Expansion of the model of the F attitudes to account for individuation

Home II Forums Cognitive Functions Expansion of the model of the F attitudes to account for individuation

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Tea 1 week, 5 days ago.

  • Umbilical Sphere
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    This post is set in the context of what is known as object-relations theory, which is a deep framework that provides an understanding of the inner psycho-social landscape of the human mind. It seems very related to the F function and its attitudes, and helps shed light on some of their internal dynamics as well as how they can evolve across time during ones individuation process. Some basic terms ill be using from this school of thought, which have specific meaning;
    Self – The Self-representation, a psychic ‘object’
    Object – The archetypal (trans-contextually projected) representation of the Other, also a psychic ‘object’

    These are the two poles of the F attitudes as I understand them;

    Directive/unseelie – separating/boundary construction (independence) (archetypally masculine)
    Adaptive/seelie – merging/boundary dissolution (dependence) (archetypally feminine)

    A key hypothesis I am proposing here (elaboration to follow in the meat of this post) is that; Excessively one-sided adaptiveness/seelieness or directiveness/unseelieness are strategies to avoid the raw, uncontrollable, threatening, mysterious and extremely alive encounter between self and other. In other words, strategies to avoid the truth of consciousness/the soul, which is the ongoing process of the living, naked, and absolutely defenseless encounter between essence and essence (both within/intrapsychically and without/interpsychically). Each one-sided approach is a strategy to avoid the free flow of love that can arc between the poles of self and other. True vulnerability and true strength necessarily come together, and therefore the culmination of the positive essence of the adaptive is found in the integration of the positive essence of the directive, and vice versa. This inner psychic unity must be attained for the profundity of Love to shine undisrupted by reactive fear, and for the potency of Strength to flow undisrupted by reactive resentment, and for both to become one in a perfectly balanced and undisturbeable wholeness.

    One-sided adaptive/seelie vs one-sided directive/unseelie – each sees through a distorted lens, hence the counter-pole in the unconscious mind accumulates energy and at some point violently flips (enantiodromia). By one-sided here, I mean that version of each which has not properly integrated the positive qualities of its opposite pole, due to traumatic interference and rigidity of the pattern in attempt to ward off re-emergence of the traumas. To flesh it out a little, I am referring to; adaptiveness/seelieness without self-assertiveness, healthy boundary-construction, mental strength. Directiveness/unseelieness without compassion for others, consideration for others, moderation in the social realm. Various psychological traditions consider traumas not as mental patterns that occur only to people with PTSD, but to basically to everyone at different times in life, that leave deep but sometimes hard to trace (because so embedded) marks upon our personality. The most relevant traumas for these distinctions here are likely the infantile traumas which shape the deepest subtrata of our unconscious mind. Therefore the true healing of the directive/adaptive or seelie/unseelie split is both a profound and hard to attain psychological achievement.

    Each of the one-sided/unintegrated patterns is subject to the autonomy-undermining process of enantiodromia. In order to understand why this occurs, we must understand a fundamental pattern described by psychoanalytic object relations theory: the Paranoid-Schizoid (PS) and Depressive (D) Positions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid-schizoid_and_depressive_positions). I believe there is a deep connection between the PS + D model and the dichotomous Feeling patterns discovered by Aub.

    These are two opposing patterns of Self/Other representation that are innate patterns of organisation in the human mind (for the purposes of this discussion we can say one is always either in the PS or D position). PS is the default state of the early infant ego, before forming coherent Self and Object relations, but still having primitive defence emotions and reactions (eg fear, anger). The Object (mental representation of the Other via which we interact with it, model it, come to feel a certain way about it), in the first case, the (m)Other, is split into Good and Bad, and accordingly the Self is split into Good and Bad, as shaped by the two different sets of automatic reactions that the experience of the Good or Bad object provokes. In order for the infant to move to the Depressive position, the (m)Other has to be able to withstand the spontaneous aggression and devouring need/hunger of the infant, and contain its fears and pains with her nurturing/loving physical-emotional presence and attuned resonance to the infants experience, over and over again, so that the child’s psyche can be emotionally stable/feel secure enough to integrate the poles of the Object – good and bad – into a single, holistic, balanced, and flexible representation, through which all people in the future will become encountered. Through this lens of the integrated Object, the other can actually be seen, in both their goodness (without idealising and seeking merger) and in their badness (without devaluing and seeking separation), instead of refracted through a distorted prism of traumatic projection (which remains in those parts of the psyche that failed to integrate based on PS-based trauma). This is the achievement of the depressive position.

    However there are aspects of almost everyone’s psyche that were traumatised into fixed PS positions, in response to which a certain habitual defensive response has taken root. These habitual responses are excessive one-sidedness of directive/unseelie orientation (fuck you, this is mine) or adaptive/seelie orientation (here take it all, I ‘love’ you). The one-sidedness of both is fundamentally rooted in the unconscious programmed response to the ever-present unconscious threat that is the terror of the annihilation we felt and were broken by, in our periods of deprivation/intense need that went unmet during certain times of our infancy (and potentially later life), and created psychic splits which remain screaming for help in the unconscious mind. A key work of individuation is to meet these fundamental psychic sufferings and terrors which haunt us, that manifest on the surface as strange paranoias and obsessions that seem to have no sensible origin. The patterning of the paranoias is related to the direction of ones F attitude, and so are the attendant fixated responses that are generated. Integrating the PS polarities of the Self and Object is essentially about transforming the object-landscape from being filled with paranoia/fear and fixated and unconscious rituals of dealing with that overwhelming emotion, into being filled with love, and an actually open, deep, flexible, spontaneous, and real encounter between Self and Other, that is enabled via the integrated Object that we have cultivated. This love flows in a balanced and stable way into Self, into Objects, and between Self and Objects, therefore the emergence of Badness can be tolerated within this field (without splitting into PS paranoia), as Goodness is not concentrated in one spot (Self or Object) that must be protected at all costs. If Goodness is concentrated in only one aspect of psyche (only Self or Object), it is very unstable and prone to collapse (hence the paranoia), because loss/destruction of it would mean to the psyche loss of all that is good in existence/loss of all meaning/life-force/stability/protection against annihilation. Instead, Goodness is now suffused throughout experience and the intersubjective psychic structures, a field of lovingness, which can tolerate all the shifts of polarity between Good and Bad that Self and Others demonstrate because of their complexity, instability and shadow aspects. There is safety, there is compassion, there is forgiveness, there is true seeing of Self and Other.

    There is thus a primordial split in the psyche, between reaching towards (merging), and shrinking away from/attacking (separating), contact with the Other, that in many people retains to some degree a fractured polarity of uninhibited and non-contextualised extremes of perspective and reaction. Relationships that people seek tend to be a compromise that allows them enough closeness to avoid the feeling of loneliness, but not so much closeness that their raw heart is exposed for possible assault/abandonment. What we are trying to navigate in this way, is the proximity between the Good and Bad self/object within us. The closer the Bad self/object gets to the Good self/object, the more the primordial anxiety of the destruction of Goodness (which is synonymous with Life) by Badness will be stoked. One-sided directiveness/unseelieness may be an uncontrolled neurotic ritual to keep the Badness (destructiveness) of the other away from the closed/protected boundaries of the self, and one-sided adaptiveness may be an uncontrolled neurotic ritual to keep the Badness of self away from the Goodness of Other, or to maintain contact and identification with the Goodness of other in order to avoid coming into unmitigated contact with the annihilating Badness encoded into the self-representation.

    In one-sided directives/unseelies we sometimes see enantiodromia of the vulnerable and compassionate aspects of self (the Lovingness) coming out in narrow domains or in ways that are shielded by the protection of directiveness and unseelieness (that do not put too much or any of the Self on the line/make it vulnerable). It is a reserved and controlled expression, or occasionally a very gushy one which takes one over but which remains unintegrated into the conscious mind (one may disown it, fight with it, feel embarrassed about it, consider it weakness etc). Likewise in one-sided adaptives/seelies, we see enantiodromia of the self-assertive aspects of self sometimes coming out in explosively extreme or twisted ways, perhaps when one feels they have been wronged (you ‘the all Good object’ betrayed me! Now you are all bad! (the Split always at some point violently oscillates/undergoes enantiodromia, inevitably, because people are complex and varied, and never ‘all good’ or ‘all bad’. The PS position is fundamentally deluded about the nature of Self and Other, and so counter-propositions are formed in the unconscious, and eventually someone’s actual partial badness (which we all contain, as we are humans with shadows) will lead to the projection of full badness and the subsequent extreme desire to separate from them (either mentally (inner walls), socially (attack, ward off) or in physical reality (physically leave/avoid)), or when they can cloak the expression in some apparently surface-level compassionate action, or simply as an accident. Thus both forms of splitting are unstable and incomplete in terms of realising our potential for flourishing as individuals and our potential for compassionate growth in relationships.

    It is possible to integrate the dependency needs (desire for merger) and the independency needs (desire for self-existence) into a balanced whole. The path towards wholeness in this manner occurs via meeting and healing the traumas laid down in very early life, and typically compounded/reinforced by later relationships which fit the patterns traumatically encoded (both unconsciously sought out and unconsciously resisted). This healing occurs via the opposite of acting-out the unconscious reactions of one-sided adaptiveness or one-sided directiveness – instead of acting-out, we give equanimous/non-reactive space within our consciousness for the experiences of anxiety, pain and anger to which the wounded part of us is reacting. Experiencing traumas with equanimous and open/un-defended consciousness enables their healing, and transformation of the psyche to a new level of wholeness, vitality, connection to meaning and capacity for accurate and holistic perception of oneself and other people. Equanimous presence is the lifeblood that integrates the polarities which otherwise cause us to act out in ways that undermine our fullest potential and harmonious relating to the world. It is the gateway to the full realisation of our true/essential (rather than defensive) directive/adaptive – seelie/unseelie mixture, that I think nonetheless still has a (non-pathological) imprint of an individual tendency towards one emphasis or the other. It’s not that directiveness and adaptiveness merge into an undifferentiated soup when integrated, but rather their full inner potential is realised, becomes more balanced with the positive qualities of its opposite (directiveness/unseelieness integrates Love, adaptiveness/seelieness integrates Strength), and the reactive/acting-out nature of each energy is resolved.

    The behavioural hallmark of an unintegrated F split, is that ones reaction to situations are fairly rigid and repetitive in terms of adapting to other vs being self-assertive. One simply repeats the pattern in a not always contextually appropriate manner, because one is reacting against an ever-present but unprocessed (therefore projected) unconscious situation instead of the actual intersubjective situation that one is in. The reaction is mediated by a fixated belief about the world instead of a receptively attuned consciousness which is feeling into this very moment and the objective interaction occurring between self and other. This is a balanced consciousness from which the appropriate mixture of directive/adaptive or seelie/unseelie will naturally emerge, being fixated in neither pole, and repressing neither pole.

    If you are further interested in this topic of Object Relations theory, I recommend ‘Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein’ by Hanna Segal. I think that it has deep and fundamental ties to typology, in some of the ways I have begun to outline above. There is certainly more work to be done here, revealing the connections between these understandings.

    Here are some category maps (and notes (lmao the notes because more than notes)) that relate to what I have been talking about (although don’t necessarily take as definitive, may require more work/refinement);

    Category Map 1 (The 4 categories of F attitude) –

    Object relations patterning;
    1] Good self-Good object (integrated adaptive/directive, seelie/unseelie)

    2] Bad self-Good object (unintegrated adaptive/seelie)
    3] Good self-Bad object (unintegrated directive/unseelie)

    4] Bad self-Bad object (maximally unintegrated, volatile, oscillating between opposite F-poles (extreme and common enantiodromias))

    I didn’t mention this earlier, but the frequency and instability of one’s enantiodromia is radically increased in people who have the most traumatised configuration – Bad self/Bad object, since there is no stable or felt secure place they can rest their psychic energy within their own mental architecture. Hence you get violent oscillations between the cowardice of unintegrated adaptiveness/seelieness and the aggression of unintegrated directiveness/unseelieness. This is like a dark mirror of the Good self/Good object pattern, where instead of the polarities of the F attitude coming into a deep and stable harmony, they endlessly and chaotically fight with each other in a very unstable way, with volatile oscillations in Self and Other representation.

    This understanding extends the 2 aspect mapping of the F attitudes into a 4 aspect mapping, and complicates the picture somewhat but also allows for a more encompassing description of the human psyches various patternings. I am curious @auburn what you think of all this and how you think it maps into your existing 2 aspect model, or whether that model requires extension (for example, do these patterns fit straightforwardly with the stress variant of each type, or do the positive qualities of each F-pole actually merge into a harmonious synthesis at sufficient individuation levels?).

    Also it would be interesting to see if discrete vultology signals or broader patterns of vultology across time can be discerned here (but not by me, I have not cultivated the eye of vultological discernment XD) – I suspect one may be able to see certain patterns for highly F-pole integrated individuals (either novel signals, or a particularly refined integration of existing signals, or a particularly fluid movement between them), and then for very F-pole disintegrated individuals, I would expect perhaps a fairly typical expression of the F-pole signals in a given moment (tho exaggerated in some manner, anxiety clearly running through them  (sometimes look like they are fighting off ghosts XD)), but more volatile oscillations when observed across longer timespan. That would have to be observed in a more situation-specific way (responding to certain events around them) (and likely wont involve many (if any) people who’ve been recorded in the public domain, because these people are likely too radically unstable to reach a height of skill/fame etc.. the very disintegrated F-pole (bad self/bad object) normally leads to extreme personality distintegration and lockdown of true self/natural personality).

    Another consideration is, I suspect there may be some some asymmetries here between Fi and Fe, that while I think the general pattern holds, there remain details to flesh out in respect to how each specifically disintegrates and how each integrates, and what patterns of personality that leads to. There are also interesting parallels to be drawn here between this whole topic and specific mental health disorders when the patterns manifest at an extreme (and possibly at sub-clinical levels too) (eg borderline personality disorder (maximum F-pole disintegration), co-dependence (unintegrated adaptive/seelie), narcissism (unintegrated directive/unseelie) etc), as well as attachment theory. And last note, I think that how one deals with a fractured object landscape (eg Bad object/self) varies depending on how high up in the stack one’s F or T is. I have noticed that high T users tend more towards apathetic/dissociated responses to object-landscape fracturing (presenting pathology like alexithymia, schizoid patterns, extreme emotional dissociation etc) while high F users tend more towards volatile responses (as they cannot dissociate so readily from the object-relations landscape within them (repress the F function from consciousness), but instead are caught in the middle of it, now with the dramas of intersubjective existence more negatively charged, fractured and volatile).

    Category Map 2 (possible belief patterns of each type) –

    Beliefs of maximally unintegrated/volatile type [Bad Self/Bad Object];

    Fundamental belief about Self; If I try to assert my independence in the world, I will be rejected or fail. I am unloved

    Fundamental belief about Other; I cannot trust you/you are against me/you will attack me

    Beliefs of unintegrated directive/unseelie [Good Self/Bad Object];

    Fundamental belief about Self; I am already rejected so I will assert myself to take back power/feeling of existing

    Fundamental belief about Other; I cannot trust you/you are against me/you will attack me

     

    Beliefs of unintegrated adaptive/seelie [Bad Self/Good Object];

    Fundamental belief about Self; If I try to assert my independence in the world, I will be rejected or fail. I am unloved

    Fundamental belief about Other; I can trust you/you are/could be on my side/you will protect me

    Beliefs of integrated pattern [Good Self/Good Object];

    Fundamental belief about Self; It is safe/good to assert my independence, but I will be considerate to others in balance/I am capable of both goodness and badness, and that is existentially okay (not a fundamental threat to self-worth).

    Fundamental belief about Other; It is safe to trust you, but I will protect myself or withdraw trust if appropriate/You are capable of both goodness and badness, and that is existentially okay (not a fundamental threat to my existence).

    Umbilical Sphere
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Collaboration – Integrated directive/adaptive – seelie/unseelie (flavoured more in one direction or another by natural tendencies)

    Accomodation – Unintegrated adaptive/seelie

    Competition – Unintegrated directive/unseelie

    Avoidance – Maximally unintegrated volatile type (not sure on this one, could also (or instead) create spontaneous oscillations between Competition and Accomodation)

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    First of all, brilliant synthesis of the two models!!

    I’m generally in agreement, and I think Klein may’ve been right about this being a very early conditioning. Her reasoning seems very intuitive – from the wikipedia. I need to sit on this more, to flesh out all the aspects, as there’s a lot of information. But this seems like the most compelling explanation for why seelie/directive and unseelie/adaptive exist.

    I am curious auburn what you think of all this and how you think it maps into your existing 2 aspect model, or whether that model requires extension (for example, do these patterns fit straightforwardly with the stress variant of each type, or do the positive qualities of each F-pole actually merge into a harmonious synthesis at sufficient individuation levels?).

    But as for a reframing or expansion, we might be able to think of it as:

    Spoiler:

    (right-click and view image to see full details, or click here)

    I wonder what you think of this?

    (More later.)

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Auburn.
    Alerith
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    These are such necessary insights, @umbilicalsphere 😀 I think you’ve begun to lay the groundwork for integrating CT into the rest of psychological theory here, which may lead to it becoming a valuable tool for clinicians.. especially if there are vultological signals indicating the state of integration of the F functions, as you mention.

    There’s so much goodness here to respond to! But one point in particular is surprisingly along the same lines of thought I’ve been having lately o.o

    There are also interesting parallels to be drawn here between this whole topic and specific mental health disorders when the patterns manifest at an extreme (and possibly at sub-clinical levels too) (eg borderline personality disorder (maximum F-pole disintegration), co-dependence (unintegrated adaptive/seelie), narcissism (unintegrated directive/unseelie) etc), as well as attachment theory.

    I’ve been thinking it’s likely the Personality Disorders described in the DSM are different reactions to the same kind of trauma. It begins with a mistrust of self and/or the other/world, what’s termed ‘unlovability’ and ‘mistrust’ in Schema Theory (but Klein’s view of the positions may well be a more coherent theory still!) The way I’ve phrased it is that this trauma can manifest as predominantly sadistic or masochistic. Sadism would be the narcissistic disorders, masochism would be codependency. But these two attitudes always exist together, and the apparent predominance of one or the other is due to conscious identification with the opposing side. As such, the other side exists as the unconscious attitude, and will manifest during times of stress – especially stress caused by acting out too much of the preferred attitude. Enantiodromia, as you say.

    As an anecdotal example, this is exactly what I’ve experienced as a recovering codependent. The process of establishing self-love and a proper sense of boundaries is synonymous with the development of Directive Fe in me. And in healing the split between Adaptive and Directive, I’ve found that I am coming into a more continuous, reasonable perception of myself and others. No one and nothing is essentially good or bad, but both.

    My mother was Borderline as well, and from what I remember she was volatile in the way you describe would manifest in the Bad self-Bad other paradigm. She would oscillate between narcissistic self-aggrandizement (she thought she was literally a prophet of God :P) and codependent service to others. She would also idealize then devalue others in an unpredictable manner which sometimes correlated to the attitude she had toward herself, and sometimes manifested as the opposite.

    I’ve known several narcissists and the pattern of over-identification with the Directive/Unseelie attitude seems to fit with them as well. I’ve heard it said that the narcissist is an inverted codependent, and the codependent an inverted narcissist.. which is essentially saying the same thing you’re saying here about the underlying mechanics of Directive/Unseelie and Adaptive/Seelie.

    Directive/unseelie – separating/boundary construction (independence) (archetypally masculine)
    Adaptive/seelie – merging/boundary dissolution (dependence) (archetypally feminine)

    ^This is a very interesting thought as well, as I’ve heard that in general there are more narcissistic men and more codependent women.. We’ve discussed in the past on the forum about the phenomenon of female Fe users manifesting as Adaptive/males as Directive, but I’m not sure this is reflected with Fi. Perhaps this could be a variation between the functions? This probably needs more data/thought.

    @auburn – I just love your graphs ^^ This makes sense to me! Looking forward to the refinement of the theory in this direction..

    Rondo
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Directive

    So many interesting thoughts, so much to process… I’ll leave this here as a placeholder.

    Edit: First thoughts —-

    Adaptive or Seelie vs Directive or Unseelie: Roleplay vs Individualism
    I suspect that we will find that artists that are known for their individualism and literal “one man bands” will type more as Dark [Directive/ Unseelie] and artists known for their ebullience and eclecticism (and where we would expect to find them frequently and effectively collaborating with other artists) will trend more towards Light [Adaptive/ Seelie].
    Adaptive/ Seelie vs Directive/ Unseelie in regard to roleplay: Adaptive/ Seelie will have a strong affinity for playing/ organizing a character or characters in an ongoing, reactive, player-choice driven narrative, delighting in its twists and turns and open ended nature.
    Directive/ Unseelie will not have this natural, easy-going collaborative instinct. The instinct is towards controlling the situation in relation to an individual purpose [individual here is meant beyond the literal ‘one human being’
    to encompass any unity of which the Directive can conceive, although this unity is of course textured by individual markings.]

    Oh, I wrote this a few days ago I think:

    **Seelie/ Unseelie and Adaptive/ Directive most archetypally expressed by Feminine/ Masculine.** (Unseelie female comedians have a somewhat “masculine” energy [on stage at least])

    Addendum: Quadra thoughts —-

    The quadras keep each other “in perpetual check”, never allowing one psychology or type to dominate the social ecosystem.
    The evolutionary implications of CT are truly fascinating; more and more I see type developments as social niches.

    Rondo’s Random Insight Emporium —-

    **If there is only one unconscious function, the three conscious functions will appear to have their energies drawn towards the unconscious function. Think of a lake at the bottom of a valley with three streams cascading downwards.**
    Se-Fi has a direct feedback loop, hence the immediate, visceral thrust [not meaning to be phallic here, the word just seemed right 🙁
    Ne-Ti has an indirect feedback loop, hence the impressionism and search for precision.
    Pe is the process of selective chaos intake, Pi is the process of ordering chaos.
    The more conscious functions, the more strain on system integrity. When the system is overloaded it defaults to its natural state.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Rondo.
    Rondo
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Directive

    The behavioural hallmark of an unintegrated F split, is that ones reaction to situations are fairly rigid and repetitive in terms of adapting to other vs being self-assertive.
    One simply repeats the pattern in a not always contextually appropriate manner, because one is reacting against an ever-present but unprocessed
    (therefore projected) unconscious situation instead of the actual intersubjective situation that one is in. The reaction is mediated by a
    fixated belief about the world instead of a receptively attuned consciousness which is feeling into this very moment and the objective interaction
    occurring between self and other. This is a balanced consciousness from which the appropriate mixture of directive/adaptive or seelie/unseelie will
    naturally emerge, being fixated in neither pole, and repressing neither pole.

    I didn’t mention this earlier, but the frequency and instability of one’s enantiodromia is radically increased in people who have the most traumatised configuration
    – Bad self/Bad object, since there is no stable or felt secure place they can rest their psychic energy within their own mental architecture.
    Hence you get violent oscillations between the cowardice of unintegrated adaptiveness/seelieness and the aggression of unintegrated directiveness/unseelieness.
    This is like a dark mirror of the Good self/Good object pattern, where instead of the polarities of the F attitude coming into a deep and stable harmony, they endlessly and chaotically
    fight with each other in a very unstable way, with volatile oscillations in Self and Other representation.

    Another consideration is, I suspect there may be some some asymmetries here between Fi and Fe, that while I think the general pattern holds, there remain details to flesh out in respect to how each specifically
    disintegrates and how each integrates, and what patterns of personality that leads to. There are also interesting parallels to be drawn here between this whole topic and specific mental health disorders
    when the patterns manifest at an extreme (and possibly at sub-clinical levels too) (eg borderline personality disorder (maximum F-pole disintegration), co-dependence (unintegrated adaptive/seelie),
    narcissism (unintegrated directive/unseelie) etc), as well as attachment theory. And last note, I think that how one deals with a fractured object landscape (eg Bad object/self)
    varies depending on how high up in the stack one’s F or T is. I have noticed that high T users tend more towards apathetic/dissociated responses to object-landscape fracturing
    (presenting pathology like alexithymia, schizoid patterns, extreme emotional dissociation etc) while high F users tend more towards volatile responses
    (as they cannot dissociate so readily from the object-relations landscape within them (repress the F function from consciousness),
    but instead are caught in the middle of it, now with the dramas of intersubjective existence more negatively charged, fractured and volatile).

    @UmbilicalSphere [Plz forgive the formatting, I copy-pasted into notepad first and formatted that, and I just don’t feel like backspacing and spacing all that text right now] Very dense, lots of insight all within your post, much of it I am not at all disposed to disagree with. This last paragraph quoted is brilliant. Will continue to mull it over.

    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    I think how we map and handle object relations (specifically in terms of human relationships) will be the key to the J axis.

    I’ve been wanting to say something for a while, and this seems like the place. There seem to be differences in how unintegrated Fi leads and Fe leads handle the question of badness. Fe leads who have not yet picked up their cross and individuated will craft a self vs. world narrative. They become a savior in a hostile world and therefore preserve their hero myth, deserved or not. They avoid dealing with the bad self by splitting the self from the world. Or one’s group from another group.

    (battery dying, so I’ll finish the Fi  part later; it’s more complicated.)

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.