Relations between the collectivity and the person should be arranged with the sole purpose of removing whatever is detrimental to the growth and mysterious germination of the impersonal element in the soul. This means, on the one hand, that for every person there should be enough room, enough freedom to plan the use of one's time, the opportunity to reach ever higher levels of attention, some solitude, some silence. At the same time the person needs warmth, lest it be driven by distress to submerge itself in the collective.
The working Kabbalist
resists the lure of
the personal. She
suspends interest
in the Biblical list
of interdicted shell fish,
say, in order to
read the text another way.
It might seem to some
superficial to convert
letters to numerals
or in general refuse plot
in favor of dots or half circles;
it might easily seem
comical, how she
ignores an obviously
erotic tale except for
every third word,
rising for her like braille
for something vivid
as only the impersonal
can be — a crescent
bright as the moon,
a glimpse of a symmetry,
a message so vast
in its passage that
she must be utterly open
to an alien idea of person.
Kay Ryan, Flamingo Watching (Copper Beech Press, 1994)
Well, maybe it’s obvious to some people. But, as a general rule, when it comes to the obvious, I’m almost never some people.
That’s especially true for me when it comes to relationships. And the things I do to damage them. Including that most fundamental of relationships – my relationship with God.
I almost never realize the damage that I’m doing when I’m doing it. Let alone before I do it.
If you’re like me (and when it comes to that most fundamental relationship, too many people are), it only becomes obvious after the damage is done. After I’m so wrapped up in myself that there’s distance where there shouldn’t be.
Putting the “awful” in the awful clarity of hindsight.
That’s why I keep coming back to that moment on Easter morning between Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus. That very human and wonderful moment, where she’s lost in her grief. She’s so wrapped up in herself – how she feels, how much she hurts – that she doesn’t recognize Jesus right in front of her.
Which isn’t to say that her feelings aren’t justified. If you’ve ever lost someone that close to you, then you know. Her feelings are as raw, as real, as relatable as it gets.
As understandable, as unavoidable as they are, she also lets them do something that they don’t have to do. She’s gotten so wrapped up in herself that there’s distance where there shouldn’t be.
What I love about this moment (and why I keep coming back to it) is Jesus’ response to the distance that’s grown between Mary Magdalene and Himself.
Jesus takes the grand, redemptive movement of Easter, the restoration of humanity’s relationship with God through His death and resurrection. And makes it personal.
Because Easter isn’t about an impersonal God and a generic humanity. And it’s not a one-time thing.
It’s Jesus reaching out to her. As many times as it takes. Calling her by name. Until it’s just Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Heart to heart.
It’s the pattern of redemption, one that God in His love pours out over and over.
Because Easter isn’t a one-time thing. Easter is now.
And it doesn’t matter what the source of that distance is. It doesn’t matter who created that distance. Or why. Even if it’s you.
Because Easter is personal.
Jesus is reaching out to you. As many times as it takes. Calling you by name. Until it’s just Jesus and you. Heart to heart.
Hace unos cuantos meses que estaba hablando con una persona que vivía en otro país, todo muy ameno y cordial. Un viernes le envié un mensaje que no le llegó (quedó con un tilde), nunca había pasado. Con el correr de los días pensé dos cosas: o le robaron el teléfono o le sucedió algo, justo se derrumbó un edificio en un pueblo cercano a donde ella trabajaba, con víctimas fatales aún sin identificar, y yo sabía que vivía en un pueblo y no en la ciudad donde trabajaba. Además tenía una madre violenta que le ha pegado y no se si puede hacer algo peor, ya se le había aparecido de la nada en su casa.
Esta dama también tenía un historial de abusos varios sufridos más allá de su mamá, la ha pasado muy mal. Recién ahora su vida se estaba enderezando un poco. Con el paso de los días al ver que mi mensaje ni siquiera le llegaba me empecé a preocupar. Busqué en google noticias en su ciudad o cerca por si aparecía algo, puse su nombre, no lo puse... hasta que 11 días después me escribe informándome de que me había bloqueado, me desbloqueó arrepentida y me pidió disculpas por ser una (cita textual) gilipollas, que sabía que no iba a ser lo mismo pero que perdón. Le respondí “comprendido” que es lo que respondo cuando te mando al olvido solo con pasaje de ida.
Nunca nos peleamos, nunca discutimos, ni una frase dudosa de la que pueda agarrarme como para decir, de acuerdo o no, “ah claro debe haber actuado así por esto”.
Su último mensaje antes de bloquearme fue pedirme una foto de un atardecer.
Lo que me pregunto es ¿Hasta dónde debo cuidar la salud mental ajena y cuando debo empezar a cuidar la mía? Aún sigo sin respuesta en estos casos.
Sin proponérmelo me volqué a interacciones virtuales por una especie de agotamiento de las presenciales. Me puse a hablar con personas de forma virtual porque el riesgo de que me fastidien la existencia es mínimo. Fracasé (otra vez). De pensar que se había muerto descubrí que el muerto era yo.
Hello. Is Ti, the ability and interest in solving complex puzzles or mind games? And are Ti dom and aux people, the only people good at debating others without getting bored or hurt? I ask because I know an ENTP youtuber who's a debate coach. He sort of determines Ti by conditional logic and the ability to solve puzzles and mind games, (and debate for a long time without being hurt or emotional). Also, since Ti is subjective, are Ti viewpoints and judgements irrational and personal?
No. A general point: The way many people learn about personality type is by picking up disorganized bits and pieces all over the internet (sometimes from dubious sources) and then they wonder why they get confused. One of the learning problems I commonly see in students is trying to run before learning how to walk, which should be remedied by learning things in the right order and with the most effective methodology. I see people try to identify specific judging functions like Te vs Fe when they haven’t even understood the basics of what T, F, and e are to begin with. Or people try to apply type theory without knowing the technical meanings of academic terminology, so they get lost in misconceptions. In your case, you’re trying to understand the advanced concept of Ti without a good grasp of basic principles, and you lack clear definitions of the words you’re using, like subjective, irrational, personal.
1) In type theory, all perception functions are irrational because they do not require any reasoning to process information, and all judgment functions are rational because they all require reasoning to process information.
2) In type theory, all introverted functions are subjective, and all extraverted functions are objective. Subjective is not equivalent to personal, although, to be fair, people (myself included) often use the two words interchangeably, so it’s easy to get confused.
“Personal” means that you are viewing the situation through “psychological lenses”, e.g., in terms of how it makes you feel, how it affects your body/mind, how it changes your plans, etc. Your sensations, feelings, ideas, and plans all “belong” to you and no one else. You basically generate them for your own purposes. No one can ever know exactly what your personal experience is because no one can ever wear the exact same set of psychological lenses that you possess. This is the basis for claiming that every person is unique.
“Subjective” means from the vantage point of where you are standing. There are many possible vantage points to stand on. The vantage point doesn’t “belong” to you because you’re not technically generating anything personal. You could easily move to a different vantage point, and someone else could just as easily come stand where you were standing to see what you were seeing. The picture of a situation may shift dramatically when you change a vantage point and new facts get revealed. This is the basis for claiming that one is able to get closer to objective truth by incorporating more vantage points. The word “objective” refers to universality, i.e., the things that are always true and/or don’t change significantly with vantage point.
Thus, personal is always subjective insofar as it is seen from a particular and singular vantage point, but subjective is not necessarily personal. It is possible to change your subjective vantage point without substantially using/affecting your personal psychological lenses.
3) In type theory, T functions are considered to be impersonal because they do not utilize any psychological lenses to process information - they only use plain factual and empirical information to make judgments and draw conclusions. F functions are considered personal because they rely on psychological lenses to process information - they need to know how people feel in order to make judgments and draw conclusions. Accordingly:
Fe is rational, objective, inter/personal*
Fi is rational, subjective, inter/personal*
Te is rational, objective, impersonal
Ti is rational, subjective, impersonal
*F is personal and interpersonal because it primarily uses feeling states to reach a judgment/conclusion, irrespective of who the feeling state belongs to.
Having impersonal, platonic, amical, and queerplatonic attraction culture is always having had a list of terms for types of friends:
Acquaintance-friends
Friends
Best friends/sibling-friends
Besties/#1 BFFs
But also always having had this vague feeling that they weren't quite adequate (especially that last one)?
And then discovering the SAM, the term “tertiary attraction” and then all these different names for attractions described as “similar to platonic” or “like a combination of platonic and ____” and just going “OHHH...!!”
