abstract-land

kitestarry  asked:

Hi, ENTP user here. You've once mentioned that dropping things and people quickly can be a sign of unhealthy Ne. I have a great issue with the people part, particularly with romance. Once I get at least a tiny bit bored I freak out and run away. I used to think that 'well they're not THE ONE' but after some thinking I tend to think it's the issue of MY mindset - no matter how much I try, I'll always end up like this if I don't solve it. Any advice/commentary?

(Gif: Dolores, Westworld. ENFP.)

This is specifically an inferior Si problem.

High Si know that great relationships take time. High Si knows life is not an endless succession of exciting moments. High Si knows the ups and downs of life and of relationships are normal. High Si knows trust, compatibility, and true understanding of another person comes with the willingness to wait, and allow a relationship to develop. High Si knows the details of someone else are valuable. High Si knows that someone might be ‘the one’ if you grow together.

Here is the hard truth every Ne-dom struggles with: life can and will often be boring. There will be periods of your life in which you are bored, when nothing interesting is happening unless you make it happen. It is your choice, whether you sacrifice your relationships on the altar of boredom or take those people with you into excitement. Now, it is true some people are not compatible with one another. If you have known someone only a short time, but most often find your mind not fully engaged with them, a relationship with that person may not be your best option, because you will “lose interest” quickly.

However, part of growing up and maturing, especially for the EXXP, is learning commitment; once a commitment bond forms, it takes a great deal to break it. I used to waffle on a friendship a great deal. There were times when we had fun, and times when I felt little interest. Then I realized that I was essentially being selfish; I was mostly concerned with filling “my” needs, some of which were unreasonable. Ne kept telling me, “What if there’s a BETTER person out there? The PERFECT match? You should throw this person aside and look for them!”

But… is that how I want to be treated? As a Substitute Person? A temporary placeholder until a more exciting person comes along? Is that how I want to live my life? Going from one person to another, USING one person after another, chasing endlessly after something abstract (what defines a “better” match?) instead of appreciating, maturing, and developing the relationships I have? There was a point where I stopped and said, “That’s it. I’m going to stop doubting this friendship. It’s good. We have fun. We hardly ever fight. We believe roughly the same way on a lot of issues. I’m just going to stay friends with her.” That was it. I haven’t doubted since. (We’ve been friends 14 years.)

Does she fulfill all my needs? No. She doesn’t have to. That’s my job. Are there boring patches where we have nothing to say? Yes, there are. That’s life. And in those boring patches, I find a new interest – not a new person. I am letting Si build our understanding of one another and ground me in reality. I cannot chase after an abstract individual who will keep me constantly entertained; the real thing, real conversations, real people, real lunch dates, are better.

I hear you in the romantic department. There’s a reason I’m single. I’ve had a couple of boyfriends but the minute it started getting “serious” … I ran away. I got scared. Scared I might get “trapped” in something I don’t want or like. Scared of the major commitment that comes from a serious relationship. Scared of all it implies. Are you really bored or… scared? Are you letting your Ne run away with you into the future as you live out an entire relationship and decide – nah (like I did) instead of living… now? In this moment? JUST HERE? If so,thats not fair. You just lived a life with another person out in your head in which they had no say, and assumed it would end in boredom. Why not just live it?

When you are facing one of those moments of “eh, should I cut and run?” ask yourself these questions:

Am I really “bored” with this relationship or chasing something abstract (a “better” one) that does not exist? Stop living in abstract-land. Write up a list of deep, character-driven qualities you want in a partner or friend and seek out people who have them.

Am I throwing away something good because it’s not moving “fast” enough? The entire world does not move as fast as the Ne-dom brain does. Are your expectations of how quickly a relationship progresses realistic?

Am I bored because I have not taken a true interest in this person? Look at your relationship. Do you only ever talk about what you want to talk about? Do you enjoy them when they take an interest in you, and then get bored when it’s their turn to talk? Do they exist just as a sounding board for your ego? Or do they actually matter to you as a human being? Do you know details about them? Did you ask questions and show interest in their likes and dislikes and passions, even though they are not yours? Or did you not listen because that’s “boring”? Did you pay attention when they confided in you?

Am I scared? Of… commitment? Letting someone get close to me? Giving away my heart? Opening up to someone else? Being tied to another person? Closing the door on other possibilities?

Or is what you have right now in the glorious, complex, fully flesh human being in your life… better than some abstract dream?

- ENFP Mod

i’ve been reading a lot of egoist writings lately and they basically break down into two groups: american and european. the most important distinction to me (because i think, i, like most people, are the more afraid of violence than anything) is that american egoists tend to believe that people would be not harming one another because they would be acting in the principle of mutuality (i.e. this relationship is mutually beneficial ot both of us-we are a union of two egoists acting in our own self interest, ready to dissolve our union at any present moment when it no longer benefits us. because of this, there is more freedom and less coercion in the relationship)

European egoists are on some dark amoral shit. And I thought about it and I was like am I this edgy? Holy shit. Hahah. I’m not! That’s totally fucked up. 

Their take on using physical violence in pursuit of one’s own self interest pretty much boils down to “I am entitled to whatever I want at any given moment and I am allowed to attack or kill anyone around me because if you say it’s bad you’re a Christian” (super sick burn in European Egoist Land) 

Saying shit like that kind of seems like a hop, skip, and a jump away from weird power fetishization and Traditionalist ethics. Because asserting your right to kill people seems like it might come from a tendency to want to dominate bodies, and then there is civilization, the ultimate domination of bodies. Being fine with the idea of pointlessly killing another person? if that were true I would have to be DTK constantly in self defense and that would stress me the fuck out and does not sound like anything i would be willing to fight for- my physical safety is too important. Physical safety is a prerequisite to mental safety and relaxation- relaxed mental environments because everyone feels physically safe= relationships more likely to be healthy and non coercive, embracing the principle of mutuality, allowing maximum autonomy to both individuals at once, Which is where it comes to Traditionalist ethics- basically you’re just going to reproduce civilization again because this is how it happened in the first place, just relentlessly pursuing self interest because fuck you why not is part of the reason why some people have so much fucking shit and money and power and everyone else in the world has to just slave away for nothing. 

i have been working with incarcerated populations for a few years now. we know them as “prisoners” when the word that more accurately reflects their reality is “people being tortured by the state” (because prison is torture, full stop). People are tortured because their actions are categorized as Good or Bad. The problem with moral judgements is that it truncates your cause effect analysis of what happened. When I meet someone who has killed another person, I have learned to reflexively turn off thinking of it as good or bad and just thinking it happened, it’s done, let’s deal with it. This is where I find amoralism to be actually useful versus just cryptofascisim- suspending any kind of moral judgment that falls on the character of the person who committed the action obfuscates the reality of the situation. I meet someone, they have killed their newborn child, and my thoughts are not “this is a good person who did a bad thing”,- for me, amoralism means “this person is an actor in reality, a series of events unfolded that lead to them committing this ultimate act of violence against this other actor, and there were a lot of reasons that is all happened the way it did, and the most important part about recognizing that, to me, is realizing that not only was I not there, I wasn’t in this person’s head. 

By even calling someone’s action Evil or Bad, no matter how much you try to separate it from the person (the ACTION is bad, the person is not bad) still primes you to dehumanize them because that’s the point of moralizing. Taking a more “bird’s eye” view of the situation and remain a moral neutral in interpersonal life is crucial to making sure you are granting someone the full extent of their humanity and helping them scrape out any kind of sphere of autonomy. 

The crucial difference between remaining a moral neutral and saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with committing an act of violence against someone who is standing between You and What You Want is that a moral neutral can realize that some things are wrong without being Bad. I think harming other people is wrong not because I am paying homage to some Truth that I think is bigger than humanity (which is the actual useful part about calling people “Christians” for “moralizing”- it isn’t just belief in God but belief in anything that you view as an all powerful framework for life, whether that be Truth or Science or Justice…but European egoists take it too far in my opinion and call any belief that anything is “wrong” Christianity, and are too myopic to realize they are worshipping the Self in the same way that everyone else is supposedly secretly worshipping God) but because it is in my self interest to live in a world where people aren’t violently hurting each other. Freedom means to me that I can just do whatever I want and know that my bodily integrity is going to stay intact. The ultimate goal of “anarchism” or whatever you want to call it, is to neither dominate nor be dominated. By refusing this dynamic, we resist hegemony and fight the slow crawl of total Leviathanic world domination. Egoism and the idea of acting in one’s own self interest are useful to me in that context, but it’s fundamentally misunderstanding what submitting to a “higher power” means, because European Egoist thought worships the Self. The problem with this is the problem with all cultural Christianity and the forces we use to fill the Spiritual void that is left in our lives. Submitting to a system of domination is scary because submission is the other side of domination, and violence is what ultimately glues these two things together. If you are interacting with any kind of dominative force, part of being submissive is turning around and inflicting violence on other people. The ultimate domination is civilization, and we have been living under it so long that we consider looking to a “higher power” as an innate spiritual experience of the human being when really we have just been conditioned to worship power to the extent that it’s taken on a spiritual dimension. 

This problem of worshipping a higher power really is specific to Christianity. Plenty of spiritual frameworks exist to explain reality to all kinds of different people. Christianity is really just worshipping hegemony and civilization because they both claim to be an exhaustive framework to Understand and Explain all of reality. Worshipping science as a metaphysical explain for all phenomena that occur is the same dynamic that Christianity creates- this one philosophy can explain the entire universe to you. The problem therein is that Civilization, Science and Christianity all require an Interpreter to explain this framework to you, whether it be a judge, a priest, or a scientist. We become dependent on these interpreters who exist in this allegedly liminal space to tell us what Reality is, and that in turn is a tool of domination.

Practicing non-domination is the only way to truly interact with Reality and not in Abstraction Land of science, symbols, morality, “Truth”, justice, whatever. I have incorporated the “acting in ones own self interest” component of egoism into my framework but the point of all this is that self interest + violence = domination, whereas self interest+ non domination= true freedom.