- Type: FiSe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
Some of the larger ideas you are presenting here may be lost on me! I think I am having some trouble understanding some of it. But in response to your saying that there are more important functions that others, I think I disagree. The thing I’m trying to get across here, perhaps poorly, is that in order to function wholly as a human being, we have to accept and integrate every and all aspects of ourselves. For example, I hated authority and organization as a child. Classic Fi stuff, I was very anti-Te. Antiauthoritarian in every aspect of my life. I had to eventually accept that I have Te in myself too. Speaking in archetypal terms, I had to accept that I have a wise king, and a dictator, and a wrathful parent, and any and all kinds of authority in me – they are only sitting in my unconscious, meeting their own needs beyond the scope of my awareness. I had to accept that control over other entities is necessary in order to not have my Te run amok in my life. I realized that I wasn’t living in reality when I realized that all sorts of authoritarian behaviors were coming out sideways. I’m sure there are an infinite number of other examples of this kind of thing in my life, and in all of our lives, and I’m not sure if it’s ever really possible to live in a True Reality, or what that would even mean. But (admittedly in a very Ji way), I believe that is an unattainable ideal that is worth chasing. Fostering a tolerance for ambiguity and self-contradiction in our personalities gets us closer to some kind of balance I think. I can be anti-authoritarian in constructive ways without just rejecting the idea of authority and control altogether. There are times when it is important to have someone with a grasp on a situation be able to offer a course of action, etc. The same goes for my Se when it meets my Ni, my I and E, and all other aspects of my being.
We are only living in something close to a true reality when we are able to value and recognize each and all of our aspects, at least that is what I believe, and that is the general hypothesis of humanistic psychology. I cannot speak for psychoanalytical forms of psychology like Freudian or Jungian practices, because I’m less versed in those, but they probably posit something similar in a different sort of way. The practice of humanistic psych, or Rogersian therapy, usually just involves a client and a therapist talking to one another. The therapist tries their best to see things from the client’s point of view, and offers something Rogers calls “unconditional positive regard” while they basically just rephrase whatever the client is saying back to them from their own perspective. It’s more complicated that what I’m describing, but the jist is that the therapist acts as a mirror for the client, and the client is then able to recognize themselves as maybe different than they thought they were. This happens innumerably over possibly years, or a lifetime, of work, and the client is able to integrate more and more of what they weren’t aware of in themselves with the therapist’s help. The therapist never attempts to alter the client in any way, and attempts to keep guidance to a minimum. Roger’s describes it as being a midwife instead of a teacher. The client is able to peek at their unconsciousness by observing themselves as they go about their lives, and interrogating their motivations and behaviors. I guess it’s sort of similar to a kind of mindfulness!
- This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Alice.