Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary - Page 2

Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 92
Thank Tree149Thanks

This is a discussion on Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions ...

  1. #11

    To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the side of the unconscious, which manifests its opposition to the extravagant extraversion in the form of physical disorders, whereupon an introversion of psychic energy becomes unavoidable. Through this reaction of the unconscious, another category of symptoms arises which have a more introverted character.
    As I have already sufficiently indicated, I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory.
    The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It focusses libido upon the subjective factor, i.e. all those needs and claims which are stifled or repressed by a too extraverted conscious [p. 423] attitude.
    For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.
    I'm not really understanding what's so hard to understand. To Jung there is one conscious main function, not two or three, but simply one. Besides the one conscious main function there lies a relatively unconscious auxilliary. Key word is relative, meaning it is relative to the conscious main function and the even more unconscious inferior function. As quoted above the unconscious functions are a complement to the main function-attitude, and contains a different attitude than the main. For an extravert their unconscious, including their relatively unconscious auxiliary function, must have an introverted attitude.
    Animal, Entropic and Guajiro thanked this post.

  2. #12

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Logic View Post
    For an extravert their unconscious, including their relatively unconscious auxiliary function, must have an introverted attitude.

    Except when it's not unconscious.

  3. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
    Except when it's not unconscious.
    "Relatively unconscious auxilliary", not "Relatively conscious auxiliary".

    Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
    As it explains right here, once an auxiliary has the same level of differentiation as the conscious main function, then it's attitude changes but that change of attitude contradicts the conscious main function and there begins a battle of the ego, where the auxiliary is trying to replace the conscious main function. So for a thinker, if their auxiliary would gain the same level of differentiation as their thinking function then their thinking function will start to be suppressed in favor for perception. Hence why he states in the last sentence that the auxiliary is possible and useful only as it serves the leading function, not battle it for control of the ego. Key word is possible, as in it becomes impossible once the auxiliary tries to fight for dominance.
    Inveniet, Coyote and Entropic thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14

    @Shadow Logic,

    I have no idea what you're talking about bringing up "battles" and all this.

    All I said was, except when it's not unconscious. Meaning, whenever it happens to be conscious. You know, like, from time-to-time.

    I'm not saying that when it's unconscious it has the same attitude as my consciousness.

    That'd be stupid.

    About as stupid as arguing that a conscious function would have the same attitude as my unconscious.

    Both cases are making the argument that consciousness has two attitudes, which is putting the cart before the horse.

    The functions have attitudes that they inherit from the general attitude of consciousness and the general attitude of the unconscious.

    Not the other way around.
    Entropic thanked this post.

  6. #15

    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
    @Shadow Logic,

    I have no idea what you're talking about bringing up "battles" and all this.

    All I said was, except when it's not unconscious. Meaning, whenever it happens to be conscious. You know, like, from time-to-time.

    I'm not saying that when it's unconscious it has the same attitude as my consciousness.

    That'd be stupid.

    About as stupid as arguing that a conscious function would have the same attitude as my unconscious.

    Both cases are making the argument that consciousness has two attitudes.

    Which is like saying, "hey guys. I'm up, but I'm also down!"
    You are stating that in an extravert their auxiliary would be introverteintroverted but once it gains consciousness it would be extraverted, am I right?

    If so then I'm stating that the unconscious auxiliary can not take on a conscious differentiation or else it would suppress the conscious main function in order for the auxiliary to gain the conscious place holder. So if an extravert's auxiliary function is introverted, the moment it starts to become conscious it takes on a an extraverted attitude which contradicts the conscious main function and then starts to suppress it, hence why the auxiliary can only serve the conscious main function and not contradict it or else sup press ion if the conscious main function starts to occur.

    I could be misunderstanding your position, if so can you please explain it me better so I can better understand it.
    Inveniet and Entropic thanked this post.

  7. #16

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Logic View Post
    You are stating that in an extravert their auxiliary would be introverteintroverted but once it gains consciousness it would be extraverted, am I right?

    If so then I'm stating that the unconscious auxiliary can not take on a conscious differentiation or else it would suppress the conscious main function in order for the auxiliary to gain the conscious place holder. So if an extravert's auxiliary function is introverted, the moment it starts to become conscious it takes on a an extraverted attitude which contradicts the conscious main function and then starts to suppress it, hence why the auxiliary can only serve the conscious main function and not contradict it or else sup press ion if the conscious main function starts to occur.

    I could be misunderstanding your position, if so can you please explain it me better so I can better understand it.

    What I think you're saying, and I agree with, is that a person can't have their auxiliary function remain conscious for too long, otherwise it starts to threaten the value of the dominant function, and then as Jung says and you aptly point out, a battle ensues. I think that's very true and makes sense.

    But I still think one function above the rest besides the dominant function will enter consciousness more often than any other (besides the dominant), and that function is likely to be the auxiliary function. It will never remain for very long, because to do so thwarts the dominant, but still, it will remain more than the other two functions.

    Out of that line of reasoning can be derived the argument that the auxiliary function (whenever consciously employed) shares the attitude of the dominant function (by virtue of the attitude of consciousness in general).

    This doesn't conflict with the point Jung makes, that the auxiliary is still "relatively unconscious". It most definitely is, again I agree. It can never be conscious to the same degree and for the same length of time as the dominant. I think this is true, and this is also why I say I think there is practical value in the MBTI interpretation, because by just looking at the auxiliary as being unconscious most of the time, this neither conflicts with Jung, nor does it necessarily conflict with how it will show up most of the time in real cases.

    But there will be a certain level of precision being lost if we ignore the other side of the coin, namely, just whenever it becomes hard to say how relatively unconscious my auxiliary function is.

    Here I am saying that, while on the one hand yes it is relatively unconscious, the question is how relatively? And in that case, you will see some variation between different people of the same type.

    The one person is going to have a relatively more pronounced investment of conscious will in their dominant, and subsequently unconscious will in their inferior, which will make the auxiliary - relative to the unconscious - that much less conscious in general. Whereas in the case of someone who invests less consciousness into their dominant function, their inferior will subsequently be less unconscious, and so their auxiliary function will be relatively less unconscious, do you see?

    And for the sake of precision, I am arguing that this distinction is an important nuance to observe, because there are going to be cases where the client will exhibit one or the other kind of ego, and the MBTI interpretation does not really leave room to make this kind of observation because it presents a static model of the functions.
    Inveniet and Entropic thanked this post.

  8. #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Logic View Post
    "Relatively unconscious auxilliary", not "Relatively conscious auxiliary".



    As it explains right here, once an auxiliary has the same level of differentiation as the conscious main function, then it's attitude changes but that change of attitude contradicts the conscious main function and there begins a battle of the ego, where the auxiliary is trying to replace the conscious main function. So for a thinker, if their auxiliary would gain the same level of differentiation as their thinking function then their thinking function will start to be suppressed in favor for perception. Hence why he states in the last sentence that the auxiliary is possible and useful only as it serves the leading function, not battle it for control of the ego. Key word is possible, as in it becomes impossible once the auxiliary tries to fight for dominance.

    I disagree with this argument. Using the phrase "relatively conscious auxiliary" would not make sense especially given what you have quoted. That phrase would imply that the dominant and auxiliary are essentially the same level. Saying "relatively unconscious auxiliary," makes more sense because it is less conscious to the dominant. Furthermore, I don't think that saying 'relatively unconscious' necessarily means that the auxiliary is unconscious.
    Inveniet, Abraxas and Felipe thanked this post.

  9. #18

    Quote Originally Posted by PaladinX View Post
    I disagree with this argument. Using the phrase "relatively conscious auxiliary" would not make sense especially given what you have quoted. That phrase would imply that the dominant and auxiliary are essentially the same level. Saying "relatively unconscious auxiliary," makes more sense because it is less conscious to the dominant.
    Hence why I said its relatively unconscious and not relatively conscious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Logic View Post
    "Relatively unconscious auxilliary", not "Relatively conscious auxiliary".
    I know that the auxiliary and dominant aren't on the same level, as @Abraxas and I have been having a discussion about. The relatively unconscious auxiliary is relatively unconscious in reference to the main conscious function.
    @Abraxas I'm in class so I'll respond back to you a little bit later.
    Inveniet and Abraxas thanked this post.

  10. #19

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Logic View Post
    Hence why I said its relatively unconscious and not relatively conscious.



    I know that the auxiliary and dominant aren't on the same level, as @Abraxas and I have been having a discussion about. The relatively unconscious auxiliary is relatively unconscious in reference to the main conscious function.
    @Abraxas I'm in class so I'll respond back to you a little bit later.
    I suppose I wasn't clear. I took your argument to mean that if Jung wanted to say that the auxiliary was in the same attitude as the dominant, then he would've used the phrase 'relatively conscious auxiliary.' My point was to negate that argument because if it were true, it wouldn't make sense. And that the phrase he used makes sense without necessarily implying that the auxiliary is the opposite attitude.

    Furthermore, he also says this in the section on the dominant and auxiliary:

    The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.
    To me this says that there are 2 conscious functions and 2 unconscious functions. And assuming that E/I is associated with the consciousness of a function, then it would make sense to say that each pair of functions share the same respective attitudes.

    At the very least, the auxiliaries might simply exist in both realms like this:

    If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.

    Inveniet and Abraxas thanked this post.

  11. #20

    Quote Originally Posted by PaladinX View Post
    I suppose I wasn't clear. I took your argument to mean that if Jung wanted to say that the auxiliary was in the same attitude as the dominant, then he would've used the phrase 'relatively conscious auxiliary.' My point was to negate that argument because if it were true, it wouldn't make sense. And that the phrase he used makes sense without necessarily implying that the auxiliary is the opposite attitude.
    I want to clear up something first before I proceed. Cognitive functions are subsets of a system, or in otherbwords, are properties of a system. All systems work as a unified whole, so when studying them it is essential to study them as a unified whole. If a system has a property that encompasses the whole system, then that property is applied to the whole system, no matter what. Now to proceed to my point.

    If it was relatively conscious then it would be a conscious function that is less than the conscious main function. Instead he states that the auxiliary is a relatively unconscious function, because of this that means that this next statement applies to it:

    The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It focusses libido upon the subjective factor, i.e. all those needs and claims which are stifled or repressed by a too extraverted conscious [p. 423] attitude.
    Now let's look at that statement in comparison to this one:

    For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.
    So first let's notice that the besides the conscious main function there is a relatively unconscious auxiliary function. Pay attention to the singular nature of the conscious main function, as in there is only one conscious main function. Secondly he directly states that the auxiliary is relatively unconscious, not conscious, so therefore there aren't two conscious functions, but instead one conscious function that is connected to a relatively unconscious auxiliary. Now since we have clarified that the auxiliary is 100% an unconscious function in relation to the conscious main function, that means that the first quote applies to it. So when Jung states that "The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character, he is including the auxiliary, since it too is an unconscious function. So in this case the unconscious of the extravert includes the auxiliary and the inferior ( at the least) functions and by these statements they are automatically introverted functions according to Jung.

    As I said before the system needs to be analyzed as a unified whole. Therefore when Jung states something applies to the whole, then that means it applies to the whole, no exceptions unless stated otherwise.


    Furthermore, he also says this in the section on the dominant and auxiliary:



    To me this says that there are 2 conscious functions and 2 unconscious functions. And assuming that E/I is associated with the consciousness of a function, then it would make sense to say that each pair of functions share the same respective attitudes.

    At the very least, the auxiliaries might simply exist in both realms like this:
    I already clarified above that the auxiliary is a relatively unconscious function, so the statement that the unconscions functions group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones, that means that the unconscious functions, including the auxiliary, is grouped in a pattern correlated to the conscious ones. It does not mean, nor state that the auxiliary is conscious or even the same attitude. I'm sorry to say but you are definitEly nitpicking and not taking into consideration all statements that apply to the system. He stated that the auxiliary is an unconscious function, therefore it is always an unconscious function, never a conscious one so literally it couldn't even be assumed that the auxiliary shares the same attitude using that quote bebecause he already stated that the auxiliary is unconscious, so therefore it too has to be grouped in a ppattern that is correlated to the conscious functions.

    To better understand that quote, look at the multitude of individualS as plural. Each individual has a main function, so in a plural sense in a group of inindividuals there are conscious main functions, since each one contains one conscious main function. Their unconscious functions, including the auxilary, must be grouped in a way that is correlated to those conscious main functions, or conscious main function when talking about a singular individual.

    The last quote you presented doesnt state that the auxiliary is conscious, it only statest that the main function and the inferior function both have auxiliary functions to accompany it.
    Inveniet and Entropic thanked this post.


     
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] You know you're Ne auxiliary when...
    By Kilgore Trout in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 01:11 PM
  2. Is the auxiliary the same attitude as the dominant?
    By PaladinX in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 10:16 PM
  3. [ISTP] Your Auxiliary Se
    By GENIUSandVIOLENCE in forum ISTP Forum - The Mechanics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-16-2012, 07:53 PM
  4. Jung Earlier vs. Jung Later
    By Dreamer777 in forum Jungian Theory
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-02-2012, 04:42 PM
  5. Jung's Unconscious Attitudes (Auxiliary E/I)
    By Functianalyst in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 12:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0