Positive and Negative Anima

Positive/Light Anima:
Pleasant, Kind, Warm, Watery, Friendly, Embracing, Including, Giving, Trusting, Pleasing, Requesting, Sincere, Innocent, Non-calculative, Freeing, Relaxed, Open-minded, Gentle, Soft-spoken, Expressive, Non-violent, Happy to learn, Listening, Admiring, Adoring, Thankful, Grateful, Having remorse when having wronged, Solution-oriented, Forgiving, Understanding, Enjoying other’s happiness, Safe, Reliable, Revealing, Genuine, Sweet, Forthright, Honest, Truthful, Goodwill, Cooperating, Nectar-filled, Healer, Well-wisher, Playful, Democratic, Charming, Agreeable, Nice, Likeable, Constructive, Keeps promises/word, Secure, Angel-like, Refined, Sophisticated, Fine, Filled with compassion, Drive to enhance life, Greek goddess Aphrodite like, Principled, Nurturer, Interested in God vs. false power, Truthful, Empath, Alluring, Ethical, Sunlight source, Benevolent, Mature soul, Light, Optimistic, Positive, Happy, Cherubic, Uplifting, Flexible, Yielding, Considerate, Abundant, Philanthropic, Heavens/Deva-lokas/Sky entity, Respects the other, Sane, Supportive, Responsible, Authentic, Growing, Adaptable, Easily Satisfiable/Pleasable, Open heart of air, Sharing self with other and other with self, Ready to serve.

Negative/Shadow anima:
Super severe, harsh, cold, dry, hostile, deserting, abandoning, withholding, mistrusting, punishing, commanding, tactful, calculating, measuring, controlling, imposing, dominating, demanding, repressing, violent, fake-confidence-mask, inflated-ego (looking down on everyone else), thankless/in-grateful/remorseless, defensive, vengeful, jealous, treacherous, deceitful, hiding/covering/occluding/pretending, vile, bitter, manipulative, resentful, hateful, nursing grudges, abusive, venomous, poisonous, wanting revenge, targeting people, playing politics games (like house of cards), ingratiating itself to authorities and people in power, nasty, cruel (can cut you off totally anytime), destroyer, betrayer (can entirely turn its back on you), sorcerer-like, crude, filled with pain and holding on and nursing it within herself, death drive (total withdrawal of the phantasy projections anytime), Goddess Kali like, asuric, demonic, witch, diabolical, devilish, looking to die and absorb itself into people more powerful (but all to execute its revenge), expert liar, psychopathic, creepy, sly, opportunistic, energy vampire, reptilian, snake like, dark, gloomy, depressive, melancholic, absolutely stubborn, rigid, stoic, in a deep feeling of lack, power hungry, exploitative, underworld/underground/dungeon entity, gas-lighting/crazy-making, madness, attacking, blaming, projecting, broody, mopey, whiny, complaining, fussy, sulky, cribby, unsatisfiable, unpleasable, devouring, self-obsessed/absorbed, closed heart of stone.

Different ways of dealing with others

When watching YouTube videos of influential speakers, I often read through a lot of the comments too.
What I have noticed is a broad pattern.
I haven’t totally thought through this, but I was excited to present my immediate findings.

Firstly, I’ve seen the more popular/contentious you are, the more the intensity of fans and haters.
In people’s responses I see the following trends:
The speaker say Person A makes an argument, assertion or simply presents his view “X”.
Now lets say people B, C, D, E react to this.
* Person B says “X is wrong, X'(X complement) is true”.
* Person C says “X is wrong, Y is true”.
* Person D says “Not only is X true but it is also supported by Y”
* Person E says “X is true, but Z is truer than X”
The responses of B,C,D and E represent the 4 broad types I’ve noticed.

Here is a more algorithmic form of the response types:
For X then X’ = Position X’ (Oppose X) – Reactionary
For X then Y = Position Y (Invalidate/Deny X, Present Y) – Blind
For X then Xx = Position X+x (Clarify/support X with x) – Bolstering
For X then U = Position U (Transcend X and dissolve it in a larger frame U) – Transcending

You can only give, what you have received

In terms of childhood personality programming, I’ve had the following empirical observation:
RULE:
“You can only give, what you have received”
Whatever you have received, forms the ceiling of your compassion.
There is no absolute standard here, its all relative.

For example:
If your salary is $60000, and fulfilling all your needs takes up $30000, leaving you with an excess of $30000 for free spending.
In this situation, you can easily feel compassion for anybody earning less than $30000.
But, can you feel compassion for a person earning $100,000? – No right? – because it is much beyond your income.
Another example:
Say you score 75/100 in math. You feel compassionate towards someone who has scored 40 or 60/100.
But will you feel compassion to a person who has scored 90/100? – No right? – because it is much beyond your score.

I’ve seen the care we have received in childhood sets our standards for later life.
For instance, if your partner asks you something that is far above the care you have received, then you simply call it unreasonable/unjustified. Whereas if they ask you something that you have consistently received yourself, then you may immediately do it without any expectation because you feel it was “totally reasonable”.

What determines what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable”?
It is totally relative to what you have received.

Once deep contemplation awakens in you, you access much greater standards of compassion, than was provided to you by what you received as a child/formative years.