While reading Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams by Carl Jung, I noticed he kept an open mind to the existence of other functions. Thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition are “just so many viewpoints among others, including willpower, temperament, imagination, memory, morality, religiousness etc.”
Starting with spirituality, I formed a description of two functions: nihilism and spiritualism. This was done to challenge the belief that intuitives are typically more concerned with philosophy and the unknown aspects of existence than sensors. Needless to say, that’s not necessarily the case.
Such categories are artificial constructions, labels we use for things we don’t really understand. They have no objective existence outside our perception of them. They merely point at something else. So, I sought to point from a different angle.
With the philosophical functions established, I turned my attention to epistemic philosophy. I remembered the work of C. George Boeree and his seven perspectives theory. It explores the way in which different types analyse information from different perspectives. With his theory of perspectives in mind, I considered that perhaps there was a link between epistemic ideas and psychological typology. This required I analyse the process by which we determine what we know as well as what we believe.
Drawing parallels to the Ti and Te functions, I sought to explore inductive and deductive reasoning. These things, although inherently concerned with thinking, may find data from a variety of sources that could include feeling, sensation and intuition. These functions were capable of encompassing the cognitive functions rather than challenging them. Hence, there is no clash between them and Jung’s functions in this regard.
There is, however, a new distinction between judging and perceiving. The judging label is applied to those functions that tend to consider their explanations as unquestionable facts. Extroverted spiritualism, introverted nihilism, extroverted induction and introverted deduction all have a tendency towards such conclusiveness. Meanwhile, the perceptive functions tend to work with a collection of possibilities and ideas. With this in mind, it was possible to form four letter types from the functions available.
This led to the comparison of types. Inspired by tritype theory and the theory of shadow functions, I sought to attribute archetypes to each type. Likewise, I desired to describe other aspects of the Jungian psyche with archetypes. So, the aspirational and conscience types may be equated with the self. Meanwhile, the primary and unconscious types could be equated with the ego and the shadow.
It is this holistic viewpoint that offers another descriptive aspect to ETI. It is possible to analyse not only our own type, but that of the whole crowd of inner voices that help us form our ideas. We may then allow a person’s type a greater degree of fluidity. Nobody is excluded from fully utilising any function should they choose. They need only focus on it and practice.
Furthermore, I sought to ensure that there was a greater degree of flexibility than there is in other typing systems. So frequently, when using such systems, a subject is forced to question their own type and may feel reticent about choosing a type. This understandably prevents acceptance or committed use of such systems. Even tritype theory, which encourages us to question our enneagram type, emphasises the idea of discovering one’s true type rather than picking it. ETI differs in that it not only allows us to define ourselves, but also to defy ourselves. This, it is my hope, will allow for more effective typing.
Comments