I'm skeptical of instinct theory, too. It's a muddy concept. If you read about the 9 types from various sources, they may not all be identical, but they're clearly overlapping, or variations on a theme. (I don't mean the types are variations of each other; I mean each source's descriptions of a given type are variations of each other.) There are clear, recognizable cores that you can trace from source to source.
Instincts don't seem to be like that. Every source seems to have a completely different idea of what the instincts are and how to describe them, and some of them are so far from overlapping that they actually contradict. That makes it hard for me to accept the validity of any of them as universal and useful observations.
On the other hand, if you go by the general energy of them, I agree that they seem to parallel the three centers, and I wonder if they might emphasize or counter-balance (depending on the stacking) the natural stacking of the tritype.
Instincts don't seem to be like that. Every source seems to have a completely different idea of what the instincts are and how to describe them, and some of them are so far from overlapping that they actually contradict. That makes it hard for me to accept the validity of any of them as universal and useful observations.
On the other hand, if you go by the general energy of them, I agree that they seem to parallel the three centers, and I wonder if they might emphasize or counter-balance (depending on the stacking) the natural stacking of the tritype.
Comment