Yet another letter I sent to my INTJ friend; this time I present another way to look at typology that I've found fairly helpful and enlightening, though I'm not sure to what extent it is compatible with my previous views.
***
***
Since
writing the first group of papers, I've found another element to Jung's
conception of E and I that I've found rich and useful. I originally thought it
was separate from the perspective I presented above, but I've found now that it
is actually just another element breaking off of what I presented above --
another effect of the above propositions, if you will.
The first
perspective that I presented above: E = objective, while I = subjective. Jung states
this definition as such:
Whereas the extravert continually appeals to what comes to
him from the object, the introvert relies principally on what the sense
impression constellates in the subject.
The second
perspective, however, is as follows:
The introvert's attitude is an abstracting one; at bottom, he
is always intent on withdrawing libido from the object, as though he had to
prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the contrary,
has a positive relation to the object…
…the 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 types as "prolific"
and "devouring"…The one achieves its end by multiplicity of
relationships, the other by monopoly.
This second
perspective presents E as "prolific": it is constantly giving itself
away to objects. This relates, obviously, to its increased focus on objects as
stated in the first perspective. Meanwhile, I is "devouring", because
instead of giving itself away to objects, it "abstracts" ideas from
them that prevent it from having to directly interact with them. Introversion
always assimilates its impressions of objects into its subject; it reconciles
them with what it already knows and thus evolves their core knowledge, while E
is more apt to reconcile what it thinks it already knows with what it learns,
thus building knowledge that way.
I understand
it this way: in philosophy there is a classic problem called "the Many and
the One". Allow me to illustrate: imagine that as you and I are walking
through the halls of Liberty High again, and as we walk we pass by a number of
girls: some wear simple dresses with their hair long and regular, some have
wild hairstyles and dyed streaks with ripped jeans, others are wearing clothes
that seem specifically designed to guide your eye to every part of them but their face, etc. As you and I pass
them, we immediately begin categorizing them,
rather like I just did. We say, there are the "normal" girls, there
are the "goth" girls, and there are the "cheerleader"
girls, or whatever you want to call them. We might then say that all three of
these groups share characteristics that make them "girls" in the
first place. Then there are things that make them "human". We could
also subdivide these categories, and say there aren't just normal girls, but
"conservative normal" and "liberal normal".
You may be
able to see that there is an interesting tension
here, the tension between the many individually unique girls, and the overall category
of "girlhood", as well as the various categories in between:
"normalhood", "gothhood", and "cheerleaderhood".
So the question is this: do those categories actually exist? Are they justified by something? Or did you and I
just make them up for our convenience? In other words, is the world made up of
just infinitely many unique things? Or is it actually made up of One,
overarching, unifying thing?
Plato is the
one who first proposed that there are, indeed, eternal Forms which account for
all these categories which we make: the Forms of "cheerleaderhood" is
actually the real thing, while all of those individual cheerleaders are merely
shadows, or imperfect attempts to copy the perfect, unchanging Form of
cheerleaderhood. Jacques Derrida, among other things, says that there is nothing to justify these categories, and
we only make them up for our convenience.
So what's
this got to do with typology? Well, in my view, extraversion is naturally
affinitive with the concept of the Many, while introversion is naturally
affinitive with the concept of the One. This is because extraversion is on
positive terms with objects, and is constantly trying to lose its subject to
the various objects in the world. Its psychic energy flows out towards objects,
to the Many and away from the One. Meanwhile, introversion does not flow
towards the many, but is "abstracting" energy from the many objects
to form categories in its mind to organize them. These categories become its
'subjective objects'. Hence, why E is prolific and I devouring.
Te -- many
facts; Ti -- one principle
Fe -- many
values; Fi -- one value principle
Ne -- many
possible realities; Ni -- one possible view of the world
Se -- many
details of reality; Si -- one important detail in reality
Of course,
none of the introverted functions here only think in terms of "there is
only one idea!" -- Like I said above, they form categories that unite
concepts. But ideally, they are moving towards the overall heading of some
kind. Extraversion certainly forms categories too, but these are always fluid
and viewed as far less important than the many things themselves. Te, for
instance, is in danger of multiplying facts instead of making any kind of idea
to encapsulate the data.
We could
then define the functions in this other way to better represent the gradations
involved here:
Te -- facts; Ti -- principles
Fe -- values (as in many values or shades of
behavior for different situations); Fi -- virtues
(a moral, feeling principle practiced despite what others think)
Ne -- possibilities; Ni -- views
Se -- photography
(representing equal value of richness placed on everything); Si -- impressionism (representing the picking
and choosing of elements to emphasize and develop)