It sounds like what you are talking about is positive space vs. negative space and you are basically saying:
- Love without understanding = positive space = Se
- Understanding without love = negative space = Ne
Or at least, I infer the latter equality of Se and Ne to positive and negative space respectively.
What I was getting at in the Love Without Understanding article(s) was more like:
- Love without understanding = Fi
- Understanding without love = Ti
A love that refuses to understand because this threatens to undermine the basis for it’s action - its will-to-power- to put it in Nietzsche’s terms.
You’re putting it in esthetic terms, which I think lie outside the scope of love or understanding. They just are.
That’s how I look at the extraverted perceiving functions (Ne and Se) - they just are things as they are, without any moral or logical content.
Ne is infinite space, or to put it in esthetic terms - negative space.
Se is objects in space, which esthetically speaking is positive space.
You will see a different picture depending on whether you are looking at the positive or negative space.
I would say Ne types are psychologically-oriented towards seeing and valuing space itself, which translates psychologically to a type that values freedom -“Give me space!”. At the same time, they also tend to be blind to and devalue the objects that lie in that space as a sort of default instinct. “Objects in space, how excessive!”
The extraverted perceiving functions are the visual-spatial function in toto. I look at functions that share the same attitude orientation (introversion or extraversion) but are in opposite elements (intuition opp. sensation and thinking opp. feeling) as being two sides of the same side of a coin. They need each other for their mutual intelligibility.
For example, it would be impossible to speak of positive space (Se) without negative space (Ne). It would be impossible to speak of a physical object (Se) without there being something that wasn’t a physical object - space - which can be defined as the absence of a physical object (Ne).
I think the same is true in the realm of internal judgment - the introverted judging functions of Ti and Fi - which could be termed understanding and love respectively. They could also be termed other things, but I think a consistency still remains between them. For example, you could say Ti is logic and Fi is morality. Ti is epistemological (interested in knowledge or a theory of knowledge) while Fi could care less about knowledge for it’s own sake.
In the philosophic sense, Ti might ask “What can be known?” while Fi will ask “What is permissible?”
By extension, you could interpret Fi as implying “What should be known?”, which sort of implies limiting and devaluing the pursuit of knowledge (and understanding) in service to a moral obligation to protect people from information that could be damaging to their feelings. That sort of thing.
One could say that this function of Fi is one of the things people do when they love each other - protect each other’s feelings from being hurt…even if that means closing your eyes to certain information. (Hey, they don’t say “love is blind” for nothing).
Fi refuses to understand. That’s sorta the outcome of it being itself. In order to maintain it’s main prerogative, it has to close it’s eyes to understanding to a large extent.
When a mother loves, she has to “not see” certain things about her children in order to maintain her mother-love for them. As we all know, mother-love is the strongest love there is. A mother can’t go around evaluating her children objectively. Maybe a little, but essentially mother-love is defined as loving these asshole children no matter how terrible they really are.
Ti, by turns, is simply understanding without personal involvement. It’s unbiased. Which tends to mean it needs to maintain a detachment from things as a general rule, whereas Fi detests this sort of cool analysis. Fi represents involvement, attachment, enmeshment, which is why it cannot judge impersonally.
Ti makes impersonal judgments and can do so because it has no personal investment or bond with what it judges.
Ti asks “What is true, regardless of my feelings about it?”
Fi spares the truth to save the feelings.
Which can of course lead to…
Love Without Understanding.