# Against the Enneagram of Personality



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

The proverb about leading a horse to water seems applicable given the sentiment of the naysayers. You seem to think I didn't go through my fair share of trials and tribulations to arrive at my current understandings and metaphysical outlook. You're wrong. In truth, I'm only trying to provide an escape from the deceptions plaguing the Enneagram of personality; but the majority have no incentive to disavow the system they hold ever-so-dear, so I address my work to those perceptible enough to listen.

As for those who feel the need to patronize me, I say this: heliocentricity, parallel universes, quantum physics, general and special relativity, extra-terrestrials, space travel, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, evolution, dinosaurs; your most essential beliefs are outright absurdities and lies. The fact that you manage to find the audacity to chastise me and proclaim yourself wise is contemptible. "Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?" How lamentably true these words have become. You know nothing.


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/dgbg.gif


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Sophia Perennis said:


> The proverb about leading a horse to water seems applicable given the sentiment of the naysayers. You seem to think I didn't go through my fair share of trials and tribulations to arrive at my current understandings and metaphysical outlook. You're wrong. In truth, I'm only trying to provide an escape from the deceptions plaguing the Enneagram of personality; but the majority have no incentive to disavow the system they hold ever-so-dear, so I address my work to those perceptible enough to listen.
> 
> As for those who feel the need to patronize me, I say this: heliocentricity, parallel universes, quantum physics, general and special relativity, extra-terrestrials, space travel, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, evolution, dinosaurs; your most essential beliefs are outright absurdities and lies. The fact that you manage to find the audacity to chastise me and proclaim yourself wise is contemptible. "Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?" How lamentably true these words have become. You know nothing.


I really like the part about the horse.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Sophia Perennis said:


> The proverb about leading a horse to water seems applicable given the sentiment of the naysayers. You seem to think I didn't go through my fair share of trials and tribulations to arrive at my current understandings and metaphysical outlook. You're wrong. In truth, I'm only trying to provide an escape from the deceptions plaguing the Enneagram of personality; but the majority have no incentive to disavow the system they hold ever-so-dear, so I address my work to those perceptible enough to listen.



And yet, here you are, naysaying. Irony is a bitch, isn't it? 



> As for those who feel the need to patronize me, I say this: heliocentricity, parallel universes, quantum physics, general and special relativity, extra-terrestrials, space travel, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, evolution, dinosaurs; your most essential beliefs are outright absurdities and lies. The fact that you manage to find the audacity to chastise me and proclaim yourself wise is contemptible. "Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?" How lamentably true these words have become. You know nothing.


But it's perfectly okay for you to patronize the rest of us "inferiors" with your "superior knowledge"? 

The ironic truth is: _I'm old enough to know that I know nothing_. When are you going to recognize the limitations of your certitude?


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

Sophia Per Anus (as in retentive), fwiw I plan to use all the power in my little pee brain to read your thoughts carefully upon my return in a week (I already began, they're interesting...). My thoughts surely won't be worth much in your hum-bull opinion btw, and that suits me just fine.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Sophia Perennis said:


> *Against the Enneagram of Personality*
> ...


There are a few problems here that fails to make this convincing. First of all, you state that it is wrong to merge belief systems, yet you present your own subjective syncretism by merging Enneagram types with Astrological types (revealed in the idea that knowing your enneagram type should reveal your Astrological type and your Dodecagram).

Second, your statement that Oscar Ichazo derived the Enneagram types from the foundation of Modern Jungian Astrology specifically is pure conjecture.

Third, the houses of the Zodiac in the oldest known Egyptian zodiac suggest a summary of Perennial wisdom, or the pure principles of the "Old Testament", deliniating the path to enlightenment rather than a basis for human types. The Bible's warning against using Astrology for divination etc further supports this view within Perennial wisdom.

Fourth, the element Fire (or "will"/intuition) does not refer to gut or their drives based in surrender to instinct. Fire is correlated with God and awakening within Perennial wisdom, Air to the lower intellect and pehaps higher emotions, Water to lower emotions, and Earth to the immovable, static, or physical. So in asigning Fire to types 1, 8, 9 you are making a bastardization and violation of perennial wisdom with new, subjective, interpretations applied to them, thereby rendering the remaining vestiges of traditional knowledge, that might actually be derived from all this, inert.

Fifth, through your syncretism you've arrived at being a type 9 in the Enneagram, but your style of writing suggest otherwise. I've interacted with some rather arrogant 9s, but even their style is notably different from yours. If this syncretism doesn't allow one to arrive at their true type, it is immediately flawed.

And last, I've never come across the "The universe is finite and resides within the Earth" idea within Perennial wisdom before.


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> The ironic truth is: _I'm old enough to know that I know nothing_.


You say this as if it exemplifies your humility. Admitting you know nothing is not an act of humility, it's an admittance of a lack of intellectual rigor and ignorance; and ignorance is not humility. Ignorance is the state man finds himself when he purposely evades or denies the truth. Ignorance is hell and everyone living in ignorance is, to some degree or another, living in their own personal hell. Let me explain by defining a couple of terms:

Nescience is a lack of knowledge as a result of circumstance. 

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge as a result of the individual's choice to not know.

The difference between the two is rather simple. An ignorant individual is one that is capable of knowing something but for whatever reason, whether it be fear, apathy, or simple laziness, chooses not to. A nescient individual simply has no choice in the matter; his circumstances prevent him from knowing. The latter is innocent of all matters he is unaware of, the former is guilty of treason - primarily against himself, because the choice to not know is not only cowardly and feeble, but servile; and as every man is in himself sovereign, when one denies his own sovereignty, he is likewise denying the sovereignty of God; as God made man in his image. 

So while you may want to argue over whether or not you're ignorant, whether or not God exists, or whether or not man truly rules himself, the fact remains: you never address the content or information I provide. When I assert heliocentricity is false, you ignore it. When I assert the Earth is not in motion, you ignore it. When I claim the Earth is hollow and that everything resides inside it, you ignore it. Instead of comparing Gemini to type 7, Libra to type 6, Aquarius to type 5, etc. to determine the efficacy of my claims, you ignore it. Intellectually honest individuals do not ignore claims, I don't ignore claims; claims that conflict with my beliefs are refuted to the best of my ability and the efficacy of my refutation is determined by its consistency and adherence to logic and reason. If the claim turns out to be true, I have no choice but to rectify my beliefs accordingly. So when I say you are ignorant, I'm not being rude or argumentative - I'm simply stating the obvious. You have ignored everything I brought to bear and instead of addressing my claims like a reasonable individual, you ignore them and resort to insults. So while it's fine for the profane masses to insult that which they don't understand, it is not fine for them to think they are wise in doing so. In short, you are an unwise man and you have no idea what you're talking about. Your beliefs lack veracity and your character lacks fortitude. Refute my claims, prove me false, or don't bother commenting.


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

ShadowPrince said:


> There are a few problems here that fails to make this convincing. First of all, you state that it is wrong to merge belief systems, yet you present your own subjective syncretism by merging Enneagram types with Astrological types (revealed in the idea that knowing your enneagram type should reveal your Astrological type and your Dodecagram).


Your lack of understanding of philosophia perennis and the term syncretism is evident. There is nothing syncretistic in what I have put forth. Rectifying Modernist thought and symbolism with Traditional knowledge cannot be construed as syncretism, as it is a reconciliation of false beliefs with the truth. Astrology predates the Enneagram of personality by atleast 4,000 years. I did not merge any of the Enneagram "types" with Astrology, I synthesized the fundamentals governing Astrology with the Enneagram of personality, resulting in the Dodecagram, and came to the proper correlations between the two. Your last statement is confused, the Enneagram of personality cannot explain or reveal Astrological influences due its syncretic and profane nature; Astrology reveals one's Enneagram of personality type due to its perennial essence. 



> Second, your statement that Oscar Ichazo derived the Enneagram types from the foundation of Modern Jungian Astrology specifically is pure conjecture.


Apparently you are unfamiliar with Modern Astrology as well. Study the descriptions of the Zodiac signs as postulated by Modern Astrologers and compare them to the descriptions of the Enneagram of personality, the correlations will be obvious. Don't accuse me of conjecture when you are the one unfamiliar with the subject. 



> Third, the houses of the Zodiac in the oldest known Egyptian zodiac suggest a summary of Perennial wisdom, or the pure principles of the "Old Testament", deliniating the path to enlightenment rather than a basis for human types. The Bible's warning against using Astrology for divination etc further supports this view within Perennial wisdom.


I'm unsure what your point is. The Zodiac is entirely exclusive of both Judaism and Christianity. The Egyptians did have an authentic traditional Astrology, but it differed from Grecian Astrology in that the former was sidereal while the latter was tropical. Vedic Astrology is the closest thing in the Modern age to what the Egyptians would have practised. As for your claims regarding Astrology being condemned by the Bible, the Bible is not an authority on God, though many like to think it is. In fact, more evil has been perpetrated in the name of the Bible than one would reasonably expect from a holy book. I won't denounce Jesus Christ or his teachings, but the Old Testament and the New Testament come from two completely difference sources and it is in the Old Testament, that of the Jews, that divination is condemned; in the name of the LORD - that is to say the Demiurge, no doubt. 



> Fourth, the element Fire (or "will"/intuition) does not refer to gut or their drives based in surrender to instinct. Fire is correlated with God and awakening within Perennial wisdom, Air to the lower intellect and pehaps higher emotions, Water to lower emotions, and Earth to the immovable, static, or physical. So in asigning Fire to types 1, 8, 9 you are making a bastardization and violation of perennial wisdom with new, subjective, interpretations applied to them, thereby rendering the remaining vestiges of traditional knowledge, that might actually be derived from all this, inert.


Firstly, Fire is antithetical to intuition, and it most certainly embodies the will and desire of a being. Intuition is remarkably feminine, and is necessarily attributed to Water. Reading further, I'm actually appalled; you have the arrogance to define God in relation to the most mundane and profane levels of his creation. I don't know where you are getting your information regarding the elements, but it is most assuredly incorrect and quite literally satanic; if I had to guess, it is Kabbalistic in nature - so if you would be willing to reveal your source, I would greatly appreciate it. 

On another note, you keep talking about "perennial wisdom" like it is something you've known your entire life, but it's ever so obvious that you have no idea what it is. In fact, I'd be willing to bet all you did was a quick Google search on it, read a definition or two, and came here thinking yourself capable of contending my claims. You're a joke and your knowledge of esotericism is laughable. 



> Fifth, through your syncretism you've arrived at being a type 9 in the Enneagram, but your style of writing suggest otherwise. I've interacted with some rather arrogant 9s, but even their style is notably different from yours. If this syncretism doesn't allow one to arrive at their true type, it is immediately flawed.


I've read a lot of stupid things in my life time and this comes close to topping the list. My ascendant sign is Sagittarius. The fundamentals, that is to say the governing principles, of Sagittarius define and explain my experiences and feelings to a 'T'. Whether you agree that the Enneagram of personality Type 9 correlates to Sagittarius is irrelevant. It is, however, important to note that I resonated with the description of type 8 and not the description of type 9. If I were, as you accuse me of, employing syncretism in my work then I surely would have correlated Sagittarius to Type 8 and not Type 9, as from my perspective that would best suit my subjective beliefs. Yet I did not, because to do so would be to blaspheme God and deny the obvious truth that was revealed before me. That you think you can determine my Enneagram type through my communication style is laughable. If you actually took the time to study Astrology, you would see that my Mercury was in Aquarius, a sulphuric air sign, and as Mercury rules the intellect and communication, my writing style should reflect that of an Aquarius, or a Type 5 in the Enneagram of personality. The veracity of Astrology is ever so obvious, but out of your ignorance of natural laws, you deny and reject it. 

In further refuting your claims of syncretism, the words of Frithjof Schuon come to mind: "Syncretism is error, but in pure esoterism, a certain syncretism is possible." You don't understand syncretism, you don't differentiate syncretism from synthesis, and so in your pride you accuse me of something I have not done; in an attempt to catch me in contradiction or label me a hypocrite. In short, your claims are baseless as you are ignorant of the charges you acuse me of.



> And last, I've never come across the "The universe is finite and resides within the Earth" idea within Perennial wisdom before.


Of course you haven't, you're not well read. You've never undergone any form of initiation, you've never read a book authored by a true Perennialist, like Guenon, you've never even heard half of the ideas in my work until I presented them here for you. So it is no surprise that you are unfamiliar with the Cellular Cosmogony and the science pertinent to the ideology. 

And because you keep using the term "perennial wisdom" incorrectly, allow me to explain it to you. Philosophia Perennis is Metaphysics, it is the knowledge of the sublime forces of existence. it is the Truth; as it was, as it is, and as it forever will be. It is found in every religion, every epoch, and every culture. It is a living, breathing, tradition that was born with primordial man but has since been bastardized and profaned to the point man no longer understands it, his purpose, or his origins. Those of us capable of recognizing and understanding what little fragments of it we can, cherish it with all our hearts; while those who cannot understand the symbolism or essence of Traditional, that is to say Metaphysical, thought ridicule and reject it in favor of Modernist postulations. And that is all you offered in your rebuttal, idiotic Modernist postulations.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Sophia Perennis said:


> You say this as if it exemplifies your humility. Admitting you know nothing is not an act of humility, it's an admittance of a lack of intellectual rigor and ignorance; and ignorance is not humility. Ignorance is the state man finds himself when he purposely evades or denies the truth. Ignorance is hell and everyone living in ignorance is, to some degree or another, living in their own personal hell. Let me explain by defining a couple of terms:


Fascinating, however, I don't recall claiming ignorance. I am a confirmed "knowledge junkie" and yet I knew, after serving in the military, traveling much of the world, and matriculating to college, that no matter how much time I spent there, no matter how long I live, I would never know as much as I would want to know. 



> Nescience is a lack of knowledge as a result of circumstance.
> 
> Ignorance is a lack of knowledge as a result of the individual's choice to not know.



Yes, I know what the difference between the two terms is (smells suspiciously like Analytic Philosophy to me). 



> So while you may want to argue over whether or not you're ignorant, whether or not God exists, or whether or not man truly rules himself, the fact remains: you never address the content or information I provide. When I assert heliocentricity is false, you ignore it. When I assert the Earth is not in motion, you ignore it. When I claim the Earth is hollow and that everything resides inside it, you ignore it. Instead of comparing Gemini to type 7, Libra to type 6, Aquarius to type 5, etc. to determine the efficacy of my claims, you ignore it. Intellectually honest individuals do not ignore claims, I don't ignore claims; claims that conflict with my beliefs are refuted to the best of my ability and the efficacy of my refutation is determined by its consistency and adherence to logic and reason. If the claim turns out to be true, I have no choice but to rectify my beliefs accordingly. So when I say you are ignorant, I'm not being rude or argumentative - I'm simply stating the obvious. You have ignored everything I brought to bear and instead of addressing my claims like a reasonable individual, you ignore them and resort to insults. So while it's fine for the profane masses to insult that which they don't understand, it is not fine for them to think they are wise in doing so. In short, you are an unwise man and you have no idea what you're talking about. Your beliefs lack veracity and your character lacks fortitude. Refute my claims, prove me false, or don't bother commenting.


Alas, even if you wanted me to consider your burden of proof, I'm not the one whose posting on to a folder that's set aside for discussion of astrology and (not-so-subtly) implying that they are ignorant, mindless, and silly, to believe in it.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Sophia Perennis said:


> Rectifying Modernist thought and symbolism with Traditional knowledge cannot be construed as syncretism, as it is a reconciliation of false beliefs with the truth.


How do you know or determine what part of Traditional knowledge is the truth? I'm being genuinly curious here, considering so many during the ages got it wrong?



Sophia Perennis said:


> Apparently you are unfamiliar with Modern Astrology as well. Study the descriptions of the Zodiac signs as postulated by Modern Astrologers and compare them to the descriptions of the Enneagram of personality, the correlations will be obvious.


I don't think they correlate that well from what I've read. And besides, you've got them wrong. Gemini correlates better with 3 than 7, Librans correlate better with 2 than 6, and Aquarius gives a superficial description of what might best correlate to 5...but then I guess it depends on what specific description you are looking at. I imagine the variations would be as common, if not more so, than the variety of takes on the Enneagram types.



Sophia Perennis said:


> I'm unsure what your point is. The Zodiac is entirely exclusive of both Judaism and Christianity. The Egyptians did have an authentic traditional Astrology


The Jews got everything from Egypt. I thought you had a check on Perennial wisdom and tradition. The Zodiac is part of Jewish mysticism. If the Zodiac wasn't part of it, wouldn't that mean Jewish thought was not part of Tradition?



Sophia Perennis said:


> I won't denounce Jesus Christ or his teachings, but the Old Testament and the New Testament come from two completely difference sources and it is in the Old Testament, that of the Jews, that divination is condemned; in the name of the LORD - that is to say the Demiurge, no doubt.


I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about here. 



Sophia Perennis said:


> I don't know where you are getting your information regarding the elements, but it is most assuredly incorrect and quite literally satanic; if I had to guess, it is Kabbalistic in nature - so if you would be willing to reveal your source, I would greatly appreciate it.


It's in several places, including Kabbalah, but since you seem to consider kabbalah "satanic" we should go with what you seem to favor, the New Testament:

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with *water* unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with *fire*:"

The order of the elements (Holy Ghost being synonymous with Air) represent increasing degrees of refinement and decreasing levels of density and materiality in the course of spiritual development. Even if correlating Fire with "God" might be going too far (actually Fire is synonymous with "Kingdom of Heaven"), it evidently ranks as a highly spiritual and developed attribute.



Sophia Perennis said:


> my writing style should reflect that of an Aquarius, or a Type 5 in the Enneagram of personality. The veracity of Astrology is ever so obvious, but out of your ignorance of natural laws, you deny and reject it.


Your writing style and attitude is more like an 8 than a 5, too much confrontational in tone and with a readiness to humiliate and bully board members verbally than genuine curiousity/inquiry or attempt to be an expert bringing his expertise.



Sophia Perennis said:


> it is no surprise that you are unfamiliar with the Cellular Cosmogony and the science pertinent to the ideology.


I suspect it is a form of misunderstanding of Traditional wisdom. Which is why I'd like to hear more about it actually. That should at least be entertaining. :happy:



Sophia Perennis said:


> And because you keep using the term "perennial wisdom" incorrectly, allow me to explain it to you. Philosophia Perennis is Metaphysics, it is the knowledge of the sublime forces of existence. it is the Truth; as it was, as it is, and as it forever will be. It is found in every religion, every epoch, and every culture.


Thanks I know. But I wasn't sure you knew considering your reaction to the Bible, the Old Testament, and Jewish Kabbalah lol.


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Fascinating, however, I don't recall claiming ignorance. I am a confirmed "knowledge junkie" and yet I knew, after serving in the military, traveling much of the world, and matriculating to college, that no matter how much time I spent there, no matter how long I live, I would never know as much as I would want to know.


You didn't claim to be ignorant, you admitted to it by stating: "I'm old enough to know that I know nothing". You attempted to illustrate your "wise" and humble nature in making such a "bold" claim, but admitting "I know nothing" is neither wise nor humble. In actuality you do know things, some true, others false, but nevertheless you know something. So to say "I know nothing" is false at best and an outright contradiction at worst - because to know that you know nothing necessarily implies that you know something. At any rate, wisdom is derived from knowing the truth. When you read my claims, you became aware of the truth; choosing not to refute my claims is unwise and implies you are living in a state of ignorance. 




> Yes, I know what the difference between the two terms is (smells suspiciously like Analytic Philosophy to me).


I'm not sure if analytical philosophy is supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing. Whatever the case, words possess meaning. While some words share similar meanings, the very fact that they are not the same word implies they mean different things, if only very slightly. In the case of ignorance and nescience, the root word is science, which from the Latin means to know or knowledge. Ignorance then, being a synthesis of ignore and science, would mean to ignore knowledge. In the case of nescience, the prefix: Ne, meaning no or not, combined with the root science, would necessarily mean to not know, or no knowledge. So while the terms are similar and share a similar quality, being a lack of knowledge; it is the cause of that lack of knowledge that differentiates the two terms.

I know you didn't ask me to clarify the etymology of the words, but I think it's necessary to show that I'm not just making shit up as I go.



> Alas, even if you wanted me to consider your burden of proof, I'm not the one whose posting on to a folder that's set aside for discussion of astrology and (not-so-subtly) implying that they are ignorant, mindless, and silly, to believe in it.


They say ignorance is bliss; enjoy.


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

ShadowPrince said:


> How do you know or determine what part of Traditional knowledge is the truth? I'm being genuinly curious here, considering so many during the ages got it wrong?


Philosophia Perennis et Universalis is Traditionalist thought. Traditionalist thought is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of existence, being, and thought. Truth is, at its essence, that which is. Falsity is thus that which is not. Truth is discerned by its agreeableness to reason, as creation was created in an orderly and reasonable fashion; in accordance to the Divine Logos. 




> I don't think they correlate that well from what I've read. And besides, you've got them wrong. Gemini correlates better with 3 than 7, Librans correlate better with 2 than 6, and Aquarius gives a superficial description of what might best correlate to 5...but then I guess it depends on what specific description you are looking at. I imagine the variations would be as common, if not more so, than the variety of takes on the Enneagram types.


I don't really care if you think they correlate or not. I have as much disdain for Modern Astrology as I do for the Enneagram of personality, but the descriptions of Zodiac signs given by Modern Astrology correlate to Ichazo's Enneagram of personality in a perfectly syncretic fashion. But since you mentioned 3s and 7s, I might as well compare them here to illustrate my point.

From:http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zodiac-signs/gemini.htm

Gemini:


> Gemini people are many sided, quick both in the mind and physically. They are brimming with energy and vitality, they are clever with words. They are intelligent and very adaptable to every situation and every person. Gemini are curious and always want to know what's going on in the world around them. They are not one to sit back and watch the world go by, they want to be involved. This can sometimes make Gemini nosy, they do not mind their own business! This is because they really enjoy communicating, more so then most other astrology signs, they are the ultimate social butterfly. Gemini can talk and talk, but they have interesting things to say, their talk is not mindless babble. They have interesting opinions and thoughts on things and are not afraid to speak their mind. They are always in the know and are the one to see for the latest juicy gossip. Lacking perseverance, Gemini easily goes off topic to explore another thought or idea. Gemini are superficial, they will form opinions on matter without diving into them and exploring them fully. This can lead them into thinking they know everything, which they usually do but their mind is too busy to be concerned with fine details. Routine and boredom are Gemini's biggest fears. Gemini would rather be naive then know the depressing truth, they do not want anything putting a damper on their freedom or positive energy.


Scorpio:


> They are very capable of hiding their true feelings and motivations, they often have ulterior motives or a hidden agenda.
> Scorpios are all about control, they need to be in control at all times. To be out of control is very threatening, even dangerous to the Scorpio's psyche, when they control, they feel safe.
> Scorpios are very emotional, their emotions are intensified, both good emotions and bad. Negative emotions of jealousy and resentment are hallmarks of this turbulent astrology sign. On the other side, Scorpios are well known for their forceful and powerful drive to succeed and their amazing dedication. Scorpios are constantly trying to understand their emotions through finding a deeper purpose in life.
> Scorpios are very intuitive, but not as in a psychic sense, more as intuitive into the human mind, they have a great understanding of the mystery and the power of the human mind.
> Scorpios have a fear of failure which they keep hidden extremely well, should their confrontation not be successful, or their career fail, they will simply use their adaptive skill to quickly move and and leave the bad experience behind. Do not ever expect them to fess up or share their tale with anyone however because this shows signs of weakness and Scorpio always wins, they are always the self-proclaimed best! One of the reasons they seem like they always accomplish their goals is because they set tangible short-term goals that they know they can accomplish, they know what they are capable of and this is what they go for.


I don't care where you read up on the Zodiac signs, I've scoured the majority of online Modern Astrological sources and they all agree on the general substance of the Archetypes. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Enneagram of personality types would associate type 7 with Gemini and Type 3 with Scorpio. The two types are so fundamentally different that to classify them as you do is utterly absurd. 

Pisces is perhaps the most obvious syncretization:

Pisces:


> The Pisces personality is hard to pin down, it is very mysterious and elusive. Pisces are molded by their surroundings, they incorporate their experiences and surroundings into themselves. They have extreme compassion and they feel the pain of others. If something is wrong in the world that affects them, it affects them deeply, they take it to heart and feel extreme feelings regarding the matter. When they are happy, they are extremely happy and when they are sad, they are extremely depressed. Pisces have an intuitive and psychic ability more then any other zodiac signs. They trust their gut feelings and if they do not, they quickly learn to because they realize that their hunches are usually correct. Pisces downfall is their sensitivity and their inability to reject another person. They do not like rejection and they try to treat others the way they want to be treated so they will rarely say no to a person for fear of hurting their feelings. They will help another person with their problems and like to do so because making others feel good in turn makes them feel good. Pisces is the zodiac sign of self-undoing. People born under this zodiac sign are not susceptible to bad luck and unfortunate events, they bring them on themselves by overindulging, laziness and a knack for picking poorly suited partners and friends. They want people in their life who stir their emotions because this helps them to practice emotional stability. The inner conflict of Pisces is extremes of temperament and conflicting emotions. They are trying to pinpoint themselves on the real world while their spiritual world can cloud their vision, they will try to escape or avoid a situation instead of confronting it. Pisces eternal struggle is to learn to use their powers and their imagination in a positive, productive way and vying for emotional stability by not giving away their emotions to everyone else, they need to help themselves.


If you're going to tell me that doesn't fit Type 4 to a 'T' you are either intellectually dishonest or you don't know half a shit about the Enneagram of personality. In any case, you're wrong about Libra being "more like type 2" and while Aquarius descriptions depict a rather feeble and off-beat humanitarian, it fits type 5 well for the most part.





> The Jews got everything from Egypt. I thought you had a check on Perennial wisdom and tradition. The Zodiac is part of Jewish mysticism. If the Zodiac wasn't part of it, wouldn't that mean Jewish thought was not part of Tradition?


The Jews syncretized every form of perennial wisdom they possibly could. They syncretized Pythagorean numerology, the attribution of numbers to letters, the Tree of Life, and of course the Tarot, all from the Mycenaean Greeks. So while I know close to nothing about Egyptian culture or mythology, I do know that any claim asserting the Jews derived their knowledge solely from the Egyptians is a lie. 



> I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about here.


Clearly it's you that does not know what they are talking about. Yahveh, the LORD of the Old Testament, the Tanakh, is the Demiurge. He is the Grand Architect of the Universe, the creator deity. He fashions the physical world and likewise rules the physical world. Anyone vaguely familiar with esotericism, Gnosticism, or even the Kabbalah knows this to be true. Yod - He - Vav - He are the four elements; Fire Water Air Earth - King, Queen, Prince, Princess. It's all in Kabbalist literature if you don't believe me. 




> It's in several places, including Kabbalah, but since you seem to consider kabbalah "satanic" we should go with what you seem to favor, the New Testament:


I'd have never guessed you based your knowledge of Metaphysics an esoterism in the syncretistic nonsense of Jewish mysticism. 



> Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with *water* unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with *fire*:"
> 
> The order of the elements (Holy Ghost being synonymous with Air) represent increasing degrees of refinement and decreasing levels of density and materiality in the course of spiritual development. Even if correlating Fire with "God" might be going too far (actually Fire is synonymous with "Kingdom of Heaven"), it evidently ranks as a highly spiritual and developed attribute.


Listen carefully: nothing that is divine is composed of an element. Divine beings consist of pure spirit, quintessence, Akasha; Aether. Elements are mundane. They lack true essence. Kabbalists may say otherwise, but Kabbalists are wrong. They know nothing.



> Your writing style and attitude is more like an 8 than a 5, too much confrontational in tone and with a readiness to humiliate and bully board members verbally than genuine curiousity/inquiry or attempt to be an expert bringing his expertise.


Well my Mars was in Aries so that obviously explains my confrontational tone. In all seriousness, I simply have nothing but contempt and animosity for Modernity, its tenets, and its adherents. Modernist thought is the plight of mankind and I'll be damned if its last breaths aren't squelched by the time I'm dead.



> I suspect it is a form of misunderstanding of Traditional wisdom. Which is why I'd like to hear more about it actually. That should at least be entertaining. :happy:



I'm not going to explain a subject a man devoted his entire life to proving. The evidence is in the book - read it, or don't; it doesn't really matter.




> Thanks I know. But I wasn't sure you knew considering your reaction to the Bible, the Old Testament, and Jewish Kabbalah lol.


If you haven't read Guenon or agree with the tenets he set forth, which you clearly haven't and don't, you can't claim to know the perennial philosophy. He is the only man in the modern world whose works entirely espouse Philosophia Perennis. It is to him all subsequent Traditionalists credit their deepest gratitudes and appreciation; a sentiment I hold as well.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Sophia Perennis said:


> Philosophia Perennis et Universalis is Traditionalist thought. Traditionalist thought is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of existence, being, and thought. Truth is, at its essence, that which is. Falsity is thus that which is not. Truth is discerned by its agreeableness to reason, as creation was created in an orderly and reasonable fashion; in accordance to the Divine Logos.


Sounds like just a fancy way of saying Philosophy or "reasoning with logic."



Sophia Perennis said:


> the descriptions of Zodiac signs given by Modern Astrology correlate to Ichazo's Enneagram of personality in a perfectly syncretic fashion. But since you mentioned 3s and 7s, I might as well compare them here to illustrate my point.


Gemini is a poor and superficial blend of types 2, 3 and 7 and Scorpio a poor blend of 1 and 3 without getting to the essence of either of the types very well. However, I agree with you that Don Riso probably looked at Modern Astrological type descriptions to "fill in" the gap in his knowledge. When Riso started he only had a couple of small notes of the types to work from. He never got the authentic transmission from Naranjo or Ichazo. You keep saying "Ichazo's Enneagram of Personality" but your understanding is closer to Don Riso's. Ichazo never used the word "personality" to describe his system or the types. I wonder which material, if any, of Ichazo's you've actually read?



Sophia Perennis said:


> The Jews syncretized every form of perennial wisdom they possibly could. They syncretized Pythagorean numerology, the attribution of numbers to letters, the Tree of Life, and of course the Tarot, all from the Mycenaean Greeks. So while I know close to nothing about Egyptian culture or mythology, I do know that any claim asserting the Jews derived their knowledge solely from the Egyptians is a lie.


Dude, Pythagoras was born long after the Jews established themselves, and Pythagoras also got his numerology from Egyptian initiation and replaced the words Yod - He - Vav - He with the four first numbers of "Tetractys". The Tarot is also said to be Egyptian.



Sophia Perennis said:


> Clearly it's you that does not know what they are talking about. Yahveh, the LORD of the Old Testament, the Tanakh, is the Demiurge. He is the Grand Architect of the Universe, the creator deity. He fashions the physical world and likewise rules the physical world. Anyone vaguely familiar with esotericism, Gnosticism, or even the Kabbalah knows this to be true. Yod - He - Vav - He are the four elements; Fire Water Air Earth - King, Queen, Prince, Princess. It's all in Kabbalist literature if you don't believe me.


I was referring to your statement that the Old and New Testament are contradictory. They're not if you understand their true esoteric content. 



Sophia Perennis said:


> I'd have never guessed you based your knowledge of Metaphysics an esoterism in the syncretistic nonsense of Jewish mysticism.


I do not base my knowledge on Jewish mysticism, I do not adhere to one single source since I've found nothing that has remained pure or complete in any one of them. I am well aware of the problems with Kabbalah and its deterioration.



Sophia Perennis said:


> Listen carefully: nothing that is divine is composed of an element. Divine beings consist of pure spirit, quintessence, Akasha; Aether. Elements are mundane. They lack true essence. Kabbalists may say otherwise, but Kabbalists are wrong. They know nothing.


Everything is pure spirit, the "elements" are just denser form of spirit, and they do not only refer to "compound" (do not take that word literally) but also to stages in development, psychic natures, the three forces, Pythagorean numbers and so on. They have been and can be applied to all sorts of things and should primarily be considered numbers or mathematics. They are profoundly metaphysical in concept and meaning.



Sophia Perennis said:


> I'm not going to explain a subject a man devoted his entire life to proving. The evidence is in the book - read it, or don't; it doesn't really matter.


Does he prove all those pictures from the Voyager and the Mars rovers to be fake? Or refute why seismic analyses show Earth is a non-hollow sphere with a crust, mantle, and core?



Sophia Perennis said:


> He is the only man in the modern world whose works entirely espouse Philosophia Perennis. It is to him all subsequent Traditionalists credit their deepest gratitudes and appreciation; a sentiment I hold as well.


This sounds rather narrow-minded and "cultish".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sophia Perennis said:


> I don't care where you read up on the Zodiac signs, I've scoured the majority of online Modern Astrological sources and they all agree on the general substance of the Archetypes. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Enneagram of personality types would associate type 7 with Gemini and Type 3 with Scorpio. The two types are so fundamentally different that to classify them as you do is utterly absurd.


No. I associate Gemini with 3 and Scorpio with 8. In fact, Scorpio is a good example of sexual 8. Also, you should be aware why Gemini is symbolized as having two faces and why that correlates far better with type 3 than 7. 

You can make make an equal argument that this Pisces description fits type 9:



> > The Pisces personality is hard to pin down, it is very mysterious and elusive. *Pisces are molded by their surroundings, they incorporate their experiences and surroundings into themselves*. *They have extreme compassion and they feel the pain of others. *If something is wrong in the world that affects them, it affects them deeply, they take it to heart and feel extreme feelings regarding the matter. When they are happy, they are extremely happy and when they are sad, they are extremely depressed. Pisces have an intuitive and psychic ability more then any other zodiac signs. *They trust their gut feelings and if they do not, they quickly learn to because they realize that their hunches are usually correct. **Pisces downfall is their sensitivity and their inability to reject another person. **They do not like rejection and they try to treat others the way they want to be treated so they will rarely say no to a person for fear of hurting their feelings.* *They will help another person with their problems and like to do so because making others feel good in turn makes them feel good.* *Pisces is the zodiac sign of self-undoing.* People born under this zodiac sign are not susceptible to bad luck and unfortunate events,* they bring them on themselves by overindulging, laziness and a knack for picking poorly suited partners and friends.* *They want people in their life who stir their emotions because this helps them to practice emotional stability.* The inner conflict of Pisces is extremes of temperament and conflicting emotions. *They are trying to pinpoint themselves on the real world while their spiritual world can cloud their vision, they will try to escape or avoid a situation instead of confronting it.* Pisces eternal struggle is to learn to use their powers and their imagination in a positive, productive way and vying for emotional stability by not giving away their emotions to everyone else, they need to help themselves.
> 
> 
> If you're going to tell me that doesn't fit Type 4 to a 'T' you are either intellectually dishonest or you don't know half a shit about the Enneagram of personality. In any case, you're wrong about Libra being "more like type 2" and while Aquarius descriptions depict a rather feeble and off-beat humanitarian, it fits type 5 well for the most part.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Astrology _and_​ Enneagram. Lol. Whatever floats your boat I guess...


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

For silly fun and can't sleep

Capricorn Type 3
Aquarius Type 4
Pisces Type 9
Aries Type 8
Taurus Type 6
Gemini Type 7
Cancer Type 2
Leo Type 8
Virgo Type 1
Libra Type 6
Scorpio Type 4
Sagittarius Type 7

Sorry type 5s


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

ShadowPrince said:


> Sounds like just a fancy way of saying Philosophy or "reasoning with logic."


Your Modernist inclinations are evident. I'll reiterate one last time: Philosophia Perennis is the path, that is to say tradition, to knowing the greatest Truths of being; true Gnosis. It cannot be reduced to Modernist views of philosophy. 




> Gemini is a poor and superficial blend of types 2, 3 and 7 and Scorpio a poor blend of 1 and 3 without getting to the essence of either of the types very well. However, I agree with you that Don Riso probably looked at Modern Astrological type descriptions to "fill in" the gap in his knowledge. When Riso started he only had a couple of small notes of the types to work from. He never got the authentic transmission from Naranjo or Ichazo.


Alan Leo established Modern Astrology in the early 1900s. Modern Astrology thus predates the Enneagram of Personality by atleast 60-70 years. For Modern Astrology to have assimilated the information presented by Ichazo in his Enneagram of personality into itself would require Modern Astrology to firstly have only consisted of 9 types, as the Enneagram of personality does, and then expanded itself to 12 over a period of time, and secondly have been influenced by Ichazo and the Enneagram of personality early in its inception. As Ichazo was yet to be born when Modern Astrology was revealed, both of these scenarios are utterly impossible - and as Modern Astrology had 12 detailed Archetypes before the 9 introduced by the Enneagram of personality, the evidence is in support of the notion that Modern Astrology had no ties to the Enneagram of personality and that it was Ichazo that syncretized Modern Astrology into his system and not the other way around. In truth, the only external similarity between the two systems is Carl Jung and his works on psychoanalysis and personality. Modern Astrologers quickly attached themselves to his beliefs and extrapolated upon them, thereby negating the need for authentic Astrology as every question was now an "issue" from the subject's past or unconscious. Your claims that Modern Astrology syncretized the Enneagram of personality into itself is unsubstantiated; but you are free to believe whatever you want - that includes outright absurdities. 




> You keep saying "Ichazo's Enneagram of Personality" but your understanding is closer to Don Riso's. Ichazo never used the word "personality" to describe his system or the types. I wonder which material, if any, of Ichazo's you've actually read?


As for whether Ichazo called the Enneagram of personality the "Enneagram of personality" is irrelevant. The Enneagram of personality is a personality system - not a simple 9 sided figure; it's a 9 sided figure associated with personality types. Thus the name "Enneagram of personality" is perfectly suitable. 

Icahzo is a psychoanalyst charlatan, he offers nothing original to true psychology - which from the Greek means study of the soul. 





> Dude, Pythagoras was born long after the Jews established themselves, and Pythagoras also got his numerology from Egyptian initiation and replaced the words Yod - He - Vav - He with the four first numbers of "Tetractys". The Tarot is also said to be Egyptian.


I'm not going to argue Semitic history with an armchair occultist. The Jews syncretized the entirety of their mysticism from Grecian Metaphysics, Sumerian and Egyptian mythology, and fundamental Zoroastrianism. 





> I was referring to your statement that the Old and New Testament are contradictory. They're not if you understand their true esoteric content.


I never said the Old Testament and the New Testament were contradictory. The Old Testament is just as legitimate a source of information as the New Testament is. It is the fact that the former was written by the very individuals that murdered the prophet of the latter that concerns me. I find it odd that the adherents of the latter would adopt the laws and traditions of the former, given the clear contempt Jesus showed for the Pharisees and the Sadducees. 




> I do not base my knowledge on Jewish mysticism, I do not adhere to one single source since I've found nothing that has remained pure or complete in any one of them. I am well aware of the problems with Kabbalah and its deterioration.


All you can talk about is Kabbalah, Jews, the Bible, and Egypt. The fact that you know nothing of Platonic and Pre-Socratic thought shows that you do indeed base your knowledge in Jewish mysticism.




> Everything is pure spirit, the "elements" are just denser form of spirit, and they do not only refer to "compound" (do not take that word literally) but also to stages in development, psychic natures, the three forces, Pythagorean numbers and so on. They have been and can be applied to all sorts of things and should primarily be considered numbers or mathematics. They are profoundly metaphysical in concept and meaning.


Hogwash nonsense. Your armchair occultism is hilarious. Try performing a ritual involving a specific element and it will become ever so clear that elements are not "just denser forms of spirit". Seeing as you're dedicated to neo-occultism and its proponents, I recommend studying the works of Crowley and MacGregor Mathers. I have no doubts the tenets of Thelema and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn will resonate deeply with you.



> Does he prove all those pictures from the Voyager and the Mars rovers to be fake? Or refute why seismic analyses show Earth is a non-hollow sphere with a crust, mantle, and core?


As Teed's work predates NASA by close to 100 years, he was unfortunately not given such an opportunity. Luckily for you, astute researchers of the modern era have.

View topic - MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax â€¢ Cluesforum.info
View topic - Hubble or Bubble? â€¢ Cluesforum.info
View topic - (Russians What?) The Yuri Gagarin Hoax â€¢ Cluesforum.info
NASA’s weird and wonderful orbiting machines (pt2) - The Wild Heretic





> This sounds rather narrow-minded and "cultish".


No more "cultish" than the proponents of Darwinism, Marxism, Nihilism, and Statism. "Truth is treason in an empire of lies."


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Sophia Perennis said:


> Your claims that Modern Astrology syncretized the Enneagram of personality into itself is unsubstantiated; but you are free to believe whatever you want - that includes outright absurdities.


I did not claim such a thing, you misunderstood me. If you cannot understand what I'm writing then how could I possibly expect you to understand much more dense and difficult material found in various Traditions, including Platonic and Pre-Socratic thought?

Anyway, there's too much accusations, sloppiness, superstition, and labeling here for me to consider you anything but a black-and-white thinking cultist (LMAO at the "performing a ritual involving a specific element" bit) brainwashed in who-knows-what. And now we've got conspiracy theories on top of that. I think this is where I make my exit. I got what I came for.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

EDIT: I have to admit that the Dodecagram is interesting though.


----------



## Sophia Perennis (Nov 6, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

>>>>“If the Enneagram of personality is false, what is true?” In a word: Astrology. 

what other conclusion could possibly exist?????


----------

