Author Topic: Hierarchical memory and the Jungian functions  (Read 2959 times)

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Hierarchical memory and the Jungian functions
« on: May 08, 2007, 05:03:17 PM »

I posted a link to this article a few weeks ago, but it was buried in the Wrestling with Giegerich thread.  I would like to reintroduce it, as I am finding it more and more likely that the notion of memory hierarchy discussed in the beginning of this article is the real basis for what Jung called the sensation and intuition functions.

I feel it is necessary to understand the actual brain functions or cognitive modes that might lie behind Jung's type theory.  If no links can be made, the type theory should be discarded . . . but if useful links can be made, Jung's "intuitive science" might provide a great deal of useful phenomenological data to understanding how the brain works and how we perceive its working.

The article is "Learn Like A Human" by Jeff Hawkins and I found it in IEEE Spectrum (a magazine the computer engineers I work with subscribe to).  The latter part of the article tries to use the data from neuroscientific studies to improve development of artificial intelligence research . . . but the first part of the article speaks very clearly about memory hierarchies.  I.e., our memories (as we perceive them) are composites of numerous memory fragments that have come together in a hierarchical pyramid.  "High-level" memories or "images" would be composites of numerous "low-level" fragments that form the things we interact with in material life (e.g., people, objects, animals, etc.).

I am using this article as a jumping off point to understand Jungians sensation as "low-level memories/image fragments".  In the context of depth psychology, I am inclined to call these "elemental memories" or "elemental images".  They are as "unrecognizable" to us as our own cells or molecules.  As "microscopic" building blocks, they are not part of the "concrete world" we feel we live in (i.e., we have evolved to interact with and recognize).  But to some degree, we can be conscious of them (or at least we can become aware that our higher-order memory images are made up of numerous, differentiable components; dream work is a lovely tool for generating such awareness).

But primarily, these elemental images are perceived automatically . . . and they are perceived, in part, by our senses, our bodies.  Our bodies/brains convert what they perceive sensually into flowing information streams.  Perhaps "bombarding" information streams would be a better term.  I suspect these bombarding streams of information are hurled form many places at once toward a "consciousness net" (what we call the ego).  This ego net captures some of these bombardments of information and collates them into a functional perception on a higher level on the image hierarchy.

As for how the ego "decides" what information is captured and what is ignored, my guess is that it "nets" those bits of information that are most familiar and recognizable to it.  It's as if the material part of the netting is made up of various receptors designed to only catch compatible information.  The "too alien" information passes through the netting and is not consciously perceived (although it does seem as though we have a "back-up system", since some of this information will later show up in our dreams and imaginings).

These ego nets are intentionally constructible to some degree.  We can train ourselves to perceive and value various kinds of data that we previously ignored or didn't recognize.  I think our ego nets are like bundles of strategic software.  That is, they are made up of predetermined strategies . . . employed by the ego to deal with various situations that arise.  These strategies, ideally, are "always-on" and adaptive.  They are not "programmed responses", A always equals B.  Rather, they are "categorically intelligent" and tend to assess new information based on its (usually low-level) similarity to previous information that has bombarded the ego and "stuck".  But often this "comprehension by relatedness" to the familiar fails as subsequent data comes flowing in to the (ever growing and fluctuating) ego-net.  Therefore, constant revision and plasticity are required.

Our bundle of ego strategies is equivalent to our identity, our sense of self.  We can perhaps get a glimpse of this make-up of our identities when we try to define ourselves to others.  We might say, "I'm the kind of person who feels/believes/wants X/Y/Z" or "Whenever I see X, I immediately think Y."  We are (egoically) made up of our beliefs . . . and our beliefs are products of our strategies for living/surviving.  We also have strategies for protecting our bundle of preexisting strategies.  We can only manage so much flexibility before becoming non-functional.  The maintenance of strategic identity cohesion is (I think) primarily accomplished with valuation.  Valuation is an almost "quantifiable" component that we (mostly unconsciously) add to each ego-level memory-complex that tells us how important the complex is to us, how we feel about it, how to rank it in relation to other memory complexes (thus the near-quantifiability of valuation).

If the low-level elemental perception is the perception behind Jung's notion of sensation, then the valuative intelligence is the clear foundation of the Jungian feeling function.  The valuative intelligence is, in my opinion, relative.  What one person values is not what another person must value . . . and what human beings value is not necessarily what other animals or the "universe" values.  I suspect the root of valuation is in self-preservation . . . but a large part of human self-preservation is achieved through socialization and grouping.  Therefore an individual may place others (and the group in general) on a very high level of valuation.  This would be evolutionarily logical.

But valuation can be more or less conscious.  I think the consciousness of valuation can be differentiated largely by how aware an individual is of his or her valuative process, how far s/he can break it down into its elemental pieces.  The more one is able to do this, the more one can become aware of the strategic formation of valuation . . . and also of the arbitrariness of some of the valuation attached to various beliefs and strategies.  As one dismantles these more arbitrary valuations, one enters into a process of re-valuation.  I.e., if strategy X is not valued, then what is/should be?

The pursuit of this process is, I believe, the root of individuation.  Extensive and devoted revaluation that withdraws the valuation of self-protective strategies and establishes Other-valuing ones is what I refer to as the Work.  This process is guided by unconscious, archetypal instincts.  Consciousness of one's valuative/"feeling" function then is not merely a matter of "knowing how I feel about things".  It is a matter of being able to understand what one's valuations are composed of, and for what strategic purpose they were established.  I.e., how many of our valuative strategies were designed to protect our egos from recognizing their own weaknesses and how many were truly essential to the sustenance of one's entire being/Self or to the sustenance of others?  Conscious feeling differentiates.

But conscious or unconscious, valuation is self-sustaining (or sustaining of the individual and/or the others s/he values and/or the group).  Therefore, valuation is all about cohesiveness and connection.  My guess is that the sense of a cohesive ego or strategy bundle is primarily determined by this instinct for valuation . . . and that at its inner core, valuation is a, if not THE, survival instinct.

Just as elemental perceptions (sensation) are bombarding the ego with information, so is complex valuative information, a "weighting" of each bit of perceived information.

But there is at least one other information bombardier.  Although it is understandable why Jung called low-level, elemental perception "sensation", the term is misleading, because it too strongly connotes physicality.  Not all information bombarding the ego comes from outside and is converted through the senses.  A substantial amount of information fires at the ego from within, from previous memories and ego strategies that are resonating with new information or with new connections to other ego strategies.  In fact, from the perspective of the brain (and the ego) information is information.  There is no outer and inner.  Every bit of information has been converted into the currency of "thought".

I think it is a mistake, therefore to "physicalize" the sensation function.  "Elemental perception" is simply a more accurate/less misleading term.

Just as elemental perception introduces information in bits that are too small to be useful to ego-consciousness by themselves, there are other formations of information that are too large to be useful to the ego in most situations.  We might say, then, that the ego exists in the middle level of the information hierarchy . . . or else we might envision the ego in between two pyramids whose tips are pointing at one another (three if we want to include valuation).

What does it mean for information packets to be "too big"?  Merely that they are conglomerates of so many components that the unification of all of these components is not of strategic value to the ego.  But some of these conglomerates can have usefulness at certain times.  We are constantly experiencing moments in which numerous higher-level memories or information components touch together at one point, relate to one another, and like a flash of lightning, a pattern "emerges".  In Jungian terms, intuition.

These intuitions, I believe, are occurring all the time in our brains/psyches, albeit unconsciously.  We are always making potential connections, recognizing potential patterns in our mental data that are useless.  They are like failed tests to see if there is any value in fitting disparate bits of information together.  Most of these go by entirely or largely unnoticed by the ego (as nonsense or daydreaming or irrationality, perhaps).  But once in a while we hit on a pattern that seems useful to us (to our ego-strategies), and boom!  The valuative function weights it and ego-consciousness focuses in on the associative nexus of the intuition.

But (as with valuation) consciousness of an intuition does not merely mean that one recognizes a pattern or feels that it may be useful (to the ego) or finds it numinous.  As with valuation, consciousness of an intuition breaks the intuitive pattern down into its fundamental components, allowing the individual to better recognize what the intuition was made of and why it was valued the way it was.  Sometimes these intuitions are founded on some flawed strategies (strategies that have overly unconscious valuations to them, or neurotic defense mechanisms) . . . but usually these are mixed with non-prejudicial perceptions that have for whatever reason "circumvented" the strategic machinations of the ego.  Consciousness of intuition will differentiate the strategic ego-prejudices from the non-ego perceptions . . . thereby helping to revalue the intuition.

This can be a dreaded process for many so-called "intuitive types" (like me), because intuitions are often filled with powerful numen and can feel like "inspirations" or divine messages.  Consciousness tends to demystify (but refine, not decrease) this numinousness to some degree . . . and since we humans are "numen junkies", we will resist this as long as we can get away with it.  Intuitive types love to reinforce their ego-strategies with undifferentiated intuitions.  We call this "meaning" or "living the symbolic life."  But (as so-called "sensation types", who are used to breaking things down into their elements, will tell us in a heartbeat), we are full of shit.  We are merely justifying the addition of delusional material to our ego strategies in order to make ourselves feel more protected or important.  Numen and "meaning" (or "Good Faith") are not the same thing.

Social life tends to make punching bags out of extreme intuitive types . . . which often has the effect of driving intuitives farther into their intuitive delusions, into what I call the intuitive fallacy.  Luckily, we have tribal reservations like Jungian psychology (among others) to help convince us that we are not delusional.  We use the participation mystique of these tribes to hide our defective ego-strategies.

I am only singling out intuitives for a dressing down because I am one and because I am writing to intuitive tribespeople.  We shouldn't get smug or let ourselves feel superior to "rationalists" and our sensation-type others.  All kinds of people hide from their respective fallacies and defective ego-strategies in like-minded tribes.  Humans seem to have a profound tribal instinct (and are arguably not well suited to our large modern cultures).

As one will gather from my revisioning of Jungian types above, I currently only recognize three instinctual cognitive modes.  Of course, these categories (that Jung originally defined and I am adapting) are arbitrary.  They are metaphors.  I don't think they are physical brain modules.  They are patterns of brain processing that most likely come together from numerous brain modules in a much more complex way.  But in taking three of Jung's functions into a more neuroscientific realm, I am certainly bowing to Jung's superb intuition (garnered entirely from phenomenological or psychological data).

So, is there a fourth function?  If you have read my previous reworking of this in the "Rethinking Types" thread, you will remember that I see the Jungian thinking function as the ego itself.  I attribute Jung's tendency to see thinking as "masculine" and feeling as "feminine" as more a matter of acculturation in a patriarchy.  That is, both of these types as Jung often characterized them are very culture-oriented ego strategies, respective ways for each of the sexes to become (and be seen as) empowered in our patriarchal societies.

I won't revisit this argument in detail here, but one need only look at the effect of late 20th century feminism on the division of thinking and feeling types between the sexes.  So, yes, there may be "thinking types" in this sense, but this has little or nothing to do with the cognitive modes that make up human cognition.  When we look more closely at Jung's thinking function, we see only strategic thinking, not an information bombardment from an unconscious perceptor/transmitter.  The Jungian thinking function is an abstract organizer or categorizer of information.  These abstract categories are useful only as higher-level ego-strategies or as problem solving tools.  Either way, they are applied to or directed at the outside world, the human environment of the cognitive niche . . . or culture (and its concerns).

There is also a biological factor of "raw intelligence", something like IQ, but more elaborate . . . that predisposes an individual to various levels of facility in each of the cognitive modes (and probably other cognitive tools like working memory, creative aptitude, spacial intelligence, etc.).  This "raw intelligence" is most certainly a great asset in human society.  But ultimately, the ability to think abstractly is only as good as it is useful, only as "right" as its products are practical and applicable.  This kind of abstraction is not in itself a non-egoic source of information, but only ever an egoic attempt to envision something.

I suspect the seeming polarity between "thinking" and "feeling" in Jung's type quaternity is the result of a valuation conflict.  What culture "wants" from the ego is not necessarily what the Self (the biological being) wants.  If one's culture driven ego-strategies prevent the biological being from living in some viable state of equilibrium with its environment, the will for revaluation will bombard the ego from the unconscious.  Eventually the ego will lose its source of libido in the unconscious and be forced to adjust its strategies (or perish).

In fact, the consciousness-directed work of individuation is always a revaluative process, so from the Jungian perspective, (previously unconscious) feeling is always being ignited or the unconscious input is always being revalued during individuation.  In this sense, we are all "thinking types" (or ego-types) when we are individuating, as we are trying to sort out a conflict between ego-strategies that inadequately value the instinctual Self and the contrary will of that Self (which bombards us with intuitive, valuative, and elemental information that is all alien or unconscious to us).  Our preferred (defective) ego strategies might favor intuitive or elemental/rationalistic or culture-empowered biases, but they are always compensated by the unconscious with revaluative assertions (which can seem at first like attacks or harsh judgments of the current ego-strategy that has found no effective way of relating to the newly valued information).

I also feel inclined to shy away from categorizing people as "feeling types".  We all make valuative judgments and weight information with valuations.  We can no more cease to do this than we can stop breathing or stop our blood from circulating (excluding death).  There is a great deal of confusion in the Jungian world between people who express their feelings and "feeling types".  The expression of feeling is highly governed by acculturation (part of which is gender typing).  Even a person who relies largely on unconscious valuation to guide his or her ego-strategy has not formed a conscious, differentiated relationship to the valuative intelligence . . . and so has no "superior" capacity for judgment or relationship to the unconscious compared to an "intellectual" who is "suspicious of emotions".  Blind dependency is just as blind as blind resistance. 

So I think Jungians need to decide whether a "feeling type" is someone who has consciously differentiated some of their valuative intelligence or someone who unconsciously relies on unexamined valuations in order to form his or her ego-strategy.  The former "type" I would merely call an individuant or someone who has learned to value the unconscious to some degree.  The latter type (more in line with Jung's particular prejudice and conflict with the feminine) is merely a specific variety of flawed valuator.

The curiously common criticisms of "thinking types" in the online Jungian community seem to me more like put downs of "less-conscious" people.  But these slurs have nothing to do with type in my opinion.  They are merely claims of personal superiority over others . . . the kind of claims that are always founded in prejudice or "othering".

As Jung at least tried to point out, no cognitive mode (or function) is innately superior to any other . . . much as one's left arm cannot be innately superior (as a component of the whole body) to one's right leg.  All of our "cognitive organs" are essential, and they all operate in each of us constantly.  We are largely responsibly for choosing whether or not to be conscious of their operation.  We may innately and unconsciously favor one cognitive mode over another for constructing our ego strategies . . . but our consciousness of this strategizing is not a function of personality type.
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]