I've begun reading Jung's work on psychological types, and I have quite a few doubts:
- Are extroverted and introverted functions qualitatively different (that is, in addition to the differences that come from the content with which they are concerned)? In writing about introverted thinking, Jung states that the logical underpinnings, the structure of the reasoning itself, is identical in both the introverted and extraverted varients of thinking; this leads me to believe that it is the perennial quality of the subjective, the eternal recurrence of it, the fact that it contains both the "genetic" past of the collective unconscious, and its potential, that provides the introverted functions with what sets them apart from the functions that are concerned with the objective as it manifests currently, locally, as judged by the criteria that can be derived from it once the required assumptions are in place - even for Ne, which would be observing the potential present in the local, something still qualitatively different, probably more divergent...
- Are feeling and thinking not fundamentally concerned with different subject matters, but rather posses incompatible approaches (as in, do ethics and logical mapping belong to both functions)? This seems far more epistemologically consistent, as it would seem to me that both reason and ethics require value-based pressupositions, and they are therefore different in data-sets (locally limited, incomplete and therefore insufficient), but not in essence, ultimately(?)... This would mean that thinking and feeling would merely guide attention (therefore perception, therefore acceptable data, therefore judgement...) differently, handle data differently, concern themselves with different aspects of the implications for the subject (or the world through the subject)...
- What exactly does Jung mean by subjective vs objective? The difference between the two is of course, philosophically murky, but Jung in particular muddies the epistemological distinction in his writings... For instance, is the effect of the object on the subject the focus of the subjective function? Or must it be a more subconscious element still? Is a focus on an "essencial object" subjective in nature (not abstracted from local circumstances)? Jung contrasts Darwin and Kant in his writings, which leads me to wonder (he also clearly states that Te isn't less abstract than Ti, rather, it deals with subject matters that's really either directly abstracted, or recovered from the intersubjective or historical environment)...
- Since Jung speaks of function usage as preferential, not exclusive, is there data that never can be obtained by a set of functions, or is it merely a matter of motion (from the subject outwards, and returning, vs to the object inwards, and out again)?
- I've yet to find it clearly stated that the auxiliary function's orientation counters that of the dominant function (though that is stated about the inferior function), where, if at all is this stated in his work?
- Are extroverted and introverted functions qualitatively different (that is, in addition to the differences that come from the content with which they are concerned)? In writing about introverted thinking, Jung states that the logical underpinnings, the structure of the reasoning itself, is identical in both the introverted and extraverted varients of thinking; this leads me to believe that it is the perennial quality of the subjective, the eternal recurrence of it, the fact that it contains both the "genetic" past of the collective unconscious, and its potential, that provides the introverted functions with what sets them apart from the functions that are concerned with the objective as it manifests currently, locally, as judged by the criteria that can be derived from it once the required assumptions are in place - even for Ne, which would be observing the potential present in the local, something still qualitatively different, probably more divergent...
- Are feeling and thinking not fundamentally concerned with different subject matters, but rather posses incompatible approaches (as in, do ethics and logical mapping belong to both functions)? This seems far more epistemologically consistent, as it would seem to me that both reason and ethics require value-based pressupositions, and they are therefore different in data-sets (locally limited, incomplete and therefore insufficient), but not in essence, ultimately(?)... This would mean that thinking and feeling would merely guide attention (therefore perception, therefore acceptable data, therefore judgement...) differently, handle data differently, concern themselves with different aspects of the implications for the subject (or the world through the subject)...
- What exactly does Jung mean by subjective vs objective? The difference between the two is of course, philosophically murky, but Jung in particular muddies the epistemological distinction in his writings... For instance, is the effect of the object on the subject the focus of the subjective function? Or must it be a more subconscious element still? Is a focus on an "essencial object" subjective in nature (not abstracted from local circumstances)? Jung contrasts Darwin and Kant in his writings, which leads me to wonder (he also clearly states that Te isn't less abstract than Ti, rather, it deals with subject matters that's really either directly abstracted, or recovered from the intersubjective or historical environment)...
- Since Jung speaks of function usage as preferential, not exclusive, is there data that never can be obtained by a set of functions, or is it merely a matter of motion (from the subject outwards, and returning, vs to the object inwards, and out again)?
- I've yet to find it clearly stated that the auxiliary function's orientation counters that of the dominant function (though that is stated about the inferior function), where, if at all is this stated in his work?