Scan barcode
crispymerola's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
1.75
Wade into the swamp of incomprehensible run-ons. The mud will go up to your neck, lily pads will tickle your chin. Open your hands and search for anything true you can find. Once in a while, you'll find a pure crystal, a beautiful little insight to take when you leave. Otherwise, it's undefined terms, murky ramblings, dribbling arguments spanning twenty page swaths that amount to nothing but incoherence.
I've been an MBTI head for over a decade, and I'm sorry to say this is mostly gibberish.
I've been an MBTI head for over a decade, and I'm sorry to say this is mostly gibberish.
sbenzell's review against another edition
3.0
See my review of “Kafka’s Prayer” for a deeper discussion of the section of this I found most compelling.
This is a strange, highly erudite, but hard to dig into work. The author bounces between his personal theories of human psychology (distinguishing between the “persona” ie the stable attitude people take to the external world, the “anima/soul” ie the stable attitude people take to their internal world, and the “ego” ie the locus of consciousness where these play out); other people’s takes on fundamental human drives (three of these are: naive vs sentimental from Schiller — I write about this distinction in my Kafka review and I think it’s essential for understanding him; Apollonian vs Dionysian from Nietzche — I thought his coverage of this distinction didn’t add much, though I thought it was fascinating he associates Nietzche’s “ugliest man” with nietzches own dark side/subconscious (In my reading it was just nietzche himself) though I did appreciate his connection of the “ass party” to the religious attitude, and the overall vibe of Zarathustra as super Dionysian); and some introvert vs extrovert stuff) and then some more myers Briggs type psychological distinctions.
This is a strange, highly erudite, but hard to dig into work. The author bounces between his personal theories of human psychology (distinguishing between the “persona” ie the stable attitude people take to the external world, the “anima/soul” ie the stable attitude people take to their internal world, and the “ego” ie the locus of consciousness where these play out); other people’s takes on fundamental human drives (three of these are: naive vs sentimental from Schiller — I write about this distinction in my Kafka review and I think it’s essential for understanding him; Apollonian vs Dionysian from Nietzche — I thought his coverage of this distinction didn’t add much, though I thought it was fascinating he associates Nietzche’s “ugliest man” with nietzches own dark side/subconscious (In my reading it was just nietzche himself) though I did appreciate his connection of the “ass party” to the religious attitude, and the overall vibe of Zarathustra as super Dionysian); and some introvert vs extrovert stuff) and then some more myers Briggs type psychological distinctions.
sakusha's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
I read through p. 1-81 of the 1971 edition and then decided to just skip chunks of irrelevant material; a lot of this book was Jung reviewing other people’s writings or thoughts on personality differences (and it was extremely long winded and boring) rather than Jung putting forward his own ideas. It would’ve been more beneficial to summarize previous personality writings/thoughts in just a single chapter, then use most of the rest of the book to talk about his own theories. Another thing that would’ve been helpful is if Jung included anecdotes of his patients or people he knew which made him come to his conclusions. But instead of “burdening the reader with case material,” he burdens us with what other people in antiquity have said about personality types (xi, 147). (Apparently he goes into case material in his earlier book called Symbols of Transformation [493].) He also goes on and on about the personality differences between a couple of guys who lived in 160-185 AD (Tertullian and Origen), and people from Greek myths who aren’t even real (12-20, 136-146)! Another annoying thing was how often Jung inserted Latin phrases and just expects his readers to know what they all mean.
“From earliest times attempts have been made to classify individuals according to types, and so to bring order into the chaos” (531). The four elements and astrology were the oldest attempts. Jung said he reached his conclusions by studying himself and his sick patients for 20 years, people of many classes and nations (xi, xiii, 548). He told men, “Look here, your wife has a very active nature, and it cannot be expected that her whole life should centre on housekeeping” (533). His theory of passive and active natures turned into one of reflective and unreflective natures, which later turned into one of introverted and extraverted attitudes (533).
“There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. . . . 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” (331-332).
Everyone possesses both attitude types (extroversion & introversion) and all four functions (sensation, feeling, thinking, & intuition). (For why Jung selects these four functions, he gives no reason other than his experience, which he doesn’t elaborate on [p. 437].) Type is determined by the predominance/habit of one attitude and function (4, 286, 482). “Our habitual mode of reaction is normally characterized by the use of our most reliable and efficient function, which is an expression of our particular strength” (536). Type is instinctive and hereditary, has a biological foundation; it is not a conscious choice (331, 376). Type is present at birth, but some people will adapt their type based on their environment (18, 286, 332, 516, 529). “The types seem to be distributed quite at random. In the same family one child is introverted, the other extraverted” (331). “There are often several children who are exposed to the same influence, and yet each of them reacts to it in a totally different way” (529). In a neurotic family, one child may react with hysteria, another with compulsion neurosis, a third with psychosis, and a fourth with no abnormality at all (530). “Two children of the same mother may exhibit contrary attitudes at an early age, though no change in the mother’s attitude can be demonstrated” (332). “Naturally I am thinking only of normal cases. Under abnormal conditions, i.e., when the mother’s own attitude is extreme, a similar attitude can be forced on the children too, thus violating their individual disposition, which might have opted for another type if no abnormal external influences had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature” (332). Trying to reverse one’s natural type “often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, usually causing acute exhaustion” (333). In other words, don’t tell introverts to be extraverts.
“Introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all but mechanisms, which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will” (285-286). “The changing situations of life can have the same effect of momentarily reversing the type, but the basic attitude is not as a rule permanently altered” (287-288). Jung believes “there can never be a pure type in the sense that it possesses only one mechanism with the complete atrophy of the other” (6). He also believes that a person cannot be high in both thinking and feeling, since they are opposites; creative fantasy unites the two (59). (Although he later says Schiller’s feeling energy lent itself in equal measure to his intellect [thinking] and to his creative imagination [79].) Fantasies represent the repressed/unconscious opposite attitude in a person (63). “Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all his psychological functions simultaneously” (450). A person develops the function “with which he is best equipped by nature” (450). “As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded” (450). “In normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, at least in its effects; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious” (450). “Each type is an example of one-sided development,” which implies that it’s best to fall in the middle of the spectrum rather than be at either extreme (518). “For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally: thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. In reality, however, these basic functions are seldom or never uniformly differentiated and equally at our disposal. As a rule one or the other function occupies the foreground, while the rest remain undifferentiated in the background” (518). Jung believes that a person “can never be everything at once, never quite complete. He always develops certain qualities at the expense of others, and wholeness is never attained” (540).
*Extraversion: movement of interest toward the object (usually means people); relates to things more than ideas (68); open, sociable, jovial (330), confident (516); trusting (517), cares about tradition and authority; doesn’t rely on independent reflection (158). “Characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get ‘with it,’ the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert’s philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion” (549). Conforms to and agrees with whatever society says is proper (334). “At home she shows quite a different character from the one seen in society. With her, marriage is much influenced by ambition, or a love of change, or obedience to well-recognized custom and a desire to be ‘settled in life,’ or from a sincere wish to enter a greater sphere of usefulness. If her husband belongs to the impassioned [introverted] type, he will love children more than she does” (157). “What fills the extravert’s heart flows out of his mouth” (326). Most common neurosis: hysteria (336).
*Introversion: movement of interest away from the object (usually means people); relates to ideas more than things (68); reserved, inscrutable, shy (330, 517), fearful, reflective (516), stubborn (517); dislikes crowds and society (550); appears awkward, feels inferior, envious, touchy, frugal, cautious, polite, critical, pessimistic, worried, loves solitude, has few friends (551); expresses mind more than emotions (155-156). “The introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. . . . His real self is not visible” (325). “His real world is the inner one” (517). He is fearful but has power fantasies. He distrusts anything new or strange (379, 517). Dislikes change. “His ideal is a lonely island where nothing moves except what he permits to move” (380). Most common neurosis: “psychasthenia, a malady characterized on the one hand by extreme sensitivity and on the other by great proneness to exhaustion and chronic fatigue” (379).
*Thinking: “intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions” (518). Struggle to adapt to a situation in which they can’t understand intellectually (519). The thinking type having the feeling function in his unconscious does not mean that a thinking type is not conscious of his feelings. “He knows his feelings very well, in so far as he is capable of introspection, but he denies them any validity and declares they have no influence over him” (520).
*Extraverted thinking: Like Charles Darwin (383). Programmatic (25); thinking and ideas are borrowed from outside, not generated from inside (342-343); concerned with objective truth and justice, but less concerned with actual execution of anything tangible that brings about those ends (347); can be a tyrant because they force their ideals onto others (348). “In science there are not a few painful examples of highly respected investigators who are so convinced of the truth and general validity of their formula that they have not scrupled to falsify evidence in its favour. Their sanction is: the end justifies the means” (349). Jung says this is due to the Te’s suppressed feeling function. Te is found mostly among men. “When thinking dominates in a woman it is usually associated with a predominantly intuitive cast of mind” (351).
*Introverted thinking: Like Immanuel Kant (383). Rational (25), taciturn, (385), indifferent to being disliked (384). “New views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. . . . Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake” (380). “He may be polite, amiable, and kind,” but his judgment is ruthless and he thinks people are stupid (384, 385). “Often he is gauche in his behavior, painfully anxious to escape notice, or else remarkably unconcerned and childishly naive. . . . Causal acquaintances think him inconsiderate and domineering. But the better one knows him, the more favorable one’s judgment becomes, and his closest friends value his intimacy very highly. To outsiders he seems prickly, unapproachable, and arrogant” (385). He has a vague fear of women (387), but he is courageous in his thoughts, not caring if they offend anyone. He doesn’t have social skills or skills for delivering his message; rather, he thinks the truth should speak for itself, and gets annoyed if people can’t see the truth he sees (384). “In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence” but is easily taken advantage of socially (385). Common neurosis: “inner debility and increasing cerebral exhaustion—the symptoms of psychasthenia” (383).
*Feeling: “subjective valuation” (518). “They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions” (519). “Feeling” can mean many things, but an example of what Jung means by it is “regret” (emotion), as opposed to feeling that the weather will change (sensation) or that the price of stock will go up (intuition) (538).
*Extraverted feeling: voices opinions which are not the personal opinion of the person, but to create a certain mood or to fulfill social obligations or be polite (355). Jung says this isn’t a pretense or lie, but I disagree. “This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre or to concerts, or go to church, and do so moreover with their feelings correctly adjusted. Fashions, too, owe their whole existence to it” (355). Fe is mostly found in women. She chooses her mate based on how appropriate he is, rather than whether she actually likes him (356). Most common neurosis: hysteria (356, 359).
*Introverted feeling: Mostly women (388). “It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defense” (387). Feels things deeply but keeps her feelings inside (390). “They are mostly silent, inaccessible, hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and their temperament is inclined to melancholy. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. As they are mainly guided by their subjective feelings, their true motives generally remain hidden. Their outward demeanor is harmonious, inconspicuous, given an impression of pleasing repose, or of sympathetic response, with no desire to affect others, to impress, influence, or change them in any way. If this outward aspect is more pronounced, it arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness, which may actually turn into a disregard for the comfort and well-being of others. . . . There is little effort to respond to the real emotions of the other person; they are more often damped down and rebuffed, or cooled off by a negative value judgment. Although there is a constant readiness of peaceful and harmonious co-existence, strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responsive warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness. Often they are made to feel entirely superfluous. Faced with anything that might carry her away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent though critical neutrality, coupled with a faint trace of superiority that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive person. . . . As far as possible, the feeling relationship is kept to the safe middle path, all intemperate passions being resolutely tabooed. Expressions of feeling therefore remain niggardly” (389). Common neurosis: nervous exhaustion, anemia (391).
“Why . . . Does the introverted woman read so attentively? Because above everything else she loves to understand and grasp ideas. Why is she restful and soothing? Because she usually keeps her feelings to herself, expressing them in her thoughts instead of unloading them on others. Her unconventional morality is backed by deep reflection and convincing inner feelings. The charm of her quiet and intelligent character depends not merely on a peaceful attitude, but on the fact that one can talk with her reasonably and coherently, and that she is able to appreciate the value of her partner’s argument. She does not interrupt him with impulsive exclamations, but accompanies his meaning with her thoughts and feelings, which none the less remain steadfast, never yielding to the opposing argument” (154). That describes me very well, but I’ve known introverts who don’t like to read and ones who don’t think deeply about anything. Perhaps it’s because I’m an introverted thinker and feeler, and the other introverts I’m talking about are introverted sensors.
*Sensation: empirical and positivist (523). “All perceptions by means of the sense organs” (518). “Restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account. They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation” (518).
*Extraverted sensation: primarily men, usually a jolly fellow (364). Lives in the present moment (395). “Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations” (362). “His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly” (363). “This type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate” (364). “His love is unquestionably rooted in the physical attractions of its object” (364). Most common neurosis: suspicions, jealousy, anxiety, phobias, compulsions (365).
*Introverted sensation: Instead of living in the present as the extraverted sensation type, this type reaches into the past and future (395). Outwardly calm, passive, and self-controlled (396). Neutral, unsympathetic, unenthusiastic, restrained, keeps people at a distance. “He easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness” (397). Fails at objective understanding and at self-understanding (397). “Knowledge of human character requires empathy, reflection, intuition” (473) (feeling, thinking, intuition), so that might be why sensors lack this knowledge. Common neurosis: compulsion “in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion” (398).
*Intuition: imagination (79), speculative (523). The opposite of sensation (363). “Perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious contents” (518). “An active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out” (366). “Not concerned with the present but is rather a sixth sense for hidden possibilities” (553). “Only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied” (367). When it is the dominant function, the person constantly thinks of new possibilities. When it is not the dominant function, people only use their intuition when they can’t find any other way out of their situation (367). “In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension” (453). “Intuitives concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but surrender themselves wholly to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented” (519).
“Active fantasies are the product of intuition” while “passive fantasies appear in visual form at the outset” (428). Sounds like Jung is saying active fantasies are purposely using the imagination while passive fantasies are like psychic visions that come to us without any effort. “Whereas passive fantasy not infrequently bears a morbid stamp or at least shows some trace of abnormality, active fantasy is one of the highest forms of psychic activity. For here the conscious and unconscious personality of the subject flow together into a common product in which both are united. Such a fantasy can be the highest expression of the unity of a man’s individuality, and it may even create that individuality by giving perfect expression to its unity” (428). Passive fantasy is a product of just the unconscious, not of the ego’s will (429). Dreams are an example of passive fantasies (429). “Anything psychic is Janus-faced—it looks both backwards and forwards” (431). Later Jung says that active fantasy is active imagination, but that these differ from imaginative activity, which can “come into play in all the basic forms of psychic activity, whether thinking, feeling, sensation, or intuition” (433). “Fantasy is a characteristic form of activity that can manifest itself in all four functions” (437).
*Extraverted intuition: Stability feels suffocating. Desires what’s new. “He has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision. . . . Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. . . . Many business tycoons, entrepreneurs, speculators, stockbrokers, politicians, etc., belong to this type. It would seem to be more common among women, however, than among men. In women the intuitive capacity shows itself not so much in the professional as in the social sphere. Such women understand the art of exploiting every social occasion, they make the right social connections, they seek out men with prospects only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility” (368-369). Common neurosis: “compulsive hypochondriacal ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation” (370).
*Introverted intuition: Like a prophet (400). “Has little consciousness of his own bodily existence or of its effect on others” (400). Can be a mystical dreamer or seer, or an artist or crank (401). “If not an artist, he is frequently a misunderstood genius, a great man ‘gone wrong,’ a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for ‘psychological’ novels’” (401). “His language is not the one currently spoken—it has become too subjective. His arguments lack the convincing power of reason. He can only profess or proclaim. His is the ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness’” (402). Common neurosis: compulsion with hypochondriacal symptoms, hypersensitivity of the sense organs, compulsive ties to particular objects or persons (403). The following is true of both introverted intuitives and sensors: reserved, secretive, unsympathetic, uncertain, embarrassed, underestimated, cold, unintentionally harsh & repelling, lacking self-knowledge (403), don’t communicate well (404).
No one type is more valuable than any other (160). Jung was open to the possibility of types other than the ones he described (489, 523, 534). “The four orienting functions do not contain everything that is in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included” (554). (So when people say Si dominant people have better memories than other types, that is not based on Jung.)
Jung never speaks of function stacks, only a top function (called superior, primary, or principal in different parts of the book) and the bottom ones (called inferior, secondary, or auxiliary in different parts of the book), and it sounds like he thinks the bottom functions are all equivalently low; one function is superior in a person, and the other three functions are inferior. (Maybe Myers & Briggs added the function stacks when they added J and P.) “The inferior function always puts us at a disadvantage because we cannot direct it, but are rather its victims” (540). The secondary function is just a hypothesis “since no one has ever seen a secondary function of the brain cells, and no one could demonstrate how and why it has in principle the same contractive effect on subsequent associations as the primary function” (285). Jung’s belief is that our unconscious attitude will be opposite from our conscious one; so if one is an extroverted type, her unconscious (and inferior functions) will be introverted (337, 340, 519, 521). “The anima usually contains all those common human qualities which the conscious attitude lacks. . . . If the persona is intellectual, the anima will quite certainly be sentimental. . . . A very feminine woman has a masculine soul, and a very masculine man has a feminine soul” (468-469). “The more masculine [a man’s] outer attitude is, the more feminine traits are obliterated: instead, they appear in his unconscious” (469). “What the unconscious is in itself is an idle speculation. By its very nature it is beyond all cognition. We merely postulate its existence from its products, such as dreams and fantasies” (520). The type is based on consciously chosen motives, while the inferior/unconscious functions are spontaneous, unadapted, and archaic (522).
So while modern thinking on MBTI online says that there are 4 letter types that have four cognitive functions in a certain order, Jung’s book doesn’t say this at all. He never refers to people as 4 letter types. He pairs an attitude type (extrovert/introvert) with a function (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting). “There are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types,” such as Te, Si, etc (523). “There are thus at least eight clearly distinguishable types” (523).
So while modern MBTI would say “this person is an INTP,” Jung would just say “this person is an introverted thinker.” (Or intuitive introvert.) Only the T (or N) would be dominant. The non-dominant functions would all be equally inferior in this person. And P would not exist at all. Modern MBTI treats “cognitive functions” (te, se, ni, etc.) as if they are the underlying reason behind personality (INTP), while Jung says the attitude + function (Ti or Ni) IS personality. This is an important distinction, because people online point to Jung’s book as the origin of MBTI theory and the reason why cognitive functions are the basis for MBTI type. The truth is that they’re wrong. Jung never said the things they claim he said.
I disagree with Jung on the following:
“The introvert cannot possibly know or imagine how he appears to his opposite type unless he allows the extravert to tell him to his face” (164). I’m an introvert, and I can imagine/know very well what other people think of me, including extraverts.
Jung thought Tertullian was an example of introversion and Origen was an example of extroversion, but I disagree. Tertullian was ferocious and lived lasciviously and illogically (12). Origin was a man obsessed with learning and studying (14-17). The reason for Jung’s mistake is because he takes his definition of “object” to be facts (Tertullian rejected facts, while Origen sought them out), despite in Jung’s later descriptions of extroversion and introversion, the object is people, not facts. In my opinion, the definition of extroversion and introversion should be revised to being about going toward or away from PEOPLE, not any random object. Introverts of course will shy away from people but not away from books or knowledge or gadgets. Not all objects are the same.
Jung’s examples of extraverts (514-515):
St. Augustine: “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it.”
A dutiful daughter: “I could not allow myself to think anything that would be displeasing to my father.”
One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful.
Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests.
He says they are extraverts because they are placing external factors as priority over their own personal beliefs/thoughts/desires. But at other locations in the book (517 for one), Jung also describes introverts as being shy/reserved. IMO, the dutiful daughter is likely to be BOTH shy/reserved AND conform to her parents’ wishes. Shy people tend to be weak willed. I think conformity is something separate from whether one is shy or outgoing. Either of the latter types can be conformers. In modern MBTI, conformity seems to be mainly assessed by the S/N factor. ES and IS types will conform to traditions and orders while EN and IN types will come up with their own ideas and stubbornly stick to their guns rather than cave to social pressure. Some F types might conform to please people like S types, but I can also imagine other F types stubbornly following their heart despite others’ protests. T types would care less about pleasing others. J types would give some consideration to duty and responsibility, while P types would not. So IMO the ultimate non-conformists would be ENTPs while the ultimate conformists would be ISFJs.
“Feeling can never act as the second function alongside thinking, because it is by its very nature too strongly opposed to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must rigorously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not do away with the fact that there are individuals whose thinking and feeling are on the same level, both being of equal motive power for consciousness. But in these cases there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. The uniformly conscious or uniformly unconscious state of the functions is, therefore, the mark of a primitive mentality. Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling” (406).
I disagree because I am very high in both feeling and thinking. Jung’s descriptions of the introverted thinker and the introverted feeler both described me very well. But I am an unusual person, so perhaps Jung’s theory doesn’t account for people like me because he never met someone like me.
Miscellaneous interesting things:
“Libido is energy, and energy cannot disappear without a trace, but must always produce an equivalent” (177).
“Man is constantly inclined to forget that what was once good does not remain good eternally” (185).
Schiller’s “naive genius” which Jung equates with a sensing type extrovert “is wholly dependent on ‘experience,’ on the world, with which he is in ‘direct touch’” (131). Perhaps the reason why other people need experiences in order to learn is because they are extroverts or sensors, while I, an intuitive introvert, never need experience, just internal thought about cause and effect. It also probably helps that I am a T rather than F (logical enough to think things through instead of acting on feelings) and a J rather than P (J types being cautious planners).
“We only ‘think’ of the dead, but the primitive actually perceives them because of the extraordinary sensuousness of his mental images. . . . When the primitive ‘thinks,’ he literally has visions whose reality is so great that he constantly mistakes the psychic for the real” (30). “The instinctive sensuousness of the primitive has its counterpart in the spontaneity of his psychic processes: his mental products, his thoughts, just appear to him, as it were. It is not he who makes them or thinks them—he is not capable of that—they make themselves, they happen to him, they even confront him as hallucinations. Such a mentality must be termed intuitive, for intuition is the instinctive perception of an emergent psychic content. Although the principal psychological function of the primitive is as a rule sensation, the less conspicuous compensatory function is intuition” (152). I wonder how Jung knows these things about primitives. Did he ask any?
Why anarchy doesn’t work: “If freedom is preserved, one is delivered over to the conflict of instincts: ‘Terrified of the freedom which always declares its hostility to their first attempts, men will in one place throw themselves into the arms of a comfortable servitude, and in another, driven to despair by a pedantic tutelage, they will break out into the wild libertinism of the natural state. Usurpation will plead the weakness of human nature, insurrection its dignity, until at length the great sovereign of all human affairs, blind force, steps in to decide the sham conflict of principles like a common prize-fight.’ The contemporary revolution in France gave this statement a living, albeit bloody background: begun in the name of philosophy and reason, with a soaring idealism, it ended in blood-drenched chaos, from which arose the despotic genius of Napoleon. The Goddess of Reason proved herself powerless against the might of the unchained beast” (78).
“Tao is the creative process, begetting as the father and bringing forth as the mother. It is the beginning and end of all creatures. He whose actions are in harmony with Tao becomes one with Tao” (215-216). Interesting how different religions give their god a different name, but they tend to say similar thing about it. Tao is usually said to be “the way,” not “God,” but the way it is called the creative process here reminds me of Edgar Cayce saying God is the creative forces.
“The Christian process demands . . . The sacrifice of the hitherto most valued function, the dearest possession, the strongest instinct” (16).
Christianity’s principle is collective love which violates individuality (73).
“If anyone wants to know what are the ethical consequences of intellectualism pushed to the limit and carried out on a grand scale, let him study the history of Gnostic morals” (17).
Ebionites were Christians who believed Jesus was a naturally conceived man who was chosen by God to be the messiah because of his righteousness (21).
St. Anthony: “On one occasion Satan approached the house one night and knocked at the door, and I went out to see who was knocking, and I lifted up mine eyes and saw the form of an exceedingly tall and strong man; and, having asked him ‘Who art thou?,’ he answered and said unto me: ‘I am Satan.’ And after this I said unto him: ‘What seekest thou?’ And he answered unto me: ‘Why do the monks and the anchorites, and the other Christians revile me, and why do they at all times heap curses upon me?’ And having clasped my head firmly in wonder at his mad folly, I said unto him: ‘Wherefore dost thou give them trouble?’ Then he answered and said unto me: ‘It is not I who trouble them, but it is they who trouble themselves’” (56).
Prometheus rejected Pandora, but Epimetheus took her as his wife (181). Pandora left Epimetheus her daughter Epimeleia (Care), but took Elpore (Hope) with her (180).
songohan's review against another edition
Majority of the book is worthless,should have been 120 pages long at most.
heartsneedle's review against another edition
4.0
4/5
Psychological, Psychoanalysis
“If it is permissible to conceive the natural creature as a “work of art,” then of course man in the Dionysian state has become a natural work of art too; but in so far as the natural creature is decidedly not a work of art in the ordinary sense of the word, he is nothing but sheer Nature, unbridled, a raging torrent, not even an animal that is restricted to itself and the laws of its being."
The first third is a slog through detailed accounts and historical tangents. Then onward, the book adopts a more palatable structure with Jung’s theories becoming more forefront and the comparisons more engrossing.
Psychological, Psychoanalysis
“If it is permissible to conceive the natural creature as a “work of art,” then of course man in the Dionysian state has become a natural work of art too; but in so far as the natural creature is decidedly not a work of art in the ordinary sense of the word, he is nothing but sheer Nature, unbridled, a raging torrent, not even an animal that is restricted to itself and the laws of its being."
The first third is a slog through detailed accounts and historical tangents. Then onward, the book adopts a more palatable structure with Jung’s theories becoming more forefront and the comparisons more engrossing.
dravenk4's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
paula6's review against another edition
4.0
Very impressed with the ideas, and maybe even more the incredible talent for observation. Jung created an entire system out of nothing and it’s as impressive as Mendeleev arranging the periodic table.
evacbj's review against another edition
4.0
Altså ideene hans er fantastiske og vokabularet han presenterer for å diskutere er enda bedre, MEN han er så sykt forsiktig akademiker. Hans egne ideer er fantastiske, men han bruker 90% av tiden for å vise til andre. Hadde vært så mye bedre om han bare fortalt hva han mente. Og siste 3 timene av lydboken er ordforklaringer.
luuminescent's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
More...