Yes, but that shallow gossamer feeling is grounded in our instincts, while unselfish love is a worthy product of our mithopoetic imagination. Maybe we should seek some compromise between wish and reality, because if we totally ignore the laws of reality our wish, no matter how noble will crush...Originally Posted by XcaliburGirl
If your partner respects himself enough to leave if he is mistreated, that is a mark of innate worth... so these correlate...
I'm sorry, but fail to see consistency in your reasoning, and furthermore, I disagree with your statement that unselfish love is imaginary.
You're logic is circular. In the context we were speaking about, the mistreatment was stemming from a lack of respect.If your partner respects himself enough to leave if he is mistreated, that is a mark of innate worth... so these correlate...
TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
"I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible
i don't think it is circular. lack of respect and mistreatment is the same. i've qualified myself saying that respect is an active virtue, not a state of mind.
please define unselfish love than, do u mean unconditional love? do u mean giving and not expect anything in return? are we talking about a woman loving a man unconditionally or a man loving a woman unconditionally? do u mean giving someone credit for something they have not earned? when you give me generalities, all i can give you back is generalities.
if you mean the latter, than i do agree with you. it takes only a few seconds to evaluate if i am attracted to you phisically, but there is no way i can know anything about your attitude. i must observe your actions for a long time to evaluate it. but there are some men who'd give you credit, trust, and love just because you have long legs or big breasts... there are even some desperate ones who would give you "unconditional love" just because you are female. if i were a woman, would i be turned on by that kind of unconditional love? no. so you are right, the unconditional love itself is not imaginary. the belief that exhibiting unconditional love, leads to reciprocal love is fiction created by jesus, troubadours, kierkegaard or whoever.
i can't see how i can love someone who loves me in spite of the fact that i treat them like dirt, and i can't imagine loving someone who treats me like dirt. but than, that's just me of course. we all have our personal opinion. maybe it is a typological difference...
i'tell you one instance of unconditional love, it's the love for one's parents. but you wouldn't kiss your parents on the lips or have physical intimacy with them. it's not romantic love. but than i forgot that romance is a shallow gossamer thing. so what type of love do u prefer? parental love?
No, I do not mean the latter. Unconditional love, while a good thing when it comes to mercy, is not a good basis for a romantic relationship long-term or not.
Unselfishness is not a generality. In action it can mean giving without expecting something in return. Mainly unselfish love is loving someone because of that person's worth (there true worth, hopefully; or in a non-romantic/marriage relationship, their worth simply as a human being), instead of what you can get from them. That is not to say you won't recieve anything from them. And that is not to say that unselfish love is possible in a completely unadulterated, pure form (untainted by selfishness) from fallible human beings.
I find it sad that you haven't come across any instances of unselfish love.
I'm not saying romance isn't good. I'm just saying that it is pointless and unstable as a basis for a relationship.
Since we clearly disagree on the essentials and are not really getting anywhere, I would like to politely end my side of this conversation. Although I will read anything you may wish to post, I probably won't reply.
TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
"I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible
well, i agree with that. so u agree that love is inseparable from respect? your definition of unselfish love and respect is the same.unselfish love is loving someone because of that person's worth (there true worth, hopefully; or in a non-romantic/marriage relationship, their worth simply as a human being), instead of what you can get from them
you are in fact speaking about respect when you write "in a non-romantic/marriage relationship, their worth simply as a human being"Respect is something that is based on a person's innate worth
respect plus physical attraction = romantic love.
now, i propose that a man's SELF-respect is part of their worth. a man who is too happy to be there, seems to me somehow unworthy. so why create situations in which the partners are tempted to compromise their self-respect? Why make it difficult for him to walk out when he feels slighted by tying him down with contracts, and isolating him. OK a person’s intrinsic worth is a factor, but in practical terms, we get ornery when we think we own somebody. It is just common sense, nothing profound like unconditional love. But nevertheless it is a fact of reality and we know that when we go against reality we end up in pain…
Well, perhaps you've got me there.
Let me adjust my statements.
Respect causes love. But that does not mean that it is the only cause.
Different levels of respect cause different types of love.
TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
"I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible
love is probably the hardest word to define. it has so many different associations and such with different people. it brings up so many emotions and memories that are personal, not to mention social and semantic.
that being said, the first discovery of "Socionics", is duality, or the dual nature of man. The idea that someone else's unconscious mirrors your concious and vice versa, that your weaks are their strongs. Duality is not your typical relationship or view on relationships, most people agree that you must be an individual and can live without others to be able to have a lasting relationship. with a random person, yes this is very much true, but applied to the duality theory it is much different. In duality, part of yourself becomes another person and vice versa, and trust and intimacy(barring serious personal problems, real world etc etc) come naturally, as you trust yourself. As duality progresses, you become a mixture of yourself and another person. Typically, this is not apparent until the other person is gone and you have trouble with things you have 'unlearned' as they say. Being with a dual for an extended period of time will leave you with qualities of that person. You trust a dual because you trust yourself and have trouble distinguishing the two.
In Jung's writings(of analytical psychology), he said there were actually four major factors in every relationship between a man and a woman, the man, the man's anima(the archetype of the woman, and also the superid), the woman, and the woman's animus(the archetype of the man, and also her superid). Jung said that later he found natural complexes in people, the ego(hero), the superego(persona), the superid(anima), and the shadow(id). Jung said that a person is always looking for someone to project their anima/us on, and sometimes these two would differ, causing problems. Well, the anima/us(superid) of two dual types have the same functions, thus project well. However, the map is not the territory. The contents of the man's anima(superid) and the woman's ego(heroine) and vice versa are always different to start off with, but in duality since the functional projection is already there, the contents naturally begin to reorganize to become like the other. This is the process of duality. Sometimes this process cannot occur, sometimes the contents cannot be equated, it depends on the contents of each person's anima/us(and obviously the rest of their personality too). This is the dual seeking nature of the superid.
I really got off subject and forgot what point I was going to make. Opps.
Jimmy Cartrette
ok, well now that you have specified that what you mean by unselfish love is loving a person for who they are, rather than loving them for what you can get, i think we basically agree on that concept.And that is not to say that unselfish love is possible in a completely unadulterated, pure form (untainted by selfishness) from fallible human beings.
Now according to Aristotle who a person is and how they treat you is the same thing, your actions reveal who you are. If I consistantly act with confidence, than you can say that I AM Confident. If I treat you with respect, than I AM Respectful. So we are really talking about the same thing here only from two different points of view: static and dynamic. If I change how I act, than who I am as a person will also change. I can stop treating you respectfully, and than I myself am no longer Respectful.
I thought Duality was the discovery of Plato. Jung represents the Platonic static perspective. But there is also the dynamic, Aristotilian perspective... where we have existentialists and behaviorists. Which basically says that we are what we do. We define ourselves with our actions. But what these perspectives really are is the perspective of the Self vs. the Ego. I recognize the validity of both perspectives: I think we DO define ourselves with our actions, but I also think that our free will is limited by our instincts/psychological type/whatever. That is why I am not entirely disregarding the problem of psychological types, and not just saying "hey, let's ONLY look at our partner's actions."
Jung also wrote that a real relationship starts only when the projection is withdrawn. And when he was speaking about projecting the Anima he was not refering solely to projecting it upon a Dual. It can be anyone, as long as there is a hoock. In fact he mentioned that when someone projects their Anima/Animus on you, you will instinctively adjust your psychological type in order to match it. This is depth psychology.... what I was talking about is the practical aspects of relationships.In Jung's writings(of analytical psychology), he said there were actually four major factors in every relationship between a man and a woman, the man, the man's anima(the archetype of the woman, and also the superid), the woman, and the woman's animus(the archetype of the man, and also her superid). Jung said that later he found natural complexes in people, the ego(hero), the superego(persona), the superid(anima), and the shadow(id). Jung said that a person is always looking for someone to project their anima/us on, and sometimes these two would differ, causing problems. Well, the anima/us(superid) of two dual types have the same functions, thus project well. However, the map is not the territory. The contents of the man's anima(superid) and the woman's ego(heroine) and vice versa are always different to start off with, but in duality since the functional projection is already there, the contents naturally begin to reorganize to become like the other. This is the process of duality. Sometimes this process cannot occur, sometimes the contents cannot be equated, it depends on the contents of each person's anima/us(and obviously the rest of their personality too). This is the dual seeking nature of the superid.
I really got off subject and forgot what point I was going to make. Opps.
Sorry for the hijack here, but I wanted to comment that I know an infj/estj couple, since someone said a couple of pages ago they didn't know any other dual couples besides intj and esfj. The couple I know are also pretty cohesive. They completely back each other up but when not in public argue and bicker like crazy. But they laugh at one another's foibles. At other times they each say the other is driving them crazy: "I can't stand his "piles". "There's no rhyme or reason to the way you have this organized". Interesting, they conflict over organizational strategy.
Entp
ILE
might be an example of a relationship where the dual partners don't love eachother... but the dual relationship is what keeps them bound to one-another...
although someone is going to say that arguing and fighting is very loving.
i know many dual couples.. it's just that i've observed that INTjs and ESFjs form dual couples more frequently than other types. I've seen ESTj's by the way more frequently paired with their Activity partner -- ENFp........
just send me your pic and phone # and address at levkamensky@yahoo.com
In my experience, external factors are usually the cause of Duals(in my experience, limited to INTj,ESFj) 'closing up'. ESFjs will tend to take on their problems themselves, and try to reject(consciously) any help on it. But they can't help the unconscious suggestion the INTj provides. Once this intimacy space gets closed up, this tends to happen less often. It happens alot with an ESFj friend I have. They can close up pretty tight and even the best reasoning will not open them up. IMO.
Admin,
I have an ESFJ friend of 13 years who is very similar to your friend. I believe that my friend gets discouraged and starts to sabotage herself. Yes, she will refuse help but on some surreal level she will bait me to offer help to her! It's like she is testing me.
On the subject of bad dual relationships –
I think that you're all right to one degree or another. There are so many variables to consider when dealing with human relationships such as psycho-socio-biological influences during one’s lifetime.
I believe that anyone can step into your POLR. Any person of any type can be dysfunctional to one degree or another. Think of Sergie Genin’s “uncovered,” descriptions; would a healthy self respecting ISFP seriously consider the unhealthy ENTP described?
Yeah, I think it's about the same with all duals. they can all close up on you extraverted or introverted. the best thing i can do is offer introverted thinking help to see if i can help the situation, or just let them handle it on their own. the latter seems to work better.
I've had bad dual relationships too...good information metabolism, personality conflicts...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote