Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Matching Perspectives

Posted July 26th, 2009 by carolynsei
In Reference to:
Better Relationships: An Exercise in Self-Discovery

So I'm curious, would a marriage or partnership benefit from having both individuals orient from the same perspective? Or would the opposite cover more bases and lend to greater success?

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

I need to ask a little more to understand

Posted July 26th, 2009 by Samuel Tornqvist

Hello. 

Could you, to help me understand a little more, tell me what you mean with perspective? are we talking levels and lines (worldviews), goals, religion, perspective from a certain quadrant or specifict topic?

This aplies to what you mean to opposite as well.
Deida, for example talks about that most couples have a polar opposite no matter what sexual orientation. This sounds like a good idea.

Personally, I have noticed that me and my partner seem to benefit from our different perspectives and "skills" but we do also have some similar views of life. I would not be very attracted to a person 4 levels below me, or above. I believe we attract people who "fit" our patterns (and/or shadow).

It is true that we are attracted by our shadow. This is fine, but it means that most of us "fall in love" with our parents' shadow, sub-consciously recognized in our "love-object".
We have to work with those issues as well, complicating matters.

I don't believe there is a perfect partner out there. In the end you have to work "your stuff" with anyone no matter who they are. And, I also think that working on ourselves, understanding more who we are, we become more complete. Not complete as in "I don't need anyone" but being less dependent on others' qualities. Again, I really think you attract your habits and it tends to be the person that "fits" your current awareness.

.

Anyway, let me know if I understood you or if is was something else.

Cheers!

Samuel Törnqvist

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Both are true...

Posted July 27th, 2009 by Robb Smith

Hi Carolyn, this is something we paid attention to anecdotally as we designed the exercise, and the results are what you'd expect: on the one hand those spouses that were not-matching had a diversity of styles, which does represent strength in insight and execution, but also presents frustration because of the differing way of coming into a situation.  I suspect that you'd have the opposite, perhaps a slightly diminished variety of perspectives in any given scenario but a higher degree of coherence and cooperation.  I wouldn't argue which is better or worse, and I imagine that actually the degree of diversity sought, tolerated and valued in one's partner is itself stipulated by one's AQAL Constellation (or "Integral Life Profile").

Speaking personally, I know that as an Enneagram 8 and a Systems-Orienter I have very much appreciated the fact that my wife is an Enneagram 1 and an Action-Orienter.  It is a really nice complement to my AQAL Constellation  and our overall deep and surface values align very closely.  But it is annoying for her I'm guessing when I ignore small tasks and always answer with some stupid big picture story and it is annoying to me when she immediately replies to situations with a "what can I start doing about this?" reaction rather than looking at the bigger picture.  But I enjoy the diversity and it makes for a fun balance.

Robb Smith

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Necessary but not sufficient . . .

Posted July 27th, 2009 by Charles Bowling

 

Hi Carolynsei,
 
I'm in general agreement with Robb's comment that both features are worth consideration. However valuable these native perspectives prove to be, they do from my view represent a certain lack of granularity, and could use more fine tuning. Even the Enneagram has only nine options.
 
I've been knocking on the door of questions of close personal relationships for a long time; it began with an inquiry that went something like this; "Do folks come together primarily based on propinquity, i.e. do we just hook up with someone because they happen to be in the neighborhood. My research into this area showed me rather conclusively that for want of a better phrase "There are secret forces that draw people together".
 
Although it's pretty much foreign material to this site, and as introduction to my views on the subject i once posted this: http://integrallife.com/member/charles-bowling/blog/charting-we-space-patterns#
 
When there are only four options available the chances are good that tension will exist between the any pair one chooses. And based on my research my guess is that if two persons were chiefly focused in the same grouping, that about half the time it would work very well, and the other half of the time not so well at all.
 
With greater granularity, i.e. moving beyond the limits of four. It's possible to introduce a countervailing element to just having tension. Simply put this is the area of support or opportunity. Relationships with no high degree of tension are not generally conducive to growth and expansion; and similarly relationships with no high degree of support often prove to be untenable in the long run. This is what could be described as a Sisyphus relationship.
 
Don't get me wrong i'm not selling anything here; in fact i've been hanging out on this site and its predecessors since their inception. And finally when i came to see that for me the weakest part of the AQAL overview is typology (It appears to me as a sort of orphan); i began to experience remiss over not having spoken up.
 
Make of this what you will. But my heart does go out to all of those who have an interest in close personal relationship including its pitfalls and drawbacks as well as its advantages.
And finally there was a time when i used to ask how close can two people get; but not anymore. Here are my three top candidates for the closest of relationships known to me, mothers and nursing offspring; lovers who treat their relationship as a beloved entity, and realized beings and their chelas, or avid students. It has been my great good fortune to experience all three . . .
 
Warmly,
Charles
41N54'51' 88W18'31"