Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
It sounds like part of what you're saying is a generic definition of “persona”.

I was thinking in terms of this part:

“Before the persona has been differentiated from the ego, the persona is experienced as individuality. In fact, as a social identity on the one hand and an ideal image on the other, there is little individual about it. It is, as its name implies, only a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.”

That I would see as involving the dominant standpoint, usually (since it's then associated with the ego, which is what the dominant function preference forms around).
I think that you are trying to connect dots that arent really able to be connected because of different definitions. And i mean trying to connect functions to persona. Ego itself is much more than just dom(or other more differentiated functions) and so is persona.
What your quote is referring to is undifferentiated state of persona and ego, neither of which is 100% directly connected to functions, even tho they exhibit aspects of functions(ego more than persona, because differentiated functions are part of ego, but not all of it, while persona only shows functions in indirect forms).

But since it deals with the unconscious, wouldn't that somehow come to include the internal objects?
I think its pointless of trying to connect a theory of object relations to theory of archetypes, because they approach the human psyche from totally different perspectives.