The dichotomies in the ETI system reveal that there are some types who’s epistemic functions blatantly clash with one another. If the four dichotomies are spiritual/nihilist, deductive/inductive, nominalist/realist and positivist/interpretivist, the following adversarial pairings emerge:
- provocateur and sage
- gambler and seeker
- healer and warrior
- guardian and hedonist
These adversaries are not necessarily against each other in terms of their views and beliefs. Likewise, there is nothing preventing them from getting along with each other. They are simply the type that differs most from your true self. The process by which they determine what they know is completely different rather than being the opposite (which is the case with the shadow type). Therefore they are more likely to consider the views of another fallacious.
We do, however, cross this gap ourselves sometimes. Whether acting in jest or sincerely seeking to balance our own opinions, we may look at things from an adversarial perspective. Integrating our adversarial type gives us the nuance required to engage with ideas in a dispassionate and serious way. It helps the primary type overcome its biases.
A shadow of the adversarial type also exists within ourselves. If the adversary grounds us in reality, it’s shadow allows us to fantasise. Such fantasies occur when the adversarial type is rejected and inverted. The fantasy pairs are the following:
- guardian and sage
- healer and seeker
- gambler and warrior
- provocateur and hedonist
When we utilise the fantasy type, we are overcome by what Jung described as illegitimate interest. Jung writes in Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, the relationship between the Ego and the Unconscious that such an illegitimate interest arises from “mere intellectual curiosity or a flight from an unpleasant reality”. It differs greatly from the legitimate interests that reflect “the deepest and truest needs of the individual” which, in ETI, would be the needs of the primary type. This indicates that a person overcome by the fantasy type has needs that cannot be met in their unpleasant circumstances and therefore must be sublimated into fantasy.
This doesn’t paint a bad picture of the fantasy type though. Rather, it is in some ways heroic. Everyone finds themselves in situations where the deepest and darkest needs of the individual cannot be met. An attempt at trying to meet all these needs would likely cause a fair deal of suffering to the individual and those around them. Therefore, a quixotic fantasy type is necessary for a person’s integration into a wider society. It provides the distraction and joy required for a fulfilling life that isn’t damaging to society at large.
Consequently, it is necessary to be able to use both the adversarial type and the fantasy type. An adversarial type forces us to question our passions in favour of what we really need. Meanwhile, the fantasy type lets us cope with those needs that we cannot meet. Both deserve equal respect and effort or they may outweigh each other. When the adversarial type is outweighed by the fantasy type, the individual suffers from unmet needs which cause further suffering to those around them. When the adversarial type dominates, wider society suffers from unmet needs which sooner or later afflicts the individual with guilt, shame and neediness.
Comments