I'm sorry 4 taking the thread off topic again with my Ne tangents (I promise it's not usually on purpose!), but to bring it back on course, @auburn, @ladynerdsky, I wonder about John Beebe's Archetypal model.
He matches archetype to hierarchy. He was one of Jung's own students and a Psychiatrist and he came up with it. Now, granted, it's based on an 8-function stack; but besides that, I think we can get get some insights in our thinking of the myths of each specific type or just generally. He's typed NeTi, I think by Jung and himself. (I think his typing is correct per CT, just fyi, but here he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=770FrOmZbuU). Anyway, there were pdfs of the theory on the internet long ago. Not sure how much he's modified the thinking to date, if at all, but here goes: http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/winter08-evolving-the-eight-function-model.pdf
Basically, to quote a small excerpt,
In this way, I began to evolve my understanding that the four functions are brought into consciousness through the dynamic energy of particular archetypes:
• Hero for the superior function
• Father for the second or “auxiliary” function
• Puer for the tertiary function
• Anima for the inferior function
I use these four as they are his archetypes for the four main functions. But he goes further and types their shadows as well, hence making his model, 8; with the other four being our shadow, not ego (Using Jung's concept of ego, I think we can say ego is our hierarchy plus development when it comes to CT).
So, in his model, these other four are the mirror opposites of the four differentiated functions, in function and archetypal energy/complex. So they might be how we project onto those who have these functions we don't have, since to us, they are the shadow.
• Opposing Personality would be like an Anti-hero shadow
• Negative Parent/Witch which is the like an anti-Father/Mother shadow
• Trickster which is like an anti-Puer shadow
• Demon which is like an anti-Anima shadow
We don't have to consider this second bit too much, though, since even in his model, it's entirely shadow. Though it might help us understand possible ways we might be projecting all sorts of motivations onto opposite types. Again, not necessary. The main idea I am thinking we can borrow to test is the idea that the function stack may correspond to archetypal energies, to add to the richness of our myths!
So, recalling our old Harry Potter debates and involving @animal et al, this would be in that ballpark of what we suggested there: the idea that each function can sometimes be a hero, a parent/mentor, a puer/child, a source of mysticism, or villain etc on a person's egoic/individuation journey. This would be different kinds of hero/mentor/child etc roles than, for example, Fe-heroism, Pi-Senexness, Pe-Puerness, etc. Like different roles in a story determined by the function stack. What do y'all think?
So, for me personally, I can say Fi is the goal of any "parenting" I do with anyone: I see the inherent goodness of the one "parented" and try to build their own sense of it (I take their innate okness forgranted and don't make them try to earn it; give them acceptance; draw their attention to the wonderfulness of their being, inspire them, encourage them etc). I think we've noted these heart-to-heart little boosts of worth/esteem that many PeFis tend to give spontaneously and easily on the Dischord, both seelies and unseelies.
I mean, I use all the functions any time I'm parenting anyone, of course, esp Ne but I'm much more comfortable Fi-ing someone than I am Ne-ing them, you know? I'm terrified of the idea of someone running with my suggestions and falling flat; I feel confident trying things, experimenting, and suggesting them/sharing them where I think they serve the Fi goal (help them access their own true life/worth/happiness etc); but when people come to me for advice, I do poorly if I attempt to help them with Ne's heroic agendas (they are a bit self-centered--kinda like "I can solve this problem!"). Fi's agendas, when I can access my heart purely and don't contaminate it with the agendas of the other functions, almost never steer me wrong with other people.
On the other hand, I can see how my Ne is a hero: It's how I've always solved my problems and gotten myself out of trouble just in the nick of time. I like thinking up connections etc, and I feel it if someone steals my ideas. My Fi doesn't care so much for that (unless I'm accused of nefarious motives which hurts like a B!).
I think my Te has a trickster role in me: sabotaging. Maybe Beebe's trickster/puer can be merged for this role? Maybe not integrating the function gives it the quality of the shadow role rather than the egoic/positive role, like the Puer role? Mine feels like a hapless Father who doesn't know how to parent but is eager to yank control from the Fi-mother.
I've already explained in my tangents how I've come to see Si as my gateway to the unconscious, to mysticism in other words.
Is it possible others may notice something like these in how they personally relate to their functions and the kinds of roles they end up playing for their personal goals and hero's journeys?
I read the Beebe article and was trying to map my first four functions onto his archetypal roles. I just don't know enough about the archetypes themselves and how to differentiate each of them before overlaying my functions, to give an answer. What actually are the Hero, Mother/Father, Puella/Puer and Anima/Animus in his system?
He’s typed NeTi, I think by Jung and himself. (I think his typing is correct per CT, just fyi, but here he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=770FrOmZbuU)
He was looking SiFe to me in that video, so I double-checked and yep he's definitely an SiFe, as we can see in this video also:
^ Si Rambling
^ Si Narrativism
^ Si Slanting Edges + Pi Inertial Energy + Si Confused Stare
He has very strong Si narrativism, going from anchor to anchor, date to date, name to name, experience to experience. His body is very stumpy, with a pair of eyes that drift to the sides, scrunching and scowling in Pi memory recall.
As he tells his story about how he came about his type, it's very clear that he's dichotomy-centric (N/S/T/F) and then reverse-deduces functions. He starts his personal investigation by saying "well I know I'm an N, that much is for sure" and then narrows it down "I also know I'm a T, so I'm an NT".
I must keep an open mind, but so far I don't really see much promise in his "expertise" as he seems to be yet another two-dimensional (non-metabolic) typology thinker, albeit with a "higher" public profile. I'm not impressed, for example, by Lenore Thompson either.
What I mean by two-dimensional is that for him Fe is the combination of F+E, and so forth, as he talks about it in this interview with none of the complexity that belongs to Fe or any of these functions.
I mention this because part of the origin and rationality for his 8 archetypes model drew heavily on his own personal experience. If he got his type wrong, then the order of all his functions is not what he thinks they are.