Is there?

[SolitaryWalker]

I enjoyed the essay.

The compassion in my heart sang along with these words:




BlueWing, I do think in reading the essay and re-reading your posts to this thread that perhaps I understand a bit more clearly the point you're trying to make here and how it relates to the opening poster's question.

Would these words of yours contain some summary of your point of view?



Do you see the OP as describing a longing for paradise? If so, do you see that longing as unlikely to bring a person to true peace? Do you believe that true peace can only be experienced when you learn how to deal with the world as it comes and figure out a way to be happy with what you have?

If so, I feel agreement with this idea.

Yet I don't find the idea inconsistent with imagining what could be or with delighting in the tastes of those imaginations we might find present in our reality.

It seems to me the block to peace might come in a belief that happiness rests in a realization of ideals. I think ideals are ideals, reality something else. Ideals shed a light on reality, illuminating the richness of it's colors.

I experience and delight in subtle shades of the OP ideal through intimate human relationship("Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship."). What I experience is reality, not realized ideal, but I believe my engagement in this reality is greater for having the ideal to light the way.

I wonder if perhaps our realities naturally move closer to the ideal when we allow it's light to guide our steps.

I don't discount the possibility that the fullness of what the op describes might somewhere be or one day come to be reality. I don't base my happiness on it being or becoming so, but I don't limit potential by saying it cannot be or rejecting what of it does present in my world.

Well put. Nothing wrong with idealistic visions so long as you dont confuse them with reality. You summarized my views well.

To recapitulate: true path to happiness lies in attainment of inner peace where you will not need to borrow from the external world in order to be content. Idealistic visions tend to encourage you to borrow from the external world because they suggest that you mold it into whatever you want it to be just so it can make you content in the end.

I have always found compelling an idealistic inclination to dream of what could be, grounded in a realistic acceptance of what presents in each moment. Sometimes life gets unbalanced, but always within me is a deep respect for the value of both.

Thats fine so long as you apply your vision only to yourself. This would be a good idea because it will give you a sense of higher purpose in life, this will prevent you from becoming conceited. Two poignant examples of this would be the search for truth (INTP), and search for true good,human perfection (INFP).

If you try to change the external world, it will corrupt you and you will lose touch with your inner benevolent motives. Bringing about external changes requires forcing conformity on others, this almost by property of itself must corrupt the inner being. This is why in history noone has succeeded in making this world heaven and only succeeded in making it hell.

Again, I can not stress this any more intensely...

Is there somewhere where we can drop all the masks, pretence, barriers, falsities...

Somewhere where you know what's in the heart of everyone else and they know whats in yours - without words - your pain, your love, your joy, your sadness...

No need for words...

A place beyond this?

I know of nothing better than to turn to within yourself in your quest for paradise because this world just isn't 'meant' for that.

 

[ygolo]

If there were such a place, I 'm not sure whether I 'd like to live there. What's in our heads and hearts can be too personal for everyone to know

I agree. I certainly don't want everyone to know what is in my head. I don't trust everyone. There are many in the world who would use such knowledge to cause me pain.

Is there someone I would trust to share everything with? No not now. I don't trust to that level very easily. My past experiences have shown it to be unwise to do so.

I wouldn't want to live in such a place either.

 

[cosmicdancer]

...let it be that we neither reach heaven, nor bring it down to Earth. But create it within ourselves. A happy person is one who is not blown around thither and hither by external circumstances, but one who found inner peace and can adapt well enough as to avoid compromising its integrity. To be happy and to be true to self mean the same thing, and a happy person is one whose inner being is sound and can remain sound irrespectively of what morbid circumstances may be imposed upon it...

I completely agree and I have come to the conclusion quite simply that the world 'just is' and salvation and damnation are one and the same.

But if grief should be treated as an imposter - then why not joy also?

My mind tells me one thing.

But my heart yearns for an ideal love and an ideal place.

 

[Apollonian]

From my experience with philosophy applied to communication, 'ideals' are the ideas which do not correspond directly to reality but which provide a template upon which we can more easily process ambiguous emotional experiences.

What is a "place"? What is a "chair"? What is "love"? What is "intimacy"?

For an example, how about the easy one? "chair"

What is a chair? If your preference is Intuition, you likely think of a chair as "a device used for a person to sit or stand upon which supports a person's weight". If your preference is Sensing, you likely think of a chair as "something with supporting legs, a seat, and a backrest, often made of wood, plastic, or metal"

The trouble is that when an Intuitive says to a Sensor "Look, there is a chair!" what does the Intuitive mean and what does the Sensor think that the Intuitive said? What if the Intuitive was pointing to a recliner and the Sensor immediately pictured a dining chair? That could lead to misunderstanding, couldn't it? In most cases, we can just look in the direction he/she was pointing and find out. But what about "intimacy", "love", and "ideal"? Can we really communicate these ideas without first having some common experience to point to? Thus, we arive at the need for a "place" where "ideals" can be communicated freely because they are shared by design.

I am not convinced that such a place is impossible, though it seems highly improbable that we would be able to build it. Still, I can build a chair to show to someone who has never seen nor heard of what a chair is. So, can one person not build this place referred to in the OP to show the rest of us?

Vizzini - Inconceivable!
Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- The Princess Bride

PS - I take great pleasure in using my Ni+Te to attempt to bring light to NF ideals and perhaps even to bring some validity and insight to their implementation.

 

[Totenkindly]

The trouble is that when an Intuitive says to a Sensor "Look, there is a chair!" what does the Intuitive mean and what does the Sensor think that the Intuitive said? What if the Intuitive was pointing to a recliner and the Sensor immediately pictured a dining chair? That could lead to misunderstanding, couldn't it? In most cases, we can just look in the direction he/she was pointing and find out. But what about "intimacy", "love", and "ideal"?

That is the large problem, isn't it? We just do not know that what words We use mean the same thing to other people who are Not Us. Then again, the process of sharing and receiving feedback attempts to narrow in on a joint definition of a word or thing, even if we cannot convey it properly on the first try. Continual corrective communication is what lets us reconcile our own inner definitions of things with the definitions of others.

I am not convinced that such a place is impossible, though it seems highly improbable that we would be able to build it. Still, I can build a chair to show to someone who has never seen nor heard of what a chair is. So, can one person not build this place referred to in the OP to show the rest of us?

ha, very nice. That was a wonderful segue/suggestion. I was not expecting you to go there, but it makes sense. So realistically, is it possible to build it, as you offer?

Yes, I am a believer in all of those lofty visions of eternal bliss, yet I think they are to be achieved in a radically different way than the INFs will tell you. Only through acceptance and understanding of this world as it is, and not striving for the world to come. The two are almost diametrically opposed to each other. After we have understood our environment and come to terms with our passions of disgust for the way it has turned out, our passion shall be tamed because we have to terms with them, and incidentally it will cease to be a passions. Only through acceptance of this world can we come to peace with ourselves and our environment.

I have to agree, not just from the reasoning process I use but also buttressed by my life experience. It bears out. I do not have control of outer reality; and if I try to take too much control, I am too naive and ignorant of the internal worlds of other people to somehow construct this paradise. I do not think it a bad goal to create some external ideal structures that we can all thrive within, and within reason we should all see what we can create together.

But honestly, contentment is found within. When your joy and contentment is centralized in the external reality, you are now a pawn of what happens around you. When circumstances change, you change as well. You cannot help it -- your anchor is gone.

What matters is, no matter what happens, that the peace and calm and joy is localized internally, not externally. I am with me wherever I go. If the inner world is at peace, then the outer world can rage and storm as much as it likes, can't it, and I will still be a rock and haven? This is what I have seen with the spiritually enlightened as well, of any faith: The inner core is what enables one to survive the storms of life, and those who focus on the outer tend to want to dominate it and conform it to THEIR vision and end up creating more strife as they subjugate others inappropriately to THEIR vision of "contentment."

It's also what I have been dealing with now. My Ego structure has been virtually non-existent for years. I'm building myself again, and in a way that outside approval or acceptance simply will not matter in terms of my happiness and peace. It can create problems and conflicts for me, but I do not think we can contribute to the peace of others without having inner peace first ourselves.

This way of thought is not uncommon to those who had to survive terrible external circumstances, the most obvious examples being those people who were subjected to the horrors of the concentration camps of WWII. Having no control over external reality, they had to find solidity and peace within themselves, regardless of their external fate. And from that core, they could live.

 

[hotmale]

That is the large problem, isn't it? We just do not know that what words We use mean the same thing to other people who are Not Us. Then again, the process of sharing and receiving feedback attempts to narrow in on a joint definition of a word or thing, even if we cannot convey it properly on the first try. Continual corrective communication is what lets us reconcile our own inner definitions of things with the definitions of others.

That's very true, although words do have a referent- even if that referent has a slight variation from one person to another. I find that people who live in close geographical proximity to each other tend to have the same referent- even if they possess different personalities.

An Sensor and Intuitive might perceive events differently I've found. My girlfriend tends to analyze people's motivations and underlying subtext while I am more aware of differentiation of various criteria beyond the human factor. Together, we're pretty unstoppable.

I have to agree, not just from the reasoning process I use but also buttressed by my life experience. It bears out. I do not have control of outer reality; and if I try to take too much control, I am too naive and ignorant of the internal worlds of other people to somehow construct this paradise. I do not think it a bad goal to create some external ideal structures that we can all thrive within, and within reason we should all see what we can create together.

Now, that's something to think about. Jennifer, do you find your type to be accurate when you're existing in the internal world as opposed to the external physical one? It seems that sometimes people's shadow functions become more prominent in situations in which they cannot use one of their primary functions. For instance, because I'm a Sensor, I often pick up on people's feelings through my extroverted Sensing or extroverted Feeling. In email, and otherwise online interaction, because all that consists of are thoughts written across a screen, I find it more difficult to sense people's feelings and often come across as curt and matter-of-fact in my correspondence. This is something my sister and girlfriend have pointed out to me.

It's also what I have been dealing with now. My Ego structure has been virtually non-existent for years. I'm building myself again, and in a way that outside approval or acceptance simply will not matter in terms of my happiness and peace. It can create problems and conflicts for me, but I do not think we can contribute to the peace of others without having inner peace first ourselves.

Well said- peace is internal first, although I do think that it is necessary to have a frame of reference- in which people can act as another set of eyes and ears for feedback purposes. However, I find it necessary to be discriminatory in this aspect in which one often fails when attempting to please everyone- and should be respective of oneself before having someone else's will dominate one's own.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's very true, although words do have a referent- even if that referent has a slight variation from one person to another. I find that people who live in close geographical proximity to each other tend to have the same referent- even if they possess different personalities.

Oh, good point. I was abstracting too much; but yes, the physical geography/proximity helps in terms of understanding because culturally and physically the same general "lexicon" has been used to create one's understanding of the world.

An Sensor and Intuitive might perceive events differently I've found. My girlfriend tends to analyze people's motivations and underlying subtext while I am more aware of differentiation of various criteria beyond the human factor. Together, we're pretty unstoppable.

Oh, good for you! Yes, that's the secret -- working as a team and assuming you are both on the same side, rather than suspecting that you're both out to undermine each other. If you are one functioning unit, then you are much better equipped to handle any external problems.

Now, that's something to think about. Jennifer, do you find your type to be accurate when you're existing in the internal world as opposed to the external physical one?

By accurate, do you mean "Does my primary function perform adequately when I'm working in this internal world as opposed to doing something in external reality?"

Well, Ti is internally based to begin with, so the internal is my "natural habitat." It normally builds in the interior. I've had to work naturally during life using my external functions (mostly Ne, later on Fe) to pick up a solid data stream so that Ti was properly "fed." Ti can be solid as a process, but if it becomes too detached from reality, it is simply building castles in the air.

Does this make sense?

I think for you, it might be harder (and it is a good point for you to bring out!) because Te is naturally an externalized function. Your natural instinct would be to build externally, wouldn't it, to create and implement paradise? What I did see in the lives of the ESTJs I did know was that they had to work so hard to stay on top of things and be in control of their external reality... and when they felt out of control, they were miserable and would try even HARDER to get control again. When it failed, they just felt ruined.

I think that is just the particular weakness of extroversion. The problem inherently with introversion is that it is far too easy to withdraw into an internalized "happy world" and avoid the real world and let it go to shambles... and eventually create a host more difficulties for the person. I think the ultimate goal is to develop a stable inner foundation of peace, while using that foundation to interact constructively with the external world.

Does that make sense and/or address what you were saying?

 

[INTJMom]

...But my heart yearns for an ideal love and an ideal place.

Mine too, ever since I was a little girl.
Heaven is the only place I know of that will fulfill all my desires.

 

[hotmale]

Well, Ti is internally based to begin with, so the internal is my "natural habitat." It normally builds in the interior. I've had to work naturally during life using my external functions (mostly Ne, later on Fe) to pick up a solid data stream so that Ti was properly "fed." Ti can be solid as a process, but if it becomes too detached from reality, it is simply building castles in the air.

Does this make sense?

[
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. I was however, referring to some differences in online vs. physical interaction. It seems that online, one's shadow instincts become more intensified. I find individuals whose primary characteristics are Fi- who tend to internalize their feelings- seem much more emotional and expressive online than when personally interacting with them on a face to face basis.

I think for you, it might be harder (and it is a good point for you to bring out!) because Te is naturally an externalized function. Your natural instinct would be to build externally, wouldn't it, to create and implement paradise? What I did see in the lives of the ESTJs I did know was that they had to work so hard to stay on top of things and be in control of their external reality... and when they felt out of control, they were miserable and would try even HARDER to get control again. When it failed, they just felt ruined.

Persons whose dominant functions are Te- tend to act the polar opposite when they think they have failed at something and become rather sentimental.

I think that is just the particular weakness of extroversion. The problem inherently with introversion is that it is far too easy to withdraw into an internalized "happy world" and avoid the real world and let it go to shambles... and eventually create a host more difficulties for the person. I think the ultimate goal is to develop a stable inner foundation of peace, while using that foundation to interact constructively with the external world.

I've noticed that is what most extroverts do however, when they are not at their best.

Does that make sense and/or address what you were saying?

Thank you for a thoughtful response my dear.