the poetry of the inner world

[AgentF]

The Poetry of the Inner World

i have always had some difficulty articulating my inner world to those who have more fixed frames of reference. as an extrovert, i have a comfortable and fluid connection to the outside world; the greater my exposure to it, the richer my inner world becomes. judgments and memories and ideas, distinct entities, are layered with Meaning.

some would call this inner judgment (Fi) combined with inner imagery (Si) blending to create a shifting inner landscape. but i have noticed that this shifting landscape makes some people uncomfortable (for it is the seat of certain constructs that others would prefer fixed, values for example). i have also noticed that i have difficulty articulating it and am best able to do so when i stop and direct my focus on one point. like a globe spinning on its axis, and stopped with my fingertip, i am able to lift it and describe precisely what i see at that moment.

but this description would be for the purposes of externalization for someone else's benefit. i rarely see the need to externalize my inner world, as a) i can fall into a kind of contemplative ecstasy the more i ponder that landscape (what [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] calls high response but in my case the stimulae is this inner landscape of external-flavored Meaning), and b) describing it is painful. at least, very difficult to do so as one would feel asked to describe a cosmos in but a paragraph.

mine is another type of thinking, one that is not limited to what the physical senses reveal to me about the physical world. it starts in the outer world, which is limitless, and continues on to join some inner constellation of thought construction and something else i can't define. but it is as boundless as the external world.

a poet shapes his inner world into external form. i do just the opposite.

 

[Kalach]

Ode 2 Functions

The creation of judgment is interesting. I think its reasonable in broad terms to say that active creation of judgment happens in terms of functions. (Where functions are construed as cognitive activity as it approaches consciousness). So, blah blah blah, consider the inner world...

The outer world is easy. It's there and you can play basketball in it. The inner world... is not the outer world... YET IT'S NOT FORMLESS. But what is the form. This is where the idea of poetry is interesting. Stuff of the outer world you can be judged true and false, and right and wrong. But the inner world.... in there don't you need the broader terms of... I dunno... "beauty"?

Fulll disclosure: I find actual poetry tiresome and have never looked too far beyond even first words. I usually find them to be opaque. AND I MIGHT BE ABLE TO BLAME FUNCTIONS! The richness of imagery usually, or at least so seems to me, arises from a groundedness. No matter how flippy floppy or ethereal, there'll be some flower stem or purpling sky or, heaven help us, etherized patient. IT'S Si!!!!

But... then there's things like elegance in math, depth in imagery, awe in conception...

 

[Kalach]

I mean...

everyone has some formally unique component. In typology we render it as Xi, an introverted function, something present to the individual and not to others. And when people talk about it, everyone knows to call it subjective. But, unless the individual is sick in some way, there's no special reason to call that inner world weak or broken, is there? And just as there are Ye functions and transfers of content between e and i, there is some interface between this inner and the outer. But how do we want to speak of this inner element? What is its form?

It does have some form. Inner worlds are full of content joined together in idiosyncratic but genuine ways. Some of it is realistic, some morbid, some so id-like you should watch out. It's imagery and judgement with content and form.

I don't know what poetry is, though, really.

It's mostly for girls.

 

[Mole]

a poet shapes his inner world into external form. i do just the opposite.

[MENTION=12102]agentfurrina[/MENTION]

Dear Agent, it's good to see you here. And it is brave of you to share your inner path with us.

Particularly as I move from my inner world to the outside while you are moving from your outer world to the inside.

And here we meet - in no-man's-land so to speak, neither in the inner world or in the outer world, but crossing over.

And so we pause, neither beast or fowl, hardly daring to breathe, but as the blue light envelopes us, we take a little breath and start to breath more easily in our hiatus, in our hideaway, in our secret hideaway, that we create ourselves, for us.

Soon we will move on, relaxed and refreshed, me to the outside, and you to the inside. You might say we shall be inside out.

I am so glad you posted here and I look forward to your next post.

Your friend,
Victor.

 

[SerenaW]

i have a comfortable and fluid connection to the outside world; the greater my exposure to it, the richer my inner world becomes.

I won't get into the debate, but that's the same for me.

 

[RaptorWizard]

The black hole takes in and absorbs information from the external world and shapes it into new forms sprouting from a white hole of creation.

 

[AgentF]

my apologies for taking a while to reply. i have an aversion to this topic.

The outer world is easy. It's there and you can play basketball in it. The inner world... is not the outer world... YET IT'S NOT FORMLESS. But what is the form. This is where the idea of poetry is interesting. Stuff of the outer world you can be judged true and false, and right and wrong. But the inner world.... in there don't you need the broader terms of... I dunno... "beauty"?

this plays nicely into your thread, Kalach. perhaps they should be merged.

i apologize for only skimming it, but yes: it is restrictive to limit discussion of the inner world to functions. also--not sure if it is because i am a P--i do not associate judgment with the outer world. it simply is...yet i am doing something with it. taking it inside and fashioning it and mapping it.

goddamned Si. i want to get away from functions when describing it because i know that's not the reality of the thing. anyway, i agree that there's something slippery going on. things are revealed and presented to me without my conscious awareness of them, or my willing them to come forward. and certainly without my shaping them.

i thought what [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] said in your thread is interesting: "I'm guessing that the reasoning behind not wanting to talk about one's inner world depends on the person. In my case, it's because I know it isn't rational. I take a lot of pride in being rational and reasonable most of the time, but inside, it's all emotion, it's all resentment and gut reactions and id. I want to be reasonable all the time, but my inner world gets in the way."

mine doesn't get in the way of anything...it is a pathway. it is a-rational. and that is what leads to that journey of discovery and the contemplative "ecstasy" that i feel when pondering it. it is like tapping into another dimension where truth flows more easily, unimpeded by conscious thought. all this makes me wonder about the poetry analogy. because my inner world looks like that scene in Contact and yes: they should've sent a poet. for i am unable to do mine justice but sense that i must try.

(ah, well, maybe that's an idealized view of it. i sometimes let my emotions distort my perception of what is really happening in my inner world. of course i do. and when i do, it no longer is a wondrous and magical place but it seems like some barren fucking wilderness and VERY unsafe. but unsafe how? nothing has changed regarding reality. so i've learned to blow aside the emotion like a layer of smoke to reveal my true self back to me. i am not always successful, but it is a skill i have developed and now find that my happiness depends on it. [MENTION=3325]Victor,[/MENTION] is this where you feel refreshed? because the process of blowing away the smoky layer most certainly does not feel refreshing to me, it ranges from being a nuisance to downright terrifying.)

Fulll disclosure: I find actual poetry tiresome and have never looked too far beyond even first words. I usually find them to be opaque. AND I MIGHT BE ABLE TO BLAME FUNCTIONS! The richness of imagery usually, or at least so seems to me, arises from a groundedness. No matter how flippy floppy or ethereal, there'll be some flower stem or purpling sky or, heaven help us, etherized patient. IT'S Si!!!!

But... then there's things like elegance in math, depth in imagery, awe in conception...

see, i find some poetry beautiful. in fact, at times it seems to describe scientific truth. or is it the other way around?? furthermore, i think the elegance of the inner world is very real, but as i said, extremely difficult to describe. i feel discomfort trying to articulate it, to the point of nausea. do you?

("good" poetry does not have a nauseating affect on me, but the effort of producing it most certainly drives some poets mad. literally.)

everyone has some formally unique component. In typology we render it as Xi, an introverted function, something present to the individual and not to others. And when people talk about it, everyone knows to call it subjective. But, unless the individual is sick in some way, there's no special reason to call that inner world weak or broken, is there? And just as there are Ye functions and transfers of content between e and i, there is some interface between this inner and the outer. But how do we want to speak of this inner element? What is its form?

you're right. it should be judgment-free. and that interface between the inner and outer world must exist, but how does one develop it to ensure a faithful representation of either? is there any need? i say there is and it is the most fundamental form of communication and not one that we are generally taught.

it is not intuition*, per se. but perhaps the seat of intuition. that which gives rise to the desire to make one's self/one's truth known. the poetic impulse, even.


*not perception via the unconscious. hmm...damn. maybe it is. how would i know if it were?

:horor:

[MENTION=12102]agentfurrina[/MENTION]
And here we meet - in no-man's-land so to speak, neither in the inner world or in the outer world, but crossing over.

you mean, the very scary no-man's-land?

how is it that you are not frightened to explore this territory, Victor? or are you? this realm makes me acutely uncomfortable. could it be that it is a language- and cognition-neutral territory? and, by extension, that trying to apply the rules of language and cognition here are futile? (this might explain my comfort with my inner world but discomfort externalizing it.)

[i actually know the answer, but this is a fork in the spiritual road, isn't it? one either believes there is deeper significance or embraces meaninglessness apart from what we consciously assign to things.]

Soon we will move on, relaxed and refreshed, me to the outside, and you to the inside. You might say we shall be inside out.

yes. this makes sense, that we are inside out. when you externalize your inner world, it often makes sense to me. you do not necessarily know it does, and i do not seek to agree or disagree with your point of view, but i think i generally understand the majority of what you have to say. which is rather striking, as (plainly speaking) many do not seem to.

what is also odd is that, beyond understanding the content, i believe i understand the impulse motivating many of your posts. we are very different but i understand the language you speak. and i can't think of a single cognitive function that would faithfully map back to this awareness. it makes me wonder why some of us instinctively understand one another, and confuse/irritate/enrage even, others.

and what this means for intimacy very much matters to me. is this the crossing over you speak of, [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION]?

The black hole takes in and absorbs information from the external world and shapes it into new forms sprouting from a white hole of creation.

although i understand the language here, and seem to do something similar, this appears to describe the iNtuitive process but not necessarily an inner world. do you agree? how would you describe yours?

 

[Kalach]

see, i find some poetry beautiful. in fact, at times it seems to describe scientific truth. or is it the other way around?? furthermore, i think the elegance of the inner world is very real, but as i said, extremely difficult to describe. i feel discomfort trying to articulate it, to the point of nausea. do you?

"Elegance", eh? Elegance.... Not a word I would use for the inner world. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY

I do find it very difficult to pin down some description of current or working inner states. It seems to defeat the purpose of those states. They're on their way somewhere else. A timeless fixity of inner condition, clear enough to describe and accept as eternal, is relatively rare.

 

[RaptorWizard]

although i understand the language here, and seem to do something similar, this appears to describe the iNtuitive process but not necessarily an inner world. do you agree? how would you describe yours?

The inner world for me seems to exist in a separate dimension, not bound by the constraints of the physical world, a place free of restrictions, where all things conceivable can manifest into creation, so nothing too complicated for me.

 

[Mole]

Billy Tea

and what this means for intimacy very much matters to me. is this the crossing over you speak of, [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION]

[MENTION=12102]agentfurrina[/MENTION]

Here we meet, Agent Furrina, in no-man's-land. We huddle in a bomb crater, and with shot and shell raging around us, we decide to boil the billy. We decide to boil the billy for a cup of tea. Fear has brought us here to discover billy tea.

How would you like it, I ask, white with one sugar, or black without. You take your tea and look across the top of your mug at me and smile and I can't help smiling back.

 

[Mole]

yes. this makes sense, that we are inside out. when you externalize your inner world, it often makes sense to me. you do not necessarily know it does, and i do not seek to agree or disagree with your point of view, but i think i generally understand the majority of what you have to say. which is rather striking, as (plainly speaking) many do not seem to.

what is also odd is that, beyond understanding the content, i believe i understand the impulse motivating many of your posts. we are very different but i understand the language you speak. and i can't think of a single cognitive function that would faithfully map back to this awareness. it makes me wonder why some of us instinctively understand one another, and confuse/irritate/enrage even, others.

[MENTION=12102]agentfurrina[/MENTION]

Yes, it is very nice to be understood.

And yes, I have a strong sense of my inner self and when I express it, I feel satisfied.