The Paradox of Perspective - Notes

These are the notes I wrote for the Mysterious Studies podcast episode The Paradox of Perspective. I didn't actually use these notes while recording the episode, but spoke more freeform this time. But I am uploading the notes here for those who are curious to see the notes that the episode is based on.

In senior high, I hated my philosophy lessons, because it seemed to be that all we ever did was go through the thoughts and opinions of some old Greek guys. I thought it would have been more about us actually testing the limits of our own thinking capabilities, but instead it seemed to be all about learning what other people - meaning, a few selected men - had been thinking.

These days, I can see the value in learning what previous thinkers have been thinking, though I'd like to include a broader range of people than what my teacher was able to do in that first (and last) philosophy course that I attended.

But when I was a teenager, I did not care to be so diplomatic about this. I was raging at the futility I felt at being forced to learn the thoughts of some old guy.

I remember I got a very low grade at the one and only philosophy exam I ever attended, because I stubbornly refused to connect my arguments back to any of these guys, and chose to use different animals as examples instead. I remember speculating how the perspective of an elephant would differ from a human. Needless to say, My philosophy teacher was just as unimpressed with my speculations as I was with her lessons, so that's where my philosophy studies ended.

It would take around eight years for me to find my way back to philosophy as I discovered that there was much more to philosophy than just old men, dead long ago. And these days, I particularly appreciate the different frameworks and thought experiments that I have learned of. And the notion that, the perspective you have on your life is directly affecting how you will experience that life.

In the last episode, we stayed in the realm of epistemology, focused on the study of knowledge, what is knowable and how.

In this episode I want to move on to something intertwined with that, but also different and complex in its own way. It can be called perspective or lens or approach, and can be connected to the term of ontology, or the study of reality. What is reality? But particularly : how is it experienced? Depending on the perspective

Something that has stuck with me, both from reading philosophy and from simply taking part in all kinds of stories, whether they be in books, movies or games, is how the storyteller cannot help but transmit one particular view of the world, a chosen perspective. Of course, there may be works where multiple perspectives are made visible, for example through different characters, but even in these works, through the act of telling something about reality you need to choose in what way it is presented and through what kind of perspective.

In sharing these thoughts I myself can't escape my own perspective. I can try to look beyond, to learn and evolve, but there is probably only a certain range that is available for me, in my particular life, as I don't believe I will ever be able to fully grasp all sides, nor should I probably need to. I will have my particular life experiences, that will color what I can learn beyond that, anyway.

So in the matter of perspectives, I hold a slightly contradictory approach. On the one hand, I've come to accept that my perspective is and always will be limited, and that I am tied to my own particular perspective, as experienced through my particular life. And on the other hand, I notice a longing to learn and evolve beyond my own limited perspective. I hunger for stories and other examples or even new experiences within my own life so that I can keep learning, in the hopes of broadening or deepening my view.

No wonder then, that I've been very fascinated by different approaches or methods or frameworks that have to do with perspectives and guidelines for developing it further.

Two of the most fascinating frameworks I've taken part in are Jung's four functions, and the four directions in native American thought.

These show two different examples of a symbol for how a human being can develop a whole self, where they are wise, because they are able to access different approaches or perspectives to the world. I was struck by the similarities in these examples, but also the differences.

So, in the first example, Carl Jung describes four different functions, or ways of approaching the world. He connects these to the four directions and the four elements (something that has connections to western occult traditions, and Alchemy). In turn the functions are: thinking, air, the direction of east. Feeling, water, the direction of west, sensation, earth, the direction of north, and intuition, fire, the direction of south. So, in this example, a person usually has a tendency to focus on one or a few approaches. Such as reaction with the emotions, or always trying to control things with the mind. But in Jung's view, the way that a person can develop wholeness is through completing their approaches with the missing ones. So, if you are a person who tends to think, and not give yourself space to feel your emotions or don't have a connection to the sense of touch, you would be encouraged to develop those approaches to be a more whole, or individuated being.

In a contrasting but similar symbol, the native American medicine wheel contains four directions, that describe four functions or approaches to the world. These are also corresponding to the four directions, but also to four different animals and colors. For this symbol, there is wisdom in the north, the white buffalo. Illumination in the east, the yellow, or golden, eagle. Trust and innocence in the south, green mouse, and Introspection in the west, the black bear.

Since I did not grow up in this culture and with using these symbols in practice, please keep in mind that my description here is coming from the perspective of me as someone fascinated with exploring these patterns, and feeling we could all gain from respecting different types of knowledge, but I also stand at the risk of over simplifying or distorting symbols that I have not worked with in practice. So this analysis is something that I do for the sake of openness and playfulness, not to impose any one right way of viewing these things.

I find it fascinating how Jung's example and the medicine wheel share some aspects and seem to overlap in some way while there are also some distinct differences. The thing that most stands out to me is how the medicine view connects the directions to the different animals, as symbols for these approaches. This of course stems from that culture that had a different way of being in the world where the animals were seen as bringers of wisdom and messengers between the worlds in a very different way than in Jung's time and place. Not that Jung didn't also hold some awareness for the power, particularly symbolic or archetypal roles, of animals

Another difference is how Jung's four functions seem to be presented as a way for an individual to consider their approach to the world while the directions of the medicine wheel seems to encourage larger movement between levels. There is only one direction that diectly has to do with Introspection while the others can be seen as more directly engaging with the world, just in very different ways. The larger overview of the eagle eye is opposing the Introspection. And wisdom, the coolly rational view is opposed with the innocent and more nearsighted view.

In a way, it can be argued that all of Jung's functions are honed in on the individual experience while there is a different emphasis on relationality in the medicine wheel. Not that surprising, as this relationality seems to be a very central aspect of indigenous knowledge creation, which is also described in Sand Talk.

Jung's four functions is definitely a useful example and they all bring their own wisdom to the table. I believe there has been a need for frameworks where the individual is allowed to focus on observing their own subjective approach, and this model does a beautiful job of that.

I am here mainly lifting them as an example of how different models or different frameworks of knowledge will by design result in different aspects being lit up and focused on. Neither necessarily right or wrong or better or worse, just different.

I'll admit, I do have a bias for favoring a system where I can connect with animal symbols and colors. Though Jung's elements bring their own coolness factor too. Well. They are both cool systems, in their own right.

So let's continue and see the result when I would use them, how does the result actually differ between them? I'll use myself as an example, that's what I know to talk about.

In meeting Jung's four functions, I realized that I had a strong emphasis on the thinking + a little of emotion. My intuition had been suppressed all my life and my connection to sensation was non existent in a world where I had learned to so heavily rely on my mind (with less than satisfactory results) and ignore the signs of my physical body. Since I felt the loss of the physical (sensation) most strongly I started to focus on relearning and reacquainting myself with my sense of touch, in small ways (noticing how my clothes felt, discreetly stroking different surfaces just to feel them) and bigger ways (enveloping myself in different settings affecting the senses I different ways: Forest, water, concerts, spa visits etc). So my journey with the four functions of Jung was a very individual process, with me exploring how my experience as a human changes depending on the focus.

If I consider the four directions of the medicine wheel I notice a surprising detail: my approach to life is colored mainly by the near-sighted, innocent view, but with elements of all others. This model does not divide me into parts such as thinking, feeling, sensing, but the directions are more about a "tendency to a type of view", though I guess you could argue the innocent view can be seen as mostly emotional and the wise view is rational. Or maybe the innocent view is connected to touch and the introspective view is the emotional one? You can see how my mind here struggles to fit in the directions with Jung's functions but I think this is futile as they should just be allowed to be their own and to stand in their own right as their own types of knowledge systems. Or perspective systems?

My inability to cut apart the medicine wheel hints at a deeper complexity where these approaches are more expansive or nuanced than simply separating them into feeling, thinking, sensation etc. They are not necessarily only about what "interface" the individual has to the world but about a way of perceiving the world answering back and what we expect to receive from it in return, as a result of our particular approach. And the approach does, immediately result in a particular type of feedback, a possibility space opening up, depending on what type of perspective you're able to access.

I appreciate this more relational way of viewing perspectives, because most often we see the perspective as something very individual, somehow just residing in you, like a quality. And of course that is also true but it is just as true that your perspective will result in very particular behaviors, that affect both your own life and the world around you.

If we take this idea further we get to the idea that your own perspective Colors your life and that your view of reality creates your reality. But, I think we need some time to build up to that, so that is the theme for a later episode.

For now, I want to leave you with an exercise and some tips for further resources if you want to test out these frameworks for yourself.

First it might be most approachable to start with Jung's functions and try to pin down, what is the dominant function YOU are using? And then, the least dominant one? From there, you can start to consider ways in which you could start experimenting with using those less used functions as well, in small ways at first and then expanding in that. OR, is there a good reason for continuing with your current dominant approach? Like, something in your life situation or current state that calls for it? Feel into it, and what seems right for you.

Then you can do a similar process with the medicine wheels directions, but that may be a bit more complex to pinpoint, as those directions flow in different ways and are less easily cut apart, at least in my view.

Resources mentioned in the episode:

Seven Arrows by Hyemeyohsts Storm

Fourdirectionsteachings.com - Website collecting teachings about the four directions by Lillian Pitawanakwat

Psychology of the Unconscious by C. G. Jung
(though I actually read the Swedish version: Det omedvetna av C.G. Jung)

Jung Personality Types: The Model of Typology - Blog post about Jung’s personality types on the website psychologia.co

This Jungian Life Podcast: https://thisjungianlife.com/podcast/