The Fe Myth & Meta Narratives

Index Forums Cognitive Functions The Fe Myth & Meta Narratives

  • This topic has 40 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by Tea.
  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Upon reflecting on this more, I am inclined to keep ‘Hero’ until further notice, perhaps because of its very connotations and to spark a social commentary that I feel can and should develop around the subject, rather than skirting around it.

    From a sociological perspective, and a Jungian perspective, there is much to say about why the (Fe) Hero myth is positioned where it is in the cultural mind. And I think the commentary could be aided by directly identifying this widespread myth and how it has developed over time. It is, in my opinion, part of the Fe legacy that the predominating [western] myth is as such.

    So I would like to have discussions with mythologists regarding this peculiarity. I think that at a higher level of academic initiation –surely beyond my own– the subject of the Hero myth (proper) (a la Campbell) is not so easily mistaken for the ‘heroism’ that may generally define every good actor or protagonist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero’s_journey

    Despite a proliferation of other protagonist in folklore, it remains the case that the most quintessential “hero” story and monomyth is nevertheless the Fe one in the modern understanding. I don’t think this fact is to be neglected or ignored. I think there is territory to explore here that goes as far back as alchemical studies, and in those texts the legacy of the archetype as the ‘hero’ still remains. So it would be a loss of continuity to short-circuit the lineage of the term. I think it’s better to investigate it as it has constellated most predominately in this age, and for the term to be understood from a technical place, when we discuss it in CT.

    In short I feel it’s too complex a matter, and too historically intertwined, to make a definitive call. But moreso I personally don’t feel like its naming is entirely my choice, as the myth has appeared how it has. However, in our conversations, perhaps we can make a habit of simply qualifying it as the “Fe hero myth” rather than a general “hero myth.” I understand the points raised, and I know this is not a perfect solution. But I think it’s the most honest to current scholarship, even if not the most convenient for our personal use. I hope this makes sense.

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

    Despite a proliferation of other protagonist in folklore, it remains the case that the most quintessential “hero” story and monomyth is nevertheless the Fe one in the modern understanding.

    I don’t understand, @auburn: Are you saying the hero’s journey proper is Fe? Isn’t it the ego’s journey? How is it Fe? I think Fe is one iteration of the hero’s journey, not it. Perhaps we need to dissect the journey itself and see what about it is Fe versus the universal individuation story?

    Let me give an example of myself: I certainly feel myself as someone on a journey. To get somewhere, even if not to “become”. Somewhere like living my “true life”. This is a theme that repeats itself even in my dreams. Every person by virtue of being born in a changing world will experience their lives like some kind of story. Stories themselves are reflections of our journey through this changing reality. The hero’s journey is a simplification of that journey.

    I agree that Fe is a hero, but to equate “the hero’s journey” with Fe seems to me very erroneous.

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

    @Auburn

    So you are claiming that the Hero’s Journey à la Campbell is fundamentally Fe? When I said a while back that the fundamental question was whether

    The fundamental issue is whether or not the Fe myth is that of the Hero.

    I meant Hero in the Hero’s Journey way. I still hold that this is the meta-story and is archetypically universal. I have no problem seeing a story like Bilbo Baggins’ following this meta-structure, for instance. In my own writing, this structure has come up again and again, even before I knew about this view – though I realise this could be my Fe manifesting itself.

    I have no problem leaving the word Hero as is, also seeing how the other function myths already have rather generic names – one could clearly imagine an Fi user embodying the myth of the Cosmos, for instance – as much as with claiming all of Western civilisation has been dominated by an Fe myth – I find it hard to see all those snarky Te users throughout the ages swallowing that pill.

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

     

    I still hold that this is the meta-story and is archetypically universal.


    @faeruss
    , I agree! This is not western in any way. Campbell boiled stories down to the hero’s journey because he found it was universal. He found it in myths, songs, stories from all over the human world. In addition, this is the story of the ego, not a particular function.

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

    Here’s the problem I see:

    If we say Fe is a hero but not the hero’s journey, there’s no problem. Then Fe is like the myths of the other characters: archetypal roles like King, Prince, Trickster, Puer, Senex, etc.

    But if we then claim that Fe is the hero’s journey, we’re making Fe the story as opposed to a character. The story is the story of the human subject. The ego. The human “I”. All egos feel the call of individuation because they are fundamentally incomplete. That’s where the “journey” comes from. It’s the ego turning into the “Self”, or realizing the “rest” of the psyche. So there is transformation that is just basically human; it’s the story of the human soul.

    It can’t be assigned to any function.

     

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

    So, like I said, we need to differentiate between the story of the ego (individuation) and the hero as an archetypal character in stories (Fe).

    Between the hero/protagonist and the hero character (Hero Xter) 

    For example, in Moanna, the protag is a hero in both senses but Maui is the hero xter (as well as trickster). He is “the champion”, accomplishing feats on behalf of his people. It’s in that sense I understand Fe hero (saviour/champion archetype). It’s a particular role that shows up in stories, same as King, Jester etc.

    Moanna does the same but she’s also the protag (ego) in the story; so she embodies universal elements as well as characteristic hero Xter elements.

    So Moanna as Hero/Protagonist experiences:

    1. A calling/mission
    2. A journey/adventure
    3. Obstacles/defeat/victory
    4. A return home

     

    We can’t claim these for Fe. We’ll find these in most stories that humans have told.

    Moanna as the hero role/xter: She’s champion/saviour in three different ways and to four sets of characters but basically, she does for her people what no one could or would do. Bring back the fish and the seafaring!

    I see this latter as hero Fe; but the first “hero’s journey” elements as simply universal elements of stories and in particular, the psychological story of the human ego. The hero role/character fits in with King/trickster etc; but the hero’s journey is way too far: that’s the ego, not Fe or any other function.

    Perhaps it’s because we’ve avoided ego in the myths that we’ve ended up assigning it’s place in the pantheon to one of the lesser characters (functions). But the ego is like God/gods in stories: Its place is standard and we shouldn’t confuse it with the roles.

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

    So, what I am saying relates directly to this problem of classification we are having here, which is why I don’t wanna leapfrog it. Let me try to propose a distinction, to show you what I mean:

    Individuation: The process of coming into one’s own, as a normal process of human growth and life. Growing up, living one’s “true life” and becoming a man/woman.

    Hero’s Journey: A specific mythical narrative involving a protagonist that is called to ascend to power, often taking his father’s place, is confronted with evil and has to fight it, is often killed and resurrected, and then ascends to kinghood. Campbell roughly outlines these motifs as so:

    This is a very specific narrative structure. It is more specific than wanting to live one’s true life, and it’s also a limited storyline. Why this template (which I see as Fe) is currently positioned as the meta-narrative, I don’t know. But I think this is what is causing the confusion. Essentially, the Fe Hero Myth is conflated with the individuation journey of all people as a whole.

    I don’t see it as everyone’s individuation journey having these narrative elements. Even if someone is quite devoted to self-understanding, the number of people who undergo a “Jungian” individuation process, for example, is not 100%. There is some debate revolving around Jung as to why his clients followed this template more than others, and I heard Peterson note that there may have been some pre-selection involved in who would want him as a clinician. So Freudian patients would have Freudian dreams. Jungian patients would have Jungian dreams.

    If you go to a Jungian therapist, they’ll try to look at your life through this narrative structure — because they claim it universal. But I don’t think that’s right. There’s a reason why Jungian therapy doesn’t work for everyone (google for example, the efficacy of Analytical Psychology). Peterson suggested it doesn’t work for people low in trait openness, but I think it may have more structural problems. If it was universal, it would speak to the experience of everyone.

    But not everyone looks at, or benefits from looking at, the obstacles of their life as battles with dragons– nor their growth as a transmutation of character in the particular way defined above. It is possible, in my opinion, that Analytical Psychology, Joseph Campbell’s renditions, etc, are the attempts to take one truth and apply it beyond its parameters. And because it’s been portrayed as universal, we now come to say “everyone has a hero journey.”

    We can rectify this two ways:

    • 1. Saying everyone has a hero journey, but it doesn’t mean Fe. And re-classifying Fe as a sub-myth by another name such as Savior.
    • 2. Saying everyone has an individuation journey, and classify the ‘hero journey’ as one subset of individuation related to Fe.

    The problem with approach #1 is that all the Fe-tinged elements that have been inserted into the narrative will remain within it, when I feel they are not applied to all people. And so then an Fi user may come to say they have a “hero journey” too, just like everyone, and read Campbell and try to stitch their life narrative around that template.

    I don’t think it’s the right template. I think the template is right, but it’s specifically biased towards Fe. I think we can do better, and I think a more targeted individuation journey for Fi users can be mapped (by studying enough confirmed Fi users), rather than appropriating the elements within the Fe rendition.

    If CT has any room for illuminating the field of mythology, it may be in a route such as this, where the Fe myth can be put in its place, and relativized rather than universalized. But for this I feel it’s most valuable to own up to the Fe hero myth, then contextualize it, rather than grant everyone the qualities of the Fe mythical scaffold.

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

    Wow, @auburn! That’s cool. I think I see what you mean. I like the second solution; (Yes, I’m equating hero’s journey with individuation; and I see now what you’re getting at.)

    2. Saying everyone has an individuation journey, and classify the ‘hero journey’ as one subset of individuation related to Fe.

    I agree with this. I hadn’t thought of it this way. For sure the idea of being called to a “pre-assigned” communal rule is positively stomach-churning to me. It sounds more like a prison than a calling. Breaking free of such “duties” is a fundamental part of my myth.

    When I think of my journey/yearning, I’m trying to be myself (express my talents/gifts/nature): That’s the goal. It involves explicit rejection of any pre-assigned or socially prescribed roles or roles imposed on me. Rather it’s more like a flower blooming. That’s my idea of individuation (for me). Anything else I consider toxic.

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

    called to ascend to power, often taking his father’s place,

    This is what I mean, @auburn. Not appealing to me in the least. Why should I take up someone else’s place? And who’s “calling me to power”? Not interested! I want to live my own life. This is my myth; 100%. I think my myth is the anti-Fe myth. I’d consider it a tragedy if I didn’t live my life (the one in me, not the one assigned) at the end of it all. that’s what failure is to me: Living the rest of my life in a way that’s not true to that.

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

    I’ve finally split this off into its own thread, since we’re way past Harry Potter. But I will have to sleep and get back to this later. I’m glad my point makes sense Fae –yes I think we can do better with an Fi rendition, and it would help improve psychoanalysis if we had type-targeted mythical narratives, for instance, even if I agree that all individuation journeys have some shared elements. We can define what are universal and what are specific motifs.

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

    For sure the idea of being called to a “pre-assigned” communal rule is positively stomach-churning to me. It sounds more like a prison than a calling. Breaking free of such “duties” is a fundamental part of my myth.

    When I think of my journey/yearning, I’m trying to be myself (express my talents/gifts/nature): That’s the goal. It involves explicit rejection of any pre-assigned or socially prescribed roles or roles imposed on me. Rather it’s more like a flower blooming. That’s my idea of individuation (for me). Anything else I consider toxic

    @fae I hereby declare that your communal pre-assigned calling is to express yourself and reject any prescribed roles!

    Jokes aside, I would say that the description being passed around gives it more of an Fe tint/shade, this whole talk of rising to power etc, but the story structure properly is much more general, for instance the hero returns to where he/she starts with something of value, not necessarily becoming the King of His Domain, that is more of a specific manifestation of it.

     

     

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

    Jokes aside, I would say that the description being passed around gives it more of an Fe tint/shade, this whole talk of rising to power etc, but the story structure properly is much more general, for instance the hero returns to where he/she starts with something of value, not necessarily becoming the King of His Domain, that is more of a specific manifestation of it.

    Yes but I think this is due to a reverse engineering. For example, I see how Campbell tried to generalize his myth, although he clearly has a sense of what the “most pure” representation is as he quotes Gautama Buddha, Moses, and Christ as iconic examples of it.

    So I think he was still staring out with the Fe Hero myth as a template, and then “softening it” a bit, to accommodate other variants. But the priority is still baked into the structure.

    In reality, this shouldn’t surprise us. If we do the math, Beta NF’s would be the ones to articulate (linguistic moral expression) the NF archetypal domain the most naturally. Ni+Fe conductors paving the way in our collective mythology seems precisely what we’d expect, and with it would also come their ‘spin’ on it –which would have to be filtered out as their initial trailblazing is condensed into a more proper universal understanding.

    (Alright, sleep for real now 🙂 )

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

    Oh, here is the thread. 🙂

    So, I also thought Hero Myth could represent Fe like Trickster Myth represents Se but I had doubts regarding Fe being  specifically associated with the Hero’s Journey.

    What seems to strike me though is what you said about Jungian therapy. I never heard it did not work for everyone, but, to be completely honest, I tried interpreting some of my dreams in Jungian and in Freudian way (just based on what I read about their ways to interpret dreams – I am obviously not a specialist in this field, so I have just some basic knowledge)…and what I found is :

    – it’s not that my dreams contain a lot of sexual desires :))  but they most certainly contain a lot of hidden desires and drives that I can easily uncover myself by free association;

    – most of the times my dreams don’t contain anything archetypal or universal or at least I don’t see it that way. I mean, I rarely dream of figures who could remind me of any archetypes. If I dream about something that could somehow be connected to an archetype, there are always easier explanations for the dream than actually thinking about the archetype itself. For example, when I dream of my mom, it never looks like she could represent the Mother Archetype – it mostly looks like I want something connected to my mom, and by jumping just 2-3 associations away from my dream content I will see exactly what it is that I want and also the reasons for the covers, projections etc.

    But I completely agree with many of Jung’s ideas, I’m just saying my dreams have more hidden desire content than archetypal content but maybe that’s normal or more common for Fi-Te users, I don’t know. I am very high in openness, almost 100%, so it’s not that.

    Now… I never tried Jungian therapy, so I can’t say if it works or if it does not work but I felt like it would make sense for it to not work just by thinking of what I generally dream. 🙂 I think it is a topic worth exploring.

    I wanted to ask if Hero’s Journey is specific for Fe users, what is Fi-Te users journey. But I think this has not yet been defined, right?

    Regarding becoming the King, developing Te would also look like becoming King, wouldn’t it? And if you don’t have it conscious, I think the journey would be pretty similar, I mean, you (your current development) would have to die and someone new (with Te conscious) would be born.

    Oh, good night !

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by Bera.
    Umbilical Sphere
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    “Let me try to propose a distinction, to show you what I mean:

    Individuation: The process of coming into one’s own, as a normal process of human growth and life. Growing up, living one’s “true life” and becoming a man/woman.

    Hero’s Journey: A specific mythical narrative involving a protagonist that is called to ascend to power, often taking his father’s place, is confronted with evil and has to fight it, is often killed and resurrected, and then ascends to kinghood.”

     

    If we interpret the hero’s journey as you summarised it here in a more deeply symbolic way, I think it resonates strongly with the nature of individuation for all types. I interpret it in this way;

    Ascending to power is taking responsibility for what we are, and beggining the shift from the domination of the psyche by the impulsive, fragmentary, self-focused and animalistic Id, and into mastery of ourselves as sovereign and self-determining individuals, what we might call the dominion of the Soul over the rest of the being. The Soul is the rightful king of our entire nature, it is the individualising principle of the logos, structuring, differentiatiating, binding, whose essence balances emptiness/potentiality and form/actuality in indestructible perfection. In the soul there is no attachment and aversion, there is perfect equanimity in its fundamental depth, for it is a fractal reflection of God – the umoved mover. Tenderness of the lover, will of the warrior. Infinite potency – Infinite surrender.

    This is a potential realisation open to all humans, but due to the blows of life accumulating, and our incapacity to meet some of them, our lower nature becomes wounded and certain defensive reactions become fixated. Around these fixations (borne by form split from emptiness), limited identities calcify and embed. We become defined by the wounds we are unable to meet, and the compensatory structures that are unconsciously and uncontrollably deployed in attempt to suppress consciousness of them. In the fear of suffering, a being comes to fight with the principle of wholeness which is the essence of their Soul, to resist the awakening of pain so it can be met, healed, and transformed into significance and potency. In this fear of and resistance to suffering, is the loss of our sovereignty, and the fall of our divine purpose of individuating into a rigid unconscious network of resistances and compensating attachments. This network of resistances (which is ultimately resistance to Truth) is the meta-obstacle within all of us, and is invariably interconnected with a set of resonant blockages in ones outer existence. Because of this mobius-strip style enfoldment of the outer into the inner and unfoldment of the inner into the outer, all journeys of individuation ultimately and necessarily synthesise the opposites of these two poles of inner and outer, and going to the limit of one inevitably awakens the other pole. These are the two poles of existence between which all life dances, and the eternal impulse of the soul is to maximise the dance,vibrancy, joy of life, in a totalistic/cosmically intersubjective manner. To take the outer hero’s journey is to take the inner hero’s journey, and to take the inner hero’s journey is to take the outer hero’s journey. Whatever elements of life we make mental and behavioural contortions to  avoid are those that dominate our existence and undermine our sovereignty in unseen but extreme ways.

    In terms of overcoming evil, we can consider all that goes against the impetus of Soul to be evil. The forces of existence which are couter-evolutionary, and seek to enhance themselves to the detriment of the evolutionary current of the whole. Evil plays zero-sum games, where one of us must win and the other must lose, because it does not know the Truth of the infinite abundance of the Soul. Evil is not the unmoved mover, as God is, evil is a puppet of its possession by the consumptive and darkened ignorance which lies at its core. This evil exists in each of us, as our shadow nature, which has not yet turned to the light, and outside of us, as the parts of others that are endarkened and which perpetuate darkness when they undermine our sovereignty and act through us. We see again the fractal mirroring of inner and outer, and their inseperability. We cannot properly and balancedly overcome the evil outside us until we overcome and dissolve the evil within. If we try, we are likely to succumb to the Nietzschean warning, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”, as our own shadow is enabled to hide in the self-image of oneself as righteous and good, because one is fighting the evil outside oneself. I would like to adapt the Goethian idea that “none are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who are falsely believe they are free” into ” none are so hopelessly dark as those who falsely believe they are light”. When we have finally met and defeated all the evil and ignorance within (symbolised as without in the hero’s journey), we awaken to our nature as the incorruptible and radiant Soul. This journey is profound and deep, but few ever make it all the way. Nonetheless we are all called to it, by the very nature of what we are, and what we could be, what existence could be. Our sovereignty awaits its claiming, Truth awaits our knowing, Love awaits our surrender.

    And on to the final piece of symbolism pointed to in aub’s summary, the death and resurrection of the hero. This is none other than the death of our congealment of identity around ego or shadow (identity in ego as denying shadow and living in passivity, or identity in shadow as identifying with and being possessed by darkness – typically with some chaotic/uncontrolled/unsovereign oscillation between them). This identity dies, this encrusted fixation around defenses against need and possessions by need. In the space of our openness when we do not cling or resist, the light of the Soul can be known, can be become. We just have to rest into it, give up the struggle against suffering, against Truth. But first we must die to everything we falsely thought we were, all the defenses and strategies we have accumulated to try to avoid this suffering, the ways of relating and not-relating to experience and existence associated with those. The ways we have defined ourselves in order to avoid contacting that which is opposite within us, and the tumultuous and transformative pain which follows. We have to allow that which is ready to be dismantled, the walking corpse of ego, to be dismantled, by the evolutionary Soul, so that our true nature can shine through. We have to face our essential pain, so we can find our essential joy.

    My last point, is to point out connections between what I described above and the journey of individuation as framed by typology. What I described above transcends and includes the development of our function stack, which is why we see many people who have advanced spiritual development have most or all of their functions conscious. In our life we also seem to accumulate traumas around certain energetic-vectors/functions, such that one may have a pathological avoidance of touching awareness into the inner psyche (I) or a pathological avoidance of touching awareness and expressing out into the outer (E), a pathological avoidance of order/control (J) or a pathological avoidance of chaos/surrender (P). These are all dimensions of the Soul that appear to be able to be traumatised, a scaffold for certain traumas, such that when energy begins to accumulate in there (any specific function) through the natural expansion of the Soul into all its potentials (principle of wholeness), traumas in those zones get triggered and then automatic defenses arise to cut off that function from awareness/keep it unconscious. This happens sequentially but rapidly, and the reason that enhancing consciousness through practices like meditation and then applying it to our moment to moment psycho-somatic-energetic experience is that increased consciousness = increased clarity, resolution and stability of experiencing shorter and shorter time-scales of experience. This allows us to get awareness into the short timeframe between traumas being triggered and automatic defenses arising to shut down awareness of them, which perpetuates existing imbalances in the psyche and keeps us from manifesting our deeper potentials, which await liberation within our deep wounds. It is also my observation that people tend to use their dominant function (but can be other functions also) as an escape from the evolutionary and not-always-comfortable pressures of the Soul upon the conscious mind. We may use overuse (over-condense energy into) certain functions as strategies to avoid the ever-present call and impulse of individuation, which also relates to the requirement for death and rebirth of identification with specific movements of energy through the psyche, through limited function patterns, whose boundaries are enforced by defenses (like dissociation, repression, rationalisation etc – all manifestations of one-sidedness/avoidance of Truth). The Truth of what we are is our Soul, is the totality of our being, wounded and unwounded. This is the Truth from which we seek to escape, the living Truth that reveals itself within experience when we are sufficiently open. This is also the Truth which we so desperately desire, but do not know that it is the object of our restless desire. This is the home from which we have forsaken ourselves. This is the home which lovingly awaits our return. It is not reducible to any one cognitive function or pattern of functions – it is the indefinable and trans-functional essence from which all functions flow and to which they all return. It is the mandala of perfect harmony.

    This is our journey – the journey of each of us, the journey home. I choose to read this myth symbolically as reflecting both inner and outer, and ultimately merging them into one, because this is the universalised and most enlightening perspective of its meaning.

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

    We have already established on Discord and elsewhere that Se/Ni “holism” has a kind of “as above, so below” convergent mentality, whereas Ne is divergent.  In the Ni description – which very much describes how my own stories unfold – there is talk about the world as “fractals;” patterns which show up everywhere and repeat.  This is how I see things.

    The narratives that unfold in my stories are the same ones that have unfolded since the beginning of time and will unfold until the end of time. I tap into the same basic themes that have always been and always will be. I have never watched TV, never been part of any religious institution; but my stories end up tapping into mythological narratives that come up in contexts I never knew about.

    And I do this by paying attention to the real world around me in my actual life.  My dreams and stories are anecdotes revealing the same set of patterns that show up around me and within me, even if they are taken to another time and place, and the characters are given other names. Modern politics is but one example of patterns that always repeat; and this is why I can often predict what will happen next: because humans operate the same way, whether on a small or wide scale.

    Due to the universal “repeating patterns” I’ve tapped into in my work (which I see as Ni) and how many times people have told me about legends and myths that match my work when I didn’t even know about them, and how parallel my work is to dreams that show up in my unconscious; I think it’s wrong to say that as a Fi user I ‘copied’ something in culture. I literally just pick up the underlying patterns in my real life  and transfer them to larger  symbolic narratives- quite automatically. This is why I thought I was Ni conscious.

    And it has nothing to do with Fe. The idea of making one’s life into a convergent narrative, or seeing the same patterns that repeat everywhere ad nauseum, is Ni. And that is what I’ve been tapping into since I was a child.

    Fi/Te people are a lot less likely than Fe/Ti people, to adopt narratives from the wider culture and make it their own, anyway. So like @faeruss said, the idea that these snarky Te users just adopted something that was out there and absorbed it… is unlikely.  And I know I didn’t, because I’ve kept a close eye on my process. It’s very “as above, so below.”  What unfolds in my own life, I see the universal pattern in it: Fi-Ni.  That’s why I’ve captured the differences between the Fe/Ti vs. the Te/Fi archetypes so acutely in my work, in ways which were mirrored here on this website –  because my work was a commentary on real people and real personalities that emerged throughout my actual life.

    My life is a small sample set, obviously biased by my own experience and the people who are attracted to me, much like Jung’s patients were attracted to Jung.  However that doesn’t stop me from establishing an underlying pattern that tends to repeat, even if it’s not THE WHOLE of what repeats in the world, and it’s not THE ONLY pattern that repeats. I focus on but one pattern, the one that has attracted itself to me; but then it ends up reflecting major mythological truisms that show up everywhere, and people , after reading my work, continuously tell me about them.

    I should note that it is not, per se, my aim to tap into universal and timeless patterns when I am drafting my books. I don’t seek these patterns  – I simply notice that if my process is honest, universal patterns emerge organically. By going deep enough into myself and the patterns that emerge behind my own reality, I tap into patterns that repeat elsewhere; this is inevitable.

    If Se/Ni is ‘holism’ and Ni is ‘as above, so below’/establishing fractal patterns that show up everywhere and repeat ad nauseum —- then this may be why Faeruss and I see something universal in this.  But saying that people just “swallowed whole” a  cultural narrative and adopted it as their own,  doesn’t sound to me like we are taking into account that most Fi/Te users don’t process things that way.  Jung pointed out something that I said on my website (before I read it) — which is that Fi users can feel like by tapping deep enough into themselves as an individual, they can discover what is universally human.

    So I have two functions that look for the universal in my own experience. Again, I’m not saying that the pattern I pick up is THE ONLY PATTERN, but it is a pattern that is timeless and eternal.  My mind tends to mythologize my lived experience and create narratives out of it, which I see as very Ni-Fi.

    And none of this is about adopting modern cultural mindsets. I was not indoctrinated with religion, so it doesn’t have much hold on me; except for the universal truths I’ve come to discover on my own, which includes my relationship with God.

    So if Fe is about “finding narrative patterns,” what is Ni?  Isn’t Ni ‘narrative?’  And if Ni is narrative, wouldn’t that make someone, who is integrating Ni, want to make a narrative out off their (Se) lived experience; and see it as an insight into a pattern that repeats ad nauseum throughout history (as above, so below)??  And  if someone also values Fi, wouldn’t that make them want to insert their personal experience and relationships in as examples of the players in that universal narrative?

    How is any of this narrative stuff “adopting what culture believes we should do?” And how is it related to Fe?

    In reality, this shouldn’t surprise us. If we do the math, Beta NF’s would be the ones to articulate (linguistic moral expression) the NF archetypal domain the most naturally. Ni+Fe conductors paving the way in our collective mythology seems precisely what we’d expect, and with it would also come their ‘spin’ on it –which would have to be filtered out as their initial trailblazing is condensed into a more proper universal understanding.

    To be clear, this is what I’m objecting to. It’s impossible that this is the case for me, since my mythologies spawn from my real life experience, which is taken out of context and placed into a mythological narrative that has been forming itself all my life as a kind of ‘mythology’ that contextualizes (Ni) my direct, lived experience (Se) and personal feelings about it (Fi).

    I might even wonder if seeing it this way, reveals a Ne & Fe bias on your part? I’m not assuming this, by the way 🙂 but just suggesting it as something to think about.

    Fe/Ti approaches “culturally available archetypes” very differently from Te/Fi. Being that Ti looks for ‘The Objective Truth’ and Fi looks for the universal ‘Inside Themselves.’  So Ti/Fe is much more likely to ‘tap into the wider narrative’ as a guide for their personal work. I’m not saying Fi/Te doesn’t do this at all, since we’re all products of our culture, but that is not really where it begins and ends.

    And, Ne approaches mythology and writing in a very different way too. They see all these possible divergent ways that things could go, and tap into a wide array of different things ‘out there.’  Whereas Se is much more likely to establish a pattern based on lived experience and feel “this is how things are.”  Both have their limits and their potentials. One of the potentials of Se is taking “this is how things are” and applying it on a grand scale; hence the Ni ‘fractal.’

    • 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.
    Ivory
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Throwing some fish in these stormy waters:

    I think that the greatest example of the Hero’s Journey is found in the best selling book: The Bible. Jesus Christ’s life-story itself (he’s Fe dom is he not?) follows that cycle to the T.

     

    His story is much older than the Bible itself, and I would argue (but won’t..) that it is much, much older than the 2000-ish-years time that we’ve been fed to believe.

    In short; I am a supporter of the idea that the Hero’s Journey is a universal pattern, and I disagree that it is a product of modern times.

     

    Also (edit!), the popularity of the Hero’s Journey ‘coincides’ with the popularity of monotheism. Before that the Hero’s Journey was still incredibly important and spread throughout cultures world-wide, but it didn’t receive this massive focus as the other parts of the larger story (such as the tales of the Trickster) were of equal importance. The hierarchy has shifted. Bring back the GodS!!! I’m late for school now, thanks CT!

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

    I wrote some posts in the Harry Potter thread which belong here, on this topic.

    The Bible, The Sumerian Tablets, etc.
    Satan is a trickster. It’s just the way things are. As Auburn once wrote, the King who can no longer tolerate the Jester is a tyrant.
    The stories about a God who can’t tolerate being questioned and requires absolute faith without question – these are stories of a tyrant.
    The Bible is a rewrite of many collected stories that were written before. In the Sumerian tablets, written a few thousand years before the Bible, the Annunaki created human kind as slaves to mine gold, because they needed gold to preserve the atmosphere of their home planet.  Enki – a very clear Pe type – was the creator of Man, who was more benevolent and wanted to give them longer life, teach them knowledge and endow them with the gifts of the Gods. But Enlil, his brother who was in charge of things, wanted to keep them as lowly slaves. They were first created in Eden, through DNA mixing between the Annunaki  and homo erectus.
    Enlil was always trying to limit them and Enki was always sneaking them special favors. In the Bible, Enlil – the angry Je overseer –  was given the role of God in the same stories. Enki was given the role of Lucifer, Satan — the creative brother who disobeyed.
    There are many ways to look at this and we are not “evil” in all of them. The Bible is not the only creation story out there, and many of them tell the same stories from different angles.

    Harry Potter.
    In short: Voldemort’s Je vision gets ruined by Harry Potter, the trickster. That is the “hero myth” of the story.
    This is the same ‘twist’ on the Hero Myth that is covered in the Sumerian tablets, where Pe is hero and Je is tyrant.

    ____

    The point I’m making is, we all tap into the same universal narratives. It’s unavoidable.  “As above, so below.” But we depict different characters as heroes, and different ones as villains – in the same stories – depending on our personal experience, indoctrination, morals, and so forth.

    • 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

    If we say Fe is a hero but not the hero’s journey, there’s no problem. Then Fe is like the myths of the other characters: archetypal roles like King, Prince, Trickster, Puer, Senex, etc.

    When reading this in passing, @Ivory said to me: “On this list, Fe is the Mentor.”

    That’s right.  All of those characters listed can be ‘Heroes.’

    But figures like Jesus Christ  are Mentors – specifically.

    What do you guys think?

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

    @fae I hereby declare that your communal pre-assigned calling is to express yourself and reject any prescribed roles!

    Jokes aside, I would say that the description being passed around gives it more of an Fe tint/shade, this whole talk of rising to power etc, but the story structure properly is much more general, for instance the hero returns to where he/she starts with something of value, not necessarily becoming the King of His Domain, that is more of a specific manifestation of it.

    Haha! @faeruss, Evil trickster, you! But yeah, I see what you mean. I don’t relate to the whole “taking my father’s place” at all, but you’re right. It’s not essential to the bones of the hero’s journey. It’s a version of it.

    My suggestion is that we start separating the elements of the basic ego’s tale from the function tales.

    So I think we can say the hero’s journey itself, at a “bare bones” level, is the ego’s journey.

    Fe is a character in stories, just like the other functions. The version of the hero’s journey changes depending on which role among the many characters the “ego/hero/protag” wears in a story. So you can have the same 8 characters changing the story depending on which one of them plays hero, villain, sidekick, obstacle, counsel etc

    So, Moanna, Diana (Wonder Woman), Black Panther, Dany Targaryen, are classic representatives of the hero’s journey where the hero takes on the character of Fe. (Not sure about Moanna to be honest, but I’ll go with Fe because I saw her typed that way on Discord some months ago.)

    They are, all three, positioned in a certain relationship with their people. BP literally dies/resurrects (kinda); the other three don’t but Moanna and Dany do walk into the belly of hell in a way. But I think death and resurrection is not Fe either. It’s the ego’s story. Growth in the psyche follows death, every time. So the essence of Fe must be elsewhere.

    The communal/collective role thing is one. Fe is either a saviour, a champion, or even a protector/mentor like animal says but it’s something that’s always intertwined with “the other” or the collective.

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

    But we depict different characters as heroes, and different ones as villains – in the same stories – depending on our personal experience, indoctrination, morals, and so forth.

    I agree with this, @animal.^ I think the kinds of stories change depending on who among the lesser characters (Function myths) takes on the role of hero/protagonist; villain; counsel; helper/friend; etc.

    You have a different story if the hero is Fi and Si is the villain. Another where Te is the villain to Fi’s hero etc. Or Te is the counseller verses Ti or Ni etc.

    But the basic structures don’t change, like:

    1) Ego/Protagonist

    2) Struggle in the form of Villain or Obstacle to be overcome (or both)

    3) Defeat and victory

    4) Lessons or transformations

    5) Journey home

    They just look different depending on which character they’re “wearing” in a story.

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

    Regarding Mentor as an alternative – I’m sorry but I disagree.

    In my opinion, pure Fe people are better suited for being Heroes than for being Mentors. They can be heroes who also do some mentoring but I don’t think this is their essential, pure energy.

    I see mentorship as more of a combination of Pi and Je and / or Ji and Je but I may be wrong. Especially Pi and Je and in this order. I mean, of course anyone can do anything but I think Pi is more important in mentoring than Je. What you communicate must first be lived, experienced and integrated in a world view. Or else there is a high risk of it not being consistent. I’m not saying FeNi I— can not be a good mentor (it would be quite absurd of me to claim something like that :)) ), I’m just saying Hero is a better suited word for this person than Mentor.

    Yes, death and resurrection is basically the same as transformation and we all go through transformation processes ! Who we are must always die and something new must be reborn.

    But I think Auburn means a specific type of death and resurrection and what he is saying is that when your communal role really matters to you like it usually does to Fe people.. and when your values are tightly connected to the larger social sphere, if you fail, you might feel you must die and be reborn. I think there are some different Fe-ish undertones in what he is talking about. It’s not just about transformation, it’a also about sacrifice, atonement, rebuilding yourself to become suitable for a specific societal role – like the role of a leader. And if you look at it from this perspective, death and resurrection does look more like an Fe theme.

    Now, I’m not sure that the Hero’s Journey is only about this specific path, because I don’t see this exact path necessarily depicted in the scheme Auburn posted but I believe this is what he is saying, we should find the car video and rewatch it, it’s there.

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

    @bera

    If we look at Fe people – real ones, characters, mythological figures –

    We have Jesus, we have Jordan Peterson, Gandalf, etc etc — what do they all have in common? They are all Mentors.

    Voldemort is portrayed also as a Fe ‘charmer’ in his youth, though some may argue it’s Te. But he does exactly what Auburn describes for Fe – in killing his old self in order to become something new, so that he’s fit to fill the role of ‘leader.’  He does this through “splitting” self, which is very Fe.

    So, most people would not see him as a hero, but he is indeed, a Mentor. He has people who follow His Path. Which he eloquently spins into a righteous cause.

     

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

    @faeruss pointed out the unfair positive bias in “Hero” compared to the other Myths. Using a neutral source, like a  Dictionary 

    let’s see what comes up first.

     king
    1a: a male monarch of a major territorial unitespecially : one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life
    b: a paramount chief
    2capitalized : GOD, CHRIST… to worship the King, the Lord of hosts …— Zechariah 14:16 (Revised Standard Version)
    3: one that holds a preeminent positionespecially : a chief among competitorsthe cattle kings rode up from the south— Alan Mooreheadeven if no longer king, cotton remains the chief cash crop— Howell Walker
    4: the principal piece of each color in chess having the power to move ordinarily one square in any direction and to capture opposing pieces but being obliged never to enter or remain in check
    5: a playing card marked with a stylized figure of a king
    6: a checker that has been crowned

    Spoiler:
    Alternate from Dictionary.com:
    king[king]
    EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR king ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people.
    ( initial capital letter ) God or Christ.
    a person or thing preeminent in its class:
    a king of actors.
    SEE MORE
    verb (used with object)
    to make a king of; cause to be or become a king; crown.
    Informal . to design or make (a product) king-size:
    The tobacco company is going to king its cigarettes.
    verb (used without object)
    to reign as king.

     

    trickster
    noun
    trick·​ster | \ ˈtrik-stər  \
    Definition of trickster

    : one who tricks: such as
    a : a dishonest person who defrauds others by trickery
    b : a person (such as a stage magician) skilled in the use of tricks and illusion
    c : a cunning or deceptive character appearing in various forms in the folklore of many cultures

    Spoiler:
    Alternate from dictionary.com:
    trickster[trik-ster]
    EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR trickster ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    a deceiver; cheat; fraud.
    a person who plays tricks.
    a supernatural figure appearing in various guises and typically engaging in mischievous activities, important in the folklore and mythology of many primitive peoples and usually conceived as a culture hero.

     

    hero
    noun (1)
    he·​ro | \ ˈhir-(ˌ)ō  \
    plural heroes
    Definition of hero
    (Entry 1 of 3)
    1a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability
    b: an illustrious warrior
    c: a person admired for achievements and noblequalities
    d: one who shows great courage
    2a: the principal character in a literary or dramatic work—used specifically of a principal male character especially when contrasted with heroineA special feature was the cliff-hanger ending when hero, heroine, or both found themselves confronting a violent demise …— Ira Konigsberg—now also used of a principal character who is female… action movies with female heroes are emerging more frequently, and with increasing quality.— William Bibbiani
    b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
    3plural usually heros : SUBMARINE sense 2
    4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL

    Spoiler:
    Alternate from dictionary.com:
    hero[heer-oh]
    SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR hero ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun, plural he·roes; for 5 also he·ros.
    a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character:
    He became a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
    a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal:
    My older sister is my hero. Entrepreneurs are our modern heroes.
    the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
    Classical Mythology .
    a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
    (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
    (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.
    hero sandwich.
    the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.

     

    Do you see the problem here?

    The other functions are neutral roles in Society, which may have positive or negative connotations – whereas “Hero” is an Idol, a principle character in a work, legendary illustrious warrior.

    These connotations matter.

    Mentor is a more neutral connotation, like the others. That is why it fits into the list. It holds within it the connotation of ‘shedding your self’ to become something greater for the sake of others, or to carry out a legacy.

     

    mentor
    noun
    men·​tor | \ ˈmen-ˌtȯr  , -tər\
    Definition of mentor
    (Entry 1 of 3)
    1capitalized : a friend of Odysseus entrusted with the education of Odysseus’ son Telemachus
    2a: a trusted counselor or guidea mentor who, because he is detached and disinterested, can hold up a mirror to us— P. W. Keve
    b: TUTOR, COACH The student sought a mentor in chemistry.

    Spoiler:
    Alternate from dictionary.com:
    mentor[men-tawr, -ter]
    SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR mentor ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
    an influential senior sponsor or supporter.
    verb (used without object)
    to act as a mentor:
    She spent years mentoring to junior employees.
    verb (used with object)
    to act as a mentor to:
    The brash young executive did not wish to be mentored by anyone.

     

    P.S. I’m not “personally offended” by positive or negative connotations. I love being a trickster 🙂   While I very much identify as my own hero and savior – and have often taken on the role of hero for others (but in a very Te-ish way, pragmatic and doing things to protect their innocence) –  my philosophy is very much from a revisor point of view. I wanted to bring my own values to life, see them embodied and enacted. It was never about being a ruler or in any kind of social ‘hierarchy’ position.

    So I have no reason to moralize or to be offended by a slight imbalance here. I do agree that Je is the function that takes on responsibility for others and is run by conscience rather than a desire to enact or explore their own personal dreams & desires. This is no problem!

    But as @faerie has articulated so well, so many times on both threads; everyone is a hero. Everyone does heroic things for themselves and others, in different ways. The connotation of the word is just too positive, too universal, too human. Compare it to the other myths, and then Fe starts to lose its specific character.

    The way Auburn wrote the whole description is absolutely brilliant, and it was one of my favorites and very true to life. I’m not critiquing that.  I can ‘personally relate’ to parts of all the descriptions since I’m a human being, and these are human themes; while still, I can acknowledge that this isn’t “my” archetype. But in the case of Hero, we really all have our own hero story. And I strongly disagree that we’ve all adopted a Fe hero narrative because of ‘modern culture.’

    The problem, to me, is that ‘hero’ is in fact equated with individuation, and ‘narrative’ is also a universal need to have an identity. Some people care more than others about having a narrative, and arguably it’s related to “Pi ego” or something like that; but it’s about identity, not Fe, or even Ni.  (If we’re going to use real examples, my father is NiFe, and he doesn’t give much of a hoot about having a personal hero narrative. I often organize his stories into a narrative of overcoming poverty & enacting the American Dream, but he is much more interested in the wider cultural narrative replete with politics and history, and doesn’t talk much about his own identity heroism at all.)

    So saying “hero” “narrative” is Fe, and the rest of the people that relate to it are biased due to modern culture, just doesn’t add up.

    • 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.
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @animal

    Jordan Peterson is a very good example of Fe, Ni and Ti development ! 🙂

    Jesus is not a very good example of anything (as a real person I mean) because we do not know what his type or functions or development level were. If we are just talking about what is in the Bible…do you think he was Fe I— ? Because he used a lot of cryptic talk and parables…

    I don’t know about Gandalf’s type and development level but are you sure he has no Pi development?

    I’d say Voldermort is a (dark) leader and every leader must also do some mentoring, it’s part of leadership but not the main part.

    I do think pure Fe people can be good mentors but I don’t think this is their essence, to me Mentor has a bit of senex energy but I might be wrong, I never considered these things until now…:)

    I will give a tarot example because I can’t resist the temptation.

    Strength could depict Fe (we talked about it at some point I think). The Chariot could also depict Fe or at least Je, generally.And they both carry a meaning of leadership, control and agency.

    But if you think of Mentorship, you naturally visualize the Hermit and he indeed is described as giving guidance and being a mentor. And he is a Senex, not a King/Father/Hero type, you know? But he does have some Fe, he does have a lamp in his hand. :))

    Sorry for the woo everyone. <3

    But I’m just saying how it looks to me, I think we need @Auburn to sort this out. 🙂

    And about the last post – I see what you’re saying but I  actually think it’s way more dangerous to say Fe = Mentor.

    Mentor is close to teacher/coach.  Way above hero/savior in my value system at least although hero sounds cooler. But the mentor tells you what to do !!!  And not just like a leader would, he changes your world view. That’s why I’d say he needs more development and specifically Senex energy and his own pretty well developed world view to effectively do that ! 🙂 That’s precisely why I am against saying Fe- Mentor Myth. I mean, I’m ok with being saved by Fe but not with being coached by Fe and I will just be honest and admit it lol. :))))

    (of course, I’m joking, I think Fe people can be wonderful mentors, as I said before, but I don’t see Fe’s myth as the Mentor Myth…because I don’t see Fe all by itself, with no other development or special circumstances, other people’s support etc as a Mentor)

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

    @bera
    “Hero” is a good example of someone with strong focus and a lot of development, be it through developing all their functions or through developing one function to its maximum capacity.  Characters who become heroes have to incorporate other functions. A Fe character, or person, cannot become a hero and ‘individuate’ unless they incorporate some consistency into their value structure via integrating their Polar.

    So saying that people have developed other functions, is kind of a moot point. We all have to confront our shadow in order to become the ‘hero’ of our own story, let alone to be of any help to others.

    And that’s exactly back to the original problem, and the one I demonstrated through a simple use of dictionary: hero is too positive, too human, too connected to ‘individuation,’ too universal. Not because “people who aren’t Fe have adopted this Fe narrative as their own through culture”  😀  no, but because everyone is endowed with an innate need for narrative, individuation etc; though it may come out in different ways depending on the functions.

    I do agree with you that Mentor is not an ideal word either, because of the ‘Hermit’ connotation. But it’s getting closer to what unites one Fe user to the next, without being so inclusive that it encompasses the whole of humanity and all mythology.

    It would have been intellectually honest to say Harry Potter was a Se hero myth – in which the trickster obstructs the plan of the Fe villain, and frees people from tyranny. But instead we have found ourselves in a position where all heroic stories are lumped into a Fe myth, even if the story is about using Pe to free us from Je. This is a problem.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 41 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