Post by Auburn on Aug 11, 2016 14:47:07 GMT -5
Presently observed complications:
It was my initial suspicion that the closest degree of balance between the 4 functions in a person's psyche would lead to the most optimal developmental trajectory and competence, and that perhaps a person's degree of personal refinement would reflect the observable ratio of function use between Ji/Pe/Je/Pi.
But several celebrities utterly break this observation. For example, we have TiNe Noam Chomsky who is exceedingly heavy in Si, and this TiSi modality in which he exists doesn't prevent him from achieving a high level of personal mastery. While we might be tempted to say his lack of use of Fe cripples some element of his ethical consideration, he actually manifests high levels of ethical concern through his philosophical opinions, and has an arguably more effective activist spirit than many ethical types, even though he's not himself charming or charismatic in real-time.
To give another example, we have TiSe Elon Musk. In conversation he stutters, pauses and momentum halts in all the typical ways expected of a one-sided Ti-lead. However, in application his ideas are just as much informed by rational necessity as they are about the needs of planetary safety, legacy, and humanitarian concerns. In other words there is a difference, it seems, between observable equilibrium in modality (ratio of real-time expressiveness of the 4 processes) and the degree of achieved competence or mastery within a given process.
This lends to the suspicion that perhaps the 4 main subtypes of each cognitive type are equally capable of following trajectories of mastery. The FeNi-Fe, the FeNi-Ni, the FeNi-Se, the FeNi-Ti... each might possess different and separate degrees of refinement, rather than refinement being a gradient through which these four "imbalances" aim to converge into one center-balanced type.
After all, the FeNi-Ni Steve Jobs honed his visionary sense over many years and without nurturing that visionary sense as much as he did, he would not have achieved as much as he did. It may be necessary, even, for a sort of specialization to occur, for the full potential of any one energetic direction/quadrant to manifest. What, then, does it mean to develop and how does it work, exactly?
I'd like to put forth one idea that I think might help open up a greater discussion on this topic, though I suspect this starting-point may evolve into something entirely different by the end.
Enlightenment vs. Development?
One realization I've come to nurture, having existed largely within the Ji/Pe functions for many years of my life, and having striven to integrate Fe and Si to formulate a cohesive psyche, is that enlightenment is not as mysterious and unreachable as it's made out to be, but it also doesn't automatically make you a "master" of anything. (And I'm using the word enlightenment incorrectly here, I apologize for the lack of better vocabulary... I hope the concept comes across somehow !)
- Enlightenment is appreciation of polarities
- Enlightenment is inner reconciliation/convergence of those polarities
- Enlightenment is the removal of fears, the decision and capacity to be yourself
- Enlightenment is rebirth into a new being that is internally a choir and has figured out a way to exist in unison between objective and subjective reality.
But as a reborn entity, this inner synchronization doesn't automatically birth competence. It births peace from an absence of inner dissonance (as Ji and Je converge in purpose, and Pe and Pi converge in mapping strategies), but we have yet to use it to build or make something in life.
- Development births ability
- Development births a greater contextual understanding
- Development is the acquisition of skills and methodologies capable of managing the situations of life
- Development is mastery in the context of a given paradigm of success
Development is situational; it's the growth of a function's scope due to exercised experience navigating the avenues of life. What I've come to sense is that "maximum potential" isn't something a human being can reach through the strictly spiritual, meditative or rational. Inasmuch as a human is both spiritual and corporeal; his full expression is not seen without a gritty, particular integration with life itself.
Humans are therefore specific beings, and mastery is always seen in the context of a given story or gameplay. There is no universal blueprint for a fully mastered (insert type); the mastery manifests by what the culture and society requires at a given era -- and the type rises to meet that era in all its specificity.