Sacred Guarding vs Shared but Boundaried?
Say I believe ideas are sacred and that I will sharply guard my ideas/interests from intrusions. Then wouldn't this guarding signify that I am more easily aware of the boundaries between my interests vs yours?
By opposing token, if I freely share and manipulate ideas, why would i develop an awareness of the boundaries between my ideas and yours. We are sharing them, we are manipulating them, so why would we be keenly differentiating mine from yours?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
yuh, kinda have similar "problems" with -Edited-...Originally Posted by anndelise
Last edited by Reficulris; 09-29-2014 at 01:04 PM.
i was deliberately avoiding using the terms to try to get people to discuss it without getting stuck in what part belongs to what type. You know...everyday language.
I was kind of thinking of doing some of the others as well. But if noone wants to discuss the definitions, then bah.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
What did you mean by "guard"?
The best we are given to answer that is...
To guard from intrusions. Enough where the reactions to intrusions are sharp enough to maybe even reach the point of conflict.
If we were talking about guarding resources even to the point of conflict, I'm assuming that might mean that i would be a stickler about you keeping your grubby hands off of my food, don't use my towel, and keep your crap in your room or by your side of the bed and stop leaving it in mine!
Guarding ideas might include something like maybe I keep insisting on doing this MY way. The idea you gave me is crap, so stop giving me advice or telling me how to do it. I really want to do this and there's nothing that is going to stop me, not even you, so get out of my way!
Ok, so those were extreme ends. Something more milder might be like...
For resource guarding: maybe I clean my dishes each day, but not yours. I shop for food for myself, put it in MY cupboard/shelf, make my own meals and leave you to take care of yourself...just don't use my stuff. I always sit in one chair and get harumphy if anyone else sits in it.
For interest guarding: maybe I insist that at 7pm on Tuesdays the tv gets turned to [insert some show I really like]. Or maybe I spend hours in my room reading and taking notes, but I rarely if ever talk about what I'm studying. Or after I get home after work and immediately go into the garage and start tinkering away on a project, instead of listening to you tell me about your day. Or maybe when we're trying to decide what delivery food to order I insist on deciding which food we will eat tonight, or maybe i even get upset at you because you didn't choose the restaraunt I wanted. Or maybe I get upset with you everytime you interrupt my studying/reading/watching my fav show/knitting/etc.
----
I'm open to other descriptions.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I did some more reading on this
Ok, so if the dichotomy is about personal space (something that a person feels is an integral part of themself, and will defend it from impositions from outside) in terms of
interests (pursuits we find interesting and feel personal attachment to)
and resources (what we have available at our disposal).
Which of these occupies your personal space, and which do you freely change to fit the other? Iow, do you
A) feel attached to your interests/pursuits and adjust your resources to suit your interests/pursuits,
Or B) feel attached to your resources and adjust your interests/pursuits to suit your available resources?
Just leave the whole boundary thing out of it since that causes confusion.
My actual answer:
My interests/pursuits constantly change. And I am constantly buying things to support the interest/pursuit of the moment. Unfortunately, this means having spent quite a bit of money to support so many changing interests. Not to mention the space being used up to store the stuff.
Also, when a friend mentions to me that they are pursuing some interest of theirs, I offer resources I may have collected when I had pursued a similar interest. I have even bought books and tools for my poorer friends to help them out in their ability to pursue said interest.
Another part of my answer includes that I cannot pursue something more than a few minutes to an hour if I'm not somehow interested in something about it. It doesn't matter what resources I have or don,t have available to me.
So for me, my answer would be A.
How would ya'll answer the bolded questions?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
eh... but then they're like glaringly obvious ;-) maybe you should obfuscate them a little more? ^^
I was kind of thinking of doing some of the others as well. But if noone wants to discuss the definitions, then bah.
I edited my post to facilitate your quest
Eh, i tried. And thank you.eh... but then they're like glaringly obvious ;-) maybe you should obfuscate them a little more? ^^
I edited my post to facilitate your quest
So, do you
A) feel attached to your interests/pursuits and adjust your resources to suit your interests/pursuits,
Or B) feel attached to your resources and adjust your interests/pursuits to suit your available resources?
Example(s) please.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Edit: Wrong Dichotomy.
But to your question: "If I freely share and manipulate ideas, why would i develop an awareness of the boundaries between my ideas and yours." I would answer that as Social Skills. The more you do anything(freely share and manipulate ideas in this case), the better you get at it. And developing the awareness of boundaries, is a skill developed. It is a benefit to your cause(sharing ideas), because your awareness of the other persons boundaries allows you to not overstep your bounds. If youre sharing all the time, you develop tact in your sharing, and thats what i would attribute to perceiving others boundaries. You'd appear smoother or at least, less rough/abrasive.
Last edited by Pookie; 09-29-2014 at 02:28 PM.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I will be honest with you here and say I don't know what you are talking about
The best I can do is say that when people - or at least I talk with with people I tend to discuss around things we have in common. This is the best I can think of in terms of Sacred guarding etc. I mean this what we do right, talk to people about stuff we have in common, how friends get on if they have shared views/outlooks etc
I think I do AEh, i tried. And thank you.
So, do you
A) feel attached to your interests/pursuits and adjust your resources to suit your interests/pursuits,
Or B) feel attached to your resources and adjust your interests/pursuits to suit your available resources?
Example(s) please.
Ever since i've been a teenager i've had long lists of skillsets, roles, achievements etc that I'd want to happen in my life. Think a crossover between a bucketlist, a to do list and a personal development plan. I make them every 6 months and review them upon whim. I've found that my actual wishes don't change drastically over time. I usually feel sad and empty upon completing an item as somehow it makes my future less bright. That makes me sometimes less likely to persue my goals lol.
If a new item appears on the list i'll usually mobilize whatever resources I have (money, friends, the internet) to get as close to it as possible as fast as possible. If i can't get there quite yet i'll just postpone until circumstances change.
a real life concrete example then:
I bought an appartment in amsterdam in 2013. It was unrealistic, i already owned a home, and i had three days to get funding (it was per bid, sunday was open house and thursday bid closed lol). I walked into the appartment on sunday and knew i wanted it. So i talked to my parents, to other family members, to some friends. They all said "you don't have the money, it can't be done, but if you want to try i'll give you my support and X in cash". At wednesday evening I had the 200k I needed and i did the bid fully expecting not to get the appartment. On friday I got a call during class that my bid was accepted.
I then proceeded with remodeling the house. Being short on cash after the buy I got friends to do the moving and help me with the remodeling. When I first saw the appartment I knew how i wanted it to look; factory attick meets greenhouse. I made a pinterest board with colors, ideas and stuff i wanted. In the year i've had it i've slowly build the appartment towards completion according to that image i've had. There's still stuff missing because of lacking funds and motivation, but i'm sure that in the next months i'll probably finish it piece by piece as soon as energy and money becomes available.
I did something similar with my first house, I bought it on a whim, completely stripped it, rebuild it to suit a certain style and functional ease. I loved building it, but as soon as i finished it I wanted something new lol. I was able to sell it with a nice gain, even though real estate is in a bad shape right now, but that was NEVER the intent.
I think A fits, because i've got the tendency to feel empty, bored and unhappy. If or when something really lights me up i'll usually not be "realistic" or "sensible" about resources, i'll just buy stuff that helps me get closer to it, spend energy on that part of life, get friends to love the idea and help me. It's because it happens rarely that i'm enthusiastic that i can't afford to be too afraid about my resources or i might end up living a responsible but completely miserable life.
Incidentily, the decisions always work out resources wise, even though i spend more on my friends then they usually contribute to me in cash, they always contribute to my life in significant ways later. Even when i buy stuff that i don't really need, usually it gives me the boost to do something i'd normally not do and step out of my comfort zone. Even if i don't calculate my investments and just throw money at things that im passionate about (even in my business) those are usually the projects that actually yield more resources. Even when I hire people out of liking them instead of competences they usually actually grow into the needed competences faster than the ones that I hired with all the credentials.
i'm sceptical about people who live my way, but I'm extremely happy with the way it turns out in my own life
Edit:
About the guarding aspect; I react sharply to "that can't be done" and or "no you SHOULD do THIS". I'll usually retaliate out of proportion. I don't really guard my possessions, i'm not overly concerned about my resources and treat my possessions usually with less care then I should example, while i'm great at remodeling houses i SUCK at maintaining them lol. There's a crack in my bedroom window that has been in need of being fixed for 3 months now, but i don't feel like it, my bike has a flat tire but i'm like meh, I don't worry about being stole from and dislike any hassle about money in social settings, usually prefering to pay for all above splitting bills.
I feel that what i want is MINE, even if it's stupid, even if it's unreasonable, even if it's unrealistic, it's still WHAT I WANT. People often try to change people's minds about what they want and i believe it to be extremely insensitive, unethical and boorish. I mean, if someone wants something you can't say "no, you DON'T want that". You can't even say "you SHOULDN'T want that"..... you could argue that there's certain urges that should never be acted upon, all things criminal and or harmfull to others. But even in those instances i prefer saying "there's dire concequences" rather than "you can't want that"...
no it's another dichotomy. but Ann tries to ask things about dichotomies without flagging them as dichotomie questions. Would you be so kind to edit the reference to the dichotomies out? I'll do soo too ;-)
Yielding and obstinate. I don't get it that much either.
@anndelise: lol it seems impossible for the names not to be named in this thread
MISSION FAILED!
The dichotomy who's name should not be named!
Or it also shows how useless the dichotomy is@anndelise: lol it seems impossible for the names not to be named in this thread
MISSION FAILED!
The dichotomy who's name should not be named!
i'm sceptical about people who live my way, but I'm extremely happy with the way it turns out in my own life
Thanks for adding that in.About the guarding aspect; I react sharply to "that can't be done" and or "no you SHOULD do THIS". I'll usually retaliate out of proportion. I don't really guard my possessions, i'm not overly concerned about my resources and treat my possessions usually with less care then I should example, while i'm great at remodeling houses i SUCK at maintaining them lol. There's a crack in my bedroom window that has been in need of being fixed for 3 months now, but i don't feel like it, my bike has a flat tire but i'm like meh, I don't worry about being stole from and dislike any hassle about money in social settings, usually prefering to pay for all above splitting bills.
I feel that what i want is MINE, even if it's stupid, even if it's unreasonable, even if it's unrealistic, it's still WHAT I WANT. People often try to change people's minds about what they want and i believe it to be extremely insensitive, unethical and boorish. I mean, if someone wants something you can't say "no, you DON'T want that". You can't even say "you SHOULDN'T want that"..... you could argue that there's certain urges that should never be acted upon, all things criminal and or harmfull to others. But even in those instances i prefer saying "there's dire concequences" rather than "you can't want that"...
Do you have any ideas on how to get the guarding part into the questions? Perhaps a second question asking maybe "Which are you more protective of: your resources, or your interests/pursuits?"
Also, i wanted to say that i totally identify with retaliating out of proportion when told i CAN'T do something, or that I MUST do something. It's pretty bad, and can be easily used against me. My SO will jokingly use it to give me permission to do something that i want to do but I haven't pursued it because I'm worried about finances or such.
However, I'm not sure if my reaction is related to the interest vs resources thing.
An extreme example of this reaction is in the winter, when it snows. I hate driving in the snow. I will usually avoid it at all costs. However, snowed and icy roads means that I can't go into town, even if i wanted to. And That. Pisses. Me. Off. I may have been perfectly content to be in the house working on something, but as soon as that snow comes and 'tells me' that I cannot go into town even if i wanted to, then suddenly i have overwhelming urges to go into town, even though there's nothing i really want from town.
---
Also, I agree about the desire being one thing, acting on the desire being a separate thing. It's possibly impossible to use personal principles and guidelines to guide one's desires. But the personal principles and guidelines can easily be used to guide one's actions.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
yeah, that might do.
Thanks for adding that in.
Do you have any ideas on how to get the guarding part into the questions? Perhaps a second question asking maybe "Which are you more protective of: your resources, or your interests/pursuits?"
no I don't know either, it was what came up for me when i thought about "guarding interests"...Also, i wanted to say that i totally identify with retaliating out of proportion when told i CAN'T do something, or that I MUST do something. It's pretty bad, and can be easily used against me. My SO will jokingly use it to give me permission to do something that i want to do but I haven't pursued it because I'm worried about finances or such.
However, I'm not sure if my reaction is related to the interest vs resources thing.
Yes, perfect example, I do this too. It's annoying when it's TRUELY impossible, cuz then i just get crazy restless.An extreme example of this reaction is in the winter, when it snows. I hate driving in the snow. I will usually avoid it at all costs. However, snowed and icy roads means that I can't go into town, even if i wanted to. And That. Pisses. Me. Off. I may have been perfectly content to be in the house working on something, but as soon as that snow comes and 'tells me' that I cannot go into town even if i wanted to, then suddenly i have overwhelming urges to go into town, even though there's nothing i really want from town.
In general I think the problem with Dichotomies is that they probably look different for different types due to combinations. I'd like to see (or maybe write up for myself) a description of how the dichotomies work together in a type, not asimilar to what we have for how different IM's manifest in a type.
REBEL! REBEL! REBEL!@anndelise: lol it seems impossible for the names not to be named in this thread
MISSION FAILED!
The dichotomy who's name should not be named!
Voldemort!
Of course people are going to name the Dichotomy, no one knows what the hell this is talking about... until you name the dichotomy. It's context to make sense of the content.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
sometimes you want to ask someone something to not test their knowledge of Socionics but to test your understanding of it ;-) or to test a hypothesis.
I'm thinking that part of my problem when i read it, is in what it means to "share and manipulate". Sharing can mean to express one's ideas, and listen to others express theirs. Like passing information back and forth to each other. Sharing can also mean that we work together towards a common goal/interest. And sharing can mean communal property, or part of the commons. The former meaning makes sense with what you wrote.
But i think more so that something about the wording of the dichotomy descriptions that doesn't make sense to me, still. I will use the rewording to try to get the idea across.
If I am protective of my interests/pursuits from outside intrusions, then I've got a 'boundary' between MY interest/pursuit vs the Outside World's, right?
But if I freely manipulate my interests to suit the resources available to me, how is that showing an awareness of the boundary between my interests/pursuits vs The Outside World's? Basically, this means to me that the outside world can manipulate my resources as a way of controlling/manipulating what interests I will pursuit. It can force me to align my interests with what the outside world wants of me. If they want me to cut up wood, they can provide me with just a saw and some wood, to get me to pursuit THEIR interest.
I guess I interpret "protect" and "guard" "personal space" from "intrusions" as implying a "boundary".
But "freely manipulating" "impersonal space" as 'no boundary', or very little boundary. Aka 'the commons' or 'communal'.
Yes, social awareness and skills can help me prevent myself from intruding on their personal space. For example, if i know that they consider their chair as a part of their personal space (one of their treasured resources), then out of respect I won't sit in their chair.
But if they don't consider a particular chair as part of their personal space (the chair is something that is shared by all), then how would one have a keen awareness of that unowned chair belonging to them or me?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Doesn't this change depending on the situation? I think you have a really hard task trying to decide which one really means 'you' when in reality I doubt anybody is either/or for this one.
So, the concepts can't be discussed without specifically labeling the concept?
You'd be unable to talk about just one socionics/reinin element without telling someone the entire socionics/reinin elements and how they all fit together?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
i think a lot of things people do changes depending on the situation. But the idea behind people typing systems is that people demonstrate a preference for one of the options across varying contexts/situations.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
(Also, i want to add Thanks ya'll, for being willing to talk about it.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't feel like my interests can be threatened. I'll either do something when I think it suits me, or I won't, and I'll leave it for another time, or I'll just get over it and adjust to the situation. It isn't something tangible that someone can take away from me. I compromise all the time.
Last edited by suedehead; 09-29-2014 at 04:00 PM.
Yes! But it seems to me the most reasonable course of action is to perhaps consider that this dichotomy is at the point of vagueness that it doesn't serve anything practical
At the moment I think it's just the wording that seems off to me. Combine poor wording with Ti polr and talk about confusion!Yes! But it seems to me the most reasonable course of action is to perhaps consider that this dichotomy is at the point of vagueness that it doesn't serve anything practical
I suppose it also doesn't help that I jump from one pov to another in my posts. Perhaps i should use different names instead of "I" for each different pov.
But yeah,
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
@Reficulris and anyone else,
What do you think of this wording?
(Note: I don't particularly like the current questionnaire that is used for typing new people. And, when i tried @Subteigh 's newest test, i ran into conflicts with the wordings/descriptions (which i know were pulled from a website, I'm not blaming him, i think his attempt was pretty cool). So am considering working out simpler questions which are directly related to socionics. This was the first dichotomy he covered, hence it being the first post i made towards this effort.)Which are you more protective of: a) your resources, or b) your interests/pursuits?
Which one are you more willing to adjust to better suit the other?
Examples, please.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
this would be good if you gve priorly either a clear definition of Resources / Interests or examples of both.
When I was a drug user I was "A" all the way and would find the resources to pursue my interests without a lot of thought involved. I know this was an unnatural drive for me though.Eh, i tried. And thank you.
So, do you
A) feel attached to your interests/pursuits and adjust your resources to suit your interests/pursuits,
Or B) feel attached to your resources and adjust your interests/pursuits to suit your available resources?
Example(s) please.
With a clear head, I am "B". I have resources but I am kind of indecisive on how to use them. I will want to buy something in the moment but now I tend to talk or research myself out of it. If it is only energy I am spending it is way easier since I am more free when it comes to sharing energy/feelings and thoughts. it is nice to know I have the money when I really decide I want to do something. I do not deny myself the things I REALLY want. Like taking a trip or buying a car. It is the little things I can easily let go of. I don't know if I even have hobbies.
So I guess it is B. I am not even sure if I answered the question you are asking.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
These were the definitions from the wiki:
* personal space (something that a person feels is an integral part of themself, and will defend it from impositions from outside)
* interests (pursuits we find interesting and feel personal attachment to)
* resources (what we have available at our disposal).
"Attached to and/or protective of" covers the definition of 'personal space’ which is what this dichotomy is focusing on.Which are you more attached to and/or protective of: a) your available resources, or b) your interests/pursuits?
Which one are you more willing to adjust to better suit the other?
Examples, please.
I did my best on the other two, but am open to suggestions.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Lol I don't think it's Ti PolR there's been T types flogging this in different formats. For myself I concern myself with does it work yes/no which some might say is Te but I say it is just that N types like to debate and discuss things more than S types and also the amount of personal time one is prepared to invest. I don't have the time as it doesn't concern me but it perplexes me why some do. I suppose that is what I wonder when I read such threads.At the moment I think it's just the wording that seems off to me. Combine poor wording with Ti polr and talk about confusion!
I suppose it also doesn't help that I jump from one pov to another in my posts. Perhaps i should use different names instead of "I" for each different pov.
But yeah,
There's a few things going in this thread, and this addresses one of them, thank you.When I was a drug user I was "A" all the way and would find the resources to pursue my interests without a lot of thought involved. I know this was an unnatural drive for me though.
With a clear head, I am "B". I have resources but I am kind of indecisive on how to use them. I will want to buy something in the moment but now I tend to talk or research myself out of it. If it is only energy I am spending it is way easier since I am more free when it comes to sharing energy/feelings and thoughts. it is nice to know I have the money when I really decide I want to do something. I do not deny myself the things I REALLY want. Like taking a trip or buying a car. It is the little things I can easily let go of. I don't know if I even have hobbies.
So I guess it is B. I am not even sure if I answered the question you are asking.
If you were in a relationship (friendship, romantic, group), would you more easily align your pursuits/interests to match/support theirs, or would you instead hope they would align theirs to match yours?
(I think there is something about the direction I've headed in this thread that is missing something important, and so am asking as a way of trying to figure out what that missing thing is.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
In my case, the need to know!!
Trying to figure it all out myself easily leads to confusion. So I try bouncing my thoughts off of others so I can see where to make adjustments in my understanding.
Plus, it's easier to think out loud. (For me,...not for those listening to me, heheh.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Now this question is way harder for me. If it is a friendship or group setting I try to sway people to do what I want them to do. I do not compromise a lot in these situations but I strive for cooperation of some sort because I don't want anyone to feel like I have overruled what they want.There's a few things going in this thread, and this addresses one of them, thank you.
If you were in a relationship (friendship, romantic, group), would you more easily align your pursuits/interests to match/support theirs, or would you instead hope they would align theirs to match yours?
If it is a romantic interest I tend to get interested in what they are interested in so that I can be a part of their world, so to speak. I want to know and feel what they know and feel. Usually they will also want to experience things that I am interested in too, so most of my romantic relationships tend to be a merging of interests/desires and it is like total cooperation, without compromise, that flows. If that makes sense.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
This fits with what othere ieis I've talked with have expressed.
I think the willingness to align (aka share) this way is what's missing from my rephrasing questions.
I'm willing to compromise to a point, and for short term efforts.
Also if I don't feel strongly one way or another (ie not caring much where we eat, just so long as we eat soon! But definitely not at "such and such" restaurant.)
But i cannot align myself to actively pursue/support someone else's goal. I can passively support, no problem. I might actively support by doing small things (like when R had to work his ass off on the house, I took over his kitchen duties as a way of helping him (and me, lol)). But I refuse to use up my energy to pursue someone else's interests except for emergencies. (This is one of the things that leads me to label myself as selfish.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I see no area in this post outlined to not name the dichotomy, and many people have expressed confusion in the chatbox/the thread. So if you want discussion of the concept, its benefical to name the concept.
Thats why i stated of course its going to be named. I recognized the exact terms and knew it was a reinin dichotomy, as other people would too. Concepts can be discussed without the labeling on the concept, but from a third party perspective i see how naming the term will add to the discussion, as more people will understand what you're asking. And thats seemingly what you want, to gain more discussion. Hence, the benefit to naming it.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I will reference (Defer?) this post, but can you state your question in clearer terms? I see all the framework to the question in this post, but the question itself is harder to grasp what you want answered.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
^^
Yeah i would have never guessed a chair(or belonging) would constitute as a Resource(from post above). So clearer definitions of what seperate these two ideas would help.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Yes I had lots of other pursuits I could have done with all their related resources, but I wasn't in the mood for those, and so couldn't get into them without being in the right mood.
