Reply To: Harry Potter's Fictional Type

Home Page Forums Cognitive Functions Harry Potter's Fictional Type Reply To: Harry Potter's Fictional Type

Animal
Participant
  • Type: SeFi
  • Development: lll-
  • Attitude: Unseelie

I also want to explore my last quote in my long post, a bit more fully. Here is the quote:

 Is it really natural to just sit on your hands and allow others to wipe your ass?  Maybe it’s my bias, but I don’t have much interest in people who have no will to become something more. It brings the image of a 45 year old man sucking a mommy’s tit. It’s not “natural” to be a middle aged infant – and people are only like that because of depression and serious personal problems.  It is much more natural to want to improve and have agency, whatever that means to each person.  Je is a path toward agency in the world ‘out there,’ but Ji types for example can have a lot of agency in coming up with complex internal structures.  A Je type without Ji will get shit done, but overlook moral integrity, consistency and meaning. They can ‘do’ but, for what?  Thus, it’s just as natural for them to want to change to something ‘more than their natural self,’ as it is for any other type to want to incorporate other functions so they can become a full person.

Perhaps a 50 year old infant Je-lead is a tyrant bossing people around for no reason; perhaps a 50 year old infant Ji-lead is a starving ‘artist’ whose mom pays his bills.. perhaps Einstein could not remember to wear pants when he left his apartment, though he still did amazing things. 50 year old infants come in many forms, and it is natural to want to be a child forever, but it is also natural to realize this lifestyle is empty and unfulfilling, and thus experience a strong urge to get over yourself and grow up.

And this, perhaps, is the merit in Jung’s argument that the hero narrative is universal. Because it is universal for everyone to feel this conflict between being a child and growing up. There are rites of passage in many cultures, growing pains; this truly is universal.

If it seems to you that it’s ‘unnatural’ for some people to feel drawn to overcome their own weaknesses in order to be something more, unless they are Fe, then maybe Fe is not being conceptualized properly?  Because I cannot conceive of any universe in which one type has a monopoly on self-improvement.  Villains are often the tyrants & tricksters that embody one function fully, like a 50 year old infant, whereas heroes are the ones that face their shadow and incorporate something more.

I think this may be why @bera reacts the way she does to the examples given for Se.

We have Se-heavy characters like Harry Potter, with inspiring stories of trajectory and growth, who are being conceptualized here as examples of Fe.

Then we have characters like The Joker and Jack Sparrow, being conceptualized as Se.

The problem is that The Joker and Jack Sparrow are very 1D.  Not only are they SeXi I— but also just pure representations of Se in the sense that nothing else has to be there. They are “50 year old infants.”

This is why I say:

Villains are often the tyrants & tricksters that embody one function fully, like a 50 year old infant, whereas heroes are the ones that face their shadow and incorporate something more.

 

It seems like any complex, 3D character (Harry Potter, etc) who has faced their shadow to incorporate something more – which is very essentially human – has been conceptualized as “Fe Myth,” even if we all agree that the characters themselves are not Fe.

Whereas 1D characters who have not faced their shadow to become something more, like the Joker & Jack Sparrow, are being lumped in the Se camp.

So, if you’re just a silly trickster, with no will to go anywhere in your life, no improvement, no self-reflection, no extra functions – your story is Se.

But if you’re a Se-heavy character and ostensibly a revisor – like Harry Potter – who has actually worked to improve yourself, then your story is an example of the Fe myth.

 

So what this tells me is, that in the descriptions:

Fe myth/characters are the ones that have faced their shadow to become something more.

Se myth/characters are 1D people who are 50 year old infants.

 

However in real life, 50 year old infants can be any type.

And I think @bera  that’s what you meant by “where are the GOOD characters?”  As in, where are the Se characters who faced their shadow to become something more?

Auburn pointed out a few Se lead characters who faced their shadow – but he classified their stories as “Fe Myths.”

So does that mean that if a Je lead like Voldemort is 1D, and never faces his shadow – then he’s a Se myth trickster?  Or does it mean that Je myths can come in the form of tyrants and/or heroes, but Se myths can only come in the form of 1D, shallow characters who never face their shadows.

I mean , that is the message being given.

 

I will say this again:

Villains are often the tyrants & tricksters that embody one function fully, like a 50 year old infant, whereas heroes are the ones that face their shadow and incorporate something more.

 

I’d like to see this heroism reflected in the characters chosen for Se, and their myths, rather than seeing all the  Se leads who become heroic, being categorized as Fe hero myths. Maybe that’s impossible because of the nature of how myths work, but this is what I’m getting at. Bera came up with a Se ‘myth’ which Harry Potter fits perfectly, in “seasons of the soul.” He went through this in order to fend off evil Je forces — so is that what makes it Fe?

It just seems like there are many dimensions of heroism that are missing from this conceptualization which forces us to lump all heroes in as  “Fe myth heros.”  Then, following that up with “the Fe myth isn’t natural for other types, so they are acting unnaturally if they are drawn to it” …. just doesn’t make sense.

The draw to heroism is universal because every single one of us has to grow up.

Naturally, a Pe myth is “youth” whereas the Pi myth is “the crone.” But Pe characters take on more dimensions as they become leaders (Je) and crones (Pi) .  So does this process make the story a Je or Pi myth? I would think the Pe “myth” involves a childlike, youthful, vitality-oriented person incorporating adult traits like responsibility and wisdom; just as a Fe “myth” involves incorporating Ji – morality, meaning, integrity.  And also, Pe – energy – to enact it.

Danaerys and Black Panther, for instance, have proper Fe myths, and their stories involve tapping into their lower functions (Ji and Pe) to find energy to enact their own morals – to get up and fight on a moments’ notice, loosen up and change their plans when needed (Pe), and to find the moral integrity that underlies  their leadership (Ji).

However Harry Potter, a Se character – when he incorporates his lower functions (Pi – wisdom/foresight; Je – leadership/organization), then he is moved to a “Fe story.”

See the imbalance here?


@faeruss
, I’d be curious what you think about this last point.

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Animal.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON