# Fe vs Fi



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

Peter said:


> Interesting post.
> 
> The idea that dreams are the subconscious talking to you has a bit of a problem if you ask me. It suggest that the subconscious is a different person.
> 
> I'm certainly one of those people that holds the modern point of view. Dreams are your brain organizing the experiences of the day and I would add to that, the experiences of your brain rather than the experiences of the person. The subconscious however, isn't a different person. It simply can't be. It's just part of the total. The conscious is the tip of the iceberg, but the part of the iceberg that's under water isn't a separate iceberg, it's the same iceberg and in no way is it able to communicate with the part that's above the water. It's the same thing communicating with it self at best.


You're both right. Like LiquidLight mentioned earlier, it's looking at the same thing in two different ways. It's like the yin yang. You can look at it as one complete circle that functions because of complexity or as two parts forming a circle that results in complexity.


----------



## wanderingcat (Nov 16, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung never said the goal of individuation was perfect balance of the functions. Again that is a JCF/MBTI interpretation that Myers and those who have come since have made. Jung thought it would actually be bad if all the functions were perfectly differentiated (because which one would lead?)


Thanks for your very informative response. Much of what you say I agree with. I do want to focus on your statement above in slightly more detail as I am not quite ready to give up the ghost on the feasibility or desirability of seeking to balance the four cognitive (ego) functions. Not to be argumentative, but your statement does seem to conflict with the boxed quote in the second visual aid you posted above, which states: "The individuated or whole self effectively balances the four ego functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and iNtuition." Does that come from Jung or some other source? That rang a bell with me as something I thought I had once read as attributed to Jung. However, I can't seem to find exactly where I read it. I did find the following Jung quote which is somewhat suggestive of the same idea: "In order to orient ourselves, we must have a function which ascertains that something is there (sensation); a second function which establishes _what_ is (thinking); a third function which states whether it suits us or not, whether we wish to accept it or not (feeling); and a fourth function which indicates where it came from and where it is going (intuition)." 

I agree that individuation begins to happen when the ego realizes it is not the whole self but is just part of the whole self. But I'm not sure that I agree that a full conscious integration of each of the cognitive functions is something separate from the process of individuation. Now assuredly one of those functions will be more dominant than the others in particular individuals in practice...at least initially. That is implict in the idea of "preference". Yes, something has to lead. But wouldn't it be a worthy step towards individuation for all of us to attempt to draw upon and utlilize all four functions equally to the greatest extent possible? Sort of an "equal opportunity" approach? The idea of "wholeness" and "centeredness" you refer to as part of integration of the whole self...could that not also apply to our conscious use of the functions?

At least in my own experience, I find everyday life richer and more fulfilling if I attempt to draw on all four functions. On the other hand, when I default to using my usual function preferences...I sometimes sense that I'm missing something. 

(Still processing your anima/animus discussion...which was excellent...)


----------



## Koukol (Feb 16, 2012)

Wow. Thank you all for this wealth of information ! I'm still working on the first two pages of this thread, which I bookmarked, saved and will print at work


----------

