suggestions @ irisreturn to index start a thread
|1: Jungian functions and nature (2)|
1 Will 357a7519 on 2019/07/21 (Sunday) 17:46:11
Hey, have you done any kind of research and/or writing about the jungian psych functions as a well of our consciousness' structure adjusting to a world, where it needs to problem solve? It seems like there could be some interesting correlation of different tactics, or methods if you will of adjusting to a complex environment and the functions' conceptual bases. Jung tries to explain (very succefully in my opinion) the difference between extraversion and introversion in and of themselves as by drawing an analogy to the ethological R and K strategy (basically) emergent in nature. Based on your knowledge of J. typology, do you think there could be some kind of mental model of how the functions are supposed to problem solve reality in an exhaustive way - covering all the different possibilities of thinking?
2 Will 357a7519 on 2019/07/21 (Sunday) 17:49:49
Also, I found an interesting study that offers up reasons why larger brain size might have developed and it might be the path to finding the conceptual bases of the functions.
3 strawberry crisis inshouha on 2019/07/23 (Tuesday) 21:42:50
I once did assume—like you—that there could exist a virtually universally applicable mental model of the brain that would be illuminated through dissecting ideas and findings in the realm of typology. I did not find the opportunity to build my assumption into a more thorough (not necessarily rigorous) theory rooted specifically in Jungian typology, but I did however realize through examining various forms of typology—including Jungian typology as specifically outlined in Psychological Types—that answers to questions about the nature of the brain with respect to its examination in an evolutionary, neurobiological context do not exist in this field. However, we can instead examine typology (and Jungian typology specifically) socioculturally, or in other words, as a product of the cultural phenomena—predominant ways in which society at large saw our biology—that existed in Jung's reality; cultural biases show in Jung's work, and it may be worth noting how it is far more difficult to apply Jungian functions as they had been described by Jung to the reality we exist in today.
Like all mortal thinkers, Jung was not a seer who realized something deeper about the psyche. What he offers us is a transient perspective in which he created concepts to synthesize what he had observed into a model that has come to influence typology today (specifically in a way that would be both more culturally relevant and ideationally divergent). Jung's model does not cover all mental functions which would relate to adjusting to a complex environment, and I do not believe that this is a great direction to look in to approach, perhaps, simplifying that process into a model through which you would be able to potentially improve how you deal with things within that scenario.
I am also frankly confused about your reference to how Jung compares extraversion and introversion to r/K selection theory, because Jung wasn't alive when MacArthur and Wilson coined the term in 1967; regardless, I don't really see how one can explain his conception of extraversion & introversion coherently through this theory anyhow.
The bottom line I mean to show is that if essentialism had any basis at all, Jungian typology would be the wrong place to look. We are complex beings, and Jung does not service our complexity meaningfully.
I also recognize that while I have presented you with my opinion, I haven't substantiated it at all—doing so would take more time and effort, but I would gladly do so if you request it.