So, as I concluded with last time, “Is there a value in being loved for what you are not?”, which sounds like I’m asking about the value of Fi – love in itself, love without understanding, a love that may even refuse to understand because this understanding could threaten the basis for its action.
I’m also implying that Ti is understanding. Ti could probably be termed “understanding without love”, an inversion of the Fi principle.
I’m hinting at Fi and Ti being antithetical cognitive functions and also something about INFJ’s particular constellation of these two functions – id and auxiliary respectively.
Because let’s face it, it’s INFJs who most proverbially say “please understand me” and this understanding they can so desperately crave is a matter of Ti. It’s not so much love that’s the issue, but understanding. And so, love without understanding can be viewed as damaging by them.
An INFJ might wonder something like this:
“I feel (sense) (intuit) that x person loves me, but they don’t seem to “get” me, or at least, “get” me in a way I find satisfying. Well, then, I guess I wonder at the utility of this love. What is its use?”…
To continue reading this article you must sign up for a Starling subscription.
Once signed up, you’ll have instantaneous access to this article and many others.
Check it out!
Recent comments