a thing to keep in mind about functions (Ni as example)

[garbage]

This might have been said before. Just sayin' it again.

From the Lenore wiki:

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason, facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs, or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period.

Our functions are orientations, lenses through which we view the world. All of our lenses are imperfect.


Although, this raises a side question, too. Should we think of the functions themselves as archetypes, and our preferences as orientations toward those functions? That is, perhaps Ni captures knowing without facts or logic, and an Ni-dominant is oriented toward Ni, but has an imperfect use of Ni?

 

[INTP]

Functions dont fit the definition of archetype, so no we shouodnt think functions as archetypes..

 

[Poki]

Functions dont fit the definition of archetype, so no we shouodnt think functions as archetypes..

or maybe adapt the definitions of archtypes...LOL...constants

 

[garbage]

Functions dont fit the definition of archetype, so no we shouodnt think functions as archetypes..

Jung himself described eight archetypes, while Lenore and company focus on describing functions, yeah. So, my wording didn't have exact precision.

Leaving the terms "function" and "archetype" alone for a bit, I'm concerned about which construct would be most useful--should we talk about "introverted intuition" or about "introverted intuitives"? Because, to me, the two often get conflated more than they should.

 

[INTP]

Jung himself described eight archetypes, while Lenore and company focus on describing functions, yeah. So, my wording didn't have exact precision.

Leaving the terms "function" and "archetype" alone for a bit, I'm concerned about which construct would be most useful--should we talk about "introverted intuition" or about "introverted intuitives"? Because, to me, the two often get conflated more than they should.

Its beebe who described function positions as archetypes, jung never made the connection between function and archetypes and had totally different definitions for them..

 

[Poki]

Jung himself described eight archetypes, while Lenore and company focus on describing functions, yeah. So, my wording didn't have exact precision.

Leaving the terms "function" and "archetype" alone for a bit, I'm concerned about which construct would be most useful--should we talk about "introverted intuition" or about "introverted intuitives"? Because, to me, the two often get conflated more than they should.

introverted intuition is about a function
introverted intuitives is about a person


There is overlap between the 2. what we should talk about depends on the topic. If you want to talk about a person then use introverted intuitives as the focus and how introverted intuition comes into play. If you want to talk about function..use introverted intuition and bring in examples from introverted intuitives. Its all dependent on focus.

Where there is overlap we can think of them the same, where there isnt we cant. Its like drawing 2 overlapping circles. Where they overlap we can "technically" think of them as one in the same. Where they dont we need to be able to seperate the 2. atleast thats my opinion.

Its not as matter of what we should talk about, but how it applies or relates to what we are talking about.

 

[garbage]

Its beebe who described function positions as archetypes, jung never made the connection between function and archetypes and had totally different definitions for them..

This is part of my point.

Jung's passages are littered with snippets like the following:

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type

The point is that even Jung makes a distinction between the type and the man, which we don't tend to do. We get to the point where we claim that Ni-users have a complete grasp of Ni, for example, which they may not.

 

[INTP]

This is part of my point.

Jung's passages are littered with snippets like the following:

The point is that even Jung makes a distinction between the type and the man, which we don't tend to do. We get to the point where we claim that Ni-users have a complete grasp of Ni, for example, which they may not.

How is this pure type thing relevant with anything? Its just some random guys theory about what type jung was(he thinks jung is all types because hes gone so long on individuation process)..

Rest is just wtfhaveyoueverreadanythingfromjung? And where did you find that quote and what did you leave out of it? The quote like that says nothing..

 

[garbage]

How is this pure type thing relevant with anything? Its just some random guys theory about what type jung was(he thinks jung is all types because hes gone so long on individuation process)..

Rest is just wtfhaveyoueverreadanythingfromjung? And where did you find that quote and what did you leave out of it? The quote like that says nothing..

I'd rather talk with people who understand what I'm getting at and can discuss it rather than bicker over details with you, but I'll bite anyway.

Who are you talking about, "some random guy"?

I quoted Jung himself. Well, a translation. Namely, this translation of Psychological Types. I trust that you can use the scrollbar or scroll wheel or Ctrl+F to find the text that I pulled out.

Either the translation just really sucks, or I'm wrong about Jung stating the exact thing that this translation says that he said, or Jung is as mysterious as Jesus and we cannot take quotes from him without tons and tons of context. Either way, it's irrelevant to the OP (but I'm still curious).

 

[INTP]

I'd rather talk with people who understand what I'm getting at and can discuss it rather than bicker over details with you, but I'll bite anyway.

Who are you talking about, "some random guy"?

I quoted Jung himself. Well, a translation. Namely, this translation of Psychological Types. I trust that you can use the scrollbar or scroll wheel or Ctrl+F to find the text that I pulled out.

Either the translation just really sucks, or I'm wrong about Jung stating the exact thing that this translation says that he said. Either way, it's irrelevant to the OP (but I'm still curious).

You left out all relevant stuff from your quote and took it out of the context, so i thought you were referring to that guy who made an hypothesis of jung being a "pure type", which he meant that jung was all types.

Anyways, now that i got to read what your quote was actually about, its pretty clear that you dont understand what jung says there.

First of all, with pure Te type, jung speaks of Te type, whos aux and tert are undifferentiated.

This has nothing to do with archetypes or making an distinction between man and the type..

 

[garbage]

You left out all relevant stuff from your quote and took it out of the context, so i thought you were referring to that guy who made an hypothesis of jung being a "pure type", which he meant that jung was all types.

Anyways, now that i got to read what your quote was actually about, its pretty clear that you dont understand what jung says there.

First of all, with pure Te type, jung speaks of Te type, whos aux and tert are undifferentiated.

This has nothing to do with archetypes or making an distinction between man and the type..

I am not saying that Jung talks about functions as if they were archetypes or that he talks about a "Te type." How much clearer do I need to be?

Let me pull some definitions of the word "archetype":

An archetype (play /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol or term[1] or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.

A very typical example of a certain person or thing.

This is all I mean. Let's please use the word "ideal" rather than "archetype," then, if that'll let us move on with some more discussion of the overall point in the OP.

 

[INTP]

You didn't read what all of what I had to say before you replied?

I am not saying that Jung talks about functions as if they were archetypes or that he talks about a "Te type." How much clearer do I need to be?

Let me pull some definitions of the word "archetype":


This is all I mean. Let's use the word "ideal" rather than "archetype," then, if that'll let us move on with some actual discussion.

Yes i read what you said, but what tou said didnt make any sense and wasnt relevant to archetypes in any way, so the conversation seemed something like this to me:

-hey whats up?
-dog
-what? I asked whats up, dog is up?
-cat
-wtf are you ok?
-dont you listen what im saying god damnit
...

Anyways, you left out something:

"Collective unconscious is common for all mankind. Structures within collective unconscious are called archetypes, archetype is a symbol producing structure=
Inherited parts of the psyche, structuring patterns of psychological performance linked to instinct or hypothetical entity, are irresentable in itself and only evident through its manifestations"

Anyways jung didnt describe just eight archetypes, he saw archetypes everywhere, for example birds building nests or singing in certain way due to genetic memory is archetypal behavior.

The nurturing instinct of a mother is archetypal behavior. Archetype of mother.
The fact that people build a social mask that he displays to others, which isnt the true self, is archetypal behavior. Persona.

Etc etc.

This is totally different from functions, which are about judgment and perception(cognitions). Archetypes are what potentially distort these perceptions and cognitions(or actually color complexes, which control/distort cognitions).

What do you mean with the ideal?

Why not just call them functions?

 

[Poki]

Yes i read what you said, but what tou said didnt make any sense and wasnt relevant to archetypes in any way, so the conversation seemed something like this to me:

-hey whats up?
-dog
-what? I asked whats up, dog is up?
-cat
-wtf are you ok?
-dont you listen what im saying god damnit
...

Just to answer..."animal"

 

[INTP]

Just to answer..."animal"

Animal is up?

 

[garbage]

Anyways jung didnt describe just eight archetypes, he saw archetypes everywhere, for example birds building nests or singing in certain way due to genetic memory is archetypal behavior.

The nurturing instinct of a mother is archetypal behavior. Archetype of mother.
The fact that people build a social mask that he displays to others, which isnt the true self, is archetypal behavior. Persona.

Etc etc.

This is totally different from functions, which are about judgment and perception(cognitions). Archetypes are what potentially distort these perceptions and cognitions(or actually color complexes, which control/distort cognitions).

What do you mean with the ideal?

Why not just call them functions?

Fair enough, yeah, and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not so read-up on the psychology-technical details of some terms, so I'm not sure what's really meant by "archetypes" or, in a very strict sense, even by "functions." (I've got Robertson's Jungian Archetypes but I'm only about a quarter of the way through. I should pick it and some other resources on the subject back up.)

I think that some of the common definitions of some of these terms are a bit more loose than when they are used by Jung or by psychologists. So, my use of terms like "ideal" is an attempt to actually convey my main point, without all of the nitty-gritty psychological connotations that might have led to the sort of confusion and mismatch like the one that you and I have had here. (As an aside, I'm still trying to grasp why, say, "the extraverted intuitive" could not be said to be an archetype, though..)

My main point is: I believe we should try to remind ourselves that functions aren't superpowers (see my highlighting of the 'or at least think you know' portion of that wiki quote), that they merely describe orientations (or, perhaps, that the functions themselves are things that we orient ourselves to--a subtle difference, one that might also be worth discussing?).

That's what I'm mostly looking for comments on here, but the deviation into what is meant by "archetype" has actually been useful too. From my perspective, my post is supposed to be a simple "reality check"--however that gets across.

 

[INTP]

Fair enough, yeah, and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not so read-up on the psychology-technical details of some terms, so I'm not sure what's really meant by "archetypes" or, in a very strict sense, even by "functions." (I've got Robertson's Jungian Archetypes but I'm only about a quarter of the way through. I should pick it and some other resources on the subject back up.)

I think that some of the common definitions of some of these terms are a bit more loose than when they are used by Jung or by psychologists. So, my use of terms like "ideal" is an attempt to actually convey my main point, without all of the nitty-gritty psychological connotations that might have led to the sort of confusion and mismatch like the one that you and I have had here. (As an aside, I'm still trying to grasp why, say, "the extraverted intuitive" could not be said to be an archetype, though..)

My main point is: I believe we should try to remind ourselves that functions aren't superpowers (see my highlighting of the 'or at least think you know' portion of that wiki quote), that they merely describe orientations (or, perhaps, that the functions themselves are things that we orient ourselves to--a subtle difference, one that might also be worth discussing?).

That's what I'm mostly looking for comments on here, but the deviation into what is meant by "archetype" has actually been useful too. From my perspective, my post is supposed to be a simple "reality check"--however that gets across.

If you have hard time seeing whats the difference between type/function and archetype, read the definition of archetype i gave for you, its stated there, i know the definition is pretty hard to grasp in its full meaning, so read it multiple times with thought.

Anyways type is something that a person is, archetype is something that everyone has. Function is something that creates thoughts and perceptions, archetypes are something that are able to distort or/and guide these thoughts or perceptions. Bla bla bla

 

[garbage]

Anyways type is something that a person is, archetype is something that everyone has. Function is something that creates thoughts and perceptions, archetypes are something that are able to distort or/and guide these thoughts or perceptions. Bla bla bla

This clears it up, thanks!


This thread on PerN is an example of exactly why I emphasized "think you know". Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEa7vtXrNQQ&feature=player_embedded#t=58s
"lol intuitives only need three points and they magically got it, while sensors need every single detail of everything because they are dumb."

Yeah, let's just not talk about the fact that intuitives can be wrong about the patterns they perceive.

 

[Little_Sticks]

INTP:
What is the point in nit-picking the word archetype when Bologna's meaning is simple. He wants to talk about distinguishing between behavior and type. It's the difference between describing a duck in relation to a human (more archetypal distinctions) versus describing what both a duck and human are capable of (behavior).

Jung argued for both in his studies. He did not take sides; arguing for one over the other would go against what he knew about religion and philosophy. His types weren't intended to be just behavior; I don't understand your narrow obsession with definition here.

 

[Mephisto]

Ni has an attitude where the world as sensed (what we see, hear, smell, touch) is illusory and merely a phenomena which blinds us from what is. I think Kant is a classic Ni user when he insists on "things-in-themselves" and "numena" which cannot be known but are also truer. Seeing it as opposite to Se, which is immediate experience and trust in sensation, the Ni drawback is very awkward, very counter-intuitive, and a bit ascetic. The pairing of Ni and Fe makes for the prophet attitude..."I just see the right thing to do!" The pairing of Ni and Te makes for pragmatic calculation of a world that the Ni sees as half-real. To them, though the world of phenomena is a trick of an evil genius of the universe, still the world can be used in a way that produces an expected result.

 

[Mal12345]

This is part of my point.

Jung's passages are littered with snippets like the following:

"In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type"

The point is that even Jung makes a distinction between the type and the man, which we don't tend to do. We get to the point where we claim that Ni-users have a complete grasp of Ni, for example, which they may not.

The question is, did Jung believe that someone can be a pure type?