I don't think it's necessary to ethicize Te, nor do I have any problem with the idea that some people have a 'live and let live' philosophy. Nor do I see the need to change any of the definitions. Everything you said in your last post makes perfect sense to me, and I understand how morality and a 'need to improve' is connected to J functions and specifically F.
The problem I'm having is that I see the stories of complex characters, who have developed many functions or have very human trajectories, being cast as examples of "Fe myths" - regardless of what their type actually is. I see 1-dimensional characters who have never put themselves through the grind in any way and have no additional functional or personal complexity, being cast as "Se myths." And I can't help but wonder even how many SeXi I--- would see themselves reflected in such characters; whereas I know from experience that many different types see themselves reflected in characters whose stories you've categorized as Fe.
I wonder how accurate, realistic, or useful this assessment is, and whether the fundamental basis of "Hero by trial through fire = Fe" is correct. And if so, whether it's correct to say that other types who see themselves in it, are not resonating with something 'natural' to them. I don't want to overload you anymore, so I will sit with this for a while and see what comes. 🙂
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.
You're thinking more along the lines I am -
Which is that if we are going to accept that "Hero through Trial by Fire is the Myth of Fe" - then we must also say that the Fe Mythology is the most fundamental, universal trajectory for a story. And that it is the "meta-story" in which other narratives are placed. It might also be my own bias, though, but I have seen this story play out time and time again, in the real lives of real people, including P-heavies; and also, I see how fictional hero stories compel people on very wide scales.
As I said in a few of my other posts:
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 is the way I see it. Villains - including Fe villains - are characters who represent a one dimensional version of their dominant function, and never go beyond it, even when others would be called to do so. For instance the Joker, Hitler, Voldemort. I'm not saying they didn't develop other functions, per se; but rather that they allowed the myth of the trickster or the tyrant to take them over completely, rather than seeking balance or heroically rising from the ashes of trauma. Villains are characters who refuse to change. They might improve in their abilities, but their 'outlook' kind of gets stuck in a dark place and never recovers.
Heroes are characters who have a personal trajectory. Who respond positively to the need to change, to step up to the plate, to reconsider who they are, how they do things, or how they see things. This can happen internally or externally, as you point out.
I would say this is universal and goes well beyond Fe. But if we are going to say that this trait is Fe, then we must also say it is - at the very least - latent within all of us.
The problem I’m having is that I see the stories of complex characters, who have developed many functions or have very human trajectories, being cast as examples of “Fe myths” – regardless of what their type actually is. I see 1-dimensional characters who have never put themselves through the grind in any way and have no additional functional or personal complexity, being cast as “Se myths.” And I can’t help but wonder even how many SeXi I— would see themselves reflected in such characters
This is funny to be because I read your posts as though you're making a point about the universal structure of the CT system, and interpret it that way, and try to boil down on what changes you're pointing to.
But reading what you just wrote, it sounds like you're taking very particular issues with the presentation of the information (i.e. fictional samples) based in part by the moral undertone provided, which to me seems irrelevant and beside the point. And I guess I'm showing my Alpha bias here, but I can't control what people read into things.
My SeTi brother loved the Joker from the Dark Knights series and considered him a sophisticated character. I also consider Slim Shady to be a sophisticated character. Inversely, Hercules seems to be a bloke and rather flat and 1 dimensional. I could say the same thing about Gilgamesh, although he's got a tad more complexity. Goku is also very flat. But what's this got to do with anything?
It's not my focus or desire to give people examples which validate them as complex human beings, nor to be sensitive to their feelings of being compared to samples which they feel are flat. Firstly because I can't control who sees what as flat or multi-dimensional, or whether they find someone virtuous (i.e. having "positive" traits) or unholy.
It's also not my business to equalize the playing field across the types in any dimension whatsoever. I don't have political correctness on my agenda. If, for example, it turns out that Se-leads are more highly represented in crime and imprisonment than Ne-leads, to me that's just a fact. If that leads to the creation of a profile that has more incriminating qualities associated to Se (i.e. delinquency & addiction), that's just my observation of the truth of reality.
Rather than changing the description, it may be better to ask -- why is Se being demonized in certain cultures? Why is it being incarcerated? Why is it "taboo"? We may then find that rather than adjusting the profile or shying away from the samples that are most emblematic of the phenomenon due to their taboo status, we can rectify social opinion at the wider scale and come to view Se with less spite.
edit: And on the same note, we might get Fe off it's high horse. Because like I said, at least in the USA the influence of Protestantism has glorified Fe mythology.
This is cultural narrowness. Someone else from a different culture might read the Fe profile --just as it is right now-- and not see that it's being over-praised, but may say "wow, what a needlessly taxing and fussy way to exist." Indeed, even I read the Fe profile and I just see a lot of excessive toil.
This is funny to be because I read your posts as though you’re making a point about the universal structure of the CT system, and interpret it that way, and try to boil down on what changes you’re pointing to.
I was talking about the fundamental structure of the system, actually; but using examples to try to make my point. But now, I feel like I need to get my thoughts back in order.
@auburn My point was not about particular characters, but about the entire approach to Fe in general - exactly as you originally interpreted it. I think we may have talked past each other somewhere, so I have to go back and see what I missed, or phrased wrongly, that made it sound otherwise.
It’s not my focus or desire to give people examples which validate them as complex human beings, nor to be sensitive to their feelings of being compared to samples which they feel are flat. Firstly because I can’t control who sees what as flat or multi-dimensional, or whether they find someone virtuous (i.e. “positive” traits) or unholy.
It’s also not my business to equalize the playing field across the types in any dimension whatsoever. I don’t have political correctness on my agenda. If, for example, it turns out that Se-leads are more highly represented in crime and imprisonment than Ne-leads, to me that’s just a fact. If that leads to the creation of a profile that has more incriminating qualities associated to Se (i.e. delinquency & addiction), that’s just my observation of the truth of reality.
Rather than changing the description, it may be better to ask — why is Se being demonized in certain cultures? Why is it being incarcerated? Why is it “taboo”? We may then find that rather than adjusting the profile or shying away from the samples that are most emblematic of the phenomenon due to their taboo status, we can rectify social opinion at the wider scale and come to view Se with less spite.
I know, and this is exactly what I love about your website, that you don't do PC and try to validate anyone. This is exactly exactly what makes your system more viable to me, and more palatable. I don't need my identity validated; I've told you this -- it isn't where I'm coming from.
I guess I'm just feeling there's still something missing here, from the deeper side of Se. For instance I have never once complained about the delinquint & addictive stuff. I wholeheartedly agreed with it from the start, and enjoyed that you had the balls and the honesty to put it in the Se category.
I need to take time to rephrase my point because now I think I've given an impression of a meaning that isn't where I was going with this. Sorry about that --- my forté is definitely not in making verbal points.
But I will assure you that I'm not asking you to equalize functions or talk around the darker points. I would hate that.
I think this was my problem with it. I had written this in another post:
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?
I just see you going in 'one direction' with heroism.... making Fe heroism too 'broad' and then leaving it out of the other functions. This is not about moralizing other functions nor is it about being personally 'offended.' (I'm also not offended that you analyzed my childhood. You can do that with me any time, even if I disagree with a nuance! 🙂 )
I don't need validation through functions because my hero story is already valid as per its existence in reality. No theory can take that away, nor add to it really. It adds, at best, layers of discussion about it and understanding what I might be missing about other people.
So I'm sorry if my posts came off that way because it's not what I meant AT ALL. What I'm saying is that something is missing in the approach; if different characters become heroes by incorporating different functions, yet the hero myth itself is categorized as Fe. This is not about validation, offendedness, etc; it's just about what appears to me as an unrealistic, perhaps one-sided way of discussing the meaning of (general) heroic trajectory. And, what it means to be a hero.
For a Fe character to be a "hero," they have to incorporate Ti, Pe and/or Pi. So it's not in Fe itself that heroism is native. Or , that is how it appears to me, anyway.
The fundamental issue is whether or not the Fe myth is that of the Hero. Part of the problem here could be that the language is too broad - doesn't everyone want to be a hero? I certainly do.
I might offer that perhaps a better word would be messiah, or something more specific, a particular type of hero. @Auburn might have something more specific in mind when he talks of the myth of the Hero.
Another source of confusion seems to be a distinction between the myth of the Hero as experienced psychologically vs. whether someone is a hero, if that makes sense. Harry Potter could well be described as a hero, and his story has all the right beats - but he might not think of himself as such, and therein lies the difference.
Thank you, I think you worded well what I was trying to get at.
I might offer that perhaps a better word would be messiah, or something more specific, a particular type of hero. @auburn might have something more specific in mind when he talks of the myth of the Hero.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say, but I lack the Ti or whatever it takes, so I end up sounding personally offended when that wasn't my point. Facepalm..
Anyway, that was exactly where I was going with this.
Another source of confusion seems to be a distinction between the myth of the Hero as experienced psychologically vs. whether someone is a hero, if that makes sense. Harry Potter could well be described as a hero, and his story has all the right beats – but he might not think of himself as such, and therein lies the difference.
One could argue that a true hero would never think of themselves as a hero because, in order to be heroic, we need to get beyond our ego. 😀
But as you said - on some level - everyone wants to be a hero. It might mean something different to each person, which is why the lumping of "hero" together with "Fe" is causing confusion.
To reference Auburn's P-heavy "live and let live" types, people like this can still want to be a hero in some way; maybe to discover something new, free up someone's soul, have children or save animals, inspire someone as a muse, etc. Assuming people have compassion and are not sociopaths, some part of them wants to use what they have to connect to others and spread the love.
So that's why I think that wanting to be a hero, or resonating with hero stories, is universal - but we have to be specific about what that means. I don't , personally, resonate with Black Panther & Danaerys, even though I find their stories full of intrigue and beauty. Harry Potter is not as complex a character as I would like, but I resonate with his specific hero trajectory, because it involves an adventurous, independent-minded moralistic little brat like myself, stepping up to the plate to enact his values, then going back to doing what he loves. There's a huge difference in resonance here, between him vs. the "messiah" hero stories of Kings & Queens, for me.
I would strongly, strongly agree with "Messiah" for Fe. To me this seems obvious and it is also not something that I'd see my most ideal self 'stepping into.'
However I think most people's most ideal self steps into a hero role in some way, so that particular role should not be associated specifically with Fe.
About Harry Potter: He's an adventurer who stumbles his way into a quest just because he has to survive and he was born in a certain position where this was thrust upon him. This is not a messiah story. All the adults are pushing him to be a messiah but he doesn't want to. He just wants to live and let live, but he has to protect himself and his loved ones in order to do so; and does what he has to do (which is very Se-Te, really). He has strong personal values that he sticks to (Fi) and that's all there is to it; but he'll take pragmatic action to protect those values.
Another observation: the myth of the Hero seems to have a positive connotation or bias that the other myths don't have. The myths of the other functions exist in a neutral form, and can take a light or dark shade, but what is the neutral form of the Hero? That should give us pause at least.
Another observation: the myth of the Hero seems to have a positive connotation or bias that the other myths don’t have. The myths of the other functions exist in a neutral form, and can take a light or dark shade, but what is the neutral form of the Hero? That should give us pause at least.
You can't ascribe something as universally desirable and fundamentally human as 'heroism' to just one function, and then say that people with other functions who are drawn to that, are coming from a place that is not natural or inherent to them.
If it were called "Messiah," I'd be a lot less hesitant to identify with it. I mean - to me, being a Messiah sounds like a lot of unnecessary trouble. But my Fe lead friend?? Well he was born with these proclivities.
@faeruss I wish I were Ti. You summed up the problem I was having in just a few short paragraphs and I was probably giving Auburn a headache 🙁 but I was basically trying to say the same thing.
Fe = Hero
Seems fundamentally off to me. And I anticipate a lot of future problems with new users coming in, who already think they're INFJs - if they are told that 'hero' is the Fe function.
It is basically another iteration of the MBTI INXX descriptions, which describe something that is fundamentally human, and which everyone can relate to - and then people say "How come everyone mistypes as INXX?"
Although I have shared my philosophy about trial by fire, I will say that, as a Pe lead, I still very much do follow a Pe trajectory, now that I think about it.
As a kid, I had a lot of flying dreams and in my 20s, I wrote a novel about a girl who could fly. The novel had a lot of low-Ni paranormal elements. It a Pe-Pi mindfuck book. Yet, the character was a hero of sorts, as fucked up as she was. She never develops Je or even Ji in that book. It's all very P. But she does undergo transformation and takes major risks to protect her interests against authorities & bad guys, and save people who need to be saved along the way.
In my flying dreams, I rescued kids from fires, just because they needed rescuing and I was able. I flew out of wars, chases, fires; ran from cops & other authorities etc. I often helped others along the way; mostly children. These adventure dreams were often very heroic. They involved great risk, last minute choices, sacrifice moment to moment, and so forth.
To draw a comparison between my character & Harry Potter,
They were both heroic because:
And this is what's bothering me about the "Fe = hero" thing. Even in the most basic, momentary, trickster "Pe" form, there is a lot of room for sacrifice, risk and heroism. It just isnt KING/QUEEN style, messiah-heroism.
Obviously, messiah-king-queen heroism has a potentially huge shadow, in the 'tyrant.' Just as Pe hero has a shadow, in being a reckless delinquent and refusing to grow up. These parallels can be drawn easily, giving various types a 'hero myth.' So unless it's explained in a very specific way, "Hero" is indeed, too universal.
Thanks guys for the feedback.
I think there's a fair argument to be made for a more targeted 'label' to house the Aler myth. I think "Messiah" is a good option but there are problems with it also. I'm already stepping on enough people's shoes, and I don't wanna have a Christian mob come after me, telling me I'm psychologizing their deity. (Which I am )
But I feel inclined to note that the profile itself defines what it means in a very specific way (and it can get more specific if needed) - so that if people are actually reading the profile and not just stopping after reading "hero", they'll get what is meant in the context of this system. People can have all sorts of notions for what "hero" means, and that's inevitable. It could mean being a great dad, or inspiring people with music. But I think defining one's terms is always important. To me, it just seems sloppy to object to terminology by confusing the laymen use of a word for the technical use of it in a system. I don't think we have to appeal to the ignorance of the uninitiated -- instead, we should initiate.
I always find it a better solution to elucidate what is meant by the terms used, than to try to find the perfect adjective because people get hung up on the adjective no matter what it is. Right now the discussion is influenced by the voices in this thread, but more voices will come later wanting to adjust it in other directions.
It's better to have a stable yet imperfect label, than to split hairs endlessly. For example we still have "F" and "T" in use even though we don't say F = feelings anymore. Everyone who's been properly initiated into Jungian typology gets it. If we're going to object to a face-value reading of "Fe = Hero" or preemptively defend against misconceptions, then we might as well object to "Te = King" or "Se = Trickster" and many of the others. I find this to be an issue of nomenclature and its limits, rather than with the term itself being ill applied.
That makes sense. With all the thoughts from the thread & today in mind, I'm going to reread all that was said, reread Fe & Se, reread some of the other links you've sent. In a while, after percolating, I'll come back to this thread perhaps with additional thoughts 🙂 but I think we've clarified a lot of where the confusion was, and helped to elucidate some ideas on Fe vs. PeFi, which will help me think this through going forward. I hope it helped you in some way too! 🙂
I started a thread on Pe & hard work/self improvement, to get some thoughts from others, which might help too.
Actually, one more thought @auburn
For now, I would suggest that if you're not going to take out the word "hero," but you CAN acknowledge that there are different types of heroes - it might help to have a list of characters and stories who embody Fe heroism unambiguously, like Danaerys and Black Panther, rather than Harry Potter.
Having HP on that list, is what gives it the sense that you're just lumping every type of heroism into Fe, and not acknowledging the heroism in other types, regardless of your long explanation about your specific meaning. The example you chose, betrays a deeper sense that 'all heroes & hero stories are Fe.' Regardless of their actual type, the methods, etc.
That's just my suggestion and you can feel free to disagree or ignore it; but I think I've clarified enough why I stand where I stand on that.
In short: Voldemort's Je vision gets ruined by Harry Potter, the trickster. That is the "hero myth" of the story.
Fair enough, I've removed Harry Potter from the myth section for now, as I think about this more.
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.
@Animal, sorry I missed this tag earlier. But, to reply… I am really conflicted, and my conflict is only compounded by my enneagram 6 nature XD
I have been showcasing my mirthful Ne side on discord, as you well know, but I too am not all about “grapes and wine.” The phoenix myth resonates strongly with me as well. I have had several of my own figurative deaths and rebirths, yet Auburn may be right when he describes the Pe version of rebirth as less hierarchical than the Fe version. I struggle to accept any part of my past self as a building block for my current self. When I rise again after failure or traumatic experience, I prefer to envision the new me as a clean slate, often abandoning anything connected with my previous self. We’ve discussed before the element of long-term focus granted by Se/Ni, so I imagine that plays a role in the comparison, but my lll- development does lend a lesser capacity towards the same.
One of the rare portions of my life that has been a hierarchical death/rebirth cycle is piano. I have no innate musical talent, only passion. I have several handicaps that make both playing and reading music a real battle. I’ve performed so badly in previous recitals that had it been any other activity, I would have quit out of shame. But for piano, I rise again after each defeat, more determined than before.
Am I doing any good in the world by this? Not really. My talents would probably be better developed elsewhere. The pursuit here is one entirely of self-interest. I’m not sharing a message or vision with the world (though sometimes I like to believe I might at least be an inspiration to someone someday), I’m merely proving to myself that will and passion are all I need to attain mastery of a skill.
You seem to embody the Fe Phoenix myth better than I, sacrificing yourself for a greater purpose. I share a similar desire to put myself through the grind, but from a different angle.
Hmm ... I’m not sure I’m satisfied with all I’ve said so far (is this really a 6 thing? what does it feel like to be not 6?… it must be so pleasant haha!). But anyway, let me try to elaborate more and do away with any semblance of structure to this post. I have the Ne propensity to get bored. I crave novelty, I can be unpredictable. But I also crave rigor. I enjoy the pain of self-discipline. I may not stay the course with my hobbies and career path, but for a less narrowly defined vision of becoming my better self, bring on the challenge! I impose upon myself lot of mini challenges for the sake of building my character. It is one grand vision composed of seemingly unrelated parts. I don’t perceive myself as a vessel through with archetypal messages may be transmitted, but rather as an aspiring inspiration to others to become their best selves whatever that may entail.
What @Auburn said here explains a lot for me:
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.
I have a long way yet to go patching up my achilles heel, but it remains a priority whilst I simultaneously embrace the myth of Ne whole heartedly. I would hardly recognize myself sans the conflicting traits resulting from this.
nb: I haven't had a chance to read through all of the posts after Animal's question to me, so please forgive anything that doesn't make sense in light of what has been further discussed.
If the word messiah is too hard a pill to swallow, perhaps "The Chosen One" could do the job, noting of course that that is what messiah means.
On your point about terminology and definitions, I would say that your point is fair, as far as it goes, but caution must be used here. While one can always define one's own word to mean specific things, this has its own set of limitations. For example, why not use a word that has no meaning to designate the myth, call it the "Myth of Bluythbqwerpoiut". Few would say this is optimal. On the other end of the spectrum, why not use a word with meaning, but with a different one, which is understood to change here, as we have defined it to be different. Call the Fe Myth, then, the "Myth of Juicy Grilled Chicken Meats". Again, not optimal. Then, the last option, zooming in on the space of possibilities, is to use a word with meaning, but whose meaning is somehow related to the precise meaning defined in our text - this is standard practice in mathematics, for instance, even if the relation is that of an evocation. This is where your usage of the word Hero falls in, and the criticism is that if we are going to use a word whose meaning is related to the precise meaning, then we can have better or worse words that evoke or suggest such a meaning. The criticism here is that the word hero is too general, and hence misleading. On one extreme of things, we could use a word with meaning, with a related meaning, that is too general, like calling it "The Myth of Being Human", and then say that we are defining what we mean by being human in the text. On the other extreme, one can be too specific, "The Myth of Being a Jew Born in Nazareth", again not optimal. A balance between concreteness and generality must be achieved, if we are already committed to using a word that is related to the meaning at hand.
Also, I like the Chosen One, as it has a more neutral feel. I can be the Chosen One to save humanity, or to bring about its destruction.
Wow! So much good stuff has gone down here! I'll just respond to a few bits.
I totally agree with four things:
1) There's a sense of "the hero" that's fundamentally human, not Fe or any one function.
It's literally the mythic cast of "growth": To Jung, it's what individuation is. It's the ego on its way to "the Self".
2) Fe as Messiah is awesome!
That's how I see it. And like @auburn, I find all the "strive on" preaching burdensome and irksome. It's what grates me about JBP's self-help stuff. It just feels like he has the right insight but the totally wrong prescription for it. I'm glad I knew about type before I knew about him because I've understood from the very beginning what exactly in his message irks me. It'd have been a mystery otherwise, especially considering I agree with so much of what he says. I think Je in general puts a certain emphasis on agency that I find burdensome and even unrealistic: Almost like they expect humans to be something more than human. I get that's my revisor rebellion in full gear, though.
3) Different kinds of heroes- Yes!
The seelie princesses are heroes too, let's not forget. Just not Fe heroes. All protagonists of stories are the heroes of their stories: just like every ego is the hero of every person's life story, but the hero that's still smack in the middle of the action (hasn't "learned the lesson" yet). This I think is why the Fe=hero felt wrong to many. Because hero is another word for protagonist.
I'm glad we can find another word to give Fe so we don't confuse it with all these other meanings embedded in "hero", including the more saintly connotations. For example, to me, heroism is whatever involves sacrifice in the service/pursuit of some good. So there's a heroism and 'failure' to every function or every type in whatever life-circumstances they are in. Someone who dies rather than violate their Fi values is a hero; someone who sacrifices to rule the people fairly (Te King) is a hero; etc. This is why the word was creating confusion. There's lots of different meanings to it.
4) Harry Potter, again!
I agree that other people may think Harry has some kind of 'destiny' but I don't see it in Harry or 'God' (JKRowling). Only in some characters in the story. Harry just is a boy who is true to his values and those he cares about, at the end of the day. All his heroism can be boiled down to that. When he gives his life in Deathly Hallows, it's not because "he must step into his destiny"; it's because Voldermort has to be defeated. And even defeating Voldermort is not "his destiny"; it's just what is necessary in the moment. It must be done to protect the wizarding world and those in it. Period.
In short: Voldemort’s Je vision gets ruined by Harry Potter, the trickster. That is the “hero myth” of the story.
OMG- This is so true! Voldermort has a total "destiny" arch. Harry doesn't.
Another story where it's the villain rather than the protags who has the destiny arch is Avengers 4 (Infinity War). The mighty Thanos is all about his destiny to save the universe! An anti-messiah (but sacrificing his child rather than himself). Unlike Voldermort, Thanos completes his arch. The protags aren't able to stop him.
Also, I like the Chosen One, as it has a more neutral feel. I can be the Chosen One to save humanity, or to bring about its destruction.
I agree with this suggestion by @faeruss. "Chosen" has that "destiny"/"trajectory" thing in it. I think that's the essence of Fe heroism: conscious becoming. Other heroisms don't have that.
@faeruss - your last post is so funny, I laughed 4 times during lunch break thinking about the Myth of Juicy Grilled Chicken Meats. :)))
But I honestly believe that Hero is a good word for the Fe myth and I will risk generating 100 new posts by saying it actually is the best of the ones that have been suggested. 🙂 Messiah sounds way too religious and many Fe users will not resonate with it and even feel disturbed by the word !
The Chosen One is good but Hero has more of a social implication...and The Chosen One makes you think of destiny and that looks more like an Ni thing than like an Fe thing to me. You can be a Hero without being the Chosen One.
I agree with what @fae said about individuation and that the Hero represents everyone's growth process in a way but I simply think Hero is a better word for Fe-myth than Messiah or The Chosen One.
I did start this whole thing with my comments about the need for more positive examples of Se characters and I will maintain that opinion but Fe is pretty heroic and the other words proposed are way too religious for a Je function.
Because hero is another word for protagonist.
I can understand the need to treat "hero" as synonymous with "protagonist", since that's how the culture often understands it. In which case all people/individuals are the protagonists of their lives - and their 'hero journey' is that of their type. I suppose I would be fighting a losing battle to try to redefine such a general word.
To use a word already in the profile, The Myth of the Savior ...may meet the existing criteria?
It's not too religious, it's also not too cumbersome (i find The Myth of the Chosen One) a bit long and also unspecific -- if we're going for specificity over generality. It's essentially a synonym for Messiah without the religious undertones, and still carries the Je/agency aspects without any Pe elements. What do you guys think?