Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Jung's Archetypes and Model A

  1. #1
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    5 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung's Archetypes and Model A

    Gulenko has an article here (link goes to Google translation), in which he links the various blocks of Model A with Jungian archetypes, as follows:

    Ego = Ego
    Super-Ego = Persona
    Super-Id = Animus/Anima
    Id = Shadow

    As he describes it (I cleaned up the Google translation somewhat):
    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    The first block of the model, which is located on top of an established tradition (1 and 2 positions), is called ego. Freudian Ego and Jungian Ego are not the same thing, but it is not necessary to go into the semantic nuances in this article. So we just rewrite it in the same verbal format:

    EGO -> EGO

    Block of the Superego, which is located just below the Ego (3 and 4 positions), we associate with the archetype of Persona. Persona passes the trend of human adaptation to the surrounding social environment. Persona is theatrical mask, mask, outside the individual. Similar to Freud's superego in the sense of consciously follow trends role expectations in society.

    Superego - "PERSON

    The bottom block of the model, which is called Id (7 and 8 positions), following Freud, is understood as a negative start in the psyche, the source of uncontrolled instincts, destructive effect on the ego. Approximately the same, current, hidden properties of the individual, symbolized by the archetype of Jung's shadow. Dark side personality complementary Persona, but antagonistic to the ego.

    ID -> SHADOW

    The second from the bottom block of the model (5 and 6 positions), which is not in the Freudian structure of personality, is in Socionics complementary (dual) with respect to the ego and antagonistic (offsetting) in relation to the block nature of the Id. In general, it is the most profound, suggestive of the psyche, but charged with positive energy. Very similar to Jung's archetype of the soul (animus / anima).

    SUPERID -> Animus / Anime

    The two incarnations of the archetype of the soul - animus (male to female) and anima (female to male), designate the socionical relation of duality, which, according to Jung, represents the strongest symbiotic relationship parent-child or man-woman. The first of them need to limit the right to divide, and the second - to assimilate into the whole psyche.
    The full article has further musings on the nature of consciousness and unconsciousness in Model A.

    Quaero Veritas.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Well if you think about it, we are apt to project images of evil onto our contraries, hence the "backstabber" relational tendency between us and them.

    When I accepted my own shadow, I became much more open to gamma perspectives, and became capable of actually creating and carrying out plans which involved others -- with their consent. When I was younger... didn't dare to do it. Kept asking the wrong people and met with failure and rejection. Now I just ask social progressives and wouldn't you know it, they usually have the same things in mind. (either that, or they see no reason to disagree).

    Accepting my gamma side made me much more extroverted than before. It also allowed me to believe in myself and to know myself.

    If I were to see my persona as a type, I wouldn't know it. I think Gulenko is on to something, but I see the shadow as a more a political construct than a Model A entity. Rather, the political construct is projected onto the conflictor quadra as the sign of failure to resist temptation. There is good reason for this: antisocial personality disordered people focus on their id functions more than their ego functions. The ego serves the id, not the other way around. Imagine if you would a very ambitious INTJ who was always scheming to get more and more power, taking advantage of all the opportunities that you yourself avoided out of prudence. Would that not seem to you an image of livid evil?

    I think Boukalov wrote something or other about these as well. Don't have the articles, though.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-29-2010 at 11:52 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts