The Path to Self Mastery

Measuring Development through a Global/Behavioral Perspective

So then, given the above, we could reasonably ask --- how is your Pi function? how is your Ji function? how would you rate your level of actualization of each of these functions?

This approach may present a more meaningful, global, analysis about our state in comparison to what is achievable and observable elsewhere. Someone with the knowledge-base of Tolkien, the integrity of Ghandi, the passion/vigor of Martin Luther King Jr. and the flexibility/adaptability of a professional improv actor, would be a powerful mixture.

We may, for instance, discover a person who says:

• My life doesn't give me time to center.
  ------------------------------------
  
• My knowledge is so limited, I don't know enough to assert anything.
  ------------------------------------
  
• I don't have enough energy to try new things.
  ------------------------------------
  
• I can't do public speaking, I freeze up.
  

Perhaps these sort of statements can be used as a starting point for a quantifiable methodology for development. One that doesn't divorce a person's inner journey from their environmental reality or their personal/functional competence.

This is something I am still debating, so I welcome any input. My present position is that -- just as CT doesn't discriminate between mind and body -- psychology is not complete without also analyzing the situations in which a person exists and thus thrives. So "being fully developed", by this reasoning, isn't something that one could achieve in the comfort of their introspective corner. It would require the development of capabilities in the outer world, just as much as the nurturing of internal faculties.

While, for instance, Ji's full actualization would be possible just through the introspective, it doesn't represent mastery in all domains. A person can be an expert of one domain, while being competent/okay/lacking in others. I haven't yet come across a person who has fully actualized all four functions, but in some cases 1 to 2 are at their highest potential.

Doctrines of Mastery

This is, I believe, why we have so many varied philosophies of mastery. You go to self-help sections in bookstores, and you come across pragmatic philosophies of actualization such as "The Magic of Thinking Big" (Je) and it's next to very different philosophies of actualization such as "Peace is Every Step" and "Be free where you are." It seems to me like every person who actualizes one of their functions has a tendency to advertise that approach as the best approach. They're not incorrect in their information, but it simply isn't the whole picture -- and at times aiming to follow an actualization/mastery philosophy that is not suited to your starting nature can be unfulfilling.


Ty to anyone that's made it to the end of this very long post chain! <.<
I'm sorry for not being able to explain myself more succinctly..

Brilliant explanation, Auburn , as usual

This all brings some thoughts to mind, if I may share. First, I think you are quite correct that development is situational and therefore dependent on nurture/life circumstances. I think that what you describe as enlightenment is one and the same as individuation; achievement of self-knowledge and internal cohesion of opposites. As you say, individuation and development are different processes, one does not beget the other. One can be quite one-sided and/or naive of their own internal dynamics, but still be highly developed in using one or more of their processes to achieve methods or results. (Some politicians are a great example of this.. *ehem*) I think this shows the difference between general, holistic psychology and the functions, and further highlights what you've written in the book about the role of the functions in the psyche. They are the automatic patterns of thought processes, regardless of the specific content/knowledge which exists in one's mind.. more how one thinks, not what they think. When we speak of development, we could also describe it as one's level of practice and skill at using a function in a particular context. Mastery, as you indicate, would then be the highest level of skill.

Practice Makes Perfect

If we look at the functions as one's tool set for managing existence, then it makes sense that the context and technique with which one learns to use their tools would define their development. Like a student of watercolor painting, one can learn etegami, brush painting, or sumi-e technique, each utilizing the same brush sets and paints, but with very different results.

Ne: Let's paint with Fe guys! *grabs Fe and dips her into paint palette*

In this way, the functions are adaptable and can be used in a variety of circumstances and ways. I think this is why development varies as much as it does, and we see things like double introversion and extroversion, and different forms of Fe, such as adaptive and directive. We learn how to utilize our thought processes as we go, just as with any other asset, and will develop more and more sophisticated techniques as we practice and gain knowledge over time.

Stress as a Forming Factor

Since the functions are our adaptive tool set for managing existence, it makes sense that they would be effected by the pressures of life. Therefore, we could expect our greatest stress factors to be the greatest factors forming our development.

You use Elon Musk as an example of someone who has achieved functional mastery. But why is this? We can tell something about the causality of his development from looking at his current functionality; he is someone very convicted to align reality (Ji) to his vision of the future (Ni). The conflict of his own ideals with the present state of the world was a point of stress in his psyche, so much so that he developed the capability to not only to conceive of what needed to be done logistically to manifest his vision, but he developed the capacity to manage a vast corporation of people in order to pull it off. This stress, this strain in reaching for his ideals developed his Ti, Ni and Fe, because he had to utilize them in order to reconcile his impetus.

I think that the 'fears' of each energetic quadrant you've described represent some of the possible stressors which can compel one to develop an under-expressed function further. They seem to me to be expressions of psychological deficit, which often are expressed as fear (fear being the body's warning sign that something's threatening/not right). Overall, it seems whenever we find our self feeling fear or conflict, something stressful, this is an opportunity for growth; for adapting and overcoming.

Maladaptive Development

Speaking of stress, I think it's important to note that it takes the right kind of stress in the right amounts to induce development toward mastery. Destructive stress such as trauma, or even too much positive stress for too long a time, can lead to the opposite; the impairment of the functions.

As discussed in other threads, function strength is relatively equivalent to its degree of conscious integration; the more conscious a function is, the more engagement it has in the personality and therefore the more practice we have with it (this is a working hypothesis, of course). Trauma can lead to the suppression of a function into unconsciousness, or the over amplification of a function as a coping reaction without necessarily inducing better use over time. As I've seen it, the operation of a function can become neurotic, and instead of directly adapting in response to a situation it will default to an automatic self-defensive strategy.

There are a number of common default defense mechanisms which include deference (projection, blame), denial (suppression, detachment), bluffing (overcompensation, dishonesty), and resistance (moralism, conservatism), to name the ones which come to mind. These are all results of the entire operation of psychology, however it seems that certain mechanisms are more likely to be utilized by certain types. High worldview types, for example, seem to default to resistance strategies, as Pi operates by preserving pre-existing schemas in order to gain a sense of stable knowledge. From what I've seen in general, Ji types tend toward denial and projection, and Je toward bluffing as well.

These sort of correlations seem to be indicated by things such as the enneagram, which is a whole other discussion that I believe has been taking place in other threads.

Intentional Development

In addition to one's natural inclinations and the happenstance nurture they receive, I think you're right that there can be strategies for intentionally inducing development. If we think about how to take advantage of the intrinsic adaptability of the functions via practice, and listen to each of the quadrant's fears in order to structure intelligent approaches which align with them, I think a great deal of growth can be achieved.

I like the ideas you've posted so far regarding this. I have a few things to add that I've actually had in mind for a while..

First, for Worldview, I think that exercising memorization is a very direct way of strengthening the function. Random facts are probably not as ideal as whole paradigms of knowledge, such as taxonomies or languages. If we take your example of Tolkien, he was someone fluent in multiple languages and who read extensively about history - something that interrelates events in a causal manner. I think this sort of study of complex topics which require the formation of frameworks may be one of the best ways to develop Pi.

For Compass, I agree that development of internal awareness is important, but I think in this special attention should be paid to one's principles. Asking yourself why you make the decisions you do, what underlays them, is a great way to become conscious of your own principles. Study of philosophy is another way to develop Ji, since much of philosophy is about how one could/should orient their self to the world. I think studying how others have developed their principles can help one to develop their own compass process. Deduction of causalities, how things operate in the real world, may be one of the best ways to develop Ji. This can apply both to logistical causalities, or emotional/psychological.

For Explorer, I really like the idea of learning to accept failure. I'd take it a step further, though, and after accepting the failure, let it inspire alternative methods. In general, I think one of the best ways to engage and develop Pe is to think about alternatives. When faced with a situation, taking some extra time to think about other ways of doing things can lead to creative and progressive outcomes. Speaking of creativity, I think engaging in creative activities - art, music, dancing, etc. - would also be a great way to engage Pe. Humor, as a creative action, also practices Pe.

For Articulator, you seem to have some really good ideas for this one ^^ I think, in general expression of one's ideas via language is a way to develop Je. Engaging in formal argument may be one of the most ideal methods to express and refine Je.


Notes:

On the Si library:



Re: Je expression.. more specifically, how I feel about Fe:

I think this is very true. The way I've thought of it recently is that the functions as defined in typology are only 8 of many which exist in the psyche. The interaction between all of these elements is what births the whole complex system of a human being, and so no element can be left out when coming to understand ourselves.

The 8 functions, as we discussed already, define how we structure information in the mind. The structure of the information which makes up our psyche is a big part of our personality, so type is quite relevant to development, especially when considering learning approaches. But the other part is about the actual content that's there, and I think this does effect how our functions operate since information dictates strategy. Especially when dealing with maladaptive strategies, what we think can greatly determine developmental success. So I agree that both the method and data must be considered when addressing growth.

I've had some thoughts about an approach to identify the development of the functions. I think that describing the traits of each function as it manifests at different degrees of development may provide a good basis for self-analysis. I imagine these descriptions centering on capability - since mastery is the highest level of skill. If one can identify their skill level with a function, then they can define how they'd like to improve. This then would define their developmental path.

Using Fe as an example for this approach:

Level 1 - Adaptive Submissive Fe is the passive, less energy intensive modality of the function. At this level of skill, one will either have little idea of what they would like to achieve socially, and so go with the flow of the situation by default, or they'll put their direction aside in order to accommodate the direction of others. This is necessary for the adaptive Fe user because they haven't developed the use of their function enough to know how to present their direction, especially in a way that doesn't risk causing conflict.

Level 1.2 - Directive Ego-Centric Fe is the inverse of Adaptive Fe, but representative of the same level of development. Although the user is conscious to some degree of what they want, they may have trouble getting it, as they will be too focused on their own principles and lack the ability to direct a situation collaboratively. They may be frustrated when others disagree with them and make it difficult for their direction to manifest, but this frustration exists because of the limitation of their own skill to persuade others successfully. In this mode, Fe comes across as forceful and controversial.

Level 2 - Adaptive Diplomatic Fe represents a low-intermediate skill level, where one will attempt to balance a social situation by playing a primarily submissive/listening role. One's own desire/direction may not be communicated at all, but they will utilize their Fe to balance the overall social/emotional atmosphere around them. This level could also be described as the Fe Counselor, as they take a passive role and their function is used for the direct benefit of others. A higher level of knowledge about social dynamics has been achieved, but there is still not enough skill/confidence for one to feel comfortable about voicing their own opinion or to achieve a specific outcome.

Level 3 - Directive Diplomatic Fe is an intermediate-high skill level where one can often succeed at inspiring collaboration toward a desired direction. This mode could also be described as the Fe Coordinator, as they have the ability to intelligently coordinate groups of people. They have achieved a conscious awareness of what outcome they desire, and enough knowledge and skill to communicate it in a way that influences others while not making them feel forced into their direction. At this level, one will take their own and other's desires into consideration and use compromise to achieve a harmonious collaboration. Their knowledge will be enough to navigate most common social situations, but they may still struggle with more complex/difficult scenarios or those they haven't encountered directly before.

Level 4 (Mastery) - Suave Fe represents a high level of understanding and skill. Enough has been learned about social dynamics that one can intelligently navigate any social situation and most often achieve their desired outcome. They will have a keen awareness of the social/emotional climate, and an advanced framework for interpreting/understanding it. Partially due to this understanding, they will be capable of clear and emotionally impactful articulation that is attuned precisely to their situation. These are the people who always seem to know just what to say and do, and who can seemingly magically turn a situation around into their favor. They will be capable of devising creative approaches to communicating and socializing which may be unexpected, but will be effective and achieve the results they're looking to manifest.