Moving away from Jungian notation

Home Page Forums Cognitive Functions Moving away from Jungian notation

  • safsom
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Meditating recently on the computational metaphor and the breakdowns of the metabolic processes laid down therein has helped me realize both the theoretical (in principle) and practical (observable) differences between CT’s functions (insofar as a function here refers to a certain psychological process) and the Jungian descriptions of the functions. The primary differences between these systems is how they describe the functions, CT’s stance towards the functions is more purely¬†metabolic¬†(that is, they exist ontologically with the purpose of being placeholders for certain processes implied by basic principles and observations). This is most evident in the recent publication of Auburn’s description of the functions through the computational metaphor, he has divorced them from specific intentional behaviors (the distinction between an intentional and unintentional behavior will become important later on in this text). This is a stark contrast to the differences that Jung outlines in Psychological Types between the profiles of his patients; indeed, his approach centered around formulating behavioral archetypes based off of more concrete observations of behaviors.

    How are the metabolic processes implied architecturally in CT? They are implied through the¬†energetic, which I view as the large-scale building block of the system – most of the observable differences behaviorally in people can be explained through these. An energetic in this context is simply a disposition towards energy levels in response to certain kinds of information. For example, though Pe-leads are generally considered the highest in terms of “energy” and engagement with the present, they can definitely present themselves as lethargic¬†so long as¬†that lethargy is a by-product of their focus on novelty, the object of their focus, etc… and the¬†allocation of psychic energy towards their own exploratory priorities rather than other domains. In this way, Pe, Je, Pi and Ji all exist as energetic¬†biases, i.e, leading with one of these processes implies that you have a bias towards the kinds of information they are most receptive to. Quadra emerges as a method of grouping these energetics through specific observed emergent properties from sub-categorizations of these energetics (specific functions like Ne, Ti, etc…).

    Jung’s approach (and subsequently, the approach of most of the other typology communities) centers not around¬†energy-allocation, but mostly on each function as an ontological unit. Through he did have basic precepts of rationality, irrationality, etc… these principles were largely discarded in favor of observations he had of each type (function in modern typology) individually. This means that grouping the functions together into pairs from which temperamental differences emerge (Te and Fe being Je, etc…) is rendered more and more difficult. Though this is somewhat possible purely off of the portraits outlined in Psychological Types, what is employed as “Jungian psychology” in practice is also rather different from what is outlined in his original work. Accounting for this, and modern “Jungian” systems (Beebe, Socionics, etc…) you see the functions even more divorced from temperaments/energy and more focused on functions and lists of traits they imply.

    CT’s methodology being more purely observational (in attempts to be “objective”) will naturally mean that the formulation of an “essential” set of non-vultological and psychological traits inherent to each function (because functions here are implied by energetics + quadra) are extremely difficult to define. It’s hard to tell what “Ti” is in essence because in almost all cases, what can be observed is that it is the¬†interplay¬†of Ti with the other functions (the overall energetic + quadra orientation) that results in the behavior of the type. This level of granularity makes it difficult to generalize trait-lists that other typologies are reliant on, and thus the only meaningful way to describe the functions are in terms of metabolic¬†processes¬†(through the employment of fundamental principles of biotic/abiotic etc…) rather than behaviors.

    To conclude, CT’s observable components are the vultology code (the only part of the “functions” that are quantifiable) and the energetics, which combined result in a quadra and a “type”. However, I think it is for the best of the theory that CT cease the use of the Jungian function names; as this misleads people into thinking that the¬†fundamentals¬†of the theory rest on that building block, when in fact, they are only¬†implied¬†as processes through the energetics + quadra (where “quadra” is a set of behaviors implied by vultological signals). Emergent type makes it impossible to define trait-list reductions of the functions, and thus processes are prioritized as a means of description. CT will thus never type based on the “functions” (and what they imply), indeed, “functions” are implied by observations of energy and quadra, and not as ontological units independent of processes. This is a hard distinction from Jung. The notation I propose is quadra + energetic + development, e.g “Gamma Worldview II-I” in place of “NiTe II-I”. Makes things less misleading.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 |
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.