Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is this an Fi perspective?

  1. #1
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Is this an Fi perspective?

    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  2. #2
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think plenty of people enjoy the real & sacrificial sort of love. i don't know if "our culture" does in general but i dont really see any evidence that it doesn't - i suppose high divorce rates could be an indicator, but i think they can also be an indicator of people having more freedom to do what is best when a relationship becomes unsalvageable.

    i also find value in infatuation, as fickle as it might be, and the sort of positivity, creativity, and courage it can bring to my life. and while i can see why its important to make a distinction between infatution and committed love, i'm not sure that this kind of moralizing is really necessary. maybe for a small subset of people who are especially naive or confused.

  3. #3
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe its an Fi perspective insofar as i find the fact that infatuation and love are different to be incredibly obvious. maybe i take it for granted and it isn't so obvious to others. i don't think the scornfulness towards society's view of love is related to Fi.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    9w1
    Posts
    2,775
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there is something to this text but one doesn't always have to sacrifice/pay for love.in a way, heavy words create gratuitous limitations. what can be accounted for as a sacrifice by someone, may not be seen as such by someone else.

    what's love anyway u guys? for an sp it is security, for an sx it is leaving security behind n go b intense for Se it is seeing the future etc

    there is a global love exchange center that determines rates and stuff and people make lovemoney with other ppl's love instruments and ya sure maybe it is the rule rather than the exception that this may get in the way of the real economy of love but maybe this is the nature of the beast because we have not yet understood what it is to be human and other things too
    unholy water sanguine addiction

  5. #5
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    i think plenty of people enjoy the real & sacrificial sort of love. i don't know if "our culture" does in general but i dont really see any evidence that it doesn't - i suppose high divorce rates could be an indicator, but i think they can also be an indicator of people having more freedom to do what is best when a relationship becomes unsalvageable.

    i also find value in infatuation, as fickle as it might be, and the sort of positivity, creativity, and courage it can bring to my life. and while i can see why its important to make a distinction between infatution and committed love, i'm not sure that this kind of moralizing is really necessary. maybe for a small subset of people who are especially naive or confused.
    I am with you in that I completely disagree with that quote I posted in the OP. It came through my fb feed and made me wonder if that was Fi-based (it was shared by someone I suspect is Fi-dom, which also made me wonder about this).
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll give you my version of difference between love and infatuation:

    Infatuation is when you want to poke(personally, I'd say "spear" or "impale") a person HARD. You just want to RAVAGE that person. Most often it passes if it either happens or if it does not. It also can be alleviated via other means.
    Love is, love is one of the highest feelings. Love is the ultimate thing that can happen to a person. Love is when you are able to make an ultimate sacrifice for a person and not think even for a milisecond about it. Of course, there are all sorts of love, but let's not get into that right now. This is probably about romantic love, so let it be. The act of merging of two human beings who are in love is called MAKING LOVE not SEX!

    ...ok.

    edit: that quote is FiNe I think.

  7. #7
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regarding "love":
    "Love" is a term we learn to use to label certain types of emotions/feelings and even actions. Our parents/caregivers might tell us they love us, which gives us one kind of "love". We hear our parents/caregivers/etc tell each other they love each other, which gives us another kind of "love". We might hear "I'm doing this because I love you" while being beaten or punished or losing freedoms, which gives us another kind of "love". And so on. "Love" is not explicit, we each must find implicit meaning when we hear the term, and when we use the term ourselves.

    In socionics, the implicit information elements are N and F. We are also referring to a relationship from one object towards another object, so an Xi element. But this only covers IE categories of information, not model a's functions. Every socionics type experiences every IE.


    Regarding the OP quote:
    Jaak Panksepp studies emotional systems which mammals share (other types of animals may have some of them too). He's mapped out 7 basic emotional systems. Of those 7, I think "love" can come from the Lust, Care, and/or Distress Systems.
    Distress refers to the panic one feels at the loss of or separation from an attachment, such as child from mother, or when a spouse dies.

    Imo, the OP's quote is distinguishing between Lust and Care. They utilize much of the same components in our brains, but the systems differ. There is value in each system, as well as in the combination. The OP quote places Care as being a more valuable form of "love" than Lust.

    The OP quote errs, however, when it says that the sacrificial kind of "love" isn't emotive. Sacrificing for, protecting of, etc are actions, ways of expressing that feeling of "love". It can include wanting what's best for another person, wanting good things for them, empathizing and sympathizing, helping them meet their needs, etc.

    As for the OP quote about culture, for starters, it's confusing the two, saying culture wants the Lust without the Care, but using the same term ("love") to refer to each.
    It places more value on Care than Lust (showing the orientation of the speaker, aka the speaker's Fi).
    It overgeneralizes to culture, suggesting that we are raised to value Lust more than we are raised to value Care. (In this way it's processing Fi values, yes. But in an Ni generalized pattern way.)

    So yes, the OP quote is processing info about values and orientations (minimum of 1D Fi), it is also generalizing from individual values/orientations to patterns in cultural values/orientations (minimum of 2D Ni).


    Regarding socionics and quote:
    Does believing in this quote mean the same thing as Fi or Ni ego? Or strong Fi or Ni? No.

    The creator of the sentiment was at least 1D Fi with at least 2D Ni.

    Believing it, reciting it, rewording it, requoting it does not mean anything other than a display of the individual's value/orientation (Fi). And every single type experiences personal values and orientations. So basically, any type can value this quote and/or its sentiments.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,137
    Mentioned
    387 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    sacrificial love? I'd say it's Se/Ni sado/maso perspective
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    872
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do what you want to do. Carry on.
    salmon

  10. #10
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    sacrificial love? I'd say it's Se/Ni sado/maso perspective
    Romantic love should be tragic and painful. If you can't write a song about it then it is only infatuation.

    That is what emotion tells me but fortunately my head says otherwise.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Romantic love should be tragic and painful. If you can't write a song about it then it is only infatuation.

    That is what emotion tells me but fortunately my head says otherwise.
    Time for the third line of the Jedi Code:

    "There is no passion, there is serenity."

    Romantic love is not tragic unless you make it so and let the passion take the better of you. Actually, I'd argue that infatuation is about passion and physical needs not love. Love is about more.

  12. #12
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nondescript View Post
    Time for the third line of the Jedi Code:

    "There is no passion, there is serenity."

    Romantic love is not tragic unless you make it so and let the passion take the better of you. Actually, I'd argue that infatuation is about passion and physical needs not love. Love is about more.
    Well that is just what my head will tell me.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure it does seem kind of Fi because it's a judgement that people don't really know what they mean when they commit to "loving" someone.

    IMO it's wrong though. Love itself isn't wrapped up with a pact of sacrifice and pain- that's just life getting in the way.

  14. #14
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryoka14 View Post
    Sure it does seem kind of Fi because it's a judgement that people don't really know what they mean when they commit to "loving" someone.

    IMO it's wrong though. Love itself isn't wrapped up with a pact of sacrifice and pain- that's just life getting in the way.
    Nice one.
    "Traffic lights and loneliness. Paper cans and tape cassettes. When the world feels like this. Static shocks and bitterness."

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's the actual price do they want me to pay for love? That seems so silly. My personal crushy feelings are still my own to bear even if they are obvious to others.

    It just comes across as patronizing on the author's part, @Suz.

    Well, the deepest truth of all is that love is pain. But pain isn't always 'bad', pain is often forged into things like strength.

  16. #16
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree with aylen slightly

    Love is naturally dangerous and evil but that's what makes it so hot. Most of us have fantasies of the bad boy (or girl). Str8 girls get picked on the most with this but in truth, str8 males often have fantasies of 'taming the wild bitch' that foams at the mouth... You can't make love this way, it just is. We as humans don't really have sexual fantasies about the stuffy librarian being all do-goodery in the Mary Sue library. (uh we might? but I think it's still more fiery than that) But I agree that it won't burn you completely unless you let it but I think in a way it always wins out in the end until body immortality is achieved somehow. But it's like as long as enough people have the sexual fetish for fucking dead bodies, we will rot and die - for the pure desire of it. "Sex, pain and death - it's all the same to you vampires!" - Buffy Summers.

    The sadist, the baby killer, the asshole- it is only natural to fall in love with this. Love I would say is accepting somebody's darker side where everybody else goes 'that's wrong' - so it's 'anti-Fi' in that sort of campy sense. if you mean Fi = moralz or some dumb shit like that idk.

    To most people, esp. people that don't eroticize me - I'm a good person, I'm like normal and boring and the 'good librarian guy' so they wouldn't be aroused by me. Then there are a few ppl, usually estp gay men that see my naughty side and then the erotic connection happens.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    9w1
    Posts
    2,775
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    in other news

    “I’m single and don’t have children.”
    “Would you ever want to have children?”
    “Absolutely not, unless I adopted them.”
    “How do you feel about love?”
    “Love? I don’t even know what that means. To me, it’s just letters jumbled up together to make another overused word. A lot of people don’t like to be alone or lonely, so they will say anything just to hold on to another person.”



    https://www.facebook.com/portraitsof...252350/?type=1

    (although i do think that the interviewr went from children to love a bit awkwardly)
    unholy water sanguine addiction

  18. #18
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Well, the deepest truth of all is that love is pain. But pain isn't always 'bad', pain is often forged into things like strength.
    "You couldn't be happy if it meant being cruel. If we act any other way I'll be making you act against what I love in you most. And I can't go back to that way of thinking. Don't you see? I can't love you unless I give you up."

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The relationship of the F (all versions -- socionics, Jung, etc) to emotions is a complicated thing, and in this area I really think people who try to overly separate the general issue of what F is and isn't out too much between Jung and more modern theories are probably just defining away the problem.

    Anyway, the original idea was this: unlike what extremists say, F is not even close to unrelated to actual feelings and emotions, just that it is not equivalent with them. It is quite inseparable from their existence, however. Evaluative judgments can proceed on a more purely logical level, as some Ti-base philosophers probably preferred this type of "ethics."
    And of course there are also value judgments e.g. involving how much to price something -- what is its value on a purely quantitative level.
    It's the relatively immediate apprehension of value through emotive factors (rather than valuation itself in all senses or emotive factors by themselves) which Jung was talking about.

    Now, it has its introverted and extraverted aspects -- Jung wrote something similar to what happens in socionical Fe/Fi division, i.e. that the nature of the introverted feeling judgment may have some perceive a coldness as to deny any feeling to the type at all. The way I'd think of this is that E deals with higher stimulus interaction with the more emotively conditioned part of F being closer to the reaction.
    Fi is more of a sort of constraint that someone acts based on the a priori relations that always exist between them and someone/thing -- if I am either unaffected or unrelated (which could be said to be two points of view), I cannot perceive valuation-oriented content.

    But anyway yes, I think the OP has something to do with Fi, but here I really emphasize, the true obsession with emotive content without internalizing the meaning of it is more an instinctual feeling than a rational feeling. It's true the extraverted manifestation is closer to stimulating one to action and such than the more static Fi.
    However there's a good reason why the F-strong types are said to have both strong Fe and Fi --- a true ethical (of maturity) won't devolve into the kind of purely emotional arousal oriented feeling. Perhaps some XLE with HA-Fe at worst may smell a little of this (again, depends how mature).
    One famous former Jungian said that while they show an express slant, the feeling type of maturity is someone who can balance both manifestations of feeling without compromising one -- this tends to happen more in the logical types, which is the truth I see to why logic types have one of the F's reasonable, and one truly vulnerable/suggestive.

    An ethical lead caught in a grip of a complex is still going to show the stuff in the OP quite possibly, because by definition this means acting in a way insufficiently filtered through the ego's paradigms for proper discernment. Complexes are a reality spurring people into action, but the ego's role is to direct that energy somewhere and shape it individually (vs being caught more in the grip and not steering).

    In a way, one could interpret the inferior functions as the non-egoic complex-driven back side to the ego.

    Anyway I do think the OP could be said to be slanted Fi, in that it's talking of how love isn't just something that expands your world, provides a stimulus to interact with, but also a certain "constraint" (even if it's not always experienced that way).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •