kabre t1_j8op5ff wrote

>From my view, it's critical to honor the mystery inside, that we can't
pin down everything, and that we have no right to, in fact. Our
unconscious has the right to exist, too.

I've got a part that gave a big grin and double thumbs up to this bit of what you said, ha!

I like this take, and it tracks a little with my own (admittedly untrained) theory. IFS is a particular tool for a particular job, and it's very good at that job, and at seeing parts who are in distress. I came to IFS with a working knowledge of a good handful of parts already, via creative work, and while some of those parts have slotted tidily into IFS roles there are others who don't. So this makes sense to me, but it's also good to hear it from someone trained in the modality as well.

A bit of a diversion, but, having not looked into Jungian stuff much but being passingly aware of the concept of anima/animus, I'm very curious about how you would look at the idea of the anima/animus when considering someone who identifies as agender or nonbinary.


kabre t1_j8oi1xk wrote

Hello and happy Wednesday! Thank you for doing this, I've read through some of the below responses and you've got some very insightful things to say.

I'm curious, what's your take on the notion that parts that seem to be outside of the exile/protector dichotomy? i.e. parts that serve a role without the kind of manager-or-firefighter urgency about the vitalness of that role, or parts that advise and keep company without seeming to have significant agenda. These aren't the only examples, just the ones off the top of my head -- it's an idea that comes up with semi-regularity in the IFS spaces online I've been in, people asking "I've got this part that doesn't seem like a manager or a firefighter or an exile, what is it?"

Do you think there's space for these kinds of vesicles of identity without it being centered on or explicitly caused by trauma or old coping mechanisms? Or are distinct "parts" always involved in trauma/coping in some respect?