I already know it's EII/LSE-type-related. I'm wondering whether any other types agree: "All I need is one very close person."
Bonding
I already know it's EII/LSE-type-related. I'm wondering whether any other types agree: "All I need is one very close person."
That might be more related to overvaluation and overration of love and romantic relationships in general...
I'm pretty sure that's what all of us need
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
It is all I need, except there's a fear of losing that one person - the more significant the more you're dependent on them - so it's hardly ideal.
I doubt it. I've been like that since I was a little kid.Originally Posted by Singularity
Removed at User Request
For myself that is mostly not true. I would rather have perhaps one or two very close relationships, several close relationships, a decent amount of medium-distance relationships, and give or take a lot of on-good-terms-but-not-necessarily-super-close relationships. Something like that, anyway. And I don't like bad relationships, so if possible no matter the closeness I'd want to be at least amicable with all.
I don't think I would be happy or truly fulfilled with just one close relationship to the exclusion of others.
That said, there are different kinds of relationships, not just dependent on closeness. For example, I'd say I'm almost equally close to my sister and my mother, but my relationship to each is different and each relationship has its own qualities and gifts. If/when I ever get married or into a serious romantic relationship, that will probably be my closest one, but I would still want to maintain my other close relationships. I would not want to lose the goodness that comes from them.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Agreed, I could never understand how some people are willing to give up their family b/c their partner has a problem with them. I wouldn't be.
I suppose my answer earlier was kind of a misinterpretation - I never meant giving up people, but I don't need a lot of friends. It still stands for very close relationships, though.
It is all I need.
I was thinking family is irrelevant.
"All I need is one very close person and some people around the periphery in case that person dies or something and some other people just to add some some variety and perspective on things, so that I can appreciate all the more that one very close person, who is all I need."
actually this sums it up.
Last edited by somavision; 05-15-2010 at 11:13 PM.
IEE-Ne
Well I don't know, I think that you should be careful. What you are describing is an ideal of love... as well as expectations of love... as opposed to what you are actually experiencing.
I used to think that would be just fine or all I would need...but now I don't think it matters or would work. People hurt one another for various reasons, sometimes intentionally. Relying on one person because all the others don't seem to give what someone desires only leads to worst kind of disappointment when that one person decides to leave - complete abandonment. Although if the two are actually able to fulfill all of each other's social needs without too much interpersonal chaos, then yeah I guess ideally it would be the best someone could get. It would be nice, if only I wasn't such a skeptic.
I don't think it's a great idea to put all of one's happiness-eggs in one basket. Downright unhealthy. Even if the basket is duality. Because duals are still imperfect people. They can let you down. And there are other factors and shit happens. Blah blah blah.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Eh. I haven't met the person yet that I could substitute for all my other relationships. I mean, even in high school, I could never just have one main group of friends, I always had to have different friend groups for different sides of myself, so how exactly I would be so content with one person that I would forsake every other relationship, I can't imagine. I'm not by any means ruling it out, I'm just saying I can't imagine how it would play out.
Also, I think this might relate somewhat (not really, but in an archetypal sense) to Fi, which tries to make emotional bonds as unchanging as possible, and one way to make something impervious to external stimuli is to remove the external stimuli (in this case, the only people).
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I don't think this is type related. There's many ways to interpret that as well, do you mean that you just need one romantic partner for life and you're good, instead of having multiple and then finding one? Or, you just need that special someone and therefore you don't need family, friends, etc? In general, I think most people will find that, sure, focusing on one person is nice, but that won't stop you from excluding everyone else. I think in maturity, statements like this eventually fade away because you don't need such boundaries. If you think on it, to exclude everyone from your life just for one person is really not healthy, you need some autonomy and things away from them or there will be relationship problems. And I imagine that there are few people who can have a successful relationship with the first person they've done everything intimately with, both physical and non-physical. Could it happen? Sure, but it's unlikely to be a healthy relationship.
Not counting family, one person to spend most of your time with. Mate or best friend, gender irrelevant.
All I need is...
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Removed at User Request
The only thing that gets in my way is the fact that I haven't set my mind to it... yet.Just wait and talk to her first.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
No, it's just that special, tender feelings only work like that. As soon as you tell just one more person it ruins it for everybody.
I've always been deeply close with one person at a time. There is something that's just sacred about telling a secret with one person and you sharing that secret and NOBODY ELSE KNOWS but you two. That's why a heart is just equal sides of the same shape. There's not a third shape in a heart, it's the joining of two.
But people change their minds and move on. It would be nice if I met somebody to just share my heart completely at the exclusion of all others, but you can't force or look for that to happen. It just either does or it doesn't. And I think when you do have that, everything else falls into place. But I mean sometimes maybe it's too much. Just too romantic, too epic, too faggy. You both need a lot of breathing room because it's too good to be true you think this can't be it. Because a part of you still likes overcoming challenges. And you sort of want to see that person grow in addition to being with them, you know?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
