• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is love a universal truth?

Love is a universal truth?

  • ST---yes

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • ST---no

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • SF---yes

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • SF---no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NT---yes

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • NT---no

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • NF---yes

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • NF---no

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .

Xellotath

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I don't think I could sustain love as a universal truth, intellectually. Is there any reason why that particular emotion should be given a seat before any other emotion? It seems like an unwarranted step. Pleasant feelings when bonding are everything that matters? Maybe not.

As for compassion, just because I feel a certain way about a person or an animal does not mean that everyone else -should- feel that way and cherish those feelings. There are no virtues in emotional dictatorships. I dislike seeing animals in pain, and in fact.. I'm a vegetarian, partly for that reason. But I can't demand anything of people, nor formulate ethics based on my sensitivities - I think that would be nearly solipsistic on my part. I get strong desires to nurture that which is vulnerable, in fact I would go as far as to say that I dont feel "love" unless there is vulnerability and sensibility involved. (might be some weird Fi thing or something with me) - a feeling which stands in very sharp contrast to all the rhetoric about "loving yourself" and the rest of the ego-driven nonsense. For me, love is raw felt-meaning, -against- what my ego might be telling me.

I suppose my biggest problem is the word "universal". Whose universe? The strictly human, non-animal universe? [assuming you dont consider humans in the exact same category as animals]. Hell, we have yet to thoroughly explore something as vast as the galaxy. Unless of course you mean, the psychological universe. Because as far as my limited knowledge of physics goes, I'm pretty confident that love is not the driving engine of existence. Natural selection is brutally antithetical to love, unless defined as sex.
 

Synapse

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
3,359
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4
Love exists as a necessity just like water and oxygen. Without love hate manifests whether loving others or thy self. Those realities manifest into self destruction rather than self expression.

Now as a universal truth, you are talking in the context that this is a natural phenomenon that everyone shares. And the truth is no, as temporal beings we are born of this world to experience those feelings that are expressed through our emotions and thoughts.

What this means is that whether we want to accept a loving attitude - a positive interface in existence or a hatful attitude - a negative interface, depends on peoples resonance, health and experience. The energy that creates receptivity for or against love as a conduct to growth, on a personal level, is to transcend the barrier that guards the natural use of the heart.

From a pseudo religious spiritual experience the entity that manifests outside of our space is a source, whether of warmth or hostility depends entirely upon the imagination of the human mind. And that manifestation changes in accordance to how receptive we are to experience love all around us. This does exist, except it is an individualistic artifact entirely subjected to personal experiences and beliefs and such. None more so apparent than the need to fill emptiness and loneliness, this then becomes a sexual urge, a biological agent. For the alchemical expression of love transforms, brings us closer to the meaning of unconditional love.

As those years in the womb when the energy expressed was entirely from love. Those beginning years of innocence is, and they'll tell you, the most truthful kind of love a child born can have are adopted from the attitudes and experiences of those closest to them.

Who can say, am likely the least likely to understand.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
Secondly, the question of "should love be adopted as a universal value" was brought up. I think the idea of love being the ultimate driving emotion is a good one, but in the context of reality, I think it's both undoable and possibly unhealthy. I believe it is impossible to love in such a lovey-dovey way because we are beings of consumption and self-fulfillment; love itself is a fulfilling thing (I don't want to say it's selfish but it may be.) When you place love within those lines, to me, it loses some of it's Disney qualities.

Also, I think that sometimes life forces us to become monsters of a sort, that is, it might be more beneficial to the person to not love unconditionally. E.g., a fellow fighting in a war, people trying to overthrow a tyrant, etc.. It would be unhealthy for someone to say, "I love you so much, man" as his family was being beaten by savages.

I think in order for love to be an absolutely good value, the circumstances have to allow for it to be so.

i think there has to be a balance, for we live in a dualistic/ separate world. would love even exist without hate?

so, i choose to keep love and Fi, really, something that is mysterious and has value just because it feels so. there's no way to explain what it is, or why.

the rest is up to science, really.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
i think there has to be a balance, for we live in a dualistic/ separate world. would love even exist without hate?

Well, it would still exist.

so, i choose to keep love and Fi, really, something that is mysterious and has value just because it feels so. there's no way to explain what it is, or why.

the rest is up to science, really.

This is an interesting way of thinking. Also, do what you think is right. I honestly wasn't trying to destroy anyones opinion. I was just stating my own, as seen through my little tinted monocle.
 
Last edited:

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
Well, it would still exist.

there's no way of proving that.

This is an interesting way of thinking. Also, do what you think is right. I honestly wasn't trying to destroy anyones opinion. I was just stating my own, as seen through my little tinted monocle.

i know. i at least didn't take it that way at all. :) i need (your) T, see? :)
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
there's no way of proving that.

Well, as we can't really remove hate from existence, I suppose that it would be unprovable. Having said that, we can still create mental experiments and come to some sort of possible conclusion.

To me, love and hate are not any more diametrically opposed than fire and water, salt and pepper, etc.. That is, I don't conisder them true opposites but rather, they are two distinguishably different emotions that we have been taught to think are opposite. In the end, they are both chemical, etc., reactions enacted as a response to our current enviromental status.

With that in mind, would love exist without any other emotion? I would suppose that it would so long as the brain was able to secrete those needed chemicals. The same could be said for hate, sadness, happyness, etc..

i know. i at least didn't take it that way at all. :) i need (your) T, see? :)

Oh, good. I thought that I had offended you. :cry:

P.S. I need your F.
 

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
To me, love and hate are not any more diametrically opposed than fire and water, salt and pepper, etc.. That is, I don't conisder them true opposites but rather, they are two distinguishably different emotions that we have been taught to think are opposite. In the end, they are both chemical, etc., reactions enacted as a response to our current enviromental status.

yes... but the dualism in our world is evident. it's only a matter of dealing with it.

Oh, good. I thought that I had offended you. :cry:

P.S. I need your F.

no worries. :hug:
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In progress...

Hmm. I didn't notice my little poll. But that's okay if you really don't feel like doing it. :smile:


This kind of goes to T/F differences, as in the inaccuracies associated with "Feeling as being without Thinking." When you hear music, do you hear just the bass, and just the treble of a song, or do you hear the bass, mid-range, and treble frequencies all at once, and allow them all together to define what you are hearing? :headphne: :heart:


Again, because what I have felt of it has been positive and reassuring, and I equivocate both of those phenomena as "good."

I guess there are some of us who are programmed with a lotta love; that have innately this huge drive to love others and love more and love a lot. So you can imagine in this world how that would not work out too well. If we fall into a problem, what do we do? We might eventually turn to guidance from books or a therapist or some motivational speaker or religion, etc. Well, the whole mantra of most of those things is currently......LOVE> Loving better, loving the right way, the 4 steps to love, letting go and expecting love to be all and be enough, etc. So you try to fix the very thing that was already out of balance by focusing on it more, which works for a while.

But since love really is not, and most here are saying they know it is not, a Universal Truth (like gravity or some other hard science concept) it cannot sustain one, because at its core, it really is just a biological drive to keep us alive, it doesn't have the makings of a world view (which the popular media and self-help gurus and even therapists try to make it out to be). These entities seem to turn love into a religion.

When it's experienced too much, it can cause problems in its host, just like feeling any other emotion too much can cause problems (depression). Lol. I'm not talking about nymphomania either, although I think that would be just one step further along this continuum. :)

So, I'm speaking out about that. Perhaps some can't feel love enough. That would suck too because to find a mate in this world, you usually have to be able to do that. To stretch and find the self-sacrificing place to nurture young enough so that they can experience healthy developmental growth, you need a healthy dose of love, or something else....perhaps consciousness and fortitude in that would be enough. Who knows. But some feel love too much. And I feel strongly that this in not just some developmental dysfunction, or reaction based on cultural experiences, although I really couldn't say for sure. But I know other people (F types usually) whose loving promotes many problems, whether that turns into manipulation out of love, or too much sexual loving which causes many problems, or too much self-love, among other expressions of too much love. Perhaps consumerism stems from here, and narcissism regarding plastic surgery all come from this obsession with love, either because of too little or too much.

You might have a nice balance about love. Many do not. And I think to focus so much on it, or to even use it as a healing tool, is questionable until we really identify what love even is; or to assume it's all good.


Yes. Thomas Jefferson was big on this, much like Aesop, ethical parables without the guilt of religion, without "good and evil." But, allow me to play devil's advocate, why would definitions of friendship and citizenship be better if love were completely factored out of them? Why is that better? :thinking:

Not saying we can abandon love. Just questioning how much is needed and what weight we should give it. We know we can be good people, at least individually, without religion. Can we be caring without a love religion?



So, yeah, you've done it, and I have too, and how did it turn out for you? Good? Bad? Surely different than you expected. To me, that sort of thing is a waste of time. I value my time, and therefore I value my efforts at implementing love with the time I have to live, out of respect for myself, and respect for those who I love. :)

This, to me, reflects the concept of giving what you receive, and expecting to receive what you give. That's not really what love religion says, or mainstream religions, or even unconditional loving, or a relationship coach would say. They would say to give your love freely and don't worry about what comes back. Give what you can, when you can, fully. But yes, I think to survive for many in this world this does not work, because those who have more to give (myself) end up deficient with no easy way to fill back up; which weakens us over time. So a more pragmatic approach to love is obviously definitely needed in our culture. We seem to only see the takers; the selfish, and indeed, I think the selfish outweigh the giving by many. So it is incumbent on the givers to protect themselves in some way. The current love lingo thrown around just doesn't work or do anyone any real good.

It is proven that many participants of arranged marriages DEVELOP ROMANTIC LOVE later in their livevs. The experience is totally different than Western "free-spirited" romances, but it is not without similarity of implementation of love by humans.

Yeah, and that's pretty amazing and a result of an amazing love biochemical process. But my point was that the aren't so focused on LOVE that they starve themselves of living as humans until they find perfect love as painted in our current world. Some might not be very capable of finding that kind of love. Should they forego living with someone, or childbearing just because the fairy tail love eludes them? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm just questioning the wisdom of centering all that we are around love.


According to the inmates of Cell Block Four, you do:

prison-bitch.jpg


They've only been together for a few days, and already in counseling. :rofl1:

:laugh: "You told me you loved me."



i don't think i would want love to be a universal truth, i like that it is real subjective and personal.
but as a force to live your life by, as an ideal to guide you- i think it is a good one, for me.

i think i didn't always used to live by love, or maybe i did but i didn't know it yet. but i think it is probably what i was always looking for when i was younger, not somebody to love i mean, but the love inside myself.


but i do think love is one of those things that disappears or falls apart when you look directly at it, like a mirage. so you kind of have to live with it naturally and let it just do it's thing- trying to understand love seems like it kills it for me.
whereas something like integrity feels like it intensifies and becomes clearer when i focus on it.

STs just hit it right on. Yes, I am perceiving that it's like that very much. That you really just have to enjoy love in the moment, because to ply it with intent, ruins it; to manipulate it or expect it to do something, bastardizes it. To focus on it just isn't right. To make it a religion just isn't right. To make our lives centered around it just isn't right.

I don't think I could sustain love as a universal truth, intellectually. Is there any reason why that particular emotion should be given a seat before any other emotion? It seems like an unwarranted step. Pleasant feelings when bonding are everything that matters? Maybe not.

As for compassion, just because I feel a certain way about a person or an animal does not mean that everyone else -should- feel that way and cherish those feelings. There are no virtues in emotional dictatorships. I dislike seeing animals in pain, and in fact.. I'm a vegetarian, partly for that reason. But I can't demand anything of people, nor formulate ethics based on my sensitivities - I think that would be nearly solipsistic on my part. I get strong desires to nurture that which is vulnerable, in fact I would go as far as to say that I dont feel "love" unless there is vulnerability and sensibility involved. (might be some weird Fi thing or something with me) - a feeling which stands in very sharp contrast to all the rhetoric about "loving yourself" and the rest of the ego-driven nonsense. For me, love is raw felt-meaning, -against- what my ego might be telling me.

I have wondered about this too. It's like a quick and natural way to incite a love response is to feel someone's need. I've wondered about that in the context of sexual loving relationships; that sometimes those that are needy are attracted to those that are giving, and vice versa; those that are giving are attracted to those that need. It's, of course, not a balanced relationship what could last very well, but why are some so attracted to that? It must be because that is a quick way to elicit a love response, which in turn, feels good.



Love exists as a necessity just like water and oxygen. Without love hate manifests whether loving others or thy self. Those realities manifest into self destruction rather than self expression.

Now as a universal truth, you are talking in the context that this is a natural phenomenon that everyone shares. And the truth is no, as temporal beings we are born of this world to experience those feelings that are expressed through our emotions and thoughts.

What this means is that whether we want to accept a loving attitude - a positive interface in existence or a hatful attitude - a negative interface, depends on peoples resonance, health and experience. The energy that creates receptivity for or against love as a conduct to growth, on a personal level, is to transcend the barrier that guards the natural use of the heart.

From a pseudo religious spiritual experience the entity that manifests outside of our space is a source, whether of warmth or hostility depends entirely upon the imagination of the human mind. And that manifestation changes in accordance to how receptive we are to experience love all around us. This does exist, except it is an individualistic artifact entirely subjected to personal experiences and beliefs and such. None more so apparent than the need to fill emptiness and loneliness, this then becomes a sexual urge, a biological agent. For the alchemical expression of love transforms, brings us closer to the meaning of unconditional love.

As those years in the womb when the energy expressed was entirely from love. Those beginning years of innocence is, and they'll tell you, the most truthful kind of love a child born can have are adopted from the attitudes and experiences of those closest to them.

Who can say, am likely the least likely to understand.

You raise an interesting point with the love/hate thing. Are we more likely to hate if we love less?

In considering love as a biological, chemical process that has aided in our evolution through time, I asked my son what he thinks about love. He said he thinks love is getting stronger in us because we are not as barbaric a society as we used to be; that in all the ways we measure love, it used to not measure up like it does now. I'm not sure about that, but maybe he's right. We seem to go out of our way more to protect our children for a longer period of time of their growth. We seem to hold more dear the sanctity of relationships, no matter the paradigm we believe in. We seem to understand the concept that healthy self love exists and try to understand it. We join together in love when we have a crisis, but that does dissipate after a while.

I have to wonder if some of us that love too much or don't love enough are just along different time continuum in that evolution of love. Perhaps we are developing more affinity for love as a human race; perhaps that is slowly being selected for over time. Those that hate, are killed, those that love procreate; to use a very simplified example. Those that don't fit in, are ostracized. Those that do, are embraced.

If only we could plug our tails into our computer monitor and unite all our good wills together, Avatar style, how awesome would that mind-meld love be? :wubbie:
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
i don't think i would want love to be a universal truth, i like that it is real subjective and personal.
but as a force to live your life by, as an ideal to guide you- i think it is a good one, for me.

I think I agree with this. To be honest I don't get the idea of universal love. It seems it would become nothing when universal.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
yes... but the dualism in our world is evident. it's only a matter of dealing with it.

no worries. :hug:

I find it hard to remove all notions of dualism from my mind, so I am going to say that, in some cases, it's probable, perhaps even true that dualisms exist. I would have to think about it longer before I came to a real decision.

Some examples of dualisms that exist in my mind: Infinity vs Zero, matter vs antimatter, etc..

I still don't think love and hate are dualisms though. Also, I wonder, how can you 'deal' with a dualism? Do you mean 'get over it' or 'control it'?
 
Last edited:

yvonne

A passer by
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
534
MBTI Type
INfP
Enneagram
5w4
Also, I wonder, how can you 'deal' with a dualism? Do you mean 'get over it' or 'control it'?

now we're getting into the core of Fi. for me it's about accepting it and then controlling it... defining/ redefining your values... and trying to practice what you preach.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
For me, it appears one of my Fi values is universal love for all creatures. This isnt romantic love, more the jesus/buddha variety. Everything deserves compassion, love and forgiveness, even if it comes in a tough love package.


I am going to play devils advocate here - so you love murderers, and thieves, and (heaven forbid) if someone stole a child ... would you be able to uphold that principle? Still love them? Think carefully; I am not trying to be a bi*ch here, I am just throwing out some stuff that is not so straightforward and easily forgotten by the churchy arm-wavers who talk about loving everyone and promptly start to gossip about them after they leave the building. (Not you specifically of course; just generalizing an attitude.)

When everyone wants to focus on joy & happy ... love can be the precursor of dark acts, and is twisted to justify heinous cruelty.

It's just not so simple, to me. Love is a choice, and no simple one at that.

I need to go back and read the whole thread as it is very enlightening but wanted to reply to the above.

The answer is yes, anyone and anything will receive love and forgiveness. The reason is that I can almost always Ne-see how this person ended up so fucked up and nightmarish. I recognize the role that biology or society played in forming them into what they are. I can then identify ways to prevent others from ending up in their state. No little kid plans to grow up a murder someone. Yet humans kill each other-why?

That resolves the Fi side of the question-but I think as an enfp-there is always the second part-the Te side. "You are loved and forgiven-now what are we going to do about the situation to fix the problem so it does not repeat again" Fi then Te. It is a cycle.

In the case of the above it may mean these people are locked away and never allowed out to interact with others again. Logic dictates they cannot be trusted, but it is wasteful and even a negative use of energy to hate them. Instead understand them-how did they end up this way-then develop intervention plans out in the world to try and prevent others from reaching this point.

But yeah, this may be way ENFP logic, so I would never expect anyone else to abide by the above and would understand why they may hate and not forgive.

(If you want to make it really tough though-what if they stole my child? Yeah, then all those Fi values start to get all screwed up. I would kill them most likely.)
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
‘When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched
to everything else in the universe. The sun shines not on us, but
in us; the rivers flow not past, but through us ...’’ John Muir

---

The Ts'an-t'ung-ch'i
~an expression of absolute and relative in the Ch’an (Zen)
Shih-t'ou

參同契
Harmony of Difference and Sameness

竺土大仙心 The mind of the great sage of India
東西密相付 is intimately transmitted from west to east.
人根有利鈍 While human faculties are sharp or dull,
道無南北祖 the Way has no northern or southern ancestors.
靈源明皎潔 The spiritual source shines clear in the light;
枝派暗流注 the branching streams flow on in the dark.
執事元是迷 Grasping at things is surely delusion;
契理亦非悟 according with sameness is still not enlightenment.
門門一切境 All the objects of the senses
迴互不迴互 interact and yet do not.
迴而更相涉 Interacting brings involvement.
不爾依位住 Otherwise, each keeps its place.
色本殊質像 Sights vary in quality and form,
聲元異樂苦 sounds differ as pleasing or harsh.
闇合上中言 Refined and common speech come together in the dark,
明明清濁句 clear and murky phrases are distinguished in the light.
四大性自復 The four elements return to their natures
如子得其母 just as a child turns to its mother;
火熱風動搖 Fire heats, wind moves,
水濕地堅固 water wets, earth is solid.
眼色耳音聲 Eye and sights, ear and sounds,
鼻香舌鹹醋 nose and smells, tongue and tastes;
然於一一法 Thus with each and every thing,
依根葉分布 depending on these roots, the leaves spread forth.
本未須歸宗 Trunk and branches share the essence;
尊卑用其語 revered and common, each has its speech.
當明中有暗 In the light there is darkness,
勿以暗相遇 but don't take it as darkness;
當暗中有明 In the dark there is light,
勿以明相睹 but don't see it as light.
明暗各相對 Light and dark oppose one another
比如前後歩 like the front and back foot in walking.
萬物自有功 Each of the myriad things has its merit,
當言用及處 expressed according to function and place.
事存函蓋合 Phenomena exist; box and lid fit;
理應箭鋒拄 principle responds; arrow points meet.
承言須會宗 Hearing the words, understand the meaning;
勿自立規矩 don't set up standards of your own.
觸目不會道 If you don't understand the Way right before you,
運足焉知路 how will you know the path as you walk?
進歩非近遠 Progress is not a matter of far or near,
迷隔山河故 but if you are confused, mountains and rivers block your way.
謹白參玄人 I respectfully urge you who study the mystery,
光陰莫虚度 do not pass your days and nights in vain.

---

yin_yang_small.jpg


Also, the Taoist symbol of Yin-Yang describes the absolute yet relative nature of existence; the light and dark blend together and contain aspects of the other. The struggle to find balance, and out of this love arises.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
This, to me, reflects the concept of giving what you receive, and expecting to receive what you give. That's not really what love religion says, or mainstream religions, or even unconditional loving, or a relationship coach would say. They would say to give your love freely and don't worry about what comes back. Give what you can, when you can, fully. But yes, I think to survive for many in this world this does not work, because those who have more to give (myself) end up deficient with no easy way to fill back up; which weakens us over time. So a more pragmatic approach to love is obviously definitely needed in our culture. We seem to only see the takers; the selfish, and indeed, I think the selfish outweigh the giving by many. So it is incumbent on the givers to protect themselves in some way. The current love lingo thrown around just doesn't work or do anyone any real good.

There is something Fe-ish going in here. I cant quite tease out what, but reciprocality... I dunno...

As for compassion, just because I feel a certain way about a person or an animal does not mean that everyone else -should- feel that way and cherish those feelings. There are no virtues in emotional dictatorships. I dislike seeing animals in pain, and in fact.. I'm a vegetarian, partly for that reason. But I can't demand anything of people, nor formulate ethics based on my sensitivities - I think that would be nearly solipsistic on my part. I get strong desires to nurture that which is vulnerable, in fact I would go as far as to say that I dont feel "love" unless there is vulnerability and sensibility involved. (might be some weird Fi thing or something with me) - a feeling which stands in very sharp contrast to all the rhetoric about "loving yourself" and the rest of the ego-driven nonsense. For me, love is raw felt-meaning, -against- what my ego might be telling me.
.

I have wondered about this too. It's like a quick and natural way to incite a love response is to feel someone's need. I've wondered about that in the context of sexual loving relationships; that sometimes those that are needy are attracted to those that are giving, and vice versa; those that are giving are attracted to those that need. It's, of course, not a balanced relationship what could last very well, but why are some so attracted to that? It must be because that is a quick way to elicit a love response, which in turn, feels good.

I recognize what Xello is saying. I think Fi at a very deep level may serve as a mirror of pain. I feel this very strongly in myself but I recall AA and PB both mentioning a physiological mirror response as well. For me to see another in pain, to feel their pain, evokes an almost instinctual need to help them emotionally-typically via Te tough love, not always a sweet kind response.

Once I recall a post on another forum in which I man said he had scars all over his arms due to a suicide attempt in the past. He said he felt he didnt want his girlfriend to see the scars. There were several comments-one said let her see the scars so she can understand your past and the strength you have to move forwards. Someone else to explain the scars would be manipulation-making her feel pity.

I found this second comment really odd. In my mind, if I see an imperfection in another, I recognize how it has challenged them, how they had fortitude to overcome that challenge and it does a few things at once. I can envision the pain they suffered and "feel" that pain-and simultaneously I admire them immensely for overcoming that pain and moving on with their lives in spite of the challenge they faced. The combination evokes strong emotions within me.

So when I see someone in pain or hardship-I do feel a very strong need to help them-it evokes love-yet that love will not be kind-I will push them and give them tools to overcome the challenge in front of them. If they fail-it doesnt evoke my sympathy.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
(If you want to make it really tough though-what if they stole my child? Yeah, then all those Fi values start to get all screwed up. I would kill them most likely.)

Initially, I did have your child in there, but felt it too harsh so made it more generic.

The answer is yes, anyone and anything will receive love and forgiveness.

Could you forgive them? After all, from a distance one could forgive anything, almost, no? A kind of emotional rationalization?

Does that have anything to even do with Fi?

Remember though, I don't specifically disagree with you; I am throwing out some thought-challenges.

These concepts we speak of are no new thoughts; there is much wisdom to be gained from study too.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I'm just questioning the wisdom of centering all that we are around love.

What if we center all we are around balance instead - what would that look like to you? (The balance point of love is not going around "hating" ... it would include self-love, recognition of darkness, acknowledgement even. That we love to get something, not just to give something.)

that sometimes those that are needy are attracted to those that are giving, and vice versa; those that are giving are attracted to those that need. It's, of course, not a balanced relationship what could last very well, but why are some so attracted to that?

That is a balance thing too ... an effort to balance ourselves and others. We are naturally attracted to what we need to find balance. And that type of relationship can last ... for a long time. As long as the giver and receiver meet in the middle to find that center point of Yin and Yang. There's then not so much giving, and not so much taking. The roles should meld into the other, into the duality of each quality.

But if we think that in order to be good people we must love everyone ... give to everyone ... then we put ourselves out of balance and thus eventually cannot give anymore - typical manifestations of that particular lack of balance are physical ailments, fatigue, depression or anxiety etc.

I have put myself in that unhealthy state too, so I can speak from experience ... I still am learning about finding my own balance. :)

So it is incumbent on the givers to protect themselves in some way.

It is; yes it is.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
now we're getting into the core of Fi. for me it's about accepting it and then controlling it... defining/ redefining your values... and trying to practice what you preach.

How very intruiging.

Well, I think I am going to refrain from posting anymore of my thoughts about love, etc.. This thread is getting overrun by F's and I feel like a jerk who goes about snatching lolipops out of babies mouths.

W'an law've. :hug:
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Initially, I did have your child in there, but felt it too harsh so made it more generic.



Could you forgive them? After all, from a distance one could forgive anything, almost, no? A kind of emotional rationalization?

Does that have anything to even do with Fi?

Remember though, I don't specifically disagree with you; I am throwing out some thought-challenges.

These concepts we speak of are no new thoughts; there is much wisdom to be gained from study too.

Honestly I dont know if I am left with much of a choice-I either forgive and let the negativity go-or I act upon the situation to find resolution. To carry hatred inside of me? It will well up and turn into an inferno of Ne amplification, contaminating everything I do with hurt. ENFPs make the best terrorists. I am not kidding.

Isnt rationalization/analysis of emotions one of the tasks of Fi? You feel something very strongly, so you seek into the mesh that is Fi rules/values/axioms to try and figure out what to do about the strong emotions you feel-to process them?

(^^I am uncertain if this is correct actually??? instead i typically quell emotions with pure logic. Even more strange-I think I value (using Fi) logic (which is the result of Te). So my logical answer is logical-and I feel very strongly about it-due to logic being so highly valued as an Fi value. I actually and somewhat offended (in an Fi sense) when logic is ignored. This is really weird and I dont quite understand it yet. I am kinda odd.)

This was kind of what I was poking at in Z's thread-as an extrovert, I feel driven to act upon the things I "value" to seek resolution. If those Fi values are extremely intricate and well defined, I will be endless acting upon them using tert Te. So instead it makes me think enfps may be designed to function of less well defined Fi rules-thus we can seem like little kids at at times but we use Te to help guide us on practical applications of rules and learn to reign in Ne as well.

I would assume as an INFP, you guys use Ne to perceive the situation and feelings differently or maybe Si to apply catagories of isolation? Thus the black/white dualism mentioned above? But please forgive if this is totally wrong as I have no idea, just tossing ideas out there.

I have lots of room to grow though...

stand.jpg


I think I drug AA's thread off topic. For another flavor of love see Kali above. She has the heads of men as a necklace and the arms of boys as a belt. It looks terrifying, yet the theme is one of looking at the darkness within yourself, understanding it all is part of one united enitity-good, bad, evil, everything-and appreciating the beauty of that thing. This is a theme seen in several branches of hinduisism. I think if there is a god-it is everything, purely monistic. but yeah I dunno... (sorry for the derail AA!)
 
Top