IEIs/INFps feeling someone's language: meaning, tone, utility

[tcaudilllg]

I can identify with that, Ali, but I'd probably explain it differently

Why not then?

Fe is message and its interpretation. The transmission of the message is mechanical; the structure underlying it is what we call language, its semantics. A person may be drawn to one message more than another, depending on their likes and dislikes. The interpretation of the message is what it means to you. Every message has a meaning... however there are both implicit meaning and conditioned meanings. Consider Mozart vs. Beethoven: Mozart's music carries an implicit, strongly emotional meaning which reflects the social communication of emotions. Beethoven's, in contrast, carries with it a meaning of the gut that not everyone understands. People who sympathize with Beethoven understand him -- those who rebel -- because they understand that acts of rebellion carry with them an innate, natural meaning. Looking at the meaning of rebellion myself, I recall memories of it as a romantic ideal... but I actually look at it as being without meaning.

In contrast, I find deep meaning in feelings that are shared by all people -- grief, loss, happiness, joy. Rebellion in contrast seems vainglorious and illusory. It may be used, but only as a last resort, and even then its only meaning is profound regret that an alternative was unavailable. We look upon our alter ego and see an illusion of ourselves; surely we apprehend a semblance of what something may mean to people who excel at being what we aspire to be -- the living reflection of our persona. But that is never what it means to us, not really.

[aka-kitsune]

Consider Mozart vs. Beethoven: Mozart's music carries an implicit, strongly emotional meaning which reflects the social communication of emotions. Beethoven's, in contrast, carries with it a meaning of the gut that not everyone understands. People who sympathize with Beethoven understand him -- those who rebel -- because they understand that acts of rebellion carry with them an innate, natural meaning. Looking at the meaning of rebellion myself, I recall memories of it as a romantic ideal... but I actually look at it as being without meaning.

Interesting example. I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting example. I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

Well Beethoven, from what I've been taught, tried specifically to break with precedents. If you notice his work, he plays with your expectations, building up to what you would rhythmically expect and then twists the outcome into something unexpected. If you find emotional meaning in that twist, then you find meaning in his music. If you find it arbitrary, even crass, then you don't get the meaning behind the message of rebellion against the conventions of his day. (and, to a larger extent, our natural tendency to expect of music a mathematical predicatability). Beethoven confuses our internal sense of order and exposes it to chaos.

The question of his politics is actually a relevant one concerning how his music is interpreted. If he was on the Right, then he was aiming for an exposure of conserved meanings; if on the Left, he wanted to introduce new meaning in reaction to the conserved.

[aka-kitsune]

Well Beethoven, from what I've been taught, tried specifically to break with precedents. If you notice his work, he plays with your expectations, building up to what you would rhythmically expect and then twists the outcome into something unexpected. If you find emotional meaning in that twist, then you find meaning in his music. If you find it arbitrary, even crass, then you don't get the meaning behind the message of rebellion against the conventions of his day. (and, to a larger extent, our natural tendency to expect of music a mathematical predicatability). Beethoven confuses our internal sense of order and exposes it to chaos.

The question of his politics is actually a relevant one concerning how his music is interpreted. If he was on the Right, then he was aiming for an exposure of conserved meanings; if on the Left, he wanted to introduce new meaning in reaction to the conserved.

Eh... I don't try to understand music in terms of its technical aspects. I just notice the effects it has and generally enjoy music that stirs in me an emotional reaction (but not revulsion). I can't say I always seek "pleasant" reactions, because I resonate very strongly with melancholic or mournful strains. A sense of pathos and yearning is attractive, as is a certain quality of unconventionality and subtlety.

I also like Chopin for these reasons.

[tcaudilllg]

Breaking down Fe into its component aspects, with regard to the ego and alter ego we can see that +Fe (signal) is shaped by -Fe (reception via counter-signal), and -Fe stimulated in response to -Fe.

In Beethoven's case (and yours, Aki), it breaks down to this:


Ego:
+Fe (change of message) vs -Fe (continuity of message; repetition of signal)
Alter ego:
-Fe (conserved meaning of the message) vs +Fe (change of meaning)

The + and - forms of Fe play off of each other between the ego and alter ego.

In as much as Beethoven wanted to construct a persona of himself in denial of his alter ego, changing the message meant changing the meaning: one could explore new meaning in music given changes in form. The old ways restrained the expression of music and thus, were to be criticized for restraining the human horizon. This was Beethoven's argument. But no matter how much the technique changed, the meanings remained the same because they were innately linked to the technique. The silver lining to this is that indeed, the meanings exposed were different from those already known, even if a given technique by necessity exposed the same meaning. You can't rehash the same tune -- even if its arrangement relative to other tunes is novel -- and expect a different meaning for that part of the piece. Belief in your persona, however, is want to fool you into believing that you can.

[Phaedrus]

I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

That is a correct observation and analysis.

Mozart was an extravert, an ENXp (most likely ENTp in my opinion), creative and ingenious, but light and airy as you say. He had Tourette's syndrome and most likely ADHD too.

Beethoven was most likely an introvert and is typed as INTp by Filatova, a typing that could be correct.

[tcaudilllg]

Beethoven was ENFj, it's well known. He was infamous for his rages.

I suspect INFp is very poor at distinguishing their alter ego Fe from their persona Fe. This should manifest in belief that one message can have many meanings. To actually have a sense of what a message definitively means, they need ENFj's recommendation. If you think about it, this tendency is reflected in poetry....

[Phaedrus]

Beethoven was ENFj, it's well known. He was infamous for his rages.

It is certainly not an established fact that Beethoven was an ENFj, and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

[aka-kitsune]

It is certainly not an established fact that Beethoven was an ENFj, and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

I tend to agree that Beethoven was likely an introvert. He's typed in and among enneagram circles as an E4, so likely ILI or IEI. EIE not relatively a good fit with E4s.

[crazedrat]

and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

yes , it is true ......
it's happening at all times inside , and manages to slip out now and then

[Phaedrus]

yes , it is true ......
it's happening at all times inside , and manages to slip out now and then

And the phenomenon is described in the literature too, at least in relation to the Fe PoLR (inferior function, Fe) in some INTP profiles in MBTT.