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.
Beebe, John Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type: The reservoir of consciousness
Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), NewYork, 2016  232p.
Finally; the long hoped for book by the creator of the full “eight-function” extension of the MBTI type model! It’s been out for three months already, and I just happened to stumble across it, from a Facebook friend in the type field who posted this article: https://www.routledge.com/mentalhealth/posts/10266 (this was almost a month ago now).
Part I Theoretical contributions
Introduces the eight function-attitudes (Chapter 1, “Eight Function-Attitudes Unpacked”), and adds names, like Berens/Hartzler and Witt/Dodge (Personality Hacker) do. In fact, he has three levels of names for each, (adding “wing words” to the “heart of the process”. Like: Se: engaging, experiencing, enjoying; Ti: naming, defining, understanding; Fi: judging, appraising, establishing the value. These are supposed to be triangles, but he made them columns for each function as a row, to make it easier to read).
These, again, are pretty similar to what Berens (who has drawn heavily on Beebe) uses. I like the idea of handy one word terms, and he says that using three words helps listeners grasp what each of the “mental processes” are about, but I’ve seen that they can sometimes get taken too literally and make people think that only people of that type can do those activities, or if someone is doing it, it’s a differentiated “use” of the function that will figure in their type search.
Chapter 2 “Once More With Feeling” discusses the Feeling function, and mentions “Jung’s closest analytic follower” Marie-Louise Von Franz.
The difference between “Feeling” and “feelings” (emotion) is that Feeling is “the function that sorts out feelings”. Or, to quote Jungian writer William Willeford, the function that “discriminates affect”.
(He also frequently in his writings mentions Joseph Wheelwright, who had developed a typological theory and instrument, the Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Survey, based on Jung, even before Myers-Briggs. This version of the theory held the auxiliary function, along with the tertiary, to be in the dominant attitude).
Chapter 3 Understanding Consciousness through the Theory of Psychological Type
This is one of the papers I had long linked to in the list of “Beebe resources” I had scraped together from online on my type pages, in lieu of a single book from him on the archetype model.
It discusses the whole concept of “consciousness”: Jung “relatedness of contents to the ego…insofar as they are sensed as such by the ego. Consciousness is the function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego”. It’s not identical with the psyche, which is the totality of all the psychic contents; many of which are beyond the ego.
(This is regarded as part of an “unfortunate statement” that leads students of Jung to “look for a structure called ‘ego’ and a process called ‘ego development’ that is not exactly supported by phenomenological observation…”)
I liked how he framed things in terms of “thinking”, “feeling, “sensation”, or “intuitive” “problems“, and that dreams reveal to us “the actual situation in the unconscious” (Jung) which we can then actually ‘type‘ as T, F, S or N “situations“. (p25)
I’ve been having trouble interpreting my dreams, which simply seem to be rehashed places, and now not able to remember most by the time I’m fully awake.
He also mentions a distinction between a “‘little-s’ self“, which is the common understanding of “self” (basically, your ‘person’, or even perhaps ego), and the “‘big-S’ Self“, which is of course, the Jungian “center of consciousness” that includes the whole unconscious and is “trans-personal”.
Establishes the basic four function positions and the spine (dominant/inferior) and arms (auxiliary and tertiary), accompanied by his familiar simple cross diagrams.
Discusses the discovery of his dominant intuition, and how the Gray-Wheelwright JTS had both his dominant, along with auxiliary Thinking as extraverted.
In this chapter he sorts out the whole issue of which attitude the auxiliary and tertiary would take and points out that Jung’s assumption was that “only function, the superior is likely to be particularly differentiated. Therefore, the other functions all take on the unconscious character of the inferior function and operate in a crudely compensatory way”. (p.34)
From what I’ve learned, we can say that it is the puer complex that orients the tertiary into the dominant attitude. So from there, the “ego syntonic” half of the stack is complete!
Ne/Ni difference: “seeing possibilities in what was consciously shared with me that others might never have imagined”.
“Look[ing] at the big picture of the unconscious where the gestalts that moved nations, religions and epochs lay, even in the midst of apparently individual experience”
(and other function i/e distinctions) (p.31)
Si “lives on the inside of the body, and seeks to keep it from getting overstimulated, too tired, too hungry, or too filled with the wrong foods. etc.” (p32)
Because Myers was working out a type assessment instrument that focused on “easily identifiable in the outer world”, this is why she retooled Jung’s “rational/irrational” into the J/P dichotomy pointing to the leading extraverted function, “whether superior or auxiliary” (p35).
Introduces archetypal role, hero, parent, child (puer/puella, and the “child” can be either “divine” or “wounded”, which are two separate sub-archetypes) and anima (including the embodiment of his in a Chinese laundress)
Paul Watsky and Laura McGrew raise the need for the other “40 acres” of a person’s psychological “field” to be hoed, at 1983 conference, and at the following year’s “Ghost Ranch” meeting, McGrew produced a sketch of the diagram with the names of the archetypes of the four shadows, one of which was “witch” (which he determines was usually for females, while “senex” was more for males). He discusses it as a “problematic” term because of its magical connotation. (I had been told once that a better, more analogous archetype not carrying the magical sense, yet nevertheless having an equal “neglected wise elder” role as the Senex, was “the Crone”. Don’t know why he never considered that one). He determined that the Witch could fit, because it “fights dirty to defend the personality”, casting “spells that immobilize in an underhanded way”, while the senex similarly “exerts the same limit setting control when he ‘pulls rank'”. Both “can appear in both genders as a kind of ‘withering authority’ (Frey, 2011). Yet there is wisdom in this limit-setting.”
Beebe and McGrew had already agreed that the shadow of the puer aeternus was the trickster. But they weren’t yet satisfied with the designations for the shadows of the hero and anima/animus. He doesn’t say what they were in McGrew’s initial sketch; if they were the final names or not. He then would embark on a seven year work on his own dreams and outer behavior, and finally, in 1990 completed the shadow cross, with the positions of “opposing personality” and “demonic personality”. The former he chose over a more traditional archetypal name such as “the Adversary” or “the Antagonist”, in order to convey “the unconscious and undeclared quality with which this archetype usually operates”. It was once pointed out to me, that this is thus not really an archetype (an age-old “ruling pattern“, and it was suggested that the archetype that fits this position was the classic “Warrior” or “Amazon”, which makes a lot of sense.
He at this point mentions how the OP is “oppositional, paranoid, passive-aggressive and avoidant”, and also “easy to project onto…especially a person of the opposite sex”. He in a later chapter says “Projecting the opposing personality will cause a man to see the woman in a negative or troublesome light as she seems to embody the man’s own antagonistic traits” (which I have testified to). He also mentions here that Jungian analysts have identified this oppositional quality in a man as his “negative mother complex” or “negative anima”. I had hoped he would mention and elaborate on what he not too long ago told me in an e-mail query, that this contrasexual connotation comes from the OP being energized by the anima (where it should be creating an axis with the Self instead of the Shadow), which I found pretty interesting, and I then began really taking into consideration in my own shadow struggles. He does add in this vein that “unlike the anima, the opposing personality is antagonistic to the ego rather than helpful in connecting it to he needs of the Self.”
He then gives examples of the shadows in his own life. Like the “oppositional” Ni came up in his practice “as a tendency to ‘tune out’ in the face of affects I didn’t know how to deal with…to find some kind of image that would make sense of emotion for me, but mostly my patients experienced me at such moments as leaving them”.
It was in a “feeling context” (learning the difference between his Fe and Fi) that he came to understand the difference between extraversion and introversion (of functions) in general.
In meeting a situation that involves another person, extraversion moves to create a shared experience, by reaching out to ‘merge’ in some way with the other person (Shapiro & Alexander, 1975), whereas introversion steps back from the experience to see if it ‘matches an archetype within that carries an a priori understanding of what an experience like this is supposed to consist of (emphasis added)
He would later describe Fi as working “at the archetypal (not personal) level“. (The term “personal” is often used for introverted functions. I find it is a better description for Feeling itself, in either attitude, but avoid it because of the ambiguous usage).
He points out that the “shadow” also “carried consciousness, but consciousness used in antagonistic, paradoxical, depreciating and destructive ways”. This is an important point, because we often associate the “shadow” with “unconsciousness”; the shadow functions being “unconscious”. But this matches the notion I learned that they do enter consciousness when aligned with “the ego structure”, which is basically these eight archetypal complexes. He himself says on p.126 that his numbering scheme is based on the implication that “there are, rooted in the structure of the psyche, eight positions, one for each function-attitude”.
He does mention throughout that these are complexes, as Lenore Thomson had emphasized to me in my discussions with her. She also spelled out that a complex is specifically an archetype (which is a “ruling pattern” in the collective unconscious”) that becomes “personalized”, meaning “fills up” with a person’s own experience. The term “complex” made it a bit easier to understand, since that is a more common term psychologically, than “archetype”. What made it even more clear was a paper I ran across, “Ego Surrender” (David Hartman, Diane Zimberoff) that further expounded “complexes” as basically “ego-states” or essentially, “lesser senses of ‘I’“, which they built up the concept of from our very first simple ego-states, such as being “mad at mommy”. Archetypal “complexes” are just that. More complex constellations of these emotional patterns, that have formed anciently recognized “ruling patterns” such as “Mother”, “Father”, “Child”, “Hero”, “Warrior”, etc.; some of these making up the particular eight that we have associated with the “ego structure” that carries the cognitive perspectives of the eight function-attitudes, along with countless others as well.
He lays all eight out on a table showing what “area” they cover, and what they do:
|Hero/heroine||strength and pride||Organizes adaptations, initiates individuation|
|Father/mother||fostering and protecting||Nurtures and protects others|
|Puer/puella||immaturity and play||endearing, vulnerable child who copes by improvising|
|anima/animus||embarrassment and idealization||Gateway to the unconscious|
|Opposing Personality||frustration and challenge||defends by offending, seducing, avoiding; self-critic*|
|Senex/Witch||limit setting and control||defends by refusing, belittling, inactivating; sets limits|
|Trickster||manipulation and paradox||Mischievous, creates double-binds, circumvents obstacles|
|Demonic/Daimonic||undermining and redemption||Undermines self and others; creates opportunities to develop integrity|
*(One thing I noted here, and he says, is how the OP is said to be the “self-critic”. The Witch/Senex is also described that way. Though since this position lies on the arm, which is more about others, where the spine is about self, this would make more sense, and I had wondered about that occasionally).
He then mentions something I had quoted from the paper that became this chapter, that what James Hillman considers “inferior feeling” might be better understood as demonic introverted feeling in an introverted thinking type (Which I could always certainly testify to, but most other ITP’s would assume as a form of extraverted Feeling).
He cites von Franz regarding how the demonic shadows the inferior, which according to Franz, “is what contributes to the sum of collective evil in the world”, as in the example of the Nazis. (Also, p.43: “Evil is the quality of being undermined”). The Jews being insulted as”destructive intellectuals” convinced all of the Feeling types, who projected their inferior Feeling. The whole “moneymaking” stereotype convinced the intuitive, who projected their inferior sensing.
What she is describing here is a relation between the inferior function and a demonic function that tests the integrity of the inferior function. To the degree that the inferior function has not been taken up as a problem by the individual in the course of the development of his consciousness, it is no match for the demonic aspect of the unconscious, rather like the Chinese laundress in my dream who has no power to stop her [Se carrying] husband from spending all his money drinking and gambling.
Hitler himself isn’t mentioned in the book. I’ve seen Beebe cited as typing him as an Si dominant (with demonic Ni), and of course wish he had elaborated on that here, as I’ve never seen the full rationale. But most people assume him to be INFJ, which would place him in the “intuitive projecting inferior sensation” category. While he probably did play off of the “moneymaking” stereotype, most people will argue his main motive was “the harmony of the people”, (which they would assume, using Beebe’s model, as “parenting with Fe”), but to me, this always pointed to demonic Feeling in a dominant Thinking type. (People believe his Thinking was what was lower, because of his “poor military decisions”, but I think that was from other factors, such as him simply being mad with power. But when it comes to the inferior/demonic projection, it seems to me to concern Feeling values).
Chapter 4 deals with the masculine side of archetypal adaptation, with sections on each archetype (including “the Shadow”, which itself is an archetype, though in Beebe’s model has become a larger category of the four ego-dystonic archetypes).
In passing, he described Fi as “very sensitive to imbalances of power”, and discriminating the appropriate uses of power”, which “is something people with strong introverted feeling are good at”. This I had to think on, as I seem to always be complaining about imbalance of power. I have this whole entry on it, even: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/glossary-of-lifes-power-struggle. To me, the notion of “balance” it stems from is really a Ti product. If you demand something from me, and then issue some form of consequence, then I should not be snubbed with “that’s life” or something else like that, when I’m the one expecting something from someone else. It’s a totally mechanical or “impersonal” judgment, that can be criticized for not considering other people’s standpoints or situations. (And then my producing a whole glossary of terms and definitions would also be typical Ti). But I would say it fits for me, a demonic/daimonic form of Fi, borne of all the instances of my heroic viewpoint being dismissed, and my feeling my ego is in jeopardy of destruction, which is what constellates this complex. (A lot of this is exacerbated by Asperger’s, which creates greater problems dealing with people).
A good statement is :
The shadow is repressed because it is felt to be incompatible with a person’s moral values. It retains, and from time to time expresses, feelings, motives, desires and ambitions that the person has long since decided are unworthy, because they do not accord with the individual’s idea of how people should feel, let alone behave. Since it is usually not owned as part of the person, the shadow has a great deal of autonomy, which allows it from time to time even to escape repression, so that it can act out the very strivings that the ego has rejected as incompatible with its standards
He then gives the terms “ego-dystonic” and “ego-syntonic”.We must keep in mind that it’s the complexes, or better, “ego-states” that are being described here (not the functions). An “offensive” opposer, a grumpy old man or “witch”, a sneaky, devious “trickster” and a destructive “demon” are all “roles” that none of us likes to think of ourselves as falling into.
He also mentions along the way, a hypothetical gay man who would strike back at culture’s hostility to homosexuality with a “false-feminine opposing personality”, which attacks against patriarchal assumptions about masculinity. I had always wondered how these “contrasexual” figures would figure for a gay person.
I liked his description of the Father complex (which of course is the male “parent” associated with the auxiliary function): “A vital part of a man’s masculinity is caught up in how potent or impotent he feels as a man with something to impart, and that may be the archetypal definition of what a father is” (bold added; and “applies equally to men who have never had children and to men who have”. This is what makes it as an “archetype” or “ruling pattern” a product of the collective unconscious. It transcends our individual experiences in that way).
Under “the Senex”, now he does mention it as “a withering critic”. It “has the same silencing and deadening effect on the feminine figure inside the man, the anima” (a point I had never heard. Though Lenore did speak of societies that oppress women as being aligned with “the Senex”). It has a “reiterative insistence on life’s lack of meaning, value and future”, and as such, is “the voice of major depression”. It “emerges when a personality feels itself to be going into decline“, and “to be losing control of the situations in which it must continue to function” What it’s seeking is “Longings for superior knowledge, imperturbability, magnanimity”. This ties into something else Lenore had told me, that the Senex personifies the human drive to make conscious order within the limits of human nature — to develop an ego to begin with! Becoming “one sided”, our dominant functional awareness will harden into a brittle egocentricity around the power of “I know.” (So to her, the archetype is not as specifically associated with the “auxiliary function in the opposite attitude”. I had so wished Beebe and Lenore would collaborate on this book, as they do differ in some places, but they really fill in each other’s expression of this stuff).
All of this makes it sound like it fits the definition for the spine rather than the arm. It’s all about the ego. It then even “resorts to strategies that simulate heroism”. But the way I understand this, is that it’s about the ego inasmuch as its recognized by the outer world. So she would use the term “negation” in connection with the archetype, which made perfect sense. The Senex and Crone are once-respected old figures of wisdom, whom no one pays attention to anymore.
I have been grappling a lot in this ongoing midlife crisis, with the larger “story” of the way life goes, inasmuch as it has affected me. So an Ni Senex that is depressed about this story (to the point of wanting to give up a lot of the time, and especially now, give up hope on my wife getting her counseling license and making money, after all the time-delyaing and costly hoops the state has made her jump through) seems to perfectly fit my experience. (Even down to “the therapist [or anyone else offering counsel or support] is usually not allowed to breathe a word that might expose the fictions by which the patient is living”).
For the demonic personality, a great discovery here is that “it is an image of undermining pathological narcissism“, and that narcissistic men “will readily set up people to imagine that they can easily save him from his pathological narcissism by carrying for him the integrity his demonic personality craves. (He then goes into his archetypal interpretation of the movie As Good As It Gets, which had described to me, with the the Melvin character as the demonic personality, and Carol as the anima. I know nothing about this movie, as I’m not into most live action fiction).
These are groundbreaking definitions for me, especially looking back on what I was discussing here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/solar-vs-lunar-in-gender-dynamics-and-individuation/, regarding the subject of Beebe’s previous book, integrity. So we see now, the demonic personality is the part of us or at least a main part of us that is narcissistic (enamored with the ego’s achievements), and also “seeks integrity”! This explains a lot for me. Particularly the major upheaval I was coming out of and still trying to sort through at that time, when I had projected my anima onto someone online, and then lost the friendship for a time, and had experienced a definite eruption of a “demonic” constellation, particularly at one point the previous summer, even naming it after one of the person’s own recognized deeply shadow subpersonalities (and thus, identifying, which this was all about). Expecting this person (or others at other times) to “carry” a [symbolic] integrity for me was precisely what I was doing. There was also a a direct demonic projection earlier, onto someone who attacked me for sharing my ideas on type, and then tried to pit a group against me and portray me as completely culpable for the whole conflict. As I had confessed at one point, it was a “big thing” for me to “win”, which was identified as Fi, but it was clearly an “undermining” manifestation of the function).
It was during this time (four years ago) I was reading Robert Johnson’s books on Jungian principles, and he mentioned “depression compensates for inflation”, and I then had to figure, what exactly was being “inflated” in my psyche. Of course, “inflation” is often associated with the tertiary archetype, and Beebe explains this in this book as well. But the main definition is any attempt to “credit the ego-identity with content that actually belongs to these complexes.” as Lenore had explained to me.
This would certainly be a kind of “narcissism”, and we see now that the demonic personality is directly involved with it. (Though in her view, the demonic personality remains more connected with deeper trauma). Take away ego’s self-importance, and it feels it is being destroyed, and thus will seek to somehow “destroy” the threat in turn.
Basically, I seem to feel “I am a good person if things go my way”. If they don’t, then the complex turns against myself. It also goes after others who seem to be able to flout all the rules and get away with it (especially if they preach those rules themselves. Hence the “balance of power” issue, and I also recognized a whole “courtroom” and “judge” in my thinking years ago), or make themselves “good” while demonizing some group I identify with. (As in politics. Final point below). Now, in midlife crisis, it seems all my “losses” in life just collapsed onto me, and I began looking for a model of “integrity” (meaning “untouched”, as in “unconquered”) to identify with.
The opposing personality also heavily figured, which I had already identified in myself as a witty, sassy extraverted Thinking female figure who “bucks the system” of “life”, basically embodied by “this man’s world” and all its rules and demands.
Like I explain here http://www.erictb.info/superfriends.html, how I project this into the cartoon superhero “Jayna”, who has a lot of wit and notably greater powers than her brother Zan. But that’s in a negative sense, as I for some reason identified with Zan, I guess just for being a male underdog in a way, so female characters like that were always irritating to me, just as Beebe described OP projections. (Don’t even get me started on that old Danielle Spencer obnoxious little girl character from the 70’s!) A positive projection was this particular person online, in a “[negative] heroine” or “my own Amazon ally” sort of way, from seeming to perfectly embody this for various reasons, and I thus wanted to “identify“, and the person initially was very responsive to friendship, which was so unexpected and unusual for me as it was).
This conflation of the anima and the OP in the same projections further illustrates my need to try to come to terms with what the process of individuation requires. Though Beebe points out that the more integrated a person is, the harder time he may have in recognizing the demonic side of his personality. I would think it became easier to recognize it when you had integrated (or “owned”, as popular lingo says) it.
If the ego could possess the “wholeness” the demon seeks, it would have a lot to be narcissistic about! So the demon’s “narcissism” compensates for the vulnerability of the inferiority complex. We feel inferior in a particular perspective in one attitude, but surmise that we’ve really mastered the perspective in the other attitude (which again is the right or left brain “alternative” or one of the “crow’s nests”). It’s really the furthest from consciousness of all, and when this is exposed, we again feel our very ego is being disintegrated, and then go on the attack.
Basically, the “demonic personality” looks for “integrity” in all the wrong places, or goes about it the wrong way!
He in the following chapter mentions how the position is “undermining, unless it is held to a standard of integrity, in which case it can become daimonic, an opportunity for spirit to enter the psyche from a shadowy place that had once only been an occasion for fear. He uses as an example prayer; “the integrity that accompanies the humility of praying to a power Other enough to be potentially destructive, and which may in its own way have already visited destruction of some aspect of the life of the person now praying”, which then “often moves the very same deity enough to offer illumination, compassion and a transformative intervention”.
This I definitely struggle with, especially as I deal with the role of God in all this, with Christians often citing scriptures like Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him”. This gets into the whole issue of whether all of our pains and difficulties are things God “does” to us, or are “just life”, and in that case, what God’s role in it is, and whether people’s success or failures in this life are indicators of some “favored” status before God, which has been the course of much assumption. It is basically the issue of “fate”, which is one of those things that are “too big for the ego”. The problem has been that a lot of Christians citing scriptures and principles like this have ended up becoming “Job’s friends”, who often don’t help out much, if not plunging a person deeper into depression, as we saw in his story.
He also mentions, in the section on the anima, that it is “the place in a man’s psyche where the dream of integrity of personality can become a reality”, via “the plumb line of personhood that develops between superior function hero and inferior function anima…making ‘integrity in depth’ possible”, citing the earlier book. So somehow, the answer is Fe for me, but I still haven’t figured what I can do for people in that area. My wife says my writing, but it’s taking time for people to really notice.
Other points on the anima: creatng the axis between the dominant and inferior is “to know greatest strength and weakness”.
Relatively unconscious functions generally cannot operate well without the anima.
Chapter 5 is on the Wizard of Oz. The overall “type” of the story is an ENFJ, with Dorothy as the Fe “heroine”, Glinda the good witch as the Ni “Great Mother” the Scarecrow as the Ti animus, the Cowardly Lion as the Se “puer aeternus”. The Tin Man, Almira Gulch, Aunt Em, Wicked Witch of the East, and even the grouchy apple tree and the ruby slippers are all the Fi opposing personality. The Wicked Witch of the West of course, the Ne “witch”, Toto is the Si trickster, and the Wizard is the Te demonic personality. (He actually cites Lenore here, using one of her descriptions of the ENFJ [Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual, p.357] to support his assigning the type to this story).
The first thing I thought, was that it was odd to break up the four central “good” characters, with three of them on the ego-syntonic side, and the Tin Man falling into the “shadow”! (While then assigning slots to the dog and objects such as a tree and the slippers). But he gives his rationale, and it gives a good example of the dynamics between the archetypes.
I guess it figures, if the Scarecrow wanting a brain represents inferior Ti (and the lion wanting courage represents a similarly ‘vulnerable’ Se), then the Tin Man wanting a heart would represent a less than developed Fi. I guess, as OP/backup, it is still close enough to ego consciousness to fit.
Chapter 6 is “The Stretch of Individual Typologies in the Formation of Cultural Attitudes”. The attitudes (“four contrasting stances…as traditional orientations to culture”) outlined by one time Jung analysand Joseph Henderson (who also became the great grandson-inlaw of Charles Darwin) in Cultural Attitudes in Psychological Perspective were the social, religious, aesthetic, and philosophic. These right away remind me of the other similar “four kinds of men” groups put together, beginning with Plato’s version, which of course became the basis of the Keirsey temperaments. We would think “aesthetic”=SP (Artisan), and “philosophical”=NT (Rational). “Religious” was actually the term used for Eduard Spränger’s counterpart for the NF. SJ could be seen as “social” in the sense of “the need for belonging” to a “concrete structure” unit, such as family, etc. though that does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Katherine Briggs, on the other hand, had started trying to develop a similar four type model, and as she began integrating Jung and transforming it into the MBTI model, “Sociables” supposedly evolved into F types, and others think NF is the most “social” temperament. (“Sociability” would actually be covered by the Berens Interaction Styles more than the conative Keirseyan groups).
Beebe doesn’t mention Keirsey’s temperaments, and I’ve never seen him address them, so I really don’t even know where he stands on them. (As a solid Jungian and not focused on the “16 types” theory in itself, he likely doesn’t recognize them).
Instead, he assigns these social attitudes to function-attitude tandems. At first, I thought we were going to get an alternative set of names to the new tandem groups Berens and Montoya recently introduced as part of their “Intentional Styles” model. But rather than tandems of diametric opposite functions (opposite function and attitude), that would make up the spine or arm tandems, these are the opposite function in the same attitude. What would create a “grand tandem” of the Hero and the Demon, or what I once called the “superspine” (or aux/trickster “superarm”, tert./Senex “compensatory arm”, or inferior/OP “contrasexual core”).
(So “Aesthetic” is associated with the “SP” after all, through the function-attitude preference it denotes. It figures to me that Si or SJ would be “religious”. Also, Ne as “aesthetic” as Se, which resonates with me. It’s simply more “abstract”).
It seems the primary representatives of the attitudes are an NFJ or STP (“Customizing” style)’s primary functions, and their “right/left brain alternatives” in the STJ/NFP (“Authenticating”) functions as secondary.
His point is, each function actually needs the other.
In describing the Ni-Si tandem, we get some good descriptions of Ni. It “trusts one’s own interpretation of what is real, fundamental, and of lasting importance over what others may see and think”. He quotes from Henderson on the difference between the two functions: “Introverted intuition perceives the variety and the possibility for development of the inner images, whereas introverted sensing perceives the specific image which defines the psychic activity that needs immediate attention”. (emphasis added). Extraverted intuition is shortly afterward described as spotting “the still unrealized possibilities in things” While I had heard “possible” used for S; particularly Se; I had recently figured that a better term that is trying to convey is “doable”. The possibility is already realized.
Part II, Type and the MBTI;
Chapter 7 Evolving the Eight Function Model.
This is another of the online papers I’ve cited (now at http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/winter08-evolving-the-eight-function-model.pdf)
One thing here I sort of disagree with is his framing it in terms of the functions “expressing themselves”. Like the same functions with the opposite attitudes to his four primary functions will “express themselves in shadowy ways”. Then, he inquires on “the archetypes that carried these repressed shadow functions”.
But the thinking I have adopted is that it is the archetypes themselves, or more accurately, the archetypes filled up with personal experience to become complexes, or “ego-states“, that do the “expressing”. He’s not denying this, but I believe that a greater emphasis on this is really key to really help understand and explain these dynamics. He even a few pages later says “Although the actual casting of specific function-attitudes in the various roles will be governed by the individual’s type, the roles themselves seem to be found in everyone’e psyche. Hence I regard them as archetypal complexes carrying the different functions, and I like to speak of them as typical subpersonalities found in all of us” (p. 122, bold added), and “the role the individual enters when expressing a particular consciousness” (p.126; it’s the individual who does the expressing, through a particular “role”). Basically, the “lesser senses of ‘I'” again, separated by the process of “dissociation”, as Hartman/Zimberoff articulate.
The functions, as forms of “consciousness” as has been established here, are but divisions of reality; the undivided reality that in its totality is not completely accessible to the ego. I compare it basically to the spacetime dimensions of left vs right; back vs forth; up vs down, past vs future, and inside of us vs outside as a direct spatial counterpart to the attitudes. We wouldn’t say “my left went that way” or “my up is looking at a cloudy sky”; but rather, “I went left”, and “I looked up at a cloudy sky”.
Chapter 8 “Type and Archetype” (the spine and its shadow) goes further into the model, and we get some ground already covered, like how he put together his model. We get some more very useful details on the archetypes. The superior function “is the part of the ego we are most ready to claim ownership of, because it is associated with a sense of competence and potential mastery”. Thus associated with the “hero” or “heroine” archetypes. “This is a part of the psyche that welcomes facing challenges, that takes pleasure in recalling its past successful exploits, that revels in its unflagging reliability“.
The shadow archetypes “serve not to realize the aim of the personality, but to defend it, usually by managing people in oppositional and underhanded ways”. The anima “represents the instinct for soulful connection and reflection”. It’s “also a place of great idealism in the psyche. The higher cause or mission that seizes our energy is often associated with this area of the psyche where we are ourselves weak and inept (p.130) Hence, Berens renaming the “role” as “aspirational“.
“The opposing personality is a primary resource of defense, a part of us that tends to lurch forward first when we feel our heroic superior function and its most cherished values to be under attack”. (p132)
The shadows “form the realistic basis of the ‘unfair’ judgments we sometimes experience ourselves receiving from others”. We should then assume “that person has seen my shadow”.
Chapter 9 then deals with the arms and their shadow.
The auxiliary “takes the lead in fostering the development of other people [and hence “parent”]. The tertiary “tends to be acutely aware of its need for the stabilizing influence of another person”, and thus (as the “child”) is “more associated with vulnerability than competence”.
Here’s another groundbreaking revelation. On Mark Hunziker’s site (vtwellness.net), he had eight-function/archetype templates for each type (which have apparently been taken down now. Hunziker, BTW also has a new book now), consisting of tables similar to the one I remade above. Under “Good parent”, it said something about “helpful to others, but not so helpful to self“, which I was always unsure of, since it was usually said to be helpful to self and others. It seems Beebe possibly clarifies this here, by saying the auxiliary function “is not so good at taking care of the third function in oneself, but it operates like a good parent to everyone else…”. (p134) That really clears that up, to me.
He then acknowledges something that always needs to be pointed out; that “not all of the eight functions follow hero psychology in being measurable by their degree of strength“. This is what people need to remember especially when taking “cognitive process” measuring tests, such as Nardi’s “Keys2Cognition”. Only the “Hero” (dominant) we should expect to be necessarily “first” in the place of “strength” order (and even then, the tests are not perfect, and neither is our own self-awareness, or “clarity of preference”). “Rather, the strength, and the kind of strength, a function of consciousness displays is a consequence of the archetypal role associated with it, and archetypes are differently developed in different people” (p.135)
The senex “Takes on the quality of everything that has stood the test of time, and now resists change” (p.137). It often “pulls rank” and “sets limits” when we are “confronted with a person or plan whose basic direction strikes us as fundamentally destructive and dangerous to the things we value”. Here we see where it represents the ego’s desire to “be”, in the world.
He also then mentions the “inflation/deflation” pattern in terms of a “third function crisis”, which brings to mind Lenore’s “Tertiary problem”. To Beebe, this third function “operates as if in a double bind”, which is what we are put into by its shadow, the trickster, which he is discussing here (“so long as it remains unconscious, in which case one is vulnerable to being taken advantage of”. To Lenore, from our conversations, the trickster, like the demon, is more about trauma, or at least a Self-initiated need to grow, later in life).
Part III, the History of Type
Chapter 10 gives a “historical overview” of “Psychological Types”.
This is an excellent summary of Jung’s concepts for those (like me) find his writing too “dense”. It really helps to understand the concepts.
Beebe starts off describing the “common assumption” that the “types” are types of people, when they’re really “types of consciousness, that is, characteristic orientations assumed by the ego in establishing and discriminating an individual’s inner and outer reality”.
Carl Jung developed his theory, basically 100 years ago this decade. He initially equated feeling with extraversion, and thinking with introversion, but was convinced to split these into separate axes.
I find this interesting, because when I first looked at the types, trying to find how they really correspond to the classic four temperaments, which were based on I/E and the other factor being “people vs task focus”, T/F looked like the natural representative of the second axis. In the Arno Profile System I was familiar with, I/E was mapped to FIRO-B’s “expressed behavior”, while people or relationship/task was “wanted behavior” aka “responsiveness”. The temperaments’ different “wanted” poles were even termed as forms of I/E: “responding as an introvert or extrovert” (where I/E is “expressing as” such). So it would here make sense that E and F would be confused (these are the most involved with “people”), along with I and T (basically withdrawn from people and “in the head”). Even today in mainstream MBTI type discussions, we often have to explain why extraverts are not always to be expected to be so “people-oriented”. That’s really more connected with what in Berens’ Interaction Styles, is called “Informing” (in contrast to “Directing”), which for the S types, does actually line up with T/F! (While for the N’s it lines up with J/P, which I also recognized as representing a kind of “responsiveness” scale).
His theories led to the breakup between himself and Freud, for whom, “the study of the unconscious could only be accomplished rationally through a dialectic of thinking and feeling” (where Jung was using intuition. Here we see why mainstream psychology does not respect type theory! It also took on a heavy S “empirical” focus).
In 1916, he was then persuaded to add intuition as a third type of consciousness. At the same time, realizing that sensation was “more than an organ function…subordinate to feeling”, the “irrational axis” of S/N was now complete, in additional to the rational axis of T/F (and the original orientations of I/E). This of course also generated the fourth dichotomy; rational/irrational, itself. Thus, his type model was complete, and Psychological Types published in 1921.
In basic (natural; i.e. without attitudes) function definitions, according to Jung, S “registers reality as real“. This is a great way of putting it. Then, of course, T “defines for us” what we are perceiving “is” there (both S and T involve “what is”, as I’ve been pointing out, and this is how they are differentiated), and F “assigns a value” to it.
Jung found it easier to define these, than the remaining function, intuition. He connected it with time; that things have a past and a future, and thus “come from somewhere and go to somewhere, and you cannot see where they came from and you cannot know where they go to, but you get what Americans call a hunch”. Beebe concludes “the ability to get, and to a certain degree to trust, the hunch is what Jung meant by intuition“. “Intuitives” are “people who are naturally disposed to use their intuition to orient themselves to reality“. (Where the S, again, only appeals to “reality” itself). So this function “divine[s] the implications or possibilities of the thing that has been empirically perceived, logically defined, and discriminatingly evaluated”. (And recall, N’s “possibilities” can be contrasted with S’s “do-ability”, which is like a condensed form of technical intuition in seeing what is immediately “possible” given the current state of the tangible world).
Also mentioned is that Jung did not sustain other psychologists’ “opposition between reason and passion”; “feeling” was a rational process, assigning value just as “rational” as defining and creating logical links, which is “thinking”. So it’s “neither affect (or what we sometimes call ‘feelings’) nor the result of more unconscious emotion-based processes, even though he admitted our complexes are ‘feeling-toned'”. (p148)
Also, “there is an introvert and extravert in each of us”, which is something I have started pointing out, as each of the “ego-states” are basically sense of “I” (like the main ego), and thus can be considered themselves “introverts” or “extraverts”. I/E only tells us which attitude the “hero” state bears.
Introversion, citing Psychological Types, is dependence “on the idea, which shields him from external reality and gives him the feeling of inner freedom”. The term “idea” is used to “express the meaning of a primordial image, that is to say, an archetype. An introverted function, therefore, is one that has turned away from the object and toward the archetypal ‘idea’ that the object might be closely matched to. This archetypal idea, residing in the inner world, can be understood as a profound thought, a value, a metaphorical image, or a model of reality“, depending on the respective introverted function being T, F, N or S, and when orienting something external, “it is in the end, the comparison to the archetype, not the stimulating object of situation itself, that finally commands the attention of the function“. (I would again say it’s the ego-state that bears the “attention”).
To translate, an ‘image’ of “true/false”, “good/bad” (as he elaborates on further, below), an image itself (i.e. “an image of an image“, and there we see Ni’s “meta-perspective” again!), or “what is”.
This is what I’ve been trying to say for awhile now. “Archetypes” are sometimes regarded particularly as N products, and I had been using “images” for general perceptive products, with “ones that match tangible reality” as determining S, and ones that don’t, as N. Images that match how reality once was, but not necessarily match any more determine Si, while ones that still match determine Se. Ne and Ni are distinguished by whether the images are conceived by the object or the subject’s unconscious.
But here, we see all four introverted functions associated with inner “ideas”/”images”. For the judgment functions, rather than them being “images” just to observe; they are the “frameworks” used to determine “right” or “wrong” (true/false or good/bad). Hartzler’s “conscience” would be such an internal image, for Fi (while Ti, Si and Ni are named after active roles: “Analyst”, “Conservator” and “Visionary”).
These “ideas”, being internal are what, as Lenore had put it, are “learned individually or through nature” (where the outer “objects” lie in the “environment”, including being learned “through culture”).
“the ideas introverted thinking dwells on…are notions that may either be sui generis, or if once cultural, long out of circulation, which may seem entirely appropriate to the exact definition of a situation at hand, since they fit better than the currently accepted dictates of extraverted Thinking.” (What comes to mind for me, is liking the idea of the pinnipeds as a separate suborder of carnivore, making a trio of “cat form”, “dog form” and “seal form”, though empirical science has more recently concluded it is really part of the greater dog suborder. It still seems different enough from and equally similar enough to both the felids and canids to be separate). “These ‘new’ thoughts however, take effort to explain, and the introverted thinking function frequently goes on refining its conceptions when the patience of others has been exhausted: it does not know when to stop.”
For me, the 2D “expressed/wanted” matrix is the [“impersonal”—T/”profound thought”] “image” or “idea” that I’ve measured the “truth” of comparative typology systems by. (Which are metaphorical objects. And while once more popular, is barely known about today. Metrical symmetry is a primordial archetype, being it’s what mathematics [number theory] relies on, and can be seen in visual reflections, and reflections of reflections).
When Keirsey claimed NF was “Choleric”, for instance, it was obvious it didn’t fit the image, as the NF’s behavior seemed more low in expressiveness and high in responsiveness, where the classic Choleric temperament is the opposite. Mapping Keirsey’s factors to e/w, with cooperative/pragmatic as “expressed”, and “annoying/contagious” (structure/motive) as “wanted”, then it fit, with NT as Choleric, and NF as Phlegmatic. (But not in surface “social” behaviors—which are the Interaction Styles, but rather leadership and action [i.e. “conative” as per Berens], matching both of those models to the multi-level FIRO-based matrix [i.e. via “Inclusion” and “Control”] that made up my complete inner “image”).
For Si, the person’s happiness at a meal might be affected by “a dissonance with the archetype of a good meal that has been constellated by the excessive stimulation” of the internal body sensations or the audibility of others at the table.
For Ni, “unconscious images acquire the dignity of things” (Jung). It naturally “apprehends the images rising from the a priori inherited foundations of the unconscious” (where Ne’s images arise from looking at objects), and thus rather than thinking about, experimentally comparing, or feeling the archetype that arises in relation to a situation, Ni “becomes directly aware of the archetype as an image, as if ‘seeing’ it”. Later, (p.184, citing Jung) it “peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image”, and is “directed to the inner image”, and observes “how the picture changes, unfolds and finally fades” (and is the consciousness most consistently devalued in contemporary Western culture).
When Fi feels “bad”, “it is feeling the entire archetypal category of ‘bad’” (or as he later puts it, an “archetypal standard of appropriateness”, often represented in dreams as a “judge”, p173, and that Fi “works art the archetypal (not personal) level, compels us to feel the rightness or wrongness of images” p221). So this shows that “archetypes can be felt every bit as much as they can be thought about, directly intuited or experience somatically”. Jung stated “Fundamental ideas, like God, freedom and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas”.
This of course reminds us that we all do this, not just FP types (or mature TJ’s or TP’s and FJ’s only in “shadow” mode). So he says “Perhaps we all get into our introverted feeling when we are depressed”. The way I express the typological differentiation of the function, is that for FP’s it will naturally figure in their “heroic” or “parental” ego states, and for TJ’s, in the “tertiary or inferior states. For TP’s and FJ’s, it will figure in shadow ego-states, to the point, that they will likely only be associated with “general” or more technically speaking, “undifferentiated” uses.
Depression, reaction to imbalances of power, and other forms of subjective valuation will be common experiences to them, but not connected with any specific typological state, unless those shadow complexes happen to be constellated. (And of course, there’s also Lenore’s “Crow’s Nests” [brain-lateral “alternatives”] and “Double Agents” as possible roles for them).
Also, p202 Fi “tends to be more thoroughly original and thus appear ‘quirkier’ than its extraverted sibling. Fe can be charming, but not usually through originality and rough-edged sincerity”. This will also be similar to Ti being “quirkier” than Te, and thus showing “quirkiness” as a common “P” trait.
For the extraverted functions, Fe, of course, involves the “feelings—that is, the emotions and prejudices—of others, and often society at large” (it also “seeks concrete gratitude and validation”). Te “tends to become enamored of established ideas, frequently neglecting the duty to think freshly about what is being expressed”, so that “there is no brake, against insisting that these ideas should given everyone’s behavior”, and be made [Jung]: “into the ruling principle not only for himself, but for his whole environment”. (this so brings to mind my work environment!)
Se can be so “in the moment” in the reality “out there”, that it might not recognize other things that may be going on, or “notice that someone is about to say or do something unexpected”. (I didn’t realize this about Se. p.185 also describes it: “objects are valued in so far as they can excite sensations the sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation produced by their objective qualities”).
Ne is compared to a traffic signal, with a red, yellow and green aspects, telling us to proceed, proceed with caution or stop. Other types “may not perceive the presence of any signal at all and thus cannot understand why the person led by such intuitions is rushing ahead, stopping or pausing when he does”. This I can identify with, in dealing with S types, particularly SJ’s, who try to impose their own sense of order on me, thinking I won’t know when to stop doing something they think is potentially dangerous, apart from their way of thinking or doing things. Of course, it’s true that the perspective’s “failure to heed sensation cues can undermine its claim to have ‘seen’ anything at all”.
In leading into the way functions develop (in the process of “individuation”), he next discusses Jungs’ treatment of “undifferentiated functions”, which is when they are “fused” with each other. Like the “general” feeling of depression any type can have, when not wed to one of the complexes. It contains the “products” of all the functions; a “sensory” feeling of the emotion of pain, which then leads to the “bad” assessment of “feeling”, and includes negative “thinking”, and as I call it, a negative “story” made up of “ideas”.
He mentions along the way that von Franz indicated that “one can choose to develop the second or third function next” after the dominant. (This touches upon the dispute I have seen, as to whether Jung considered the auxiliary and tertiary to be “two auxiliaries”).
He later says “My model implies that development of all eight function-attitudes will involve a significant engagement with each of the archetypal complexes, and a differentiation of each function out of its archetypal manifestation” (p.157). He acknowledges that shadow function-attitudes, in borderline and narcissistic conditions, “can be associated with archetypal defenses of the Self” (which is basically what Lenore had said regarding the Trickster and Demon, from Kalsched’s usage of the complexes). I’m assuming, that otherwise, they are defenses of the ego. The eight complexes are basically part of the “ego-structure”.
He then cites the contributions of several people, including Jungian writer I. N. Marshall, that S/N are “functions of the given”, and T/F as “functions of option”. Willeford insisting on “the primacy of feeling in the hierarchy of functions” (because it is the function that discriminates affect).
He later hails Berens as “a unifying leader in the types movement, integrating multiple approaches…into an intellectually consistent framework”, and then her and Chris Montoya for their “cognitive styles lens” (by now, renamed “Intentional Styles”).
Chapter 11 is on Jung’s “Red Book”. I didn’t know anything about this book, but it of course gives more insight into Jung’s theory. This is where he recognized both T and F as “rational”, and made the irrational functions of equal value to them.
The most interesting thing (to me) that we get here is a treatment on Jung’s type, which has actually been a source of much debate in the online type community. Beebe reveals that Jung was in fact an INTJ, but one whose “thinking was never his true superior function. Rather, his using it as if it were a superior function was a ‘falsification of type’, a not uncommon consequence of ‘abnormal external influences'” (p171). Jung himself has often been ambiguous on this. People who see his Thinking as superior (and introverted) would then surmise he was actually an ISTP, with a strong tertiary Ni yielding his “abstract” focus. Others, thinking he had a primary Ti would say INTP, or if wanting to hold onto Ni dominance, even INFJ .
Chapter 12 is “Psychological Types on Freud and Jung”
Freuds’ “types”, of course were his stages of psychosexual development (oral, anal and phallic, which he developed into a typology of character).
“To be unaware of the types is to risk unnecessarily pathologizing what may actually be adaptive and healthy”.
The rest of the chapter deals with stuff like their relationship to the anima.
Part IV applications of type
Chapter13 Difficulties in the recognition of psychological type
Discusses Jo Wheelwright and himself
Points out his auxiliary Ti is trying to “take care of us” by getting us to draw the stick figure of his type, to visualize both the type theory and the man explaining it to us in the terms he has found most helpful. Whether we feel taken care of depends in part on our own typology.
(So with me, figures I make, while aiming to help others understand, are first, visualizations of the technical “images” ⦅logical “archetypes”⦆ that I like. I then try to “cake care of others” by throwing the theories they are illustrating out there as a possible ways to look at things. I’ve noticed that I don’t always want to to help people with Ti directly. I tend to assume or at least expect them to already know; like to have the same sort of internal “map” of the subway or streets that I do, like when we’re at 34th St. and they ask if the train is going to 42nd (the next stop on every line, and the information must be given and the person make the decision to get on or not in a short time before the doors close). Also, having to explain what I have learned people are slow to understand; so again, it would be easier if they already did).
When making a type assessment we need to take into account the archetypal stance that accompanies the deployment of a particular function. (p201)
With patients, the analysts often have to distinguish inbetween the way the patient asserts self, and the way the patient takes care of another (p203) This of course will determine dominant vs auxiliary.
When in the grip of complexes, this can produce “a reduction of the mental level, such that the energy that normally attaches itself to the superior and auxiliary functions, allowing them to surface, is absent. When these functions are not active, the tertiary and inferior functions emerge (p204).
“The person who constantly obsesses about small feeling matters, finding other people’s feelings an endless burden, may not be an extraverted feeling type, for whom other people’s feelings naturally matter and are thus relatively easy to deal with, but someone with inferior extraverted feeling, that is, an introverted thinking type, who is in constant danger of ignoring the feelings of others.” (p 205, emphasis added)
“To discover a patient’s type, it is better to wait until the patient shows an original gift for accurately construing or managing some aspect of what comes up in therapy, rather than attempt to ‘type’ the person when he or she is manifesting a collective persona that could belong to anybody in the patient’s situation, or when the patient is so evidently suffering from psychopathology that a syndrome has all but replaced the person.”
Here’s one I’ve noted: “Introversion when used consciously, is not as easy to discriminate, and thus the functions are easily confused with each other.” (p206)
Chapter 14 An Archetypal Model of the Self In Dialogue, which was another paper he had online, but the link I had provided was one where you had to subscribe to a journal.
Again supporting the “lesser senses of I”+, we have mention of “multiple centers of agency/awareness” and “splinter psyche”, which is “part persons in our psyche”. “Each subpersonality has its own emotional stance”. (p210)
“Feeling is often (even by Jung) spoken as if it were a synonym for valuing, but it is not only function associated with making a valuation; it is merely the function that places the highest premium on the psychological act of assigning value.” (p211. While “‘Thinking’ places the highest value on the logical processes of defining, conceptually discriminating, and reasonably deploying ideas. ‘Intuition’ places the highest value on establishing potential connections between things, even when such connection seem to fly in the face of reason. ‘Sensation’ puts the highest value on the efficient management and sensuous appreciation of things in time and space”).
Si “empirical observation of other is used to enhance the experience of self” (p213)
He pretty much in this chapter just reiterates the eight archetypes, and the arm/spine function tandems, with the diagrams, and discusses Woody Allen’s Husband and Wives.
Finally, 15 Identifying the American Shadow (typological reflections on the 1992 LA riots).
Now this is an interesting topic!
He says Fi is “traditionally prevalent in American black culture, but is sometimes suppressed in favor of” Te, in order to “adapt to the prevailing values of economically empowered whites”.
Being that there is experiential and even statistical evidence of ISTJ being the prevalent type of people in the black community, any “prevalent” Fi likely being observed would be a strong tertiary, with aux. Te often suppressed in them by the dominant society. It seems to come naturally in the majority of the people, and thus the whole environment. (It certainly comes out amongst each other, and especially in families from parents). It’s the larger society that has suppressed that function in the subjugated people (and then judges us for not using it enough, basically!)
It’s what I talk about all the time in the political posts; only whites have “rights”, and are to be given the opportunities to “pull themselves up”. Many blacks want to, but are forever remaining frustrated (and then the society uses this to prove its stereotypes of blacks being all lazy and refusing to take opportunities available. Which might even be shaping the perception that there are a lot of ISFP’s, which are often portrayed as “dreamy” types, with the ISF “Interaction Style” being a passive “Behind the Scenes” [Phlegmatic]. Most blacks are clearly “Chart the Course” [serious, dutiful Melancholics]).
Any Se (as he suggests next) is likely “opposing” (i.e. dealing with all the massive obstructions faced).
Basically, white society is agreed to be dominantly Te. People watching the attack on the truck driver basically reflected a demonic Fe, “that is so prevalent in the white collective”. Viewers simply “put themselves in the young driver’s place”. (This, to my understanding, is really Fi. The question to ask is “who‘s doing the feeling?” If it’s the “object”, meaning the other person, it’s extraverted. If it’s the subject, then that would be them “putting themselves in their place”, and thus doing the feeling for them, which would be “introverted”.
You could say it is what the “shadowy” Fe is shadowing to begin with. Many whites have played off of a portrayal of blacks as menacing beasts, clearly indicating feelings of a kind of “inferiority” ⦅morally, socially, etc.⦆, which they then project onto the blacks as lacking in morals or intelligence, what they supposedly excel with, in brute strength. Which also might be a projection of “childlike tertiary”, or “senex” Se [think Limbaugh’s “they’re angry…”], depending on whether the particular portion of the collective Te dom. is Ni or Si. aux. which both figure strongly in American society, though ESTJ usually granted as the dominant type).
The inferior projection of Fi is what the nation “let[s] blacks carry, keeping ‘them’ wherever possible, in an ‘inferior’ position, where ‘their’ feelings can be despised or at least selectively honored”.
Yet this is not society’s darkest shadow. “That shadow is carried by the smiling, sinister white man at the base of the American character, the man with the demonic extraverted feeling”, which is what some blacks call “the man”, as in the “series of undermining moves that finally provoked the conflagration”, such as the actions of the police chief, and the change of venue of the trial to Simi Valley for a ‘fairer’ hearing by peers.
I would say the Demonic Fe is also conveyed through the conservative ‘moralism’, which has long seen itself as “exceptional” (there’s that narcissism we’ve identified with the demonic personality!), and with blacks as destroying the civilization (as the alt-right will openly profess believing, and the rest of conservativism conveying this indirectly through the moral and economic rhetoric). Clearly, as I’ve long been saying, they are projecting their own destructive, morally undermining pathologies onto others! (e.g. their history of violence and crime, which they try to sweep under the rug, focusing on their goodness in contrast to what they see blacks on the news doing in urban areas now).
Recall also that the Demonic Personality, according to the Kalsched use, involves the real or perceived disintegration of the ego. So it’s the realization that white male Christian dominance is coming to an end (hence what they call “destroying their nation or civilization), that naturally is what’s constellating this archetype so strongly in the first place.
So inferior Fi is also projected onto blacks in the form of the total character judgment they often level at “the community”, where “black lives apparently don’t ‘matter’ to blacks themselves”, because we have shootings of each other in the cities, and ‘lay around’ poor, “whining” about “racism”, and “waiting for handouts”, instead of just “pulling our bootstraps”. Again, this purportedly “colorblind” sort of judgment really can’t see its own shadow of maintaining all the classic racist stereotypes, and bending all the relevant “facts” to make them fit; but everyone else can see it, leading to the defensive “race card!” cry when it’s called out.
(This Fi judgment is basically from them looking at blacks and saying “if I were in that situation, I would just pull myself out of it [or in fact, I —or my grandparents were, and in fact did pull ourselves out if it], and so they should do the same. If I were acting as they do, it would be because I would have to be feeling ‘entitled‘, and so that must be what they feel”).
Using both attitudes of Feeling, they are judging us inside and out, but it’s really a projection of their own sins, that they have rationalized and tried to hide behind their achievements (superior Te) as if it justifies it (confusing a Thinking with a Feeling judgment; what’s “true” must be “good”).
So this is a must have for anyone who wants Beebe’s full treatment all in one volume. Whether one agrees with the way he types stories, or some of the descriptions of functions or archetypes, it still gives the best view of his concepts.