# The Proper Enneagram



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

JSRS01 said:


> Read my opening statement. For the intents and purposes of this proposition I am the source. You will not find anyone in pre-neo-occult literature describing the symbol provided by Gurdjieff.


So uh, you don't have any more to add regarding the depth of this symbol? Gurdjieff had plenty to say about his.

This is why your ideas are half-baked. You've thrown in some old lineage story with no real connections made. Who cares how old the symbol is? The importance is what the symbol means.




JSRS01 said:


> This is wrong. Both Ouspensky and Gurdjieff understood a 9 pointed Enneagram long before Ichazo formulated his ideas on the Enneagram under the Arica school.


Yeah, you misread what I wrote. I said that Gurdjieff came up with that symbol.




> So? His work is patently flawed.


You're saying the Enneagram of Personality as a whole is poppycock. Yet you expect there to be some insightful conclusions to be drawn about it based on this "proper" Enneagram. Are you forgetting what forum you're on?

I'd continue, but this is proving a waste of my time.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Dying Acedia said:


> So uh, you don't have any more to add regarding the depth of this symbol? Gurdjieff had plenty to say about his.


I've gained far more insight into consciousness through reconciling the distorted Gurdjieffian symbol with its perennial father. 



> This is why your ideas are half-baked.


My ideas are "half-baked" because I'm not giving you information you don't deserve. 



> You've thrown in some old lineage story with no real connections made.


my grievance isn't so much about the lineage of the Enneagram, but rather the fact that the fraudulent symbol provided by Gurdjieff has resulted in discrepancies and misinterpretations which otherwise would not have occurred. 



> Who cares how old the symbol is?


I do. As should anyone who cares to possess legitimate and truth bearing knowledge. But the age of the Enneagram isn't really at the heart of the matter. 



> The importance is what the symbol means.


I don't disagree. Understanding that _meaning_ composes the essential nature of symbols, and as no two symbols are the same, it is extraordinarily important that the symbol used to explain reality be consistent, internally and externally. 



> Yeah, you misread what I wrote. I said that Gurdjieff came up with that symbol.


You're right. 




> You're saying the Enneagram of Personality as a whole is poppycock.


No. I'm saying Gurdjieff revealed an occulted symbol to the masses but twisted it in such a way that inhibits full realization of perennial wisdom.



> Yet you expect there to be some insightful conclusions to be drawn about it based on this "proper" Enneagram.


There is always insightful conclusions to be gained from esoteric symbols. Do you disagree that the symbol perpetuated by Gurdjieff is illegitimate? 



> Are you forgetting what forum you're on?


Rhetorical question, I'm sure. 




> I'd continue, but this is proving a waste of my time.


That's a shame; just when things were getting fun.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

@hal0hal0 Don't be shy. If you're discontent with the information I've provided, at the very least tell me what you disagree with and I'd be more than willing to address your accusations or concerns.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> @_hal0hal0_ Don't be shy. If you're discontent with the information I've provided, at the very least tell me what you disagree with and I'd be more than willing to address your accusations or concerns.


Hm, okay.

Well, to start, why denounce the original symbol as heretic? It's like you have some deep-seated bone to pick with it to the point that simply analyzing its flaws isn't enough. It must be deemed "heretic" and suggested as "malicious" (burn 'em at the stake!!!). It seems to me the Proper enneagram is simply building upon the previous symbol by suggesting that all object relations triads (147, 258, and 369) are their own triangles, and not simply the attachment triad.

Moreover, I don't really pay attention to the symbol that much and could care less about how "geometrically perfect" it is. What is that, anyways—geometric perfection? It seems like with the Proper symbol, it's just making things more symmetrical. What is this meant to imply? That higher degrees of symmetry are better? So radial symmetry is preferable to bilateral? Hm, maybe jellyfish are secretly the highest orders of lifeforms on the planet (actually, you never know; maybe those suckers got this thing figured out better than we do).

It seems like you're arguing for some higher-order perfection, like only the elite are privy too and qualify to hear the truth. I suppose... I don't mind imperfection; I prefer mono no aware and wabi-sabi to Leni Riefenstahl. Personal preference, I guess. And what's with:



> There are of course, multitudes of truths to be derived from the Proper Enneagram which cannot be found in the heretical symbol provided by the majority of Enneagram "experts". I'll leave it up to you, as students, to further discern what those truths are.


It's like there is a massive, invisible winky face at the end of that; like some sort of cosmic inside joke that I am not privy to. I realize that it is necessary for each person to find their own path and that your answers won't work for everyone else, but it feels like your talking down to people. To me, it's like saying you are the enlightened one and we are the idiot sheep. Thanks. And why so vague? It's like baiting the hook.

Maybe I'm just massively misinterpreting your intent, but the way you present things _*really *_turns me off to even wanting to hear you out.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> Well, to start, why denounce the original symbol as heretic? It's like you have some deep-seated bone to pick with it to the point that simply analyzing its flaws isn't enough.


Because it diverges from its source and is in many ways opposed to the symbol it originated from. 



> It must be deemed "heretic" and suggested as "malicious" (burn 'em at the stake!!!).


Try to dissociate the religious overtones with the word, I use the term heresy in a much more literal sense. 



> It seems to me the Proper enneagram is simply building upon the previous symbol by suggesting that all object relations triads (147, 258, and 369) are their own triangles, and not simply the attachment triad.


Riso and Hudson were expounding on the connections to be found within the confines of the 9 points, they just happened to label what I term the proper Enneagram, the "object relation triads", in an attempt to further explain the interrelatedness of the fixations. Determining whether or not they are correct in their analysis is not an immediate issue for me. In any case, the proper Enneagram is the foundation for all subsequent forms of the Enneagram, as it predates all of them by thousands of years. 



> Moreover, I don't really pay attention to the symbol that much and could care less about how "geometrically perfect" it is.


This is a limitation on your behalf. 



> What is that, anyways—geometric perfection?


A reflection of God. _As above, so below. _



> It seems like with the Proper symbol, it's just making things more symmetrical. What is this meant to imply?


Truth, consistency, legitimacy.



> That higher degrees of symmetry are better? So radial symmetry is preferable to bilateral?


Not necessarily. It's more about the consistency and the validity that goes with that consistency. 




> Hm, maybe jellyfish are secretly the highest orders of lifeforms on the planet (actually, you never know; maybe those suckers got this thing figured out better than we do).


That's not really relevant to the occult, but I recognize your humor. 



> It seems like you're arguing for some higher-order perfection, like only the elite are privy too and qualify to hear the truth.


The elite tend to believe that. I'm of the belief knowledge, and especially occulted knowledge, should be disseminated to the profane, regardless of their potential to comprehend or synthesize the information; it would at the very least give the opportunity to those intellectuals like myself to understand the true nature of reality, and in effect the divine; while also preventing the knowledge from being used against us, the profane. 




> And what's with:
> 
> It's like there is a massive, invisible winky face at the end of that; like some sort of cosmic inside joke that I am not privy to.


I was aiming for something more along the lines of "I've show you the door, it's up to you to walk through it" as opposed to "I know the truths of the universe and you don't". 



> I realize that it is necessary for each person to find their own path and that your answers won't work for everyone else,


My answers are objective, so they do effectively "work" for everyone, but what it really comes down to is whether or not the individual is ready for the answers that I possess. 



> but it feels like your talking down to people. To me, it's like saying you are the enlightened one and we are the idiot sheep.


 I treat others with the respect they deserve, out of integrity. But to say you and I, or the vast majority of people that frequent this board, let alone that live on this Earth are equal to me in intellectual capacity is delusional. That's as if I were to claim myself to be at the level of the most adept Masons, like Pike or Hall. Or to be as proficient as Crowley or Steiner. It's simply not true. I understand how that may be off putting, but at the end of the day you either learn from those who excel above you, or you fall behind and suffer at their behest.




> And why so vague? It's like baiting the hook.


It's a tendency in occult writings when dealing with "privy" information; information that can be used to control and abuse the ignorant, the profane. Apparently it's rubbed off on my writing style. 




> Maybe I'm just massively misinterpreting your intent, but the way you present things _*really *_turns me off to even wanting to hear you out.


My intent is to provide Enneagram students and others who may find themselves reading my posts with answers and information that would be otherwise unknown to the masses. Whether the way I provide my information is found off putting by the reader is largely out of my control. I'm just making the information available.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Another way the 1>4>7 2>5>8 3>6>9 thing works is that it can be enterprated of pointing out to the particular lack of something in the other "centers of intelligence" or being to be specific. IE the Gut types are detached from the Head and Heart center in generally equal ways. Versus say the type 5 who apparently regresses from one specific strategy to another head strategy during "disintegration", which doesn't particularly make sense. Though I'm probably trapped in my own theory there.

I wouldn't exactly say that the "enneagram experts" as we call them are particularly malicious though, most of the faults that us humans are responsible for is rather a case of weakness instead of outright hatred, which IMO does not really exist as commonly as people apparently experience, the same as love really. They are both very extreme emotions, to feel them constantly would destroy your soul in some capacity.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Another way the 1>4>7 2>5>8 3>6>9 thing works is that it can be enterprated of pointing out to the *particular lack of something in the other "centers of intelligence"* or being to be specific.


This reminded me of this particular illustration:


It illustrates to what degree a particular point embodies its "intelligence center". [red - body, blue - heart, green - mind]

E.G. 

8 fully embodies the physical center, while devoid in the emotional center.
4 fully embodies the emotional center, while devoid in the physical center.
7 fully embodies the thinking center, while devoid in the emotional center.
5 fully embodies the thinking center, while devoid in the physical center.

I could go into more detail, but I'm curious as to what you or others might infer from this.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

I like this idea, even if I haven't delve in any of the ideas behind this or the classical figure, just because, even if I know it's my fault, I'm tired of seeing this notion that 3, 6 and 9 are simpler versions of each intelligence center and all because of the way the figure is drawn. I know it's only my ego speaking, and I know that's caused by my low self-esteem, but I'm truly tired of feeling just human, basic, primitive or simple.

About that illustration, I don't know what to say without feeling like a complete fool saying it but I just want to say that I'm not taking lightly stating that I am the worst embodiment of the thinking center.

This is what happens when you try to find a substitute for something you can only find in yourself.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Mr.Rbtoo said:


> I like this idea, even if I haven't delve in any of the ideas behind this or the classical figure, just because, even if I know it's my fault, I'm tired of seeing this notion that 3, 6 and 9 are simpler versions of each intelligence center and all because of the way the figure is drawn. I know it's only my ego speaking, and I know that's caused by my low self-esteem, but I'm truly tired of feeling just human, basic, primitive or simple.
> 
> About that illustration, I don't know what to say without feeling like a complete fool saying it but I just want to say that I'm not taking lightly stating that I am the worst embodiment of the thinking center.
> 
> This is what happens when you try to find a substitute for something you can only find in yourself.


they're central, and therefore lightened or less in either direction than their neighbors, but they exist in _both_ directions while the others travel in one. almost like being at a metaphorical crux in a path, . 

as for the circle-graph, @_JSRS01_: 

i actually like it. not that it could or should replace any model, but that it should represent something that can come _from_ the existing model(s) (if they're valid or not--i really don't know, but i do know that the existing models follow a pattern i see in everyday life, with [intuitively] reasonable explanations as to why. it's obviously pointing to something, or i'm semi-brainwashed, ). 

what i like about that model is it seems to capture what people'l find on a relational basis over time with the types--what's likely to be seen and noticed as strengths or deficits -(or a strength from a deficit, or vice versa)- within a person, and i can see the possibility of a connection between these qualities and their "altered meaning", and the actual problems one acquires from having a fixation. 

*mini-examples: 8's having a small amount of "heart", because it's not an area they probably go to in order to solve most situations. consequently, that perspective can hit them in the face when it's something they can notice and be aware of. (and maybe awareness's of _these_ deficits are significant--but they are also covered in a fashion with the existing model, but...)

*next mini-example: 6's scoring very low on the "mind" category. this is funny at first, seen through the lens of the enneagram, but thinking about it, a 6's mind (unless very "integrated"/whatever") isn't really the 6's--it's more like the mind has a human, and the 6 reacts through the body and heart in order to deal with the demands of the mind. 

so, to me, some of this fits like a glove--they all do, in a way--but some fit without confliction (8) when one uses both models to look into the type, while others (the latter example) get skewed and need some sort of explanation... but then, it's only the central types that _that_ happens to... 

so, it's almost like the other types fixations align with their behavior/what archetypal quality they'll show, but the central types will run contradictory between what can be observed and what the fixation _is_... i have no idea what that means--your intention for posting it?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> I could go into more detail, but I'm curious as to what you or others might infer from this.


The Horneyvian triads point to the center that each type has the most difficulty with.

126 with the head center - compliant triad
459 with the body center - withdrawn triad
783 with the heart center - aggressive triad

I first saw this alluded to in the Hurley and Dobson books published in 1991 and 1993.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Donovan said:


> *next mini-example: 6's scoring very low on the "mind" category. this is funny at first, seen through the lens of the enneagram, but thinking about it, a 6's mind (unless very "integrated"/whatever") isn't really the 6's--it's more like the mind has a human, and the 6 reacts through the body and heart in order to deal with the demands of the mind.
> 
> so, to me, some of this fits like a glove--they all do, in a way--*but some fit without confliction (8) when one uses both models to look into the type, while others (the latter example) get skewed and need some sort of explanation... but then, it's only the central types that that happens to... *
> 
> *so, it's almost like the other types fixations align with their behavior/what archetypal quality they'll show, but the central types will run contradictory between what can be observed and what the fixation is*... i have no idea what that means--your intention for posting it?


It's interesting that you brought this up. It's been my experience that the 369 set is a very peculiar group. It's the only set that I can't consistently fit into my metatheory regarding the Enneagram. I can synthesize the interrelatedness of the 147 and 258 sets flawlessly, but without a fourth set (e.g. 10,11,12) I can't disseminate the same parallels found when dealing with the 147 and 258 sets to the 369 set. 

From a purely speculative standpoint, there are only three ways this can be rectified:

1. My metatheory is wrong (simple and succinct, but not likely in my opinion, but I would think that, wouldn't I?)

2. The 369 set is the black sheep of the Enneagram and there's nothing to change (my theory remains mostly valid and the status quo remains unchanged)

3. Instead of 9 personality types as commonly believed, there are actually 12 personality types, adding a fourth set to our Enneagram (indubitably the hardest to prove while also requiring a massive revision of the current Enneagram framework and it's tenets).

Personally I like the implications of number 3; my theory works and a lot of current inconsistencies disappear. But to prove it would be a hell of a task. 

Anyway, just something to think about.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> 3. Instead of 9 personality types as commonly believed, there are actually 12 personality types, adding a fourth set to our Enneagram (indubitably the hardest to prove while also requiring a massive revision of the current Enneagram framework and it's tenets).


Why 12?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Why 12?


Without a fourth set, 369 remains separate and isolated from the rest of the sets. Succinctly, it has nothing to relate to outside of itself.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Without a fourth set, 369 remains separate and isolated from the rest of the sets. Succinctly, it has nothing to relate to outside of itself.


Why can't all three sets just be connected using a different pattern of lines?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Yeah why look around you when you can find absolute truth in numbers, or find the holy grale cracking the code? :dry:

I like to see 369 as proto-egoic, strategically more focused on the collective and to some extend even self abandoning. 241758 evolved from that, and is more individualistic, or focused on self.

We are a social animal, who like other social animals survived by living in a group. To function as a group there needs to be peace and order, and so there will always be a group dynamic the moment you put several individual social animals together, where eventually a hierarchy (status) will be established. Status is closely related to our chance of survival (pecking order) and procreation. Not only do we need to survive as a group, we need to survive within the group. Within this strategic alliance, we form strategic alliances. We seek equilibrium in coexistence, through reconcilliation of opposites, and within our personal existence. You can see this in animal life, which is less likely to be said about the other types. I wouldn't say that makes it backward, though. We still need hierarchy, alliances and equilibrium to get things done, survive and peacefully coexist. Perhaps you may even say they underpin the other triads, but I'm still figuring out how.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> 8 fully embodies the physical center, while devoid in the emotional center.
> 4 fully embodies the emotional center, while devoid in the physical center.
> 7 fully embodies the thinking center, while devoid in the emotional center.
> 5 fully embodies the thinking center, while devoid in the physical center.
> ...


I wasn't really thinking about that but okay. That works.



mimesis said:


> I like to see 369 as proto-egoic, strategically more focused on the collective and to some extend even self abandoning. 241758 evolved from that, and is more individualistic, or focused on self.


I don't really think so? I honestly can't really see how any of the other types don't abandon the self more so than the others. I just sort of think of say the type 3 as being the various degrees of type 2 and 4. IE their personal worthiness being connected to some sort of success, and thus separating the self from their actions in order to do what needs to be done. They are no more or less an image type than the 2 or 4. It is the trap of seeing the hexad triads as less evolved because they apparently don't focus on the self or whatever. The non hexad parts of the enneagram shouldn't be seen as separate from those who are apart of it.

Also I'd like to point out that we are actually more hierarchy based than any hunter-gathering band. Back before the days of agriculture, we more or less existed in an egalitarian structure. Granted some personalities "dominated" over others, but there was still more or less more equality then than now. We don't exactly need hierarchies to survive. Just sort of a nitpick really. I get your point. If you spin the wheels of both enneagrams, you could easily see that the points in their general direction in the more familiar version. It is generally subject to less nuance, interpretation, and naturally lends itself into limiting the mind as it's detouring from the totality and interconnectedness of all of the types together. I believe that for this reason, there is the reason why all of the types have their own stereotypes cobbled together and that each type has become a complete caricature. If there was more symmetry, then there would be more of a centering to the point. You don't get lost in the details and instead focus directly onto what is actually there. The actual content, that is most important to realize. If you could see this point, then you'd understand that this lost or created (which are really the same thing really if you think about it) symbol is more or less the superior version.

Though I give you credit for this one thought, that also coincides with the image SRS brought up. As you see, the 369's various "centers of intelligence" all sacrifice their functioning in order to bring together the various parts of the enneagram. There is thus in the type 6 that there is no humanity in people, and thus the lost of connection between the Heart (the lost of positive feeling necessary to fuel Holy Faith) and Gut (The lacking in courage to embody Holy Strength). Thus the mind creates various alternatives that substitute for such things.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> I wasn't really thinking about that but okay. That works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you sure you aren't confusing sexual domination with social hierarchy? Yeah, I know there's people who say they don't care about hierarchy, it's just so happens that nobody likes to receive the short end of the stick, and there is even a relation between status and depression (and not just in humans). Do you think in prehistory we also believed everyone is just as attractive and useful/worth? Again, hierarchy is not just a human thing, but social animals establish this to function. So we won't fight for every resource, which would be self-defeating from a collective pov. Even little kids, boys AND girls establish a hierarchy. (dominance vs status/popularity), you think that entered our brain through civilization and (mis)education, 4000 years ago?

And Courage btw stems from coeur, which means Heart. Think of Braveheart. And I would say faith is in our throat area, which gets swollen when it's disturbed (and blocks energy flow). It's also the last chakra in meditation before entering (surrendering to) the state of dhyana, and loss of self. Which makes sense doesn't it? I know what faith is, and I know what it is not having it, from personal experience, and mind-body awareness, not from reading a book or intellectualizations.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

A few points of clarification here, as I sort of fucked up.

For one my own conceptualization of "hierarchy" is that of a institutionalized function mostly revolving class and other such things. That was the wrong definition of it, and you are right. Two I honestly worded that VERY wrongly as I was trying to put together two pieces of contrary information on the 6 thing, but you got my main point right?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Why can't all three sets just be connected using a different pattern of lines?


They can, but that wouldn't reflect reality; which is the entire purpose of esoteric symbolism.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yeah why look around you when you can find absolute truth in numbers, or find the holy grale cracking the code? :dry:


Right. Fuck Pythagoras. 



> I like to see 369 as proto-egoic, strategically more focused on the collective and to some extend even self abandoning. 241758 evolved from that, and is more individualistic, or focused on self.
> 
> We are a social animal, who like other social animals survived by living in a group. To function as a group there needs to be peace and order, and so there will always be a group dynamic the moment you put several individual social animals together, where eventually a hierarchy (status) will be established. Status is closely related to our chance of survival (pecking order) and procreation. Not only do we need to survive as a group, we need to survive within the group. Within this strategic alliance, we form strategic alliances. We seek equilibrium in coexistence, through reconcilliation of opposites, and within our personal existence. You can see this in animal life, which is less likely to be said about the other types. I wouldn't say that makes it backward, though. We still need hierarchy, alliances and equilibrium to get things done, survive and peacefully coexist. Perhaps you may even say they underpin the other triads, but I'm still figuring out how.


Much of this is counter to what the Enneagram fundamentally expresses. Perhaps you're better suited to academia than esoteric philosophy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yeah why look around you when you can find absolute truth in numbers, or find the holy grale cracking the code? :dry:
> 
> I like to see 369 as proto-egoic, strategically more focused on the collective and to some extend even self abandoning. 241758 evolved from that, and is more individualistic, or focused on self.
> 
> We are a social animal, who like other social animals survived by living in a group. To function as a group there needs to be peace and order, and so there will always be a group dynamic the moment you put several individual social animals together, where eventually a hierarchy (status) will be established. Status is closely related to our chance of survival (pecking order) and procreation. Not only do we need to survive as a group, we need to survive within the group. Within this strategic alliance, we form strategic alliances. We seek equilibrium in coexistence, through reconcilliation of opposites, and within our personal existence. You can see this in animal life, which is less likely to be said about the other types. I wouldn't say that makes it backward, though. We still need hierarchy, alliances and equilibrium to get things done, survive and peacefully coexist. Perhaps you may even say they underpin the other triads, but I'm still figuring out how.


So much confusion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@enneathusiast, sorry for not getting back to you earlier but I mean something like this (and I apologize for the crudeness of the image):



Like how JSRS01 points out, you would need 4 triads and 12 types; not 9, to make it perfectly symmetric, and the way they butchered the current image is even "worse" in this regard because it makes even less sense from the point of esoteric symmetry.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> A few points of clarification here, as I sort of fucked up.
> 
> For one my own conceptualization of "hierarchy" is that of a institutionalized function mostly revolving class and other such things. That was the wrong definition of it, and you are right. Two I honestly worded that VERY wrongly as I was trying to put together two pieces of contrary information on the 6 thing, but you got my main point right?


Well, I get your point regarding 6 alone (interconnectedness) and I generally agree with the idea, but don't agree with symetry, I'm inclined think that's just a mental projection, especially when we assume that would be 'divine'. That's crypto mystical rhetoric for me, idiosyncratic, and self referential. 

Also, what I wrote about 369 is to explain a layeredness, just like we have an emotional system and an intellectual. That's how we evolved, and it's not that you can separate the two. All types, or Holy Ideas matter to us, but the idea is that the ego fixates on one of them in particular, due to the loss of it if you will. And so 369 has more of a focus on the collective. Not to make a caricature, but sometimes you need to exaggerate and use hyperboles to distinct something. That's why I find extreme unhealthy states useful in understanding, when we totally 'lost' it so to speak.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> So much confusion.


Yeah I admit it is rather challenging. 
Then again we'd all be in fuckin nirvana if it was easy, or just a matter of crunching the numbers, or make a 2 dimensional graphic representation of a complex dynamic process "symmetrical", wouldn' t we?

Also, I don't see what Hornevian style has got to do with integration. It just tells something about what someone thinks is the way to do things. If you believe the way to go is to keep doing what you're doing, then please keep me updated if you're making any progress.  I don't even think the way to change is the same within every group.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Right. Fuck Pythagoras.


Lol.



JSRS01 said:


> Much of this is counter to what the Enneagram fundamentally expresses. Perhaps you're better suited to academia than esoteric philosophy.


I see, you want name-dropping, I can do that.

I can quote Naranjo:



Naranjo said:


> Just as we have found that the sixfold realm of the ways of meditation is mapped in the enneagram’s hexad, the inner core of meditation—and of the mind, to be discovered at the end of meditation’s course—can be mapped in the enneagram’s inner triangle.
> 
> Geometry makes it unambiguous, for the relation of each successive pair of opposites along the circumference to a center of symmetry assists us in the recognition: in the meditation enneagram, as in the personality enneagram, point 6 belongs in some sense with points 1 and 2; 3 with 7 and 8; 9 with 4 and 5.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I can quote Naranjo:


 What specifically are you trying to convey from that quote? That meditation is somehow inherent to the Enneagram? That the "inner triangle" does have a connection to the hexad figure? Most of his assertions are behavioral based and are frankly inaccurate.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> What specifically are you trying to convey from that quote? That meditation is somehow inherent to the Enneagram? That the "inner triangle" does have a connection to the hexad figure? Most of his assertions are behavioral based and are frankly inaccurate.


If he says they are similar as well as opposite, that's obviously more than just behavior at face value, whatever you want to convey with "behavior based". You could also abstract attitude or focus from it. It also looks at symmetry in a different way. 

But you talk a lot about truths but I haven't heard anything that reveals experiential wisdom or even just describe the personal challenges and hardship we face in life and how to overcome them. You are just hiding behind names and numbers in your attempt to assert truth. 

I am open to hear about a better alternative but you need to come with something that relates to life, not a diagram or what is older or whatever facts you got from a book. Because if you can't come up with real life experience, then what's your point? Then it sounds more like your hoping to find a formula, or elixir of a life ahead of you.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> If he says they are similar as well as opposite, that's obviously more than just behavior at face value, whatever you want to convey with "behavior based". You could also abstract attitude or focus from it. It also looks at symmetry in a different way.


3 isn't opposite to 7 or 8. 6 isn't opposite to 1 or 2 and 9 isn't opposite to 4 or 5. This is convoluted nonsense. There is no symmetry in Gurdjieff's Enneagram. Naranjo is just like Ichazo and perpetuated Gurdjieff's symbol to describe connections that don't exist.



> But you talk a lot about truths but I haven't heard anything that reveals experiential wisdom or even just describe the personal challenges and hardship we face in life and how to overcome them.


Experiential wisdom? Are you fucking kidding me? Initiates of any authentic initiatic doctrine never share experiential wisdom with non-initiates. And then to claim that the Enneagram is a tool to be used to overcome "challenges and hardship we face in life", really? Keep your new age shit out of this. The Enneagram is about consciousness, that's it. If it helps you overcome challenges in your life, great. But that's not it's purpose and no one should ever hold it in that esteem. 



> You are just hiding behind names and numbers in your attempt to assert truth.


No. I'm just not wasting my resources on someone that is incapable of comprehending the validity of my assertions while simultaneous espousing bullshit ideas and justifying them with a bullshit symbol. Gurdjieff was wrong. His symbol is absurd. And any conclusions drawn directly from his symbol are asinine. Ichazo and Naranjo can fuck off. 



> I am open to hear about a better alternative but you need to come with something that relates to life, not a diagram or what is older or whatever facts you got from a book.


This is incredibly ironic. I've done nothing but relate and incorporate reality into the Enneagram. It's you and the rest of the Gurdjieffian proponents that do otherwise. So please, show me the evidence that 369 and 142758 are two separate and distinct groupings. She me the evidence that the Enneagram has anything to do with meditation. Show me the evidence that the octaves apply to the Enneagram. Show me the evidence that the asymmetry found in the Gurdjieffian symbol is valid. Show me the evidence that 5-7 and 4-2 are valid connections. Show me the evidence 3 is opposite to 7,8; 6 is opposite to 1,2; and 9 is opposite to 4,5. 



> Because if you can't come up with real life experience, then what's your point? Then it sounds more like your hoping to find a formula, or elixir of a life ahead of you.


This is fucking hilarious. The Enneagram is a formula. It's just as much a formula as the caduceus, the tree of life, the vesica pices, the androgyne, or any other god damn occult symbol known to mankind. But you wouldn't understand that, because you're not an initiate. You're not an Alchemist. You're an academic, and you're so limited in your comprehension of perennial knowledge that you will never understand the perennial wisdom to be derived from these symbols. So please intellectualize it away as much as you possibly can. You really don't deserve to know the fundamentals of reality.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> 3 isn't opposite to 7 or 8. 6 isn't opposite to 1 or 2 and 9 isn't opposite to 4 or 5. This is convoluted nonsense. There is no symmetry in Gurdjieff's Enneagram. Naranjo is just like Ichazo and perpetuated Gurdjieff's symbol to describe connections that don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you go again, anyone can say what you just said, it's soooo pastiche and transparent. You think by invalidating others it raises your status or cred. Or you return the questions (you clearly didn't read it) or attack me. Which is fine with me, it's just that you still said nada.I only asked you to give a sample of what is to be expected -in concreto- with your alternative, and you are ducking it in every possible way.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> There you go again, anyone can say what you just said, it's soooo pastiche and transparent. You think by invalidating others it


I'm not invalidating you. I'm invalidating your claims. Primarily on the basis that you have _no evidence_ for any of the assertions you make. You just carry on and tout the party line. 



> raises your status or cred.


I could give less than a fuck about my "status". This has absolutely nothing to do with status, and everything to do with truth. 




> Or you return the questions (you clearly didn't read it)


I've read every word, but your inability to articulate your assertions in a succinct manner is slightly inhibiting.




> or attack me.


Show me. 



> Which is fine with me, it's just that you still said nada.


I've commented plenty, but you don't have the ears to listen. Without that, there's nothing I can offer you. 



> I only asked you to give a sample of what is to be expected -in concreto- with your alternative, and you are ducking it in every possible way.


I'm not avoiding anything, you just don't ask direct questions. You make convoluted assertions and use convoluted explanations from Enneagram authorities without ever forming an actual argument, and then go "Ha! You're not answering my questions!". It's silly.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Me: I am probably one of the lost 3
Me: Shut up. You're a 6.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Mr.Rbtoo said:


> Me: I am probably one of the lost 3


There's a genuine possibility that could be the case. Hell, the vast majority already accept 10 Enneagram types. The 10th being either Phobic or Counter Phobic 6, depending on preference. It's pure conjecture at this point, but that goes without saying.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> There's a genuine possibility that could be the case. Hell, the vast majority already accept 10 Enneagram types. The 10th being either Phobic or Counter Phobic 6, depending on preference. It's pure conjecture at this point, but that goes without saying.


Naturally the other 2 "missing types" would be the various elements of 3 and 9. Such as the apathetic 9 and then the everyman 9. The performer 3 and the "look good all the time" 3

Thus it would be like this Alt 9 (Apathetic), Alt 3 (Performer), Alt 6 (Counterphobic) and then Alt 9 (everyman), Alt 3 (Showman), Alt 6 (Phobic)


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Naturally the other 2 "missing types" would be the various elements of 3 and 9. Such as the apathetic 9 and then the everyman 9. The performer 3 and the "look good all the time" 3
> 
> Thus it would be like this Alt 9 (Apathetic), Alt 3 (Performer), Alt 6 (Counterphobic) and then Alt 9 (everyman), Alt 3 (Showman), Alt 6 (Phobic)


This is precisely what I've been thinking. 

A source to consider: Patterns of Motion | Nine Paths

Specifically: 


> ...The three Interior types are a little more complicated. Like Exterior types, an Interior type can have a wing—or not. And like Exterior types, Interior types can be high-functioning, low-functioning, or somewhere in between. But Interior types don’t all have the same stress and security points because these three types don’t relate to their Home center the same way the other types in that center do. They entangle the function of their Home center with the function of their Security center, which results in two versions of each type.
> 
> Nearly everyone recognizes the two different kinds of *6*s, which are usually referred to as phobic and counterphobic. As I was getting to know *9*s better, I began to identify two versions of them—and then two versions of *3*s.
> One kind of *6* entangles the function of the Home center (Thinking) with the function of the Security center (Doing). This is what’s called the counterphobic *6*; it’s often confused with Type *8*. The phobic *6*, on the other hand, entangles the function of the Thinking Center with the function of the Feeling Center and is often confused with Type *2*.
> ...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> I'm not invalidating you. I'm invalidating your claims. Primarily on the basis that you have _no evidence_ for any of the assertions you make. You just carry on and tout the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol nah, that was really a simple question. It was an opportunity and you couldn't deliver. Again. I'm done. 

I'll leave with a quote of Jung on the Ego, as sort of an archaeology of the mind, for the sake of painting a bigger picture. In descriptions of the attachment triad, like Daniels, it is described as how 369 connect with "the world". But "the world" was a lot different, for most of our history, a lot smaller and certainly not like modern day life. So that's why I prefer "the collective" since I always try to imagine the types in communities or how people lived a few thousand years ago. The ego as we know it in the individualized Western society may not even be that old, and is still evolving.

http://www.mind-development.eu/stages-development.html#fixity



Jung said:


> The lower you go down in the psychical centers, the more you will lose the consciousness of a separate self, the more you become collective, the more you are in a state of participation mystique, and when you arrive at the lowest center, you have lost consciousness of yourself altogether and the ego is a name only. There is no individual consciousness or will power; one functions by tribal influences, one is with only the herd instinct. Any function on the lowest level has these qualities: it is absolutely collective and undifferentiated in character, not discriminated from the functions of other people, and therefore always in a state of complete projection” (visions, p. 56).


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Lol nah, that was really a simple question. It was an opportunity and you couldn't deliver. Again. I'm done.


"Because if you can't come up with real life experience, then what's your point?" Is the only question in your post, and it's a rhetorical one at that. But feel free to save face and discontinue the dialogue, you really aren't worth my time.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> "Because if you can't come up with real life experience, then what's your point?" Is the only question in your post, and it's a rhetorical one at that. But feel free to save face and discontinue the dialogue, you really aren't worth my time.


Come on, you make an assertion that the points of integration aren't correct, then you have to support this with a *concrete* example of the right way of integration. 

Why is this question so hard to grasp for a self proclaimed Te aux? 

But really, you don't need to support your claims anymore.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Come on, you make an assertion that the points of integration aren't correct, then you have to support this with a *concrete* example of the right way of integration.


Most seem to comprehend the self-evident nature of the 147 forming a triad and 258 forming a triad. It's consistent with the internal structure of the Enneagram and what many find occurring in reality. This is in itself concrete evidence attesting to the validity of the Proper Enneagram. I can also personally attest to 8 having a powerful and unabridged link to both type 2 and type 5. But seeing as it's types 4 and 5, and not 8, that are being misrepresented by the Gurdjieffian Enneagram, it would stand to reason that we ask 4s and 5s what they find accurate or inaccurate about either symbol. 




> Why is this question so hard to grasp for a self proclaimed Te aux?


Let's not bring MBTI into this. It's among the worst systems devised to explain consciousness. 



> But really, you don't need to support your claims anymore.


Well, you've yet to actually ask me a question regarding my claims, which leaves me in a difficult position to contend any of your accusations.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I'll leave with a quote of Jung on the Ego, as sort of an archaeology of the mind, for the sake of painting a bigger picture.


Jung was a fruitcake occultist, I don't respect much of anything he has to say, especially pertaining to the "collective unconscious" or his absolutely ridiculous archetypes.



> So that's why I prefer "the collective" since I always try to imagine the types in communities or how people lived a few thousand years ago.The ego as we know it in the individualized Western society may not even be that old, and is still evolving.


One's Enneagram type isn't their ego, it's their soul. It didn't evolve over time and it isn't created by man's intellect. The soul presides over man in every way. The soul is what defines man on a fundamental level, it's _who_ one is; it can't be changed, only realized.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Jung was a fruitcake occultist, I don't respect much of anything he has to say, especially pertaining to the "collective unconscious" or his absolutely ridiculous archetypes.
> 
> 
> 
> One's Enneagram type isn't their ego, it's their soul. It didn't evolve over time and it isn't created by man's intellect. The soul presides over man in every way. The soul is what defines man on a fundamental level, it's _who_ one is; it can't be changed, only realized.


Yeah, I'm done.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yeah I admit it is rather challenging.
> Then again we'd all be in fuckin nirvana if it was easy, or just a matter of crunching the numbers, or make a 2 dimensional graphic representation of a complex dynamic process "symmetrical", wouldn' t we?
> 
> Also, I don't see what Hornevian style has got to do with integration. It just tells something about what someone thinks is the way to do things. If you believe the way to go is to keep doing what you're doing, then please keep me updated if you're making any progress.  I don't even think the way to change is the same within every group.


You didn't understand my previous comment. It was in relation to the fact that you missed out on the spirituality by trying to make it concrete by linking it back to evolution. No. Spirituality has nothing to do with evolution. You don't understand the spiritual dimension that JSRS01 is arguing with you.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yeah, I'm done.


You were done 3 posts ago.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> Let's not bring MBTI into this. It's among the worst systems devised to explain consciousness.


Well, it seems good enough for you to have it listed both on your profile and in your sig.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Well, it seems good enough for you to have it listed both on your profile and in your sig.


I was wondering when someone would point out my hypocrisy. 

To be fair, I actually wanted to update my signature about a month or so ago. But I realized rather quickly that I would be extremely limited in what I could place in my signature due to a forum change 5-6 months back, so instead of deleting it, I keep it as a personal record of how much I've changed since first being introduced to self-knowledge. 

And I kind of like the way it looks...


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> Without a fourth set, 369 remains separate and isolated from the rest of the sets. Succinctly, it has nothing to relate to outside of itself.


Why does it need something to relate to outside of itself?




JSRS01 said:


> 3 isn't opposite to 7 or 8. 6 isn't opposite to 1 or 2 and 9 isn't opposite to 4 or 5. This is convoluted nonsense.


But they are as opposite as can be on the circle. Draw a line straight across from 3 and it ends up right between 7 and 8 at the other end.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ShadowPrince said:


> Why does it need something to relate to outside of itself?


Because it lacks what both 258 and 147 derive from each other.





> But they are as opposite as can be on the circle. Draw a line straight across from 3 and it ends up right between 7 and 8 at the other end.


Not quite.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Because it lacks what both* 258 and 147 derive from each other*.


I looked back through the thread for what this meant. I didn't find anything explaining what these two groups derive from each other.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> Not quite.


Those are not really opposites, no matter if you go with 9 or 12 types. If you count the points on each side you'll see this. For example, 8 and 4 are drawn as opposites but you have _four points_ on the circle to the left side of that line and _six points_ on the right side. You have created symmetry, but the lines still don't connect in exact opposites.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> You didn't understand my previous comment. It was in relation to the fact that you missed out on the spirituality by trying to make it concrete by linking it back to evolution. No. Spirituality has nothing to do with evolution. You don't understand the spiritual dimension that JSRS01 is arguing with you.


You know, I'm 43 and I look very young for my age, and so when I go out, I have girls like 10 to 20 years younger chasing me, because they estimate me 32. Funny thing is, people of my age don't , or perhaps estimate just a few years younger. I asked someone (same age) what made him estimate right, but he said it was hard to explain. But I think there are certain subtle cues you pick up, that younger people don't, because they lack the experience to recognize it.

Same I think can be said about spiritual growth. It's like when you see a 16 year old, wearing too much make up, trying too hard to look mature. But you see through all that, right? I mean, if it were only for the fact that I tried it myself. Well not so much the makeup, lol, but you get my point. There's certain things that come with age or experience and wisdom. 

I can tell you spirituality is much more down to earth than you think. Which means it starts with mind-body, not a disembodied mind. Our body is still our vehicle. And so we need to learn to deal with instincts, fears and desires and the peculiarities of human nature, or fixations of the ego. I am very sure we evolved a gut, heart or head center of intelligence. Like the gut center is related to our fight or flight response, or freeze and play dead and our sense of right and wrong.

Now, I mentioned status or order seeking (3). I can relate that to Holy Law. I mentioned secure attachment seeking, or strategic alliances, like a social contract where subordination is exchanged for protection. Which is a natural phenomenon, but still, we were not able to build such complex societies, without faith in the system, e.g. 'bona fides' (article of good faith). So yeah, I see the relation with Holy Faith. And I mentioned equilibrium seeking, but perhaps rather reconciliation seeking, which seeks harmony, through compromise, accomodation, or uniting opposites. And I can see the relation with Holy Love, and like for instance what Erich Fromm called "paradoxical thinking" in the Art of Love. Like the importance of self-love to be able to love others. 

These behavioral attitudes are part of our make up as humans, but in case of the enneagram there is distortion and conditioning along these perspectives, due to the loss of Holy Idea. 

Perhaps I will lay out my understanding of the other types, but for now I will leave you guys and wish you good luck on your spiritual journey.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ShadowPrince said:


> Those are not really opposites, no matter if you go with 9 or 12 types.


They are. But since you disagree, I'd love to hear why. 



> If you count the points on each side you'll see this. For example, 8 and 4 are drawn as opposites but you have _four points_ on the circle to the left side of that line and _six points_ on the right side.


This is the case for _all_ of the opposites. It in no way detracts from the symbolic validity.




> You have created symmetry, but th e lines still don't connect in exact opposites.


They do. _8s _are opposite to_ 4s._ And I propose the same formula applies to the other types as well, and to be clear, it's not about the symmetry; it's about reality being accurately reflected by the symbol.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> I looked back through the thread for what this meant. I didn't find anything explaining what these two groups derive from each other.


Sorry. That ties into a theory of mine, which I'm not inclined to giving out the details yet. But if you analyze the groupings closely, it's fairly obvious what these points lack and likewise need. (8-4, 5-1, 7-2)


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> it's fairly obvious what these points lack and likewise need. (8-4, 5-1, 7-2)


Meh, sounds like you're just talking about antipodes as far as a contrast or the harmonics groups in terms of what's common.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Meh, sounds like just you're talking about antipodes as far as a contrast or the harmonics groups in terms of what's common.


If that's what you interpret from it, OK.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> You know, I'm 43 and I look very young for my age, and so when I go out, I have girls like 10 to 20 years younger chasing me, because they estimate me 32. Funny thing is, people of my age don't , or perhaps estimate just a few years younger. I asked someone (same age) what made him estimate right, but he said it was hard to explain. But I think there are certain subtle cues you pick up, that younger people don't, because they lack the experience to recognize it.
> 
> Same I think can be said about spiritual growth. It's like when you see a 16 year old, wearing too much make up, trying too hard to look mature. But you see through all that, right? I mean, if it were only for the fact that I tried it myself. Well not so much the makeup, lol, but you get my point. There's certain things that come with age or experience and wisdom.
> 
> ...


No you missed the point again.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

I guess JSRS01 is thinking something like:
8 (100% gut, 50% head, 0% heart) + 4 (0% gut, 50% head, 100% heart) = 100% of everything.
You can't get that "completeness" with any other combo than 8-4, 1-5, 2-7, so in that respect they are opposites.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> Heptaparaparshinokh being the laws of 7, Triamazikamno the law of 3. Samael Aun Weor, the neo-gnostic credited with reviving gnosticism in the modern era, goes into more detail on this than one will find reading Gurdjieff.


So if the laws of 7 is merely an organizational law then the whole thing with the enneagram about development and needing a "shock" to enter at specific intervals in order to keep a straight line of development was not in the ancients teachings?

Samael speaks of "the seven planets" but there are more than seven planets. Not to mention the ancients counted the sun and the moon as part of the seven "planets." So I don't see how that law applies to the planets.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No you missed the point again.


Oh, I guess you missed my point that this seems pointless. But I accept your offer to expand on the spiritual dimension.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ShadowPrince said:


> I guess JSRS01 is thinking something like:
> 8 (100% gut, 50% head, 0% heart) + 4 (0% gut, 50% head, 100% heart) = 100% of everything.
> You can't get that "completeness" with any other combo than 8-4, 1-5, 2-7, so in that respect they are opposites.


Yeah, something like this.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I've noticed some discussion in this thread about the possibility of there being 12 types, and it brought to mind a lot of other things I've thought about it.

A study once showed that Enneagram seems to be S/N blind. I wonder the Enneagram is missing a center?

I also know of three 12 archetype systems...




























If we could some how map these to Enneagram... it might make finding the three "missing" types that much easier. 

It just seems very likely that one of the existing 12 archetype systems might express or reveal what's missing from Enneagram, if anything.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ShadowPrince said:


> So if the laws of 7 is merely an organizational law


Heptaparaparshinokh is an invalid and convoluted idea. Unlike the law of 3, being the forces of creation, preservation, and destruction united in a single process, Heptaparaparshinokh describes nothing in reality.

Personally I find the 7 Hermetic principles of the universe to be the only true and valid law of 7.





> then the whole thing with the enneagram about development and needing a "shock" to enter at specific intervals in order to keep a straight line of development was not in the ancients teachings?


I would assume not. 




> Samael speaks of "the seven planets" but there are more than seven planets. Not to mention the ancients counted the sun and the moon as part of the seven "planets." So I don't see how that law applies to the planets.


Alchemically speaking, there are only 7 planets; sun and moon included. Each planet correlates to a metal and that metal conveys a particular message and instruction for completing the Magnum Opus.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> You should know better than to try to go all 8 on me. I've got your number too.




This has nothing to do with Enneagram type.



> Where you see a threat,


You're not a threat, don't flatter yourself.



> I see a minor sequence error that is easily corrected.


you aren't correcting anything. You're flat out wrong in your assertions.



> The imbalance expressed by Gurdjieff's Enneagram symbol is intentional.


It most certainly is. 



> You missed his reasoning entirely.


Hardly.

Ichazo is the reason for personality being associated with Gurdjieff's symbol. He did little more than map occult wisdom to a tainted symbol. 



> You should know we were born inhabiting all 9 points and 3 instincts.


Utter garbage. 



> Childhood trauma (ego) causes us to fixate on one core type and one dominant instinct by mistake.


You _really_ don't understand what's going on. Enneagram is soul, ego is Spirit. Spirit is human, Soul is superhuman. Spirit is individuality, Soul is personality.



> Enlightenment comes when we find our way back to that original intention we had before our split


There's a thread of truth to this, but your muddied ideas inhibit any tangible form of "enlightenment" from being realized. 



> and inhabit all 9 points once more


This is impossible. 



> then the "balanced" symbol you admire, and all the fancy numerology comes back into proper focus.


How many times do I have to say it? The proper enneagram has nothing to do with balance or symmetry. Balance and symmetry just so happen to coincide with objective truth, that's it; and stop calling it "fancy numerology", it's ridiculously demeaning to the efforts of men far more brilliant than you to help everyone understand the true nature of mathematics. 



> I'm not taking this personally, so why are you?


Because it is personal.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> You _really_ don't understand what's going on. Enneagram is soul, ego is Spirit. Spirit is human, Soul is superhuman. Spirit is individuality, Soul is personality.




Try again. Although it does give an impression of your level of self awareness. 




JSRS01 said:


> There's a thread of truth to this, but your muddied ideas inhibit any tangible form of "enlightenment" from being realized.




I don't think you have a clue what enlightenment is. 




JSRS01 said:


> How many times do I have to say it? The proper enneagram has nothing to do with balance or symmetry. Balance and symmetry just so happen to coincide with objective truth, that's it; and stop calling it "fancy numerology", it's ridiculously demeaning to the efforts of men far more brilliant than you to help everyone understand the true nature of mathematics.




What if they first differentiated the types and integration/disintegration, and then assigned the numbers?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Try again. Although it does give an impression of your level of self awareness.




_The all is mind._ Do I win something? (Assuming you're the judge, most probably not.) 





> I don't think you have a clue what enlightenment is.


Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just a stupid, fickle little fuck without a clue; so please, endow me with your Alchemically derived divine knowledge. 








> What if they first differentiated the types and integration/disintegration, and then assigned the numbers?


There is no integration or disintegration from one fixation to another, it's a farcical idea.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just a stupid, fickle little fuck without a clue; so please, endow me with your Alchemically derived divine knowledge.


The arrogance of some people...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> There is no integration or disintegration from one fixation to another, it's a farcical idea.


So what do the lines mean then?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> So what do the lines mean then?


They show the connection between a given fixation and its sister fixations, presenting the dynamic of consciousness for the given fixation. For example, core 8 is always associated with 5 and 2, and unalienable from them. One will never find an 8 with a unalienable connection to any of the other fixations. What this essentially means is an 8 is really a 2-5-8 all at once, but is fixated on the _specific _aspects that differentiates 8 from its counterparts in its larger dynamic.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

This thread...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> They show the connection between a given fixation and its sister fixations, presenting the dynamic of consciousness for the given fixation. For example, core 8 is always associated with 5 and 2, and unalienable from them. One will never find an 8 with a unalienable connection to any of the other fixations. What this essentially means is an 8 is really a 2-5-8 all at once, but is fixated on the _specific _aspects that differentiates 8 from its counterparts in its larger dynamic.


Well that just makes Tritypes completely useless then.



Ace Face said:


> This thread...


It's honestly quite boring really, it was good but then it turned into a meh burger.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Well that just makes Tritypes completely useless then.


I agree.

I think the Fauvres are completely out of touch with what the Enneagram actually represents and their attempt to rectify the inherent inconsistencies through their tri-type theory was a complete failure.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> > _This has nothing to do with Enneagram type.
> > _
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> It's honestly quite boring really, it was good but then it turned into a meh burger.


Maybe I can offer something slightly more stimulating than pointless arguments with insipid people.





I've been working on differentiating the two types of 3s 6s and 9s, and how the relate to one another. Starting with the distinctions between phobic 6s and counter-phobic 6s, I've done my best to illustrate how a "counter-phobic" 3 or 9 would relate to the other core types. I don't mean to imply 3s or 9s are at all counter-phobic in the way a counter-phobic 6 is, if anything one is only opposite to the other in how they embody each intelligence center. Therefore, I use the term "inverse" to differentiate between the two forms of 3 6 and 9. 

Geometrically speaking, the illustrations are internally consistent. I do have some ideas on what defines an inverse 3 or an inverse 9, most of which is derived from personal interactions with people who I now suppose are those types; but I have nothing in the way of actually defining them on a fundamental level or being able to present a foundational overview of the types like one will find in the stickies or reading Timeless' fantastic descriptions of the types.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Really? You don't think your type has anything to do with how you have made your assertions in this thread?




No. But being an 8 applies to everything I do. I simply don't view mentioning it important.



> I'm too old to bother with self-flattery. The undertone of your posts to me thus far have been laced with a level of condescension bordering on contempt.


You aren't incorrect.



> I do not see you as unworthy of my time simply because we have a difference of opinion. I would appreciate the same consideration in return.


This is a genuinely unique and, frankly, heartwarming perspective. Sorry for the unwarranted disdain. 



> Prove it, if you can. My "assertions" are based upon the teachings of people who have made the Enneagram their life's work. I look forward to discussing this with you further.


If you'd be willing to list your exact beliefs regarding the Enneagram, I'll tackle each one as thoroughly as I can. 



> You sound like you might have some idea of how psychologically powerful it is to attach deeper unconscious meaning (via mythology) is to the successful transmission of memes. It is a pattern that all religions have followed since we have written records to confirm it. It is one means of transcending established cultural boundaries.


Atheist? 



> You have previously stated the importance of symbolism, so I won't belabor this point further. I would like to know what makes you view the Enneagram symbol as "tainted," however.


Succinctly, I don't think Gurdjieff explicitly intended his symbol to be used in the manner Ichazo has adapted it. He did however view it as the tool by which everything could be known and understood, which implies his symbol can be used for self knowledge. It's tainted in the sense that a unicursal hexagram is tainted, they both diverge from their perennial sources and through that divergence alter the implicit meaning of the symbol to something of lesser value. A proper hexagram will always be superior to a unicursal hexagram when furthering one's consciousness and the same is true for the Enneagram. 






> I understand a great deal, I suspect that I use different terminology and a very different perspective to achieve similar results. I contend that you are "...Putting the cart before the horse."


Possibly. 



> Let's explore that. I stated enlightenment comes from regaining the state of being each of us had prior to the split brought on by *childhood trauma*


You were doing so well until "childhood trauma".



> and that awareness of the Enneagram can be utilized as part of this objective. The reintegration of three states into one.


No disagreement.



> We knew this state when we were first born, and if we overcome the schisms of our childhood, we can know that state again.


This is where the discrepancy lies. I contend that one's soul supersedes their physical body. When a soul incarnates, it's born into ignorance. The divine superhuman aspect of man is bound to the titanic aspect of man, creating a bond that cannot be broke until death. It is the ultimate goal of man to realize his divine nature and return to his source. 


> Impossible that, as newborns, we inhabited all 9 points of the Enneagram and our interactions as we grew forced us to fixate on one core type?


Yes. We are born with our type. That type defines who we are on a fundamental level. 



> Have you never heard Eastern Philosophers espouse the virtues of returning to the simplicity of the "child mind"?


I don't delve much into anything Eastern based, but I do know a bit on Eastern mysticism's emphasis on joining with the avatara. Which I interpret as self-deification as opposed to reunion with the all. 



> The state of being that is completely open, curious, aware, and yet unfixed?


Being a child is probably one of the most incredible experiences one can.. experience. It's a shame so many people ruin that experience for the child. 



> I suppose you'll have to keep saying it, since you appear to have a rather unique perspective on the matter.


You're probably right.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@JSRS01



> No. But being an 8 applies to everything I do. I simply don't view mentioning it important.


I have a great deal of experience with 8. It is one of my lines of connection, in my tritype, and also happens to be my wife's core type. 



> You aren't incorrect.


At least I can still read between the lines. 



> This is a genuinely unique and, frankly, heartwarming perspective. Sorry for the unwarranted disdain.


 I am glad we could come to an agreement that is less combative in nature.



> If you'd be willing to list your exact beliefs regarding the Enneagram, I'll tackle each one as thoroughly as I can.


At a young age, we lose our ability to commune with all 9 points of the Enneagram because we come to realize how fragile our lives really are: how alone, how afraid, how insecure, how uncertain. We are bombarded by a world alive with wonder, beauty, chaos, and pain. We are taught more through fear and intimidation than we are through wisdom and compassion. That's the trauma. The repeated shocks that jar loose our sense of security such that we must in some way create our own. We do that by fixating on a particular core type and instinctual sub-type. We close ourselves off out of fear. We feel a need to protect ourselves from unknown dangers lurking outside our ability to perceive. All these things close us off from the source.



> Atheist?


I prefer the less controversial label of "spiritual non-theist." I'm not out to convince anyone what they should, or should not, believe. I suspect a great many people have confused "belief" for "faith," when I see them as very different states. Succinctly put, beliefs cling, whereas faith lets go. Organized religions are, IMHO corrupt. It is not possible to preach a message of eternal salvation while simultaneously maintaining a vast power-structure, without compromising the former for the latter. Trading individual spiritual experience for a group one only waters down the experience for everyone. Personally, I find the constant bickering between atheists and theists a distraction. IMHO, treating any sort of "faith" as if it were something rational; which can be logically argued is redundant for the atheist, and folly for the theist. IMHO, faith isn't rational,_ it's not supposed to be; that's what makes it faith_. It's letting go of what remains outside our ability to control. It is recognizing each of us is part of something bigger than our "self." It is accepting what is true, rather than what it is we would wish to be true. It is the willingness to take a leap beyond logic. Perhaps faith is actually a sort of "intuition" granted us by the "divine" you speak of. 



> Succinctly, I don't think Gurdjieff explicitly intended his symbol to be used in the manner Ichazo has adapted it. He did however view it as the tool by which everything could be known and understood, which implies his symbol can be used for self knowledge. It's tainted in the sense that a unicursal hexagram is tainted, they both diverge from their perennial sources and through that divergence alter the implicit meaning of the symbol to something of lesser value. A proper hexagram will always be superior to a unicursal hexagram when furthering one's consciousness and the same is true for the Enneagram.


I've played with the three "Triangles," of 369, 147, and 258 (all divisible by 3). I've seen the mandelas these create. I understand the symbolic power of three, and I would say that we can achieve that symmetry, but we start out with the symbol as it is, the unicursal aspect is created by the fragmentation (or perhaps compartmentalization?) of our psyches in response to a rapid attempt to learn how to fend for ourselves in a very unforgiving environment. Childhood doesn't last nearly long enough, by my estimation. Our survival instincts are, IMHO, harsh taskmasters. 



> You were doing so well until "childhood trauma".


I've explained it as a series of disillusioning shocks of awareness. 



> This is where the discrepancy lies. I contend that one's soul supersedes their physical body. When a soul incarnates, it's born into ignorance. The divine superhuman aspect of man is bound to the titanic aspect of man, creating a bond that cannot be broke until death. It is the ultimate goal of man to realize his divine nature and return to his source.


Whether literal, or metaphorical, it is a compelling notion. I would say we are given the opportunity to touch whatever might be considered "divine" within us and become something more beneficial to others, if we can overcome the pain and fear we have carried from birth. 



> Yes. We are born with our type. That type defines who we are on a fundamental level.


I'm not certain we are born with much more than a bundle of instincts. I don't think our premature brains are formed enough to initially recognize the distinction of "self" from "others." That takes at least a few months to sort out. Temperament is probably the first sign of type. Other signs and aspects follow, but I think it probably isn't fully distinguishable to others until we've started walking and talking. 



> I don't delve much into anything Eastern based, but I do know a bit on Eastern mysticism's emphasis on joining with the avatara. Which I interpret as self-deification as opposed to reunion with the all.


I studied with a Shaolin priest for a few years. Probably the most distinguishing factor between Eastern philosophy and Western religion is that, in the east, the individual is guided by a guru, but must walk his/her spiritual path alone, whereas the Abrahamic religions of the West tend to emphasize a more group approach. I suspect that this might explain why Western civilization grew faster than Eastern, the group approach allowed for greater social cohesion. 

I would add that the overall theme of Eastern philosophy is probably more monist than you might initially believe, (particularly true of Zen Buddhism and Taoism). They see dualism is an illusionary aspect of existing outside the original source. The closer one gets to achieving enlightenment, the closer one is to reunion with the source. Hinduism posits that we're all aspects of a single god (source) tricking itself into believing we are human. Confucianism is perhaps the closest Eastern Philosophy comes to a belief-system that mimics the West. It emphasizes one's obligations to family, country, and emperor, over individual needs. 



> Being a child is probably one of the most incredible experiences one can...experience. It's a shame so many people ruin that experience for the child.


Agreed. There's an exquisite sense of wonder and innocence that is sadly lost too young. 




> You're probably right.



It's mostly due to trial-and-error.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I've often wondered why 6 was the only type presented as having phobic/counter-phobic qualities. It seems rather inelegant at the very least.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> At a young age, we lose our ability to commune with all 9 points of the Enneagram because we come to realize how fragile our lives really are: how alone, how afraid, how insecure, how uncertain. We are bombarded by a world alive with wonder, beauty, chaos, and pain.




I would only contend that we never had the ability to "commune" with the other fixations from birth. 



> We are taught more through fear and intimidation than we are through wisdom and compassion. That's the trauma.
> The repeated shocks that jar loose our sense of security such that we must in some way create our own.


I agree. But this is the doing of other human beings and the defense created is one derived from the intellect of man, resulting in the formation of an ego. 



> We do that by fixating on a particular core type and instinctual sub-type.


Like I said, I assert our type is fixed and predetermined before birth. 

Metaphorically speaking, one's Enneagram type is like a piece of software on a computer. It's the program that determines how we will experience the simulation of _life._ 

An 8s software focuses on the physical nature of reality, the sensible world. While a 4s software focuses less on the physical world and more on the emotional, intangible, aspects of reality. 



> We close ourselves off out of fear. We feel a need to protect ourselves from unknown dangers lurking outside our ability to perceive. All these things close us off from the source.


I would suggest that our true selves are purposely hidden from our egoic self and that it's only the egoic part of man that creates "reasons" for protecting itself from supposed dangers. 



> I prefer the less controversial label of "spiritual non-theist."


I used to be an atheist for a while. I focused on the more literal forms of reality, specifically: philosophy, economics, nutrition, politics and psychology. I never bought into the human personifications of "god", I had thought that everything could be known and understood through logic and empiricism. But it wasn't until I started studying the occult that I truly began to understand reality. I see now how I had twisted metaphor and allegory to suit my human intellect, how I rationalized religion and spirituality away. Needless to say I'm a theist now, but it wasn't easy realizing my illogical nature.



> I'm not out to convince anyone what they should, or should not, believe. I suspect a great many people have confused "belief" for "faith," when I see them as very different states. Succinctly put, beliefs cling, whereas faith lets go.


I would only differentiate faith from belief in the sense that faith is belief derived from a higher source. 




> Organized religions are, IMHO corrupt.


Absolutely, though I would also extend that corruption to Eastern and Mesoamerican religions.



> It is not possible to preach a message of eternal salvation while simultaneously maintaining a vast power-structure, without compromising the former for the latter. Trading individual spiritual experience for a group one only waters down the experience for everyone.


Yes, modern religion is very much synonymous with government. Both are imaginary constructs of man used to subjugate his brothers and sisters. 



> IMHO, faith isn't rational,_ it's not supposed to be; that's what makes it faith_.


I agree that faith isn't rational, but I would assert that it is logical; if you're willing to differentiate between the two terms. 



> It's letting go of what remains outside our ability to control. It is recognizing each of us is part of something bigger than our "self." It is accepting what is true, rather than what it is we would wish to be true. It is the willingness to take a leap beyond logic. Perhaps faith is actually a sort of "intuition" granted us by the "divine" you speak of.


I assume you don't actually believe in a literal divine source; a god, so I'm curious as to what you're trying to derive out of spirituality. What do you get out of it? 





> I understand the symbolic power of three, and I would say that we can achieve that symmetry, but we start out with the symbol as it is, the unicursal aspect is created by the fragmentation (or perhaps compartmentalization?) of our psyches in response to a rapid attempt to learn how to fend for ourselves in a very unforgiving environment






> The knowledge of the enneagram has for a very long time been preserved in secret and if it now is, so to speak, made available to all, it is only in an incomplete and theoretical form of which nobody could make any practical use without instruction from a man who knows. - IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS, P. D. OUSPENSKY


Like I said, I really don't believe the symbol provided by Gurdjieff is valid. 





> Whether literal, or metaphorical, it is a compelling notion.


Most assuredly literal. 



> I would say we are given the opportunity to touch whatever might be considered "divine" within us and become something more beneficial to others, if we can overcome the pain and fear we have carried from birth.


I don't believe there is any pain or fear innate to a child. It would seem to be those states are brought on by the influences of others, most specifically parents.





> I studied with a Shaolin priest for a few years. Probably the most distinguishing factor between Eastern philosophy and Western religion is that, in the east, the individual is guided by a guru, but must walk his/her spiritual path alone


This is actually a common practice in Western occultism.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> I don't believe there is any pain or fear innate to a child. It would seem to be those states are brought on by the influences of others, most specifically parents.


Eh? I'm not getting what you mean out of this. Literally speaking of course a child feels fear and pain as those sensations have been developed in the womb for most infants, but I'm not exactly aware of how to interprate this metaphysically.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Eh? I'm not getting what you mean out of this. Literally speaking of course a child feels fear and pain as those sensations have been developed in the womb for most infants, but I'm not exactly aware of how to interprate this metaphysically.


It's not metaphysical. Children literally do not live in a state of perpetual fear or pain unless there is an external causal factor.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> It's not metaphysical. Children literally do not live in a perpetual state of fear or pain unless there is an external causal factor.


I missed the word innate, sorry.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> I would only contend that we never had the ability to "commune" with the other fixations from birth.


Fixation is not an inherent attribute, but a state or process, in response to and coping with fear or loss. It's where what you call Soul is distorted and the counterproductive strategies that reinforce alienation from self and the world. It's possible that there is distortion in more than just one of the cognitive behavioral perspectives of the enneagram, resulting in a flamboyant mix of defense mechanisms and coping strategies. 

For instance, it's perfectly thinkable a person is fixated on perfectionism, expressing outward anger at people who get it wrong, a crusading compensatory narcissist with the dishonest (deceit) intent not of virtue or wisdom, but to inflate oneself as a special snowflake, seeking omniscience to anticipate and prepare oneself against being engulfed by a hostile world out there or even dominate them, believing sovereignty, significance, omniscience, dominance and perfection is the ultimate state of security and to secure attachments, thus expecting some sort of enlightenment of suffering and perpetual bliss.

Which one of these distortions predominate or is most pervasive or persistent can be difficult to determine, as it could also indicate a pattern of disintegration. 4>2>8>5>7>1 as well as 6>3>9


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

This "Alchemist" guy's arrogance is astounding and is an example of everything that is wrong with so many people into "occult wisdom" because they think it makes them special and better than us plebs. It misses the point of mystical and spiritual teachings.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Fixation is not an inherent attribute, but a state or process, in response to and coping with fear or loss.


I was just using the term in place of "type" or "point" in the sense that one is fixed in their type. I didn't at all mean to refer to the defense methods deployed by the types in response to stressors. 



> It's where what you call Soul is distorted and the counterproductive strategies that reinforce alienation from self and the world.


The world and self are alienated from each other. They are distinct and they are autonomous. We may all derive from the all, but that should never be construed as you being me, or me being the all. 



> It's possible that there is distortion in more than just one of the cognitive behavioral perspectives of the enneagram, resulting in a flamboyant mix of defense mechanisms and coping strategies.


It seems to me the defense mechanisms are largely based in the egoic part of man. They should be seen as obstacles in the path to self knowledge and they need to be overcome. It's very possible some people deploy the defense mechanisms which are associated with multiple Enneagram types, but I would expect that to be possible seeing as defense mechanisms are not innate to any one Enneagram type. They're simply corollary. 



> For instance, it's perfectly thinkable a person is fixated on perfectionism, expressing outward anger at people who get it wrong, a crusading compensatory narcissist with the dishonest (deceit) intent not of virtue or wisdom, but to inflate oneself as a special snowflake, seeking omniscience to anticipate and prepare oneself against being engulfed by a hostile world out there or even dominate them, believing sovereignty, significance, omniscience, dominance and perfection is the ultimate state of security and to secure attachments, thus expecting some sort of enlightenment of suffering and perpetual bliss.
> 
> Which one of these distortions predominate or is most pervasive or persistent can be difficult to determine, as it could also indicate a pattern of disintegration. 4>2>8>5>7>1 as well as 6>3>9


I believe I told you before that integration and disintegration is bunk. Hudson and Riso can suck a fat one.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> This "Alchemist" guy's arrogance is astounding and is an example of everything that is wrong with so many people into "occult wisdom" because they think it makes them special and better than us plebs. It misses the point of mystical and spiritual teachings.


OK. Feel free to correct my inaccuracies.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

JSRS01 said:


> I believe I told you before that integration and disintegration is bunk. Hudson and Riso can suck a fat one.


Just one question, do you know where does that thing came from? Hudson and Riso where the first ones to talk about that order of integration and disitegration?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Mr.Rbtoo said:


> Just one question, do you know where does that thing came from? Hudson and Riso where the first ones to talk about that order of integration and disitegration?


Right. They're the originators of the whole integration and disintegration idea, which works in tandem with their theory on levels of health. It's rather evident, atleast to me, that they're doing nothing more than rationalizing the sequences of 147285 and 369 found within Gurdjieff's symbol with their own interpretations.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> I was just using the term in place of "type" or "point" in the sense that one is fixed in their type. I didn't at all mean to refer to the defense methods deployed by the types in response to stressors.


 Well, that was to be expected when you think enneagramtype, or personality is Soul. Fixation doesn't mean type is fixed, or fixation to a type, but the type of cognitive behavioral fixation of the Ego. It's a complex of preoccupied focus and attention -if not tunnel vision, (false) beliefs and (pre)dispositions, personal narrative (self concept), worldview, habitual ego defense mechanisms and coping strategies.


JSRS01 said:


> The world and self are alienated from each other. They are distinct and they are autonomous. We may all derive from the all, but that should never be construed as you being me, or me being the all.


 If there was no alienation from self, what's the point of self-realization you mentioned earlier? Making others believe the same image you believe yourself to be? Again, it's fine that you cannot relate to self-alienation, but quite paradoxically that would translate to a lack of (deep) introspection and understanding of the human psyche in general, or just denial of course.


JSRS01 said:


> It seems to me the defense mechanisms are largely based in the egoic part of man. They should be seen as obstacles in the path to self knowledge and they need to be overcome. It's very possible some people deploy the defense mechanisms which are associated with multiple Enneagram types, but I would expect that to be possible seeing as defense mechanisms are not innate to any one Enneagram type. They're simply corollary.


There weren't any defense mechanisms mentioned in the example, just type fears/desires and some reference to vice/ fixation and attitude/ strategy in line with that perspective.



JSRS01 said:


> I believe I told you before that integration and disintegration is bunk. Hudson and Riso can suck a fat one.


Yeah. I begin to understand the thing you have with numbers, symmetry and objective truth. It doesn't require any introspection, or penetrating insight.



JSRS01 said:


> The all is mind. Do I win something? (Assuming you're the judge, most probably not.)


The mind can be creative and delusional. What goes around, comes around.



JSRS01 said:


> Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just a stupid, fickle little fuck without a clue; so please, endow me with your Alchemically derived divine knowledge.


 It's funny that you ask questions you ducked or refused to answer yourself. But anyway, I take that as a yes. 

And as I said earlier, there's plenty of descriptions you can find about enlightenment. But I'd say it's more about the journey and experience, and about unlearning, or letting go as mentioned before -not just in your head but with every vein of your body- than it is a destiny to arrive at, or an achievement. There's no need to look beyond the challenge of the next step.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Well, that was to be expected when you think enneagramtype, or personality is Soul.
> 
> Fixation doesn't mean type is fixed, or fixation to a type, but the type of cognitive behavioral fixation of the Ego.
> 
> It's a complex of preoccupied focus and attention -if not tunnel vision, (false) beliefs and (pre)dispositions, personal narrative (self concept), worldview, habitual ego defense mechanisms and coping strategies.


You read too much Naranjo. 



> If there was no alienation from self, what's the point of self-realization you mentioned earlier? Making others believe the same image you believe yourself to be?


 The _"point"_ of self-realization is to end the perpetual process of metempsychosis. Ironically, any attempt on your part to overcome that process will be entirely in vain. 



> Again, it's fine that you cannot relate to self-alienation, but quite paradoxically that would translate to a lack of (deep) introspection and understanding of the human psyche in general, or just denial of course.


Like I said before, you're an academic. Not an occultist. 



> There weren't any defense mechanisms mentioned in the example, just type fears/desires and some reference to vice/ fixation and attitude/ strategy in line with that perspective.


"It's possible that there is distortion in more than just one of the cognitive behavioral perspectives of the enneagram, resulting in a* flamboyant mix of defense mechanisms and coping strategies.*" - mimesis

You mentioned defense mechanisms, I commented on defense mechanisms. 




> Yeah. I begin to understand the thing you have with numbers, symmetry and objective truth. It doesn't require any introspection, or penetrating insight.


I bet you think 9/11 was done by a bunch of Arabs.



> The mind can be creative and delusional. What goes around, comes around.


You're so lost. 



> It's funny that you ask questions you ducked or refused to answer yourself. But anyway, I take that as a yes.


I get that you're dense, but this is just fucking ridiculous. You're not asking questions, you're spewing retarded shit all over my thread, without any strand of coherence. 



> And as I said earlier, there's plenty of descriptions you can find about enlightenment. But I'd say it's more about the journey and experience, and about unlearning, or letting go as mentioned before -not just in your head but with every vein of your body- than it is a destiny to arrive at, or an achievement. There's no need to look beyond the challenge of the next step.


I don't care what you think and I don't care how you interpret enlightenment. I was more than accommodating, but your blathering shit is taking a toll on the quality of my thread. So please, fuck off.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> You read too much Naranjo.


Lol, I haven't even read all chapters of CN yet. Though, I didn't need to read much of him to understand him, but moreover to recognize we have a lot in common, even aside from enneagram theory.

Meanwhile it's becoming a form of entertainment to see the list grow from authors you disdainfully dismiss like a B actor. Even more hilarious when I think of how you argued against my point earlier in this thread, that it was not in line with the authors.

So yeah, I'd assume you probably read a lot, somehow organize this in your personal construct, schemas, labels, etc. in other words knowing 'things', but without really getting it, or able to apply it to life, or grasp human nature. In which case it doesn't matter how much you read really.


JSRS01 said:


> The _"point"_ of self-realization is to end the perpetual process of metempsychosis. Ironically, any attempt on your part to overcome that process will be entirely in vain. Like I said before, you're an academic. Not an occultist.


You are just trying to intimidate/impress, and you know it. Let's stop labelling and guilt by association, and just get to the nitty gritty, shall we?
Suppose you are right about metempsychosis. Then you are still willfully ignoring that self-realization suggests not being "real", or being 'distorted' or 'alienated' from Self. 

So, if one can only picture alienation between Self and the World, this may indicate a strong attachment or fixation to a so called 'false Self', or ego delusion, and rejecting everything that is perceived as hostile to this dearly beloved Me that is clinged to. Which, on the long run only perpetuates alienation (and if you insist, some argue this perpetuates the cycle of suffering and rebirth, although I'd suggest we just focus on here and now).

Liberation or enlightenment is to see through this ego delusion, its conditioned dispositions and self-referential feedback loops (self serving bias, self fullfilling prophecies, etc.), and consequently to stop clinging to it, and just...be.

There are people who are not yet liberated, but acknowledge self-alienation, for at least some part or aspect of their life, at least at some point in their life. Which is why I think that not in any way relating to it, is flatout denial, and translates to poor self-knowledge. But yeah, what goes around comes around. And around. And around.


JSRS01 said:


> "It's possible that there is distortion in more than just one of the cognitive behavioral perspectives of the enneagram, resulting in a* flamboyant mix of defense mechanisms and coping strategies.*" - mimesis You mentioned defense mechanisms, I commented on defense mechanisms.


DM are not attributes of a type, but they can be significant in being part of a types fixation, ego distortion, self-alienation, dissociation, depersonalization, persona, and alienation from the world. The greater the disconnect or state of disintegration, the more flamboyant collection of DMs you may expect to observe. Conversely, the more integrated and higher state of consciousness and self-realization, the less need of DMs or type of DM. Sort of makes sense doesn't it?


JSRS01 said:


> I bet you think 9/11 was done by a bunch of Arabs.


Not sure what you're getting at, but you referred to this also in another debate about enlightenment and wisdom. I assume this is a kind of litmus test?


JSRS01 said:


> You're so lost.


Okay.


JSRS01 said:


> I get that you're dense, but this is just fucking ridiculous.


Okay.


JSRS01 said:


> You're not asking questions, you're spewing retarded shit all over my thread, without any strand of coherence.


Yeah, you can only see coherence when you get it.


JSRS01 said:


> I don't care what you think and I don't care how you interpret enlightenment. I was more than accommodating, but your blathering shit is taking a toll on the quality of my thread. So please, fuck off.


Well you asked didn't you?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Lol, I haven't even read all chapters of CN yet. Though, I didn't need to read much of him to understand him, but moreover to recognize we have a lot in common, even aside from enneagram theory.


Not surprising. 



> Meanwhile it's becoming a form of entertainment to see the list grow from authors you disdainfully dismiss like a B actor.


He was among the first I mentioned whose literature needed to scrutinized. Don't twist the facts. 



> Even more hilarious when I think of how you argued against my point earlier in this thread, that it was not in line with the authors.


I don't do appeals to authority. I do however judge the veracity of the information I'm presented with. 



> So yeah, I'd assume you probably read a lot, somehow organize this in your personal construct, schemas, labels, etc. in other words knowing 'things', but *without really getting it, or able to apply it to life,* or grasp human nature.


Ironic. 





> You are just trying to intimidate/impress, and you know it.


I don't care to impress or intimidate you, or anyone else on this board. As a matter of fact I'd rather you just piss off already. 




> Suppose you are right about metempsychosis. Then you are still willfully ignoring that self-realization suggests not being "real", or being 'distorted' or 'alienated' from Self. So, if one can only picture alienation between Self and the World, this may indicate a strong attachment or fixation to a so called 'false Self', or ego delusion, and rejecting everything that is perceived as hostile to this dearly beloved Me that is clinged to. Which, on the long run only perpetuates alienation (and if you insist, some argue this perpetuates the cycle of suffering and rebirth, although I'd suggest we just focus on here and now).
> 
> Liberation or enlightenment is to see through this ego delusion, its conditioned dispositions and self-referential feedback loops (self serving bias, self fullfilling prophecies, etc.), and consequently to stop clinging to it, and just...be.
> 
> There are people who are not yet liberated, but acknowledge self-alienation, for at least some part or aspect of their life, at least at some point in their life. Which is why I think that not in any way relating to it, is flatout denial, and translates to poor self-knowledge. But yeah, what goes around comes around. And around. And around.


_"-Tat. But what of man, father? Is not man real?
__
-Hermes. In so far as he is man, my son, he is not real. For the real is that which consists of itself alone, and continues to be such as it is in itself; but man is composed of many different things, and does not
continue to be such as he is in himself, but shifts and changes from one time of life to another, and from one form to another. Oftentimes men fail to recognize their own children and after a short interval, and
children likewise fail to recognize their parents. And when a thing so changes that it is not known, how can that thing be real, my son? Is it not an illusion, inasmuch as its changes manifest themselves in varying appearances? You must understand that that which ever is, and that alone, is real. But man is not a thing that ever is; and therefore man is not real, but is only an appearance. We ought then to call men appearances, my son, if we name them rightly. We ought to call a child the appearance of a child, and a youth the appearance of a youth, and an adult man the appearance of an adult man, and an old man the appearance of an old man; for the child does not remain a child, nor the youth a youth, nor the adult man an adult man, nor the old man an old man. And appearance must be illusion." - Corpus Hermeticum, Book 15_ 



> DM are not attributes of a type, but they can be significant in being part of a types fixation, ego distortion, self-alienation, dissociation, depersonalization, persona, and alienation from the world. The greater the disconnect or state of disintegration, the more flamboyant collection of DMs you may expect to observe. Conversely, the more integrated and higher state of consciousness and self-realization, the less need of DMs or type of DM. *Sort of makes sense doesn't it?*


Sure. Except for ego not being at all inherent to personality or Enneagram type. 



> Not sure what you're getting at, but you referred to this also in another debate about enlightenment and wisdom. I assume this is a kind of litmus test?


It's definitely a litmus test. 



> Yeah, you can only see coherence when you get it.


_"Fixation doesn't mean type is fixed, or fixation to a type, but the type of cognitive behavioral fixation of the Ego. It's a complex of preoccupied focus and attention -if not tunnel vision, (false) beliefs and (pre)dispositions, personal narrative (self concept), worldview, habitual ego defense mechanisms and coping strategies."_

_"For instance, it's perfectly thinkable a person is fixated on perfectionism, expressing outward anger at people who get it wrong, a crusading compensatory narcissist with the dishonest (deceit) intent not of virtue or wisdom, but to inflate oneself as a special snowflake, seeking omniscience to anticipate and prepare oneself against being engulfed by a hostile world out there or even dominate them, believing sovereignty, significance, omniscience, dominance and perfection is the ultimate state of security and to secure attachments, thus expecting some sort of enlightenment of suffering and perpetual bliss."


_You don't really believe these are coherent passages, do you? 



> Well you asked didn't you?


No, I didn't.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@JSRO1

Yeah, it can be difficult to see through your own delusions. That's where other people can sometimes be helpful. Provided you have faith in them. Else, I guess you're screwed.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> @_JSRO1_
> 
> Yeah, it can be difficult to see through your own delusions. That's where other people can sometimes be helpful. Provided you have faith in them. Else, I guess you're screwed.


I'll be fine. The Trivium is my guide.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

So this guy is a 9/11 truther nut, too? LMAO.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> So this guy is a 9/11 truther nut, too? LMAO.


I read over a few of your posts and I can't help but laugh at the convoluted nonsense you believe. I wonder if you find it as ironic as I do that you use the term "truther" as a derogatory remark. Does that make you a 9/11 falser? Haha.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> I read over a few of your posts and I can't help but laugh at the convoluted nonsense you believe. I wonder if you find it as ironic as I do that you use the term "truther" as a derogatory remark. Does that make you a 9/11 falser? Haha.


Why not put that in your signature, replacing INTJ?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Why not put that in your signature, replacing INTJ?


A. I use it as a personal measure of development.

B. It's slightly nostalgic.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> A. I use it as a personal measure of development.
> 
> B. It's slightly nostalgic.



Ah, you are doing it for yourself!


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

Wow - a religious argument on the Enneagram forum! Must say, I'm surprised there aren't more...

While I've often struggled with the implications of the asymmetry (1->7->4->1, for example, has always had a certain appeal), arguing against it from an esoteric perspective does little to convince me.

Religiosity without demonstration is easy to dismiss, so would you "indulge" me in a demonstration of the proper enneagram in non self-referential terms? I actually am very interested in your thinking, but if the only application thereof is to align the enneagram with numerology and occultism, then there is little value in said new system for me.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Ah, you are doing it for yourself!


Ah yes, the signature is in fact a testament to the loyality to the peoples, those who have the audacity to use their signatures for selfish aims must be put to the ax, off with his head!


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

DoubleDare said:


> Wow - a religious argument on the Enneagram forum! Must say, I'm surprised there aren't more...


I'm not making a religious argument, though I can see how that would be perceived by some from the language I used.



> While I've often struggled with the implications of the asymmetry (1->7->4->1, for example, has always had a certain appeal), arguing against it from an esoteric perspective does little to convince me.


I don't need to argue from an esoteric perspective to show that the symbol Gurdjieff provided is incomplete, he explicitly claims this is the case. 

_"The knowledge of the enneagram has for a very long time been preserved in secret and if it now is, so to speak, made available to all, it is only in an incomplete and theoretical form of which nobody could make any practical use without instruction from a man who knows."_ - _Gurdjieff in In Search of the Miraculous, P.D. Ouspensky_



> Religiosity without demonstration is easy to dismiss, so would you "indulge" me in a demonstration of the proper enneagram in non self-referential terms?


What's there to demonstrate? I've posted plenty of images and illustrations showing the consistency of the Proper Enneagram. Unless you have a question regarding a specific aspect of The Proper Enneagram, I can't indulge you any more than I already have.



> I actually am very interested in your thinking, but if the only application thereof is to align the enneagram with numerology and occultism, then there is little value in said new system for me.


The Enneagram is an occult symbol. Have you even done the slightest research into the man who brought it to your knowledge? Likewise, numerology applies to everything in the material world. The world is "math". So to disregard what I've presented simply because I've incorporated these two qualities already implicit to the Enneagram, is silly at best. 

Anyway, the applications do of course extend far beyond numerology and "occultism". Though I'm not sure you'll be able to make any actual use of those applications.

Off topic, where did you get that profile picture from?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Ah yes, the signature is in fact a testament to the loyality to the peoples, those who have the audacity to use their signatures for selfish aims must be put to the ax, off with his head!


Are you putting words in my mouth? If not, please explain your point.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> @_JSRS01_ I sort of got a decent grip on how the two 3s would sort of work but how exactly would you think the different 9s would work? Would the alternative 9 to the apathetic one would be like? Would it be a fanatic of some sort? A conformist? A "Let's hug and get along?" type or all or none of the above?


It seems you and I are running into the same difficulties. I'll be honest, of all the types, 9 is the type most alien to me. I only know one person who I suspect to be a 9, a "regular" 9. He comes across calm, contemplative, suggestible, free flowing, not easily disgruntled or upset, conforming and adaptable. 

These are the behaviors I've personally observed from my interactions with him. What defines him on a fundamental level I'll delegate to the descriptions provided by Timeless ( I do love those descriptions.).

As to how an alternative 9 might behave, let alone what drives them, is completely beyond me at this point.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Reality Hazer said:


> Another proposition would be in order then. IE that the Spirit, Soul and Body would generally be internal within those parameters.
> 
> Such as 4 being the Soul, 5 being the Spirit and Phobic 6 being the body. Though this example is clunky because I don't know what the difference between Soul and Spirit is. Soul is like how one "moves" between things and Spirit would be a form of power? Like in say Super Robot anime in which the protagonist would be able to push through not through their physical skill or emotions but through sheer willpower?


Now that I think about it, I think it would be best to keep separate the Enneagram and the Hermetic understanding of the bodies. I'm realizing there are considerable inconsistencies if we try to overlay Hermetic understanding on top of the Enneagram. Something just doesn't fit right. I feel that the Enneagram is describing something on a lower plane, something closer to our humanness, where the Hermetic bodies are describing something of a greater form. 

Skim over this real quick and you might see what I mean: Franz Bardon Holy Mysteries Initiation into Hermetics


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> It seems you and I are running into the same difficulties. I'll be honest, of all the types, 9 is the type most alien to me. I only know one person who I suspect to be a 9, a "regular" 9. He comes across calm, contemplative, suggestible, free flowing, not easily disgruntled or upset, conforming and adaptable.
> 
> These are the behaviors I've personally observed from my interactions with him. What defines him on a fundamental level I'll delegate to the descriptions provided by Timeless ( I do love those descriptions.).
> 
> As to how an alternative 9 might behave, let alone what drives them, is completely beyond me at this point.


Why not keep this simple: 9s are generally motivated by avoiding conflict, so the "active" 9 avoids conflict by pushing it away; active denial, whereas the "passive" 9 avoids conflict via apathy. How can there be conflict if they refuse to be engaged by it?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Why not keep this simple: 9s are generally motivated by avoiding conflict, so the "active" 9 avoids conflict by pushing it away; active denial, whereas the "passive" 9 avoids conflict via apathy. How can there be conflict if they refuse to be engaged by it?


Interesting way to distinguish the two. Thank you.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

@Reality Hazer, @delphi367, @ephemereality

This is compatible with Astrology. Thoughts?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> @Reality Hazer, @delphi367, @ephemereality
> 
> This is compatible with Astrology. Thoughts?


Could you explain the logic in the above? I am quite familiar with Astrology so I could give more input. I think your biggest problem would be to map the elements with the main triads. One could argue that fire is gut but then it's not that simple because then why isn't it earth? As you are probably aware, but in traditional alchemy fire is associated with passion/energy /action . Type 1 and most Capricorn descriptions have some overlap for example, and it's an earth sign with some water properties. Yet if you look at say Saggitaurus or Aries but particularly Aries, it seems very 8-like, superficially anyway.

And the sign that seems to fit 9 the most is likely Libra,but it's an air sign with some earth properties.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Could you explain the logic in the above? I am quite familiar with Astrology so I could give more input. I think your biggest problem would be to map the elements with the main triads. One could argue that fire is gut but then it's not that simple because then why isn't it earth? As you are probably aware, but in traditional alchemy fire is associated with passion/energy /action . Type 1 and most Capricorn descriptions have some overlap for example, and it's an earth sign with some water properties. Yet if you look at say Saggitaurus or Aries but particularly Aries, it seems very 8-like, superficially anyway.


Fire is will, initiation, creation, generation, electric, masculinity. It's the creative principle.
Water is emotion, passivity, dissolution, care, magnetic, femininity. It's the destructive principle. 
Air is intellect, mentality. 
Earth is the principle that binds the elements together. It's materia, life, physical manifestation. 

The Enneagram is incomplete. It only accounts for either Fire or Earth, depending on which of the two one associates with "body", "gut", "physical center", "action center", etc. 

With that said, I have to recant my assertion that the Enneagram describes one's Soul. It doesn't. What the Enneagram describes is one's _spirit_, one's _individuality_.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Fire is will, initiation, creation, generation, electric, masculinity. It's the creative principle.
> Water is emotion, passivity, dissolution, care, magnetic, femininity. It's the destructive principle.
> Air is intellect, mentality.
> Earth is the principle that binds the elements together. It's materia, life, physical manifestation.
> ...


Yes, that's what I was trying to get at which is why I was interested to see how you made these connections in the above picture you mentioned me together with.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, that's what I was trying to get at which is why I was interested to see how you made these connections in the above picture you mentioned me together with.


Right.

The reason I determined 8, 9, and 1 are the embodiments of the Fire principle, as opposed to the Earth principle, is because I find them to be the types who most strongly relate to regulating and utilizing will. Traditionally, 8s,9s, and 1s are associated with anger, 8s embracing it, 9s denying it, and 1s regulating it. Anger is said to be at their core, it's what drives them. But I don't think this is accurate. I think anger is a _symptom_ of what is at their core, which I propose is Will. Anger is simply the emotion these types most readily express when their will is opposed or denied. To say anger is the core motivation of the "gut" types just doesn't make sense; and I think most can see how anger is an effect of will. Or, more precisely, the effect of the denial of will. 

Personally speaking, I've always viewed 8s and 1s as having an implicit "fiery" quality to them. 9s always seemed to be of a more subtle nature, possibly suppressing their will in favor of the wills of others. Hence 8 being cardinal, 1 being fixed, and 9 being mutable.


As for the others, I think it's fairly obvious why I associated Air with 567, and Water with 234.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Right.
> 
> The reason I determined 8, 9, and 1 are the embodiments of the Fire principle, as opposed to the Earth principle, is because I find them to be the types who most strongly relate to regulating and utilizing will. Traditionally, 8s,9s, and 1s are associated with anger, 8s embracing it, 9s denying it, and 1s regulating it. Anger is said to be at their core, it's what drives them. But I don't think this is accurate. I think anger is a _symptom_ of what is at their core, which I propose is Will. Anger is simply the emotion these types most readily express when their will is opposed or denied. To say anger is the core motivation of the "gut" types just doesn't make sense; and I think most can see how anger is an effect of will. Or, more precisely, the effect of the denial of will.
> 
> ...


Right, and how do you relate this to the actual astrology signs? Couldn't for instance Scorpio equally fit fire logos here despite being a water sign? 

Similarly, you have the three air signs Aquarius, Gemini and Libra, how would you for example relate these to 5, 6 and 7?

The way I could imagine your symbol to make sense in relation to the Astrology symbol is that you have a cusp sign/type between each element, so if using the enneagram symbol as a basis, you would for example have Capricorn situated between Water/Earth-Heart/Gut.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> *Right, and how do you relate this to the actual astrology signs?* Couldn't for instance Scorpio equally fit fire logos here despite being a water sign?
> 
> Similarly, you have the three air signs Aquarius, Gemini and Libra, how would you for example relate these to 5, 6 and 7?


That's actually one of the reasons I mentioned you guys. I have no idea how to relate the Zodiac signs to the types. 



> The way I could imagine your symbol to make sense in relation to the Astrology symbol is that you have a cusp sign/type between each element, so if using the enneagram symbol as a basis, you would for example have Capricorn situated between Water/Earth-Heart/Gut.


Interesting. I'll see if I can refine it when I have the time.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> That's actually one of the reasons I mentioned you guys. I have no idea how to relate the Zodiac signs to the types.


Right, I understand now. Sorry for the confusion.


> Interesting. I'll see if I can refine it when I have the time.


As a passing thought, perhaps this would be interesting for you when it comes to that CP attachment triad version you were trying to work on before?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> As a passing thought, perhaps this would be interesting for you when it comes to that CP attachment triad version you were trying to work on before?



I'm actually scrapping that and focusing on this newfound lead of mine. If it turns out to not correlate with Astrology, oh well. I still think there is a lot of relevance to be found in the elements (which are obviously not inherent to Astrology) and their relation to type.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

JSRS01 said:


> @Reality Hazer, @delphi367, @ephemereality
> 
> This is compatible with Astrology. Thoughts?


This is exactly what I had my head earlier when I showed you the astrology wheel. I was actually thinking of trying to map triplicity and elements to the Enneagram to illustrate what was missing.

Interesting:

2-5-8-11 Rejecting/Cardinal.

3-6-9-12 Accepting/Mutable.

4-7-1-10 Idealist/Fixed.

So, we already know where the new types would fall in the object relation triads. It would be tempting to just assume they would be Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn.

I wonder what types have been missing up to now.

Type 12 might be sort of a gardener, someone who brings nourishment to an impoverished world. Not specifically for recognition, or for their own resources, but simply out of a desire to create.

Type 11 is the idea of a natural leader who simply wants to bring order to chaos. They don't want power for the sake of power, nor do they simply focus on their idea of right and wrong. They try to organize and lead groups of people with their charisma and wisdom.

Type 10 might be a charismatic yet assertive idealist, someone who tries to create peace and love in a very hateful world. Not in a passive way like type 9, nor with a strong emphasis on morals like type 1, but in a more confident, assertive, active role. 

This is VERY loosely based on the archetypes of the Zodiac signs, but I still think it could work.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@delphi367 How would you relate the Zodiac signs to the enneagram types? Which sign would be correlated to what type?


----------



## Vanguard (Dec 22, 2009)

I've been following this thread intermittently for a while now - and I'm not sold on the 12 types idea, just because its structurally neat does not make it true, and the number 3 seems to be the grouping of this world, not 4 (3rd dimension and such, time being linear to our eyes, even if this isn't the case overall).

Nonetheless, still curious to see what all of you come up with - its better to put the whole system under scrutiny to see what the weaknesses are and what needs further elaborating. From what I can see, the types them selves are more 'conceptual', and descriptions often only capture a facet of the type rather than their fundamental nature.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Doesn't placing horoscope style templates seem somewhat arbitrary? It was my first thought upon seeing the two systems being implemented. Some of the signs are still describing a type/fall under said type. The 9 passions don't seem to be sufficient enough to make a complete, diverse enneagram map it would seem from certain perspectives. Why 12 and not 9?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

mushr00m said:


> Doesn't placing horoscope style templates seem somewhat arbitrary? It was my first thought upon seeing the two systems being implemented. Some of the signs are still describing a type/fall under said type. The 9 passions don't seem to be sufficient enough to make a complete, diverse enneagram map it would seem from certain perspectives. Why 12 and not 9?


A little, yeah. I'll have to admit, I've wondered why there would necessarily be only 9 types (if we are going to assume that there's something to this), since there might be more fears/vices/fixations that could be added, and maybe the number was picked because it seemed neater that way (to work with the number 3) and maybe that is a little arbitrary. On the other hand I'm not sure if the number 12 is any less arbitrary. I guess it does make it easier to match up with horoscopes if that's something you want to do, though.

Anyway, I'm reminded of this.

But yeah, at the very least it'll be interesting to see what people might come up with.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Vanguard said:


> I've been following this thread intermittently for a while now - and I'm not sold on the 12 types idea, just because its structurally neat does not make it true, and the number 3 seems to be the grouping of this world, not 4 (3rd dimension and such, time being linear to our eyes, even if this isn't the case overall).
> 
> Nonetheless, still curious to see what all of you come up with - its better to put the whole system under scrutiny to see what the weaknesses are and what needs further elaborating. From what I can see, the types them selves are more 'conceptual', and descriptions often only capture a facet of the type rather than their fundamental nature.


Though one can argue that true spiritual enlightenment can only come from transcending the third dimension by adding a fourth.


----------



## Vanguard (Dec 22, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Though one can argue that true spiritual enlightenment can only come from transcending the third dimension by adding a fourth.


True - but that doesn't point to there being 4 groupings and rather supports the idea of 3 - 3 groupings attempting to transcend to the next level. Starting with 4 defeats the purpose.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Vanguard said:


> True - but that doesn't point to there being 4 groupings and rather supports the idea of 3 - 3 groupings attempting to transcend to the next level. Starting with 4 defeats the purpose.


I know, just saying that the numbers are all ultimately quite arbitrary in the end, I think. We also see the quality of four being a common recurrent theme in for example alchemy. The four elements, the four humors etc. so 4 is definitely not of any lesser quality than 3.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

@_ephemereality_, I was reading the zodiac personalities. Considering I only read two, almost three, of the descriptions of the zodiac personalities I found online, I could be way far off. Nonetheless I'm going to give it a try.

Aries: 8w7, 3 in some descriptions online.
Taurus: A lot of 6 buzzwords. A merge between 6 and 9 because of the more sensual, comfort seeking aspects of it.
Gemini: 7-6.
Cancer: Maybe 2 or 6. A passive one. More family oriented.
Leo: 3 with traces of 7-2 (specially the attention seeking one).
Virgo: My bet is on 3. A more traditionalistic 3. Traces of 1-2.
Libra: 9. 
Scorpio: 5-4, specially 8-fixed (do you relate to scorpio?)
Sagitarius: 7.
Capricorn: 1.
Aquarius: 5-4, some 6.
Pisces: A passive 4.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

My comments in red. My memory isn't quite up to date about these types because I studied them many years ago, but from what I'll remember and how I'd match the archetypes I'd place it like such:



Mr.Rbtoo said:


> @_ephemereality_, I was reading the zodiac personalities. Considering I only read two, almost three, of the descriptions of the zodiac personalities I found online, I could be way far off. Nonetheless I'm going to give it a try.
> 
> Aries: 8w7, 3 in some descriptions online. cp6w7, 8w9, 2, Se
> Taurus: A lot of 6 buzzwords. A merge between 6 and 9 because of the more sensual, comfort seeking aspects of it. cp6, 9, Si
> ...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

These are all just personal preferences but I don't exactly care to make this mirror Hellenic/Roman astrology completely.

Also with the "elemental dodegram" the counterphobic/phobic six schism would either be rendered completely obsolete, or there would be an innate structure of contrasting points would have to surface in all of the enneagrams in itself. Such as the Non-conformist/Fanatical split in the type 9, Childishness/Adulthood for the type 2 ect.

If you are going that route the various splits would probably be of this nature for each of the "Earth" types, which IMO seems to be based on the desire to make one's existence manifest in the outside world. Or something along that nature. It deals with Creativity and Working.

12 - Artisan/Worker
11 - Leader/Server
10 - Idealist/Cynic

A potential question that I will be asked will be that if there is such a split, then wouldn't there be 24 types then? I would say to that no. Every side of the world has poles in them, and such it is extremely important to realize that something like love and hate are not actually two things, but rather one side of something of a much greater whole.

Edit: Just going to add the rest of the dichotomies to ponder over.

8 - Judge/Criminal
7 - Narcissistic/Inferiority Complex or Prudent/Hedonistic (I like the former better but eh)
6 - Daredevil/Coward
5 - Overseer/Hermit
4 - Intellectual/Aesthetic
3 - Businessman/Showman
1 - Cold Hearted/Passionate


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

If there were more than 9 types, I would probably be one of the other types. I have a tritype, but to be honest none of the types really fit that well as my core. None of the Holy Ideas really resonate much. 

I need a Si version of type 7. One that avoids thinking about the future and being scattered with too many activities. I want to find one perfect form of entertainment that is lasting, so I can be in a permanent state of enjoyment. 



Silveresque said:


> The core of my motivations is this:
> 
> *Need*: To be immersed in lasting enjoyment, time and freedom to pursue interests
> *Avoid*: Painful restriction of freedom or happiness (stressful obligations, work, pessimism, boredom)
> ...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

That sounds like a manifestation of the type 10 or something like that. Eh, I unno. Sounds like something that would fit the Idealist/Cynical dichotomy. In fact I would probably be a type 10, to if that was the case. (As I relate to what you posted) Though who knows? There'd be quite a few people that would fit that category. I think your motivation is important and broad enough to fit somewhere.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Sixty Nein said:


> That sounds like a manifestation of the type 10 or something like that. Eh, I unno. Sounds like something that would fit the Idealist/Cynical dichotomy. In fact I would probably be a type 10, to if that was the case. (As I relate to what you posted) Though who knows? There'd be quite a few people that would fit that category. I think your motivation is important and broad enough to fit somewhere.


Hmm, type 10? Yeah, I guess I could sort of see that. Though I'm not particularly assertive, and I lack charisma. 



athenian200 said:


> Type 10 might be a charismatic yet assertive idealist, someone who tries to create peace and love in a very hateful world. Not in a passive way like type 9, nor with a strong emphasis on morals like type 1, but in a more confident, assertive, active role.


I guess Naruto would be a good fictional example of this type? 



athenian200 said:


> Type 12 might be sort of a gardener, someone who brings nourishment to an impoverished world. Not specifically for recognition, or for their own resources, but simply out of a desire to create.


I could see myself as this type as well.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

athenian200 said:


> Type 12 might be sort of a gardener, someone who brings nourishment to an impoverished world. Not specifically for recognition, or for their own resources, but simply out of a desire to create.
> 
> Type 11 is the idea of a natural leader who simply wants to bring order to chaos. They don't want power for the sake of power, nor do they simply focus on their idea of right and wrong. They try to organize and lead groups of people with their charisma and wisdom.
> 
> ...


Hmm, what would the vices of those types be? Sorry if I missed it.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Nonsense said:


> Hmm, what would the vices of those types be? Sorry if I missed it.


Well, it's a very tentative idea, I haven't done enough research yet.

But I'm thinking of...

Type 12 Vice: Demiurge (A tendency to create/nurture things that reflect an inner flaw).
Type 12 Virtue: Energeia (Actualizing the potential of being in the world).

Type 11 Vice: Entitlement/"Divine Right of Kings" (A tendency to believe that one is naturally above others, and owes nothing to anyone).
Type 11 Virtue: Leadership (Actually striving to lead others well and create prosperity).

Type 10 Vice: Deflection (A tendency to blame others for a negative outcome).
Type 10 Virtue: Collaboration (Sharing responsibility while respecting others to get things done). 

I don't know how well these work, I just thought of them and the idea is REALLY not fleshed out. I have a lot of schoolwork and I should probably get back to it now. :/


----------



## PDemestri (May 25, 2015)

Hello, I glad to find something about this. I agree with 147 258 369, i work about 16 years with assessment, i made a instrument with enneagram, and trace correlation with another theories, like caballa for example, and this vision about enneagram make sense to me. I have more then 15.000 avaluation and the evolution dont come from 24, 75 or 42, but from the order you mention. Congratulations. It was a pitt too many on the wrong vision.


----------



## Kendrix (Feb 1, 2016)

Hm. While adding to an already fleshed-out theory always has its "Hm..." factor/ makes me want to be wary of one-up-man ship this sounds interesting.

I'm unsure about this myself and not really into that esoteric stuff besides/ am aware of the subjectivity here but lumping "will" and "instinct/quick reaction/senses" together never sat right with me, will is more something removed that plans ahead and defies restrictions & altered states (and I concurr that 1-9 would be "will" or "fire" if you want to call it that.)... both is kind of related but so are all reaction patterns/centers, I'm interest in/ curious for/ willing to give this theory some thought. More distinction is generally good as long as it's warranted, though maybe it's an overactive part of me that wants to categorize, thereby missing the point, nut I also wanna understand for understanding's sake.

The definition as experiencing the world a certain way & wanting to shape it as a result makes sense, I think I alreeady feel my "earth" fix would be 12, (5-4-8-12?) I like making stuff for the heck of it, sometimes for 548 reasons before that (intellectual engagement, expression, venting/defiance), but it's always been my belief that art can be for the sake of art and doesn't have to follow any such purpose, but I think I can think of people who'd could be core 12s, "proud of their handiwork" people. 


Can we get this theory more fleshed-out and "up to date"? With basic fears/desires, inner mechanics, instinctual variants, health levels or at least a rough list of positives & negatives? Could the "central emotion", as far as applicable/ as that concept is helpful be said to be "confusion" (as a reaction of looking at the world)?
Where would 11,10 and 12 fall in the "embrace/overexpress their centers" (4,5,8), "out of touch with their centers" (3,6,9) and "regulate/underexpress their centers" (7,2,1) and groupings we have in the other centers? - I'm particularly interested in the answer to this one.

With my current limited understanding I'd be tempted to put 10 with 7,2 & 1 (also out to make something explicitly positive, "control" the imput the "dark world" has on you by improving it but not wholly blind to it - though, if I get this correctly they'd be more contemplative, less "hectic" and more "big picture focussed" than a 7?), 12 with 4,5 and 8 (Also seems "independent", can be said to "embrace" sensory things by producing/making beautiful creations and practical work, "flaw" seems related to perceived internal or external deficiencies etc.) and 11 with 6,3 and 9 (also involves a sort of "dismissal", "the world is chaotic I must find/do something better than that", goes to mantain or create order according to own ideas but more outward/ with less of this "goodness/inner control" of a 1), all are about making sense of/ bringing meaning & structure into confusion?
But feel free to correct & enlighten me/ I could also imagine a different logic here.

...Part of me also always looks at this as a writing ressource and is currently concocting a storyline where an 8 and a 11 wind up in the same place for very similar reasons and become/stay enemies for the bulk of the story until some understanding sets in and there's a contrast in their leadership styles etc. 

I'd be grateful for every drop/morsel of information, really want to evaluate/check out this theory in full.


----------



## Ztommi (Aug 31, 2014)

Heart = Fire; Head = Water and Air, counterphobic and phobic, the 6 is both the most trusting and most untrusting at the same time, 6-like; Gut is earth. I'd think the enneagram to be pretty complete..


----------

