"Primitive Mentality"

[Odyssey]

From Hush's now-celebrated free chapter (http://www.voidspace.org.uk/psychology/psychological_types.shtml) by Jung:


...individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in [consciousness]. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

Hey, I might have a primitive mentality! Exotic =) Care to agree/argue with Jung? I know my own current theory. But, since I pointed this out, I want to see one of your thoughts and respond from there.

LOL, if you want, you can even comment on me (if you've read anything I've written about myself) so I can get a reality check; T/F observations on me personally would be relevant to this thread. Have fun!


~Odyssey [INT(F)P]
.

[Johnny]

I'll bite and learn. I take such statement regarding primitive consciousness to mean that if one does not understand and agree with the heiarchy he has established for the functional types and their rational and irrational relationships, then he's not really equipped to dismiss Jung's work as irrelevant.

[antireconciler]

So, if I used to be extremely T on the T-F spectrum, and am now roughly neutral, did I undevelop?

[Johnny]

My sarcasm was intended to point to motive. What drives one to escape such primitivism, to recognize and differentiate the auxiliary functions though they remain supportive of the primary function? Is it a prequisite, according to Jung, for the conscious development (could the more appropriate word here be "healing"?) of one's inferior function?

[Odyssey]

Hush: Hm, that's a good quote.
______You're proposing that a person with equality among functions is more likely to be immature, because s/he doesn't consciously distinguish between them? In contrast, a highly differentiated person would still use both functions, but in a conscious - and perhaps sophisticated - way? That would make sense, if that's what you meant.
______My theory was similar, in that you start off with all functions equal, and as you psychologically mature, you begin playing favorites. The rubberband between the dominant and inferior eventually gets very taut as the two divide - and at some point(s) the tension is released slightly by bringing the dom. & inf. into greater equality. That is, waking up a little to your inferior function will release some of the separation tension and bring the two ends closer together. This rubberband tension will vary back and forth, ideally resulting in enough differentiation for the person to function somewhat consistently (and maintain an identity), while occasionally allowing the unconscious inferior function to come into play.

As for NF(P) tendencies: okay, I'm not just imagining it! Interesting about how you're applying Jung's original P/J correlation, which could allow me to have dominant Ni. This would reflect how I'm usually more overwhelmed by Sensate than Feeling things, and it agrees with observations that my NF side is suprisingly active despite a more active T. I don't like Socionics; there's too much of the Forer/Barnum effect when it come to individual descriptions, so... Instead, I'll consider myself an INTP according to Jung, and consider the possibility of dominant Ni ;-]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LOL with your first post, Johnny. Jung can just say, "How can you criticize MY work? Look how primitive your consciousness is. Therefore, I'm right."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


So, if I used to be extremely T on the T-F spectrum, and am now roughly neutral, did I undevelop?
antireconciler: What do you think? *provokative eyebrow raise* :]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Johnny again: Interesting question. That's one I don't pretend to know the answer to. Why would auxiliary functions need to be differentiated before the inferior function can be revived? Is that even a need at all?

~Odyssey

[antireconciler]

Odyssey, I've noticed very similar things in myself before

... and am awed by your insight.

I was also totally joking about undeveloping. I was making fun of the theory, but I hadn't taken the time to understand what Jung was getting at. I'm not yet fluent with the jargon. ^_^

Now I have to go think about T's and F's and rubberbands some more. It's very interesting. Why am I more neutral now? How does that work? (and, as always) Who am I?

[Johnny]

I don't like Socionics; there's too much of the Forer/Barnum effect when it come to individual descriptions...
I'll second that motion and avoid going any further.

But yes, there does seem to be some kind of appeal to at least a diagnostic tool of some kind within Jung's work for functional type health, if not a balancing mechanism, doesn't there? I still imagine judgment and perception to be the tool here for the less-primitively inclined, but I've already tried articulating it through Jung and didn't have much success the first time around. Extracting them from their use in illustrating the rational and irrational types isn't so easy. As I learn more, I'll see what Jung has to offer.

[Johnny]

Consider, for example, the (amazing) correlation between only the functional hierarchy, with its fuzzy functions, and the structuring of brain-lobes; and how the attitude correlates to other areas of the brain; as proposed by Benziger (iii) among others. I stress that the more one locks oneself with specifics and derivations at meta-level, on tentative grounds -- the higher the risk of lesser correlation to the actual case.

Thanks for the Benziger link Hush. Ironically, I went to it in hopes that it was the California Winery.:D

I do want to offer a quote from it, despite my, um, disappointment:

It is a concept which is well understood by those who work with tools and machines and whose experience with these had led them to believe that the best tool for the job is the tool which was designed specifically for that job.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. We do fashion tools for jobs we wish to perform, and Jung's functions can be "tools" for us to consider, test, and apply to ourselves and the world...and tools become really interesting when they are used in combination to accomplish tasks where one tool alone cannot tackle the job adequately...

This effort to show where these functions may be exercised through one's brain is pretty neat.

I agree that Jung does want to claim that function differentiation and preference (along with one's attitude) does happen naturally as one develops from a newborn to an adult (and perhaps to the end of one's life) as well. But he also seems to be open-minded about the affair and allowing individuals to "progress" in a personal manner at the same time, as he often offers conditional statements like, "In my personal experience with (whatever), (so and so) moves to (such and such)", as he discusses function development.

All this compels me to have fun and offer another Ashley Brilliant quote, where a man is looking down at his footprints through a magnifying glass, not realizing that his tracks are making a large circle while asking, "I'm in search of myself - have you seen me anywhere?":lol: The circle is a picture I've been seeing often lately, and I'm interested in the notion of motive here - why bother going dizzy in a circle? Your "reward of stimulation"/"genetic set" formula as it applies to one's functional differentiation, peaks my interest. Do you mean, Hush, to offer "reward of stimulation" as motive for functional differentiation, or simply another condition as one's genetic set is a condition?