My theory of personality

[Kimani]

Hello my name is Kimani Shorter and I'm trying to get a Wikipedia entry for my theory of personality types

Here is a summary of my theory and the three types on my website

http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id1.html


It reconfigures some of Carl Jung's archetypes and some types found on the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual) into something new

[Blair]

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something something....

Blue.

I'm sure Jung would be delighted with your 'improvements'.

Do you really think it's all about people, schlep?. Try thinking outside of the box (The universe doesn't have a center).

Nerve endings and permeable membranes don't have boundaries, you know. (oh, that's right, you don't)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Kim, first you need to know something about Wikipedia: you don't try to get an article on it. That's not how the system works and it certainly isn't set up for that kind of self-promotion. Even if you managed to write something, it will be deleted swiftly and you'll be disappointed. Probably you need some more reading on how the editing and selecting works.

As for the theory, it needs way more substantiating for it to mean something for Jungians or psycho-analysts or even the self-helper. Promoting it at this stage seems premature. You might have to take into account way more fluent types and boundaries.

[Kimani]

Do you think it's a good start? I have it written out a lot more elaborately. I only have a basic summary on my site. I thought what was on my site was good enough for people to get a basic grasp of what I'm talking about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why don't you write out some of your ideas here?

• The Shadow - back-stabbing
  The Trickster - devious, sneaky

I am not sure where you are going with it, but from a Jungian perspective, your designations would be too strict. The shadow darkens when the personality is not getting the message (of awareness). The Trickster becomes devious when the personality is not getting the message (of awareness) by other means.

You perhaps know the story Jung relates of a dream sequence: In his dream a man hears a knock at the door but is afraid to open it and tries to deny it. Next dream: the knock rattles the door and shakes the whole house. Finally: the 'force' knocking becomes a terrifying force that threatens to blow the house away.

Oh and the Green Scarab... ;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Kimani.
There's the possibility of a technical error in your theory and I'm open to correction.

I thought the personality types referred to the personal domain where personalities were derived from combinations of the functions....extraversion, introversion, feeling, thinking, sensation etc...

Archetypes belong in the transpersonal domain and refer to the collective.

Jungians get pretty tetchy about what they perceive as careless interpretation of their canon.

My advice is to run it past a committed Jungian to validate it from their angle.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dennis...I...Oh my God, Dennis! That was actually an intelligent and really rather thoughtful post! You ARE more than an excitable, ass-licking little GF monkey brown-nosing your superiors! Holy shit, I am going to have to seriously remodel my whole idea of 'you'.

[Dennis Mahar]

I am going to have to seriously remodel my whole idea of 'you'.

That's the point people are trying to make to you laddie,
Having you remodel your whole idea of everything.
Having a model that 'fits' reality.
A model that frees you.

It looks like an impossible dream.

[Kimani]

Why don't you write out some of your ideas here?

• The Shadow - back-stabbing
  The Trickster - devious, sneaky

I am not sure where you are going with it, but from a Jungian perspective, your designations would be too strict. The shadow darkens when the personality is not getting the message (of awareness). The Trickster becomes devious when the personality is not getting the message (of awareness) by other means.

You perhaps know the story Jung relates of a dream sequence: In his dream a man hears a knock at the door but is afraid to open it and tries to deny it. Next dream: the knock rattles the door and shakes the whole house. Finally: the 'force' knocking becomes a terrifying force that threatens to blow the house away.

Oh and the Green Scarab... ;-)

The apathetic nature of the Shadow archetype and the sneaky nature of the The Trickster archetype are equivalent to the apathetic manipulative nature of people with narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and sociopathy.

Certain specific archetypes can be applied to the disorder or condition that you have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I guess you coould go that route. But according to Jung, the more that the shadow is integrated into the personality (and not identified outwardly), the more 'cooperative' it is. And it is a source of great creativity. The trickster as an archetype is incredibly rich and impossible to pin down or categorize. The highest conception of God has a trickster expression. Both of these archetypes, dealt with openly and creatively, become sources of self-knowledge---'individuation'.

And you should try banging on Dennis---it's therapeutic!

[Dennis Mahar]

I guess you coould go that route

I guess Kimani has pulled out a few archetypes and tried to fit them up with psychiatric disorders which could qualify as drawing a long bow.

She(?) reminds me of what Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld did where they ran the shadow, the trickster, the hero and the mother up against each other and got hilarious existential crises going.

Elaine...comforting mother
Jerry...troubled hero
George...shadow
Kramer...trickster

a person isn't an archetype.
a person can be 'in the grip of an archetype'
and a person can be, as you say Alex, individuated as the Self archetype and that makes these archetypal energies available as playthings to get around the worldhood with.

[Kimani]

I guess you coould go that route

I guess Kimani has pulled out a few archetypes and tried to fit them up with psychiatric disorders which could qualify as drawing a long bow.

She(?) reminds me of what Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld did where they ran the shadow, the trickster, the hero and the mother up against each other and got hilarious existential crises going.

Elaine...comforting mother
Jerry...troubled hero
George...shadow
Kramer...trickster

a person isn't an archetype.
a person can be 'in the grip of an archetype'
and a person can be, as you say Alex, individuated as the Self archetype and that makes these archetypal energies available as playthings to get around the worldhood with.

I'm a guy. So are you saying that you don't think the archetypes fit with the disorders?

I don't think a person is an archetype. Instead I think they are several archetypes put together.

[Dennis Mahar]

Instead I think they are several archetypes put together

Are you saying a person is 'in the grip' of several archetypes which constitutes the experience 'psychiatric disorder'.

That psychiatric disorder need not be treated by meds.
That psychiatric disorder can be treated by integration of specific archetypes.

How would you go about it?

Jung would never say of a person that jammed archetypes constitutes a person permanently or fixedly if that's what you're getting at.

[Kimani]

I would discuss the positives and negatives of the integrated archetypes with the person with the psychiatric disorder. I would put emphasis on the capabilities / talents of each of the three types.

I'm probably never going to be in the position to treat someone. I've studied psychology extensively but its not what I went to school for. I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Just a theorist.

[Dennis Mahar]

Thanks for that Kimani. I wanted to get from you the bigger picture.
I'm satisfied that any and all human activity discloses a list of 'in order to's', 'for the sake of whiches' and a 'for the ultimate sake of which'.
All of which is constituted in the Care of human being.

for instance.
Alex bought a computer in order to
contracted an ISP in order to
access GF in order to
write posts insulting GF people
for the sake of invisible lurkers who might be infected
for the ultimate sake of Alex appearing to himself, in his own mind as a World Saviour and Superhero (trickster).

Given all that, your project looks rational Kimani and useful potentially in that it accords with Jung's project of 'freeing' people from the grip of archetypes and having them realise Timeless Man as he put it or infinite nature.

Putting the understanding on Wikipedia.
In order to?
for the sake of?

[Kimani]

I want it on Wikipedia to raise awareness of Jung's teachings but also for the exposure it could give the project. As you already said I see it a way of treating disorders.

[Dennis Mahar]

As you already said I see it a way of treating disorders.

So, the 'ultimate for the sake of which' is for the benefit of human beings.
In order to get the 'for the ultimate sake of which' you had to study psychology extensively and Jung particularly 'for the sake of' a theory arising for the benefit of human beings.

I'm gonna call that a winning formula....and thankyou for that Kimani.

So, a human being is an 'in order to'....for the sake of...for the ultimate sake of which.

Alex's approach looks like a winning formula but has a different character. It's called a Racket because it's about beating up on the winning formulas of others.

Alex, bless his little socks, thinks GF people are Jack and the Beanstalk who have thrown it all away and bought some magic beans to escape reality and are threatening the lives of the invisible lurkers who could follow and be slain by the hairy giant.

What we have to notice here is vitally important.

Both approaches are constituted in Care.
Human Caring.
Human Being is deeply, deeply constituted in, of, all about Care.

Once that is understood completely something wondrous/astonishing is realised that hits like a jackhammer.

Human Being has got it all mocked up like this:

'It's dangerous!'

If the goldfish lives in water,
then the water of human being is:

'It's dangerous' and 'I care'.

The archetypes are ways of being arising in the bubble constituted as 'it's dangerous' and 'I care'.

That's the cosmic joke.
Human Being has made up a Story.

and human race collectively is going in one direction, like a flock of birds in formation, lock-step in that Story.

Jung and GF and Zen and many Masters who got the Joke,
are opened up to Timeless Man, infinite nature etc...

that is, human being has got it wrong, is deluded....
and infinite nature is always/already present and available.

The guy next to you on the bus and the lady next to you in the queue at the shop are located in their heads and looking out of their peepers at 'not you'.

They are looking directly at:
it's dangerous
I care
don't fuck with me
you will go down

It's incredibly funny.

It's empty and meaningless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I want it on Wikipedia to raise awareness of Jung's teachings but also for the exposure it could give the project. As you already said I see it a way of treating disorders.

There are more effective way to promote your own website. If you really are serious I'd recommend going for a degree in psychology and follow the road of publication which then opens to you when releasing your paper, although you might have to start with topics which are only slightly related to a future piece. You might also learn during that time from the pros how to phrase and write your ideas in a way which would be more acceptable to your intended audience and would be less easy to dismiss and criticize.

If you don't want to go that road, then you could work on a free E-book or find a small publisher which can bring you on the shelves in relevant (web) stores. This process is not easy and you should take a few years of focus and dedication. On the web there are many ways to promote your own book or site but you need some advice on how to get people interested. For example joining various online topical communities and link there to your site or book, offering to discuss it. A bit like member Jufa does. Use the power of the interconnections of the web and the search-engines to become available to the people.

But you first need to finish your work, giving it your best based on what you can pick up. Don't rush it either, it might take a lot of time to make it come together as it might include some major revisions as your insights develop.

[Kimani]

I want it on Wikipedia to raise awareness of Jung's teachings but also for the exposure it could give the project. As you already said I see it a way of treating disorders.

There are more effective way to promote your own website. If you really are serious I'd recommend going for a degree in psychology and follow the road of publication which then opens to you when releasing your paper, although you might have to start with topics which are only slightly related to a future piece. You might also learn during that time from the pros how to phrase and write your ideas in a way which would be more acceptable to your intended audience and would be less easy to dismiss and criticize.

If you don't want to go that road, then you could work on a free E-book or find a small publisher which can bring you on the shelves in relevant (web) stores. This process is not easy and you should take a few years of focus and dedication. On the web there are many ways to promote your own book or site but you need some advice on how to get people interested. For example joining various online topical communities and link there to your site or book, offering to discuss it. A bit like member Jufa does. Use the power of the interconnections of the web and the search-engines to become available to the people.

But you first need to finish your work, giving it your best based on what you can pick up. Don't rush it either, it might take a lot of time to make it come together as it might include some major revisions as your insights develop.

I'm not sure if I have enough content for a published book. I've actually tried to get my idea published but I had no such luck. But then again that was like 5 years ago and I had worded my theory differently.
I use to do what Jufa does. I joined communities and would link people to the site and discuss my theory. I got a lot of good feedback but honestly it just didn't seem as ambitious as getting published or having a Wikipedia entry.

I'd like to eventually start a new site with a forum.