unconsciousness.

Consciousness supervenes on the mechanism? (Suggesting no function is ever "in control" of consciousness.... :horor


I dunno. I'm just riffing.

 

[Zarathustra]

If you would actually type someone based upon whether or not a person says, "Grow up," rather than factoring in age, I can't take you seriously, either. If you really want to be told to "Grow up," then maybe I should invite my ESTJ pal who is in his 50's, to join.

Well, don't worry, cuz I would not type someone based solely on one observed behavior. That would be retarded.

Nor would I ever claim that some behavior is exclusive to one or several types. That would also be retarded.

The truth is: I have over a dozen reasons why this (you being an ENxJ) is my current working hypothesis.

So, not that you take me seriously anyway, and not that I care whether you do, but, based solely on the reason you offered, you don't have reason not to.

 

[Jaguar]

To be frank, you can type me ABRG or 1234. It really means nothing.

 

[Zarathustra]

True: you are what you are.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

It is my impression that one never stops perceiving anything (i.e Si, Ni etc.). I do agree that it could be a process that occurs individually, but no amount of speech can express how quickly our brain computes. Jaguar's tollbooth analogy got me thinking. Why does sequental have to mean that something stops. Streamlining hints towards just getting rid of the tollbooths and going into the fast lane sort of speak. I also see functions being somewhat like a highway where different on ramps lead to the same mega highway. All converging to that one idea, perspective, or thought process. All eight have their own on ramp.

 

[BlueScreen]

number set = 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

2,3,5,7 / 4,6,8,9 (prime/not prime)
2,4,6,8 / 3,5,7,9 (even/odd)
2,3,5,8 / 4,6,7,9 (Fibonacci/not Fibonacci)

Do we have evidence that the functions are mutually exclusive? Can we? What do they represent exactly? Why are these things grouped and not others in our model?
Is F and T a real dichotomy? Why must what is not thinking be feeling? Why must what is not intuition be sensing?

 

[uumlau]

Question:

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

Answer:

I can't picture how any single function can work seperatly from any other- none can stand on their own- they need the support of others in a way- they're just building blocks, they're not the be all, end all.

I love how whatever cuts to the chase.

Most MBTI type analysis that discusses the functions tends to attribute the "problems" of a type to a lack of differentiating functions other than the dominant.

I also like Jag's symphonic analogy: they're working in concert (pun intended), whether conscious or unconscious.

Finally, the notion of "using" a function to perform an activity is problematic at best. It is helpful when trying to describe how the function "works," but it isn't the function that makes the action happen: it is the individual's choice. The function(s) is(are) but a fraction of the elements that go into any choice.

 

[highlander]

Despite the fact a mod once locked you out of a thread for calling people "retarded," here you are entering a conversation and the first thing you do is call the participants, "retarded." It's impossible to take you seriously. Grow up, Kalach. You've been behaving like this for far too long.

This is why I question whether Jag is an ENTJ or ENFJ.

I consider him an ENxJ, which would imply two dominant functions, and add a new wrinkle to your obsession, Kalach...

Actually, I would consider the above quote to reflect Te + Fi.

Not that I'm trying to type anybody.

 

[Zarathustra]

Actually, I would consider the above quote to reflect Te + Fi.

Not that I'm trying to type anybody.

Why not Fe?

When it feels someone is violating an objective ethical standard?

 

[miss fortune]

thanks uumlau! it's nice to know that some people pay attention to no nonsense bluntness!

and I'd like to know how the people on this forum are going around observing MY dominant function... which doesn't translate well online AT ALL (though I find it well integrated with the rest of the parts of my personality to the point where it would kill my personality to remove it- the same with any of them really- these functions are, to my personality what my organs are to my body... useful organs, that is... not the appendix and spleen )