Response to Miller and Johnston

I would like to thank Barbara Helen Miller and James Graham Johnston for their interesting contribution on Myers-Briggs typology and Jungian individuation. As they observe, there are many points of agreement - perhaps even more than they realize. They question my apparent equating of the typological functions with the transcendent function, which they regard as different in kind - but I agree! Where we differ is what ‘different in kind’ means and the implications the transcendent function has for conscious orientation.

The transcendent function is ‘a psychological function’ (Jung 1916/1957, para. 131) so has some similarities with the typological functions, but there are also important differences. For example, a differentiated typological function is relatively static, the same in different individuals, serves a collective purpose and has the effect of dividing the psyche. The transcendent function changes, is more unique, develops the individual and has the effect of uniting the psyche. For me, the most significant differences in kind are that the typological functions are basic and a part of our phylogenetic inheritance. The transcendent function is complex, combining conscious and unconscious elements, and emergent from the unconscious.

The complex nature of the transcendent function can be seen in Jung's comparison with mathematical functions that combine real and imaginary numbers (Jung 1916/1957, para. 131). It is also evident from his word constructions in Psychologische Typen. Jung mostly uses the word ‘Funktion’ to describe the typological functions and the transcendent function. However, in his discussion of the symbol, when referring to the typological functions he switches to ‘Grundfunktion’ (Jung 1921b, p. 515), which means a ‘basic function’. This differentiates them from the transcendent function, which he describes as a ‘komplexe, aus anderen Funktionen zusammengesetzte Funktion’ (Jung 1921b, p. 515, original emphasis) - a ‘complex, c