Gulenko wrote in his consultation that: Jung's reflection on archetypal images [this, if I understand correctly, includes Fi evaluations] points towards HN complex subtype . He started as NH and ended up HN. Well, Jung was this overly polite figure first and then state to drift towards submersion of his thoughts.Originally Posted by squark
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Ahhh, Jung's type. I was being slow. Interesting, as I would have thought the archetypal images was a reflection of Ni as core type.I think I see where he's coming from there though.
Ahhh, Jung's type. I was being slow. Interesting, as I would have thought the archetypal images was a reflection of Ni as core type.
Absolutely no Ni in his writings. Full of Ti meta-analysis. I would say that Ni types are immersed in archetypes and therefore don't see them, whereas Jung is this calm observer who creates models to explain the workings of the psyche as an object of study.
Then it's another story that Jung as living a very full life went through a transformation and integration of the unconscious. But that is non-type related.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
If you mean Ni leads, then I would agree. It's supposed to be different for rationals, though.
What type do you think Jung was?
LII
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote