A translation of Victor Gulenko's short duality descriptions.
ESI-LIE duality
ILI-SEE duality
++added: see also Duality observations
A translation of Victor Gulenko's short duality descriptions.
ESI-LIE duality
ILI-SEE duality
++added: see also Duality observations
Last edited by silke; 07-09-2017 at 07:56 AM.
Completely misses the constant oscillation of fucking and fighting in ILI-SEE duality.
I AM THE INCREDIBLE EMOTIONAL TANK!
I keep ALL the squishies safe!
Seriously though, this is a dumb description.
Easy Day
I can't even get through reading it... it's like trying to read ingredients on a carton when I don't care nor know what they even are...
bad translations maybe?
LIE-ESI is kind of robotic. but in an affectionate way.
Last edited by blackburry; 12-26-2012 at 04:16 PM.
Of all the ESIs and LIEs I know both types seem to be picky and like a person to behave a certain way.. both like space. both like teasing and sarcastic jokes. neither likes to be suffocated or asked how they're feeling all the friggin time.
The description makes sense but it seems to be strictly behavioral i.e. doesn't even try to catch any deeper relational nuances. But well, it's okay in its own right.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The way this duality is described makes it seem very unappealing, not all of us want to be with gold diggers
I was just thinking, this (LIE-ESI) duality description can perhaps be considered really good for business partnerships, since it's so focussed on work. Only marginally applies to romantic relationships, or rather, the "terms" should be translated in non-business language.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Oh nice. Attracting both types huh.
I'll share the best duality description i've heard. (SEE/ILI; SLI/IEE)
"The issue of dependency versus space, is a conscious occupation of the ILI/SEE dyad, and also of the SLI/IEE dyad. Both dyads tend toward dependency, and realize individuality. In the ILI/SEE dyad, this dependency arises from a disposition of mercurial obsessiveness in consumption ("obsessive intimacy"; "obsession versus minimalism"). In the SLI/IEE dyad, the dependency arises from mercurial perceived limitations of the world ("interest versus boredom"; "freedom versus restriction"). The delta strategy (of avoidance and noncommitment) mitigates the question of dependency superficially relative to the gamma strategy (of consumption and activity), but not internally. I can not say it much more simply, at least not very easily. It is very difficult to understand if you have not seen it because superficially these types all merely appear "individualistic."
Credit for this explanation goes to aestrivex.