(Just throwing this out there.)
Firstly, I want to opine that I do not agree with PerN's interpretation of Jung, or Jungian Typology. A month of lurking and occasional posting on that forum has taught me that their approach is more theoretical than heuristic, and care if the theory is consistent with Jung, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with reality. This is not my modus operandi and I would not like to see the same approach here on INFJf.
Secondly, there's inconsistencies in some of their interpretations such as the Jungian function definitions that are practically insufficient when applied to the four-function model, as well as relations and interaction between functions that do not exist in the real world (e.g. Le and Li not having an inspirational relationship with one another, among others). This again, is in relation with the previous point of putting more emphasis on theory than experience.
I would not like to see INFJf be dominated by these rigid, absolute set of standards that are based on subjective interpretations by a small group of people. While I appreciate that the people at PerN want to encourage others to read and understand Jung, with due respect, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of typology, and putting down others on behalf of their interpretation is rather elitist. (@Limit, specifically.)
While it is important to have an objectively verifiable set of standards, it is more important to verify the authority of the people who define these standards, and whether or not these standards are consistent in the first place. It is my opinion that:
1. Typology is a very subjective discipline and the only way to have an objective standard is for everyone to uniformly agree on the same definitions and work through that. JCF can be that objective standard, however:
2. If it does not align with one's real life experiences, it does not exist.
I do not trust the 5 admins over at PerN to have complete authority over typology, especially when not everyone agrees with your interpretation, myself included.
----
With that out of the way, here's what I would like to see on this forum:
1. A guide to exploring typology: list of books, articles, websites and such in aid those who want to learn.
2. A guide to exploring Jung: the definitive reading list of Jung, Jungian lexicon, and more.
3. Discussions on CFs as defined by various Jungian analysts and the common consensus among them. (note: no articles)
4. Discussions on types, as per the previously defined concepts of CFs.
5. Discussions on the distinction between INFJ and other types.
And more, but this should be a good starting point.
/My two cents.
Firstly, I want to opine that I do not agree with PerN's interpretation of Jung, or Jungian Typology. A month of lurking and occasional posting on that forum has taught me that their approach is more theoretical than heuristic, and care if the theory is consistent with Jung, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with reality. This is not my modus operandi and I would not like to see the same approach here on INFJf.
Secondly, there's inconsistencies in some of their interpretations such as the Jungian function definitions that are practically insufficient when applied to the four-function model, as well as relations and interaction between functions that do not exist in the real world (e.g. Le and Li not having an inspirational relationship with one another, among others). This again, is in relation with the previous point of putting more emphasis on theory than experience.
I would not like to see INFJf be dominated by these rigid, absolute set of standards that are based on subjective interpretations by a small group of people. While I appreciate that the people at PerN want to encourage others to read and understand Jung, with due respect, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of typology, and putting down others on behalf of their interpretation is rather elitist. (@Limit, specifically.)
While it is important to have an objectively verifiable set of standards, it is more important to verify the authority of the people who define these standards, and whether or not these standards are consistent in the first place. It is my opinion that:
1. Typology is a very subjective discipline and the only way to have an objective standard is for everyone to uniformly agree on the same definitions and work through that. JCF can be that objective standard, however:
2. If it does not align with one's real life experiences, it does not exist.
I do not trust the 5 admins over at PerN to have complete authority over typology, especially when not everyone agrees with your interpretation, myself included.
----
With that out of the way, here's what I would like to see on this forum:
1. A guide to exploring typology: list of books, articles, websites and such in aid those who want to learn.
2. A guide to exploring Jung: the definitive reading list of Jung, Jungian lexicon, and more.
3. Discussions on CFs as defined by various Jungian analysts and the common consensus among them. (note: no articles)
4. Discussions on types, as per the previously defined concepts of CFs.
5. Discussions on the distinction between INFJ and other types.
And more, but this should be a good starting point.
/My two cents.
