• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Archetypes of the Functions

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Here's another way to frame how the different archetypes come to play for each type (and using my newer function definitions). In this view, it should be pointed out that this is not necessarily how the ego will react to the products of each function, which can be recognized when it fits into the ego's dominant world view. It is when the complexes are constellated, that they will be felt by the eperspective of the associated function.

Dominant ego types:

ESP

The ego prefers to pay more attention to emergent point by point data

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set, point by point data is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


ENP
The ego prefers to pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set, point by point data is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


ETJ
The ego prefers to determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


EFJ
The ego prefers to determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


ISJ
The ego prefers to pay more attention to stored, set point by point data

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


INJ
The ego prefers to pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set point by point data is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


ITP

The ego prefers to determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego


IFP
The ego prefers to determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of inferiority

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of opposition

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Auxiliary types:

ISP
The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set point by point data is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


INP
The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set point by point data is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


ITJ
The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


IFJ
The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


ESJ
The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set point by point data is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


ENJ
The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent point by point data is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would pay more attention to emergent conceptual patterns is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would pay more attention to stored, set point by point data is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


ETP
The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations


EFP
The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

The part of himself that would determine the externally set correct personal relationships between subjects is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

The part of himself that would determine the internally inferred correct impersonal relationships between objects is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OK, I had long ago pointed out that "Archetypes" are complexes (when filled with personal experience).
Another way to understand complexes, are as "ego-states". The ego (our main sense of "I", and itself a “complex”) is divided into numerous “states” representing discrete (though not totally conscious as such) lesser senses of “I” (which are also complexes), partially dissociated from each other ("Dissociation" is what becomes the familiar "multiple personality" disorders when it is too great, yet is quite normal in lesser degrees. This paper: http://www.ptintensive.com/images/Journal_3-2_Ego_Surrender.pdf explains this well).
One ego state can be anger at someone, and another can be happiness, or sadness, amorous, etc. These all are kinds of "ruling patterns" (archetypes) connected to the limbic system of emotions. Through them, we can have different expressions of "I" that feel different things.

So some of these "archetypes" are what Beebe has outlined as being associated with the eight functions for each type. Thus, they "use" [so to speak] various functions as well, and are what will set the order all eight have been placed in, based on the level of consciousness they [the complexes] represent. (This is still not necessarily a hard "order" of relative "strength", though).
The ego itself will determine the dominant function and attitude, which will also be connected with a "Heroic" complex (consisting of ego states of "heroically" solving problems, and advancing our ego's agendas); and the strong "Good Parent" complex (ego states of being helpful to others) will associate with the auxiliary, and the six other complexes will carry the remaining six function-attitudes, in an order mirroring and/or "shadowing" these first two.

So we can think of lesser senses of "I" that constellate and tend to "use" these other functions, at certain times. Hence, as I had put it above "The part of himself that would..."
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Occurred to me, that the i/e attitude for each position in the “stack” should be associated with the ego state more than the function!

I’ve said that the ego states “orient” the functions to the attitude, startng with the ego itself, with its dominant (via the “heroic” complex). Based on this, we consider the ego (the person) an “introvert” or “extravert”. This can be extended to the other seven ego states. (This is opposite of the direction Jung apparently went in, starting out associating the attitude with the ego, but then later associating it with the function).
So (thinking in light of my recent article on how my Hero and Parent complexes worked in the old Trinity essay), I can say that my “parent” complex is extraverted. Like the Hero draws from the individual world and filters its Thinking perspective through this, the Parent draws from the environment, which becomes the source for its iNtutitive perspective.

This will make it easier for people to recognize both introverted and extraverted “parts of themselves”, which the ego states are. Remember, the states are separated by “dissociation”, which is the same dynamic in multiple personality disorders, but only regulated better. So just as multiple personalities can have their own types or temperaments, the seven ego states in the full Beebe model have their own attitude and function. (And the “spine” complexes and functions are all reflections and shadows of the dominant, while the Parent is the ego’s best shot at attitudinal balance, and the remaining “arm” complexes and functions are reflections and shadows of it).

It also makes it easier to understand the functions, by reducing thm from eight (that are often confused as how to distinnguish one attitude of the same function from the other), back to the original four. So the Parent prefers iNtuition. Taking in intangible data, of what “could” be rather than what “is”.
But the primary Parent is an extravert, which means it introjects itself into the environment and essentially “merges” with (introjects into) “objects”, to perceive from them what could be in a situation. So the individual realm is suppressed from this. But it’s still there, creating a “negative” Parent that projects itself into objects, drawing from them only what is relevant to an individual wellspring of impressions to filter awareness of what could be. So the resulting “Senex” is an introvert, and lies underneath the “good” Parent.
So we see how both the complex and the associated function splits (along more mature and primitive versions of the archetype, and the attitude), through suppression from consciousness.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I found that the book has actually been up for three months already (two months before (two months before the above post when I found out about it).
In any case, I've finished it, and my full review is here:

Book Review: Beebe “Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type” | "ERIPEDIA"

The highlights:

On the archetypal ego structure in general


“Although the actual casting of specific function-attitudes in the various roles will be governed by the individual’s type, the roles themselves seem to be found in everyone’e psyche. Hence I regard them as
archetypal complexes carrying the different functions, and I like to speak of them as typical subpersonalities found in all of us” (p. 122, bold added), and “the role the individual enters when expressing a particular consciousness” (p.126)

Supporting the idea I have been mentioning, of complexes being "ego-states" or “lesser senses of I, we have mention of “multiple centers of agency/awareness” and “splinter psyche”, which is “part persons in our psyche”. “Each subpersonality has its own emotional stance”. (p210)

In leading into the way functions develop (in the process of “individuation”), he discusses Jungs’ treatment of “undifferentiated functions”, which is when they are “fused” with each other. Like the “general” feeling of depression any type can have, when not wed to one of the complexes. It contains the “products’ of all the functions; a “sensory” feeling of the emotion of pain, which then leads to the “bad” assessment of “feeling”, and includes negative “thinking”, and as I call it, a negative “story” made up of “ideas”.

He then acknowledges something that always needs to be pointed out, and I've been saying so much; that “not all of the eight functions follow hero psychology in being measurable by their degree of strength".
This is what people need to remember especially when taking “cognitive process” measuring tests, such as Nardi’s “Keys2Cognition” or the PerC one. Only the “Hero” (dominant) we should expect to be necessarily “first” in the place of order (And even then, the tests are not perfect, and neither is our own self-awareness, or “clarity of preference”). “Rather, the strength, and the kind of strength, a function of consciousness displays is a consequence of
the archetypal role associated with it, and archetypes are differently developed in different people” (p.135)

He mentions along the way that von Franz indicated that “one can choose to develop the second or third function next” after the dominant. (This touches upon the dispute I have seen, as to whether Jung considered the auxiliary and tertiary to be “two auxiliaries”)
He later says “My model implies that development of all eight function-attitudes will involve a significant engagement with each of the archetypal complexes, and a differentiation of each function out of its archetypal manifestation” (p.157).

When making a type assessment we need to take into account the archetypal stance that accompanies the deployment of a particular function. (p201)
With patients, the analysts often have to distinguish inbetween the way the patient asserts self, and the way the patient takes care of another (p203) This of course will determine dominant vs auxiliary.

When in the grip of complexes, this can produce “a reduction of the mental level, such that the energy that normally attaches itself to the superior and auxiliary functions, allowing them to surface, is absent. When these functions are not active, the tertiary and inferior functions emerge (p204).
“The person who constantly obsesses about small feeling matters, finding other people’s feelings an endless burden, may not be an extraverted feeling type, for whom other people’s feelings naturally matter and are thus relatively easy to deal with, but someone with inferior extraverted feeling, that is, an introverted thinking type, who is in constant danger of ignoring the feelings of others.” (p 205)

“To discover a patient’s type, it is better to wait until the patient shows an original gift for accurately construing or managing some aspect of what comes up in therapy, rather than attempt to ‘type’ the person when he or she is manifesting a collective persona that could belong to anybody in the patient’s situation, or when the patient is so evidently suffering from psychopathology that a syndrome has all but replaced the person.”
Here’s one I’ve noted: Introversion when used consciously, is not as easy to discriminate, and thus the functions are easily confused with each other. (p206)


the individual archetypes:

The superior function “is the part of the ego we are most ready to claim ownership of, because it is associated with a sense of competence and potential mastery”. Thus associated with the “hero” or “heroine” archetypes. “This is a part of the psyche that welcomes facing challenges, that takes pleasure in recalling its past successful exploits, that revels in its unflagging reliability“. The shadow archetypes “serve not to realize the aim of the personality, but to defend it, usually by managing people in oppositional and underhanded ways”. The anima “represents the instinct for soulful connection and reflection”. It’s “also a place of great idealism in the psyche. The higher cause or mission that seizes our energy is often associated with this area of the psyche where we are ourselves weak and inept (p.130) Hence, Berens renaming the “role” as “aspirational“.

Description of the Father complex (which of course is the male “parent” associated with the auxiliary function): “A vital part of a man’s masculinity is caught up in how potent or impotent he feels as a man with something to impart, and that may be the archetypal definition of what a father is” (p. 62 bold added; and “applies equally to men who have never had children and to men who have”. This is what makes it as an “archetype” or “ruling pattern” a product of the collective unconscious. It transcends our individual experiences in that way).

He also then mentions the “inflation/deflation” pattern in terms of a “third function crisis” (p139), which brings to mind Lenore’s “tertiary problem”. To Beebe, this third function “operates as if in a double bind”, which is what we are put into by its shadow, the trickster, which he is discussing here (“so long as it remains unconscious, in which case one is vulnerable to being taken advantage of”. To Lenore, from our conversations, the trickster, like the demon, is more about trauma).

Relatively unconscious functions generally cannot operate well without the anima. (p.191)

A good statement is :
The shadow is repressed because it is felt to be incompatible with a person’s moral values. It retains, and from time to time expresses, feelings, motives, desires and ambitions that the person has long since decided are unworthy, because they do not accord with the individual’s idea of how people should feel, let alone behave. Since it is usually not owned as part of the person, the shadow has a great deal of autonomy, which allows it from time to time even to escape repression, so that it can act out the very strivings that the ego has rejected as incompatible with its standards

He points out that the “shadow” also “carried consciousness, but consciousness used in antagonistic, paradoxical, depreciating and destructive ways”. This is an important point, because we often associate the “shadow” with “unconsciousness”; the shadow functions being “unconscious”. But this matches the notion I learned that they do enter consciousness when aligned with “the ego structure”, which is basically these eight archetypal complexes. He himself says on p.126 that his numbering scheme is based on the implication that “there are, rooted in the structure of the psyche, eight positions, one for each function-attitude”.

“The opposing personality is a primary resource of defense, a part of us that tends to lurch forward first when we feel our heroic superior function and its most cherished values to be under attack”. (p132)

OP is “oppositional, paranoid, passive-aggressive and avoidant”, (p. 41, 58, 132) and also ‘easy to project onto…especially a person of the opposite sex”. “Projecting the opposing personality will cause a man to see the woman in a negative or troublesome light as she seems to embody the man’s own antagonistic traits” (which I have testified to).

The Senex “emerges when a personality feels itself to be going into decline“, and “to be losing control of the situations in which it must continue to function” What it’s seeking is “Longings for superior knowledge, imperturbability, magnanimity”. (p.63) This ties into something Lenore had told me, that the Senex personifies the human drive to make conscious order within the limits of human nature — to develop an ego to begin with! Becoming “one sided”, our dominant functional awareness will harden into a brittle ego-centricity around the power of “I know.” (So to her, the archetype is not as specifically associated with the “auxiliary function in the opposite attitude”. I had so wished Beebe and Lenore would collaborate on this book, as they do differ in some places, but they really fill in each other’s expression of this stuff).

For the demonic personality, a great discovery here is that “it is an image of undermining pathological narcissism“, and that narcissistic men “will readily set up people to imagine that they can easily save him from his pathological narcissism by carrying for him the integrity his demonic personality craves".(p.65)
These are groundbreaking definitions for me. So we see now, the demonic personality is the part of us or at least a main part of us that is narcissistic (enamored with the ego’s achievements), and also “seeks integrity”! This explains a lot.

He in the following chapter mentions how the position is “undermining, unless it is held to a standard of integrity, in which case it can become daimonic, an opportunity for spirit to enter the psyche from a shadowy place that had once only been an occasion for fear. He uses as an example prayer; “the integrity that accompanies the humility of praying to a power Other enough to be potentially destructive, and which may in its own way have already visited destruction of some aspect of the life of the person now praying”, which then “often moves the very same deity enough to offer illumination, compassion and a transformative intervention”.
This I definitely struggle with, especially as I deal with the role of God in all this, with Christians often citing scriptures like Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him”.

Also, p.43: the “Evil" associated with the demonic personality complex "is the quality of being undermined”

Citing Marie von Franz:
What she is describing here is a relation between the inferior function and a demonic function that tests the integrity of the inferior function. To the degree that the inferior function has not been taken up as a problem by the individual in the course of the development of his consciousness, it is no match for the demonic aspect of the unconscious, rather like the Chinese laundress in my dream who has no power to stop her [Se carrying] husband from spending all his money drinking and gambling.


He also mentions a distinction between a “‘little-s’ self“, which is the common understanding of “self” (basically, your ‘person’, or even perhaps ego), and the “‘big-S’ Self“, which is of course, the Jungian “center of consciousness” that includes the whole unconscious and is “trans-personal”.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hot on the heels of Beebe's new book, Mark Hunziker, who had briefly mentioned the model in his earlier Building Blocks of Type (and on his “VTWellness” page) comes out with his own book largely on Beebe’s model:

Depth Typology: C.G. Jung, Isabel Myers, John Beebe and the Guide Map to Becoming Who We Are
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JEQXOIA

Book Review: Hunziker “Depth Typology” | "ERIPEDIA"

This would make a good primer n Beebe's theory, and perhaps should be read first! He builds it up from scratch through its Jungian roots, and starts off with stuff like the "Cartesian worldview" of the West, and how it shapes our view of science (which leads to people not taking typology seriously)

Here are some great highlights:


•Psychological type itself grew out of Jung's effort to investigate that the differences between his theories and Freud’s and Adler’s might be explained by the three men’s subjective biases.


•Myers’ and Briggs’ Contributions, which explains the rationale for their readaptation of Jung’s system. The difference between the functions and attitudes are more obvious than the difference between the particular attitudes of the functions, and since identifying the basic preferences was the goal, the increased simplicity and clarity of their instrument was more desired.


•Regarding the ego-dystonic functions:
Because of their incompatibility with the orientation of the ego, the egodystonic function-attitudes can rarely, if ever, be truly integrated with the conscious side of the personality, no matter how well ‘developed’ they may become. In fact, “development” of the ego-dystonic FAs is usually more a matter of accepting their limitations and their primitive, archetypal nature and cultivating our ability to roughly translate their messages while we struggle to use the associated practical skills that would naturally become well-honed if those function-attitudes were well developed.
Archetypal energies “carry” each function-attitude to the degree that the FA is unconscious; a function-attitude that we can engage consciously can be used relatively free of the archetype that carries it when unconscious…freer of the associations and emotional colorings of the archetypes. (#1974, emphasis added)



•Jung seemed to engage both extraverted and introverted Thinking, “
Hence, the endless debate about whether he was an INTJ or an INTP”. Yet, “if you look closely”, Jung’s use of Ti “always seemed somewhat tortured and convoluted, and a bit tinged with the didactic tone of the Senex archetype”. This is perhaps why I and some others find him so hard to digest!


•With most dealing with just the first four commonly discussed functions, with no one attempting to explain how the other four fit in, “because the focus of MBTI users was on the issues of the ego-syntonic side of personality, the incompleteness of this picture was not considered problematic, indeed it was hardly even noticed”.


•The tertiary was believed to be the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior (the opposite of the dominant), to basically counter the “powerful dominant function-attitude” with “the collective weight of all three” of the others. But Beebe’s view forms a more elegant, and more plausible balance. What wasn’t thought of, was that if #2, 3 and 4 had to balance the dominant with an opposite attitude, then their shadows, #6, 7 and 8 would end up the same attitude as the dominant. ("How would the “shadow” end up so in sync with the dominant?")

In this juncture, we get another clarification of something we’ve heard Beebe cited on before, but now given a specific reason: “It is not uncommon for children to develop some skill and comfort in using their seventh (Trickster) function-attitude in response to the overwhelming power of their parents“. Now that explains everything!

“Beebe says that the target of the harsh, belittling, limit-setting criticism of our sixth function-attitude Witch/Senex is usually the Eternal Child in others and ourselves. In fact, he has observed that this ‘problem of the Witch/Senex and Eternal Child’ is behind many self-limiting psychological issues”.
I can definitely see this, in the perpetual battle between trying to redo the past, and the premonition of the inevitable repeat of the issues that caused the pain in the first place. I begin countering these premonitions of “what’s [apparently] meant to be” (based on [a model of] “the way it is” that the Child perceives and is hurt by) with exaggerated descriptions of situations (and often consciously recognized as such, but the emotions keep driving the distortions; it “feels so good”) with the purpose of proving that I’m being “cheated” in the [Senex’s] big “scheme” of things.

So here we see the surprising point that, “It appears that in order for the tertiary function-attitude Child to develop, the seventh function-attitude Trickster must first become sufficiently differentiated to come to its defense—to make it safe enough for the Child to come out of hiding and become conscious.” (This corresponds [in part] with Lenore’s “Crow’s Nest” that gets replaced with the tertiary function when we mature. Though the crow’s nest also included the 8th function, which is omitted here).

So the realization:
“This might very well explain the ongoing debate regarding the attitude of the tertiary—i.e., that the seventh could easily be mistakenly assumed to be the ego-syntonic tertiary due to its level of development“.


•In “the case for eight particular archetypes”, he cites Beebe as saying the archetypes are “roles” the individual enters when expressing a particular consciousness. He acknowledges that thinking of them as “roles” (which is basically what Berens replaces them with in renamed form in her re-framing of the model) might be seen as a bit of a simplification. But:

We’re all aware that we slip from role to role in our lives. We go to work and slip into the role that fits our job description; we came home and move into a parental role with our kids and another role with our partner; and into other roles in our various civic functions, social activities, and relationships. So we can relate to the idea of playing multiple roles. And to the extent that we carry unconscious associations into them, they are all archetypal. That is to say that if we were completely conscious at any given moment, we would not be playing a role at all. We would be supremely present, acting from our core true selves, seeing them with unadulterated clarity and empathy, and relating to them with complete authenticity. But the reality is that everything we do is tinged and clouded by our sense of the archetypal roles in play.


•“Why would eight particular ones be the ones that tend to carry our function attitudes?” and the answer, as discussed in the last review, was that Beebe “arrived at this configuration from personal reflection, dream interpretation and observation, and has validated it by decades of insights and feedback from clients and workshop participants.” Also, a clue from Jung, that “the archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical point of view are those which have the most frequent and the most disturbing influence on the ego (1959/1969b ¶13)”. So Hunziker concludes

the roles that most routinely color our conscious business do indeed fit with the heroic, parental, childlike, or idealized opposite gender patterns. And those archetypes that he subsequently linked to the ego-dystonic function-attitudes, seem to fit the description of “most disturbing” to the Ego.The Opposing Personality, Witch/Senex, Trickster and Demon/Daimon, once we come to understand them, seem to encapsulate most of our disturbing eruptions from the unconscious.
Just as the eight function-attitudes of type are the eight narrow primary ‘personalities’ available within us for playing out life’s drama, Beebe’s eight archetypal images describe the key roles that these eight actors inevitably need to fill. Every whole human being needs to be part heroic leader, part nurturing parent, part carefree child, part idealized mate, part oppositional anti-hero, part fearsome old crone, part untrustworthy trickster, and part dark “Other”.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
A few more important points.

•The shadow functions "rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they're confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances". They "don't behave in the clear, skillset-related ways that we have learned to identify". They're more like "primitive predecessors". This, I take it is referring to even when they are attached to the archetype. I would again point out that it's the archetypal complexes or "ego-states" that make the distinctions.

But then remaining still "mixed together" somewhat would make sense, and explain for instance, when I'm trying to think of examples of Ni (which I would expect to be involved in the negative premonitions I get in a "Senex" state), and then I have to wonder if it's really Ne; Ni being the hardest to understand and distinguish from its opposite attitude. I notice that whenever I think it's Ni, there's always some "object" I'm comparing it to, and I figure it must "become" Ni, when I come out of Senex mode and am trying to analyze it with my normal TiNe. But this point here gives another explanation as to why shadow functions are hard to pin down, and can be easily confused with their more conscious counterparts.

•Our own willed attempts to "individuate" by "developing all the functions",
on its own "can never be more than an attempt to better understand and pick up some coping tricks and an opportunity to practice some unfamiliar skills...and emulate function-attitudes that remain essentially as unconscious as ever. It does not create a fundamental shift in that ego standpoint, which is what individuation is all about."

•Beebe's theory brings "depth" to the model.
"No one before Beebe had ventured to extend the map of typology beyond the inferior (4th) function-attitude, the 'gateway to the unconscious'".
Jung even expressed skepticism about the possibility of doing so, since he assumed the unconscious portion of the personality cannot be grasped cognitively. No wonder everyone shied away from "the bottom four"!
 

typologyenthusiast

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
727
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
I doubt the shadow functions even exist in the psyche. But introverted feeler has talent of pretending that he could act as if it was someone else it is actually not hence it could appear to someone else that it is somebody it plays act as. It is an ancient art practice. It is observable in a stage/film actor/actress. In the role playing art, they try to become somebody else they are not. It could claim to feel that it feels something that it is actually not conscious of. But the risk is, when it is busy pretending, the psyche could forget to be itself. However, the play-acting as somebody else will not last long, since the psychic energy will be depleted and the person gets exhausted.
When pretending, It may appear that the fi psyche to be the person has a cognitive functions it doesn't, and hence make a false conclusion that the functions also exist in Fi psyche.


Only two functions are conscious by nature and by default; the primary and the auxiliary. The other two are not conscious altough exist in the psyche. It means empirically a thinker type habitually doesn't feel vice versa. An sensor type empirically habitually doesn't intuit, vice versa. An effort can be undertaken so that the person can get conscious also the third and fourth function but doing so, it must get the primary and auxiliary function becomes unsconscious. Don't forget also that each function do not operate independently, they works in pairs. In INFP, Fi doesn't work alone. Fi works in conjunction with Ne. It is the only two functions that is conscious in INFP. Indeed INFP has a third and fourth function, but they are unconscious.
Isabel Briggs myers effort to make her third and fourth function conscious was learning statistics from Hay consulting. Studying statistics will get the introverted sensing and extroverted thinker of INFP conscious, since it is needed in learning the subject. No one can learn statistics by feeling. INFP by default is not like her. INFP by nature loves to write and read story. Isabel Briggs Myers even ever won a novel competition, before she was occupied with MBTI, CMIIW.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,419
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] what's the empirical foundation for supposing that the 5th function has a negative character? My view is that it's character is predominantly positive, though I could be mistaken.

I don't think it opposes the 1st function, but rather complements it.

I view opposition typically as occurring between Feeling and Thinking, or Intuition and Sensing, though as Jung says "where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling".
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I doubt the shadow functions even exist in the psyche. But introverted feeler has talent of pretending that he could act as if it was someone else it is actually not hence it could appear to someone else that it is somebody it plays act as. It is an ancient art practice. It is observable in a stage/film actor/actress. In the role playing art, they try to become somebody else they are not. It could claim to feel that it feels something that it is actually not conscious of. But the risk is, when it is busy pretending, the psyche could forget to be itself. However, the play-acting as somebody else will not last long, since the psychic energy will be depleted and the person gets exhausted.
When pretending, It may appear that the fi psyche to be the person has a cognitive functions it doesn't, and hence make a false conclusion that the functions also exist in Fi psyche.

Only two functions are conscious by nature and by default; the primary and the auxiliary. The other two are not conscious although exist in the psyche. It means empirically a thinker type habitually doesn't feel vice versa. An sensor type empirically habitually doesn't intuit, vice versa. An effort can be undertaken so that the person can get conscious also the third and fourth function but doing so, it must get the primary and auxiliary function becomes unsconscious. Don't forget also that each function do not operate independently, they works in pairs. In INFP, Fi doesn't work alone. Fi works in conjunction with Ne. It is the only two functions that is conscious in INFP. Indeed INFP has a third and fourth function, but they are unconscious.
Isabel Briggs myers effort to make her third and fourth function conscious was learning statistics from Hay consulting. Studying statistics will get the introverted sensing and extroverted thinker of INFP conscious, since it is needed in learning the subject. No one can learn statistics by feeling. INFP by default is not like her. INFP by nature loves to write and read story. Isabel Briggs Myers even ever won a novel competition, before she was occupied with MBTI, CMIIW.
This is still looking at the "functions" as THINGS. What's in the psyche isn't really "functions", it's COMPLEXES (lesser senses of "I"), and these complexes are what take the different functions as their perspectives, and are more or less "conscious" or "shadowy".
Functions can be "differentiated" or "undifferentiated" via the presence or inactivity of the complexes, and this should be specified when talking about "consciousness" of functions; else, it makes it sound like the intuitive can't see, hear, touch, remember, etc.

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] what's the empirical foundation for supposing that the 5th function has a negative character? My view is that it's character is predominantly positive, though I could be mistaken.

I don't think it opposes the 1st function, but rather complements it.

I view opposition typically as occurring between Feeling and Thinking, or Intuition and Sensing, though as Jung says "where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling".
Again, it's about complexes, and the ego is just as invested in its dominant attitude as its dominant function. So of course, the opposite attitude will come off as "oppositional". The "Parent" is the one whose agenda in part is to expose the ego to the opposite attitude. Mixing that attitude with the dominant function will be very ego dystonic, but also back up (or "complement" as you say) the dominant. Thing is, it takes maturity for the ego to appreciate this (which is the goal of the theory). Otherwise, the Opposing complex (or "Warrior/Amazon") will fight the opposing view, engaging the opposing function attitude.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
228
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The idea of whether, say, Fe is more opposing to Fi or Te is more opposing to Fi requires precise specification of the sense one is using 'opposing' --- roughly there's some tension in both cases, but the idea is that ultimately, Te can be seen as the complementary point of view 'almost the same' in some very deep sense as Fi.

But I definitely don't accept theories that suggest this means it's easier for a Fi dom to consciously appeal to Te perspectives than to appeal to Fe ones.

It's more like, to the extent the Fi-dom wants to grow, since Fe still involves the egoic perspective F, there will always be a way for the conscious dominant personality to assert itself rationalize squashing out the need to appeal to Fe, by appealing to a Fi point of view...I think it's less that Fe will be hated so much as F is in too general too well rationalized a perspective for the person not to wield it in the preferred direction.
Overall balance in the psyche thus often proceeds by appeal to the secondary function and the inferior -- both cases involve potential to show how other perspectives complement the dominant's own.

I'd roughly say in the example that this is how the psyche would develop a mature relation to extraversion. It can begin to show in a more mature relation to Fe, etc as well, but the point would be Fe wouldn't be the first place to turn to develop a more mature relation to extraversion for the Fi-dom.
 

typologyenthusiast

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
727
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]
You need to clarify what do you mean by less conscious.
This is still looking at the "functions" as THINGS. What's in the psyche isn't really "functions", it's COMPLEXES (lesser senses of "I"), and these complexes are what take the different functions as their perspectives, and are more or less "conscious" or "shadowy".
Functions can be "differentiated" or "undifferentiated" via the presence or inactivity of the complexes, and this should be specified when talking about "consciousness" of functions; else, it makes it sound like the intuitive can't see, hear, touch, remember, etc.

Differentiation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions -- as for example thinking' with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc. -- as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.e. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency andambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriee"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the spearation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentia- tion direction is impossible, since the direction of a function is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.

according to Jung p448, Psychological Types.
Jung doesn't explain the relation between differentiation of functions and complexes.

No. it doesn't mean Intuitive type don't hear, see, touch, taste, smell. As long as their five senses are still functioning, they can still do that. You identify yourself as INTP, an intuitive type How could you have been able to respond to my post if you hadn't even seen it? and You certainly wouldn't be able to respond to my post, if you did not see it.
Consciousness in Jung understanding,
By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego (v. Ego) in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego [25]. In so far as relations are not sensed as such by the ego, they are un- conscious (q.v.). Consciousness is the function or activity [26] which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego,. Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego [27].
Jung, Psychological Types, p445
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]
You need to clarify what do you mean by less conscious.

according to Jung p448, Psychological Types.
Jung doesn't explain the relation between differentiation of functions and complexes.

No. it doesn't mean Intuitive type don't hear, see, touch, taste, smell. As long as their five senses are still functioning, they can still do that. You identify yourself as INTP, an intuitive type How could you have been able to respond to my post if you hadn't even seen it? and You certainly wouldn't be able to respond to my post, if you did not see it.

I wasn't saying an Intuitive type couldn't hear, see, touch, taste, smell; I was saying "it makes it SOUND like" that IF you don't specify the distinction between "differentiated" and "undifferentiated" via the complexes.

Differentiation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions -- as for example thinking' with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc. -- as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.e. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency and ambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriee"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function [i.e. "attitude"] is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.

The way I understand "undifferentiated" meaning the functions "mixed up together" (which is also known as "concretistic", and you'll see him mention "concrete" functions; it doesn't mean just S; there's concrete N, F and T as well) is that in everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we've learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we've learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we've learned from the environment, or internal values we've learned individually through nature.

But only SOME of our normal complexes (ego states or senses of "I") will associate with these different perspectives and thus focus on their products, and this is what will "differentiate" them as discrete "functions", where we pay special attention to their "products" (senses, inferences, truths, likes), and they are then said to become specifically "conscious".
In other words, jut like we divide an otherwise undivided spacetime into "left/right", "back/forth", "up/down", and "past/future" based on our position in it, these different functions will separate out the tangible details of a situation, from an implication, and the impersonal truth of a situation, from its affect on people, and also, taking it as is from the objective environment, or filtering it through the individual subject.

Jung's language is so "dense", some of this stuff needs to be "interpreted" and even appended (hence, why we have Myers, Grant, Beebe, Lenore, Socionics, etc), and while there will be debates as to whether the interpretation is right or not (like the attitude of the auxiliary, etc.), but this is what makes the most sense of his discussion of "differentiation", to me.

By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego (v. Ego) in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego [25]. In so far as relations are not sensed as such by the ego, they are unconscious (q.v.). Consciousness is the function or activity [26] which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego,. Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego [27].

And the way I understand this, type is formed by the ego, which is itself a complex, along with one other complex. The ego is what sets the dominant function and attitude. Other complexes that work with it are the "Hero" (the ego's "main achiever"), and the "Persona" (the image we put forth to the outer world). The next one is what becomes the "caretaker" or "parent", and is about adaptation, and will for the sake of balance, choose a function opposite in both attitude and rationality (judgment or perception). These complexes and associated levels of consciousness/differentiation are "compensated" their opposites falling into lower consciousness. (That's what I meant by "more or less conscious" in the quote). So a "child" will "reflect" (as I call it) the parent, and its "tertiary" function will be somewhat less conscious that the auxiliary, but not as much as the inferior, which will be a reflection of the dominant or "superior" function and complex.
Since each of the four basic functions have been assigned one i/e attitude or another, then that implies that these attitudes for each function are also compensated or "reflected" by an even less conscious opposite attitude for each, which are then associated with more negative counterparts to the first four complexes. This is what in Beebe's model are called the "shadows".

Keep in mind, terms like "shadows" and "complexes" refer to much more than what is discussed in Beebe's model. It's just that these particular eight complexes (and related) are the ones that figure in our typological preference, and basically, the "ego structure" as far as what we call type. (That's how I understand "relatedness of psychic contents to the ego"; "sensed by the ego"). Of course, there are many more complexes than just those; hence the last sentence.

So all eight functions are represented in type-specific ways for each type there, but of course, there are non-specific ways, like how everyone can see, hear, feel, think, etc.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,419
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Again, it's about complexes, and the ego is just as invested in its dominant attitude as its dominant function. So of course, the opposite attitude will come off as "oppositional". The "Parent" is the one whose agenda in part is to expose the ego to the opposite attitude. Mixing that attitude with the dominant function will be very ego dystonic, but also back up (or "complement" as you say) the dominant. Thing is, it takes maturity for the ego to appreciate this (which is the goal of the theory). Otherwise, the Opposing complex (or "Warrior/Amazon") will fight the opposing view, engaging the opposing function attitude.

I guess that explains what you think, but it's not a proof or anything...

A question I have, being a very similar question to the last one, is that if in Beebe's model, the anima/animus is associated with the 4th function, and the shadow with the 5th-8th functions, why is it that in Jung's conception the anima/animus is viewed as more unconscious than the shadow? Why has been made the shadow more unconscious than the anima/animus?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Beebe acknowledges that you can't make too much of the stack order in that way, as afar as "strength". "Shadow" is about unconsciousness, and in a really young person, all eight functions can technically be "shadow" (i.e. nothing has "developed" yet). He, for one, acknowledged that the Trickster (7th place) often develops right behind the tertiary it shadows (which would then explain the historic question of the attitudinal ambiguity of the tertiary function), so there, it would likely come into consciousness before the anima (inferior). That's where we can bring in Lenore's "ship" model (with both 7 and 8 as the "brain lateral alternates" of the dominant that will come into consciousness quickly), or Socionics; which do in fact have the Beebe's "shadows" as higher than the inferior.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,419
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Beebe acknowledges that you can't make too much of the stack order in that way, as afar as "strength". "Shadow" is about unconsciousness, and in a really young person, all eight functions can technically be "shadow" (i.e. nothing has "developed" yet). He, for one, acknowledged that the Trickster (7th place) often develops right behind the tertiary it shadows (which would then explain the historic question of the attitudinal ambiguity of the tertiary function), so there, it would likely come into consciousness before the anima (inferior). That's where we can bring in Lenore's "ship" model (with both 7 and 8 as the "brain lateral alternates" of the dominant that will come into consciousness quickly), or Socionics; which do in fact have the Beebe's "shadows" as higher than the inferior.

If you observe your internal thought processes, neither suppressing nor boosting any particular mode of thought, what I think you will observe is that your thoughts go in cycles, in the order suggested by Beebe. The same goes for, say, speech. In interviews with a person, it is not uncommon for a person being interviewed to give an answer which covers all 8 of their functions, in the order given by Beebe, and to then wrap the answer up there. Furthermore, I have found that same function order to be quite useful in drawing up a timeline of how I've developed over the years, though there's a lot of room for interpretation as far as that goes.

I interpret this sequential ordering to be a reaching down to further levels of consciousness, though that then raises the question of why, when the 8th function is completed, it cycles back to the 1st function. Sometimes in cycling back to the first function though, what is seen is not the usual manifestation of the 1st function, but is actually a higher form which characterises a level of unconsciousness just beyond the 8th function. What I'm saying is that from my experience with analysing these things, it seems that the ordering from 1st to 8th function makes the most sense as a gradual movement away from the conscious position and towards the unconscious. The 5th function, then, is more unconscious than the 4th, and the 6th moreso than the 5th etc.

Though I've also taken note of the secondary type phenomenon, in which, though I'm an INFJ, I will sometimes show the functionality of an INFP, and sometimes other types as well. But other P types are hard to access, whereas other J types are easier to access, thus making is plausible that the 5th-8th functions could be accessible by "becoming" a different type, whereas the 4th function is typically accessed as a weaker function in the primary type.

Anyway, that sums up a lot of my understanding and findings.

I tend to associate the 1st-2nd functions with persona, 3rd-4th with shadow, 5th-6th with anima, 7th-8th with wise old man, and then there are further "archetypes" beyond this which I associate as being a higher form of the 1st-8th functions. I'm not sure how far the unconscious extends; my own unconscious is still being unravelled, so I can't determine it through analysis of myself.

I don't know if I'm correct in how I've associated the functions and archetypes though; in particular, it contradicts both Beebe and socionics. But I haven't noticed any or much internal dissonance by associating those processes within myself, though perhaps I haven't put it to the test well enough.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,618
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
While I've never noticed any time order for the stack (and I remember not too long ago dealing with someone suggesting something like that, somewhere), that's interesting, and worth looking for. "sequential ordering to be a reaching down to further levels of consciousness"; that makes sense, as the archetypes (complexes) and the manifestations of the associated functions are getting more negative the further down you go.
I would still think that different situations, especially sudden or stressful ones, could break that order as whichever complex or functional perspective is forced to the front in the moment. So what you're describing might not even be the specific complexes, but just the ego's own use of each perspective, and yes, it will always cycle back to the dominant, which is the ego's starting point. (and running through the other seven would add the depth of the split off data that was initially ignored by focusing on the dominant function).

What I've been cautioning against is this whole familiar "strength" concept", based on "how much" functions are "used", or a score on a "cognitive process test". We may think what's more "conscious" is more "strong" (or what's less conscious is less "strong"), but "strength" is poorly defined when it comes to functions; many are looking at them as a sort of "gears" that you shift one, unshift and then pull another, so whichever one you "use more" is "stronger". But it's not that concrete and mechanical, as these are but divisions of reality.

Why do you associate the anima with #5 and 6, and "wise old man" with 7 and 8?
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,419
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Why do you associate the anima with #5 and 6, and "wise old man" with 7 and 8?

It feels natural for me to associate personifications of my unconscious, which I interact with, with those functions in particular.

From my writing, I have found an association between the 5th function and the search for fulfillment, focusing on the other person, sociability and so forth, and associations with the 8th function and fulfillment of the story, leaving a legacy, completion and so on.

In my behaviour, I associate Te-Si behaviour in myself, such as organisation, with being in a highly functional state which I associate with the masterful nature of the wise old man archetype.

(though my understanding of the archetypes isn't strictly Jungian; it's about the territory, not the map, but it's clear enough to me that the Jungian map seems to be describing the same or similar things to what I deal with)

I would still think that different situations, especially sudden or stressful ones, could break that order as whichever complex or functional perspective is forced to the front in the moment.

I've noticed myself start with Ti sometimes for a few reasons. It can be humour on the one hand, or frustration on the other hand, or simply that the point I wish to make is of a logical nature.
 
Top