Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
Again, I think the answer to that, is as the person I was discussing it with put it, “The products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, provided they are linked to the ego's operating charter†(which is the dominant). Which means, my dominant individual-focused true/false judgment system will access intuitive products (implications, patterns, etc.) apart from the “Parent†complex. The Parent complex will just take some of those implications, namely the ones extracted from the objects or environment, and then put them forth (to self or others) as possible ways of seeing a situation.Well what I'm saying is if you translate Jung's meaning of a function being conscious, in your language, this would most likely translate to it being differentiated by the ego-complex/Hero to you. So I'm (as far as I can tell) actually talking of the same thing you are -- differentiated by a complex.
Probably what you were referring to in what I was saying is when I keep bringing up a function being deployed true to its own principle -- that's what I meant by it being deployed of its own principle/not repressed by another. Roughly translated, this in Jung's world but your language corresponds to a function being differentiated by the ego, because when he (short form) said differentiated, without further qualifier, I believe he meant by the ego -- it being the center of consciousness in his view.
The question on the table, if we get on board with your idea that a complex--besides the ego-- can differentiate a function(-attitude) is whether the *secondary function* is differentiated by the ego-complex or by something else (e.g. the Parent), OR if that question has a conditional answer.
I would strongly guess the most consistent reading of Jung is he'd say the thing in italics, if he got on board with the slight extension of his language/theory. The reason being his two uses of the word "conscious" function. In his world, the more important use (at least in Psychological Types) appeared to correspond to the case where the aux is differentiated (though never fully--this I think corresponds to your quoted cautionary remark) by the ego, not by some other complex, and thus it's no surprise he thought of it being in the same attitude as the dom.
I'm sure I win a medal in thoroughly convoluting, but my point is actually very clear and simple to me at least. Sorry if it's hard to read.
Perhaps it can be seen as like primarily looking east. West, south, north, up and down are still implicit in your line of sight, even though you're not looking in them directly. They are still there, though you're not entirely conscious of them. The first one will simply be the reverse of the direction we're looking and the others will be at right angles, and you can only see into the [increasingly distant] parts of them that lie near the line of sight.
This will be different from actually turning in one of those other directions. You could think of this act of looking in a new direction as being like one of the other complexes.