Knowing how challenging it is to bring psychoanalysis into any sort of objective territory, I have been the most prudent in reserving my commentary on this domain in relation to CT, despite it being of deep personal fascination to me.
It is easy to weave together concepts of how the contents of the unconscious work, but a nigh-impossible challenge to formulate supporting evidence for a given explanation.
If the premise of CT is correct, and it properly and objectively groups together psyches, not just bodies, then it presents an unusual opportunity to examine the developmental processes of people who share the same root psychology -- without being confounded on whether or not the psychology is really the same at "root." The variations and transformations that happen within people, and even in oneself across time, present a challenge when trying to determine any typological (DSM/ICD/ennegram, or what-have-you) continuity reliably and scalably. The complexes and disorders of people can be shuffled around year to year, as things are re-framed and re-framed because there is no "static" or canonical psychology to act as a baseline or scaffold from which to make sense of personal transformations.
And if indeed CT is correct in tapping into that core/baseline psychology, then it is essentially the proper starting point from which to understand transformation and growth; in context of a type.
This can be done by examining the paths of growth of rightly-typed people, as they shift development levels and heart attitudes. I am not a psychoanalyst, but by observing hundreds of CT typed people across many years --including many of you-- I feel I have just enough data present to put forward my first tentative hypothesis on psychoanalysis as it relates to CT. This is not an infallible proclamation but rather a thesis awaiting review. I hope some of the ideas here will be of value for CT -- as I've always known psychoanalysis is an inseparable part of CT's future.
What follows is a narrative of my evolving thoughts and present conclusions on the matter. As always, let me know your thoughts-- thank you all so much for reading.
My dilemma began by trying to explain certain pressing questions raised by the data. Chief among these questions was what role the unconscious processes were playing in the individual-- and what could explain net effects we see. Some practical examples of what I mean...
...Are for example, why FiNe ll-- Seelie Tibees is enamoured with theoretical physics, a Te heavy field, while she could not even finish her degree (-Je) and dropped out of an expensive university program near her completion. And also why she did not show conscious levels of Je.
She then goes onto make youtube videos on theoretical physics, but explaining it using childish drawings of trees and people, as if to an elementary audience, and does so with Delta ethereality.
...Or why, of all the functions Jordan Peterson does not have conscious, it's Ni, and yet he speaks so highly of people like NiFe Carl Jung and has a deep appreciation for Ni works. And yet, it is fitting at the same time because Peterson refuses, despite all appearances, to give a canonical worldview of anything. He remains ever-questioning, never-settling, and he showcases this dynamic and proactive "struggle to understand" in his interviews. This is counter to high Ni's with conscious Ni, who have settled into a "knowledge", not just in the literal sense of being well learned, but in the adoption and digestion of some foundational schema that defines reality.
...Or why Tolkien, whose vultology appears TeSi by all accounts, and does not display conscious Fi+Ne signals, wrote about a vivid fantasy world and filled thousands of pages of Si narrativism... for the service of the "numinous"; something he sensed he was tapping into. At the same time, he indeed could not be called FiNe or NeFi by any CT standards, as his participation in life (as career professor, linguist, academic, etc) was very heavily Conductor, and there is no discrepancy in the data in that department.
(I will give a fuller account of the datasets from which these conclusions derived later, but I'll stop here for now)
What I concluded from this is that the so-called "unconscious" functions in these samples were very much alive, very much part of the psychic economy, and I had to understand in what way they were alive. The answer came to me as I was reading Jung and Neumann, when I realized that it was silly to ever consider that the unconscious has any less reality to personhood than the conscious.
The entire premise of psychoanalysis is that the human is whole, in essence, but the relationship between the components becomes certain things. For example, the man has an inner woman that is just as strong as his conscious masculinity, and nonetheless defines his life in unconscious ways. So I'd like to frame this as a sort of principle to the effect of:
No part of the human psychic economy is ever missing; it is simply in a specific form. No cognitive aspect, nor its libido, is ever diminished or removed from the psychic economy. The differences between people's cognitive types and developments is a matter of difference in functional state.
So Tibees' Te is just as important as her Fi, but the relationship she has to her Fi and Te needs more clarity. Peterson's Ni is no less strong than his Ti and Se, but the way he relates to his Ni is different to how he relates to his Ti and Se. I will get into what these differences are further down, but it suffices to say that to be a "whole" human is to have all the necessary components within you, as biological circuits, and thus none of us have more or less of a given thing. It is simply in different form.
It makes no sense to speak of people having "less" of a given cognitive faculty, unless we wish to suggest morphological differences in brains, which is not well supported. Instead, it is something about the wiring and the relationship of the components that is determining these differences in psychology.
This is actually a big shift from an old assumption I started with, where I felt that certain types have "more" or "less" of a process (i.e. function/attitude). I now understand this was wrong, and every person has equal levels of the core components of cognition (N/S/T/F + Je/Pi/Pe/Ji) but they are in different states.
Hierarchy: The Relationship, Not the Amount
Now, if we agree that due to the conservation of psychic energy in each person, we all have the same faculties and the same essential potency of them, then the definition of "hierarchy" needs greater clarification. No longer can we say 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 as if to suggest that functions came in amounts.
Still, I need to be clear and say that I do believe there is priority in the psyche, and there is hierarchy in the sense of a chain-of-command. The evidence has not convinced me that hierarchy is false. Indeed, hierarchy and its innate quality continues to be a supported conclusion by every new samples. Hierarchy does exist but it is far more of an elaborate world than I previously imagined. The relationship between the functions is something that I will touch upon in the following posts.
Now, before getting into hierarchy proper, it becomes necessary to take a look at consciousness. As you all know, CT has been using the term conscious to denote certain functions that demonstrate a full vultological portfolio -- but not much has been said about the unconscious functions. In the absence of a definition for unconscious functions, many have raised concerns over CT's failure to correctly represent their psychology. I apologize for this as I have only recently become sufficiently acquainted with the subject matter to talk about it in depth. Here is my attempt at explicating the matter:
Conscious: A conscious function has all of its components (I'll explain 'components' later) lifted above the unconscious. That is the most straightforward description to give, but it means nothing unless we understand what the "unconscious" means. In my recent study of Jungian literature I've been exposed to a much richer understanding of the unconscious. Erich Neumann makes clear that the unconscious is a place that links way back to our ancestral times, far back when we existed in a mythological age. Early man was largely unconscious before the appearance of "consciousness", which lifted contents out of the primordial ocean and brought them into light.
The unconscious world is laced with the numinous, that which evokes in us a contact with something beyond. When contents are unconscious, they have an altogether different quality.
Unconscious: A function that is unconscious does not have all of its components (again I'll explain 'components' later) lifted above into consciousness. The effect that this produces is a function which is just as active, alive, libido-charged, as any conscious version of itself-- but it is in a dreamlike state. The word I'd like to use here is "fantastical." An unconscious function is fantastical and dreamlike within the psychic economy, making the person's relationship to it one tinged with magical views and experiences. At the same time, it lacks the behavioral "abilities" (or products) that come with the integration of all of its components.
This is why Elon Musk, a TiSe lll- whose one missing function is Fe... is driven fantastically into a heroic salvation of humanity. This is why FeNi Jordan Peterson, whose one missing function is Ni... is driven to advocate to the world how imperative it is that we not throw out the Pi of the past. This is why TeSi J.K. Rowling and TeSi J.R.R. Tolkien write extensive ethereal fiction novels that dramatize the other half of their inner life. Which brings me to the proper description of an unconscious function:
An unconscious function can take two forms, that of the daimon or of the muse. When the unconscious function is daimonic, it is in its lowest form of integration and appears as an agent separate from the ego. The daimon will appear as an "other" entity that is not associated with us (or so we think), and who we may even be afraid of. The daimon corresponds roughly to what has been previously called repression in CT, although this is now evolving and repression was not the right term for it. The daimon is described as:
As Jung used the term, “daimon” referred to something alien from the unconscious, an “archetype” or “numinous imperative which from ancient times has been accorded a far higher authority than the human intellect.” As an archetype, the “daimon” is universal, something experienced in all peoples and cultures. Among indigenous tribes, it shows up as a “primitive power concept.” As “an autonomous psychic content,” the daimon is a “force as real as hunger and the fear of death.” Because it is autonomous, it behaves within us like a god, making demands of us and acting with authority. The poet and potter M.C. Richards describes the experience of the daimon well when she says, “There lives a creative being inside all of us and we must get out of its way for it will give us no peace unless we do.”
@scientiam , @bera , @faerie @smogs @rondo , and several other members have articulated their relationship to this daimon. Faerie described her Te as a "bull" before it became part of her. Scientiam described his as a wolf, when it became a muse. My confidence in these conclusions stems in great part from your testimonies with function development.
Now the daimon and muse are two words for the same thing, as manifested in different forms. Bera has said that her Ni appears to her as a spider or witch; some terrifying being that threatens to take her over. This signals the daimon more than the muse aspect. This is described well in the link above under this paragraph:
The daimon shows up in life as certain feeling states, with a “release of affect.” That is, we feel something, usually something powerful, something with numinosity—an energy that cannot be gainsaid. It can seem like we are being taken over, because the level of intensity and energy exceeds normal human limits. When we are in its “grip,” the daimon will make us feel like we are caught up in a force or process that is carrying us along. And so, it requires courage to deal with, because we don’t fully understand this force, or know where we are being carried, or what we are being led to undertake. Nor do we often recognize this force as something that is our own.
Now, when the daimon instead becomes the muse, then the relationship to the function is more positive, less anxiety-inducing and traumatic to encounter. It becomes a source of creative potential, of novel writing, of artistry, of crafts and deeper life fulfillment. Indeed, the daimon/muse can be so strong that it can define the central life aspiration of the person. It can become everything that the person is "about", what they're into and so forth.
Difference from Consciousness
But this will be qualitatively different than consciousness proper. As has been made clear by now, it would be a mistake to call the unconscious less descriptive of personhood than the conscious. If anything, the opposite is surely more true - as we are ruled by our unconscious to a greater measure than the conscious. One might even decide to keep a function in a muse relationship, if that is what is desired; to retain a connection to some numinous channel.
The function that is conscious goes through two processes.
1 - Demythologized, but Humbly Realized
First it is lifted out of the enchantment of the unconscious, thus altering some of its energetic charge. The energetic charge that was once dreamlike and fantastical is now realistic and hence more disillusioned.
A more Fe-conscious Elon Musk would not only stutter less in presentations, but would also have less idealistic and utopian visions about humanity's future. A more conscious Jordan Peterson would settle into a given understanding and sprawl out his knowledge into a volume set, but no longer feel as much sense of perpetual mystery about the world.
However, notice that something is also gained with each case. Again, the conservation of psychic energy demands that the libido of the function be redirected elsewhere. When a function is conscious, there is more capacity to use it practically. Which leads to the second facet:
2 - Integration of Cognitive Skills/Components
Now I mentioned that consciousness is defined by all the "components" of a function rising out of unconsciousness. I do not have a full list of what these are, because I think the functions are high-order cognitive cliques/circuits that run across a variety of brain regions. So for example I suspect Je is a high-order program that utilizes the language centers, the reasoning centers, and so forth. Thus, Je rises fully into consciousness at the same time as language/articulation grows, as well as willpower and the conscientious components of the brain. For now, the closest I have to a list of the components involved in a function can be intuited by looking at the "abilities" produced in this article: https://cognitivetype.com/energetic-abilities/
In closing, when a function is fully conscious its libido is transformed from something fantastical and dreamlike to something practical and real. The mental attention begins to be less imaginary, but that is traded off with a certain sort of application that embodies the function in one's physical form.
This is why @animal has a vast imagination and fantasy world of Ni themes, while her dad (Ni-lead) is not nearly as esoteric as she is.... however, he is more properly fulfilling the role of sage/senex by being a counselor by profession -- just to give an example.
The realizations of a conscious function are always a tad more humble than their unconscious imaginations, as this is always the case with any psychic content that is lifted into consciousness. The same happens with the anima/animus as they are lifted off from the soulmate fairytale into actuality, to give just one example.
Thus, there is an irony at work where some of the most prototypical and iconic depictions of functions come from those who have them as unconscious aspects, but are using the abilities (components) of other conscious processes to channel them out.
While there are many NeFi fairies in the world, they are too busy being themselves to do what Tolkien/Rowling have done in painting a prototype of them in the world. It may be that many fairytales are the results of high Te+Si writers writing love poems to their muse. Meanwhile, the actual creature (NeFi) falls a little short of that elvish fantasy, but is also the actuality being pointed to.
Another inverted example of this can be seen in adventure video games, where the majority of renown video gamers are revisers and specifically Pe-leads. The Je+Pi functions are unconscious and yet this is projected into the fantasy world of games, where they swing their swords heroically, overturn evil dictators and save the world. The reason why fantasy video games exist might be the same reason why the TeSi's write about fairies. The revisers fantasize about heroism and world success, and in this way they channel the libido of their conductor functions. But again, all the while they are not realistically or practically executing any of those abilities in day to day life.
~ ~ ~
(Awareness of all of this also alters the definition of "humanness" in relation to esotericism, and asserts that all humans are fundamentally esoteric in some fashion. All types are superstitious and have one foot in the depths. Even those ST types who have not yet looked at their heels, will find magical creatures glued to them when they look.)
The potential psychoanalytic / therapeutic potential that CT has is my main interest in CT as well, and growth / psychotherapy remains a subject of lifelong interest of mine to deeply understand and pursue. I have for a while now been interested in expanding the psychological cues for each function, and it's really really nice to read all this!
I have suspected that the functions are certain clusters or networks within the physical neurology of the brain as well, but not knowing much about neurology at all, I wasn't sure how accurate this might be. It's very cool to see someone else came to the same possible conclusion independently.
Not to make this post a novel, but I've also been interested in the unconscious for most of my life as well. In the Jungian sense, the Shadow is all those things we reject in ourselves in order to have a personality we can identify with. Without our Shadow, there is no self, because it really is half of our self. We define the self with negatives as much as we do positives (I am not brutal, I am kind; I am not unthinking, I am attentive; etc). I have often wondered since discovering CT if the unconscious functions play the role of the Shadow in a way. The shadow is always with us, and if we are not careful, it rules us. Learning to integrate and accept the unconscious parts of yourself was one of the messages Jung most urgently tried to give to people in his work, in my opinion. CT being based on Jungian typology, could this be a quantified and modern variation on the same message?
CT being based on Jungian typology, could this be a quantified and modern variation on the same message?
Yes, in a sense if CT is right about its core premises, then it would be a more high-resolution explanation of what is actually involved in raising functions into consciousness in a person's individuation journey. I do think dream analysis and other psychoanalytical tools are complementary here. What CT would add is an understanding of what the nature of the daimon (which is trying to rise to consciousness) is, and what its core message is. This could accelerate the process of integration, since we would have an understanding of the person's type and what function is disguised as the dream figure.
The shadow is an interesting topic, and the way I would contextualize it in the above posts is that the difference between the daimon and muse (it's the same thing at core) is whether or not the ego sees it as part of the self or not; hence the felt "otherness" of the daimon. And that is essentially a description of the shadow, as the shadow is all that which the ego denies.
Thus, an unconscious function that is also disassociated from the ego will manifest as a daimon; a violent force threatening the ego and acting with seeming autonomy. It's really quite the way @faerie was describing the emergence of her Te before it integrated, and how she'd have sudden radical "bursts" that seemed uncalled for. It's also exactly the way Bera currently describes her Ni, and indeed calling it a shadow makes sense. (Bera maybe there's a call-to-action here?)
To the degree that a function's elements are not recognized as belonging to the self, they are shadow elements. But a function can be unconscious and yet not be "shadow", and that is the muse form. The muse remains numinous, as does everything in the unconscious, but it appears to us as a gateway towards the divine; as a channel or vessel for some grand contact with purpose, value and truth. This is seen in Ekhart Tolle's elevation of "presence" (a mythologization of Se presence), and in all the aforementioned (Musk, Peterson, Tolkien, Rowling, Tibees, etc)
On a technical note, this is not to say that the shadow is only comprised of those functions that are unconscious and denied ego affiliation -- as the shadow is an amalgamation of any and all psychic contents disassociated from the ego. And the shadow will always exist, but it would get smaller if a function is transmuted from a daimonic form. Jung described the shadow as a globular entity, and the process of individuation involves yanking different elements out of this psychic amalgamation.
But.. anyhow, I am in the process of testing this hypothesis more stringently across a wider base of samples, and processing the full breadth of implications, but this is how it appears to me at present. If this holds true then CT will have a basis from which to describe individuation at a high resolution, on a type-by-type, dev-by-dev basis which is quite exciting to think about.
But what do you all think?
<3 all of the above. A question that presented itself to me: Is it possible to transform a daimon into a muse without lifting the greater part of a function’s components into consciousness?
The shadow is an interesting topic, and the way I would contextualize it in the above posts is that the difference between the daimon and muse (it’s the same thing at core) is whether or not the ego sees it as part of the self or not; hence the felt “otherness” of the daimon. And that is essentially a description of the shadow, as the shadow is all that which the ego denies.
Thus, an unconscious function that is also disassociated from the ego will manifest as a daimon; a violent force threatening the ego and acting with seeming autonomy. It’s really quite the way @faerie was describing the emergence of her Te before it integrated, and how she’d have sudden radical “bursts” that seemed uncalled for. It’s also exactly the way Bera currently describes her Ni, and indeed calling it a shadow makes sense. (Bera maybe there’s a call-to-action here?)
To the degree that a function’s elements are not recognized as belonging to the self, they are shadow elements. But a function can be unconscious and yet not be “shadow”, and that is the muse form. The muse remains numinous, as does everything in the unconscious, but it appears to us as a gateway towards the divine; as a channel or vessel for some grand contact with purpose, value and truth. This is seen in Ekhart Tolle’s elevation of “presence” (a mythologization of Se presence), and in all the aforementioned (Musk, Peterson, Tolkien, Rowling, Tibees, etc)
Omg, @Auburn, I'm so thoroughly in love with everything you're saying in this thread, I think I'll burst open, lol!
And yes, yes, yes! Absolutely! Te was my shadow (might still be in a far less degree than before, since I feel my integration journey is not complete though well on its way).
You also just now added an interesting dynamic I hadn't even considered! It may very well be that I'm merely INTEGRATING Te without it necessarily becoming fully conscious . . . Perhaps consciousness is the step that FOLLOWS integration (accepting it as me too)--at least 4 me; i.e integration may perhaps be the precondition sometimes (to full consciousness) rather than the result of it as we typically assume?
I say that because I find I'm now all about doing what we might call 'consciously practicing Te activities', and that may perhaps lead to a more organic growth/coming-into-full consciousness or coming-under-full-control-of-consciousness/ego of my previously hated Te. Maybe integration comes from a mo violent place than coming-into-consciousness, and maybe the two processes can also happen concurrently, catalyzing each other, in some people rather than one preceding/allowing the other.
Either way, this is a topic after my own heart and I'm very glad to see it.
Also re the mythic Te, I wanted to add, other than 'the wild bull' symbol/metaphor/spirit, I have also been deep into the integrating-masculinity-with-femininity-theme a lot, starting around February this year. I think it was/is also another description of the same struggle. So we have:
1) The (wild) bull
2) Pure Masculine energy. Masculinity is (to me): "Other", "Strong", "Unruled/Unruly?Totally-autonomous".
3) The Warrior/Hunter: In some of my Shamanic Journeying visualization exercises, I have also seen at one point a stern-faced warrior figure that I understood as 'masculinity' and later, a little girl, about 6-years old, named Carita, who led me round a fountain and advised me to solve my problems with, "Be kind and smile." I immediately understood her to be Fi seelie energy but I later also saw her as my representation of feminine energy.
All this to say, I think this was/is all part of what we're calling 'integrating Te'!
I'm now not only NOT loathe to Te tools/methods, I'm seeing how very useful they are and taking them up (willingly!!!) for use, myself. It's still in service of clearly Fi-purposes, of course, lol (Being fully myself and helping others be fully themselves, or as I put it in an old journal, 'Being happy and helping others be happy). So Fi is still king of this pair but with Te's contribution and value as a partner being much better/consciously appreciated. Hopefully, Te becomes a full partner as the time goes on.
I'll hopefully write another post in the future describing what I think is my current phase of evolution re Te (How-to-summon-it, kinda thing).
Keep up the good work, Aub!!! I loves it.
EDIT! Goodness, sthing else just hit me! My harping on and on about 'the hero's journey' (the theme of one of my projects)! In light of the Muse vs Daimon dynamic, it seems to be my 'Te Muse', replacing the mo daimonic Wild Bull imagery! I.e. Te is now the Hero (in my personal mythology). Like a more fleshed out 'warrior/hunter'. Wow. In my story, he has a steed too: Like a traditional Knight. So the steed might be another replacement for my Bull, esp because Elsie told me earlier in the year its how she saw her own graceful Te: A prancing pony of sorts. (The villain is also Te too, granted, lol, but I made it/him/she/they up (it's all four, lol) long ago!
<3 all of the above. A question that presented itself to me: Is it possible to transform a daimon into a muse without lifting the greater part of a function’s components into consciousness?
Yes, that's essentially what the muse is, I believe. It's when a function is not daimonic (because it is integrated, or identified with the ego) and yet the full set of cognitive components are not lifted into consciousness, so it's a source of pleasant and inexhaustible mystery-- of something unknown yet understood as part of us; our inner genius from which unexpected contents rise.
Part of the wonder and awe we have at the muse, and what defines the muse, is the direct result of not knowing it; of it being unconscious. The contents of the muse may feel like it comes "from above", or "from below" or some other divine source -- and in this way we see that there is an unconscious aspect inherent to the muse.
^^Mm. On phone and with limited internet so I’ll try and stay succinct (failure likely and imminent), as there is so much that could be said. My primary drive is always towards the cessation of suffering. Since that Buddhist “calling”, I have also understood that myself and those around me would always be vulnerable to a suffering I didn’t have control over as long as I had autonomous, unconscious drives at work. To let go of anything attached to the Self, it must first be understood, loved, and integrated. The Buddhist path also seeks to release the Self partially/completely from consciousness in order to attain freedom from suffering, but that is well beyond the parameters of CT. And having delighted in the products of artists’+Muses all my life, I am happy that CT is reaching a fuller understanding of these unconscious influences on personality. I am very hopeful that in our individual journeys of individuation and integration there will be alchemical intricacies discovered that can help people find their “best fit” of psychic structure, though because each function is an accretion of immeasurable depth, fluctuations in psychic stability will be inevitable.
EDIT: I completely misread the post I was replying to, and the following has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Very sorry! Don't read and write hungover kids.
I think delving into the unconscious / subconscious / shadow will always bring some instability. In self-help writing, there's a lot of consensus that breakdown usually precedes growth, and instability is in itself a signal that you're doing something right for your long-term personal journey (if you're doing it right.) To integrate a piece of your shadow will always be frightening and disorienting. You're changing they very way you see every piece of your world, changing your base personality. I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling, being at llll development! Every single one of those awakenings must have been difficult, I can imagine, whether you were aware of them or not.
While we may be able to give people a roadmap or understanding of the growth process, I don't think we can ever take away the element of Trialhood from personal growth. This concept is where things like Myth come from, Campbell's heroes journey. It's a part of most human cultures to mark a transition into adulthood through a kind of guided traumatic experience: the initiation ritual. I think functional development is probably a similar flavor of event.
So while seeking to map the journey every human must take to fully understand themselves is certainly commendable, this may be something that we have all the tools to understand from birth. This kind of work, I think, is instinctual to every person (if Maslow has anything to say.)
I'm interested in this theory and how it fleshes out.
Certain things resonate with me, and I can see how my love addiction has to do with my unconscious. I have previously thought of Te as my Animus function. Now, in light of my CT type and level, maybe it is a muse.
Currently, it feels frightening and disorienting to me to confront Fe--I think it's a daimon. From my limited understanding of Jung, for my functional stack, Fe is the most heavily "repressed" (because it is equally strong as Fi, but the ego keeps it under--I noted that Auburn is moving away from that terminology, though, which I'll keep in mind). Anyway, I have severe problems trusting affective empathy. To my understanding, one Fe aspect I feel threatened by / my ego considers non-self, is when people judge and act upon their judgements of someone based on....how the person emotes. For example, conclusively going, "I don't like her. Just something about her. A bad vibe." This might be a "wild bull" to me--powerful and I'm afraid it's gonna destroy stuff. As opposed to the controlled, predictable way of keeping initial judgments to oneself, and waiting to act on them until the other person's concrete actions speak for themselves (Fi-Te?).
This makes a *lot* of sense for me if you look at the probable types of my parents and my attachment styles and subsequent relationships with them.
However my need to start dipping my toes into the realm of affective empathy has been growing super clear to me, recently.
(::hopes so hard this makes sense!:.)
@alice I very much agree with what you’ve written above. Ironically, I feel so many people are led astray from the growth path of their own psyche because some guru or expert is being listened to instead of their own instincts. Rather than enforce a prior configuration onto this fluid process, paying attention to the growth patterns that we share here with each other should (with a good bit of help from The Aubs) coalesce into a basic scaffold compatible with a broad range of individual modifications. As we build up a bigger knowledge base in this way, then as a community we could become much stronger at helping people with these burning questions of the psyche.
Looking back on it, each new conscious function emerging was like jumping off the rooftop ahead of me to avoid the fire behind me, and in keeping with the basic patterns described in the OP, my values now mostly reside in the practicality and self-reliance of the functions rather than in their numinosity as unconscious wellsprings. I think St. Theresa put this sentiment beautifully when she said that the “Lord moves amidst the pots and pans.” However, there is also a powerful hubris that can become enmeshed with this willful self-reliance, and I do find it extraordinarily difficult to ask for help. Was reminded of this today when I made a hapless error and cut my finger very deeply, but immediately disregarded the thought to ask the two other people in the house for help, instead doing everything I could to staunch the bleeding and doing the cleaning on my own, and only asking for help once the critical moments had already passed and I was satisfied things were basically “under control.” Folly.
Came across an extremely relevant passage from C.G. Jung’s Red Book.
I also wanted to add a poem here by one Alberto Caeiro, a persona of the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. The entire poem is worth reading, but the specific section directly relevant to CT is in Section VIII, and has to do with the awakening Muse of the Eternal Child. Here is a link with the entire poem "Keeper of Flocks", as well as a brief introduction: https://alberto-caeiro.blogspot.com/
I think its interesting when reading about the visualizations people have made. I have experienced a wild bull bursting through the door, and I have seen I have these really big horns. Is this my tertiary Te being integrated (since it is a lower down function for me). I see it can be both violently aggressive but also silently strong. I am also a Sun in Taurus, though I don't really believe it describes me at least not consciously.
I also experienced a mental image of a spider web engulfing me before reading the article of the daemon/muse. Would this be my inferior Ni function? So interesting that I saw these visualizations before reading about it. Perhaps it is an intuitive hunch/foreknowledge.