Cornerstone said:
Sticking with the Nietzsche example, if he was aux Ti, that would make him dom Ni or Si according to the classical model, right? Is it because the inferior is determined by the dominant function, being its opposite Ni --> Se/Si--->Ne for example, but that the aux and tertiary (Ti and Fi, in this case) could develop in either order?
Yeah; just to ensure I made myself clear, I don't think Jung would really entertain a developed aux-Te for a Ni-dom (I think it's exactly as you said, it's much more likely to say Ni+Ti) -- while he was 'loose' in the theoretical underpinnings in explaining exactly how conscious and what nature of consciousness the aux has (we can guess all sorts of things, like maybe due to its service of the dom in a complementary way, the differentiation of the T-principle is compatible with that of the N-principle to high enough a degree to render it mostly-conscious...that's my best guess based on reading Jung, but again, these aren't things he fully/completely tells us the way he is clear about some other things).
The point I made was simply that the FACT Jung would say Ti-aux seems based on a relatively loose and practical choice. In general, to have an introverted function be developed is precisely to say the function is conscious and is deployed in the conscious attitude (in this case introversion). However, there's ambiguity as to the consciousness of the auxiliary -- that's where he tends to have it sort of both ways. But in practice he regards it as conscious, it seems,and hence the Ni+Ti Nietzsche example.
Nietzsche's type is covered in Ch. III and Ch. X -- his introverted intuitive dom is covered in the former, and the Ti is alluded to (regarding his 'aphoristic writings'), and in Ch. X, in contrasting Cuvier and Nietzsche and Darwin and Kant (regarding the former as a more pronounced contrast between an introverted and extraverted thinking type), he again tells us Nietzsche's thinking is introverted
and, as von Franz is also prone to do, allude to the aux-T person as a thinking type.
Anyway, this is all why, despite spending some years being very skeptical of diverging at all, after really dissecting Jung, I'm more open to people playing with what the aux does -- it seems Jung only thought of the aux's attitude as in sync with the dominant's on the basis of a practical decision, not based on absolute consistency with his founding principles. Going by the only-one-absolutely-sovereign view, I think there's more room on what the attitude of the auxiliary really is -- in such models, the auxiliary's attitude isn't really tied to the attitude of ego-consciousness (only the dom is), and all the 8 function-attitudes might develop attitudes according to more non-central roles than that of the ego. Beebe takes this one direction, by saying the other function-attitudes play roles according to certain archetypes.... I think the idea is interesting, though where I'm most skeptical is the archetypes he chooses seem to be kind of overly specific and random, and derived from observation of his own dreams (it's possible other complexes influence other function-attitudes).