- Type: NeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
I think it’s more about the paradigm we’re using than specific sentences. That’s why I thought it might be good to separate the universal from the function-specific myths.
For example, what in stories refers to individuation? I think this was the point, @faeruss was trying to make.
Individuation is about transformation, journey, death, coming-of-age. Many NF temperaments are drawn to these themes quite naturally. That’s the problem with a paradigm that assumes they are inherently Fe and unnatural to those who don’t have Fe. It’s kinda like saying, people without Fe are not drawn to individuate, which is what feels odd.
For example, the sense of “taking my father’s place” is not universal, but the sense of a journey, struggle, death and resurrection, and the search for the sense of “home” or completion are. Because this is the human life rather than any specific function.
If the myths are about the essence of a function, I don’t see what in these are the essence of Fe per se (or exclusively). They seem to me the essence of the sense of incompleteness inside all humans and the difficulties of life that are part of our experience (essentially, the human experience, inside and out, is what stories are about).
A person will generally feel ok until some kind of crisis throws them into a hero’s journey in some aspect of their life, so that they must now search for “home”. At the end of it (when things are “better” or resolved as far as that crisis goes), the person typically will have experienced:
1) A “call”,
2) A mission,
3) A journey,
5) Several defeats (most likely)
8) Death and resurrection.
Each time. Different aspects, different struggles, different crises, but if you “come out the other end”, you usually have experienced the whole cycle.
So we shouldn’t assume this to be Fe. Or rather, if it’s Fe in a special way, we should express in what way we mean. Because anybody reading that this kind of cycle is Fe might assume they are Fe rather than just human!
In fact, most hero’s journeys in stories begin with the hero refusing the call. This is because individuation is painful and scary and most of us don’t willingly go after it when push comes to shove, unless we have to. It is thrust upon us by crises, most of the time. Jung himself said without “necessity” the human personality isn’t born because we don’t just willingly suffer unless we are forced to by circumstances, crises, and catastrophes, most of the time.
I suggest that for Fe, the hero’s journey has a collective element to it. Their call, journey, process etc, might involve their place in society. But even this is not the essence of Fe but how Fe experiences the hero’s journey IMO.
I think the myth of Fe should be a role, like King, Prince, Senex. Rather than a process. Including the process/journey confuses it IMO. What’s the hero’s role? I think to be saviour (rescuing their people), champion (winning on behalf of their people, possibly against an enemy or in a contest with a rival group), and mentoring (leading their people on some collective/group journey) like @animal suggested; are all Fe roles. We can find a name that means them all.
I think the essence of Fe is, in contrast to the Te King, a communally “chosen” or “popular” leader; the person who has identified his own journey with that of the community. The one who embodies the needs and aspirations of “the people”, rather than ruling by tradition or practical need (The Te King). When rescuing, he’s the ‘saviour’; when bringing glory to his people, he’s a champion; when leading others on a “collective journey”, he’s the mentor. Fe is the popular leader who is carried on shoulders and hailed because he does something his people deeply cherish or need in some way, rather than because he’s an effective, fair, or efficient administrator (Te).