- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
My dilemma began by trying to explain certain pressing questions raised by the data. Chief among these questions was what role the unconscious processes were playing in the individual– and what could explain net effects we see. Some practical examples of what I mean…
Tibees (Toby Hendy)
…Are for example, why FiNe ll– Seelie Tibees is enamoured with theoretical physics, a Te heavy field, while she could not even finish her degree (-Je) and dropped out of an expensive university program near her completion. And also why she did not show conscious levels of Je.
She then goes onto make youtube videos on theoretical physics, but explaining it using childish drawings of trees and people, as if to an elementary audience, and does so with Delta ethereality.
…Or why, of all the functions Jordan Peterson does not have conscious, it’s Ni, and yet he speaks so highly of people like NiFe Carl Jung and has a deep appreciation for Ni works. And yet, it is fitting at the same time because Peterson refuses, despite all appearances, to give a canonical worldview of anything. He remains ever-questioning, never-settling, and he showcases this dynamic and proactive “struggle to understand” in his interviews. This is counter to high Ni’s with conscious Ni, who have settled into a “knowledge”, not just in the literal sense of being well learned, but in the adoption and digestion of some foundational schema that defines reality.
…Or why Tolkien, whose vultology appears TeSi by all accounts, and does not display conscious Fi+Ne signals, wrote about a vivid fantasy world and filled thousands of pages of Si narrativism… for the service of the “numinous”; something he sensed he was tapping into. At the same time, he indeed could not be called FiNe or NeFi by any CT standards, as his participation in life (as career professor, linguist, academic, etc) was very heavily Conductor, and there is no discrepancy in the data in that department.
(I will give a fuller account of the datasets from which these conclusions derived later, but I’ll stop here for now)
What I concluded from this is that the so-called “unconscious” functions in these samples were very much alive, very much part of the psychic economy, and I had to understand in what way they were alive. The answer came to me as I was reading Jung and Neumann, when I realized that it was silly to ever consider that the unconscious has any less reality to personhood than the conscious.
The entire premise of psychoanalysis is that the human is whole, in essence, but the relationship between the components becomes certain things. For example, the man has an inner woman that is just as strong as his conscious masculinity, and nonetheless defines his life in unconscious ways. So I’d like to frame this as a sort of principle to the effect of:
Principle-1: The Conservation of Psychic Energy
No part of the human psychic economy is ever missing; it is simply in a specific form. No cognitive aspect, nor its libido, is ever diminished or removed from the psychic economy. The differences between people’s cognitive types and developments is a matter of difference in functional state.
So Tibees’ Te is just as important as her Fi, but the relationship she has to her Fi and Te needs more clarity. Peterson’s Ni is no less strong than his Ti and Se, but the way he relates to his Ni is different to how he relates to his Ti and Se. I will get into what these differences are further down, but it suffices to say that to be a “whole” human is to have all the necessary components within you, as biological circuits, and thus none of us have more or less of a given thing. It is simply in different form.
It makes no sense to speak of people having “less” of a given cognitive faculty, unless we wish to suggest morphological differences in brains, which is not well supported. Instead, it is something about the wiring and the relationship of the components that is determining these differences in psychology.
This is actually a big shift from an old assumption I started with, where I felt that certain types have “more” or “less” of a process (i.e. function/attitude). I now understand this was wrong, and every person has equal levels of the core components of cognition (N/S/T/F + Je/Pi/Pe/Ji) but they are in different states.
Hierarchy: The Relationship, Not the Amount
Now, if we agree that due to the conservation of psychic energy in each person, we all have the same faculties and the same essential potency of them, then the definition of “hierarchy” needs greater clarification. No longer can we say 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 as if to suggest that functions came in amounts.
Still, I need to be clear and say that I do believe there is priority in the psyche, and there is hierarchy in the sense of a chain-of-command. The evidence has not convinced me that hierarchy is false. Indeed, hierarchy and its innate quality continues to be a supported conclusion by every new samples. Hierarchy does exist but it is far more of an elaborate world than I previously imagined. The relationship between the functions is something that I will touch upon in the following posts.
- This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.