Beyond the 8th function

[Pionart]

Now, as a person develops, very early in life they gain use of their 1st function, and as they get older the gain access to the 2nd, 3rd... down to the 8th.

(contrary to what is often said, we actually develop all 8 functions generally before middle age, maybe as early as a teenager)

Now, once all 8 functions are developed, a person self-actualises. They have their full cognitive profile within their grasp, and they integrate it and make it whole.

But what comes after that? Once a person has fully developed, then what do they do?

They transcend the self.

What can guide a person through this part of their life?

My answer: spirituality.

So, and this will apply mostly to those who already have gone beyond the 8th function, what does a person do after that? What do you use to guide you once this process is achieved?

How do you go beyond the 8th function?

 

[Eric B]

I don't believe the functions are eight "things" like gears that we learn to "use", one by one by that. It's a bit more complex that that, and that's the key word; "complex". The functions are held by the different complexes in the psyche or ego structure, and it starts with the ego itself, holding its dominant attitude and function, and then a "caretaker" complex develops, holding the auxiliary. Their reflections, the Child complex (tertiary) and inferior then develop, by mid-life. As these complexes develop, the associated functions then come more into consciousness.
The "other four" are really just the first four with the attitudes reversed, and there are negative counterparts of the first four complexes that have been identified as associating with them. But by now, we're so far from normal ego consciousness, that these bottom four are deemed "Shadow", and it's not about "developing" them; it's about becoming aware of the complexes, and withdrawing their projections (where we see others through them, and then react accordingly). Then, we may have a better hold on the associated functional perspectives, but to call that "developing" them I believe is a bit misleading.

To Jung, beyond the functions and attitudes was what he called the "transcendent function", where we've supposedly integrated all the opposite perspectives (each function and attitude and their opposites), and then conceivably would see all of the reality of situations (rather than being influenced by the biases of a divided reality). He called this "individuation". But I don't think that's really something attainable, at least not under normal situations. It's more like a hypothetical ideal that we are striving toward. And it's not really a "ninth function" after the eighth; it's the un-splitting of the divided perspectives embodied in the functions.

 

[Pionart]

I don't believe the functions are eight "things" like gears that we learn to "use", one by one by that. It's a bit more complex that that, and that's the key word; "complex". The functions are held by the different complexes in the psyche or ego structure, and it starts with the ego itself, holding its dominant attitude and function, and then a "caretaker" complex develops, holding the auxiliary. Their reflections, the Child complex (tertiary) and inferior then develop, by mid-life. As these complexes develop, the associated functions then come more into consciousness.
The "other four" are really just the first four with the attitudes reversed, and there are negative counterparts of the first four complexes that have been identified as associating with them. But by now, we're so far from normal ego consciousness, that these bottom four are deemed "Shadow", and it's not about "developing" them; it's about becoming aware of the complexes, and withdrawing their projections (where we see others through them, and then react accordingly). Then, we may have a better hold on the associated functional perspectives, but to call that "developing" them I believe is a bit misleading.

To Jung, beyond the functions and attitudes was what he called the "transcendent function", where we've supposedly integrated all the opposite perspectives (each function and attitude and their opposites), and then conceivably would see all of the reality of situations (rather than being influenced by the biases of a divided reality). He called this "individuation". But I don't think that's really something attainable, at least not under normal situations. It's more like a hypothetical ideal that we are striving toward. And it's not really a "ninth function" after the eighth; it's the un-splitting of the divided perspectives embodied in the functions.

I agree that it is the complexes which develop rather than the functions per se, like you said the dominant complex develops, then the auxiliary which you associate as the caretaker, and associated functions develop with them. It is more about which position of the psyche in terms of role/consciousness, and the cognitive functions have a more complex relationship to this.

I don't think the unconscious functions are "negative". I actually think the "shadow functions" are more the third and fourth. From what I saw in a Jungian diagram, the shadow is more unconscious than the ego, but the anima/animus is more unconscious than the shadow, so the anima/animus functions should be further down in the unconscious (i.e. the 5th and 6th), then you have the wise old man/woman which may be the 7th and 8th, and self, which is all of them, or perhaps the transcendent function.

Yeah from what I've heard, individuation occurs beyond the 8th function. What are some good resources for learning about individuation?

 

[Eric B]

3rd and 4th might seem like "shadow", because, for one, they're the first less conscious functions you encounter, once the dominant and auxiliary are established. Then, after that, they remain the least conscious of the conscious functions, so you might be more aware of their relative unconsciousness (i.e. that those are "weak areas"), than for the lower functions (some of which, you may tend to think "I got this", but trial and error prove otherwise). The functions themselves are not really what's negative; I said it was the associated complexes that are negative.

 

[Pionart]

3rd and 4th might seem like "shadow", because, for one, they're the first less conscious functions you encounter, once the dominant and auxiliary are established. Then, after that, they remain the least conscious of the conscious functions, so you might be more aware of their relative unconsciousness (i.e. that those are "weak areas"), than for the lower functions (some of which, you may tend to think "I got this", but trial and error prove otherwise). The functions themselves are not really what's negative; I said it was the associated complexes that are negative.

Ok but in what sense are the unconscious complexes negative?

 

[Eric B]

The more unconscious things are, the more that "negative" stuff gets "dumped" onto them. So the four "Shadow" complexes are the Opposing Personality (the actual archetypal complex would be closer to "Warrior" or "Amazon"), the Witch[Crone]/Senex, Trickster and Demonic personality.
These are really just negative parallels to the "Hero", "Parent", "child" and "anima/animus" that associate with the first four functions.
As such, the Trickster and Demon may come out to deal with a situation more than the totally "vulnerable" Child and anima, so it might look like the "stack" has the tertiary and inferior as #7 and 8 when judged strictly by "strength" or even "frequency".

 

[Pionart]

The more unconscious things are, the more that "negative" stuff gets "dumped" onto them. So the four "Shadow" complexes are the Opposing Personality (the actual archetypal complex would be closer to "Warrior" or "Amazon"), the Witch[Crone]/Senex, Trickster and Demonic personality.
These are really just negative parallels to the "Hero", "Parent", "child" and "anima/animus" that associate with the first four functions.
As such, the Trickster and Demon may come out to deal with a situation more than the totally "vulnerable" Child and anima, so it might look like the "stack" has the tertiary and inferior as #7 and 8 when judged strictly by "strength" or even "frequency".

But going back to what I said earlier... in that diagram I mentioned, the shadow was said to be more conscious than the anima/animus, and I've read that idea in another place too. Yet you're saying the shadow is more unconscious than the anima/animus?

 

[Pionart]

From my experience, the 5th function is often where we incorporate the views of another. Because it is unconscious we often haven't thought of how to process it explicitly, so we turn to something else to fill that spot. As such it is a kind of "alternate" personality, but why is it "opposing"?

My 7th and 8th functions (Te and Si) are strongly connected to my methodological approaches to typology. Basically, until I was able to process typology through those functions, I was unable to type people. So it seems odd to call them trickster and demon... however, on the other hand, my Te is connected to grandiose tendencies in myself, and my Si is connected to overwhelming feelings of regret, and I have a negative relationship to the past. As such I can see that these functions would be negative.

Ne though... I don't know what would be negative about it. But I'll keep thinking about it I guess.

 

[Pionart]

Oh and part of what I'm getting at with this thread is that there is a lot of content in the psyche which is more unconscious than the 8th function. It keeps going down pretty far.

Would this be even more negative then than the "demon" function? That hasn't, for the most part, been my experience with it, although there are some very negative things down there.

 

[Eric B]

But going back to what I said earlier... in that diagram I mentioned, the shadow was said to be more conscious than the anima/animus, and I've read that idea in another place too. Yet you're saying the shadow is more unconscious than the anima/animus?

I'm not sure those diagrams are speaking of comparative "consciousness". Of course, the part that says "ego" or "persona" is the most conscious, but what it's showing is the "core" of the "self", and the "anima/animus" is simply closer to that core than the general "Shadow". Remember; in the original Jungian theory, "shadow" was itself but one archetype, next to "anima/animus". It was Beebe who used "shadow" to encompass the four functions with the opposite attitudes from the primary four. And to theorists using the primary four only, the inferior (Beebe's "anima/animus") is what they call "the Shadow". "Shadow" basically refers to the unconscious. And there are different levels in it.
So those diagrams are not looking at it in terms of "which functions are comparatively more conscious or unconscious". These are complexes, and the anima is simply closer to the Self; for it's what supposedly communicates with the Self.

From my experience, the 5th function is often where we incorporate the views of another. Because it is unconscious we often haven't thought of how to process it explicitly, so we turn to something else to fill that spot. As such it is a kind of "alternate" personality, but why is it "opposing"?

The 5th function is both "opposing" (Beebe's term) and "backup" (Sort of what you're describing". It's backup when you're ready to incorporate the views of another (via the opposite attitude from the dominant). But when you're so fixated on the ego's dominant attitude, then the opposite attitude (especially for the dominant function), will seem very "oppositional", or "obstructive".

My 7th and 8th functions (Te and Si) are strongly connected to my methodological approaches to typology. Basically, until I was able to process typology through those functions, I was unable to type people. So it seems odd to call them trickster and demon... however, on the other hand, my Te is connected to grandiose tendencies in myself, and my Si is connected to overwhelming feelings of regret, and I have a negative relationship to the past. As such I can see that these functions would be negative.

This last sentence sounds compatible with the Trickster and Demon. One of the things the Trickster is associated with is "grandiose tendencies" (like thinking you can do something you can't). And I notice that Demonic Si does tend to view the past very negatively.
Even so, those complexes aren't the only "uses" of the functions (like you don't have to go into "inferior Se" mode just to see something before you).

Oh and part of what I'm getting at with this thread is that there is a lot of content in the psyche which is more unconscious than the 8th function. It keeps going down pretty far.

Would this be even more negative then than the "demon" function? That hasn't, for the most part, been my experience with it, although there are some very negative things down there.

The Demon is just a particular complex Beebe has associated with the function opposite the dominant, but in the dominant attitude. It just shows us a type-specific role the inferior function in the opposite attitude may play in our lives. It's not about comparison with the rest of the unconscious parts of the psyche.

 

[Pionart]

The 5th function is both "opposing" (Beebe's term) and "backup" (Sort of what you're describing". It's backup when you're ready to incorporate the views of another (via the opposite attitude from the dominant). But when you're so fixated on the ego's dominant attitude, then the opposite attitude (especially for the dominant function), will seem very "oppositional", or "obstructive".

Perhaps the unconscious function has a negative attitude before it has been integrated?

All 8 functions require integration, which involves learning to navigate the territory of the unconscious.

 

[Eric B]

Unconscious functions are what's called "undifferentiated". It's like any one of us seeing, hearing, etc. something. we're not really "using Se", unless it's the specific attention paid to the data by one of the complexes (ego-states or senses of "I") of the type stack. It's when these complexes come more under conscious control (or at least, erupt in reaction to certain situations), that the functions are differentiated as specific perspectives.

So initially, the dominant function and attitude will differentiate, and the remaining functions will collect in the attitude of the unconscious (i.e. opposite of the dominant). The "Parent" complex will keep the auxiliary in the opposite attitude (but using one of the functions of the opposite rationality; i.e. judging or perceiving), the Puer or "child" complex will reflect the Parent, and reorient the tertiary function into the dominant attitude. The opposite attitude then will be picked up by the Trickster complex (and Beebe has said this might occur right behind the differentiation of the tertiary). The inferior complex will also keep the opposite attitude, for the function opposite the dominant.

 

[Non_xsense]

Unconscious functions are what's called "undifferentiated". It's like any one of us seeing, hearing, etc. something. we're not really "using Se", unless it's the specific attention paid to the data by one of the complexes (ego-states or senses of "I") of the type stack. It's when these complexes come more under conscious control (or at least, erupt in reaction to certain situations), that the functions are differentiated as specific perspectives.

So initially, the dominant function and attitude will differentiate, and the remaining functions will collect in the attitude of the unconscious (i.e. opposite of the dominant). The "Parent" complex will keep the auxiliary in the opposite attitude (but using one of the functions of the opposite rationality; i.e. judging or perceiving), the Puer or "child" complex will reflect the Parent, and reorient the tertiary function into the dominant attitude. The opposite attitude then will be picked up by the Trickster complex (and Beebe has said this might occur right behind the differentiation of the tertiary). The inferior complex will also keep the opposite attitude, for the function opposite the dominant.

Which make me thinking , for example for Intp is pretty normal getting higher Ni than Ne or high Te/Ni than Si/Fe on those cheap internet cognitive tests. Tho i think Intp are the most prone to actually abstract themself from their way of thinking and find other ways of seeing life.

Of course for intp Ti is so strong that we can reach a Ni perspective but we actually descard it 'cause our Ti is telling that is not probable , Tho for abstract subjects this can be so similar.

 

[Pionart]

Unconscious functions are what's called "undifferentiated". It's like any one of us seeing, hearing, etc. something. we're not really "using Se", unless it's the specific attention paid to the data by one of the complexes (ego-states or senses of "I") of the type stack. It's when these complexes come more under conscious control (or at least, erupt in reaction to certain situations), that the functions are differentiated as specific perspectives.

So initially, the dominant function and attitude will differentiate, and the remaining functions will collect in the attitude of the unconscious (i.e. opposite of the dominant). The "Parent" complex will keep the auxiliary in the opposite attitude (but using one of the functions of the opposite rationality; i.e. judging or perceiving), the Puer or "child" complex will reflect the Parent, and reorient the tertiary function into the dominant attitude. The opposite attitude then will be picked up by the Trickster complex (and Beebe has said this might occur right behind the differentiation of the tertiary). The inferior complex will also keep the opposite attitude, for the function opposite the dominant.

So would you say that the function first differentiates then integrates?

 

[Eric B]

Well, yes; "differentiation" is just separation of a perspective from the sea of undivided data we process. The term usually refers to the dominant, which then becomes regularly differentiated by the ego, which then is integration. Other functions will be differentiated any time a complex brings them into consciousness, and integration is then when this becomes regular enough that they become a normal part of consciousness.

When it comes to shadow functions; I'm not sure it's really about "integrating" them, per-se; I believe it's the associated complexes we aim integrate, which might give us a better sense of differentiation of those functions (which is what would mane them seem to become "stronger", like in those tests), but the complexes are so far from consciousness (they're "ego dystonic" or "incomptable"), integrating them might be more a hypothetical ideal for most of us. You can become more aware of them and try to withdraw their projections, and then they won't catch us off guard (and "grip" or control us), reactively as much, and we can harness their agendas more.

 

[Eric B]

Which make me thinking , for example for Intp is pretty normal getting higher Ni than Ne or high Te/Ni than Si/Fe on those cheap internet cognitive tests. Tho i think Intp are the most prone to actually abstract themself from their way of thinking and find other ways of seeing life.

Of course for intp Ti is so strong that we can reach a Ni perspective but we actually discard it 'cause our Ti is telling that is not probable , Tho for abstract subjects this can be so similar.

Those tests aren't perfect (especially that homebrewed PerC one, which is where NTP's get higher Ni all the time), and don't really take into consideration that both attitudes of a function can "do the same things". So following the "actions"-based function definitions, Ne perspectives can be picked up as Ni. The person is doing the same thing, but they turn to the outside rather than allowing the intuitive data (symbolic images, etc) to well up from with, but the question asks them about the output and scores it as "Ni".

With TeNi, these are the preferred functions in the opposite attitude, and for one, they can "back up" their primary counterparts, and then again, they could simply be TiNe elements picked up as TeNi "behaviors".
(But yes, when actual Ni data does surface, Ti will likely judge it as improbable; and where a definite Ni does fit our stack of complexes, is with the "Senex" complex, where we'll see it very negatively, and as a "killjoy" to our normal Ne openness; further making us shun it. This is one big problem I've had with forms of "spirituality").

 

[Pionart]

With TeNi, these are the preferred functions in the opposite attitude, and for one, they can "back up" their primary counterparts, and then again, they could simply be TiNe elements picked up as TeNi "behaviors".
(But yes, when actual Ni data does surface, Ti will likely judge it as improbable; and where a definite Ni does fit our stack of complexes, is with the "Senex" complex, where we'll see it very negatively, and as a "killjoy" to our normal Ne openness; further making us shun it. This is one big problem I've had with forms of "spirituality").

I'm under the impression that NPs generally like Ni. Are you sure that your problem with spirituality isn't with the traditional/literal ISFJ approach? This Jungian stuff is rather spiritual in nature.

 

[Eric B]

My problem with spirituality is a disconnect between the concepts and the practical applications in certain expressions or concepts of religion. Like making things sound like something they're not, and I can see this via negative "big pictures" the adherents are in denial of.
I basically skip over most of the "spiritual" aspects of Jung.

 

[Pionart]

My problem with spirituality is a disconnect between the concepts and the practical applications in certain expressions or concepts of religion. Like making things sound like something they're not, and I can see this via negative "big pictures" the adherents are in denial of.
I basically skip over most of the "spiritual" aspects of Jung.

I don't get what you mean. Can you explain further, e.g. regarding negative "big pictures"?

 

[Eric B]

For a perfect example; like religion will speak of “God's Plan” regarding whatever happens in life, and that we from that are supposed to have a “good attitude” toward what we suffer; and to me, a “big picture” will emerge that whatever bad thing that happens is “justified” (God's “divine stamp” placed on it, even if they argue He cares, “suffers with you”, will punish any people responsible for the suffering, etc.), and ultimately, that this philosophy is just a tool (a corruption of theology) to pacify the masses.