Updates
Update 1.27 — To Have or To Be?
In the previous two updates, I created condensed definitions of:
- Extraversion and Introversion (update 1.25), and
- Perceiving and Judging (update 1.26).
Specifically, the definitions of Extraversion and Introversion are as follows:
object, case—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION
subject, relation—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION
In turn, the definition of Perceiving and Judging are as follows.
Action, movement—find and deal—
—PERCEIVING
process, act—planning and organization—
—JUDGING
In turn, the definitions of Perceiving and Judging are as follows:
In the Mandala of Characters, I describe Extraversion, Introversion, Perceiving, and Judging as adaptive-defensive mechanisms (or general attitudes, or modes of psychic reactions).
In the above diagram, Extraversion, Introversion, Perceiving, and Judging are in the same places like on the Mandala of Characters.
I am satisfied with the definitions, which I presented while ago. I think they accurately show what adaptive-defensive mechanisms (or general attitudes, or modes of psychic reactions) are. Let me remind you that two adaptive-defensive mechanisms (namely, Extraversion and Introversion), were created by C. G. Jung. Later, Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers added to them Perceiving and Judging.
Although, as I just said, I am satisfied with the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms I have created, I decided to improve these definitions. The idea about this improvement I got thanks to Erich Fromm’s book—“To Have or To Be?”.
The concepts (or modes) of “To Have” and “To Be” became very popular after the publication of Erich Fromm’s book in 1976. I remember that they were trendy in the 1980s. Personally, I was also inspired by these modes. In the 1980s, I was a pupil, firstly of elementary school, and then secondary school. I remember that these modes were widely used at that time.
The modes of “being” or “having” distinguish two ways of human existence. Erich Fromm preferred the use phrases: mode of being and mode of having. So, Fromm used the old logical and philosophical term—mode or modality. The “To Have” mode is based on possession, and the “To Be” mode is oriented to being.
“To Be” and “To Have” came back to my mind during my reflections (or just free-thinking) about adaptive-defensive mechanisms. And I realized that after all the “To Be” and “To have” mode, we can associate with Introversion and Extraversion.
If we look at the above diagram, we can see that that the word "object" is part of the definition of Extraversion. In turn, the definition of Introversion contains the word "subject". Then:
— "subject" is closely related to—"being",
— and "object" is closely related to—"having".
Erich Fromm wrote a lot about the relationship between the object (possession or having) and the subject (being). Below there are three quotes from Erich Fromm’s book “To Be or To Have” as a sample of his extraordinary considerations.
The sentence "I have something" expresses the relation between the subject, I (or he, we, you, they), and the object, O. It implies that the subject is permanent and the object is permanent. But is there permanence in the subject? Or in the object? I shall die; I may lose the social position that guarantees my having something. The object is similarly not permanent: it can be destroyed, or it can be lost, or it can lose its value. Speaking of having something permanently rests upon the illusion of a permanent and indestructible substance. If I seem to have everything, I have—in reality—nothing, since my having, possessing, controlling an object is only a transitory moment in the process of living.
In the last analysis, the statement “I [subject] have O [object]” expresses a definition of I through my possession of O. The subject is not myself but I am what I have. My property constitutes myself and my identity. The underlying thought in the statement "I am I" is "I am I because I have X"—X equaling all natural objects and persons to whom I relate myself through my power to control them, to make them permanently mine.
In the having mode, there is no alive relationship between me and what I have. It and I have become things, and I have it, because I have the force to make it mine. But there is also a reverse relationship: it has me, because my sense of identity, i.e., of sanity, rests upon my having it (and as many things as possible). The having mode of existence is not established by an alive, productive process between subject and object; it makes things of both object and subject. The relationship is one of deadness, not aliveness.
Erich Fromm—“To Have or To Be?”
pages: 63...64,
Publisher: Continuum, 2008
We admire these heroes because we deeply feel their way is the way we would want to be—-if we could. But being afraid, we believe that we cannot be that way, that only the heroes can. The heroes become idols; we transfer to them our own capacity to move, and then stay where we are—"because we are not heroes."
This discussion might seem to imply that while being a hero is desirable, it is foolish and against one's self-interest. Not so, by any means. The cautious, the having persons enjoy security, yet by necessity they are very insecure. They depend on what they have: money, prestige, their ego —that is to say, on something outside themselves. But what becomes of them if they lose what they have? For, indeed, whatever one has can be lost. Most obviously, one's property can be lost—and with it usually one's position, one's friends—and at any moment one can, and sooner or later one is bound to, lose one's life.
If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living. Because I can lose what I have, I am necessarily constantly worried that I shall lose what I have. I am afraid of thieves, of economic changes, of revolutions, of sickness, of death, and I am afraid of love, of freedom, of growth, of change, of the unknown. Thus I am continuously worried, suffering from a chronic hypochondriasis, with regard not only to loss of health but to any other loss of what I have; I become defensive, hard, suspicious, lonely, driven by the need to have more in order to be better protected.
Erich Fromm—“To Have or To Be?”
page 89,
Publisher: Continuum, 2008
While having is based on some thing that is diminished by use, being grows by practice. (The "burning bush" that is not consumed is the biblical symbol for this paradox.) The powers of reason, of love, of artistic and intellectual creation, all essential powers grow through the process of being expressed. What is spent is not lost, but on the contrary, what is kept is lost. The only threat to my security in being lies in myself: in lack of faith in life and in my productive powers; in regressive tendencies; in inner laziness and in the willingness to have others take over my life. But these dangers are not inherent in being, as the danger of losing is inherent in having.
Erich Fromm—“To Have or To Be?”
page 90,
Publisher: Continuum, 2008
As we can see in the above quotes, Erich Fromm’s considerations are fascinating and deep. So, I think we can rely on them and use them in the Mandala of Characters.
As we can see in the diagram that I presented earlier:
— the subject is associated with Introversion,
— and the object is associated with Extraversion.
In turn, in the above Erich Fromm’s considerations, we can see that:
— the subject is associated with “To Be”,
— and the object is associated with “To Have”.
In that case, it turns out:
— the “To Have” mode can be added to the definition of Extraversion,
— and the “To Be” mode can be added to the definition of Introversion.
So, if we add “To Have” and “To Be” to the definitions of Extraversion and Introversion, they will look as follows:
to have—object, case—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION
to be—subject, relation—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION
I think that now the definitions of Extraversion and Introversion are even better than before. In my opinion, the modes of having and being fit very well to these definitions. And generally, they fit the Mandala of Characters. I hope that thanks to these definitions, it will be easier to understand the mechanisms of Extraversion and Introversion.
I am glad that during the development of the Mandala of Characters, I came to the above definitions. In my opinion, they can help capture the essence of what Introversion and Extraversion are.
So, now we need yet to add the “To Have” and “To Be” to the diagram showing adaptive-defensive mechanisms.
I will also add the “To Have” and “To Be” to the general diagram of the Mandala of Characters.
Jacek Błach
December 2017
English translation—January 2019
References:
page 63...64, 89, 90
Publisher: Continuum, 2008
CC0 1.0 Universal
To other texts and images that I used as quotes, additional terms may apply.