Synthesizing descriptions of duality.

[Bertrand]

I think conflict exists in duality but not in terms of socionics conflict, rather conflict in the general sense. just because you're duals doesn't mean you suddenly want the same things. its like duals have been on opposite sides in wars, and you can shrink that down to what's for dinner or who's family for Christmas, etc. In the sense of competing values at the psychological level, no conflict does not exist, but that is a relatively narrow and special meaning of conflict. Conflict as in the dictionary definition: a serious disagreement or argument happens all the time. I think what makes duality special is in some ways it turns most arguments into arguments in the most benign sense. arguments like academia would prefer everyone treat arguments, which are good faith disagreements over issues that neither party demonizes the other over, but rather resolves constructively mainly through peaceful dialogue. inasmuch as duality is conducive to constructive resolution these "conflicts" build trust because instead of them spiraling downward into a bottomless pit they engender increased future trust because you come out the other end and find the light at the end of the tunnel--that you can be honest and assertive with your dual and nevertheless end up with a positive outcome. this is something interactions with your super ego tend not to produce, i.e.: they tend to involve a zero sum competition not a synergetic one (synergy is by being yourself helping others, rather than having to give up something of yourself to help).

I think conflict in the socionics sense also can eventually get to this place as well, but it is more in the ultra long term transcendent function sense where "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" which is why super egos exist at all (by this I mean super ego needs an evolutionary reason for existing in the first place, and it can't be because it is an absolute negative). this talk of conflict in either sense of the word as being inherently bad I feel is misguided because you have to think of all of humanity in some sense as one organism, and find the order in the chaos in some sense. its not a straight linear progression of good feelings all the time or its not duality, just like conflict is not always a straight progression of negative feelings. what makes people human is precisely their ability to transcend exactly those simple dynamics. do I think this makes conflict and duality essentially equal? not at all, but I do think it is way too strong to say inter quadra conflicts are irreconcilable and that fights never provide greater understanding. in fact I think the purpose of fights is to provide for greater understanding, whether within the context of duality or conflict, its just the ease from which the understanding flows that characterizes the relative productiveness and comfort of the relationships one to another.

Jung thought in terms of the transcendent function which was the self moving toward growth, with things like the ego and the super ego being differentiated aspects of the self, like compartments within it, sub personalities if you will, fighting for dominance. its not so much that one must win, its that they all move forward together (and this forward movement is powered by them bouncing off eachother). duality makes this a smoother process, but conflict can no less move one forward. in the same way duality can entail "trouble" requiring one "to move"--in some sense movement is required wherever perfection is lacking, and duals "correct" eachother all the time, its just the pain involved lands on receptive rather than painful functions. but its nevertheless a similar process in adjusting other individuals. people can get so entrenched that resistance across even suggestive functions can occur and lead to arguments with a dual. duals don't suddenly wants exactly the same things as their dual, rather duality is the process whereby they come to resolve conflicts in a healthy way, not the complete absence of them. at least that's how I think of it. I also think conflict resolution in this sense has a positive valence, which is why we call duality "desirable" or "good" or "healthy". its when you manage to do something you didn't want to do but are glad you did it and are grateful to whoever inspired you to make that move. that's what people want their duals for, to provide for exactly that--a partner in life who helps them productively move forward. if just making wants isomorphic to one's own one were the entire purpose one could just stay single or get a snake or clone oneself or whatever

people's functions are "filled" with idiosyncratic content, type is simply the structure that shapes how that content communicates itself. conflict and duality are actually both relations of high communication, but one is simply across a painful function and the other not, its not that your conflictor miscommunicates so much as we tend to color the painful nature of their actually typically very clear communication as intentionally painful i.e.: evil, and wish we could ignore it. its actually in learning from our conflictor that we learn very valuable things. the reason duality is great is because it accomplishes a similar degree of communication but in a more pleasant and therefore usually more productive manner. if people were perfectly mature I would argue conflict would be the better relationship, so in that sense maturity is more an issue between conflictors than duals