a universal vs. a particular
abstract vs. concrete
I came across a passage that reminded me that Freud uses obsessional and hysteric to characterize the masculine and the feminine (which Lacan takes up) and notices a difference in their cognitive styles based upon the former being objective and treating others as a universal and the latter dealing with people as particular:
An anticathexis of this kind is clearly seen in obsessional neurosis. It appears there in the form of an alteration of the ego, as a reaction-formation in the ego, and is effected by the reinforcement of the attitude which is the opposite of the instinctual trend that has to be repressed—as, for instance, in pity, conscientiousness and cleanliness. These reaction-formations of obsessional neurosis are essentially exaggerations of the normal traits of character which develop during the latency period. The presence of an anticathexis in hysteria is much more difficult to detect, though theoretically it is equally indispensable. In hysteria, too, a certain amount of alteration of the ego through reaction-formation is unmistakable and in some circumstances becomes so marked that it forces itself on our attention as the principal symptom. The conflict due to ambivalence, for instance, is resolved in hysteria by this means. The subject's hatred of a person whom he loves is kept down by an exaggerated amount of tenderness for him and apprehensiveness about him. But the difference between reaction-formations in obsessional neurosis and in hysteria is that in the latter they do not have the universality of a character-trait but are confined to particular relationships. A hysterical woman, for instance, may be specially affectionate with her own children whom at bottom she hates; but she will not on that account be more loving in general than other women or even more affectionate to other children. The reaction-formation of hysteria clings tenaciously to a particular object and never spreads over into a general disposition of the ego, whereas what is characteristic of obsessional neurosis is precisely a spreading-over of this kind—a loosening of relations to the object and a facilitation of displacement in the choice of object. (Inhibitions, Symptoms, Anxiety, p. 157-8)
my hesitation to use obsessional vs. hysteric is that obsessional has the connotation, to me at least, of the mind being emphasized over the body. I think that an masculine or narcissistic subject can have two relations to the "anal" stage
The person who is more in their body will have a goal to seek perfection in being manifold: having a strong and able body, looking to have, as one patient put it, all the virtues (i.e. courage and other Aristotelian types of virtue), and into the intellectual realm as well.
The person who is more schizoid or more at home in their head will be the "obsessional" who tries to study religion, philosophy, some kind of science, and even in trying to capture the colours, shades, and forms in art, in order to get to the secret of life. They will be god-like not in balancing both body and mind and cultivating their wholeness and independence but by knowing that which God knows and all others don't
Maybe you can say the non-schizoid is 'obsessed' with his manifoldness but, as I said, the word has a certain connotation and the use of narcissism as denoting powering in the self explains both of these positions... but then narcissism as an operation of bisexual repression is obscured...
I am extremely loathe to create new jargon here so maybe I should use obsessional...