# Apparently, the Primary Emotion of the Heart Center is not shame, but SADNESS.



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Interesting. I know some 2's and 4's reasonably well. 2's understand shame, and process it, and it is a "normal" emotion for them. 4's don't seem much bothered by shame. 3's have issues with shame, or guilt, but it might be a derivative of self perceived inadequacy???? I'd argue 9's and 1's have more issues with shame than 2, 3, and 4.
> 2's, 3's, and 4's all are comfortable with "sadness" - they understand sadness, and can be sad, but I don't know sadness is THE core emotion.
> 2's are all about love. Love is an emotion. 4's are damned good at love. 3's? Maybe the heart type is all about love.


1s: not really. 
9s: sort of, mostly it's just "void"

if I were to pick a "shame" type outside the heart triad, my first choice would be 6


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> Maybe the heart type is all about love.


 It's not. Type *nine*'s holy idea is Holy *Love*. By extension, that means the *body* triad is about love and respect. Love is not _simply_​ an emotion.



> There is no *respect between the souls of two individuals* if their *minds can’t trust each other* and there is no trust between them if their* hearts can’t accept the truth of each other*.


 This random quote attributed to an Anuj Somany illustrates the _order_ of heart:acceptance:Holy Law/Harmony/Hope, mind:trust:Holy Strength/Faith, and body:respect:Holy Love.


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

Quang said:


> Everyone is making their own interpretation of this haha
> 
> What was Beatrice's explanation for 'sadness' rather than 'shame', @_Swordsman of Mana_ ?


Hopefully she will explain that in denying the primacy of shame in the image triad, she is also denying its actually being the image triad. Because the shame comes from knowing--consciously or subconsciously and at different times to greater or lesser degree--that one is not really the constructed image. And investing vast amounts of psychic energy into convincing oneself and others of what one fundamentally (again, consciously or subconsciously) knows not to be so. The shame is the fear of, and/or reaction to, being _exposed_.

But of course she knows this. So, okay, no more image triad. Sadness Triad it is.

With the 2/3 line being Maudlin.


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> Interesting....4's don't seem much bothered by shame.


Now THAT's...interesting.

I mean...seriously...where do you guys think the Envy, Deceit, and Pride come from? What do you think they're FOR? What do they compensate for? What do they cover up? 

Type 4 inferiority/superiority--the "Aristocrat"...what's that? Why do unhealthy 3s deteriorate into living multiple identities? Why do unhealthy 2s and 3s want to destroy people who blow their cover?

If Chestnut wants to argue that shame isn't a pure emotion, that's one thing. But if she wants to deny its primacy, she'll just have to...remake the whole system. 

I bought her book some months ago with the hopes of learning a lot because people were raving about it but tbh she seems to have a talent for first of all, stating the obvious, and next, moving some of it over a couple of degrees to then give it a description that seems far less fluid than what the reality is. 

Sadness--yes, Fours are sad and Twos at 4 are sad and Threes suppress sadness. And...?

I've been having a hard time getting into her book, actually. If it had come out twenty years ago, that would be different. But it didn't.


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

For instance, there is this in her chapter on Sixes about social Sixes: "They tend to be shy and have little ability to socialize or to be moved or touched by something or someone". 

Really? This is way too prescriptive for a book published in 2013. In any case, in general she is making the same mistake Eli Jaxon-Bear did ten years ago in his book. (Eli studied with Kathleen Speeth, Naranjo's wife, who studied with Gurdjieff, and I studied with Eli). She correctly identifies three common kinds of Sixes (at broad strokes phobic, Prussian, and cph strength/beauty) but then correlates them pretty much absolutely ("shyness" aside) with the instinctual variants. This is simply not the case.

There_ aren't_ 27 types (excuse me, "paths"). There are _nine types_. Those nine types tend to interplay with six stacking combinations, because unless someone is very healthy, one of the instincts tends to be underutilized and one tends to be obsessional (a fixation in its own right, but functioning _in tandem _with the middle one). This makes 54, _*if* _you feel you must group the 9 types giving special attention to the variants. These further interplay with wings and tritype to make many combinations of complex individuals.

Then she has sx Sixes as being intimidating, wanting to seem fierce. At least Eli in writing about 27 "paths" (he called them "subtypes") said things like the hardest person on the E. to identify is the male beauty 6 (soft side sx variant), who "dresses like a 4 and windsurfs like a 7". There are plenty of phobic sx 6s.

And so on.

I'll grant that Chestnut's book is more carefully written than Eli's but how much of a huge contribution in 2013, idn. 

Not to go off topic, but just to point out that even though she's all the rage, everything she says isn't the last, or even the latest, word.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cir said:


> 1.) "getting attention and being desired" is a type of "acceptable". "Being desired" is a _very_ specific application of "acceptable".


they're not the same thing. wanting to be "acceptable" means that you want to be accepted, fit in, exhibit behavior which does not stir the pot too much (ie, "socially acceptable"). wanting to be desired is wanting to be seen as sexy, glorious and amazing and get lots of attention from people. 



> 2.) Yes, they are. Their superego dictates what is acceptable.


superego tendencies in 2s are very much over blown. the superego in 2 comes out _after_ they manipulate people's emotions and feel like shit about it


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> "acceptance" somewhere within myself.


That is all


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> It's not. Type *nine*'s holy idea is Holy *Love*. By extension, that means the *body* triad is about love and respect. Love is not _simply_​ an emotion.


That would make Will (2) by extension the heart center. Nah.

Perhaps we could split it, body center gets respect, heart center gets love?

Can someone love oneself without respecting oneself?

Can someone accept oneself without respecting oneself?

Can someone be selfish (for instance desire peace or to be significant or desired) without respecting oneself? Oh yes. 

Can someone be prideful without respecting oneself? Yep.

Can someone be narcissistic without respecting oneself? Yea

Is humility lack of self-respect? Nea




cir said:


> This random quote attributed to an Anuj Somany illustrates the _order_ of heart:acceptance:Holy Law/Harmony/Hope, mind:trust:Holy Strength/Faith, and body:respect:Holy Love.


http://blog.mosaicbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/faith-hope-love-357x400.jpg

Corinthians 13:13 also


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> they're not the same thing. wanting to be "acceptable" means that you want to be accepted, fit in, exhibit behavior which does not stir the pot too much (ie, "socially acceptable"). wanting to be desired is wanting to be seen as sexy, glorious and amazing and get lots of attention from people.


 I didn't say they're the same thing. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. One involves the other. I disagree with your narrow definition of acceptable. "Wanting to be desired" is "sexually acceptable". The fact is, twos "need" to be accepted by somebody, not that twos "need" to be desired.

If you still disagree, then it's just a semantical debate from here. You're not going to convince me that "wanting to be desired is wanting to be seen as sexy" does not involve considerations of "what is acceptable to another person?" angle. The only difference I see is in the specific areas of focus.


> superego tendencies in 2s are very much over blown. the superego in 2 comes out _after_ they manipulate people's emotions and feel like shit about it


 Or maybe! The whole "twos and wanting to be seen as desired" is overblown! It's one thing when you're talking about vices in an imaginary "heaven vs hell" context, it's another when you flatten entire groups of people into a singular desire of "wanting to be seen as desirable". Now this, I think is inappropriate and dehumanizing. When there are *bigger* things out there, it's stupid to be fixating on this one. single. area. of. focus. There are so many twos out there who don't give a shit about this! It's almost as if you think the sexual subtype is all twos are.

Some decent twos worry about whether what they've done was appropriate, like leaving someone to their own devices, and they feel guilty about that. The point is, they shouldn't. I'm sorry if you don't sympathize with the plight of two nearly as much as I do, and despite fighting with a lot of them and thinking that it's the one type that most directly trigger my fears, I think many of them have their wishes grounded enough that they don't over-extend. Any communication attempt is an attempt to manipulate, whether you realize it or not, and I don't inherently consider "manipulation" as a "bad thing" that people must feel guilty over.

Maybe, the next time you talk to Beatrice Chestnut, you ask her more about what twos are like?



> TYPE TWO REPRESENTS THE ARCHETYPE of the person who seeks to please others as a way to evoke affection. The drive to win others’ approval through indirect methods, such as *seduction* and *strategic giving*, is a way to obtain emotional and material support without having to ask for it. This strategy also provides a way to try to get others to take care of you while still defending yourself against the pain of having someone important *reject* a direct request to meet a need.


 What's the opposite of "reject"? Seems like "accept". _Acceptance_ is probably the biggest lesson of point _three_.

If people are not open to accepting you, no amount of work put into "wanting to seem sexually desirable, glorious, or amazing" is going to change the fact that they're still rejecting you. This receptivity requires the cooperation of others, which is why I argue that "acceptance" is the issue surrounding the heart center, of which "desire" is a subset. Thinking you can avoid the cooperation of others is a manifestation of pride.

[HR][/HR]


mimesis said:


> That would make Will (2) by extension the heart center. Nah.


 1.) Extensions of the heart center's values is done by point THREE. Not the other two points that are variations of point three.
2.) Why, yes, actually, it does. The following specific holy ideas are variations of Holy Law (3): Holy Will (2), Holy Origin (4), and Holy Work (7). Citation: Facets of Unity


> Perhaps we could split it, body center gets respect, heart center gets love?


 I'm offended that you people think love is some trivial emotion like in the movies. Love is a lot more than those silly transient emotions that people futilely cling on to. Holy Love is type NINE's holy idea, and one could even go, "well, all types could be seen as variations of type nine, so maybe *all* of the types are about love", then yeah, I'd agree. I *don't* find it logically agreeable that one could include the heart center and exclude the body center when type nine's central point is about love, OR even that "courage", the virtue of point six, has a prefix that means "heart". Either love is a body center value, or it's _every_ type's value.


> Can someone love oneself without respecting oneself?


 It's possible. I don't think "respect" is one of those "all or nothing" things, and I'm capable of loving people (even myself) in spite of having things about them that I don't respect.


> Can someone accept oneself without respecting oneself?


 Yes. I accept lots of things I don't respect within myself or in others. From where I see things, "acceptance" of things I don't like or respect is required in a "I don't really have a choice in this matter" kind of way. Holy Law. It seems to be a waste of time to not accept things.

Or even "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." "Having respect" is one of those things that you can change. If you don't feel love (receiving _or_ giving love), then quite frankly, that's your fault. People are their own sources of love. Holy Love + Holy Law.


> Is humility lack of self-respect? Nea


 I feel like humility is much more complicated than that. At a minimum, humility requires understanding the limits of what you can and can't do. Being able to do that is a minimum for self-respect. Not stepping on "god's" toes would be nice too.


> http://blog.mosaicbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/faith-hope-love-357x400.jpg
> 
> Corinthians 13:13 also


 Thanks!


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

I decided to actually read what Beatrice Chestnut has to say about the place of shame in the Image (sorry, Sadness) triad. I'm finding Chestnut's book to be a lot more valuable when she just focuses on the NINE types in their basic forms in contrast to when she 'elucidates' the '27 paths' too dogmatically, at times it seems almost arbitrarily.

But to stick to the main topic of this thread, regarding Type 2 she says: _"The whole Two personality can be seen as a strategic defense against the humiliation of having to acknowledge need'._ It seems to me that 'humiliation' and 'shame' are functionally synonymous in this context. I'm still reading the chapter on Type 2 but I'll just mention that she does keep Naranjo's (and by extension Eli's) 'subtype' (or instinctual variant) of social 4 as "shame".

So that's one and one/third down and one and two/thirds to go, speaking shamewise. 

tbc


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Interesting but I don't know if I fully understand it. I very much relate to shame, though it is kind of inverted sadness. 

Maybe I blame myself for my sadness because I am inadequate, and shame is the result. Or maybe I'm sad because I'm shamefully inadequate. Hm. Well they're certainly connected.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I was having a conversation with Beatrice Chestnut today about the nature of each of the centers and emotion. I talked for a bit about how I think each of the centers represents a _distorted relationship_ with a given emotion rather than necessarily experiencing the emotion outright (ie, Sexual 4s are, on the whole, a lot angrier than 9s, but the defense mechanisms of 4s do not center around their relationship with anger the way 9s' do).
> 
> she responded "A small correction: in my opinion it's _sadness_ not shame that is the core emotion of the heart types."
> 
> taking a few hours to reflect on it, it rings true of almost all of the 2s, 3s and 4s I've interacted with, both online and offline. honestly, it turned my understanding of the heart center on it's head from "shame? lmao! I don't relate to that at all :laughing: " to "wow...that fits me _much_ better than anxiety ever did. back to the drawing board"


I like that. Shame, at least, never sat quite right because it seems to imply a social context like Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter (which perhaps gives image types a Soc (and possibly Sx) bent), but doesn't really explain how the image type operates in absence of that or rather when the focus is centrally on the self (hence, probably why Chestnut considers Sp 2, 3 and 4 as "counter-types" to the central passion.

I think sadness is definitely better, but yeah, I think it's roots have to be understood in the context of value (i.e., "am I loved/valued? What is my worth?"), because the "emotions are the leaves" so to speak, but they are not necessarily the core roots and trunk of the type.



mimesis said:


> Perhaps we could split it, body center gets respect, heart center gets love?


I can't speak to the gut center since I don't understand it as well as I like, but @_OrangeAppled_ made a thread I rather like here http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/174096-triad-themes.html that talked of image types in terms of "world does not love."

For the 2, I think Pride is connected to that desire, as Naranjo puts it, to give (or rather, _*exude*_) the impression of "overflowing generosity" like a cornucopia—that which provides, which gives shelter (and hence, connection to 8 and its place in the power-seeking triad as well as the positive-outlook triad, which generally I see as wanting to "overflow" or flood in their own ways; for the 2, in the context of being loved, for the 7, in terms of having a diversion a la "when a door closes, a window opens" and the 9 in convincing itself "there's no problem").

Classically, I would connect 2 with notions of the harvest, the hearth, Demeter-esque (although this image is probably more So/Sx 2)










For the 3, I see the greatest paradox, perhaps as a result of its wings... the 2 wants to overflow and identify with "positive" love, whereas 4s attempt to cope with its absence or the Void. I think 3s are not well understood, perhaps because they balance on the edge of a knife—on the one hand, their identification with the image and perfecting that image seems almost scientific to me (competency triad). They seem the most "logical" of the image types (and I have read somewhere that 2 and 4 are considered the "most emotional").

I think perfectionism is common to all competency triaders and not just 1, actually, because their general approach is one of objectivity or neutrality... whereas 279 may overinflate positivity and 468 may seem overly pessimistic or playing devil's advocate (serial contrarianism), the 351 triad I think tends to suppress the emotional or "irrational" component of the human experience the most. I have heard them described as the "driest" of the types. Ultimately, I think the assuredness of the 3 can bely the inner insecurity, sort of that inner plea of "please love me!"

For some reason, Michelangelo's David comes to mind although I will be the first to admit my understanding of Renaissance art is pretty scant. According to Wikipedia (ugh, I know), earlier interpretations see David standing victorious over Goliath (Soc 3ish, perhaps?), whereas Michelangelo's is supposedly before the conflict, but after the decision is made to commit... standing on the edge of the blade between decision and action. Renaissance art I believe is where the contraposto came in vogue, which I see as more Sp 3ish which Chestnut describes as the countertype. Naranjo notes that Sp 3 has the "caring about appearing to not care" or perhaps a casual/calm sort of confidence.










Finally, 4s take the "opposite" approach of 2s, instead identifying with love in absentia. I'm fond of calling it "life's waiting room" hence the tendency of 4s to romanticize, embellish or envision themselves in a larger-than-life sort of way, paradoxically feeling superior/elitist but also inferior and defeatist. I find 4s are often the most adamant (stubbornly so) about their refined tastes or sensibilities, but there is an admittedly frustrating mercurial quality to them, slippery as if that air of mysteriousness is vital to their survival or evasiveness from being "defined"... for to be defined is tantamount to death... like casting light upon the monster and thus, dispelling it from the world (The Phantom of the Opera). hence the "outsider" or "nonconformist" tendencies...

I suppose... 4s attempt to identify with the spaces between love—the interludes and the spaces between the notes, rather than the notes themselves. The intermissions between life, whether it be between phases of a person's life, those summer days of aimlessness and LACK of purpose. The 4 attempts to find "meaning amidst the void." Which is perhaps the identification I see with 4s and the Romantic period, one breaking convention or "greater purpose" to reconnect with nature.



















So often in Romanticism, it is those small insignificant moments like a picnic against the backdrop of the larger world.






But what _*is *_nature? As Werner Herzog notes in Grizzly Man:



Herzog said:


> What haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, _*I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature*_. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell, this bear was a friend, a savior.


So while I think sadness is most obvious in a 4, I can see it in other image types as well... the yearning for love balances on the edge of a knife, of a heart that is full and a heart that is empty (i.e., "she loves me, she loves me not"). The sadness of a 2 is buried, the sadness of the 3 is shelved, and the 4 wears it with pride. At the root, I think, is a fear of lovelessness, meaninglessness or worthlessness, with the 4 erring on the side of absence, the 2 erring on the side of "cornucopia" or being the source or fountain of that love, and the 3 I think straddles the fence.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1s: not really.
> 9s: sort of, mostly it's just "void"
> 
> if I were to pick a "shame" type outside the heart triad, my first choice would be 6


Um.. what? why? That is one emotion I can't even say I've ever truly felt. Anxiety, fear, rage, sadness etc. I can relate to. Shame is an enigma to me. I don't even see the point of it. If I can even relate to shame at all, then it would have to be counter shame, but it's just not something I ever think about it. Six is a super ego type. Most sixes I've met are very set that they did the right/safest thing, and they will stick with that regardless of what others think. They might fear it backfiring on them somehow which might sway them but that is very different from feeling ashamed of what they did or who they are.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> So while I think sadness is most obvious in a 4, I can see it in other image types as well... the yearning for love balances on the edge of a knife, of a heart that is full and a heart that is empty (i.e., "she loves me, she loves me not"). The sadness of a 2 is buried, the sadness of the 3 is shelved, and the 4 wears it with pride. At the root, I think, is a fear of lovelessness, meaninglessness or worthlessness, with the 4 erring on the side of absence, the 2 erring on the side of "cornucopia" or being the source or fountain of that love, and the 3 I think straddles the fence.


I've been thinking on this. 

I'm not seeing shame as a core issue for 2,3, and 4. Sadness I can see now. As I see it, 2's try to love, and are hurt and saddened when the love is not returned. So, as an 8, when my feelings get hurt I turn to angry, 2's turn to sadness, and can accept the sadness, and "live in the feeling" for a while. 

4's are just generally fucking sad. Or trying to figure out how not to be sad. 3's shelf sadness using the quote. Maybe 3's DENY sadness, like a 9 denies anger.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> I've been thinking on this.
> 
> I'm not seeing shame as a core issue for 2,3, and 4. Sadness I can see now. As I see it, 2's try to love, and are hurt and saddened when the love is not returned. So, as an 8, when my feelings get hurt I turn to angry, 2's turn to sadness, and can accept the sadness, and "live in the feeling" for a while.
> 
> 4's are just generally fucking sad. Or trying to figure out how not to be sad. 3's shelf sadness using the quote. Maybe 3's DENY sadness, like a 9 denies anger.


To clarify, I think the 2 is more inclined to outright deny sadness, because Pride desires to be the fountain or source of love—the giver, in essence—whether it be through helping, seduction, guilt-tripping, etc. This is informed by a combination of positive outlook (which turns away from inner deficiency) and power seeking (i.e., 2s are driven by some form of control as in "I will _*make *_you love me!"). The 2 I consider the most aggressively powerful of the types, actually.

I'm going to summon @KindOfBlue06 who I think is definitely right in his 3-typing because I admit I don't think I understand the 3 as well as I'd like.

I think the 3 can deny its sadness (just as any type can), but I think the inclination is more about prioritization. The 3 I think is more: "I'll worry about that [sadness] later." I think Vanity attempts to prioritize, just as one tailors a resume to emphasize what is most important (i.e., job experience vs. volunteering vs. personal hobbies... there is a hierarchy of importance in terms of say, getting a job). Emotions? Sadness? Not very useful. And of course, this depends on the social context of what is "success" and what is attractive. The problem I have with enneagram is I don't see enough emphasis on the social context or milieu that surrounds the type. If the 3 mirrors what is desirable and attempts to perfect or "be the best," then doesn't this depend in some way on what is considered attractive within a given milieu?

I want to see a North Korean 3, a military 3, a beatnik 3, an artistic 3, a mathematician 3, a UK 3, a USA 3, a Sudanese 3, etc., etc., etc., because while there would certainly be the patterns of vanity and love-insecurity beneath a veneer of confidence, the culture would likely color them to be quite different as well.

For instance, a 3 in the arts is probably more "connected" to emotions than, say, one in civil engineering or accounting. They may all emphasize competence within their respective spheres, but I'm pretty sure a musician uses the feeling judgment more so than a NASA engineer, on average. Whether that emoting is "authentic" or not would depend on the individual, but I wish enneagram authors would consider the context and the cultural influences upon the types a bit more.

As for the 4, I'd say there _*is *_a masochistic tendency, at its worst, in an attempt to befriend the darkness or sadness (sorta like psychological BDSM... now with more whips!). The 4 prepares itself for the worst (and often, as a result, self-defeats), but I'm not sure that makes the 4 "sad" per se. I think sadness is more on its mind at the conscious level, but I think the notion that 4s are more predisposed to depression or the like is a bit of a red herring.

I actually think 4s in general have trouble relating to other 4s (which is why I think there's a lot of mistyping finger-pointing going on). And again, I think the social context and generational influence is ignored in the enneagram realm... Generation Y (specifically the _*westernized *_breed of Gen Y), for instance, has been raised more along the lines of "you are special!" AKA, the MeMeMe generation, where playing Mozart to the unborn fetus grew into vogue. But if you were born and raised in a world where people tell their children they are special, smart, or destined for greatness, then isn't _everyone _around you special? Then that _doesn't _make you very special. Lo siento, amigo. Take that same fixation in North Korea, and I'd imagine the 4 to be quite different, even if the core hang-up is the same.

The 4 over-identifies with what is missing or absent (hence, "befriending sadness"), to the point that I think it can fail to see "positive space." The 4, I think, along with other reactive-triaders, are prone to playing devil's advocate. I wonder if the stock phrase for reactive triads is:

Yes, _*but*_...


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

4's make shitty submissives. To be submissive, they are then labelled, and categorized, and part of some group, anathema to any self respecting 4. They are found in the community, but are often switches, or kinksters, or lost souls

2's are by far the most common submissive. They DESIRE to please, to make others happy. 

There are 3's who are submissive. I've never really been around one very much.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> I didn't say they're the same thing. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. One involves the other. I disagree with your narrow definition of acceptable. "Wanting to be desired" is "sexually acceptable". The fact is, twos "need" to be accepted by somebody, not that twos "need" to be desired.
> 
> If you still disagree, then it's just a semantical debate from here. You're not going to convince me that "wanting to be desired is wanting to be seen as sexy" does not involve considerations of "what is acceptable to another person?" angle. The only difference I see is in the specific areas of focus.
> Or maybe! The whole "twos and wanting to be seen as desired" is overblown! It's one thing when you're talking about vices in an imaginary "heaven vs hell" context, it's another when you flatten entire groups of people into a singular desire of "wanting to be seen as desirable". Now this, I think is inappropriate and dehumanizing. When there are *bigger* things out there, it's stupid to be fixating on this one. single. area. of. focus. There are so many twos out there who don't give a shit about this! It's almost as if you think the sexual subtype is all twos are.
> ...


Sounds like respect is something one needs to earn. 

You are seeing a lot in those holy ideas. It's no rocket science or some secret code to crack.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Sounds like respect is something one needs to earn.
> 
> You are seeing a lot in those holy ideas. It's no rocket science or some secret code to crack.


 DUUUUDE!! I feel like I've been tripping balls for the last couple months. In facets of unity, there's like a minimum of seven ways to perceive Holy Law, and at least one of those ways tells you, in no uncertain terms, that your problems in life are your own problems, and that's without even going into Holy Harmony or Hope. Type three's holy idea is by far the most difficult to intellectually _or_ experientially grasp. Welp, time to figure out the image center then.


> The perspective of Holy Law, then, illuminates the fact that the unity of Being is not a static existence, but rather, a dynamic presence that is continuously changing and transforming as a unified field. Here, we see the aliveness of Being and the universe, its energy and flow and vigorous transformation. This Holy Idea confronts some of our very basic convictions about reality, but if we don’t understand it, we cannot really understand what unfoldment means. This is because the unfoldment of the soul is Holy Law operating in one location, so when we perceive it, we are seeing in microcosm what is happening everywhere all the time. *Holy Law is not an easy thing to swallow, since in the process of perceiving it, you—as you have known yourself—get swallowed up.*


 Insert old soul; get a new one. Hope you weren't too attached to your old one.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

The heart types' shame comes from an underlying feeling of being worthless, of being not good enough. I actually think both sadness *and* shame are linked to this. It's just that for many people, sadness is easier to recognize than shame. Or, talking from personal experience, sadness doesn't hurt nearly as much as shame, as shame makes one feel inferior than.. (or feeling "inferior than..." brings up shame). Whereas sadness can be felt without knowing why it's there in the first place, it doesn't have to hit the vulnerable spots in our ego to be felt.
At least, that's what it feels like for me.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> I've been thinking on this.
> 
> I'm not seeing shame as a core issue for 2,3, and 4. Sadness I can see now. As I see it, 2's try to love, and are hurt and saddened when the love is not returned. So, as an 8, when my feelings get hurt I turn to angry, 2's turn to sadness, and can accept the sadness, and "live in the feeling" for a while.
> 
> 4's are just generally fucking sad. Or trying to figure out how not to be sad. 3's shelf sadness using the quote. Maybe 3's DENY sadness, like a 9 denies anger.


As someone who has ties to all three image types, there is a lot behind the association with shame. 3s experience shame rather directly and are always trying to avoid it. Having lost track of their own sense of self, 3s are always one step ahead of a creeping feeling that to not constantly succeed and to not win the esteem of others is to become worthless -- hence the reason the 3's path of growth is to become self-affirming and self-aware, like a healthy 6. While sadness is present alongside that feeling of worthlessness, worthlessness is a purely social experience, the belief that one has no value to others. Sadness _follows_ from shame.

The connection to shame in 2s is less directly visible since 2s bury their shame under an inflated self-image, believing themselves to be invaluable to the people they help. While I probably won't have as much insight into 2s as someone with a strong 2 fix/core 2 might and what I do understand will be influenced by my core type, I've noticed this tendency in my own behavior, particularly in a paternal, "I know best" side that can crop up from time to time, forgetting my own flaws and claiming to have insight into how others should behave, and lecturing based on that belief. In the moment, I'm tied up in that advice, and if it's rejected the old shame pops up, a feeling that, should this be rejected, I would slide towards worthlessness, and with that feeling comes the corresponding inclination towards bossiness. 

4s are fascinating. Unlike 3s, who try to outrun their shame, and 2s, who try to forget it, 4s revel in it. They focus on how they are disconnected from others, unique and unappreciated, and (at least attempt to) wear that as a badge of honor. They feel the sense of flaw, of worthlessness, very keenly, and they focus on it. Since they perceive themselves as locked out from the rest of the world due to their flaw/uniqueness, they feel the solution is to introspect and to look inside themselves for their "true" identity. 4s frequently suffer from sadness because unlike the other two image types, they are keenly in touch with their shame, and the isolation that follows from shame generates sadness and a longing for something or someone that can give them a true identity, a true value. The conflict between the desire to be an individual, to find something within themselves that validates them, and the desire to find a social value is the source of much of the internal turmoil 4s are prone towards.

I'm not convinced that sadness is anything but the emotional feedback someone gets from experiencing shame. Shame is an awareness of social rejection, which fits the experience and obsession of the 3 socially preoccupied image types far better than sadness.

@Animal Be interested in seeing what some 4s think of the distinction between sadness and shame.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

hal0hal0 said:


> I like that. Shame, at least, never sat quite right because it seems to imply a social context like Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter (which perhaps gives image types a Soc (and possibly Sx) bent), but doesn't really explain how the image type operates in absence of that or rather when the focus is centrally on the self (hence, probably why Chestnut considers Sp 2, 3 and 4 as "counter-types" to the central passion.
> 
> I think sadness is definitely better, but yeah, I think it's roots have to be understood in the context of value (i.e., "am I loved/valued? What is my worth?"), because the "emotions are the leaves" so to speak, but they are not necessarily the core roots and trunk of the type.
> 
> So while I think sadness is most obvious in a 4, I can see it in other image types as well... the yearning for love balances on the edge of a knife, of a heart that is full and a heart that is empty (i.e., "she loves me, she loves me not"). The sadness of a 2 is buried, the sadness of the 3 is shelved, and the 4 wears it with pride. At the root, I think, is a fear of lovelessness, meaninglessness or worthlessness, with the 4 erring on the side of absence, the 2 erring on the side of "cornucopia" or being the source or fountain of that love, and the 3 I think straddles the fence.


I think that the sadness goes hand-in-hand with the shame. I think sadness still suits the 4 best, as it is called the melancholy/depressive type and embodies the state of sadness.... but the 2 integrates at 4 (to get in touch with their sadness, to admit they have a void, is growth for them), and the 3 is cozied up next the 4. They all have an obvious relationship with sadness that is more profound and complex than the regular sadness and straight forward depressions any human may have. 

But I think shame has to be understood as not being social, yes. I do think it is people-related, because the image triad is called the heart triad, not solely or even mainly for emotional reasons (all types are emotionally driven), but because of the heart's symbolic connection with value as determined by feelings. The person is overly focused on their human value. This does not mean social value or to even have a direct connection to relations with other people, although it may if the person is an so instinctual type. Often, the person is comparing themselves with an ideal self, and there is shame over not meeting that ideal, which is not necessarily a mainstream social ideal, although frequently there is introjection of some external ideals or perhaps fundamental, human concepts that are not tied to specific social contexts. The grief is a response to the felt loss of the whole self which they wrongly equate with the ideal self, and then there develops a shame at not being whole enough to be valuable - aka to be lovable (the ultimate value for a human). The 4 in particular has introjected the perceived state of the world (lacking in love) as their own state (lacking, missing the ultimate significance), but all the heart types have done this. They then carry a sense of not being whole or ideal enough to be valued (loved). Just as you say, it's buried by the 2 & shelved by the 3 (both of whom actually identify with the ideal self, and who are in denial that this is not the true, whole self and therefore cannot resolve their deeper feelings of shame/sadness), who are not very in-touch with shame nor sadness at average "health" levels. Arguably, 2s project the most of the image types - they project their own needs but also their own sense of lack, so that they identify less openly with their ideal self than they project their sense of not being ideal onto others (and in saving/seducing others, aim to earn what they lack). 

As a side, recently I've been thinking about introjection and projection in the different types and how they tend to manifest or affect the whole psychology of a person. Introjection gets talked about a lot less, but it's a big issue for certain types, more so than projection, which is a more obvious issue. May or may not post that sometime in the future .


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> What kind of person would feel shame at feeling sad? Can you see where an 8 could feel shame at feeling sad and being vulnerable?





Swordsman of Mana said:


> not really. it's difficult to find something most 8s would be ashamed of to begin with.


Exactly. There's a reason type 8 is often understood as being the furthest away from the heart center. Guilt, ok, more aware 8s could experience guilt since guilt pertains more to action and action is a part of the gut center, but shame is related to image, how you are seen and who you are rather than what you have done or what you do. Shame and 8 doesn't really click in my mind at all.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Exactly. There's a reason type 8 is often understood as being the furthest away from the heart center. Guilt, ok, more aware 8s could experience guilt since guilt pertains more to action and action is a part of the gut center, but shame is related to image, how you are seen and who you are rather than what you have done or what you do. Shame and 8 doesn't really click in my mind at all.


 Yeah, shame is about who you are, and guilt is about what you've done. In my type eight-ness, the "image" of my sense of self is through my actions. It's either that, or it's the type three speaking. Actually, type threes are also an id-type, whose sense of self is through their "performances", and I guess if you add some eight into the mix, "performances" turn into "demonstrations". Either way, since I identify through my actions, it's difficult, though not impossible, for me to separate "guilt" from "shame". If I must feel shame for anything, then those two might as well be the same thing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cir said:


> Yeah, shame is about who you are, and guilt is about what you've done. In my type eight-ness, the "image" of my sense of self is through my actions. It's either that, or it's the type three speaking. Actually, type threes are also an id-type, whose sense of self is through their "performances", and I guess if you add some eight into the mix, "performances" turn into "demonstrations". Either way, since I identify through my actions, it's difficult, though not impossible, for me to separate "guilt" from "shame". If I must feel shame for anything, then those two might as well be the same thing.


Agreed. I do not experience shame and in situations that I do, I'd say it's closer to being guilt than shame. I have tried to delineate the two in my mind, but if I feel something, I'm more likely to call it guilt.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> Yeah, there needs to be a conclusion here before I'm able to see which part of Holy Law you're talking about.
> 1.)
> 2.) Illusions are a part of our reality, and I've accepted it. Now what?
> The Spiritual Enneagram: Type Three - Sacred Deception


I said illusory, meaning our perception of reality is like an illusion, not saying reality is an illusion. You could even say our illusory perception is real in our minds. :tongue:



cir said:


> Ok, fine. The book only explicitly listed six ways of perceiving Holy Law, and then follows up with:
> Well, I guess I'll be the first to admit that something is difficult then. Reading about swimming vs actually swimming.


The theory is based on different types of ego-fixation caused by the loss of contact with an essential aspect, or Holy Idea, during childhood, perhaps even at a preverbal stage, establishing conscious or unconscious fundamental dispositions, (false) beliefs about this deficiency, ego defenses and coping strategies, trying to restore or compensate this deficiency and defend against painful experience. 

So, some of these patterns or dispositions exist since early childhood and are deeply ingrained in our personality and how we understand the world and ourselves. This is also why it may be difficult to grasp. It's these dispositions that determine the perspective, our understanding and (feeling of) predictability of future outcomes we project and anticipate. To just reject those dispositions or beliefs with something that doesn't convince you to be a better alternative, to many would feel like suicide and insane. So I wouldn't trow out the baby with the bath water. 



Saṅkhāra said:


> Kalupahana states that "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives. The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions.
> Wiki: saṃskāra


I think Holy Ideas should be approached as alternative ways (dispositions) to look at reality. It is wisdom, not knowledge of 'the truth', nor rocket science, or a secret code to crack. If it doesn't resonate with you, then you can reflect on why it doesn't, which is just as valuable as a process. 

With regard to Holy Law, I relate this to identification with action or accomplishment, which can actually alienate us from ourselves and separate us from others. If you can compare type 3 with 'marketing orientation', think of the objective 'to make people believe they are buying what they want'. You could say, the better you become in this deception, the more difficult it would be to see the Holy Idea as a better alternative. Deceit is just one way that alienation or separation could happen. 

You can try and adapt yourself to the wants of the people, but in the end, nothing lasts forever. The universe is a perpetual state of flux. Making a hit doesn't mean it is all your accomplishment, and that you can repeat it over and over. It meant that it resonated with people at that present moment. A Willem de Kooning painting in the desert is worth nothing, as there is no audience or context to value it. But the audience can't make a Willem de Kooning painting either. Only he could, and he did so guided by his intuition. 



cir said:


> Yeah, in my personal subjective experience (everyone's mileage will vary), this dimension is golden yellow, the gelatinous core is golden, and when you pull from it, the liquid cling in a capillary action kind of way. Soooort of like that one Salvador Dali painting with the withered clocks, but without the clock faces or the desert. The gelatinous core is what's swallowing me up while "trying" to "perceive" Holy Law, except the swallowing happens from the inside of my body, so all that's left is feeling like my body is a stream and my face is floating on top of it. Symbolically, it represents an ability to replicate the effects of a light dose of LSD, except in real life, I don't know when it ends, if it ever does. Is this why old-people time work differently from young-people time?





cir said:


> Holy Law: When facing your eminent death(s) in its many forms, would you rather voluntarily exercise the virtue of non-attachment and let your old "selves" go? Or would you rather it be taken away from you?


I think it's more about letting go of the desire to control things. It's a state that is neither non-attachment and neither attachment, which I think is the best way to stay attuned, go with the flow and be ahead of the curve.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> When I read the holy idea for 3, I liken it to Truth and Ne mixed together. Defining both terms, This starts with ME being truthful to me, and then having the nuts to proudly show my truth to everyone else. This is easier for me than some.
> 
> Ne, in this context, is the ability to experience multiple concepts at once, and let them go on by me. The ideas, concepts, etc exist whether I experience them or not. They already are, but the way they interact and interweave is constantly changing like wind eddies in a drafty room.
> 
> From there, I can sit in a room, and simply enjoy the sunshine, and watch the dust motes float in the eddies, and be at peace the air will do what it will.


I was thinking of the Willem de Kooning who also tapped into his conrete intuition of the present moment, more like a 'medium'. He usually worked at several pieces simultaeously. 










I'll post a bit from an interview with his former assistant, in particular with regard to his Alzheimer's disease at the end of his life. 



Assistant Willem de Kooning said:


> *Working beside him while he was sliding into Alzheimer's, was there something that transformed in him when he entered the studio as the art history community suggests?
> *
> Absolutely.
> 
> ...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Exactly. There's a reason type 8 is often understood as being the furthest away from the heart center. Guilt, ok, more aware 8s could experience guilt since guilt pertains more to action and action is a part of the gut center, but shame is related to image, how you are seen and who you are rather than what you have done or what you do. Shame and 8 doesn't really click in my mind at all.


Why would shame not pertain to action? Someone can feel shame for poor performance like getting a B. It can also block action, just like guilt or fear, or cause to act defensively (like apologetically or even act aggressively to prevent feeling shame, e.g. when other criticize or say you suck at something, driven by a need to prove yourself and thus counter shame), or just run away and not-act, saying you just don't feel like it or telling others and themselves (image) you just have no desire (or envy) to do so.

Shame as self-rejection is in the gut and compromises/negates Will or self-esteem, like Guilt compromises/negates Desire (Grace). 
Self-acceptance, compassion and sorrow (not to mention hatefulness, jealousy, inflated self-importance) is in the heart.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Why would shame not pertain to action? Someone can feel shame for poor performance like getting a B.


I already defined the differences. Shame = image/who you are, guilt = action, what you have done or what you do. It's not about the happening, it's about the result. Otherwise everything would be guilt because everything boils down to action. One also _acts _an image. 


> Shame as self-rejection is in the gut and compromises/negates Will or self-esteem, like Guilt compromises/negates Desire (Grace).
> Self-acceptance, compassion and sorrow (not to mention hatefulness, jealousy, inflated self-importance) is in the heart.


What? Heart triad = shame. That's pretty much canon.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> I think Holy Ideas should be approached as alternative ways (dispositions) to look at reality. It is wisdom, not knowledge of 'the truth', nor rocket science, or a secret code to crack. If it doesn't resonate with you, then you can reflect on why it doesn't, which is just as valuable as a process.


 How about, I just cut through our philosophical differences by referencing:


> *You are seeing a lot in those holy ideas.* It's no rocket science or some secret code to crack.


 And then following up with:


> From the point of view of the end of the journey, the state of egolessness, the perception of Holy Harmony is that the creative flow is always a harmony, in harmony, and revealing harmony. The harmony is self-existent and is always present. Its existence is not the result of someone advancing on a path; only the perception of it results from spiritual work. From the point of view of one traveling the path, the perception is that the creative flow manifests as an optimizing thrust, pushing one toward harmony. That is, if we let reality unfold without interfering with it, we see that our experience of it evolves spontaneously toward harmony and the awareness of harmony. *The optimizing thrust of reality will move our experience of ourselves and the world toward the enlightened state, which is the perception of, and the abiding in, objective reality, as revealed in the nine Holy Ideas.*


 Since one of type three's holy ideas is Holy Law, one might say, threes could be Holy Law-yers.

Here are the things you are working against when you're trying to convince me _how_ to _perceive_ at reality:
1.) Majored in electrical engineering. Even if it isn't aeronautical engineering, I probably know a thing or two about "rocket science".
2.) Minored in math. Mathematical reasoning, the part you get to after calculus 1-3, differential equations, and linear algebra, is *all about evaluating true/false*.
3.) Loves computer science. So I love cracking code.
4.) 873.
[HR][/HR]


> With regard to Holy Law, I relate this to identification with action or accomplishment, which can actually alienate us from ourselves and separate us from others. If you can compare type 3 with 'marketing orientation', think of the objective 'to make people believe they are buying what they want'. You could say, the better you become in this deception, the more difficult it would be to see the Holy Idea as a better alternative. Deceit is just one way that alienation or separation could happen.
> 
> You can try and adapt yourself to the wants of the people, but in the end, nothing lasts forever. The universe is a perpetual state of flux. Making a hit doesn't mean it is all your accomplishment, and that you can repeat it over and over. It meant that it resonated with people at that present moment. A Willem de Kooning painting in the desert is worth nothing, as there is no audience or context to value it. But the audience can't make a Willem de Kooning painting either. Only he could, and he did so guided by his intuition.
> 
> I think it's more about letting go of the desire to control things. It's a state that is neither non-attachment and neither attachment, which I think is the best way to stay attuned, go with the flow and be ahead of the curve.


 Holy Law covers a *lot more* than that. For reference:


> The perspective of Holy Law, then, illuminates the fact that the unity of Being is not a static existence, but rather, a dynamic presence that is continuously changing and transforming as a unified field. Here, we see the aliveness of Being and the universe, its energy and flow and vigorous transformation. This Holy Idea confronts some of our very basic convictions about reality, but *if we don’t understand it, we cannot really understand what unfoldment means**. This is because the unfoldment of the soul is Holy Law operating in one location, so when we perceive it, we are seeing in microcosm what is happening everywhere all the time.* *Holy Law is not an easy thing to swallow, since in the process of perceiving it, you—as you have known yourself—get swallowed up.*


 Point three is an enneagram shock point.
Fourth Way enneagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I already defined the differences. Shame = image/who you are, guilt = action, what you have done or what you do. It's not about the happening, it's about the result. Otherwise everything would be guilt because everything boils down to action. One also _acts _an image.


You can feel guilty for being pleased aka 'guilty pleasure'. 

You can feel guilty for desiring someone other than your SO, and NOT act on it, NOT making it happen, because it would make you feel guilty. Some park guilt feelings in the fridge and take them out after action and gratification. A determining factor in the decision whether to act or not also is the assessment of getting caught, like whether 'images' are taken at a traffic light, or measuring speed. (and that is also meant as a metaphor).

One can blame others, and hold up an imagine of oneself to be a mere victim, to justify counter-shame aggression and need for affirmation. 

Image is related to self-concept (ego Ideal) and can just as much be an inflated self-image of grandiosity, superiority and god-mindedness as a deflated self-image which can be just as illusory. 



Entropic said:


> What? Heart triad = shame. That's pretty much canon.


That's what we are debating.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> You can feel guilty for being pleased aka 'guilty pleasure'.
> 
> You can feel guilty for desiring someone other than your SO, and NOT act on it, NOT making it happen, because it would make you feel guilty. Some park guilt feelings in the fridge and take them out after action and gratification.


One can still argue that it is the act or the desire for action that is the central point here. You can argue semantics but it does not change the inherent relationship guilt has with action and shame with image/sense of self. 



> One can blame others, and hold up an imagine of oneself to be a mere victim, to justify counter-shame aggression and need for affirmation.


What? This doesn't even make any sense. How does this at all pertain to shame? 



> That's what we are debating.


Then we are in disagreement since I think shame is a fundamental tenet of what defines the heart center.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Isn't shame about how we appear to others and guilt about negative influence our thoughts/actions (could) have on others?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Living dead said:


> Isn't shame about how we appear to others and guilt about negative influence our thoughts/actions (could) have on others?


Shame is the Person I am IS BAD. Guilt is I did something bad. 

I was told I am a bad person over and over growing up, which forged me into someone who rejects shame and is pretty immune to it. At the same time I recognize it, and when I see it I attack the person giving it. When I am feeling patient and good, I can try to help the person who was shamed to reject that shame.

Guilt is eating a candy bar on a diet. Shame is telling someone they are a fat ugly loser for eating a candy bar.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Maybe it is health levels. An unhealthy 2 will use shame as a weapon to make "things right" or impose their will on someone. An unhealthy 4 is indeed well connected to wallowing in shame.

A healthier 2 will feel great sadness when they see someone hurt or wounded. 

A REALLY healthy 2 will "let it go", just like the lessons for all enneagrams involve "letting it go", or Accepting, as part of their growth.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Anyway,I agree with @Entropic,shame=image
Guilt is about feeling responsible for something bad happening


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

This thread comes in handy after the discussion I've had with @Animal, @CaptSwan and @Chesire Tower about my Tritype/core/MBTI. Can't say I'm 100% sure yet but my mind is naturally caffeinated and I love this kind of exploration fueling threads.

I can see both shame and sadness as the center of the Heart Triad, the soft core after few or many licks to their tootsie pop but it's a very specific kind of sadness. It's not grief, it's not guilt, it's more similar to longing I think, to wanting to reflect one or many specific images and hurting themselves through the way others perceive them and either embracing it (4), rejecting it (2) or masking it (3). But image types are smooth in their transitions, they're fluid and health levels determine a lot.

Other types might have similar concerns, mostly 6s but occasionally 1s and 9s though it manifests in a different way but they deal with it in a different way, even the most optimistic 2 will be always wary of that lingering feeling and choke on it once they see their actually selfish and manipulative ways. Obviously 4s are inclined to drown in that constantly because, like @Animal said, she'd rather die than lose her emotions and the ability to feel while in my case it's all about freedom and fear of being caged and trapped into something I'm not. There's more to that and more to come  -stay tuned for another episode of enneagrey's anatomy- but yeah, 7s are shameless although it bites but not in a "omg i want to delete everything, i regret everything, i'm a failure" (except under extreme pain but bouncing back relatively quickly or attempting more trial-and-error empty brainstorming to regain control) but more like "wtf was that, let me be alone and dwell in and intensi_Fi_ all these emotions and thoughts on my own before moving on faster than a rocket on steroids". This is why there's a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again, there's no shame, no deep regret, a tendency to turn bothersome memories into jokes and use them as a fuel for new possibilities "what if I re-did that but in a completely different way? Like this! Or this! Or that one too!" and again, and again and again, I shit you it can happen too many times for me to keep track.

Heart types don't want control over their sadness or emotions, they aren't trying to fight anxiety or dealing with their own rage issues so they're very self aware, outwardly focused and emotionally reactive.

I might be flinging crap from every ceiling corner but this makes sense to me.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> How about, I just cut through our philosophical differences by referencing: And then following up with: Since one of type three's holy ideas is Holy Law, one might say, threes could be Holy Law-yers.


You brought up Holy Idea, I brought up Holy Will because you relate Love to the gut center, because of Holy Love of point 9. So my point was just to dismiss your argument of extension. Perhaps it's an idea to attune to your body, and become consciously aware of that body and heart intelligence, and how it communicates, rather than read in a book what happens inside of you, or just figure it out in your head? 

Then you said you saw 2 as a variation of 3. That's how we ended at Holy Law. Not sure why. 



cir said:


> Here are the things you are working against when you're trying to convince me _how_ to _perceive_ at reality:
> 1.) Majored in electrical engineering. Even if it isn't aeronautical engineering, I probably know a thing or two about "rocket science".
> 2.) Minored in math. Mathematical reasoning, the part you get to after calculus 1-3, differential equations, and linear algebra, is *all about evaluating true/false*.
> 3.) Loves computer science. So I love cracking code.
> 4.) 873.


Good luck at cracking the code then. :happy:


[HR][/HR]


cir said:


> Holy Law covers a *lot more* than that. For reference: Point three is an enneagram shock point.
> Fourth Way enneagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's nice. I tried to answered your question about non-attachment. 

But if you insist, here's what Almaas wrote



Holy Idea said:


> The Holy Ideas are not exactly states of consciousness; they are certain ways of experiencing reality. So you could be experiencing a particular essential state, and at the same time you might experience transparency or not. You cannot, however, experience transparency without experiencing some quality of Being, because if you are not experiencing Being you are experiencing ego, and the *Holy Ideas are not accessible in the egoic realm.*


and:



Holy Idea said:


> A Holy Idea is a particular *unconditioned*, and *hence objective, experiential *understanding of reality.


So here are some things that may work against you:



cir said:


> 1.) Majored in electrical engineering. Even if it isn't aeronautical engineering, I probably know a thing or two about "rocket science".
> 2.) Minored in math. Mathematical reasoning, the part you get to after calculus 1-3, differential equations, and linear algebra, is *all about evaluating true/false*.
> 3.) Loves computer science. So I love cracking code.
> 4.) 873.


/ego attachment.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> I might be flinging crap from every ceiling corner but this makes sense to me.


Your crap is like a rose.


----------



## rhoynarqueen (Dec 12, 2014)

I feel depression when I feel disconnected from my work or identity, as a 3w4, so I agree.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

I feel my three-ness to be crystallizing... 


mimesis said:


> You brought up Holy Idea, I brought up Holy Will because you relate Love to the gut center, because of Holy Love of point 9. So my point was just to dismiss your argument of extension.


 Ok, well, I'm going to dismiss your long hypotheticals that fail to terminate in a conclusion, which is one of the definitions of "pointless".



> Perhaps it's an idea to attune to your body, and become consciously aware of that body and heart intelligence, and how it communicates, rather than read in a book what happens inside of you, or just figure it out in your head?


 Right. I'm tired of the word "perhaps". All it shows is that you're unsure, haven't read the book about what the Holy Ideas mean (beyond "in one ear and out the other"), haven't experienced it, or that you just flat-out reject the idea and want to make yourself look slightly more polite. But the bottom line is, it shows that you don't have a point, which means it's a waste of time.



> Then you said you saw 2 as a variation of 3. That's how we ended at Holy Law. Not sure why.


 I didn't say that. Almaas said that. If you bothered to follow up with sources, you would have seen that. If you have a problem with it, bring it up to him.


> Good luck at cracking the code then. :happy:


 Doing better than what you've shown so far! I have enough prerequisites that I can start using this: 
Fourth Way enneagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> That's nice. I tried to answered your question about non-attachment.


 That's an A or B question. When facing your eminent death(s), would you rather give up your lives in dignity, or would you rather them be taken away from you? The bottom line is, you're going to die. Those are your only two choices.


> But if you insist, here's what Almaas wrote
> and:
> So here are some things that may work against you:
> /ego attachment.


 Ah yes, so not only do you lack the educational background to examine reality or truths in its many physical dimensions that _already_ exist, without even going into esoteric ideas, you probably don't understand what taking LSD means, nor can you elucidate what the various holy ideas *mean* beyond shallow definitions that anyone can read, nor can you figure out _how_​ to get there.

I do *not* value "egolessness" as an "objective" that people should strive towards. Egolessness is ego death. Ego-death for a type three is basically trashing everything they've worked for, everything they've invested their souls into, and then they're left with nothing. I like my pretty things, why the fuck would I want that? Ego is *the* barrier that's separating me from the tripping balls moments of "experiencing" Holy Law and actually being able to function in the world. Type threes value *the surface*. I *value* the ego, if for no other reason, than because it's *necessary*. If you bothered to look into the link for Sacred Deception, you might keep seeing the word "magical". Gee, I wonder if "tripping balls" qualifies as "magical".

I'm sorry if you can't figure out how to experience life in an "ego-less" way with or without drugs (additional citation: Maitri on type seven), but your incompetence shows up when all you do is pick people's stuff apart and look for things to argue. And your arguments are so *shallow* and _ineffective_ that you should really reconsider whether picking apart other people's subjective experiences and interpretations and trying to flatten them into _your_ narrow ideas of "objective" "reality" to be worth your time! You haven't demonstrated any _unique_ insight about image types, because you're _still_ stuck on whether image types are about shame! Has it ever occurred to you that there is nothing to argue over, and your own disagreement is purely your own fault?



> _It does not matter whether you like the view of reality or not. It is how things are. If you like it or don’t like it, that’s your business—it’s not the business of reality. If you don’t like how things are, the best you can do is to find out why, so that you can begin to harmonize yourself with it. Otherwise, you will suffer. This doesn’t mean reality is punishing you. It simply means that if you harmonize yourself with reality, you will experience a sense of peace and freedom, and if you don’t, you will experience discord._


Oh! More Almaas goodness:


> _It is difficult to perceive this continual renewal, this constantly new creation, when one is still caught in the delusion of separateness._


If you can't figure out how to get this quote you provided to work with the above quote, then that's still your fault.


> The Holy Ideas are not exactly states of consciousness; they are certain ways of experiencing reality. So you could be experiencing a particular essential state, and at the same time you might experience transparency or not. You cannot, however, experience transparency without experiencing some quality of Being, because if you are not experiencing Being you are experiencing ego, and the Holy Ideas are not accessible in the egoic realm.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Some park guilt feelings in the fridge and take them out after action and gratification.


Not a good idea. Guilt feelings are like Twinkies or Hostess donuts... you can put em in the freezer for 20 years and they'll still be as potent as ever when you take them out again. I believe the half-life is somewhere around that of carbon-14 (~5700 years).

Sorry, I'm not contributing anything. I'll show myself to the door. :sad::sad::sad:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

But yes, I think guilt and shame can both be borne out of mere feeling (of course, depends how we define "action." Perhaps a feeling or fantasizing about adultery IS action, for instance).


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

I too don't agree with guilt=action in literal sense,it can be potential for action,maybe feeling like your thoughts can do harm
For example,I can feel guilt when thinking about ice cream because it can lead to me gaining weight but the emotion I'll feel one day if I truly gain weight and have to face the world and what I've done is shame and at that moment I won't be ashamed of concrete act of eating too much ice cream,I'll be ashamed of being fat,a loser,etc.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

hal0hal0 said:


> (of course, depends how we define "action." Perhaps a feeling or fantasizing about adultery IS action, for instance).


 Based on the table of temptations here, I certainly wouldn't consider feeling or fantasizing to be "action", or else, what's the lesson behind types fours and fives integrating into the action center?


Living dead said:


> I too don't agree with guilt=action in literal sense,it can be potential for action,maybe feeling like your thoughts can do harm


 You probably aren't a type eight, where guilt is a possibility _after_ an action was taken. 


> For example,I can feel guilt when thinking about ice cream because it can lead to me gaining weight but the emotion I'll feel one day if I truly gain weight and have to face the world and what I've done is shame and at that moment I won't be ashamed of concrete act of eating too much ice cream, I'll be ashamed of being fat,a loser,etc.


 Not trying to be a dick, but at most, I'd feel guilty for eating ice cream.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> If you already know it all, then I invite you to take your sanctimonious attitude and go where you will be appreciated for the level of knowledge, empathy, and compassion you display.


 So, judging by the people who liked my comments on this thread. This thread. Ok.

If you can't use your credentials to support your arguments, that's your fault. That's not my problem. Respect is *earned*, not given. I don't care about your respect, and until you can come into agreements with the many people in this thread who dissected your arguments apart that you failed to respond to, I don't care what _you_ think. Go away!


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Living dead said:


> Anyway,I agree with @_Entropic_,shame=image
> Guilt is about feeling responsible for something bad happening


I believe the "image" label for the heart triad was nicked from Karen Horney, so let's see what she says about image:




Karen Horney said:


> The idealized self image may take different forms according to the predominant solution or strategies the individual adopts. So the idealized self image by its nature contains contradictory aspects where individual strives to actualize. The idealized self image of self-effacing individual "is a composite of 'lovable' qualities, such as unselfishness, goodness, generosity, humility, saintliness, nobility, sympathy" (Horney 1950, 222).
> 
> Whereas, arrogant-vindictive individual sees himself as masters of all situations who is smarter, tougher, more realistic than other people, narcissist sees himself as godlike and supporter of mankind who has unlimited potentialities and is capable of splendid achievements, naturally attained. On the other hand, perfectionist considers himself as a model of righteousness, who never makes any fault in the whole conduct of life. The idealized image of detached or resigned individual "is a composite of self-sufficiency, independence, self-contained serenity, freedom from desires" and "stoicism"


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> I feel my three-ness to be crystallizing...  Ok, well, I'm going to dismiss your long hypotheticals that fail to terminate in a conclusion, which is one of the definitions of "pointless". Right. I'm tired of the word "perhaps". All it shows is that you're unsure, haven't read the book about what the Holy Ideas mean (beyond "in one ear and out the other"), haven't experienced it, or that you just flat-out reject the idea and want to make yourself look slightly more polite. But the bottom line is, it shows that you don't have a point, which means it's a waste of time. I didn't say that. Almaas said that. If you bothered to follow up with sources, you would have seen that. If you have a problem with it, bring it up to him. Doing better than what you've shown so far! I have enough prerequisites that I can start using this: Fourth Way enneagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That's an A or B question. When facing your eminent death(s), would you rather give up your lives in dignity, or would you rather them be taken away from you? The bottom line is, you're going to die. Those are your only two choices. Ah yes, so not only do you lack the educational background to examine reality or truths in its many physical dimensions that _already_ exist, without even going into esoteric ideas, you probably don't understand what taking LSD means, nor can you elucidate what the various holy ideas *mean* beyond shallow definitions that anyone can read, nor can you figure out _how_​ to get there.I do *not* value "egolessness" as an "objective" that people should strive towards. Egolessness is ego death. Ego-death for a type three is basically trashing everything they've worked for, everything they've invested their souls into, and then they're left with nothing. I like my pretty things, why the fuck would I want that? Ego is *the* barrier that's separating me from the tripping balls moments of "experiencing" Holy Law and actually being able to function in the world. Type threes value *the surface*. I *value* the ego, if for no other reason, than because it's *necessary*. If you bothered to look into the link for Sacred Deception, you might keep seeing the word "magical". Gee, I wonder if "tripping balls" qualifies as "magical".I'm sorry if you can't figure out how to experience life in an "ego-less" way with or without drugs (additional citation: Maitri on type seven), but your incompetence shows up when all you do is pick people's stuff apart and look for things to argue. And your arguments are so *shallow* and _ineffective_ that you should really reconsider whether picking apart other people's subjective experiences and interpretations and trying to flatten them into _your_ narrow ideas of "objective" "reality" to be worth your time! You haven't demonstrated any _unique_ insight about image types, because you're _still_ stuck on whether image types are about shame! Has it ever occurred to you that there is nothing to argue over, and your own disagreement is purely your own fault?Oh! More Almaas goodness: If you can't figure out how to get this quote you provided to work with the above quote, then that's still your fault.


:laughing: Oh wow you used LSD, I guess r.e.s.p.e.c.t. ? Hm, perhaps, if you are susceptible to paranoia and anxiety and intolerant to ambiguity, I'll consider it. But I'm kidding, don't worry you have my basic respect. You don't need to earn it. Then again, it of course also requires you to recognize it I guess. And if you don't, that says more about you, and where you're at, than about me. I don't need to prove anything to you. You dig it or you don't.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

From Mimesis' quote, I used to be arrogant-vindictive, and still have it when I choose.

now I've got a HELL of a dose of detached.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Oh good grief, get over it you two. Regardless of whether @drmiller100 is an 8 or not (something I have no opinion on one way or another) this prolonged argument between him and @cir across multiple threads is getting old and is extremely unproductive. Talk about something else.


----------



## aurora-rosa (Apr 11, 2021)

2, 4 and 6 are the types that have the most maladaptive thoughts.









Enneagram Styles And Maladaptive Schemas: A Research Project - The Enneagram Spectrum of Personality Styles


by Jerome Wagner, Ph.D. I find it useful to think of the Enneagram personality styles as nine different paradigms or sets of lenses for looking at the world. A paradigm […]




enneagramspectrum.com


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

aurora-rosa said:


> 2, 4 and 6 are the types that have the most maladaptive thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How much did they pay for this study? A study saying groups of people having maladaptive thoughts needs to be at least ten million dollars. Anything less is laughable and needs not be taken seriously.


----------

