Eda: The Myth of Order and Life

Auburn, you wrote this to me almost five years ago (OMG, how time flies!!), elaborating to me about Te when I didn't truly understand it or understood it in a very stereotypical way.  I eternally thank you for what you wrote above, because it helped me sooo much (especially upon my CT return a few months ago) in making me understand a more holistic way of viewing the function. It actually gave me a sense that this was a truly instrumental cognitive process in terms of how to assess the world and perform in the world.    

The side of Edar we haven't talked about as much:

A positive Edar: The Wise King


A positive Edar is the bringer of prosperity, the guardian of his territory against the evils beyond the gates, a champion of applied Logos in relation to ethics. He is the Father archetype for the city, and ushers in a golden age of innovation. He throws out corruption and creates an economy based on just trade and just pay for work. He identifies bottlenecks in the flow of the economy (excessive bureaucracy, crumbling infrastructure, broken roads, inefficiencies) and is quick to remedy them.

A negative Edar: The Corrupt King


A negative Edar is the tyrant, who sits atop his throne and exploits the people of the city. Robbing the poor to fatten up the rich. He's addicted to the power of his position, and takes measures to make sure he's sustained in power. He develops a system of bureaucracies/legislatures in place, with the intent of sustaining his position in power and stifling/inhibiting competition from the lower ranks. He feeds off of the civilian and his labor. He is the devouring Father archetype. Chronos.

You nailed it Auburn!!!  That distinction might be exactly what was needed to fill in the gap for me.  I thought that the myth essentially was equated with the information metabolism.  The fact that it isn't might be the most important takeaway message.  Thanks a million for clarifying this!

Actually, I have one more question about the nature of the Edar myth (and I'm really sorry for asking question after question...they kinda came up spontaneously while reading your posts):

When I wrote about Te, I was talking about responsibility and fulfilling duties, etc. What I'm curious is whether the only Edar myth relates to sovereignty and having power, or could there be a different Edar myth that isn't about that, but is more about taking care of day-to-day responsibilities and doing what is necessary to keep him/herself afloat? Does power per se have to be core to the Edar myth?

Alerith
I have been reminded of your statement about a "period of difficulty during our evolutionary path, where those who could take control over their environment in order to organize methodologies and/or infrastructure were most likely to survive" recently on a bus ride while reading a book. I have been going through The Myth of the Machine (Vol 1) by Lewis Mumford, in which the author argues that the development of humanity as a species did not come from early technical mastery (in fact, he claims that this was a rather weak component in early human development), but from overdeveloped brain that enabled the development of what he calls the 'mind' (which we'd refer to as the psyche). This mind would've led humans to go beyond instinctual stimuli and relatively immediate sensory perception into a self-conscious and rich inner world containing images, sounds, and meanings not immediately suggested by the environment or simple biology, and so enabled the development of human cultures (something far more universal and rich than technical mastery). This archaic human world, according to Mumford, is still best accessible to us in dreams, where the fantastical reigns, yet the main difference between us and our early ancestors is that the latter, when arising as a species, had not yet developed a culture to be able to interpret and control dreams and their inner world. The problem with this is that the fantastical would've poured into the real with such ease (similar to what we know in our day-dreams) that it would've been night impossible to distinguish between the two. Our ancestors would have been haunted and controlled by their fantasies in a way that was detrimental to their very survival, the argument goes. Mumford suggests that humans gained some control over this inner world and so averted catastrophes through the development of cultural rituals, namely the imposition of an external cultural system upon our chaotic inner world so as to create order. This system would've succeeded through its reliance on repetition of ancestral patterns and knowledge, creating regularity. The most obvious cultural system having such repetitious consistency is language, but Mumford argues that it would've taken quite a long time until humans developed language in a sense we'd recognize. Rather, it would've come much more easily for humans to develop a system based on rythmic bodily movements, usually in response to certain events (sunrise, the discovery of food, sexual excitement, etc.); combined with specific sounds, these gestures could have been the origin of language. Through time and repeated common use, these physical gestures could've acquired meanings of their own, repeatable and understandable by virtue of their abstraction from their original circumstantial meaning. Thus physical gestures, according to Mumford, were the earliest means by which humans imposed order on their inner world, and this order came through interaction with other humans.
One thing I found interesting about what Mumford was saying (and I'll have pictures of the relevant text posted soon enough) regarding order and gesticulation is that it reminded me of how the Je functions in CT are concerned with external order and also the ones vultologically most connected to gesticulation. The gestures of Je, just like words, are meant to give external and communicable order to our inner world. So, if Mumford's thesis is correct that human self-organization precedes technical organization of the environment, perhaps the Je functions developed in our history not foremost to take control of our environment, but to take control of ourselves? From there, the Je functions could've been developed further in order to take control of the environment (to which humans may perhaps related in earlier phases simply through pre-psychic, instinctual patterns). 
Of course, this argument poses a problem, namely that it suggests that Te is more closely tied to Fe than it is to Ti (and Fe to Te than to Fi). But maybe it is, and the Ji functions developed from the Je functions to add a subjective aspect to order so that we don't blindly repeat external formulation (or blindly adhere to ritual, as it would commonly be put). This wouldn't be too different from how language is originally an external order we acquire from others, but which then comes to dominate our inner world as well. 
I'm proposing this idea that Te (and Je more generally) developed as a means of imposing order on the psyche rather than the environment not simply because I'd like to speculate differently about our origins. Rather, I'd like to propose that Te isn't necessarily more based in 'actual' utility than any other function, but rather that it derives it's notions of utility from the cultural sphere. Put in other words, the meaning of order is not self-evident, but rather is imbued with meaning by human culture - traditions, discourses, norms, etc. The difference between Te and Fe, from this perspective, would be that Te derives from - and seeks to influence - cultural ideas about what is and how things (or humans) function, while Fe derives from - and also seeks to influence - from cultural ideas about what should be and how things (humans) should function (morally speaking). And if this order is cultural rather than natural, and directed at imposing order on the human psyche and society rather than on the more-than-human environment, we can also understand why Te and Fe can both be so utterly stupid and fail at imposing order. It's not necessarily that somebody who fails has a weakly developed Je, or that that Je is not functioning properly; rather the Je may be functioning well, but deriving its ideas of order from limited cultural ones that don't truly reflect reality outside of that culture or even aspects of the human being that they claim to reflect. It's kind of like trying to put a square peg in a round hole because one's culture calls both of them shapes.

I'm making the above point also because I'd like to further make the same case as mikesilb that "even if Te is incredibly strong in an individual, it is just as possible for that individual to be tremendously at odds with the way that many Te-derived socioeconomic components have been managed". While I agree with Auburn that certain reviser types may have more difficulty with a 9-5 job, I don't think anybody is really inclined to it. Wage labor and work by the clock (and their broader social conditions and results) have only started being significant about two, at most three, centuries ago, and even so only in the past few generations have become the norm for most of us. I think we're still generally inclined to older patterns of living, which are less regulated and monotonous, and more cyclical (in relation to broader nature). Even if articulator types may sometimes (or often) be more productive than reviser types, I don't think Je (or Te specifically) naturally wants to direct its productivity towards the workplace, which I think mikesilb is hinting at.
I say the above because I don't think we need to link Te nor Edar (going beyond simply the information metabolism process) with a particular economic or social mode, as I've seen done a few times with machinery, capitalism and kingship. The former has only been around for a few hundred years (and not very significant until more recently), while the latter is also relatively recent in the broader duration of the human species. All in all, I don't think Edar is necessarily more at home in capitalism or monarchies than other functions, nor less at home in different societies. Focusing on the case of capitalism specifically, there is a narrative of order, stability, and efficiency which sustains and justifies it ideologically, just as other cultures will sustain and justify themselves with similar ideas (but defining and making different assumptions about them differently); all these may appeal to Edar in some way or another. A lot of the criticisms I've seen of capitalism proceed on purely Edar lines. For example:
1) A communist (probably TeSi, maybe SiTe) I knew a while back once argued something like: "We don't want to do away with capitalism and replace it with socialism simply because it will make Mr Smith happy. No, rather socialism must replace capitalism because it is a more efficient way of organizing production." The same guy would argue that due to the limitations imposed by private property rights and profit as a basis of all social activity, capitalism prevented further technological development. Whether his rhetoric really differs from the usual capitalist one is up to debate. My point is that capitalism's supposed efficiency is a cultural idea, and so Edar can disown capitalism if it judges it to not really live up to its claims.
2) See the argument made from about 5:46 onwards that capitalism doesn't function in meeting people's needs (in this case in regards to food): 
The guy, I think, is some sort of NiTe, and his videos do have a strong Te/Edar flavor. If you want to determine his CT, he usually shows his face in his videos, so you can find him on his channel. I just chose this one because it seemed relevant. Basically the argument here is that capitalism fails to really produce the necessary results to secure our existence (with around 1 billion people starving while most of our food goes to waste), and therefore argues that socialism is necessary.
3) Certain environmentalists argue that the capitalism (and civilization more generally) has been destroying and will totally destroy all life on earth to meet its productive goals, and it's utterly stupid to keep up this system not just on ethical grounds, but simply in terms of survival. Derrick Jensen is a good example of this (video in just a moment). He seems to be an Fi-lead to me (and a lot of his thought, and his broader group's thought, is influenced by the Edin myth), but there is a very practical Edar orientation that can be seen in this video discussing the issue of civilization and sustainability (I really recommend watching the whole clip):

From the video: "...we could all become just the most enlightened beings in the entire planet, and it wouldn't matter. The US military would still have to be huge, because otherwise how are we ever going to get our access to our oil that's under somebody else's land? And, so that's on a functional level, that's why it [civilization] is not redeemable...on - on a functional level, which I think for current purposes is really ... And we could talk psychologically and socially [here the Fi case comes in] about why it is [irredeemable] too, but I think for the current purposes that's actually the most important reason - is...because psychologically and socially are really important, but once again you could have this huge transformation of the heart, and if you still require the importation of resources, what are you going to do about it?" In other words, capitalism/civilization is basically suicidal, and so 
it simply doesn't make sense (nor appeal to Edar in his version) to maintain it.
These examples above aren't put there to make the authors' case for them, but simply to show that Edar is based not on an totally natural or practical order, but foremost on cultural ideas about the nature of reality and how it functions, and then attempting to impose that order of reality upon ourselves and the environment. For some this could mean machines, capitalism, or kingship. But for those for whom none of these things correspond to reality, Edar would see it as delusional to maintain those things, and call for their end on simply practical grounds. (When joined together with other myths, there would be other grounds as well.)

I realize certain points of what I've written have been addressed since I started writing, but this has taken a while to write and I think parts of it are still important, so I want to leave it here. Thoughts?

I'm not sure if this is my faux-Ti happening or if Te also legitimately wants self-consistency, but I can tell you that I really value logical consistency in general....especially if one builds a conceptual framework upon a hierarchy of premises/concepts that properly build upon each other (in a way that is akin to larger Lego structures being built upon Lego-block-connected-to-Lego-block [in sort of a nested/emergent hierarchy]). I crave systems that are robust (in that they 'work') based on the building up of logical premises into a structure that is quite beautiful and elegant. (Frankly, a massive reason why I am such a fan of what Auburn is doing here is because his theoretical/logical foundations are rock solid and robust [in a way that honors Jungian type in a very archetypal manner and then uses these core foundations to take these concepts to 'the next level']).

I also should add that I am a massive junkie for structural emergence. I really enjoy learning about structures/architectures that build up in 3 or more dimensions, from their 2D underpinnings and form something inherently larger (and potentially more meaningful) than the sum of its parts. This alone is one of my favorite scientific/engineering topics...and I'd like to think that this is a Te component (perhaps combined with Ni/Se).

So I guess that what I'm trying to say here is that I value this type of consistency of logic/form/function, etc. Again, is this faux-Ti or natural Te? That I am not completely sure about, but it undoubtedly is a major theme of my intellectual pursuits in general.

Amazing point, Linus !!! I find (both as a Te-dom and as an Enneagram 6) that what you wrote is incredibly true for me. Yes, it can lead me to make my environment orderly...however, even above and beyond this, I find that this is a way to provide this type of order to my inner world. It allows me to stay on course and not to veer too much off course. I also believe that many 6s (but certainly not all.....perhaps more on the self-preservational and phobic side of the spectrum) will aim for this internal self-regulation in order to remain on track and to fulfill a superego marching order of 'doing what is expected of them'.

I think that with this comes a lot of internal self-dialogue about keeping focused, staying on course, and doing what is needed to move forward with the goals (both short term [daily] and long term [monthly/yearly]) that I have prioritized for myself. It comes with the understanding that going into a P-oriented mode can and will happen in the course of the day (which is fine too) but as long as the focus is still about 'moving forward' and 'doing what is expected', then all is ok. It also largely stresses the concept of putting in top-notch effort into things, and to try not to do things half-assed/half-committed.

So I very much relate to this point that you made about Te being about a way to provide a sense of internal order so that I essentially stay on course and take care of what is needed throughout the course of the day.

Outstanding point!!!