• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

INFJ late night semi rational semi poetic intuitions and ramblings on love

higs

Perpetually freaked out
Local time
Today, 11:02
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,811
Location
Armchair
#1
The defining element of so called « love » in the strongest sense is to let the other person possess you, to desire and accept that they do. This is what « love » means. Of course, in theory you can’t ever give yourself over completely, this is not possible, because the desire to give yourself is always yours and only yours. So at the most it’s joint possession, like the house a couple live in. (this could change if we developped methods of directly modifying the brain to control people's desires, this would create true slaves.) Anyway, taking bad care of your possession whether it be yours or another's is immoral (in social norms), we generally say « you are irresponsible.» (which is what we call in philosophy of ethics in France a normatively "thick" term, it carries within it a moral normative statement). if you take bad care of your valuable objects, of your computer, of your planet, you are irresponsible. so there is a certain consensus that there is a moral imperative to take care of one's property, not to needlessly destroy. But it’s tenfold worse to harm a person, for example, from a consequentialist point of view it is a million times more destructive than with the inanimate object. It’s worse because people are powerful. The havoc you reap on a person reaps havoc inside a person’s mind which they then have the capacity to externalize, it reverberates through all the social networks, the negativity can go so far as to give a Cain, as to create suicide, murder, pain, sorrow, jealousy, vengeance, violence in everlasting domino effects through time, because of our cognitive complexity, because of our memories, which is why at some point, the only way to break the chain is to completely annihilate the attacker or to « turn the other cheek. » (which one is harder?) This is what Jesus intuited, that most pain and violence is reaction to more pain and violence. But anyway, getting back to the subject of love, this is why traditionally in marriage we speak of « your husband » and « your wife » and say things like « what’s mine is yours. » because it’s all about possession. This is why sex is about power as well, because it’s about taking possession of someone, somehow, it’s about taking their intimacy, their vulnerability, their dna, their genes, a piece of them to form a child, feeling their strengths, their faults, their energy, their daemon, creating desire, creating need, creating abandonment, It’s possession and letting yourself be possessed. Romantic love is mutual physical possession of the other, mutual abandonment and mutual care and responsibility. This bond does not naturally peter out, it is always broken because someone did not take responsibility correctly, or was not apt to take responsibility. This is why there is that complicated feeling of desiring to possess and desire to be possessed that is present, the dynamic of submission and power that is so frequently found in Sadism and masochism, this is also why Stokholm syndrome is a thing, because the person who has been a slave begins to accept the slavery and voluntarily be one, the dynamic mimics love, and perhaps it is in a sense, but we use the word love when the person who has given themselves is taken care of, when the power is not abused.This is also why the ending of 1984 is so horrifying, because total possession is achieved (no spoilers for those who have not read it.)
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Today, 06:02
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,626
Location
Charn
#2
edit: Oops sorry wrong thread.

but I found your post interesting. maybe I'll respond later.
 
Local time
Today, 04:02
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#3
The way she looked at me was the way I looked at her. It was intuitive, no need for words because she simply knew. We were the same, perceptive. She showed the initiative to ask me out. That is rare I think? Girls do not often ask the boy out, they are more indirect and subtle. I wish I had met her again. Two people that just know who the other person is, is rare.
 

~~~

Active Member
Local time
Today, 11:02
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
360
#4
Aren't the natures of people and property different and therefore likely to be treated differently?
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 11:02
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,573
Location
Stockholm
#5
I've used this example before somewhere, but even the purest love one can imagine – the love between a mother and her baby – is a trade-off game because the baby has only 50% of the mother's genes, so that the baby has incentive to maximize the transmission of energy from the mother, whereas the mother must find some optimum between keeping energy for herself and sharing it with the baby.
 

BurnedOut

Active Member
Local time
Today, 16:32
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
281
#6
I've bad experiences with this oftentimes.

I cannot exactly lay a finger on what 'love' is. I tried reading up on love in tla scientific context. There was nothing so substantial which differentiated it from 'oxytocin and dopamine-infested addiction to a person'
However there was one interesting thing which was found pan-species - The preference towards a specific mate notwithstanding his genetic-career strength (it's documented time and over again how females and males gauge their counterparts instinctally and look out for signs which may suggest greater chances of offspring survival and cherrypicking the best of the genes). This specific attraction has been documented in humans and animals

Update : I tried searching for the paper which have documented evidence of certain animals having only a specific preference for a mate and pursuing lifelong relationships even when these mates are genetically undesirable, I didn't find. If anyone is able to, please post the link.

I'll rather spare you the biology of love to avoid the destruction of the artistic stint the word gets in rather creative ways but if we look at it very objectively, it's rather a cocktail of hormones and our brain interacting. If not then we can surely say that a supernatural entity exists.

On a side note, @Animekitty, I know what you are talking about and you may use this to counter the biology arg but I'll suggest you to use the faculty of probability, psychoanalysis and biology in tandem to figure out why it happened. I'll not post here regarding my theory.

No disrespect to the OP, I myself have written most of my poems on love, betrayal and loneliness.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

higs

Perpetually freaked out
Local time
Today, 11:02
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,811
Location
Armchair
#7
Where at any point do you see me saying that I don’t think it’s mechanistically reduceable to a cocktail of chemicals BurnedOut ? :p I know my tone is religious but if u look at my words (albeit not purely rational) nowhere do I say this or talk of transcendence. My point is rather that it’s an extension of territoriality instincts, (fitness augmentation by exclusion of the others from use) and voluntary submission (or maybe aggression inhibition is more accurate and less loaded semantically, which probably directly preceded affection evolutionarily) if you were to narrow it down to the essential.

Obviously im still spouting off on intuitions like I’m certain which I shouldn’t be, (that’s just a language trick though) which is why poetry form suited my mindset at the time, and i called it half rational. But I don’t think you’ll find much more in my post than what I just stated above as the essential. I guess I am however talking on a functional level more than a purely anatomical level though. Like saying a heart pumps blood instead of describing its parts and saying how it pumps blood. I am more interested in ethology and explanation of functions than pure anatomy.

I am also a biological reductionist when it comes to most of our behavior, except for phenomenal aspects which are weird, don’t know what to do with those. And anyway biology is pretty mystical too.

Goddamn INTP asking for everything to be stated in A+B terms with no decoration all the time why do I hang out with u ppl seriously :mad: I’m kidding obviously it’s excellent the way everything is rendered explicit and layed out causally it’s what’s Ti is amazing at and one of the reasons I hang out with T dom types in the first place. Plz excuse Ni Fe way of functioning :) actually if you set any stock by mbti I reckon this is quite decent clue as to how INFJ types think. Holistic powerful intuition full of value based language (which is what throws you guys off, it’s laden with subjective judgement and lacks doubt,it just feels like KNOWING, but then the intuition and values are broken down by Ti some (3rd INFJ function). Like I always say though mbti is super shaky theory hardly any predictive power, though it does have a lot of explanatory power which is another strength a theory can have.

If ever u find that paper I’m really really interested though


I will think next about how this relates to people who prefer open relationships.
 
Local time
Today, 04:02
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#8
On a side note, @Animekitty, I know what you are talking about and you may use this to counter the biology arg but I'll suggest you to use the faculty of probability, psychoanalysis and biology in tandem to figure out why it happened. I'll not post here regarding my theory.
It would be so much more helpful if you did post your theory.

probability: I forgot where we met, I do not know how many girls fit her personality.
psychoanalysis: She could have fit my Anima, I see my Anima in my dreams on occasion but she looks different each time.
biology: we are both ectomorphs, she was pretty, she had the same expression I make.

She could be INFJ because of the INFJ stair. But if I do the same I would be INFJ, not ENFP?
 

BurnedOut

Active Member
Local time
Today, 16:32
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
281
#9
It would be so much more helpful if you did post your theory.

probability: I forgot where we met, I do not know how many girls fit her personality.
psychoanalysis: She could have fit my Anima, I see my Anima in my dreams on occasion but she looks different each time.
biology: we are both ectomorphs, she was pretty, she had the same expression I make.

She could be INFJ because of the INFJ stair. But if I do the same I would be INFJ, not ENFP?
actually its in some post of mine which talks about determinism vs randomness

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom