Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53

Thread: The Power of Desire

  1. #1
    muhtempus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    153
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Power of Desire

    Desire, which is commonly associated with the "Fi" function, appears to me in my limited experience a powerful driving force rivaling "willpower", even more commonly associated with "Se". I have never seen the term "desire" used on this forum, which is odd because it's such a significant portion of this function, perhaps even a defining element. I've also considered the entire function "Fi" a derivative or even a subsidiary of the abstract "desire". Either way, I've been recently interested in this because the general stereotype is that "Fi" is purely based on morals or relational distance. And the consensus on its nature tends to shift between these two.

    The point is, I want to see what peoples' opinion regarding "Fi" is relative to "desire". Particularly as a driving force for action.
    A dial without a clock requires a moving face

    Some people live their life for 4 seconds, most are not conscious of it.


  2. #2
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,223
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muhtempus View Post
    Desire, which is commonly associated with the "Fi" function, appears to me in my limited experience a powerful driving force rivaling "willpower", even more commonly associated with "Se". I have never seen the term "desire" used on this forum, which is odd because it's such a significant portion of this function, perhaps even a defining element. I've also considered the entire function "Fi" a derivative or even a subsidiary of the abstract "desire". Either way, I've been recently interested in this because the general stereotype is that "Fi" is purely based on morals or relational distance. And the consensus on its nature tends to shift between these two.

    The point is, I want to see what peoples' opinion regarding "Fi" is relative to "desire". Particularly as a driving force for action.
    Yes, desire is a driving force for action. You do things to get what you want. It's equivalent to say that you direct or use your willpower on these things, which is why desire is really Se, not Fi. I don't think Fi = desire is an especially standard idea either. Fi / relational distance is definitely linked with desire - desire for an object implies wanting to "move toward it" or establish a closer relationship with it. But it's not the same thing.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,834
    Mentioned
    643 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muhtempus View Post
    Desire, which is commonly associated with the "Fi" function
    personal sympathy is associated with Fi
    desire mb directed on the region of any of 8 functions

    you may desire tasty meal (Si), for example
    or to understand something (T)

    the pleasure is also mb from any of functions
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #4
    I’m doing fucking fantastic today golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    Eee Eye Eeeeeeeeeee
    Posts
    3,314
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agree with the responses.

    Fi seems especially masterful in the domain of sympathy / antipathy. It strikes me as being a decent tool for determining what you do and do not want in terms of your personal values, although Fi people should have the say there.

    Se is definitely more about tracking and acquiring the shiny thing.

    And obviously all human beings have needs and wants.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  5. #5
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    i also think desire is an emotion, but I think Sol more or less nailed it, it can be directed at anything and also not necessarily a conscious emotion, therefore it doesn't always rise to the level of conscious affect, but is felt like a mysterious attraction or need for a thing, which could be anything

  6. #6
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah! I like this definition of Fi. I think I get what you mean, I've often thought it in similar terms. Fi in socion is that function thanks to which we assess how much we like or not something, ie. attraction-repulsion, and that's the main spring behind our actions, socionics functions or not. You can call it desire or you can call it "to know what ticks us", it's not that different, and that's even why Fi is associated with morals, values, feelings, because the subject that uses Fi has a greater self-consciousness of what their internal world is and their values are the reflections of these internal thoughts. Every person has desires, every person gets ticked by something different, but some people are more in tune with their own desires, while others for example are more in tune with what comes from the outside, with the outside desires. Fi is the most self-centered function, at best this can become great self analysis, knowledge of one's inner mechanism.

  7. #7
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I think of Fi as building those invisible bonds, knowing that that is going on, knowing what bonds they want, seeing bonds in other people, etc. its not just like "having a good time" which is more like temporary bonds i.e.: Fe, its can be reaaallly long term, like going to work everyday at a job you don't really care for just so you can feel, not like you made money for its own sake, but filled up the "progress bar" .01% more with another person, because the money is going to them. so you're monitoring this like invisible bond and cultivating it, or destroying it in others, if you feel the need. I think some gossip is related to that. Fe types make temporary bonds everywhere they go, but the attraction to Ti types is if they just hang around the "bar" gets filled up as a byproduct, so they come together and stick together and it just sort of happens without either of them necessarily thinking about it that way. from their point of view they just like the other person in a comparatively superficial sense, but its also more fun in many ways, they're also more sociable in general and to strangers

  8. #8
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Building bonds is more Fe, Fi is the experience before bonding, the thing that makes you say "I could bond with this, I could not with that", but it doesn't make any bonding step by itself, I think that's why it makes sense to call it "desire". This initial, somehow rational, instinct is then paired to Ne or Se, and through this you have an idea of how someone approaches these bonds.

  9. #9
    Guillaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    IEE 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been thinking abou fi lately as a source of contradiction. It's very much contradictory (maybe more so in 4's) push-pull effect. And I was thinking also perhaps that's why it is noticable in some IEI's who can act very on/off, while it is strong in IEEs and EII's but less obviously demonstrated (the contradiction, in order to keep peace).
    And I was thinking about that line in the Rocky movie, in the first kiss scene, which I believe is between him SLI and her 4w5 IEE, when he says I'm going to kiss you and you don't have to kiss me back" which is the coolest thing someone in that situation would say to an Fi valuer because it shows that they want to do something of thier own accord and not in order to make you do it, so you are free. maybe Fi is about the freedom to desire/not desire- INdependence of desire, I should say. But then that's also especially emphasized in C types.
    Last edited by Guillaine; 08-10-2018 at 01:48 AM.

  10. #10
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking cookies
    TIM
    SEI 9
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    Building bonds is more Fe, Fi is the experience before bonding, the thing that makes you say "I could bond with this, I could not with that", but it doesn't make any bonding step by itself, I think that's why it makes sense to call it "desire". This initial, somehow rational, instinct is then paired to Ne or Se, and through this you have an idea of how someone approaches these bonds.
    building personal bonds definitely is Fi look it up

  11. #11
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking cookies
    TIM
    SEI 9
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guillaine View Post
    I've been thinking abou fi lately as a source of contradiction. It's very much contradictory (maybe more so in 4's) push-pull effect. And I was thinking also perhaps that's why it is noticable in some IEI's who can act very on/off, while it is strong in IEEs and EII's but less obviously demonstrated (the contradiction, in order to keep peace).
    And I was thinking about that line in the Rocky movie, in the first kiss scene, which I believe is between him SLI and her 4w5 IEE, when he says I'm going to kiss you and you don't have to kiss me back" which is the coolest thing someone in that situation would say to an Fi valuer because it shows that they want to do something of thier own accord and not in order to make you do it, so you are free. maybe Fi is about the freedom to desire/not desire- INdependence of desire, I should say. But then that's also especially emphasized in C types.
    push pull behaviour would be more generally correlated with unhealthy attachment styles, however i could see this being an fi thing if we correlate type 4 to being fi lead (which i think is strongly correlated)

  12. #12
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    building personal bonds definitely is Fi look it up
    where should I look?

  13. #13
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Psychologically, the state of R is experienced as an inner attraction to someone or something, as a deep affection. It is interesting that this condition is not emotional. There is no expression in it, but there is a long-term dependence of the moral and ethical nature. The state of R is a guarantee of loyalty in a relationship. It is like the arrow of a compass, which, in any attempt to turn its body, returns to its "native" northern direction. Thanks to R we perceive people, places and times as our own, native or as strangers, alien.
    your thing about "I could or could not bond with this or that" is Ne--possibilities...

    if you think about it Fi is obvious in our lives, why do people have tribes or families in this day and age? you can just go wherever and forget about them, and its probably logical and rational to do exactly that. head off somewhere, found a new tribe if the old one sucks. make some money, buy some friends, etc. or just forget other people altogether. I think Fi is so close then that people lose sight of it, they don't realize how people are so bound up with one another, and what one person will do for one person they won't do for another, even though that might be the better decision for all 3. why is this? why are people loyal at all, why don't they treat other people like bodies and interact with them as physical objects with only objective characteristics? and then you realize its possible to actively spend your life playing these forces as a proxy for logic or sensing and you can begin to understand how some people get by just on by building these bonds and strengthening them and adding very little else. but this in of itself is in demand, people want to feel loved, like they belong. they will work for someone else just to keep them around and so on and so forth

  14. #14
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking cookies
    TIM
    SEI 9
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    where should I look?
    any description

  15. #15
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All the descriptions I'm reading refer to the feeling of deep attraction/repulsion felt by Fi. But this doesn't presuppose attachment to those objects themselves, objects are extroverted. Fi is introverted and rational, it means attachment to one's unspeakable feelings (fields) in front of those external objects. It's an internal process, not aimed really at creating bonds but in the process behind that, ie. establishing the sort attachment they have with them, although sure, a deep connecting with people can play a very important part for F types. But it's Fe to create personal bonds by definition, by expressing emotions and so "buying" friends.

    Fi reaches an external attachment through Ne or Se, one is abstract and the other quite practical, but the question behind Fi remains "how do I feel about this, how do I feel about that?", while Ne would be "what potential does this have, what about that instead?", and Se "how to reach what I need, at which cost?". Just to be very very approximative...

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    um yeah you're taking introversion and feeling literally, thats the problem

    literal feelings are emotions and more in the domain of Fe--the field is the emotions that emanate off ourselves or others.. but introverted ethical ties are not emotions, although they can result in emotions depending on what else is going on, its more like the unspeakable bond itself. creative Fi is the ability to manipulate these ties and our own loyalties freely, which creates a lot of emotion as a byproduct, but its this flexible attitude towards bonds themselves that is causing it all... think of like sleeping with victorious invaders or something, cozying up to whoevers got what you want or need, this sort of thing. you might say well logical types can do it too, but thats the point, they could, they might even try, but they don't really know how. logical types are more likely to box someone in or buy them stuff, they're not ethical manipulators in the psychological sense. they don't really know how to get something for nothing simply by charm, that is the domain of ethical types, especially IEI and SEE. a natural ability to survive or even profit in harsh conditions via human relations
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-10-2018 at 01:10 PM.

  17. #17
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think you're making a lot of confusion. literal feelings are not emotions but the lasting products of emotions= Fi. emotions are Fe, changeable and expressive, feelings are the opposite, lasting and intensive, but they're not necessarily creating any external personal bond; the bond is the feeling itself, the Fi cultivates these feelings and they can be directed in an external bond too, sure, just not necessarily.

  18. #18
    Avebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LIE/ENTj
    Posts
    676
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree with the idea that " is literal feelings but is the bond you have with others". is about emotional atmosphere, it tries to shape the emotional atmosphere around it. is about relations but the experience of it has alot to do with how you feel about others, or about their actions and words, and how it ties to them.

    Both functions can experience feelings, per se, is more likely to experience them as part of an atmosphere, such as a cheery social gathering, whereas is more likely to experience feeelings based on how others make them feel.

  19. #19
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    of course any person can feel an emotion, the point is what is the nature of the relationship between Fi and Fe. there can be an emotional atmosphere of one. i am spreading confusion, if you're feeling confused. but its not because im spreading misinformation, its actually because you're just wrong about this

  20. #20
    heretic artificial hyena Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C/H 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,159
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ecstasy = confirmed:
    Quote Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
    3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy (E), is a psychoactive drug primarily used as a recreational drug. The desired effects include altered sensations and increased energy, empathy, and pleasure. When taken by mouth, effects begin after 30–45 minutes and last 3–6 hours. As of 2018, MDMA has no approved medical uses.

    Adverse effects include addiction, memory problems, paranoia, difficulty sleeping, teeth grinding, blurred vision, sweating, and a rapid heartbeat. Deaths have been reported due to increased body temperature and dehydration.[ Following use people often feel depressed and tired. MDMA acts primarily by increasing the activity of the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline in parts of the brain. It belongs to the substituted amphetamine classes of drugs and has stimulant and hallucinogenic effects.
    Apparently it also makes you say how you really feel and other creepy things.
    extrospection > introspection

    Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.


  21. #21
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    everyone uses all the functions in some degrees, aha.

    Emotions are reactions to stimuli, they're sudden and not lasting, this is the dynamic part = Fe. Feelings are the elaboration of an emotion, their rationalization, this is their static part = Fi. both functions feel those internal stimuli deep, but introverted feelers feel them deeper (through the amygdala) and don't let them out; extroverted feelers instead are in a constant need for this emotional feedback. "creating bonds" comes from the fact that Fi, like all the introverted functions, deals with the relationship between things, ie. fields, not objects, in technical terms. but this relationship is the most internal of the functions, it deals with one's own inner motives primarily, and the bondage comes from these inner motives more than from the people/things they bond with.

  22. #22
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ecstasy= Fe

  23. #23
    heretic artificial hyena Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C/H 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,159
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nah, OK, it is more like hormonal SEE.
    extrospection > introspection

    Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.


  24. #24
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    everyone uses all the functions in some degrees, aha.

    Emotions are reactions to stimuli, they're sudden and not lasting, this is the dynamic part = Fe. Feelings are the elaboration of an emotion, their rationalization, this is their static part = Fi. both functions feel those internal stimuli deep, but introverted feelers feel them deeper (through the amygdala) and don't let them out; extroverted feelers instead are in a constant need for this emotional feedback. "creating bonds" comes from the fact that Fi, like all the introverted functions, deals with the relationship between things, ie. fields, not objects, in technical terms. but this relationship is the most internal of the functions, it deals with one's own inner motives primarily, and the bondage comes from these inner motives more than from the people/things they bond with.
    so whats the difference between Fi, an emotion, and a feeling, according to socionics? im pretty sure if you answer this question by boiling down your posts in this thread you will just arrive at what I said which is Fe is the domain of emotion and Fi are ethical ties. you made a big deal about disagreeing, and basically ended up agreeing somewhere in the process of drawing out the conversation..



    I see this a lot with people, here's what they do:

    make some kind of statement like "you are wrong!"

    go on to argue why they are wrong, but because the reasoning is unclear, full of jargon, non sequiturs, etc, somewhere they end up making the exact point they claimed was wrong in the beginning

    but because it is now presented as being a conclusion derived from an argument premised on the other person being wrong, this is taken to prove the initial point

    in this way they claim victory by essentially arriving at the exact point they originally claimed was wrong

    the reason they get away with this is because no one actually wants to untangle their crazy reasoning, which is, among other things, presented out-of-order in time to such an extent it becomes a knot of epic proportions, and simply accept the other person agrees so one can move on and not waste any more time

    in other words, once the sane person recognizes that the crazy person has implicitly acknowledged their initial point, they realize that person either 1) holds two contradictory stances at once, or 2) actually agrees, and so the argument is over, but look!-- the crazy person continues, oblivious to that fact, and when the sane person walks away, this they take as an indication of their opponent's defeat

    in this way the crazy person goes through life thinking they are proving things to people and continually right, when in fact they've just made it so prohibitively difficult to have a genuine intellectual exchange no one wants to actually engage them, and they take this aversion by others as a sign of intellectual dominance, i.e. of being an intellectual "winner." this is why trump sincerely believes hes a genius

    this is based on taking the "winning formula" to be in the intellectual stance itself, when in fact the formula that "prevails" is a social strategy the person employs and mistakes the superficial results it produces as evidence of the intellectual "stuff" all being in place, when its actually %100 hollow.. it sort of aims to reproduce what smart people can do from the outside in, which is to extract concessions from the "opponent" in an argument, but at no point did this ever even reach the intellectual sphere, it was always a pure social exercise

    its like, yeah you've extracted a "concession" that we agree, not because I ever changed my position, but because you finally came full circle in a fit of loopy reasoning, but can't just come right out and admit it, probably because you don't even realize it. in this way you can make claims, fail to back them up (in fact, leave them in the lurch entirely while making a show of supporting them), get people to acknowledge an agreement if you go on long enough, and present the whole thing as having done real work on the basis of the merit of your arguments, when the whole thing was an irrational exercise in watching a dog chase its tail, and its out of pity (and respect for their own time) that others "concede"

    you've thrown enough crazy shit at the wall that you could support any conclusion, and no one is going to bother simply because it would require too much energy to go back and untangle, and even if they did you would just start in again. this is not being right, or providing an answer to anything, except in the most illusory sense. it basically says "because I replied and was not answered that means I'm right" it forgets the third option, that you're simply so wrong its not worth it to engage you in a serious discussion. to accuse others of "spreading confusion" is, in this sense, donald trump style offensive-projection



    its an irrational strategy designed to exhaust other people, and the only people who are onboard with it are people who have irrationally committed to the underlying goal at stake or individual making the effort. this is how SEE/ILI break into society. the sly part is in how it works off of other peoples naive assumption there's an intellectual point at stake at all and the actors are arguing rationally, but there's actually a secondary agenda with all the words and show and the whole thing is in fact an irrational process at work. this is the essence of "politics" in how trump has a base and they support him because its not about the actual policy, its about any pretense at all in order to reallocate resources--an irrational datum driving things, that justifies any means. until people realize this is how a significant portion of the population operates theyll always be confounded by how such things can happen in a society. its the veiled ethical commitments themselves that drive things, this is why ILI or whatever can come in and bolster the arguments, because they like what is happening with respect to what it does for their own personal interests. they find a particular form of beauty in exactly this measure of "truth"
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-10-2018 at 09:16 PM.

  25. #25
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah congratulations. I think that you're just twisting things to make them fit in your narrative, as usual.

    I don't know what's not clear about the fact that to me Fi is not "creating bonds" but it assesses the qualities that can create such bonds, ie. it is a rational, subjective judgement of one's emotions, likes, dislikes; in a word: feeling. If to you this is what a bond is, then we're on the same page, but it looked like to you bonding meant to look actively for a form of relationship, and this is not what Fi is about.

  26. #26
    the Lycanthrope Remiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Canopy of Memories
    TIM
    Ni-ILI 864 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,357
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Desire is my core drive. I desire things that branch out it into the tree of my psyche. How I deal with these wishes, urges and the planning that comes with it is another discussion.
    "The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." ― Thucydides

  27. #27
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you just instinctually sensed that I was near to exposing the game with my post on Fi bonds and manipulating them and tried to head it off by dropping a confusion bomb but failed. the real point is you never had anything to lose, there's nothing wrong with the fact that this is how SEE operates: outside the borders of rationality and on peoples basic desires. in acting across precisely these levels they tear the mask off a lot of humanity's lies they tell themselves and do us all a service. you treat this like a competition even when its not, but its okay, I understand you can't help it, because this is precisely how you go about living life to the fullest

  28. #28
    Xaiviay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    Fe-SEI, 9? sx/sp
    Posts
    175
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How are we defining desire? I think of it just as the compulsion to have something ('wanting' something). It's an interesting idea, although personally I don't think Fi has anything more to do with feeling desire than any of the other information elements. I have plenty of desires and I prioritize them thoroughly (as does the average human) even though I'm not Fi-valuing. And if Fi was more connected with desire than any of the other functions, then what about Fi POLRs? SLE would have very little desire to pursue the IEI, ILE wouldn't have much desire to explore the next untapped potential, and so forth. But clearly this is not the case.

    You could probably define the types of things desired with each IM, though. More than all the other IMs, Fi might desire to create deep bonds with certain people, or to avoid others. So perhaps if Fi is in your ego block, or even your Super-ID Block, you most especially associate Fi with the experience of desire because it is what you value in your life. To contrast, Fe might desire to be in a positive emotional atmosphere, find a group it feels accepted in, give emotional warmth to people, or receive emotional warmth from others (etc).
    Desire, which is commonly associated with the "Fi" function, appears to me in my limited experience a powerful driving force rivaling "willpower", even more commonly associated with "Se".
    Also, I do like this point. Willpower is the force to get something done, but desire fuels willpower even when it might otherwise be weak.

  29. #29
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ?

    so much projection

  30. #30
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    1,954
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My sense is that Fi lead presents the problem of not experiencing one's self as existing outside the framework of being desired by the other....or to put it another way, to exist and to be desired are one in the same. So the cognition turns into an internal mirror of the others' psychology, like a fly on the membrane of the other person's brain.

    "...It would be like having another person inside your skin, that you're constantly introspecting to. Fi has heightened capacity to experience that other person's thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/impressions and grasp the other persons' psychology as if it were organic to their own. See the car-ride clip from basic instinct. in the meantime, the EII's own thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/drives are pushed out of cognition and wind up in the PoLR."



    hehehe

  31. #31
    the Lycanthrope Remiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Canopy of Memories
    TIM
    Ni-ILI 864 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,357
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To talk about projection is simply an accusation tho. Better to show everyone what is what.
    "The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." ― Thucydides

  32. #32
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    ?

    so much projection
    the real point was that logical types don't even know how to do what you're engaging in right now, and that rationality/irrationality has to do with which is base and which is creative, i.e.: manipulative. Which is to say creative introverted ethics with an irrational base is all about using human nature in the form of the bonds they make creatively to accomplish goals, set in the context of power or possibilities (Se or Ne). if people can get a handle on this and see how Fi in various positions all participates in this dynamic they can see how socionics is incredibly meaningful and apparent in day to day life beyond lifeless definitional frameworks. the difference between base ethics and creative is that base has steadiness to it that is rooted in rationality itself, the idea that for ethics to have meaning you can't treat it like a tool or if you do, it makes Jesus out to be nothing but someone trying to get something with all his talk. the problem is the church itself has become inundated with this way of thinking, as well as the broader world, that Christianity is just a power grab of a different sort. this is why no one believes in it as a rational framework itself, and the people who most would like others to believe that are the very manipulators, because it allows them to control the "true believers." this is why laws are actually necessary, because if you don't nail down with dogma then you open things up to any politician to come in and abuse the whole thing. this is why while the laws are harsh theyre necessary, because there needs to be a commitment to consistency and rationality that grounds things in order for them to have meaning. this is why hamlet needs maxim, otherwise hamlet becomes a victim of their own good intentions. that one can swing too far in the other direction-- that dogma also loses its meaning is when things become too one sided in the other direction. the irony is when this happens the irrational types likewise can wrest control over such institutions because of how they engender resentment (Fi) because of their tyrannical approach. thus you can see that SEE's moment arises when things become either too tyrannical or too loose, SEE is in itself a product of beta having exhausted its own capabilities, so its no wonder God died and the church transformed into the not-so-whitewashed sepulcher it is today

    to rehabilitate religion is to find the symbol and codify it in a way that is consistent and meaningful, and its only in doing that that can one take things back, otherwise who can argue with people like trump. you can't--he plays in the very margin beta allowed to open up
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-10-2018 at 10:42 PM.

  33. #33
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't even know what Bertrand is on about since he's changing the content of his claims at each post. I don't want to answer at his senseless accusations beacuse it would just give him beef to chew on. Also, someone who calls me competitive has a pretty little understanding of how I operate and I'm already drained by the idea of having to explain myself for the umpteenth time

  34. #34
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    how to win a debate: battletype. (aka the art of maturity in the age of socionics)

  35. #35
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    one of the major obstacles to clarity is that people mistype themselves and then want to prevent any objections or observations on that point and so distinctions between logic/ethics become so blurry because you have examples of every possible contradiction defended as legitimate in principle, and thus the situation is never is allowed to unwind or correct itself. this perpetual maintenance of a confused state is only the productive working environment of some irrational types. in other types you will see a drive to clarify, and in so doing justify sacrifices as ethical, namely that peoples feelings ought to be subordinated to the project of working out the lines. meanwhile irrational types object and try to bind others with ethical injunctions and so forth.

    the dynamic becomes quite clear, but what has happened is confusion has reigned for so long people began to give up on the possibility of clarity at all and get disillusioned--if that was indeed their desire to begin with; whereas irrational types see no real problem with lack of clarity, especially with SEE and IEE types, because theyre the kinds of people who can offer "alternative products" in the form of ear candles or whatever. its their literal working environment. no standards total freedom and a ready market ripe for exploitation

    the rational response has been for people to stop using labels at all in protest in order to demonstrate how they have become tools of manipulation in order to claim territory or advance a position, declare oneself a seer or whatever by title or trade.

    the most rational types, furthest along in time, have realized the labels themselves have become totally irrational. the solution has become to either clarify the scheme or abandon it as a farce.

    if certain ethical injunctions caused and sustain this scenario then disregarding them must be part of the rational solution.

    in other words, that people may be offended is to be ignored because its this idea that makes type entirely pointless when carried to its ultimate conclusion, since schemes governed by rules are inherently offensive to someone. thus the two (absolute "politeness" and any semblance of rules) cannot coexist.

    if politeness for its own sake is to reign type will eventually die out or become entirely meaningless, which is just another death too.

    the thing is pure politeness is irrational because it offends the people who want clarity anyway, thus the only rational position is to achieve clarity at the expense of some, rather than achieve confusion at the expense of some. in other words, the platform of the "nice" people doesn't even work because people are offended either way, at least you get something by subordinating it to a logical scheme. absolute politeness of this kind if impossible in principle and only benefits some. this is the greatest indication it is in fact a manipulative ethical premise arising out of an irrational perspective. politeness is not even the right word, since characterizing disagreement as impolite by definition is wrong and irrational in its own right. the right word would be disabuse

    in the final analysis willingness to "battletype" should be a point of pride, if it arises out of actually knowing one's stuff. the people who aren't charlatans actually have the least to fear, ethically, by engaging in battletyping, thus to refrain from is it is only an ethical statement in the mouth of the confused when directed at themselves. so by all means, if one is convicted, don't do it. my conscience is clean, and the people who put in the work should feel the same. and if someone can say the same then there's nothing wrong with hashing it out, there's actually something right about that. like are two experts supposed to toil in mutual obscurity and not cross talk? all the "offense" arises out of self conscious insecurity projected onto the world in one's own inability to genuinely support oneself and thereby produce something fruitful if called on to do so

    this is why anyone who actually can support their positions is mocked, and anyone who can't is defended as being under no obligation to do so, in fact its everyone else's obligation to not question it

    this is nothing less than absurdity itself, and then people wonder why socionics fails to provide answers, as if with one hand they aren't ensuring exactly that outcome and then with the other chastising others
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-10-2018 at 10:59 PM.

  36. #36
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol go on, show how correct your point is because I'm an irrational type : ) seems like a very valid proof to what you're saying

  37. #37
    Aki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp D sx/sp
    Posts
    1,835
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think desire can be limited to any single function.
    Desire can be originated in each function (depending on the nature of the desire), or none of them, like for example satisfying mere biological needs.

    Desire to express a deep emotion: Fe
    Desire to knowing someone better: Fi
    Desire for a glass of water (thirst): Si
    Desire for strenght: Se
    Desire for new experience: Ne
    Desire for achievement/goal: Te
    Desire for order: Ti

    Add whatever you like to each sentence. Just wanted to portray that desire is too wide for a single element.

  38. #38
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,592
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    to know someone better must be the epitome of Fi... just like bonds. you guys're up to smth real good I can tell

  39. #39
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,511
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    lol go on, show how correct your point is because I'm an irrational type : ) seems like a very valid proof to what you're saying


    it does, thank you for providing a timely example

  40. #40
    Aki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp D sx/sp
    Posts
    1,835
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there exist ppl who enjoy creating their own definitions about elements and trying to force others to accept them. But there are ppl who actually prefer sticking with definitions existing in a system because that makes communication and understanding easier. Definitions are the base of any system/language. You can never understand anything if you dont get definitions right. Plus one can save time/energy that otherwise would be invested in useless discussion about definitions (i.e. to me X means Y, well to me X means X, no but you are wrong because Y...) when definitions already exist.


    Introverted ethics is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics. Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others. source

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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