# Determining the Attitudes of the Auxiliary and Tertiary Functions



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> The problem isn't what he writes in any one place, but that what he writes in one place seems to contradict what he writes elsewhere.


That depends on what is being considered a contradiction. In this case, this also sounds like a cop out.



> Also, using your second quote, what does he mean by "inferior functions"? "Function_*s*_"?





> *INFERIOR function. This term is used to denote the function that lags behind in the process of differentiation *(q.v.). Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all his psychological functions simultaneously. The demands of society compel a man to apply himself first and foremost to the differentiation of the function with which he is best equipped by nature, or which will secure him the greatest social success. Very frequently, indeed as a general rule, a man identifies more or less completely with the most favored and hence the most developed function. It is this that gives rise to the various psychological types (q.v.). *As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded. These functions may properly be called inferior* in a psychological but not psychopathological sense, since they are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favored function.





> As to orientation being a characteristic of a function, this is where how one looks at them as either processes or as a "state of being" (yuck... but my mind is blank at the moment). If a function is a processing, then yes, an orientation is essentially understood in it. In other words, one cannot just "think" but must think either orientating toward the object or toward the subject.
> 
> There are two points that one can take away from what he says. 1. It is entirely possible that the inferior function orientates oppositely from the dominant one. 2. It is entirely possible that the auxiliary function also orientates oppositely from the dominant.
> 
> ...


Looking at how Jung begins by examining consciousness vs unconsciousness



> The Extraverted Type
> 
> In our description of this and the following types it is necessary, for the sake of clarity, to distinguish between the psychology of consciousness and the psychology of the unconscious. We shall first describe the phenomena of consciousness.


And then he goes on to describe the extraverted type, followed by the subjective factors of the unconsciousness of the extraverted type;

And given the structure of Chapter X:



> 1 Introduction
> 2 The Extraverted Type
> 2.1 The General Attitude of Consciousness
> 2.2 The Attitude of the Unconscious
> ...


Where he is examining the attitudes of consciousness and unconscious, then proceeds to look at the function characteristics given the attitude; and then on to what a function looks like in that attitude...

And this evidence:



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character.





> When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion.


It seems to me that he is talking about consciousness as a given superordinate attitude under which the conscious function(s) fall. The conscious attitude is predominantly extraverted or introverted, while the unconscious is the opposite. So conscious function(s) should share that same attitude and likewise the unconscious.


With the quotes you cited, he never mentions the attitude of the functions. So you would have to add two assumption to make the XYXY conclusion work - 1) That attitude is a property of a function (which would allow alternating attitudes to work because we are ignoring the idea that attitude is a reflection of the conscious/unconscious sphere of the psyche) and 2) That the attitude is implied, despite every other reference in PT and other materials, when he is referencing a function of a certain attitude he says so, yet oddly that information is missing here.

The supposed contradictions seem to be with added assumptions rather than what Jung has actually stated. So is it really a contradiction by Jung himself or with an interpretation?


NOTE: I admit that I am having trouble properly articulating the first half of my argument.


----------

