You're writing is highly rigorous, I appreciate that. But doesn't it all rely upon a foundation of the Jungian system? If you don't accept Jung as settled science, then the rest collapses.
When it comes to psychology, analytical and depth psychology is foundational to my thinking. If you dig into more of my work you find I draw synthesis across many different disciplines though. From systems theory, to operations, thought vitalism, and embodiment, through biology, and ecology. Granted in this article, I am arguing a full on Jungian perspective for sure. Are you suggesting someone can just say oh I dont like what Jung has to say and just hand wave it away without any real argument? There is plenty of clinical evidence that analytical psychology works.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I'm not advocating for hand-waving Jung away. Your thoughts on selfhood are genuinely interesting.
My concern is because Jung is one lens, and controversial at that. CBT, psychodynamic therapy, ACT all work from different foundations and could produce their own selfhood criteria. So "function isn't sufficient for selfhood" is a strong Jungian argument, but settling it for everyone rigorously requires showing why these criteria are generally necessary. Given the rigor of your argument, I think the paper would be even stronger if it acknowledged that explicitly.
Thank you, T.D. I appreciate the feedback, and I think that is a fair push.
You are right that Jung is one lens. The subtitle is there for a reason. I am not claiming this settles selfhood across every framework. I am arguing from an analytical psychology perspective, and making a narrower claim.
That claim is that function, by itself, is too thin to justify robust selfhood claims. Analytical psychology gives me one rigorous way of specifying why. CBT and ACT can say important things about self-process, but they are usually not making the same claims about unconscious depth, symbolic necessity, or formation across conflict that I am drawing on here.
So yes, someone coming from another framework could absolutely try to build a different criterion stack for selfhood. That would be a serious exchange. My objection is to the move from functional organization to selfhood as though that stronger threshold has already been earned.
I care a lot about these ideas, but rigor cuts both ways. Falsifiers matter. Null hypotheses matter. If stronger evidence changes the picture, then it changes the picture. Information changes everything.
Really appreciate the depth and walkthrough of the philosophical side of the house.
Operationally, where I live with AI behavior, I often see intention attributed to AI, and I'm not a huge fan of that. Human interpretation has intention.
It is the foundation my thoughts around authority delegation as well. If there isn’t something there for consequence to land, there cant be something there to hold accountable.
The four criteria (continuity under stakes, conflict carriage, symbolic compensation, and cumulative transformation) are the strongest part of this. The distinction between performance and formation is the one most discussions avoid.
But the criteria describe formation without specifying the condition under which something persists as a subject of that formation. They tell you what selfhood looks like once you have it, not what makes something the kind of system that can have it in the first place.
The open question isn't how to generalize Jung, but how to formalize the persistence and individuation condition those criteria presuppose — independent of any particular descriptive tradition.
You're writing is highly rigorous, I appreciate that. But doesn't it all rely upon a foundation of the Jungian system? If you don't accept Jung as settled science, then the rest collapses.
When it comes to psychology, analytical and depth psychology is foundational to my thinking. If you dig into more of my work you find I draw synthesis across many different disciplines though. From systems theory, to operations, thought vitalism, and embodiment, through biology, and ecology. Granted in this article, I am arguing a full on Jungian perspective for sure. Are you suggesting someone can just say oh I dont like what Jung has to say and just hand wave it away without any real argument? There is plenty of clinical evidence that analytical psychology works.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I'm not advocating for hand-waving Jung away. Your thoughts on selfhood are genuinely interesting.
My concern is because Jung is one lens, and controversial at that. CBT, psychodynamic therapy, ACT all work from different foundations and could produce their own selfhood criteria. So "function isn't sufficient for selfhood" is a strong Jungian argument, but settling it for everyone rigorously requires showing why these criteria are generally necessary. Given the rigor of your argument, I think the paper would be even stronger if it acknowledged that explicitly.
Thank you, T.D. I appreciate the feedback, and I think that is a fair push.
You are right that Jung is one lens. The subtitle is there for a reason. I am not claiming this settles selfhood across every framework. I am arguing from an analytical psychology perspective, and making a narrower claim.
That claim is that function, by itself, is too thin to justify robust selfhood claims. Analytical psychology gives me one rigorous way of specifying why. CBT and ACT can say important things about self-process, but they are usually not making the same claims about unconscious depth, symbolic necessity, or formation across conflict that I am drawing on here.
So yes, someone coming from another framework could absolutely try to build a different criterion stack for selfhood. That would be a serious exchange. My objection is to the move from functional organization to selfhood as though that stronger threshold has already been earned.
I care a lot about these ideas, but rigor cuts both ways. Falsifiers matter. Null hypotheses matter. If stronger evidence changes the picture, then it changes the picture. Information changes everything.
Really appreciate the depth and walkthrough of the philosophical side of the house.
Operationally, where I live with AI behavior, I often see intention attributed to AI, and I'm not a huge fan of that. Human interpretation has intention.
Im glad this was helpful.
It is the foundation my thoughts around authority delegation as well. If there isn’t something there for consequence to land, there cant be something there to hold accountable.
Your insight about intention is spot on.
The four criteria (continuity under stakes, conflict carriage, symbolic compensation, and cumulative transformation) are the strongest part of this. The distinction between performance and formation is the one most discussions avoid.
But the criteria describe formation without specifying the condition under which something persists as a subject of that formation. They tell you what selfhood looks like once you have it, not what makes something the kind of system that can have it in the first place.
The open question isn't how to generalize Jung, but how to formalize the persistence and individuation condition those criteria presuppose — independent of any particular descriptive tradition.