Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
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.
I was going to write a long response but this will suffice. I understand your point that the relatively unconscious function can only hold conscious for short period of time, but my problem is that in that short period of time there will be a battle between the main function and the auxiliary. He doesn't state that the auxiliary can hold short periods of time in consciousness, instead he states that whenever the auxiliary starts to take on a conscions differentiation it suppresses the main function. So even if the auxiliary could attain consciousness ffor a short period of time, it would inevitably suppress the main function in that short period of time. Since the auxiliary can only be possible as far as it serves the main function, it can not proceed to cross over the threshold into consciousness or elose it seizes to be an auxilary and starts to suppress the main function, which would cause some psychological issues, even if for a short period of time.

It doesnt matter how relatively unconscious it is because no matter how you define it, it will always and forever be an unconscious function, and because of that it must abide by the rules of the unconscions functions. So it may be more conscious than the inferior but that doesn't make it conscious, it makes it less unconscious than the inferior though. The only true conscious function, is the conscious main function, everything else is unconscious but at different degrees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,390 Posts
@Shadow Logic,

I thought we were on the same page, but now you've lost me again.

Are you trying to say you think Jung meant that a person can in no way shape or form EVER, under ANY circumstances be conscious of or consciously direct their auxiliary functions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
It doesnt matter how relatively unconscious it is because no matter how you define it, it will always and forever be an unconscious function, and because of that it must abide by the rules of the unconscions functions. So it may be more conscious than the inferior but that doesn't make it conscious, it makes it less unconscious than the inferior though. The only true conscious function, is the conscious main function, everything else is unconscious but at different degrees.
Lord have motherfucking mercy, Shadow Logic. You've been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about that "relatively unconscious" quote and I find it hard to believe you've even read the OP.

As @Abraxas and @PaladinX have been trying to make you understand, especially if you read that reference in the context of Jung's other discussion of the auxiliary, it's clear — yes, clear! — that "relatively unconscious" means less conscious than the dominant and not more unconscious than conscious.

Let me help you out by giving you a little partial rerun from the OP:

In the brief section of Psychological Types devoted to the auxiliary function, Jung specifically refers to the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions" and the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious ones"; and he notes that "the unconscious functions ... group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking [— i.e., a T-dom with an S-aux—] may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition." Thirty years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:

Jung said:
If we think of the psychological function [sic] 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. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
@Shadow Logic,

I thought we were on the same page, but now you've lost me again.

Are you trying to say you think Jung meant that a person can in no way shape or form EVER, under ANY circumstances be conscious of or consciously direct their auxiliary functions?
I'm stating that the auxiliary can not contain conscious threshold without suppressing the conscious main function, even for short periods of time. I am not stating that the auxilary can not attain consciousness, but instead thatw when it does it will always suppress the conscious main function. Suppressing the main function will causes psychological disturbances (stress, anxiety etc.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,390 Posts
I'm stating that the auxiliary can not contain conscious threshold without suppressing the conscious main function, even for short periods of time. I am not stating that the auxilary can not attain consciousness, but instead thatw when it does it will always suppress the conscious main function.
Okay, but that doesn't mean it doesn't share the attitude of consciousness whenever it is conscious. Even if I can only focus my awareness on one function at a time, that doesn't mean anything as far as my conscious attitude is concerned.

I'm not unconscious when I'm differentiating my auxiliary functions.

If that were the case, then I guess I'm asleep right now and just having a dream where I'm engaging you in a rational dialogue?

I'm not following you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Lord have motherfucking mercy, Shadow Logic. You've been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about that "relatively unconscious" quote and I find it hard to believe you've even read the OP.

As @Abraxas and @PaladinX have been trying to make you understand, especially if you read that reference in the context of Jung's other discussion of the auxiliary, it's clear — yes, clear! — that "relatively unconscious" means less conscious than the dominant and not more unconscious than conscious.

Let me help you out by giving you a little partial rerun from the OP:
First let me cLear up a problem you have, and this has to do wiwith reading comprehension. Saying something is relatively unconscious is stating that is is unconscious relatively. You keep putting words in there that's not in the context. Also saying something is less conscious than another is exactly the same as saying that something is more unconscious then the other. This is called an inverse statement, and there is a reason why we use it in language, because it is a fundamental property. The inverse statement of "That thing is less conscious" is "That thing is more unconscious", and to be less conscious is to delve deeper into unconsciousness.

Second, I read your Op and clearly disagree with it for a few ressons. One, you're taking Jungs quotes out of context. Two, you're clearly ignoring all other things Jung has said on the subject to push your agenda. I already posted quotes in this thread where he is blantantly stating that the auxiliary is unconscious, but hey why not some more quotes to prove you wrong:

A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one. Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness.
Back to reading comprehension, Jung explicitly states that the most highly differentiated function (not functions which would be plural) in an extravert would be extraverted. He does not state that the two highly differentiated functions have an extraverted attitude, he instead speaks with about in singular terms, not plural. Meaning only one function can be the most highly differentiated function and that function for an extravert is extraverted. Then claims that the inferior functions (this is plural) meaning all functions that are not the most highly differentiated function are introverted in an extravert. This implies that all functions excluding the most highly differentiated function are not only inferior to the most highly differentiated function, but are also directed with a completely different attitude.

You go around saying that Myers didn't put that one quote into context with all other things Jung said, but it's becoming clearer which each post you make on the subject that you lack the ability to read Jung as a unified whole instead of pickin parts and piece that match your agenda.

If you want I will share many more quotes where Jung states the same exact thing in different ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Okay, but that doesn't mean it doesn't share the attitude of consciousness whenever it is conscious. Even if I can only focus my awareness on one function at a time, that doesn't mean anything as far as my conscious attitude is concerned.

I'm not unconscious when I'm differentiating my auxiliary functions.

If that were the case, then I guess I'm asleep right now and just having a dream where I'm engaging you in a rational dialogue?

I'm not following you.
It does share it because it is suppressing the main function. When you give more consciousness to one function, you are inevitably giving less consciousness to the other.

You may not be unconscious when you're differentiating your auxiliary, but your main function is being suppressed as in being less conscious/more unconscious, which will cause a psychological disturbance.

Also Jung uses unconsciousness in a few different ways. One definition of unconsciousness are simply the process and focus of introverted functions. The other definition is anything that is less conscious than the most differentiated function, which would include the auxiliary. So no you are not unconscious right now, but one of your functions is highly conscious while the others are more unconscious. As an Ni dom though your conscious function happens to be unconscious and not controlled but directed instead. So even if you were using only Ni, you still wouldn't be sleeping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
First let me cLear up a problem you have, and this has to do wiwith reading comprehension. Saying something is relatively unconscious is stating that is is unconscious relatively. You keep putting words in there that's not in the context. ...
Two conscious functions and two unconscious functions, Shadow Logic. That's what Jung thought the great majority of his "types" had. As he put it:

Jung said:
Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
As previously noted, Jung specifically referred to the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions" and the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious ones."

As previously noted, Jung specifically said that "In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary."

Those aren't quotes that I've "taken out of context" or otherwise distorted. That's what Jung thought. Although less differentiated than the dominant, he viewed the auxiliary as a second "conscious function."

There are quite a few issues in Jung that reasonable people can disagree about, but this doesn't happen to be one of them, and you're the one who continues to demonstrate a reading comprehension problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Two conscious functions and two unconscious functions, Shadow Logic. That's what Jung thought the great majority of his "types" had. As he put it:



As previously noted, Jung specifically referred to the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions" and the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious ones."

As previously noted, Jung specifically said that "In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary."

Those aren't quotes that I've "taken out of context" or otherwise distorted. That's what Jung thought. Although less differentiated than the dominant, he viewed the auxiliary as a second "conscious function."

There are quite a few issues in Jung that reasonable people can disagree about, but this doesn't happen to be one of them, and you're the one who continues to demonstrate a reading comprehension problem.
Is that so?

In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
"While the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions". How are you not comprehending these statements. The most highly differentiated function is the most conscious function, the less conscious functions are partly unconscious. This means that the auxiliary itself is a partly unconscious function, meaning it is an inferior function, meaning this next statement applies to it:

In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion
This mears that the auxiliary, which is a partly unconscious function, is also an inferior function that in an extravert would take on an introverted attitude, and if in an introvert would take on an extraverted attitude.

When I say you are taking quotes out of context I mean that you take quotes but don't apply the full reasoning that Jung gives. Such as in these quotes Jung is clearly stating that the auxiliary is a partly unconscious inferior function, which would subject it to the rule that the inferior functions which happen to be partly unconscious take on a different attitude than the conscious main function. You are jusing repeating that there are two conscious functions but not taking this into account:

Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness.
All inferior functions are partly unconscious and possess a slight degree of consciousness. So not only is it clarified that the partly uncounconscious functions are inferior but they also posses some consciousness. You're taking hisnhis quote out of context and trying to categorize things without applying degrees and the relation to all other things he ever said.
 

·
Heretic
ESI 9w8 5w4 2w1
Joined
·
10,672 Posts
To me it seems that all this has a really simple explaination.
In the beginning there is only one set up. IEEE or EIII.
Then if a person starts to grow a lil bit we get IIEE or EEII.
The most differentiated flip would be IIIE or EEEI,
most likely taking a somewhat superhuman effort.

If not there is no reason to try to put in any effort to differentiate yourself
you aren't going anywhere substantial with your intro vs extro imbalance anyway.

You could then argue that the IIEE is more balanced than IIIE and IEEE
making both too little and too much differentiation undesirable.
After all how mentally developed was the average person living in Jungs day and age?
It makes sense that in this more "enlightened" day and age the IIEE or EEII is the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
All inferior functions are partly unconscious and possess a slight degree of consciousness. So not only is it clarified that the partly uncounconscious functions are inferior but they also posses some consciousness. You're taking hisnhis quote out of context and trying to categorize things without applying degrees and the relation to all other things he ever said.
I never said Jung didn't think the auxiliary function wasn't "partly unconscious." Straw man much?

But if and to the extent that the second function was differentiated enough to serve as the auxiliary and become one of the two "conscious functions" (which Jung thought was the typical situation), the second function was not at that point one of the "inferior functions." For Jung, inferior and unconscious went hand in hand. He thought the "unconscious functions" were essentially fused together with each other and incapable of "direction," which is part of what gave them their "inferior" quality.

Here's another partial rerun from the OP to maybe help you see the light:

Describing the F, S and N functions of a Ti-dom, Jung explained:

Jung said:
The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone.
But... notwithstanding that I just referred to that as the "default" state of affairs, Jung also said that, in the typical case, a person would also have an auxiliary function that, although it was less differentiated than the dominant, would be sufficiently differentiated to "exert a co-determining influence" in their "consciousness."

I believe Jung's view was that, although the default attitude of the second function was in the opposite direction from the dominant function, that corresponded with the default place for the second function being the unconscious — in an "archaic" state and fused with the other unconscious functions. If and to the extent that the second function was brought up into consciousness and developed ("differentiated") as the auxiliary function (serving the dominant), I think Jung envisioned that it would also, to that extent, take on the same conscious attitude (e.g., introversion for an introvert) as the dominant function.
In any case, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me about what Jung thought the attitude of the auxiliary would be, there's really no question that Jung viewed the auxiliary, in the typical case, as a "conscious" function, and that, to Jung, the degree of a function's inferiority corresponded with the degree of that function's unconsciousness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
I never said Jung didn't think the auxiliary function wasn't "partly unconscious." Straw man much?

But if and to the extent that the second function was differentiated enough to serve as the auxiliary and become one of the two "conscious functions" (which Jung thought was the typical situation), the second function was not at that point one of the "inferior functions." For Jung, inferior and unconscious went hand in hand. He thought the "unconscious functions" were essentially fused together with each other and incapable of "direction," which is part of what gave them their "inferior" quality.
wrong and here again the same quote I've been posting:
In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion
Obviously he didn't think they were incapable of direction since right here he even gives them direction. Also he saw the inferior functions as any function that is inferior to the conscious main function, or is less conscious/more unconscious to the conscious main function. Why are you ignoring these facts? This is a system, everything Jung said is applied to his system. So why are you picking and choosing statements and ignoring other facts he presented? Thats not how a system works, it's a unified whole and needs to be understood without discounting any of its facts.

Here's another partial rerun from the OP to maybe help you see the light:



In any case, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me about what Jung thought the attitude of the auxiliary would be, there's really no question that Jung viewed the auxiliary, in the typical case, as a "conscious" function, and that, to Jung, the degree of a function's inferiority corresponded with the degree of that function's unconsciousness.
He viewed the auxiliary as a function that has more consciousness than the tertiary and inferior, but less conscious than the conscious main function, making it a patry unconscious function which is inferior to the conscious main function which is why this quote applies to not only the tertiary and inferior, but also the auxiliary:

In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.
Anything less conscious than the conscious main function is blantantly stated to be a partly unconscious inferior function. Again why are you denying these facts that he is clearly stating, I'm not even changing the words around, he is clearly in every way stating this, so why is it that you are denying these facts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
^ For the last time (then I'm giving up), unconsciousness and inferiority went hand in hand for Jung. The "less conscious" functions in that last quote of yours are "inferior" to precisely the extent that they're "unconscious." And although Jung thought the auxiliary function — once it was properly differentiated and put to service as the auxiliary (which he thought was the typical case) — remained partly unconscious, he repeatedly referred to it as one of the two "conscious functions" (and the tert and inf as the "unconscious functions") because he viewed the auxiliary function (in its typical form) as significantly more conscious than unconscious.

Whether he was right about any of this is something you're free to have your own views on, but that he viewed the auxiliary as one of two "conscious functions" in the typical case is just a fact, Jack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
^ For the last time (then I'm giving up), unconsciousness and inferiority went hand in hand for Jung. The "less conscious" functions in that last quote of yours are "inferior" to precisely the extent that they're "unconscious." And although Jung thought the auxiliary function — once it was properly differentiated and put to service as the auxiliary (which he thought was the typical case) — remained partly unconscious, he repeatedly referred to it as one of the two "conscious functions" (and the tert and inf as the "unconscious functions") because he viewed the auxiliary function (in its typical form) as significantly more conscious than unconscious.

Whether he was right about any of this is something you're free to have your own views on, but that he viewed the auxiliary as one of two "conscious functions" in the typical case is just a fact, Jack.
It's like you are persistent in discounting facts that don't fit your agenda. The inferior functions by Jung were all functions inferior to the conscious main function. There is no way around this, that is what he directly states and is what he meant. Due to them bein inferior to the conscious main they are also partly unconscious. Them being partly unconscious makes them partly conscious. So to state that only two out of 4 functions are conscious while the other 2 are unconscious is misleading and a misconstruction of factS when it is that all functions are either partly conscious or fully conscious (conscious main function). You can state a million times there are 2 conscious and 2 unconscious but the fact stands that after the conscious main function, every other function is inferior to it and is a degree more unconscious due to its placement holder. The auxiliary is more unconscious than the main, the tertiary is more unconscious than the auxiliary, and the inferior is more unconscious than the tertiary. All three inferior functions are partly unconscious, meaning they have slight degree of consciousness instilled in them. Since all three are inferior and uncon scions to the main function then the quote:
In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion
applies to it. You keep trying to work around that but it was clearly stated and you're purposefully ignoring it.

Seriously your conclusion that there are two conscious functions goes directly against the fact that all unconscious inferior functions are not only partly unconscious but also partly conscious that revolves around degrees. Just to help you read his writings, when Jung says their are two conscious functions and two unconscious functions, he is stating that the first two functions are more conscious/less unconscious than the last two. Nevertheless the auxiliary is still partially unconscious and inferior, because of that the rule that the inferior functions are found in the service of an attitude that is different from the main function applies to it.
 

·
Heretic
ESI 9w8 5w4 2w1
Joined
·
10,672 Posts
@Shadow Logic
Just wondering, do you think that the 3 vs 1 constellation is static and can't move over to a more balanced state?
What was Jung babbling about when he talked about making the darkness concious?
Was it something else or was it the differentiation of these unconcious functions?
I'm curious if your stance allows for movement to a more balanced state or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
@Shadow Logic
Just wondering, do you think that the 3 vs 1 constellation is static and can't move over to a more balanced state?
What was Jung babbling about when he talked about making the darkness concious?
Was it something else or was it the differentiation of these unconcious functions?
I'm curious if your stance allows for movement to a more balanced state or not.
I know I havent stated my position on this clearly but I think the tertiary function has the same attitude as the main function due to the nature of being an auxiliary to the inferior. If I was to make the inferior the dominant function and I was to apply to it all the rules of the auxiliary than the attitude of the inferior auxiliary must be opposite of the attitude of the inferior itself. In other words if you were to treat the inferior and the dominant both as main functions in their own regard then, their auxiliary would have to contain an attitude opposite of theirs. The dom and auxilary would the more conscious functions while the inferior and tert would be the more unconscious functions.

If you use the inverse law also, the least differentiated function would have to be one attitude while the other superior functions would have to be another attitude. This presents a problem, how could the auxilary of the dom be an attitude that is the same as the inferior when the inverse law is applied? My answer is to balance it out by applying the relationship of the aux with the dom to the aux with the tertiary, and making that the first most important aspect to abide by. As in see both of these sets of functions (dom/aux, inferior/tert) as separate systems intertwined into one and then apply all other rules to them separately. Also if you were to take the two auxiliary functions and look at them as a separate system and apply the same rules then they too should contain different attitudes. So not only does the dom/aux have different attitudes along with the Tert/Inferior functions but so does the Aux/Tert. In this way all functions are completely balanced out and consistent with the theory and itself.

This is just my thought, it's not fully fleshed out though but it's how I reason the IEIE/EIEI format.

When Jung talks about making the darkness conscious I think he is referring to the archetypal monsters within our unconscious that we have to deal with by delving into the more unconscious functions. In other words he is stating that we should take the journey into the depths of our unconscious by way of the more unconscious functions in order to deal with these archetypal monsters that we repress.
 

·
Heretic
ESI 9w8 5w4 2w1
Joined
·
10,672 Posts
@Shadow Logic
I see so back to the standard format that we all love and know so well.
I guess that provides the balance.
It does however leave a lot of issues hanging in my mind.
But I guess I'm too tired to delve into that right now.
Maybe later when I have the energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
@Shadow Logic

In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion
In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.

The problem I have with these statements is the same counterpoint I had when arguing Myers' reasoning for the XYYY model:

Missed point


The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)
When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion. (1923, p. 426)
A more subtle kind of evidence lies in the "extraverted character" of the introvert's auxiliary process. For example, in a well-balanced ISTJ the observable auxiliary process, thinking can be seen to resemble the thinking of the extraverted thinker more than that of the introverted thinker. This point can be tested with any introvert by comparing the axuiliary process with Chapter 8, Figures 28-31, where the differences between extraverted and introverted thinking, extraverted and introverted feeling, etc., are shown.


This argument is easily refuted in Jung's introduction to the Principal an Auxiliary Functions section of the book:

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.
Psychological Types, CW6, p666, pg 405​

Given that Jung is stating here that he deliberately and disproportionately singled out the types so as to emphasize their specific characteristics, then the preceding two quotes Myers offered, taken from the "foregoing descriptions," are equally disproportionate and singled out.

Furthermore, looking at the quotes Myers' grabbed, and considering the other half of Jung's introduction to the Principal and Auxiliary:

Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
One could logically surmise that if the functions of feeling, sensation, and intuition had an extraverted character due to their relative unconsciousness, then it would stand to reason that the conscious auxiliary function would share the same Introverted attitude as the conscious dominant Thinking function. It wouldn't make sense for the auxiliary function to have the opposite attitude if the whole reason for that attitude was that the function, in this example, is unconscious. This same logic can be applied to the second quote about the Extraverted type.
Essentially, in the type descriptions, he was emphasizing idealized types that were deliberately and disproportionately skewed. The XYYY types that he described earlier in the chapter do not "occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
@Shadow Logic. This argument is easily refuted in Jung's introduction to the Principal an Auxiliary Functions section of the book:

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.
Psychological Types, CW6, p666, pg 405
A few problems with your argument:

1. That quote only states he exaggrated the typed, not the order of functions. Actually there is no place in that quote where it even implies that he is talking about the function order.

2. But let's say I let you use the argument (hypothetically speaking), and if that's the case then that argument can apply to discounting anything Jung has ever said about functions, attitudes, or types. There is no limit to what you could discount when reading Jung if that's the case.

3. He states he exaggrated the typical and common features, and then the individual features. So these features do exist according to Jung, they're just exaggerated. Since that's the case you can still read the types and pull out what is the typical and most common features. So if it was talking about functions he is stating the typical and common features are therects just exaggerated. He is not saying that the order of attitudes he defines is wrong or even could be wrong.

4. It really doesn't refute anything, it doesn't prove that what myers noticed was wrong, just that the features she noticed (that's even if he's talking about attitude order in that quote) are there but exaggerated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,390 Posts
Just to help you read his writings, when Jung says their are two conscious functions and two unconscious functions, he is stating that the first two functions are more conscious/less unconscious than the last two.
That's just your interpretation, but it's not the only valid interpretation. All you've done is to provide evidence for your line of reasoning and shown that it is valid from a certain point of view, but you haven't ruled out alternative interpretations that also hold up just fine. You are ignoring the validity of your opponent's arguments and assuming that the validity of your argument means we all ought to think the same thing you do. You're being arrogant and closed-minded at this point and I can understand why people are getting too exhausted to speak to you.

I enjoyed the conversation in this thread up until this point, but as I believe reckful's argument makes just as much sense as yours, I've come to the same conclusion he has; I anticipate no further need for a discussion because I cannot mentally conceive of or prepare a better argument than he has already provided, and with which it seems you very one-sidedly disagree.


My current position is as follows:


0a. Consciousness is all the content in the psychic field of awareness of the ego.

0b. Consciousness has an attitude which determines the direction of a function's orientation, either introverted or extraverted.

0c. The unconscious always has the opposite attitude of consciousness.


1. The dominant function is the most conscious function, but it is still sometimes unconscious.

2. The auxiliary of the dominant function is less conscious than the dominant, therefore it is unconscious more often than the dominant, but it is still mostly conscious.

3. The auxiliary of the inferior function is less conscious than both the dominant and the auxiliary of the dominant, therefore it is mostly unconscious, but still sometimes conscious.

4. The inferior function is the most unconscious function, but it is still sometimes conscious.


5a. Therefore, both the dominant and the auxiliary of the dominant share the same attitude most of the time.

5b. Therefore, both the inferior and the auxiliary of the inferior share the same attitude most of the time.


6. The above points all apply in the "ordinary" cases. The following points apply only in special cases.


7. It is possible to differentiate all four functions to an extent by "raising up" each auxiliary into consciousness, until all three functions (the dominant and two auxiliary functions) are mostly conscious and the inferior function remains somewhere in the middle.

8. Doing this unlocks the so-called "transcendent function" that exists when a person no longer identifies with the content of their own ego, nor the content of their unconscious; it is achieved by maintaining the balance of the dominant and two auxiliary functions in consciousness with the partially unconscious inferior so that one can use the inferior as an open door through which to confront the content of the unconscious.


9. All of this succinctly summarizes the overall Jungian psychic process of individuation.


On a final note, I highly recommend you read the work of Marie-Louise Von Franz in her book, Lectures on Jung's Typology. Doing so will greatly help expand your understanding of Jung. Sometimes it helps to better understand a teacher when you hear the lesson from the teacher's pet.

Marie-Louis Von Franz was physically present in Zurich, Switzerland, and studied with Jung. She was considered by Jung himself to be his "best pupil", and he even invited her to be a member of his "Psychological Club" where she participated in many of Jung's experiments to explore the nature of the inferior function. She writes extensively about the behavior of the inferior function, as well as the two auxiliary functions, and the dominant in relation to the inferior, in the book I just listed.
 
21 - 40 of 92 Posts
Top