- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
@alerith – Thanks!
As for Jung’s view– I somewhat agree. I think a lot of Jung’s ideas have to be translated to modern scientific language in order to be understood or refined. I don’t often take Jung’s testimony on things as more than a well educated guess, but one that nonetheless has to be confirmed. In support of his ideas, I find that the human cell in general does operate as a crystal formation. Here’s an amazing scene I came across recently from this video:
^ This is cell division happening in an Alpine Newt, which apparently grow in transparent sacks, so we can see the whole thing. One becomes two, then that becomes four, then eight, etc. I find it to be structurally very similar to:
Now, I think that cell division in our neurons likely follows the same logic, and forms the structure of our brain symmetrically. As mapped by the human connectome project, the brain is a 3D lattice structure of neural connections (notwithstanding some topological curvature). And this speaks to this algorithmic extrapolation of neurons, likely from a relatively simple equation.
The brain is algorithmically created, unfolding like a fractal out of a zygote, just like the rest of the body. It’s no wonder, then, that human consciousness should have an intuition about its own Self/Totality as being a sort of fractal mandala. That is, in the structural sense, true imo. Isn’t this incredible?! So, Jung was right in that sense, I think.
So, I personally don’t think Jung was wrong about mandalas being representative of the totality of the Self, but I think he was more predisposed to catch onto that truth because it has more parity to his vortical thought process. It’s like how Te physicists are more predisposed to catch onto mechanistic world truths, even though they apply to Fe users and everyone as well. Universal truths are still more likely to be uncovered by people whose mental operations have greater parity to those truths, because their intuitions about reality are more matched to that specific domain of reality. That’s mainly what I meant. 🙂 I don’t mean to say mandalas are an exclusively V experience.
Having said that, I think the Self is different in different people, so that ‘the God’ is different in an NiFe and in an NeFi, for instance. And this is because this algorithm — as well as its unfurling — is different within different biological agents. I would imagine the cognitive mandalas of V and M types would be different, because V and M are structurally different. I didn’t manage to capture this in the GIF above, but the M structure also unfurls from a center… but perhaps it does so in a more idiosyncratic format, and it has more tangential bifurcations and asymmetrical recombinations. I would expect this to also manifest in the psychoanalytical practice – and I suspect this is testable. For example the internal archetypal constitution of an M type may be more modular and local to them, just the way life for an M type in general is much more modular and hodgepodged according to a very specific historical and combinatory development (re: emergentism). The interior of V types may be more prone to follow the same trends, because there’s less localization of data. I could be wrong, but that’s my hypothesis atm. 🙂
_ _ _
edit: And I think this is part of why I suspect V types would see things more prototypically ‘archetypally’ (if by that we mean thematically homo rather than hetero). Archetypes rely on thematic uniformity, which V has more proclivity towards. I think the linearity of V makes it more inclined to explain more phenomena with fewer trendlines, so that it converges information together into meta-themes/trends/cycles like archetypes much more neatly and symmetrically. So I think V types may be prone to over-emphasize the thematic sameness of information across long spatiotemporal ranges.