I think you should just read more about it to make a conclusion:
It’s a spiritual concept, not romantic. Its connected with afterlife, true or pure love (in abstract way, like mother’s love) and consciousness.
I covered some of these concepts in early posts in this thread (and through the thread). Probably you can find other similar stories online from people who wanted to share this (if they felt it).
If/when people are in bad relationships they shouldn’t hold on to it, so having true love as a motivation can’t be too bad, even if it’s misinterpreted.
Many people have unrealistic romantic standards of “image” of their relationship (this image is picked up online), so this is probably the reason why some are not grateful for what they have.
I see twin flames as completely opposite of image/superficial values (inner true values stripped from everything else).
Going back to “ancient” values to invoke spirituality doesn’t mean necessarily going backwards, many people today are “suffering” spiritually because of how society is functioning (financial goals, economic inequalities, capitalism… this has an effect on relationships). Finding twin flame would mean going back to yourself.
Having soulmate is also important, most of us have several of them through life. The difference is: soulmate is someone we chose.
Sure, but why not share positive personal experiences as well?
Btw in your post you used a lot of market or sales terms (“having/owning“, “mine is better than yours” etc.) These terms can’t apply to inner human values or human uniqueness.
You label things SO differently than I do sometimes…not all the time. Sometimes we agree.
I’m not sure why you don’t see this twin flame idea as a brand or label in itself like I do. You don’t see the label of “soulmate” as harmful? To me the concept of “finding the right person” and then going further into “soulmate” is the core of modern romanticism. These are labels! These are people deciding to call a relationship a certain thing without any outside determinations or specifications. We can’t just say two people love each other? The harm, in my opinion… but I stated this already… is that labeling these relationships keeps people blind to the work involved in creating solid relationships. These concepts promote the idea that there is no choice or work— it’s all there already. I think there may also be a type of faith crisis if someone realizes who they call their twin flame has changed or if either person is unhappy. The reality is that this doesn’t exist (I mean… that’s obvious, no?), the label is arbitrary and therefore not real and can cause a break from real truths and real growth and understanding.
The need to seek some kind of perfection by labeling and seeking a label in relationships is harmful. I think expecting perfection or calling something perfect, when nothing is perfect—is harmful. It’s different than the goal to be loved and love, which can stand on its own two feet, in my opinion without further labels. For instance, the “INTP-INFJ “golden”” relationship that someone decided a few years ago to start calling it based on…what??? They liked who they were with at the time? They liked the idea of it, untested as it is and definitely not tested by a bigger group? Maybe next week when either the same someone or someone else decides they want to call the INFJ-ENFJ relationship the “platinum” because they like who they are currently with (or something) then the “golden” one will fall out of style?. I mean… this is arbitrary. These labels are based on nothing— at all! Just people wanting to make something seem special because they like the idea (at the time… I might add). But I think relationships ARE special— all of them! For whatever holds them together and keeps holding! I think there is a lot more to relationships than this kind of label and belief. It’s dizzying far away from the realities of love, in my opinion. In life it’s a lot more about the holding and the accepting than the initial stuff.
Inner traits. Maybe I see these differently. I think these labels like “soulmate” and “two flame” blind people to individual inner traits and also to the needs of their partners. Also blind to how such traits adapt or work with the other person’s individual traits. Do you see traits as inborn only? I think it’s kind of like telling a doctor that anyone can be a doctor—- yes! With many many years of hard work. To me… this is the difference in a relationship—-the individual choices and learning that make it amazing. Someone can be brilliantly ahead when they are age 3 and decide to do nothing with what was first there. There is more of a growth mindset that relationships need that is not captured by the twin flame or soulmate idea. Plus, again, people change dramatically sometimes and that is a big reality that isn’t addressed. It’s kind of like a “happily ever after” idea that doesn’t hold water. It’s kind of the extreme expression of modern romantic thinking, in my opinion.
It sounds like you want some kind of concept to hang onto that means for you that you’re searching for a perfect relationship? My concepts are Ne concepts of course…I guess I always end up being dismayed at the INFJ way of love seeking. Every time I talk to any INFJs about it, I think the way you guys go about it is deeply unhealthy and you guys often think the ENFP way is a red flag instead of “healthy, smart, plus very romantic” like I would (I’m laughing at myself here, of course it is going to be different for different people). The ideal way of seeking is different. The concept of romance for INFJs and for ENFPs is different as far as I’ve been able to tell. The importance is sometimes amazingly alike. The importance, for me, of having a happy loving partnership with my husband is actually only second or equal to the importance I place on mothering my kids. It was the most important thing for me to find the right mate, paramount in my life. The continuing health and happiness of my relationship for me is still paramount, nothing touches these family ties in importance for me. But J and P look at “seeking” differently—although I’m very far from saying our two types are incompatible for romantic relationships— but, the philosophies if we actually talk about them, end up surprising the socks off of both. So okay…I doubt that if we really got down to the bare bones of what we mean and want that we would agree on how to pursue love or what is needed to even start.
I think I read what you posted in your OP and read what you last replied to me in this thread. I read the links over at last most years f the way through. I didn’t read anything else in this thread, but I doubt it would have any effect on my philosophy which is built on my individual experiences, values and beliefs. I stand by what I said— twinflame sounds like Greek myth. You might as well be asking me to read more about astrology. There are so many things that I could make up about the soul— why would I pick this idea, that, in my opinion, sounds like it is very unhealthy and unhelpful? I can think up a lot better fairy tales myself that might even support reality or promote morality.. oh.. well I try to do that…healthy in belief systems is very important.
If I want to go into the religious side of this— humans are going to have religion since we are spiritually minded beings, but I think it’s important to see and pick what is healthy and compassionate if we are going to use our powerful spiritual minds and choose beliefs. This particular belief in twin flames seems very problematic to me.
For sure, though, there are more problematic beliefs out there to spend my time debunking. But I can see where this one could be very painful for individuals.