falling in love with our counterpart

[Morgain]

someone had recently posted a link to this article and I have been thinking about it:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]We long for wholeness, a greater unity that stems from meeting the Beloved, our other half. Eros, our archetypal longing, causes us to reach for that which is missing; our desire is organized around this radiant absence. And we yearn to melt into the Beloved, to find there the missing piece, and to lose ourselves in a paradise of everlasting love. Jung expressed this universal quest of the human soul in this way: "The soul cannot exist without its other side, which is always found in a 'You.' Wholeness is a combination of I and You, and these show themselves to be parts of a transcendent unity whose nature can only be grasped symbolically."[/FONT]

so what the article says is that people always seem to be attracted to there counterpart, the one that possesses the qualities that we miss. And you can see this in a lot of couples where an ESTP falls in love with a ISFP, ISFP needs to be protected while ESTP seeks someone who is vulnerable because he can't be vulnerable, for example.
But when people start to explore there shadow functions and start to use them and really own them, the attraction to there counterpart faides away and they don't longer know why they where attracted to eachother, so the look for an other person, there new counterpart.

I think this is a good theory. I have seen it happen in my life. People who has fallen in love with me always seems to be searching for a strong dominant women. I never wanted to be that way but I surely come off that way probably because I had a hard time in showing my vulnerability.

I wonder that if this theory is correct, what happens when you have developed all your functions. Does it make you fall in love less often?

and would it make you search more for someone alike, someone who also has developed there functions instead of the counterpart? And it would be more like a loose companionship than a "falling in love head over heals" depending on eachother hate/love relationship?

and the person who has developed a lot of his/her functions, would (s)he become less attractive to most people because (s)he doesn't represent him/herself as someones counterpart?

 

[Wyote]

No wonder nobody likes me =P

 

[IndigoSensor]

Well, if the two examples you posted are the pattern of a counterpart, that means that the match up for INFJ would be ENTJ, and I have been there before; it's not pretty.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who fall for me think I am strong/dominate. However, my last two relationships perceived me to be much "harder" and impervious to emotions then I actually am (although that was largely my own doing).

Developing your functions further wouldn't really make you fall in love less often. What I would see it do would prevent you from falling too fast or too hard for someone. In reality it would actually make falling in love more complete and fufilling (hindsight reflection would reveal this in most cases by my suspsision).

 

[Blind Bandit]

I'm confused how are you defining counter part here? Do you mean the exact opposite letters? or something else?

 

[Gaze]

Very interesting theory. And it makes a lot sense. I was thinking about something similar this relate to the idea of feeling or being complete with someone or being with someone because you think they will complement your weaknesses or that your strengths will complement their weaknesses. If someone is "complete" in the sense that most of their functions are developed, it can make them seem perfect and more desirable, and so they they look at that person as having something they lack. On the other hand, if we're attracted to people with less developed functions that we find to be strengths and vice versa, then it seems like a complement of strength/weaknesses.

 

[Morgain]

Well, if the two examples you posted are the pattern of a counterpart, that means that the match up for INFJ would be ENTJ, and I have been there before; it's not pretty.

the two exampels where not exactly what I mean by counterparts. The autor wasn't very specific about what he ment with it either. I think any kind of shadow function that you are lacking and the other person is using and visa versa...

Developing your functions further wouldn't really make you fall in love less often. What I would see it do would prevent you from falling too fast or too hard for someone. In reality it would actually make falling in love more complete and fufilling (hindsight reflection would reveal this in most cases by my suspsision).

yes that is what I ment

Very interesting theory. And it makes a lot sense. I was thinking about something similar this relate to the idea of feeling or being complete with someone or being with someone because you think they will complement your weaknesses or that your strengths will complement their weaknesses.

yes exactly, the difference between being complementairy in strength/weakness and sharing your life with someone based on compassion and mutual respect. In the latter you would perfectly feel complete on your own, you are just together because you like eachothers company and can enpower eachother, while in the furst you need to other to be able to feel complete. Something like that.

If someone is "complete" in the sense that most of their functions are developed, it can make them seem perfect and more desirable, and so they they look at that person as having something they lack. On the other hand, if we're attracted to people with less developed functions that we find to be strengths and vice versa, then it seems like a complement of strength/weaknesses.

someone who is complete in developing there functions can be seen in to ways, as perfect and desirable because they represent the strengths other people are looking for but also overwelming and intimidating because they don't have the weakness that complement with our strength?

 

[DoveAlexa]

Well I'm sure this is why I'm with Chaz. I have a strong desire to be more spontaneous and less worrisome, calmer, more logical and more aware of my surroundings: Ti, Se, and P. He wants love and affection and someone to open up to: Fe. His Ni (both N's really) Definitely enjoy my own high N's capacity. Then to top it off, in all the other ways we are really similar. So yeah, I see it.

 

[myst]

Hmmm, the more "complete" you are, the less you can fall head over heels... that's kind of sad I think... I want to imagine that the more you develop yourself the better falling in love would feel somehow.

 

[Razare]

I think developing your other functions mean you are maturing as a person. It gives you greater flexibility to handle yourself in life and handle more types of situations. It is maturity in it's most basic form.

Mature people usually don't fall for someone instantly, because a mature person knows that relationships in the long run are difficult. I guess you can just ignore that in the beginning and enjoy, but a mature person keeps the danger of that in mind.

After my last relationship, I'm not certain that next time around I can go for a person who isn't near my maturity level. This last one, she was way way below. I thought we could work through it, but that's just not the case. A real relationship involves 2 adults standing on their own and coming together. Instead, she leaned on me for too much; which didn't bother me any, but it probably bothered her, or it would have one day.

As I see things now with myself, I could fall for nearly any personality but an ISTJ. There's probably one or two others that I would totally avoid, but anything in the spectrum of... ISFP, ISFJ, INFJ, INFP, and INTP, I know I could handle and learn to love. I could probably handle many types of extroverts too, but I'm such and extreme introvert that I don't meet many extroverts. They tend to get bored with me quick because I refuse to give immediate feedback about whether I like them as a person or not. I'm generally a stonewall until I figure a person out and determine whether I like them. Once I like you though, yah, I'm pretty much a friend for life even if you screw me over, because I'll know why you screwed me over and just accept that that is who you are and I already knew you were like that.

Like I forgave my ex for cheating on me, because that's just how she is and I knew it beforehand. I just had an irrational hope. I wont talk to her ever again, though, because it's not healthy.

 

[sassafras]

Isn't the true counterpart to an INFJ an ENFP?

Because if it is, man am I in trouble.

 

[AUM]

Isn't the true counterpart to an INFJ an ENFP?

Because if it is, man am I in trouble.

Yeah, it seems that an ENFP is the opposite of the INFJ but many others have claimed that it really is the ESTP.

Personally, I've never been able to get involved romantically with an ENFP, many of our values and perceptions are quite different from each other. As friends, they do quite alright.

 

[IndigoSensor]

the counterpart for an INFJ according to typelogic.com is ESFJ

Counterpart perform similar functions in totally different realms

 

[AUM]

the counterpart for an INFJ according to typelogic.com is ESFJ

That's new to me

 

[Razare]

I have an ESFJ friend. When I first met her when I was 19, I did fall for her very fast. It didn't work out because she was in a committed relationship. She ended up engaged to another ESFJ, they're both teachers and getting married next year.

I don't think a relationship in the long run would have worked between us, but I'm also markedly different from a normal INFJ.

She has an utter inability to understand the inner me and we've been friends for years. Not close friends, though, maybe that's why.

That stuff below the surface is what's going to matter most in the long run. Those ideal matches, to me, are just matches that are good as far as communication goes, which really helps in the beginning of a relationship.

 

[soulseeker]

if it's like completely different letters.. well I don't know... I think I like N better than S types ahahah I don't know bwhahaha I just feel that N is better ahahahaha

 

[Blind Bandit]

There is very little possibility that it would ever work with an ESFJ and myself. it would be an up hill battle.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I think it's possible that someone with well-developed functions would fall in love less easily because they wouldn't need someone as much. In other words, they wouldn't fall in love necessarily because they need to feel loved or appreciated, like many people do, but rather because they want a relationship with the other person. In other words, they don't fall in love with love, but love with the Other. At least, that's a theory.

However, I think that more people tend to fall in love with someone who is well-rounded because they have a higher likelihood of seeing some aspect the are attracted to in that person, especially if that person is kind and open. Sometimes a well-rounded person is more intimidating and strong, but even that often creates admiration.

The thing about the counterpart relationship is that it does create a strongly passionate relationship, but it seems to die as the passion dies. Real, lasting love is not greatly passionate; it is calm, appreciative, and nurturing rather than emotional and turbulent. So, in my opinion, it is better to find someone who you can relate to on an un-romantic as well as romantic level because those are the people you'll be able to stand once the passion begins to level out.

 

[Morgain]

I think it's possible that someone with well-developed functions would fall in love less easily because they wouldn't need someone as much. In other words, they wouldn't fall in love necessarily because they need to feel loved or appreciated, like many people do, but rather because they want a relationship with the other person. In other words, they don't fall in love with love, but love with the Other. At least, that's a theory.

However, I think that more people tend to fall in love with someone who is well-rounded because they have a higher likelihood of seeing some aspect the are attracted to in that person, especially if that person is kind and open. Sometimes a well-rounded person is more intimidating and strong, but even that often creates admiration.

The thing about the counterpart relationship is that it does create a strongly passionate relationship, but it seems to die as the passion dies. Real, lasting love is not greatly passionate; it is calm, appreciative, and nurturing rather than emotional and turbulent. So, in my opinion, it is better to find someone who you can relate to on an un-romantic as well as romantic level because those are the people you'll be able to stand once the passion begins to level out.

my point exactly! You have a great way of putting these things into words!!

 

[dark_angel]

I think it's possible that someone with well-developed functions would fall in love less easily because they wouldn't need someone as much. In other words, they wouldn't fall in love necessarily because they need to feel loved or appreciated, like many people do, but rather because they want a relationship with the other person. In other words, they don't fall in love with love, but love with the Other. At least, that's a theory.

However, I think that more people tend to fall in love with someone who is well-rounded because they have a higher likelihood of seeing some aspect the are attracted to in that person, especially if that person is kind and open. Sometimes a well-rounded person is more intimidating and strong, but even that often creates admiration.

The thing about the counterpart relationship is that it does create a strongly passionate relationship, but it seems to die as the passion dies. Real, lasting love is not greatly passionate; it is calm, appreciative, and nurturing rather than emotional and turbulent. So, in my opinion, it is better to find someone who you can relate to on an un-romantic as well as romantic level because those are the people you'll be able to stand once the passion begins to level out.

^^^ This

 

[88chaz88]

What's considered as counterpart? ISTP and INFJ sound rather far apart, and they pretty much are, but the four functions are the same (albeit different orders) so there's enough room to relate.