Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: (question) Jung on intertype relations

  1. #1
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default (question) Jung on intertype relations

    On this page I read:

    ***
    Second, in Psychological Types (1920) he [Jung] wrote about interaction between his types. He wrote about “special charm”, “influence at the level of the subconscious” that have towards each other representatives of complementary types. These complementary types should be both rational, or both irrational, and other criteria should be different (for example, ES – IN, or ET – IF). Alas, this hypothesis was expressed only in brief phrases, Jung did not develop it later.
    ***

    So Jung had already discovered duality? Anybody has the book (Psychological types)? What exactly did Jung write about this? I think only chapter 10 is online. Thanks.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of course he had. The functions are mathematical. Duality is at the basis of mathematics. Jung had alot of things to say about duality in his other work.

  3. #3
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have the book. Only scattered references to inter-type relations are there and they aren't systematized in any way.

    This part contrasts rational and irrational understanding of psychological rapport and explains how these types perceive each other (I put some notes in brackets):

    Chapter X, Recapitulation of the Extraverted Irrational Types:
    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

    "This point brings me to the problem of the psychic relation between the representatives of the different types. Following the terminology of the French school of hypnotists, the psychic relation among the more modern psychiatrists is termed I 'rapport'. Rapport chiefly consists in a feeling of actual accord, in spite of recognised differences. In fact, the recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord. If we make this feeling conscious to a rather high degree in an actual case, we discover that it has not merely the quality of a feeling [ie "Feeling"] that cannot be analysed further, but it also has the nature of an insight or cognitional content, representing the point of agreement in a conceptual form [ie "Thinking"]. This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition. The rational would say that rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance. If, by some accident, the objective situations are exactly in tune, something like a human relationship takes place, but nobody can tell what will be either its validity or its duration. To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees a humanity of quite singular beauty. Accordingly each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. Although a psychological conscientiousness of [p. 471] this kind is by no means usual, yet it frequently happens that, notwithstanding an absolute difference of standpoint, a kind of rapport does take place, and in the following way. The one [Rational] assumes with unspoken projection that the other [Irrational] is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter [Irrational] that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings."
    Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 05-09-2011 at 07:53 AM.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read the book twice, and didn't encounter anything of it. I have the 1947 edition.

    But ofcourse I might have missed it. But at least there isn't anything obvious in it about intertype relationships.

  5. #5
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,596
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    thats really interesting aa.

Posting Permissions

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