Optimal Identical Relations/Subjective Ordering of Intertype Relations

[ashlesha]

This is where I got it from.

Conflict relationships may have physical attraction but they will NOT have psychological attraction. In fact it will be the opposite: repulsion. "coping with each others faults," is a euphemism for censorship. Neither person has faults, rather they are perceived as faults by the other party. So each person coupes by censoring themselves, They think, "Should I tell my partner X....nah it'll start a fight." This is an example of increasing psych distance. If a couple ignores these issues and stays together that's insanity, not true love.

[Faith]

This is where I got it from.

Its cool that you focus on your own understanding and subjective interpretation about other ppl statements and conversations (and intrude in them, lol), but hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed). Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Now if you come to defend that you or he have the right to exposing your unconformities to your partners thats cool. I'm not against that and that wasnt my focus in the conversation. You both have the right to do whatever you want in your relations. But you or he cant come to say to me that 'love' isnt real beyond attraction because your own subjective experience of reality proves that. Thats a phallacy.

[ashlesha]

Its cool that you focus on your own understanding and subjective interpretation about other ppl statements and conversations (and intrude in them, lol), but hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed). Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Now if you come to defend that you or he have the right to exposing your unconformities to your partners thats cool. I'm not against that and that wasnt my focus in the conversation. You both have the right to do whatever you want in your relations. But you or he cant come to say to me that 'love' isnt real beyond attraction because your own subjective experience of reality proves that. Thats a phallacy.

They're clearly saying you should be able to express your needs in a relationship. Dunno why its so complicated or bothersome.

[Faith]

They're clearly saying you should be able to express your needs in a relationship. Dunno why its so complicated or bothersome.

Its like you read but you just understand everything based in your own projections instead of what it means in the context.

[ashlesha]

Its like you read but you just understand everything based in your own projections instead of what it means in the context.

I dunno, I see you extrapolating a bunch of motivations and infering things that weren't in the post, so ditto?

[Faith]

I dunno, I see you extrapolating a bunch of motivations and infering things that weren't in the post, so ditto?

Where I infered and extrapolate things exactly?

For having communication, humans invented language and terms. In that way, we can understand words with a same meaning and having a common ground which allows communication. In that way, an apple is an specific fruit for example. You and I think in the same thing because we have a concept attached to a word. Thats how ppl can communicate. You have problems understanding correctly the meanings of terms and often you push your own projections and interpretations into others ppl words. Its not the first time you do it.

Then you come to say that I'm infering stuff where I'm just talking about what strictly he was saying (his own words and nothing more and the strict meaning of his words, and he quoted me at first just to say them) and what functions means in socionics theory which is the main topic and reason of this forum.

I dont know from where you are taking that he's stating that ppl "should be able to express their concerns in relations" when he was clearly saying that "coping in relations is censorship -he gave examples- and love doesnt exist beyond attraction and disney movies". Nothing more. I dont know why you cant simply read that and get the meaning of the words right instead of projecting your own insecurities into everything all the time.

[ashlesha]

Where I infered and extrapolate things exactly?

hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed).

"should I tell my partner x" refers to censorship of words.
The words probably have some emotional component, sure, but to reframe it as "he doesn't want to hold back his feelings, Fe!" seems convoluted.

1. Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship.

2. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably.

3. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Three (3) guesses/inferences.

He also didn't say love isn't real. He said "true love" which I will go out on a limb and GUESS means the sappy/soulmate/Disney phenomenon.