Psychosophy Introduction

Introduction to Psychosophy

Having addressed the problem of psychic typology, one involuntarily wonders whether it is necessary, and whether this problem is not far-fetched, as many things are far-fetched in modern science? I will hurry up with the answer: no, it is not far-fetched, proving it with two banal but absolutely irresistible arguments. First, as you correctly noted, we are all obviously different, and our differences are not only in gender, race, appearance, etc., but also in CHARACTER, that is, in our mental perceptions and reactions. That would be all right, but along with our sense of exceptionality, we also have a sense of our repetitiveness. There is a wonderful secret of recognition of ourselves in others, a repetition, when we find our character, our mental features in our relatives, acquaintances, literary and cinema characters (I had to hear the phrase more than once: "I am like my mother in character")... Simply speaking there is some half-paradoxical situation, when the obvious idea of our uniqueness oddly opposes to the equally obvious presence of "kindred souls" How to solve this contradiction? There is one way: accept that all our differences are typical, just as repetition is typical. From this point, it is one step to accept the necessity of a psychic typology. Let us take this step and ask ourselves a much more profound question: where does our unrepeatable psychic type come from, and where does its nature lie? 

* * * 

Early on, man became aware of himself as a multifaceted, heterogeneous creature, made up of some independent primary elements that had little dependence on one another. It all began with the epiphany of the now obvious thing: man consists of a body and a soul. 

Further complicating this not-yet-trivial position, man divided the soul into the "soul" proper, i.e., the emotional function, the realm of feelings, moods, heart reactions, experiences, and the "spirit", i.e., the volitional function, desire, control, character, personality, innings, "I".

With the beginning of the cultural revolution, when man began to turn from a hostage of nature into its tyrant, another quite independent element of his nature emerged - "mind," "reason," "intellect," i.e., the logical function, the ability to see mentally the substance of things, the connection between them and to describe them precisely. 

This is how the concept of the internal architecture of man, consisting of four mental modules or functions: EMOTION ("soul"), LOGIC ("mind"), PHYSICS ("body") and WILL ("spirit") was gradually formed. Attempts have been made to further complicate the structure of the primary elements of human nature, dividing, for example, mind and intellect, but attempts of this kind should be neglected, since they have not become generally accepted and are probably a delineation of different aspects of one and the same function. 

To be honest, I am not going to explain why exactly four and exactly these functions make up a person's being. Neither are references to authorities (Plato, Descartes, Goethe, Tolstoy, Hartmann, Chekhov), who brought together logic, physics, emotion, and will when they wanted to describe the fullness of human existence. Here is the mystery of nature yet to be deciphered. We, too, will operate with these four functions, speaking of man in general, of his psychic types and of his relations in pairs.

* * * 

Will, Emotion, Logic, Physics is a set of functions inherent in all people. It is something that, along with anthropological features of the human species, unites us. But at the same time this set of functions is a divisive factor that gives a rather original, if not unique, face to each individual's psyche. 

The point is that nature never endows the individual with functions evenly, but always makes something strong, something weak. Will, Logic, Physics, Emotion - in the psyche of an individual are not something equal, arranged horizontally, but represent a hierarchy or, to put it differently, a four-tiered order of functions, where each function, depending on its position on the rungs of the ladder, looks and acts in its own way. As nature puts these four bricks on top of each other, so 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 it is not difficult to calculate, into twenty-four quite independent mental types.

* * * 

It is impossible to tell at once about the importance of the order of functions in a person's life; this is what we are going to talk about in the rest of the story. But to make it clear, in order to somewhat water down the dryness of the narrative, we will give two examples. One will show how the degree of reliability of perception of the world depends on the order of functions, and the other will show the sequence of inclusion of means of struggle in conflict situations. 

As a first illustration, let us take a page from Leo Tolstoy's diary. It is remarkable because here the famous writer with remarkable depth not only gave a description of the action of all the functions we have mentioned before, but he himself lined them up in the hierarchy inherent in his type and lined up on the principle of the degree of credibility of the worldview. Tolstoy had the following order of functions: 1st Will, 2nd Emotion, 3rd Physics, 4th Logic.

In accordance with it, Tolstoy made the following entry in his diary: "...I know myself, by what - I am - me. This is the highest or rather, the deepest knowledge... (1st Will). 

The first. I am sad, hurting, bored, happy. That's for sure. (2nd Emotion). 

Second. I hear the smell of violets, see light and shadows, etc. There may be a mistake here (3rd Physics). 

Third. I know the earth is round and spinning and there is Japan and Madagascar, etc. All this is questionable" (4th Logic). 

An amazingly accurate description of his own psycho-type. In the first place in himself Tolstoy put his "I", i.e. the Will, and considered his knowledge of it "the deepest". On the second step he placed, endowing it with "unquestionableness", the field of emotions, experiences. As for physical sensations, they are "not infallible" for Tolstoy. And the sphere of speculative knowledge turned out to be quite "doubtful" for the writer. 

The latter circumstance is particularly remarkable because Tolstoy was much engaged in philosophy, composed philosophical treatises himself, and seemed to have a great reverence for the intellect. But, as his attitude to even such simple speculative truths as the existence of Japan and Madagascar shows, the validity of intellectual information was more than questionable for him. 

It may seem to some that the Tolstoyian view of logic is a kind of universal skeptical norm. But it is not. For example, for the famous philosopher Descartes, only that which is calculable was reliable, and life was identical with thinking. "I think, therefore I exist," Descartes said. Therefore, Tolstoy's attitude to logical constructions is not something natural and objective, but the essence is a reflection of Tolstoy's psychotype, or rather, any order of functions in which Logic is in fourth place. 

Another example, illustrating the operation of the order of functions, will be quite worldly and will show how the sequence of means of struggle in conflict situations depends on it. I know a boy with this order of functions: 1st Physics, 2nd Will, 3rd Logic, 4th Emotion. So, coming home one day from kindergarten and undressing, the boy dropped some candy on the floor. His older sister, who was 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 prior negotiation, the little boy poked his fist at his sister (1st Physics). To no avail. Then the fist was followed by a volitional imperative: "Give it back!" (2nd Will). Nothing. I had to turn to logic: "This is mine!" (3rd Logic). When that didn't work either, the boy's lips twisted and he burst into tears (4th emotion). The sobs had more effect on his parents than on his sister, but anyway, the candy returned to its rightful owner. 

We will limit ourselves to these two examples for now. To be honest, the last thing I wanted the reader to see in the order of functions was a primitive vertical, a kind of oak stake, on which the human psyche is placed. This phenomenon is, of course, much more complex. 

* * *

The order of functions itself is very clearly divided into the TOP (the first two functions) and the DOWN (the last two). This division is remarkable because it introduces an element of antagonism into the human psyche, in which the upper strong functions are opposed to the weaker lower ones (usually the First and the Third functions are most acutely opposed). 

For example, the evangelical Christ had the Will ("spirit") at the top and the Physic ("flesh") at the bottom, and in accordance with this position of functions he proclaimed in his time the famous postulate: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh does not benefit a little" (John 6:63). This phrase of Christ later became a description of the reference mental model of the whole Christian world. But no matter how hard the Church tried in many ways to make it the norm of human life, millions and millions of people with a different order of functions than Christ's continued secretly and explicitly to resist the polarization of Will and Physics, the excessive glorification of the spirit as opposed to the flesh, which for many was much more abundant than the spirit. And, I think, many people, following Victor Hugo, who did not miss a single skirt until he was 80 years old, could bitterly state 

"O weak spirit of ours! You are possessed by the flesh! 

You can't overcome base passions 

The fall of an angel! Mud on swan wings! 

The flesh is all-powerful! It overcomes all!" 

Disagreement with the Christian psychological model, which affirmed the superiority of the spirit over the flesh, is inherent not only in those for whom the flesh greatly surpasses the spirit, but also in those who find the very fact of such an opposition unacceptable and strange, that is, people for whom the Will and the Physique stand side by side, in a pair, either above or below. Goethe, for example, in a letter to Klopstock, had to, contrary to the pressures of upbringing and environment, openly declare, "I am not a Christian." And this is understandable. In Goethe both functions (Will and Physique) were at the top, and therefore without terrible violence to himself to contrast the equally strong sides of his nature, spirit and flesh, he was simply not able to do so. 

From this, however, it does not follow that Goethe had no bifurcation at all. No, it was simply different. With Physics at the top and Logic at the bottom, Goethe was prone to exaggerate the importance of empiricism while diminishing pure speculation. In another letter, he made another characteristic confession: "God punished Jacobi with metaphysics, but blessed me with physics, so that I could rejoice in admiring his creation. And if you say that one can only believe in God, I tell you - I believe with all my strength only in what I see." Thus, following his order of functions. Goethe was a type of complete sensualist and a consistent enemy of rationalism, which found its fullest artistic expression in the character of Faust, a character filled with skepticism and thirst for sensual pleasures. 

* * * 

We all live by the principle "Strength is intelligence". That is, we justify the presence of strong upper functions to justify the presence of weak lower ones. "Zato" is a magic word that we extract into the light of God every time our failure is discovered: "I am weak and dry, but strong-willed and clever," "I am weak and stupid, but sensitive and beautiful," etc. It is difficult even for us to imagine that life is possible without "buts," a harmonious life, without dividing one's nature into Top and Bottom. 

Not only the psyche of an individual, but also the psyche of entire nations is divided into "upper" and "lower". The presence of typical "Englishmen", "Japanese", "Gypsies" allows us to talk about the psychotypical face of a nation, and with it the presence of an ethnic "top" and "bottom". 

If we take, for example, the four familiar functions: Will, Physics, Logic, and Emotion, - and project them onto the psyche of the Russian people, having previously divided them into top and bottom, much in Russian history and culture will become clear. 

Obviously, the Russian people have Emotion and Physics at the top, while Logic and Will are at the bottom. And this order of functions immediately and well explains why the historical path of Russia was so tortuous; why it is so poor in manifestations of a strong spirit and a deep mind, but so rich in artistic talents; why the national physiognomy was inherent in what Berdyaev very accurately called "eternally womanly" in the character of Russian people. When Emotion and Physics are at the top, and Logic and Will are at the bottom, the stigma of "femininity," even as applied to the nation, looks though offensive, but quite understandable and justified. 

Let us remember the first peculiarity of the order of functions: the presence of the TOP and BOTTOM. And then let us remember another important feature: the division of functions into Result and Process. 

What is to be understood by both? - I'll try to be brief. "Result-oriented" functions (the First and Fourth) are those for which, in expressing themselves, the result is more valuable than the process. And "processive" functions (Second and Third), gravitate toward the opposite and value the process more than the result. In schematic form, this division of functions can be depicted as follows: 

1. Effective 

2. Process 

3. Process 

4. Effective 

It can also be said that productive functions, by the very principle of their action, are inwardly lonely, not inclined to search for a partner and gravitate toward a monologue when expressing themselves. Processive functions, on the contrary, are inclined to dialog, they like partnership and maximum interaction. To illustrate, here is an example. If, say, a person prefers to realize his logic function as a result obtained in the course of solitary office reflections, then we can say with certainty that his Logic is productive (Descartes). If, on the other hand, one finds true satisfaction only in the process of communicating with others, one's Logic is clearly processional (Socrates).