Harry Potter's Fictional Type

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Harry Potter's Fictional Type

  • This topic has 81 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by Bera.
  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    So I can see your point, and I do agree that Pe has an element of rebirth in it.

    But to me it is more related to fertility.

    I’ll explain what I mean in a bit, but first:

    They will be vulnerable to surrender to the transience of life, flowing with all its currents, only to wash up ashore in a life they neither expected or wanted. But Pe also gives types a capacity to recover from hardships, to maintain hope and to keep on swimming.

    If you’ve ever watched the movie Finding Nemo, you might know the phrase: “just keep swimming”

    Dori is an NeFi archetype, and is a fish who suffers from short term memory loss.

    The way that I see it, is Pe’s regenerative abilities come from Pe’s refresh factor. And it manifests in making things new, novel, interesting. It manifests in livening up places that are in decay. Here is how I would compare the fertility archetype to the phoenix archetype, and you can tell me what you think:

    Fertility:

    • Springtime
    • Green
    • Youth
    • New life
    • Vibrancy.
    • Grapes, Wine.
    • Music, Dance.
    • Sexuality.
    • Mirth.
    • Joy.

    Phoenix:

    • Fire
    • Trials
    • Challenges
    • Death
    • Rebirth from the ashes
    • Purification
    • Gold
    • Refinement of Character

    See, to me the difference is quite striking. Both have overlap in the sense of “new life” but the new life that Pe generates is from the re-population of the old with the new. Pe makes things contemporary. Pe jazzes things up. Pe “gets things going” again when they’re stagnant. That’s the kind of new life it brings.

    For Je, it’s about trial-and-error, it’s about getting better at (the goal) coming closer to (the ideal). Up and up towards ascension. I do not see this with Pe. Because with Pe, the new idea may be just as good or better as the old one, or it could be crappy. Pe will discard things and try again, but it may also just discard things if they’re too boring. There isn’t a brick-by-brick continuity there.

    There is no arduous process in Pe’s version. It’s almost a type of forgetfulness or disinterest that causes newness. “I wanna do something else now” is the most bratty expression of this. 😉 So renewal isn’t at all the same.

    For me the phoenix myth is not just about new life but is *specifically* about the betterment of character, it’s about rising up towards the philosopher’s stone; alchemy. And alchemy is about turning lead into gold. Turning a weak, unimpressive metal into something glorious. This has a hierarchical element to it (a value system) that Pe doesn’t have. But to me the phoenix does carry these undertones.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Hmm.
    After listening to your video for the second time –

    I once covered “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” and I changed some of the lyrics.  This is the one that just came to mind:

    I look at the world and I notice it’s turning
    Still my guitar gently weeps
    My spine is curled, and my fingers are burning
    Still my guitar gently weeps…

    [Background voices:
    Look at you, look at you, look at you all. I’ll get you, I’ll get you, I’ll get you off.…]

    I put my original lyrics in italics 😛

    I have many other lyrics like this, but I don’t want to write my unfinished stuff in public 🙁

    The general gist is: I suffer for my music, my craft. I bleed for it.  My fingers are calloused and my heart is dry because I’ve scraped up every ounce of emotion so I could bleed it into the songs.

    There’s a strong sacrificial element, and I felt this even before I lost my voice. I gave up my childhood to practice that one note for 12 hours on a Saturday… over, and over, and over.  Any tiny mistake was a reflection of my character.

    I didn’t want to be famous, but it was ‘the price I had to pay’ in order to live out my dream and my purpose; what I was meant to do.

    My attitude toward music, or writing –  was always  one of sacrifice, bleeding and burning in order to become the vessel through which this vision could emerge, unscathed from its original form.  I’ve put my very character and soul through the fire to do this.

    I could say “I play music/ write books because I enjoy it,” but really, I don’t care about fun or enjoyment. It’s not a ‘fun adventure’ for me. What turns me on, and moves me to the bone, is putting myself through the grind.

    I know it’s not about me – hehe – but I’m wondering what this means in terms of type?  Seems like the SeFi III- … at least for me… is somehow touching on the same principles of the pain, and rebirth of the phoenix, rather than just momentary rebirth like I had suggested for Pe. Which really, is not what it is for me.  For me it’s all about the pain, sacrifice and suffering; dedicating myself wholly to a purpose for the sake of something greater than myself.

    Hmm.

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

    @auburn once again our posts crossed, so I was responding to your video, not to your post. Sorry about that.

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

    Ok, so I read the post.
    I agree with you on principle, and when I close my eyes and picture other people, it works really well. It doesn’t work for me, though.

    I had no idea developing another two functions could make this much difference.

    To be clear, this post is about me, as an example of a SeFi III- , and I wonder if this is common among PeFi III. I’d really like to find out if this applies to @shelley-lorraine for instance.

    I’m putting in bold the themes that come up for me.

    new, novel, interesting.  –  I don’t care about this.

    Fertility: Springtime, Green, Grapes, Wine., Mirth, Joy. – I don’t care for any of this. It bores me to death honestly.

    Youth, New life, Vibrancy, Music, Dance, Sexuality. -> Yes.

    Phoenix: Fire, Trials, Challenges, Death, Rebirth from the ashes, Purification, Gold, Refinement of Character  —> 100% vital and central to me.

    Because with Pe, the new idea may be just as good or better as the old one, or it could be crappy. Pe will discard things and try again, but it may also just discard things if they’re too boring. There isn’t a brick-by-brick continuity there. —> This sounds like death for me. I am not exaggerating when I say that the idea of living my life this way, when I lost my voice, made me feel suicidal. The only reason I kept going, is I dug deep down into myself to rediscover my purpose. I even took 50 hits of LSD at once to destroy myself, because staying the way I was, was worse than death – and I needed to wipe that slate clean and be reborn as something else.

    For the  few years following my voice loss,  I studied Jung and Comparitive religion, and learned to control my dreams in a highly disciplined fashion to communicate with my unconscious and plant seeds in myself to germinate the desired results. The rest of my life has been about pursuing concrete projects that are in line with my sense of purpose.  Shedding blood, sweat and tears to become whatever the project demands.

    To me, there’s no point in living if I don’t know what’s worth dying for.

    There is no arduous process in Pe’s version. It’s almost a type of forgetfulness or disinterest that causes newness. “I wanna do something else now” is the most bratty expression of this.   So renewal isn’t at all the same.  —> You’re right, and I absolutely do  not relate to this, even a little.  I have regenerative, renewing, bright energy about me; but I’m happiest when I’m doing the exact same thing for hours and hours every day, bleeding my lifeblood into a project. Being sick, and being forced to take breaks from work, has been a nightmare for me. I’m the type of person who obsesses about work when I’m on vacation. (Granted, it’s my creative work coming from my soul; but there’s an arduous process behind it.)

    For me the phoenix myth is not just about new life but is *specifically* about the betterment of character, it’s about rising up towards the philosopher’s stone; alchemy. And alchemy is about turning lead into gold. Turning a weak, unimpressive metal into something glorious. This has a hierarchical element to it (a value system) that Pe doesn’t have. —> Exactly the point I was making on my website: that my life’s purpose is to polish the vessel; to be an increasingly perfect vessel through which passion and truth and vision may emerge. This is not about “oh I like singing and writing.” It’s about, “my fingers are burning but my guitar gently weeps. I will make that thing fucking sing if I die doing it.” Anything less, would be a waste of life. I’d be ‘surviving,’ but not ‘living.’  For me, living is striving, refining, becoming, rising.

    Singing through my whisper was turning dust to gold. Making beauty out of wreckage. Symbolizing that very process, embodying it. I embodied alchemy. And it was not “fun.” It was a heavily disciplined lifestyle every second of every day, just to get sound out and to play those shows. Everything was about my voice – my diet, I couldnt go out and talk, my workouts, pills, vaccuuming, so much more – it was all discipline for the Cause of transforming the ashes of my voice to gold. I rose to the challenge with every breath for years, and beat the odds senseless. And I have never been happier.

    It is absolutely unconscionable, to me, to consume plants, animals, space; to create garbage and waste; to spend money, to expend resources and space – if I don’t know why I’m doing it, what I’m striving for. If I’m not actively, consistentlyg pushing myself beyond the limit to become something more – I would rather end my life.

    Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE being alive, and I want to live forever.  But death is less fearsome to me, than the prospect of living moment to moment without a purpose.  I’d have  no moral qualms about ending my life if I was unable to fulfill a purpose that felt central to me, even though I love being alive with every bone in my body. “Just doing stuff moment to moment for the sake of mirth and joy” is suffocating and, for me, joyless.

    That said, ‘purpose’ to me is not about getting a job and paying the bills. It’s about putting myself through the grind for the sake of channeling something timeless and eternal.

    I was a terrible writer, but a vision came to me, after I destroyed myself – I believe it came to me for a reason. I had to learn to write, no matter what; I live in its service.

    Everything else I do – paying bills, caring for my health, studying typology – is in service of realizing this vision. I take time off to clear mt mind and recover from bouts of illness, and I understand that I can’t write if I don’t LIVE and  communicate with real people- but I always feel like I’m not really alive if I’m not writing.

    Even @Ivory is part of the vision. I could not have gotten married, and would not have considered it, with anyone that would ‘get in the way of my project’ rather than being a muse and a partner in it.

    Love is not a break from work, but a chance to go deeper into it; to make the vision real; to test my ideas against reality, live them out, and expand. It is also a test of character, strength and integrity. I would never settle for less.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    You almost sound like a Je-lead!

    But no, actually, Je-leads don’t sound like that.

    Firstly I wanna say.. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been, and still is, to fight the odds that you’re constantly faced with. That sounds like a really challenging battle that would require exactly the kind of fortitude that you’ve developed. I’m reminded of @alerith who had said similar things, having gone through her own trials with health. I don’t think CT is ready for psychoanalysis atm but if it’s ok with you I’d like to try something? …In the interest of truth-seeking.

    Odd as it may sound, actual Je-leads seem to me to lack this level of preoccupation with Je. That is to say, they just ‘are’ without having to ‘try to be’ as much. They’re often conscientious, but out of temperament rather than out of need. Beyond the usual effort that Je takes to wield, what you describe sounds like a struggle to modulate a lower function, which is exactly what we see of your vultology. We struggle to do what is non-native to us, otherwise it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle. I wonder if that makes sense?

    So while you describe this experience as “central” to you –and perhaps it really is at this point– this centrality may be the result of who you have become, more than who you were born as. I understand this is a technical/semantic point, and it makes little difference in the end. But I wonder for example that if you hadn’t become sick, if your relationship to your relatives had been better and not evoked envy or feelings of a need to self-parent.. would you be someone else? Can we even know? What parts are central, and what defines centrality?

    I had no idea developing another function could make this much difference.

    Me either. It took me a while to learn what role nurture plays in the equation, since I began with the assumption that nature was most of it. I think we have a need to know “who I am”, and this is almost always asked as a static question. But we’re all a kind of process; a work in progress. One part hardware, one part software. We can alter parts of us.

    My sense of you is that you’ve done a lot of self-work. But even that has implications to it, doesn’t it? Self-work doesn’t need to be done, if one is being their most natural self. Almost all of the 3-4 function conscious individuals we’ve seen have had careers or lives defined by working on their weaknesses. Patching up their Achille’s heels. And they’re almost all “paradoxes” in the sense that they have conflicting traits.

    It’s as though some parts of one function override parts of another, and the specific mix of which parts override which parts is subject to their personal journey. So I realize you don’t “fit” the Pe or Se description to the letter, but I wouldn’t worry so much about that because I think it’s entirely expected for a 3 function conscious person to go against parts of their own energy.

    As the model currently stands, it would suggest that you are modulating Te highly, which happens when a person has a need for a function – since need is what most often catalyzes the growth. We’re still investigating how early these needs can emerge, but so far it seems possible for children to rely on a non-primary function even before age ~5, which are the formative years of personality.

    There’s some literature that suggests the first ~5 years of life are crucial to defining how the personality is for the rest of a person’s life. So I do wonder if that may be a missing piece to this puzzle. Perhaps very early modulation of lower functions causes a kind of permanent hybrid personality. I know @teatime mentioned feeling she has always had Si. Perhaps we can make a thread or two more closely examining the first 5 years of life, and see what patterns we find?

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I am so sorry if I’m being annoying. This just really bothers me. I haven’t seen another Pe lead on CT or a famous one, who has the kind of deep need for trajectory and purpose – plus a lot to show for it (like a full difficult concept  album recorded while I’m extremely sick, through my whisper)…

    Even as a kid I practiced music after school, during lunch; I got perfect grades so my parents would get me lessons…

    My mistakes are symbols that I havent worked hard enough, as is my body fat or my hair falling out. Every bit of talent, creative work and beauty that I craft, is a symbol of my perseverence.

    Meanwhile, mirthful fun sounds less exciting than watching paint dry. While i’ve never been bored when I’m alone, I have a hard time coming up with something more boring than being trapped with mirthful people eating grapes and drinking wine, talking nonchalantly. Unless I have a reason to be there- like I’m chasing a guy or playing a show- I tend to avoid those type of events, because I’d rather be at home, stark sober, slaving away over some chapter for the 75th time. When I’m working, I never feel bored or wish I was somewhere else; though I do reach walls and take sanity breaks for the sake of the project.

    I just want to see this reflected in my type 🙁

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

    Arg, @auburn, our posts crossed yet again!! 😀 I wrote my last post before I saw yours :p

    Your post addresses what I was getting at, very well, so let me try this again…

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I just want to see this reflected in my type

    Yea. You’re asking for something really hard here. Because you are not a typical case by any means. What typology is, is an investigation of commonalities among people. So the point of typology is to highlight how we are the same. It’s not usually meant to fit like a glove if one is a 1/1000 case.

    The more irregular factors are involved in a person’s life, the more challenging it will be for a standard profile to fit them – unless the typology is so nuanced as to account for all the variables of life that may shift the outcome until it hits that ‘sweet spot’ more times than not. Like I said in this thread, it’s easy to fabricate this feeling via shortcuts, but to really understand you –or anyone– I’m afraid we have to dive a little bit away from typology and get into psychoanalysis.

    In psychoanalysis, we look at all the childhood/life/upbringing circumstances that specifically factor into the formation of a given personality. And the results are described on a 1:1 basis. Right now CT is not ready for psychoanalysis, although it’s been my hope that it can eventually be actionable as a psychoanalytical tool — for example, predicting life upbringings based on function modulation levels. That would be so badass. But we need to study many more cases first.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    You almost sound like a Je-lead! But no, actually, Je-leads don’t sound like that.

    Haha, this made me laugh! And ya, they definitely don’t!

     

    Firstly I wanna say.. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been, and still is, to fight the odds that you’re constantly faced with. That sounds like a really challenging battle that would require exactly the kind of fortitude that you’ve developed. I’m reminded of @alerith who had said similar things, having gone through her own trials with health. I don’t think CT is ready for psychoanalysis atm but if it’s ok with you I’d like to try something? …In the interest of truth-seeking.

    Thank you so much ❤️

    And yes, let’s try it!!

    Odd as it may sound, actual Je-leads seem to me to lack this level of preoccupation with Je. That is to say, they just ‘are’ without having to ‘try to be’ as much. They’re often conscientious, but out of temperament rather than out of need. Beyond the usual effort that Je takes to wield, what you describe sounds like a struggle to modulate a lower function, which is exactly what we see of your vultology. We struggle to do what is non-native to us, otherwise it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle. I wonder if that makes sense?

    Yes, this makes perfect sense. For me, feeling the flow of the world is natural, and beautiful, don’t get me wrong – I call myself Animal for a reason 🙂 I love my visceral animal energy and flow with the moment, and wouldnt want it any other way! I thought Se was the most beautiful function when I first read about it, because of the immediate visceral energy. I thought I wasnt good enough to be Se lead.. I cant dance or draw; I’m too complex, too off world. Like animals.. Se on its own is so beautiful and pure. But I want to use that backdrop to channel something universal; to tap into the timeless and eternal rhythm of the world, beyond the endless nows.

     

    So while you describe this experience as “central” to you –and perhaps it really is at this point– this centrality may be the result of who you have become, more than who you were born as. I understand this is a technical/semantic point, and it makes little difference in the end. But I wonder for example that if you hadn’t become sick, if your relationship to your relatives had been better and not evoked envy or feelings of a need to self-parent.. would you be someone else? Can we even know?What parts are central, and what defines centrality?

     

    I actually think overall my relationship to my family is excellent. I think the things I went through as a child were an expression of my own nature. I was not abused or neglected; contrarily I had brilliant capable loving parents who were excellent role models. My brother happened to be born when I was 2.5 – which is the exact age when the sibling gets jealous – because theyre young enough to be competing for resources, but too old to take this change in stride. My reaction was a result of my nature, I think. The envy (4), angry autonomy (8) and desire to get whats mine for myself (gamma meritocracy)… but also a deep devotion to understanding myself and my nature, looking inward, and overpowering empathy which was so beautiful to experience in music. Music was cathartic and it was the place I felt most free to delve into these intense emotions I always had, and likely would have had due to my very nature, regardless of what else occurred.

    Music was cathartic and also challenging. It gave me a focus, a hunt; it gave me insight to my unconscious , who I really am.. it gave me a purpose, something to build myself into.. it gave me something I could give back to the world, to inspire them and hold up the mirror of my songs, for them to look at, and find what they see fit. I was a muse , and that was my purpose among others but for me, music was a pipeline that connected my inner world to my body, and thus, connected me to others around me. It was my pipeline to Earth, the path to love, the experience of God.

    I felt this way about it when I was young, before the tragedy. The autonomy stuff might have been exasperated by envy for my brother, but more than anything I just really wanted to master music and write books. I was determined to build up my talent as a masterpiece and do what I love for the rest of my life, and embody the messages that came to me through music – love, honesty, authenticity, the unconscious, spiriuality.

    I also was ugly and believed if my voice and songs were beautiful enough, “he” would want me. There was a sense I had to develop my abities to be wanted on Earth- by “him” , or really anyone. Why would anyone want me around if not for my amazing gifts? What was so special about me? I wanted to be admired, adored for my music and its message. I wanted to fend off rejection.

    All of this is normal teenage girl stuff, but the amount of obsessive perfectionism I had around it was extreme. I had an extreme need to be something more, to live my dreams, to give my life meaning. I don’t think this was about my family; it seems innate.

    I call it “central” because it is the pattern that keeps showing up again, over and over in my life- the masochist, the martyr for the cause, the determined hunter chasing a vision, shedding blood, sweat and tears, doing anything it takes to bring that passion to life. This is my pattern – it’s how I respond to tragedy, opportunity, and choice- in every scenario – since I was little. I hone in on a sense of purpose and it sets the stage for my personal mythology in which I am the protagonist warrior, turning dust to gold, all for the sake of fulfilling a vision.

     

    Me either. It took me a while to learn what role nurture plays in the equation, since I began with the assumption that nature was most of it. I think we have a need to know “who I am”, and this is almost always asked as a static question. But we’re all a kind of process; a work in progress. One part hardware, one part software. We can alter parts of us.

     

    Yes, I believe who we are is a spectrum of potential. Our spectrum is specific to us individually, but which way we choose to mold that potential is up to us. In this sense, character is not the hand youre dealt, but how you play that hand. You only get one hand, but many ways you might choose to play it.

     

    My sense of you is that you’ve done a lot of self-work. But even that has implications to it, doesn’t it? Self-work doesn’t need to be done, if one is being their most natural self. Almost all of the 3-4 function conscious individuals we’ve seen have had careers or lives defined by working on their weaknesses. Patching up their Achille’s heels. And they’re almost all “paradoxes” in the sense that they have conflicting traits.

     

    Hmm, I think it’s natural for people to do self work. In order for me to be my most natural self, I have to chase, hunt and strive- and dance with the rhythm of the world. The question is, what muse do I want to chase, and how deeply will it satisfy me? In order to dance with the rhythm of such a muse, I have to become a better dancer. So really.. all of this is very natural, all the way down to my hungry animal appetite. I am hungry for will, for fight, for fire and rising and victory. I am hungry to conquer my prey, to reach the stars, to forge the version of me that can do this. Because I feel the flow of the world and that is how I move with it in the most honest way possible. To do any less, would be unnatural, ignoring the rhythm, refusing to dance.

     

    It’s as though some parts of one function override parts of another, and the specific mix of which parts override which parts is subject to their personal journey. So I realize you don’t “fit” the Pe or Se description to the letter, but I wouldn’t worry so much about that because I think it’s entirely expected for a 3 function conscious person to go against parts of their own energy.

     

    It’s so funny you say this because I actually feel like I’m deeper immersed in my own energy. I embody rawness, animalism, sexuality, rawr, tigress, Kali… I express that which is most deep and central to Se. While other Se users dress it in sassy masks (or this is how it feels to me), I go right down to the animal, bare and naked. I am the trickster, the aphrodisiac, the brutal animal goddess. My sexuality is deeply ingrained, accepted and worn as art. I epitomize the huntress, the hunger, the chase.. I was even constructing a name based on these. Animal is the base part of us, yet Anima is life force, breath. I am hunter and vitality in one. How many Se leads have tapped so deeply into their myth? How many can capture and encapsulate it as such? How many, in their home lives, are so carnal it’s spiritual?

    Maybe I am less so since I ascribe meaning to things; maybe its more carnal to live without meaning. But still, I bite and hiss and meow at my husband, and indulge myself with him at my leisure. I celebrate our beauty and life in a visceral way.

    I feel like the J functions have helped illuminate whats real and central about the Se, in a symbolic way, even if I spend less time doing Se by itself. Ive uncovered its symbolic resonance in  ways that other Se users might do, but not realize they do it. I discovered my archetypal role, if only to symbolize it in my work.

    As the model currently stands, it would suggest that you are modulating Te highly, which happens when a person has a need for a function – since need is what most often catalyzes the growth. We’re still investigating how early these needs can emerge, but so far it seems possible for children to rely on a non-primary function even before age ~5, which are the formative years of personality. There’s some literature that suggests the first ~5 years of life as crucial to defining how the personality is for the rest of a person’s life. So I do wonder if that may be a missing piece to this possible. Perhaps very early modulation of lower functions causes a kind of permanent hybrid personality. I know @teatimementioned feeling she has always had Si. Perhaps we can make a thread or two more closely examining the first 5 years of life, and see what patterns we find?

     

    Yes  I would be really curious to do this. It seems like I was born with both somehow 😀 or something close.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I hope we come back to this later because I certainly had very strong elements of the Benevolent Queen and Hero myths when I was a child. I gave up the former for the latter to fortify my character for… The Last Days. More on this later because I have stuff to get to, but the complex interplay between functions and adopted beliefs is interesting.

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

    Yea. You’re asking for something really hard here. Because you are not a typical case by any means. What typology is, is an investigation of commonalitiesamong people. So the point of typology is to highlight how we are the same. It’s not usually meant to fit like a glove if one is a 1/1000 case.

    The more irregular factors are involved in a person’s life, the more challenging it will be for a standard profile to fit them – unless the typology is so nuanced as to account for all the variables of life that may shift the outcome until it hits that ‘sweet spot’ more times than not. Like I said in this thread, it’s easy to fabricate this feeling via shortcuts, but to reallyunderstand you –or anyone– I’m afraid we have to dive a little bit away from typology and get into psychoanalysis.

    In psychoanalysis, we look at all the childhood/life/upbringing circumstances that specifically factor into the formation of a given personality. And the results are described on a 1:1 basis. Right now CT is not ready for psychoanalysis, although it’s been my hope that it can eventually be actionable as a psychoanalytical tool — for example, predicting life upbringings based on function modulation levels. That would be so badass. But we need to study many more cases first.

    Hehe. I’m not really asking or expecting a full answer, as, it’s sort of rhetorical and I understand we need a lot more data before this can get resolved.

    But it can get frustrating to read something like the Fe myth and know that the function’s main principles don’t apply (I am so clearly Fi and my social/leader inclinations are nothing like Fe)… but to see my own trajectory and phoenix rising, spelled out exactly the way I experience it, in a function that isn’t even mine.

    I do think you’re right to say Fe is the hero myth. And that there are other types of myths and not everyone has to tap into Fe if it isnt native for them. I tap into my own version of the hero “trial by fire” myth, though it’s atypical compared to Fe hero king myths. I do fit the expected Jungian trajectory because I walk that path in my life and my art mirrors my life and vice versa. So I would not say I do that because of social pressure; rather, I would say there are other combinations of functions evident in some people, such as PeFi III maybe, which can identify with the suffering and trial by fire and sacrifice for the cause as a life theme, without “fooling themselves” or being untrue to their nature. Maybe we just havent figured out why yet.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Maybe we just havent figured out why yet.

    Right. I think that will come with time.

    And yea, I extracted the myth and profile right out of samples. In preparation for writing it, I looked through the database and made a collage of the books/works of Fe-leads:

    The Mind over Body section comes heavily from Bruce Lee, Steve Jobs, Tony Robbins, Tim Ferris, Drew Canole, etc.

    If there’s an analogous phenomenon that manifests in PeFi lll- I’m sure we’ll see it. So far, every time we’ve been stumped about something in CT, it’s come to light with more samples, and grown into a more beautiful and complete comprehension of human nature. So I’m also grateful to you for being patient with CT and where it’s at right now. I don’t think you’re the only one with your experience, and I hope we capture it fully in time.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Imagine…

    Captain Harry Potter

    Wizards of the Azkaban Islands

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by EpicEntity.
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Je in a trickster’s world

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by EpicEntity.
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Finally I had some sleep.

    Auburn, are you sure driving and having deep CT talks is safe ? 🙂

    And I just wanted to add a couple of things to what you guys said :

    So…about Death and Resurrection…I honestly also did not see any connection between Fe and the phoenix myth and my first reaction was to send some sassy comments to Animal about how this is actually Se and not Fe. 🙂

    But after reading your posts, I realized the distinction.

    I think Fe pretty much incorporates Jesus Christ’s story of death and resurrection.

    And I am deeply sorry for having to say this but as an Fi – Te user, this story does not resonate with me at all and I find it ABSURD, nonsensical. It is a fundamental part of Christianity…a fundamental part that makes no sense at all. Couldn’t God just make a logistical change to accommodate sinners? To integrate sin, a thing he himself created if he created everything??? Wouldn’t that be the sane thing to do instead of sacrificing your own son who is also you by letting him die on a cross??

    I HATE it and hate that I have to hear it so often as a moral example of how things should be, of how I should be !!! It is illogical, unnatural and unaligned to my values. To me it is deeply unfair and irrational to suffer for the idea of redemption or to die to become someone new after facing a horrible trial. Why would you do that?? You already ARE everything you need to be. Yeah, people have painful experiences and learn from them, I agree with that and I also agree that challenges can help you define better who you are and what you want but anything more than this looks to me like…unnecessary drama with a very twisted agenda.

    But this is a powerful myth to many people, so there is something in it that resonates with them. Jordan Peterson seems to love this story and I recently heard him say that life is suffering and that the cross represents that. And I totally disagree with the first part but agree with the second, of course, yeah, the cross does represent that view. 🙂 But life at its best, life worth living, is not suffering ! If you say life is suffering, in my opinion you are failing at life !!! But probably you will have a clean room, so that’s a plus there. 🙂

    I want to say I do like Jordan Peterson and find many of his ideas inspiring, that’s why I basically watched that whole interview. I just don’t resonate with some of his ideas but I still find it important to look at things from his  point of  view. He basically makes a big case for taking responsibility for your life and actions and I agree with that. But in a more toned down and utilitarian Te way.

    Now…about Se’s death and rebirth…I think the Eleusinian Mysteries are more representative of that. Death and rebirth seen in the context of fecundity and regeneration and celebrated in rites of spring. This is much better aligned with my own life philosophy, if I can claim to have a life philosophy to start with. 🙂 Our soul is always the same but we go through seasons. There is a time of silence and cold, a time when the soul rests and when clarity is gained. And a time of fecundity and creativity, a time for renewal and for flourishing. And I think this is a beautiful thing, that should be celebrated with wine, mirth, sex and joy ! Yeah, just cover everything in flowers, bring some harps, dance away all night long and bring praise to Mother Nature for blessing us to be here and to be alive ! I totally resonate with that and there is a death and resurrection idea in it too, but with a totally different interpretation and meaning.

    I actually think Christianity built its own Easter traditions on the older spring rites and gave them the Fe messianic interpretation too. From my SeFi point of view, Christianity tainted something that was pure and beautiful but from a Je lead perspective most probably Christianity brought order into chaos and gave those rites meaning and weight.

    In the end, we all have different perspectives and these myths play out differently in everyone’s life. But it’s quite fascinating to look at them closer and understand why this is happening, why we see life in a way or in another and why we value some myths and devalue others. 🙂

    I will get back at you, @epickalypze but now I have to go to work, I’m already late. 🙂 I just felt I had to write this although it was not very nice and a bit bratty. 🙂

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    It’s my personal opinion that Christianity is an Fe myth, essentially a messiah myth (and messiah myths predate Jesus of Nazareth), embedded into a wider context. So high Fe users may feel like the message of Christianity is intrinsically right, because it better aligns to their heroic journey. And meanwhile all the Ne and Se leads are chastised as sinners and they inherit a great deal of damage and even shame for being how they are.

    I see what you mean, @auburn, but I disagree with the diagnosis. I think your SDA background (they are less than 1% of Christians) and perhaps evangelical exposure (less than 30%) are not an accurate picture of “Christianity” IMHO.

    Catholicism, Orthodoxy and other apostolic groups (well over 60%) are not reducible to a hero myth. Also, lets not confuse Jesus’ story with that of the Christian.

    I was 100% attracted to Catholicism because of the Neon Fi in the doctrine and morality, through and through: Life qua life and charity are the paramount values without question. The Gospels also overflow with these values, particularly the sermon on the mount, a ton of the parables, much of Jesus’ teaching, like the discourse before the last supper in the Gospel of St. John, and lots of things in the epistles too. Jesus taught nothing but love of the little, the weak, the sick, the suffering, the lacking, and the lowly. If that’s not Fi, I don’t know what is! I think Fe is just one strand of the story but to reduce the NT to it or even the entirety of Christianity is not accurate IMO.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Faex.
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Just wanted to write a few remarks on the Hero Myth and the Hero’s Journey. As far as I can see, I think it is universal, and it is the meta-story that arises from the other stories, though I can see how this could be my own bias. An Ne myth-story of Wanderlust is to me just a sub-plot and not the main story, though I realise how extreme that sounds. Perhaps this is why I could never get into the Lord of the Rings universe. I would say, however, that the Hero Myth need not be external. Indeed, I think the transformational journey is one that happens in the crucibles of the person’s soul. I think Jung said something to this effect. Typologically, perhaps this is just my introverted bent, the Hero’s Journey for introverts, as it were, or perhaps it reflects an auxiliary Fe vs a dominant Fe orientation, assuming such a myth is felt as universal by high-Fe types.

     

    On a related note, if we are taking the notion of hierarchy in type as a fundamental piece that doesn’t vanish with development, it would make sense that if a person is possessed by a myth of a function that is not his dominant, that this myth would be manifested through the dominant. An SeTi with an Fe hero myth would look different in the way the journey’s trial and tribulations take place versus an FeNi with an Fe hero myth, though fundamentally the stories would be the same.

    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    When I think of Fe heroism, it’s about “becoming”. Harry isn’t really about “becoming”. He’s all about integrity: standing by what’s right and true no matter what; valuing his friends no matter their status or the sacrifice; respecting lowly creatures etc. I just don’t see Harry on a journey to become “what he’s meant to be” at all. For example, Danaerys Targerian  is clearly on a journey “to become” what she thinks she’s called to be. Harry just doesn’t have a drop of that vibe. Harry on the inside is still the same boy in the 8th film as he was in the first; just a bit savvier and wearier.

    He has consistently displayed the same values. Perhaps that’s why I wasn’t as into the Porter stories as I was TLOTR, where Frodo clearly struggles and falls and there’s no clear, single protagonist.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Faex.
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Yeah, originally I typed Harry Potter as FiSe, though I came to think SeFi was better due to his extreme impulsivity. However, I could see a case for either, and would not get up in arms about either. Je is just off for his character. I do see Auburn’s point about the wider myth trajectory.

    Yeah, I agree, @animal. It could be either. Harry’s definitely got a rebellious streak, but for kind reasons. He’s naughty. Snape was constantly whacking him and Ron on the back of their heads  for doing something he had either told them not to do or that it was obvious they shouldn’t do.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Faex.
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Soooo…it seems like this morning I had a lot of energy even without drinking any coffee !  And now, after attacking Jordan Peterson, the Hero Myth and God, I realized I actually don’t want to give anyone the impression that I might also have a bad opinion about Fe !

    I dislike being controlled by high Je people and I generally try to resist many of their attempts to educate me or to change me in any way. And in this context I prefer Te to Fe because at least Te’s motives are clearer to me. With Fe sometimes I really don’t understand the person’s actions or decisions.

    But Fe users sometimes have a special type of nobility coupled with determination and kindness, that I admire. And I can’t produce the exact same expressions of strength and kindness myself just by using Fi and Te.

    I just wanted to make this clear, because there are many Fe users on the chat that I like and look up to.

    And regarding what @auburn said about Christianity being an Fe myth, I believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection is an Fe myth but there are indeed also other facets of Christianity, as @Fae said.

    In the end, we have Christianity to thank for a huge part of our culture. And we can be grateful for that and just keep swimming at the same time.:p At least that’s what I’m doing.

    But yes, I totally feel that Christianity is at its core against both Se and Ne and you can see that directly if you look at who was oppressed by Christians in the past. Yes, no one will burn us at the stake anymore but if we go to its roots, I do think Christianity is a pretty high Fe religion and that Ne and Se were not really the most beloved functions during most of its history.

    The Devil is an Se character most probably inspired by pagan horned gods.

    And with Ne…Christianity (not what we would call Christianity today but what it used to be till the 20’th century) was pretty much against scientific exploration. Against doubt. Against any ideas that would diverge from the Bible. So, pretty much against Ne too.

    I think this is true, although the situation has improved a lot and although there are also wonderful parts of Christianity, like the idea to love your neighbor like yourself, to forgive your enemies, to help the needy, I mean, these ideas made the whole Christian world stick together through history and to resist attacks from outside forces, like the Ottoman Empire and this is extremely important, but still, Pe used to be pretty much pushed away by Christian dogma. Because, in the end, Pe was a threat, a real threat to a.. culture building conductor type religion ! It didn’t just seem like a threat, it was one.

    I think Pe tends to rebel against Je as a default and this can be seen in religion but also in generation conflicts and in our own minds. When you want to play but need to work, there is already a Pe-Je struggle in your mind. 🙂

    But just supposing that Je is right and Pe is wrong is not a productive way of looking at this issue, because organization itself and culture itself can be destructive and oppressive and free exploration can truly lead to solutions to major problems ! So, none is above the other, though Pe is more of a kid and Je more of a parent. 🙂

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

    @auburn   After sleeping a little, I just wanted to comment on a few things..

    It’s not as universally appealing as it may sound. Perhaps it’s appealing in the sense of it being captivating, but myths are like that anyway. I enjoy Fi Disney myths a lot, but it isn’t “me” and it doesn’t snare my soul. I think, beyond entertainment and fascination, many people don’t fee the Fe myth at their core or as a root motivation in life. We have to distinguish fascination from the above.

    I find Fi disney incredibly boring and always did, even as a child. I need to see real faces. Cartoons put me right off.  And the stories are not that compelling either. “Wanderlust” and Disney stories never struck me as ‘realistic’ or touching on anything that truly matters.  For instance let’s take Beauty and the Beast.  I’m a beast, and I attract beautiful men.  Disney always assumes the woman is the princess while men strive to chase them. The message is: if you’re a man, work on yourself. If you’re a woman, be beautiful and accept any man who wants to love you. Totally unrealistic, uncompelling, and flat.

    I think you’re framing my “growth away from Pe” as – part of my trauma and reaction to it, which took me “away from my natural self.”  The thing is, Disney, to ME, has always felt unnatural. As an 8 year old I read Les Miserables, all 4000 pages.  I resonated with Eponine and started taking singing lessons so I could play her on Broadway.  I also started reading Hermann Hesse, which is about the self-improvement spiritual journey – by the time I was 10. My other favorite musicals were Phantom of the Opera and Miss Saigon – deeply personal stories with a strong emotional message.

    At that point in my life there was no big tragedy. Yes I’d been jealous of my brother when he was born and I was 2.5, but that is expected at that age.  Overall, I had a loving, inspiring, capable, brilliant family, despite the tensions I brought up – and I only brought them up because I was analyzing the dark side of things, however minor it may be. And that’s what makes me “me.” I’m always looking at the hidden underbelly of things.  A character trait all my life – is that I want my demons to come out of the closet and dance with my angels.  But this doesn’t mean that I had some “tragedy” growing up that forced me to change. Not until I was 16.

    You could say that my young foray into the music & theater industry was a tragedy, because there was so much crude competition. So perhaps that contributed to my intensity as a teenager. But when I was 8, resonating with Les Mis & Miss Saigon because nothing else on this Earth touched the intensity of my own inner experience, and offered stories of redemption, humanity, and passion – then it’s only fair to say that this is ‘who I am’ and it is ‘natural.’

    No one else in my family has the kind of deep, intense emotions that I do, as such a driving theme in their life. (Note: I’m not saying that I’m more deep overall, nor am I claiming that my emotions are ‘more important’ than the next person, it’s just something that I’ve focused on and been compelled by.)

    This makes sense in enneagram (type 4).  And part of four is masochism – finding the beauty in pain and suffering.  There is an ’emotional gluttony’ – a sense that the rest of the world is too grey and mundane, whereas the  world of emotion and passion is more palatable. And they are often seeking experiences, whether fantastic or real, to escalate that emotional drama.

    My sense of you is that you’ve done a lot of self-work. But even that has implications to it, doesn’t it? Self-work doesn’t need to be done, if one is being their most natural self. Almost all of the 3-4 function conscious individuals we’ve seen have had careers or lives defined by working on their weaknesses. Patching up their Achille’s heels. And they’re almost all “paradoxes” in the sense that they have conflicting traits.

    In enneagram, the choice to do ‘self work’ is not about being a certain type; it’s assumed that those who are spiritually enlightened, awake, or humane, will want to do self work – and all types have a path to get there: which makes sense based on my lived experience. It seems insane for any typology to claim that sacrifice and self-work is the domain of “Type X” whereas other types who want to do self work are not living as their natural selves. It’s not true to real experience.

    Fe leads may be more likely to focus on self-improvement themes in books, or to teach it directly – but this doesn’t mean they necessarily embody their lessons. Having grown up with two psychiatrists,  one of which is NiFe – and also a life coach who is FeNi – I know firsthand that it’s a lot easier to write books about self-improvement and push one’s clients to great heights, than it is to actually overcome your own trials.  Fe leads may have an easy time waxing eloquent about self-improvement for others, and may serve as models for this; but in my real lived experience, I have not seen that they have any actual advantage over any other type, in the realm of solving their own realest, deepest problems, no matter how much they want to. In that, they are just as disadvantaged as any other type. Absolutely everyone that wants REAL improvement, has to change away from their ‘natural’ self, in order to attain it. You can’t be a 50 year old infant, even as a Fe lead.

    Compared to Fe leads, I prefer to show my ideas in a more anecdotal way, inspiring the readers through the trials and tribulations of the characters, and offering solutions and philosophies that might awaken them. As a Se lead, I’m a doer not a conceptualizer, so showing actions (Se) with symbolic meaning behind them (Fi-Ni) and solutions (Te) is how I communicate best.

    I’ve gotten feedback that by reading the self-improvement methods embedded in my books, others have been able to take steps to improve their problems or explore new parts of themselves which allowed growth. To me, this is the ideal outcome of others reading my work.  Likewise, when singing through my whisper, an artist who was going blind had contacted me saying my work inspired her to take further steps. I also inspired several other artists to start singing when they’d been afraid to do so; one of which is among my favorite artists now. I love this inspiration-domino effect. They all said something similar: “If you can sing through your whisper, then what’s stopping ME from doing what I love?”

    And I see this as very “natural” and also Se.  Se “volition” can inspire people in the sense that I don’t need to sit there and make a list of what to do to be better, but rather, I embody my own philosophy; actually live it out.  I do something, chase something with fanatic obsessive passion, then others say “I wanna do what she is doing.”  I create an SF intense aesthetic around it, which draws people in to my world.  So how I do it, is very true to myself, rather than emulating an Fe type.

    The problem is equating sacrifice and self improvement to one type. Maybe you could say Je in the sense that — like you said in the video – when Je’s solution fails, it tries another. And yes, all the Fe people I know have constant verbal anecdotes about how to self improve, which I don’t, so I understand how that’s a focus for them, to do it in that particular manner.

    Still, I have never seen one “type” in CT or in enneagram, who  has a monopoly on self work, or rising from the ashes.  This seems to come from character depth,  tragedy & trauma, and other factors.  In enneagram, the idea  that you might ‘want to improve your life’ or understand your own patterns to be better, is encouraged as something that all types are equally capable of doing. But in CT, it’s almost as though people who want to self improve are “not being true to themselves” unless they happen to be Fe leads? And this seems wrong to me, unrealistic…

    The question is- how does each  specific type self-improve?

    Self-work doesn’t need to be done, if one is being their most natural self.

    Basically this is what I fundamentally disagree with. 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.

     I wanted to primarily make note of how “we don’t all have an fe hero myth” and the structure of the myth that is most central to a lot of people isn’t the structure of the Fe template.

    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.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @faerie

    When I think of Fe heroism, it’s about “becoming”. Harry isn’t really about “becoming”. He’s all about integrity: standing by what’s right and true no matter what; valuing his friends no matter their status or the sacrifice; respecting lowly creatures etc. I just don’t see Harry on a journey to become “what he’s meant to be” at all. For example, Danaerys Targerian  is clearly on a journey “to become” what she thinks she’s called to be. Harry just doesn’t have a drop of that vibe. Harry on the inside is still the same boy in the 8th film as he was in the first; just a bit savvier and wearier.

    This is right, and I feel similar to Harry Potter in this.  I am not trying to ‘become what I’m meant to be,’ in the sense that Dany is.  I don’t want to be a queen, a leader or a light-bringer for the people.  However, I put myself through fire and brimstone in order to be a better vessel through which my own values & visions emerge.

    This is what harry does.  He practices combat, becomes a leader for a brief period; all to be true to his own inner compass. This is me as well.  I’m not trying to ‘become a perfect person,’ I’m trying to become the person I need to be in order to rise to a specific task, which allows me to implement my inner values.

    And this is why I say, if his story is a “Fe Hero Myth,” then so is mine.  However, I’d also argue that the desire to self-improve in order to rise to a task that matters to you, is universal.

    Danaerys, Black Panther – I see those as Fe characters living Fe myths.

    Harry is a SeFi or FiSe character, doing what he has to do to get the job done, and staying true to his own values first and foremost.  This seems to me like a Gamma myth of meritocracy. Voldemort challenged him, and he found a way to rise to the challenge without losing his own integrity. May the best player win.

    Afterwards, Harry could have been the most famous, popular, important person with huge stature. He could have been “King.” But he didn’t. Once the task was done, he went back to his modest job as an auror – a hunter.  Se.  Just like me, and my mirror character in my novel, who shares my name “Animal.”

    Harry Potter stayed true to himself.  He did not “become” a King.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @bera

    I think Fe pretty much incorporates Jesus Christ’s story of death and resurrection.

    And I am deeply sorry for having to say this but as an Fi – Te user, this story does not resonate with me at all and I find it ABSURD, nonsensical. It is a fundamental part of Christianity…a fundamental part that makes no sense at all. Couldn’t God just make a logistical change to accommodate sinners? To integrate sin, a thing he himself created if he created everything??? Wouldn’t that be the sane thing to do instead of sacrificing your own son who is also you by letting him die on a cross??

    I HATE it and hate that I have to hear it so often as a moral example of how things should be, of how I should be !!! It is illogical, unnatural and unaligned to my values. To me it is deeply unfair and irrational to suffer for the idea of redemption or to die to become someone new after facing a horrible trial. Why would you do that?? You already ARE everything you need to be. Yeah, people have painful experiences and learn from them, I agree with that and I also agree that challenges can help you define better who you are and what you want but anything more than this looks to me like…unnecessary drama with a very twisted agenda.

    I completely agree with you and I’ve said many of the same things about why Original Sin doesn’t resonate with me. To quote a few of my own posts:

    Flaws

    Spoiler:

    I don’t think of people as having flaws. I think of every quality a person has as potential.

    Let’s suppose you start with being a very receptive person. Your worst potential then is to lose your own voice completely; whereas a possible best potential is to channel and navigate the energies of the world.

    Any quality someone has, has potential to be their best or worst.

    I’ve always said, my best AND worst quality is my passion. My passion can go to the realm of manic obsession, singularity of focus at the expense of all else.. or it can get channeled in a way that inspires others.

    I’m a vampire at my worst and a vessel at my best.
    Is that a flaw? No. Is it an asset? No.
    It’s whatever I make it.

    But trying to be something else..to embody something that isnt naturally “me” … is.. not going to work.

    I think it’s best to discover what makes you “you” and then channel it.
    And in channeling it, there will be mistakes, there will be glory, there will be pain…
    but as long as there’s growth, it is worth it. Nothing worth having comes easy. Nothing worth DOING or BEING comes easy.

    I have always been very hyper aware of whats wrong with me as in, what other people can’t accept or can’t love; but I also feel like I’d be fine if only I was on my home planet.

    But, I’m not.. so the best I can do is bring memories of my home planet to Earth, to help others discover themselves, to communicate, to give them ..whatever it gives them. Hope, escape, introspection…whatever.

    Not everyone will care or notice. But I can only share my own truth.
    What more can anyone do?

    When people start thinking in terms of “flaws” vs. “assets,” what they’re really doing is plugging in to what others want or expect them to be.

    When they think of themselves as “potential” or “energy” ….
    then perhaps there’s a chance of learning what to do with that energy.

    “Flaws” is a myth that society has drilled into us.
    Something is only a flaw if you let it destroy you.

    I’ve also written similar rants about Original Sin. Why would God create us this way and then tell us to be another way in order to be perfect?

    I actually think Christianity built its own Easter traditions on the older spring rites and gave them the Fe messianic interpretation too. From my SeFi point of view, Christianity tainted something that was pure and beautiful but from a Je lead perspective most probably Christianity brought order into chaos and gave those rites meaning and weight.

    Exactly. The way we are, is pure and beautiful. However I will emphasize, as I said in my last post, that part of “who we really are” involves a trajectory. This means, there is an innate need to improve and “rebirth” throughout our timeline. Which brings me to your other point:

    Now…about Se’s death and rebirth…I think the Eleusinian Mysteries are more representative of that. Death and rebirth seen in the context of fecundity and regeneration and celebrated in rites of spring. This is much better aligned with my own life philosophy, if I can claim to have a life philosophy to start with.   Our soul is always the same but we go through seasons. There is a time of silence and cold, a time when the soul rests and when clarity is gained. And a time of fecundity and creativity, a time for renewal and for flourishing. And I think this is a beautiful thing, that should be celebrated with wine, mirth, sex and joy ! Yeah, just cover everything in flowers, bring some harps, dance away all night long and bring praise to Mother Nature for blessing us to be here and to be alive ! I totally resonate with that and there is a death and resurrection idea in it too, but with a totally different interpretation and meaning.

    This is basically what I was getting at in my posts. Harry Potter went through a season when he became a leader. He believed in something, and he had to put himself through trial by fire, in order to stand for what he believed. Once the task was done, he continued doing what he wants to do and fighting for what he believes, rather than sacrificing himself as a leader for some big group.

    So I don’t see it as a Fe myth, I think.  I see it as more of a myth like the one you just posted, where his soul went through its very natural and necessary ‘seasons.’  There is a self improvement factor here, as I mentioned in my previous post:

    Spoiler:
    Basically this is what I fundamentally disagree with. 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 fundamentally disagree that any form of self-improvement or personal heroism is a Fe myth. Danaerys’s myth, as @faerie mentioned; is one of becoming.  Like Christ. Sacrificing herself for the All, as an ultimate way of fulfilling a destiny.  Harry Potter’s myth is one of rising to the task so he could stay true to his own values; allowing his soul to go through the necessary ‘seasons’ so he could fulfill the pragmatic necessities (Te) for the tasks that were required to protect his sense of inner values & friendships (Fi). Afterwards, he returned to his natural state, with more experience and wisdom behind him – and took on a job as an auror-hunter (Se).


    @auburn
    argued that the story itself is Fe whereas the character might not be. It’s a fair argument, but then he went on to claim that Hero stories, and attraction to them, are not universal. So I’d wonder where he stands regarding my last post, about how it’s natural for people to undergo “rites of passage,” and to have conflicts about it; and to rise to the challenges that come up, by challenging themselves (whether that means developing more functions or patching up weaknesses in other ways).  Nobody’s life is free of challenge: the question is, what do you do about it? That is what makes you “you.” But absolutely everyone must push themselves in some way or other, to rise to challenges.

    This means there must be other types of ‘rites of passage’ that aren’t Fe-ish in nature. To me, this would include the Harry Potter story, I think.  Or at least, the specific character’s trajectory.  I might say it’s a story of “Good triumphing over Evil” which might make it Fe, but the story is, afterall, entitled “Harry Potter.” So really, you’re lining HIM up with a myth, if you’re lining the story up with a myth, since the story is titled by his name.

    And his myth seems closer to what Bera said, the seasons of the soul. And what I said; rites of passage.  And what Fae said, not ‘becoming something’ – but staying true to himself.  It is perfectly natural, true to yourself, and honest; to be a boy, and then go through rites of passage to become a man.  Fe does not have any monopoly on this.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    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 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Animal.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    It seems insane for any typology to claim that sacrifice and self-work is the domain of “Type X” whereas other types who want to do self work are not living as their natural selves. It’s not true to real experience.

    I think you’re missing what I said earlier, how there is an analog in Te. I label this as “Challenge & Conscientiousness.” If you feel the section could use a revamp, I’m open to that. But no it’s not the position of CT to say only Fe has a version of this. It’s a Je thing more generally. I agree it would be silly to consider self-work to only belong to Type X.

    The thing is, Disney, to ME, has always felt unnatural. As an 8 year old I read Les Miserables, all 4000 pages. I resonated with Eponine and started taking singing lessons so I could play her on Broadway.

    That’s fine. I’m not saying all Fi’s have to like Disney. I was just saying that Disney films often depict seelie Fi protagonists, and they’re examples of a different mythology that also has widespread appeal/popularity. I said this to counter the universality of Fe. Although, I suppose I should say there are “multiple” universal myths, and Fe is universal but it’s just not the meta-story, but one story among many.

    Overall, I had a loving, inspiring, capable, brilliant family, despite the tensions I brought up – and I only brought them up because I was analyzing the dark side of things, however minor it may be.

    Right, that’s why I hesitated to make any correlations. I’m sorry if I stepped too far trying to analyze things. I don’t know how early upbringing may affect functions, but I generally feel that part of the equation might be tied into that domain and CT just hasn’t gotten to that point.

    Fe leads may have an easy time waxing eloquent about self-improvement for others, and may serve as models for this; but in my real lived experience, I have not seen that they have any actual advantage over any other type, in the realm of solving their own realest, deepest problems, no matter how much they want to. (…)

    Compared to Fe leads, I prefer to show my ideas in a more anecdotal way, inspiring the readers through the trials and tribulations of the characters (…) To me, this is the ideal outcome of others reading my work. Likewise, when singing through my whisper, an artist who was going blind had contacted me saying my work inspired her to take further steps. I also inspired several other artists to start singing when they’d been afraid to do so; one of which is among my favorite artists now. I love this inspiration-domino effect. They all said something similar: “If you can sing through your whisper, then what’s stopping ME from doing what I love?”

    Right. This is precisely what I say in the metabolism articles about “moral expression:”

    But in CT, it’s almost as though people who want to self improve are “not being true to themselves” unless they happen to be Fe leads? And this seems wrong to me, unrealistic…

    Again, I make note of how Fi+Te has a version of this too in the Fe myth video. I’ve even done collages on Te-lead woman showing books they have on self-work:

    From thread: https://cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/2073/dv-statistics-different-shades-te

    If you mean to suggest there’s a need to re-balance the language of Fe vs Te in how it manifests self-improvement, I am open to that. But also bear in mind that the ethical functions are naturally more attuned to this domain. The Fi profile has a lot of stuff about self-work in it, just as the Fe profile does, because they are both intertwined with the ethical question.

    So of course Fe is going to be more ethically oriented than Te. In that sense, I don’t think the solution is to “ethicize” Te, any more than we need to “ethicize” Ti, but instead understand the interplay that happens when Ti+Fe merge, and when Fi+Te merge in a person.

    Still, I have never seen one “type” in CT or in enneagram, who has a monopoly on self work, or rising from the ashes. This seems to come from character depth, tragedy & trauma, and other factors. In enneagram, the idea that you might ‘want to improve your life’ or understand your own patterns to be better, is encouraged as something that all types are equally capable of doing.

    First I should say I don’t put self-work on a pedestal. To me, being l— is just fine. I’m also not a moralist.

    So I don’t feel the need to be make qualitative statements like “everyone does self work.” No.. I think that’s a J function thing. And that’s not me casting shade on P functions. It’s inherent in the J functions to be dissatisfied with “how things are” and to aim to change them – including oneself or others. The nature of the P functions is observation, not judgment. You don’t need self-work if you’re not judgmental.

    So more P heavy philosophies may be more “live and let live” focused, more accepting of oneself as they are, perhaps hedonistic or just free and hippy. So again, I don’t see how one can make the case that all types equally seek self improvement, if not all types have that sort of arduous, overcome-pain-and-trials philosophy.

    All things being equal, an Fe-lead will be more driven to that sort of ethical ‘work’ than an NeTi. Now I say “all things being equal” because if the NeTi has had a turbulent experience, or high levels of neuroticism/depression/anxiety/etc, then self-work becomes mandatory just for them to have a functional existence.

    But I don’t see the need to equalize an NeTi l–l and an FeNi l— in terms of “moral effort.” And I don’t think that makes the NeTi a worse person, or the FeNi a better person. There are different things to fret about in life, and integrity/dignity/growth is just one of many obsessions to have — as is collecting all Smash Bros. Amiibo trophies.

    I can’t reply to the rest as it’s just too much! So that’s as much as I can say for now.

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Auburn.
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 82 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 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