- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
Hi sekundaer, thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts.
I’m an FiNe, and though I don’t relate to all you have written, there are passages I felt complete resonance with. I haven’t quite figured out if I have a complete Si aversion; if I am indeed productively using it, it is useful for mapping the terrain of special interests, but in matters of the self, it’s like kryptonite!
I doesn’t have a personal history or associations with the specific, I doesn’t remember what she did yesterday but I happily direct an eye for causal relatedness to those things that interest me, and collect information about them.
“…I rather want to skip the presentation of my own background (and others) and I often forget about other peoples backgrounds. I tend to remember things as fragments…”
Absolutely! Attending to personal backgrounds is mental drudgery. Memories are anything but chronological… they’re an assortment of fragments that end up washed on the beach of any particular day, and I find them with the kind of wonder that any beachcomber would feel. Are they mine; related to me? No. They belong to experience in the abstract and time in the eternal moment. Are they valuable, endearing? Yes, they can be, but only in this depersonalised form, in which they become reinvented as the iconography of the art of the work of living: the abstract essence of a life… of being. They therefore belong to all persons, not merely to me.
I wonder if Si is a threat in circumstances where the self is devoid of a sense of secure attachment? In which case the early betrayal of trust during formative years has left a hallmark scar in psyches for whom this function would otherwise flow with some ease. It’s an interesting question.