REINTERPRETATION OF PSYCHOSOPHY FOR NON-RUSSIAN SPEAKERS
(Compiled and written by Bodya)
Contents
“Touch-me-not” 3rd PHYSICS (“TMN” will be used as abbreviature) 22
Who are you?
I am known as Bodya in typology community. Don’t have great influence on community itself, but I surely obtain enough knowledge and ability to make things like this document. Previously made Temporistics document. I am Ukrainian, so Russian is basically my fluent language, along with Ukrainian, so in terms of translating you may trust me.
What is this document about?
Here, I’ll be explaining meaning of aspects, which an author of Syntax of Love, Alexander Afanasyev wanted to put in his book and partially translating some of his paragraphs, including introduction to system itself.
Why are you doing this?
Firstly, to clear out certain misconceptions about aspects since in typology community (especially non-russian speaking) there are some troubles of understanding what are these aspects about and how to actually divide them (common thing happening to Volition and Physics). I enjoy such activity and had collected many thoughts before writing this document, but this should be helpful for self-typing or generally learning system itself since I’m not going to make it hard to read.
So, let’s get started!
(P.S.: important parts I’ll be marking with !!)
Human early realized himself as a multifaceted, heterogeneous being, composed of certain separate, little dependent primary elements. It all started with an insight into something that is obvious to everyone now: a person consists of body and soul.
Further, complicating this situation, which has not yet become banal, man divided the soul into the “soul” itself, i.e. emotional function, the area of feelings, moods, heart reactions, experiences, and “spirit”, i.e. volitional function, desire, control, character, personality, tempers, “Me”.
With the beginning of the cultural revolution, when humans began to gradually turn from a hostage of nature into its tyrant, another completely independent element of his nature emerged - “mind”, “mind”, “intelligence”, i.e. the logical function, the ability to mentally see the essence of things , the connection between them and accurately describe them.
Thus, gradually the idea of the internal architecture of a person was formed, consisting of four mental modules or functions: EMOTION (“soul”), LOGIC (“mind”), PHYSICS (“body”) and VOLITION (“spirit”). Attempts have been made to further complicate the structure of the primary elements of human nature, dividing, for example, mind and understanding, but it is better to ignore attempts of this kind, since they have not become generally accepted and probably represent the isolation of different aspects of the same function.
Why specifically those 4 elements (further it may be called aspects, meaning is the same) – Afanasyev didn’t know for sure, even referring to authorities, who tried to describe completeness of human being, didn’t help, although they even merged all of these particular aspects in their works (Plato, Goethe, Chekhov, Tolstoy). This mystery is yet to be discovered, but here we are going to look at these aspects mainly.
The point is that nature never imparts functions to an individual equally, but always makes something strong and something weak. Volition, Logic, Physics, Emotion - in the psyche of a person are not something equivalent or located horizontally, but represent a hierarchy or, in other words, a four-stage order of functions, where each function, depending on its position on the steps of the stairs, it looks and acts differently. As nature places these four bricks on top of each other, such will be the inner world of the individual. It is the hierarchy of functions that determines the originality of the human psyche, dividing humanity, as is easy to calculate, into twenty-four completely independent mental types.
Let’s take a look at one page from Leo Tolstoy's diary. It is remarkable in that here, with amazing depth, Leo not only gave a description of the action of all the functions we mentioned earlier, but he himself built them into a hierarchy inherent to his type and built them according to the principle of the degree of reliability of (own) world perception.
Tolstoy had the following order of functions: 1st Volition, 2nd Emotion, 3rd Physics, 4th Logic (VEFL).
In accordance with it, Tolstoy made the following entry in his diary:
An amazingly accurate description of your own PY type. Tolstoy put own “I”, i.e., Volition, in the first place in himself and considered his knowledge of it to be “deepest”. He placed the area of emotions and experiences on the second level, endowing it with “certainty”. As for physical sensations, for Tolstoy they are “not infallible”. And the sphere of speculative knowledge turned out to be completely “dubious” for the writer.
!! The last circumstance is especially remarkable, since Tolstoy studied philosophy a lot, wrote philosophical treatises himself and, it seemed, should have had great respect for the intellect. But, as his attitude shows even to such simple speculative truths, like the presence of Japan and Madagascar, the reliability of intellectual information was more than doubtful for him. !!
Another thing which is important to talk about is what an order itself means. The problem people have with self-typing is usually connected to taking names of things from this system too literally aka strong/weak, confident/insecure. Process/result is another thing to talk about since this aspect of PY doesn’t have much trouble. But here we have Afanasyev’s example of how aspects manifest in our lives and what meaning order of these functions give.
“I have a boy I know with this order of functions: 1st Physics, 2nd Volition, 3rd Logic, 4th Emotion. So, one day, coming home from kindergarten and undressing, the boy dropped several sweets on the floor. An older sister passing by quickly picked them up and put them in her pocket. The boy's reaction was completely consistent with his order of functions. At first, silently, without any preliminary negotiations, the kid poked his fist at his sister (1st Physics). However, no avail. Then the fist was followed by a strong-willed imperative: “Give it back!” (2nd Volition). Nothing. After that, he had to turn to logic: “This is mine!” (3rd Logic). When even logic didn’t help, the boy’s lips twisted and he sobbed loudly (4th Emotion). The sobs had an effect more on the parents than on the sister, nevertheless, the candies returned to their rightful owner.”
And, of course, as author says: “To be honest, the last thing I wanted was for the reader to see in the order of functions a primitive vertical, a kind of oak stake on which the human psyche is impaled. This phenomenon is, of course, much more complex”.
The order of functions itself is very clearly divided into TOP (the first two functions) and BOTTOM (the last two). This division is remarkable in that it introduces an element of antagonism into the human psyche, in which the upper strong functions are opposed to the weak lower ones (the First and Third functions are usually most sharply opposed).
For example, in the Evangelical Christ, Volition (“spirit”) was above, and Physics (“flesh”) was below, and in accordance with this position of functions, he proclaimed in his time the well-known postulate: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). This phrase of Christ later became a description of the standard mental model of the entire Christian world. But no matter how hard the church tried, using many ways to make it the norm of human life, millions and millions of people, having a different order of functions than Christ, continued to secretly and openly resist the polarization of Will and Physics, the excessive exaltation of the spirit in contrast to the flesh, which many was much more abundant in spirit.
Disagreement with the Christian psychological model, which asserted the superiority of the spirit over the flesh, is inherent not only in those whose flesh is much superior to the spirit, but also in those who find the very fact of such opposition unacceptable and strange, i.e. people for whom Will and Physics stand side by side, in pairs, either above or below. For example, Goethe, in a letter to Klopstock, was forced, despite the pressure of his upbringing and environment, to openly declare: “I am not a Christian.” And this is understandable. For Goethe, both functions (Will and Physics) were at the top, and therefore, without terrible violence against himself, he was simply unable to oppose the equally strong sides of his nature, spirit and flesh.
From what has been said, however, it does not follow that Goethe had no duality of functions at all. No, it was just different. Goethe was inclined, having Physics at the top and Logic at the bottom, to exaggerate the importance of empiricism, while belittling pure speculation. In another letter, he made another characteristic confession: “The Lord punished Jacobi with metaphysics, but on the contrary blessed me with physics, so that I may rejoice while admiring his creation. And if you say that you can only believe in God, then I tell you - with all my strength I believe only in what I see.” Thus, following its order of functions. Goethe was a type of complete sensualist and consistent enemy of rationalism, which found its most complete artistic expression in the image of Faust - a character filled with skepticism and a thirst for sensual pleasures.
Another quite important thing to mention about dividing into Top and Bottom is how some people may talk about themselves in somewhat inharmonious manner (p.s.: Afanasyev may mention intelligence level here, but only in a way to show how one may perceive themselves according to function order because PY is how we subjectively perceive ourselves and what aspects of life we use as our weapons or defend as our weak points).
‘We all live by the principle “You don’t need power to eat intelligence.” That is, the presence of strong upper functions justifies the presence of weak lower ones. “But” is a magic word that we bring to light every time our inadequacy is revealed: “I am weak and dry, but strong-willed and smart,” “I am weak-willed and foolish, but tender and beautiful.”, etc. It’s even difficult for us to imagine that life is possible without “but”, a harmonious life, without dividing nature into Top and Bottom.’
Now, about Process and Result. It’s not very complicated, so I’ll just quote Afanasyev here:
Let’s remember the first feature of the order of functions: the presence of TOP and BOTTOM. And after that, let us remember one more important feature of it: the division of functions into Productive and Processional. What should be understood by both? - I'll try to be brief. “Result” are the functions (1st and 4th), for whom, when expressing themselves, the result is more valuable than the process. And the “Process” functions (2nd and 3rd) tend to the opposite and value the process more than the result.
So it looks like that:
We can also say that Result functions, by the very principle of their action, are internally lonely, are not inclined to search for a partner and, when expressing themselves, gravitate towards a monologue. Process functions, on the contrary, are inclined towards dialogue, love partnership and the widest possible interaction. For clarity, I will give the following example. If, say,
If a person prefers to realize his logical function in the form of a result obtained in the course of lonely armchair reflections, then we can confidently say that his Logic is Result (Descartes). If a person finds true satisfaction only in the process of communicating with others, then his logic is clearly Process (Socrates).
Short list of characteristics:
The main sign of the First function is its REDUNDANCY. If we feel that nature has endowed us with something not just in abundance, but even with some excess, then we can confidently say that this is the First Function. Whatever it is: 1st Emotion, 1st Will, 1st Logic, 1st Physics.
The first function is the strongest side of our nature, therefore, during the first contacts with other people, we quite unconsciously put it on the table as our trump card. For example, the owner of the 1st Physics, going to a meeting with a stranger, will firstly (I emphasize again - quite unconsciously) think about whether her neckline is deep enough, and only then about the content of the conversation, her role in it, etc. Whereas the owner of 1st Logic will first think about the topic of the conversation, and only then take care of her appearance.
!!The First function is our main weapon in conflicts: family, work related or any other. !!
If, among other things, the First function was not too cruel in these battles, there would not be a great sin in using the First function as a weapon (you have to fight with something!). And the First is merciless. Its very effective nature does not tolerate compromise and demands absolute victory in the struggle. 1st Physics beats the enemy, if not to death, then until complete blackout, the 1st Volition achieves undivided power, absolute leadership, the 1st Logic in discussions owns only one truth - its own and, proving it, does not stop until it defeats the opponent on all counts, the 1st Emotion screams, until it stuns and silences the enemy.
The first function is the support of the personality, the foundation on which the bungalow of the human psyche, shaken by all the winds, rests. However, this superpower and fortress of the First contains a hidden and dangerous flaw. It's not flexible. Therefore, blows to the First aspect are very painful and minor destructions brought about by fast-moving life (let’s say, illness and injury for 1st Physics), sometimes drive a person to madness.
And human nature, apparently, is aware, or rather, “subconscious”, of the dangerous lack of flexibility in the First aspect, since, despite the self-confidence of the First, it is usually in no hurry to subject itself to tests in a dubious situation, so that we do not mean by test: a fight or dispute
Let's be completely sincere: The first function is our gift to ourselves. It is selfish, although the word “selfishness” itself is usually used only in relation to the 1st Physics. Therefore, if someone receives something from the First, then, firstly, it always happens “from generosity,” from an excess of results obtained alone, and, secondly, not due to the internal need of the First herself, but under the pressure of lower processional functions.
Concluding this story about the First function, it is necessary to admit that selfishness, monologue, vulnerability, cruelty and rudeness of the First make it, although the most significant and bright, but not the best side of human nature.
Short list of characteristics:
The second function is NORMATIVE. And like any norm, it is difficult to describe. It is unlikely that a person will find more than two words when he begins to talk about his health, if it is normal: colors, epithets, images are found only when the need arises to list ailments. So it is with the Second function, it is difficult to describe, and like good health, you don't feel it.
If the First aspect is best compared to a hammer, then the Second to a river. It's just as strong, but besides strength, it has qualities unknown to the First: breadth, richness, naturalness and flexibility. The source of all these advantages lies in the fact that in the Second, strength is coupled with procession, i.e. it is a force charged with constant dialogue, constant interaction. Returning to the comparison of the First and the Second, we can say that if the First is our gift to ourselves, then the Second is our gift to others. Therefore, it is the Second Function that is the best side of a person.
However, processivity is not the monopoly of the Second. A real monopoly, or its main sign, is action that is impeccably adequate to the situation, without excess and without scarcity, standard behavior. I remember the story of one film director about an actress who was forced to film twenty takes in one day, and every time the tears came to her eyes exactly when needed, and there were as many of them as needed. Only the 2nd Emotion can act this way.
The second function is extremely rich in shades and has an enormous range. In order not to go far, I will give an example of the same 2nd Emotion: one researcher calculated, that Tolstoy described 85 shades of eye expression and 97 shades of a smile. The ability to see and convey such wealth is not just observation - it is a special psychological attitude of the individual.
The combination of strength and processivity of the Second Function endows it with such an unusually valuable quality as pity. Actually, pity is not a monopoly of the Second, but one of the aspects of procession. The specificity of the Second's pity lies precisely in the fact that it pities from the position of strength, confidence and experience of the richly gifted side of human nature. Let's say there is nothing better for the sick, disabled, and elderly than to be under the care of the 2nd Physics. Her tireless compassion, constant care, precision, speed and caution of movements are able to provide maximum comfort to any infirm person.
Another characteristic feature of the Second aspect is that it is fearless. Moreover, a person experiences a kind of pleasure by putting it to the test, often in dubious and even obviously uncomfortable situations. And this behavior is easy to explain: The second is not only strong, but also flexible, so blows to it do not hurt, but only provide direction for further improvement. So, one of my classmates, being the owner of 2nd Physics, was not lazy to travel to the other end of the city for the sole purpose of fighting. He often drove around not knowing whether he was going to hit him or not. The matter, of course, was not without bruises and bumps, but the benefits became obvious over time: over time, he became a dashing pilot, an Air Force colonel.
Short list of characteristics:
“We have all failed in one way or another,” Jules Renard used to say sadly, saying without realizing that he was thereby intuitively sensing the Third Function in himself and others.
In its principles, the Third Function is almost no different from the Second; it is also process. Even, so to speak, super-process. However, in its external manifestations, the Third Function is strikingly different from the Second. The difference is due to the fact that the Third is not a strength, but a weakness, our ulcer, a sore spot in the human psyche.
Carl Gustav Jung wrote: “... experience shows that complexes always contain something like a conflict, or at least are either its cause or consequence. In any case, complexes are characterized by signs of conflict, shock, upheaval, awkwardness, and incompatibility. These are the so-called “sore points”, in French “betes noires”, in this regard, the British mention “skeletons in the closet”, which you don’t really want to remember and even less want others to remind you of, but which, often in the most unpleasant way, remind about themselves by themselves. They always contain memories, desires, fears, responsibilities, needs or thoughts, which we cannot get rid of in any way, and therefore they constantly interfere and harm by interfering in our conscious life. Obviously, complexes represent a kind of inferiority in the broadest sense, and I must immediately note that a complex or the possession of a complex does not necessarily mean inferiority. This only means that there is something incompatible, unassimilable, perhaps even some kind of obstacle, but it is also a stimulus to great aspirations and therefore, quite possibly, even a new opportunity for success. Consequently, complexes are in this sense literally the center or nodal point of mental life; one cannot do without them, because otherwise mental activity would come to a stagnation fraught with consequences. But they also mean the unfulfilled in the individual, the area where it is impossible to overcome or master anything; that is, without a doubt, this is a weak point in any sense of the word.
This nature of the complex largely illuminates the reasons for its emergence. Obviously, it manifests itself as a result of a collision between the requirement for adaptation and the special, a property of an individual that is unsuitable for this requirement. Thus, the complex becomes for us a diagnostically valuable symptom of individual disposition.”
!!But, if anything, Afanasyev didn’t like to describe Third aspect with a word “complex”, which got quite a use back then. He much preferred to describe it as “dynamic trauma” which was used by the remarkable psychiatrist Charcot, who was one of the first to feel that the human psyche is characterized by some kind of congenital defect. !!
!!If we condense everything Jung said and add a little of our own, we can say that the essence of the Third aspect is as follows: it is a function that we ourselves consider vulnerable, defective, underdeveloped, in need of constant strengthening, self-development and protection. Hence, the entire specific features of the Third aspect.!!
The Third is a double. Just as the entire order of functions is divided into Top and Bottom (as already mentioned), so one Third aspect is divided and bifurcated. The feeling of weakness is combined in her with a feeling of enormous, but unrealized potential. The third is the chained Prometheus - a titan whose psychological chains make him weak, defenseless, and vulnerable.
Vulnerability and heightened sensitivity are the main signs of the Third aspect. Strikes against the Third are experienced extremely painfully, and the scars from them remain almost for life
As a rule, the period of complete defenselessness of the Third aspect and especially frequent blows to it occurs in childhood. It is children who are most often beaten, humiliated, insulted, and scolded. And if in childhood the Third turns out to be not protected, but, on the contrary, constantly vulnerable, then this circumstance refines the already refined Third to the extreme.
The third, like no other function, is given the ability to experience the pain of others. Feel it even more acutely than the object of empathy feels it. Tolstoy, say, did not value the work of a scientist or musician at all, but through the prism of his 3rd Physics he could not look at every man working in the field without tears. Although the man himself did not necessarily experience those torments, what Tolstoy attributed to him, and, in turn, he himself would look with the compassion of the 3rd Logic at every person reading, etc., etc.
Pity and compassion are those properties that make the Third aspect similar to the Second. However, there is a feeling unknown to the Second, but constantly accompanying the Third - this is envy. It is identical to the feeling experienced by the sick in relation to the healthy. It combines the desire to rise to the level of envy and at the same time humiliate him.
Here I will continue to illustrate the story of the Third Function with examples from Tolstoy’s life (3rd Physics). This is how director Lev Sulerzhitsky described a walk around Moscow with Tolstoy: “Tolstoy noticed two cuirassiers from afar. Shining in the sun with copper armor, ringing spurs, they walked in step, as if both had grown together, their faces also shone with the complacency of strength and youth.
Tolstoy began to reproach them: “What majestic stupidity! Absolutely animals that were trained with a stick...”
But when the cuirassiers caught up with him, he stopped and, following them with a gentle glance, said with admiration: “How beautiful! The Romans are ancient, huh, Lev? Strength, beauty, oh my God. How good it is when a person is beautiful, how good...”
!!I hope the reader paid attention to the polarity of Tolstoy’s assessments when it came to the layer of life, which Tolstoy himself with his 3rd Physics was vulnerable and with which the oncoming cuirassiers were clearly endowed in abundance (1st Physics). It is typical of the Third Function.!!
A free, open, strong manifestation of what is wounded in oneself irritates a person, forces him to look for some kind of justification for his weakness, actively deny the significance and effectiveness of this layer of life, and behind this denial, as if behind a shield, hide the feeling of his own inferiority. This is how a fig leaf is born with which a person usually walks throughout his life. The number of fig leaves corresponds to the number of Third functions: this is irony for the 3rd Emotion, skepticism for the 3rd Logic, hypocrisy for the 3rd Physics, foolishness and hypocrisy for the 3rd Volition.
Marriage is not the only means by which a person tries to unchain and realize his Third Function. There are also chemicals for this, such as alcohol. It is for the sake of the Third that we drink alcohol in company. Let me emphasize - specifically in companies, because the origins of drunkenness are diverse. Alcohol drunk in company has that miraculous property that allows you to forget about your flaw and freely and easily implement the Third Function.
Hence the amazing metamorphoses that usually happen to drunks, metamorphoses similar to those that happened to the millionaire from the famous Charlie Chaplin film. Dry, reserved person (3rd Emotion) becomes sensitive; silent (3rd Logic) - a talker, a misogynist (3rd Physics) - a libertine, a modest person (3rd Volition) - an arrogant…
Like the Second Function, the Third enjoys challenging itself. However, there are significant differences between self-testing of these two functions. Firstly, the Third Function prefers to test itself in conditions that exclude direct combat. And secondly, she goes to the limit in these tests. For example, Tolstoy’s sister said, how at the age of 15 he ran five miles behind a carriage and when the carriage stopped, young Tolstoy was breathing so hard that his sister burst into tears. Only the Third, and in particular the 3rd Physics, can examine itself in this way. Other Physics would have behaved differently: result Physics simply would not subject themselves to tests (The First, due to self-confidence, Fourth in indifference), 2nd Physics would run after the carriage, but would run only as long as this competition was fun.
The test described above is typical of the Third Function, and what makes it so is the Third's ignorance of the natural limits of its capabilities. Our internal picture of the state of the Third Function is a purely subjective matter.
And in order to find out whether there is an “ulcer” according to the Third or whether it only seems to us, and if there is, what its true dimensions are, it is necessary to examine the Third and examine it to the limit of its capabilities.
If the test for the Third is passed successfully, then the highest satisfaction, unknown in other cases, occurs. In general, successes, praise, and awards in the Third Function are valued like no other and are a source of inescapable pride for their owner. So, Napoleon, having the 3rd Logic, he was most proud of his membership in the National Institute (Academy of Sciences) and even signed his orders for the army “Bonaparte, member of the National Institute” and only after this title he put all the others, perhaps much more significant for others.
For the same reason, the Third, like no other function, is sensitive to flattery. It is impossible to exaggerate here; no matter how monstrous flattery according to the Third aspect may be, deep down in the soul a person, absolutely not believing it, still shows complete readiness to drink and drink this poison, never getting fed up or experiencing heartburn. (so basically it’s still pleasant to hear, even when you know that it may be a lie).
Short list of characteristics:
There’s not much to say about Fourth Aspect. It is a “trifle” - a function to which we ourselves attach little importance. It does not follow from the above that the Fourth is obviously weak and unproductive. On the contrary, the world is full of good mathematicians with 4th Logic and artists with 4th Emotion. The main thing in it again is still a subjective hierarchy of internal values, forcing one thing in oneself to be placed on the last fourth step. And having placed it, treat it accordingly.
!!I would like to especially insist on this relation and to the Fourth function, since confusion between the quality of functioning and the position of the function on the levels of the psychic hierarchy is a common mistake in psycho-yoga. 4th Logic is not necessarily stupid, 4th Emotion is not necessarily insensitive, etc. One woman with 4th Will, when I once mentioned her “weakness of character,” objected to me with feeling: “That’s not true. I'm not weak-willed. It’s just more convenient for me to be a follower.” And she was absolutely right. God forbid that when examining low-value functions, we should identify their position with quality. There is no more serious mistake.(what is meant by this is simply DO NOT ATTACH specific qualities to 4th aspect, regardless of it being unimportant to us, it does not say that we are bad at it or anything like that, more like we just take it for what it is without putting much emphasis on it)!!
Externally, the Fourth aspect is difficult to distinguish from the Second. They are united by freedom, naturalness and fearlessness of self-expression. For example, the 4th Logic costs nothing to get involved in a tricky philosophical debate, at the same time effortlessly demonstrating relaxed and paradoxical thinking, and would not be offended, like the 2nd Logic, by a statement like "fool".
However, despite the external similarity of the action, there is a deep difference in motives between these two functions: the 2nd Logic will not be offended by the “fool” because it will not believe it, and the 4th Logic - because assessments on this part are deeply indifferent to it. That's the trick.
Based on the external similarity of the Second and Fourth functions, I see the need to list signs by which identification of the Fourth can be considered unconditional.
The main thing is that activity according to the Fourth does not have independent value; it is not a goal, but a means of existence. Therefore, if, say, someone with 4th Logic is engaged in the field of intellectual work, then it only follows that he is trying to use this function (regardless of success) as a tool with the help of which the requests of other intrinsically valuable higher functions are realized: ambition - according to Will, material interests - according to Physics, etc.
Secondly, the unreliability of what is obtained according to the Fourth; remember 4th Logic of Leo Tolstoy, who, with all his love for philosophizing, doubted the existence of Japan and Madagascar.
Thirdly, shutting down the Fourth in crisis situations. The human psyche, generally distrustful of the Fourth as such, during crises, it turns off as a possible obstacle when choosing the right solution and transfers internal energy to higher levels.
Next is specularity. Interaction with the Fourth is always identical to an order made by a higher function of the partner. This circumstance, for example, makes the 4th Physics a good sexual partner, since. Without having her own model of sexual behavior, she adequately and sensitively responds to all her partner’s requests.
Finally, the Fourth function is very dependent and easily entrusts itself to other functions that are higher in the hierarchy. Thus, 4th Physics painlessly becomes a kept woman, 4th Emotion is easily infected by other people’s moods, 4th Logic accepts any more or less plausible concepts without dispute, 4th Volition agrees in advance with the decisions made for it.
A remarkable feature of the Fourth is that a person recognizes its true power only in moments of fullness of life. And by “fullness of life” Afanasyev means harmonious and adequate state of aspects above - good result for First and processes going on for both Second and Third. Only in such conditions can the Fourth aspect develop some kind of individuality, independence and power. But if are faced with opposite conditions - so will the Fourth struggle or even turn off completely.
1st aspect | 2nd aspect | 3rd aspect | 4th aspect |
“hammer” | “river” | “ulcer” | “tifle” |
result | process | process | result |
redundancy | norm | lack | poverty |
monologue | dialogue | dialogue | monologue |
solidity | flexibility | flexibility (yes, according to Afanasyev) | solidity |
stiffness | compassion | envy | indifference |
caution | fearlessness | timidity | fearlessness |
confidence | confidence | doubt | falsity |
independency | compromise | compromise | dependency |
Volition (although the term "will" is sometimes used interchangeably with "volition") refers to a philosophical and psychological concept. It is a theoretical construct that indicates a special kind of causality that is hidden and indirect and that results from the presence of volitional qualities in a subject's character and behavior style. In volitional traits of character, the essence of will is revealed.
The implicit but powerful participation of the will in the creation of psychological systems can be studied especially clearly using the example of Carl-Gustav Jung's typology. On the one hand, Jung stated that “will and memory... are not included” in his typology, but in fact, will was the main differentiating principle of Jung’s typology.
Jung’s division into introverts and extroverts has already entered into everyday life and has become commonly used, and at the same time, this division is generally understood in such a way that an extrovert is an outward-facing, very sociable person, while an introvert is an uncommunicative person, turned inward. But this is “kitchen” Jung. In fact, an extrovert is not a person turned outward, and the person is DEPENDENT from the outside, and the introvert is the opposite. Here are some characteristic quotes from Jung’s typology: “... the unconscious claims of the extroverted type have, strictly speaking, a primitive and infantile, egocentric character... The extroverted type is always ready to give himself (apparently) in favor of the object and assimilate his subjectivity - to the object... The danger for the extrovert is that he gets involved in objects and completely loses himself in them... The mental life of a given personal type plays out, so to speak, outside of himself, in the environment. He lives in others and through others - any reflection on himself makes him shudder. The dangers lurking there are best overcome by noise. If he has a “complex”, he takes refuge in social circles, turmoil and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. In that case, if he is not too meddling, not too pushy, and not too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of any community.”
The problem of extroversion and introversion is not in the degree of sociability, contact, but in the degree of DEPENDENCE or INDEPENDENCE of the individual, i.e. it is a problem of VOLITION. And in fact, dividing humanity into extroverts and introverts, Jung divided it into people with high Volition and low Volition, and only then he singled out from extroverts and introverts people of the thinking type, sensory, emotional and intuitive, i.e. he developed his own typology, deriving types from the volitional base of a person. However, not belonging to strong-willed people, Jung himself tried to camouflage his personal problem as much as possible and, creating his typology, hid the problem of will behind vague terminology and, as already quoted, even officially brought the will beyond the boundaries of his typology. What happened is what usually happens in psychology, when a psychologist highly scientifically solves not other people’s, but his own psychological problems, passing off such solutions as universal.
Although Jung's indisputable excuse can be that Will is the most secretive element of the human psyche, and there is nothing in the world that could be pointed to as the obvious fruit of Will, while there are any number of traces of Emotion, Logic, Physics. But there is nothing in human life that is not filled with Volition, would not reflect the place of the Volition in the order of functions of the individual. But all this is only secret, hidden. Volition is a mental component hidden from the eyes, therefore only those who feel the redundancy of the volitional principle in themselves, i.e., the owners of the 1st Volition, are able to more or less clearly distinguish in themselves the deaf,
Volition's deep bass behind a choir of shrill trebles of other functions. One of these people, Lermontov, wrote: “The will contains the whole soul; to want means to hate, to love, to regret, to rejoice—to live, in a word. Will is the moral force of every being, the free desire to create or destroy something, the imprint of the Divine, creative power that creates miracles out of nothing.”
Someone will consider Lermontov's words an exaggeration, but in fact there is no exaggeration in them. I can say more - the position of the Volition at the levels of the functional hierarchy greatly influences human legal norms, completely shapes ethics (unwritten law), the individual picture of society and the universe. At all, being one of the functions and subject in its action to the same principles and patterns as the others, the Volition is at the same time the invisible core of the entire order of functions.
By the 21st century, several areas of research into the phenomenon of will have emerged in psychology with different methodological approaches and, accordingly, interpreting in their own way the concept of “will”, its essence, structure and the nature of its psychological mechanism: voluntaristic, the direction of “free choice”, motivational, regulatory and other.
According to the universal approach of A. Afanasyev - the human psyche is a single whole; will as a fundamental mental function interacts with other mental functions, the combination of volitional qualities of character and their generalization (severity) are typical. The main conclusion of A. Afanasyev on the problem of studying the phenomenon of will is as follows: under the control of the study of will and volitional qualities of a person, emotion, intelligence, intuition, physiological capabilities and willpower (emotion, logic, physics, will) of the subjects in their interaction should be under control.
Accordingly, the 1st Volition is all, as it were, a monologue, excess, result, individualism. The 2nd Volition is the whole norm, dialogue and process. The 3rd Volition is all, as it were, complex, total vulnerability. The 4th Volition is all, as it were, wax, dependence and omnivorousness. Therefore, without canceling anything that was said before, let me pay special attention: the position of the Will in the functional hierarchy is crucial for the human psyche. And although by the words “character”, “personality”, “I” we usually understand the sum of the mental properties of an individual, in fact, this is first of all Will, and only then, as an appendage, other functions.
—
First aspect will be Volition and for a good reason. Most people question this aspect and usually there’s a bias around it and you cannot blame them for that, many would like to at least seem more “confident” online or delude themselves due to some beliefs that this aspect brings confidence in all areas of live or for some unknown reason that is one way or another connected to Volition. So, common misconceptions are:
Emotion is a strange, vague, unsteady department of human existence. Everything about it is mysterious. And at first, what is most surprising is how nature could create such psychotypes in which Emotion would be at the top. After all, the upper functions are the main weapon of a person.
But can emotions serve as weapons? What feelings can be identified with a hammer? At best, an emotional nature can scare away an animal in the forest, a robber in the city, or pity the executioner with tears. But this seems to be the end of the matter.
The fact is that in fact, emotion is a powerful weapon, but not a universal weapon, but adapted to one narrow sphere - the sphere of love confrontation. Apparently, the emotional function is primarily a love function, and the one whose Emotion is high, has a greater chance of becoming the winner in a love rivalry. Here is the power behind it.
The origin of Emotion is this. At first, it branched off from Physics, or more precisely, from its sexual department. The need for such budding was that in animals sexual activity (unlike humans) is episodic.
Therefore, quite early on, they developed a need for special warning signs about their short-term readiness to mate. One of these signs was a love cry - the forerunner of modern emotions. Croaking, singing like a nightingale, squealing like a cat, the animal, according to the ethologist, “begins to demonstrate its condition. Demonstrations leave indifferent individuals with an inactivated reproductive system, but in activated individuals they, like a key in a lock, unlock response instinctive programs. Individuals of the same sex are stimulated to exhibit the same behavior. As a result, a competition in the execution of programs begins, with everyone trying to outdo the others.” Naturally, competitions of this kind are often won by the most vocal individuals, i.e., in the language of PY, individuals with a higher Emotion aspect.
Of course, as relationships in animal communities became more complex, the emotional palette became more complex and enriched, gradually growing into a whole system of signs. And as humans appeared, there was even some kind of revolution for this sphere of life - firstly, making it practically inexhaustible, but, most importantly, by its transition to year-round sexual life, abolishing the sexual dominant of emotions.
However, to this day, as an echo of the sexual sphere, feelings continue to bear the reflection of their origin. And it’s not even about writing poetry and performing serenades, which usually precede physical intimacy. The thing is that it doesn’t really matter if loving relationships are built on sexual attraction or not, we keep measuring them solely by the strength of observed experiences. Therefore, returning to the problem of the origin and role of Emotion, it should be noted that, as in the time of the first frogs, Emotion continues to be the strongest weapon in the love struggle, and, ultimately, in the struggle for procreation. And therefore nature, despite its apparent lack of viability,
continues to widely and abundantly produce individuals with higher Emotion aspect.
The approach of Afanasyev in the book “Syntax of Love” from the point of view of an attempt to synthesize ideas about the emotions of various scientists and create a psychotypology consisting of 24 personality types. Generalization (severity) of emotions in Afanasyev is presented in 4 versions (1st Emotion, 2nd Emotion, 3rd Emotion and 4th Emotion) and in relationship (combination) with physics , will, thinking (logic). This approach to the study of emotions is fundamentally new and represents the fourth aspect in the understanding of emotions, which can be conventionally called a psychological property of a person. Maybe, in the future, there will be a synthesis of the most significant theories of emotions, and one, universal one will be discovered that can explain the phenomenon of human emotions; it is possible that a unified classification of emotions will be adopted. In this regard, it can be confidently stated that the original approach of Afanasyev and his method of psychosophy is the first step towards creating a synthetic (universal) theory of emotions.
Let’s start with manifestation of this aspect on each placement.
It was already mentioned that the 1st aspect is all about redundancy, and “romantic” is definitely not an exception.
The envious statement of the artist Bryullov comes to mind that when Pushkin laughs, he “sees his guts.” Of course, redundancy of feelings can be expressed not only by exaggerated laughter, but also by streams of tears; the main thing in the behavior of “romantic” is an inadequate, clearly excessive emotional reaction to current events.
If the redundancy of the 1st Emotion is multiplied by the specific love role of the emotional function, which was mentioned above, then, I think, it will become clear to everyone that a “romantic” is the best, simply amazing lover (by “lover” I mean not so much physiological potential, how much the ability to excite a special state of euphoria, which humanity is accustomed to identifying with love).
The attractiveness of a “romantic” as a love partner is not always determined by purposeful conscious or unconscious actions on his part: serenades, rhymes, passionate whispers, etc. According to my observations, just loud, infectious laughter or simply a profuse eruption of tears (even those not addressed to you personally) can awaken the love instinct, including the corresponding physiological parts of the body. In other words, the excess of the 1st Emotion can not only infect a person with its mood, but also become a starter of sexual arousal.
After the publication of the full version of “Syntax of Love” (2000), some Russian representatives of official psychological science had a question for the author about the term “physics” as one of the four psychological functions in the hierarchy of the psychotype. What does “physics” mean in Afanasyev’s typology? What should we understand in this regard? Why physics and not physicality, not constitution, as is already accepted in official psychological circles? A. Afanasyev explained that the term “physics” itself was taken from the structure of personality according to W. James. Thus, A. Afanasyev transformed the “physical self” into “physics,” meaning everything that the American psychologist and psychiatrist W. James meant in his theory of personality. I offer the reader a small fragment translated into Russian in 1991 in order to show that A. Afanasyev actually created his own typology, relying on the works of the great psychologists of the 20th century, for example, in the part of “physics” - relying on the works of W. James.
Я - физическое лицо
(according to William James, an american philosopher and psychologist, one of the founders and leading exponent of pragmatism and functionalism.)
<<< In each of us, the bodily organization represents an essential component of our physical personality, and some parts of the body can be called ours in the closest sense of the word. After bodily organization comes clothing. The old saying that the human personality consists of three parts: soul, body and dress is more than a simple joke.
We appropriate the dress to the same extent to our personality, we identify one with the other to such an extent that few of us, without hesitating for a moment, will give a decisive answer to the question which of the two alternatives they would choose: to have a beautiful body, dressed in eternally dirty and torn rags, or to hide the ugly under an always new suit, ugly body. Then the closest part of ourselves is our family, father and mother, wife and children - flesh of flesh and bone of our bones. When they die, a part of us disappears. We are ashamed of their bad actions. If someone has offended them, indignation flares up in us immediately, as if we ourselves were in their place.
Next comes our home, our home. What happens in it forms part of our life, its appearance evokes in us the most tender feeling of affection, and we reluctantly forgive a guest who, upon visiting us, points out shortcomings in our home environment or treats it with contempt.
We give instinctive preference to all these various objects connected with the most important practical interests of our lives. We all have an unconscious desire to protect our bodies, to clothe them in dresses, equipped with ornaments, to cherish our parents, wife and children and to find our own corner in which we could live, improving your home environment.
The same instinctive drive impels us to accumulate wealth, and the acquisitions we have previously made become more or less intimate parts of our empirical personality. The works of our hardest labor are most closely connected with us.
Few people would not feel personally destroyed if the work of their hands and brains (for example, a collection of insects or an extensive manuscript work), created by them during a lifetime, were suddenly destroyed. A stingy person has a similar feeling towards his money. Although it's true that part of our grief at the loss of objects of possession is due to the consciousness that we now have to do without some benefits that we expected to receive with the further use of the now lost objects, but still, in any such case, in addition to this, we still have a feeling of diminishment of our personality, turning some part of it into nothing. And this fact is an independent mental phenomenon. We immediately fall on the same level with tramps, with those pauvres diables (rabble) whom we so despise, and at the same time we become more alienated than ever from the happy sons of the earth, the lords of land, sea and people, the lords living in the full splendor of power and material security. No matter how much we appeal to democratic principles, involuntarily in front of such people, openly or secretly, we experience feelings of fear and respect. >>> …
The most remarkable thing and worthy of special attention, from the point of view of psyche-yoga, is that the position of Physics at the levels of the functional hierarchy determines much more than just the state of the body and its energy. In fact, it turns out that the place of Physics in the order of functions of an individual influences areas so far from physiology, such as law, economics, aesthetics, coloring of worldview and attitude and much more. You can’t tell everything at once, therefore, dividing the owners of Physics into “Owners” (1st Physics), “Toiler” (2nd Physics), “Touch-me-not” (3rd Physics) and “Idler” (4th Physics ), let's see why each of them is wonderful.
It seems obvious: Logic, as a mental function, should be much younger than Emotion. After all, love in living beings clearly precedes thinking and is completely uncontrollable by it. Which is easy to confirm by observations of human nature, not to mention animals. It's like that. But without entering into a dispute about priorities, nevertheless, I will take the liberty of doubting this truth and suggesting that Logic is not inferior in antiquity to Emotions.
I proceed from the fact that life, even in its most primitive forms, is so complex and multivariate that solving all problems, willy-nilly, requires the work of the intellect. Otherwise you won't survive. In this regard, I will cite the observation of the remarkable biologist Konrad Lorenz. At one time he was engaged in experiments with a variety of cichlid fish, an interesting feature of whose behavior was that the male, collecting the fry in the nest, “does not waste time on persuasion, but simply takes them into his spacious mouth and swims up to the nest, “spits out” into the inlet.”
One day Lorenz witnessed the following scene. Having thrown several worms to the bottom of the aquarium, he saw how the male, who had previously been scurrying around the aquarium in search of his fry, grabbed one worm and began to chew it, but then a fry swimming past caught his eye. Then this is what happened: “The male shuddered, as if stung, he rushed after the small fish and stuffed it into his already filled mouth. It was an exciting moment. The fish held two completely different things in its mouth, one of which it had to send to the stomach, and the other to the nest. What will she do? I must confess that at this moment I would not give twopence for the life of a tiny precious fish. But something amazing happened! The male stood motionless, with his mouth full, but not chewing. If I ever believed a fish was thinking, it was at this moment. It's absolutely wonderful that a fish can find itself in a truly difficult situation, and in this case she behaved exactly as a person would behave if he were in her place. For several seconds she stood motionless, as if unable to find a way out of the situation, and one could almost see how tense all her feelings were. Then she resolved the contradictions in a way which cannot but cause admiration: she spat out all the contents onto the bottom of the aquarium... Then the father resolutely walked towards the worm and leisurely began to eat it, all the while glancing with one eye at the young one, which obediently lay on the bottom. Having finished with the worm, the male took the fry and took it home to its mother.
Several students, those who witnessed this scene, flinched when one person began to applaud.”
Having applauded and rejoiced for the fish together with Lorenz, I would like to note that no matter how elementary the logical task was in this case and no matter how painfully the fish coped with it, it involuntarily deprived a person of an aura of exclusivity, conditioned by the supposedly undivided possession of such a great treasure as intellect.
The essence of the human phenomenon is not in the presence or absence of Logic and not in the quality of the tools that we have for its implementation, but in the position of Logic at the levels of the functional hierarchy.
It was once very true noted that the mind is the super fang of man. Everything is correct. But let us remember the PY: a person’s main weapon in struggle is the functions located above. The 4th Logic, no matter what class of beings its bearer belongs to, does not recognize thinking as a powerful weapon and even turns it off, like any Fourth function on the eve of a conflict. Therefore, the intellectual barrier is not between people and animals, but between those those with Logic Above and those with Logic Below. There is nothing offensive here: everyone thinks, and the quality of intellectual work does not depend at all on the position of Logic on the steps of the functional ladder. The only question is to what extent is Logic supportive, self-valuable, authoritative, reliable for the individual’s mental self-perception, lethal or, conversely, secondary and ineffective.
Let's remember the fish from Lorenz's aquarium. She thought. But her thinking was quite typical for the 4th Logic: the activation of intellect occurred only at the moment of the need for choice, under the pressure of external circumstances. For her, intellectual work was not valuable in itself, existing as an internal need, independent of external circumstances. Claparède, the founder of animal psychology, wrote that in animals “intelligence is activated when instinctive or acquired automatism is not capable of solving a behavioral problem.” That is, Lorenz’s fish itself was not stupid, she was simply too practical and mentally lazy to become human.
The essence of the intellectual boundary that runs through the entire cosmos of living beings is that individuals with the 4th Logic perceive thinking as a means, while individuals with a higher Logic perceives it as a goal with all the gains and losses that flow from this circumstance.
Therefore, the origin of the human phenomenon in the light of psyche-yoga is seen as follows: at first the entire animal world, including proto-man, had the 4th Logic, but one fine day, due to an unclear combination of circumstances (mutation, climatic changes, etc.), among individual representatives of the proto-human race, LOGIC CRAWLED UP. On this day the phenomenon of man was born. Not being smarter than his relatives, the owner of high-ranking Logic simply had a different attitude towards the very process of thinking, considering it to be valuable, supporting, lethal, he considered it so, without yet having any evidence for this, simply by virtue of his own order of functions, new for the proto-human world.
However, the time has come to move from global problems to specific ones and begin to analyze the ways of expressing Logic depending on its position on the levels of the functional hierarchy. All carriers of this function are divided into “Dogmatists” (1st Logic), “Rhetors” (2nd Logic), “Skeptics” (3rd Logic) and “Schoolers” (4th Logic).
—
Here we come to this somewhat mysterious, but at the same time, misunderstood aspect of PY (for the same reason as Emotion aspect) – Logic.
Common misunderstandings within this aspect in community are:
Let’s start with clarifying 1st misunderstanding. Logic aspect itself does not indicate level of intelligence, but how one perceives power of this aspect. For example, for someone who wields Physics as 1st aspect in conflict first response would be interaction with material world such as beating dishes, biting, slamming door etc. But for those who obtain Logic as their 1st aspect – response will be in a verbal form explaining something, proving something, trying to convince of something being true or false and it does not involve intelligence, information and logic behind it can be different and can make almost no sense. And for those who wield this aspect at 4th position it would be unnatural to respond to conflict this way, it would be like an ace in the hole, only used when necessary.
The 2nd misunderstanding is more tricky, but not as different with others, it’s mostly because of taking name of an aspect too literally and solution to that is very simple. Logic aspect is a mental process itself, information we take, regardless of what kind of information, while Socionics is a system about how we perceive things, informational metabolism, what kind of information are we mostly dealing with, how we deal with it and Ti is just one of functions that have specific range of information. So, if anything, it would be much more appropriate to say that Logic aspect = all socio functions. All people can talk, all people can prove something, your ability to speak and prove isn’t decided by your leading function, you can still give an Fe information to people via verbal form, speech, facts etc.