I do not believe there is such a thing as a conversation without a goal. It may be a miniscule goal -- maybe it is to make each other laugh, maybe it is just to hear each other's voices -- but there is always a goal -- otherwise, why talk?
I can't even conceive what you might mean by it.
I'm finally starting to see all this as funny.
Ji "goals" tend to be much more broad and general than Je goals, and this is especially so for a Ji dom. Just the same way that "Ni" is simply what you automatically do without thinking about it, so Fi is for PB. Having a goal, a purpose, for everything is just how Ni is wired. Fi is more about a state of being, and if you try to turn it into a singular Ni-style cause, you either end up being totally wrong, or you learn (fairly truthfully) that it's a never-ending fractal pattern of multiple causes and effects. Fi takes an overall reading of what things are, which enables handling the vast multiplicity efficiently, but it renders the question of "goal" almost meaningless. This is how Fi "building blocks" work.
Ni building blocks are made out of the threads of cause and effect, and so long as the threads of cause and effect are manageable, Ni is well within its area of mastery.
Regarding the proprietary aspect, whose sandbox it is, whose rules they are -- would it be fair/accurate to say that INFJ assumes that You = Not Me, and INFP assumes that You = Me? If I proceed from the point of view that You = Not Me, then I think it's natural that if you approach me, you come into my yard, or want into my house, I will extend you appropriate courtesies, but I don't expect to see you rifling through my drawers. INFP seems not to even have a door to knock on sometimes. If you live in a culture where there's not even a door to knock on, and we all live in one big room, I can see how having a door, expecting you to come only when invited or at least only drop by at reasonable hours, etc., would seem like a lot of rules.
Note how this is parallel to SK's comment about INFJs' walls. INFPs don't have walls like that, and find the INFJ walls to be awkward and puzzling, not realizing that there is a door. (Remember, as mentioned in my prior post, the door is invisible to the INFP.)
A more abstract way of looking at it is to think in terms of the different realms of mastery. When you get two real experts together, there are two different kinds of reactions that the experts can have. The more positive one is collaborative: the knowledge is shared and becomes greater for both than it was before. The more typical negative one is blindness. Let's say the experts have about 10% of their knowledge in common, but instead of acknowledging that the other expert knows things that oneself does not, one assumes that the 10% in common is ALL the knowledge of the other person. Thus to this kind of blind expert, all other experts look stupid, because they only know 10% of what he knows.
The analogy applies to the INFJ/INFP interaction, in that there is only a small area of understanding in common, and huge areas of mastery where the other type cannot (easily) see. If the INFP only sees the INFJ being an arrogant ass who needs to be right all the time, and the INFJ only sees the INFP as being whiny and emotionally manipulative, then that's being like the blind experts, certain of their own mastery, while denying the mastery of others.
Perhaps it might help to read masters in Fi, Fe? Here are a couple, in my opinion (I think I've mentioned these to you before, Tilty, but this is more for the forum in general).
Fi: Don Miguel Ruiz's
The Four Agreements (and associated books)
Fe: Erich Fromm's
The Art of Loving
Ruiz works from the inside, showing how one can subjectively achieve a high level of emotional maturity (though he wouldn't call it that). Fromm works externally, explaining love and love's role in society, and deducing from that what mature, true love looks like.
And their writings are completely compatible, arriving at very similar conclusions. Fromm provocatively states that true love is an act of will ("provocative" to those who believe that one just "falls in love", that love is just a feeling). Ruiz provides a subjective guide as to how one actually arrives at the state where love is an act of will.