# Ni and meaning



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If they are so childlike, I would like you to tackle them. I know Freud and Jung well. I will back up everything I type.


I don't care what you type Freud and Jung as nor do I want to derail this thread into a pointless debate. You made a comment about wanting to have a "serious" conversation but veered far away from that with this silly INFJ > INTJ framing that you've also done elsewhere. Your original comment was that my Ni description was more Te than Ni, which is why I responded. Not to hear you ramble about shit that barely makes sense.

Fe is very clearly not Will-to-power or even slightly Nietzschean. 

If you want to relate Ni to some aspect of Nietzsche's work, or legitimately outline how you think INFJs would relate or not relate, I would possibly be interested.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

O_o said:


> LOL.
> [/FONT][/COLOR]But I've seen this in INTPs. Maybe not as whiny, but how much whiny is not very whiny is subjective. There is a thread right now about close to this exact topic by an admitted-to-being depressed INTP. A lot of them apparently agree or appear to spend/waste a significant portion of their time thinking about it.


I've also seen it in INTPs. 

Personally, I wouldn't anyone or anything to give me meaning. I'm certain I'd rebel against it and fight to create and establish my own. I would need that basic freedom. Life being meaningless to me is like a child at an amusement park unsupervised. I don't want any adults.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Octavian said:


> I've also seen it in INTPs.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't anyone or anything to give me meaning. I'm certain I'd rebel against it and fight to create and establish my own. I would need that basic freedom. Life being meaningless to me is like a child at an amusement park unsupervised. I don't want any adults.


Well right. They would be your own. And it would somehow tie to the whole point of this entire thread lol. 
I believe there is all encompassing and raw meaning to everyone (in regarding to people's sense of 'purpose/meaning' etc). No individuality, just overall, unavoidable and applicable to everyone. Re-explaining it here will only just be repetitive since I just discussed it there a few minutes ago, but a sort of "rule" in a sense. 
And since it's all encompassing, I wonder about the Ni. I never really thought about them wanting to 'rebel' against something like this until now.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

O_o said:


> Well right. They would be your own. And it would somehow tie to the whole point of this entire thread lol.
> I believe there is all encompassing and raw meaning to everyone (in regarding to people's sense of 'purpose/meaning' etc). No individuality, just overall, unavoidable and applicable to everyone. Re-explaining it here will only just be repetitive since I just discussed it there a few minutes ago, but a sort of "rule" in a sense.
> And since it's all encompassing, I wonder about the Ni. I never really thought about them wanting to 'rebel' against something like this until now.


By "meaning" in that context, I meant a higher purpose that transcends the individual, or that is given to the individual. All "meaning" in the sense of purpose is illusory and never given, we willingly embody or create it, consciously or not. We may be certain of god, truth, or metaphysical whatevers, but those things only hold stable in the realms of hyper rationalism and good faith. Generally, I was leaning more towards F than N. I meant that my Fi could never have values or purposes assigned to it. It must create and abide by its own. 

Perceptually, I don't know if I think there is something all encompassing, but I tend to think there is something underlying all things.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Octavian said:


> By "meaning" in that context, I meant a higher purpose that transcends the individual, or that is given to the individual. All "meaning" in the sense of purpose is illusory and never given, we willingly embody or create it, consciously or not. We may be certain of god, truth, or metaphysical whatevers, but those things only hold stable in the realms of hyper rationalism and good faith. Generally, I was leaning more towards F than N. I meant that my Fi could never have values or purposes assigned to it. It must create and abide by its own.
> 
> Perceptually, I don't know if I think there is something all encompassing, but I tend to think there is something underlying all things.


I... still think we're still referring to the same thing. If there is something underlying all things, wouldn't this by definition making it all-encompassing? This is still sort of what I meant, a higher 'purpose', transcending the individual in a sense, but still deeply rooted in every single individual by default. Everyone's 'core purpose for function' the 'what is the point?" question. I just personally believe that all sort of "god" and "metaphysical whatever" are masking the very obvious and blunt, though an interesting story, still a sugar coating and with not much emotional satisfaction beyond that. But any sort of purpose and meaning is nothing but another equation from my perspective. It's people crafting equations and with enough insight of their makeup, some will naturally fit and other won't. There is objectivity to it, maybe not from a "concrete" perception, but still is there in this specific case involving "what is the point? Humanities purpose". And everything can be made into just another equation, every single one of everybody's values, branching back to a large, overall one which everyone is programed to have. That's where I might step on the Fi. 

I'm sorry if none of this makes any sense. I'm not sure how well I actually organized any of this , I mean it obviously makes sense to me but _derh ya_, so feel free to ignore it.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Actually not even, it's not stepping on Fi. I'm not necessarily devaluing it. Just... in a sense incorporating and using as a "example" of what the whole creates.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

O_o said:


> I... still think we're still referring to the same thing. If there is something underlying all things, wouldn't this by definition making it all-encompassing? This is still sort of what I meant, a higher 'purpose', transcending the individual in a sense, but still deeply rooted in every single individual by default. Everyone's 'core purpose for function' the 'what is the point?" question. I just personally believe that all sort of "god" and "metaphysical whatever" are masking the very obvious and blunt, though an interesting story, still a sugar coating and with not much emotional satisfaction beyond that. But any sort of purpose and meaning is nothing but another equation from my perspective. It's people crafting equations and with enough insight of their makeup, some will naturally fit and other won't. There is objectivity to it, maybe not from a "concrete" perception, but still is there in this specific case involving "what is the point? Humanities purpose". And everything can be made into just another equation, every single one of everybody's values, branching back to a large, overall one which everyone is programed to have. That's where I might step on the Fi.
> 
> I'm sorry if none of this makes any sense. I'm not sure how well I actually organized any of this , I mean it obviously makes sense to me but _derh ya_, so feel free to ignore it.


We're not referring to the same thing, although its my fault, this is something I simply cannot fully communicate yet. I may try to take a stab at properly explaining it in a few days.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Octavian said:


> We're not referring to the same thing, although its my fault, this is something I simply cannot fully communicate yet. I may try to take a stab at properly explaining it in a few days.


Or maybe we are but I'm not communicating it fully either. 
So my possible fault too.


----------

