Inner Worlds

[Kalach]

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.

I wonder... according to bare bones function theory, it's not really possible to have such an awareness. Which function would be responsible for it? Whichever function it is, it'll skew awareness in it's own favour. (MIGHTNOTBETRUE)

But if we're talking Whole of Person, where the sum of the functions conscious and unconscious plus history and maybe some other stuff, then perhaps such awarenesses are possible.

Oh crap. I'm very nearly describing inner perception, right?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I wonder... according to bare bones function theory, it's not really possible to have such an awareness. Which function would be responsible for it? Whichever function it is, it'll skew awareness in it's own favour. (MIGHTNOTBETRUE)

But if we're talking Whole of Person, where the sum of the functions conscious and unconscious plus history and maybe some other stuff, then perhaps such awarenesses are possible.

Well, when I say “optimum awareness”, I’m not talking about ‘your mom gets struck by lightning while pregnant with you, so you’re born knowing the secrets of the universe and you turn into a Heidegger-ian beam of light before you even turn 18’ kind of awareness- as cool as that would be- I’m just talking about run-of-the-mill ‘you consider carefully and take responsibility for what you assert as truth’ kind of awareness. So for that, I don’t think there’s any set of functions that’d be better at that than others. Even though there might be some commonalities between function and what the blind spot looks like, I don’t think any functions would be more adept at ‘not having blind spots’ than others. (If that's what you meant.)

Oh crap. I'm very nearly describing inner perception, right?

I can’t even imagine having a judgy inner world. Like casc described, it seems to me my inner world just *is*. It’s where I think stuff and notice things, and conclusions aren’t made easily (if at all). My inner world is like a big storage compartment for all the tiers of stuff I keep rearranging.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Ji isn't "judgey" the way Je is. I think Je types can't comprehend it because they think of judging in extroverted terms, which is about judging objects/people in order to organize them in some way (IDk...whatever). Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way. Fi is like making art....you add a dab here & there as you go. Much of it is done in a fantasy-like mode, not some dry, "this is good, that is bad" categorization, because you're not often judging anything external directly. It's more like imagining the most beautiful perfection & the most hideous tragedies, internalizing all emotions & many perceptions so that there is often an outward non-reaction & even non-judgment, & then allowing it all to almost subconsciously form a model that the external is held up to sometimes. Other times, things are ruthlessly examined for consistency in a more direct judging manner, but that's when you're actually faced with consciously making a decision. That isn't the inner world in itself.

To sum it up in one line:

"[Fi] is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision."

and if I could use two lines:

"...an intensive sympathy, being shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that comprises a whole world of misery..."

We can also use "beauty" in addition to misery, or something along those lines.

My inner world is full of people, worlds, lives, ideas, etc. It's like a whole universe, and it's all under my control.

IDK, "inner worlds" get discussed constantly on INFP forums....

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Ji isn't "judgey" the way Je is. I think Je types can't comprehend it because they think of judging in extroverted terms, which is about judging objects/people in order to organize them in some way (IDk...whatever). Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way. Fi is like making art....you add a dab here & there as you go. Much of it is done in a fantasy-like mode, not some dry, "this is good, that is bad" categorization, because you're not often judging anything external directly.

But it seems to me that INPs actually do judge the external world more directly than INJs. It’s what enables Ps to be more mercurial with changes in the external environment. Pe deals directly with [the breadth of] the external environment, and Pe types are inclined to apply their abstract/fragmented judgment to what’s *right there*- even if what’s *right there* isn’t there in a concrete way (N), it’s still an immediate thing; whereas Pi deals with it more indirectly, the direct environment is only one piece of a bigger puzzle and we’re reluctant to form any conclusions until it’s been sifted through more past and present experience.

Maybe Pe types can’t comprehend it because they think of perceiving in extraverted terms ( ), but even being able to apply authentic abstract judgment to what’s *right there* is “judgy” in comparison. I actually wish I could more easily tap into my own judgment about what’s *right there*- but Ni adds a constant distraction with “But…” thoughts that prevent me from doing so. My own judgment about things is a very quiet voice that only comes out after I’ve had a chance to put whatever was *right there* into a surrounding context (past and present experience + the judgment others' have voiced about it). <-Until that happens, I will struggle with trying to figure out where I stand on something- even if it’s causing me distress in the meanwhile. Granted- after a strong opinion has formed about something, it generally stays a strong opinion (until something else comes along and makes mores sense), which I guess can seem judgey in that outwardly it has a very rigid appearance…..but the whole reason it doesn’t change easily is because- in the inner world- reaching authentic conclusions can be a ridiculously lengthy process.

 

[OrangeAppled]

But it seems to me that INPs actually do judge the external world more directly than INJs. It’s what enables Ps to be more mercurial with changes in the external environment. Pe deals directly with [the breadth of] the external environment, and Pe types are inclined to apply their abstract/fragmented judgment to what’s *right there*- even if what’s *right there* isn’t there in a concrete way (N), it’s still an immediate thing; whereas Pi deals with it more indirectly, the direct environment is only one piece of a bigger puzzle and we’re reluctant to form any conclusions until it’s been sifted through more past and present experience.

Maybe Pe types can’t comprehend it because they think of perceiving in extraverted terms ( ), but even being able to apply authentic abstract judgment to what’s *right there* is “judgy” in comparison. I actually wish I could more easily tap into my own judgment about what’s *right there*- but Ni adds a constant distraction with “But…” thoughts that prevent me from doing so. My own judgment about things is a very quiet voice that only comes out after I’ve had a chance to put whatever was *right there* into a surrounding context (past and present experience + the judgment others' have voiced about it). <-Until that happens, I will struggle with trying to figure out where I stand on something- even if it’s causing me distress in the meanwhile. Granted- after a strong opinion has formed about something, it generally stays a strong opinion (until something else comes along and makes mores sense), which I guess can seem judgey in that outwardly it has a very rigid appearance…..but the whole reason it doesn’t change easily is because- in the inner world- reaching authentic conclusions can be a ridiculously lengthy process.

What you ascribe to Ji+Pei is totally foreign to me & doesn't sound anything like the way I think . Honestly, I think there's a misunderstanding due to looking at Ji+Pe through Pi+Je eyes (and yes, I'm sure it happens in reverse too). You can't seem to get past the idea that Ji+Pe just doesn't judge the object much at all, because it's basically devalued to the point of being seen as ineffectual. Ignoring what is "right there" is an integral part of keeping that concept "pure", so that the inner world is the primary gauge.

Something is not really given much note unless it's interesting enough, which is a Pe aspect. Then it's only noted, not judged, and it's probably put aside quickly unless it happens to come together in a big picture way that hits on the internal ideal. We don't connect it to the inner ideal by judging it immediately; it either appears to emit a potential to connect to it or not. That's not a judgment; that's a picking up on potential/possibility, which is a suspension of judgment to "see what happens". To the Ne type, the external world is experienced as emitting its own potential, even if in reality our mind is projecting it. So we're not judging it, just noting its seemingly inherent potential. I suppose Se may be different, and perhaps this is why you see Pe+Ji that way (being Se inferior). Se is much more "what is in front of me is what's real & I feel comfortable making a judgment based ONLY on that, not silly speculation". Such is not the case for Ne…

There is often little judgment of what is NOW at all because that is not the only possibility. There is only this gathering of information to put together the bigger picture of what "reality is" so that possibilities can emerge. This can go on for a long time (a lot of it is unconscious; & it all seems to come together suddenly because of that). I am very comfortable with a suspension of judgment, and I see that as typical in Pe types. I allow a picture to form slowly, and when it seems I've exhausted all sources for more "info" or it's at least reasonably complete, then I may compare it to that inner ideal model & make an actual judgement. As a Fi-dom & introvert, I prefer making these decisions removed from the moment; when I have time to go into myself & review this big picture of what the potential meaning is (Ne), bring in some factual details & general grasp of what is "sure reality" (Si), and then finally compare it all to my ideals, possibly alter/refine them with this info, and then make a judgment if necessary.

When new information is presented after a judgment, it can be very tiring to start the whole process over. This results less in a resistance to new info so much as assimilating it as much as possible into the existing concept, which is easy to do when info is minor & the concept is thorough. To the outsider, this probably looks like indifference most of the time, and that's not entirely untrue either. An upheaval in a conclusion can occur when enough new info is gathered to form a new picture thats demands it be evaluated it all over again. Ji-dom are prone to this less than Pe-dom because tend to have more thoroughly, rationally thought out concepts for conclusions. We spend more time mentally building & refining these concepts (which have little to do with the external context of the moment) than seeking out the external possibilities/experiences like Pe-dom do.

I think the recent thread on "Pe strengths" debunks the myth that we're open to going back & revising a lot. Quite the opposite; when something is done & over, we generally want to move onto something else because it ceases to be interesting. This isn't about judgments in the moment though; it's just that something has stewed so long in our brains, and we've covered so much ground regarding it, that to reopen it can feel repetitive, which is dull.

I don't know what is looking like "in the now" judgment to you. Perhaps it is the tendency of Pe types to focus on external stuff that is most striking to them. Is this not true of Pi in the inner world though? I believe Jung notes there's an entertaining of ideas that are most striking, less so with what is not striking, but that this is not judgment because it doesn't have a moral/logical factor. This is foreign to the Ji type who is entertaining their inner ideas in terms of some kind of classification (which has little to do with the external though). Pe is the same in dealing with the outer world though. This can look like a decision or a judgment, like a weeding out of sorts, but to the individual, it's simply experienced as what is grabbing your attention vs. what is not. There is no moral/logical factor there either.

This is what allows the Pe type to change readily; it's not quick judgment calls, it's the fact that the moment is not being experienced as a moral/aesthetic/logical issue. Something is simply perceived as presenting options or obstacles to the end goal; so instead, we're responding to what seems to be reality independent of ourselves, not making judgments which shape the object. The end goal is that predetermined inner concept, which is so basic, we allow for many ways it can manifest ("searching" for something resembling it).

IxxPs are very much "hang back & observe" first people for this reason. IxxJs seem more ready to jump into a structure because they're more comfortable with taking on its existing judgments (ie. social protocol for the Fe types). Maybe these aren't YOUR personal judgments, but they are judgments being supported/acted on. To me, this looks "judgey". I don't acknowledge these structures' judgments as valid or not until I've seen enough of it to form that picture I can then compare to my inner concept of the ideal. Since it's really neither good or bad to me, I'm pretty easy-going with much of it, but also not inclined to go out of my way for something I have no real feeling on either. This looks "indecisive" to outsiders, or in my personal case, like indifference or that "benevolent though critical neutrality" Jung ascribed to Fi-dom.

I'm not sure if I'm making the distinction between "interesting/not interesting" as a perception & "good/bad" & "logical/illogical" as judgment….but that's basically my point. The latter is how Pe types interact with the external world. The judgments are inner concepts that are seen as a goals of sorts, or even just truths regarding meaning. They come out as actual opinions & decisions when an external possibility feels like it's been explored enough. That's a lengthy process too, no knee-jerk judgments on what is "right there".

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I can only assume I’m failing miserably at what I’m trying to say. I’m really not sure how you’re understanding it, but it really seems- based on your replies- that you’re hearing something else. When you wrote this:

Ji isn't "judgey" the way Je is. I think Je types can't comprehend it because they think of judging in extroverted terms, which is about judging objects/people in order to organize them in some way (IDk...whatever). Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way. Fi is like making art....you add a dab here & there as you go.

…because it directly followed a post in which I said “I can’t even imagine having a judgey inner world”, I made the assumption that your “Ji isn’t ‘judgey’ the way Je is” was referring to my post. This made me think you must thinking I believe Ji is ‘judgey’ in the same way that Je is- and I don’t, so I tried to clarify (Ji is abstract/fragmented/personalized- I’m adding ‘personalized’ right now to try to demonstrate the point I was trying to make). I can see how my original wording may have been unhelpful (I stated a reluctance to come to conclusions, which may have inadvertently implied I think Fi comes to immediate conclusions- I don’t, there’s a difference between judging and coming to conclusions)- but I’m not disagreeing at all with the statement “Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way.” The way you describe Ji is pretty much how I think I understand it, and how I see Ti as ‘working’ in me: there’s a constant comparison to something ‘pure’ or some ideal running in the background, right?

You can't seem to get past the idea that Ji+Pe just doesn't judge the object much at all, because it's basically devalued to the point of being seen as ineffectual. Ignoring what is "right there" is an integral part of keeping that concept "pure", so that the inner world is the primary gauge.

Again, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say, or what you mean by “judge the object” [because in a sense- it’s not possible, every single cognitive event- with judging or perceiving- does involve ‘the object’…..so I assume you’re getting the impression I’m implying a specific ratio (involving the inner concept of the object vs. interaction with the object) that’s higher than what you think it should be, or something, I don’t even know]. And I’m really not sure what you think I mean by *right there*, but honestly, this^ whole post seems like an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Ji/Pe has a tendency to want to iron out abstract nuances as they come up (*right there*) and Pi/Je has a tendency to want to make crude common agreements about something and iron out the abstract nuances later. This rubs the respective Ji function the wrong way because it seems like the Je’er is trying to establish something (which seems clearly off, or at least unfinished) as a final product. I’m not pulling this out of my ass, it’s been discussed ad nauseum- I’m just adding the phrase *right there* to indicate what it looks like to Pi (or at least, to me)- so I must be saying it in a way that’s disagreeable to you?

Je: “Okay, so it goes ‘A, B, C, D and then E.”

Ji: “Well before B, there’s ‘A 2.002’, which looks like ‘E 2.002’- and it seems like there should be a ‘D 2.002’ but there isn’t….(etc, abstract fragments to point out something ‘pure’ about “A, B, C, D and then E”).”

The urge to apply that^ ‘pure’ inner judgment is *right there* in comparison. That’s all I’m saying. There’s some kind of urgency to fine tune things immediately.

In the way that I’m using *right there*- Ni’ers only want a nominal amount, only what seems relevant (“A, B, C, D and then E”)…..and admittedly Ni doms can miss out on hearing the nuances that are relevant if we don’t see how it fits- but the reason we have less of a threshold for that happening in the moment is because we apply that abstract ‘pure’ judgment (or “noticing”) to terrain that’s more vast than what’s *right there*. It seems to me like this- what I’m trying to describe- has a lot to do with what pisses you off about INFJs because instead of applying inner judgment to what’s *right there*, it gets applied to what’s *right there* in addition to all sorts of previous observations and constructs that have been made from those observations all at the same time. Those “creepy perspective shifts” ( ?) happen because of the stockpile of mental sticky notes that aren’t *right there*. And maybe it’s so ‘creepy’ and ‘delusional’ to you because it’s so foreign to the praxis of your own inner world (in the same way that closely knitting any kind of value judgment to ‘inner world’ seems unnatural to me.....not wrong, just foreign).

When I wrote “I can’t imagine a judgy inner world”, it was in response to Kalach’s ‘oh crap, am I describing introverted perception?’ comment- I was musing aloud (and unclearly, at that) a sort of agreement that it’s hard to imagine what the praxis of someone else’s inner world would look like where Ji is either the driver or the passenger (instead of someone in the backseat). Personally, attributing the ‘inner world’ with a value like beauty (or misery, or whatever) seems contrived to me. I will ascribe qualities to the inner world- as something the inner world creates- and as such, an inner world which creates beauty is (imo) a thing of beauty…..but a blanket statement like “inner worlds are beautiful” is immediately problematic for me because inner worlds can be beautiful but they are not inherently so. First and foremost, inner worlds to me are not beautiful or poetic (or whatever) and having a quality tied closely to it feels unnatural to me (and so it can even feel pretentious to attribute my own inner world this way). I suspect it seems contrived to me- whilst I simultaneously believe it does feel (and is) authentic to others, these flowery descriptions- because it’s not my experience to have inner judgment interact so directly/fluidly with the external world.

I could very well be wrong, but I get the impression you read that statement and interpreted it with some kind of derogatory association with ‘judgy’? Because you make a point of separating “noticing” from “judging”, like you have associations with “judging” and “judgy” that you don’t want incorporated into what Fi does. Your responses indicate to me that either you think I’m trying to insinuate something I’m not trying to insinuate, or something, I just know they don’t really ‘match’ what I’m trying to say. And there’s a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like “Well before B, there’s ‘A 2.002’, which looks like ‘E 2.002’- and it seems like there should be a ‘D 2.002’ but there isn’t…” nitpicking to me, which wouldn’t be a problem if I believed we understood “A, B, C, D and then E” to be the same thing. I tried to read it, but honestly, there are so many cues that indicate you’re responding to something I didn’t intend to say that it’s just confusing and I’m having trouble making sense of it. I’ve looked for what we might be in agreement on- in the abstract nuances I’m picking up an acknowledgment that we might not be on the same page about *right there* (there's actually a lot in there I totally agree with, so I'm having trouble even understanding how you're interpreting so much of the contrary into what I said)- but it’s still so infused with an argument against something I’m not trying to say in the first place that I’m having trouble with it.

I’m hoping, as a fellow least so variant, you won’t take my lack of diplomacy here personally.

 

[Kalach]

This is what allows the Pe type to change readily; it's not quick judgment calls, it's the fact that the moment is not being experienced as a moral/aesthetic/logical issue. Something is simply perceived as presenting options or obstacles to the end goal; so instead, we're responding to what seems to be reality independent of ourselves, not making judgments which shape the object. The end goal is that predetermined inner concept, which is so basic, we allow for many ways it can manifest ("searching" for something resembling it).

IxxPs are very much "hang back & observe" first people for this reason. IxxJs seem more ready to jump into a structure because they're more comfortable with taking on its existing judgments (ie. social protocol for the Fe types). Maybe these aren't YOUR personal judgments, but they are judgments being supported/acted on. To me, this looks "judgey". I don't acknowledge these structures' judgments as valid or not until I've seen enough of it to form that picture I can then compare to my inner concept of the ideal. Since it's really neither good or bad to me, I'm pretty easy-going with much of it, but also not inclined to go out of my way for something I have no real feeling on either. This looks "indecisive" to outsiders, or in my personal case, like indifference or that "benevolent though critical neutrality" Jung ascribed to Fi-dom.

Indeed, one might say to not judge the moment is to judge the moment not worth judgement.

 

[Philosorapteuse]

Interesting thread. I have to admit, my inner world is... well, it's inner worlds, private universes with things like dragons or mutant spaceships or whatnot. I thought everybody was like that. The space immediately behind my eyes is where ideas get filed and sanded down til I can see what shape they really are, but behind that it's all just IDEAS and CONNECTIONS and DRAGONS. It's kind of like a colourful spiderweb the size of the universe, made of lights joined together by invisible threads that can be felt but not seen, with insubstantial abstract concepts floating around like colourful clouds. This is why I arguably spend more time there than I do in the waking world, and also why I never get anything done.