deleted to avoid confusing people
Baby's Romantic Attitudes: Second Edition
deleted to avoid confusing people
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I have been trying to understand this - -
Let me see if I got it right. For me, as ENTj:
Ideal Focus (creative function) - this is the role you ultimately fall into in a relationship
Ok, that would be, or Victim. No surprises there. Check.
Focus of Attraction (PoLR) - this is the first card you may feel compelled compensate for (either by aiming t strengthen it, or downplay its importance) in order to attract a partner who is not your Dual, usually working on a purely romantic (again, sexless) level.
So,. I'd be Caregiver when trying to attract a non-dual (or simply a non-Aggressor)? Could be.
Role of Defense (Estimative) - when first approaching a relationship, this (weak, hidden) function/role may be threatened, thus prompting it to assert itself due to its strong, unconscious influence. This is the role you may find yourself falling into, especially in relationships you intend to terminate soon after beginning (one night stands fit in here).
. Not sure about this, I can't say I see that.
Role of Offense (FoCA) - this is the role you may project onto a partner in a non-Dual relationship. This may be a source of arrogance within the relationship, and may ultimately lead to breakdown if not accepted by your partner.
So, Infantile. What you seem to be saying is that with a non-Aggressor, I will try to assume the Caregiver role and therefore try to turn them into Infantile.
I can see where you're coming from, I'm not sure if those patterns are generally there.
Originally Posted by implied
Thanks very much for reviewing it. I'll see if I can't work it out a bit more and see where I'm going wrong. I should probably write up integrated blurbs that sum this all up for each type. That might have made it easier, like my first attempt.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
bump
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I can't believe you bumped this up. My first set was actually much better. (They were unfortunately destroyed in the winter sabotage.) I grouped the types a bit differently here and it just didn't really work. XoX had a good thread on the subject. I'm not sure if it's still around.
EDIT: Found it: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...t=2586&start=0
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote