Is this an Fi perspective?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
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.
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
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).Originally Posted by lungs
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
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.
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
sacrificial love? I'd say it's Se/Ni sado/maso perspective
Do what you want to do. Carry on.
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.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Time for the third line of the Jedi Code: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.
"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.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
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.
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.
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.
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)
"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."
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
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
Reply With Quote
