Jungian Cognitive Theory

[visheshdewan050193]

I was wondering how many of you were familiar with Jung's work on cognitive functions (outside of his more esoteric work on archetypes, etc.) - and extensions of his work (such as the concept of the cognitive functional stack)

General opinions and your personal troves of resources regarding this subject would be a good way to break the ice.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi, it would be great if you could in cases like this write a few lines introducing the topic and especially the parts you found valuable in your philosophy. This would be more tempting to jump in and react.

If I recall correctly, my Myers-Briggs (derivative) always came back for as INFP. But here would be my current view on the typecasting in relation to philosophy and psychological gender types (see also the Object & subject through genderization topic). But for the sake of discussion I'll attempt to bridge the two nomenclatures.

Note that I refuse to make hard distinctions between feeling and thinking as they often turn out to be artificial and self-serving.

Feminine typology:

• Extraversion: An attitude defining self in accordance to the standard of the external world (as object).
• Sensing: Concrete (subjective) perception of the environment.
• Feeling external: Person-centered assessments, subject-centric

Masculine typology:

• Introversion: An attitude defining the outer world in accordance to the standard of the self (as subject)
• Intuition: Abstract (objective) perception of the environment.
• Feeling internal: Impersonal assessment, object-centric

From this exercise it could become clear that genius would root inside the masculine typology and in practice happening exclusively within rather introverted, intuitive and (internally) sensitive personalities. With the remark that this should not be confused with the common, idealized view on the feminine as being intuitive & sensitive. This holds only true, to a degree, within the domain of the feminine typology: intuitive & sensitive for concrete perception or person-centered assessment.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: If I recall correctly, my Myers-Briggs (derivative) always came back for as INFP.

I too am typed as INFP. I don't know if this is true for you, but I come from a long line of introverts. I also married an introvert and both my children are introverts.

Feminine typology:

* Extraversion: An attitude defining self in accordance to the standard of the external world (as object).
* Sensing: Concrete (subjective) perception of the environment.
* Feeling external: Person-centered assessments, subject-centric

Masculine typology:

* Introversion: An attitude defining the outer world in accordance to the standard of the self (as subject)
* Intuition: Abstract (objective) perception of the environment.
* Feeling internal: Impersonal assessment, object-centric

From this exercise it could become clear that genius would root inside the masculine typology and in practice happening exclusively within rather introverted, intuitive and (internally) sensitive personalities. With the remark that this should not be confused with the common, idealized view on the feminine as being intuitive & sensitive. This holds only true, to a degree, within the domain of the feminine typology: intuitive & sensitive for concrete perception or person-centered assessment.

I agree with your Introvert vs. Extrovert and Intuition vs. Sensing assessments of the masculine/feminine typologies, however, I struggle with your assessment of the “Feeling” preference. I realize you made the arbitrary decision not to make a hard distinction between feeling and thinking so you made none; perhaps this is the reason for my lack of clarity on your position.

Specifically, I am struggling to grasp how you made the connection between feeling preference and the masculine tendency to the subjective impersonal assessment (of object). How does one assess an object impersonally when feeling (attachment) is the preferred mode of interpretation?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I too am typed as INFP. I don't know if this is true for you, but I come from a long line of introverts. I also married an introvert and both my children are introverts.

Introverts tend to join in their mutual rejection of concrete perceptions of reality. So there's no way they'll be a threat :-)

I struggle with your assessment of the “Feeling” preference. I realize you made the arbitrary decision not to make a hard distinction between feeling and thinking so you made none; perhaps this is the reason for my lack of clarity on your position.

There's a complex dynamic there and not all people process feelings, thoughts or impressions in the exact same way. Enough reason to avoid, in this context, too much distinction. Personally I tend to see thoughts as briefly coagulated feelings and that way can become vehicle to reflection and reason, being geometric and briefly organizable. But like within the quantum world, I see them rise from and fall back to the same well with many strings attached.

Specifically, I am struggling to grasp how you made the connection between feeling preference and the masculine tendency to the subjective impersonal assessment (of object). How does one assess an object impersonally when feeling (attachment) is the preferred mode of interpretation?

Attachments are extensions to the prime attachment created during development years. Those attachments are the feeding and guiding principles, not unlike the umbilical cord and other natural dependence. Here the mental framework is laid down.

The preferred mode you mention is the continuation of the primal attachment and a personal world is created: a childish sense. Although it's become indistinguishable with the adult mode, which might be a feature of "late", decadent or over-feminized societies. Mind you, the woman-child relation stands symbol for this dynamic but, to us, not as goal only as bridge.

Now we can look again at the phrase "feeling internal: impersonal assessment, object-centric". Once the sensing turns inward, self- knowledge arises, how can it not? And that experience changes the personal into impersonal or transpersonal. The object is all truth-oriented behavior since the truth is simply the ultimate object: the principle, the one thing, the most desired thing. It doesn't mean it will be found in the usual, "concrete "sense. But by abstract and then realization, change, becoming: orbiting the gravity well of ones own doing and undoing.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Introverts tend to join in their mutual rejection of concrete perceptions of reality. So there's no way they'll be a threat :-)

The introvert’s innate respect and defense of authenticity of the self, especially of the “P’s” who like to keep things open-ended so as to be as fluid an interpreter of the true self as possible. It is no wonder the rally to be a ‘team player’ or to hunker down to write a collective ‘mission statement’ gives the Intuitive Perceivers heartburn.

There's a complex dynamic there and not all people process feelings, thoughts or impressions in the exact same way. Enough reason to avoid, in this context, too much distinction. Personally I tend to see thoughts as briefly coagulated feelings and that way can become vehicle to reflection and reason, being geometric and briefly organizable. But like within the quantum world, I see them rise from and fall back to the same well with many strings attached.

I can’t imagine that anyone (introverts?) who has actually observed the coming and going of their thoughts would disagree that thoughts are united to feelings and come and go as impermanent moments of self-reflection. I’m curious as to what you mean by ‘geometric’ in relation to thought’s appearance. Are you referring to the momentary flash of thought-feeling as an image, as if non-conceptual consciousness rises up moment by moment to structure itself into concepts, aka the subjective or individual experience of God-as-self? If so, that explains what you meant in an earlier post about not looking at the image too closely as it ‘comes up’ from the ‘same well’ (The Causality).

Attachments are extensions to the prime attachment created during development years. Those attachments are the feeding and guiding principles, not unlike the umbilical cord and other natural dependence. Here the mental framework is laid down.

This is true as I can pinpoint four or five defining moments (deeply embedded experience memories) in my childhood that have been my personal GPS for ‘search for self.’

The preferred mode you mention is the continuation of the primal attachment and a personal world is created: a childish sense. Although it's become indistinguishable with the adult mode, which might be a feature of "late", decadent or over-feminized societies. Mind you, the woman-child relation stands symbol for this dynamic but, to us, not as goal only as bridge.

Upon reflection, this is also true as I always sensed that these childhood emotional stories of self did not define me absolutely, that they were meant to be tools of a deeper opening of self. There was a moment in my life when I was so overwhelmed with ‘what these things meant’ that I called a therapist, but hung up before the receptionist answered. Instinctively I was aware that a therapist would only contaminate my authentic search for their ‘ultimate’ meaning.

Now we can look again at the phrase "feeling internal: impersonal assessment, object-centric". Once the sensing turns inward, self- knowledge arises, how can it not? And that experience changes the personal into impersonal or transpersonal. The object is all truth-oriented behavior since the truth is simply the ultimate object: the principle, the one thing, the most desired thing. It doesn't mean it will be found in the usual, "concrete "sense. But by abstract and then realization, change, becoming: orbiting the gravity well of ones own doing and undoing.

So once the bridge of child-woman – the personal - is crossed (the understanding the ultimate meaning of one’s childhood experience-attachments ‘personhood’) the bridge can be left behind and what 'remains' is the impersonal/transpersonal.

What comes to mind at this point is what I believe is a natural part of the journey to ‘see and reflect upon the way the self works’ is to question the permanency or eternality of those gravity-strings you mentioned. Can I escape them and be free of my orbit of doing and undoing is, as I see it, a question no introverted philosopher can avoid. Ergo, the search for ‘spirit’, that air-like, body-free quality of consciousness perceived to be free of the bonds of earth. A search, that of course, forms it own world of ongoing self-realization.

[jupiviv]

I haven't read Jung at all, but I've always wondered about the point of personality tests.

Searching just now for "Carl Jung personality test":

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

My results:

INTJ
Introvert(41%) iNtuitive(47%) Thinking(41%) Judging(9%)

You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (41%)
You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (47%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (41%)
You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (9%)

It seems the questions are more about what the test taker is feeling about himself when taking the test, since people will generally understand which personality "spectrum" is being tested by the question. For example, "should we always be rational?" has something to do with thinking vs feeling, "do you like to party?" is about introvert vs extrovert, etc. Indeed, the common terms in the questionnaire like "rational", "compassion" etc. are very broad and hence likely to be interpreted according to the test takers' immediate thoughts and feelings.

If I recall correctly, my Myers-Briggs (derivative) always came back for as INFP.

INFPs never seem to lose their sense of wonder. One might say they see life through rose-colored glasses. It's as though they live at the edge of a looking-glass world where mundane objects come to life, where flora and fauna take on near-human qualities.

I knew it Diebert, you're a total homo!

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: INFPs never seem to lose their sense of wonder. One might say they see life through rose-colored glasses. It's as though they live at the edge of a looking-glass world where mundane objects come to life, where flora and fauna take on near-human qualities.

This is a very superficial analysis of an INFP. This is how a young INFP likely views the world, but once the experience of the world as it really is (dualistic) sets in and is not denied, the INFP has the potential to enter into feeling consciousness of empathy/compassion (most likely quite heightened), both for the suffering of the world at large and for his or herself as being part of that suffering world. It is here that the more mature INFP has the opportunity to embark on the intellect-driven path of inquiry/wisdom (always within as if directed to source or cause) to discover the reason for suffering and to discover if it is possible to find a way for suffering to be eased or ended. And if so motivated (likely so) to bring back to the world their discoveries, and because they are introverts and have deep respect for individuality, this 'bringing back' comes in the form of intentionality to inspire suffering souls to seek for themselves the path of the cause of suffering and of its potential to be released.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What comes to mind at this point is what I believe is a natural part of the journey to ‘see and reflect upon the way the self works’ is to question the permanency or eternality of those gravity-strings you mentioned. Can I escape them and be free of my orbit of doing and undoing is, as I see it, a question no introverted philosopher can avoid. Ergo, the search for ‘spirit’, that air-like, body-free quality of consciousness perceived to be free of the bonds of earth. A search, that of course, forms it own world of ongoing self-realization.

But how or why could that "I", when seen as exactly that synergy between orbit, gravity-strings, the doing and undoing, escape that what makes it a self or perhaps more how the question even became relevant ("forms its own world")?

The only answer which seems viable here is to see exactly this very movement, the doubt, the escape, as metaphysical denial or reversal, that chimera of freedom, as the very essence of self-nature. And more fanciful: it might be how life, how all existence is driven. Spirit simply represents this in purest form. You don't escape the escape, you always were the great escaping.

[Pam Seeback]

What comes to mind at this point is what I believe is a natural part of the journey to ‘see and reflect upon the way the self works’ is to question the permanency or eternality of those gravity-strings you mentioned. Can I escape them and be free of my orbit of doing and undoing is, as I see it, a question no introverted philosopher can avoid. Ergo, the search for ‘spirit’, that air-like, body-free quality of consciousness perceived to be free of the bonds of earth. A search, that of course, forms it own world of ongoing self-realization.

But how or why could that "I", when seen as exactly that synergy between orbit, gravity-strings, the doing and undoing, escape that what makes it a self or perhaps more how the question even became relevant ("forms its own world")?

The only answer which seems viable here is to see exactly this very movement, the doubt, the escape, as metaphysical denial or reversal, that chimera of freedom, as the very essence of self-nature. And more fanciful: it might be how life, how all existence is driven. Spirit simply represents this in purest form. You don't escape the escape, you always were the great escaping.

I didn't notice on your previous post your positioning of the "I" as being between orbit, gravity-strings, the doing and undoing - that explains perfectly why and how is it already the 'great escaping.'

I see the metaphysical denial or reversal as being that chimera of freedom, as being the very essence of self-nature - well said, very helpful! - but I also acknowledge (and perhaps you do as well) that to get to this point of seeing the infinite potential revelatory nature of the spirit of self one must go through the painful process of denying the self that is attached to definitions and identity in-the-world. A denial that includes attachment to ways or methods of knowing such as reasoning, logic and intuition. Yikes, it'a amazing that the spirit of self survives such a radical undoing!

In keeping with the subject topic, because introverts look within for their source of energy and knowledge and not externally as do extroverts, I do believe, in the context of being enlightenment to self as the means or vehicle by which eternal and infinite Potential expresses itself, it helps to be born with that particular innate preference.

[Avolith]

Hi, it would be great if you could in cases like this write a few lines introducing the topic and especially the parts you found valuable in your philosophy. This would be more tempting to jump in and react.

If I recall correctly, my Myers-Briggs (derivative) always came back for as INFP. But here would be my current view on the typecasting in relation to philosophy and psychological gender types (see also the Object & subject through genderization topic). But for the sake of discussion I'll attempt to bridge the two nomenclatures.

Note that I refuse to make hard distinctions between feeling and thinking as they often turn out to be artificial and self-serving.

Feminine typology:

• Extraversion: An attitude defining self in accordance to the standard of the external world (as object).
• Sensing: Concrete (subjective) perception of the environment.
• Feeling external: Person-centered assessments, subject-centric

Masculine typology:

• Introversion: An attitude defining the outer world in accordance to the standard of the self (as subject)
• Intuition: Abstract (objective) perception of the environment.
• Feeling internal: Impersonal assessment, object-centric

From this exercise it could become clear that genius would root inside the masculine typology and in practice happening exclusively within rather introverted, intuitive and (internally) sensitive personalities. With the remark that this should not be confused with the common, idealized view on the feminine as being intuitive & sensitive. This holds only true, to a degree, within the domain of the feminine typology: intuitive & sensitive for concrete perception or person-centered assessment.

Very interesting. There is also socionics (which is as far as I understand it) is MBTI but better thought out and better structured, more explicitly defining positions for all 8 cognitive functinos for each type (mbti also does this by calling the subconscious functions 'shadow functions', but it's not mentioned in most of the mbti material), and certain intertype dynamics that result from the relative positions of cognitive functions between two individuals.

Some interesting rules for the positioning of the cognitive functions are:

If your dominant function is introverted, your auxiliary is necessarily extroverted, and vice versa.

Another rule - If, e.g. Fi is your dominant function, you also have a strong (although an order of magnitude less powerful) Fe function in the subconscious. More generally, strong N/S/T/F function in the conscious also implies having its relatively strong counterpart along the Introverted/extroverted axis in the subconscious.

The intertype relation between INFP and INTJ is that of beneficiary/benefactor respectively. This means among many other things, INTJ consciously use Ni as their dominant function where INFP have this as a powerful function subconsciously, as their Id. The INTJ have Ti as their id. Ni in the id implies among many things an allergy to untruths in a sort of holistic intuitive sense, Ti in the Id implies an allergy to false chains of reasoning.

INFP are looking to make sense of the big, subconscious mess of the NI id, and Ni dominant types can help bringing the mess together and keeping things focused, but this applies to practical matters, not sure how true this works for bigger truths.

Fe is a polar opposite of Fi, they dont go together. Fi values the individual, Fe the group.
Fi and Te go naturally together, as do Fe and Ti. Having Fi in the conscious, means that Te is also conscious and valued.

I'm going to stop this post for now, this is getting too unstructured and chaotic, I'm not sure yet how this all ties into your idea and I'm not sure how much you already know, but it seemed relevant.