# so=power, correct?



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Aquamarine said:


> I get everything you're trying to see, except that I still don't understand where and how the Holy Trinity fits into this.


Actually... I agree with that part of the OP. It has to do with the progression of _monistic _belief, to a _dualistic_, to a _pluralistic _sort of thinking.

The Father refers to the One; a single god or a single set of beliefs that is entirely self-contained, isolated, and "perfect" in a sense. This is more in line, at least metaphorically speaking, with Sp-instinct.

The Son refers to Jesus or the Two; Jesus was both man and god, so represented the union of the imperfect (man) with the perfect (god). This is also known as the "pairs of opposites" by comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell, because the idea is the union or "peace" between two opposing forces. Man and Woman, Light and Dark... hell, we can even think in terms of politics: Red vs. Blue, Authoritarian vs. Libertarian, Socialism vs. Capitalism, etc. Yin-yang is often used to describe this union of opposites:










or... oMFG, red velvet black and white cookies.










The Holy Spirit is thought to represent the trascendence of Man and God... In other words, the acceptance of a diverse world that is far more complex than Good vs. Evil or mere Black and White.


@Naqsh Curious on your thoughts about this. Religious Pluralism: A Turn to the Holy Spirit



> For John Paul, the reason why there are spiritual treasures in the religions of the world, why there is a sense of kinship, and why dialogue is promising, is the reality of the Holy Spirit, who is alive and active in world history, both before and after Christ, and who inspires the searchings of humankind. He believes that, while there are many religions in the world, there is one Spirit seeking to bear fruit in them all. As for the question of whether it would be theologically sound to to attribute to non-Christian religions a role of mediation in salvation, I believe that the pontiff would regard it as one of those matter that needs further study before taking a position on it.
> 
> The main issue theologically would seem to be whether we can recognise a universal presence and activity of the Spirit with redemptive promise. *Based on the truth that the Spirit blows where it wills, it seems both biblical and logical to conclude that God’s Spirit is not limited to the Christian sphere*. That it would not be a mere "ornament of piety" but the Lord and giver of life, the very principle to whom all creatures owe their very existence and activity. This is the insight one finds in the universal pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg and in the holistic pneumatology of Jurgen Moltmann, of whom the latter writes:


In other words, if one's monistic belief is their home and the seed from which they originate (Sp), then a dualistic thinking means the opening of that door to another realm (Sx)... it is reconciling your beliefs with the seeming contradictions of another's. And finally, pluralism would be realizing that the world is even bigger than that, seemingly infinitely expansive, whether it be the plethora of beliefs and various walks of life on this planet, this solar system, universe, multiverse, etc. (Soc).

In conclusion, I really want a red velvet B&W cookie. damn.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Quang said:


> The instinctual subtypes in many ways reflects the hierarchy of needs from psychology. According to the Faurves, these instinctual needs change throughout our lives (e.g. SX is dominant during adolescence), but generally one is dominant regardless.
> 
> SX: adventure, passion, connection, unity, intense & playful ("I am One") / personal needs
> SO: hierarchy, belonging, family, status, popularity, dutiful & scattered ("I am my Group") / social needs
> ...


Wow the way you describe them makes me not identify with any of them.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Blazkovitz said:


> I think I'm an exception here. I'm SO/SX and I am more idealist than pragmatist; and I don't shy away from individual thinking.


I think that the whole 'collectivist thinking' was poorly stated on my part 

Thoughts about the other subtypes?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Arya



> SO doesn't equate to being cooperative. They might be aware but that doesn't mean they approve. They might realize the social order around them is fucked and fight back. And they'll have a better chance of winning generally because they can see everything going on around them. I'm SX/SO and I can't say I feel like I belong to anything, nor am I particularly cooperative. Yes, I see what is going on around me. I know the social order etc. and I use it for what I want. I do not do for my peers. I do for myself in general. Obviously I have limits. I try to treat others well, but I tend to use my knowledge of the group to get what I want. Social norms are made to be broken. Just because I am perfectly aware of what is considered appropriate doesn't mean I follow it. It's more fun to change things. Show people there is another way.



Cooperation is a survival strategy that So doms are willing to explore if/when appropriate, but it isn't the only one. There's always some amount of motivated self-interest involved in any survival strategy. I think So doms are prone to go for "win-win" strategies more than the other doms. 

We're going to view things things from a particular instinctual perspective, and for So doms, it is through the lens of the "tribe" around us. For Sx it's the intensity of one person at a time, for Sp it is their own basic needs.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

I have no idea what the OP means, but social instinct is going to manifest according to the needs of the core type. For an 8, it might revolve around the acquisition of power. For a 1, it might not. 

Social is about perceiving the chains of interconnection, which may or may not involve power-dynamics. Politics might be a better word, but so might esteem, honor, elitism, social codes, and a sense of the greater world.

Also worth noting there are other forms of power than the social hierarchy. Money being one.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> Actually... I agree with that part of the OP. It has to do with the progression of _monistic _belief, to a _dualistic_, to a _pluralistic _sort of thinking.
> 
> The Father refers to the One; a single god or a single set of beliefs that is entirely self-contained, isolated, and "perfect" in a sense. This is more in line, at least metaphorically speaking, with Sp-instinct.
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks for your clarification. The OP makes sense now.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Quang said:


> I think that the whole 'collectivist thinking' was poorly stated on my part


I understood individual thinking as independent thinking, not as individualism vs collectivism (this is the Enneagram section, not Critical Thinking & Philosophy  )



> Thoughts about the other subtypes?


-SP-firsts I know IRL are _far away_ from any sort of idealism or activism. Just focusing on their personal lives.

-I get energized in presence of certain people, and drained down in presence of others. Would this be a manifestation of my Sx instinct?


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Blazkovitz said:


> -I get energized in presence of certain people, and drained down in presence of others. Would this be a manifestation of my Sx instinct?


Yes, feeling energized by someone is a sign of the SX instinct in action. SX-dom has an on-or-off switch that makes people go from one extreme of intense interest or no interest whatsoever.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Blazkovitz said:


> -SP-firsts I know IRL are _far away_ from any sort of idealism or activism. Just focusing on their personal lives.


Only when they are highly fixated on their dominant instinct or if it is not fulfilled. When this is satisfied, they move onto their secondary instinct - the instinct of enjoyment, it's not as compulsive as the first instinct. So for me as an SP dom, my self needs are given priority before I feel fit and healthy enough to attend to the next rung. 









Although this diagram from Naranjo states that instinctual needs are not a part of a free awareness, still rooted in a bondage quite like the type fixation. Im not sure how this works for secondary instincts too. Like type though, there seems to be positives and negatives to type and instincts but the effects of the negatives, fear of deprivation in SP for example show how the nature of instinct can be based on a negative premise and thus keep the individual misguided or in bondage from true liberation. For some reason it seems more evident with the SP instinct but having thought about Soc - there are negative motives surrounding Soc especially when multiplied with the individuals type, such a an unhealthy soc 1 - perhaps having misguided views of what constitutes a proper society, healthy soc 1's will strive to bring more integrity to the social world, on personal level will maybe become more forgiving of others mistakes. Same applies to SX.


----------

