# Probing The Functions; Archetypal Analysis of Type



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

First of all, in order to understand what functions a person actually favors, it is useful to understand the archetypal role that they play as complexes within the psyche. I'm drawing from John Beebe here for the most part.

The dominant function is the "hero" function. It is the way we achieve our goal in life.

Our goal in life is our "soul" or "anima" function - the inferior function.

Thus, the dominant function is tied to the inferior function in that it is how we achieve the unconscious opposing desire of our inferior function. The strength of this desire reflects the strength of our dominant function. They are perfectly balanced. Inferior generates the dominant by way of compensation. This is the basis for our personal monomyth cycle that will bring the other two functions into play.

The other two functions are like our tools for supporting our dominant function in achieving the goal of the inferior. Just as the dominant and inferior exist within an "as above; so below" tandem, so do the auxiliary and tertiary functions operate in the same "mirrored" way.

The auxiliary function takes the role of the wise old man, the good parent who encourages and isn't bitter or negative. Another way to think of it is as the "master" function - it is the way we try to express our mastery and to be a master/mentor to others.

The tertiary then is the mirror of this - the child seeking guidance, the young hero who seeks training and education. This is how we submit to the mastery of others when we recognize it. But, just as everyone would prefer to be the master rather than the disciple, we resist being in this mode for very long because it feels vulnerable and weak. It is dangerously far from the seat of our power, which is within our auxiliary and dominant functions.

Understanding these roles makes it easier to probe other people to figure out what their function preferences are.

For instance, if you wanted to understand what a person's auxiliary function was, put yourself in the role of the innocent child seeking guidance with an open mind willing to listen. This, if done correctly, naturally aligns the other person with their "good parent" role, and then their auxiliary will demonstrate itself as they attempt to impart wisdom and knowledge to you through their auxiliary, you see?

Or, if you want to figure out a person's tertiary function, try to offer them guidance and insight in a friendly non-critical, warm feeling way. If done correctly, they will try to relate to that information through the innocence of their tertiary function. Be careful, however, when trying to evoke the tertiary function of people, as it tends to be a very sensitive function and more often than not, they will instead resist instruction and counter you with their shadow functions as a defensive mechanism to protect them from feeling like they are not a master.

Look for the motive _behind_ their dominant function.

For instance, with an INTJ, Ni is the hero, and Se is the soul of the hero. So the hero seeks his soul, which defines his essence. The INTJ relies on their ability to abstract outward and perceive the transcendent in order to catch a glimpse of the "real world" of Se "as it truly is." They so strongly long for _concrete sensation_ that they automatically reject and doubt the "surface" and "ordinary" sensations in life in order to grasp the true essence of things, because this grants them a much _stronger_ tangible experience of the actual external world, do you see? Their dominant introverted intuition is _compensating_ for a deeper desire to connect with tangible external reality. It is out of _fear_ that they try so hard and _love_ their dominant function - so hard that they become dominant introverted intuitives.

For the INTP, Ti is the hero, and Fe the soul. So the hero seeks admittance into the social world, a connection with others, by becoming an asset to them that they can admire, as the power of Ti intellect stands on its own merit by example. The strength of this unconscious desire for validation drives the need for Ti to be _infinitely precise_ and accurate, and is the very basis of their need for more information as well as depth of judgment and a slow-going formulation. They look beyond the standardized knowledge and methods, focused instead on the _true framework of understanding at work generating outward behavior_ in order to open up new ways of being and doing things, which in turn contribute to society and grant them the validation from others that they desperately want.

If you look at the relationship between the dominant and inferior in each type, you can see the driving mechanism defining each one at the core. And then the other two functions, be they perceiving or judging, fall into place as the means of both expressing mastery in order to appear to be the wise hero/adult who has already completed the journey cycle, as well as the innocent child/young hero who seeks guidance from others in order to complete the journey.

Again, assuming the proper role in the presence of another person - for instance, falling into the role of the child or the master - will draw out their auxiliary or tertiary. In my experience, it is more beneficial and easier to simply take on the role of the innocent child in order to draw out their auxiliary, for once you can establish their preferred method of teaching, you have got a good idea of their auxiliary, and thus you get a complete picture of type as you can see the dominant-auxiliary ego block clearly.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Oh wow, this is super fascinating!! The most fascinating theory until now. I'm very curious to hear more about this!


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Merihim said:


> Oh wow, this is super fascinating!! The most fascinating theory until now. I'm very curious to hear more about this!


Here are a couple of more exhaustive explanations of everything I just laid out.

Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

To give another specific example in practice, look at it this way:

Let's say you suspect someone is an INTP. That would place Ne as their auxiliary, which would be the way they "parent" or express themselves as a master/mentor.

In order to confirm this, you can assume the role of the student and lightly press them for more inspiration. Ask them to give you more insights based on factual data. What I mean by "insights implied by factual data" is simply the way one can look at a cloud of dots and extrapolate a variety of images from it, because the dots imply them. You can think of Ne that way with everything. The insights are always dependent upon some actual objective observations and facts that the INTP has stored, and to them those insights all point at a logical conclusion (Ti).

So, ask them to explain their conclusion by providing more examples of it, and if their auxiliary is well-developed, they'll gladly do this as it offers them a chance to "show off" so to speak, and assume the role of the wise old man who has already completed the cycle. This, in turn, when appreciated by you, will satisfy their inferior function that craves acceptance, which will cement your relationship with them. They will continue to want to instruct you and help you, because it fulfills their basic needs and orientation to the world.

It becomes an easy matter to identify an INTP in this way, just by becoming their "student". But you could do the same thing with an ENTJ or any other type.

Since the auxiliary of the ENTJ is Ni (subjective insights not based on the strength of the empirical data itself, but rather on the significance of the data due to who we are inside as human beings), they will want to instruct you in the most efficient way of doing things (Te) via their subjective insight. They will use their subjective insight to validate their own objective conclusions, and then pass that wisdom on to you in the hope that you will then emulate it. So they will point at the universal significance and "bigger picture" of their plans and methods, in order to show how they are in line with the symbolic meaning that they have given their own actions in order to identify with their plans and methods. They choose from among the most efficient ways of doing things precisely because they see the deeper implied meaning behind doing things "correctly." Their methods, to them, are symbolic of objective logic, you see?

As an exercise try it with any random type, or your own type. You can begin to see how the auxiliary serves the dominant function by giving the person a way of expressing their mastery, which reinforces their dominant function and serves as a means of satisfying the deeper needs of their inferior function. Going back to the ENTJ example, the deeper need is for integrity (Fi), which is how they feel when they are successful and efficient, and can share the insight that drives their methodology with others. It makes them feel a sense of self-worth, they can accept themselves and believe in themselves because they achieve their goal of perfecting a system based on their subjective insight into it.


----------



## Hespera (Jun 3, 2011)

Thank you @_Abraxas_ for the explanation. I don't think I've heard that theory so elegantly and practically explained.

I'm still trying to come to terms with my inferior function, Te. Do you have an insight you could share?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sarahmariev said:


> Thank you @_Abraxas_ for the explanation. I don't think I've heard that theory so elegantly and practically explained.
> 
> I'm still trying to come to terms with my inferior function, Te. Do you have an insight you could share?



Well, I believe, according to the theory, it would be the real motivation behind why you strive for integrity. As Fi is the function dealing with developing your own moral identity and being true to yourself and figuring out what it is that you believe in, in the end the reason why you are that way is because deep down inside you believe it is the best way to efficiently achieve tangible goals. After all, it wouldn't be _you_ achieving anything unless you know yourself and are true to what you believe in. It were as if you could not even bring yourself to begin to attempt to be like those Te-dominant ExTJs unless you already had the framework in place firmly guiding and directing your actions with a sense of purpose and identity. It wouldn't feel right without your heart in the right place first.

So the true motivation for finding yourself and knowing what is in your heart is so that you can begin to accomplish wonders. Deep down inside you want to be like an ExTJ, but it has to be on your own terms, with a sense of responsibility and integrity. It can't be "for it's own sake" - like, you wouldn't just be organized for it's own sake, because "you're supposed to" or because that's how you were raised, or how most people think they are supposed to be. None of that necessarily matters. What matters is what you decide matters because it makes sense for it to matter. You figure out your own value system through experience and following your intuition. Instead of just adopting whatever value system other people have in order to "fit in" and adapt, you build your own value system out of a lifetime of deeper contemplation and following your insights into what you've observed.

In the end, you are the mirror image of the ExTJ, who also longs for integrity deep down inside. They strive to be organized and efficient and logically objective because that is what gives them a sense of integrity and being true to themselves. For you, you strive to have integrity and be true to yourself, because whenever you do know what you want, you find the motivation to achieve things and work hard - but only when you know where your heart is. After that, everything falls into place on its own.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Hmmm so according to the theory, is the deep internal desire of all of the anima/animus combinations the same? Because you mentioned both IxxPs and ExxPs seem to strive for both integrity and organization at some level, even if they go about it in opposite directions.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Hmmm so according to the theory, is the deep internal desire of all of the anima/animus combinations the same? Because you mentioned both IxxPs and ExxPs seem to strive for both integrity and organization at some level, even if they go about it in opposite directions.



No. IxTPs for example, strive for validation through the feelings of others. Ti/Fe. Integrity is isn't the goal of an IxTP the way it is for IxFPs. They strive to be conceptually accurate so that they can be of use to others, which in turn satisfies their deeper need to feel appreciated. IxFPs strive to be accurate as well, but with regard to their personal values. They want to be a proper arbiter of justice so as to find a sense of direction that motivates them to be organized and efficient. Fi/Te.

ENxPs are motivated by Si, so their dominant function, which reflects their constant searching for and opening up new possibilities, would be compensating for an unconscious inferior function that reflects their desire for stability and physical consistency. It were as if they were searching for "that which is eternally true" by experiencing the whole range of empirical existence, aiming to miss absolutely nothing and intuitively grasp every teeming potential. In so doing, they might eventually discover and figure out what never changes, what can be always trusted and relied upon to be consistent forever (Si).

An ESxP would be very different from this. A lead Se type is motivated to experience everything through their senses in as much physical detail as possible. This is compensating for an unconscious deeper need to synthesize out of all their experience some transcendental insight that gives everything they experience symbolic significance. Unconsciously they want to know what it is that gives the world a purpose, as they worry about the deeper meaning of everything. It is important to emphasize, however, that they don't do this consciously most of the time. But even in my own experience with ESxP types, I notice that sometimes they will have these moments where they are not so energetic, and they start to show a very reflective side of themselves that longs to recognize the deeper significance of things. In fact, whenever conversations start to turn more serious, this is the very topic that gets brought up the most. Especially with ESFPs, you will find them asking, "why does it matter though?" Fi/Ni. Their auxiliary Fi function reflects their semi-unconscious inner-parent telling them to define their own values, which in turn would require them to look deeper at the world to recognize the true significance of things.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Sorry I meant to type ExTJ and IxFP not what I did, on my phone in a car


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> ENxPs are motivated by Si, so their dominant function, which reflects their constant searching for and opening up new possibilities, would be compensating for an unconscious inferior function that reflects their desire for stability and physical consistency. It were as if they were searching for "that which is eternally true" by experiencing the whole range of empirical existence, aiming to miss absolutely nothing and intuitively grasp every teeming potential. In so doing, they might eventually discover and figure out what never changes, what can be always trusted and relied upon to be consistent forever (Si).
> 
> An ESxP would be very different from this. A lead Se type is motivated to experience everything through their senses in as much physical detail as possible. This is compensating for an unconscious deeper need to synthesize out of all their experience some transcendental insight that gives everything they experience symbolic significance. Unconsciously they want to know what it is that gives the world a purpose, as they worry about the deeper meaning of everything. It is important to emphasize, however, that they don't do this consciously most of the time. But even in my own experience with ESxP types, I notice that sometimes they will have these moments where they are not so energetic, and they start to show a very reflective side of themselves that longs to recognize the deeper significance of things. In fact, whenever conversations start to turn more serious, this is the very topic that gets brought up the most. Especially with ESFPs, you will find them asking, "why does it matter though?" Fi/Ni. Their auxiliary Fi function reflects their semi-unconscious inner-parent telling them to define their own values, which in turn would require them to look deeper at the world to recognize the true significance of things.


This is very interesting. My type has never been clear because I roam through both ideas and the physical environment equally in my search for possibilities, guessing that I'm Ne rather than Se but not 100% sure. I didn't entirely realize until I read your post that I've been studying and experiencing in order to find the bottom line, the ultimate truth, looking for the underlying patterns which remain unchanging while the myriad possibilities manifest and disappear.

If you have the time and inclination, could you discuss Si/Ne? That might be my husband's type, but we don't know for sure if he's Ni or Si.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Meadow said:


> This is very interesting. My type has never been clear because I roam through both ideas and the physical environment equally in my search for possibilities, guessing that I'm Ne rather than Se but not 100% sure. I didn't entirely realize until I read your post that I've been studying and experiencing in order to find the bottom line, the ultimate truth, looking for the underlying patterns which remain unchanging while the myriad possibilities manifest and disappear.
> 
> If you have the time and inclination, could you discuss Si/Ne? That might be my husband's type, but we don't know for sure if he's Ni or Si.


Well, in keeping with the theme of the theory, Si is motivated by Ne in such a way as to always be on the lookout for changes and possibilities that would threaten or alter the unchanging environment that Si prefers. Si is best understood, when it is dominant, as symbolic of the way certain people spend a lifetime developing very specific interests and preferences. Like, their eggs have to be cooked just so, and they only try new things insofar as they are trying to discover their preferences and "nail it down" so they can then repeat the same thing over and over. Once they know what they like, they know what they like, if you follow.

So, the dominant Si need for stability and consistency in physical experience is compensating for a deeper desire to recognize every possibility and every potential for change. They are so focused on just whatever their preferences are precisely because in doing so they establish the nuances of every difference that could manifest in their experience.

It is like saying, I am going to focus on this one specific thing with all my attention, and in doing so I am establishing just how many possible changes there could be to this specific thing. If my experience was broad and unspecific, caught up in numerous things instead of particular things, I wouldn't be able to distinguish the finer details of particular things enough to recognize their potential variations, you see?

This is why Si-doms can be excellent critics or develop very reliable tastes and impressions when it comes to the things they obsess over. They spend a lifetime so focused on the things that interest them that they are keenly aware of the finer nuances of those things and can recognize tiny differences that others can't. Their senses and minds become like a microscope that can see fine details in the extreme. They usually have very informed and excellent opinions when it comes to their realm of experience, especially the things they experience on a regular basis - which can be anything, including psychology and other scientific enterprises.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Yes, I understand perfectly, thank you for typing it up.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

To add, I read your posts to my husband and asked if he's is more driven by the need to discover the true essence of things or to experience nuances of everyday life, and he said the latter. He's actually phrased the idea in various ways when trying to explain what he needs out of life, but we didn't have enough understanding of the concepts and connected words to put it within a typing framework. This is the first time in years it's clear which type he is, and it's a relief to finally have one of us definitively typed.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> This is why Si-doms can be excellent critics or develop very reliable tastes and impressions when it comes to the things they obsess over. They spend a lifetime so focused on the things that interest them that they are keenly aware of the finer nuances of those things and can recognize tiny differences that others can't. Their senses and minds become like a microscope that can see fine details in the extreme. They usually have very informed and excellent opinions when it comes to their realm of experience, especially the things they experience on a regular basis - which can be anything, including psychology and other scientific enterprises.


And lord forbid they obsess about relationships after losing one they liked.  Can you say cat lady (or male equivalent)?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I was just reading Beebe and wondering about the inferior. I really like how you explained this and broke it down by type! Thanks so much!

Edit: I liked it so much I saved it in a word document (the Fi-Te example).

I think that the inferior function does carry feelings of inferiority in me--but I like how you showed the relationship between the dominant and inferior in such a self-fulfilling/positive way.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

crap wrong thread x_x


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Could you do one for Fe/Ti?
Is it that Fe wants to affect social change and the best way to do so would be to precisely hone on the problem (Ti) as much as possible? Like Fe wants to counsel others, but needs to identify the exact point of leverage to become most effective?

I really love your explanations by the way. They really give the functions so much dimension...it removes so many stereotypes from them. I hope this thread lives forever lol.


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

Nice write up! At first I thought that it would just be another reiteration of something I had read before(a real compliment from an ENTP), but it was actually put in a way that I had not thought of much before(practical, seeing in others and some interactions). I always fall into too much theory myself.

The documents from where you were inspired are also ones that inspired me, and if I remember correctly @Eric B wrote those. Another NTP, so it was nice to see a NTJs take on it.
We have so many nice posters on these forums! How lucky we are.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Moop said:


> Could you do one for Fe/Ti?
> Is it that Fe wants to affect social change and the best way to do so would be to precisely hone on the problem (Ti) as much as possible? Like Fe wants to counsel others, but needs to identify the exact point of leverage to become most effective?
> 
> I really love your explanations by the way. They really give the functions so much dimension...it removes so many stereotypes from them. I hope this thread lives forever lol.


You've already got it pretty much.

Deep down the feeling of insecurity regarding analytical and highly technical Ti is because without it, Fe would become sterile and lack the personalization that makes it genuine. A subjective form of judgement is the soul of Fe, which lends to it a logical framework to justify itself with. The desire for harmony and balance between everyone reflects the deeper unconscious desire to live in a world that is rational and just - Ti is also defined as the function of "justice". A simple look at a figure like the philosopher Kant (INTP - Ti/Fe), who developed his famous categorical imperative, can help explains this a bit further. People who prefer objectively defined values that everyone can see and live by, in a sense, are trying to impose a logical structure on behavior that makes it predictable as a way of avoiding the fear and chaos that would result out of the absence of such structure.

Imagine a world driven entirely by Fi, where there was no Fe. It would be extremely difficult to relate to other people quickly or efficiently unless you personally knew them very well, because without knowing the subjective circumstances of their life thus far, it would be next to impossible to predict how they might emotionally react to certain things. You just would not have any framework within which to make a prediction about what they personally valued. The presence of objective structure such as Te and Fe gives subjective structure such as Fi and Ti a means of expressing themselves without having to refer to anything personal. Not everything needs to be an art. Not everything must come from the soul. Sometimes, function matters more than form.

When Ti is inferior, that simply means that the person doesn't find themselves as confident when exercising it, precisely because it is so important to them that they don't want to "mess up" and have it lead them into conflict with their own ego (Fe). Because the analytical nature of Ti doesn't in itself imply the kind of social structure that would come from Fe automatically, but can be used to prove it's necessity and validity, taking the "Fe first, because of Ti" approach is really just the inverse and same approach as "Ti first, because of Fe." In the end, they are approaching the same conclusion from different angles. From a subjective judging perspective, Fe makes sense. From an objective structural perspective, Ti is the very essence of justice itself, without which Fe would be nothing more than a set of robotic principals without any genuine conviction to back them up.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Takadox said:


> Nice write up! At first I thought that it would just be another reiteration of something I had read before(a real compliment from an ENTP), but it was actually put in a way that I had not thought of much before(practical, seeing in others and some interactions). I always fall into too much theory myself.
> 
> The documents from where you were inspired are also ones that inspired me, and if I remember correctly @_Eric B_ wrote those. Another NTP, so it was nice to see a NTJs take on it.
> We have so many nice posters on these forums! How lucky we are.


And he goes way further into it than I did! (Like I never really got into how to bring the complex out of the person, or as in depth regarding the dynamics of the hero/anima tandem). This stuff is so deep, and hard to find a lot of info on, it's hard to really capture all of the essence of it, so it's always nice to get a new articulation of it. It sounds like he got this directly from Beebe.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Eric B said:


> And he goes way further into it than I did! (Like I never really got into how to bring the complex out of the person, or as in depth regarding the dynamics of the hero/anima tandem). This stuff is so deep, and hard to find a lot of info on, it's hard to really capture all of the essence of it, so it's always nice to get a new articulation of it. It sounds like he got this directly from Beebe.


Well, what happened was, I read both of your essays and extrapolated from those.

One thing I noticed about Carl Jung a long time ago was that he shows your same love of _"symmetry"_ as you put it, being a Ti-lead. You might find this interesting, but I share that same love of symmetry, but in a different way. I _see_ that symmetry implied by everything in the universe. For me, it is more of an intuitive thing. I recognize that all patterns point at an underlying significance for everything, and if everything is symbolic, then the systems are recursive forever, and it is a sort of fractal symmetry that simply goes on forever, like random clustering of order within chaos, and it never ends. I get excited about such visions probably coming from my tertiary Fi function, because those kinds of visions instill in me a sense of child-like wonder and awe at the majesty of nature. And with my auxiliary Te I am always looking for ways of expressing it through examples.

So anyway, if that is how the mind of Carl Jung works Ti, or Ni, we can assume that it operates as a standard by which one can build upon his original ideas and maintain a high probability of remaining true to them. That is, most of what I have proposed in this thread is purely theoretical, but I predict were Jung alive today, he might endorse it because it is congruent with his work, as well as the insights of Beebe. I'm trying not to break any rules and just foreseeing what their work implies and then expounding on it because I think it reveals something extremely practical.

Carl Jung's work carries this "as above; so below" theme to it, which I suspect reflects his interest in mystical systems like Alchemy. I would even go so far as to call him the "Newton of Psychology" as Issac Newton was very much the same way but with the physical world. And like Newton, Jung was more fascinated by his religious and mystical insights and devoted most of his life to them, and did not take as much pride in his contributions to science, however much we admire him for it.

I could go even further into it, as I've had more thoughts about it. I'm really glad you posted because I wanted to get into contact with you to bounce some ideas off you.

For instance, what if we conceive of a new axis to personality that stems from the most basic instinct of all, the so-called "fight or flight" mechanism of the brain, and we equate "fight" to mean "desire" in the sense that _the root of all desire is a positive energy that suggests a will to change/conflict resulting from the brain recognizing the possibility of pleasure._ Then we equate "flight" to mean "fear" in the sense that _the root of fear is a negative energy that suggests a will to avoid/repress resulting from the brain recognizing the possibility of pain._

Then we look at the functions in terms of pleasure principal and pain principal, as "desired" and "feared" and we get the shadow/anti-shadow functions. Essentially, that which I desire moves towards consciousness and becomes integrated into the anti-shadow functions. That which I fear moves towards the unconscious and becomes repressed into the shadow functions.

When I perceive or make a choice (perception or judgment) that is motivated fundamentally by pleasure or the opportunity for it, I am using the four function attitudes that make up my anti-shadow. I am motivated to "fight" or "dominate" ("dominant" function - coincidence?) and I achieve that primarily via my principal function. When I perceive or make a choice that is motivated fundamentally by pain or the repression of it, I am using the four function attitudes that make up my shadow. In which case, whatever function attitude is my ordinary preference becomes inverted, and so whenever I act or perceive out of fear, I become my own shadow.

So now what we have in the end is a whole new spectrum/dichotomy to give a whole new dimension to personality. Where before we had the conscious orientation of introversion and extraversion forming one axis, as well as an axis of thinking and feeling and an axis of sensation and intuition, we also look at consciousness and unconsciousness itself as an axis which is fundamentally motivated by the most primitive and underlying strata of human behavior, the pleasure principal.

My theory also pays homage to Freud if you notice, who was the predecessor of Jung, in it's frankness and almost brutal way of looking at the mind. But whereas he focused on sexuality as the root, I believe even sexuality and a will to reproduce might, if we go even deeper still, tie into the pleasure/pain principal.

Not only is my way of looking at it symmetrical, but it doesn't necessarily contradict the work of anyone else, and if it proves reliable and effective to look at the mind in this way, then why not? The purpose of all of this typological theory is of course, like science itself, to observe nature as it truly is. We can only do that with models, since the reality we perceive is itself only a model simulated by the brain. So if the model is reliable, then we can use whatever model works or re-arrange the terms and variables however we want. The goal is to predict people, and ultimately, I would argue (in keeping with the theme of my theory) to either control them in order to get what we want, or to avoid them and repress what we don't.

As my signature states: "Truth is the conformity of the intellect with things." That carries a double message, implying both Te and Ti, and thus I consider it the absolute root of logical truth. Either my thoughts conform to things, or things conform to my thoughts. It works both ways. I can conceive of a model, and bring things into conformity with my model (Ti) - or I can modify my model to conform to things (Te). Because Te is my auxiliary function, when I am driven by desire, I conform to the world. But when the world resists, if I cannot see a way to achieve my goals, I become afraid of failure, and so I reverse the direction - I try to make the world conform with my ideas. In the end, it makes no difference. Either I find truth or I do not, either because I desire it, or because I am afraid of it.

Fear can be just as productive as desire. In this way, one can access their shadow functions and put them to use by understanding that fear feeds upon itself. We are afraid of being afraid. When one overcomes this limitation, learns to embrace their fear and let it lead them, they bypass the unconscious resistance to fear that is fear itself, and can transcend even the pleasure/pain dichotomy to achieve a point of absolute clarity and focus, driven by only that most fundamental and transcendental of all forces in the universe, the _will to power,_ which is _*entropy itself.*_


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

Might you do some analysis for all the types?

Also what would be the way to tell difference between ENTP and INTP? I have always debated between the two, I lean towards ENTP, but I resonate with both very much so its hard.

Also again thanks for taking the time to write up such well written analyses


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Takadox said:


> Might you do some analysis for all the types?
> 
> Also what would be the way to tell difference between ENTP and INTP? I have always debated between the two, I lean towards ENTP, but I resonate with both very much so its hard.
> 
> Also again thanks for taking the time to write up such well written analyses



I might get around to it eventually. I've been considering writing up some articles for this website, but I'm super lazy.


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I might get around to it eventually. I've been considering writing up some articles for this website, but I'm super lazy.


sure you're not an ntp


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Takadox said:


> sure you're not an ntp


That's complicated.

If we're just going off the four dichotomies, yes. I consistently test INTP.

I posted a thread here: http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/99661-descriptions-mbti-step-ii-facets.html

This thread even goes into the MBTI Step II facets of each dichotomy, further breaking each one down into 5 facets.

Even at that level of examination, I definitely fit INTP more than INTJ.

However, when doing a function analysis of my type, it is clear that I am using Ni-Ti as my preferred principal and auxiliary functions.

This test: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes is what I have used to explore my cognitive processes systematically over the course of 3 years. Without a doubt I am relying on Ni and Ti the most.

Of course, that doesn't comply with MBTI type dynamics. Jung himself seems to imply that the three functions which are not dominant would be relatively inferior and unconscious and carry the opposite attitude of the dominant function. As in, Ni-Te-Fe-Se. The MBTI Manual Third Edition presents type dynamics this way, and Myers Briggs herself presented the theory in this way. There is still dispute between the orientation of the tertiary function - but I digress.

Because I choose not to twist facts to suit theories and models, all I can say is - here are the facts. I am clearly an INTP, and I am clearly using Ni-Ti in that order. The current systems and models provide no clear explanation for this, and I see no need to come up with excuses and force myself to believe otherwise. If the models cannot account for the facts, then the models are fundamentally flawed.

Still, I find it useful and entertaining to play around with them, even if I am living proof of their limitations. They are not a complete waste of time. They are rich in inspiration and have fascinating implications. For example, the Dominant-inferior relationship makes sense and nothing particular about my special case invalidates those predictions. I find the dominant-inferior dynamics to be rather reliable in my own experience, and the idea of repressing one function because it forms the real motivation for another makes a lot of intuitive sense to me.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> First of all, in order to understand what functions a person actually favors, it is useful to understand the archetypal role that they play as complexes within the psyche. I'm drawing from John Beebe here for the most part.
> 
> The dominant function is the "hero" function. It is the way we achieve our goal in life.
> 
> ...


The idea that the inferior function represents a person's _true goal in life_ and the dominant function is "the way we achieve" that goal isn't really the way Jung or Beebe characterized the roles of the dominant and inferior functions.

You refer to the inferior function as a person's "goal," but Jung said that the dominant function "is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply 'happen' to one." He said the inferior function "has the character of something inimical and foreign, that 'extinguishes' the personality, whirls it away, setting the subject outside himself and alienating him from himself."

It's true that Jung also said that the inferior function played an important compensatory role in daily life — helping to keep a person's dominant orientation from becoming overly "one-sided" — and that _some_ people (the more well-developed people), later in life, could successfully manage to integrate some significant chunks of their unconscious side into their conscious side and end up (somewhat) less incomplete as a result. But that involved integrating the inferior function into a conscious side that would continue to be dominated by (and to identify most strongly with) the dominant function. I'm not aware of anyplace where Jung said that, in the end, it would turn out that the inferior function had been the person's true goal all along — with the person having, in effect, taken refuge in the dominant function out of fear.

As Beebe has explained:



Beebe said:


> [Jung] expected that both [the tertiary and inferior] functions would, in most people, remain potentials only, residing in the unconscious, represented in dreams in archaic ways and relatively refractory to development except under exceptional circumstances — such as the individuation process Jung sometimes witnessed in the analysis of a relatively mature person in the second half of life, when the archaic functions would press for integration into consciousness.


You told sarahmariev (an INFP) that "Deep down inside you want to be like an ExTJ," and you said that an Si-dom's "need for stability and consistency in physical experience is compensating for a deeper desire to recognize every possibility and every potential for change."

I don't think I've ever encountered a Jung/MBTI source that said that the inferior function represents a person's real "goal in life" (which "defines his essence") and that their attachment to their dominant function is "fear"-based and is "compensating for a deeper desire to connect with" their inferior function.

Is that an idea you came up with on your own, or can you point us to any other sources with that perspective?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_reckful_, it's an idea I came up with pretty much on my own. Though, I was mainly inspired by the work of @_Eric B_.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Well, what happened was, I read both of your essays and extrapolated from those.
> 
> One thing I noticed about Carl Jung a long time ago was that he shows your same love of _"symmetry"_ as you put it, being a Ti-lead. You might find this interesting, but I share that same love of symmetry, but in a different way. I _see_ that symmetry implied by everything in the universe. For me, it is more of an intuitive thing. I recognize that all patterns point at an underlying significance for everything, and if everything is symbolic, then the systems are recursive forever, and it is a sort of fractal symmetry that simply goes on forever, like random clustering of order within chaos, and it never ends. I get excited about such visions probably coming from my tertiary Fi function, because those kinds of visions instill in me a sense of child-like wonder and awe at the majesty of nature. And with my auxiliary Te I am always looking for ways of expressing it through examples.
> 
> ...


 I thought I had posted a response. I know I had drafted on om my phone, but then I thought I rewrote it fresh.

Anyway, I don't look at the function-attitudes as distinct gears that we can divide. I look at it in terms of the general four functions, and that it is the complexes (Beebe) that orients them one way or the other into the eight. So perhaps it's those *complexes* that can be divided into "fight or flight". That would make sense (And also parallel Socionics, which calls the same groups "valued" and "unvalued", which would be like your "desired/feared").

So,
Fight (pursuit of ego's primary outlook; valued)
1 Hero (dom.)
2 Good Parent (aux.)
3 Puer (good child)
4 anima/animus 
Flight (the rejected perspectives; unvalued)
5 Opposing Personality (negative hero)
6 Witch/Senex (negative parent)
7 Trickster (negative child)
8 Daimon (negative anima)

You could see where the bottom four are just negative versions of the top four. So the functions that become associated with those bottom four are just the rejected attitudes.

Though I would say "fight" could also be extended to the bottom four; if you think of it in a reactive sense. Or you could divide it along Socionics' other terms, "weak" and "strong". #3&4 (valued, weak) would definitely be "flight" in the sense that these are the vulnerable perspectives by which you feel threats to the ego. Their shadows; #7&8 (unvalued, weak) are perhaps more like the "cornered rat" reactions, where you really feel threatened to within an inch of ego's integrity, but have nowhere else to go. #5&6 (unvalued, strong) would also be "fight" functions, of course.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> That's complicated.
> 
> If we're just going off the four dichotomies, yes. I consistently test INTP.
> 
> ...


Like I just said, above, I don't look at it in terms of eight fixed things, so if you got TiNi on the K2C, it could just indicate a strong preference for introversion, iNtuition and Thinking in general, to the point that the introversion "spread into" the iNtuition or Thinking, so to speak. In other words, when it asks an Ni or Ti question, your introversion is so strong that you identify with the introverted description of iNtuition or Thinking, which it assumes is "Ni" or "Ti". Plus, the test is loaded with Forer effects around Ni and one or two others anyway. Meaning it will ask a generalized question associated with a particular function-attitude, yet it's really something any type can do. Like "being into the symbolic" or something like that. My wife and another Christian friend are charismatics who believe in "visions", and ended up scoring high on that one, and on Fi for having strong "beliefs" and convictions, yet both are definite SFJ's. And Ti will be about "analyzing", but any INT will be strong on analyzing.

What were the rest of your scores? 
Basically, from the way the ego divides reality, type will be based on *two* functions; carrying opposite attitude and opposite rationality, ONLY. The other "six" don't figure, as far as relative "strength" is concerned.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> The idea that the inferior function represents a person's _true goal in life_ and the dominant function is "the way we achieve" that goal isn't really the way Jung or Beebe characterized the roles of the dominant and inferior functions.
> 
> You refer to the inferior function as a person's "goal," but Jung said that the dominant function "is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply 'happen' to one." He said the inferior function "has the character of something inimical and foreign, that 'extinguishes' the personality, whirls it away, setting the subject outside himself and alienating him from himself."
> 
> ...


 The sense in which the unpreferred functions are the "true goal" is more about the *unconscious* aspect of our goals. Again, it's from the way the ego divides reality into duals. When you separate out one thing, what's been separated is still there, but pushed to the background. 
I'm not sure if this was all really articulated directly by Jung, or simply an expansion of his theory. Even though Beebe quoted Jung there, he obviously was big on expanding his theory (immediately before your quote, he pointed out "Jung said relatively little about the third function" and right before that, that Jung "open[ed] the door to the possibility of a further differentiation of functions", which of course is what Beebe's theory is about). Particularly by mapping the anima to the inferior. That's where this concept Abraxas is articulating is ultimately coming from, and you can also see it in Berens renaming the inferior/anima as "*aspirational*".


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> The sense in which the unpreferred functions are the "true goal" is more about the *unconscious* aspect of our goals. Again, it's from the way the ego divides reality into duals. When you separate out one thing, what's been separated is still there, but pushed to the background.
> I'm not sure if this was all really articulated directly by Jung, or simply an expansion of his theory. Even though Beebe quoted Jung there, he obviously was big on expanding his theory (immediately before your quote, he pointed out "Jung said relatively little about the third function" and right before that, that Jung "open[ed] the door to the possibility of a further differentiation of functions", which of course is what Beebe's theory is about). Particularly by mapping the anima to the inferior. That's where this concept Abraxas is articulating is ultimately coming from, and you can also see it in Berens renaming the inferior/anima as "*aspirational*".


There's a big difference between a person having _unconscious desires_ in the direction of the inferior function — e.g., a man being attracted to his _anima_, based in part on the sense that it represents a missing part of himself — and the idea that the inferior function is really the person's truest self.

You say, "That's where this concept Abraxas is articulating is ultimately coming from, and you can also see it in Berens renaming the inferior/anima as 'aspirational'." But I'd be surprised if you could point me to anyplace where Beebe or Berens (or any other respected Jung/MBTI source, for that matter) says, as Abraxas does, that the inferior function represents a person's real "goal in life" (which "defines his essence") and that their attachment to their dominant function is "fear"-based and is "compensating for a deeper desire to connect with" their inferior function.

As I previously noted, Abraxas told sarahmariev (an INFP) that "Deep down inside you want to be like an ExTJ," and he said that an Si-dom's "need for stability and consistency in physical experience is compensating for a deeper desire to recognize every possibility and every potential for change."

That take on Fi-doms and Si-doms is really not consistent with Jung, Beebe, Berens or, well, anybody else other than Abraxas, as far as I know.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> There's a big difference between a person having _unconscious desires_ in the direction of the inferior function — e.g., a man being attracted to his _anima_, based in part on the sense that it represents a missing part of himself — and the idea that the inferior function is really the person's truest self.
> 
> You say, "That's where this concept Abraxas is articulating is ultimately coming from, and you can also see it in Berens renaming the inferior/anima as 'aspirational'." But I'd be surprised if you could point me to anyplace where Beebe or Berens (or any other respected Jung/MBTI source, for that matter) says, as Abraxas does, that the inferior function represents a person's real "goal in life" (which "defines his essence") and that their attachment to their dominant function is "fear"-based and is "compensating for a deeper desire to connect with" their inferior function.
> 
> ...


I took all that ("truest self", etc) in a hyperbolic sense. Perhaps that was a wrong assumption, though.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

[double ]


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

reckful said:


> There's a big difference between a person having _unconscious desires_ in the direction of the inferior function — e.g., a man being attracted to his _anima_, based in part on the sense that it represents a missing part of himself — and the idea that the inferior function is really the person's truest self.
> 
> You say, "That's where this concept Abraxas is articulating is ultimately coming from, and you can also see it in Berens renaming the inferior/anima as 'aspirational'." But I'd be surprised if you could point me to anyplace where Beebe or Berens (or any other respected Jung/MBTI source, for that matter) says, as Abraxas does, that the inferior function represents a person's real "goal in life" (which "defines his essence") and that their attachment to their dominant function is "fear"-based and is "compensating for a deeper desire to connect with" their inferior function.
> 
> ...


I don't see why you are so obsessed with my idea echoing the sentiments of other people. Since when is it necessary for an idea to mimic the idea of another person in order to be valid? I'm not presenting my ideas in the form of "X is true, and Y is derived from X, thus Y is true." I merely listed Beebe because he was a source of inspiration, not a literal _basis_ upon which I formulated my ideas. Similarly, I am not accusing @_Eric B_ of literally _originating_ my ideas. I listed his work as an inspirational source out of which I conceived of my own ideas which I consider to be mostly novel and only borrow a few concepts.

Obviously they are completely theoretical. Insofar as they could be true, I can only speculate that they are because they appear to me to possess a certain kind of underlying symmetry which I perceive to be present within the views of others such as Jung and Beebe, without them actually verbally expressing such symmetries or even consenting to their existence within their own writing.


And @Eric B, thank you, I appreciate you noticing that I have a tendency to express hyperbole quite a lot when I write. I do not write with the intention of being published in a psychological journal so I am not very precise; I don't type up drafts or proof-read my posts to make sure I am using the specific word I should be using. To some extent, I just assume other people will get the "gist" of what I am trying to say without nit-picking about the absolute meaning of every little thing I said. I would hope most of my readers can follow the underlying implications I am getting at without being bogged down in such technicality. This is, after all, just a casual conversation on a public forum that, at least to me, only serves the purpose of occupying my time with thoughts about something I find interesting. It is as much for entertainment as it is for anything practical.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

reckful said:


> but Jung said that the dominant function "is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply 'happen' to one."


this is interesting. if one is pretty blase about intimate relationships, they don't go looking for one--in fact they just sort of ignore the notion entirely--and whenever they happen to occur, it's just by "occurrence"... would this indicate a pretty unconscious feeling function? 

... although, that may be looking at the "feeling-side" a little too roughly, since it can manifest in many ways...?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Eric B said:


> I thought I had posted a response. I know I had drafted on om my phone, but then I thought I rewrote it fresh.
> 
> Anyway, I don't look at the function-attitudes as distinct gears that we can divide. I look at it in terms of the general four functions, and that it is the complexes (Beebe) that orients them one way or the other into the eight. So perhaps it's those *complexes* that can be divided into "fight or flight". That would make sense (And also parallel Socionics, which calls the same groups "valued" and "unvalued", which would be like your "desired/feared").
> 
> ...


Interesting. I like your way of putting it better than my own. And actually, complexes would be a better way of explaining my own idea. I had not considered different kinds of relations, such as dividing the functions into pairs and then looking at it that way. I suppose then, I really am just recapitulating (perhaps in an exaggerated and off-course way) the ideas of value applied to the function attitudes with respect to which ones become part of the "shadow." I wonder if it might instead be a more useful approach to begin with the complexes as Beebe has presented them (hero, parent, puer, anima, etc) and group them similar to the way Socionics does into pairs, and then try to understand each block of pairs as a "meta-complex."

And then perhaps it would be possible to extrapolate further, looking at triads of functions as well, and the relationships between meta-complexes and triads. Basically, I really like Beebe's use of the complexes in explaining the functions. I enjoy toying around with that idea to see how far it can go. Since these complexes are themselves kinds of archetypes, what archetypes emerge when one begins to play around with the idea, mixing-and-matching?

What do we get, for instance, by combining the hero with the parent? A "parental hero" complex? Is this the hero who has achieved wisdom, having completed the journey through the monomyth cycle at least once, and brought down from the heavens the "gift" of wisdom to share with the world, as talked about by Joseph Campbell in his book, _"The Hero With A Thousand Faces"_ for instance?



Eric B said:


> Like I just said, above, I don't look at it in terms of eight fixed things, so if you got TiNi on the K2C, it could just indicate a strong preference for introversion, iNtuition and Thinking in general, to the point that the introversion "spread into" the iNtuition or Thinking, so to speak. In other words, when it asks an Ni or Ti question, your introversion is so strong that you identify with the introverted description of iNtuition or Thinking, which it assumes is "Ni" or "Ti". Plus, the test is loaded with Forer effects around Ni and one or two others anyway. Meaning it will ask a generalized question associated with a particular function-attitude, yet it's really something any type can do. Like "being into the symbolic" or something like that. My wife and another Christian friend are charismatics who believe in "visions", and ended up scoring high on that one, and on Fi for having strong "beliefs" and convictions, yet both are definite SFJ's. And Ti will be about "analyzing", but any INT will be strong on analyzing.
> 
> What were the rest of your scores?
> Basically, from the way the ego divides reality, type will be based on *two* functions; carrying opposite attitude and opposite rationality, ONLY. The other "six" don't figure, as far as relative "strength" is concerned.


Also interesting. I hadn't considered that.

Just re-took the test.

Here are the scores I tend to get (usually I score much higher on Ni than Ne, Ti is usually always the highest):


*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) **************** (16.5)
limited useintroverted Sensing (Si) *************************** (27.7)
average useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) *************************************** (39)
excellent useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************************* (33.5)
good useextraverted Thinking (Te) ***************************** (29.6)
average useintroverted Thinking (Ti) *************************************** (39.7)
excellent useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ************************* (25.6)
average useintroverted Feeling (Fi) *************************** (27.8)
average use


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I don't see why you are so obsessed with my idea echoing the sentiments of other people.


I don't have any problem with you having your own theories. Your OP said you were "drawing from John Beebe here for the most part," and several of the other posters seemed to me to be at least arguably under the impression that you were offering more of a summary of others' views rather than an original (and somewhat idiosyncratic) theory of your own. So I asked you about that, and you clarified that it was "an idea I came up with pretty much on my own," which was consistent with my take.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

reckful said:


> I don't have any problem with you having your own theories. Your OP said you were "drawing from John Beebe here for the most part," and several of the other posters seemed to me to be at least arguably under the impression that you were offering more of a summary of others' views rather than an original (and somewhat idiosyncratic) theory of your own. So I asked you about that, and you clarified that it was "an idea I came up with pretty much on my own," which was consistent with my take.


I just thought you were trying to discredit my speculations on the basis of them not being consistent with Beebe or anyone else. My bad then, I apologize if I seemed a bit hostile.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my OP, I did not meant to create the misconception that I am recapitulating the opinions of Beebe or Jung or anyone else necessarily. I only recognized what I thought to be an underlying pattern in their writing and then expounded on it in my own way. Everything I'm suggesting is complete conjecture, I couldn't say if it's actually true.

This thread is also sort've an experiment to see how many people would identify with what I was suggesting. I'm somewhat content with the response it has gotten. I believe I could be onto something, but as it stands, my idea is rough and needs a lot of refining.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Interesting. I like your way of putting it better than my own. And actually, complexes would be a better way of explaining my own idea. I had not considered different kinds of relations, such as dividing the functions into pairs and then looking at it that way. I suppose then, I really am just recapitulating (perhaps in an exaggerated and off-course way) the ideas of value applied to the function attitudes with respect to which ones become part of the "shadow." I wonder if it might instead be a more useful approach to begin with the complexes as Beebe has presented them (hero, parent, puer, anima, etc) and group them similar to the way Socionics does into pairs, and then try to understand each block of pairs as a "meta-complex."


 That's basically what I've done. Socionics calls them Ego, Superego, Id and Superid, and loosely speaking, we have "preferred", "nonpreferred" (tertiary and inferior), and I've proposed names for their shadows, such as "resistant" and "regrettable". Then, you have Lenore Thomson's sip model, where you have the Double Agents and Crow's Nests (the preferred block is the captain and first mate, and the tert. and inferior are basically castaways; one skiing along witht he ship, and the other trying to tug it back the other way).


> And then perhaps it would be possible to extrapolate further, looking at triads of functions as well, and the relationships between meta-complexes and triads. Basically, I really like Beebe's use of the complexes in explaining the functions. I enjoy toying around with that idea to see how far it can go. Since these complexes are themselves kinds of archetypes, what archetypes emerge when one begins to play around with the idea, mixing-and-matching?
> 
> What do we get, for instance, by combining the hero with the parent? The parental hero complex? Is this the hero who has achieved wisdom, having completed the journey through the monomyth cycle at least once, and brought down from the heavens the "gift" of wisdom to share with the world, as talked about by Joseph Campbell in his book, _"The Hero With A Thousand Faces"_ for instance?


 I don't think you can combine archetypes/complexes. The closest thing would be what I just described. Hero + Parent is simply the ego's preferred perspective, with likely its most mature functions.


> Also interesting. I hadn't considered that.
> 
> Just re-took the test.
> 
> ...


 I think INTP. Again, you just have strong iNtuition (a lot of INTP's get strong Ni), so for whatever reason, you scored higher on Ni last time.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Eric B said:


> I don't think you can combine archetypes/complexes. The closest thing would be what I just described. Hero + Parent is simply the ego's preferred perspective, with likely its most mature functions.


Hmm. Why couldn't you combine archetypes?

In my mind, I guess I am imagining archetypes as being sort of "atomized" in the sense that they are like elements on the periodic table of elements.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I guess they could be combined in the sense that they're operating at the same time. (As I always say, they're not gears where you have to switch between one and the other at a time).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't know if I'm a bit loony (kidding, sort of), but isn't an archetype pretty much a mental image of the non-literal aspects of something literal?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I don't know if I'm a bit loony (kidding, sort of), but isn't an archetype pretty much a mental image of the non-literal aspects of something literal?


The way I kind of understand Jungian archetypes is like, symbolic images or ideas which represent something concrete in a more abstract way. The abstract way comes from the collective unconscious, which itself reflects the universal nature of all human intellects when looked at as a single thing. I think Jung did say that the number of archetypes was theoretically limitless. I assume this is because he believed that the human mind is ingenious at creating symbolic concepts to represent timeless forces like life and death, and objects like the sun and stars, and stuff like that. So like, due to our basic human nature, which comes from the collective unconscious, we continually reinvent the same unconscious symbols over and over into different motifs to suit the context we find ourselves in.

And whereas Ne is trying to invent many new symbols _out of_ the one underlying symbol, i.e., the archetype, Ni is trying to synthesize the many different symbols _back into_ the one pure abstract form of the archetype, which comes from the collective unconscious ultimately, where all symbols become one. Hence the "external" focus of Ne, because it looks outward to find specific instances of the inner symbol to identify itself with, whereas Ni looks inward, synthesizing all that is outward into the deeply archetypical.

I know I'm taking a lot of liberties here and that this is just my own interpretation, but I think this is what Jung was trying to say, unless I've forgotten something.


----------

