What fia wrote above (the whole post) reminds me of R.D. Laing's description of what he calls
existential insecurity (bolded is mine, not author's):
Biological birth is a definitive act whereby the infant organism is precipitated into the world. There it is, a new baby, a new biological entity, already with its own ways, real and alive, from our point of view. But what of the baby’s point of view? Under usual circumstances, the physical birth of a new living organism into the world inaugurates rapidly ongoing processes whereby within an amazingly short time the infant feels real and alive and has a sense of being an entity, with continuity in time and a location in space. In short, physical birth and biological aliveness are followed by the baby becoming existentially born as real and alive. Usually this development is taken for granted and affords the certainty upon which all other certainties depend. This is to say, not only do adults see children to be real biologically viable entities but they experience themselves as whole persons who are real and alive, and conjunctively experience other human beings as real and alive. These are self-validating data of experience.
The individual, then, may experience his own being as real, alive, whole; as differentiated from the rest of the world in ordinary circumstances so clearly that his identity and autonomy are never in question; as a continuum in time; as having an inner consistency, substantiality, genuineness, and worth; as spatially co-extensive with the body; and, usually, as having begun in or around birth and liable to extinction with death. He thus has a firm core of ontological security.
This, however, may not be the case. The individual in the ordinary circumstances of living may feel more unreal than real; in a literal sense, more dead than alive; precariously differentiated from the rest of the world, so that his identity and autonomy are always in question. He may lack the experience of his own temporal continuity. He may not possess an over-riding sense of personal consistency or cohesiveness. He may feel more insubstantial than substantial, and unable to assume the stuff he is made of is genuine, good, valuable. And he may feel his self as partially divorced from his body.
It is, of course, inevitable that an individual whose experience of himself is of this order can no more live in a ‘secure’ world than he can be secure ‘in himself’. The whole ‘physiognomy’ of his world will be correspondingly different from that of the individual whose sense of self is securely established in its health and validity. Relatedness to other persons will be seen to have a radically different significance and function. To anticipate, we can say that in the individual whose own being is secure in this primary experiential sense, relatedness with others is potentially gratifying; whereas the ontologically insecure person is preoccupied with preserving rather than gratifying himself: the ordinary circumstances of everyday life constitute a continual and everyday threat.
Only if this is realized is it possible to understand how certain psychoses can develop.
If the individual cannot take the realness, aliveness, autonomy, and identity of himself and others for granted, then he has to become absorbed in contriving ways of trying to be real, of keeping himself or others alive, of preserving his identity, in efforts, as he will often put it, to prevent himself from losing his self. What are to most people everyday happenings, which are hardly noticed because they have no special significance, may become deeply significant in so far as they either contribute to the sustenance of the individual’s being or threaten him with non-being. Such an individual, for whom the elements of the world are coming to have, or have come to have, a different hierarchy of significance from that of the ordinary person, is beginning, as we say, to ‘live in a world of his own’, or has already come to do so. It is not true to say, however, without careful qualification, that he is losing ‘contact with’ reality, and withdrawing into himself. External events no longer affect him in the same way as they do others: it is not that they affect him less; on the contrary, frequently they affect him more. It is frequently not the case that he is becoming ‘indifferent’ and ‘withdrawn’. It may, however, be that the world of his experience comes to be one that he can no longer share with other people.
There seems to be this congealed en masse assumption that it's somehow easier for Fe/FJs to take existential security for granted. (I say "congealed" because when a group of people get together and affirm a false 'truth' to each other, it becomes more concrete as 'truth' to them- a phenomenon called deindividuation.) It's actually gotten a lot better in the recent year or so, but still.
Referring to the second bolded area: where ontological security can be taken for granted, "relatedness with others is potentially gratifying". But where ontological security can not be taken for granted, a person is "preoccupied with preserving rather than gratifying himself." It's somewhat fascinating that the way in which one 'type' may find comfortable relatedness with each other in a gratifying way can actually incite the self-preservation instinct in another person. I think, at its best, this forum has been useful to me in helping me catch a bird's eye view of these differences. But at it's worst- where people assert one type's form of 'comfortable relating to others' is the most humanistic/ideal, as if on some objective level- it devolves into a shitstorm of shame dumping.
When people get very upset about Fi vs. Fe, I suspect we are addressing these much deeper societal vs. individual issues. It is a sad instance when it is taken out on each other in a negative downward spiral, and I would want to avoid that as much as possible.
I think that if people were capable of sticking to
observable behaviors, explaining their own internal negative reaction to those external behaviors and/or why those observable behaviors are unbearable to deal with- then the deeper societal vs. individual issues (that we all struggle with, however differently they may manifest) would pass with infinitely less incident. I think the downward spiral is more the consequence of issuing statements that contain assumptions/presuppositions about different POVs- assumptions/presuppositions which often contain traces of (or even blatant, at times) offloading of shame.
It's tricky- because if we give people the freedom to 'rant' without being careful, the consequence (of unfiltered shame dumping) is that it spreads and lingers. Saying stuff aloud is putting it into shared space- it's like peeing in a pool. But if the expectation for people to police their own ranting gets too strong, that's oppressive in its own way too.
