It is my strongly held opinion that all elements are information and therefore neutral, not linked to specific motivations, desires and agendas. But if so, what does it actually mean to “value” an element? Can a person “like” some types of information more than others? How does this manifest in practice? While I am not saying that answering these questions is impossible (and I think that Augusta’s definition of “verbal – non-verbal” is quite accurate and usable), answers vary to such a degree that it often leads to miscommunication and confusion rather than improved understanding. This makes me think that, if we want to resolve this issue, the “valued – subdued” dichotomy should be seriously reexamined. Instead of treating the concept as self-contained and axiomatic, we should look at what makes an element valued in the first place. Only after understanding the basis of the dichotomy can we begin to form an adequate picture of the dichotomy itself.
It is not hard to notice that “valued – subdued” is at the intersection of “strong – weak” and “mental – vital” (strong mental and weak vital elements are valued). “Mental – vital” signifies which information the individual is consciously aware of, “mental” being synonymous with “conscious” and “vital” with “unconscious”. I believe that this dichotomy, although often overlooked, is the one that justifies the existence of “valued” and “subdued” as separate, observable categories.
Let us compare the suggestive and the vulnerable – two functions that are both weak and cautious. This makes them 1D, which in turn means that the information covered by the two corresponding elements is the hardest to produce independently. While it is possible to improve these functions through continuous trial and error, results get achieved much quicker and with less strain if, instead, the individual “borrows” someone else’s understanding, receiving the information from another person, internalizing it, and then incorporating it into their own life. For the sake of this post let us consider it an axiom that 4D elements are the only ones able to provide 1D elements with the needed kind and amount of information; while I believe this to be the case, in order to properly justify it I would have to get into the essence of the “bold – cautious” dichotomy, which I am not yet prepared to tackle.
The unconscious suggestive is not aware of what it lacks, or even of the very fact that it does lack something. Only after the information is already received does the suggestive realize that previously this information was missing. However, for the information to land, it must be expressed very clearly – otherwise, due to its own lack of awareness in this area, the suggestive will not be able to recognize it as valid and needed. This is why the element providing information to the unconscious suggestive must itself be conscious, as only conscious elements possess the awareness needed to achieve the necessary level of clarity. Out of two 4D functions only the lead is conscious, which is why in duality the lead is paired with the suggestive. The informational exchange happens directly and overtly.
Unlike the suggestive, the vulnerable is able to consciously process the information covered by the corresponding element. This also means that, on some level, the vulnerable is always aware of its own inadequacy, making it a spot of painful insecurity, one where the individual feels least in control. And people always, without fail, attempt to control precisely those areas where they feel least in control, which leads to us trying to “tame” our vulnerable. Most often this manifests as the individual restricting the entire domain of their vulnerable to what they themselves are aware of, believing that what little information they are able to produce in this area is the full extent of the information anyone can ever produce. “No one can know that,” “it is impossible,” “people are just seeing something that is not there” is how we typically comfort ourselves in such cases.
Of course, this is not ideal. For successful functioning we require external input on our weak functions, and the vulnerable is no exception to that rule. But when the corresponding information is delivered by the lead, directly and overtly, the vulnerable compares it to its own conscious understanding of this domain. And, because strong elements naturally possess much more information than weak elements, the understanding provided by strong elements ends up being different – more confident, more nuanced, more in-depth, larger in scope. This directly confronts the vulnerable with the fact that there is more to the element than it is able to perceive (the fact that the individual already knows on some level, but is often unwilling to admit to themselves because it would shatter their illusion of control). In such a situation the individual is forced to either accept their limitations, or fall even deeper into self-denial – and, naturally, both of these options are highly unnerving.
As a side note – I do believe that going through this discomfort is not only useful, but may even be necessary for growth and psychological development. It may be a long needed wake-up call, something that forces the individual to accept that their perspective is not the only one that exists, that they have limitations other people do not share, and, most importantly, that it is completely natural and not something they should be ashamed to admit. However, this process of growth often gets impeded by pride. If the individual is unwilling to curb their ego, they will keep trying to protect it from injury even to their own detriment. This often determines whether the individual’s relationships with their supervisors and conflictors are likely to become fruitful.
We have established that, by default, receiving direct information on the vulnerable is uncomfortable. Even after a lot of self-work it is likely to remain somewhat exhausting, shattering the “Now I have finally mastered it” illusion again and again. For this reason, despite its potential for growth, the pairing of the conscious vulnerable and the similarly conscious lead is not ideal for constant information exchange. Something less direct, less obvious, less overt would be more fitting for the vulnerable’s specific needs.
These needs are fulfilled by the demonstrative, a function that, unlike the lead, is unconscious. Despite having a lot of information, the individual is not able to consciously process it, share and use it with full awareness, and deliberately focus on it. The demonstrative is constantly expressed, but the aforementioned fact gives its expression a particular vagueness. Instead of being direct, it is closer to a particular “aura” the person has, something that “oozes” from them, happens “by itself.” This allows the demonstrative to bypass the vulnerable’s defenses. The information from the demonstrative feels roundabout enough that it does not directly impose on the vulnerable’s worldview, instead leading to this worldview changing from within after this information is internalized.
To sum it all up: the suggestive, being 1D and unconscious, needs to receive information from someone who is 4D and conscious in it, because only then will this information possess the necessary level of clarity. The suggestive is not likely to become a point of insecurity, nor something the individual tries to control, because most of the time the individual is not aware that they are missing something in this area. All of this makes the suggestive most receptive to direct, clear, overtly expressed information. This kind of communication makes the suggestive and the lead appear “valued” (I would call it “direct”).
The vulnerable, being 1D and conscious, makes the individual feel out of control due to not being able to produce enough information in this domain. This, in turn, leads to the individual trying to attain the illusion of control. Any direct attempts to change the vulnerable’s rigid worldview are likely to make the individual uncomfortable, reminding them of their own limitations (of which they are, on some level, already aware). This makes the vulnerable more receptive to the kind of 4D information that is roundabout and not focused on. This kind of communication makes the vulnerable and the demonstrative appear “subdued” or “unvalued” (I would call it “indirect”).
Finally, it is incredibly important to realize that “valued – subdued” has nothing to do with the information itself being more or less “valued” or “liked.” Instead it is entirely about the form in which the individual prefers to receive this information or is able to give it. Both of these are determined by the element’s strength and whether it is conscious or unconscious. While I am not yet able to provide a detailed description of this mechanism for the 2D and 3D functions, I hope that my breakdown of the 1D and 4D functions was a sufficient illustration.
