The MBTI: Trying to get to the bottom of it.

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

This post presumes basic knowledge of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Hindu gunas.

I think the key to the stairway leading to the bottom is in the recognition that the four functions correspond to the four classical elements as follows:

Sensing = Earth;
iNtuition = Fire;
Thinking = Air;
Feeling = Water.

I didn’t think this up, it’s actually implicit in Jung and has been noted by many since. So let’s look at the relations between the elements:

We see here that Air (Thinking) and Water (Feeling) have something in common with each other, and Earth (Sensing) and Fire (iNtuition) as well—just as we would expect, considering that the former are the Judging and the latter the Perceiving functions. The quality of ‘wetness’ will then correspond with the quality of Judging, and the quality of ‘dryness’ with the quality of Perceiving.

But what about the qualities of ‘hotness’ and ‘coldness’? These must be what I have been looking for for a while. Apparently Thinking and iNtuition have something in common with each other, and Feeling and Sensing as well. May it indeed be, as I’ve suggested before, that the Sensing/iNtuition and the Thinking/Feeling dichotomies are two forms—the Perceiving and Judging forms, respectively—of one basic dichotomy?

I have just analysed the four elements in the Western (Greek) way. I will now do the same in the Eastern (Indian) way. According to the Hindus, the four elements can be analysed as follows:

  • in Fire, sattva predominates over rajas;
  • in Air, rajas predominates over sattva;
  • in Water, rajas predominates over tamas;
  • in Earth, tamas predominates over rajas.

There are no elements that contain both sattva and tamas, as these, being opposite poles, repel one another.

It appears now that where rajas predominates, the elements are ‘wet’; whereas where it is predominated, the elements are ‘dry’. And we already know what this means in the context of the MBTI, namely, that the functions are Judging or Perceiving functions, respectively. The predominance of rajas, cognate with raja, “king”, makes a function Judging.—

[size=95]The [members of the] second [caste]: they are the guardians of the law, those who see to order and security, the noble warriors, and above all the king as the highest formula of warrior, judge, and upholder of the law.
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 57.][/size]
(The three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, are indeed connected in Hinduism with the different castes. The highest caste, the brahmins, are supposed to be ruled by sattva; the second caste, the warriors, are supposed to be ruled by rajas; and the lowest caste is supposed to be ruled by tamas.)

On to the basic dichotomy I’ve been looking for. The Indian analysis suggests that the difference between Thinking and iNtuition on the one hand, and Feeling and Sensing on the other, is in whether an element contains sattva or tamas. The Greek analysis suggests that the difference consists in whether an element is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. But what does this mean? All I can say at this point is that I know now that Sensing is to iNtuition as Feeling is to Thinking. But what is this ‘same difference’ that is the basic dichotomy I’ve been looking for?

2

After giving this some thought and looking up info on the gunas, I think it’s a mistake to try to force fit the MB types, through associating them with the gunas, into the notion of a class system. No matter where one lives, no matter the place or culture, a person will have their combination of the four types, one dominant and one non-dominant in each of the four pairs. Also, it’s a mistake to try to associate “rajas” and “raja.” They are not cognate and are not connected etymologically.

This last paragraph you wrote is problematical:

There is no basic dichotomy. As you pointed out earlier, it is better to think in terms of progessions on a scale or spectrum. If you then attempt to define a clear dichtotomy, all you get is being and nothingness really, two extremes which divide the two aspects of each pair to the point that each part exists solely and independently of the other, which is an actual impossibility that is only possible as an idea. That is not how the pairs work in the psyches of real people in a living world where dichotomies are more mental constructs than actualities in praxis separate and distinct.

3

I was just making the connection rajas-Judging, though I must admit I was anticipating a rank-ordering of the types.

Where did you get this? Wikipedia?

But a dichotomy can also be a scale. The two opposites are then poles, not absolute antitheses. They are then the two poles of one single quality.

I agree.

4

Fire and Air are traditionally considered masculine (Yang); Water and Earth, feminine (Yin).

Earth is dry, Water is wet. This symbolises the two poles of the female: the Virgin and the Mother, respectively.

Fire is dry, Air is wet. This symbolises the two poles of the male: the Father and the Youth, respectively. Heraclitus says:

[size=95]When a man is drunk he is led stumbling along by a boy, having his soul wet.[/size]
The Father becomes a Youth when he is taken over by wine, i.e., Dionysus. The Father is Apollinian, the Youth Dionysian: i.e., in Fire, Apollo predominates over Dionysus in a man’s soul; whereas in Air, Dionysus predominates over Apollo.

When woman is taken over by Dionysus, she becomes biologically attuned to motherhood (or at least to what leads naturally to motherhood). In Water, Dionysus prevails over Artemis in her soul; whereas in Earth, Artemis prevails over Dionysus. Dionysus is androgyne, so he’s not exclusive to men.

Apollo = Sattva;
Dionysus = Rajas;
Artemis = Tamas.

5

The notion of ranks is one that is embedded into our consciousness and has a long-standing energy. It’s in the playing cards, isn’t it, which are derived from the Tarot? The suits are ranked. Spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs are ranked from high to low in contract bridge and other games.

The Tarot suits, however, are not ranked. They are more important for what they represent. The cards are basically archetypal and meant for reading and opening up both the psyche and life to the person of the reading. Here’s a good link on those meanings: http://www.tarotteachings.com/tarot-card-suits.html

In the book I’m reading by Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, Jung never speaks of such things in terms of rank but always and only in terms of archetypes.

As for me, I find it much easier to look at the notion of rank from the perspective of the Enneagram, which I believe accounts for both the idea of rank and its manifestation in the world in a very understandable way. It also accounts for the way that rank is meaningless or unimportant to some people, while being very important to others.

Maybe, that was one of several sites I visited.

OK, as long as it’s understood that no one psyche exists at either extreme but rather somewhere along the scale incorporating both sides as a pair, one dominant and the other less dominant.

Touralai ay. Maybe it’s a good idea to steer clear of dichotomies then.

6

These distinctions make no sense to me. Could you elaborate on each so I can see why you associate the Greek gods that way?

7

Well, Wikipedia just says: “Rajas is etymologically unrelated to the word raja”, without offering a source or a basis for that claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guṇa#In_Samkhya_philosophy). Do any of the other sites you visited offer such a thing?

Not to me, for the reason I gave: ‘a dichotomy can also be a scale. The two opposites are then poles, not absolute antitheses. They are then the two poles of one single quality.’

8

Let me ask you this, Sauw. Why do you think “raja” and “rajas” are related when wiki says they’re not? Do you have any proof, or do you just assume it because they look similar?

Ermm. How would that work? Can you provide an example?

9

I assumed it because they looked similar and because I can easily associate them. But it appears I was indeed wrong. My Indian source tells me:

[size=95]No they are not cognates. The word King stems from the root word r"aa"jan or raat - to reign, to direct, to govern, to be illustrious, to be full of splendour, to radiate, to shine, to illuminate.

The word Rajas r"a"jas is possibly a root-word itself and means dust, pollen of flowers, impurity (i.e. power of the dirt), dimness, ploughed land (anything that is “active”), cultivated or arable dusty land (again, fertilizing power of the dirt), and mainly the menses or menstrual discharge. Restlessness, extreme activity and also the stimulating/over-stimulating. It has to do with excitation, passion and mainly redness.
A menstruating woman is called Rajasvala…

So comparatively speaking, if King/Raaj means to shine, Rajas means redness or the energy of red or the power of dirt.[/size]

Alright then, that’s settled. Still, it was never in question that Thinking and Feeling (in which rajas predominates) were Judging functions.

I’ve already provided one: heat and cold. There is no such thing as cold in itself, only lesser and greater heat.

The same goes for respectively brightness and darkness, strength and weakness, heaviness and lightness, thickness and thinness, etc. etc.

10

Very simply put, Apollo is calm, Dionysus is passionate, and Artemis is virginal (i.e., infertile).

There is an important feminine counterpart to what Heraclitus says of a man who gets drunk. The Egyptian goddess Sekhmet, whom I identify with Athena (another virginal Greek goddess!), became Hathor (identified with Aphrodite, who in Euripides’ Hippolytus is antithesised to Artemis) after she got drunk.

Dionysus is where the masculine and the feminine meet.

11

Thanks for this wonderful clarification. After you make the appropriate revisions in your schema, will you then continue on with it?

Thanks. I hope you will include this in your schema as it progresses.

12

I don’t think any revisions are necessary. Do you?

It remains to be seen if I’ll be able to. For that would mean I would have to regard Feeling as a privation of Thinking, for instance. But for the time being, I think I must consider all four functions equally substantial.

13

I suppose it depends if you are going to include the incorrect information on “raja” and “rajas” as cognates. Anyway, I think you would just have to post your schema again and then see if it stands up to criticism. So far, it’s pretty good, except where you try to force it into “Nietzschean” ranks or castes. That just doesn’t pass the smell test. However, I’ve been thinking about ranks a bit, using contract bridge as a metaphor. The suits do have rank, but the game also has a very interesting No Trump bid which has its own scheme and scoring system and sort of sets the ranks on their heels, so to speak. The Tarot, however, is rank free; it’s the symbology that matters there, along with the energy of the reading.

I’m sure it will work out fine. The whole thought process here is very interesting.

14

I wouldn’t, but I don’t think that changes anything fundamentally.

That’s a question of taste, I think, but what I said about castes was between brackets, anyhow; and that quote from The Antichrist was only meant to connect rajas with Judging, by way of the notion of the raja, the king, as judge.

Actually, the Tarot is not rank free (the Minor Arcana being the same as the suits). The trump cards are ranked thus:

King;
Queen;
Knight;
Page.

These represent Fire, Water, Air, and Earth, respectively. (Thus the King of Wands, for instance, is Fire of Fire.) This implies that the different symbols are ranked as follows:

Wands;
Cups;
Swords;
Pentacles.

This is at odds with the order of rank I had in mind, namely:

Fire;
Air;
Water;
Earth.

Then again, I have often wondered if Water and Air ought not to switch places. After all, in the Zodiac the order is: Fire - Earth - Air - Water; whereas what one would expect is: Fire - Earth - Water - Air. For the order of the Zodiac signs symbolises a gradual development, so there could be no leaps like from Earth to Air and from Water to Fire. This problem would be solved if we swapped Water and Air. But then Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius would be Water signs, whereas Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces would be Air signs. However, only the names of the elements would change; not their characteristics. So this isn’t really a problem. Air would indeed be moist and warm, whereas it is now usually thought of as cold (Swords).

15

I think it does.

I dislike the caste/rank stuff as it applies in the world of society, politics and economics; but if there is a way that it helps illuminate the psyche and the way we humans deal with the world, then I suppose it could be informative.

I think it would be very interesting if you could resolve these problems. I don’t know if you can or not, but you seem to be moving in that direction, so I hope you can work it out. Best of luck anyway.

16

What, then?

17

I had already been thinking that I shouldn’t have been so outright negative. Maybe it doesn’t but I just don’t see it. I should ask: how is it that it doesn’t change anything fundamentally? How would your system work without the raja/rajas components?

18

It doesn’t have to. It only has to work without the raja component. And the warrior caste, of which the king (raja) is the highest member, is still supposed to be ruled by rajas. So my association rajas—king—Judging is still valid. But even if it wasn’t, that wouldn’t matter: the Judging functions correspond with the elements predominated by rajas anyhow.

19

Sauw, have you ever heard of Socionics? I was rummaging through the wiki article on Jung and came across it. It’s like the Russian version of the types but way beyond my psychological pay grade to figure out. Since you’ve delved into these types and their cross-cultural ramifications more deeply and personally than I have or ever will, it might be interesting and possibly useful in some way. I’d like to know what you think. Here’s a link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

Take care,
j

20

Yes, I’d heard of it, and knew a bit about it, but had never read the Wikipedia article. I’m glad I did, though, as it gave me the connections I was looking for (though I don’t fully understand them yet). A schema in the article itself makes the following connections:

Thinking = external dynamics;
Feeling = internal dynamics;
Sensing = external statics;
iNtuition = internal statics.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics#Information_elements)

However, this would mean I would indeed have to swap Feeling and Thinking (Water and Air, or more precisely the descriptions of Water and Air). Then again, I found something else when I googled on “socionics”, “internal”, and “external”:

Thinking = Abstract;
Feeling = Involved;
Sensing = Involved;
iNtuition = Abstract.
(http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/alternative-socionics-theories/30195-gulenkos-ie-subtype-system-3.html#post642487)

Could “Abstract” correspond with the elemental ‘hot’/‘sattvic’ and “Involved” with the elemental ‘cold’/‘tamasic’? Or rather “internal” and “external”, respectively (in which case I would have to swap the descriptions of Water and Air)? I will have to look further into these two new dichotomies.