[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]
You need to clarify what do you mean by less conscious.
according to Jung p448, Psychological Types.
Jung doesn't explain the relation between differentiation of functions and complexes.
No. it doesn't mean Intuitive type don't hear, see, touch, taste, smell. As long as their five senses are still functioning, they can still do that. You identify yourself as INTP, an intuitive type How could you have been able to respond to my post if you hadn't even seen it? and You certainly wouldn't be able to respond to my post, if you did not see it.
I wasn't saying an Intuitive type couldn't hear, see, touch, taste, smell; I was saying "it makes it SOUND like" that
IF you don't specify the distinction between "differentiated" and "undifferentiated" via the complexes.
Differentiation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions -- as for example thinking' with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc. -- as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.e. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency and ambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriee"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function [i.e. "attitude"] is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.
The way I understand "undifferentiated" meaning the functions "mixed up together" (
which is also known as "concretistic", and you'll see him mention "concrete" functions; it doesn't mean just S; there's concrete N, F and T as well) is that in everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we've learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we've learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we've learned from the environment, or internal values we've learned individually through nature.
But only SOME of our normal complexes (ego states or senses of "I") will associate with these different perspectives and thus focus on their products, and this is what will "differentiate" them as discrete "functions", where we pay special attention to their "products" (senses, inferences, truths, likes), and they are then said to become specifically "conscious".
In other words, jut like we divide an
otherwise undivided spacetime into "left/right", "back/forth", "up/down", and "past/future" based on our position in it, these different functions will separate out the tangible details of a situation, from an implication, and the impersonal truth of a situation, from its affect on people, and also, taking it as is from the objective environment, or filtering it through the individual subject.
Jung's language is so "dense", some of this stuff needs to be "interpreted" and even appended (hence, why we have Myers, Grant, Beebe, Lenore, Socionics, etc), and while there will be debates as to whether the interpretation is right or not (like the attitude of the auxiliary, etc.), but this is what makes the most sense of his discussion of "differentiation", to me.
By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego (v. Ego) in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego [25]. In so far as relations are not sensed as such by the ego, they are unconscious (q.v.). Consciousness is the function or activity [26] which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego,. Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego [27].
And the way I understand this, type is formed by the ego,
which is itself a complex, along with one other complex. The ego is what sets the dominant function and attitude. Other complexes that work with it are the "Hero" (the ego's "main achiever"), and the "Persona" (the image we put forth to the outer world). The next one is what becomes the "caretaker" or "parent", and is about adaptation, and will for the sake of balance, choose a function opposite in both attitude and rationality (judgment or perception).
These complexes and associated levels of consciousness/differentiation are "compensated" their opposites falling into lower consciousness. (That's what I meant by "more or less conscious" in the quote). So a "child" will "reflect" (as I call it) the parent, and its "tertiary" function will be somewhat less conscious that the auxiliary, but not as much as the inferior, which will be a reflection of the dominant or "superior" function and complex.
Since each of the four basic functions have been assigned one i/e attitude or another, then that implies that these attitudes for each function are also compensated or "reflected" by an even less conscious opposite attitude for each, which are then associated with more negative counterparts to the first four complexes. This is what in Beebe's model are called the "shadows".
Keep in mind, terms like "shadows" and "complexes" refer to much more than what is discussed in Beebe's model. It's just that
these particular eight complexes (and related) are the ones that figure in our typological preference, and basically, the "ego structure" as far as what we call type. (That's how I understand "relatedness of psychic contents to the ego"; "sensed by the ego"). Of course, there are many more complexes than just those; hence the last sentence.
So all eight functions are represented in type-specific ways for each type there, but of course, there are non-specific ways, like how everyone can see, hear, feel, think, etc.