INTP memes I saved on my phone to enjoy year 2020 | Part 8

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

The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each of MBTI's 16 types is the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts (model of a hypothetical person in a particular role), within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.

First, we need to understand that functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets as they are often treated.
These functions represent the different ways the emotions are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations. Basically dividing several facets of reality into opposite poles, they carry what can be called a "sense of meaning" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions. In consciousness, they become the "interpreters" of these emotional events.
Every person goes though life having to process both tangible (material) and conceptual (hypothetical) information, and then make both impersonal, technical (logical) and personal, humane (value) judgments. Where our type theory begins; and the whole key to it, is in the way this processing affects us emotionally. The functions are differentiated when a greater value is given to those choices where emotion and reason are in synch. When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it. We tend to be more stimulated by the function. It then appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase.

We also should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".

Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So they too are tied to our emotional subsystems. This forms the basis of their connection to the functions.
So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another involves finding completeness.

While our type preference lies in the ego, which is the conscious part of the psyche, the archetypes lie in the unconscious part, specifically in the area that is "collective", meaning shared by all people.
The easiest example of the unconscious is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer readily bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc. Those are personal forms of unconsciousness. There are others that are collective, which are not based on our own memory, but nevertheless shape aspects of human existence such as our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures.

When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.

The best way to think of complexes, is that just as the ego is itself a complex, and our main sense of "I"; complexes can be thought of different "ego-states", or lesser senses of "I" partially dissociated from each other (Dissociation is what becomes the familiar "multiple personality" disorders when it is too great, yet is quite normal in lesser degrees. This concept is from an Austrian psychologist Paul Federn, who also articulated a “Two Energy Theory” that basically corresponds to the attitudes. This paper: http://www.ptintensive.com/images/Jou... and the book Ego States: Theory and Therapy, John G. and Helen H. Watkins, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997 explain this well). One ego state can be anger at someone, and another can be happiness, or sadness, amorous, etc. These all are kinds of "ruling patterns" (archetypes) connected to the limbic system of emotions. Through them, we can have different expressions of "I" that feel different things.

The Watkins' discuss “The Development of Ego States” (p.28-31):




-- http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html
































idk