Love Without Understanding

Hey y’all!!:slight_smile:
I’d like to share some philosophy idea of mine, it’s initial, really, but I hope you like it.
So, based on @Blake’s artical: Love Without Understanding ----
Recently I’ve been thinking about the notions of
1)Love and 2)Understanding and
distinguishing between the two of them through the artist’s eye.
Technically, when an painter draws he/she can aprouch the composition in two ways, apart or combined:

  1. Love without understanding - I’m looking at the object(s) and draw it as what it is, it’s function, colors, patterns… I can use my own subjective interpretation and choose to change whatever I feel like, but the object’s remains an object.
  2. Understanding without love - I’m looking at the space (what’s not there) that surrounds the object, or the spaces in between the object. This time I’m looking at shapes and forms only and while thay are produced by my own imagination, the object is revealed magically by itself.
    I don’t know in what way ‘real’ artist’s prefer to use, but for me it’s easier to draw the space than the object, surprisingly, the painting emerg more accurate.
    I think that when using both forms, It’s finely becomes the real deal. It’s the artist’s saying, his/her unique perspective and depth, their own aprouching and choosing. At first the lines are blurred and later on, a process of integrity and again, telling them apart. What wr get is a new language, a new creation. At the same time It’s complete, a whole, it’s old and known. Simple and perfect.

That’s it! Is my idea too much of an abstract?

It sounds like what you are talking about is positive space vs. negative space and you are basically saying:

  1. Love without understanding = positive space = Se
  2. 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:

  1. Love without understanding = Fi
  2. 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.

1 Like

I’d like to take this theory a step further.

What does it imply about Te and Fe? These functions always occur in synertistic pairs (as Fi/Te or Ti/Fe). Can we find terms or concepts for them, too?

Fi = love (without understanding)
Ti = understanding (without love)

Fe = ?
Te = ?
And would they be subjective or objective?

Te = Power
Fe = Love as Power

Te = Objective
Fe = Subjective applied to Objective

That works better than what I was trying, which was:

If Fi = subjective and Ti = objective, then Fe = objective and Te = subjective.
(False because Te is objective. Also non-workable because it would yield two subjective traits or two objective traits for each functional pair.)

Or, if Ti = understanding without love, and Fi = love without understanding, then Te = understanding with love, and Fe = love with understanding.
(False because it is merely a symantic exercise using irrelevant terms.)

So, thanks for clearing that up.

Te = power (objective) works in two directions. It is the exercise of power over others, and also the acceptance of power exercised over oneself, implying legitimate rule.

Similarly, Fe = love as power (subjective use) also works in two directions. It is the give and take in relationships, implying voluntary or illegitimate rule, which is accepted or rejected based on whether Te is viewed as positive “influence” or negative “manipulation.”

How, then, does the unhealthy use of Fe differ from the “id” manifestation of Fi?

Think of explosion versus implosion.

Where Fe is explosion, as in emoting to others?
And Fi is implosion, as in emoting in private? Or would Fi be held inside without emoting, as internal pressure?

On another note, the concept of love and understanding reminds me of the Buddhist belif that it is equally foolish to use wisdom without compassion or compassion without wisdom.

Maybe it’s all mixed up in my head…
Se - I draw an object when I find it ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ - I see something I like or some shit…
(Sorry for the foul language, I’m so sorry, Se…)
But, subjectively, I don’t mind what is the object that I draw. I’m more interested in the negative space that is revealed by the edges of the object; I like to understand and then make connections between the spaces that come out through and within the outline of the object.
Is this Ne?
I choose to see a sight. I choose my own way of seeing. Is this Ni?
Yes, I understand why this

…the drive, the desire to ‘free’ its “Will-to-power” is the only way of reaching development in this fucked up reality. (Sorry again)
Is this Fi or Fe?
That’s the reason why I don’t understand and then feel like everything is mixed up…
This is how I understand art. Maybe I mix art and life, but aren’t they the same thing? Do I need to separate them?
So it is not

There’s more, but

Are starting to throw pillows on me…

Yeah, sounds like it.

Yeah, I could buy that, sure.

Will-to-power, as a thing itself, is more Se. But, everything has it’s own version of this. Thus, Fi has LOVE as its will-to-power and Ti has UNDERSTANDING as its will-to-power.

Yeah, that right there sums up the Fe as a dominant function with Ti as inferior (though I know you identify as INFJ).


And I’m a miserable dying bitch.

You should drown your children in the Red Sea of your period blood. :crazy_face:

So, just to clarify… And I could be way off base with this:
Say some event happens, like maybe a dog gets run over and killed by a car. There are multiple people around to witness this, and each of them have different function preferences:

An Fi dominant person sees this and maybe views it as a negative situation–there’s no other way to see it for them, no matter how hard another tries to sway them into thinking otherwise?

An Fe dominant person sees this and maybe rushes over to see if the dog could possibly be helped still?

A Te dominant person sees this and maybe tries to stop traffic so the situation can be assessed better?

A Ti dominant person sees this and maybe tries to understand how this happened? Was the driver going too fast? Did the driver see the dog at all? Etc.

An Ne dominant sees it and maybe automatically sees how the situation could have been different: What if it was a smaller car? What if the dog only got grazed and was injured instead of killed? Etc.

An Ni dominant could choose to see this as positive situation: the dog could have been rabid and hurt people; it could have been miserable, starving and better off dead anyway?

An Se dominant just sees a dog being run over, the loud thud of the impact, the whimper of the dog’s last breath, the squeal of the tires?

An Si dominant sees it and is reminded of their childhood dog who died long ago, and they are reminded of that deep, personal pain they felt when it happened?

Why, thank you sir.
For this is absolutely extraordinary! However, I must decline your disgusting suggestion.


As I see it the children were not the one’s bleeding out, they hit the lottery. Then they survived long enough to challenge us with the strengths and weaknesses we raised them with, and or others according to type, so in all, they deserve their place as our teachers, after all, we brought them up. And true, sometimes teachers are full of shit, so you take the fucked up with the inspiring… that is just the way it goes with all humans.

But so I get the sentiment ‘Kill all humans!’ Though we might notch it down a bit to ‘backhand all asses’, which in truth might be considered a favor.