Originally Posted by
Ryu
Hmm, then the duality articles you read must be missing something (not surprising). The underlying point of duality is that you both develop psychologically (Rick's talks about this some on his dualization page, I think). If you just grow to use someone else as a replacement, or a crutch, in decision making, that's not really growing, and it's a lesser form of duality. I'm not really sure how to differentiate between the two in terms of what really causes the more healthy psychological development in duality, but it is supposed to be part of it. It's how you become dualized - you're supposed to better be able to understand your dual and relate better to them (and even attract them more) the more you are around them. This involves them influencing (and expanding) your decision making actual psychological development. If I'm overstepping Rick's article then I'll say I'm speaking of myself and my own understandings.
This is going to sound ironic or perhaps staged, but, I realize a major part of things for me is connecting my "inner world" to my external world. Minde has brought about various forms of compartmentalization that I had/have, and was the first person to point it out in the way she did. For me it has to do with being able to be so simply task or objective oriented and not having a conscious connection to other things, or even thinking I need one.
So while I am not sure it is a "goal in life", I definitely can feel a sense that 'my dual' helps me by connecting my inner and outer worlds. I suspect that the connection process varies for different people or dual/type relationships, (perhaps my comment about compartmentalization might not apply to everyone) but, I suppose I can see a general trend where there is some sort of mutual assistance in terms of completeness (that sounds a bit fairy-tale, so I'm still not so sure how I feel about it... but I do see a bit of something here). "I want to be entirely connected to the things happening around me, have my presence felt, and have control over it" - I feel like that is something that I help EIIs do, really. Particularly in terms of implementation and execution.
PS: (general comments)
As an EII, 'growth', particularly in a relational/relationship sense, should be pretty important. So I can see how the idea of 'mere dependence' would be particularly unappealing. Also, in terms of LSE/EII duality, I've gotten a general sense (even from profiles) that the nature of growth and development over time is particularly important, to the couple and to how the couple functions. I suspect that each dual couple has their own way of going about that, but, I'm not really sure. There's probably variation in terms of valued functions / quadra values and maybe even rationality/irrationality, but I'm not sure. This is somewhat theoretical and 'magical' still, but, I don't see it as being too far fetched.