INFJ vs. The World

[knight in battle]

There's little doubt that the world is a very conscious part of us. The thoughts and feelings about people take up a significant portion of mental space.

But there is another drum beating just as loudly that holds the world at a distance. People are processes and systems. They are subjects, objects, mentors, proteges, colleagues and playmates. They are theorized and hypothesized upon. They are to take on a particular life within our psyche. They simply cannot be what they are. They are what they will become... soon, next year, at the end... and in the next life.

We also hold ourselves at a distance. As far as the information I have considered, such-and-such is what I will be in the distant future or what I am moving toward. Tomorrow I may modify this vision. But what we definitely are not is what we see currently in ourselves.

There is a distinct pattern of life, speech, expression, and organization for us that runs through us. Sometimes predictable. Usually characteristic. Sometimes not.

We are a collection of actions, perspectives, and judgments expressed by others. Yet how we truly see these things and what we truly prefer — that is what we already are. What we truly feel — expressed or unexpressed, fearful or confident, long-winded or concise, determinate or indeterminate, sequential or holistic, predictable or erratic — is our essence, no matter how long it takes us to see, perceive, and behave out of this, no matter how many obstacles.

 

[Trifoilum]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all humans have this kind of problem, more or less?
So is the awareness of it, more or less?I

I find your thoughts agreeable, only perhaps too polarizing. It's -probably- a projection, however; so..

 

[knight in battle]

[MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION]

It's difficult to know for sure. It seems that INFJs find it necessary to dismiss their own inner thoughts whenever something external challenges it. But I think you're right that this is true for everyone─that we are all unconscious of the true roots of our thoughts and actions, that our inner feelings and reactions are what we are (not necessarily how we enact them, which are highly influenced by external voices adopted from others).

 

[Trifoilum]

@Trifoilum

It's difficult to know for sure. It seems that INFJs find it necessary to dismiss their own inner thoughts whenever something external challenges it. But I think you're right that this is true for everyone─that we are all unconscious of the true roots of our thoughts and actions, that our inner feelings and reactions are what we are (not necessarily how we enact them, which are highly influenced by external voices adopted from others).

Of course, the question of chicken and egg comes again...

isn't our inner voices, feelings and reactions (or at least, the depth and eloquence of it) are something that more or less influenced -- nay, shaped -- by external voices?

 

[knight in battle]

Of course, the question of chicken and egg comes again...

isn't our inner voices, feelings and reactions (or at least, the depth and eloquence of it) are something that more or less influenced -- nay, shaped -- by external voices?

You've caught me again on something I didn't think of. I have no doubt that external voices of childhood and adolescence shape who we are, but it is our reactions that define our choices. The inner voice — can it be divided into two categories?: the true inner voice and the adopted inner voice (the voice of our parents and significant caregivers—to borrow psychological terminology)?

(And yes, I did use a question mark + colon.)

 

[Trifoilum]

You've caught me again on something I didn't think of. I have no doubt that external voices of childhood and adolescence shape who we are, but it is our reactions that define our choices. The inner voice

 

[knight in battle]

Using your definition; if the adopted is the voice of our parents and caregivers; wouldn't that make the true ones... mere self preservation in nature?

what use is there for the two boxes? Would one box be better than another? Would one be worse than another? Will following one means ignoring the other, and vice versa? Wouldn't that be bad by itself?

Maybe the self-preservation/reactionary mode is also part of the adopted voice, since its primary function is to shield the self from abuse (in a counterproductive way for the long-term—not that short-term defensiveness is ineffective).

Our outward responses, to the degree that they are healthy, will emanate from our true selves (on the assumption that the true self is healthy). So I believe the box is necessary. But you're right if the only boxes we see are "internal vs external". A better categorization might be "true internal/external vs false internal/external".