Audra, an infp, talks about Good and Evil
Read other contributions by infps as well ...
princess m | andrea jurik | jane mulliken | kati | meg
I was interested in a statement Keirsey made in the definition of infps and wondering if real infps related to the issue of good and evil. I asked Audra, an infp currently living in France, is she would be willing to comment on this. I am also actively soliticing statemtent and essays from other infps which I will post here or publish in articles anonymously or with your name, whichever you prefer.
This is the statement from Keirsey:
"Deeply committed to the positive and the good, yet taught to believe there is evil in them, Healers (infps) can come to develop a certain fascination with the problem of good and evil, sacred and profane."
See the complete Keirsey statement, click here.
In the Absence of Good and Evil by Audra
Floating, dim & muffled it is unaware that its surroundings are composed of one other person and itself. Its senses aren't functioning, as we know them - it smells through its skin, senses noises in its fingers. Its world is floating cramped whoosh whoosh whoosh dim light. All food, oxygen, supplies come from its mother but to the embryo it is all one thing. There is no distinction of this other as mother; there is no point where one begins and the other ends. It simply IS everything around it, and the 'around it' is it. More noise, high pitched, whoosh whoosh whooshing and then bright light loud noise. A new mode of being, distinct now, no longer in the dim lit one that is the womb. Is this baby now a wholly different creature than a moment ago? No longer encompassed in its mother, has this child become, in a moments rush of muscle spasm, isolated and unlike its origin? Or has its perspective of reality changed? For the first time it experiences another mode of being; it is not separate, not wholly different in it's material makeup, but changed in its position to reality. Is it any wonder then, it cries. How sad it is, really, that we cheer upon hearing it. For the baby, a nightmare, a separation from what is. A brutish moment when it is ripped from the universe and isolated. And we, happy it has joined our illusion.
Children are the understanding of wholeness, participating in a universe that is intrinsically part of them. Yes, they are very ego-centered as toddlers, and this itself points to their understanding of their non-separation from universe. The idea that they are distinctly instantiated comes to them, via us, and suddenly there is this new concept of "I", "me". "I" is a NEW concept to them, it's fascinating and they explore it to the full. Without knowing it I was regaining understanding of the universe every time I peeled layer after layer off blades of grass. I could never seem to get to the absolute center blade of the grass, no matter how I tried there always seemed to be another little grass blade inside the next and so on. Every lawn then, covered in mini labs about infinity.
A day full of the scent of green, damp earth and mud puddles on humid blacktop alleyways. Past the Colfax's garage roof pigeon coops, and the soft cooing that is now forever associated with childhood days of walking to school when we rather play. SO intertwined is everything, I can't get to school without first leaving the house, crossing the street, being a part of the very space that makes up the distance between home and school. I can't get to school without participating in the environment on the way there. Simply put, I am the environment and it is me, and this blissful existence that comes so readily to children is what all the I don't want to go to school fuss can be about. Cramming into our little heads these finite things that as children we intuitively understand don't exist. Why should I go to school when I seem to have more understanding of my universe by simply participating in it, without the training of how to listen to it from a point of reference of these rules of observation and definition.
So when born, we are already aware of the order of things. Not as in an ordered sense but rather that the order of things is no particular order. Simply put, things just are. An imperturbable perception of the world, the universe, as being one in the same thing. Somewhere we learn to 'uncover the truth about things', which turns out to not be the truth. The truth is that in reality things just are. No limitation, no perceptions, no point of reference to skew out minds, just stuff, being. So we start-off knowing this, as well as we can; given our particulate matter, subject to its physicality and the binds on access to reality that this implies. I am walking to school. I had spent several years in preparation for this day. Days spent playing outside in the absence of mind that only children can achieve. With no regard for the definition of this and that I peacefully and joyously went about my days just being. As the years go by I am inundated with perceptions that somehow, I am told, apply to me. Although no adult explained this to me, it was clear that the way I saw it was almost wholly different than the way it really is, but I'm getting off track here. The point is that I was being, Being when Whammo!, there all these rules to existence and I'm not just talking here about the do's and don't of the world but also the definition of this isolated existence of us and me, as well. It's always a warm spring like day, the first day of school, isn't it? I have left my little house on 12th street, the arbitrary name of an arbitrarily chosen space, to go to school. I can still smell the wet blacktop, puddles lingering on sidewalks and depressions in lawns, the odor of birds' wings, pigeon coops and mud. Little worms slithering about on the pavement making noises and smelling earthy. All these things are me on the way to school. Neighbors yelling for offspring to offspring out the door and to school. The solitary walk to the graveyard of perception, gradeschool.
Have you learned your numbers yet,
do you know the alphabet,
which one of these is blue
which of them is red?
Everything is in a rhyme,
it's best use of learning time,
to forever drill it in your head,
which one is blue and which is red.
So we send our children off to school
unaware of the perception pool.
The sludge implanted in the mind,
only remembered in a rhyme.I remember when I was a little girl and I was trying to wrap my mind around this. We went to school the first day they taught math and when we started in about numbers I remember thinking, "Wait a second, where's this One thing coming from. How is it that we can just start here with this quantity?" In my own childish way I tried to articulate this question, "Why should I first believe that there is this One thing. First prove to me that one exists and then talk to me about manipulating it." To wit, my first math class. Here we are sitting in a room of twenty of thirty children and the lecture about numbers begins. We had all learned them, by rote, Sesame Street was worth its weight in gold for sheer repetition, the ones twos and threes, that this word, one, came before the second one, two, and so on, but today was the magical day we were going to learn how to use this apparently vital information. It seemed like a reasonable question to me, I mean I wasn't an unintelligent child, as even as I child I knew this, so this seemed to me to be a reasonable question, I mean it popped into my head so it must be some explanation that I missed or perhaps we hadn't covered it yet but there it was, as big as my head and screaming for and answer. I just simply couldn't go about applying addition and subtraction to these items without knowing what they meant…or could I?
On the reverse trip home, these very things that had been part of me had become separate from me. So interested in the universe and so forced to small existence. It was fun to learn about all sorts of new stuff, but it was painfully raw to have my vision hobbled by these concrete definitions of things that no one could offer up the origin of. "Mrs. Richie, what is the number one?" "Well dear it's this red apple all by itself." " Mrs. Arnow, what's this number one thing? I don't get it?" "What do you mean you don't get it, what's to get? It's just simply anything sitting by itself." But this just seemed so arbitrary to me. One minute you're telling me that 1, 2, 3 is the way we order things - this first, then this, then this - and next you're asking me to pervert this ordering system into items that represent collections of things. Why can't anyone tell me what the number one really is? I searched and still continue to search, for this meaning. Years of thinking about this has lead me to what I think is an irrevocable truth. There is no such thing. Oh I did the proper thing of learning how to combine these arbitrary numbers into systems of math that we defined. But never once did I ever believe it was true because no one and no thing could produce the proof.
I have yet to find an isolated example of the number one. Or rather I have seen all sorts of examples of what it is supposed to be but upon further investigation it turns out that none of these isolated examples is really a single thing. An apple is made up of parts made up of parts made up of parts, and even as we delve deeper into this parts of parts thing we come to understand that everything seems to be made up of more everythings that make up more things.
So where's the ONE. Giving up trying to get the answer from virtually every grade school math teacher I ever had, I proceeded to Junior High math and was equally disappointed by teachers there. They were great at teaching this math thing we do, but they weren't very good at addressing this lingering doubt of number validity that I had. Usually the response came in the form of sideways glances, rolling eyes and a can't-we-just-get-on-with-it attitudes. There were no answers to be found there. High school was even more perilous, because now, the brainwashing having by this time, supposed to have taken firmly root, my questions of number validity are met with responses composed of precisely what had just been said a moment ago, but with more fervent volume. I wasn't asking about what had been supposed about the formula explained to me, what I was asking is why I should believe these machinations are valid since the very premise, the number system, is suspect. I realized that everything that we perceive is not made up of just one thing. I am made of billions of cells, which are each in turn made up of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms which are in turn made up of protons, electrons, neutrons and so forth, and that even these are made up of many items. In essence there is no representation of an isolated existence of anything that I can use to support the idea that the quantity one, represents something that truly exists. It's a concept we pulled out of the air and started working with. We choose to see a definition of some isolated quantity and built on it. We learned how to manipulate these numbers all sorts of ways to Sunday, and of course it worked. We had invented the very premise and so we also learned about the relationships of that very premise. BUT THIS DOES NOT PROVE THE PREMISE. The fact that I can imagine zorks, discover all sorts of rules about zorks, theorize and hypothesize about zorks, does not prove that zorks exist. IF then I try to talk about other things as they relate to zorks, I will probably find that the application of zorks outside of my immediate surroundings, fails to explain these further and further away things. And why? Because zorks don't exist to begin with, I made them up and then thoughtlessly assumed that since I got rules and theories about zorks to work, that these zorks would automatically make sense in a completely different context - how naïve and egocentric. More time goes by and I learn ever more about this math stuff. One day I learn about zero. Now it was explained to me that zero is the point between positive and negative quantities. Once again I am stopped in my tracks. "Hold on a second, if zero is the absence of quantity, then how can negative numbers exist; how can there be a quantity creates a debit to the absence of quantity?" This math thing was making less and less sense with every passing year. Still I learned the rules of this number system, applied them correctly, blah blah blah, but my belief in them as absolutes faded with every new idea presented about them. Someone explained to me that zero was not in fact the absence of quantity but a placeholder in the numbering system; it is the thing that separates positive and negative numbers. Interesting idea, but what then is the thing that sits between those two sets of numbers; positives and negatives? If it is a placeholder it must be something, but according to other explanations about zero, it wasn't a thing at all, it was the absence of a thing…and then it came to me, perhaps zero wasn't the absence of quantity at all, and it wasn't a placeholder either, perhaps zero was the point at which all things simply, ARE. In other words, perhaps zero was actually a place where all possible quantities existed and all the numbers we had perceived were only possible subsets of this domain of all quantity, that we call zero. This seemed to fit. And it was in some strange marriage between concepts of numbers and existence that brought me to this conclusion about zero. Try as you might you can never separate yourself from the very stuff you are made of. You are not some unique existence that is wholly separate from the stuff it is made of. You simply are an intrinsic part of the very stuff of the universe and to impose "I" implies that you have somehow managed to separate yourself from the very stuff you are made of. Miraculously you are no longer a participant in the very substance that comprises your being? Hardly! You are simply one possible organization of all that is; you represent a possible subset. And because you participate in this subset, you are a part of this subset; or rather you are indistinct as a finite thing occurring in this subset. Voila! Finally a realization of the failure of distinct quantities. There simply is no such thing as a finite and separate quantity, there is only participation in a domain of existence, namely you exist at zero, where all things simply are, without some arbitrary, humanly invented distinction of your separate existence, propagated and perpetuated by a false premise that finite and distinct quantity exists. Zero could perhaps not even be where infinity occurs; it might also be the point where quantity, finite or otherwise, is possible, not probable but possible. I began to think about what these ideas meant in terms of my day-to-day existence. First it implied that I am not a separate being, rather, each of us is participating in this possibility, the idea that each of us exists separately, as a representation of the quantity ONE, is largely false. If you and I are made up of the same stuff that is existing in the same domain of possibility (i.e. where zero is, or that zero is all possibility) then none of us are separate from any of the others of us, human, animal, mineral etc.. We are each other, period. I cannot separate or isolate myself from the IS, and neither can you, as such we are all IS. How absurd then is prejudice, class distinction, separatism of all kinds? It is wholly absurd and further it is born of this faulty premise of separate and distinct quantity, which bleeds into our way of perceiving everything that leads us to these crackpot beliefs in distinct and separate instantiations of individuals as being separate from us and vice versa. When you are cruel, kind or empathetic to another, you are really being those things to yourself. When you discriminate against others, you discriminate against yourself. You are an idiot to hate, love, or feel anything about another as another, there are others only as a function of yourself.
I was not a cruel child then, I can honestly say I never once teased, picked on, bullied or compromised another, and it was this realization that they are me and vice versa that brought that about. But it was also this realization that made the acts of others, even though I understood them to be originating in ignorance and faulty perception, seem confounding. Not only did the jabs of others profoundly injure my sense of worth, it was double in its trauma as it disregarded the very nature of being. Cruel to me is cruel to you. And what evidence of self-hatred in these malicious acts we incur.
"Beware means 'Be Aware' "
Das EnergiIf a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does. Scientifically speaking, the absence of a listener does not mean that the tree fails to create sound waves as it crashes to the ground. But this is not what the question is about, the whether or not of the noise; what it wants to know is if existence is somehow altered in the absence of an observer - specifically, a listener.
It was a moment of great love I experienced when these next words were given me. I am forever in debt to the kind soul that loved enough to occur in me and give the gift.
Now listen.
Occur outside of yourself, speak.
Experience another, listen.You are not just in there with you; you are more over there with the listener. They are the means to being in a manner outside of the self. Be vigilant in your choice of words, for these are the very stuff of your existence. You are what you do and what you say; doing is an existence in self, speaking pours your existence outward. You occur in the listener, you are more there, than here. I am occurring in you now because you are listening me. (not 'listening to me') Understand that you do not know what I mean until you listen for my intention. Assume not I mean your meaning. Consider what I'm saying about being. Vigilance in your choice of words, topic, purpose. It is your choice how you will occur outside yourself. Your choice, your responsibility. Your being, and the being of others, forever altered by the communication you incur. You create reality with your words, and infuse that reality in another. Question what you choose to communicate. Look long at the truth about your intentions and ever vigilant, alter your course and the course of others.
Perhaps you have thought you were expanding awareness, telling tales of your horrible trials, romanticizing a baseness you were all too happy to escape - creating that occurrence of you in others and then sneering in disgust when they relive it in life. Contributing not and profiting from it. Beware all poets, lyricists and writers, newscasters, politicians, evangelists and speakers - the responsibility is yours, choose what you want to be…over there with the listener; know that you occur there and love yourself. Be unto others, as you would have them be unto you - they ARE you the moment you speak and they listen.
Read me again and this time listen, that I might be with you longer and linger.
The author of this article, Audra, is very interested in feedback. Please email the author directly with your comments.
See other articles in the series: The Nature of Good and Evil from the infp Perspective by Princess M and You Definitely Have Me Thinking ... by Jane Mullikin, the awesome webmistress of SpiritualSisters and Spirit. Also see Vision for Healing by Kati. Meg has written Good and Evil in an INFP's Childhood.
Complete definition of the infp type introvert from Keirsey.com Please visit www.keirsey.com for more complete information about all personality types, including the eight different types of introverts. Keirsey calls the infp, "The Healer".
"Healer Idealists are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in striving for their ends, and informative and introverted in their interpersonal relations. Healers present a seemingly tranquil, and noticiably pleasant face to the world, and though to all appearances they might seem reserved, and even shy, on the inside they are anything but reserved, having a capacity for caring not always found in other types. They care deeply -- indeed, passionately -- about a few special persons or a favorite cause, and their fervent aim is to bring peace and integrity to their loved ones and the world.
"Healers have a profound sense of idealism derived from a strong personal morality, and they conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place. Indeed, to understand Healers, we must understand their idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. The Healer is the Prince or Princess of fairytale, the King's Champion or Defender of the Faith, like Sir Galahad or Joan of Arc. Healers are found in only 1 percent of the general population, although, at times, their idealism leaves them feeling even more isolated from the rest of humanity.?
STATEMENT IN REFERENCE ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL
"Healers seek unity in their lives, unity of body and mind, emotions and intellect, perhaps because they are likely to have a sense of inner division threaded through their lives, which comes from their often unhappy childhood. Healers live a fantasy-filled childhood, which, unfortunately, is discouraged or even punished by many parents. In a practical-minded family, required by their parents to be sociable and industrious in concrete ways, and also given down-to-earth siblings who conform to these parental expectations, Healers come to see themselves as ugly ducklings. Other types usually shrug off parental expectations that do not fit them, but not the Healers. Wishing to please their parents and siblings, but not knowing quite how to do it, they try to hide their differences, believing they are bad to be so fanciful, so unlike their more solid brothers and sisters. They wonder, some of them for the rest of their lives, whether they are OK. They are quite OK, just different from the rest of their family-swans reared in a family of ducks. Even so, to realize and really believe this is not easy for them. Deeply committed to the positive and the good, yet taught to believe there is evil in them, Healers can come to develop a certain fascination with the problem of good and evil, sacred and profane. Counselors are drawn toward purity, but can become engrossed with the profane, continuously on the lookout for the wickedness that lurks within them. Then, when Healers believe thay have yielded to an impure temptation, they may be given to acts of self-sacrifice in atonement. Others seldom detect this inner turmoil, however, for the struggle between good and evil is within the Healer, who does not feel compelled to make the issue public." [the end]
Most infps I talk to relate to these statements immediately. How about you? What do you think? Please express your opinion, anonymously or in an essay or article which I will publish on this site..