Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Functions Combinations

  1. #1
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Functions Combinations

    Hello, I'd like to have your views and insights about this particular subject, the elements distribution.

    If we know that the 2 rational functions, and it's the same for the 2 irrational functions, can't be one next to the other, because having one will mean to lessen the opposite one... then is there a more fitting dispositions of the 4 elements? If I know that the disposition must always follow an opposing order, that is, if I have Ti as main function, the second one must be necessarily Ne or Se, and so on for every element; then can I say there's, among Ne and Se, an irrational function that works better with Ti?
    Such a match, if we follow the ideal order of the oppositions, should paradoxically work better when the elements are more in contrast... then the question is, is S more related to a logical or a feeling quality? And T? Ideally T would work better in vicinity of N, for it's somehow the opposite (logic Vs intuition).... or is N more resembling a "higher" logical understanding, and then would be working better with a more "intuitive" quality, such as F? As if N is just like a hyper sensitive logical faculty?... I'm making hypothesis. Somehow I see F as more instinctual than T, and S more logical than N...

    Maybe we could find an answer by looking at the brain, how things work in there. We can see that if some properties are well divided,for example language and elaborations of thoughts are on the logical left side, the more intuitive ones are on the right side, already suggesting a cooperation of the 2 sides. When we get to analyze the things in detail we see though that the limbic system as well as the nervous central system are located in the middle, as if there's a core unity from which everything emanates, and that's made of receptions only, it's mostly irrational inputs...

    Idk, please help
    Last edited by ooo; 07-19-2017 at 07:17 AM.

  2. #2
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've found some useful entries around the forum, I'll post for anyone who's interested in this:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Club-Subtypes

    "by Carl Jung - Psychological Types
    "Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation but never with feeling....The auxiliary function is usefully only in so far as it serves the dominant function ....the unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition."

    and

    by Meged-Ovcharov - The Concept of Vertical Subtypes
    "Carl Jung has also noted that thinking can be easily connected with intuition, but never with the feeling. Intuition, however, is not opposed to thinking functions. Thus in our example of type IEE, the excitation of intuitive functions and subsequent inhibition of ethical functions will respectively disinhibit both functions of structural and business logic."

  3. #3
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    another good link:
    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...nt_Dichotomies

    From what I've gathered so far, it seems like N element resembles T, more than F. S is as well resembling F. If we mix the 2 we'll see then that NF (internal dichotomy) and ST (external dichotomy) are the "best" combinations.
    Of course, saying "best combination" sounds wrong, we know the elements must be mixed and each combination is particular in its own rights, well yeah. But that's not what I was interested in.
    There are other 2 dichotomies that stem out of these combinations, they are: involved dichotomy (SF), and abstract dichotomy (NT).
    [These dichotomies play an important role in the definition of subtypes]

    If we just analyze the names that are used to describe these 4 dichotomies, we'll see that there seem to be 2 core ones and 2 derived ones. If I have external and internal dichotomy as a core duality (that is even the main division in typing), we can then elaborate the concept more and get the abstract and involved dichotomy as well. But that seems already a later construct, from the previous internal and external dichotomy.

    From this, I think the that the NF /ST combinations are somehow the core ones. The most balanced somehow... would be glad to know what you think, or if you have other precious material, I'd be really thankful to read it =)

  4. #4
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They're balanced. There's not one inherently more akin than the other because they all produce unique skillsets and results. All the while, covering the entire scope of human cognition.

    N and T are both abstract, but N and F are also both internal. Different ways to slice the pizza up, but the slices are the same.

    The only way for this line of questioning to produce a satisfying answer is to narrow the question down with a discriminator; what element combination works better with element X in this particular way.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  5. #5
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, agreed, that's the best way to probably solve the problem, if you want a certain kind of "subjective" answer. That is, if you wish to understand what's "better" for each type.
    My aim though is not related to the types themselves. I'm questioning the functions themselves. Jung took those functions from well known ancient philosophies, water, fire, earth, air. They can get combined with each others, but only in some limits. The same philosophies say that it's only one the element that all stems from, although they vary and attribute this arKé to different elements. I know it's annoying to even have to read "the best combination"; I'm just trying to identify where all the energy stems from in the origin. I should probably start to analyze brains eheh... thanks for your comment!

  6. #6
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung posited a "transcendent" function that was basically the function-towards-unification that is common to all types. It would be interesting to put people under brain scans when they're having these moments of self overcoming or growth. Maslow would call them, if not peak experiences, the most direct steps towards it, manifestations towards self actualization. I feel like the personality types are basically further differentiations on this base function in order to realize it. Conceivably its all nature's "test bed" to see which combination produces the most effective use of the transcendent function, which I think your question is somewhat hitting on. The jury is still out but Gulenko loves Hamlet the most.

    In general it feels like NFs get the most press in regards to having achieved some kind of enlightenment

    There's a whole sub culture of euphoric NTs though, so opinions differ I guess on who's the best

  7. #7
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice Bertrand! Where can I read about that transcendental function that Jung mentions? Is it in "The psychological types"?

    My question is actually a work in progress, because I'm mixing some elements from different schools, just to try and prove some ideas that are playing in my mind (and that I'm not sharing in here because I'd hate to defend my ideas towards ignorant attacks). So thanks a lot for taking your time to contribute to the brainstorming! This is really what I was wishing to have ^^

    The "best" and "better" terms are really misleading, I concur. I don't know how to rephrase that to make it more clear... yes, there's a quality of original configuration I'm looking for. The first combination, how was that composed? We can't take a fifth element now, and say it is the basis for all, we must find a order in what we have... if we have a world of matter under our eyes and hands, no doubt all of this have its own right to exist, I'm not God to say a panther is better than a cloud (if you get what I mean...), I'm just trying to understand the order in which they came... was there before the cloud or the panther? NF or NT?

    Evolution is always happening and desirable, so the "best" or "better" combinations could differ lots from the "original" (in the meaning that they were the first), just because if for instance NF/ST are the first ones, then, obviously.. a NT/SF would be more "advanced". ; )

  8. #8
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    In The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, I have the RFC Hull translation 2nd ed 10th printing. Starting on page 275, the section Conscious Unconscious and Individuation begins, which is I believe at least a germ of what you're looking for. The last paragraph (pg 289) says, " I have therefore called the union of opposites the "transcendent function." This rounding out of personality into a whole may well be the goal of any psychotherapy that claims to be more than a mere cure of symptoms."

    I don't think anyone has really got a great answer for you, but I think that entire section (its only 10 or so pages) is hitting on the concept of there being some over arching order that the types progress (at different rates?) towards on the basis of one common function... I do wish academia and culture focused more on these questions and there was more literature on the topic (not saying this is all there is, but I do wish there were more)

  9. #9
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    priceless Bertrand

  10. #10
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybris theory View Post
    Nice Bertrand! Where can I read about that transcendental function that Jung mentions? Is it in "The psychological types"?

    My question is actually a work in progress, because I'm mixing some elements from different schools, just to try and prove some ideas that are playing in my mind (and that I'm not sharing in here because I'd hate to defend my ideas towards ignorant attacks). So thanks a lot for taking your time to contribute to the brainstorming! This is really what I was wishing to have ^^

    The "best" and "better" terms are really misleading, I concur. I don't know how to rephrase that to make it more clear... yes, there's a quality of original configuration I'm looking for. The first combination, how was that composed? We can't take a fifth element now, and say it is the basis for all, we must find a order in what we have... if we have a world of matter under our eyes and hands, no doubt all of this have its own right to exist, I'm not God to say a panther is better than a cloud (if you get what I mean...), I'm just trying to understand the order in which they came... was there before the cloud or the panther? NF or NT?

    Evolution is always happening and desirable, so the "best" or "better" combinations could differ lots from the "original" (in the meaning that they were the first), just because if for instance NF/ST are the first ones, then, obviously.. a NT/SF would be more "advanced". ; )
    Well socionics doesn't exactly follow jung even though based on his ideas and instead builds itself up from the aspects. I see that you found one of anndelise's articles which might be a good place to start. And her blog too if you didn't find that yet. If you start from the idea that the aspects come first and that the aspects form elements which interact with each other and become functions when used in the psyche - you can start taking that apart and doing a lot of interesting things with it. I know that's not exactly what you're asking, but it might be a path that helps.

  11. #11
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    peeps you're becoming impressive... keep it on! (thanks for your intervention squark, i'm goldmining around here lately, haha... where can I see anndelise's site?...)
    Last edited by ooo; 07-19-2017 at 03:27 PM.

  12. #12
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybris theory View Post
    peeps you're becoming impressive... keep it on! (thanks for your intervention squark, i'm goldmining around here lately, haha... where can I see anndelise's site?...)
    It's in the blog section of this site, here's the direct link to hers: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin.../387-anndelise

  13. #13
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybris theory View Post
    Just a quick note: that wikisocion site has "discrete" and "continuous" wrong. Discrete refers to the rational elements, Continuous refers to the irrational elements. Such that every type prefers certain types of information that are "continuous", and certain types that are "discrete". imo, the actual processing of information requires BOTH continuous and discrete information, the breaking down of information into its components as well as the building up from the components into something more encompassing than its parts.

    ---
    @squark gave you a link to my blog, here's the link to the blog post that would likely interest you most, regarding this thread's topic.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ary-of-Aspects

    ---
    edited to add: regarding the topic of the thread, which came first, you'd have to look back into life itself and create a philosophy around the beginnings and evolution of life. For example, we know that single cell life reacts to its environment. Would that then mean external came before internal? But if there's no internal information being processed, then what's prompting that single cell to react to its environment? So maybe internal came first...but then would there be an internal without an external?

    Or static vs dynamic. Even trees, which seem to be rather static, react to changes in their environment, just at a slower pace than say, a bee.
    Can one really process static information if there isn't some kind of changes going on? But if all there are are changes, then there's no identity, no connections, no associations could be created between an event that happens regularly as without the static, the creature wouldn't notice that some things stay the same enough to consider it a safe place to den/hide/find food/etc.

    I would say, though, that Involved elements likely came before Abstract elements. One can look at how life evolved from single cell life to multisystems that use a nervous system and brain, and eventually developed a prefrontal cortex to hold information in mind as they thought about things. But, then there's ideas like Consciousness being an even more basic element of the universe than space/time. That matter isn't actually made up of matter, but that every aspect of matter came from the great "I AM".

    Object vs Field would have similar problems in figuring out which came first. An organism doesn't live in a vacuum, so straight up "object" does not exist without some kind of Field (relationships to other objects). But Fields cannot exist without Objects.
    Last edited by anndelise; 07-19-2017 at 08:18 PM.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  14. #14
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh my.. yes I went through that article already forgot it was yours, I was just seeing so many things here and there..
    that's a gem for real, thanks for bringing it up! And thanks for passing over here! Ahahahah you're so right... I feel a bit stupid now because from your analysis it is pretty clear that I'm chasing the impossible.. what came first? the egg or the chicken? But, do you know most archaic religions believed in the cosmic egg? That's what everything came from, in a soup of dark waters. It's curious that even the tattvas (the hindu elements), and Jung (that clearly got inspired by that) used to describe this fifth element as a black egg that contained everything, in the most archaic form.

    For real, I'm chasing my own tail, and I'm even getting a bit lost in this chase. Again, it seems like the thing to do, and that you recommend too, is to analyze the brain... and then, as you say, we'd see it's actually an open system, not working by its own properties only, but in a constant flux with everything around.. brain elements too, for if we use a part of the brain (or of the body too), it's connected to every other part... and so, again, we're going in circles..

    I haven't dug into the Jung's theories yet, from my simplistic view right here, I'm thinking that probably that cosmic egg which everything comes from, and that could probably be related to that part of our selves called collective unconscious, and that we can hardly define in scientific terms, could be made just of those continuos elements, irrational, the more intuitive... if for real we all come from a perfected egg that contained all in a majestic messy soup, then the division, the shaping of that mess, the shapes... that's what came after the perfect primordial mess: order.
    After the chaos.

    So I'm again in circle because by saying this I didn't achieve any point but maybe the waters are getting a bit more clear.. thanks a lot ann!
    Last edited by ooo; 07-20-2017 at 07:39 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
  •