Skip to content

A Start to Understanding Complexes

April 18, 2014

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

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

So not too long ago, (https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/a-quantum-explanation-of-the-soul/#comment-1247) I cited this book which put things in an interesting way that really helps us understand what these parts of the ego are.

Ego Strengthening and Ego Surrender p.9
Diane Zimberoff, M.A. and David Hartman, MSW
http://wellness-institute.org/images/Journal_3-2_Ego_Surrender.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

But the concept of the multiple “I”s in everyone makes it seem not so strange at all. They are the same “ego states” we all have, but they just “dissociate” them more, where most people don’t.
Complexes can also become “autonomous”, where they take executive control at certain times. The best given for this is addictions. One “I” pledges to never touch the stuff again, but then some other “I” begins the familiar reasoning “just one more; just one, then I’ll stop”, “no one will ever know”, etc. Then, it’s successive “I”s keep pushing it further, until one finally says “heck with it”, and just indulges.

There’s also the other condition I recently mentioned (https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/racial-rhetoric-becoming-worse-it-seems/#comment-1541), “malignant narcissism”, where to maintain a “persona” of being a good person who’s victimized by others (when he’s really the one victimizing those he’s blaming, and they are simply at most fighting him back), and are yet confident and self-assured, the people like this experience “extreme inner dissociation, then fall into an infinite regression of being in denial about being in denial, which is to say, they are continually hiding from themselves.” They “seem confident and self-assured, but are, in reality, covering deep insecurities and fears through an inflated self-image.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I’ve also seen it pointed out that it’s all about our social identity. We stand in “the light” of adaptation to social expectations, and this is what “casts” our “shadow”. That’s why an archetype that has a negative connotation, such as “weakness” (such as the Victim) is disowned. It doesn’t “look good” to social expectations. An angry complainer we do assume looks a little better, but then, it gets quickly called out as “whining”, which is a pejorative basically dismissing it again as a “Victim”.

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

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

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

So this is like the “meta-‘I'” that pushes our dominant world-view, to the near exclusion of everything else. It then perceives affronts from the 6th function, so it’s almost as if the ego has so wrapped itself up in the dominant attitude, that both the dominant and auxiliary take on it’s character. This would be why there has sometimes been a debate (among those who try to really get back to the heart of Jung), as to which attitude the auxiliary should be in, or whether the tertiary (which is naturally the dom. attitude) is really a “second auxiliary”, and as prime example, what Jung’s type really was. “NiTi”, TiSe[Ni] NiFe[Ti], TiNe, etc.
(In other words, a person for whom this is happening to a lot may think his Senex function is his auxiliary, but since the Senex is the same attitude as the dominant, and the auxiliary must be the opposite attitude, then he —or those helping him with his type— may think that function is his tertiary instead. This will end up changing one of the letters of his type code, like an INTP thinking he’s ISTP because of an apparent “TiNi”. I never had this problem, because my auxiliary and true tertiary {NeSi} are so strong, Ni ended up as my weakest function).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements
16 Comments
  1. Reblogged this on Dandy's Dream Review and commented:
    This is a very good explanation of the “Ego Complex”

  2. How the Inferior complex feels to the ego

    The complexes are minature sense of “I” that operate beside the ego (the main “I”). Hence, the way to begin to understand how the undifferentiated functions will come to play in each type, is to think of the ego looking at other “parts” of themselves, that hypothetically would “use” the other functional perspective.

    The part of Sensing types that would put overall “storylines” over point-by-point data (like to derive meanings before all the facts are certain) feels like it is leading them into uncertainty, unclearness and arbitrariness; perhaps even a crazy fantasy world

    The part of iNtuitive types that would put point-by-point data over larger meanings (like to have to just “accept that ‘it is what it is’“) feels like it is bombarding them with information that has no overall meaning; or being “fatalistic”

    The part of Feeling types that would put impersonal relationships between objects over how things relate to people feels cold and inhuman to them

    The part of thinking types that would put personal affects over the proper impersonal relationships between objects feels weak, vulnerable and out of control to them

    Again, the “type” with the differentiated function is really the dominant. So the opposite perspective will be associated with the inferior.

    The auxiliary perspective with respect to the tertiary may work similarly, but it won’t be as pronounced, since the auxiliary is not the ego itself, but really part of yet another complex (the “parent” or “caretaker”) that is simply second in line after the ego, for the sake of balance.

  3. Here’s another way to frame how the different archetypes come to play for each type. In this view, it should be pointed out that this is not necessarily how the ego will react to the products of each function, which can be recognized when it fits into the ego’s dominant world view. It is when the complexes are constellated, that they will be felt by the eperspective of the associated function.

    Dominant ego types:

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ITP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Auxiliary types:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. Recently going over Beebe Integrity In Depth, I notice on p. 87 he points out:
    “Finding the anima was for Jung like finding the possibility of having an Anne Elliot within [From Jane Austen’s Persuasion, who maintained both “amiability” in going along with her family’s rejection of her fiancé, but then maintained the “constancy” to still be in love with him later], to manage the chaotic world of internal object relations in a conscious and coordinated way.”

    I suddenly took note of the concept of “object” relations, and this helped me understand “Jung often spoke of the anima as his bridge to the Self”, (or “the unconscious”), as I had always heard. Or, “the face we show to the unconscious” as it was specifically put to me once. This mirroring the Persona being “the face we show to the [conscious] outer world”.

    “Objects” are images of people that remain within us, and we often filter our relations with other people through. The theory [of Melanie Klein] focuses on infancy, and a “good breast” that satisfies the child, in contrast to a “bad breast” that forms when nursing is withheld.

    I’m not sure whether “objects” would be classified as kinds of “complexes” themselved; they seem opposite, in a way. Complexes, as stated above, are miniscule senses of “I” within the psyche; like alternate “subjects”. “Object” is in this sense the opposite of “subject”; you know, like in “objective/subjective”. So I’m not sure if these would be considered unconscious senses of “I”; they’re more like unsconscious senses of “you” or “they” that get projected out.

    This helps understand stuff I’ve been experiencing internally, and also express how this works for all types through the inferior function.

    Like one internal “object” for me is of my father speaking to me about “life” and dealing with people, often all coldly and authoritatively.
    So this “object” comes up anytime I hear authoritative pontificating on something, or justification of the way things are.

    So what happens, is [as a TP] I respond to this inner object through a Fe anima that introjects the values expressed by others, and is totally hypersensitive to their expressed emotional states, feeling obligated by them.

    But, if they run counter to ego’s Ti sense of order, then I resist, but still with this heavy sense of guilt (which fuels stronger and stronger resistance), and projecting the internal critical father object onto them.
    (I’m not projecting some disowned “authoritativeness” onto them, as I wondered; I’m projecting the whole “object” itself, not the behaviors associated with it. Fe introjects by nature of being extraverted and thus “introjecting” of others’ values).

    So when the anima feels threatened by object, I figure the Hero/Persona then tries to fight against the object in the outer world with logic, but this doesn’t work in the inner world.

    So to extend this to how it must work for the other types:

    TJ Persona approaches the external world with external sense of logical order. Fi anima approaches inner objects by personally relating, and the person feels their “integrity” is being questioned. Ego resists by sticking with logical decision, which “speaks for itself”.

    FP Persona approaches external world through personally identifying. Anima approaches internal objects through external sense of logical order. Because of the dominant worldview, they might be less likely to resist, and thus go along with Te.

    FJ Persona approaches external world through external sense of interpersonal order. Anima approaches internal objects through internal sense of logical order. They may or may not resist, depending on the objective standard. Ti may see it as compatible with its sense of order, and then they will internalize the external threat.

    SP Persona approaches outer world through focus on emergent tangible detail. Anima approaches internal objects through storehouse of invisible patterns. [not really sure how they react to Ni, but I guess it might be similar to how Si reacts].

    SJ Persona approaches outer objects through focus on internal storehouse of tangible details. Anima approaches inner objects through emergent invisible patterns. Ego will feel exposed to nebulous random information, and will resist by sticking with known facts.

    NP Persona approaches outer world through emergent external patterns and meanings. Anima approaches inner objects through internal storehouse of tangible facts. Ego will feel bound, and demand freedom.

    NJ Persona will approach outer objects through internal storehouse of intangible patterns and meanings. Anima will approach inner objects through emergent tangible detail. Ego will feel it has no framework to understand things through.

  5. Redoing two of the comments above, with my new, even simpler way of defining the functions (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/taking-it-again-from-the-top-functions-from-their-generic-roots)

    Arm and spine complexes:

    Dominant ego types:

    ESP
    The ego prefers to pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    ENP
    The ego prefers to pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    ETJ
    The ego prefers to determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    EFJ
    The ego prefers to determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    ISJ
    The ego prefers to pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    INJ
    The ego prefers to pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    ITP
    The ego prefers to determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    IFP
    The ego prefers to determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of inferiority

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of opposition

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of fear of the destruction of the ego

    Auxiliary types:

    ISP
    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    INP
    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    ITJ
    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    IFJ
    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    ESJ
    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    ENJ
    The part of himself that would pay more attention to internally derived unconscious inferences is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to what currently, tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to inferences of intangible interconnections between objects is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would pay more attention to an internally stored sense of what tangibly exists is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    ETP
    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    EFP
    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of support or “parenting”

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of finding relief or childlike dependence

    The part of himself that would determine good/bad by a culturally learned or objective standard is tied up with feelings of negation (likely from ego being too one sided)

    The part of himself that would determine true/false by a naturally learned subjective standard is tied up with feelings of being double bound or a need to reverse expectations

    Anima as dealing with internal “object” relations

    ITP Persona approaches the internal world with a naturally learned sense of true/false. Fe anima approaches inner objects with a culturally learned sense of good/bad. If this runs counter to ego’s Ti sense of truth, then I might resist, but still with this heavy sense of guilt.

    ETJ Persona approaches the external world with culturally learned sense of true/false. Fi anima approaches inner objects with a naturally learned sense of “good/bad”, and the person feels their “integrity” is being questioned. Ego resists by sticking with correct/incorrect judgment, which “speaks for itself”.

    IFP Persona approaches external world through a naturally learned sense of “good/bad”. Anima approaches internal objects through a culturally learned sense of correct/incorrect. Because of the dominant worldview, they might be less likely to resist, and thus go along with Te; hence the Supine’s “service”.

    EFJ Persona approaches external world through culturally learned sense of good/bad. Anima approaches internal objects through a naturally learned sense of true/false. They may or may not resist, depending on the objective standard. Ti may see it as compatible with its sense of truth, and then they will internalize the external threat.

    ESP Persona approaches outer world through a focus on what exists tangibly. Anima approaches internal objects through a storehouse of intangible and unconscious inferences

    ISJ persona approaches outer objects through a focus on internal storehouse of what’s known to tangibly exist. Anima approaches inner objects through inference of intangible interconnections. Ego will feel exposed to nebulous random information, and will resist by sticking with known facts.

    ENP Persona approaches outer world through inferences of intangible interconnections. Anima approaches inner objects through internal storehouse of what’s known to tangibly exist. Ego will feel bound, and demand freedom.

    INJ Persona will approach outer objects through internal a storehouse of intangible and unconscious inferences. Anima will approach inner objects through a focus on what exists tangibly. Ego will feel it has no framework to understand things through.

  6. Here’s an old list for the lower five from my archetypes page http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html redone with the new terms:

    The emotionally positive sense of authoritatively supporting others is best captured by the rational mind through:
    Se (ISxP): Aiding others in new or current tangible experiences
    Si (ESxJ): Teaching others according to a mental canister of tangible experience
    Ne (INxP): Showing others the interconnections between objects
    Ni (ENxJ): Showing others unarticulated perspectives from unconscious impressions
    Te (IxTJ): Directing others in what’s correct according to the environment (of objects)
    Ti (ExTP): Teaching others what’s correct/true from models they have subjectively learned
    Fe (IxFJ): Instructing others on what’s “good” according to the environment (of people)
    Fi (ExFP): Teaching others what’s “good” by one’s own personal relation to situations

    The emotionally positive sense of child-like relief is best captured by the rational mind through:
    Se (ENxJ): Looking to be led by others in new tangible experiences
    Si (INxP): Nostalgic enjoyment of learned tangible experiences (memories, especially childhood)
    Ne (ESxJ): childlike enthusiasm in exploring interconnections between objects
    Ni (ISxP): childlike exploring of perspectives from unconscious impressions
    Te (ExFP): Finding relief in organizing by what’s correct according to the environment
    Ti (IxFJ): Childlike relishing of what’s correct/true from models they have subjectively learned
    Fe (ExTP): childlike enthusiasm in ordering what’s “good” according to the environment
    Fi (IxTJ): Find relief through internal sense of “good”, and personally relating to situations

    Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:

    ISxJ’s might feel inferior in following external intanguble interconnections.
    INxJ’s might feel inferior in current tangible experiences.
    IxTP’s might feel inferior in being judged “bad” by others when their internal judgments are misunderstood
    IxFP’s might feel inferior in being “incorrect” regarding external logical organization.
    ESxP’s might feel inferior (spaced out) by internal intangible impressions such as symbolism.
    ENxP’s might feel inferior when it comes to internally referencing learned tangible experience
    ExTJ’s might feel inferior in being internally “bad” when their dominant judgments affect others
    ExFJ’s might feel inferior in being “incorrect” regarding their internal logical understanding.

    (How we project it onto others is in seeing them as “calling us out” in those areas).

    OPPOSING PERSONALITY COMPLEX
    We feel negative emotions of our dominant perspective being obstructed by things in the opposite orientation. Then, we become stubborn about them. The complex then defends the dominant perspective in that opposite orientation.

    ISxJ’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about current tangible reality.
    INxJ’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about external intangible interconnections
    IxTP’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about what’s the enviromment deems correct or incorrect
    IxFP’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about external standards of good/bad
    ESxP’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about the tangible experiences they have learned
    ENxP’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about internal unconscious (intangible) impressions
    ExTJ’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about an internal sense of true/false
    ExFJ’s Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about an internal sense of good/bad

    (We project it by seeing others as obstructing us with the function: “you’re obstructing me, so I’ll oppose you”; but it’s really from us being too immersed in our dominant orientation, which can only carry us but so far).

    WITCH/SENEX (“critical parent”)
    We feel negative emotions connected to extreme crankiness, as like an authoritarian figure whose position is negated, and then become “critical and disgruntled” (Berens) about the associated perception or judgment perspective. “Parent” others negatively in a limiting, authoritarian fashion.

    ISxP’s Feel negated in their storehouse tangible experience.
    INxP’s Feel negated in internal unconscious (intangible) impressions
    IxTJ’s Feel negated in universal “true/false” judgments they have learned subjectively
    IxFJ’s Feel negated in universal “good/bad” judgments they have learned subjectively
    ESxJ’s Feel negated in current sensory experience (what things look like, etc).
    ENxJ’s Feel negated in looking at the interconnections between objects.
    ExFP’s Feel negated in or become disgruntled about external standards of “good/bad”
    ExTP’s Feel negated in or become disgruntled about external standards of “true/false”

    In each case, we project it by saying “I’M the authority on…” the perspective, and see other people or situations as negating us. The Senex is what personifies the human drive to develop an ego; to be a conscious entity, through its dominant perspective. When this become too one-sided, it will harden into a brittle ego-centricity around the power of “I know.”, which constellates the Senex, which is what we then project onto others.

    TRICKSTER
    Emotions connected with what we don’t want to hear! We feel “bound”, and then, in a rebellious fashion, try to turn the tables by using it for deceiving, double-binding, trapping others

    ISxP’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in intangible interconnections between objects
    INxP’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in current tangible reality and use it to trap others or be silly
    IxTJ’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in external stadards of good/bad, and use them to trap others
    IxFJ’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in external standards of true/false
    ESxJ’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in internal impressions, and trap others into confirming them
    ENxJ’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in comparing tangible experience to what was learned
    ExTP’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in internal good/bad judgments, and use them to trap others
    ExFP’s Might feel ‘double-bound’ in internal true/false judgments and use them to be silly

    In each case, we project it by seeing others as trapping us, and then try to trap them in return “i.e. “reverse the expectations”). Its double binds will in trauma, block off damaging data, and in later growth will force us to grow past our preferred perspective.

    DEMONIC PERSONALITY COMPLEX
    Carries emotions associated with evil, either someone trying to destroy the ego (real or apparently, imagined), or the ego in turn trying to destroy a [perceived] threat.

    ISxJ’s unconscious impressions are unknown and run totally counter to the tangible structure needed
    INxJ’s comparing current experience to what is internally known is irrelevant, and likely haunting
    IxTP’s universalistic good/bad judgments are a guilt-provoking issue we feel threatened by
    IxFP’s internal true/false judgments totally depersonalize life
    ESxP’s Intangible interconnections in current reality are highly irrelevant
    ENxP’s Current tangible reality might feel threatening
    ExTJ’s group standards of good/bad might be manipulated for personal goals (and at the expense of real harmony)
    ExFJ’s external standards of true/false are a necessary evil done in a huff to accomplish goal of social harmony

    In each case, we project it by our ego seeing other people or situations as threatening to destroy us, and then try to “destroy” them in return. In trauma, it too, like the Trickster will block off damaging data.

  7. Ego states and the Trinity

    So realizing that the ego of every human soul is divided into these lesser “I’s” (which are like sub-personalities, especially when overly dissociated into a disorder), then shouldn’t this make it not hard to understand the supposed “three Persons” in God?
    I’m sure if I knew about the ego states concept back when I wrote my treatment of the Trinity: http://www.erictb.info/triune.html I would have held that up as the solution. I did actually allude to the concept (not knowing it in such developed form) when addressing the “There must have been three Persons since past eternity so they could have each other to love” theory and stating: “If one likens the Persons to the inner constitution of humans, then the philosophy becomes unnecessary. In this ‘psychological model’, this self-love exists in everyone and is not unique to God, (when you love yourself , who is loving, and who is being loved?)…”
    These “inner constitutents” are basically what we’re calling the “ego states”. I did not divert enough to read up on that at the time; figuring it was obvious that we do sometimes “detach” from ourselves and talk to ourselves. Having a developed “ego state”/”complex” theory at my disposal, it would have strengthened the argument and I could have put a bit more emphasis on that.

    However, I was only giving that as a rough example of how you could have such multipersonal dialogue in one person or being.
    I would still say that Father, Son and Spirit are not exactly the same things as human complexes or ego states. Since God is Creator, there is no “dissociation” dynamic in Him. That comes from humans being created as limited egos that cannot process all of reality, but God is of course not limited like that. The ego states are “complexes”, which are personalized “archetypes”, which hail from the unconscious. God is not unconscious of anything, of course.
    Recall, from the Zimberoff paper, ego states develop from our growth, as we learn new responses to events in the world, such as common emotions like being mad or glad.

    There are such technical “states” in God, such as Him being angry at sin, and yet still loving man. This is even easier to understand, when we realize the overlap between these two states was rather brief (AD 33-70, when the Law was still there with its divine anger and condemnation, yet Christ had died and began preparing for the Law to be replaced by Grace), and now the love of Grace has spread to all of mankind. This eliminates the apparent contradiction captured by a meme or two I see on Facebook, where God says [to paraphrase] “I love you, and you better love me back or I’ll burn you forever”).
    The two “states” were not really within God’s ‘ego’ at all, but were rather His response to man placing himself under the condemnation of the knowledge of good and evil (which is what necessitated the Law, in addition to man feeling a need to dissociate and unconsciously project evil within himself onto others, which is apart of the complex dynamic).

    While Jung attributes to God Himself a “shadow” (he’s probably using that to try to address all the unGod-like things attributed to God in the Old Testament, much like Marcionism split the OT’s “YHWH” off as a separate “god” altogether), God Himself tells us directly that He has no “shadow” (James 1:17, which would basically correspond to part of what we call the archetype of “The Shadow” in humans, where we hide from others, and even ourselves, evil we disown).

    So the differentiation of the Son (into a separate, distinct “I” who could pray to the Father) was not “dissociation”, it was simply taking on the limited awareness of humanity in being born (incarnated) as a man. As the linked essay points out, the differentiation here is more analogous to us being souls, which are represented in the material world by our bodies.
    He thus did not disown the God of the Old Testament, but instead fixed it for us to be reconciled with Him.

    Then, there’s the pre-incarnate Son (or “Word”/Logos) and the Spirit. These aren’t dissociated states either; as the essay argues, they’re just the different manifestations of God’s revelation to earth. The Word (which the Chinese even link to their “Tao”) is about God’s action in the physical realm (Note: Tao does seem to be more about the created order, or “nature” itself, which would not be a part of the divine nature, though Chinese religion probably mixes the two anyway), and the Spirit is what communicates directly to us internally.
    These aren’t “ego states” or separate “I’s” within God (though what the traditional Trinity doctrine teaches assumes they are; but note, they are never attributed as talking to each other, and the “Us” of Gen.1:26 and one or two other places is what’s taken as evidence that notion, but scripture never interprets it this way).

    Then, there’s “modalism”, which I would say had the right idea, apart from the incarnation. (Though, modern Oneness [“Jesus only”] charismatics tend to split the humanity of Jesus from “the divine Son”, and basically end up with something in practice nearly identical to psilanthropism, or the ancient unitarian doctrine that the human Jesus became divine when merging with the Word).

    So again, we have dissociated ego states because of our being creatures embedded in a reality we cannot see whole, but rather are forced to “split” in various ways. God is above this, so you can’t call Father, Son and Spirit “complexes” but the Word was differentiated into a separate, human “I”

  8. Another thought, which I’ve been keeping forgetting to post, is that “ego-states” are not just complexes associated with functions, but even temperaments are ego-states as well. For just as complexes like the Puer or Senex are personalized “archetypes” (ruling patterns), so are the classic temperaments familiar ruling patterns.

    I realized this when distinguishing between times when I’m my normal surface peaceful and passive “Supine”, and other times when I’m the opposite, critical and agressive “Choleric”. These two are ego states, as described above (senses of “I” that we can switch from one to the other when different circumstances come up). When Im Choleric, I call it being “in Control mode”, and it’s usually some issue of “control” or personal “boundaries”, where something someone else is doing that is likely affecting me, doesn’t make intuitive (ideational—N) logical (impersonal—T) sense. A pure Supine would be more passive and accomodating in Control mode, because if something doesn’t make intuitive (N), personal (F) sense, their move will be to try to work with the other person, rather than force them into what makes [impersonal] sense to him. A pure Choleric will tend to be aggressive and critical (or decisive) on the surface as well.
    As N’s, the “Control mode” ego-states or complexes are associated with the “natural” T/F preference, rather than an attitude in a “function stack”.

    For S’s, “Control mode” is based on the attitude (which then corresponds with J/P). So what also made me realize this is seeing the two different states my wife gets in: On the surface mode, an expressive, agreeable Sanguine (ESF), and in Control mode, and more yielding [to authority] and reserved [in expressing certain feelings], but critical Melancholy (SJ), where the well-guarded “boundaries” are generally determined by introverted Sensing, or the sense of “what is” stored in an individual mental canister, used to guage current situations (And hence, the Melancholy need for “familiarity”).
    Since this is a combo of the most purely “outward” and most purely “inward” temperaments (expressed and wanted behavior both “high” or “low”), then the two states are very noticably distinct. One close friends calls it “frio-caliente” [Sp. “cold-hot”], and it can be grating on the nerves in two totally opposite ways! And she can be like a different person (different “I”), as even she acknowledges.
    (The ISTP Mel-San would have a similar dynamic, but would be reserved and critical on the surface, and then swing into a very active yet yielding “Control” mode).

    Also, as discussed here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/review-god-created-you, it helps clarify what “Wanted” behavior is about, regarding “needs”. Like when we say the Melancholy or Choleric, who have “low Wanted behavior”, “have a low need for” or even “don’t want” interaction, it may throw people off, because in fact, everyone really has the same needs, of interaction with others, affection, recognition and independence. The Melancholy for instance, conveys little need of any interaction, though still has it. So “Wanted” behavior simply refers to the typical way the temperament goes about getting their need met, while “need” in that respect is a basic human need. The Melancholy says “I don’t want”, and truly in his mind doesn’t want, yet the underlying need is still there.

    So just like the functions and archetypal complexes we discuss in type are about “awareness“, the temperaments, also being complexes, are also about awareness of needs. So when the need is not being met, then the Melancholy is more likely to be aware of it. The difference from the Supine, is that they start out more aware of the need, but are simply too shy to approach others on their own. (So they don’t express this need, and then hopes others “read their mind” and come to give it to them, which they likely won’t).

  9. Someone on a type board asked about Jung’s “ninth” personality type (remember, he only had eight, defined by dominant function) based on an additional function, the “transcendant function”.

    The description:
    “a group of individuals defy classification into one of these types. He called them ‘creative’ or ‘artistic’ as they were seen to switch back and forth between types as they combined functions typically unconscious with dominant conscious functions. They may come close to the ‘transcendent’ function described by Jung.

    The behavioral hallmark is a rapid switching from what appear to be diametrically opposed functions (ie Ne and Si or Te and Fi) without the extreme negative consequences often seen by shadow/stress induced use of the tert or inf function…..ie the end result appears to be stable, productive and healthy use of tertiary and inferior functions as a natural part of the individuals psyche with near the strength and competence of a dominent or aux user of that function.

    Empirically they seem to represent 9% of the population on a sample size of 2 million tests.”

    Here’s a paper on it: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60876.pdf

    Since the eight function-attitudes associate with ego states (the dominant being simply the ego’s main “hero” or primary achieving state), then what’s described here sounds simply like ego states (complexes) that have been too dissociated, as to create sub-personalities.
    The different personalities may have their own “types”, meaning their own dominant functional perspective, at least. From what I’ve seen, this does seem to be the case. The APS system even has among their counselor manuals, a book of case studies, which includes one person who was given an APS form for each personality, and they came out as different temperament combinations. Using my correlations: (G=sanGuine, S=Supine, other three [M,C,P] are simply first initial, _c=Compulsive variant, _P is Phlegmatic blend, combos are I-C-A)

    G-P-G (ENFP) [initial test]
    Gc-GP-Gc (ESFP)
    Mc-Cc-Mc (INTJ)
    Mc-S-Mc (INFJ)
    Mc-P-Mc (INFJ)

    Continuing therapy, they eventually determined the true temperament:
    G-C-P (ENTP)

    I used to think the “Pure Phlegmatic” would be totally “ambidextrous” in all the functions (“XXXX”) since it’s really moderate in all scales, but we tried developing an idea like that years ago, and it doesn’t work; there’s always a preference for one or the other, even if very slight.

    Interestingly enough, at the same time is a discussion on a “fifth MBTI letter”, where someone thought variations should be added, of “Assertive (-A) individuals are self-assured, even-tempered and resistant to stress. They refuse to worry too much and do not push themselves too hard when it comes to achieving goals.” and “Turbulent (-T) individuals are self-conscious and sensitive to stress. They are likely to experience a wide range of emotions and to be success-driven, perfectionistic and eager to improve.” This obviously corresponds to the missing fifth factor of “Neuroticism”, which was once analyzed as a “Comfort-Discomfort” set of subscales, but then dropped and folded into other scales. I pointed out the difference between Supine and Phlegmatic for some types, plus the missing third area of “Affection”, might shape that, and how the Enneagram number has practically been added to people’s type code as a fifth variable, to explain variations with their type.

    Who shows up in the discussion, but the guy who originally inspired the whole “ambidextrous functions” concept on this Socionics article: http://www.socionics.com/articles/ctc.html It was this that led me to create the whole “81 Types” theory (adding a third moderate pole to all four of the dichotomies, which would make them easily map to the Enneagram, and the five temperaments plus four “moderate” ranges, which also made nine), you can see here: http://www.erictb.info/dynamictype.html. I no longer promote this idea, and since tossed it in the “back” of my type series, to remain as just a novel curiosity.

    I had back then, from that page, actually thought “ambidextrous functions” and an actual “X” type preference were an official part of Socionics theory; this before I fully understood how the functions work, and realized how different Socionics in practice really was, though it uses the same letters. But this seems to be just his own interpretation, and it is tied into some of the other Enneagram concepts, such as tritypes, instinctual variants and “disintegration” of one type into another in certain instances. (My original posting of this idea on a private list is what actually originally sparked off a long standing feud with a rogue “expert” who didn’t like “unofficial” ideas being tossed around by “amateurs”).

    But again, I’ve set aside these notions, as the function stack is really created by the ego structure, through its various “states” (archetypal complexes), which are established by the dominant and aux. positions. Back then, I (as most others) thought it was all about “the functions” on their own.

    And also, what I’ve found is the more of these different systems you tie together, the harder it will be for people to fit the (now tighter) correlations. That’s another reason I gave up the 81 types, where a 4so, for example, MUST be a MelancholyPhlegmatic or SupinePhlegmatic in Inclusion for the correlation to be true, (i.e. 4 is between 5-Melancholy and 6-Supine which is SP/MP; “so[cial]”=”Inclusion”; and while a 6so must be a Supine in Inclusion and a 5so must be a Melancholy in Inclusion. I come out heavily 5, though I have no Melancholy. I say it’s a “combination” of 6 and 8, but this isn’t allowed in the theory). It’s tricky enough getting type to fit the basic Inclusion/Control correlation, (though I think I’ve had a fairly good amount of successful matchups, though if one doesn’t match, you eventually have to just let it go as unexplained).

    To conclude, I don’t think there are any people walking around who prefer the “transcendant function”. The functions are how we divide reality, and the transcendant is what unites the opposites (called the “coniunctio”). It’s supposed to be what “individuation” is about, but I don’t think that’s anything where we can actually “get there”. Such a person would be seeing “undivided reality”, and who really can be like that? It’s superhuman, like someone who can see back and forth at the same time.
    I think it’s more hypothetical, like a calculus equation describing “∞” as the “limit” of an asymptote. So we can become more aware of the opposite perspectve, but will always still prefer the dominant. That’s part of who we are as a person. Someone who appears to “prefer” both (or all” or whatever) equally, or switch from one to others, is probably someone with some sort of disorder.

  10. Jung conceived of complexes as “sub-personalities which have the potential to exert a powerful control over one’s thoughts, emotions, and behahiors.” A Primer of Jungian Psychology explains “When we say a person has a complex we mean he is strongly preoccupied by something that he can hardly think about anything else. In modern parlance, he has a ‘hang-up.’ A strong complex is easily noticed by others, although the person himself may not be aware of it.”
    (So again, we can see that “sub-personalities”, which we may associate with “dissociative disorders” are involved, even when not occuring on an abnormal level).

    These complexes are said to be from the “personal unconscious”, in which “groups of contents may come together to form a cluster or constellation“.
    Their root is from a deeper and more fundamental level, called the collective unconscious (where Freud believed complexes were strictly from traumatic experiences). This is where “archetypes” are from, in which they can become “complexes” when they fill up with personal experience.

    Archetypes are “predispositions that humans are born with, to think, feel, perceive and act in specific ways.”

    “There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not only in the forms 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.” Examples are “mother, birth, death, rebirth, power, hero, child.

    This is what makes up the “collective unconscious”, and should show that it does not necessarily imply some sort of occult “spiritual” concept, or even the lack of individuality.
    He realized all of this from analyzing the unconscious material of his patients, such as their dreams and fantasies, and the comparitive nature of religion and mythological motifs. (I argue this does not necessarily prove Jesus was just another religion, as in the common argument that his birth and death stories appear similar to older religions. These were obviously [and precisely case in point], examples of common archetypes, and so it is possible that in Jesus, God used common archetypes to bring it all to a “fulfillment” in this one Person).

    Part 2, dealing with the main archetypes:

    The Shadow is explained:

    “Over the couse of one’s life, certain personality traits elicit negative feedback and even punishment from others. This negative feedback creates anxiety. Resulting in these traits being pushed away from awareness into the unconscious where they form the shadow, the ‘dark side’ of one’s personality”.

    This explains a question I had regarding my own internal struggles, where I realize that a lot of my anger toward others, is apparently “getting away” with stuff I was chastized for. I wondered how “projection” (seeing the negative traits in others, as the video goes on to explain) figured when I was not necessarily the one doing the negative things now, but remembering being chastized for them. Still, the key here is the “negative feedback/punishment from others”, casting the behavior into the “shadow” whether one is still doing it or not. We still have the propensity to do it (and thus envying “getting away with it”).
    And then, where this definition applies to all types, regardless of where extraverted Feeling (the functional perspective dealing with good/bad judgments from the environment) falls in their typological psyche, for me, it ended up connected with the Inferiority Complex, which made the feelings all the more worse.

    Jung says “Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man us, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is”.

    This right here ties right into the Biblical Gospel (which starts fromt he sinfulness of all men), which many Christians think Jung and “humanistic psychology” is 100% at odds with, reportedly believing in the “goodness” of man. Ironically, many of these Christians are operating on a flawed view of regeneration and sanctification that, while greatly emphasizing the evil of “unregenerate” men, seems to in practice think so-called “regenerated” men are removed from this equation, rendering psychology illegitimate, because “all one needs” is “regeneration”, which solves all our problems and fixes our behavior, and gives those holding this view absolutely theological perfection so that they are right (in their interpretations of scripture) and can’t possibly be wrong, like everyone else is.

    So what happens, with them just as much as anyone else “If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it…But if it is repressed [which is basically what many people’s “steps to victory” against sin involves in practice] and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.”
    Again, this should bring to mind Christ’s warning that if one insists so much that “they see” (ignoring their part in the human tendency to “blindness”), then “therefore your sin remains” [if they were to be actually judged by their “choices” and “beliefs”, as most of them insist].

    The “Persona”, is a “compromise between the individual and society as to what a man should appear to be”

    “Inflated parts of the psyche suffer from over expression in consciousness”, while
    “Deflated parts of the psyche lack proper expression in consciousness”

    The latter is because often in the process of over identifying with the Persona, people often reject personality traits, not because they are harmful, but because they don’t fit with the dominant social attitudes of the day. Therefore, when integrating the shadow into consciousness, one is also exposed to positive traits and creative energies that can bring about a renewed sense of vitality to life.

  11. Here’s a Christian article on mandalas https://thelasthiker.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/adult-coloring-books-and-mandalas

    I had run across the concept in learning about Jung, who associated it with what he called “the Self”, which is the archetype of “Wholeness” (where the familiar “ego” is the archetype of only the center of consciousness within our psyches, and think it’s the center of the whole psyche, but the Self really is). I recently ran across it again on the second video in this comment: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-start-to-understanding-complexes/#comment-3640

    In passing, I should mention that Christians often attack this concept of a [“larger”] “Self”, thinking it is the essence of “humanism” or “making man the center of the universe”, saying “‘self’ is man’s problem; ‘self’ should be put away in favor of God/Christ”. But what they’re actually thinking of there, is the ego. (Edit: Or what Beebe calls “little ‘s’ self” as opposed to big ‘S’ Self”). Ego and Self are not the same thing in Jung’s theory, though they are in popular usage. (This is an example of Christians not being completely informed on what they proceed to teach against).

    But anyway, mandalas, according to the video, occur in the dreams of those connecting with the Self, along with another “symbol of order”, the “quaternity” (the video shows a simple circle with two diameters dividing it into four parts; i.e. tetramerous). So these symbols occur in many religions (including not only Buddhism and Hinduism, but also, “Christianity”; the more likely branch probably Catholicism [certainly not conservative forms of Protestantism], especially as it adopted many customs from the lands it conquered), and “in the dreams of modern people who have never heard of them”, and “are widely disseminated in the historical records of many peoples and many epochs”. They also spontaneously arose in his patients during times of psychic disorientation and reorientation. (Perhaps the “ego disintegration” I’ve heard about, which becomes a form of instant “individuation” when shamans deliberately do it?) They’re in that case, “compensatory” in times of crisis (“compensating” the ego being “broken”, I imagine?)

    So here again, is a universal element of the “collective unconscious”. It’s supposed to be “the psychological expression of the totality of the Self”.
    I myself have never seen these in dreams or anything (at least not that I remember). I have always liked things with intricate patterns (which is one aspect of ASD), though have always been leery of stuff like this, knowing their occult connection. So the page is right to caution its use, now apparently in the form of “coloring books”. It shows the connection to Buddhism and Hinduism, (along with Jung’s “serious involve[ment] in practices of alchemy, astrology, studies in mysticism”), and how it’s used for meditation, and supposedly, even “connection with deities”, which naturally “opens the door to demons”, and thus a trick of the devil to get Christians caught up in this. Cited are sources saying they’re “relaxing” because “they are energetically alive and promote well-being.” So the page asks “Is it really about coloring? Or is it about spiritual hosts of wickedness sneaking mandalas into our homes and into our subconscious minds?”

    On one hand, I can’t help think of how Satan is supposed to be so “defeated” according to many Christians like this, yet he has so much power and influence over mankind, lurking behind everything, practically, and actively trying to lure people into false religion.
    Though I do find this stuff rather “spooky” (and while I think are somehow connected to this “wholeness” complex, it is only one expression in some people, likely “introverted intuitive” types). While they are supposed to come up on their own in a person’s psyche, that’s not the same as getting one to get energy out of it, or whatever. This is what makes it look like the whole thing, and all related concepts are indelibly occult, but I think Jung just took his theory there, but it didn’t have to go there.

  12. FINALLY; Beebe publishes book on his theory!
    https://www.routledge.com/Energies-and-Patterns-in-Psychological-Type-The-reservoir-of-consciousness/Beebe/p/book/9781138922280

    On this page:
    https://www.routledge.com/mentalhealth/posts/10266 he gives more of an overview, and discusses the archetypes (details I hadn’t heard before emphasized):

    Using personal, historical and clinical examples, as well as examples from classic films, the book proceeds to show how the types operate as a self-organizing complexity that generates consciousness in individuals. Original to my view of type is the degree to which the self-organization of our consciousness is unconsciously driven by the archetypal roles people inhabit in the course of their lives: the heroic role, the parental role, the eternally childlike role, and the tutelary role of a spirit or soul figure, often of the opposite gender, that wells up from within to reorganize consciousness in a less gendered and ego-driven way toward a holistic inclusiveness of all sides of one’s humanity.

    I have also examined the shadow side of that archetypal pattern within complexity that yields a personality that opposes the hero, a personality that limits the fostering of others inherent in parenting, a cunning trickster that shadows the innocence of the eternal child, and a demonic personality that undermines the wholeness the spirit and soul would like to foster. I have also looked at the positive side of each of these shadow roles.

    The book is copyrighted for next year, making me think this was just an announcement for it. But it’s actually been out for two months already. Hard cover, over $100, paperback, about $50, and e-reader copy, $42. To “rent” this, however, is just $17!

  13. The demonic personality, being the lowest and furthest from consciousness, is probably the least understood. The other seven; hero, parent, child, inferiority, and even the shadowy Opposing or “Warrior/Amazon”, Senex or Witch(Crone), and the Trickster are all easier to understand. While it was always known to be about “destruction”, Beebe’s recent revelation in his new book that the Demonic Personality is connected with “narcissism” and seeking “integrity” is truly groundbreaking, makes it easier to understand what it’s really all about, and how the ego fears its own destruction. (This again is covering more “normal” constellations of the complex, in contrast to the Kalsched concept, where it’s the Self-dispatched defense of a traumatized ego).

    I figured this out from continuing to observe how Fi has been playing out in my life. So from there, the following table came to mind, to distinguish the shadowy form of Fi that will be associated with a “narcissistic” complex, (and other less conscious or mature ones as well; this is why Fi often gets characterized as “selfish), and then all the functions figured as well.
    Also what comes to mind is my wife’s Te (and it’s such a touchy issue, I don’t even want to give the examples), and then a couple of ENTJ examples I can think of (including Hitler; this should really help understand all the “Fe” people keep saying they see in him), Ni types, who are particularly avoidant of dwelling on the past, and all the Melancholies (Si dom.) in my life as well, with their negative forecasting.

    function “mature” and others-focused use self-oriented and less mature (lower complexes) use Undifferentiated (Not-conscious use)
    Se—Registering immediate reality as real: To merge with environment (shared fun, artistry, etc) To seize opportunities for personal advancement/survival to use external senses only in service/context of favored perspectives
    Si—Matching what’s real to archetype of (previously registered) reality: To structure one’s navigation through the current world To relive previous experience for pleasure or out of pain basic “memory” that is only relevant for the situation at hand
    Ne—orient oneself to reality by potential of objects that can be shared with others: To explore the possibilities for improving the world To imagine different ideas of things objective “ideas” are only relevant for situation at hand
    Ni—orient oneself to reality by archetype of the potential of inner “images”: To fill in “what’s missing” in patterns To envision the future they should pursue or anticipate will be experienced through dreams, hunches, etc. but not usually taken very seriously
    Te—Use shared (or environmental) standard of impersonal “true/false”: To order the environment for efficiency To order one’s life (or others) by what’s externally efficient naturally follow efficiency (or resist it in favor of more personal concerns), but without conscious rational basis (beyond preferred F or Ti)
    Ti—Use internal archetype of (impersonal) “true/false”: To solve problems in the world using deductive reasoning To order one’s own life according to to what’s most personally convenient to instinctually favor convenience, but without a conscious rational basis (beyond F or Te)
    Fe—Use shared standard of good/bad: To respond directly to others’ stated or observed needs To be concerned with how others feel about you, and/or manipulate them according to their wants natural connecting with others on a personal level (or avoiding this), but without a rational basis (beyond preferred T or Fi)
    Fi—Use internal archetype of good/bad: to infer others’ feelings (identification) to order your life according to what you want; focus on having your way instinctual identification and demanding of desires (or ignoring them), but without more of a conscious, rational basis (beyond preferred T or Fe)

    When functional products enter consciousness through complexes other than the more mature ones (usually the Hero and Parent; i.e dom. and aux.) they usually take the form of the “less mature” use; and the “primitiveness” of the function will be determined by the particular archetype.

    Regarding constellations of the demonic personality, basically, when we’re that low in the psyche, the entire “spine” is engaged (both primary and shadow), as the ego is fighting with all it has, whatever the threat is.

     

    So here’s how it will work:
    The ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through its 8th place function (opposite attitude from the dominant in the same attitude), from having its dominant function-attitude perspective work, and will seek validation through the inferior (4th; opposite function and attitude). It will back itself up and attack opposition with the dominant  function in the opposite attitude (5th), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, through its associated function.
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating the inferior position more), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a daimon, giving them more access to the positive (first column) side of the 8th function (that will still likely carry a connotation of the problems that constellate the complex in the first place, but now it will be more of an ally or even “transformational” than destructive).

    Se: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through its physical mastery (Se), in the form of realizing their ideas of what can be changed in the world (dom. Ne), and will seek validation through their knowledge of previous occurrences (Si). It will back itself up and attack opposition with their knowledge of archetypal possibilities (Ni), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, through careless action (Se).
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating stored fact—Si), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to better engage the physical environment (+Se)

    Si: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through the person’s history or reputation (Si), from being known to live according to their internal visions (dom. Ni), and will seek validation through the realization of their visions (Se). It will back itself up and attack opposition through pointing to possibilities of real objects in the world (Ne), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, through a negative view of their history.
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating current reality—Se), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to better deal with the past (+Si)

    Ne: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through its creativity of ideas (Ne), realized through enacting in the real world (dom. Se), and will seek validation through the way archetypal images work (Ni). It will back itself up and attack opposition with recollection of the way reality has played out in the past (Si), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, through fears about where things are heading.
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating awareness of inner images), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to better explore abstract possibilities in the world (+Ne)

    Ni: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through visions of the way the big picture works (Ni), from having their view of the way tangible reality works play out (dom. Si), and will seek validation through the possibilities of the objects (pitfalls, etc. (Ne). It will back itself up and attack opposition by pointing at current reality, or through harsh action (Se), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, through a totally dismal view of where the big picture for them is headed (-Ni).
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating awareness of the possibilities of objects in the world), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to fill in what’s missing in these patterns (+Ni)

    Te: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself as logically efficient (Te), in having its way providing an environment for other’s agreed upon needs (dom. Fe), and will seek validation through recognition of logical consistency (Ti). It will back itself up and attack opposition with what they personally want (Fi), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego as being organizationally stupid (-Te).
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating logical consistency—Ti), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to better create more logical order in the environment (+Te)

    Ti: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself through an archetype of logical consistency (Ti), from inferring others’ needs through personal identification (dom. Fi), and will seek validation through recognition of their logical efficiency by the environment (Te). It will back itself up and attack opposition with the values that are known to be agreed upon (Fe), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego, as internally dumb.
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating environmental logical order more—Te), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to solve problems through internal deductive reasoning (+Ti)

    Fe: ego sees “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself as good in an environment of people (Fe), from ordering what is logically efficient in the environment (dom. Te), and will seek validation through justification of self-contentment (Fi). It will back itself up and attack opposition with a universal archetype of logical consistency (Ti), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego as unappreciated and possibly persecuted (-Fe).
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating internal ethical consistency—Fi), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to better create harmony in the environment (+Fe)

    Fi: ego seeks “integrity” in a narcissistic view of itself as internally “good” (Fi) from having its way according to what makes sense (dom. Ti), and should be validated by what others feel about them (Fe). It will back itself up and attack opposition with common standards of logical order (Te), and if this does not work, the demonic archetype will turn on the ego as unworthy (-Fi)
    If the ego were to develop (through integrating environmental values—Fe), it will find the integrity it seeks, and then the complex will become a “daimon”, allowing them to feel more content as a valuable person (+Fi)

    • The dominant perspective, we tend to think would solve all of the world’s problems if others adopted it. For me, I’m constantly thinking if people would just “think for themselves” (and not rely on others, or computers or other objects [Te as “obstruction”], or emotions or perception functions for that matter either, to “do the thinking for them”), then problems would be solved.

      The demonic personality also seems to constellate when I’m forced to endure violations of my dominant perspective. Things that “don’t make sense” to my assessment of what’s true or false (because “truth”/“correctness” is often determined by a shallow, broad criteria of what’s simply agreed upon, or looks good on paper), and it affects me negatively somehow. (Hence, my perspective would have solved everything).
      So I project onto them a reverse Fi judgment that if they were in my shoes (or anyone else whose situation I can identify with), THEN they would know how I feel and do things differently. (I’m always thinking this. It’s like the flipside of believing all problems would be solved by the dominant perspective).

      Another way of expressing the distinction between the N attitudes:
      Ne looking at an object (including a pattern) and imagining possibilities based on properties of the object (either sight before you, or stored in memory).

      Ni looking at an object (including a pattern) and imagining possibilities based on internal images not necessarily based directly on the object

  14. Had a sudden realization today, from all the inspiration being given by reading Beebe and now Hunziker’s books, regarding the Senex complex.
    Since the Senex (or Witch/Crone) is about authority, then one figure it will get projected onto a lot is God.

    I can see where this has been a problem for me, leading me to often grumble in my mind, that God is creating a “big picture” that favors the powerful or “fortunate” in the world. All the self-help philosophies, both religious (including the bending of the Christian Gospel to fit, in the form of “abundant life” teaching; and of course the Eastern religions), and non-religious (including Jung with the notion of “individuation”) boil down to teaching the least powerful to cope with a set of circumstances the powerful often have exploited to their own benefit. (Making them less likely to seek the sort of counseling the average person does, where they are told to stop striving so hard in the world, as it’s just causing stress and not “satisfying” in the end. No one seems to be ever saying this to any of them. It’s just given to the masses, it seems). I was thinking recently, while the powerful get to control the external world, the powerless are taught to control the internal world (given an “internal locus of control”), where they “turn inward” (whether through prayer, meditation, “drawing their inner strength”, etc.) Basically, that’s usually the realm of “the things we can change”, as the “Serenity prayer” puts it, where most of the external realities we are very limited in being able to change. It’s basically teaching us to “roll with the punches”, because it’s “healthier” for us than endlessly complaining.
    (Here we see the total “nobody does that to me” independence of the “narcissistic”, “integrity”-seeking Fi “Demonic Personality” working with the Senex’s “big pictures”. This would yield the “shadow introverted face”, and a very neurotic, self-involved [negative] “NF-Idealist” appearance).

    This “big picture” (N) is ultimately not something inferred from looking at external objects and imagining possibilities for them. It’s an internal “archetypal” story (and thus introverted) that I perceive all things as ‘heading toward’ in a “preconceived” fashion. Like something I fear, but then gripe as it seems to play out, “yeah, it figures!”
    (Ni: “big picture” is universalized; Ne: “big picture” is localized to immediate objects).

    And then the “just accepting it is healthier than complaining” I see as a cruel Se “double-bind” in a “Trickster” projection onto whoever is teaching that, where I’m “damned if I do, damned if I don’t”. The Trickster and Senex, as the “shadow arm” work in tandem. Just “sucking it all up” makes me feel I’ll eventually implode, and that “venting” relieves that.
    But it’s true that this becomes endless, and the frustration increases over time.

    Their answer is ultimately the “inner strength”, but I can’t help feeling that’s a sort of unreal pacifier. Again, the critical metaphors of an Ni Senex; on top of a feeling of ‘encouraging‘ the “powers that be” to keep doing what they’re doing. Here we see a critical “parental” sort of pedantic way of thinking! And true to the mission of the archetype, to “maintain an ego”, the “big picture” thinking makes everything “all about me”; everything that causes the “fate” around me was deliberately “done” just to get at me. I need someone to “blame”, in a critical fashion.
    (And from there, the Demonic Personality picks up, as “judge” of the outer forces as “bad”).

    This is what God then falls right into. One part of me knows this is not true, so it really helps understand things to realize that this is an “ego-state”, which is one of many lesser senses of “I” that believe things differently from what your main ego might know.

    Of course, I don’t want to be blaming God like that, so I tend to dissociate it from Him, and then it ultimately falls back onto “fate” (basically, like a non-Christian would appeal to). Basically, as many Christians put it, what He “allows”. Of course, we don’t want to make Him totally “passive”, so He still ends up made responsible for all that happens, whether for “sitting by and allowing” it, as I might feel, or it being apart of His “permissive will” as Arminians argue, if not Him being the cause of everything, but it’s His “secret counsel” and you better not dare “blame” Him, as the Calvinists argue.

    So these latter two groups will then find someone else to project the Senex onto. The result is, inadvertently, other people being given godlike power in their minds. God is supposed to be the sovereign power in the universe, and they will often proclaim this, but in practice, other beings will be focused on as being virtually all-powerful, but in an evil way. For charismatics (and some general old-time “fundamentalists”), it’s basically the Devil, who’s supposed to be “defeated” by Christ at the Cross, yet still ascribed all of this ongoing active power in the world, including the difficulties Christians face. With many politically conservative Christians (and their secular counterparts as well), maintaining overall a collective ESTJ perspective, it’s “big government” (including the much touted leftist regimes such as communism; or on the other hand, our own fields of science, education and even modern culture), seen as usurping God’s place, and “taking our freedoms” (Se).

    For ISTP’s it would be Si, perhaps seeing God as holding their past against them, and then rejecting Him. (I’ve noted that among the four Keirsey temperaments, the SP’s are probably the ones the least inclined toward religion). This could figure for someone like Fagen, with his self-storied lifetime of wine, women and song. I haven’t seen much evidence of guilt over the past in the songs. It’s basically relived, though then there is some realization that it’s in the end not all it’s cracked up to be for long, as in “Babylon Sister”. There’s a sort of negative nostalgia in “My Old School”, which seems to carry over to “What A Shame About Me” when a girl from that “our old school” period invites him to her hotel, but he feels too worthless. (And this parallels the signature “Deacon Blues” as well). My nostalgia may include negative memories, but this is in a “wounded child” sense (and we see Beebe even mentions that variation of the “child” archetype), but usually the whole drive is to relive the good parts of the time, and perhaps redo them to write the negative aspects out. But I’ve noticed that “Realizing Awareness” types (both SP and NJ) have a great aversion to negative things from the past!
    But then none of these songs seems to involve God. God basically didn’t figure, and perhaps similar to what I struggle with, with the way the “world” [or “system”] or “nature” goes, seeming to thoroughly violate dominant Ti’s sense of what makes sense [as far as it regards people and their decisions, which would extend to a “personal” God], it was easy to openly turn against this hollow “idea” of God when a traumatic event arose that was apparently the “final straw”. People like this (including perhaps a few I’ve “witnessed” to) perhaps tend to figure “If there is a God, He’ll never forgive my lifetime of sins anyway, so why not…” continue sinning, or even blaspheme or readily reject. So basically, they likely end up suppressing the guilt from their past out of the picture.

    This right here should show how different groups of people project their Senex onto each other, and see the “other sides” as threats doing the same things to each other. Musicians like Fagen are part of a “liberal” pop culture Christians feel have taken away their “nation” and “freedoms”, as they merrily indulge carefree in sex, drugs and the rest of the “high life”, but in many of these songs, we see they are ultimately frustrated with things (including their own industries), as part of the “systems” that do remain (let’s not forget the antiwar sentiment of many other earlier acts), which they feel have limited their freedoms.

    Some people once suggested Fe was my Senex, being “disgruntled” about social values, but having Fe as inferior, where it’s always an “issue” you feel you are failing in, it may seem “grumpy”. Sure enough, I had even found a few descriptions of the anima archetype as appearing as such (even like a “witch”) at times. The fact that you are worried about “failing” in the first place betrays its “aspirational” nature as the inferior! The Witch/Senex is more about authority, remember. It’s described as an “inner critic“, but lying on the “arm” (where the inferior is on the “spine”), that’s probably referring to its “limit-setting” nature regarding negation by other people, rather than failing at something you [as it is] don’t think you’re an “authority” in. (And if I’m having problems in a social setting, then this again will constellate “arm” complex Senex Ni, which again, sees a negative “big picture” of my “place in the world”).
    So the “Sanguine” EFP’s would likely struggle with feeling God is a cosmic killjoy trying to spoil their “fun” (what’s personally “liked” by themselves), with His “old social rules” (Which the Church often overdid and even distorted themselves, as it was, with Fe as the manifestation of their destructive “Demonic personality” by which they narcissistically glorified themselves as the moral “glue” of society, while oppressing others).

    Likewise, ETP’s will have issues with God’s logical “rules” of order, which the Church [“heroically”] leads with as it is, but the two stereotypically “smart-alecky”, pragmatic Sanguine/Choleric mixtures will take as particularly limiting.
    IFJ’s (loyal Melancholy and Phlegmatic or Supine mixtures) will easily be religious, but if struggling with it, the issue will be God judging their inner worth, likely based on moral failings.

    Hard to imagine my preferred functions, Ti and Ne as Senex projections. I do know that ITJ’s will often get impatient with people not complying with their Te logic, which they then back up with Ti “universal principles” in a stern fashion. So I know, for nonreligious ones (like my father was), their arguments against God will be based on these logical principles. They will be the biggest ones rejecting Him based on “science”, like my father did, and where my struggle is again more about a “big picture” not lining up with expectations. For me, the scientific aspect, even though making faith difficult, was still surmountable, thanks largely to Ne. (Imagining that a supernatural God hypothetically could “intervene” or interrupt the seeming self-governable laws that run the universe. It’s when He doesn’t live up to this expectation, that the problems arise, but again, I’ve seen that for me, it’s always centered more on the Ni “big picture” than Ti logic).
    For the “Choleric” ENJ’s, Ne will shadow their Ni, which they “parent” others using their visions with. From what I’ve seen, this will involve being cynical about open possibilities, though I again find it hard to imagine how this would be projected onto God as a critical authority figure. I guess for those who reject Him, it might involve the unpredictability of life and how it dashes the expectations of a creator. In that, it would be like an inverse of my Ni “big picture” and similar to Ti’s expected “principles”.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: