Inner Worlds

[Kalach]

This is a squirrely topic. Everyone has an inner life, but my impression is there is some distrust in them. Witness for example that persistent notion of a "loop". But, what are these inner worlds? How are they to be assessed? the other persistent notion is "healthy", but what's that?

See, healthy, obviously, is some kind of balance between inner and outer. The inner world doesn't wander too far of the outer path. But, it's kind of weird to press too closely to the outer path too. You lose the independent aspect to your personality.

So, the inner world... it makes people nervous to talk too freely of what's in there, but if there's nothing in there, there's no "you" either... so what are they, these inner worlds?

 

[Rail Tracer]

It's.... an idea, a metaphor, a figure of speech, a story, or a glowing fire that radiates light. The most simple form (for me) is just the imagery of fire (like a candlelit fire,) a fire that burns eternally. No matter what the circumstances, it burns.

How does this inner world work with the outer world? It continues, it seeks, it dims but never fade (otherwise, it is just an empty shell.)

Think Walt Disney or Ansel Adams, they create images, they capture the essence of their inner worlds, they "create" magic. That is how they bring their inner worlds outside to "reality." Think of the Wright brothers and their will to fly. Think of the spirit of Ellis/Angel Island and the power that both of these places evoke to the wills of those that visit those places. Think of the power that resonates when you read Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. In all of these circumstances, there is this magic.... this fire.

They seek the thing that captures that embodied fire - that embodied will.

 

[Kalach]

I was wondering if it was going to be an F thing, this topic, BECAUSE THE INNER WORLD IS SENSITIVE1. And it is sensitive, right? Even for the people who base their inner world around thinking, the world is personal, individual, and... sensitive.

It's there. though. And persists over time. And it kind of defeats the conception to start talking about what everyone's inner world has in common, but probably inner worlds do have a lot in common. They have one vital thing NOT in common, they're only experienced by the one person, but other aspects likely exist too, and may be common.

The thought is starting to be that, heaven help me, it's poetry.

Poetry is a high-minded form, and probably no one will ever confidently say that their inner constructs are sufficiently rarefied that if you took them out and looked at them, they'd be beautiful. But that's sort of the idea. Only it's the other way around.

See, maybe proper assessment of an inner world is in terms of some notion of beauty. The beauty of the individual construct, or the individual terms of experience, or... some damn thing.


But calling it actual beauty or proper poetry *FEELS* wrong, like too pure a claim. Inner worlds aren't pure, and they aren't lovely.

Or are they?

 

[EJCC]

Cool thread. Very interesting. Probably easier for me to talk about in Myers-Briggs/Enneagram terms, so I'll go about it that way for now -- although there's obviously so much more to it than that.

This is a squirrely topic. Everyone has an inner life, but my impression is there is some distrust in them.

Not sure. I get the impression from some people that their inner world is less scary, more trustworthy, and better in general than their outer world. Seems more common with introverts than extroverts (and I'm not using those terms by their MBTI definitions), and more common with other-focused people than self-focused people.

the other persistent notion is "healthy", but what's that?

Regarding this question, I think I agree with you about balance. You aren't leading a balanced life if you're cultivating your inner life and not your outer one, or vice versa. Both of those things exist for a reason, and there will be consequences for your well-being if you don't achieve that balance.

So, the inner world... it makes people nervous to talk too freely of what's in there, but if there's nothing in there, there's no "you" either... so what are they, these inner worlds?

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. On the one hand, like you said, it can be poetic, it can be artistic and beautiful, and it provides 99% of my motivations in life, but it is also dangerous, unreliable, and potentially humiliating. I try and express it, and it almost always sounds childish or stupid. And it can be hard to accept that my inner world, which technically defines me as much as my outer world, expresses the complete opposite of what my outer world does. It represents everything I don't want to be: childishness, irrationality, selfishness. It not only makes me feel like a hypocrite, but it makes me realize that the very fabric of my being is hypocrisy. And oh, do I loathe hypocrisy.

So... Where I struggle to find the balance between the two, is struggling to accept the more lovely aspects of that despite the aspects that I'm ashamed of. Technically they should balance each other out, but it really doesn't feel like they do.

I was wondering if it was going to be an F thing, this topic, BECAUSE THE INNER WORLD IS SENSITIVE1. And it is sensitive, right? Even for the people who base their inner world around thinking, the world is personal, individual, and... sensitive.

Indeed. I know that in my case, what I've been describing is almost entirely my sensitive Fi. I wonder what the inner world of an Fe user would be like in comparison. I can't even imagine.

It's there. though. And persists over time. And it kind of defeats the conception to start talking about what everyone's inner world has in common, but probably inner worlds do have a lot in common. They have one vital thing NOT in common, they're only experienced by the one person, but other aspects likely exist too, and may be common.

Does it defeat the conception? Frankly, I think it would be more constructive to compare and contrast, than to pretend like there are no patterns at all and that we're all Unique And Special Snowflakes. We're all human, we're all driven by our gut and our emotions (and sometimes our minds and capacity for logic), and in theory we should have more in common than not.

The thought is starting to be that, heaven help me, it's poetry.

Poetry is a high-minded form, and probably no one will ever confidently say that their inner constructs are sufficiently rarefied that if you took them out and looked at them, they'd be beautiful. But that's sort of the idea. Only it's the other way around.

See, maybe proper assessment of an inner world is in terms of some notion of beauty. The beauty of the individual construct, or the individual terms of experience, or... some damn thing.

Maybe. It would explain how some people are so much more comfortable with their inner worlds than others. Like the experience of being an actor. At the very beginning of your career, you learn that you will take criticism personally, because method acting is so personal, that criticism of your performance can feel like criticism of who you really are -- and feel all the worse because you know they're right. But many actors begin to build up a shell after that, where they decide that they will not accept anyone's criticism, except for a select few people that they trust -- and they will become much more confident in their acting. I think it's the same with expressing your inner world. Either you share it unashamedly without fear of getting hurt, or you hide it for fear of someone criticizing it and making you feel like less of a person.

But calling it actual beauty or proper poetry *FEELS* wrong, like too pure a claim. Inner worlds aren't pure, and they aren't lovely.

Or are they?

Beauty isn't perfect or pure either, so it makes sense to me. Seems fair.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Inner world is a metaphor for basic emotions surrounding core concepts

 

[Kalach]

Not sure. I get the impression from some people that their inner world is less scary, more trustworthy, and better in general than their outer world. Seems more common with introverts than extroverts (and I'm not using those terms by their MBTI definitions), and more common with other-focused people than self-focused people.

Oh yeah, for sure. But a few distinctions might be in order. There's the inner world of introverted functioning, which is one kind of identifiable world, but there's another one, I think. It'll definitely be based around introverted functioning, but a bit more inclusive of... more personality stuff, I guess. Perhaps this is more like the idea of ego.

Anyway, what I was thinking is, there's a difference between trusting an inner world by virtue of cognitive preference and trusting an inner world by conscious choice. I guess the first is more or less the definition of an introvert, while the second is something that anyone struggles with, especially if the idea of trust includes "trusts enough to display in public". In that sense, inner worlds seem to be sources of considerable anxiety. (I may be projecting here.)

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. On the one hand, like you said, it can be poetic, it can be artistic and beautiful, and it provides 99% of my motivations in life, but it is also dangerous, unreliable, and potentially humiliating. I try and express it, and it almost always sounds childish or stupid. And it can be hard to accept that my inner world, which technically defines me as much as my outer world, expresses the complete opposite of what my outer world does. It represents everything I don't want to be: childishness, irrationality, selfishness. It not only makes me feel like a hypocrite, but it makes me realize that the very fabric of my being is hypocrisy. And oh, do I loathe hypocrisy.

:thumbs up:

Does it defeat the conception? Frankly, I think it would be more constructive to compare and contrast, than to pretend like there are no patterns at all and that we're all Unique And Special Snowflakes. We're all human, we're all driven by our gut and our emotions (and sometimes our minds and capacity for logic), and in theory we should have more in common than not.

It does in the sense that inner worlds are automatically unique. Until we get some superior toys, like say the kind of brain scanner that can take a sufficiently complete picture of your brain that an exact AI copy of you can be reproduced on your computer, inner worlds are accessed and experienced by one and only one person, the owner of that world.

(Actually, even if there were a complete AI copy of you, the worlds are even so probably still formally non-identical. Sorta. There's personal identity arguments galore to be had on this question.)

But, yeah, I agree LET'S FIND AN OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR THIS UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE STUFF!@

Maybe. It would explain how some people are so much more comfortable with their inner worlds than others. Like the experience of being an actor. At the very beginning of your career, you learn that you will take criticism personally, because method acting is so personal, that criticism of your performance can feel like criticism of who you really are -- and feel all the worse because you know they're right. But many actors begin to build up a shell after that, where they decide that they will not accept anyone's criticism, except for a select few people that they trust -- and they will become much more confident in their acting. I think it's the same with expressing your inner world. Either you share it unashamedly without fear of getting hurt, or you hide it for fear of someone criticizing it and making you feel like less of a person.

Beauty isn't perfect or pure either, so it makes sense to me. Seems fair.

It's always going to be problematic though. If inner worlds are based on, or at least heavily influenced by, introverted functioning, then end states or finished products are relatively rare. It seems inappropriate to speak of beauty... unless perhaps we speak of the beauty of the process. Which I guess might look like some idea of an eternal flame.

 

[EJCC]

Oh yeah, for sure. But a few distinctions might be in order. There's the inner world of introverted functioning, which is one kind of identifiable world, but there's another one, I think. It'll definitely be based around introverted functioning, but a bit more inclusive of... more personality stuff, I guess. Perhaps this is more like the idea of ego.

Anyway, what I was thinking is, there's a difference between trusting an inner world by virtue of cognitive preference and trusting an inner world by conscious choice. I guess the first is more or less the definition of an introvert, while the second is something that anyone struggles with, especially if the idea of trust includes "trusts enough to display in public". In that sense, inner worlds seem to be sources of considerable anxiety. (I may be projecting here.)

Maybe. Honestly, besides my irrationality (and my smaller insecurities that aren't really related to personality), I'm having a hard time thinking of things that I would feel insecure about displaying. Maybe "brutal honesty"? Obviously my inner world is full of my uncensored opinions of people. And I guess sexual fantasies are included here too. I dunno. You said you might be projecting? What personal example were you thinking of?

:thumbs up:

Thumbs up, as in, you relate? Or are you being sarcastic?

It does in the sense that inner worlds are automatically unique. Until we get some superior toys, like say the kind of brain scanner that can take a sufficiently complete picture of your brain that an exact AI copy of you can be reproduced on your computer, inner worlds are accessed and experienced by one and only one person, the owner of that world.

(Actually, even if there were a complete AI copy of you, the worlds are even so probably still formally non-identical. Sorta. There's personal identity arguments galore to be had on this question.)

I guess that's true. Can't argue with that!

But, yeah, I agree LET'S FIND AN OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR THIS UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE STUFF!@

Yes indeed. Let's analyze the un-analyzeable!

It's always going to be problematic though. If inner worlds are based on, or at least heavily influenced by, introverted functioning, then end states or finished products are relatively rare. It seems inappropriate to speak of beauty... unless perhaps we speak of the beauty of the process. Which I guess might look like some idea of an eternal flame.

Do you associate beauty with a finished product? Surely there's beauty in particular phases of the process, too?

 

[Kalach]

Maybe. Honestly, besides my irrationality (and my smaller insecurities that aren't really related to personality), I'm having a hard time thinking of things that I would feel insecure about displaying. Maybe "brutal honesty"? Obviously my inner world is full of my uncensored opinions of people. And I guess sexual fantasies are included here too. I dunno. You said you might be projecting? What personal example were you thinking of?

No particular personal example, just a general sense of the outer world as unmanageable and unsafe, at least for some aspects of the self, which I know I have, and some FPs seem to suggest it too. ENFJs are kind of famous for the mysterious inner world too. Maybe it's only the ESJs who live totally out in the open?

But I was thinking, one interesting thing about being J as compared to P is in terms at least of active introverted functions, inner perception is more present to consciousness that judgment. For the Ps, judgment is uppermost. IN TERMS OF INNER WORLDS, PEEEZ ARE MORE JUDGMENTAL!!!

Which I think is priceless. When it comes to making judgments on the probable inner nature of other people or their convictions, the Js can, and maybe should, be telling the Ps to lighten up. :horor:

Anyway, I do wonder if that makes a difference. The presence of perception, and the attendant unwillingness to decide too soon, leads to a sense of--not fragility. More like, unwillingness to circumscribe too soon. And then also an unwillingness to be too clear too soon.

Oh lol, now there's even an explanation for the much lolled at TJ's inability to explain their feelings. It's not that we don't know, IT'S THAT THE PROCESS IS STILL GOING ON.

I may be making this up.

Thumbs up, as in, you relate? Or are you being sarcastic?

Thumbs up as in I have no other obvious comment I can't direct the thread away from that kind of discussion given that that kind of discussion is what the thread is supposed to be about, probably.

 

[EJCC]

No particular personal example, just a general sense of the outer world as unmanageable and unsafe, at least for some aspects of the self, which I know I have, and some FPs seem to suggest it too. ENFJs are kind of famous for the mysterious inner world too. Maybe it's only the ESJs who live totally out in the open?

Maybe. I know I feel like my inner world is much more dangerous and much less manageable than my outer world is. I wonder how SPs feel about it.

But I was thinking, one interesting thing about being J as compared to P is in terms at least of active introverted functions, inner perception is more present to consciousness that judgment. For the Ps, judgment is uppermost. IN TERMS OF INNER WORLDS, PEEEZ ARE MORE JUDGMENTAL!!!

Which I think is priceless. When it comes to making judgments on the probable inner nature of other people or their convictions, the Js can, and maybe should, be telling the Ps to lighten up. :horor:

Judgmental how, in your inner world? Judgmental of various aspects of yourself? Of ideas within your inner world? I ask because I tend to associate judgmental behavior with the outer world.

Anyway, I do wonder if that makes a difference. The presence of perception, and the attendant unwillingness to decide too soon, leads to a sense of--not fragility. More like, unwillingness to circumscribe too soon. And then also an unwillingness to be too clear too soon.

I may have seen that worry in some NPs I know. I was reading a post from one INTP on the forum, saying that he constantly regretted alternative routes in his life that he didn't take. Do you think that relates to it? That it's a fear of creating that certainty, and making those decisions that you can't turn back from, because it removes the safety of the huge number of options that were previously available? Not sure if that was just the particular INTP, or whether it's a P problem, or a Ti problem.

Oh lol, now there's even an explanation for the much lolled at TJ's inability to explain their feelings. It's not that we don't know, IT'S THAT THE PROCESS IS STILL GOING ON.

I may be making this up.

It's okay, buddy! We TJs can work through this together!

Seriously though, you're right. Seems especially tough for NTJs, since Ni makes for difficulty explaining a lot of other things, not just feelings.

Thumbs up as in I have no other obvious comment I can't direct the thread away from that kind of discussion given that that kind of discussion is what the thread is supposed to be about, probably.

Meh. It doesn't have to be about that. Wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not, so I put it out there.

 

[EJCC]

No particular personal example, just a general sense of the outer world as unmanageable and unsafe, at least for some aspects of the self, which I know I have, and some FPs seem to suggest it too. ENFJs are kind of famous for the mysterious inner world too. Maybe it's only the ESJs who live totally out in the open?

Maybe. I know I feel like my inner world is much more dangerous and much less manageable than my outer world is. I wonder how SPs feel about it.

But I was thinking, one interesting thing about being J as compared to P is in terms at least of active introverted functions, inner perception is more present to consciousness that judgment. For the Ps, judgment is uppermost. IN TERMS OF INNER WORLDS, PEEEZ ARE MORE JUDGMENTAL!!!

Which I think is priceless. When it comes to making judgments on the probable inner nature of other people or their convictions, the Js can, and maybe should, be telling the Ps to lighten up. :horor:

Judgmental how, in your inner world? Judgmental of various aspects of yourself? Of ideas within your inner world? I ask because I tend to associate judgmental behavior with the outer world.

Anyway, I do wonder if that makes a difference. The presence of perception, and the attendant unwillingness to decide too soon, leads to a sense of--not fragility. More like, unwillingness to circumscribe too soon. And then also an unwillingness to be too clear too soon.

I may have seen that worry in some NPs I know. I was reading a post from one INTP on the forum, saying that he constantly regretted alternative routes in his life that he didn't take. Do you think that relates to it? That it's a fear of creating that certainty, and making those decisions that you can't turn back from, because it removes the safety of the huge number of options that were previously available? Not sure if that was just the particular INTP, or whether it's a P problem, or a Ti problem.

Oh lol, now there's even an explanation for the much lolled at TJ's inability to explain their feelings. It's not that we don't know, IT'S THAT THE PROCESS IS STILL GOING ON.

I may be making this up.

It's okay, buddy! We TJs can work through this together!

Seriously though, you're right. Seems especially tough for NTJs, since Ni makes for difficulty explaining a lot of other things, not just feelings.

Thumbs up as in I have no other obvious comment I can't direct the thread away from that kind of discussion given that that kind of discussion is what the thread is supposed to be about, probably.

Meh. It doesn't have to be about that. Wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not, so I put it out there.

 

[Kalach]

Judgmental how, in your inner world? Judgmental of various aspects of yourself? Of ideas within your inner world? I ask because I tend to associate judgmental behavior with the outer world.

Yeah, see, that's the thing. I associate judgment with the outer world too. And, I'm guessing, Ps don't. All that stuff about TJ gooey centers... I think that's Ps not knowing that there's formally less conscious judgment going on in there. They, by contrast, are throwing down inner laws and principles like nobody's business. Maybe.

I may have seen that worry in some NPs I know. I was reading a post from one INTP on the forum, saying that he constantly regretted alternative routes in his life that he didn't take. Do you think that relates to it? That it's a fear of creating that certainty, and making those decisions that you can't turn back from, because it removes the safety of the huge number of options that were previously available? Not sure if that was just the particular INTP, or whether it's a P problem, or a Ti problem.

Dunno.

It might be a bit restrictive to work this stuff in terms of functions. I think it is true that there are times when what we call this function or that is more active than others, and the focus of activity does change. But it might be important to think in terms of wholes. Like, I think if the inner world is being consciously accessed, then both inner judgment and inner perception are relatively more active than the extroverted pair, but some aspects of extroverted content must still be present, just less dynamically so.

Perhaps this is some idea of seat of consciousness. (Or half the seat, anyway: the inner half. Maybe)

 

[Kalach]

So I wonder how inner worlds get assessed. Measuring them according to some objective standard is possible, I guess. On the one hand, a person being a person has, even needs, some interaction between the two. The inner products go out to meet the world in some way. And outer conditions seep in to inner musing. But on the other hand, the engine of the inner world is a formal renouncing of outer considerations.

The outer world is just there. In principle it is the same for everybody. (In practice, it's not, but the engine for attending to and managing the outer world is some acceptance that we can compare experiences with each other and with some baseline.) So in principle we know how to deal.

But inner worlds...?

 

[Kalach]

Anyone else get the *feeling* this is a "wrong" topic somehow?

 

[AgentF]

yes.

and what's this *feeling* you speak of? can you avoid references to beauty or feelings or poetry when describing your inner world? (talk of assessing and measuring goes hand-in-hand with discussions of symmetry and science. which seems to make as much sense as the poetic comparisons.)

perhaps the inner world pertains as much to science as it does to art.

 

[Anew Leaf]

This is a squirrely topic. Everyone has an inner life, but my impression is there is some distrust in them. Witness for example that persistent notion of a "loop". But, what are these inner worlds? How are they to be assessed? the other persistent notion is "healthy", but what's that?

See, healthy, obviously, is some kind of balance between inner and outer. The inner world doesn't wander too far of the outer path. But, it's kind of weird to press too closely to the outer path too. You lose the independent aspect to your personality.

So, the inner world... it makes people nervous to talk too freely of what's in there, but if there's nothing in there, there's no "you" either... so what are they, these inner worlds?

I may be answering the wrong question, but I shall make a stabbing attempt at what I see you asking. Feel free to correct me if I am missing the point.

I have always thought of my inner realm as a castle with lands. MBTI terms actually work quite well to describ what each part is functioning as.

At the center is my Fi Fortress/Castle. There is a moat and the draw bridge is up. Inside, I have a place with many rooms. Some rooms are dedicated to the pursuit of an ideal concept, others are dedicated to invididuals. Si stocks the shelves of each room with information about the subject; Fi decorates. Fi spends most of her time in the tallest tower observing the sky and the lands and jotting down notes. Occasionally she takes a walk in the gardens below. Few enter this realm, none see the tower. SX spends her time between here and the maze.

Outside the castle walls is my Ne shrubbery maze. It is vast and surrounds the entire castle. Most people I know end up somewhere in here. Size is always relative and fluctuating. There are some who can see over the hedges and observe the castle in the distance, and others for whom they will never know what looms. There is much to see in the shrubbery maze and that occupies those who are wandering there. The illusion is that they entered the maze on their terms.

Surrounding it all is the Te outer wall. It is useful for sieges. Parts of it are being crafted in the shrubbery maze at select points.

Wandering in and out of this all is the Self Prez Smoke monster. It can teleport people outside the walls as needed. It likes to argue with SX a lot.


Idea of the Inner Loop:

Given the example above, it is when I spend too much time inside the tower reading the same book over and over again. Sometimes what is best is to wander the shrubbery maze myself and see what I can find there. The important things are internal but occasionally need to get their Vitamin D moments.

Nervous to Talk About:

There can be a power in naming something and idenfifying what it is. If you lay out a rough drawn map of the inner realm, weaknesses can be discovered by others. The design of the inner realm is to maximize security and minimize vulernability. Not speaking of such things, I believe, more often speaks of what IS there than what isn't. (I realize the self-inflicing irony present here. *readies her aerial attack pegasi*)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This is a squirrely topic. Everyone has an inner life, but my impression is there is some distrust in them. Witness for example that persistent notion of a "loop". But, what are these inner worlds? How are they to be assessed? the other persistent notion is "healthy", but what's that?

Anyone else get the *feeling* this is a "wrong" topic somehow?

Would you agree the qualification of ‘conscious’ vs. ‘unconscious’ could be a useful means of assessment* for ‘health’ where ‘inner worlds’ are concerned? That so long as a person maintains a level of awareness about balance: there constant assessments going on in the external world (where people are constantly either agreeing or disagreeing on a thing and conclusions are being made) and constant assessments going on in the internal world (where the subject is forming its own conclusions)- and these rub against each other as the subject interacts with the object. When a person relies too heavily on one or the other, the contrary position (either the external assessments or the internal assessments) gets mistaken within the praxis of that person’s consciousness as being part of the assessment they are leaning on because the rubbing of these two forces against each other never really goes away- the person simply *believes* the other/contrary influence is not playing a role [so in esse: a person can either mistake their internal assessment as ‘objective’ or they mistake an external assessment as ‘subjective’…..thereby losing control, somewhat, over that which rightly belongs in the ‘subjective assessments’ domain]. It seems to me that it’s reasonable to consider optimum awareness of this balance as ‘healthy’, because it simultaneously affords the subject most control over their own opinions while allowing them to take the most responsibility for how their decisions and opinions contribute to an external environment which they must necessarily share.

Is there some ‘wrongness’ in that^? Or does the wrongness (of which you speak) pertain more to an ‘external assessment’ which tries to somehow establish the ‘internal assessment’ as a thing of beauty**? Or maybe the wrongness is in trying to externally assign how much ‘beauty’ internal assessments (aka: inner worlds) should have…..like it cheapens it somehow?

[edit:] As far as just describing it, I'd go with what [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] wrote, it just *is*. It's the standpoint from which I interpret the external world.



*funny aside: I first typed “assment”, which- if only in my inner world- is a kinda funny slip [i.e. “…could be a useful means of assholery…”].

**thereby making it an ‘external assment’?

 

[cascadeco]

The outer world is just there. In principle it is the same for everybody. (In practice, it's not, but the engine for attending to and managing the outer world is some acceptance that we can compare experiences with each other and with some baseline.) So in principle we know how to deal.

But inner worlds...?

In its most basic form, I don't think the inner world is much different - when I first thought of it, before reading the quote above, I was thinking, 'Well, it just IS'. So I think the inner world 'is just there' just as much as the outer world 'is just there'. Only difference is obviously that everyone can view the external world, and can't view/experience another persons' inner world. But both ARE - they're things that exist, our inner world is just as much of a reality for each of us individually as the external is around us.

As for my inner world, I really don't know what aspect to talk about. As I'm viewing the external world around me, and interacting with external things, I have a constant internal element/monologue that's always running simultaneously - perceiving, thinking, feeling, reacting, deciding, musing. This feels kind of obvious, like.. doesn't everyone have this? It's just the element of WHAT one is musing about or feeling or analyzing or noticing or focusing on (or not noticing/focusing on, as the case may be) that will differ from one to the next.

I don't find my internal world particularly solid; at least, I don't think it is. I don't think I have many hard and fast edges, even though at the same time I think I'm pretty opinionated. I FEEL quite morphy and floaty, even though I think I can come across quite opposite sometimes. I've always viewed my life and thoughts / life itself as flowing, and often wish I was better able to just set hard and fast rules around things. Things are pretty situational for me. I also have various internal 'modes' - musing/floaty mode, where I'm not thinking of much of anything specifically, but just letting things sift around within me (possibly the most common mode.. I often feel I'm not thinking/doing much of anything, at least ACTIVELY), analysis mode (very ACTIVE thinking and assessing of things), observation mode, alarmed/something-has-set-me-off mode (distraction, anxiety, scattered thoughts, mostly a disturbed feeling that encompasses me and precludes much active ability at thought), purely feeling & reveling in a particular moment..

Everytime I write things like this, part of me assumes it's the same for everyone...probably just certain 'modes' occur for some people more than others.

 

[Viridian]

Wasn't there a thread where people described their inner worlds or something like that? I can't find it, but I think it exists...

It's kinda hard to pin them down using the rules of architecture and geography. The mind doesn't build foundations with bricks, but with concepts.

 

[Kalach]

yes.

and what's this *feeling* you speak of? can you avoid references to beauty or feelings or poetry when describing your inner world? (talk of assessing and measuring goes hand-in-hand with discussions of symmetry and science. which seems to make as much sense as the poetic comparisons.)

My intuition is to say IT'S THE AUTHENTICITY ALARUMS, BATMAN!!!!! And theory tells me there's probably some self-prez anxiety in there too. And there's also some concern that I simply don't know enough to make some timeless value judgment about the inner world. I don't have what I feel to be immediately competent conscious access to that kind of decision. Given time and reflection, I'd come up with something, but normally I'd be relegating that stuff to less conscious realms. Presumably people with inner judgment more conscious will have more ready access to such value judgments. I wonder if they might not more easily characterise the inner worlds too. As with, say, [MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION]'s description.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I would like to add a fire-breathing cloud dragon to my inner realm, please. :3