- Type: TiSe
- Development: llll
- Attitude: Directive
So what I know of therapy is that the person is meant to slowly divulge their feelings (to process them (basically to cry and let their heart speak) to the therapist. The therapist is there as an mediator and investigator, finding where those pain points might be that need to be released(the mother, father etc. usually family or life event). Another aspect to therapy is accepting reality, which I think is harder to do. I suppose, from personal experience, that as people accept reality and release painful emotions, whatever was fragmented in the self comes back together from those knots or pain points that before were blocking growth and disfigured the person’s self.
This means that the most important aspects of CT are the F and T axis firstly and whether it is Ji or Je. Ji “higher self/authentic self” and Je “persona.” The F function (whether Ji or Je) is the most important because it is there where, I theorize, our heart and soul communicates and grows. It is life itself, our body and feelings and the cite of soul alchemy. So a person would benefit from knowing where this is placed in their cognitive priority (lead or last) and in what context (persona or self). Also whether their attitude suggest a blocked heart/access to this place, because if blocked, it’s going to be much harder to be open to process pain (probably a backlog of unprocessed pain) (which I think just means, the person needs to feel more comfortable, feel more trusting of the therapist and slowly get into memories/individuals/events/guilt that is being ignored. High T lead will be similar, though there is more possibility for variance. They could have an open heart and have not had any painful emotions (but they would still need to access and become aware of their sensitivity (to themselves and others) over time and get the ego to be dislodged from its routine cognitive T priority). But this is for therapy, which usually involves some kind of life problem that needs fixing (therefore an F issue).
As for the accepting “reality” part of therapy. Because reality is so vast and , for me, includes the “intuitive mystery”, I think what the person would need to accept about reality would be very specific. For example, accepting and delving into one’s unconscious is a crazy experience, and the way I see it, it is traumatic, and I imagine accepting reality (to heal) more and more will include one’s exploration into the unconscious. I don’t think a creature is supposed to see their own “programming” background for their life, though. Imagine a robot becoming aware of it’s own programming, no wonder there is existential dread. But due to the conditions of life (cruelty) and our capacity to be aware beyond what other animals can be aware of, I feel the human brain at some point, under certain stressful conditions, will dive you right into the unconscious to figure out what’s wrong despite your protest or readiness; and because barely anyone talks of this experience or survives this harrowing experience (they snap and become crazy), it is still a terrifying unexplored area, though I think the future will be one of more easily accessing our unconscious in a safe way (some people already do through drugs, with weed being the safest in my opinion, therapeutically). Basically, I’ll say it depends what of “reality” they have to accept; and its not easy because I think it includes a model of reality that is sufficient for them, for the person, to accept in their current life stage. Accepting a dead relative, for example, in a more common model of reality, that their lifeless body is still here is S domain but also whether that they/their soul is in afterlife beyond this one I would say is encroaching on the N domain of “reality”. I don’t know how much a person would need to know about their S or N priority to “accept” reality, therefore, and it would depend on the trouble the person has. I had to accept an N reality beyond this S world to accept my life as meaningful, because I was too S you see? So it really depends on the person and their models of reality (to be explored by them Pe and which molds into a worldview Pi they ultimately can accept).
This is what I think so far, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about and which I’ll keep mulling over. One thing I’ll say is that CT is first and foremost a typological theory of cognition. And ,perhaps, a potential psychological therapeutic device. There is a lot to be revealed yet in our depths😉