Index › Forums › Spirituality & Philosophy › The Metaphysics of ‘F’ (B) by Will Herberg, Martin Buber › Reply To: The Metaphysics of ‘F’ (B) by Will Herberg, Martin Buber
- Type: NeFi
- Development: l-l-
- Attitude: Unseelie
The selections from Vladimir Moss come from a larger book, The Theology of Eros. Eros in Eastern Christian thought has some fundamental differences from the western idea of eros or “erotic love.” Eros is more about strong desire, though that’s a heavy oversimplification. In the course of the book Dr. Moss discusses desire of various levels and sexuality and how it relates to our understand of loving God and loving others in the Eastern tradition.
A wonderful intersection with the quotes from Herberg is the subject of “dehumanization.” In the Eastern Christian understanding of love, perversion of love is when love reorients back towards ourselves: actions that terminate in self-love are most always considered sinful. In this way, it also intersects with the discussion here in how healthily our mind differentiates between A and B (if that can be a proper understanding of the concepts, I am certainly not suggesting that people who don’t have conscious F functions dehumanize others).
“At the root of all forms of perversion is self-love, the utilization of another, who (or which) is seen as no more than an instrument for one’s pleasure (or pain). . . all perversions involve a rejection of a fully mutual personal relationship of love in favour of an impersonal relationship of use (or rather: abuse). ” ~Moss
Fe and Fi in other systems are often inconsistently defined, but at some root they usually fall into the concepts of Fe relating to others and groups or society and Fi relating to the self and perhaps one-on-one, intimate connections with others. There is usually some mish-mash of feelings, convictions, ability to empathize, etc. thrown in. In understanding F as B I think it’s helpful to identify that we engage with others in both A and B capacities (as was talked about in the new article on T). Simply engaging with others does not always primarily use F and personable people are not all F-dominant or F-conscious.
The excerpts above do raise a lot of thoughts for me about the potential psychological impacts of living in a world with so much socialization done through an online medium that usually does not include face-to-face interaction, and how that impacts our ability to cognize the “biotic-ness” of others in our online communities. The rudeness that often comes through online anonymity could come from a number of factors, but it could potentially be that it is easier to dehumanize the target and treat them as an “object” and not a “subject.”