Conflict beetween ID and Super ID

[noid]

Is there any paper on this ? This conflict is perhaps what's the main catalizer of growth of an individuality and his creativity.
I noticed something interesting this week end.

My ex LSE girlfriend seem to be internally torn beetween her proper attachment to people and the need to "live", "enjoying present", asserting her desire. I see that as a conflict beetween Se (drive, impact, "collection of experience") and Fi (attachment).
She said to me for example that while she was for 6 month in a travel for China, she was unable to forget his family (or cat, or friend, or whatever kind of "attachment") and feel this as something wich prevents her to enjoy current moment, and do not want in the future to be "limited" to these attachement in order to do what I see as kind of "eating" the present Se way.
A kind of "sublimation" of this can be for example that she's attuned directly to the drive of other, like a kind of X ray wich scan myself and determine magically what I want to "be" at an instant t (and she's often true, but in a limitative sense). Not sure of that anyway.


Myself have hard time to wanting to respect "rules" when there is no "meaning" behind, when there is no higher "purpose" in a sense (Te vs Ni). I sense the rule is based on a kind of "void". When I hear "This must be done", the first question in my head is "why", and this "why" is not forcibly resolved by intense rationnalization.
The other trap of that is that my proper life goal can feel sometime meaningless "for myself" if I concentrate too much on accomplishing them or setting proper way to do them (super ID override ID then I lose inspiration ^^).
The resolution of this can be like a kind of religion, where symbolical meaning ("the story behind the story" or more "the spiritual story behind soulless facts") give acceptance to what I see as "limitative" rules.


In LII, I suppose that this manifestation of conflict beetween super ID and ID (Fe/Ni) is for example that some will sense that they "hate love/emotionnal superficiality" or at least there is a kind of absurdity in romantic relationship.
Thats what convey the image used and the title of a song writed by an INTj on another post : ( http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...r-LII-to-be-E4) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ult8PF_8SOg

The image used speak for itself. "You hide a part of my view", absurdity, ect.




Do this make sense ? Is there more data on that ?

[tcaudilllg]

I wrote something on that a while back, and gambit also made some good observations. No, there is no paper because the socionists are interested in organizational principles, not the inner worlds of men. Gulenko said it to me one time, "I'm interested in what people do."

Oh, and Se is not "drive, attachment". Those are Fi concepts. Gulenko wrote a good paper about +/- and which concepts fall under which IEs.

Maritsa and I are working on a paper to submit to the journal of analytic psychology, about socionics and inner and interpersonal struggles. You are welcome to be party to it if you like.