Semi-duality Relations INTj and ENFj by Stratiyevskaya
(machine translation--further translation needed)
1. LII - EIE: Collision in the information field
PROGRAM of EIE, Hamlet (+Fe) - the maximization of power of emotion, the emotional impact of the maximization of (emotion + unlimited potential of their impact on others), the maximization of the power of speech, the maximization of information operations, the maximum power in the management of information processes. The quest for information management and real change the environment in accordance with this. Emotional - information-energy dominance is everywhere and in everything. The power of words, the power of opinion, the power of the emotional impact of unlimited power, unlimited sphere of influence.
- There is no word, opinion, information, which couldn't be turned against a person. (And here, as a victim, he would also be "to blame").
- And there no emotional or sensory state which could not be used against a person (for the submission, enslavement, punishment) - and here, again, he himself is to blame.
- And there is no fact which it would be impossible to distort or falsify, to the benefit of unlimited power to draw his personal opinion against those who dispute this view. (Let him try to disprove it, he would be "to blame"). (When it comes to "confrontation", played pre-planned and well-rehearsed "outrage": "You who believe more! I (the man in all respects trustworthy) - or it (rogue, rascal, four-flusher, perjured ... ...)?!
PROGRAM of LII, Robespierre (-Ti) - minimizing inequality, minimizing chaos, lawlessness and damage caused by man (and humanity) that occur as a result of (private or public) of cases of social inequality, social injustice.
The main slogan of LII: "JUSTICE BASED ON EVERYTHING!"
Justice, truth, justice opinion, justice evidence, justice social order, equality and equity options.
The program is very idealistic (though feasible at a certain level of social norms) as opposed to an imaginary idealism Hamlet capable of belief and the right to serve a totalitarian system and still truly believe in the offensive bright future for the speedy approach of which suffer no sin can be patient and brutal repression, and the rank of "cleaning" of social systems that are required for the early onset of the Great Era bright future (which, of course, will have to come only worthy of dignity). And those who fall under the "screening" would be "to blame" - "did not show enough conscience and principle: ignored the dangerous (discrediting the system) saying, he talked too much, or too much and it themselves and hurt others."
Here begins the inconsistencies principled, ideological positions of their programs:
For one thing - freedom of opinion, freedom of speech Robespierre.
On the other - "Do not talk too much," "Watch your opinion," "silence - gold!" - In Hamlet (who is always "know best" what, when, and to say, in what manner and to what audience: "So are born speakers become" (Cicero). EIE successfully combines both of these callings. Speech that could capture the imagination of many, he can pronounce and impromptu, and the hours worked in advance to plan, write in prose and in verse. right to manipulate words, mood, information, circumstances, situations, conditions of existence and the fate of people around him Hamlet reserves and no it does not agree. Want to - bring a person will make in the "Favorites", "pets", "proxies", wants to - take away from yourself and necks in trouble, under the general persecution, under the endless criticism of every human action, his every step. (What else to him with a "disgraced" do? Not a Full Tilt? And to avoid a conflict to be paid to the very EIE? Not very well be "guilty" - marked a "black mark" fate "candidate elimination", "victim", doomed to slaughter by right "of the weak and defenseless" (and therefore unnecessary and its system of "strong and elect," and therefore it displaced "into oblivion" for the benefit of all remaining in the system, able to defend itself and its place in the system and, therefore, "farmed out" to them!)
Hamlet (as the "king" - the authority and permanent leader) need a "suite", you need a "court" need "the court", and what a yard without a "disgrace" and not "disgraced"? Another "disgraced" - a vital element in the relationship EIE built necessarily on fear and psychological terror. ("What do without it No terror and fear not: stop being afraid leader no longer respect him. And before you know it - and who will take the dominant place - some other - the one feared and respected"). Outside there is no fear and respect in the second quadra. So it was, is and will be until the end of time. Social and psychological extreme - it socionic mission that mankind should not get used to luxury, to tenderness, to relax, not to lose it needed vitality, not to become a viable and vulnerable (You never know what can happen?) So, anyway, if extreme Values are given quadra sotsione, they should be preserved and passed on to future generations: TIM - as a carrier, custodian and transmitter software update, and is working in intertype and interpersonal relationships, adapting them to the new evolutionary terms, regardless of whether someone likes - then it program or not. Hamlet is a doer rather severe evolutionary mission, which includes all screenings and cruel "weak", "unstable", and potentially unviable unfit for the harsh conditions of life in a totalitarian system, which alone can (according to EIE) to make a rapid and powerful breakthrough a brighter future (To where "we will not catch up," and where "we are ahead of the rest will be" clearly, firmly and forever hold priority positions on all items, articles and parameters "indisputable" social superiority).
Robespierre, as a staunch opponent of all of (and even more so, social) that position uncompromisingly condemned. He is trying to point to the danger of EIE his ambitious aspirations: for as long as the limited territorial systems apply some operational means to achieve total superiority over all other systems (which in itself is not fair to the others), you should be ready to defend the social project because the presence of "black sheep" in the political arena surrounding social systems will not tolerate it, they must "zaklyuyut."
Hamlet, these warnings are not afraid and do not stop: "You want excellence for themselves and their, get ready for a total and endless war:" And the eternal fight, we only dream of peace ".
Deliberate willed dominant aspect willed sensory, emotional activating militant EIE program, strongly made Robespierre, a staunch opponent of the expansion of social and violence. For social equality makes sense to fight, and a totalitarian superiority of one system over the other ...
- And for the totalitarian supremacy fair and equitable system over others to protect its social gains? - Parries Hamlet.
Robespierre and partly agrees with him: the protection of social achievements requires the mobilization of forces on an infinitely long (or indefinitely), long time. But, again, completely, always and everywhere disagree with Hamlet not: it is not like a "bright future" in the bleak, bloody splashes, - to look for other solutions. And this is not Hamlet agrees: victory in the battle for the "happiness of the people," no you do not will hand on a silver platter, you have to believe in it, we must fight for it ...
Again ... fight with already known results. Next to Hamlet Robespierre want to feel a man of peace. But Hamlet does not give him such an opportunity and Robespierre is depressing. The only acceptable solution is again "operational cleaning system" and assurances of Hamlet: "Faster purge the system of" hostile elements ", quickly become peaceful people. Just need to quickly" clean. "Because, like, if we get used to bloodshed before have time to become" peaceful, "we will remain faithful to the habit of terror and even then we can not see the world." (peaceful life becomes unreal abstraction - the same as a "bright future", has traditionally (inertia) of terror, and the system will destroy itself. ( as has already happened to destroy himself in the past, great and prosperous (in a certain period) civilizations, pay exorbitant high "blood tax" severe sacrifices to the gods, who promised to them in the future "total superiority" over the rest of the nations.), two representatives of intellectual - elitist TIM - EIE and LII in the era of ideological wars among themselves and compete, and to cooperate and agreed, and distributing rights and responsibilities. Who - that was responsible for the unconditional subordination of the prescribed rituals and a strict and rigorous compliance. Someone is characterized by the ability to communicate and negotiate with gods, with hints comprehending the higher meaning of the indications and unambiguously "correct" understanding they send signs, clearly treating their supreme will, their signs and symbols on them one clear signs.
And of course, here is the main interpreter of LII, with its constant striving for ultimate clarity and clarity over complex truths, the stiffness and categorical judgments and unambiguous meaning. Representatives of the other personality types could not compete with him. In the debate, discussions LII was also unbeatable. Word was (and still is) his weapon and his power. And in the power of information impact of his words, in matters of belief in the art of persuasion and winning word he could successfully compete with the EIE.
2. Interaction of two subjectivists
According to the subjectivist (representatives of the first and second blocks, which are dominated by aspects of "white logic" and "black ethics" - systems of logic and ethics of emotions), survive better in the system.
According to the objectivist (representatives of the third and fourth blocks, which are dominated by aspects of "white ethics" and "black logic" - the ethics of relations and business, engineering logic, the logic of action, or the logic of the facts), it is more convenient to survive outside the system. In the system and the number of places and the number of environmental and territorial resources is limited, and place under the sun (not to mention the preferred places) all lack of - for which there is a constant displacement of the "extra elements" and "weak links" in the system. There is a need for periodic "cleansing" and "renewal" in its ranks, with permanent (traumatic fear and terrorize the population) searches of "guilty", seek out or "appointed" "scapegoat", which bring in the "victim" public welfare (formally, formally or ritually) on a "you die today, and I - tomorrow (or at all, who knows when)." In the system and the amount owed to wealth and resources "per capita" is limited. The system always experiences a shortage of consumer goods and wealth, because it is rapidly growing needs always exceed their production, and a complex system of distribution of wealth continually inhibits the growth of production. (In one system "with a plow" has "seven with a spoon" and are constantly arguing about who is more who got less.) In permanent disputes arise about the methods of distribution of wealth. And the most likely to survive gets only the "right", "just" and "fair" and the most "combat" - the one who knows better laws, better able to fight for their rights, (the one who knows how to value them and is ready to defend at any time), the one who can prove their loyalty and devotion to the interests of the system and ready to defend it with their lives (because of which practiced "honorable" and mass ceremony voluntary sacrifices and peace). In the system, all of the control, and challenge each other's views. Therefore, again, the winner is the one who knows best "charter" and the laws of the system, is able to clearly and effectively express (though the night wake and ask), or can scream the loudest about their problems and needs. Who shouts loudest about their rights, those who know their rights, the more gets. Who does not cry, its law does not require that, and due to him under the law do not. (At first he promised to compensate ANTICIPATED "next time", and then angrily asked: "What do you say so before, time does not shout, did not require? Now over and foam! Own fault: he had to shout louder than one, if you needed. You know, "the child does not cry, the mother does not understand." Objectivist inconvenient to live in a system where all the vital need to fight to beat. social protection and support they already do not feel too: at any moment, and you can specify and sentence, to determine the "victim" or "assign" Wrongfully Accused, "a candidate for elimination." Envy and oppression and all present in the system everywhere. Objectivists in the system life is hard, scary, irritability, anxiety, stress.
1 Because of this property, and other skills to solve their problems cry, quadra subjectivists (first and second), by definition Ausra Augustinovichute also called "gay" and quadra objectivist, where such behavior is outrageous and unacceptable called "serious." (On the grounds of "funny and serious," which have Reinin GR is called "subjectivists and objectivists")
But subjectivists in the social system feel in his element in the system of coordinates. Outside the system they feel like strangers, lost in the dark forest.
LII, Robespierre and EIE, Hamlet - subjectivists. And outside of the logical system of relations can not imagine the interaction with the environment. Hamlet as a strong-subjectivist - aristocrat has no idea of interaction outside the relationship of subordination, regardless of the social hierarchy, in which he considers it necessary to apply (only) to a dominant position. (Just "a place in the system" for him-either extreme, or at least start, optimum - the leading place in the hierarchy, a maximum - the undisputed leader in super meaningful hierarchy.
Communication "equal" for representatives of aristocratic Blocks (because of the need to stay on the dominant position) is often associated with some volitional and emotional stress. The vital level (much relaxed) aristocrats allow themselves to be more democratic. This is explained by the fact that mental block information model consists of aristocratic TIM Inform. aspects that dominate the aristocratic Quadra (rational with a "+", the irrational - the "-"), and the vital block consists of a "democratic" (dominant in democratic quad) aspects: the irrational with "+" are rational with " minus "), which allows an aristocrat to feel free and relaxed in an informal setting, easily and naturally communicate on equal (no matter who), losing self-control (Democratic dominance in the vital level).
Mental block information model of the aspects of democracy is prevailing in democratic Quadra (irrational with "+" are practical, with a "negative"), and the vital power - respectively, consists of Inform. aspects that dominate the aristocratic Quadra (rational with a "+", the irrational - the "-" that allows Democrat on the mental level to adapt to the "horizontal" (democratic) structural relations of social systems, and the vital - to vertical, hierarchical.
Democrat envisions communication is equality and equity relationships (even with the chiefs and the "most senior ranking"), so alarming and tense (as before the strike) whenever dealing with an ambitious man, having aimed to "put him in his place" and treated him with exaggerated harshness or condescending and arrogant. But the (unexpectedly), and I can access sokontaktniku arrogant and dismissive in an informal setting (aristocratic dominance in the vital level)
Respectively, and the relationship of partners in this dyad periodically exacerbated by various (formal and informal), levels of interaction. ("Reconciles" "vertical to horizontal" where - somewhere at the intersection of the coordinate system, at the level obviously hurt and still undervalued for both.) After the (conditional) reconciliation begins "debriefing" with the subsequent error analysis, mutual recriminations and endless disputes on "Who is to blame?" who is who and who is who, in no small measure to both the existence of poison and lead to the fact that both parties are almost always feel hurt, unappreciated in full, are ever dissatisfied with each other, sit each in its own right (as is the case when two kvestimov) and exchanged bitter remarks (as their information models, charged aspects of the same name, they do not allow us to approach.) In the presence of foreign partners are trying to create the appearance of a happy family, although here they have to periodically accuse and blame each other. (EIE - not to be "guilty", Robespierre - equal to the fair allocation of responsibility for their own or someone else's fault).
Position Hamlet "Any accusation can be refuted, no matter how fair and convincing evidence may be" oppressing and depressing Robespierre, fills a sense of hopelessness.
Aspect of sensory experiences (b.s.6) - vulnerable and traumatic area Robespierre. Being oriented to the sensitive and warm sensation Hugo, which had the good partner "every day, a holiday," Robespierre did not understand why his partner (EIE, Hamlet) at every opportunity, drew a positive in the negative. He, every day, the "end of the world" that no night, "Apocalypse" - be sure to talk about - something dark, frightening, annoying, remember what - some horrors tell "chronicles homicide" ...
Hamlet's macabre fascination with mysticism and the occult, frightening pair is normal Robespierre also disapproves: "Hunting hammer head all nonsense!" Man for what reason given? To distinguish truth from fiction, truth from lies! And then what happens?
Bad feeling Robespierre near Hamlet, does not understand what's going on? Why and why he treated like that?
A total-navsego Hamlet "knocks" from LII simplicity and logical (as it seems) primitivism (too easily are lining its democratic ways "horizontal"). Irritating simplicity and idealism of his social theories.
Although on second thoughts, he finds himself in for a lot of them are useful and interesting, worthy of attention.
In the interpretation of Hamlet's concise and clear diagrams Robespierre become passionate, inspirational speech, ability to unite and lead the many. Hamlet can not always easily and clearly explain the essence of these theories, but it can protect and defend them fiercely as implacably as protect their ideas and their opinions. (Because it's always better to be at the head of a promising endeavor than dull trail behind the crowd, letting themselves sidelined.'s Always better to be among the "right" and "advanced" than among the "backward", "guilty", " unjust "A" catch-up "and" blame game in the overall backlog "in the second quadra not favor, from the time they prefer to get rid of. Accordingly, Hamlet chooses not to be among the" blame game "(loser and does not want to be affected), and therefore protected No one knows how. Consequently, and protect their beliefs and ideas (such as they are) it is quite possible to trust. (Of course, as long as he believes in them and while the founder of these ideas and theories remains for him a close friend and reliable partner.)
The success of the project, in which Robespierre is the founder of design, and Hamlet - his soul, as a rule, is provided.
And in this sense poludualnye relations in this dyad also vaguely resemble the relations of social order - are the mirror image of the mutual social. Order (Robespierre - "zerkalschik" social. Hamlet customer Don - Quixote, Hamlet - "zerkalschik" social. Robespierre customer Esenina). In this dyad partners often stimulate each other interesting and promising initiatives and enthusiasm, they are encouraged to realize that the way to reconcile and smooths many of the "roughness" of their incompatibility
a). individual features: both intuity (and everyone is focused on their plans, rates, future projections, objectives, and goals), both kvestimy (and hence at close range collisions are inevitable, and on a far distance relationships are unstable and decompose at all), both negativisty (and see the world in the dark, pessimistic tone and color), both strategic (and focus on global goals, and each - on their own.)
b). dyad characteristics: one Evolyutory, another - involyutory and acts in the opposite (often destructive) direction, a prudent, the other - a carefree and often "fills up" the work of the precautionary) and
a.) quadral signs - one strong looking aristocrat ("forward and up") to the ambitious goals and not to imagine the existence of extreme conditions is a fierce struggle for lofty ideals, the other - a staunch Democrat, calm, thoughtful, prudent, condemning the unjustified extreme (and all that leads to chaos and destruction), condemning the unjustified ambitious condemning exaggerated conceit, arrogance, and arrogance in all its manifestations.
(Household and personal relationships)
In this dyad interact two rationalization, and this suggests that the complex ethical games are no longer here, "dual scenario" (at first glance), each of the partners are quite simple. Yet mene, ethical game going on here and is quite complicated. Moreover, it is drawn not only to the program of ethics - EIE, Hamlet, which is often, and it specifies. program logic and Robespierre. He, too, there are the claims to the partner, which it directly (for many reasons) does not state, but prefers they suggest. (and thus gives the "puzzle" his poludualu - go figure, what he had in mind ...)
An example of one such "puzzle" - an example of two communicating intuitive subjectivists - two pedants, strictly observe the rules adopted in the society in the relationship, we can offer to consider.
So familiar is not so young people (both slightly over thirty), both behind the failed experience of family life and the children from the first marriage, the two are not too seduced into your account and do not see themselves as "gifts" for each other, but the Still, both good rate their chances.
He (Robespierre) - a wealthy businessman, "a single father," she (Hamlet) - a single mother, pretty, humble servant, worked three jobs at the time of dating which is under a divorce from her first husband, Douala. (Dual marriage was a failure, but, nevertheless, focus on search Douala remain strong).
And then she meets poludual, attractive person in many ways and extremely interesting companion. First communion is fun and easy for both. The first two meetings have occurred by chance, and then the question arises: who will take the initiative to continue dating? Exchanged phone numbers and waiting - pozhdut call each other. After some - while overcoming internal resistance (after another quarrel with her husband - dualom) partner - Hamlet calls his new friend, (assuming that it calls he will not be happy, because it is - it de imposed - he is a man, he had to take the initiative and make a call). But poludual call happy and they met again, very nice wander around the city, and talked. After some - while again had to renew acquaintance. And again they were waiting, someone who calls. He was waiting for activity on her part, she was waiting for his initiatives. Where - about a week after her call, they met again, exchanged news and promised to call each other. And here, at parting partner suddenly flared up: how much he should ask for it to meet with her? Announced that more interest on its part will not be with what your partner, and left at a loss - it is - it is believed that the initiative is she, and in his opinion is that the initiative is he.
Intuitive confrontation arose - a competition for calm and patience: Who perezhdet, beating, wins. From this first confrontation partner tired (from - for that and fired up). And this extremely puzzled partner who tired to solve it hints. She was tired of stress and uncertainty caused by the lack of visible initiative on his part, she was tired of making an effort of the will, and the first to call him, in his heart condemn himself for what he is "imposed." But away from dual - loser she still wanted. And wanted to marry a respectable businessman. So that mutual interest and pragmatism of this relationship was apparent to both of them: he needed a modest, intelligent woman can replace the mother of his daughter, a good wife and hostess. (He was talking to her and she hinted at it.) For her marriage to this man also would solve many problems ...
The relationship is not received in its development, as it was not a mutual initiative, was not strong enough to activate the strong-willed sensors, necessary to Hamlet, to act not according to the ordinance confident. (After all, we are dealing here with two "pedants" - stubborn - rational - subjectivists who prefer to play strictly "by the rules" in order to avoid embarrassment. Based lawmaking For Robespierre "charter" and "rules" - holy concept. It and respects the rights of others and their right to make strictly abide. For Hamlet oriented pedant pedantic and lawmakers Maxim, these concepts - is not an empty phrase.
But the main problem was not only the initial lack of mutual agreement (harmonization of regulations and rules), but blatant weakness of both partners in the volitional aspect of sensor systems. Let us take this example: the initial lead proved partner, they prepared for the second meeting of the case, and then everyone had to take the initiative, and with it, and what - that obligation. And this is a volitional aspect overvoltage sensing that each of them is on the left, an inert block in the problematic position (channel 4 - 6, 6 - 4, levels Superego - SUPERID) on mobilization (Robespierre) and activation (in Hamlet ) functions.
It means to Hamlet intensified, Robespierre has to make an effort of will. Even the super-force, which will cost him over voltage. As ever, "Trapped" and inertial sensing mobilization willed Robespierre does not compare in strength, mobility, initiative and creativity with a strong-willed sensory Maxim (Douala Hamlet), in which the pulse was set our heroine. That's why she always felt that the initiative is not active enough. And because she had to do over a willful effort, overcome awkwardness and embarrassment to the first to call him. But (again!) And her willpower was not enough for it to be fully convinced of its interest, was not convinced of their own attractiveness in her eyes. Above all, in communion with it, and he did not feel welcome. As for fear of his conviction and fear "drop myself in his eyes" (again not agreed "statutes"), she remained with him emphasized cold, "Keep your distance" and their communication was limited to only walk in the rain and snow.
(He would ask her where - somewhere to go, if she even hinted at it. But she was afraid to be with him in a more intimate setting, that it may well have thought that she hastens development itself it imposed. Intuition her prompted her partner prefers to regulate the rate of development of relations. only thing that she could not understand - whether he wants to speed up or slow down their relationship and, therefore, nothing but walking in the rain did not dare to offer him.
That too was a mistake on her part: touch discomfort of these walks, the need to wander in the rain and snow in the society dampens its inaccessibility partner, and the most disappointing partner, and even more to cool and finally froze his initiative.
Robespierre is activated by sensory aspect of pain: passionate, hot - the collective and creative ingenuity sensory sensations Hugo (+ b.s.2). In Hamlet this aspect falls on the mobilization function. Hamlet bad "picks up" feeling inconvenience and discomfort of his partner and that they only get worse. And besides, in the dyad Hamlet - Maxim certain amount of discomfort is quite relevant and admissible. It made for a Spartan make the best of a bad job and deprivation, not to mention the inconvenience. Therefore, from the point of view of the partner in these uncomfortable walking there was nothing wrong - the main thing that propriety was observed.
But what is considered decent in the dyad Hamlet - Maxim does not enjoy the approval in the dyad Hugo - Robespierre, where the aspect of sensory experiences is a dominant value. Demonstrative disregard for the partner hotels is here inadmissible and may be perceived as a sign of insensitivity, callousness, selfishness. And even more - as outright hostility, calling, humiliation, punishment. Because it is a demonstrated disregard for the convenience of man Sensorik first quadra shows his dislike.
Impact and interaction between the two kvestimov this "strange" at first glance unwillingness and inability to reduce the distance. Both suffer from this distance, and both do not understand: what is a fad for an adult to walk for hours "to pioneer a distance", without making any attempt to get closer?
Of course, in terms of features Dualizing this too is the explanation: the quest - not only "half" of the dual dyad, he - the most distant of its half, constantly escaping from his energetic, aspiring approach your dual partner deklatima. Quests few cool "ardor" deklatima, forcing him to his (good for you) distance and pace of your relationship, causing it to at least look at your partner better, "catch" interest and feelings. Because deklatim, with its fast saturable interest in casual partners may just not see at this early passing episode of the greatest mysteries of dualization. "In hindsight," he can not feel it (because memory is deklatimov (+ nc) is short, unlike the memory kvestima 2. Deklatim So if it does not slow down and not "of freezing" in time (a property to stop and "splits" the time is just different kvestimy especially intuity second quad) can immediately forget about this little episode and pass on their happiness, their feelings trampled failed "halves", without even noticing.
2 models deklatimov present aspects of "sensory plus white (+ BS) plus white intuition that provides their model is similar space-time communication and relationships (the desire to communicate in the near short distance (a habit" run down "), quick decisions and actions (time is running + nc), etc.. kvestimov The models present aspects of "white minus sensory" and "minus white intuition", it provides them with the desire to expand (dispersal) of space-time relations and relations. relations quest prefers to take a far distance and affect objects quietly, unobtrusively and far. (A better - do not affect: the model is not accepted kvestimnoy break what happened and forcibly combine that does not add up. Easier to disperse. so the ratio between kvestimami are usually fragile, brittle, fragile. no different cohesion (except emotionally intense relationship of benefit, "obscure" kvestimu in nature and therefore holding it near the partner extremely long time, quite close range.) memory is long kvestimov , vindictive. Resentment has no statute of limitations. (Unlike short retentive position declaring: "forgive, forget" quest nothing ever forgives and forgets.
Respectively, and approaches should be different.
If Max (if conspicuous sensorics sensations b.s.8 +) would be honored only the opportunity to demonstrate their stamina and endurance, then this can not be said of Robespierre, who gets the same aspect of the position of the inertial and infantile activation function. Robespierre's indifference to their discomfort to the test, at least offensively. And Hugo in this situation would have done in another way, inclement weather - a good excuse to eat dinner in the warmth and comfort, wine, warm up, to dance, to get to know ...
In the first quadra can appreciate fun, they know how to deliver them, and are not afraid to seem intrusive. Besides, Hugo, and at close range can hold a partner, "warming up" of its interest and its not letting it cool down emotionally. Robespierre felt it necessary, important, interesting and meaningful dialogue with Hugo.
With Hamlet-he does not feel. Hamlet with his negative feelings sensorics too far to distance. And because the "Face-to-face person can not see." And because it is important not to Hamlet jaded partner, and stay for a "mystery." To do this he has to manipulate and distance, bend your partner constantly changing mood, and pseudo - real "impregnable" provoke partner is very active ...
But Robespierre - not Maxim (not Sensorik), it shows no activity and storm one is going to take - it's not his style. Depending on the volatile emotions of Hamlet, Robespierre begins to judge his attitude to himself. Aspect of the ethics of relations is in his normative positions, role function (b.e.3), and the dynamics of Hamlet he opposes their ethical stability. But in this case, in view of the inadequate interaction (due to incomplete supplements), Hamlet frustrating inertia, lethargy, Robespierre, it seems that such a partner it will be very difficult to stir up (can not even worth trying.) Robespierre also a feeling of fatigue from the constant-voltage, caused by the need to take the initiative and make an effort of the will of the ...
As a result, they both disappoint each other and both are waiting for each other more.
But there are other disappointments in this dyad, namely - 'semi recognition "and" semi-recognition "of their ego - programs ... (Interaction channels 1-5, 5-1, levels of ego - SUPERID).
The first difference between the program from the program Hugo Hamlet - its intuitive touch focus and lack of fulfillment.
Emotions of Hamlet (the aspect of ethics of emotions (+) are often in themselves bring discomfort. Their resounding tension, exaggerated pathos and tragedy deliberate inhibits Robespierre. Unpleasant to him and constantly created Hamlet environment extreme - not situational, not comical - fussy like Hugo caused by small domestic troubles, and imposed as a goal, as above - a task as the meaning and way of life. (Let us not forget that in the dyad Hamlet - Maxim adopted a completely different emotional conditions than in the dyad Hugo - Robespierre. Here you can set a certain level of tension, certain emotional optimum. And it is clearly different from the emotional level of the dyad Hugo - Robespierre, it is accepted to minimize negative emotions and where artificially increasing tension is almost a crime, it is perceived as malicious, as the desire to make fun of the partner, scare him, tormenting fear , "play on the nerves.")
All this and surprised and annoyed Robespierre: Cause for Extreme attitude he seems unconvincing. And he can not understand why all this creates tension?
And it created solely to "get in tone" - emotionally shaken partner. Cheer him and cheer yourself. Hamlet becomes annoying monotony of his relationship with Robespierre, annoys them dull, listless tone. In Robespierre, as we know, there is no inherent Maxim cheerfulness, do not have the springs, which gives Hamlet "push" on the volitional aspect of this sensor and charges and activates it). Precisely because of sensory deficiency Robespierre, with his apparent lack of will and lack of initiative, it is necessary to discharge a certain monotony of their communication and create a certain emotional state. Hamlet has occasionally ginger Robespierre ("wake from sleep") so it is not too relaxed, not a "hum", did not look "wimp" ...
And here again we come to the problematic aspects of this dyad touch and simultaneously get to "spring-loaded" "work adjustment" poludualov Hamlet occasional "inflate" Robespierre (although tired and overexert yourself).
What keeps partners in this dyad?
First of all - common goals and interests. As representatives of the ideological leaders (subjectivist), where aspects of the logic of relations, and ethics are the dominant emotions, both partners are equally passionate about the political events occurring, or at least, can be indifferent to them.
And then the question arises as to which of them will be a "prophet in his own country" and who is his ally and follower?
There is confrontation between the claim leadership Hamlet (ideology and "Tribune") and a natural philosopher of Robespierre ("revolutionary" and human rights activist), when a community of interests and beliefs, partners, leaving the right leadership for themselves, may condemn and criticize each other's actions, considering of inappropriate or untimely. (I remember the story of two activists - right defenders - the mother and daughter (Hamlet and Robespierre). Both fought for the right to leave their historic homeland. Daughter managed to get permission, the mother it was denied. For several years, they both fought for reunion: Mom developed the frantic activity in dissident circles (taught Hebrew, was friends with the most prominent dissidents signed political messages), the daughter in the Promised Land is also not idle - pester public organizations, to seek support from the powerful, and to petition the petition, but it was all in vain - their joint efforts at the time turned out to be a little productive activity mom (Hamlet) has become increasingly challenging. And then the daughter (Robespierre) wrote his parents a letter, in which the mother begged restrain their political activity: "If you were sitting quietly and leaned out, You have long since been released. And you yourself self-harm and disturb me ... ". receive this message, my mother was very shocked," Not that I am in here all sorts of trouble - unhappiness, so I should get more boorish letter from his daughter "The letter was read to supporters in a sign that the community work here, no one is going to stop, because it is not a purely personal interests, and to achieve a well-defined political goals.
Hamlet avert political activity impossible. And more so, if he is predisposed to it. But the pathos of Hamlet Robespierre contrasts his enthusiasm - he is also prone to self-sacrifice and also not averse to bestow humanity service to high ideals. He, like Hamlet, has its lofty goals and their global plans. And here we are dealing with the problem of the interaction of two intuitive, compelling them to each other their (often slowly) "rate" and at the same time - two strategies (each of which holds its general line), two negativistov (often staying in a dark, depressed) , two kvestimov constant range of unresolved issues. And while both - theorists, both tend to the solution of global problems and abstract problems. Both socially and ideologically oriented, but at the same time, in what - even individualistic. Hamlet, for example, as a distinct leader can oppose the public, but may be an ardent defender of the social system he represents, and he can identify with his personal assessment, based on its individualistic position, or consider it as a part of yourself.
But Hamlet - shearwater, restless, rebellious soul. He is not looking for the easy way in life. And it is a point of view not like Robespierre, who only in alliance with Hugo openly aggressive, minimize trouble at home, feels safe. But the program position of Hamlet, set up to fight, to overcome the difficulties that breaks the cozy little world, which would like to seek Robespierre.
The intense emotions of Hamlet, its stiffness (a combination of internal pressure sensor with a sense of discomfort), nervousness and irritability put additional pressure on the level of SUPERID Robespierre, not allowing it to relax.
It is clear that in such circumstances the emotional program Hamlet Robespierre instilled not, though, and do not reject it immediately. Which - while it can treat it with respect and accept as worthy of attention. But gradually, the emotional intensity of this program, it all the more frustrating and seems inconsistent with the real state of things, the real spirit of the times. Robespierre think that Hamlet artificially escalate the situation, deliberately arranges a storm in a teacup, not bored or giving yourself or others.
Irritating Robespierre and bustle caused by the preference Hamlet other non-family (and family interests) values. Like for example, the discussion of whose - the intrigue, whose - that intrigues, gossip and rumors (gathering information about her, or even whose - the position in the system). All this seems to Robespierre malopochtennym occupation and not worthy of attention.
Robespierre tailored to the interests and values of the first quadra, which are often limited by concerns about family well-being, peace, peace and health of the household ... Hamlet (especially used to the extreme) and here manages to make a storm in a teacup - just for tone, for emotional release. Because of that and there are frequent quarrels with Robespierre, who believes that in time of peace in the mood is not justified, and behavior - is unacceptable.
(Here, by the way, it is appropriate to finish explaining what ended the relationship reunited after a long separation, daughter Leah and mother-EIE. Following the reunification of their relationship had deteriorated and eventually they had to pass one another and to live apart. Their last quarrel occurred at children's parties, when mother (now a grandmother), barely appeared, was to teach her grandchildren and threaten them with a finger: "Behave well, otherwise you kicked out of here". Daughter - Robespierre saw such treatment of her children, was outraged: "It is their down! She behaved as if they were guilty. Why scare them? Why would spoil their mood? They're nothing wrong yet did not! She does not understand that it hurt them this, they ruined holiday ".
A holiday in the first quadra - is sacred. As well as the respect for children. If the second quadra can punish (or straighten) the child in order to prevent, in the first quadra such treatment is considered unacceptable - cruel, and most importantly - fair. How can you punish a person for an act that has not yet occurred? This, according to Robespierre, and illogical and unfair. (Violates causality: the punishment should follow the crime, and not vice versa. And preventive measures are not practiced here as well: the child should be trusted to provide an element of discretion and choice-making - so accepted in the first democratic Quadro ...
But in the second quadra such methods are not popular. There it was decided to allocate places (in the hierarchical system of relations) by seniority (as required by the hierarchical logic Maxima) and a special emphasis on respect for the authority of the elders: the head of household behavior are not discussed and taken for granted. And if my grandmother decided to straighten their grandchildren was seemly to thank her for her foresight and desire to provide all possible assistance in the organization of the evening. Maxim would have saw this as just the desire of older family members to take its rightful place in the system. Robespierre was also perceived this behavior as expansion, as the desire to impose its will and leadership, such as violence against the person, as an infringement of human rights (even the youngest family member) - no one has to listen to during the holidays threats and morality ...
The system of relations Robespierre all family members have equal rights and privileges. "Minus" logic of relations Robespierre immeasurably wider democratic, it is independent of degrees and qualifications and includes universal equality. In this it differs from the "positive" (hierarchical, "vertical") logic relations Maxim, which subconsciously oriented Hamlet.
According to Hamlet, Robespierre idea of justice is too abstract, abstract, devoid of practical justification, because ignoring the historical balance of power in the system - "elders" have earned their right to the privileges they have suffered it all the personal experience of previous relationships in the system. And that means that the struggle for the balance of power in the system, for a place in the sun for power - that is consistent with the perception of fairness in the second quadra values - quadra "decisive", "Who might is right" ...
And it is this balance of power seems unfair Robespierre, because it involves the initial inequality of rights and opportunities: a strong block roads weak. And then, a weak forced to resist the pressure of a strong, that Robespierre is particularly problematic because of its forceful mobilization sensor systems.
In the first quadra condemned any violence, as volitional aspect sensing there is a repressed value. In the second fundamental aspect of volitional sensing determines the "order of things" to build a logical structure of any system of relations. Logic ignores the aspect ratio of Robespierre willed sensor and does not rely on it, so Hamlet in partnership with Robespierre does not get full of suggestion and arguments inspired limited partner.
In addition, Hamlet can be their own idea of justice, may intensify vtorokvadrovogo "complex" six. " Claiming to be a leader, Hamlet and lays claim to exclusive benefits and privileges, which certainly seems unfair to Robespierre. His claims he would express - not smolchit. Hamlet answers, and there - word for word, zavyazhutsya disputes, which fades into a fight and scandal.
Hamlet, in partnership with Robespierre will certainly fight for its dominant position in the social hierarchy (this vtorokvadrovoe attitude and nowhere on it does not go away.) In the example above, it was: the grandmother took it upon myself to "punish" the children without consulting the measure to their parents, saying so superior to them, the right to lead, on the primacy of the family, and this was condemned Robespierre.
For Robespierre is not dangerous itself is not a legal initiative, as its unauthorized fixation in the "charter" of the system (family) "default" (by tacit agreement) of the remaining members. Therefore considers it necessary to Robespierre promptly intervene and dangerous initiative Hamlet after the first attempt to stop.
And here we come to a confrontation on the intuitive aspects (levels EGO - ID, channels 2 - 8, 8 - 2). Each partner has its own area of intuitive control, vision and understanding of the dangerous trends and that they think it is right ...
Hamlet, in his creative intuition of time, it may seem that Robespierre was not much interested in shifts and movements that occur in the system.
Robespierre on creative intuition of possibilities (because of intuitive views infantilism 3) it seems that Hamlet sees intrigue where it does not, make a mountain out of a molehill, and specifically to escalate the situation. The same antagonism affects the ethical aspects of relationships. How helpful and caring partner, Hamlet can insist on more of a "clean" inner circle of Robespierre (ethical, ethnic, class ...) "With this man vodis not, I do not believe it!" - Declare Hamlet.
3 How to intuit quadra reasoning (due to the dominant aspect of a child, "dreamy" intuition of possibilities) Robespierre (classified Gulenko) refers to a group of "infantile" intuitive - idealists.
But I must say that Robespierre could dislike anyone - either from the environment Hamlet and also to antagonize him, "This man is no match for you, it drags you to the bottom, to part with it! Nazhivesh into trouble "- persuaded a girlfriend - Robespierre her friend related to" unreliable "partner (Yesenin). In this case, on the side of Robespierre was and foresight and common sense (and a real fear that later proved to be true.) But the sense of Hamlet's nobody dares to command, (as well as his personal relationships and attachments), one can not try to force your understanding of trends. Intuitive aspect of time - its creative function, on it he anticipates future changes and hints he is not needed.
Hamlet delivers a lot of complications and secrecy of Robespierre, his habit that - that nedoskazyvat, but that alone - you take. (What a difference Maxim: who should promptly advise, everything in good time will tell - sooner rather than later. Why Hamlet Maxim feels safe - from him, he gets all the information they need in a timely manner and in the right amount). Robespierre did not happen - he always that - it says nothing about what the possibilities are not doskazyvaet. Says hints and riddles (as is typical intuitive).
For its part, with suspiciousness and distrust of Hamlet Robespierre prefers to fight through intuition aspect features (implementing its program logic of relations), showing your partner that his suspicions are unfounded, because they are not logical. So, for example, fifteen student Igor (Robespierre), inadvertently told my mother (Hamlet) of his seventeen buddy, his tastes, habits, and early marriage, provoked on the part of "threats and warnings", expressed in more than bluntly: "Dare to marry me now - kill you," or, "I recognize that smoke - kill", "know that koleshsya - kill!" But Robespierre was not one of those who will not tolerate suppression of his identity. And scare the rugged Igor (to spite her mother) did not stay in debt: the mother's "intuitive expansion," he says his "intuitive terror": comes home from school late, where he was - Do not Tell (keeps mum in the dark), learning is bad, and more interest than it shows to his studies, the worst he brings her.
According to the intuitive aspects of partners obviously inhibit each other. Everyone feels their limited opportunities. (Mom son and threatened because he feels helpless, realizes that he left - under its control, it can not cope with it ...) Enable him to study it can only aspect of sensory experiences. And this is an impossible task for Hamlet, the results of which he is never satisfied. Hugo is another matter. Hugo would create Robespierre and comfortable, would be extremely friendly and have admired his intelligence and talent. But in the second quadra pending pamper children and admire their abilities (even conceited, vozis with them later!). Here, forced to work in excess of - the efforts and dedication of high demand, so Robespierre, are aware of their opportunities here feels uncomfortable. This means that the relationship again run into the problematic aspect of sensory sensations .. Which in Hamlet "runs" with the filing aspect of business logic, the "logic of action." (According to Hamlet excesses inappropriate, effeminacy only kills the child. And of course, our heroine finds that doing the right thing: material well-being, it provides the necessary conditions for learning child creates). Robespierre aspect of the business logic "runs" with the filing aspect of sensory perceptions and is a kind of response to that touch guardianship (to the care and affection), which Robespierre gets. On the other hand, business activity Robespierre (+ ch.l.7) can occur as a response to what - that sensory discomfort (b.s.6) that he wants to eliminate. But if his initiative will remain undetected, it can quickly fade away. (Igor, how - that on their own, without coercion and reminders do cleaning around the home. But, as expected in the second quadra all his initiative was taken as granted, and no one at work is not praised. Therefore, the initiative has not received its continuation : it is unfair if a person deserves to be encouraged, but not receive it. Robespierre and injustice does not forgive anyone ...
It is a vicious circle: in Hamlet returns on an aspect of sensory experiences emerged as a reaction to a productive support business logic ... And Robespierre returns on business logic arises as a response to support (up) on sensorics sensations. Thus, the discomfort created by Hamlet, has a boomerang himself. And as a result - a dead end, a crisis of relations: each partner only for himself, and for the other one wants to do anything .. You come into this family, and there gloom, desolation, mud everywhere, cobwebs, cockroaches. dust thick as a finger, an empty fridge and a pile of dirty dishes ... And both partners are sitting in different corners depressed and angry ...
But there is another solution: to make an effort of the will, and the first to take the initiative, not waiting for the pulse and the "activation" (unless, of course, there is a desire to preserve the family.) And Hamlet, and Robespierre can be very tenacious partners. Struggling for a partner, they follow the principle of "the end justifies the means", using the maximum and their civil rights, and ethical benefits. So, in the course can be put various methods - and accusations and scandals, and tantrums, and stubborn resistance to the will of a partner (in both the good-willed sensory aspect is inert block, both can be stubborn and unyielding).
But there is another option: to find an optimal, comfortable for both distances. That each felt and self-sufficient and independent and not lonely.
The possibility of such an option tells one of the representatives of the dyad (Hamlet): "I just realized what a good and strong family can be, if the problems of life can not touch her ... If life is not jammed. My husband and I met while working in a team. Liked each other and started dating. At first, it was a business affair. He's a very interesting man, my husband. Bright personality. We were interested in together. We met, and then decided to get married. But my husband and I are both strong personalities, that when we begin to argue, the plates were flying around the kitchen, and the dishes were beaten a lot of ... And we have decided to separate. But not so much ... We were husband and wife, we have a common child and every day we see each other at work. But we live apart, and after work, each comes to his home. We call back after work and go to each other's houses ... And now each of us lives as he wants and does not report to anyone. We meet when we want to spend time together and how much we want. Son sees his father no less and no more than when we were together. So on a relationship with the child is not affected. I believe that we have an ideal family. And my husband thinks so. He's like - he said to me: "If people have the opportunity to live apart and still be together, it would be good! How many families have been saved! .. "