Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello,
I am an ESTJ Archaeology Student at the University of Washington. I wanted to make a good acquaintance with the INFPs on this forum and see some fresh perspective. My favorite ancient culture is the Romans since they brought civiliation, order, structure, prosperity, transportation, security, and peace to the ancient world wherever they went. I am fascinated by the good they did for the world and I was curious to see what the INFPs valued in comparison to what I personally value. I value security, family, tradition, order, prosperity, and justice and I believe that these values are quite common in modern American society. I fully support all of the wars fought to defend American interests abroad, I support American industrialism and growth and I enjoy seeing how the emphasis on wealth and material gain that has created a similar society in our culture as the Romans had in theirs. I also am curious to see just what managed to make America such a great superpower today and to see the threads of similarity with the Romans and how they worked to create a strong republic based on hard work, capitalism, industrialism, and military innovation. I absolutely love the entertainment that our society has created and I think that the Romans really gave a good tradition for America today in that regard. I mean just look at the similarity between our stadiums and Rome's ampitheatres.

My favorite presidents are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and I fully wish that Latin was taught more commonly then it currently is since it is a fascinating language.

Anyways, I would love to hear from the INFPs, and ah I know I am very much fascinated by classical history, but so were the founders.


I am also curious to see how people feel about the oligarchy that developed in Ancient Rome and any connections with the supposed 1% class in America. It just seems like America are using resources in a way that is very similar to Rome.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,802 Posts
Well, I don't know very much about ancient Rome, and I'm not an American so hopefully you can still find my input valuable.

I can tell by reading your post you and I have extremely different world views. Personally, I value freedom, peace, creativity, compassion, solidarity, empathy, love, and co-operation. I don't want to start a huge political flame war here or anything, but I'm pretty much opposed to all American involvement in any war since world war 2. I like how you've shown in what ways Rome reflects your personal values, and if I was to choose a society in history that reflects my personal values it would have to be revolutionary Spain in the 1930's https://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution

Sorry, I don't really have much I can offer other than that. Hopefully you found it useful, and good luck with your study :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I don't want to start anything (a common thread you will find in INFPs haha) but I have a very different perspective than you. I value some of the things you mentioned like prosperity and justice but I tend to lean toward values like compassion, peace, harmony, acceptance, originality, passion, and creativity. I'm not a fan of rules and restrictions in general so tradition isn't big for me. Order is important but it can meld with tradition and become very oppressive in my opinion.

The Romans were definitely fascinating people. On one hand I really admire their ambition to create a new, peaceful world. But on the other hand they went about it in a pretty brutal way. Surely there is some way peace can be achieved without heavy amounts of violence. Or I'm not thinking in realistic terms, something I tend not to do.

My thoughts on Roman society leaks into my frustrations with modern day American society. The old America (Revolutionary War days) was cool because of their dedication to going against the norm, and it's basically the only reason I'm ever so slightly proud to be American. But modern society kind of disgusts me to be honest. We get our hands into everyone else's buisness, screwing things up even more in the process. I also hate how materialistic our society is, and it's sad how much that affects other societies.

My personal favorite ancient civilization is Ancient Greece. Obviously they still did imperlistic actions but they seemed to be very focused on developing their culture and creativity which I love. Their intense philosophical studies are what interest me the most.

Anyway, I may have rambled but I hope this helped!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
The points you made are really true of any superpower regardless of time period.

The most striking similarity between Rome and America is that neither one of them had much competition in the acquisition of land and resources. Romes had more but Greece was in decline, it had been since the death of Alexander the Great. Carthage was across the Mediterranean, not much by today's standards but much more significant given the technological limitations of the day.

And there you have it, any country with lots of resources, human and natural, as well as an industrious mentality is going to eventually steamroll anyone who isn't willing to keep up. Hmmm China hmmm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,063 Posts
Caveats: Like others have said, we're just sharing ideas here. Also I'm writing this when I should be going to sleep, so I blame any logical/historical shortcomings on that. Otherwise I'm right all of the time :laughing:.

Any dominant organizational system (or in this case, an empire/country) is great for people invested in that system/willing to be symbiotic "play ball"with that system (see Saudi Arabia). Not so much anybody else (unless we're bailing them out from world wars, a point I shouldn't downplay or ignore). America ended up not being great for the Native tribes living here; nor the Mexicans living in present day Texas, African slaves, the Philippines (initially), or Hawaiians to name a few. Rome trampled a few tribes in their day. While both may have brought organization and modernization with them, it's hard as an INFP to really advocate that it's worth the loss of freedom and life from the conquered.

I think you'll find INFPs to be definitely more on the side of privacy, freedom, and individualism over security, tradition, and order.

Rome is still interesting to me, as is American and pretty much any history I can get my hands on. You have to admire Rome's engineering prowess; and for America it's astonishing how many times we should have self-destructed as a nation but didn't. I really got into studying the Ottoman Empire (who have some serious skeletons in their closet as well), I was going to add it to @Stavrogin's example but I realized that they had rivals, those rivals were not on the same level. Ottomans' early opponents perished the thought of using guns; a stable succession of power was extremely hard to keep up, which limited the Mongols and others, and Ottomans played the religious political game as well as any superpower in history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,567 Posts
I have a different perspective regarding Rome and its empire. While its undeniable that they advanced many technologies, that they provided order, and to some prosperity, security and peace, they did so always and only to their own benefit. They built their prosperity and order on the backs of the civilizations they destroyed and the people they enslaved. Carthaginians, Franks, Germans, Goths, Greeks and Scythians, the list of their victims goes on and on, to all these people and more they exported a brand of civilization, but they did so at the point of a sword. All of their conquests also had civilizations, many were quite advanced but all fell to Roman aggression and greed.
I also see the similarities between ancient Rome and modern America and its the part of America I like the least. As for the wars to support "our" interests abroad I have less enthusiasm having lost my father in one and having fought in another and losing a few good friends there. Its easy to have enthusiasm for such adventures when you're home and safe and haven't experienced it or its costs, but being there seeing the very real horrors associated with it might give you a different perspective. Some wars it seems are unavoidable, some enemies must be met with violence, but wars of aggression, of convenience are the anathema of civilization in my opinion, a reversion to might makes right. If doing this is the price of order and prosperity then the price is too high.
You value security, but the only way to get security through violence is to utterly destroy ones adversaries.You value family, I have no doubt that the people who's lives are destroyed in both sides of these conflicts value that too, thats a pretty universal value. You value tradition and order and up too a point these are fine things, but only to a point, slavery and subjugation of women were traditions, and order can easily become oppression.Prosperity and justice are wonderful things, but if prosperity comes at anothers expense is it just?
This is not to say that all things done by ancient Rome or modern USA are bad, both civilizations have made many remarkable contributions to the world, but both have shown a very real dark side as well. Rome accomplished great things then through hubris and decadence they self destructed, I fear that the US may share its fate. We largely owe our ascendency to the fact that virtually every other industrialized nation was blown to hell in WW2, combined with the fact that we have an amazing amount and variety of natural resources. Resources however aren't limitless and nations recover from destruction, so our turn at the top of the proverbial wheel isn't going to last forever. I would hope that we can show the wisdom and foresight to build something more beneficial to our antecedents than a host of enemies and a mountain of debt.
As far as the similarities between the Roman oligarchs and our one percent, I think they show much the same greed and materialism and disdain for those they deem lesser than themselves, but the Romans were different somewhat in that they actively worked to better their society in many ways, even sending their own into war, something I haven't seen done by our modern equivalents.
I value peace, wisdom, compassion, cooperation, and empathy, I value family, and justice. I would like to see some of these values more represented in our society.

I don't mean all this as a personal attack on you or your values, I have no wish to insult you but neither do I or can I agree with you about Rome or our own recent history. In any case welcome to the INFP forum, as you might have noticed we can be pretty opinionated about things which are close to our hearts. You wanted a new perspective, I hope this met your needs, best of luck in your studies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I don't feel personally attacked at all, why should I be? I am curious though if it is possible to achieve prosperity, order, and security without expansion and conflict. War is quite brutal, and it is a hard thing to lose those you love, fighting for your family at home. I am quite pleased to hear the opinions of the INFPs who value peace, compassion, wisdom, empathy, and cooperation. I suppose then it raises another question, can a nation become influential on the world stage enough through acting compassionately rather then imperialistically, and where does one draw the line between having enough order and military power to survive and thrive and expanding imperialistically into other powers.

In the case of the Romans, they were one city that lived under the tyranny of a king, they overthrew that king with a republic, they were attacked early by the Gauls and their city was sacked, the Romans expanded and recovered, then they fought Carthage, Carthage marched in and devestated Italy, and the Romans recovered and expanded. It would seem that as a civilization, it is very difficult to survive without military power and industry or else other people take your things.

Now, had the Romans stopped expanding in Italy and stayed right where they were, and simply focused their time and attention to becoming a peaceful nation and only guarded their borders without taking any land at all beyond the Italian peninsula, a breadbasket of resources to be sure in terms of grain, wine, olive oil, marble, and salt. Could the Romans have been cooperative with their neighbors and formed an early confederation with the other mediterranean cultures and the gallic cultures to achieve the same prosperity they had wanted. As well, could the Romans without the need to expand and with the cooperation and confederation of the other neighboring cultures, focused that hard work and industry into innovating new ideas on work and reducing the need for slavery and perhaps developed mechanical devices to save time and energy and create employment for their citizens. If so then could these hypothetical Romans have from their diplomatic and economic ties, have prevented the slaughters that came at North Africa , in Germany, in Greece, in Syria, in Egypt, in Britain, and in Turkey, and in Spain. And would these hypothetical Romans then be viewed more benevolently then their imperialistic real world counterparts for creating a thriving and prosperous society through security of their own borders, personal bravery by their own citizens, a willingness to cooperate with other cultures, a willingness to use innovation and machines (rather then slaves and the impoverished) to achieve prosperity, a desire to form coalitions of support with other ethnic groups, and an emphasis on freedom of citizens to do as they wish.

If these hypothetical Romans managed to achieve all of these things in their own era amongst their contemporaries, would you INFPs be more enthusiastically supportive of the Romans and do you really think the Romans could have achieved the Architectural, Legal, Economic, Social, Philosophical, and Cultural advances that they historically achieved, that prevent you from calling the Historical Romans absolute cruel barbarians that were purely evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The way I see it, the cultures that valued industrialism, materialism, tradition, order, security, and prosperity, and were not afraid to fight and expand became the great empires that we know of today such as (China, Persia, Rome, Britain, and Japan to name a few) and the historical record shows that they did quite well on the economic, technological, social, and legal side of things but at the cost of some major human rights issues for the people that they expanded towards that were not of the same ethnicity as the dominant people in the capital city.

On the other hand, I see that cultures that valued what you INFPs seem to hold super near and dear, who arent really known for being particularly bloodthirsty or having really killed any other cultures off such as the San Bushmen in Africa, the Iroquois Confederacy in Northeast North America, the Aboriginal cultures in Australia, and the Haida people in Alaska, who valued human life and who loved peace and acted very cooperatively and seem to be quite empathetic (I mean look at the notion of potlatch, a competition in kind giving of food and gifts between families) where all people are respected and the elder with the most wisdom brings leadership to his tribe. These cultures seem to have an excellent track record in keeping the violence low and the peace high, but at the same time, their contribution to the world in terms of Archiectural designs, legal systems, industrial productivity, and technology seems relatively puny in comparison the advances made by the great empires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I challenge and question the INFPs then with this question, If the entire world all of a sudden decided that they wanted to embrace and value originality, creativity, peace, empathy, cooperation, justice, equality, individualism, privacy, and abolute freedom of individuals to do as they wish in a mature local community guided by the wisest and most peaceful individuals in that community and the communities created were very decentralized right down to the local village level. And this system of free tiny government spread across the entire globe and applied to all nations and all ethnicities and cultures, and they decided to embrace the deep values that INFPs cherish, would the world really be a better place then it is now? How so?

Could we then enjoy the good benefits of modern society, the advanced architectural designs, the high level of technology, the advanced system of international banking, the computer information networks, the communication systems, basically all of the best quality of life innovations that have been developed as a result of massive surpluses of resources and the need to manage them. Could we have those nice things and those benefits and the social networks and the pretty technology and the good and comfortable lives that we have now in the most advanced nations on Earth and increasingly in the developing world.

Can we have all of these nice things and wonderful advances and architectural, medical, social, and technological marvels and yet still have societies that value all that the INFPs hold dear and what the tribal cultures that I mentioned previously hold especially dear. If so, how?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,567 Posts
I challenge and question the INFPs then with this question, If the entire world all of a sudden decided that they wanted to embrace and value originality, creativity, peace, empathy, cooperation, justice, equality, individualism, privacy, and abolute freedom of individuals to do as they wish in a mature local community guided by the wisest and most peaceful individuals in that community and the communities created were very decentralized right down to the local village level. And this system of free tiny government spread across the entire globe and applied to all nations and all ethnicities and cultures, and they decided to embrace the deep values that INFPs cherish, would the world really be a better place then it is now? How so?

Could we then enjoy the good benefits of modern society, the advanced architectural designs, the high level of technology, the advanced system of international banking, the computer information networks, the communication systems, basically all of the best quality of life innovations that have been developed as a result of massive surpluses of resources and the need to manage them. Could we have those nice things and those benefits and the social networks and the pretty technology and the good and comfortable lives that we have now in the most advanced nations on Earth and increasingly in the developing world.

Can we have all of these nice things and wonderful advances and architectural, medical, social, and technological marvels and yet still have societies that value all that the INFPs hold dear and what the tribal cultures that I mentioned previously hold especially dear. If so, how?
Thats an interesting question, and while it can be no more than wild speculation on my part I'll endeavor to answer it. Well, to address it I suppose would be more accurate.
Had we a system of decentralized peaceful cooperative communities existing as part of a loose confederation that held the ideals that are near and dear to my heart I suspect the world would look vastly different than ours does today. I do think that many of the technologies that we enjoy today wouldn't exist or would have been developed much later as in such a system the impetus to develop newer and better killing toys wouldn't be so pressing. Many of the technologies that make the modern world were created in support of war and domination that its difficult to imagine that they'd have developed as quickly in an environment of peaceful cooperation.I can't however help but wonder, had the world developed in a more peaceful, cooperative manner without the need to hoard resources and knowledge what might have developed in their stead. If we didn't expend so much of our energy in competition with our neighbors then I think its quite possible we could and would have devoted more of it to education and expanding our knowledge of the world around us. Many great centers of knowledge would still stand that were destroyed and its possible that many technologies that were lost might not have been. With a system of cooperation I think most of our knowledge would have been more freely shared, and that coupled with the increased education and experimentation, and the added resources that might be available without the need to stockpile them for wars I wonder what might have been discovered and accomplished, what different things might have been invented. I also wonder at how many great minds were lost among the millions if not billions of people who fell due to war and never had the chance to pursue and develop their visions.

I suspect that many of the technologies we cherish would still have been discovered and embraced, though very possibly in different ways, and in many cases I think they'd have been slower in coming. As far as architecture is concerned its had to say what effect a more peaceful world would have on it, even the most peaceful of societies still needs buildings and other facilities such as dams, roads etc.,however many of our achievements in this art have been motivated by a desire to outdo our neighbors, as a way of proving the superiority of one over the other. I think its possible that while we'd have much the same in the way of knowledge and ability in this area that we might not have as many of the larger constructions such as monuments, there'd almost certainly be fewer castles and walls. On the other hand we might have great buildings and monuments built with different purposes in mind, perhaps instead of castles we'd have built great academies where scholars gathered to study and experiment in groups for instance.

In regards to communication and computers I think its very hard to say what would have developed, while its very true that many of these devices were developed because of and for the purposes of warfare communication would still be very important in the system you describe, perhaps even more important. In a loose decentralized system of communities I imagine that quick clear communication would be hugely important, it being hard to cooperate without coordination. I think its possible that more resources of all sorts would have been employed in this area and so its difficult to speculate what the results might have been.

As far as the current system of international banking is concerned I think something like it would still exist, though likely much different. Some means of transferring resources and wealth from community to community and the dissemination of them would almost have to exist, though without the societal impetus of greed and competition I would hope that what replaced our current system would be less destructive and rapacious. Perhaps with cooperation being emphasized over competition we could avoid or at least better mitigate such things as a the cycle of boom and bust, and the near destruction of the worlds economy. In the short run it might not be as profitable for the bankers, but theres an old saying, "greed lessens what is gathered", I think that this is true in the long run. The bankers would likely make less in a year but make up for that by reaping larger windfalls over time.

In summation I agree that without the competition and violence of the system as it has stood for human history then the world would indeed look different. I suspect that we might lack in certain technologies though it can be hard to say which and why, the system which has made our world is mind bogglingly complex. A seemingly insignificant thing can have a huge ripple effect over time and distance, there was once a great show on PBS called connections which explained, and demonstrated this beautifully. In a different world we would lack some of the motivators that have forged the world we find ourselves in now, but other ones would replace them, exactly what and where the differences would be found is largely impossible to say, being difficult to even intelligently speculate upon. Still one difference I'd welcome is not having to worry that my sons will wind up dead on some battlefield because one old arsehole picked a fight with another from the safety of their well appointed mansions, thats a form of security I would happily embrace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
I would say that peace is more important than these advancements, as one can be happy without them, as I think.

Anyway, subscribed to this thread, I'm curious to where this is going :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
What Turlowe said haha.

I don't know much about economics and government but I think it would work (of course I would I'm INFP).

I think it would work if everyone agreed to peace but there are always a few people who have to ruin everything for everyone else. But if our society valued compassion, acceptance, and peace then I think there wouldn't be very many of these people, if any. Our modern society makes fun of people who are different in any way from the normal. And I personally think the "normal" is heavily influenced by advertising companies and big corporations. If these things weren't here then there would not be as much of a problem.

Technology would probably not be as good as it is now but I don't think that is a bad thing. Sure it makes everyday actions easier and it has let me do exactly what I'm doing now but it has also complicated so many things. I'm a fan of simple living and nature although I wouldn't really know what to do without my phone haha.

My ideal and favorite society is The Shire in Lord of the Rings/Hobbit for obvious reasons :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
The history of the Roman empire is certainly an interesting historical subject, in my 'younger' years I read quite a few books about the ancient Romans. Their legacy is apparent, their monuments are still standing, and they certainly helped mankind reaching a higher level when it comes to technology, architecture, politics, economics, warfare and even social practices. In other words there is no denying that the Romans did a lot of good, but in the end I don't see them as a force for good. Just like many empires before and after them the Roman empire had it's beautiful sides and it's very ugly sides. They basically destroyed or assymilated many cultures and as an appreciator of cultural diversity I cannot help but feel bad about that. I am not a fan of decadence, greed and capitalism either and these are phenomenon one can associate with the Roman empire. (But not just the Roman empire, mind you).

You pose a few interesting question, I will try to answer them to the best of my abilities. First of all I want share my thoughts on the question if it's possible to achieve prosperity, security and order without expansion and conflict. I guess this wasn't entirely possible in the age of the Romans, the Dark ages and in the Colonial Age, because human civilization as a whole was much more fragmented. Just take a look at the Holy Roman Empire (current Germany) and you can see that it basically was a federation/alliance of many smaller (city) states. Same goes for the Greek nation of old. As a consequence there were more cultural identities, philosophies, political ideas & ideals, value systems and so on. There were more differences back then thus there were more differences you could fight each other over. Europe was basically a powder keg because of that, it could explode anytime. In other words nations & city-states were under constant threat and if you feel threatened you can also opt to attack, which is exactly what a lot of them choose to do. By conquering other nations, destroying their cultural identities, squashing their philosophies, values and political ideals the victor created a more homogeneous environment, which in time led to more stable cultures and empires. So yes expansion and conflict was perhaps necesarry back then, but nowadays I am not so sure. Has Brazil, one of the most rapidly developing nations in the world, started wars with their neighbors? Japan developed themselves in the 50s, 60s and 70s in a very peaceful way. A similar thing can be said about the Netherlands. Right until the 1970s we were a former shadow of the nation we were in our golden age (the 17th century), but by developing infrastructure, by finding a few natural resources and by establishing trade relations with a lot of foreign powers we started to thrive once more.

Actually our empire in the golden age was more build on trade than expansion and war mentality. Yes we participated in a few questionable practices like slavery and we did fight our wars with the British, French and Spanish (but these were started in order to protect our borders and trade interests) however we didn't violently barge into the nations we ended up calling our colonies. Also, which is a nice example of Dutch mentality in that time, we were the only nation that was allowed to trade with Japan when it closed its border for foreign powers because we openly admitted: 'We don't want your land, we want to trade, we want your money.' We didn't invade Japan and conquer a part of their lands. I think nowadays a country CAN (and should) bring order, prosperity and security to their lands by trading, by establishing good relations with their trade partners, by practicing diplomacy and making sure that relations with neighbouring countries are solid and also by exchanging culture & learning about the cultures of the lands that surround you. Look at it like this: If you point a gun at at man and ask for his oil he will give it to you. If you ask a man if you could buy his oil (and give him a fair price) he would give you his oil as well. The difference is that the man who got robbed will not like you and possibly plot his revenge, while the man who got paid will happily sell you some more. More resources = more growth. Growth brings prosperity, prosperity brings stability, stability equals security.

Your second question:

If the entire world all of a sudden decided that they wanted to embrace and value originality, creativity, peace, empathy, cooperation, justice, equality, individualism, privacy, and abolute freedom of individuals to do as they wish in a mature local community guided by the wisest and most peaceful individuals in that community and the communities created were very decentralized right down to the local village level. And this system of free tiny government spread across the entire globe and applied to all nations and all ethnicities and cultures, and they decided to embrace the deep values that INFPs cherish, would the world really be a better place then it is now? How so?
In my humble opinion the world would be a better place, but since my opinion is not shared by everyone out there the world, on balance, would be neither better or worse. It would just be different. @Turlowe already explained how it would be different and I agree with a lot of things he said.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
279 Posts
I can tell we are very different. Although I value individualism and prosperity, I do not value order, tradition, authority and the likes. Most INFP's mention compassion and love? That's not my thing; although it used to be.

I like reading about Americas history, but only because of all the horrible situations we have been involved in. Particularly our support of the military coups in places like Argentina, Chile, Indonesia; they make me weep.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
279 Posts
I challenge and question the INFPs then with this question, If the entire world all of a sudden decided that they wanted to embrace and value originality, creativity, peace, empathy, cooperation, justice, equality, individualism, privacy, and abolute freedom of individuals to do as they wish in a mature local community guided by the wisest and most peaceful individuals in that community and the communities created were very decentralized right down to the local village level. And this system of free tiny government spread across the entire globe and applied to all nations and all ethnicities and cultures, and they decided to embrace the deep values that INFPs cherish, would the world really be a better place then it is now? How so?

Could we then enjoy the good benefits of modern society, the advanced architectural designs, the high level of technology, the advanced system of international banking, the computer information networks, the communication systems, basically all of the best quality of life innovations that have been developed as a result of massive surpluses of resources and the need to manage them. Could we have those nice things and those benefits and the social networks and the pretty technology and the good and comfortable lives that we have now in the most advanced nations on Earth and increasingly in the developing world.

Can we have all of these nice things and wonderful advances and architectural, medical, social, and technological marvels and yet still have societies that value all that the INFPs hold dear and what the tribal cultures that I mentioned previously hold especially dear. If so, how?
If you follow individualism all the way down to its logical roots, your first paragraph is where it necessarily leads; bar all the compassion and empathy stuff.

The technology we have access to today exists because of market competition. In a world where resources are not managed by government, a business is forced to think creatively and innovate accordingly. If anything, government hinders growth and development. Ayn Rand said it best, in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Interesting, I like hearing the different ideas and perspectives that are being discussed and given. So it seems that if things were a very decentralized system without necessarily being total anarchy, then the individual person benefits a great deal. I was just thinking that military conflicts and civil disputes in a very decentralized world would be much smaller scale and people would have to learn to cooperate a lot more in a decentralized world to get things done. I also wonder how land would be divided in a decentralized world of towns and villages. I imagine the surveyors, linguists, anthropologists, cartographers, and geographers would need to be in a much much higher demand to keep track of and analyze the massive amount of people and places that would have grown and developed in towns and villages that were not destroyed or emigrated from. The world resources would be at the mercy of anyone who used them without regulations but at the same time they would not be used and extracted at the massive rate that these giant state companies and massive multinational private companies are extracting them.

Stability and tradition would probably benefit if villages and towns were able to remain the same for centuries without being destroyed or emigrated from to massive capital cities. I imagine individuals could live a more free life, although it would be a life both free from and lacking the protection of armies. Somehow I also feel like mercenaries and brigands and robbers would have a relatively free hand (assuming it isnt cut off in the act) in a world that is a large confederation of small towns and villages and cities.

It also would be a linguistic challenge to communicate between towns and villages when everyone speaks differently and there is no common language brought about by a united nation state.

I do like the idea though that academies and the arts would flourish when there is not a nation state to censor them and there is no government that opposes them. The Italian cities of the Rennaisance come to mind when I think of a decentralized academic and artistic region that was pretty uncensored (save for the catholic church censoring or banning some things during that period).

Still the idea of a bunch of small villages and towns dotting the world much like the Shire in Lord of the Rings does seem to be a happy ideal. I just think that in the end, people would turn corrupt and their values might corrode (I mean was it really just those rings that made the human kings corrupt and evil in LOTR) and a couple of charismatic and rich families would end up predominating the political scene in the town and then they would try to slowly but surely dominate the town council and create an oligarchy and from there act greedy and kill other people and make their families pay debts to them. The benefit though is that oligarchy can be prevented by the townsfolk throwing out and exiling dictators and not letting the rotten people of the village get power and act capriciously towards everyone else, where as stopping a massively centralized empire with a dictator in a captial 1000 miles away is far more difficult. (The Roman republic at the very start definitely comes to mind and so does the Athenian Republic..... in terms of cities that had good intentions and noble ideals turning brutal and attacking other cities because charismatic men took control, but maybe encouraging gender equality and allowing females the same rights and opportunities as males would have prevented resources from being spent on fighting wars.)
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
I'm not nationalisitc, so I dont have any pride (nor shame) in being American. That's not a designation I associate with my identity. I see nations as invisible lines dividing up the world because people get on power trips and are xenophobic. The USA is just where I happened to have been born and the culture I was raised in, and being American indicates little more than that.

I don't believe in deliberate destruction of innocent human life or that humans have the moral authority to deems who lives and who dies, so I dont agree with human-ordained war or killing unless in extreme cases of self-defense, so I guess I am something of a pacifist.

I identify as Christian, but probably hold an interpretation of the Bible that is at odds with a lot of mainstream notions. Im more interested in the metaphysical and spiritual than political, the latter which I find is short-sighted. I maintain political neutrality and seek to avoid political labels. That said, I think the current social framework(s) is far from ideal and I dont think a lot of so-called progress makes up for a lot of the ills it has also brought, but neither do I think the past was superior (just differnt flaws and issues). I think human arrogance leads people to think they can create and establish and maintain a framework that is ideal (or at least quite good), but I dont think its possible when they exclude a spiritual dimension from that framework, and understanding it may dramatically change what they think they can or should do. Its kind of like trying to build something with little or no concept of real physical laws and constraints and not making much effort to learn them.

Im more interested in understanding what such values even mean or determining what is really of fundamental value to humanity; ie. what the genuine expression of values would even look like, as opposed to upholding current notions of how they should manifest, many of which I see as flawed or even totally misguided. So I dont bother with creating ideas on how the world should function, but on grasping what is even important to begin with.

Personally, I value autonomy, spirituality, creativity, novelty, art, beauty, empathy, compassion, etc. These things positively add to my life. I dont personally value stuff like security or predictability, but I can understand why others do. I distinguish these more specific, personal preferences from deeper concepts of universal value in the human experience. Making that distinction is something I ponder quite a bit, and I find it very difficult to put into words what embodies the more basic concepts, as the minute it takes a form it is now tied to a specific context and its particiular variables and factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I challenge and question the INFPs then with this question, If the entire world all of a sudden decided that they wanted to embrace and value originality, creativity, peace, empathy, cooperation, justice, equality, individualism, privacy, and abolute freedom of individuals to do as they wish in a mature local community guided by the wisest and most peaceful individuals in that community and the communities created were very decentralized right down to the local village level. And this system of free tiny government spread across the entire globe and applied to all nations and all ethnicities and cultures, and they decided to embrace the deep values that INFPs cherish, would the world really be a better place then it is now? How so?

Could we then enjoy the good benefits of modern society, the advanced architectural designs, the high level of technology, the advanced system of international banking, the computer information networks, the communication systems, basically all of the best quality of life innovations that have been developed as a result of massive surpluses of resources and the need to manage them. Could we have those nice things and those benefits and the social networks and the pretty technology and the good and comfortable lives that we have now in the most advanced nations on Earth and increasingly in the developing world.

Can we have all of these nice things and wonderful advances and architectural, medical, social, and technological marvels and yet still have societies that value all that the INFPs hold dear and what the tribal cultures that I mentioned previously hold especially dear. If so, how?
Frankly I don't believe that if INFP values dominated the world it would necessarily be a better place. I think that groups and communities need input from different people with different cognitive functions to maintain a needed balance of values. So for example, I don't think the ancient Romans' and modern Americans' values suffer/ed from a presence of Te and Fe approaches, but rather from their dominance pushing out sufficient input from Fi and Ne.

I can't prove it. But I've spent time in numerous workplaces and churches dominated by different personality styles, and I believe none of them work as well as if they had more balanced input. The way I see it, specialization of approach/value to the exclusion of all others weakens organizations by leaving them more vulnerable to the corruption of selfish individuals.

My view that balance of perspectives is necessary to avoid corruption has been heavily influenced by Sarah Sumner's "Leadership Above the Line," if you are interested in exploring it further. Sumner's People Model echoes MBTI, but she sorts people into three basic personality styles, the Strategists, the Humanitarians, and the Diplomats. She conceives of all people as valuing something beneficial and necessary. Actually, there are really six styles if you look at how the different combinations (e.g. Strategist-Diplomat) emphasize different sets of values. Leadership above the Line: Sarah Sumner: 9781414305738: Amazon.com: Books
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Very interesting, it would seem then that balance would need to be achieved to bring the optimum success, I suppose that is what the founders of the United States at least intended when they designed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top