Cosmic Family

[PhoenixRising]

I've not desired too much social interaction in my life, but lately I find myself longing for a certain kind of company. A cosmic family, of sorts. I desire an intimate fellowship with other beings who share my perspective on the world, and who I could exist in harmony with. Beings I could feel a deep connection with, one that wasn't limited by the concepts of human society - standards, protocols, gender, age, distance, etc. And that would never end out of the bitterness that comes with broken expectations. Relationships that would be formed out of an authentic resonance of minds, not dependent upon the biases that the ego clings to and uses to place value on another human being. I don't want to be idealized anymore, or to idealize, I don't want to fall in love. I want to embrace the truth of who others are and of who I am, not having it result in condemnation.

I wonder if anyone has felt the same..? Is this what it feels like for an INTP to "grow up"? >.>

 

[redbaron]

I suppose I can relate, though I think you romanticize a little it is something I've often wished was easier to find. That is, people who aren't constrained by social convention, age etc.

The pattern of shattered expectations seems to permeate most failed relationships, INTP or not. I've long thought that expectation is the bane of any mutually beneficial relationship - it seems that as long as expectations exist, they will eventually lead to disappointment. The problem then seems to be in finding someone who shares your total lack of expectation, who is willing to accept you as you are.

Somewhat pessimistically, this seems something that's unlikely to be achieved through any concerted effort. One just has to stay open and be ready to act if and when they ever find such a person...which comes down to luck I suppose.

So yes, I've felt exactly the same. I was prepared to feel that way for the rest of my life, although by some cosmic whim I seem to have stumbled onto what you seek. Which does make me feel slightly guilty to say given the premise of the thread...

 

[PhoenixRising]

I suppose I can relate, though I think you romanticize a little it is something I've often wished was easier to find. That is, people who aren't constrained by social convention, age etc.

The pattern of shattered expectations seems to permeate most failed relationships, INTP or not. I've long thought that expectation is the bane of any mutually beneficial relationship - it seems that as long as expectations exist, they will eventually lead to disappointment. The problem then seems to be in finding someone who shares your total lack of expectation, who is willing to accept you as you are.

Somewhat pessimistically, this seems something that's unlikely to be achieved through any concerted effort. One just has to stay open and be ready to act if and when they ever find such a person...which comes down to luck I suppose.

So yes, I've felt exactly the same. I was prepared to feel that way for the rest of my life, although by some cosmic whim I seem to have stumbled onto what you seek. Which does make me feel slightly guilty to say given the premise of the thread...

Romanticize - yes I think you're right. Although, I think how it's written here, as a pure expression of a desire, it makes me sound more optimistic about it than I actually am. I've searched most my life for people of like mind, and only met one individual that shares my intrinsic desires so far. To form an entire group of individuals that were mature enough to interact in an actualized way would probably take.. lifetimes, if it occurred at all.

But, with the kind of longevity enhancements and communication capabilities being developed today, there may just be enough time for one to find their cosmic family ^^ (ok, there's the (un)realistic optimism!)

Expectations are a funny thing. We approach others thinking we already know what they're going to do, and we become attached to that notion. It takes a certain level of ego-based confidence to have expectations, I think. It should be more obvious that we're setting ourselves up for disappointment in those cases, but we're good at convincing ourselves that we know how reality should work.. And getting mad when it doesn't work like we think it will :P

It's really great you've been able to find someone who understands you in that deep way. That's a rare gift - as you've pointed out. But, no reason to feel guilty! It's always an inspiration to hear of others who have found what they seek ^^

 

[Architect]

I've not desired too much social interaction in my life, but lately I find myself longing for a certain kind of company. A cosmic family, of sorts. I desire an intimate fellowship with other beings who share my perspective on the world ...

You describe a desire for the "numinous", which is within all human hearts, but has many expressions.

 

[PhoenixRising]

You describe a desire for the "numinous", which is within all human hearts, but has many expressions.

mhm, yes, I think that's a very suitable word for it. It is definitely the kind of love experienced by the inclusive Self.. which I defined in another post as the psychological aspect that is often interpreted as "God".

 

[Helvete]

I'v been lucky enough to meet two people of which you describe. There's also a third person, who I suspect understands me far better than most, on the same kind of level you describe, but he's a sociopath. I also work with this person, so I'm always second guessing his true motives and wouldn't trust him with anything. I do believe we hold a lot of mutual respect for each other, as we appreciate each others intelligence. But as there's a complete lack of trust and different kinds of expectations in place it isn't anything like the other two relationships I'v developed.

As for the other two, on the rare occasions I do get to spend any time with them, the experience is timeless. They're the reason I give (new) people a chance.

Good luck with finding this; especially lacking social constraints. That's something I'm still working on.

 

[Base groove]

Sorry if I offend anybody but this seems altogether cloud-headed. We want people who are useful in some way. Filling some kind of ethereal spiritual void is just another purpose for them to serve. Even if it's symbiotic, it's a dependency. It creates a need where there wasn't one because you scratched that itch.

 

[Helvete]

Sorry if I offend anybody but this seems altogether cloud-headed. We want people who are useful in some way. Filling some kind of ethereal spiritual void is just another purpose for them to serve. Even if it's symbiotic, it's a dependency. It creates a need where there wasn't one because you scratched that itch.

You're right, the mind constantly grows with each new experience and doesn't change back again. Live a life of happy ignorance and you'll be content with what you have, let the mind wonder and you'll want to find the limits.

I don't think most INTP's would be very content with living in ignorance though, as we naturally question everything.

 

[Base groove]

That is a good point.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is there something wrong with this kind of "dependency"?

It seems to me even this forum creates dependencies of sorts. Are those wrong? Why are we here again?

 

[Absurdity]

I desire an intimate fellowship with other beings who share my perspective on the world, and who I could exist in harmony with. Beings I could feel a deep connection with, one that wasn't limited by the concepts of human society - standards, protocols, gender, age, distance, etc.

Are these two conditions supposed to be related, or are they separate criteria? Because I see the intrinsic value of the first, but not the second.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Sorry if I offend anybody but this seems altogether cloud-headed. We want people who are useful in some way. Filling some kind of ethereal spiritual void is just another purpose for them to serve. Even if it's symbiotic, it's a dependency. It creates a need where there wasn't one because you scratched that itch.

You might be missing the essence of human desire. (I'm quoting from one of my favorite books) "Desire is all about wanting to have what you have never had, desiring to do what you have never done, and desiring to become what you have never been. Desire mobilizes you to become more than you are, to reach for things beyond your grasp. Human desire took us from hunting and gathering to exploring other planets. Desire for the untasted drives saints of all religions, national heroes of all countries ...."

@PhoenixRising It takes strength to want, desire and long for that kind of connection. If you can conceive of it or have seen it, it's worthy of your aspirations.

 

[PhoenixRising]

You might be missing the essence of human desire. (I'm quoting from one of my favorite books) "Desire is all about wanting to have what you have never had, desiring to do what you have never done, and desiring to become what you have never been. Desire mobilizes you to become more than you are, to reach for things beyond your grasp. Human desire took us from hunting and gathering to exploring other planets. Desire for the untasted drives saints of all religions, national heroes of all countries ...."

@PhoenixRising It takes strength to want, desire and long for that kind of connection. If you can conceive of it or have seen it, it's worthy of your aspirations.

Love the quote ^^ *saves into quotes collection* What book is that from, may I ask?

I think you're right that it takes strength to want, especially if it's for something difficult to obtain. The more profound the desire, the greater the longing, and the more the heart must hold it's reach through despair..

 

[Base groove]

Is there something wrong with this kind of "dependency"?

It seems to me even this forum creates dependencies of sorts. Are those wrong? Why are we here again?

Did I say there was something wrong with it?? No. I said it was clould-headed because it's illogical.

I'm probably just too thick-skulled to understand what was actually meant but I interpreted a paradox - a longing for an impossible situation.

Most people cherish these kinds of dependencies and find them rewarding. But that's exactly the kind of relationship the op means to abolish in my interpretation.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I'm probably just too thick-skulled to understand what was actually meant but I interpreted a paradox - a longing for an impossible situation.

Most people cherish these kinds of dependencies and find them rewarding. But that's exactly the kind of relationship the op means to abolish in my interpretation.

Actually.. the ideal envisioned in the OP would be free of dependency as well. The people involved would have matured to the point that they would be entirely whole - that is they would be balanced and satisfied within themselves, not looking to others for fulfillment, but for enrichment. Each of them would maintain their autonomy, and could come and go in each other's lives as they pleased, but there would be an affinity between them that would most likely draw them back together after time. Emotional attachment would occur (I don't think that can be avoided), but it would be more of a timeless thing. Really, I'm talking about an unlimited and unconditional love.

Is it impossible..? I'm unsure. I can see it, and have experienced it personally for spans of time. I would like to test the limits of the human heart and see if such interactions could be maintained over a long period of time without changing into something else or dissipating.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Love the quote ^^ *saves into quotes collection* What book is that from, may I ask?

I think you're right that it takes strength to want, especially if it's for something difficult to obtain. The more profound the desire, the greater the longing, and the more the heart must hold it's reach through despair..

It's from Intimacy & Desire by David Schnarch. It's focused on marital therapy but his concepts transcend to all types of relationships.

 

[Helvete]

Actually.. the ideal envisioned in the OP would be free of dependency as well. The people involved would have matured to the point that they would be entirely whole - that is they would be balanced and satisfied within themselves, not looking to others for fulfillment, but for enrichment. Each of them would maintain their autonomy, and could come and go in each other's lives as they pleased, but there would be an affinity between them that would most likely draw them back together after time. Emotional attachment would occur (I don't think that can be avoided), but it would be more of a timeless thing. Really, I'm talking about an unlimited and unconditional love.

Is it impossible..? I'm unsure. I can see it, and have experienced it personally for spans of time. I would like to test the limits of the human heart and see if such interactions could be maintained over a long period of time without changing into something else or dissipating.

Yes, yes and yes. You just explained in more detail what I was getting at earlier with the whole timeless thing. It's not a dependency at all, just a mutual and complete understanding of each other is the only distinction I think I'd make. I mean to say, the person may not feel completely satisfied and complete with their lives, but don't feel dependent on a person they seem to understand and make a deep connection with. I'm not saying people in these situations wouldn't deny help or other fulfilments these relationships may offer, but it's not the motive for the relationship in the first place.

 

[Auburn]

I think the paradox Base Groove observed in the OP was due to you describing a desire for a "certain kind" of company, who share a particular "perspective on the world" and with whom you could exist in harmony with. Yet you mention lack of standards on others as being a quality of these kin, as well as not idealizing, when the aforementioned could be considered standards and idealizations that not everyone meets.

His point, I would presume, is that those standards are in place (in your OP) because the desire for those particular attributes and people fulfills in you a particular use and purpose. And they're useful and purposeful to you, because there's a need inside of you for that, and which drives you to that.

His/her deduction, I presume, is that that inner need you have (and cannot ignore) makes you dependent on the spiritual fulfillment which this situation would give you. S/he also doesn't say this is anything good/bad, but just consequential.

A being who truly saw reality for what it was, and accepted everyone without idealizations -- would not long for their specific and particular kin, because that shows a sort of bias, and that contradicts the definition of that being/kin.

o.o

 

[Base groove]

I think the paradox Base Groove observed in the OP was due to you describing a desire for a "certain kind" of company, who share a particular "perspective on the world" and with whom you could exist in harmony with. Yet you mention lack of standards on others as being a quality of these kin, as well as not idealizing, when the aforementioned could be considered standards and idealizations that not everyone meets.

His point, I would presume, is that those standards are in place (in your OP) because the desire for those particular attributes and people fulfills in you a particular use and purpose. And they're useful and purposeful to you, because there's a need inside of you for that, and which drives you to that.

His/her deduction, I presume, is that that inner need you have (and cannot ignore) makes you dependent on the spiritual fulfillment which this situation would give you. S/he also doesn't say this is anything good/bad, but just consequential.

A being who truly saw reality for what it was, and accepted everyone without idealizations -- would not long for their specific and particular kin, because that shows a sort of bias, and that contradicts the definition of that being/kin.

o.o

How very perspective perceptive!

Could you be bothered to help me resolve the paradox that you have correctly interpreted?

 

[Auburn]

Hmm, I think in the absolute sense you're correct, and the OP does indeed contradict itself.

Spoiler

But what I think was intended in the OP was that these kin don't hold expectations of anyone, and have a general acceptance for everyone, while simultaneously having affinity emerge out of them (not out of mental constructs of likes/dislikes, but natural affinity and resonance) in greater proportions to those they relate with.

So these kin don't hold expectations for others (or even their kin) to be like them, or depend on them for anything. It just so happens that those who are like them ignite that fulfillment in them, and they enjoy it as a causal event of life.

By this definition they'd also not become upset when the fulfilling experience ceased, verifying there wasn't a dependency but moreso an appreciation.

I'm not sure how realistic or plausible this scenario is in light of human nature/tendencies, though. It implies creatures that exist with desires, but not needs.