Skip to content

Character Encoding Systems

I’ve long known about so-called “extended ASCII”, where you can type many characters not on the keyboard, by holding down the ALT key and then pressing numbers on the NUM pad.

Yet I would often see different lists, some with different glyphs in different places, and with “box drawing” elements even (You could see all of this when running the charmap). Usually, you type a four digit code beginning with “0″ to get the character, and HTML For Dummies had the list for this one, which is what I was using. It’s also what you type in HTML using the # & ; code.

But if you leave off the 0, you get other characters, including the box drawings.
This is actually the other set. Among those, I encountered two slightly different versions, when someone had said on a page that 233 was “Ú” (capital U with acute accent), yet I kept getting Θ (Greek capital theta).

It was hard to find info on what was what, or a page comparing all of these sets. I found out that the category is what is called the “code page“. The main three are Windows CP 1252 (the one with the four digit ALT code), DOS CP 437 (the other one I was getting without the “0″, and DOS CP 850 (this one apparently is only for Western Europe).

There’s also Unicode, which maps all the glyphs that exist to a hexadecimal code, and it’s grown to use five digits. I liked this, because it includes enclosed (bulleted) alphanumerics that I can use in subway discussion to denote route bullets. (They can be typed using the HTML code with the decimal or hex Unicode number). Only not all systems are compatible with it yet.

“Circled” numbers and “negative circled” numbers (white letter on solid circle, like the actual route bullets) were already included in the “Wingdings” font, but circled letters have been added in the Unicode 2400′s block. The “Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement” in the 1F100′s block includes the negative letters (solid bullet) letters, but these don’t even show up in any of my browsers.

Past 255, the code pages then repeat endlessly. So CP 437 #257 is ☺, just like #1, as is #513. Since CP 1252 starts with control characters, then 256-281 will be the invisible control characters, and #289 starts over with !, like #33.
Unicode for the first 256 is the same as CP1252, except for 128-159 (80-9F) which are more control characters. In CP1252, these are mostly foreign characters that are located elsewhere in Unicode.
Unicode begins its foreign and other characters with #256 (hex 100: “Ā”) and up.

So here are the three systems, with the Decimal and Hexadecimal numbers

Hex. CP 1252 CP 437 CP850
    ALT + 0dec ALT + dec  
0 0000 NULL
3 0003 END OF TEXT
5 0005 ENQUIRY
7 0007 BELL
15 000F SHIFT IN
24 0018 CANCEL
27 001B ESCAPE
32 0020 SPACE
33 0021 ! ! !
34 0022
35 0023 # # #
36 0024 $ $ $
37 0025 % % %
38 0026 & & &
39 0027
40 0028 ( ( (
41 0029 ) ) )
42 002A * * *
43 002B + + +
44 002C , , ,
45 002D - - -
46 002E . . .
47 002F / / /
48 0030 0 0 0
49 0031 1 1 1
50 0032 2 2 2
51 0033 3 3 3
52 0034 4 4 4
53 0035 5 5 5
54 0036 6 6 6
55 0037 7 7 7
56 0038 8 8 8
57 0039 9 9 9
58 003A : : :
59 003B ; ; ;
60 003C < < <
61 003D = = =
62 003E > > >
63 003F ? ? ?
64 0040 @ @ @
65 0041 A A A
66 0042 B B B
67 0043 C C C
68 0044 D D D
69 0045 E E E
70 0046 F F F
71 0047 G G G
72 0048 H H H
73 0049 I I I
74 004A J J J
75 004B K K K
76 004C L L L
77 004D M M M
78 004E N N N
79 004F O O O
80 0050 P P P
81 0051 Q Q Q
82 0052 R R R
83 0053 S S S
84 0054 T T T
85 0055 U U U
86 0056 V V V
87 0057 W W W
88 0058 X X X
89 0059 Y Y Y
90 005A Z Z Z
91 005B [ [ [
92 005C \ \ \
93 005D ] ] ]
94 005E ^ ^ ^
95 005F _ _ _
96 0060 ` ` `
97 0061 a a a
98 0062 b b b
99 0063 c c c
100 0064 d d d
101 0065 e e e
102 0066 f f f
103 0067 g g g
104 0068 h h h
105 0069 i i I
106 006A j j j
107 006B k k k
108 006C l l l
109 006D m m m
110 006E n n n
111 006F o o o
112 0070 p p p
113 0071 q q q
114 0072 r r r
115 0073 s s s
116 0074 t t t
117 0075 u u u
118 0076 v v v
119 0077 w w w
120 0078 x x x
121 0079 y y y
122 007A z z z
123 007B { { {
124 007C | | |
125 007D } } }
126 007E ~ ~ ~
127 007F  DELETE DEL or ⌂ DEL
128 0080 Ç Ç
129 0081  unused ü ü
130 0082 é é
131 0083 ƒ â â
132 0084 ä ä
133 0085 à à
134 0086 å å
135 0087 ç ç
136 0088 ˆ ê ê
137 0089 ë ë
138 008A Š è è
139 008B ï ï
140 008C Œ î î
141 008D  unused ì ì
142 008E Ž Ä Ä
143 008F  unused Å Å
144 0090  unused É É
145 0091 æ æ
146 0092 Æ Æ
147 0093 ô ô
148 0094 ö ö
149 0095 ò ò
150 0096 û û
151 0097 ù ù
152 0098 ˜ ÿ ÿ
153 0099 Ö Ö
154 009A š Ü Ü
155 009B ¢ ø
156 009C œ £ £
157 009D  unused ¥ Ø
158 009E ž ×
159 009F Ÿ ƒ ƒ
160 00A0 NO-BREAK SP á á
161 00A1 ¡ í í
162 00A2 ¢ ó ó
163 00A3 £ ú ú
164 00A4 ¤ ñ ñ
165 00A5 ¥ Ñ Ñ
166 00A6 ¦ ª ª
167 00A7  § º º
168 00A8 ¨ ¿ ¿
169 00A9 © ®
170 00AA ª ¬ ¬
171 00AB « ½ ½
172 00AC ¬ NOT SIGN ¼ ¼
173 00AD  SOFT HYPHEN ¡ ¡
174 00AE ® « «
175 00AF ¯ » »
176 00B0 °
177 00B1 ±
178 00B2 ²
179 00B3 ³
180 00B4 ´
181 00B5 µ Á
182 00B6 Â
183 00B7  · À
184 00B8 ¸ ©
185 00B9 ¹
186 00BA º
187 00BB »
188 00BC ¼
189 00BD ½ ¢
190 00BE ¾ ¥
191 00BF ¿
192 00CO À
193 00C1 Á
194 00C2 Â
195 00C3 Ã
196 00C4 Ä
197 00C5 Å
198 00C6 Æ ã
199 00C7 Ç Ã
200 00C8 È
201 00C9 É
202 00CA Ê
203 00CB Ë
204 00CC Ì
205 00CD Í
206 00CE Î
207 00CF Ï ¤
208 00D0 Ð ð
209 00D1 Ñ Ð
210 00D2 Ò Ê
211 00D3 Ó Ë
212 00D4 Ô È
213 00D5 Õ ı  / € (modified)
214 00D6 Ö Í
215 00D7 × Î
216 00D8 Ø Ï
217 00D9 Ù
218 00DA Ú
219 00DB Û
220 00DC Ü
221 00DD Ý ¦
222 00DE Þ Ì
223 00DF ß
224 00E0 à α Ó
225 00E1 á ß ß
226 00E2 â Γ Ô
227 00E3 ã π Ò
228 00E4 ä Σ õ
229 00E5 å σ Õ
230 00E6 æ µ µ
231 00E7 ç τ þ
232 00E8 è Φ Þ
233 00E9 é Θ Ú
234 09EA ê Ω Û
235 00EB ë δ Ù
236 00EC ì ý
237 00ED í φ Ý
238 00EE î ε ¯
239 00EF ï ´
240 00F0 ð soft hyphen
241 00F1 ñ ± ±
242 00F2 ò
243 00F3 ó ¾
244 00D4 ô
245 00F5 õ §
246 00F6 ö ÷ ÷
247 00F7 ÷ ¸
248 00F8 ø ° °
249 00F9 ù ∙ (larger) ¨
250 00FA ú · (small) ·
251 00FB û ¹
252 00FC ü ³
253 00FD ý ² ²
254 00FE þ
255 00FF ÿ NBSP  No-break Space

Review: Personality Junkie “The 16 Personality Types” and “INTP”…-truth-meaning
(Author, A.J. Drenth)

These were written by a guy with a blog called “Personality Junkie”, where he does articles on different aspect of types and functions. I liked it so much, I joined. He eventually published so far, these two books.

Just finished them not too long ago, and they are pretty good. Felt I hadn’t had much time to compile points for a more full review, but when I sat down to make a topic for Typology Central’s new “book review” forum, I ended up writing enough to be considered a review.

The INTP book showed me some things I could identify with, but hadn’t really thought of before. Like how in relationships, “If we think a bit outside the box, we might view INTP relationships as having little, if anything, to do with love (at least in the traditional sense), and more to do with mutual exploration, sharing, struggling, and learning.”

I now realize this is part of why I craved a serious relationship, but then once I got one, I wasn’t into the more “lovey dovey” aspects of it.

Then, other descriptions such as “Generally speaking, Ti (along with Ne) finds it easier to identify
inconsistencies or logical shortcomings—to assert what is not true—than to identify and confidently assert what is true.”

Each type’s “function stack” consists of “the first four” only. (I once asked him about “the other four”, and he acknowledged they were “shadows”, but he doesn’t go into them).

He assigns his own “roles” for them:

Dominant Function: “The Captain.” The signature strength of the personality type.
Auxiliary Function: “The Helpful Sidekick.” The chief assistant to the dominant function.
Tertiary Function: “The Adolescent.” Relatively unconscious and undifferentiated.
Inferior Function: “The Child.” The least differentiated and conscious of the four functions.

In his descriptions of each type’s “development”, he’ll describe the first stage as dealing with the dominant, of course, but then the second stage will go into the inferior, which begins a “tug of war” with the dominant. Then, he’ll mention the auxiliary, which “is more like a natural sidekick to the dominant than a rival or opponent”, and then that the type may open up and further refine their auxiliary judgment or perception through the tertiary function.

Phase III is “Integration”, where we “are more aware of the tricks and temptations of the inferior function and the foolishness of indulging it”. We learn that “integrating the inferior function must somehow occur through the dominant (as well as through the other functions in the functional stack). What this means, in essence, is that integrating the less conscious functions occurs in a more indirect and passive fashion, rather than by directly indulging or attempting to develop them“.

N types: Integrate S through consistent & healthy use of N
S types: Integrate N through consistent & healthy use of S
T types: Integrate F through consistent & healthy use of T
F types: Integrate T through consistent & healthy use of F

He also goes into J/P and the EJ, IJ, EP, IP groups in the intro. He puts a big focus on the fact that IP’s are actually dominant “judgers”, and IJ’s are dominant “perceivers”, so he tends to treat them in a reverse J/P fashion (like Socionics), and thus having a lot in common with the E types with the opposite J/P (dominant function with opposite attitude; like ITP and ETJ).

Each type profile will describe the three stages of development, and then describe each of the four functions.

One question mark is sometimes treating functions in terms of behaviors (which we all do, as it’s hard to describe them otherwise). Like Se is associated with “novel physical pleasures, lavish surroundings, or material comforts”. So SJ’s and NP’s will be described as not being into those things, which I find not always accurate.

He does say:
“Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is a novelty-seeking function. At first glance, Se and Ne types may seem fairly similar (such conflation can be seen, for instance, in the Enneagram Seven), since both ESPs and ENPs can be outwardly active, energetic, and playful. Ne differs from Se, however, in that it is more concerned with ideas, connections, and possibilities than it is with novel sensations or material goods.”

Still, non-Se types can enjoy material comforts. I think that’s just natural for everyone. I guess I know I’m not particularly into “novel physical pleasures” and “lavish surroundings”, though, but I know SJ’s who would like lavishness. (My wife seems to have a high appreciation of things like that, and I had been comparing to see how well she fit his ESFJ description. Though I guess she does not press for these things as much as others might).

So it seemed like a very good introduction to typology. Sort of like the way many would recommend Lenore’s Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual. His presentation reminded me a little of that; only much shorter and more concise. Especially the way it goes back to the Jungian roots of focusing on the dominant for each function, and the new points, such as this “integration” concept.

First Four, then Five; why not more temperaments?

Someone I had been talking to; the person who informed me of the God Created You book, in fact, told me of pondering the thought that there might be other temperaments yet to be discovered. Since Supine took a long time, perhaps there are others.

I actually once wondered then, if “new temperaments could be discovered” as well, but quickly realized that what we call temperaments are just abstract plottings on a 2D matrix, and they’re not really set in stone. The primary factors are expressiveness and responsiveness, or basically, what Galen called “hot/cold” and “wet/dry“, which he used to plot the temperaments with the ancient elements and humors.

Melancholic was cold/dry, Choleric was hot/dry, Sanguine was hot/wet, so the remaining temperament of Phlegmatic was left in the remaining corner, cold/wet.
The Arnos, by mapping the temperaments to the FIRO-B scoring system (which uses basically a Blake-Mouton style 10×10 grid) discovered that Phlegmatic was really moderate in both scales. Therefore, the former cold/wet (low expressive, high responsive) had to be a different temperament that was not recognized, but was evident in certain people not fitting into the other four. Because it was low in expressiveness, it looked like Melancholy, and his high want of interaction (setting him apart from that temperament) is not usually recognized.

So any “new” temperaments would be determined by lying somewhere else on this graph. There are already others, such as combinations of high in one scale, with moderate in the other. However, these are simply labeled “Phlegmatic” variations of the other temperaments. If it’s low in expressiveness, and moderate in responsiveness, it will be different from a regular Supine or Melancholy, so it is called “Supine Phlegmatic” or “Melancholy Phlegmatic” (which will both be similar, yet lean slightly toward the need of the suffixed temperament).
There are also the compulsive variations, which represent the highest expressive and responsive scores, and are in the extreme corners. In fact, the main APS Manual considers these separate temperaments, saying “there are nine temperament types” (I don’t know why the compulsives are considered separate ones rather than the Phlegmatic blends. The compulsives would actually be the purest form of the temperament needs. The further from the corners you go, the more moderated the need becomes).

So if you look at it, there are 17 different “temperament” groups on the matrix (five “pure” ones, eight “moderate” variations, and four “compulsive” variations). Since there are three areas of need, and you can be any one in each of them, that’s why this system has 4913 different blends.

How the Fifth Temperament was derived:

How the matrix is plotted:

A Start to Understanding Complexes

I’ve spoken a lot about the “archetypes of the functions” according to John Beebe’s model, but I’ve been reading a lot to slowly try to get a better handle of Jung’s concepts, and found stuff that really clarifies what these things we have been assigning to the functions (to give each function a “role” for each type) really are.
Of course, the archetypes mentioned for the eight function-attitudes are not all that there are. There are hundreds of archetypes, which are “ruling patterns” man has picked up since the beginning of time.Hence, they are said to be “collective“.  When  personalized for each ego, they then become what are known as  “complexes”.

The “Ego” itself” is an archetypal complex (the ruling pattern of “the conscious “I”), and the larger Self is an archetypal complex as well, representing psychic “completeness”. The “Shadow”, which Beebe associated only with “functions #5-8″ is the archetypal complex dealing with the unconscious in general, and particularly what we project onto others; usually negative, but also positive as well. Hence, we both “box” and “hug” our shadows, either fighting “enemies”, or adoring (or resenting) someone who has something we’re jealous of because we haven’t integrated it within ourselves.

So not too long ago, ( I cited this book which put things in an interesting way that really helps us understand what these parts of the ego are.

Ego Strengthening and Ego Surrender p.9
Diane Zimberoff, M.A. and David Hartman, MSW

Most people do not understand that  we are a loose confederation of fragments of identity rather than a single permanent and unchangeable ‘I’.
Every thought, every mood, every desire and sensation, says ‘I’. There are hundreds and thousands of small ‘I’s, usually unknown to each other, and often incompatible. Each moment that we think of saying ‘I’, the identity of that ‘I’ is different. We become lost into that identity when it dominates our thoughts, then into the next when it takes over. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 59; Ram Dass, 1980, p. 138). Anyone who has meditated knows how resurgent the chattering mind can be.

He then gives four ways to think of these “I”s:

Absorption in identity - confining one’s attention to narrow segments of reality; e.g. “dumb blonde”, family identity, etc.
Higher/lower unconscious - lower: damaging experiences from every developmental age; higher: transpersonal “peak experiences”
Ego-states - e.g. “mad at mommy”, “eager to please”, etc.; father can play “peek-a-boo” with child one moment, and then respond seriously to an emergency the next. Complexes - e.g. ego (center of conscious identity), father, mother, hero, child, anima, animus, victim, etc.

At any given moment, one ego state has “executive” control.
The separation of ego states is “differentiation”. When differentiation is extreme, the ego states becomes the multiple “personalities” of dissociative disorders. Like I know someone online who apparently has DDNOS, and this concept helps me understand the condition.
(DDNOS is the partial case, where the person can remember one from the other. Full DID is the most extreme case, where they don’t remember one from the other. It really is like totally separate people). So the personalities include a main online video persona, a more reserved one who holds the real name, an embodiment of rage likened to the Hulk, an African themed figure, a flirt, straight, gay, opposite gender, opposite race, etc. (Beyoncé and some other celebrities are said to have some sort of sub-personalities as well).

A lot of people can identify with those; according to Jungian theory, everyone likely (many of them will be forced into unconsciousness and thus, the Shadow), but the difference is, that while they can take “executive control” at times, they don’t become so prominent that we don’t own them as fully “us” even when thinking about it.
That’s what makes them split off into other “personalities”. While these characters are not themselves classical archetypes; they can certainly be matched to them. Most characters (fictional, such as the Hulk, or otherwise) will fit an archetype (or in modern lingo, “trope”). The ego states represented are all a common part of human experience. Hence, a character embodying this will be a “ruling pattern”.
So we used to think of “split personality” (or “multiple personality disorder”) as so “out there”. (I think of the old school rap group UTFO’s rap “Split Personality” which basically made a kind of joke out of it).

But the concept of the multiple “I”s in everyone makes it seem not so strange at all. They are the same “ego states” we all have, but they just “dissociate” them more, where most people don’t.
There’s also the other condition I recently mentioned (, “malignant narcissism”, where to maintain a “persona” of being a good person who’s victimized by others (when he’s really the one victimizing those he’s blaming, and they are simply at most fighting him back), and are yet confident and self-assured, the people like this experience “extreme inner dissociation, then fall into an infinite regression of being in denial about being in denial, which is to say, they are continually hiding from themselves.” They “seem confident and self-assured, but are, in reality, covering deep insecurities and fears through an inflated self-image.”

Malignant narcissists are unwilling and unable to experience their sense of shame, guilt or sin, as their narcissism doesn’t allow these feelings. This inability to consciously feel their “negative” feelings is at the root of the dynamic in which they dissociate from their own darkness, blaming and “projecting the shadow” onto some “other.” This splitting off and projecting out their own evil results in always having a potential enemy around every corner, which is why malignant narcissists tend towards paranoia. Malignant narcissists continually “need” an enemy and will even create new ones to ensure that they don’t have to look at the evil within their own hearts. They react with aversion to the reflection of their own evil. (

So to maintain this “I”, who’s all good and on one hand strong and self confident, and on the other hand wrongly persecuted by others, usually just for being so good (think “they hate America because of our freedom”), they have to separate off and deny the “I” that has victimized others, that they could not stand consciously owning as “I”.

So when descriptions of the Shadow speak of “disowning unacceptable parts of ourselves”; it’s the negative ones amongst THESE states being referred to. Or at least, ones our egos SEE as “negative”, even if they really might not be.

So regarding this complex we’ve been hearing a lot recently, “the Victim”. Ego Surrender p. 20 mentions

A particularly strong complex is the victim, which fights back when attempts are made to release it. An example is a woman who did some personal work on taking back her power only to find herself hours later flat on her back and helpless. It looked as if “the victim” complex was literally threatened by her healing attempts and proceeded to let her know who was in charge. She definitely appeared to be possessed by the victim.

Much of America, from politics to the Self-help industry (which often crosses over into Christian teaching) officially, openly despises this archetype. They speak out strongly against it when they see it in others.

Self-help teachers and coaches (and also religious teachers) have to prove that their philosophy “works”, and is “simple”. So you hear a big emphasis on terms such as “choice”, and negative forecasts of what will happen if this “simple choice” is not made (everything from “you’ll stay trapped in this cycle”, to getting “worse”; being “given over” to something, and even up to no less than Hell).
While they may be correct that choices have to be made in life, they still often gloss over natural weaknesses many people may have. But “no excuses” can be allowed when you have a “solution” you need to sell. It must be proven to “work”, and if it doesn’t, it must be the fault of the person who tried it. They didn’t really “try”. Or “you don’t ‘try‘; you just ‘do‘!”

This tough talk is underlied by a shadow of fear; from the need of survival in their field. This is a suppressed motivation in all these “no excuses” motivational teachers who insist they are teaching “black and white” “truth” that is put forth as being as absolute as “life and death”.

Another big area is politics, where people try to blame welfare for our economic problems, and insist the issue is masses of people “playing victim” or “whining” so that they may get “free handouts”, where it’s so “simple” to pull oneself up by the bootstraps. (It can be done online in a few clicks, it’s claimed). Exaggeration accompanies the suppression, just like the “so simple there’s no excuse” of self-help.

The same people will don this strong macho rugged “frontiersman” collective persona, pointing back to the past “when men were men”, and “God, guns, glory, guts” reigned.
They sound so strong and tough, but  actually end up engaging in pure victim talk themselves ! They are claiming to be “tread on” by all these “takers”, and a “tyrannical” government supporting them, and that “victimology” is part of this grand plot to destroy their nation, which is being carried out. All their rights are being taken away, they’re now the “minority” even, and they need their guns (including all sorts of assault weapons) to protect themselves from all these threats.

They think it’s different because their complaints are “legitimate” (i.e.“truth”), while the others’ motives are ulterior. But that doesn’t change that it’s still a Victim archetype that is loudly disowned and projected onto others. (And again, a lot of exaggeration gets involved, so that it’s never completely the truth).

So the “Victim” is a largely unacceptable archetype that most people do not see in themselves, and yet despise in others. I imagine the part of us that would just accept life the way it is, is another archetypal complex, which we would also suppress. Perhaps “the Servant” or “the Martyr”. (A list of a bunch of them:

That’s when the Victim and others would come up, to defend our wants, but we likely imagine this is the Hero (a more positively connotated archetype) defending our legitimate rights, rather than a “victim”, which conveys “weakness”.
It’s like one “I” will consider accepting something, but then this other “I” will rise up and smack the first one down: “No, don’t take that lying down! [i.e. from the outer threat or disappointment] What are you, an idiot? Demand your rights. Raise your voice and show that you’ve been wronged by someone, rather than it being “just life”.

(I’ve been dealing a lot with this struggle in my “mid-life” stage). Then, another complex, “the Judge” will often rise up to name a “perpetrator” and judge the person’s motives. The Judge is usually described as turning inward, to condemn ourselves. Like think of a woman and her looks. With me, it will do that when I thought I had or should have had a handle on the situation. When it’s things totally out of control, then the Judge will turn outward, usually at someone “not caring” or doing it “on purpose” when it “didn’t really have to be this way”.

I realized this is why I liked the Scrappy Doo character so much. He burst in and changed a rut the Scooby series had fallen into, and also embodied the persona I wished I could live up to, defeating bullies who came after his passive uncle. (I’m talking second and third season. The first season character was truly more annoying and less useful). So I projected a Hero/OP complex onto him. But everyone else (likely going by that first season version only) projects the all-out “Demonic personality” on him, seeing him as an evil destroyer; and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. (They don’t realize the series had already gone downhill, and was even facing cancellation before they brought him in. I could see projecting the Trickster on him, but people’s reaction was clearly Demonic, to the point he has become such a universal negative trope, and a villain the other characters all don’t want to think about).


I’ve also seen it pointed out that it’s all about our social identity. We stand in “the light” of adaptation to social expectations, and this is what “casts” our “shadow”.
Like to mention two of Beebe’s function archetypes, the Opposing Personality doesn’t really oppose the Hero; it opposes the Hero’s way of adapting to the outer world. So when we’re confronted by an outer situation that is blocking our genuine potential, we need the aggression of the OP to overcome the obstacle rather than defer to an existing power structure. (Hence, the OP dealing with the facing and overcoming of “obstruction”).
I know a lot of pain and frustration would be eliminated if I didn’t care so much about what others might think, or even the view I want to have of myself as “not taking no junk”.

So I’m supposed to tap into the “I” that relies on total objective logic instead of the subjective logic I argue with, which would be a critical inner “ETJ” type that really wouldn’t care what others think. (And Te would work in tandem with Fi that can have an inner sense of worth allowing me not to more properly evaluate the universal worth of what people feel. But that latter one is so far from ego consciousness, it’s very hard).

Also, the Senex actually embodies the human drive to develop an ego to begin with, so it  is  usually constellated when the dominant function has become too  one-sided, where we take our knowledge for granted and feel most certain, making us the least reflective and short-sighted.  This will harden into a brittle ego-centricity around the power of  “I know”.
This will form the “authoritarian” sense the Beebe camp associates with the archetype.
So then, it’s when this is challenged, we will naturally feel negated, and likely become aware of this feeling through the perspective of the “sixth place function” (auxiliary in the opposite attitude), and then possibly react to the person posing the threat in a “cranky” or “witchy” way.

So this is like the “meta-’I’” that pushes our dominant world-view, to the near exclusion of everything else. It then perceives affronts from the 6th function, so it’s almost as if the ego has so wrapped itself up in the dominant attitude, that both the dominant and auxiliary take on it’s character. This would be why there has sometimes been a debate (among those who try to really get back to the heart of Jung), as to which attitude the auxiliary should be in, or whether the tertiary (which is naturally the dom. attitude) is really a “second auxiliary”, and as prime example, what Jung’s type really was. “NiTi”, TiSe[Ni] NiFe[Ti], TiNe, etc.

So likewise, the Hero is the “I” that tends to come up to save the day through our dominant function, and the Parent is the “I” that tries to help others, through the auxiliary, and the Child (Puer) is the “I” that will want to find relief, or may childishly look up to others, through the tertiary. The anima/animus, being further down in consciousness; at the “border” of the unconscious even (and thus harder to think of in terms of “I”), is our sense of completeness through “otherness”.

You can also go the other way from the ego states being too dissociated. The states are marked by “boundaries“, so another problem a person might have is these boundaries being weak or eliminated. This is said to be psychosis. I’ve also heard the Demonic Personality complex associated with the removal of these ego boundaries, such as what people undergo during severe trauma, or shamanic initiation. The Self then takes over, and threatens the ego with destruction through dreams or visions, or at least tries to double-bind it (Trickster complex). The complexes are probably not so much “I”s then, as it’s the Self and not the ego dispatching them.
When really advancing in the process of “individuation”, they can do the same sorts of things to try to force the ego out of using the preferred perspectives all the time.

I’m still trying to square this away with Beebe’s use of those two complexes, where the ego basically turns to them against others. I guess, loosely, they can represents “I’s” that feel double bound or threatened with destruction from others through the associated functions, and then react as we project them onto those others.

I’ve also heard it suggested that “the Self” is probably what Jung considered “the Soul”, which is an indiscriminate vessel containing everything that happens to us. So it may be that individuation is to recognize these multiple “voices” of the soul.

You also read a lot of “possession” of or “identification” with complexes (Which is what defines “inflation” mentioned above in one of the quotes). Jung cited as saying “It’s said that people have complexes. But what people don’t realize is that complexes can have us”.
A paper I just read (on dreams, and it was one of those printed out classroom type presentations) described “identification” as an assumption that “it’s all that one is” (i.e you’re “nothing without it”).
Hence, even though you can still refer to yourself as “I”; if you feel you haven’t lived up to your Persona, for instance (the outer mask we wear to the outside, which Beebe also associates with the dominant, along with the Hero), they you’ll feel “I’m  nobody/nothing [no "I"], because I’m not {strong, beautiful, popular, successful, etc.} enough”. You’ve basically negated any “I” outside of the Persona, even though the Ego is still there as a separate entity.

So this is how to think of what we are describing when we talk of these internal “characters” that we understand all eight functions through. It should hopefully make it easier to understand and be able to recognize those strange parts of us that “use” unusual functions in certain situations.

Tenemental Journey: Evolution of Apartment Building Design

Another spinoff of the Five Points (Porches, Points and Poverty) project, and including Building Construction Types; since I was discussing buildings so much, and learned new terms such as “dumbbell tenement” and how the laws changed affecting the design of buildings.
Landlords had been trying to pack in as much living space as possible in 25 foot wide lots, but were gradually required to give up more and more of that space (and then occupy bigger lots) so the people could have light and room to breathe.

Evolution of earlier tenement design

Previously “no law” (anything went; hence all the stuff you heard about in the Five Points)

1867 “pre-law” ( not a comprehensive set of rules, but did add the necessity of a window in each room; but did not specify an outside window, so it was interpreted to allow just a window to another room. This was also when fire escapes were first mandated.

1879 “old law”: windows specified as external; resulted in “dumbbell tenements”, which became the familiar turn of the century Manhattan and South Bronx tall narrow row buildings, with the narrow light shaft squeezed in.
So narrow, the ends were tapered by a diagonal wall with a window, as the space wasn’t even wide enough to fit a window on a perpendicular wall.

Here’s how they fit together:

(Me, being an introverted Thinking dominant, always likes to find out that there is a name for these things I’ve noticed my whole life; and wish I knew of it before.
My godmother lived in one of these, in W134th St. when I was really young, then moved to the Harlem River Houses, but a close church friend still lived either there, or in another one like it in the same area afterward. Now occupied by a highrise; one of the few places from my childhood to be gone. Her storefront church on Boston Rd. in the South Bronx was also in a building on a shaft like that. I found those angled walls at the end so intriguing. I actually had that in the 20′s building I lived in, but it rapidly opened up into a wider backyard).

There’s even a picture of a bathtub stuck in one of these shafts because they were so narrow. Some of them did get a bit wider in the middle, usually where the stairway windows were. (The picture at top has the completely narrow one, and the other pictures has the latter).

1901 “new law”; buildings must be wider than 25 feet ( but with apparent exceptions as shown below), and the narrow light shaft replaced by wider, open bays (as time went on, ends were now wide enough to fit a perpendicular window), or an enclosed shaft so large, it was basically a court yard.

Bays and inner courts replace narrow shafts

So now we can get an idea of when buildings were built
This doesn’t work in Brooklyn, however. And this explains what I’ve long noticed; that Brooklyn has relatively few true dumbbell tenements, compared to Manhattan and The Bronx. Most buildings that look like the older ones in Manhattan are still rectangular. (Occasionally, there may be a notch for a very tiny light shaft). Then it jumps to the newer ones with the wider bays.

Brooklyn wasn’t apart of NYC in 1879, and thus was not under its building laws. It was annexed in 1898, three years before the New Law went into effect. Hence only that narrow window of time for the dumbbells to be the maximum use of space.
So now when you do see dumbbells in Brooklyn, we can know within three years the estimated time for them to have been built.
(Also, Brooklyn row buildings from the old law period are usually three and four stories instead of five and six. Not sure if this was some law or something).

As time went on, more ornate style with gargoyles replaced by Beaux Arts.

10′s rougher façade brick finish texture becomes common, and is now usually either just red or beige (replacing smooth semi-glossy brick that was often orange, and with thinner mortar). This decade is when the mortar joints became thicker in the front (it was always thicker in the rear).

Cornices begin being reduced on some buildings, where they do not cover the whole parapet.

Jack arches (terra cotta flat lintels, but with skewed ends —considered an “arch” with 0 rise, and usually in sections —voussoirs, centered by keystones; when the springers; the stones on the ends are taller than the other stones, it resembles a crown) continued to be common, but were now interspersed with other designs, such as a “lintel” made of soldiers and supported by a steel slat, and many times the sides will be lined by a stack of stretchers; often with a stone square in the corner where the sides and top meet.

Stone (don’t think it’s usually terra cotta anymore; usually this grooved cement) is also sometimes used in different places.
Front window ledges also often made with this stone.
This is where in NYC the fancier hallways with plastered brick walls, concrete floors covered with tile, and marble stairways became popular.

Common “jack arch” found on many early 20th century buildings.
Even though it’s flat, it’s considered an “arch”
because of the arch-like skewed sides and keystone

20′s cornices replaced by various coped often uneven parapet designs. The most familiar will be a symmetrical pattern with a straight parapet over the windows on the extreme right and left of the front, and a broad arched or apexed section over the middle (the straight end sections are usually raised from where the mid section meets them, and there’s often a lower section between them. This is a Beaux Arts style reference to a “pediment”; think of the top of a Greco-Roman temple).

Most terra cotta design is replaced by different brick patterns; often raised courses and columns of bricks, and false [full semicircle] arches made with them (the arch is above the window, but the entire camber is filled with more bricks, often square ones, frequently laid in a 45° pattern, and supported over the window with steel slats. This is basically a “discharging arch” used for a decorative purpose). Tablets spaced between windows (usually vertically) will consist of different decorative bond patterns (such as basket weave), enclosed by a box of raised bricks.

Jack arches also become rarely used, and windows are either framed with raised brick on three sides, or have no features near them at all.
Common front pattern is Flemish.

Court yards (middle or especially front) become more common than rear bays.
Brick window ledges comprised of raised rowlocks become common.
The plainer Tudor style also becomes common
By now, the design is so fancy and spacious, we would not usually call these buildings “tenements” anymore. (I would consider a true tenement as the narrower row buildings from the 10′s and before).

Even Brooklyn moved up to five and six stories in many of these buildings. (I call them the “Flatbush-style” buildings, as these were what were everywhere around where I grew up).

Typical 20′s style building layout found in newer neighborhoods like Flatbush (even down to the angled streets!)
These aren’t usually called “tenements”

30′s, 40′s Art deco was the next progression. Masonry become less ornate, but was replaced by nice linear designs (including in front fire escapes and other iron work). Many had those windows that wrapped around the corner of the building. (Denver is a city that has a lot of them, though they’re usually small, at 2 stories. And of course Miami Beach, though the one time I passed through Miami, I could not find how to get to the Beach to take a closer look at them).
The older of these were the newest looking buildings to use the segmental arches in the rear. Afterward, all windows use steel slats.

50′s, 60′s totally plain red brick, often concrete balconies (hardly any NYC buildings used balconies before this, though you can find front and back “porches” in other cities). So these were basically six story lowrise versions of the highrises that became common, especially for projects. Some projects were six stories as well, and were basically just x shapes plain red brick buildings with no balconies, but surrounded by “garden” grounds. (Hip Hop’s wellknown Queensbridge and Flatbush’s former “Vanderveer Estates, now being re-marketed as “Flatbush Gardens”, are examples. The latter has fire escapes; the former doesn’t).

Cocklofts have vents dispersed on the sides. I’m not sure if this is good, as several cock-loft fires I have seen in recent years, tend to spread pretty quickly (Never saw any of these newer buildings burn when growing up, and you would think they were firepoof). Many also have air conditioner sleeves below the windows.

By the 70′s, It seemed the highrise “box” had totally replaced the lowrise for multiple unit dwellings in the city.
What look like a 70′s form of the six story lowrise are the row of buildings built on Gates Ave. from Throop basically to Ralph (only that street; replacing an old commercial strip, from the few old buildings that remain).

These are where the windows get smaller, and the “design” is basically a vertical pattern formed by slight recessions forming a “slot” the windows are lined up in, and the wall between the window on each floor is covered with some metal panel, or something, which is painted; originally an almost black dark brown, but now repainted in colors like blue. The parapets are also covered with this.
You see this on many high rise projects as well.

Where most 70′s and later buildings went solidly with a fireproof “type 1″ construction, these are apparently still type 3, as they have fire escapes. (This to me is what ties them in as evolutions of the older buildings).
Some of the buildings on Gates have balconies instead. Perhaps these are newer 80′s buildings. It’s hard to tell otherwise. Other buildings have the even flatter, more “modern” windows, and at least one has the vertically sliding windows that are even more common on modern buildings.
There are also four story buildings that use beige vertically textured concrete blocks, which is a style that comes down to the present in type 1 high and low rise buildings (not sure when these were built), but still have fire escapes.

Afterward, (90′s-present) we get into a “retro” kick, but done in a totally concrete type 1 construction. Like rows of buildings in East Harlem (near the explosion), that copied the 100+ year old tenement design with horizontal masonry that features white lintels, with the imposts (rows of bricks the lintels rest on) replaced by horizontal concrete extensions of the “line” to the next window. Other old features such as quoins and even jack arches would return. Rear walls would be either cement block (usually cemented over, just like they do on renovated old buildings), or drywall covered with siding.

Building Construction Types (For Fire)

This is spun off from today’s article which is framed around the East Harlem explosion, and was basically too long a tangent (even to make into an inset).

Two years ago, when sent for a Transit refresher course, which included “Fire School”, an interest was sparked in the different methods of construction in relation to fire. I had asked the fireman teaching the class why New Jersey buildings that looked so much like NYC buildings burned so much worse, even if made of brick. He told me it was something called “balloon construction”, which is where the floor beams meet wall beams without forming a complete horizontal seal.

A big wood beam box, the “balloon”, is constructed, and the floors are supported from this. Spaces between the beams allow a fire to rapidly spread from one floor to the other, and will engulf the whole side of the building, and then spread across the roof and cock-loft, and take out possibly the entire building. (On the news, you see just smoke out of a few windows, with the fire department already on the scene fighting it, but then a few moments later, the other news stories are interrupted for raging flames, and every break it gets worse and worse).

This has happened in NYC, but the buildings, even wood frame ones are usually better at containing a normal fire to one apartment. (The biggest problem with the wood frame is the fire spreading on the outside, and the whole frame compromised). The NJ construction was apparently banned in the city, with its stricter fire codes.

In both brick and even wood frame buildings, the floor decks are built over the horizontal beams or “studs” for each floor, and on top of that, there are also “fire stops”, which are horizontal pieces of wood placed periodically between two studs.
Brick buildings basically have the floor beams (joists) implanted in the exterior wall.

So then I was looking up all of this, and also saw the five construction types of the International Bulding Code (IBC).

They run from less flammable to more flammable (called a heavier “fire load”):

Type 1 Steel frame with concrete poured over sheet metal decks. Universal high rise construction, but now, a lot of low rise residential buildings are using it.
The two buildings adjacent to the Harlem blast were new type 1′s and hence survived “structurally sound”, with only a few bricks removed (the bricks are not really integral to the frame).

Type 2 “non-combustible” brick or metal with metal roof without poured concrete. Often [newer] one story commercial buildings. Roof may be covered with tar and tar paper, so it’s not as fireproof as type 1.

Building that survived the Seaside fire (despite being right at its “ground zero”) looks like a type 2 (which would be common for beachside structures not made of wood). Obviously some sort of light “frame” construction, but none of the structure burned, (other than the siding melting).
The other commercial buildings alongside the main road were also apparently type 2 (concrete block walls with steel supported metal roofs without concrete protection), and held out for a long, long time, with the fire consuming the boardwalk and nearby wooden structures right at the front walls. But they were one story, and the roofs thus closer to where the fire was coming from, and were covered with flammable material (tar, etc), so once they and the stuff inside the buildings began burning, they were quickly gutted as well.

Type 3 The common brick, often pre-war “unreinforced masonry” (URM) building with wooden floor beams (joists) supported by the brick exterior walls (most interior walls are made of wood slats with plaster).
The roof often isn’t even a deck, but rather just two levels of joists forming a “cock-loft”, with the upper level having the tar paper (“membrane” roof) laid over it, and the lower one being the ceiling of the top floor.

This construction may be good to keep sun heat out of the top floor, but allows fire to travel across quickly (call it a “horizontal balloon construction”); especially with the highly flammable tar or “plastic roof cement”.
I’ve seen that this is the “achilles heel” of even the sound NYC apt. buildings, even brick ones, if the fire is on or under the roof. You usually lose the entire top floor, and possibly more when things begin collapsing.

This is the construction of the buildings that collapsed in Harlem. One building even takes out half of the other.

These are the worse things to be in not only in explosions, but also in an earthquake. The brick walls crumble, and the joists are only implanted in rectangular holes (you often see these holes left over in a wall when a building has been demolished, including at this site until they chipped the walls off the sides of the adjacent buildings), and the support is probably only a few inches deep.
While in NYC, the flooring and plaster is fire rated to be good at keeping fire contained (unlike the “balloon construction” of NJ), when a fire does burn through, it doesn’t take much to lose the support and collapse. (They even make “fire cuts” in the joists, so that they will break away instead of prying at the wall when it collapses from the other end being burned through, but the wall still ends up weakened when enough of them are broken or burned away).

What I grew up in was a fancier prewar building using Type 3 construction with a Type 1 basement. The ceilings in the basement were concrete (you can see wood grain, which was from the wooden mold the concrete was poured on), and then they build regular type 3 on top of the concrete deck.

Type 4: a “heavy timber” industrial (e.g. “mill”) version of type 3. Used a lot in old factories, warehouses and churches.
I think of the Fairway in Red Hook and the Amish market in the Atlas Mall (which was previously a Fairway. In both cases, the old warehouse creates the retro “old market“ theme the chain uses). You see the rugged bare wood floors and ceilings with thick beams and even the support columns (posts). “No wonder these buildings burn so fiercely” I thought.

The thick heavy duty wood is stronger and takes longer to burn, but once it does burn, it provides a lot of fuel (the heavier “fire load”), and is hard to put out. You often will lose the whole structure —which usually ends up collapsing from all the heat and the wood connected to it being burned away, as in all these old warehouses in the northeast that burn to the ground literally (watched a bunch of them in videos the other night researching for this article).
Churches too (even though you would think with all the open space, there wouldn’t be much to burn. Aside from the pews, nearly all the fuel or fire load is in the roof).
Hence really being more flammable than a type 3, and thus placed further down the list.

I’ve seen old one story stores being dismantled, and the cockloft is filled with thick wooden trusses. I wanted to take a picture of one along the J line three years ago, when I was mulling starting this blog (might have been my first article), but the entire roof was removed by the time I finally got over there when I was off. (I think most of the wood is still stacked up in the back of the lot left in its place).
Again; NO WONDER these things burn like that!
What were they thinking?

Type 5 is simply wood frame construction (even if clad over with a facade of bricks or concrete, like all those new suburban developments that burn to the ground whenever there’s a fire).

What I live in, I’m not sure which type it falls under. It seems like a sort of new version of type 3, with light steel frame walls paneled with plasterboard, on which the preassembled wooden beam floor deck is laid, and then the next walls constructed on top of that, and so on. Front is clad with brick, and rear with siding. It might be considered type 5, but the frame is not wood or otherwise “combustible”. (I said I would not live in a type 5, seeing the way they burn so much).

No cockloft, however, and it is the hottest place in the summer with the sun beating down.
Some of the new little townhouses in the area are a more solid version of type 1, using “hollow core concrete planks” for the floors and roof, instead of poured concrete. Would love to be in one of those. An earthquake probably wouldn’t even shake it!

The old brick “balloon” buildings in NJ might be considered type 5 as well. They are just clad with the bricks.
I got a sense of this, when accompanying my wife when she was in the process of becoming an NCCA counselor, and her supervisor int hat organization was administering the APS to her. This was near New Dorp, Staten Island (And architecture there looks more like New Jersey), and a building in the SIRT station square had a prewar brick façade (which looks solid, compared to newer buildings which often have other wall materials along with the bricks), but they were repairing it, and you could see it was really a wooden plank wall underneath. In NYC, it’s a solid three layers of bricks, then the plastering from the inside. Except for a bunch of buildings in Bushwick, which were wood frame that had brick fronts added (sometimes with several yards of side wall added to meet the front of the adjacent building). You have to see it from above, or if the building next to it is torn down.

I think the balloon construction should probably have its own sub-type, like maybe 3b or 5b or something. It does make a significant difference in what’s called “fire behavior” that firefighters are taught to consider in each building.

You wonder why they didn’t just go with type 1 all along, and I’m starting to feel almost like I wish they would just demolish all the type 3′s and get it over with already, and put up type 1′s. (I heard LA once considered something like this, due to the earthquakes, for everything three stories and higher.
If you say it was cost, then why can they all afford it now, especially when that was the industry that crashed the economy!)

Edit: more detailed definitions of types’s-Construction-Type

QS_BuildingConstruction.pdf (File Download)

It seems there is an A and B designation for some of the types, which determines whether the exterior is “protected” or not. So the frame buildings with exterior bricks are 5A.

The Other Side of the Puer: the Senex

Hey y’all. Puer coming at you with my dreaded [original] shadow, the Senex, that old man chasing me with a stick as I play in his yard!

I’ve been spending a lot of my time trying to understand more of the relationship between the ego and the Self, and even looking back over a correspondence I had with someone very Jungian, and which it was taking time to digest (I initially spent a lot of time seeing it purely in the light of John Beebe’s particular brand of the theory regarding the functions and associated archetypes), but am still beginning to understand more.

The key thing that just clicked for me recently regarding the definition of the Senex (recall, I had all along been trying to gather what really constellates the complexes Beebe associates with the “unconscious” functions “#5-8″ for each type) was that it was said to personify the human drive to develop an ego.

Not only that, but when a psychological process matures through consciousness into order, it becomes habitual and dominant, and thus, unconscious again. (This helps explain stuff I had been reading, such as the anima trying to “drag the ego back into unconsciousness”). “Unconscious” (similar to “object/subject” and “concrete/abstract”) has several different meanings in Jungian parlance.*

*Jung’s different levels of “unconscious”
Unconscious: “shadow” (undeveloped functions, complexes, etc); “introversion”; “iNtuition”.

Shadow functions are unconscious to ego’s “executive” control
introversion is unconscious to the external world
iNtuition is unconscious to the tangible/concrete world.

So an iNtuitive has conscious control over unconscious impressions (incoming data not gained from the senses)
An introverted Sensor has conscious control over tangible data that comes from the unconscious (the internal “storehouse” rather than emergent reality).
An NP or SJ can take in emergent tangible data, but is not in conscious control of it as much as an SP or mature NJ.

While it is felt through the auxiliary (“Parent”) function in the opposite attitude, the Senex archetype is present in any process that has become rigid and authoritarian.
It’s usually constellated when the strongest function has become too one-sided, where we take our knowledge for granted and feel most certain, making us the least reflective and short-sighted.

This will harden into a brittle ego-centricity around the power of “I know”. The Senex does a lot of great works with his knowledge, but has lost the instinctual dynamism of youth and uncertainty.

Of course, these attitudes also comprise “inflation", which is when the ego identifies with the larger Self.
So when ego is inflated, everything that goes against it seems like negation, which was something else I gathered as a trigger for the complex.

In the midst of this, comes yet another catastrophic destruction of old buildings, and it seems my emotions are getting stronger as each one occurs. (Recall the Seaside fire from last summer. Doesn't even seem that long ago already!)

It started as a routine morning, and suddenly a Ch7 "breaking news", and my wife even says "uh, oh, something bad happened somewhere". The reporter describes an explosion, but can't see anything but fire on the top of a building and part of a roof collapsing. Soon, we get the corner, and smoke in the area, but not directly which lot it was coming from. Then we do get overhead views of smoke coming from between two [new-looking] buildings, and it's hard to make out what was what. So I went and found it on Google Street View where I saw it was actually two buildings, and tweeted it to ABC (they shortly after began showing a similar “before” picture, but it said “Verizon” on it instead of Google).

To see “before”, sound looking fronts, nice 100 year old era masonry, in good condition, look like they had been renovated at some point; a real picture of health, vitality and “color” (in contrast to all the similar buildings that succumbed to urban decay, arson, or just replacement with modern development. With all the new buildings in the area, these two had obviously survived all of that).
And then, smoking rubble (which quickly erupted into huge flames), in an instant.
It is so ominous.

I recently mentioned here: a childhood friend who grew up to own a brownstone bed & breakfast. Well that was only a few blocks away. (She surely must have felt, heard and smelled it, if home. People much further away did. She’s not online, so I haven’t had a direct way to contact her).
Contacting her mother, I hear that two of the fatalities and one of the seriously injured attend her church (not the one shown on the news, but another one nevertheless close by, and whom an old friend of my wife’s attends also)!

I had just gone over there, passing not too far from this scene, when visiting in December. I went over from 125th on the Lexington, but would have gotten of at 116th (as originally planned) and passed right by there if I had been on the 6 instead of the 4 or 5. (And I had stopped at the Fairway on 86th looking for Chobani 100 and the new Zevia formula I only more recently found, and the express came first).
It’s not a corner I’m ever really on (pass by mainly on the Metro North, the rare occasions I’ve been on that).

One person at work (a few hours later, when I was on a break) commented something that crossed my mind: in a few years, you'll see another skinny high rise there, suggesting this was deliberate. I've seen a lot of old buildings destroyed “accidentally”, before these new monstrosities go up. The nice terra-cotta adorned one that a crane collapsed on a few years ago lower down on 3rd Ave. (looked like it could be repaired, but was demolished instead) was surrounded by newer larger construction, and now, the owner gets to put another one in that lot.

I then feel so down, and of course hope no one was killed, but of course the death toll slowly goes up. (Just like the horrible Metro North crash not too long ago. And right as a plane disappears on the other side of the globe and no one knows what happened to it!)
Seeing something like this happen to apparently sound NYC buildings (not even some derelict sitting there decaying for years, like so many others), I don’t know which one will fall next. It could happen to ones that mean more to me and my experience.

(Then, that evening, when gathering some information on construction types for the companion article I’m splitting off, and running into these firefighting sites with videos of all these horrible fires I couldn’t help but watch).
The rear half of one building was left (almost as nothing happened when viewed from the rear; didn’t hear about any survivors being in those back rooms, which led to the fire escape), but after two days taken down.

I should mention, it seems the “childhood innocence” of the neighborhood was essentially shattered by a huge fire that leveled a row of one story stores on the avenue right next to us. It gave us a new play field for years, but still was a big scar on the neighborhood, and was terrifying as it was occurring, at the end of a spate of smaller fires in the neighborhood, signaling its going “down”, and my increasing worry that it would happen to us some day.
(BTW, the others in our reunions for some reason mis-remember this as occurring in 1977, but I clearly remember it as summer 1976. I remember the music that was out in that period, and everything. This was also, ironically, the year I first heard the word “ego”, which my father suddenly began tossing at me on the Bicentennial, trying to get me to not be so self-involved).
I also mentioned in the Porches, Points and Poverty article a dream about Springfield, MA, at 13, that got me into prewar apartment buildings in the first place, from comparing the architecture in the different cities.

I realize from this tragedy and the last one that these reactions are part of a constellation of the Senex complex, and I had already been considering the point about the "one sidedness", and also Robert Johnson's statement that "depression compensates “inflation”. (See

A great book on my type I just finished reading is A.J Drenth's INTP (Personality Junkie), and it mentions two kinds of narcissism: both somatic and cerebral (p.25). When we think of narcissism, we usually think of the somatic (bodily, visual) kind. But it can be cerebral as well. I never thought of myself as a narcissist (and would have been highly offended, in an almost “taken aback” way if called one), but it seems cerebrally, I definitely am.

So I’ve been realizing that a lot of these feelings might be associated with this condition.

What I think happened with me is that I’ve spent so much time imagining a perfect existence, a perfect outing, a perfect living environment, etc. and it’s all “ordered” by Ti (introverted Thinking; and colored by extraverted iNtuition {Ne} and introverted Sensing {Si}); where everything makes sense, everything’s fair; symmetrical even, according to the subjective standards. People and good times with them, and even love would always be involved, but the backdrop would be the logically ordered world.

So this is the one-sidedness that constellates the Senex; ESPECIALLY since things never work out that way. (Life “busts my bubble”).

So my fantasy progression would then suddenly turn dark, as a negative introverted iNtuition would erupt and give this premonition that something really bad would happen.
A fictional blueprint was the Brady episode where they went to Hawaii, and all those horrible things started happening. I go into more of this here:
Significantly enough, it would be said that when long running shows start doing stuff like that (leaving the home setting and traveling, or other extravagant “stunts”), that they’ve “jumped the shark”, and are near their final demise. (And didn’t Fonzie “wipe out” or was feared to have done so when he did the actual stunt the trope was named after?)

In real life, you have the AD70 War of Israel, the Jim Jones tragedy, Waco, other cults and political movements that promised utopia; that they would “not fall” but instead usher in a perfect “Kingdom”, and the prophetic warning against stuff like this, that “when they shall say ‘peace and safety’, then shall come sudden destruction”; and in my own experience, cutting my finger bad on what seemed like it would be a “perfect Saturday” (re: recent article on that day of the week) on my first time staying for the Big Splash weekend.

So hence, some really cool things, like this new “Happy” song (which seemed so “perfect”, with its retro funk sound even, catchy rhythm, the words, etc. and my wife was so enthusiastic about it), will give me this uneasy feeling. It’s like “too perfect”. (It was hard for me to explain why I was not as enthusiastic about it, several weeks ago, when it started playing).

The Senex is basically the model of an old miser who is cranky about everything, for some unknown [to everyone] bunch of reasons. Looking like nothing at all; cranky just to be cranky, or just because everyone is happy.
In reality, the Senex (and its female counterpart, the Crone, or Witch in Beebe’s model; minus the magic) is someone who was once respected for their knowledge, but now negated by the modern world (the “young whippersnappers”) as it moved on.

It had been pointed out to me that a lot of what I’m going through is normal for midlife, when the ego, with its “successes”, runs dry, and the Self is trying to pull the energy away from the ego’s Persona. But I wondered what exactly this meant for me, who never attained that “King” or “Lover” stage that marked “prime of life” success (see, and thus felt I didn’t have any real successes.
Now, I realize, for me, “success” apparently isn’t [necessarily] external, but since the dominant function is internal, then being able to square things away internally is the ego “success” that runs dry and constellates the Senex along with the rest of the midlife pull of the Self. (Since the internal world is driven by logic, then the internal world is not trusted for the values or concepts needed for “faith” and other transpersonal states).

As part of my “cerebral narcissism”, I’ve been trying to find a sense of identity in being a New Yorker, growing up in the “old” city, especially with the Harlem godmother who at first lived in a tenement like this one before moving to the projects (albeit the low rise Harlem River Houses) and attending a store front church on Boston Road in the heart of the bombed out South Bronx (surrounded by buildings that looked just like this), and the old subways to get back and forth, thus seeing first hand the cycle of decay, and the rebirth that would begin at the very end of the 70′s.

Destroying the old just sweeps aside; obliterates all that “life” and memories, in favor of some cold formulaic “corporate” culture of rich condo-dwelling. As I had said before (, many of the low rise structures attempt to include a lot of the retro masonry features, but almost always mess it up with “corporate look” features such as window size, and uneven roofs, for decks and penthouses (milking every penny they can out of the property).

Also thinking more about the people. Even the “inanimate object” (building) focus is ultimately my way of caring about people. As I said in the PPP article, buildings are made for people.

I’ve had people around me comment about focusing on inanimate objects rather than the people involved. A big part of this is AS, which no one knew about until recently. But it’s also simply a deeply “iNtuitive” (typologically speaking) perspective that was not readily apparent to many people who’ve known me, being Sensing types (who focus on tangible reality). So on a more indirect, “abstract” level, this represents people (and “life” in general), more symbolically. Most people expect one to consider people directly, in a “concrete” fashion.

I think what I’m doing is projecting my own admiration for the buildings to the unfortunate residents, and then introjecting how much worse it must be to not only lose it, but to have their own livelihood and possibly lives (or loved ones) destroyed on top of it.
It’s a reminder of the frailty of human life.

After all, that could have been me, or someone close to me, and I would imagine feeling safe and “in the place to be” in this sound-looking “cool” Harlem, NYC building, and then all of a sudden, without warning, it all comes to a violent end.

Now, it’s like my whole romanticized image of Harlem has been marred by this. Like my whole fantasy world is just unraveling a piece at a time. I feel almost like wishing they would just demolish all these types of buildings and replace with the stronger new ones and get it over with already. (LA reportedly once considered something like that, for the earthquakes).

I had also been told how the Trickster (the mirror of the Senex in the shadow, and the negative parallel to the Puer) arises in midlife individuation, to pose double binds to the ego so that it can grow past its preferred perspective. According to Alan A MacKenzie “Enquiry on the Anima” (November 2006) the Trickster (whom he identifies as “Hermes”) “slips in when we are least expecting him, and pulls the rug of safe expectations out from under our feet.”

And that’s almost what it feels like. This is what must be happening with these buildings (I had been looking for where this could be occurring in my psyche). They represent my life, the vitality and sights and sounds of the city (which I had apparently become so attached to; hence feeling so homesick in places like Springfield) and “concrete” (literally!) stability (where people are so fickle and unpredictable, as well as easily killed), but this is showing that the buildings too are not so fixed.
Where the Senex for my type is felt through Ni, the Trickster is felt through Se; current emergent tangible data.

From MacKenzie:

This second transition ["liminal space"; second of three stages formulated by Murray Stein (1983) in In Midlife: A Jungian Perspective; the first being "Separation" in which a crisis occurs that "cuts the person off from the known ways in which s/he controls his/her thinking, feeling and acting" associated with "an earlier identity, the persona", and the third being "reinstatement"; "the return to life with changed consciousness."] “involves some meeting with an aspect of our unconscious – some power previously excluded or shunned.
To go through liminality, the person needs to ‘find the corpse’ and then to bury it – to identify the source of pain and then to put the past to rest by grieving, mourning and burying it. But the nature of the loss needs to be understood and worked through before a person can move on.

This is what I’m trying to do now, sorting through a lot of stuff that has apparently constellated all these imaginal representations I’m expressing my midlife depression through. (Recently, had a vivid dream framed around a painful experience with peers in high school —and happened to be on the birthday of a girl I really liked, and basically blew it with).

Spun off:
Building Construction Types (For Fire)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.