LEVELS of relationships, how do you think this matches with socionics relations?

[tigerfacegirl]

1. " GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS " RELATIONSHIPS
Partners are joined by common fears and are usually
completely dependent on each other.
There is little if any passion, few risks are taken and no
real growth occurs.
Both partners have settled for less than all of themselves ~ but at the cost of growth and passion.
They tend to see themselves as victims and usually are spectators in life.
It is a dry creek bed waiting for the spring rain .
COLOR IT GREY

2. " SAFE LOVE " RELATIONSHIPS
The ego is still in control and both partners have common dis-affinites such as unworthiness, fear of love and intimacy, fear of rejection, abandonment, aloneness , etc
These tend to be intense and short lived relationships as both partners vainly try to fill the others emotional void ~ when, in reality, they are avoiding their own emotional void. Mission impossible one and two.
As such, they are externally directed relationships .
They, in essence, eventually become enclosed in a common cocoon ( a cocoon for two ) where love tends to contract versus expand and mutual resentment soon replaces love.
You can be relatively happy in a " safe love " relationship ( compared to a " Going through the motions " relationship ) but joy is elusive because little, if any, growth occurs ~ as both partners will not give up control and refuse to surrender.
The dry creek bed has become a stream
COLOR IT PASTEL

3. ' SOUL MATE ' OR " GREAT LOVE " RELATIONSHIPS
Soul mates and great loves come into our life when we are ready to find and fulfill our part in the loving plan.
Great love relationships are internally directed and prepare us for the transition from ego consciousness to soul consciousness.
The ultimate aim of such a relationship is for both partners to fully emerge from their cocoons of fear and become their truest self.
This is the love that Teilhard de Chardin refers to when he wrote ; The only right love is between couples whose passion leads them both , one through the other, to a higher possession of themselves.
There is little room here for the Ego's need to protect and control for a great love confronts us with our deepest feelings and fears ~ and demands that we SURRENDER !
It requires us to grow beyond our fear to the place where we can both consciously and unconditionally love our partner.
It is a love that can both take hold and let go ~ for it is beyond emotional dependency .
There is tremendous joy and delight in soul mate relationships because there is no greater joy than going ( and growing ) through our fears and discovering our true self.
This love is not for the faint of heart for, indeed, many who briefly experience this fire will quickly run for cover ~ not realizing that they are actually running away from what is deepest within themselves.
Like the moth to the flame ~ once you have willingly burned in the fire of a great love ~ you will accept
nothing less .
You will then realize, as I have, that you are the fire
You are now in the river of life
COLOR IT VIBRANT PRIMARY COLORS

4. COSMIC RELATIONSHIPS OR ' LOVE PERFECTED '
A cosmic relationship is seldom acheived because it demands total vulnerability and mutual surrender to love.
A cosmic love is a love that transcends time and space wherein all past life connections are completed.
It is a pure love devoid of fear with ecstasy and bliss its obvious symptoms.
The vibration of this inner connection is so intense that it effects all who witness or come in contact with it.
In a cosmic relationship both partners become a tool for the universe to be used in a universal loving plan.
Both partners have now been dominated in their own perfection.
You are now a fragment of life's heart
COLOR IT A SPIRITUAL PURPLE
Allen L Roland



What relationships have you had that seemed to match up with what levels?

Like for example, i was in a supervision relationship, i was the supervisee, and it was level 1, maybe 2. I was in activity and it was like 2 or 3. I have never been in a dual relationship, so I don't know about that being 4.

What are your thoughts on this??

[The Exception]

I would think more compatible socionics relations have better chance of reaching higher levels. Most level 4 relationships, I think, are probably dual ones. Level 3, I think is mostly duality or same quadra relations.

My parents are in a supervisory relationship and its mostly level 1-2.

[Creepy-male]

I would think more compatible socionics relations have better chance of reaching higher levels. Most level 4 relationships, I think, are probably dual ones. Level 3, I think is mostly duality or same quadra relations.

My parents are in a supervisory relationship and its mostly level 1-2.

This assumes that the above is more than nonsensical, emotive drivel. I'm not seeing a Dual relationship magically letting me become part of some "cosmic scheme" (and I mean, seriously, did this guy even read the crap he hacked off? Jesus). I do however see Duality affording a sense of comfort, safety and security of the sort that fosters at the very least some degree of happiness, if not a safe space to work through all the negativity someone picks up simply from being alive.

And again, Allen L Roland is so preposterously full of shit it boggles my mind.

tl;dr, I'm depressed and live a meaningless existence.

[anndelise]

I can't say that I think much of that "levels of relationships" thing.

I've yet to find something that beats the Triangular Theory of Love by Robert Sternberg: Triangular theory of love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Intimacy – feelings of closeness, connectedness
2. Passion – physical/sexual attraction
3. Commitment – decision to remain with another, and make/share plans and achievements together

Which leads to 8 types of love (including nonLove which shares none of the above elements)





combined with the 5 Love Languages by Gary Chapman: The 5 Love Languages? | Five Love Languages

* Words of Affirmation
* Quality Time
* Giving/Receiving Gifts
* Acts of Service
* Physical Touch

Oh, and also with a reminder of Limerance: Limerence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even small children can grasp the 5 love languages, and the differences between individuals preferences for 1 or 2 of the languages. And the intimacy/passion/commitment model is easily understood by even preteens.

That 'levels of relationships' thing seems like it was a poor attempt to reword or reformat the Triangular Theory.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I have issues with your hierarchy. Mainly the first one.

"Partners are joined by common fears and are usually
completely dependent on each other." And then you go on to say 'to find love you have to be completely vulnerable.' You're contradicting yourself. The whole point of love is that you feel dependent on another person.

"There is little if any passion, few risks are taken and no
real growth occurs." Why do women like pain and strife so fucking much? Jesus Christ, I like safety much better. Although well, I like *a little* pain too at first but it has to have some sort of pay-off or reward otherwise the person is just fucking with you.

"Both partners have settled for less than all of themselves ~ but at the cost of growth and passion." Why do you keep implying that safety and stagnancy is in opposition of growth and passion? For me they actually go hand in hand. I can't grow or be passionate unless I feel safe and secure and even 'grey-like.'

"They tend to see themselves as victims and usually are spectators in life." Again, the whole point of love is being vulnerable enough to be a victim and have people take care of your weak points, like you said later. You're just contradicting yourself, in my opinion. Also I'm a writer. My job is to be a spectator, not a 'full liver.' I don't have to live fully to write well, I just have to be more aware of my physical surroundings and how people really are.

Also just out of curiosity, how do you view what you've called your 'Ego.' Like what does your ego mean to you. In your own words, what does ego mean?

[silverchris9]

Ah! You're not going to be able to systematize love, either in pyramids or in levels or in ladders or in chutes. It's like count up all the variables that goes into a human being and then say you're making a shape with that many sides, but the sides are of unequal length and there is no normal rule governing their angular relationships. That's one person. And then say you take that number and raise it to the second power. Then try to make an equation to describe the shape. That's what trying to systematize love is, and that's why it definitely will not work. Go read Romeo and Juliet, Othello, As You Like It, Macbeth, and Much Ado About Nothing. That's a good first step. Maybe read Taming of the Shrew too.

[DirectorAbbie]

I have yet to be in a real relationship, but I think my ILI best friend was a 2 and my EII best friend was a 3.

[Krig the Viking]

I can't say that I think much of that "levels of relationships" thing.

I've yet to find something that beats the Triangular Theory of Love by Robert Sternberg: Triangular theory of love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Intimacy – feelings of closeness, connectedness
2. Passion – physical/sexual attraction
3. Commitment – decision to remain with another, and make/share plans and achievements together

Which leads to 8 types of love (including nonLove which shares none of the above elements)

Have you ever read C. S. Lewis' "The Four Loves"? It actually correlates very well with the Triangular theory -- "Intimacy" = "Friendship", "Passion" = "Eros", and "Commitment" = "Charity". Lewis has a broader and more positive view of the last one ("Commitment/Charity"), and also adds a fourth type of love, "Affection".

It's the clearest and most effective analysis of Love I've read to date.

@ silverchris: You underestimate the pedantic obsession of LIIs.

[silverchris9]

@ silverchris: You underestimate the pedantic obsession of LIIs.

lol. I know. I do things that are definitely 400x as ridiculous, and I suppose if you're obsessed enough, you'll find an equation for the 4130908390423^2-sided shape.

[Creepy-male]

lol. I know. I do things that are definitely 400x as ridiculous, and I suppose if you're obsessed enough, you'll find an equation for the 4130908390423^2-sided shape.

nah I think this is a difference in realms or whatever, your all about the literature and there are alot of truths in that realm, and in the realm of literature there are no categorizations and pedantic LIIness.

In physics however, in that realm, there are also alot of truths, and there are plenty pedantic categorizations.

Music on the other hand is a bit like literature, no pedantic categorizations.

Socionics, pedantic categorizations.

And so forth...

Unfortunately this very post is pedantic in nature.

Its a difficult subject to mess around with, the bottom line in context is explaining love and experiencing it are two different things. In literature love can be partially experienced in some form through the act of expression in language, analogous to say how a musician expresses love through a song. In psychology, you can explain love with a little pyramid, but thats a little different than what the writer or musician is doing.

[Mattie]

A loose observance of the Triangluar Theory of Love that anndelise points out (By the way, long time no see ann! ) is how I view relationships, and they have nothing to do with Socionics. You have to start from one point of triangle and then steadily progress in another direction. Socionics shouldn't claim for a certain type to automatically give you any of these, I know I felt all sorts of those things for different types, and you do them based on non-Socionics factors (like feeling Commitment automatically toward family members).

But what is an interesting conversation is how English speakers (and other languages that fall into this category) view love in comparison to say Italians. In Italian (and other languages) there are different words for love that describe what kind of love you have or are feeling, where in English, we only have love. So it is easy for us here to be like "You can't categorize love!" when it's most likely a language barrier. Other people in other cultures have it embedded in their minds that there are different kinds of love because they already have words for them.

I remember looking up the Triangular Theory of Love when my best friend heard from an ex "I love you" a month or so into the relationship, and she freaked out because she felt like she wasn't ready to use the word "love," thought that maybe things were going to fast, etc. But I tried to explain that "love" means different things in English and is ambiguous because we only have one word to describe all that affection. He just meant "love" as in a "I really like you and most likely in a beginning relationship infatuated sense" (obviously that's not very romantic to say) to moreso communicate the passion he was feeling for her in the relationship. I think the theory mentioned does a good job, the only real weak link that I can't offhandedly explain is Fatuous Love, unless it can be related to relationships like high school relationships or short term dating.

[silverchris9]

But what is an interesting conversation is how English speakers (and other languages that fall into this category) view love in comparison to say Italians. In Italian (and other languages) there are different words for love that describe what kind of love you have or are feeling, where in English, we only have love. So it is easy for us here to be like "You can't categorize love!" when it's most likely a language barrier. Other people in other cultures have it embedded in their minds that there are different kinds of love because they already have words for them.

Eh... even in Greek where you have those very noted different "kinds of love" that's more describing types of relationships than "kinds of love". It's not much different than saying "love like a brother" or "love like a spouse/lover/sexual relationship." I mean, phileo is very literally "brotherly love" but then who could say that "philosophy" (i.e., "brotherly love for wisdom") doesn't have an erotic element to it (if eros is something like "love that sees something desirable in the beloved and wants to possess/experience it"). And again, even in Greek, while we might apply the word phileo to a type of relationship, like, oh look they're good friends with no sexual component, they have phileo, we're really more categorizing the type of relationship than putting their love into a category... we're speaking more to the kind of relationship than to the kind of love, if you'll accept that distinction.

But now I'm being pedantic, I know, and really, it's more true to say that yes, you can put love into categories, but at the same time, you definitely lose something by doing so, and of all the things that can be put into categories, love is particularly multiform, and therefore you are particularly likely to lose something important by categorizing love. But that doesn't mean that you aren't likely to gain in understanding too.

Anyway, I like the vagueness of English. Makes for bad philosophy, but good poetry. Keeps you honest. Makes you rely on metaphors more. It's probably part of the reason that we have such a remarkable tradition of English poetry. "Since every man whose soul is not a clod/hath visions, and would speak, if he had loved/and been well-nurtured in his mother tongue."

[Mattie]

But now I'm being pedantic, I know, and really, it's more true to say that yes, you can put love into categories, but at the same time, you definitely lose something by doing so, and of all the things that can be put into categories, love is particularly multiform, and therefore you are particularly likely to lose something important by categorizing love. But that doesn't mean that you aren't likely to gain in understanding too.

I don't think anything should be outright categorized. The only reason you need to observe a relationship in this manner is either just for some fun and to look at a relationship in a certain light, or, similarly, for diagnostic reasons. I don't think I would walk around with this, or any other system, in my head ready to apply to other people. I'm more for things being blurred, no boundaries, etc, but you sometimes need the right words to communicate, and this helps with communication in certain areas.

Anyway, I like the vagueness of English. Makes for bad philosophy, but good poetry. Keeps you honest. Makes you rely on metaphors more. It's probably part of the reason that we have such a remarkable tradition of English poetry. "Since every man whose soul is not a clod/hath visions, and would speak, if he had loved/and been well-nurtured in his mother tongue."

There's vagueness in every language, we have distinctions for certain things that other languages do not. It's just where that generalization or vagueness exists that is interesting to look at. I don't think English overall is a vaguer language. I think there's a larger amount of English poetry exposed to use because we're in an English speaking country that was born from the most imperialistic country of the world to develop its own imperialism

[silverchris9]

There's vagueness in every language, we have distinctions for certain things that other languages do not. It's just where that generalization or vagueness exists that is interesting to look at. I don't think English overall is a vaguer language. I think there's a larger amount of English poetry exposed to use because we're in an English speaking country that was born from the most imperialistic country of the world to develop its own imperialism

Actually, I think it's historically likely that english really is vaguer than other languages. I know it has a larger vocabulary than most languages, largely because it's a bastardized mixture of perverted german and norman french. And German and Greek, for instance, have reputations for being particularly specific, concrete languages with a specific word for each specific thing (according to some of the philosophy people I know, so I guess that may not be the best information). Also, it's entirely possible that English simply has a more active, or maybe simply better poetic tradition than the average language. For instance, between Rome and Greece, even though Rome was a larger and more powerful empire, most people ultimately value Greek literature more than Roman literature. That doesn't diminish the greatness of Roman literature, it's just that Greek literature considered as a whole is generally more highly prized than Roman literature considered as a whole. Now, as to whether superior quality of poetic tradition is a result of extrapoetic forces like military strength, or if it has to do with social energies, historical development, I can only cite John Ashbery: "Research has shown that ballads were produced by all of society;/only night knows for sure. The secret is safe with her:/The people, then, knew what they wanted and how to get it."

[anndelise]

*waves at look.to.the.sky*

I agree, I wouldn't attribute any of the ideas I had listed to specific types, though at one point I was curious if the 5 Love Languages might be loosely related (if they were, not enough to be useful).

Nor do I sit there and analyze every relationship or every time a person says "I love him/her/you", etc.

I've found these things most useful for troubleshooting relationships (when someone is complaining about a relationship, in particular 'that loving feeling', sometimes a portion or two of the ideas posted will pop into my head as maybe being a way to help a person see different aspects of the relationship or 'that loving feeling'). These ideas are also commonly listed as an aide to help modern day fiction-romance writers figure out the actual interactions of their characters in romantic (not necessarily passionate) interactions.

As to the different world languages used for describing love or relationships, some languages don't even have a word for "love". Which seems to create a relationship difficulty when a couple comes from such different cultures. It's not that the no-"love"-culture doesn't express feelings of connection, passion, or commitment, but that their language doesn't lump all those emotions and thoughts into one abstract word. So, for example, the no-"love"-person might be doing things, and saying things that in their culture expresses what we might call "love", they aren't actually using the word "love". The person they are in a relationship with doesn't hear "I love you", and thus thinks that their partner doesn't love them. Helping the "love"-person recognize the different ways that the no-"love"-person is expressing their "love" helps salvage the relationship. (This is a common issue, it seems, in relationships between usamerican males and non-usamericanized-japanese women.)

(On the other hand, we also often hear people saying "I love you", yet their actions don't show "love". Worse, is when the receiver interprets it one way, but the sayer meant it a different way. For example, when one is referring to enjoying/craving the intimacy and/or passion, but the other interprets it as commitment. Throw limerence into the mix, as well as being in love with the idea of being in love, and...well...lots of miscommunications occur.)

I won't even get into the idealisms of 'love' that we see in literature. What happens in fantasy and fiction doesn't necessarily translate well into real life experiences. (By the same token, what's theorized about doesn't necessarily translate well into real life experiences either.)


look.to.the.sky, as for fatuous love, it can be linked to those relationships where the couple has completely separate lives outside of the bedroom, yet remain in a committed relationship. They go to work, hang out with friends, come home, pay bills on the same home, have mad, passionate sex, and then go to sleep, rarely sharing their day or feelings or thoughts with the other person.

Another type of relationship it can be linked to is some types of bdsm relationships. Where in a dominance/submission relationship, they're committed to that particular relationship, and the passion comes out in their 'kink' interactions/play. But often, in order to maintain the nature of the D/s relationship, there's often not much intimacy happening. (On D/s forums, there's often a lot of talk of whether or not a couple can maintain the D/s relationship once the dominant partner 'falls in love' with the submissive partner. In this instance, the discussions usually are referring to when intimacy levels get deeper, which results in the dominant partner being just as 'in need of' the submissive partner.)

And yet another type of relationship that may be linked to fatuous love is those with multiple partners. Often times, poly-amorous people will have secondary partners which they may share resources/plans and passion with, but not necessarily intimacy. Some other times the primary person fits this function, while the secondary partners give the intimacy and passion but not necessarily the commitment of resources/plans/etc.

Oh, and some 'kept mistresses' as well, heh. Where the keeper commits money and resources to the upkeep and maintenance of the kept, while the kept is expected to be ready and willing for passionate embraces when the keeper wants it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Exception]

@ silverchris: You underestimate the pedantic obsession of LIIs.

I know I'm much more comfortable trying to systematize love than actually going out and experiencing it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Love is just the right mixture of safety and companionship blended with sexual intimacy and excitement. The concept of duality is nothing more than that.

I would say love is like your favorite tv show, you know there's gonna be conflict but you also sort of always have the solution ready at all times. And that might seem 'boring', but it really leaves you hopeful and like, you know you're gonna make it.

[Beautiful sky]

anyway, my dual pair is comic and fun and oh so sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttttttttt; take it from my cousin who is my dual; it's awesooooooooommmmmmmmmme

The thought of duality gives me goooooood feelings all over the place.

[Krig the Viking]

I would say love is like your favorite tv show, you know there's gonna be conflict but you also sort of always have the solution ready at all times. And that might seem 'boring', but it really leaves you hopeful and like, you know you're gonna make it.

Nice, I like that analogy. There may be conflict, but it will all be resolved by the end of the episode.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request