I had considered doing a followup to the Roxanne War (https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/the-roxanne-war-complete-chronology-of-hip-hops-greatest-saga/#comment-4278), on “The Bridge War” which basically superseded it, with all the relevant videos, but didn’t bother as I never liked the outcome of that one (though I did contribute heavily to the Wikipedia article). Also, for one, rap at the end of the Roxanne war entered the transition where in those few years inbetween it had become much more vulgar and violent, whhich I was against. Plus, there are’t nearly as many entries in the Bridge war, so all the relevant videos can easily be found, but here is the list of them:
(“12:41” aka Scott La Rock and crew including KRS, “Success Is The Word”, record dissed by Mr. Magic leading to retaliation)
MC Shan–“The Bridge”
Boogie Down Productions–“South Bronx”
MC Shan–“Kill That Noise”
Boogie Down Productions–“The Bridge Is Over”
Rockwell Noel & The Poet–“Beat You Down”
” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” “—“Taking U Out”
MC Butchy B—“Beat Down KRS”
Boogie Down Productions–“Still No. 1 (Numero Uno mix)”
Related records: the DJ’s and one-shots:
MC Shan–“Juice Crew Law” (some believe also contains shots at KRS)
Cool C–“Juice Crew Diss” (mocks “Juice Crew Law”)
MC Mitchski–“Brooklyn Blew Up The Bridge” (made fun of Shan’s on-stage appearances)
Roxanne Shanté–“Have A Nice Day” (ends on a quick shot at the BDP crew)
Craig G–“Duck Alert”
Butchy B–“Go Magic”
Aftermath reference raps:
Boogie Down Productions–“Black Man In Effect” (Discusses the concept of “juice” and reiterates “I’m not down with a juice-crew”)
Poet + Hot Day—“Without Warning” (contains samples of “Numero Uno” but otherwise is general ‘ego’ rap)
Screwball (later Poet crew):
“Bio” anonymous reference with the citing of Doug. E. Fresh’s “You Ain’t Nothin” from “The Bridge is Over”
“You Love To Hear The Stories” (a followup to the original “The Bridge”, featuring MC Shan). Shan now protests “Nobody said it started there. But some playa hater tried to end a party there. Niggas didn’t care they burned it, put it in the air”
QB’s Finest (showcase of Queensbridge hip hop artists), MC Shan quips: “The Bridge was never over, we left our mark”
KRS One With Marley Marl, Hip Hop Lives album:
“Rising“: KRS recounts the whole story from his perspective
“The Victory“: featuring [by then, “Blaq”] Poet
How I chose sides
It seemed 9 [almost 10] years ago (wow, that long already) that battle was officially resolved by KRS teaming up with archenemy Marley Marl on an album, which included his strongest opponent, Poet in a rap produced by Marley.
However, I was always disturbed by what I would now call the “archetypal” implications of the original aftermath, of the obviously “strong” bass-voiced rapper “taking out” the weaker looking higher pitched voice rapper, which was the official narrative. And the latter is now beginning to react to this as well.
How I got to this position in this war: As I chronicle in my essay on the gradual downfall of rap http://www.erictb.info/rap.html I did not see Run-DMC in a favorable light, because of the fierce in-your-face aggressiveness and braggadocio of the “ego” style they introduced with “Sucker MC’s”, which quickly took over rap, and began transforming it, basically into the negative “gangsta” style in just a few years, where it had started out more positive, as party, talent and then “message” oriented.
Run, with rap pioneer Kurtis Blow (who also went from a message style to pure ego, dubbing himself the “king of rap”), and the others surrounding Run’s brother Russell Simmons (aka “Rush”) then formed a “mainstream” inner circle of rap, all dominated by ego bragging, and culminating with their 1985 film “Krush Groove”.
Major Rap Division begins
A sort of “counter”-movement began with Roxanne Shanté, who of course started off dissing UTFO, but then would later take shots at Run and Kurtis Blow. Marley would later introduce MC Shan and others, who would go after LL Cool J and even Run-DMC (which Shan now claims to have ghost-written).
As stated above, I first began to become sympathetic to Shanté when I thought Sparky D’s (and later, UTFO’s own final) response was “unfair”. (I really got into the whole “story”, treating it as an audio “soap opera”!)
I of course knew Marley was associated with Shanté, as she praises him in her raps, just as all other MC’s did back then (and this was the MC’s original function!) I didn’t know he was associated with Mr. Magic. They both discovered her together, (I later find out from the internet, telling how long I was in the dark on that!) I just knew Marley always seemed to be involved with a lot of these dissident rappers coming out, several associated with the small Pop Art record label Shanté debuted on, who were independent from the mainstream.
So I came to associate Magic with the “mainstream” rappers because of a DJ album he put out c.1985, which had Run, Kurtis Blow, LL, Fat Boys, etc.
This makes it funny how Magic could promote these rappers, but then also raise up these two others, to dis them.
If it seems strange that I didn’t know that Magic and Marley were such a big team, it’s because I never listened to their station, WBLS. I, as it is, was already on the “other side” of the radio battle going on at the time, with rival “KISS-FM” (98.7; WRKS), which I listened to (switching over from the old WKTU three years earlier, because they played Stevie’s “Do I Do” to death! I liked them so much, when I was in VA, I found an apparent sister station, “Kiss 96”, WQKS out of Williamsburg, but could only get the distant station from the opposite side of the dorm from my room).
I also knew nothing about the dispute between Magic and UTFO which led to Shanté’s introduction in the first place. So I for some reason saw UTFO as on the “mainstream” side. Especially when Sparky D came to defend them from Shanté, and she was associated with a “Spyder D” who was on Profile, which was Run-DMC’s long time label. (So record labels also figured in my assumptions of who was “down” with who. I much more recently find out that she had a spat with Pebblee Poo, who was also on Profile, and made a name dissing the Boogie Boys “Fly Girl”, and was also on the aforementioned Mr. Magic album).
You also had Doug E Fresh, who seemed to be mainstream (and was in earlier “mainstream” film, Beat Street), who would be dissed by Salt & Pepa’s debut, on Pop Art, and then Shanté would spoof “LaDiDaDi”, as mentioned in the main article.
So I, in my typical Ti “categorizing”—Ne “imagining” sort of way imagined rap divided into two camps, the “Krush Groovers” and the “Pop Artists”. (Perhaps I listened to too much politics, which I was becoming well aware of in that age of Reagan, with its clearly defined “Right and “Left”. So Kurtis Blow and allies were like the “right” wing (“conservative”, gatekeepers of “the old guard”), and Shanté and friends were the “left” wing (“liberal”, progressive).
I figured if Magic was down with the Krush Groovers, then I imagined the Pop Artists being featured on a similar DJ album by rival Chuck Chillout or Red Alert. IIRC, one actually did surface sometime afterward, and I clearly remember coming home from college one summer, winter or spring, and hearing Shanté actually doing a promotional for KISS! (Which further added to my ongoing homesickness when I went back. Trying to remember whether she mentioned Red or Chuck in that promo. This, well before the Bridge War, which became solidly centered around the two stations and their DJ’s. Sparky would later do a promo for Red, i.e. “Where’s the beef? DJ Red Alert, gone berserk”, around the era of the Bridge War, and one of the last things you ever heard from her).
So the point is, I came to like Shan, Shanté and the others they associated with because of their “countercultural” stance against the rap mainstream, whose ego had become way too bloated by 1986.
(You also then had Kool Moe Dee, having gone solo after coming out of the old Treacherous Three, going after LL, who had really hit big by then).
From “old” to “new”: Rap further divides
This ‘binary’ appearance of rap all changed with the Bridge War. First, what I called “Krush Groovers”, as the previous “mainstream”, was now starting to be called “the Old School” (a term I previously heard applied to older generations, particularly grandparents and before. Like Dad saying “[someone from his parents’ generation] is from the old school. They believed children should be ‘seen and not heard'”, for instance). The exception was LL, who was on the later end of that wave, and was called “mid”-school.
And now, a whole new crop of rappers coming out were called “the New School”. However, this time-like division began to break away from the old apparent divisions of rap. (Like Moe Dee was technically “old school”, even anonymously dissed as such in LL’s “Jack the Ripper”, in response to him having blasted LL as a “new jack” in “How Ya Like Me Now”, but in his solo career at least, was clearly estranged from what had by then become the mainstream “core” of the “old school” which LL had become close to or even apart of; and was in some ways more like some of the new school rappers).
So KRS-One on one hand was also going against the mainstream, even putting down the whole notion of “kings” that defined the ego-style of the “Krush Groovers”, along with the rampant commercialism. But then he actually defended LL from Shan! He took a swipe at Run DMC and “Adidas”, but otherwise seemed to respect them. The rest of the “new school” emerging then—Eric B & Rakim, etc. also seemed to be counter-mainstream, but still respecting it. Public Enemy was even produced by Russell Simmons. While LL would soon go on to hook up with Marley!
So this lends credence to the claim that KRS and Scott La Rock at one point wanted to be in what by then came to be known as the “Juice Crew”, centered around Shanté, Marley, Magic and Shan. (Basically, arising from the core of the old “Pop Artists”; now centered around Magic, aka “Sir Juice”, and having left Pop Art and moving to a new label, Cold Chillin’).
I would have loved that. I think they would have been so good on the same side, for they were all against the mainstream (save Magic). I would have loved to have all that intellectual lyrical genius on the “side” I favored, in contrast to the ego-tripping, “suped up” sellouts! I even imagine what it would have been like if they had been “down”, and “South Bronx” could have still been released, but not dissing the Bridge. It would just be like a compliment to it, like Cutmaster DC throwing Brooklyn into the mix in a followup referencing the Bridge war, and another group adding a rap about “Uptown”. (Only a few lines of “South Bronx” are actually directed specifically at The Bridge, and no names are even mentioned in that one).
I imagine, if this happened, then KRS might have directed all that energy, perhaps in unison with Shan and the others, toward Run, LL and the rest of the so-called “kings”. THAT would have been a BOMB rap war! (KRS always did seem poised to potentially go after LL, when asked, or more recently, actually say something and then apologize. LL may have been less likely to survive BOTH KRS and Moe Dee on his hide!)
I imagine a counterfactual version of “The Bridge Is Over” even, which could have actually been similar, and even go as far as to still maintain the Bronx vs Queens premise, but directed at the OTHER end of Queens (“Hollis is Over”? “…Can’t sound like LL, or Run DMC…”? and then twist one of their lines to claim they said hip hop stated in Hollis). That then would have been much more suited, as Shan and the Bridge were not the ones claiming to be “Kings” and the center of hip hop, which was KRS’ whole premise. (And not even the “juice” moniker necessarily implies that).
It should be mentioned, that at the time, I knew nothing about the real reason KRS launched his crusade against the Juice Crew, which was Magic dissing an earlier record. KRS had begun with a pair of message raps, “Success Is the Word”, and “Advance”. By that time, these types of raps were very rare and basically out of fashion, and neither of them did well at all. It was when “Success” was slammed by Magic, that he formed Boogie Down Productions, aligned himself with Kiss and Red Alert, and began the attack on Queensbridge.
But to me, hearing the records coming out, it just looked like a tough guy picking on a weaker guy just to be “bad”. This is why I was totally put off by KRS, and never appreciated his ingenuity back then. (If I knew the whole story, then I would have been more sympathetic, since the arrogance of the rap “mainstream” represented by Magic is precisely what I had been put off by; but still wish he hadn’t taken it out on Shan and the crew —and with all the others who followed him in that. They weren’t the ones who were too puffed up and needed to be inflated. He could have just focused on Magic. Even one of these diss followers, Mitch Ski pointed out that it was all falling on Shan: “you’re down with Magic and the whole Juice Crew, but the only one they’re dissing homeboy is you”).
So rap was sort of now splintered into at least three factions; the “Rush & friends” former “old school” mainstreamers, KRS and those other “new schoolers” he mentions as being “down” with him (Just Ice, Jungle Brothers, Rakim, etc.) and the Juice Crew collective.
The small rap circle that remained centered on Pop Art would turn against Shan and Shanté in the war. Shanté protegé Steady B would hook up with Cool C (himself actually on another label) and co-write his raps, including “Juice Crew Diss” (mocking Shan and slamming Shanté), and then even do a collaboration with KRS! (While Pop Art for while became an imprint of the Jive-RCA label the latter was on). Public Enemy was sort of inbetween, being associated with the “Old School” Rush, but clearly apart of the emerging “New School”. Arising legend Big Daddy Kane was Juice Crew, but also in the same category as Rakim and the other respected new-schoolers.
In fact, in a video interview of Kane, he reveals that he and Biz were actually down with KRS, partly explaining why he did not get involved with the Shan battle, aside from ghost-writing Shanté’s entry, with one closing line taking a rather weak shot at Kris/Scott at that. I had heard rumors of some level of kinship somewhere between the two sides, as well. It was so hard to believe or imagine! Though Kane is also cited somewhere as saying KRS was “the battle he wanted”.
He would have been a much better match for KRS, being in that same class of more respected, popular, clever and tougher sounding rappers. Even more clear, the rap “Wrath Of Kane” would say “Juice Crew’s the family, Slick Rick’s a friend of me; and Doug E Fresh, Stet, KRS and Public enemy”!
Biz and Kane and a couple others had become sort of a separate faction within the Juice Crew. Which may have also figured in their abandonment in the battle and eventual breakup, as Shan and Shanté were the core with Magic and Marley, and Shan was said to speak down to Kane at times, so he and Biz were like the distant members. Biz even went as far as to do Red Alert promos for KISS right in the middle of this whole period!
(In passing, the soon-to-emerge West Coast, and later Wu-Tang collective and others would further splinter rap, and the notion of factions would be irrelevant).
The record battle escalates, and then dies out
In both of the battles that ensured; KRS vs Shan, and the similar-to-KRS Moe Dee vs the similar-to-Shan LL, you had these tougher deep voiced rappers going against skinny higher pitched guys (who often tried to seemingly compensate by showing off their bare chests, as both Moe Dee and Mitch Ski would snap on). Only, the outcomes were very different.
Shan responded to “South Bronx” with “Kill That Noise”, but after KRS followed up with “The Bridge is Over”, Shan seemed to let it drop. Poet then took the reins (and occasionally others, such as Butchy B, who did mainly Mr Magic promos, dissing the “lipstick” of the KISS logo, but then added “Beat Down KRS”, mocking the whole reggae theme of The Bridge is Over), but then it died down, and the final answer seemed to be KRS’s “Numero Uno rap”, which was a special version of “Still Number One” aimed at Poet.
There was so much that could have been said in a response, especially the way KRS was simultaneously claiming to be such a “unifier” and even peacemaker of rap (“I try to tell them, we’re all in this together…“, “Stop the Violence”, etc.) yet causing such beef, and adding violence to the lyrics (and even the whole image on the album covers). And the rap pushed the self-glorifying egotism to the hilt, far beyond anything Run and the other old-schoolers had done; now claiming to be even greater than the “kings”. Lines included “Do not interrupt when I’m teaching; do not speak when grownups are speaking“; and “I’m criminal minded, you’re soft minded; just like a dog, here’s a lyric go find it“). He is ingenious, but it just was increasingly going to his head.
But (listening in vain on the Fri. and Sat. night DJ shows, including switching to Magic/Marley at times) nothing ever surfaced. Shan made a couple more records that didn’t seem to include any responses to it, but then dropped out, and Poet seemed to just disappear as quickly as he appeared.
The other main battle going on simultaneously, and its opposite outcome
Even though Moe Dee was clearly slamming LL, far harder than what KRS ever said to Shan; LL managed to “win” that one, by in essence “tiring him out”, where Moe Dee was the one whose career faltered, and he just dropped it after a while. The same with Ice T, and Hammer, who had also joined in making snaps at LL, which he would respond to in a later record (after they had already quit the record business. Basically, as we see these days, “winning a battle” is now defined by “making the last diss record”; i.e. “having the last word”, just as much as it is for winning an actual battle on stage. And that was how I saw it).
LL, while looking and sounding a lot like Shan in the beginning, at one point deepened his voice and developed a lot of muscles, and basically became basically a sex symbol, especially with some of the sex-oriented-but-in-a-more-“romantic”-way raps he started doing. So this is what I believe saved him (in addition to being so connected to Rush anyway, whose enterprise expanded into a big multimedia empire). So he of course continued to “blow up” as a famous rapper and then screen star. (Where Ice T and others also became bigger on screen, but not making raps as much anymore).
So in this instance, the “lighter”, higher pitched guy actually won for a change, but he was also apart of the highly commercialized “mainstream” (which I, again, never liked, and was precisely part of Moe Dee’s whole issue with him in the first place). So while not physical or especially lyrical “strength”, it was still “power” that prevailed; only in this case, commercial power. Which is really the greatest power in this country anyway, beyond the street environment hip hop is centered on.
The bad “narrative” forming down to the present
So the natural narrative that arose was that KRS “took out Shan”, and even “took Queensbridge off the map” as he bragged. The remaining “Juice Crew” rappers, who were having better success— Biz, Kane, Kool G Rap, etc., just seemed to go their own separate ways. Shanté would increasingly launch an all out crusade against all other female rappers and then suddenly drop out (as they all responded and she was dead silent in all these new simultaneous “wars” she created. I was frustrated on how comparatively soft she had been with KRS and Sparky).
A new generation of rappers would eventually revive the “QB” name, most notably Nas. But by that time, I was so disgusted by the way rap had gone (of which the KRS hard core style “victory” was the par-for-the-course travesty), I no longer followed anyone (other than the Christian rappers appearing at Big Splash, particularly the Bronx-bred “Storytellas”).
This was the age where the aggression and violence rapped about were starting to spread to real life, and the whole image embraced the worst stereotypes of blacks and criminality, which were at the same time, festering virtually unanswered across the tracks in the white conservative sphere, which is figuring heavily in their now being able to rise up to elect a rather bizarre choice for president, with clear racist connections, and now their voice becoming more loud and radically blatant in what’s being called the “alt-right”, as a major rash of police, steadily taking out blacks in the streets occurs, and blacks criticized for complaining about it, because “look at all your thuggery and killings in the cities”!
As late as almost 10 years ago, reflecting how KRS “won” over Shan (after discovering and contributing to the Wiki article, and then KRS claiming to be “Hip Hop incarnate” and talking about creating a hip hop nation), and how it figured archetypally with all the life issues I was ruminating over in my own midlife battles (where the “strong” always “win” in this world), I was imagining, wishing I could go back in time and write the much needed response to “Numero Uno” and send it to Poet or someone. I would have taken an intellectual approach to match KRS’ (us being the same [Keirsey] “Intelligence Variant”; NTP “Engineer”, see below), which I believe was the real key to matching wits with him. Shan came back with a more defensive stance (though titled “Kill That Noise”), while Poet took the opposite extreme, of almost pure aggression (especially in the second record). It was intellect KRS had the final word with in “Numero Uno”, which the rap rubbed in their faces; with the aggressive tone only adding the further “street cred”.
Poet would say in an interview, he initially gave up, because KRS was becoming too big. There actually was another record after the second KRS diss, c.’89, which should have been the response to “Numero Uno”, that was called “Massacre”, and is typically battle themed, but is very general (as common at that time), and does not mention any names or rap line references.
I find this out not too long before the Marley-produced reconciliation, through internet resources where I would follow Poet’s career and see that he afterward joined other groups off and on, and would occasionally take little retrospective (though anonymous) shots at KRS (bearing that same latent old resentment as Shan, who guest starred in one of these raps), up into the 2000’s.
Just now, in getting the above list of entries from the Wiki article, in converting this from a comment (on the Roxanne article) to its own post, I find that one of these raps, called “Without Warning” (Performed as “PHD”) was a more direct response, sampling two bits of “Numero Uno” as if answering them, but was otherwise similar to “Massacre” in being very general (i.e. addressing “MC’s” rather than naming one in particular. It was also ’91, which was three years after Numero Uno already).
But I would never hear of any of these.
This ended when KRS put out the album with Marley which included a track with Blaq Poet. In the main track, “Rising”, he even spoke well of Shan, in explaining in the rap why a diss record was the only way he could get into the industry back then.
You didn’t hear much from Shan, who seemed to have retired completely from the industry. When you did hear from him in interviews, you could detect this long-standing old resentment. (In total contrast, Blaq Poet would two years later do an interview saying, regarding working with KRS, “What we did back in the day was real hip-hop. We didn’t really battle face-to-face but we got s___ out. Go back to making your songs because you’re going to waste the whole rest of your career talking about this nigga? Nah. Get it over with. Let the fans decide who won the battle. It’s not like you’re going to stop selling records. There’s too much pride and people are getting punked.” http://www.djpremierblog.com/2009/05)
Temperament/Type: the likely “personality” side of the clash
Becoming familiar with personality theory during this time, and typing everyone I could, Shan stood out as as a “Melancholy” type, which is very common in the black community. A pure Melancholy is likely an ISTJ type (introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging), whose main world view is “introverted Sensing”, which filters reality through past fact and experience.
So the type can hold on to a lot of resentment and never forget or let it go; hence being named “melancholy” in the first place. Yet, being introverted, it can be rather passive. So rather than venting quickly, they will hold it in, and explode, after many years.
KRS on the other hand seems to be an ENTP (extraverted, iNtitive, Thinking, Perceiving) or the Sanguine-Choleric. This is a combination of the two “extroverted” temperaments, which (as most “classic temperament” profile systems testify) then seems to amplify the aggressiveness of both. (The other blend of the two, the similar ESTP, is the Choleric-Sanguine, which is also pretty aggressive).
KRS is obviously very “intuitive or “conceptual” (being a Five Percenter, which is a very “heady” intellectual religion, with his name standing for “Knowledge Reigns Supreme”, which likely has a whole deep theme behind it, as do other Five Percenter names and concepts), and seems to show TiNe (introverted Thinking with extraverted iNtuition) “genius”.
(I believe this “N” focus also leads to a problem, in concepts like “Criminal Minded”, and with the guns on the cover and all, which he always said was not promoting violence, but really is metaphorical [i.e. iNtuitive perspective] for street smarts. This seems to end up getting taken literally [especially a tendency for those with a more Sensory focus] by many people. That’s why I believe these concepts did still promote violence, even if they say they didn’t intend to. BTW, Shan was also reportedly once a Five Percenter, but left. Never heard of anyone leaving the religion).
Where other recording geniuses, such as Stevie or Steely, seem to be more Ti with Se (extraverted Sensing), which is useful for the melody and harmony of [true] “music”, rap has mainly only the rhythm (with sampled or electronic background music beneath it), and is otherwise really spoken poetry (set to the rhythm), and thus doesn’t need as much of the Sensory mastery required for writing and playing full music. (A lot of artists advocating traditional music structure often complained about rap, and also other electronic styles, and how anyone could just throw it all together without even knowing how to play an instrument).
So the mastery lies in the words, rhymes and concepts.
ENTP is actually considered “role-informative”, which is softer than “directive communication”. This, from the Sanguine being in the “social” area, represented by the E and the “open” P. But in the leadership area, it’s the harder Choleric, which is the NT, which is about “mastery”, and is very competitive, and doesn’t back down. He does seem very “directive”, (acknowledging I could be wrong), but the next similar type, ESTP (which is common in the black community, especially in the “party” scene), I doubt, because I think he’s a clear NT. (The “directiveness” analogue for the leadership area is “structure focus”, which definitely fits, and can lead to similar communication and behavior. And the “directive” Choleric in the social area would be more “dry” or aloof seeming in interviews, and Sanguine in the leadership area would not be as persistent in a battle. Poet might very likely be an ESTP, the way he came out swinging fiercely, including at several other MC’s in another concurrent rap back then— “eighty sa’en, I was crazy sa’en…”, but quickly dropped it. Shanté might be that type also, behaving pretty much the same way).
But while Sanguine is “friendly”, it is also still aggressive, with a “hot temper” like the Choleric. They just don’t hold on to it as long. I could tell you about an ENTP typology friend, who loudly defended my wife and I from a restaurant owner or whatever, who wasn’t being totally nice (and she now seems ready to battle, over the escalating race-and-politics issues, in her new home state). The Sanguine often rapidly “swings” between emotional states. But the addition of the Choleric will give it more of an “anchor” on the aggressive side.
So KRS when he’s talking (not rapping) carries the “friendly” (and not “dry”) air of an “informative” type, and looks like he’ll easily accept you and be cool with you, as long as you’re not attacking or dissing him. The social Sanguine (“Inclusion” area or “Interaction Style” in type) is readily accepting of anyone. If you do get into a beef, then he responds rapidly and brutally and won’t back down. This is the Choleric, in the area of “Control” (or “leadership” or “action”, which is ultimately what Keirsey’s temperament groups are about), with the Sanguine’s social ‘extroversion’ fueling the fiery reaction. Yet at the same time, if time passes, and the other side is willing to quash the beef, then the accepting Sanguine will readily restore friendship and bear no resentment. And this is what we saw with the Marley and Poet collaboration.
30th year: The beef resumes!
So forward to this [past] year (as of 2016), Shan began doing new interviews, and basically reignited the old beef, and you can just hear all the old resentment coming out. Not following rap regularly, I would occasionally hear about this this past Spring, likely from Facebook posts, but didn’t follow up on it, and the months passed. You can see this progress here (this last one, just posted today), with Shan even freestyling a 3+ minute rap in an over the phone interview (which really should have been done back in ’87), and then KRS in his usual fashion, quickly responding with a “hardcore” track.
Shan naturally resents the claim the KRS “took him out” and having to live with the ‘stigma’ of “losing” the battle. He would claim he wanted to record a response to “The Bridge Is Over”, but Marley Marl stopped him. (Likewise, he has a video saying Simmons similarly stopped LL from responding to Shan’s dis of him, “Beat Biter”).
So all of this coming out now is 30 years late (which KRS makes certain to mention in his response track). It looks odd to hold that for so long, and only now come out with it (it looks “passive-aggressive”, which is basically, in street lingo, all the more “weak”, so he better come back strong and stick with it), but this is how an introverted, but “directive” Si type will respond. Extraverted non-SJ’s will more quickly get into and out of a fight and think less about it. Also, ENTP is what’s called an “Aligning” type (Ti/Fe), where ISTJ is “Ordering” (Te/Fi). So tertiary Fi (introverted Feeling) is likely playing a part in Shan’s approach, and is not syncing with KRS’s tertiary Fe (extraverted Feeling), which was evident in the willingness to resolve the issue in a conciliatory way, plus all his “[down] with me/against me” lines, like in the old battles.
I also wonder if Shan could be possibly INFP, which is a Phlegmatic or Supine, which are also pretty passive, and also even more likely to allow others to control them. The type is very close, cognitively, to the ISTJ, using the same functional perspectives in a slightly different order. I think I often don’t recognize the pure Supines in the black community because they, from what I’ve seen, learn to hide their passive temperament behind the street toughness they learn from others (where I had the Choleric in the mix that resisted peer pressure to change my behavior). So they will look like the Melancholies.
If so, Si would be tertiary (like it is for me), and still hold on to resentments like this, perhaps even more than the mature Si of SJ types.
If for some reason that much time had passed on a beef with me, and I still had resentment, but the other person was that friendly in resolving it, I might not have been able to just let it go like that, but would still appreciate the olive branch, and find some way to express my frustration over the negative consequences, and not come out swinging like Shan did. I would only do that once it is established that the beef is still on.
I, right after KRS and Marley’s reconciliation, would then enter a very similar battle online, with a so-called “type expert” who didn’t like me sharing my ideas on a list. We would go back and forth off and on at different times, then there was a whole blowout that caught me off guard, and I felt totally humiliated and needed to regroup. As the type concepts, which I was still learning, were involved, I even came to have some uncertainty about my type, and then tried to consider some of what the person was saying and move on. But when I saw how the concepts were being twisted (to justify the other person’s own rash behavior based on alleged “mutually shadow functions” in particular archetypal positions, which supposedly couldn’t be “coped” with), and then finally verified my real type, the person felt attacked, and suddenly came back snarking, anchored by an [ever since] accusation of me going back on a “truce” we had and reigniting the beef. Not only was it not a real truce, but the person had been making snarky or gloating remarks about the whole affair over the course of months in the interim, (and then have falling outs of their own with others as well; this after having tried to make me the black sheep of the group).
In further clashes (with the spouse taking over after the person eventually cut me off completely), I would (among other things) be chided for “holding on” to that stuff for so long. These are introverted iNtuitive (NJ) types, for whom Si is “shadow”, so past stuff isn’t as relevant, and should just be forgotten. However, the whole point of the theory is that this stuff, when unresolved, does still cause problems.
I admit I should have handled it much better, but that should have made it all the more clear, especially to them, being the primary online teachers of the archetypal model of type, that the introverted Feeling they constantly pointed out was a “Demonic” function that undermined my whole aim and position, rather than being “supportive” as a preferred function.
If KRS is an ENTP, then Si is inferior, which is also fairly unconscious, but being a year or so older than I am, should figure more in consciousness now, as you can see evidenced in his rap covering the recollections of how the beef started (which includes great detail, though not perfectly remembered. This to me is another evidence of him being an “Inquiring Awareness” or Si/Ne compatible type, and with the Ti/Fe, an “Enhancing” Intentional Style). So he will have a nostalgic recount of history, which we do see a lot from him elsewhere (and will bring up past facts, like against Shan now), but it is still part of an “inferior” complex, and avoidant or at least intimidated by too many negative past facts and details. For me, as a similar type: the introverted counterpart, Si moves up to tertiary, and is similarly nostalgic, and vulnerable-feeling. Though it is also closer to consciousness; close enough to really flare up at past negative occurrences.
But as these are but divisions of reality, neither perspective is more “right” than the other, and the past is something that can come up (from the “shadows”) and wreak havoc, and so should be dealt with.
Given the overall “narrative” that has become entrenched, the man does have a lot of reason to be resentful! He got the really bum deal out of the whole thing. So upon studying the whole battle (Especially when contributing to Wikipedia and learning all the details behind the scenes), I began lamenting the irony of KRS being angered by Magic and Marley, and yet they walk out of it with their careers unscathed (even getting bigger, in fact), while Shan takes the fall for their nonsense. Former Juice Crew rapper Craig G even later turned against him and effectively rubbed this in his face in a rap. Now hearing that Marley specifically kept him from fighting back more, makes it all the more messed up.
And Shan also points out the business aspect of it, where Marley was very shrewd, and as with as many other producer-performer associations, apparently did not give him all he was due. (So he also focuses on the money aspect of it, answering the natural charge that he’s probably only doing this now because he “needed money”. So he’s claiming to have been doing well over the years, with the proceeds off of the hit single Snow collaboration and others).
If Marley was really the problem, you wonder why, as KRS says, he didn’t pick up the battle all of that time inbetween (after he parted ways with Marley). But what he seemed to always express during that whole time, was that he ‘didn’t have to’ respond; for “I gave him a career already”; “it made us more famous”, etc. Even on “Kill That Noise”, his answer to being accused of saying hip hop started in Queens was simply “they’re only trying to jump on the bandwagon” (which Cool C would only throw back at him).
Still, it would carry a stigma, as he recognizes now, and KRS mentioning “taking Shan out” one last time seemed to be the last straw.
Where to go from here?
I would like to see them resolve this on stage (and you can throw in the LL-MoeDee battle that never occurred; that LL had apparently shied away from back in the day), and hope Shan can do it, not being as active as KRS all these years, and appearing [visually] frail (which KRS and everyone is attributing to the crack I believe he has admitted to recovering from). Though he has actually started to release a few new singles, (adopting the modern 90-s to the present Eminem etc. influenced rap style, which is of course hardcore and vulgar), and he does seem to still have the voice. He does say he has pages of rhymes written for him, that he “won’t know where all of this is coming from”. Wow; 30 years of held-in resentment, welling up like that!
KRS released a second single dissing him, apparently part of an album project coming out, and he’s basically waiting for a response. It sounds like when asked, Shan is pointing to the moneymaking aspect of the situation. It’s pointed out that this might actually sell. Some commenters are saying this is just what hip hop needs today, since they’re all in agreement that the modern Southern based style has rendered hip hop “dead”. So I hope that doesn’t become a cop-out.
While he’s making much of the fact that they never had a live battle, and thus Shan couldn’t have been “taken out”; it’s still true, that it could have contributed to his downfall, or at least on the surface, it looks like it. So that technically would be “taken out”. He draws the analogy to him dissing LL, so he obviously didn’t “take him [LL] out”. But if it had created the “stigma” he even testifies to, then it could be said he [Shan] was taken out. But instead, LL never went out, and that’s what makes the comparison impossibly false. (With Cool C, who he also mentions, he was already being barraged by KRS, so for that reason, no one would ever attribute taking him out to this one record act that briefly joined in. However, the similar Mitch Ski, who did a similar diss record around the same time, would actually claim in that record that he, representing “Brooklyn”, took out the Bridge, while South Bronx only “helped us out”. That’s what Shan should have mentioned. BTW, Cool C, hooked up with Steady B in rhyme and in real life crime, has for years been on death row for a murder, which keeps getting stayed, while Steady faces a lesser life in prison as an accomplice).
The response (both spoken and the rap) Shan has done so far seem good (even liked by some commenters). KRS’s disses are ingenious and intimidating, but there are holes in them you can go after. Like mocking his “four, three, two, one”, and some sort of scatting he was doing (“deedle, deedle, deedle” or something like that), which are basically “filler”, which may make for an ingeniously nice sounding product, but (as in that case), it can even be silly (Shan called him a “Care Bears rapper” on that), where again, a more intellectual content would be stronger.
He also pointed out “You ain’t even from the Bronx”, which was a great slam, but again, is 30 years too late, as the whole Bronx vs Queens aspect of the battle is long past relevance. Perhaps that would have been in his response to “The Bridge Is Over”, where it would have been a perfect comeback, instantly blowing up the whole premise he built his career on! We would possibly look back on that battle very differently today. (Though perhaps it wasn’t as widely known back then that KRS wasn’t from the Bronx. I remember hearing probably later, that he had been in Brooklyn before, and this where he was actually born, and I immediately thought this made the whole “South Bronx” premise ironic, but it wasn’t until later, with him telling more of his life story, including where he had been homeless and basically all over the place, that it was more clear).
Being an introverted Thinking (TP) type like me, logical consistency is what our rational drive is, and we like to pick out inconsistencies in others’ logic. You see him doing this all the time, when discussing race and politics (like Malcolm X, who he is rather similar to, and I also believe was ENTP). But we of course are not perfectly logical, and so will miss inconsistencies in our own logic, once the ego becomes fixated on a view of something. Hence his weak spot will be inconsistencies, like claiming to be a peacemaker while promoting beef and violence (which my Ti easily recognized. It’s judged “false” or “incorrect” according to my own analysis of the situation). Evidence of this is “shadowy” (rash, sudden) reactions when they are pointed out. The PM Dawn rapper reportedly had claimed KRS was not “practicing what he preached”, supposedly leading to the physical attack on him. He was trapped and the intellect had reached its end; he felt his integrity was at stake so he reacted (Demonic extraverted Sensing, taking the opportunity to bum rush the show) and then came up with a very non-intellectual blanket justification; that he was “light attacking darkness” or something like that. (No explanation of what defined light and darkness in that case and why he was on the “light” side. He was the one caught in a lie. As I mentioned in the above fine print regarding my own experience, a “demonic” eruption like that can undermine your aims).
In a more organized “battle”, such as a show, or even response tracks, where it’s already clear you’re battling the other person, and you’re already saying all sorts of hard disses against him, hopefully he wouldn’t get physical like that, but he would still be trapped in his own words.
(Of note; I find that there was shortly after the Bridge War, a strong diss track against KRS by another “KRS”, Kool Rock Steady: “You Ain’t Nobody”. This was the guy who pioneered “hip house” (that mix of hip hop and house music best embodied by “It Takes Two” and his own “Turn Up The Bass”), and was Bronx rap pioneer Afrika Bambataa’s cousin, though himself from Chicago. He apparently took offense at KRS1 saying he didn’t like hip-house, and completely dressed down his claim to “rule the party” and claim to have such “knowledge”; speaking “like you did ten years of college”.
I never knew anything about this until now. I wish I had heard it back then, as he mentions the bridge war, contrasting himself “I’m not MC Shan, or King Poet…”. I would have felt much more satisfied with that as the “final word”. I wonder why Magic and the others never played this! Or, maybe they did, and it was when I was in the Air Force. I didn’t know where the rap-playing stations were in TX, CO and CA, and so had fallen out of the rap circuit during ’89).
So if they do have their showdown, then perhaps afterward, they too can finally team up, as other fans seem to be wishing.
I myself don’t know what’s going to happen now, but on the other hand, I too figured Hillary would just be the “same ‘ol, same ‘ol”. I had liked how the angry, dog-whistling Right was divided earlier in the race, when the other Republican contenders were still vying against him for the nomination. The Christians almost solidly were against him, in favor of Rubio or especially Cruz. When they dropped out, they began to come back together, against Hillary (the Christians now compromising the moral stance they previously had against Trump).
If she won, it would just be a continuation of the last eight years, with them all against Obama. If he won, than they would have everything they want, and seemingly would no longer have a liberal scapegoat. (But of course, they could always say that any problems are really Obama’s fault, for “messing things up so bad”, which is what some did when they had Bush in, along with the Congress. Blaming the previous administration, which they excoriated Obama for, would all of a sudden become good. Or, if problems are undeniably Trumps’ fault, I’ve already seen a meme saying they had to elect him because of Obama. You can see this sentiment expressed right here: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr “If you’re a leftist reading this, you…probably can’t understand why someone would get so bent out of shape about being told their words are hurtful. You probably think it’s not a big deal and these people need to get over themselves. Who’s the delicate snowflake now, huh? you’re probably thinking. I’m telling you: your failure to acknowledge this miscalculation and adjust your approach has delivered the country to Trump.” A similar argument is this, but which makes a lot of good points about the party’s cockiness: https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.y7zpo06d1).
I was for Bernie, who was populist, like Trump, but populism can be either right or left (separate dimensions), but has become more associated with the far right brand, of Trump. I didn’t feel like bothering to vote for Hillary, and figured Trump was discrediting himself more and more as the time drew near. Just last night he was quoted as saying “If I lose, you’ll never see me again”, sounding like a childish “sore loser” even before the votes were being counted. I thought that might be the final wake up call regarding his character. But since my wife wanted to vote, I went, and figured I might as well too. I had mulled writing in Bernie, but what would that really prove, so I might as well cast my vote for Hillary. (So now, I can feel safe assured that I had no part in the responsibility for whatever is to befall us now).
They seemed to run neck and neck, and certain states seeming to go to one, but then falling to the other. But by 10-11PM, his numbers suddenly began getting bigger, and he was grabbing Florida, North Carolina and Michigan, which were really needed to win. So we went to bed, not sure what we would hear when we awoke. I still thought she might snag it as the final results came in. Surely, the country would never really elect such a virtual madman. But sure enough, when I got up, around 6:30 and turned on the internet, he had done it!
So here are several articles, videos and memes on this shocking turn of events:
AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY
Donald Trump The Change Agent Won By Vowing To Stop Change
America has its first radical reactionary leader. Now what?
Hillary Clinton’s Weakness
She had been in power and prominence so long, and, as everyone knew, she was the very embodiment of a political establishment that most voters — and not just Trump supporters — have come to despise in recent years.
The US has elected its most dangerous leader. We all have plenty to fear
America Elected A Man Who Said ‘Grab Them By The P***y’ Over The First Female President
It really happened.
Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days
Trump Elected President, Thanks to 4 in 5 White Evangelicals
Dramatic election ends with historic victory for Donald Trump.
President Trump: Now What For the Church?
Huge Margin Among Working-Class Whites Lifts Trump to a Stunning Election Upset
‘This was a whitelash’: Van Jones’ take on the election results
This Election Has Completely Debunked The Myth Of A ‘Post-Racial’ America
Donald Trump has emboldened racists to new heights.
It’s Our Fault: Donald Trump Is The President We Deserve
We should be appalled, but we should not be surprised.
Dear Trump Supporter – A Message From American Minorities
Nobody Called This Election Quite Like Michael Moore
The Founding Fathers ensured that rural white votes count more than others
Blame the electoral college, among other things.
Here’s a conservative video explaining the good intentions of the system:
But on the flipside of the “tyranny of the majority”, is the tyranny of an agitated minority against a “silent majority”:
In case you’re still inclined to believe Trump’s win was simply about working class hardscrabble whites ignored by the system…this wasn’t a class revolt. It was a racial and ethno-cultural one dressed up as a “salt of the earth” rebellion…
(On Philip Yancey’s Facebook discussion post about the election https://www.facebook.com/PhilipYancey/photos/a.430130023698153.101173.118057118238780/1311468422230971):
Jay Merritt Four years ago, the Mormon religion was on the Billy Graham website under the category of CULT. Then Mitt Romney became the candidate for the Republicans. Franklin Graham had a meeting with Romney. Suddenly, the cult status was removed, and Graham threw his quiet support of Romney behind the campaign.
This time, Graham had a rather public meeting in June with Trump and a few hundred hand picked Evangelicals. And they threw their support behind the Trump campaign, disguised as a push for Values, sidestepping Trumps character.
Waiting to see if the Billy Graham website will redefine character, and repentance.
Maurice Infinite (someone I grew up with, and now connected on Facebook)
I never thought I’d see a black President in my lifetime. I’m glad for that. He did a great job and made us all proud (all of us intelligent humans). He was dignified every step of the way and is an example of what a leader should be. His grace under fire instilled fear in his detractors. Trump’s only genius is realizing that this fear was real to a large group of disenfranchised, uneducated, and misled people and capitalizing on it effectively. He became a leader of a herd of sheep with no shepherd.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” – Sun Tzu
The Democrats didn’t respect their enemy. They under estimated him. Even more important, they overestimated themselves. Elitism and entitlement is what lost this election. You can’t under estimate an enemy that has nothing to lose.
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” – Sun Tzu
Trump played dumb. If you notice… his victory speech was coherent and calculated. Unlike any other speech he’s made during this election process. He played the Democrats and the Republicans. His been planning this for 20 years. He’s been invited to dinners, shook hands, donated money… all the while he was studying his enemy.
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” – Sun Tzu
Respect it. Don’t fear it. Learn from it. Don’t repeat it.
I had long noted that there seem to be flavors that are better suited for milk-based products and some better for water based products. So milk would be ice cream (solid, frozen), pudding (solid, not frozen) as well as flavorings like Quik (liquid—milk), and egg creams (carbonated liquid). Water would be sherbet (solid, frozen), gelatin (solid, not frozen), Kool Aid (liquid), and soda (carbonated liquid).
I run across this article explaining:
Here’s Why Grape Ice Cream Isn’t a Thing
Grapes have a high water content, so when you try to use the fruit as a base for ice cream, chunks of that water therein tend to freeze. Chefs whipping up small batches of homemade grape ice cream can avoid this problem by pureeing the fruit, but it’s much harder to manufacture large volumes of ice cream when it’s flecked with bits of ice.
Of course, other fruits, like cherries, are also mostly water—and Cherry Garcia is one of Ben & Jerry’s most popular flavors. In short, it’s possible to make fruit ice cream on a larger scale, but the demand has to be there to make the hassle worthwhile (and for that matter, profitable).
And as Cohen explained, most people don’t even think to associate grapes with ice cream—so if Ben & Jerry’s made a grape-flavored dessert, it’s likely that nobody would buy it. Since cherry and vanilla are such popular flavors, it pays for the company to make Cherry Garcia.
The ice cream (and egg cream and Quik) flavors are chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. Banana is another common flavor for the milk products. Strawberry is a major flavor of Kool Aid and gelatin (but not pudding). I’ve always wondered why, as it seems to be an anomaly (though it is also common as mousse, which is like a thicker version of pudding that’s also commonly chocolate and vanilla as well. Meanwhile, butterscotch is the other common pudding flavor).
The strawberry “water” products to me don’t taste as good as the milk-based products, or the other fruit flavors of the water flavors, and needed not to be a separate flavor from the other berries. (Other ice cream flavors are nuts like butter almond or pecan and pistachio. Then, there’s mint and egg nog).
Cherry and grape, along with orange, lemon, lime and most other berries are more common sherbet/gelatin/Kool Aid/soda flavors. Cherry Garcia was the anomaly. For a mainstream store brand like Breyers, it was always cherry-vanilla. Then you have orange sherbet — vanilla ice cream blends.
Lemon “pudding” is really merengue pie filling, and a totally different consistency from chocolate vanilla and butterscotch (and obviously more water based).
Peach is the one that is good either way (ice cream, Kool Aid, soda and other water-based drinks, etc. Also tastes good as a Royal instant pudding mix I tried once!)
Cake on the other hand is a medium that commonly handles both sets of flavors (except grape; and while Duncan Hines and Betty Crocker once had cherry, that I don’t think I’ve seen in a long while. It too was pretty similar to strawberry). So cake leans slightly to the “milk” side (chocolate and vanilla being the most common flavors), and strawberry common as a mix (though comes and goes as a snack cake flavor. Little Debbie has a new set of strawberry cakes out for the holidays, I saw recently. Hostess had strawberry cupcakes before the shutdown). But lemon and orange are also very common (and well tasting).
Then there’s yogurt, which is dairy, but also mixed in the categories of flavors, with mainly fruit, but also vanilla. (Chocolate is more rare, though).
So since the Royal line that includes peach are really Greek yogurt flavors, it also includes cherry, and even blueberry in addition to strawberry and vanilla.
“Chocolate water” would basically be YooHoo, and I don’t think that tastes good. Occasionally, small companies will have chocolate soda.
I once took grape Kool-Aid and tried to make “grape milk” (after this PSA commercial called “magic cow” suggested you could make flavored milk with “drink mixes”), but it was nasty. The powder doesn’t even mix with the milk well. (My parents flipped at me wasting a whole container of milk for that. I wondered if the pre-sweetened version in the can which seemed more soluble would work better, but never tried it after that).
Never thought of why different flavors were more suited to milk or water, but them explaining the water content in the fruit is interesting. Chocolate and vanilla aren’t even fruits, and so have no water (the same with the nuts). Banana as well is rather dry. Strawberry seems to have less water than grape, cherry and the citrus fruits. Peach seems to be inbetween. (So I wonder why they forced strawberry as a common Kool Aid and Jello flavor, then. If it was demand, as they explained, then I wonder why that fruit).
Putting to use the concept of the functions as “divisions of reality”; Jung I see quoted as saying , “I can only hope and wish that no one becomes ‘Jungian.'” (see http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/2014/12/carl-jung-and-i-can-only-hope-and-wish.html); he seemed to be trying to develop a scientific hypothesis of reality. But it was too “abstract” for the science field, and what people most remember him for today is some of his “spiritualistic” teachings, and his “typology”.
But now, I’ve come to realize that a lot of our problems stem from the need to reconcile the S and N (sensory vs intuitive; concrete vs abstract; tangible vs conceptual; “what is” vs “implications”) division of awareness. Reading Robert Johnson’s Living Your Unlived Life a few years ago, I saw an acknowledgment of a need to have our hopes and dreams “concretized”, or made “real” in the tangible world. At the same time, coming to see the functions of type as “divisions of reality”, it explained how much of our drives in life are to undo the split;to create the “coniunctio“, which is the union of opposites.
Our wishes and wants are ideas (N products, basically), and having them come true concretizes the idea (turns it from an N product to S). If it can’t be done literally, then that is what symbolic “ritual” (religious or otherwise) is for.
It seems we all want our wishes concretized. It’s part of the survival instinct, as we have to live in this tangible or concrete world. As an N growing up in an S environment, I frequently heard the distinction between “the real world” and “your dream world” or “fantasy”, with the former as the “important” one. This is because it is the realm of survival; of consequences that can be very negative, but then we would be forced to live with, if we haven’t taken all the necessary precautions to avoid them and protect ourselves.
The visible world, if superstring theory is correct, consists of invisible loops of vibrational energy. Enough of certain vibrations of these loops together will produce fields that repel or block other fields from passing through. Back on a macroscopic scale, this will either trigger receptors in our skin (consisting of more of these fields) directly, or bounce the other fields back which will be picked up by other receptors from a distance. Thus, we end up with what we call a “tangible object“, which can be felt, seen and heard; that is, “sensation” (S).
These loops of energy are only 10-33m big, and below that, space and time themselves break down, so that you are only left with a sort of hypothetical realm defined by mathematical matrices. Here, S “tangible reality” and N “hypothetical idea” have been completely undifferentiated. (What started heading toward this notion was “the uncertainty principle”, where every point in space is filled with “virtual” matter/antimatter pairs that split and then annihilate each other, forming only a “potential” [N] existence of particles[S]).
As divisions of reality, the reason “reality” seems lopsided in favor of S, is because of the forces of “entropy”, where we are dragged along in the dimension of “time”, where events have a causal relationship (where in the other three dimensions, of space, objects and events are more independent), and for every action, there must be a reaction, and for every “give” there must be a “take” (as matter cannot be created or destroyed; at least not in our everyday physics). So it is often hard to undo changes made in the tangible world. Hence, having to “live with” what we call “consequences”, that we want to avoid if negative and not conducive to our survival. Like ending up penniless and without food on the street, if we haven’t found some skill to “trade” with, or held down an occupation of this trade in one way or the other.
Hence, the “physical” world, or universe, can be very violent and unforgiving.
Our world of “ideas”, however, is more malleable or readily changeable, by us in our own minds. Intuition was defined by Jung as “where it’s heading” (while S was “what it is”), but if we don’t like where it’s heading, in our minds we have more power to change things; perhaps the whole “story” itself.
The drawback of this, is that there will not be agreement in awareness. Each person can assign his own meaning or interpretation of things. With the physical world, everyone has to “agree” on certain things. If there’s a wall before us, we all will see and feel it. If someone is blind and can’t see it, or has no tactile sense, or simply chooses to believe it’s not there; all will be stopped if they try to walk through it. So the big drawback of the N perspective’s malleability is that S “reality” can so easily crash right through it and even drown it out. And it can be otherwise unstable.
Another problem with this is to begin with, we can’t even see (or otherwise perceive) all of reality; especially not at once. (This is what people using an ST perspective, that aims to thunder “reality” or “truth” at others often neglect). This is where N fills in, and people come up with interpretations, implications, hypotheses, etc. And this ends up as the source of all the disputes we have in life, especially the two biggest ones, we are not supposed to bother arguing about: religion (what unseen entity created all of this), and politics (which seen [human collective] entity should rule it in absence of intervention by anyone higher).
This is where I myself realized, that I can fantasize, hypothesize and argue all I want through my preferred N perspective, but I got the sense that the to make my views or experiences the “official” ones; I needed the S perspective; for them to be concretized in actual experience where everyone would have to agree that this was real.
While we all want our wishes concretized, I realize we must remember that the ideas are in a way always “better” because of the fact that they are more controllable. This is basically what religion has taught (though not practiced itself, consistently, like in getting mixed up in politics). We have little control over the concrete reality, and it changes irreversibly (only “ideas” last, really) so the things we take joy in get changed forever. People we love can die, or turn against us. Really great times of peace and comfort can be disrupted by tragedy. (So to some, it then becomes hard to get emotionally attached to anything for fear it will be destroyed).
The problem of faith is basically that it is a shaky N product, like politics, that has been subject to people’s interpretations. So with God, we are left with the “idea”, represented in the diagram by the third category, “spirit” (which “bears witness with our spirit”). Ideas of God vs reality of God is very difficult to deal with because He has withdrawn all tangible intervention (so then we are supposed to go on “general revelation” as the tangible [S] evidence, and “conscience” as the moral [F] guide). The “body” was represented by the Son, who did walk the earth and say that whoever saw Him saw the (otherwise aloof) Father (John 14:9; which would basically be the divine “Soul”). Before that, you had various “epiphanies”, which we could also see as the “Word” or pre-incarnate Christ. But after Christ, all of that ended.
People will try to hold scripture up as the “concrete” reality, but unfortunately, that too is something that has become prone to interpretation by many different groups of men. (What ends up happening is that “majority” and “seniority” ends up defining the correct interpretation; like the Catholic Church’s “antiquity/ubiquity/unanimity and American evangelical apologetic’s “historic orthodoxy”, which right away disagrees with the older and more widespread Catholicism in many places. But if the earlier group was wrong, then so can the newer group be).
While some language is “plain” (which people will seize and build a whole premise off of), there are still larger contexts (N products) that could have been lost or at least obscured over time. Like the exact meaning of the symbols of prophecy. We tend to take it and apply it all to ourselves, in our time, but what happens, is that every generation ends up with different meanings for the same things.
Heaven now is just ideas, with absolutely no tangible experience available. On one hand, the notion of this other realm, where we will apparently all have our senses back and agree on reality, will be technically “tangible”, though perhaps not based on the same energy and forces as this universe (the Standard Model). Religion traditionally taught that this was completely different from this existence; a simultaneous existence people go when they die, but the rise of dispensational futurism, with its emphasis on certain scriptures regarding [presumably] future “bodily resurrection”, posits that the first stage of the heavenly kingdom, the “Millennium”, will be this same earth, though ruled by Christ instead of the current sinful human systems. At the end of that, the entire universe will be transformed into something else. (When still a futurist, I actually put this together with string theory, which says the Standard Model could change in an instant, if it were not the lowest energy state, like a bed sheet wanting to curl up. All matter in the universe would break down and reshape itself according to new laws. So perhaps then there would no longer be any “entropy”, where things tend to decay, and the physical world could finally conform to our ideas of “perfection”. Survival might no longer be the first priority of living beings).
Heaven being an “idea” makes it very unstable as a source of “hope”. We end up creating images of a “perfect” version of this world (ever read Armstrong’s The Wonderful World of Tomorrow or the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth and others?), that makes some people think it must be boring or lack meaning (the primal “meaning” of life in this tangible world again, being necessary “survival” in it). Also, if it’s true that the “descriptions” of Heaven at the end of the Bible are really metaphors for something else (such as redemption in this world, which is a more matching-ly abstract “hope”), then we see right there why hope in unseen ideas can be so uncertain (and scripture not as “concrete” as we would think). Again, something tangible becomes “official”, having to be agreed on by everyone; one way or another.
This problem is highlighted by the phenomenon of Christians preaching Heaven to the suffering, while hoarding power over others and making sure their own lives are taken care of, and fighting what they see as “threats” to their power or freedoms. Concrete reality and “nature” usurps the idea of integrity they preach.
It seems S/N disparity is more significant than the other major pole of type, T/F (impersonal vs personal) because it involves the type of data being taken into awareness to begin with. T/F confusion would involve stuff like treating people as impersonal objects, or becoming attached to things as if they were people. There’s plenty of that, of course, but that too even is a confusion of S and N; usually focusing on the “idea” of people and things apart from the tangible reality.
In this breakdown, F in effect becomes associated with S, and N with T, in dealing with whether they are ideas [N] which are impersonal [T] things, rather than having affected [F] emotions and feelings which are tangible stimuli processed and stored in a physical brain [S].
It is when dealing with the nature of reality in itself that S becomes wed to T, in dealing with “what is”, in the physical [S] world of the universe and its impersonal [T] laws as opposed to people who also consist of invisible souls [N] that are nevertheless affected [F] by things.
Real people can be seen as an invisible “idea”, but it has to match a visible “body” that contains a brain that holds all their knowledge; all their sensations, intuitions, thoughts and feelings; basically holds the “invisible part of them”. So when our “ideas” of people don’t match the tangible body, or what’s in the brain, that’s when there are misunderstandings, disappointments and disillusionments. (Like in online dating, that’s where we get what’s called “catfishing”). To get involved with a potential romantic or sexual partner, you’re getting more than just an idea of a person, (and more than just a body that you project these ideas onto), but also a person with all their own issues, quirks, faults, wants, wounds, etc. that will affect their relationship to you.
We all need to remember that every person is a living being. This on one hand “depersonalizes” (T) them in a way, yet it maintains their individual right to live and survive in the world (S) and not exist merely as an idea (N) simply to fulfill someone’s fantasy, which depersonalizes them in a different way.
Meanwhile, fictional characters are basically “ideas” of people without tangible bodies. We can get caught up in fantasy worlds like we see on TV, and then treat real people as if they were characters like those. But when the information in their brains become evident, or if their bodies don’t match up to our expectations (even natural stuff such as body odor, etc. that everyone has, but we don’t think about when idealizing a person), then again, we often encounter problems.
So this is a way to discuss a lot of the “cognitive dissonance” we see in life.
Been trying to develop this analogy for awhile, based on the four type dichotomies (Sensing/iNtuition [perception of tangible reality vs ideas], Thinking/Feeling [impersonal vs soul-affecting judgments], introversion/extraversion [inner vs outer focus], rationality/irrationality of our preferred “outer” directed function [used to help determine which is our “dominant” perspective]) as “divisions of reality”.
So I realized that the four “dimensions” I often compare to as the easiest illustration of how we “divide” reality, would be the best to extend to a full analogy.
So we start with a person facing one of the compass directions that we rotate in, N, E, S, W. He can also look up or down while looking in one of those directions. Two of the compass directions will correspond to Latitude (E/W), and the other one will be Longitude (N/S).
The opposite direction is totally behind him (basically, unconscious), but the perpendicular directions are in the corner of his eyes, and the nonvertical ones are basically the directions of his two arms. So we can imagine one of these directions is “secondary”. Primary and secondary are determined by the fourth spacetime “dimension”, Past and Future. He will look at his primary direction first, and then the secondary direction second.
So we have a person with one preferred horizontal direction, and one preferred vertical direction. He also has a secondary horizontal direction that he looks in afterward, and we have to presume that for the sake of “balance” for some reason, he must look the opposite vertical direction when looking in that direction (this is where the practicality breaks down. I tried to imagine a scenario where something would force the opposite “orientation” for the different directions).
When looking one direction, the other three are “undifferentiated” in that you are equally “blind” to them (to some extent), so they all are the same in being invisible (left and right, however, are partly differentiated in that you can see them a bit in the corner of your eye).
Basically, we should assume that since he spends most of his time looking in one direction, and he tends to look either up or down in that direction (perhaps observing something in that direction that directs his vision either up or down), when he has to look in any of the other directions, from his neck being tired of being bend up or down, he will look in the opposite vertical direction.
However, when looking opposite of the secondary direction, something will draw him to look in the same vertical direction as his main direction. Perhaps he’s looking at an arc shaped object in the sky or on the ground, and he needs to look away from it for awhile, causing him to look in a second direction, but when looking in the third direction, he will direct his gaze toward that object again. (Like perhaps a message written in the sky or something). Of course, when needing to look totally away from it can also be done by looking totally in the other direction (and opposite vertical orientation).
His shadow on the ground would basically be looking in the same horizontal directions, but opposite vertical direction. Even though this is hard to see with normal dark silhouettes, it is basically the same image that would be projected by standing on a reflective surface. So the reflections are always looking the same compass direction, but when looking up, the reflection’s head is actually pointing down, which is the reflection of “up” in the reflection, and if looking down, then the reflection would be looking at his “down” which is our “up”.
So you would have a person with one preferred vertical direction, and a primary and secondary horizontal direction. It could be primary East, secondary South, and an orientation of Up. We assume when looking South, he will “give his neck a rest” from looking up, and then look Down. We could use a simple code, U-ES: an Up/East looker with secondary South. Where he is basically a latitude type, looking first along latitude, someone decides that which direction he looks Up in is important, and denotes this by whether it’s the Longitude or Latitude. For him this corresponds, but for another East looker who looks Down in that direction (D-E), the direction he looks up with be the secondary one, which will be North or South; that is, Longitude. So, with “A”=”upward latitude” and “O”=”upward longitude”, we can make this first person’s code USEA. A person who looks down instead would be DSEO. (Since the order of directions [time element] is now determined by A/O, we are free to follow the standard order for direction combinations; S/N then E/W)
We then end up with sixteen “directional types:
USEA: Up, South, East, Lattitude first
USEO: Up, South, East, Longitude first
USWA: Up, South, West, Latitude first
USWO: Up, South, West, Longitude first
UNEA: Up, North, East, Lattitude first
UNEO: Up, North, East, Longitude first
UNWA: Up, North, West, Latitude first
UNWO: Up, North, West, Longitude first
DSEA: Down, South, West, Longitude first
DSEO: Down, East, Longitude first
DSWA: Down, Up, South, West, Latitude first
DSWO: Down, South, West, Longitude first
DNEA: Down, North, East, Lattitude first
DNEO: Down, North, East, Longitude first
DNWA: Down, North, West, Latitude first
DNWO: Down, North, West, Longitude first
Now with two books out detailing Beebe’s model, what comes to mind is Socionics’ own eight-function model, “Model A”, which seems to be what a lot of people on the type boards have taken to increasingly (along with Enneagram, which is a completely different system). I see people like YouTuber and NYC Typology Meetup group leader Leon Tsao talking about “and your PoLR function does [this]…and your Role function…” etc. which reminded me of discussions of Beebe’s archetypes, or a bit more closely, Linda Berens’ versions of them. And again, it seems people slow to learn Beebe’s model have taken up this one readily.
Yet, the positions (which are actually “the functions“, while the actual “Xy”function-attitudes are called “information-elements“) seem very different. When I think of Se, I have learned to recognize it as my “Trickster” function, and look for it in feelings of “double-binds”, or trying to turn the tables on others. But then I hear it is my “Vulnerable” function (In my own lexicography, “vulnerable” is the tertiary and inferior functions and their shadows, which would include the Trickster).
So just as I’m finally getting the full handle on Beebe’s model, here comes a new batch of character roles for the same functions, and one more people seem to be more enthusiastic about (being they think of Socionics as being so much more developed than MBTI. As I’ve said, with Beebe’s model, Type Logic, and Berens’ new “Intentional Styles”, we have just about everything Socionics does! See also: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/finally-official-tandem-group-names/#comment-2017).
So like Beren’s function “roles” (and in practice, the way some use Beebe’s archetypes), the information elements (function-attitudes) are the “players” that “do” the behaviors, rather than complexes (ego-states; lesser senses of “I”) being what interpret situations through the situations. So this makes it a bit hard to make the comparisons.
To start, here are the comparisons of the eight positions and several other operational terms:
|Socionics||Beebe||Lenore Thomson “ship”/”lasagna” stack|
|1. Base (leading, program)||Hero (1)||Captain (1)|
|2. Creative (implementing, realizing)||Parent (2)||First Mate (2)|
|3. Role||Demon (8)||Crow’s Nest #1 (3)|
|4. Vulnerable (place of least resistance [PoLR])||Trickster (7)||Crow’s Nest #2 (4)|
|5. Suggestive (dual-seeking)||Anima (4)||castaway on lifeboat to shore (8)|
|6. Mobilizing (activating function; hidden agenda)||Puer/Puella (3)||castaway on skis (7)|
|7. Ignoring||Opposing Personality (5)||Double Agent #2 (6)|
|8. Demonstrative||Witch/Senex (6)||Double Agent #1 (5)|
|“Ego Block”||“Preferred functions”|
|“Super-Ego Block”||[ETB: “deep shadows”]||“Crow’s Nests”;
left-right brain alternates
|“Super-Id Block”||[unpreferred functions]||castaways|
|“Id Block”||[ETB “near shadows”]||opposite-brain “Double agents”|
|“Strong”||Preferred functions and their shadows|
|“Weak”||unpreferred functions and their shadows|
|Mental||[same “J/P”]||same brain hemisphere|
|Vital||opposite brain hemisphere|
It should be noted, that “mental” functions are considered “conscious”, while vital ones are “unconscious”! So they divide the stack between conscious and unconscious along the lines of 1-4 and 5-8 just like Beebe’s model, only all of the preferred brain hemisphere functions (including what we consider the bottom of the shadow and thus furthest from the Ego) are now “conscious”; while all of the brain-lateral opposites (including what we consider the “ego-syntonic” tertiary and inferior) are considered unconscious.
This would in a way correspond to Lenore’s “preferred + right/left brain alternates”, as if based on a misunderstanding of it, thinking these two functions are “conscious”, because (according to her theory), they happen to come up first when the dominant can’t solve the problem. But that’s not really “conscious”, and she at that point (the book) was speaking of the functions as things “used” pretty much like this model (and most other typologists), but later on moved more toward a focus on them being conscious or unconscious “perspectives”. Plus, she also says when the person grows, they begin using the tertiary (what Socionics would consider “mobilizing”, and an unconscious #6) more instead.
How the eight “function” roles seem to correspond to the Beebe archetypes (http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/model_a)
Function 1 (Base/Leading) Source of confidence; how someone lives their life; most comfortable state of mind; personal motivation in life
Function 2 (Creative) Used to Interact with others; feel: needed when used to help solve others’ problems; overuse by others can cause irritation
These two naturally make a clean analogy to the Hero and Parent (including #2 being the head of the “arm”, involved with relating to others)
Function 3 (Role) Perceived as personal weakness; sometimes makes hard attempts to improve; criticism causes irritation: activated when anxious
I can see the Demonic Personality here, especially in the “personal weakness” part, especially now with the revelation from Beebe that the complex is about “narcissism” and seeking “integrity”. (And so it would naturally produce “anxiety” and particular “irritation” at criticism. For me, it doesn’t even have to be a direct criticism; but rather a moral issue that may implicate me indirectly, like many conservative arguments).
Function 4 (Vulnerable) Usage causes extreme irritation; avoided as much as possible; has to be developed by personal experience; often ignored
This is a totally generic “shadow” description, that does not tie into a specific Trickster analogue. Since it is in the “conscious” half, then this probably covers the old dispute of the attitude of the tertiary. So this model essentially has it as the opposite attitude from the dominant, (instead of the same attitude, as the Grant/Beebe model commonly used) and makes it 4th place instead of tertiary.
Function 5 (Suggestive/Dual-Seeking), Entertaining; soothing; Energizing; leads to self-actualization; deficiency causes attempts to self supply
“Dual-seeking” and “self-actualization” are the clues for the “anima/animus” archetype!
Function 6 (Mobilizing/Activating) Appreciated; overuse by others can be seen as excessive; may be overindulged or severely neglected; can cause boredom
This sounds compatible with the Puer/Puella, which “inflates” (“overindulged”), and then “deflates”, and can be overwhelmed and intimidated by too much of the function.
Function 7 (Ignoring/Observing) Constantly annoying; mostly used in private; can be summoned when needed; causes boredom; avoidance makes it appear weak
I can see “ignoring” covering the fact that this is the rejected attitude of the dominant function. “Constantly annoying” is general “shadow” trait, and “causes boredom” reminds me of a citation someone made of a Beebe lecture, that we think the “Opposing Personality” functional perspective is “so stupid”.
Function 8 (Demonstrative) Used often in private; often made fun of; important to worldview; perceived as obvious information
This at first seemed to have nothing to do with the Witch[Crone]/Senex, especialy the term “Demonstrative”. But if you think of it, you take your dominant attitude, and then the auxiliary function, which you “parent” others with (or even in this model, are “creative” with), pair the function and attitude together, and this is what you have (The shadow of the auxiliary).
“Obvious information” I’m not sure of, but probably covers it being the opposite attitude of the auxiliary. You focus on the preferred attitude, and probably take the opposite attitude for granted (which again would tie right into the whole Senex/Crone concept). On that point, it might also explain the “made fun of” part. (Think some “young whippersnappers” harassing the old cranks). “Important to worldview” might also connect to the archetype, since it involves “wisdom”. “Used often in private” I don’t know about.
The “blocks” (from above link and http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/258-Model-A-Blocks-and-Functions-of-the-Socionic-Model-of-the-Psyche):
RING 1 (Conscious, Mental) Strive to verbalize information and formulate observations and form the core of the individual’s intellectual activity
Block 1 (EGO) Most confident; used in most areas regardless of relevance; prone to overuse: source of purpose; indifferent to praise
“I know I can.” (“I know I can. I want to.”)
Zone of confidence, expertise, willfulness, and self-actualization. What you think about when things go right.
Block 2 (Super-Ego) Lack confidence; sensitive to criticism; prone an overreaction; source of stress and anxiety: appreciates praise
“I know I can’t.” (“I’m not good enough. I must work on that.”)
Zone of self-criticism, self-doubt, guilt, and self-perfection. What you think about when things go wrong.
RING 2 (Unconscious, Vital) Tend to manifest themselves without words in the process of doing things or inadvertently in the loan of spontaneous sentiments.
Block 3 (Super-Id) Poorly developed; seen as chores best left to others; prone to being desired; source of recreation; appreciates help
“I don’t know I can’t.” (“Why doesn’t anyone help me?”)
Block 4 (Id) Well developed; seen as boring and meaningless; prone to being ignored; source of skill growth; indifferent to help
What one does automatically when one is being oneself
If they placed “Id” before “Super-Id”, it would be the same as Lenore’s order. Really don’t know at all what the basis of the order is, but we see these “rings” and “traits” (below) are what set the order.
Accepting (independent): focus on obtaining a picture of reality
Producing (dependent): create some sort of new product model to that part of reality
Here we see the clear analogue to the “spine” and “arms”; one being about the ego itself, and thus “independent”, and the other “dependent” on others.
Hunziker, Depth Typology: C.G. Jung, Isabel Myers, John Beebe and the Guide Map to Becoming Who We Are
Write Way Publishing Company, © Mark Hunziker, 2016
Right as Beebe finally publishes his first volume on specifically his eight function model, 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. While Beebe’s book is given a June 17 publishing date (on Amazon, at least) Hunziker is listed at July 30. Still, he mentions Beebe’s book as not out yet, at least at the time of writing. In any case, this really makes a great primer for Beebe’s model and thus his book, and for anyone really not familiar with it, they should read this one first!
He starts out (chapter 1) introducing the concept of “Depth Typology”, which is basically the name of this whole, extended theory, completed by Beebe’s model. Its root, of course, is Jung’s “psychological type” theory published in 1921. He points out “Until now, the scope of typology was limited to the conscious side of the psyche”, represented by “the first four functions” or “ego-dystonic” or “primary” stack in the older four-process model. Myer’s “focus was on the conscious side, so she did not speculate about how the framework and dynamics of type might apply to the unconscious”. (Kindle location 553; no “page” numbers available at all for some reason). I note, that to them, the inferior represented the unconscious or “shadow”, even though it has now been placed, technically, on the “conscious” side.
Chapter 2 goes into the development of our sense of “science” and its “assumptions”, based on “the Cartesian World View” of the Newtonian universe, which is “materialistic”, consisting of “objects” which exert influence on other objects, which is what we base our notion of “reality” on. The more accurate view, citing researcher Valerie Hunt, is that the reality of the world “likes in fields which interact with other fields of energy” (in “dynamic chaos patterns that are always evolving to higher levels of complexity”). Also mentioned, as part of “the new sciences”, is “reductionism”. “The great reluctance of scientists to deal with subjective phenomena is part of our Cartesian heritage. Descartes’ fundamental division between mind and matter, between the ‘I’ and the world, had us believing that the world could accurately described without ever taking the human participant/observer into account.” This became the “ideal of all science”. Yet particle physics is one thing calling this into question!
He goes on to discus “systems theory”, and then “Me and not-Me”; the latter, what our theory here (of “consciousness”) is founded upon. “It seems to me that the ‘Me versus Other’ conundrum is at the heart of most of the personal and social dysfunction in our ego-centric modern culture. (#859) Continuing in this “”without/within” division, citing Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, “We cannot stand outside a system as an objective distant director. There is no objective ground to stand anywhere in the entire universe”. This is basically something Einstein’s “Relativity” taught us, or should have taught us!
(The next section is on a “higher power”, though it’s pretty vague, and basically in terms of “a holistic process of physical/psychological/spiritual human evolution”_)
In “Depth Typology in the New Cosmos”, “Jung envisioned a psychological system in which the Conscious and Unconscious are as real—and as illusory—as the empirical and transcendental realities they reflect. Consciousness is best adapted to processing and coping with the empirical experience of our day-to-day lives; unconsciousness has a greater capacity for connecting to the intangible background reality. Specifically, it is the Collective Unconscious that maintains an awareness of the energic reality around and within us. This awareness is represented to our conscious awareness through the metaphysical feeling-toned-idea imagery that we call archetypes”.
He then discusses the “self-invented ‘I'”.
Similar to trying to swim across a powerful river, “psychology, including typology, is a matter of attention to the subtle energies at work in us, around us, and upon us, rather than about bolstering our defenses against them. It’s about understanding and feeling what we can and facing and embracing what we can’t. It’s about cooperating and collaborating with forces vastly more powerful than ourselves rather than attempting to control them. Ultimately, our psychological mandate is to grow into who we can be rather than defending who we think we are”. The part of our psyche that knows “the rest of the story”—that knows of the reality of our environment and our Selves and remembers the time-tested wisdom accrued by our ancestors—is mostly unconscious.” (#1029) The goal then is to “integrate” the input of the unconscious. Beebe’s model aids this, by addressing those “other four” functions for each type, usually left out of common four-process discussions.
Chapter 3 is “Psychological Type: Evolution of the Model. This covers Jung’s story, basically. We see that “Psychological type itself grew out of his 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“. Recall, as we saw in the Beebe review, to Freud, “the study of the unconscious could only be accomplished rationally through a dialectic of thinking and feeling” (where Jung was using intuition). As we’ve seen in Beebe writings, Jung types Freud as what we would call an INFP, with evidences of “demonic Ti” in the way he named psychological categories. Adler (whose theory included “four styles of life” based on a expressive/responsive-style matrix similar to Interaction styles or DISC), was IIRC, said to be ISTJ. Jung would also see these different types of consciousness in his clients.
At location 1151, he points out that testing out his empirical observations is what led Jung to “incorporate disparate ancient religious, mythological and philosophical texts”, traveling across the world to African, Asian and Native American traditions, and of course incorporating alchemy, as well as theoretical physicists.
This of course would explain why he seems so “pagan”, particularly to Christians, who are often wary of him (I’ve pointed out that the Christian temperament theorists I entered the field through, Arno and LaHaye, don’t even mention Jung, —though LaHaye did briefly in passing mention the four functions as suggested comparative “temperament” categories). When mentioning him to Christians, I try to argue that I’m not so sure how literal his “spiritual” lingo is to be taken; like if he really believed that stuff, like a religion. Being an introverted iNtuitive as it is, the language is often cryptic and hard to know how literally to be taken. Though one person I’ve discussed this with does mention that he did seances. Still, I don’t know if he really believed in it, or was just using it for his studies of these things.
He also mentions “the legacy” of Jung, as embodied in both his own (with Leona Haas), as well as Berens’ models. Two of the principles he then lists (#1251) is that
•”the healthy psychic system is balanced in every aspect [i.e. i/e and j/p] and contains mechanisms of compensation and growth to maintain or regain that dynamic equilibrium”
•”It is the tension between opposites that pulls us toward balance and toward growth”.
Next section is 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.
This then brings us to Beebe and the “depth” he “brings to the model”, by reintroducing the function-attitudes, extending the hierarchy to all eight of them for each type, adding the archetypes (“fields of emotional energies“) and “axes” of compensatory pairs of functions and archetypes.
“No one before Beebe had ventured to extend the map of typology beyond the inferior (4th) function-attitude, the ‘gateway to the unconscious'”. We also see 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”!
He reiterates the point I had always cited in Building Blocks, that the sequence of development does not necessarily follow the “linear hierarchy”. “It is more accurate and useful to think of each function-attitude as being integrated with ego to the degree that it is conscious, while at the same time, it will have a shadowy and independent nature to the degree that it’s unconcious” (#1395).
Chapter 4 is “Key Terms and Concepts”, such as “personality” and “consciousness”, and the definition of the “ego”. It’s pointed out that “even when we can’t ‘prove’ the existence of something or agree on all the details of its nature, we can still use it as a theoretical construct to aid in our understanding and promote our investigations.”(#1538). It’s later established that “it is the dominant and auxiliary function-attitudes that form the typological core of the ego of most adults”. Also mentioned here is Western society, and its extraverted Thinking “ego-stance”.
In the discussion of the Persona, we get a good example of an undifferentiated function:
For someone who has not fully developed her extraverted feeling function into conscious accessibility, promoting a harmonious environment ill not actually be a major consideration in her egoteam’s decision-making process. But she still may be able to slip on an Fe mask temporarily, conscientiously attending, for example, to the needs and emotional wellbeing of her guests when hosting a party. Likewise, someone who has not differentiated his extraverted intuition into routine consciousness use won’t normally think about future possibilities though he can still participate n a conversation about the likely consequences of an action that’s being considered. (#1706)
Next is the discussion of the unconscious, whose content is “based on the unfiltered raw data of experience and the human condition, which the ego filters “based on what is comfortable and acceptable to us. It is limited to the emotions we are willing to admit to ourselves that we feel, the thoughts that we deem okay to think, acceptable behavior, what fits with our belief system, our cultural/social/moral constraints, what ‘makes sense’ to us, and who we conceive ourselves to be”. So the unconscious part of the psyche “continues to work behind the scenes to attempt to balance the biases and blind spots of the ego”. Without a framework for embracing this, “modern man is rarely prepared to integrate it in healthy ways”. (#1774)
This gets into discussion of the collective unconscious, which is “the part of us where we are psychologically indistinguishable from one another. Jung also entertained the possibility that the source material and nature of the collective unconscious may extend beyond humankind, tot he laws of basic nature, the repeating patterns of the universe itself, to what quantum physicists often refer to as the ‘source field’ and philosophers call the ‘universal substrate'”.
We also along the way see the function-attitudes described in terms of “mental processes that we have not developed into conscious ‘skillsets'”. Again, the functions themselves are “forms of consciousness”, where I think it is better to focus on the complexes or “ego-states”, which are the personalized “archetypes” themselves, as the “lesser senses of ‘I'” to form awareness (of which the ego itself is one).
Then, “projection” and “shadow”, which is “the personification of” and “an active manifestation of certain unconscious contents [which could be added to the ego complex, but for various reasons are not], not the unconscious itself” (#1908), as it is often described as. Where repeated is the point that any unconscious function can be considered part of the shadow, “it is the predictably oppositional, shadowy nature of the ego-dystonic function-attitude-archetypes that earns them the designation of “the Shadow” in the depth typology lexicon”. (#1939) Also, “trying to deal with our shadow directly simply doesn’t work. Everyone’s notion of such an interaction is formed by their ego—and it is precisely that ego stance tho which the shadow is usually reacting”.
Under “Ego-syntonic and Ego-dystonic, it’s pointed out that the simple labeling of the “ego syntonic” half as “conscious” and the ego-dystonic half as “unconscious”(or at least “relatively” so) is misleading, as a gross oversimplification. All are partly conscious and unconscious, and the mix varies from person to person. The ego-syntonic functions are simply “congruous with each other, and therefore with one’s sense of ‘who I am’. They may contradict and battle with each other at times, but they are still on the same team”.
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)
It’s then mentioned how 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!
From a personal communication between him and Beebe, the ego-dystonic functions are portrayed “They work, as do all functions, to support the wellbeing of the entire psyche—trying to compensate for the imbalance of an ego-dominated personality”. This gets into the question of whether the lower archetypes are dispatched by the ego (As “defenses”, as is mentioned here, or rather the Self, as I will address again). So they are almost always “heavily laden with the primitive emotional energies of their associated archetypal complexes”. So it’s the “emotional tone” that will be easier to recognize when they appear.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the Self, the archetypal complex of “wholeness” or “the true Me”.
Chapter 5 is “Individuation, Differentiation and Type Development”. Cited is Jungs’ definition of “individuation” as “the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology”. Later, Beebe’s eight function model is pictured as making the model of psychological type fully capable of encompassing the concept of individuation. (It’s then reiterated from a quote of Jung, that this process will be essentially short-circuited by “conscious intention”, because of the “typological attitude that excludes whatever does not fit in with it”. So this, 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.” (#2285)
Also discussed is how “differentiation” means functions being separated from the other functions (whether the “natural” ones, that is; S, N, T, F, or the two attitudes of a particular function). It’s pointed out that to bring one function-attitude into consciousness will involve some differentiation of the opposite attitude, even though one will be four places lower from the other in the stack. But the lower one, not so much that it is developed “into skillfull, conscious use or cleanly separated from the unconscious”. There will be an “energic readiness” to to engage the [“natural”] function in general, but one of the attitudes will be honed in and relied on more, as it will be more successful.
Now we enter Part II, on “Beebe’s Depth Typology Model”. Chapter 6 is on “the Function-Attitudes”. This begins with the basic definitions of the four “natural” functions, and then moves into the specific “attitudes”. The unconscious ones “don’t behave in the clear, skillset-related ways that we have learned to identify”. They’re more like “primitive predecessors”.
This, I point out for Fi (which is tertiary or lower for the Thinking types teaching the models, and thus often colored by that “primitive” form) would be the “screw everyone else; only what I feel/value matters” often described. But if you read FP type profiles (where it is dominant or auxiliary, and thus developed into its most “mature” form), you can see the evidence of a completely different manifestation; of using that “selfish” feeling to “put yourself into the other person’s shoes” and thus infer their needs or wants, and thus “respond to them” just as much as an extraverted Feeling type. (Hunziker soon mentions that “they would not tend to try to win others over to their point of view” —as some assumptions of the functions imply, though, again, this is more likely the TJ types’ less developed form of it. “They’d often go along with what they assume to be others’ deeply held convictions—as long as their own are not violated”). So it often leads to the opposite of “selfishness”, in them going along with people against their [lesser] wishes or values. (basically the “Supine” or even “Sanguine” ‘weak will’, since the FP types comprise those temperaments).
Next is “The Sequence of the Eight Function-Attitudes”. Starting with just the first four commonly discussed, 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”. (#2581)
Next is discussed how the order is based on the need of “balance”. 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?
Of course, it should really be pointed out that the people disputing the orientation of the tertiary were likely not thinking strictly in terms of solid “function-attitude” units like we do, but thinking of the “natural” functions separately from the two attitudes. So you stack S, N, T, F for each type, and then ask which attitude each function bears, separately. Whatever the dominant one was, the other three would be opposite (or maybe the tertiary, the same as the dominant). The “other four” were really the “other attitude” of these same four, and not anything stacked separately from them.
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! (including, as he will point out later, that this is why the attitude of the tertiary became ambiguous to begin with!)
Also mentioned, is that to think “opposition” to the heroic tendencies comes solely through the fifth function-attitude (the “Opposing Personality) would be to misunderstand the nature of the model because the shadow functions are too indistinct and unseparated to operate consistently like coherent, differentiated entities. They “rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances“. (#2638) 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.
He soon acknowledges the point I’ve been emphasizing, that “Unconscious function-attitudes are carried by emotional energies that tend to form archaic mini-personalities known as ‘archetypal complexes'”.
Also, “Unconscious function-attitudes usually operate as defenders of the Self. When our conscious resources are not able to take care of our normal business, or if an inflated ego is itself the source of dysfunction, our unconscious resources rise to combat the problem.
Defending the Self often conflicts with the ego-syntonic function-attitudes’ orientation toward supporting and strengthening the Ego.”
This again gets into a bit of confusion I have about this, because most of our “shadow” reactions seem to be defending the ego-position. (As I’ll show below). Under traumatic stress, or in the later stages of the individuation process, is when the Self dispatches the shadow complexes, from what I was told.
Also, “Unconscious function-attitudes, but their connection to the collective human experience, can draw upon a deeper and broader wisdom than the relatively limited experience and perspective of our conscious side.” They “defend us from outside threats and from internal imbalance”. That “outside threats” part is what I would think would be dispatched by the ego rather than the Self.
Chapter 7 goes onto the Archetypes.
The “energy factor” that gives the function-attitudes life, is said by Beebe to lie in “the innately archetypal nature of the unconscious—and therefore of all unconscious content, including any function-attitudes that are not fully conscious” (#2712). The archetypes manifest in “specific down to earth physical, emotional and cognitive embodiments”. To Jung, they are assumed to be “the deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action (1953/1966 ¶109; 1959/1969a, ¶99)”. (Thinking they themselves consisted of “images” was a mistake I made when Lenore was explaining this stuff to me. The way she put it was “images freighted with emotion“. Her correction said pretty much the same thing, that S, N, T and F “are just names that we’ve given to different ways of bringing experience into cognitive awareness. They’re not things [as I, following much of the rest of the online type community, had fallen into seeing them]. They’re perspectives, ways of determining what matters in a situation.”)
So Hunziker, quoting John Gianni soon points out one of the main things Lenore had taught me, that “the complex is a historical experience and a particularized manifestation of an archetype. A complex is a complete incarnation of each archetype (2004, p 143)”, They are “given concrete form by real-world experience”.
Along the way, the “collective unconscious” is discussed, and the role of “the residue of the experiences of our ancestors”, and then, the notion of a “higher power”, being “something much bigger”, being implied by the archetypes, and thus this informs our notions about the nature of God, in addition to “our sense of place in the universe”, “our entire world view”, etc. So “In daily life”, “we are profoundly influenced by the psychological frames that make our lives manageable, as well as the energies that give our experiences their impetus and emotional flavors. And these energies/frames are largely predetermined by the archetypal forms and the related experiences that crystallize them into complexes”. (#2814)
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. (#2878)
This corresponds perfectly to the description of “ego states” as I discussed from the Hartman/Zimberoff article “Ego Surrender” (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/a-quantum-explanation-of-the-soul/#comment-1247 and https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-start-to-understanding-complexes).
But then again, the focus is in practice shifted back to the function-attitudes themselves as “the actors in our personal drama, each possessing certain traits and skillsets”, and from there, “each assigned a certain archetypal role through which they can apply those talents.”
This again is where I differ, seeing the complexes themselves (which are but the concretized or “filled with personal experience” archetypes, as just discussed above) as the “actors”, which then take on the different FA perspectives as their “world views”. The “ego” itself is but the main one taking on the dominant function and attitude, and the “Hero” and “Persona” go along with it. The Parent takes on the opposite attitude, and then the opposite rationality (j/p) of function. As the other six archetypes involved are but reflections and/or “shadows” of the first two, they take on the opposite functions and/or attitudes. And from there, we have Beebe’s “eight archetypal complexes using the eight function-attitudes” model!
But what I think should be ‘personified‘ are the complexes, not the functions.
Next is questioned “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”.
Here we see more clearly that the function-attitudes are the “personalities”, and the archetypes are the “roles”. Again, I would reverse that. Using the term “complexes” more, rather than “archetypes”, and especially emphasizing that they are “ego-states”, helps understand how this works. He continues “There are many other archetypal images beyond Beebe’s eight, but this particular collection appears to cover the basics”. They make “a balanced and effective team for inner collaboration”. (The way Lenore put it, the eight are simply “the complexes that structure an ego identity”. At http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html “As far as I’m concerned, Beebe’s model is a very good one, but only if it’s clear that it’s talking about complexes. Complexes are the way in which instinctual energies become available to consciousness. The model, in this respect, doesn’t show us how the type functions operate. Rather, [it tells us what happens in the psyche when we borrow instinctual energy from the unconscious to further our ego-based choices.” original e-mail version: “…it shows the archetypal structure underlying an established ego identity“]. And now, Beebe himself has stated this in his book, as mentioned in the other article).
Next is pointed out that the eight archetypes aren’t inexorably tied to the hierarchy positions. “Like most elements of Jungian psychology, and indeed in modern science in general, it’s a matter of probability.” The scheme “tells us which archetypal energies are likely to be carrying which function-attitude in a given typology”. They also, as stated earlier, become harder to identify the further down in the hierarchy the FA resides, being a defining characteristic of the unconscious is the lack of differentiation of its contents.
Next is the “Eight Archetypes of Typology”. We get a table with Beebe’s three columns of names (“Persona level”, “ego level” and Self-level”) for each of the FA’s, as was mentioned in the previous review, then descriptions of each archetype. For the Hero, “the greatest danger for the Hero/Heroine is inflation, an exaggerated sense of the heroic function-attitude’s ability to take care of everything, without help from other people or from other function-attitudes”. This is linked to Einstein’s definition of insanity; trying to solve a problem using the same way of thinking that hasn’t been working.
For Mother/Father (i.s. Parent) he discusses how the archetype gets confused with extraverted Feeling, because of the connotation of “nurturing and support”, and addressing people’s needs. Now, FA gets defined as “a mode of thinking and operating” which “doesn’t relate to a particular role or the drive to fulfill that role”, which lies in the “feeling-toned archetypal energy complex”. So people for whole Fe is ego-dystonic are no less capable of being great parents; they just might not but, support and protect in as “warm and fuzzy” a style as an Fe preferrer might.
In “possession” by the Parent archetype (i.e. inflation), as we read briefly in Berens, we become “overprotective”, or “parenting” when not appropriate to take that role. Posession by the Child (Puer/Puella) “usually involves refusing to take responsibility for the results of our actions. Likewise, projecting the Child (usually done by people who are stuck in overly-responsible, too serious mode) means regarding the target of our projection as refusing to ‘grow up’ and ‘act like an adult’.”
Under Anima/Animus, we see another great point Lenore had given me, that “Jung was likely reflecting the cultural bias of his day in associating ‘Eros’ with Feeling function and primarily with women (who would therefore be presumed to have a ‘Logos’/Thinking-oriented Animus) and vice versa for men“. Then, in the 80’s and 90’s, “there appeared to be a movement to redefine Jungian eros as the drive to connect or merge and logos as the drive to separate, discriminate or distinguish“. (#3062) This I have seen a lot, in online sites about the Anima or Jung. He then provides better ways of describing the anima and animus, given the entanglement with cultural assumptions that have shaped the notions of “masculinity” and “femininity” often used to describe them. (this also touches upon something Lenore was saying).
Also mentioned is “one of the main reasons why one develops a persona is so as not to expose inferiorities, especially the inferiorities of the fourth function”. The “persona” is usually portrayed as an alternate “dominant place” archetype alongside the hero, and here we see its purpose is to essentially counter the inferior.
Relatively unconscious, but still ego-syntonic, it is still consciously accessible, meaning we can connect with it. Also, Jung is quoted “It is because we are not using them purposefully as functions that they remain personified complexes. So long as they are in this state they must be accepted as relatively independent personalities (1953/1966 ¶339)”.
Of course, projection of it is what drives attraction to people who exhibit inverse qualities where we “form archetypally idealized ideas of them, (and to then be disappointed when they fail to live up to that ideal)”
The Opposing Personality “is most often activated in defense of the personality from real or imagined outside threats. The different attitudes of each function “senses the other as an encroachment on its own province” (Jung). Again, the contrasexual nature of the complex is mentioned (which along with sharing the same i/e attitude makes it difficult to distinguish from the anima/animus, as I’ve realized in my own projections and fantasy life), but nothing about this coming from it being energized by the anima.
The Witch/Senex, or “critical Parent” “can be a necessary attitude to take toward the Eternal Child in others (and perhaps in ourselves)—the ‘tough love’ needed to avoid overindulgence”. But it lacks a governing mechanism of consciousness to ensure it’s only used appropriately. Citing Beebe, it “moves shame into guilt, and “makes us ashamed of our shame”.
The Trickster, like the Eternal Child “is puerile, but not in a timid or helpless way”. It’s often what “defends our vulnerable Eternal Child from the Senex attacks from others”, which is a great specification, and of course, often does this by catching the attacker in double-binds. As Lenore explained to me regarding the more Kalsched-ian notion of the archetype for when a person is ready to grow, it’s a “catalyst for individuation” and “breaks down self-limiting structures, creating disorder, in order to open up new options that lead to a new order“. So it ignores boundaries including self-imposed, societal and parental limits, representing “autonomy from parental patterns”. It “can be activated in compensation for an attitude of hyper-responsibility, a characteristic of the internal Senex” (#3254).
The Demon/Daimon is essentially, “our inferior inferior”. It’s “what we need to be ashamed of—the flaw in our character for which integrity exists and is needed”. Patterns of its projection are often at the root of social inequities and wars, as we saw at the very end of Beebe’s book; with the most demonized enemies of ESTJ American typology, typically condemned for “assumed perceived lack of or misguided and perverse values“. (He says “not for flawed logic, intuition or perception of facts”, but they certainly do throw the “logic” and “facts” charge at the “liberals”. Perhaps this is the projection of the OP and Senex. Those are basically the side issues, at the most emotionally fervent charge, regarding “values”).
As I’ll mention again, I wonder if these are supposed to be “Self”-dispatched defenses, but they sound a bit like ego defenses.
Chapter 8 is “Depth Typology Dynamics”. This covers Myers-Briggs and the relationship between Cognition and Emotion. Here, we have another subject Lenore had discussed, and that’s the role of the cerebral cortex in conscious thought, while archetypes are more heavily influenced by the older limbic system, the seat of emotions”. “A great deal of what we see in depth typology, then, may come down to an ongoing process of two distinct and differently functioning neurological systems, striving to collaborate.” (#3387) So, “Once we have intellectually grasped the nature of the eight archetypes, function-attitudes are often most easily recognized by the emotional energy of the archetypes that carry them. If we ask ourselves whether what we’re experiencing feels heroic, or nurturing, immature, embarrassing, oppositional, hypercritical, manipulative or undermining, we can often detect the emotional tone of what’s going on typologically before we are able to grasp it intellectually.”
Next is the claim that function-attitudes “trigger” the archetypal complexes, and that the archetypes trigger the function-attitudes. Citing Beebe, 2010, “the most common trigger for any function-attitude archetype is when we engage the function-attitude”. This includes when others engage a function attitude associated with a particular archetype for us. “Obviously, often it will be difficult to know which aspect—archetype or function-attitude—is the cause and which is the effect”.
This, I’ve seen (especially from my discussions with Lenore) we have to be careful with, as it can be overgeneralized. It makes it sound like every time I have to look at/hear/touch, etc. something, or if someone else does it in interaction with me, I’ll go into “Trickster” mode. (Again, as I said in the other review, I really wish she had some input in these book projects.
Meanwhile, as we saw above, Hunziker did acknowledge that when conscious, the FA is then more able to be used free of the archetype. But it’s easy to forget this in the above statement; and he also said that they’re rarely truly integrated with consciousness. I would go with “general” [versus “special”] uses of the functions, as the “conscious” uses, where no particular archetype is constellated at that moment. Beebe on the other hand had also acknowledged to me these regular “generic” uses of the functions; that “the function attitude is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier”; “the archetype is the shell in which the function-attitude lives and grows, and out of which the ego can scoop the function-attitude for its own purposes”).
Se being in “7th place” means I might be less likely to pay full attention to current sensory data (and I now notice this all the time), and this is not necessarily something “observed by its archetypally-tinged symptoms, which are somehow the same in everyone”, as Lenore put it. It’s just less conscious, or less relevant to the ego. I also notice that NJ’s tend to be pretty averse to revisiting old conflicts. Some testify to being poor at remembering certain things (not that they can’t remember anything at all, outside of the archetype). Again, there is no specific “Trickster” or “Demon” necessarily constellated at that point. It’s a more “generic” form of [partial] “unconsciousness”.
So it may be more that it’s the complex that constellates first, and being a “lesser sense of ‘I'” (i.e. “ego-state”), it then sees the situation through the perspective of the associated FA. What I find is that a situation calling for the given FA might constellate the complex if it is tied with a longstanding “issue” regarding that functional perspective. Hence, people’s “self-contented” form of “moralizing” triggering the Demonic Personality for me (because of issues of guilt stemming from experiences), or certain physical situations making me feel tricked or trapped (based, again, on experiences).
We next get some personal examples, such as that Mark himself once reported as an introverted Thinking type on the MBTI assessment, and determined that this was from his Senex being constellated at the time, due to a task that required a lot of Ti, which was making him cranky, impatient and inflexible.
“Archetypal baggage”is described “Whenever we enter into a situation that seems to fit a common theme and whenever we unconsciously engage a function-attitude, a certain amount of archetypal energy engages as well. Since most situations fit one or more archetypal patterns and since we rarely if ever, engage our function-attitudes in complete consciousness, archetypal complexes are essentially always part of the type dynamic”. If not aware of this, the archetype may dominate the situation and we respond to the archetypal preconceptions more than to reality.
Next, “Axes of personality” deals with the tandems, including the arm and spine concept, and later, “Interpersonal friction between differently oriented axes”. He shows how each FA needs to work in conjunction with its opposite, like his dominant Ni “anchored in present reality” via inferior Se, etc. Discussed are dynamics like how types that look like they have a lot in common (because of common dichotomy preferences) may really be very different and clash.
This is also where he discusses the phenomenon Beebe had called “crossed spines” (though that term isn’t used here). I had mentioned this on my intro to type page, though later had some reservations about it after thinking about my own marriage experience, and this would be a good place to discuss what I believe is a needed qualification of that concept. As INTP and ESFJ, we are both “rational” types” (and thus “rational spines”), both having Ti/Fe dominant/inferior, though reversed. I do often find that I think she’s making a judgment, when she then claims to be simply making an observation or seeking information. This is what supposedly happens when two people have “crossed spines”. Since I once had to grapple with whether I was really Ne dominant or not, then I had to figure this out. (Or perhaps if she were really Se dominant).
Hunziker gives an example of an ENTJ and ISFJ. Both “J” types, but J refers only to the extraverted judgment function, whether dominant (as for the ENTJ) or auxiliary (As for the ISFJ, who is actually a dominant “perceiving” or “irrational” type). Since the ISFJ will be “‘all about’ gathering information, even though this may not be apparent from interacting with him”, and the ENTJ will be about making decisions, this can create conflict. Not just on the dominant “spine” level, but even on the arms, such as the auxiliary), where they’ll be reversed in rationality. (The ENTJ will now relate by perception, and the ISFJ through judgment. So “the ISFJ may ‘hear’ the observation as a call to act on information”).
But since this carries across both spine and arm, it assumes the two parties always being in spine or arm “mode” at the same time. But if different complexes or ego-states (and here’s another case where thinking in this term helps) are in executive control in a given moment, then the rationality may still end up getting “crossed”. So I notice when I’m deep in dominant or Heroic mode, and my wife will then try to “Parent” with Si, or make a playful suggestion with Ne (or in more stressful times, the Witch or Trickster may even get involved); I’ll hear it as a call to make a decision. She’ll then protest that “It’s just an observation”. Or “I just want more information”. Making this more complicated, is that part of the reason this happens, is because there are times when, particularly with that “childlike” idea, that she switches back into “spine” mode, and the perception does become a judgment. So (perhaps in my “vulnerable” Si “child” mode that holds on to past incidences), I anticipate that, and then it figures for my spine orientation, and I guess it’s often when I’m too immersed in dominant mode, and so really averse to any disruption.
(Plus, there’s also the old J/P difference, where even though we’re both “rational” types, my domniant judgment is introverted, and perception extraverted, while her dominant judgment is extraverted. This leads her to want action, while I need to take in more information first before making a decision).
In “Dynamics Within the System”, “When an extraverted Sensing Hero becomes inflated, the introverted sensing Opposing Personality rises to object, and the introverted Intuitive Anima insists ‘Hey, don’t forget about me!'”.
“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” (#3872). 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, mentioned before; “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“.
Now we enter Part III, about applications of the model. Chapter 9 is on the value of teaching the Beebe model. It’s actually easier to understand type by the FA’s than remembering sixteen type profiles. It yields more of a “Here is how it may work for you” dynamic rather than “Here’s who you are”, as profiles seem to imply. Every time we talk about a “trait”, we can backtrack to the basics of the [natural] function and explain why its engagement in one or the other attitude would logically result in such a trait.
Chapter 10 is on its usefulness in Counseling, Coaching, and Psychotherapy. (Again, we see the FA’s portrayed as “little voices” and “some other parts of me” that operate in the background of consciousness. The complexes themselves are the “other parts of us”; the other, lesser senses of “I” under the main ego).
Here is a part that raises questions of understanding for me. “In response [to FA’s being “called”, or archetypal energies “triggered”], our existing ego-centric toolkit typically becomes energized to defend itself against the threat to the status quo. The harder the unconscious, “internal Other” elements work to get our conscious attention, the more threatening and invasive they seem to the ego—and the more the ego digs in to resist the invasion”. (And when the relatively developed “ego-identified” FA’s become over-energized, “we become caricatures of our normal selves” trying to fix the problem with our normal approaches. The hero may become a “super-Hero”, etc. The basic dilemma that has most people seeking counseling or therapy is that “the Ego/Me views the very parts of oneself that hold the solution, the No-Me shadow, as the threat to be defended against”).
I wonder, isn’t the “egocentric toolkit” using the shadows to “defend itself” then being dispatched by the ego, and not the Self at that point? Lenore had described the Kalsched concept of the Trickster and Demon, in either trauma, or the later stage toward individuation, being dispatched by the Self (see http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html), but then that to me left open the question of whether at the other times, the shadows were being dispatched by the ego. It sure feels like it, when I get those OP, Senex, Trickster or Demon reactions, ruminations or projections, specifically defending ego against the threat. But then the thing is that she doesn’t really believe any below the OP are constellated in normal situations. Like the Demon, she said, was “so far from the Ego that it can never be integrated or controlled” (or “so far from the Heroic self-image that they’re more like intrapsychic messengers from the unconscious”, ibid). The Senex, she would later tell me, is present in any function that becomes too one-sided, and that too would be presumably Self-dispatched.
But then this seems to be left ambiguous by Beebe and Hunziker (unless I’ve missed something). I guess, the complexes themselves are dispatched by the Self (since it “owns” them, where the ego thinks it owns them, which is the definition of “inflation”), and while it’s the ego that essentially is “using” them for its defenses, since they are out of the ego’s conscious control, they don’t come out the way the ego wishes, and hence why they are so problematic. The “message from the Self” then is that these “problematic” manifestations are what the Self is trying to “get the ego’s attention” through).
So what I was really looking for here, was a clear distinction between the Beebe “everyday” constellations of the archetypes, and the Kalsched [via Lenore] “trauma” or “individuation” constellations. I guess it’s all dispatched by the Self, but Beebe’s theory simply has the Self dispatching lesser constellations of them for everyday ego defenses, in order to try to make the ego aware of how its defenses are coloring its perception and judgment. That is what makes perfect sense.
These last chapters now getting smaller; Ch. 11 is on Self Development and Self-Help. In projection, “Our internal rationale insists that since these thoughts, feelings, attitudes and desires don’t fit with our idea of who we are, someone else must be responsible”. (#4319) Tying in with the question I just raised, “We protect our Ego rather than our Self”.
Chapter 12 is on “Relationships and Communication”.
Chapter 13 is “cultural Personalty Type”. In a quote, it’s pointed out that humans were designed for cooperation, but only with some people, that is within groups, in the context of personal relationships. Our brains didn’t evolve for cooperation between groups.Hence, all the “Me vs Other” played out on a societal scale, where the “Me” becomes “Us”. So “Without some perceived OTher, we’d have no one to carry our projections; we’d be forced to face the truth that the unacceptable Other is within each of us.” (#4603)
(Next is mentioned the influence of Christianity and its ego-syntonic members of the “trinity” [which he says “systematizes” denial of the “unacceptable Other”], on the shaping of Western culture, and how other religions have a quaternity of deities, with one representing that base, unacceptable side. But this ignores that the Son, though “good”, still bore the Shadow of sin for us. A fourth Person was not necessary.
[This can lead to the debate of whether the “Azazel goat” of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur (which is today!) ritual, who ultimately had all the sin symbolically placed on him, and sent off into the wilderness, represented Christ or Satan. “Orthodox” apologists generally protest that that would essentially add Satan as a fourth entity in our redemption, in addition to the Father, Son and Spirit. However, those who say it is Satan, which I’ve seen among the sabbatarian groups, point out that Satan is the one banished in the end, never to return].
So whenever projecting onto others, we can ask “what function-attitudes does the ‘threat’ seem to be acting out…? What archetypal energies do we associate with this “Other? What archetypal reactions are triggered in us?”
There’s also the possibility of cultural typology influencing this as well. Mentioned is that the split between US conservatives and liberals seems to be according to “two different family models”. The conservatives take a “strict father” model where human nature is flawed and must be tamed and molded into “right behavior” by rewards and punishments to train people to survive in a hostile world. As I’ve been pointing out for years, it’s a “scarcity-based view”, where there must be “winners” and “losers”, and that right behavior leads to success, while wrong behavior leads to failure. (Hence, social “entitlement” programs promote laziness). Of course, this is supposed to be based on “the Biblical doctrine of ‘sin'”, which liberals had long rejected. But what the conservatives fail to remember is that this “flawed nature” includes they themselves, and this whole approach is based on Law, which was necessitated by the “knowledge of good and evil” that marked the Fall to begin with. It lacks “Grace”, and then one’s own ongoing sin (or societal sin) must be denied, in order to prove that one has “earned” success. This is why, for instance, they deny racism and its effects, while then casting blame on the victims of it (and then proceed to put down “victimhood”).
So the liberals use the “nurturing parent” model, which is more in accord with Jungian thought. Human nature is basically good if properly guided and supported (which we see is what the conservatives have long condemned them for). They have an “abundance-based” view that assumes individuals will succeed if their parents protect, support and enable them to find out “who they are”. (And the conservatives are right to an extent, that this is an ideal that fails to take into consideration human sin. But again, they too as well, in setting up their own ideals).
Of course, there are flipsides of this, like Christian writer Michael Horton criticizing conservatives for one of the same points as liberals, in that human nature is basically good, if properly guided. It’s just that their “rewards and punishments” are the “proper guiding” in their view! This again, is where they fail to see their ideal is no better than the liberals.
So Hunziker points out that both groups exist within the prevailing ESTJ American typology, where Si takes on the Parental role, and its shadow, Se, the Witch/Senex. So they see each other as “shadowy Bad (Se) Parents of our society”. Liberals see conservatives as lacking empathy that a parent should have, while conservatives see liberals as overly permissive . (But they also see them as overly authoritarian, toward the general, tax-paying public. Liberals can charge that conservatives are overly permissive to corporations and banks). He points out “the trouble is, that the current U.S. culture is a no-very- functional version of ESTJ typology“.
In this chapter, he also cites Lenore’s book, p.8, that societies tend to favor some typological configurations more than others. “Types that are well represented will have more options for using their strengths, but they are also less likely to see the limits an possibilities of social institutions”, while uncommon types will have to “work harder to be understood, but are less likely to be seduced by a collective illusion”. (Earlier, in the ch. 5 section on “Individuation” he also cited her from p.24 on us being “hardwired for the kind of tension that makes change possible”).
Chapter 14 is on Spirituality and Creativity and 15 is Health and Wellness
“Spirituality is about engaging our human body/mind to attain deeper awareness of what our lives really are and how to live them happily and successfully—to remember our ‘original instructions’ rather than arrogantly attempting to impose our ego will in an attempt to control our lives. Instead of trying to dam and redirect the flow of the river of live, the spiritual part of us humbly accepts the capriciousness of that river and seeks to swim with the current”. (#4729)
“Being ‘responsible’ doesn’t imply that we have complete control and therefore are culpable for everything that happens. Our responsibility is simply to participate in our well being. Blaming is ego-directed judgment, always based on the flawed assumption that we know, from our ego-perspective, what we should do and things should be. It seems out sense of who we could be—an idealized self-image—raises our expectations of ourselves and thus increases our disappointment and frustration when we fall short”. (#4979)
This is what I’m grappling with. It seems unbalanced, as some types (like Se and Te-preferrers) have more of a talent for “swimming with the current” (or at least seeing the opportunities to exploit it with the least resistance), and thus gaining the most power and influence in the world (this would be the “temperament” part of “Timing-Talent-Temperament”, and it also makes the “talent” part easier to cultivate, and then “timing” or forces out of our control get dismissed, and then they often get credited as if it were pure will on their part), and then the rest of us have to bend our will and “roll with the punches”.
At #5238, is discussed from Myers’ Gifts Differing how “satisfaction can and must be earned”, which children don’t learn if they are never allowed to fail, or “everything works for them”,so they become “spoiled” and don’t learn that it must be be earned) , where if they are never allowed to succeed, or “nothing works”, and thus don’t learn that it can be earned. But I believe that our notions of “earning” are skewed to begin with, ignoring these factors that are beyond our control. Yet the “narratives” created and widely held still posit that some have completely “earned”. The above quote acknowledges that we don’t have complete control, but in practice in the world, the message is that we do. This makes it difficult to know how or when to just “participate”, and what “swimming with the current” or “our proper role in the system” (as mentioned at the end, below) really means.
(Then is mentioned “increasingly or predominantly ego-initiated volition”, which reminds me of the shadow constellations, which are said to be Self-dispatched).
Also covered is addictions and compulsions, which stem from a sense of “incompleteness”, and the focus on punishment assumes it’s all a matter of “will”. “The Me is successfully resisting the internal ‘Other’, perceiving it as a threat. Facing an entrenched, fortified ago-resistance, the natural response of the unconscious is increasingly insistent and powerful attempts to break through and the ego in turns, with increasingly desperate defense, including, at some point, even other unthinkable destructive behaviors”. As we demonize and resist the activities of the activated unconscious functions, what we’re really yearning for is the integration of the Anima or Animus ‘soul function'”. “the ‘hole’ that addictive and compulsive behaviors are making a misguided attempt to fill is the felt shortcoming of the integrity of the self that results from such a sense of inferiority. And the perceived ‘pain’ is the associated shame”.
Chapter 16 is Decision-Making and Problem-Solving. The eight FA’s are listed as an outline of “steps” in a decision-making process. It’s pointed out how in four “natural” function processes, “it tends to be the extraverted versions of each function unless individual typology or team culture brings certain introverted functions to the fore”.
Chapter 17 is on Parenting, Teaching and Learning Styles. Early childhood is a period of experimentation, where they learn which mental processes work best for them, and then go back to them more an more, thus “developing” skillsets” around them. Any dynamic of power and responsibility versus incapacity and dependence (such as employees and bosses, political leaders and followers, and even spouses) may be an occasion for the possible interactions of the Parent and Child functions. If it’s coming from the Child, it will have an emotional tone of helplessness and vulnerability. Yet it will also take on more than it can handle and then become overwhelmed and withdraw in fear. This is what has elsewhere been called the “inflation and deflation” specifically described for the tertiary. Given are examples of several FA’s in the Child position. We are cautioned “In dealing with someone; Eternal Child…the nurturing, supportive and protective energy of the archetypal Mother or Father is not always what’s needed. Sometimes, the Critical Parent role must be assumed to set necessary limits”.
Chapter 18 is Cultivating Effective Leaders, Workers and Teams, and the final chapter, 19 is “saving the World”, which shows how “ego inflation” is humans’ “Achilles heel”. “We can and do operate on self-constructed, inaccurate ideas of who we are, we ignore information that does not reinforce our faux self image, and we live in false relationship with our environment. The three basic requirements for successfully participating in any system are thus distorted by our mistaken notions of who we are—of our proper role in the larger system”. (#5436) This then becomes collective also, such as religious and political “isms”, which further reinforce flawed notions of our place in the world. “We project our problems and waste most of our precious time and energy blaming and fighting ‘Them’. Humanity is in a state of collective hubris with an unjustifiably inflated notion of its own wisdom and importance”.
So if the roots of the problem is in ego inflation and shadow projection, then what’s needed is “depth typology”.
So again, this is a must read for anyone trying to understand or introduce or familiarize themselves with Beebe’s model, and Jungian theory in general. It certainly will help one understand Beebe’s book better.