I don't get dual relationships (duality)

[Moonbeaux Rainfox]

Excerpt from here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/392-Video-lectures-by-Victor-Gulenko-School-of-Humanitarian-Socionics

SHS - Relations Between Duals are Dialectic

V.G. If duals have united into one pair, tell us, is this a consonant or a dissonant union?
Audience: Dissonant from which point of view?
V.G. From point of view of relations between them. Is it easy for them to merge into one? Is such synthesis easy?
Audience: It's not easy for them to come together, but after it's difficult to separate them ... [inaudible conversation].
V.G. This is right. This means that the nature of dual relations is an antithetic synthesis i.e. synthesis of the opposites that struggle with one another but then unite: this is called unity and conflict of the opposites. This is the formula of what kind of thinking?
Audience: Dialectic thinking.
V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring. Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.

Thus, it is not possible to use formal logic to understand dual relations. They can only be understood through dialectic logic that understands that even if they are fighting they are still one whole. Only this kind of logic is able to explain these relations. Someone might say: "We have total harmony. We don't have any disagreements. There is nothing to smooth out." I don't believe it, because I know that dual relations have to go through these intensifications. Without them, you will get bored by one another. Without this there is no raisin, no spice, it would be uninteresting. This would have been static relations, while dual relations are introverted, that is closed-off autonomous relations, but also dynamic relations that are always changing.

So...how is this suppoused to work?...In real life?

Dunno, no clue. For me it will always read like a ‚fantasy‘. I don’t know, if there is not too much ‚idealization‘ going on. It’s like when you really get to the core of a lot of peoples lives (what’s really going on behind the scenes) and know that life can be this huge meat grinder, that a lot of things can happen, then it‘s for me this deep understanding, that sometimes it just boils down to whatever works... sometimes there is no place for ideals. But then again for the ‚romantics‘ at heart, who are ‚open‘ and ‚believe‘ in the ideal, their hearts get moving and idk... because they believe, they will keep on moving and may end up where the cynics never thought they would and maybe it’s about striking a balance between the two.

[SongOfSapphire]

Excerpt from here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/392-Video-lectures-by-Victor-Gulenko-School-of-Humanitarian-Socionics

SHS - Relations Between Duals are Dialectic

V.G. If duals have united into one pair, tell us, is this a consonant or a dissonant union?
Audience: Dissonant from which point of view?
V.G. From point of view of relations between them. Is it easy for them to merge into one? Is such synthesis easy?
Audience: It's not easy for them to come together, but after it's difficult to separate them ... [inaudible conversation].
V.G. This is right. This means that the nature of dual relations is an antithetic synthesis i.e. synthesis of the opposites that struggle with one another but then unite: this is called unity and conflict of the opposites. This is the formula of what kind of thinking?
Audience: Dialectic thinking.
V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring. Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.

This is excellent. Very accurate, imo. You can love adore and respect each other, but I don't think either dual really understands the other deep, deep down...and that helps keep it interesting.

I think dual relationships, if both people are healthy and invested in having a successful relationship, are great not only for enjoyment, but for honing communication skills, effective argument skills (note: I mean fair arguing to seek out truth, not fighting), and respect for oneself as well as the other person.

The differences bt the two contribute a lot to the respect factor: your dual can effortlessly do things and think in ways you struggle with or miss entirely, and in the course of interacting and especially when arguing w them, you realize this even more, but you also realize that the same is true from their perspective -- there is a lot of mutual respect (admiration, even), and that is a big factor in dual relations that I don't recall reading or hearing much about.

[HotSauce]

Oh yeah - we don't fight. Ever. At least not real fights. Play fights are normal. He pretty much worships the ground I walk on (I also say this in the most respectful way possible, as he is very strong mentally and stoic and I totally respect his manhood and all that but he tends to worship me, at the end of the day) and I am perfectly OK with this arrangement

[mu4]

Excerpt from here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/392-Video-lectures-by-Victor-Gulenko-School-of-Humanitarian-Socionics

SHS - Relations Between Duals are Dialectic

V.G. If duals have united into one pair, tell us, is this a consonant or a dissonant union?
Audience: Dissonant from which point of view?
V.G. From point of view of relations between them. Is it easy for them to merge into one? Is such synthesis easy?
Audience: It's not easy for them to come together, but after it's difficult to separate them ... [inaudible conversation].
V.G. This is right. This means that the nature of dual relations is an antithetic synthesis i.e. synthesis of the opposites that struggle with one another but then unite: this is called unity and conflict of the opposites. This is the formula of what kind of thinking?
Audience: Dialectic thinking.
V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring. Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.

Thus, it is not possible to use formal logic to understand dual relations. They can only be understood through dialectic logic that understands that even if they are fighting they are still one whole. Only this kind of logic is able to explain these relations. Someone might say: "We have total harmony. We don't have any disagreements. There is nothing to smooth out." I don't believe it, because I know that dual relations have to go through these intensifications. Without them, you will get bored by one another. Without this there is no raisin, no spice, it would be uninteresting. This would have been static relations, while dual relations are introverted, that is closed-off autonomous relations, but also dynamic relations that are always changing.

So...how is this suppoused to work?...In real life?

Dunno, no clue. For me it will always read like a ‚fantasy‘. I don’t know, if there is not too much ‚idealization‘ going on. It’s like when you really get to the core of a lot of peoples lives (what’s really going on behind the scenes) and know that life can be this huge meat grinder, that a lot of things can happen, then it‘s for me this deep understanding, that sometimes it just boils down to whatever works... sometimes there is no place for ideals. But then again for the ‚romantics‘ at heart, who are ‚open‘ and ‚believe‘ in the ideal, their hearts get moving and idk... because they believe, they will keep on moving and may end up where the cynics never thought they would and maybe it’s about striking a balance between the two.

Want to know what else is dialectical? Narcissist-Borderline, Emotional Manipulation-Codependent, there are other pairings that are attractive based on disorder.

Furthermore, often these relations are socionics driven as well, such as super-ego, benefit, supervision. Many different relations can maintain a stable whole for a short to very long period of time, however duality is a stable relation that should reduce in anxiety and conflict over time.

However this only works with mutual respect, and this respect between individuals must go beyond idealization and fantasy.

Duality is not only defined by this dialectical bond, but also the strength and durability of the bond and growing respect.

[Moonbeaux Rainfox]

However this only works with mutual respect, and this respect between individuals must go beyond idealization and fantasy.

Yeah... I agree, it‘s important. FTR I have a different outlook than this excerpt. Tried to skim the surface of what I was thinking in the last paragraph, but it’s kinda hard to put into words. Idealization, fantasy it just irritates me. It can open door for every kind of bullshit. Illusions, idealization can be exploited. It‘s just mist. People can talk and bullshit, whatever. It‘s not real and I’m sorry but the mist, the castle in the sky, is giving me nothing. There are some things you cannot derive from any system. There are things, you just have to know within yourself. When I think about real... it’s like a feeling deep in my gut. Stuff that cannot be put into words. You just know, that... there is deep caring for someone, that there is respect for someone and that it’s real with another person.

Furthermore, often these relations are socionics driven as well, such as super-ego, benefit, supervision. Many different relations can maintain a stable whole for a short to very long period of time, however duality is a stable relation that should reduce in anxiety and conflict over time.

Yeah Yeah Yeah... super-ego etc. socionics. See how much can you really now about a person from the start? How much can you now about yourself at a certain stage in your life? You cannot foresee everything. See people get together for various reasons. Some seek stability, to realize it was not what the truly needed. Some seek stabilty, because it‘s exactly what they need. It can go every way. Everybody has their reasons for something. Sometimes outsiders don‘t know about that. You cannot know what might make a person seek out sth. what kind of things they carry with them. Sometimes some relationships (not just romantic) are needed. It’s reality in life often enough, people get together, things turn out to be not so ideal, doesn‘t mean they were not real.

But I think I get it, looking at it from the Socionics angle. Super-Ego. Like Super Ego functions being the functions with the societal expectation. People who might look at a pair from the outside and everything seems fitting or ok, but in their intimate, private sphere it‘s actually not. Then people might stay together because of kids or because of being afraid of being alone or because they believe they can make it work or because of sth else. I don't know if duality is the answer for everything. I think things can be sometimes more complex, a lot of things can happen, nobody knows the answer to it all. Nobody has the manual how it should be going. Idk... Sometimes you don‘t always get what you want. Sometimes if you try, you might get what you need

Yeah maybe this is the sad, hard and depressing reality of a lot of people, that it’s not Hollywood cliche, but staying together to raise kids. That just doesn’t sound so nice and yeah it’s maybe not good for the person involved, but it‘s their decision and I believe in life it’s often about you and your decisions. I also believe there are often more layers to anything. Sometimes even if it's people are no good for each other, but still people care about each other. I mean what they have is still real... even if there is conflict and idk... but that of course is hard. Like it would be easier to just hate the other person. That’s probably where you can go all cynical ‚that‘s why caring sucks‘. maybe that's where it's 'dialectical', things look ok from the outside, but from the inside?

Duality is not only defined by this dialectical bond, but also the strength and durability of the bond and growing respect.

Ah yeah... back to duality. See sometimes this is for me, just how it is at times. Real life relationships. I mean you know stuff like how women from poorer countries marry men in order to stay in the country. How stuff is, how relationships can be. Not how everything is so nice and yes I know... that’s actually sad. How people can be this unhappy and still have to carry on. How life can grind people to the ground, how you can be unhappy in this subdued way. Maybe that’s why I added the last part. Like... how you have to believe in something even if (well at least for me) it sounds quite to ideal and yeah I get your point, to find something real inside the fantasy. So yeah long story short. Life can suck, but it shouldn't suck everything out of you. Hopes whatever... Boah idk... I have no clue. I’m just throwing stuff on the wall... Like I have no idea.

[Myst]

Furthermore, often these relations are socionics driven as well, such as super-ego, benefit, supervision. Many different relations can maintain a stable whole for a short to very long period of time, however duality is a stable relation that should reduce in anxiety and conflict over time.

However this only works with mutual respect, and this respect between individuals must go beyond idealization and fantasy.

Duality is not only defined by this dialectical bond, but also the strength and durability of the bond and growing respect.

Absolutely, I notice the same thing, this is definitely needed for duality, it's not magic that removes the need for mutual respect.

[Beautiful sky]

V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring.[B][I] Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.

@Eliza Thomason What do you think of the above?

[Eliza Thomason]

V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring.[B][I] Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.

@Eliza Thomason What do you think of the above?

I might write more later but for now will just say - I don't see hate with my dh, only at times, yes, annoyance, annoyance with him just being who he is. Like explaining a thing too much like a professor giving a lecture. We do come to conflict, like over design (we are building a room with many aspects) and we are learning how to synthesize for sure. His SEI )self-type from quiz) granddaughter said, "You two are so funny. You argue, then you call each other dear." Yes, because the conflict is about the thing, the disagreement, and its not the person that annoys. And this from her was not a criticism; I could see our way made her feel secure and comfortable. Yes, we "dear" all day even just after arguing.

He is louder than me, and I don't like loud, and I tell him "I am not deaf", or if there is any strife in the arguing I turn my back and walk away and say, "I don't want to talk now. Lets talk later when you are not mad." He sees the real effect of "loud" and "strife" on me and he changes immediately - so he can continue if he is so motivated. And we continue the "fight" but with the gentler voices and less-strife that I need.

Anyway, and so we learn about each other, and the "Don't let the sun go down on your anger" that seemed so impossible to achieve with my ex (he was loud and had a major anger issue) has never been an issue here. Never a question. I am never annoyed at sundown, nor is he. The annoyance, maybe what VG calls "hate", doesn't last. I guess frankly I get my way a lot, but I feel so MUCH gratitude that I can express my full opinion on a thing, that my way matters, as I have never been able to before in my life, except in moments with friends, but not in day-to-day real life. And so I love him more, and want to please him who I love more and who pleases me.

A couple of times - design arguments have gotten complicated, like recently he was introducing an well-developed for a problem we had discussed and he arrived at a solution all alone while I had nothing to do with what he worked on, so, no input from me. And He shows me, and its a lot to see, and meanwhile and he is "selling" it, with a lecture, and is not giving me a chance to comment, and he sees a negative comment is about to come out from me and he anticipates, and rabbles on with his explanation and tries to overrule, saying, to acknowledge I am trying to say something, "I am going to win this one!" and I say, annoyed, "Why is it about winning?? Its about communicating and collaborating." And so we communicate. I get my way plenty, then I ask, was I not right? And I was. We both know it. But if he truly does not like my idea, no matter how much I like it I definitely don't push because I want him to be happywith the outcome. I know there will be something we find we both like, we just haven't thought of it yet. The solution, when we both still like our idea better, or I am rejecting his, or he mine, is to table it, and look/wait for another way.

The biggest design one was we could not agree on the way to make a wall of cabinets, and tabled it, so long. He worked on the other wall, with the window seat cabinets instead, since the other wall ideas were stalled. Then months after, last month, we were watching Inspector Morse, and I saw VERY brief scene with a wall at Oxford that was EXACTLY the thing, and he agreed, drew up a design, and we both love it and are going with it. Its so exhilarating to arrive at a thing we are both enthusiastic about, a result of collaborating our strengths, which are different. We are both artistic, but he is orderly, mathematical, and I am lyrical. We both like balance of design, but I approach it completely differently, as in the composition of a painting, and just "knowing", while his is planned and logical. And certain overly-mathematical compositions I STRONGLY object to. [Sometime if anyone is interested I will explain about his quintifoil idea - our first design disagreement] ... Anyway, we always -eventually - arrive at something we BOTH think is right, and are both quite satisfied.

Maybe if I can figure out a way I will post somewhere the several scaled complete design ideas he drew up for this wall that gave us so much trouble, all the rejected designs, and finally what we are doing....

[Beautiful sky]

I might write more later but for now will just say - I don't see hate with my dh, only at times, yes, annoyance, annoyance with him just being who he is. Like explaining a thing too much like a professor giving a lecture. We do come to conflict, like over design (we are building a room with many aspects) and we are learning how to synthesize for sure. His SEI )self-type from quiz) granddaughter said, "You two are so funny. You argue, then you call each other dear." Yes, because the conflict is about the thing, the disagreement, and its not the person that annoys. And this from her was not a criticism; I could see our way made her feel secure and comfortable. Yes, we "dear" all day even just after arguing.

He is louder than me, and I don't like loud, and I tell him "I am not deaf", or if there is any strife in the arguing I turn my back and walk away and say, "I don't want to talk now. Lets talk later when you are not mad." He sees the real effect of "loud" and "strife" on me and he changes immediately - so he can continue if he is so motivated. And we continue the "fight" but with the gentler voices and less-strife that I need.

Anyway, and so we learn about each other, and the "Don't let the sun go down on your anger" that seemed so impossible to achieve with my ex (he was loud and had a major anger issue) has never been an issue here. Never a question. I am never annoyed at sundown, nor is he. The annoyance, maybe what VG calls "hate", doesn't last. I guess frankly I get my way a lot, but I feel so MUCH gratitude that I can express my full opinion on a thing, that my way matters, as I have never been able to before in my life, except in moments with friends, but not in day-to-day real life. And so I love him more, and want to please him who I love more and who pleases me.

A couples of times (design arguments - he is introducing an idea he arrived at alone and not giving me a chance to comment, and a negative comment is about to come out and he anticipates and rabbles on with his explanation and tries to overrule, saying, to acknowledge I am trying to say something, "I am going to win this one!" and I say, annoyed, "Why is it about winning?? Its about communicating and collaborating." And so we communicate. I get my way a lot, then I ask, was I not right? And I was. But if he truly does not like it I definitely don't push because I want him to be happywith the outcome. The solution when we both still like our idea better, or I am rejecting his or he mine, is to table it, and look for another way. We could not agree on the way to make a wall of cabinets, and tabled it, so long. He worked on the other wall, with the window seat cabinets instead. Then months after, last month, we were watching Inspector Morse, and I saw VERY brief seen with a wall at Oxford that was EXACTLY the thing, and he agreed, drew up a design, and we both love it and are going with it. Its so exhilarating to arrive at a thing we are both enthusiastic about, a result of collaborating our strengths, which are different. Maybe if I can figure out a way I will post somewhere the several complete design ideas he came up with for this wall, till we happily got there...

He should leave the design up to you. Doesn't he know better?

[Eliza Thomason]

He should leave the design up to you. Doesn't he know better?

Well, we both always designed without collaborating, both being the only designer in our families. But we both bring these design skills, and so we collaborate.

An art teacher friend of mine has an architect husband, not a dual, a good match though, and they were at odds with home design all the time and usually it took her giving in, as arriving at a compromise most of the time was too difficult. With two designers, its harder. Though I think its IMPORTANT for the husband to give in to the wife on this, and I think her husband was wrong here. He is a good guy in plenty other ways.

Yes, I would say in general home design is the wife's domain. Of course, you agree, when the husband is better at this, as in an architect, or more interested, his input is important. My EII friend with her SLE husband - she let him do it, MOSTLY, for compelling reasons. But there was the time he picked out kitchen backsplash tile without her - and installed it while she was out for the day - she got home as he and his buddy (that she did not like) were finishing the job. And that was her limit. She called me and asked me to help her PULL IT ALL OFF" quick, while it was wet and while he was out on a call... and I did...