# My Image Representation of the Psyche



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

As a whole, I think even if you remove the Jungian terminology this is a much better representation of how to understand the psyche than the linear depiction that started Freud's iceberg analogy. The problem with that theory part ultimately begs the questio what is _above _the conscious ego, another problem is the linear nature itself. I do not think the human psyche is linear in nature when it comes to time-space. I'd ideally represent it as a 3D model but this is beyond my capabilities to visually depict. 

Regardless, it is easier to see how the ego is a defense mechanism operating against the external world in this manner and how it expands in every direction. I know John Beebe tried to do something similar but even his model is weak in my opinion, because it moves in two directions - horizontal and vertical. My model moves in every direction in time-space. 

Maybe the day I start dabbilng with fractal renders I could do this properly.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Is the persona representative of the unconscious masks we wear to protect our ego?

It's a cool depiction. Nice job!


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

You could depict it as a circular pyramid from the side. Like this:









But in 2D of course.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Is the persona representative of the unconscious masks we wear to protect our ego?
> 
> It's a cool depiction. Nice job!


Yes. This is why most aren't aware of their persona 



tangosthenes said:


> You could depict it as a circular pyramid from the side. Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A better depiction would be the atom core. Your image still suffers from what is above and around the ego.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The problem that arises when you put the ego on top is that the model is still linear. The ego must be located inside the unconscious content because it better represents how the ego interacts with the world utilizing this content. It also explains how repression works in a much better manner. The key to a 3d model would be to show the time dimension e.g. how the ego reacts to external content. It is also possible to invert my model but then we have the problem that the unconscious content is depicted as finite when Jung claims it's not.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> The problem that arises when you put the ego on top is that the model is still linear. The ego must be located inside the unconscious content because it better represents how the ego interacts with the world utilizing this content. It also explains how repression works in a much better manner. The key to a 3d model would be to show the time dimension e.g. how the ego reacts to external content. It is also possible to invert my model but then we have the problem that the unconscious content is depicted as finite when Jung claims it's not.


If you're trying to find a way to show a model that perfectly and intuitively delineates an idea's meaning without forced or arbitrary abstractions, you are going to end up empty-handed(especially in showcasing the products of the mind, there are a damn lot) or with something excessively complicated. A little practical advice.

I don't know much about the actual idea you're getting at, so I'll just show myself out for now.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Regardless, it is easier to see how the ego is a defense mechanism operating against the external world in this manner and how it expands in every direction. ...
> 
> Maybe the day I start dabbling with fractal renders I could do this properly.


As is often the case with your posts, it's hard to tell whose model of the psyche you're purporting to describe.

Characterizing the ego as "a defense mechanism operating against the external world" corresponds to Jung's view of _introverts_ — but Jung viewed extraverts as the opposite of introverts in that regard.

Jung explained that an introvert "finds himself in a frighteningly animated world that seeks to overpower and smother him. He therefore withdraws into himself, in order to think up a saving formula calculated to enhance his subjective value at least to the point where he can hold his own against the influence of the object," while an extravert "finds himself, on the contrary, in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself, full of trust."

Describing how introversion and extraversion were often discernible in young children, Jung said:



Jung said:


> The earliest sign of extraversion in a child is his quick adaptation to the environment. ... Fear of objects is minimal; he lives and moves among them with confidence. ... He feels no barrier between himself and objects, and can therefore play with them freely and learn through them. He likes to carry his enterprises to the extreme and exposes himself to risks. Everything unknown is alluring. ... _n an extraverted child one can very early observe a marked assurance and initiative, a happy trustfulness in his dealings with objects._


_

Speculating that introversion and extraversion corresponded to two different evolutionary strategies, Jung said:



Jung said:



[T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by monopoly.

Click to expand...


Where introverts find refuge from a threatening external world in a comforting inner world of abstractions, Jung said extraverts experience their inner worlds as threatening and disturbing and seek refuge in the bustle of the external world.



Jung said:



Just as for the abstracting type the abstract image is a bulwark against the destructive effects of the unconsciously animated object, so for the empathetic type the transference to the object is a defence against the disintegration caused by inner subjective factors, which for him consist in limitless fantasies and corresponding impulses to action. The extraverted neurotic clings as tenaciously to the object of his transference as, according to Adler, the introverted neurotic clings to his "guiding fiction."

Click to expand...




Jung said:



[T]he affective life of the extravert, being less deeply rooted, lends itself more readily to differentiation and domestication than his unconscious, archaic thinking and feeling, and ... this fantasy life of his can have a dangerous influence on his personality. Hence he is always the one who seeks life and experience as busily and abundantly as possible in order not to have to come to himself and face his evil thoughts and feelings.

Click to expand...




Jung said:



[A]ll self-communings give [an extravert] the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order.

Click to expand...


So, whoever's model of the psyche it is that you're purporting to diagram and describe in this thread (and I'm guessing maybe it's your own idiosyncratic model), to the extent that it's a model where the "ego" — which Jung basically defined as the conscious part of the psyche — is characterized as a "defense mechanism operating against the external world" for extraverts and introverts alike, it's a model that's very different from Jung's. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion than he spent talking about all eight functions put together and, as Jung saw it, the stark differences between their attitudes toward the "external world" — confident, trusting and empathetic for extraverts; fearful, defensive and abstracting for introverts — went to the heart of the difference between the two.

All that said, though, it may be that it's my own blindness to those "fractal" aspects of the psyche you mentioned that's interfering with my ability to see how your model and Jung's model line up._


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

It makes sense to me. There are also 19 other volumes in Jung's collected works, other than Psychological Types, among other publications. He does talk more about the Ego, the Persona, the Shadow, and more.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Like @reckful, I'm not sure if this is your own theory or Jung's but persona should be within the conscious realm. Persona is not unconscious, the unconscious counterpoint to persona is the anima/animus. A person who thinks their persona is unconscious is someone very, very deluded about who they are (there are plenty of such people out there like a celebrities or politicians who think their persona is who they really are and may be thusly deluded). I would put anima/animus just to the outside of consciousness since aspects of this complex do occasionally invade the conscious sphere. 

I actually like the model below, from a Jungian standpoint model because it does not place ego at the center of the psyche (that would literally be ego-centricity) but rather shows its rightful place as component of consciousness. It's not a perfect model but I think captures, for the most part the spirit of what Jung is after. 









Also the points that @reckful made I think are very salient about introversion and extraversion and probably are the most defining characteristics of the two different styles. To use an analogy the extravert basically being the person who never comes home, always out and about in the world, and couldn't tell you how many clothes he had in the closet or if there was food in the refrigerator and perhaps hasn't done a great job of upkeep, versus the introvert who has turned his home into a castle and sanctuary, but rarely if ever ventures out into the outside world always finding it a bit menacing. 

Now obviously I'm not saying extraverts literally don't come home (though that may be the case with some) and introverts are reclusive, but rather this characterizes their psychological 'styles.' Extravert has an uncomfortable relationship with his inner self, both feeling it to be true (extraverts often mischaracterize themselves as introverts) but also being a bit disconcerted by what lies within. They literally might not trust themselves especially in the areas that surround their inferior function. Introverts on the other hand, to paraphrase Von Franz, are always concerned that the outer world will consume them and are constantly retiring from it. I don't think introverts mistype as extraverts as often because, being introverts, they are generally more self-aware, but they too have to learn to have a healthier relationship with operating in the world for its own sake around them and not trying to make the outer world align with their inner images.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_reckful_ It is *my *model, clearly. I stressed this elsewhere already. It even says so in the title. I decided to apply Jung's terminology here, but this is how I've been seeing the psyche even if I were to say, apply the Freudian model. It's not refined. It is crude and crass, but that wasn't the point. It could be depicted better visually in some other way but the main point I wanted to get away from is the linear model that bothers me a lot and I simply don't think that's how the psyche operates. 

@_LiquidLight_, the point wasn't so put to put the ego at the center of the psyche (even looking at the image you linked, I honestly don't see the difference, I still see the ego at the center) but to show how I want to get away from the idea that ego is _at the top_. 

As for the persona, then how come it seems that so many people are unaware of their persona seeing their persona as them? Or is this what you mean by persona being conscious?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> As for the persona, then how come it seems that so many people are unaware of their persona seeing their persona as them? Or is this what you mean by persona being conscious?


Jung would call these people very unconscious people. People so un-self-aware as to not even realize they have a persona and like I pointed out they are numerous (and often extraverted but not exclusively -- the introverted emo-type can be an example of an introvert who, in Jung's words, identifies with the persona). But this is basically a person setting himself up for big problems because they lack self-knowledge to such a profound degree that basically they are vulnerable to invasion from the shadow because essentially, the entirety of themselves is 'shadow.' They don't really realize their ego is different from persona, and so really have no concept that there would be a shadow at all. Its literally a person who thinks clothes make the man, so to speak.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung would call these people very unconscious people. People so un-self-aware as to not even realize they have a persona and like I pointed out they are numerous (and often extraverted but not exclusively -- the introverted emo-type can be an example of an introvert who, in Jung's words, identifies with the persona). But this is basically a person setting himself up for big problems because they lack self-knowledge to such a profound degree that basically they are vulnerable to invasion from the shadow because essentially, the entirety of themselves is 'shadow.' They don't really realize their ego is different from persona, and so really have no concept that there would be a shadow at all. Its literally a person who thinks clothes make the man, so to speak.


Well, I am not sure about you, but this really seems to apply to most people, not just here, but as a whole...? Unless I am really misunderstanding something here. How would you define the concept of persona?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think of persona almost like being analogous to clothing. A protective outer layer that is necessary (we have to be able to adapt to the world around us) but that is not all encompassing. I think one of the reasons so many people identify with persona is because as far as I can tell, persona develops before your own sense of individuality does. Parents are instrumental in developing a persona for a child (usually in the parents' ideal) even before the child can speak or is just learning telling them to wave, or be politie, or say 'thank you' and so forth. So I think because, for many of us, aspects of our personas (even though we may have evolved away from our early experiences) can probably feel quite true because they've been with us for so long. I think its why so many people are drawn to things like Myers-Briggs and especially Kiersey and other such typologies because they are essentially persona-based typing systems. A self-report best-fit test will only be as good as the person is accurately self-aware, and a great many people are not. The type becomes more of a self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing what the person already believed about himself rather than challenging them to see the bigger picture. That's why INFP becomes a catch-all for any person who thinks he or she is shy, artistic and has high ethics or values (despite the fact that these things tell us more about how you see yourself or want people to see you than the mechanics of your thought processes). Kiersey's artisan, guardian, rationale, etc. 'temperaments' (or Berens' for that matter) are really social roles, or are more appropriate to social contexts than they are psychological profiles and I think people, especially extraverts have a better handle on Kiersey's language and applicability than they do on something that is more symbolic like Jung's types which involve a lot of self-awareness and probably a trip to a psychologist or two to start to nail down with any accuracy. 

I like Daryl Sharp's definition because I think it gets to the heart of what Jung was getting at



> *Persona: *the socially acceptable "mask" self we wear to adapt to the outer world. A segment of the collective _psyche_ that thinks its an individual. _identification_ of _ego_ with persona creates the chronic conformist, who experiences himself as whatever he "should" be. Just as the _anima_ is the face we turn toward the _unconscious_, the persona is the face we turn to the outer world. Identifying with the persona means doing the same with the _anima_ because an _ego_ not differentiated from the mask can't have a conscious relation to the _unconscious_.
> 
> The persona is identical with a typical attitude dominated by a single psychological _function_, which is why the dissolution of the persona (=restoration to the _unconscious_) is vital for _individuation_. From the dissolution arises individuality as a pole that polarizes the _unconscious_, which in turn produces the God-image counterpole.
> 
> ...


Barbara Hannah sort of really takes it up to the next level in her 1951 lecture on the subject:


> _In a seminar given in Zurich in 1935, Jung vividly described the shocks experienced by the ego while it was discovering that it was not the king in its own realm, but only one of many inhabitants in a vast, mainly unexplored land, ruled over by an "unknown grand power." This grand power would represent the Self, as we know it in Jungian psychology._
> 
> _It is clear that the ego is by no means absolved from responsibility for its own small corner of the psyche by the existence of this "unknown grand power," and also that the ego is really in a much weaker position while it is unaware of this power than when it accepts its rule and tries to come to terms with it._
> 
> _It is also evident that the small island of the ego complex has always had difficulty in maintaining itself in the great sea of the unconscious, and that therefore it is only to be expected that every ego complex will have an innate tendency to build itself ramparts, as it were, as a defense against invasion from within and without. On the inner side, this defense is a natural phenomenon and is formed by animus and anima._





> *Persona​
> 
> Facing the outer world, the rampart is formed by the so-called persona, which is the Latin word for an actor's mask. Its original function was to signify the role played by an actor, and thus the very word contains a certain suggestion of "putting on an act," or "playing to the gallery," that is, appearing as something which is just not what we really are.
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@LiquidLight but could for instance a sensation preference also not lead to this? Not because I want to be crass, but I also find the same to be true with many sensors, not just extroverts as a whole, but also Si types. A lot of the more trait-description based descriptions seem to be based on Si impressions. Keirsey is for instance extremely Si-heavy, and same goes with Quenk in my opinion. 

They don't delve into what type is as much as they describe what type looks or appears like. Keirsey's descriptions can't just speak to extroverts and while I agree with that extroverts may lack internal self-awareness simply because this is what the shy away from, introverts can be so lost within their own internal workings too that they can't see it for what it is for similar reasons.

Essentially then, I think Jung's definition of persona is, at least in light of current theories and research of what we would now attribute to persona as simply identity, is too simplistic. Jung notes how persona seems to disappear without other people around, but I disagree - it simply changes form to a different kind of identity. It would be erraneous to think that a human being is only in possession of one persona. As you note, people in fact use the MBTI tool to reinforce persona. But this persona is clearly contextual. Even when I'm at home and alone I'm messy. This does not change. This is also how people perceive me. But put me in the room of a good friend and then a person I do not know and my behavior clearly changes. Different identities with how we deal with the external world. 

There is a very definition of persona too that in fact calls it that - masks. But here masks are something that connotes status, something we want to express outwardly. In a way I guess this is more in line with Jung's definition of persona in a sense rather than how I'd choose to redefine it according to modern identity theory. 

I'd see persona as a more fluid concept which can connect to the unconscious and collective content. Consider for instance that a woman can feel very feminine while she's speaking to her child at home, talking to her husband at phone and then going off to duke it out at a kick boxing tournament. Animae (plural) then, would be the essential quality of how she experiences her femininity. That she is female. But this also becomes a part of her identity, it's her persona. The thing is that this identity is for instance expressed differently depending on the context she's in, but all the while she always experiences herself as feminine. 

If I have to raise another critique against Jungian psychology then, it is how weak the concept of persona is compared to modern identity theory and how the concept most likely should be updated to fit our understanding of how identity operates better. I very much believe that identity is something we wear as masks or clothing too, this is in line with how identity is understood today. I can choose to wear what I want depending on the situation. Sometimes a role is forced on me and I have the agency, or as Jung would put it, intent, to decide whether I would live out this role or not, but in actuality and in most cases, we don't. We are not consciuosly aware of our identities, especially not all aspects and all nuances of them.

This becomes overly clear in the scenario of the feminist woman who suggests that husband and wife should split the household chores and she sets up elaborate plans to ensure this is true, but all the while she may fall back into gender steroetype behavior where she takes on more of a load than he does. The excuses may be completely reasonable. He has to work over time more, she has the car to the keys so she gets home earlier than he does, she quits work earlier and so on. 

She is not aware of this happening in most cases, but this would too be the act of identity and how identity can also be an, in my opinion, unconscious force. Not only can identity become a force of habit, something we habituate over time like the compulsive liar who starts to believe in his own lies, but I think when it comes to analytical psychology there's a problem of separating what is conscious and unconscious content at times. 

Being unaware does not necessarily mean being unconscious of content for example. I was unaware of Ni dominance, but it still made it my consciously dominant function.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm not terribly in disagreement with you, its just that I think a lot of the motivating factors for the things you point out, the psychoanalysts would attribute to unconscious complexes that manifest through the conscious side (ego/persona). For example the question isn't so much that the woman is a feminist and wants to divide the chores but rather why she's a feminist in the first place. What ideas, emotionally charged or otherwise, swirl around in the back of her unconscious mind and coerce her into the worldview, attitudes or behaviors that she indulges in. 

I think because persona and ego are the ways in which we consciously see the world and ourselves, that any truly unconscious influence will manifest itself outwardly through the persona and ego. So that's why I think its so important to get beyond the surface values of "in x situation this person does this and in y situation they do that," because the motivating factor is more important. If the wife is feminist because she has some sort of need to be seen as valued and not to be seen as weak, then that is the real issue to be explored. (Obviously this isn't a stance for or against feminism I'm just using the example). But when you say we have a hard time separating conscious and unconscious hits at the silliness of the whole 'shadow functions' thing that runs so rampant. Because I think you correctly point out that, in reality its very tough to distinguish unless, like I said, you have an amazing sense of self-awareness, which even Jung himself struggled with and very nearly had a breakdown in pursuit of. So I think for most people there is a sort of contentment in just throwing their hands up in their and saying "well I don't know what I don't know so screw it," rather than taking the difficult steps to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

I do think you are right in the sense that Sensation types and extraverts will probably tend to place more emphasis on surface value and appearance since that's their more comfortable way of seeing things. 

To continue with Barbara Hannah


> In the 1935 seminar mentioned earlier, Jung gave a description of accepting the shadow that has always remained in my mind. Briefly, he used the simile of our consciousness being like a ship or bowl floating on the surface of the unconscious. Each part of the shadow that we realize has a weight, and our consciousness is lowered to that extent when we take it into our boat. Therefore, we might say that the main art of dealing with the shadow consists in the right loading of our boat: if we take on too little, we float right away from reality and become like a fluffy white cloud in the sky. If we take on too much, we may sink our boat.
> 
> We must still ask ourselves the question, what does a lowered consciousness mean practically? This is very difficult to answer theoretically, as it is really a matter of experience. Consciousness is mainly connected with our superior functions, where we are capable of a very clear, though one-sided, conscious perception. But, when we bring up something from the unconscious which demands a broader reaction, it forces us to widen our point of view, because we must then also react with our undeveloped functions and our instinctive side. We are thus confronted with the task of reconciling the reactions of our clear consciousness with those from the darkness or, at best, from the dim luminosity of our inferior or instinctive side. This naturally dims or lowers consciousness, but at the same time it makes it more substantial, three-dimensional instead of two-dimensional, so to speak.
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I'm not terribly in disagreement with you, its just that I think a lot of the motivating factors for the things you point out, the psychoanalysts would attribute to unconscious complexes that manifest through the conscious side (ego/persona). For example the question isn't so much that the woman is a feminist and wants to divide the chores but rather why she's a feminist in the first place. What ideas, emotionally charged or otherwise, swirl around in the back of her unconscious mind and coerce her into the worldview, attitudes or behaviors that she indulges in.


Well, I'd agree, but I was primarily approaching it from the perspective of say, modern gender analysis which would be more concerned about what identity means to her in the first place and what they represent. The point I was making more was to show how it's a physical manifestation of her persona in different aspects of her life and how this manifestation differs and that she identifies with feminism core ideals which seems, when studying her behavior, not register as being in line with these ideals. 

The point wouldn't be so much in trying to understand what feminism means to her personally in this scenario more than it would be used to say, illuminate what feminism in a more general and broad perspective, or gender for the matter, is about. Especially in a cultural sense. This is the background I have. I'm a social anthropologist first and foremost, and my preference lies towards symbol analysis. 

The way I would study this, especially from a symbol perspective with a gender focus, would be to precisely focus on the unconscious behavior she's expressing and what values she seems to put on gender identity which could say, be revealed in conversation and so on. Maybe she's also politically active, this then simply gives me as an anthropologist more fuel for the fire to see how gender as a concept operates within society. 

Just overall less focused on the personal and more on the impersonal. 



> I think because persona and ego are the ways in which we consciously see the world and ourselves, that any truly unconscious influence will manifest itself outwardly through the persona and ego. So that's why I think its so important to get beyond the surface values of "in x situation this person does this and in y situation they do that," because the motivating factor is more important.


Depends on the analysis we are performing and what we are looking for. If analytical psychology, yes. If a social anthropology study, not necesarily in such a private sense, no. I think Jung would perhaps consider what I'm doing to be more in line with looking for archetypes that represent the collective unconsciousness but I could be wrong. I'm actually surprised Jung did not (to my knowledge?) at least befriend Franz Boas during his lifetime. Mary Douglas was probably too late for Jung.


> If the wife is feminist because she has some sort of need to be seen as valued and not to be seen as weak, then that is the real issue to be explored. (Obviously this isn't a stance for or against feminism I'm just using the example).


Perhaps, but we'd do it for different reasons. For me it would simply be another way to understand the meaning of feminism, were I to make a gender study here, rather than what it says about this woman and her psychological make-up in this very context. She would simply represent it, be a carrier of it.


> But when you say we have a hard time separating conscious and unconscious hits at the silliness of the whole 'shadow functions' thing that runs so rampant. Because I think you correctly point out that, in reality its very tough to distinguish unless, like I said, you have an amazing sense of self-awareness, which even Jung himself struggled with and very nearly had a breakdown in pursuit of. So I think for most people there is a sort of contentment in just throwing their hands up in their and saying "well I don't know what I don't know so screw it," rather than taking the difficult steps to separate the wheat from the chaff.


This I agree with, and this is why I'd like a finer separation between conscious content and awareness of conscious content. Again, I can for example be Ni dominant so thus Ni is my conscious function, but I can still lack awareness of being Ni dominant. This would at some level suggest it would at least, in a very general sense of the term that one is unconscious of one's dominant. (Until I see a strict definition of how Jung define them, but I doubt it, the way he seemed to react to defining his terminology further in the second Tavistock lecture was pretty much the very opposite of defining it more than necessary.)



> I do think you are right in the sense that Sensation types and extraverts will probably tend to place more emphasis on surface value and appearance since that's their more comfortable way of seeing things.


Agreed. 


> To continue with Barbara Hannah


Hannah brings up another confusion/problem/lack of distinction when it comes to Jung that I have, and it is the claim that on the one hand, the inferior function should be rejected and become a part of unconscious content (isn't that the point of Quenk's _Was That Really Me?_ anyway), but if we for example go with Beebe, he claims that the inferior is simply on the border of conscious-unconscious, but if we are ego-conscious of say, Ni, then why would Se be resided in the consciousness? If Jung is correct that consciousness is part defined by the ability to project intent, we clearly lack intent when it comes to the inferior since inferior eruptions suggest a fear exactly due to lack of control over them. Ergo the reference to being possessed and fearing its control over the ego (since the unconscious would always be stronger as a force than the ego) which in a sense seems to be akin to the eruptions of unconscious content in general. The way I understand the purpose of inferior integration to begin with, is to bring it under control through awareness so we can intend it the way we can the dominant to a degree. By being aware of the dominant one can become aware of the inferior and by becoming aware of the _existence _of the inferior one can start working towards integrating the inferior into the ego in order to actualize Self. 

So Beebe then claims the inferior is the bridge to the unconsciousness which seems to go against the way I part understand what Hannah is saying. That, or no Jungian scholar has bothered to deal with this further but surely I can't be the only one being bothered by Jung's sometimes lack of distinctions?

If I'm not making sense I apologize. I'm not overly clear in my head at the moment.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

You know I think the authority on the inferior function is Marie-Louise Von Franz. I feel that Quenk sort of freelances on a number of fronts.

Von Franz:


> One can say that the inferior function always makes the bridge to the unconscious, and in the case of an introvert it is generally by moving toward an unconscious projection which appears outside. So it could be said that the inferior function is always directed toward the unconscious and the symbolic world, but that it is not directed either to the inside or the outside; the latter varies individually. If the inferior function of an introvert moves outside, then it means that the outer realm will acquire a symbolic quality for that person.
> 
> For instance, an introverted thinking type has an inferior feeling function, so the movement will be toward outer objects, that is, to the other people; but such outer people will take on a symbolic meaning for the person, being carries of symbols of the unconscious. The symbolic meaning of an unconscious fact appears outside, as the quality of an outer object, prima vista. But if an introvert, with his habitual way of introjecting, says he need not telephone Mrs. So-and-So, for she is just the symbol of his anima and therefore symbolic, and the outer person does not matter, for it only happened that his projection fell there, then he will never get to the bottom of his inferior function or will never assimilate it as a problem. This is because the feeling of an introverted thinking type is generally genuinely extraverted, and with such a trick he simply tries to catch hold of his inferior function by mean of his superior function and pull it inside. He introjects at the wrong moment so as to maintain the predominance of his superior over his inferior function. An introvert who wants to assimilate his inferior function must relate to outer objects, but bearing in mind that they are symbolic. He must not, however, draw the conclusion that they are only symbolic and that therefore outer objects can be dispensed with. That is a very lousy, dishonest trick which many introverts play with their inferior function. Naturally extraverts do the same thing, only the other way around.Therefore it must not be said that the inferior function is directed inward, or turned toward the unconscious within, but that the inferior function is directed toward the unconscious, whether the latter appears on the inside or the outside, and that it is always the carrier of symbolic experiences, which may come from within or without.
> 
> ...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@LiquidLight

What do you mean by "freelances?" I do think Von Franz is more realistic.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Introverts, for their part, if they wake up to their inferior extraversion, can spread a glow of life and make their surroundings into a symbolic festival better than any extravert! An introvert can give outer life a depth of symbolic meaning and the feeling of life as a magical feast of some kind, which the extravert cannot.


LOL, love this. Yea, rings true with me + others I've seen.


----------



## cubbex (Jun 15, 2013)

Cool model, still I don't think is that simple. I think that the psyche goes equal to the physical part, that means that as our bodies, the psyche is made of lots of organs, or important parts, and underneath just as the DNA of the body, there must be "thy soul" aka the unconscious.


----------

