# Are Superego Types Really "Compliant"



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

*Are Superego Types Really "Compliant"?*

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and, out of the bunch "compliant" really only works for Social and Self Preservation 6 (and perhaps 9). overall, I don't think it fits, because it makes it sound like 1s, 2s and cp6s shove the dildo of duty up their ass and resign themselves to shameless order taking and submission. for most of them, I haven't found this to be the case
- 1s are compliant to their _own_ superego, and, in the event that an external authority does not jive with their sense of morality, correctness, etc, 1s have no problem being defiant and oppositional (especially Sexual 1)
- 2s are not compliant either way you slice it. the whole "servant" archetype of 2 is bullshit and matches neither my own experience nor any credible descriptions of 2s (subtypes or otherwise). Sexual 2 is hedonistic and "force of nature", Social 2 is bold and take charge, Self Preservation 2 is unapologetically selfish
- Sexual 6....do I even need to explain this one :tongue:


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Compliant never meant subservient. It meant "compliant to their superego." Which is why I rarely use the title compliant, because no one knows wtf it references.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> Compliant never meant subservient. It meant "compliant to their superego." Which is why I rarely use the title compliant, because no one knows wtf it references.


this isn't really directed at you, but one thing I hate about Enneagram literature is that it used vague, broad terminology, but only uses said terminology in a _very_ specific context (ex: "compliant", "power seeking", "reactive", etc ). I don't get why they don't just scrap those words and opt instead for more specific, poignant words for which the definition could be more easily recognized and agreed upon. we need some _ST_ Enneagram authors up in here to simplify dat shit :laughing:


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

my grandmother is a Social 2, but is also either an Si-dominant or an Fi-dominant. 


it doesn't really seem like she has much "power" at all if you don't know her or our family, but that is exactly how she has power: by making everyone else think that they are in charge; it's like doing so satiates their egos, which seems to be the reason most will power-grab to begin with, and in taking care of what they were attempting to address within themselves (regardless of whether or not they even knew their own motives), she alleviates their need to "be in charge in [X] matter". 

i guess you could say it goes further than that, in that having someone who is seen as more "socially powerful" step aside--because you handled their reason, for their standing their ground--grants you power of your own, as going against the decision made of the person who appears to be the least socially powerful, would then default back to the person who is more socially powerful (one is now backing the other). 

but all of this _is_ done through an image that is unassuming, generous, compassionate and helpful... and not all of it is an act. you have to remember that it isn't all a mind game for the 2--they actually believe themselves to be the image they present (or at least half of them believes it), and in believing it, they do partially become that person. they still drive towards an ideal of sorts, and for my grandmother it is in having a very large, very strong and well-taken of family, that gets together as often as possible so that we can all spend time with each other. 

i'd also say that her method isn't all that much Sp-instinct, though i'm sure it plays into her natural state. her method of control might not seem so "bold", but it still falls into the social realm (much of working life did as well, combined with an ideal of sorts), and may only at first seem as other due to her own natural introversion. 


i think the subtypes/instincts/etc. can be a good way of looking at things, but just as you said that the wording is too vague, and that someone needed to come in and detail everything... there's always going to be a need for endless detailing. as many people as there are and will be, you'd have to write a book akin to the akashic records--anything less would be "too vague". 

though it is good to make sure that our use isn't oversimplified. when it is, you can get a whole lot under one banner, that shouldn't really be there, in terms of that person's experiences and orientation towards life that we can only guess at. (pulling from that, i don't think darryl dixon is an 8, sp or not; i can post about that in the right thread though... and i might come back to this one).


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this isn't really directed at you, but one thing I hate about Enneagram literature is that it used vague, broad terminology, but only uses said terminology in a _very_ specific context (ex: "compliant", "power seeking", "reactive", etc ). I don't get why they don't just scrap those words and opt instead for more specific, poignant words for which the definition could be more easily recognized and agreed upon. we need some _ST_ Enneagram authors up in here to simplify dat shit :laughing:


No, I agree it uses too vague terminology. That's why I tell everyone to read, and exactly why I prefer "superego" over "compliant." There's very little able to be taken at face value, which means it's really not easy to get into or understand. (I mean, there's the question of "how easy should something complicated be," ala Keirsy vs. Jung, but anyway...)

I'd say part of it also stems from the Enneagram being so reliant on "patterns." They're not even very good patterns, sometimes, and it reeks of trying too hard. Most triads suffer from this problem, but this triad and the "object relations" are the ones that first come to mind. It's not even that I think these triads are incorrect -- ie, 147 are definitely frustration types, but I think jamming it under "object relations" is a little silly.

.../Rant.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> Compliant never meant subservient. It meant "compliant to their superego." Which is why I rarely use the title compliant, because no one knows wtf it references.


I have a similar issue with the title "withdrawn". It doesn't tell me anything substantial about 4, 5 or 9. Understanding them as Ego types explains so much more.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

This thread actually fleshes out Id, Ego and SuperEgo types pretty damn well.
Throw the instinctual variants in and this is the perfect Enneagram entry level breakdown.

From what I've noticed, Ego types aren't usually compliant with no reason to be but they need that kind of validation as they spiral downwards.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> This thread actually fleshes out Id, Ego and SuperEgo types pretty damn well.
> Throw the instinctual variants in and this is the perfect Enneagram entry level breakdown.
> 
> From what I've noticed, Ego types aren't usually compliant with no reason to be but they need that kind of validation as they spiral downwards.


Assuming by validation you mean the validation of other people, I don't agree. Validation from others is nice, but even when I'm in a downward spiral, it's not the validation of others I need, it's only self-validation, to be at peace with my own superego, that has the power to put me at ease. Even 2s, who explicitly need validation in the form of love from others, only seek that external validation because their superego will constantly tear them down if they don't receive that affirmation from other people. The love of others is simply a way they placate their superego, and in the end a 2 is only answering to that superego.

The downward spiral simply means our superegos become more exacting, which leaves less room for healthier behaviors. 1s have less ability to feel compassion and forgiveness and become cruel as their superego becomes ever more intolerant. 2s have less ability to be humble as their superego tells them that they would be undeserving of love if they aren't superhuman, and to protect themselves from that they engage in self-delusion, deception and manipulation. 6s in deterioration have less ability to relax and accept on faith that things actually will be OK, and thus they are constantly berated by their superego for not predicting every little thing that could go wrong. In each of these cases, compliance doesn't really change, just the degree to which our superego beats the shit out of us.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - 2s are not compliant either way you slice it. the whole "servant" archetype of 2 is bullshit and matches neither *my own experience nor any credible descriptions of 2s (subtypes or otherwise)*. Sexual 2 is hedonistic and "force of nature", Social 2 is bold and take charge, Self Preservation 2 is unapologetically selfish
> - Sexual 6....do I even need to explain this one :tongue:


What are these 'credible descriptions of 2s'? Although you have contributed to various tests for the users on PerC, I get the impression from many of your posts that your understanding of the Enneagram to be very scattered and shallow. This may be helpful to attract newcomers of the enneagram but lacking depth for the more accustomed.

According to the Faurves, one of the defining features of 2 is that they describe themselves wanting to be the power behind the throne; they are more self-identified with the role of the nurturer. If 2s desire power then it is to be the dominant force behind the man who is in charge of taking decisions (strategic advisor/manipulator/258) rather the one that takes the initiative. SX2 is the casanova, femme fatale of the enneagram, SO2 is the networker, matchmaker, diplomat, while SP2 is the equivalent of the maid, housewife, mother. 

I am aware that I mention 'the Faurves a lot, and this is because they are one of the few (if only) enneagram authors, who have actually conducted empirical research methods to support the lexicon, instincts, non-verbal language patterns of the enneagram types; I am open to any other authors who have done the same. The majority of enneagram authors have their own niche interpretations of the enneagram and these may resonate for the readers personal experience or it does not. The challenge of using the enneagram, is that we use it in a way that it facilitates self-development rather than to project our Ego.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

@Zamyatin

I actually wanted to add (self) in front of validation but then I shrugged it off 

This is all extremely interesting as I was describing it out of a mix of theory and my personal observations about those types, I'm kinda familiar with 1s and 2s, less so with 6s in a direct way but tbh a bunch were unhealthy as hell. Unhealthy, disintegrating 2s are the worst offender for validation as they start doubting their own providers/seducers traits and just go bananas about making people love them with complete disregard of their own actual selves. Sixes can be just as bad, if not more, since there's less of a manipulation element and more of that kind of desperate self doubting they try to hide in every possible way, even with hardcore aggressiveness and projection of their own insecurities in case of cp 6s.

1s... 1s are interesting.
They want to live up to their own impossible standards and get their own validation while whipping their own back but at the same time they just... love and hate the targets of their anger. They need to fix them, they hyperfocus on them they need to be proven right, they need to find a rational explanation to clear out their own personal demons and mistakes until the realization that they might be lying to themselves. Crash. Fourish drowning and stagnating among their own insecurities ahead! 

My father is an ego wing ego and boy does he seek that kind of applause.
Not in a three-ish or even seven-ish way but swinging between "I'm God-I'm Justice-I Must be The most Moral Kid on The Block-I'm this community's all fixing lord and savior" mode or "Why can't everything be perfect, I want to throw my entire life and family into a trashcan, they're broken" so I can see what you mean by internal ego push buttt it's often influenced by external little earthquakes if that makes sense.

But that was interesting! Ramble over, ready to rumble :crazy:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

People are also different in how they expect others to comply. So just look at what makes people angry and why, from a strategic (often unconscious) viewpoint.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Quang said:


> What are these 'credible descriptions of 2s'? Although you have contributed to various tests for the users on PerC, I get the impression from many of your posts that your understanding of the Enneagram to be very scattered and shallow. This may be helpful to attract newcomers of the enneagram but lacking depth for the more accustomed.
> 
> According to the Faurves, one of the defining features of 2 is that they describe themselves wanting to be the power behind the throne; they are more self-identified with the role of the nurturer. If 2s desire power then it is to be the dominant force behind the man who is in charge of taking decisions (strategic advisor/manipulator/258) rather the one that takes the initiative. SX2 is the casanova, femme fatale of the enneagram, SO2 is the networker, matchmaker, diplomat, while SP2 is the equivalent of the maid, housewife, mother.
> 
> I am aware that I mention 'the Faurves a lot, and this is because they are one of the few (if only) enneagram authors, who have actually conducted empirical research methods to support the lexicon, instincts, non-verbal language patterns of the enneagram types; I am open to any other authors who have done the same. The majority of enneagram authors have their own niche interpretations of the enneagram and these may resonate for the readers personal experience or it does not. The challenge of using the enneagram, is that we use it in a way that it facilitates self-development rather than to project our Ego.


From what I've seen of SoM's posts, he has a pretty solid understanding of the Enneagram, though I don't agree with some of the stuff he says. (The most recent example that comes to mind is the argument that sadness and not shame is the central emotion of the image types, something I'm not at all sold on.) I think the only real problem with his understanding of the Enneagram is he tends to look at the less-commented aspects of each type, and then argues that those aspects, instead of the more broadly recognized ones, are the _real_ nature of that type. The reality is both are in the nature of the type.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> Sexual 2 is hedonistic and "force of nature", Social 2 is bold and take charge, Self Preservation 2 is unapologetically selfish


This is true. However,



Swordsman of Mana said:


> - 2s are not compliant either way you slice it. the whole "servant" archetype of 2 is bullshit and matches neither my own experience nor any credible descriptions of 2s (subtypes or otherwise).


This is not. Average to unhealthy sp 2 is very much selfish and entitled, but that selfishness and entitlement is expressed through service and currying favors/"love". They're the type to say "why won't you do ___ for me? After all I've given/done for you..." Until they learn to be self-affirming, 2s see love as a currency that has to be earned, and they keep track of whether you've given them enough back to compensate for what they've given you, whether you've given them a fair return on their investment of care. The affection of a 2 is anything but free.

Sx 2s are both seductive Casanovas and powerful hedonists -- their understanding of service pairs the 2's inflated self-image with sexual instinct's entitlement, and they see themselves (especially their affections and their bodies) as a gift. They seek (or rather, _expect_) intensity of devotion from their partners in return for giving them that "gift". Sx 2s tend to be very impressive, as they focus their energy on one person, extracting admiration, attraction, infatuation, and maybe love from them, something that brings them a very visceral pleasure. While it's definitely hedonistic, the important thing is the sx 2 sees this as service. "I'm sexy, and they're getting _me_!"

There really isn't any conflict, even on the surface, between your descriptions of social 2s. Social 2s are very much take charge networking types, and at times very bossy. The difference between them and other "leader" types is simply in how they focus their leadership, which as you mentioned, the Faurves accurately pair with matchmaking, diplomacy, and making social connections.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> From what I've seen of SoM's posts, he has a pretty solid understanding of the Enneagram, though I don't agree with some of the stuff he says. (The most recent example that comes to mind is the argument that sadness and not shame is the central emotion of the image types, something I'm not at all sold on.) I think the only real problem with his understanding of the Enneagram is he tends to look at the less-commented aspects of each type, and then argues that those aspects, instead of the more broadly recognized ones, are the _real_ nature of that type. The reality is both are in the nature of the type.
> 
> 
> This is true. However,
> ...


So why is that any more related to shame than for instance (the inflated self-image of) a One? 

Mind you, the descriptions of histrionic personality doesn't quite apply to shame, as a emotion. It is at best counter-shame. 



Exhibitionist behavior
Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
A need to be the center of attention
Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
Making rash decisions
Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
Being overly dramatic and emotional


Just as a side reference you can look at this chakra table which more or less corresponds with the centers of intelligence.

Also: The True-Self, The False-Self and the Ego










Note: Naranjo only mentions the word "shame" only 11 times over 180 pages of Character and Neurosis.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

mimesis said:


> So why is that any more related to shame than for instance (the inflated self-image of) a One?
> 
> Mind you, the descriptions of histrionic personality doesn't quite apply to shame, as a emotion. It is at best counter-shame.
> 
> ...


Right. Each triad has one type that opposes its core emotion, one that tries to avoid it somehow, and one that embraces it. In the image triad, 2s engage in counter-shame by inflating their self-image to counter their sense of being worthless. That's why they feel they have to "earn" love through behavior. Deep inside, they don't really believe they're lovable for who they are, and that drives them to augment their lovableness through service, as filtered through their preferred instinct. 3s try to outrun their shame, achieving to drown it out, and 4s relish in their shame, looking inside at how they are rejected by others for being unique and fixating on that. 

The same pattern is seen in the gut triad (1s oppose their anger, 9s deny it, and 8s embrace it) and the mind triad (6s oppose their anxiety by trying to head off anything that could cause it, 5s detach from the environment to avoid anxiety, and 7s embrace their anxiety by using it to fuel fun-seeking).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> Compliant never meant subservient. It meant "compliant to their superego." Which is why I rarely use the title compliant, because no one knows wtf it references.


I'd just like to add that I have found no matter how strong the superego push is I can always willfully pull against it by questioning, analyzing, figuring out the objective truth & then acting consciously based on this rather then my conditioning/feeling. Repeat it enough with positive experiences as consequence & you begin to unravel your superego as you begin to reevaluate things. The consequence tends to be a shift in perspective.

:\ I mainly started this in an attempt to get out of a comfort zone because I felt dead and trapped....>.> also I may be disintegrating or something as my level of "question everything and DO NOT TRUST the authorities" is worse then ever...especially after the shit that has been going down in the eastern EU lately. I firmly believe that I MUST question everything I think I know because a lot of it is environmental conditioning that may be faulty.

Either that or I'm just using Te-Si more or both or other possibilities I haven't thought of yet...but probably will.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> From what I've seen of SoM's posts, he has a pretty solid understanding of the Enneagram, though I don't agree with some of the stuff he says. (The most recent example that comes to mind is the argument that sadness and not shame is the central emotion of the image types, something I'm not at all sold on.) I think the only real problem with his understanding of the Enneagram is he tends to look at the less-commented aspects of each type, and then argues that those aspects, instead of the more broadly recognized ones, are the _real_ nature of that type. The reality is both are in the nature of the type.


At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whose interpretation is right or wrong as long as the Enneagram improves _your personal self-development_ and understanding of those around you. I think we should take particular caution with typing others, as this can ironically cause us to build an Ego based on the knowledge of the Enneagram which contradicts with what it serves to do in the first place.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Quang said:


> *At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whose interpretation is right or wrong* as long as the Enneagram improves _your personal self-development_ and understanding of those around you. I think we should take particular caution with typing others, as this can ironically cause us to build an Ego based on the knowledge of the Enneagram which contradicts with what it serves to do in the first place.


haha, that's such a 9 thing to say.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> *haha*, that's such a 9 thing to say.


Haha, that's such a 9 thing to say.*

Mistakes were made. You have been a bad boy. You have to be punished.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> In the image triad, 2s engage in counter-shame by inflating their self-image to counter their sense of being worthless.


 Not disagreeing: Also, counter-pride is an attempt to emulate humility. Counter-deception is an attempt to emulate truthfulness/authenticity, and counter-envy is an attempt to emulate equanimity. 


> the mind triad (6s oppose their anxiety by trying to head off anything that could cause it, 5s detach from the environment to avoid anxiety, and 7s embrace their anxiety by using it to fuel fun-seeking).


 I'm not exactly sure about this. Sevens embrace their anxiety? It feels more like they attempt to run away from it (sevens fear pain and deprivation), until one day, the anxiety catches up to them (virtue: sobriety). From a fear standpoint, sixes over-identify with their fear (vice: fear lol). Sevens "forgot" their fear. Anxiety though? I have a very heavy seven wing, and I definitely don't embrace it.



Quang said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whose interpretation is right or wrong


 Actually, I'm going to have to disagree. Not trying to attack you, but this kind of statement is intellectual laziness (sloth), and overly permissive of subjective interpretation in areas where it isn't appropriate. The worse case scenario is that people become delusional because they don't feel like they need to adhere to any standard, because "it doesn't really matter".

If we can't agree on the sets of definitions to define the types, then the enneagram is meaningless, and certainly useless as a tool for personal development. There are "facts" associated with each type (eight is in the anger triad, vice of nine is sloth, ones believe in Holy Perfection), and some of those are not up for interpretation. To say that "it doesn't matter whose interpretation is right or wrong" is to write things off as "everyone's experience is subjective anyway, so who cares?" when no, actually, there are certain things that are "objective", objectivity is necessary in order to ground oneself, and common agreement on jargon usage is what allows us to communicate about it in the first place. You either have it right (margin of error is negotiable). Or you don't (like reassigning Holy Ideas to a different type just because a person doesn't like it).


> as long as the Enneagram improves _your personal self-development_ and understanding of those around you. I think we should take particular caution with typing others, as this can ironically *cause us to build an Ego based on the knowledge of the Enneagram which contradicts with what it serves to do in the first place.*


 1.) The enneagram of personality came _after_ the process enneagram. The process enneagram applies more broadly.

2.) Holy Law allows for egoic experiences. Citation: Almaas, Facets of Unity. Don't have the direct quote, sorry, but it's towards the end of the chapter/book.

3.) Do you think the purpose of the enneagram is to help us _get rid_ of the ego? That's a bit different from _not identifying_ with it.


> Of particular interest to me was exploring not just the motivation of personality, but the purpose of personality. *It’s easy to think of personality in wholly negative terms because of its limitations, which give us blind spots and a tendency to make errors of judgment.* The enneagram of personality is useful for telling us what sorts of errors to expect based on our point of view. Then we can avoid certain problems and compensate for others.
> 
> *However, what we can’t do is to be rid of the personality. Learning not to identify with it is about as good as it gets, because on this plane of existence, a personality is necessary and useful, whatever its limitations.* But if we suppose that personality has an actual purpose to serve—that each personality is like a piece of colored glass in a larger kaleidoscope of light—then it might be possible to learn to relate to personality in a more productive way, *to focus not just on its limitations but its possibilities*.


 http://www.enneagramdimensions.net/articles\reconciling_personality_with_process.pdf


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

@cir: What I mean by _'doesn't matter whose interpretation is right or wrong'_ isn't that we should completely disregard the basis and create up new interpretations of the enneagram types from scratch e.g. "type 9: Snorlax, type 2: Chansey", there are certainly general descriptions the 9 types that the authors can all agree on, however the nuances of the Enneagram types will ultimately be different from author to author; therefore at one point, I believe that the Enneagram should be mainly kept for mostly personal use and facilitative purposes, rather than arguing which interpretation is right and wrong.

The Enneagram is like an art. You sharpen your basic knowledge about the types (1, 5) and the rest is personal (4, 7). Yes, the basics of any technique is fundamental, however the rest of the road is personal.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Quang said:


> @_cir_: What I mean by _'doesn't matter whose interpretation is right or wrong'_ isn't that we should completely disregard the basis and create up new interpretations of the enneagram types from scratch e.g. "type 9: Snorlax, type 2: Chansey", there are certainly general descriptions the 9 types that the authors can all agree on, however the nuances of the Enneagram types will ultimately be different from author to author; therefore at one point, *I believe that the Enneagram should be mainly kept for mostly personal use and facilitative purposes, rather than arguing which interpretation is right and wrong.*


 1.) The bold, very type nine thing to say. 
2.) It's not _arguing_, it's a _spirited discussion_! :angry:

3.) There's nothing inherently wrong with arguments.

4.) Instead of thinking of it as "which is right and wrong", I prefer to think in terms of "how much of this interpretation is right (alternative view of seeing reality) and where is it right" vs "how much of this is bullshit".

Otherwise, I see. :happy:

type eight's soul child is definitely Happiny though


> The Enneagram is like an art. You sharpen your basic knowledge about the types (1, 5) and the rest is personal (4, 7). Yes, the basics of any technique is fundamental, however the rest of the road is personal.


 The enneagram is like engineering. There's even a manual for it. Also, I have no idea what meaning you intended by appending numbers like that?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Quang said:


> create up new interpretations of the enneagram types from scratch e.g. "type 9: Snorlax, type 2: Chansey", there are certainly


Can this be a thing? PokEnneagram!


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

cir said:


> Actually, I'm going to have to disagree. Not trying to attack you, but this kind of statement is intellectual laziness (sloth), and overly permissive of subjective interpretation in areas where it isn't appropriate.


I view it more as "agreeing to disagree." For example, most people here will use Naranjo's subtypes gladly and without hesitation. Me, I see their use as shallow and inaccurate. But it's not intellectual sloth to say, "Fine, that's how you interpret the Enneagram, but it doesn't work for me. Let's talk about something in the middle."

And, besides, discussion needs basic definitions to continue. No one has suggested changing those definitions yet :laughing:


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Paradigm said:


> I view it more as "agreeing to disagree." For example, most people here will use Naranjo's subtypes gladly and without hesitation. Me, I see their use as shallow and inaccurate. But it's not intellectual sloth to say, "Fine, that's how you interpret the Enneagram, but it doesn't work for me. Let's talk about something in the middle."


 Nominally, I have no problems with agreeing to disagree. However, for the enneagram, "it doesn't matter whose interpretation is right or wrong" seems kind of "wrong" to me. Being able to use it "appropriately" is the difference between improving yourself and deluding yourself. Propagating badly researched statements, for example, around has a way of negatively impacting the system, especially if the system requires the contributions of a community to progress. I'm willing to believe that there are many "correct" answers of various forms, but I'm also a believer that there are definitely "incorrect" ways to approach it. What if I really want to agree with them, but in order to do that, I need the conditions/reasonings behind those statements? If agreeing to disagree happens at the end of the discussion, I'd agree. 

To be plainly speaking, not directed at Quang, but IRL, generally nines tend to use that on me+others to kill conversations (ahem, I mean mediate) because they find the tone disagreeable, and they are definitely ignoring the content of the discussion, even when the topic applies to them in a very direct and tangible way (like topics concerning employment, office politics, layoffs, job searching, contingency plans). Sure, there's no "right/wrong" answers to this, and reacting to those kinds of things is probably 75% interpretation, but being resigned to "oh it doesn't matter, if I get layed off, then I'll just go find another job" while killing the discussion qualifies as "intellectual sloth" to me. It's like they're afraid of details or something.

Also, I don't think I really have a choice but to agree to disagree anyway. Like how I don't agree with the negative connotation placed on the word "arguing".



> And, besides, discussion needs basic definitions to continue. No one has suggested changing those definitions yet :laughing:


 Well, I support dropping the word "compliant" to describe superego types, and dropping extraneous-yet-widely-adopted words is a systematic change to me. /everyone's mileage may vary

What is emotion for heart center? Is shame an emotion? Does shame consist of many emotions? Is anxiety an emotion? /feels like a robot


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cir


> Nominally, I have no problems with agreeing to disagree. However, for the enneagram, "it doesn't matter whose interpretation is right or wrong" seems kind of "wrong" to me. Being able to use it "appropriately" is the difference between improving yourself and deluding yourself. Propagating badly researched statements, for example, around has a way of negatively impacting the system, especially if the system requires the contributions of a community to progress. I'm willing to believe that there are many "correct" answers of various forms, but I'm also a believer that there are definitely "incorrect" ways to approach it. What if I really want to agree with them, but in order to do that, I need the conditions/reasonings behind those statements? If agreeing to disagree happens at the end of the discussion, I'd agree.


agreed. when peeps be spouting bullshit, they need to be called out



> To be plainly speaking, not directed at Quang, but IRL, generally nines tend to use that on me+others to kill conversations (ahem, I mean mediate) because they find the tone disagreeable, and they are definitely ignoring the content of the discussion, even when the topic applies to them in a very direct and tangible way (like topics concerning employment, office politics, layoffs, job searching, contingency plans). Sure, there's no "right/wrong" answers to this, and reacting to those kinds of things is probably 75% interpretation, but being resigned to "oh it doesn't matter, if I get layed off, then I'll just go find another job" while killing the discussion qualifies as "intellectual sloth" to me. It's like they're afraid of details or something.


ugh....I _hate_ when 9s do that.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Right. Each triad has one type that opposes its core emotion, one that tries to avoid it somehow, and one that embraces it. In the image triad, 2s engage in counter-shame by inflating their self-image to counter their sense of being worthless. That's why they feel they have to "earn" love through behavior. Deep inside, they don't really believe they're lovable for who they are, and that drives them to augment their lovableness through service, as filtered through their preferred instinct. 3s try to outrun their shame, achieving to drown it out, and 4s relish in their shame, looking inside at how they are rejected by others for being unique and fixating on that.
> 
> The same pattern is seen in the gut triad (1s oppose their anger, 9s deny it, and 8s embrace it) and the mind triad (6s oppose their anxiety by trying to head off anything that could cause it, 5s detach from the environment to avoid anxiety, and 7s embrace their anxiety by using it to fuel fun-seeking).



Fun-seeking 7s embrace their anxiety? Right.

It appears you are trying to fit the model into reality, as attributes that are inherent to each enneatype's ego rather than understanding them as a chain cause and effect that conditions the ego. 

You are seeing those emotions (anger, fear, shame) as separate, while there is fear underlying anger (e.g. obsessive compulsive disorder) or shame underlying fear or anger, and anger (self-rejection) underlying shame or guilt. In that respect, the fear of head types is a specific kind of fear, not like fear of heights, or fear of being evil, or insignificant. 

For instance, it is fear that underlies compulsive repression of anger, in order to comply to an (inflated) (self-) image of (perfect) serenity (causing a smouldering underlying resentment and hostile indignance). Unless of course, anger is channeled 'in compliance', most likely in case of the 'counter'-type sx1.



Naranjo CN said:


> Particularly important for the therapeutic process, is the understanding of how perfectionism serves anger by preventing its acknowledgment. More specifcally, it serves (by supporting felt entitlement), the unconscious expression of anger as dominance, criticality, and demandingness. The image of the crusader may serve as a paradigm for this situation: one who is entitled to break skulls in virtue of the excellence of his cause and his noble aspirations. When the strategy maneuver is visible enough, we find it appropriate to speak not only of “compulsive” virtue but of “hypocritical” virtue—for even though (as Horney points out) a certain level of honesty is characteristic of the perfectionist, his obsessive preoccupation with right and wrong, or good and bad, entails an unconscious dishonesty in its intent.


Generally speaking it is the Sp instinct that seeks to control one 'self' (depending what constitutes 'self'), and also thinks in terms of 'earning' or 'entitlement', as opposed to Sx that transgresses boundaries. But even in case of counter-shame, like sx4, I think the 4 passion of envy is much better understood from the perspective of anger and grief, rather than shame. Counter-envy (sp4) is a way to neutralize the threat of being affected by introjection, through denial of desire or repression of lust (retroflection, or directing anger to oneself) and trying to 'earn' working on oneself, for instance improving competence, but eventually may vent anger when this strategy doesn't "pay off", or when others receive praise they feel they are more entitled to or "deserve" more. sx4 is much more vindictive and hateful, or 'cannibalistic' as Naranjo calls it "I don't like that you are taller than me, therefor I bite your head off!". 

To 'relish' in shame is quite different from personal identification with suffering. This is actually not that much different from the 'sacrificing' self-glorification of type One in exercising self-control, and comparable with how a type 2 'sacrifices', (self-image as martyr, denial of needs) and this is overall more related to Sp instinct than other instincts. "Relish in shame" (which I don't think even applies to begin with) doesn't really explain self-sabotage or 'fear of success' as strategic behavior, nor how 'familiarity breeds contempt' (when the available is never as desirable as the unavailable [Naranjo CN]). Desire for uniqueness is a desire to be 'perfectly' significant (meaningful), at place and belonging to, to be irreplaceable and therefor avoid being left out (though as a coping strategy this may actually cause alienation and separation). 



Naranjo CN said:


> It is a way of expressing accusations and vindictiveness in a disguised form. By exaggerating and inviting suffering, it justifies demands for affection, control and reparations. In the distorted value system of the masochism, suffering is raised to a virtue and serves as the basis for claims to love, acceptance and rewards. Since the masochist takes pride in and identifies with the self-effacing suffering, subdued self, an awareness of conflicting drives towards expansiveness and self-glorification as well as a healthy striving for growth would be destructive to his self-image. By abandoning himself to uncompromised hatred for the intolerable side of himself, the masochistic attempts to eliminate the conflict of contradictory impulses, thus a masochist has engulfed himself in self-hate and suffering.”


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

mimesis said:


> You are seeing those emotions (anger, fear, shame) as separate, while there is fear underlying anger (e.g. obsessive compulsive disorder) or shame underlying fear or anger, and anger (self-rejection) underlying shame or guilt. In that respect, the fear of head types is a specific kind of fear, not like fear of heights, or fear of being evil, or insignificant.
> 
> For instance, it is fear that underlies compulsive repression of anger, in order to comply to an (inflated) (self-) image of (perfect) serenity (causing a smouldering underlying resentment and hostile indignance). Unless of course, anger is channeled 'in compliance', most likely in case of the 'counter'-type sx1.


This is an odd way to describe 1s, and it errs by mis-arguing from Naranjo, conflating "perfectionism serves anger" with "there is fear underlying anger", which at least in the case of 1s is only marginally true. The anger of 1s follows from the inability to reconcile the concept of perfection with reality, and it is the first and primary emotion that follows from the 1s childhood experience with Holy Perfection. The fear you described, of being imperfect or corrupt and all the resulting defense mechanisms to prevent that fear from being realized, arrives in the psychology of a 1 only after experiencing both perfection and anger. After the One looked at the world, and said "this is not perfect", and felt anger at the world, the One then looked at him/herself, and said "I am not perfect", and anger was felt towards the self. The unpleasantness of feeling anger towards oneself generates fear of having to feel that anger, but that fear is born of hard experience. It _never_ precedes the anger. It only follows from it, like a child that has learned to fear punishment after having experienced punishment.

You're projecting the anxiety of other types onto type 1. Anger following from fear is primarily type 6, the Six wanting to avoid fear and thus becoming angry at whatever is causing the fear. Ones experience the inverse. Instead of becoming angry to prevent fear, Ones fear their own anger because they have felt its heat when it was directed at them and disliked it, and so they try to avoid anger. A Six becomes angry at what generates fear, and a One fears what generates anger.



mimesis said:


> Generally speaking it is the Sp instinct that seeks to control one 'self' (depending what constitutes 'self'), and also thinks in terms of 'earning' or 'entitlement', as opposed to Sx that transgresses boundaries.


There are two different reasons for the feeling of "entitlement" that are being described here. One is reason most clearly expressed by the sp 3, the expectation that "I get what I earn". Self-preservation types do feel entitled to what they feel they need and have earned by their efforts. However, sexual types feel entitled to things because of desire and not from the sense of just deserts that drives the entitlement of sp types. In other words, if the motto of the sp is "I get what I earn", the motto of the sx is "I get what I want". Inward/outward focus is simply another way of saying self-pres types feel their desires can only be met by controlling their own behavior (and thus they "direct their energy" inwards), while sexual types feel their desires are met by merging with things outside of them (experiences, people, and so on), which is described as "directing energy outwards".

While in certain contexts you can certainly say self-preservation types suffer from an entitled attitude, especially if you get between them and what they feel they have earned a right to, the sexual type is the one that feels that sense of entitlement keenly and constantly, in tandem with their desire for intensity and union, and for that reason sx is the truest "entitled" instinct.



mimesis said:


> But even in case of counter-shame, like sx4, I think the 4 passion of envy is much better understood from the perspective of anger and grief, rather than shame. Counter-envy (sp4) is a way to neutralize the threat of being affected by introjection, through denial of desire or repression of lust (retroflection, or directing anger to oneself) and trying to 'earn' working on oneself, for instance improving competence, but eventually may vent anger when this strategy doesn't "pay off", or when others receive praise they feel they are more entitled to or "deserve" more. sx4 is much more vindictive and hateful, or 'cannibalistic' as Naranjo calls it "I don't like that you are taller than me, therefor I bite your head off!".
> 
> To 'relish' in shame is quite different from personal identification with suffering. This is actually not that much different from the 'sacrificing' self-glorification of type One in exercising self-control, and comparable with how a type 2 'sacrifices', (self-image as martyr, denial of needs) and this is overall more related to Sp instinct than other instincts. "Relish in shame" (which I don't think even applies to begin with) doesn't really explain self-sabotage or 'fear of success' as strategic behavior, nor how 'familiarity breeds contempt' (when the available is never as desirable as the unavailable [Naranjo CN]). Desire for uniqueness is a desire to be 'perfectly' significant (meaningful), at place and belonging to, to be irreplaceable and therefor avoid being left out (though as a coping strategy this may actually cause alienation and separation).


Again, this goes back to the primary emotion experienced by people of a type. Shame is the feeling of social rejection, the feeling that one is unwanted by others because of some characteristic (or lack thereof) in oneself. It's not "anger and grief", though those feelings may well follow from shame. As with the One that has learned to fear anger through experience, image types have learned to fear rejection -- but again, unlike the fear experienced by head types, the fear follows from the experience of shame, making shame, and not fear, the primary emotion of the image triad.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

SuperNova85 said:


> I have a similar issue with the title "withdrawn". It doesn't tell me anything substantial about 4, 5 or 9. Understanding them as Ego types explains so much more.


I'll be honest, I don't understand how "ego" pertains to 4/5/9. I get "withdrawing to get needs met," but... I guess I don't have a good understanding of what ego means.

That being said, I loathe the "withdrawn" label simply because many people interpret it as "introverted" or "asocial" -_-


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> This is an odd way to describe 1s, and it errs by mis-arguing from Naranjo, conflating "perfectionism serves anger" with "there is fear underlying anger", which at least in the case of 1s is only marginally true.
> 
> The anger of 1s follows from the inability to reconcile the concept of perfection with reality, and it is the first and primary emotion that follows from the 1s childhood experience with Holy Perfection.


Can you tell me more about your "childhood experience with Holy Perfection?" How old were you? 

Can you explain 'the concept' of perfection? Do you think every One has the same concept of perfection? 

Why do you desire to do perfect?


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

mimesis said:


> Can you tell me more about your "childhood experience with Holy Perfection?" How old were you?
> 
> Can you explain 'the concept' of perfection? Do you think every One has the same concept of perfection?
> 
> Why do you desire to do perfect?


It's not a definite moment in my past, but for as long as I can remember, there's always been a sense that perfection, a state in which everything is exactly as it should be and nothing can be improved, is possible, which in the mystical language of the Enneagram means I became fixated on the holy idea of Holy Perfection. My "perfectionism" is simply an attempt to (re)create that state through my actions. The specific details of how we experience (or imagine) "perfection" almost certainly vary depending on the One, but the belief that perfection is a possibility is common to all people with the type One personality. If I may get a bit metaphorical, it's like we imagine that if we fix everything just right, we'll be able to look back on the world and on ourselves as the Biblical god at the end of the Christian creation myth does. _God saw all that he had made, and it was very good._ And because everything is very good, we will be free from our anger at the world and ourselves, and experience peace (serenity), as there is nothing left to cause anger. We will have realized perfection, and like the Biblical god, we'll then be able to rest.

I desire to be perfect because that would bring me peace. The desire is to be free of anger, not anxiety -- while I may feel anxiety from time to time that is related to my perfection (following a big mistake, for example), at its core that fear is a fear that I'm not approaching serenity, that I'm no closer to escaping my anger than I was yesterday, or a month ago, or a year ago. It's still just fear of anger. That's also why our path of growth is basically a path of acceptance; since it's not actually possible to create perfection, we need to learn to accept reality as it is, and by doing that we gain serenity. We don't learn to fight fear, we learn to end the self-destructive thought patterns that cause anger.

That's why type 1 is an anger type. Every type feels fear, but for two thirds of the types, fear is only something that comes after the fact, following a more basic emotion.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

cir said:


> The enneagram is like engineering. There's even a manual for it. Also, I have no idea what meaning you intended by appending numbers like that?


I wanted to draw a distinction between the two extremes: logic and intuition. If you focus on the characteristics of the personalities, 1,5 are the cerebral, logical, thinking, types and 4, 7 represent the more emotional, feeling, intuitive.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> I'll be honest, I don't understand how "ego" pertains to 4/5/9. I get "withdrawing to get needs met," but... I guess I don't have a good understanding of what ego means.
> 
> That being said, I loathe the "withdrawn" label simply because many people interpret it as "introverted" or "asocial" -_-


To be brief:

The Ego, in the Freudian model, represents the part of our psyche that constantly surveys and assesses our internal and external environment for information, and decides if that information is important to us, why, and what we should do about it. The Ego is thus called "The Reality Function".

But to fully understand the Ego, you would have to understand the first part of the psyche, the Id.
The Id is where our most instincual impulses are based. It wants pleasure at all costs: whatever, whenever, however, without any regard for negative repercussions. It lacks hindsight and foresight; it's goal is to simply enjoy pleasure and avoid pain.
Obviously we wouldn't get far with this approach. So a big part of the Ego's function is to monitor all of the instincual impulses pushing from the Id and then decide if it's beneficial or not to act on it. But it's important to note that the Ego doesn't inhibit all of the Id's impulses, in fact it helps express them, but it wants to do it in a way that is less destructive, more pleasurable, and longer lasting.

So with that out the way:

The "withdrawn" triad, 4-5-9, are Ego types because they are constantly assessing the internal and external information available to them and how it pertains to them in getting what they want and avoiding what they don't. Each of the ego types specializes in surveying the information relating to their respective triad:

This shows up in 4s as an awareness of their emotions, what's missing in regards to their emotions, aesthetic sensibility (a keen awareness of objects, patterns, colors, situations, etc, and how they impact emotions), empathy.

In 5s, as an awareness of what they know, and how much more information they need, how much time, energy, space and resources are available to them and how much is going out, consistencies and inconsistencies, emotional safety.

In 9s, as an awareness of multiple points of view, possible consequences of their actions on others, the needs of others, right & wrong, their physical state/comfort, information synthesis, possible scenarios.

I could go on with these but I'm too tired right now, but I think you get the point.:wink:

And yeah, ditto on hating the withdrawn label. Every time I hear it, it feels like I should just get 10 cats, move to Vermont and call it a life ...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> I view it more as "agreeing to disagree." For example, most people here will use Naranjo's subtypes gladly and without hesitation. Me, I see their use as shallow and inaccurate. But it's not intellectual sloth to say, "Fine, that's how you interpret the Enneagram, but it doesn't work for me. Let's talk about something in the middle."


it's necessary to be at least somewhat tolerant of other views on the Enneagram when there is such drastic disagreement over what exactly each word means, what the fundamental nature of each type is or whether instincts+core type are separate or part of the same subtype system (for example, I opt for the latter because subtype theory comes across far more clearly and better organized, but it can be too simplistic at times, which is a valid criticism often levied against it).



> And, besides, discussion needs basic definitions to continue.


welcome to my frustration with Ti and it's tendency to spend twice as long redefining terms as it does discussing the actual content :laughing:



> No one has suggested changing those definitions yet :laughing:


I can think of several changes I would make. the problem is, they're not exactly very "intellectual" sounding :tongue:
for example, it wouldn't exactly work with the tone of the book if Riso and Hudson had termed 468 the "the no bullshit triad"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> I view it more as "agreeing to disagree." For example, most people here will use Naranjo's subtypes gladly and without hesitation. Me, I see their use as shallow and inaccurate. But it's not intellectual sloth to say, "Fine, that's how you interpret the Enneagram, but it doesn't work for me. Let's talk about something in the middle."
> 
> And, besides, discussion needs basic definitions to continue. No one has suggested changing those definitions yet :laughing:


That's very different from what @Quang stated though. I agree with that if someone is endorsing X variant of the model and I am not, then the best part is probably to agree to disagree, which is different from saying that every perspective is just as valid and right which in worst case scenario can easily develop to an absurd level of solipsism at which point the system becomes useless even for the sake of self growth.



Zamyatin said:


> You're projecting the anxiety of other types onto type 1. Anger following from fear is primarily type 6, the Six wanting to avoid fear and thus becoming angry at whatever is causing the fear. Ones experience the inverse. Instead of becoming angry to prevent fear, Ones fear their own anger because they have felt its heat when it was directed at them and disliked it, and so they try to avoid anger. A Six becomes angry at what generates fear, and a One fears what generates anger.


Seen this happen a lot which I think in this case probably says more about mimesis' type and experiences here, in that the gut types do not primarily act based on anxiety and/or fear. In a sense, the word is even a little misattributed even from an R&H point of view of arguing type fears e.g. 1s fear imperfection. Personally, I wish there was a better way to describe this relationship to the fears of the gut triad than outright calling them fears.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Hmmm. Well. Im a 612. Triple superego. Do you think I'm "compliant?" :tongue:


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

SuperNova85 said:


> And yeah, ditto on hating the withdrawn label. Every time I hear it, it feels like I should just get 10 cats, move to Vermont and call it a life ...


This lifestyle sounds appealing  Maybe not the Vermont thing (too cold), but 10 cats and relative peacefulness, I could totally get behind that.

And thank you for the explanation! I need to sit on it for a while


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> It's not a definite moment in my past, but for as long as I can remember, there's always been a sense that perfection, a state in which everything is exactly as it should be and nothing can be improved, is possible, which in the mystical language of the Enneagram means I became fixated on the holy idea of Holy Perfection.


In my language, a sense that a state in which everything is as it should be and nothing can be improved *is possible*, is called a belief, or a core disposition of a mental construct, which I won't question being experienced, nor does it conflict with my view on the matter, but I do question that this sense represents a childhood experience of Holy Perfection, and see it more like an interpretation made early in life, and deeply embedded in the psychic structure. 

In enneagram language it is this very mental construct and perspective of conditioning of a certain part of the ego structure, that covers a deficiency or 'hole', as a result of the loss of Holy Idea (as a result of experience) as an imitation or resemblance of what is lost. In less mystical language, it is a false belief, a delusion and self-deception. 



Almaas said:


> When the Holy Idea of Perfection is not present, it does not matter which differentiated aspect of Being you are experiencing; the delusion that some things are perfect and others are not, and the feeling or conviction that you are inherently flawed, remains. It is a conviction in the soul determined by the delusion of comparison.


I don't mind you disagree with my explanation, but it appears to me you are actually making a leap of faith yourself, while also mis-arguing yourself when you twisted my words. I said that fear underlies the compulsive *repression* of anger (not that fear underlies anger), unless it is channeled in compliance to his perfectionism, or as Naranjo pointed, when a One feels 'entitled to break skulls in virtue of the excellence of his cause and noble aspirations'. 

There is more, if you will:



Naranjo CN said:


> The self-deception involved is all the more hidden from him since, in reference to others, he may insist upon their actually living up to his standards of perfection and despise them for failing to do so. His own self-condemnment is thus externalized.





Naranjo CN said:


> Moral reproaches are another form of perfectionistic disapproval and not just expressions of anger, but a form of manipulation in the service of unacknowledged demandingness —whereby “I want” is transformed into “You should.” Accusation thus entails the hope of affecting somebody’s behaviors in the direction of one’s wishes.


When you say you can only find peace, after achieving perfection, it's perhaps an interesting thought experiment to reverse that statement. That the desire for perfection, especially when not primarily the desire to do right, but more accurately a conditioned compulsive response to an obsessive fear of imperfection, and the heat that might follow from that, this desire for flawlessness (invulnerability) might in fact be the cause of distranquility, rather than a road map to peace.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ningsta kitty said:


> Hmmm. Well. Im a 612. Triple superego. Do you think I'm "compliant?" :tongue:


not really, more like a combination of frisky and spunky


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

mimesis said:


> In my language, a sense that a state in which everything is as it should be and nothing can be improved *is possible*, is called a belief, or a core disposition of a mental construct, which I won't question being experienced, nor does it conflict with my view on the matter, but I do question that this sense represents a childhood experience of Holy Perfection, and see it more like an interpretation made early in life, but deeply embedded in the psychic structure.
> 
> In enneagram language it is this very mental construct and perspective of conditioning of a certain part of the ego structure, that covers a deficiency or 'hole', as a result of the loss of Holy Idea (as a result of experience) as an imitation or resemblance of what is lost. In less mystical language, it is a false belief, a delusion and self-deception.
> 
> When you say you can only find peace, after achieving perfection, it's perhaps an interesting thought experiment to reverse that statement. That the desire for perfection, especially when not primarily the desire to do right, but more accurately a conditioned compulsive response to an obsessive fear of imperfection, and the heat that might follow from that, this desire for perfectionism might in fact be the cause of distranquility, rather than a road map to peace.


Correct. I thought I made it clear that I understood that perfectionism doesn't actually lead to serenity when I mentioned "self-destructive thought patterns that cause anger" -- we believe that it leads to peace, but it obviously doesn't. Healthier Ones, instead of doubling down on their control of themselves and their environment, learn to relax, to accept things as they are, cutting the entire complex off at the roots. The mindset of the One, as with every type, leads the individual down a dead end, and the path of progress is learning to restore balance to the ego instead.



mimesis said:


> I don't mind you disagree with my explanation, but it appears to me you are actually making a leap of faith yourself, while also mis-arguing yourself when you twisted my words. I said that fear underlies the compulsive *repression* of anger (not that fear underlies anger), unless it is channeled in compliance to his perfectionism, or as Naranjo pointed, when a One feels 'entitled to break skulls in virtue of the excellence of his cause and noble aspirations'.


Which, as I explained in a previous post here, is a perfect example of fear following the experience of anger, and not the inverse. I interpreted your post in the way I did because otherwise you really weren't making a point of any relevance to the core emotion of Ones. Fear definitely plays a role in the behavior of Ones, but it's not central to the psychology of Ones.

At this point, I don't see what we're really discussing, which probably means we're in the middle of one of those Ti-Te failures to communicate. All I'm seeing is you're trying very hard to point out that everybody fears something, which is so obvious it's not really worth discussing.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Seen this happen a lot which I think in this case probably says more about mimesis' type and experiences here, in that the gut types do not primarily act based on anxiety and/or fear.


For one, I did not need to use the enneagram as a tool to liberate myself. I have gone to the depths of my soul, through shadow territory, digging up memories when I was just 2 years old, to fix what needed to be fixed. It can be an ugly and horrible journey at times, facing myself with everything the ego kept away from consciousness or awareness, to the root of the ego-projection -AND experientially becoming aware of the illusory aspect of that projection and the false self-, going through shame and guilt, which is necessary for better understanding, purging the soul from toxic resentment. 

To the extent that I could care less about my type or what people type me. I can relate to every type. I don't reject who I was nor who I am. I can see where I am free and others are not. You only understand the fear or anger or shame when you have liberated yourself from it, at least more than when it controls you. 

I see the bush the other beats around. I was able to explain myself outside of enneagram context. Which is not something I can say about you, not even after 10k posts. Which says something about you and how deep you look within.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@mimesis yeah whatever because you must by proxy necessarily have come further in your development than I without even knowing me.

I have absolutely no reason to justify myself to you; I merely commented on a trend that you have shown in that you needlessly want to shoehorn other people's experiences to fit yours while failing to realize that not everyone is going to fit the way you choose to conceptualize reality. It's that simple.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Paradigm
another E-term I take issue with is the use of "Vanity" as the vice/passion of 3. in general English, vanity has nothing to do with reputation, it's about pride in personal characteristics (usually physical beauty, though it can also pertain to accomplishments, intellect, etc). "I'm so great! mwahahaha!" actual vanity would be far more common in 2s, 7s, Sexual 8s and Sexual 4s imo (that goes without saying that many types can be vain in their own way. Social 5s are vain about their intelligence/store of knowledge, for example).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Personally, I wish there was a better way to describe this relationship to the fears of the gut triad than outright calling them fears.


Try describe or differentiate anger of gut types.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> @_mimesis_ yeah whatever because you must by proxy necessarily have come further in your development than I without even knowing me.
> 
> I have absolutely no reason to justify myself to you; I merely commented on a trend that you have shown in that you needlessly want to shoehorn other people's experiences to fit yours while failing to realize that not everyone is going to fit the way you choose to conceptualize reality. It's that simple.


Lol. Wasn't aware that I asked you to justify yourself. 

So saying you don't need to justify yourself, when it wasn't even asked...is still defensive. 

See, you don't need to know a person, but you can see how much he knows himself.


----------



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

cir said:


> To be plainly speaking, not directed at Quang, but IRL, generally nines tend to use that on me+others to kill conversations (ahem, I mean mediate) because they find the tone disagreeable, and they are definitely ignoring the content of the discussion, even when the topic applies to them in a very direct and tangible way (like topics concerning employment, office politics, layoffs, job searching, contingency plans). Sure, there's no "right/wrong" answers to this, and reacting to those kinds of things is probably 75% interpretation, but being resigned to "oh it doesn't matter, if I get layed off, then I'll just go find another job" while killing the discussion qualifies as "intellectual sloth" to me. It's like they're afraid of details or something.


I am not Quang, so I am talking about my experience. And I'm also considering 9 as my type, so ignore the things that I wrote in my signature; I'm putting my self-typing off (like a good 9? Oh fuck!). I don't think I end discussions, which I do a lot, because I find the tone disagreeable but because I think the discussion is futile and I'm not getting something out of it (and I think nobody is getting something out of it). I do think I am being lazy (intellectually lazy) by thinking like this. And I do resign. It's what Entropic said here:


> in worst case scenario can easily develop to an absurd level of solipsism at which point the system becomes useless even for the sake of self growth


I resign to the idea that everything is very subjective and I will never be able to know what's right/wrong, true/false and the only thing I can know entirely is myself, if I ever become able to get over all the contradictions. I interpret this as intellectual laziness. Sometimes it's not "fear" of getting into specifics but getting too focused on specifics (like my contradictions) that I don't see the big picture. It's funny because I disregard a lot of things as irrelevant but when it comes to things like me focusing on something that is irrelevant instead of focusing of the big picture (like in the above case), I don't.

Maybe superficially I felt the tone was disagreeable but that's not the reason why I end discussions. It's more complex than that and I dislike seeing me as very simple, which is one of my stigmas. I am good at seeing things from different perspectives and I am fairly self-aware. I am aware enough to discern between disagreement that stems from something I am insecure about or some other kind of knee jerk reaction and disagreement that it's based in principles or objective truths. So, even if I end the discussion, I feel wrong at the end because I don't ignore what I suck at. I know it very well. The problem isn't not knowing, but not acting upon it. I don't make efforts to consciously forget something unpleasant. It's the opposite actually. I make efforts to not do it because I have a tendency to unconsciously distract myself. 

But your point is true (intellectual laziness, specially when it concerns oneself). I was only trying to give all a glimpse of my process, which could be similar to other 9s (because I could be one).


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Paradigm
> another E-term I take issue with is the use of "Vanity" as the vice/passion of 3. in general English, vanity has nothing to do with reputation, it's about pride in personal characteristics (usually physical beauty, though it can also pertain to accomplishments, intellect, etc). "I'm so great! mwahahaha!" actual vanity would be far more common in 2s, 7s, Sexual 8s and Sexual 4s imo (that goes without saying that many types can be vain in their own way. Social 5s are vain about their intelligence/store of knowledge, for example).


I agree vanity is also very 2, but I'm confused... How is that not 3-like? 3s have the drive to be "the best" in any given area, which often leads to arrogance (vanity) about the area they've chosen. Which word would you choose to replace it?

I looked up the dictionary's definition of vanity out of curiosity, which is interesting:


> vanity
> 
> noun
> 1. excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit: Failure to be elected was a great blow to his vanity.
> ...


(I removed the "a vanity is a thing with a mirror" definitions.)

I wonder if "they" chose the word vain because of the view that 3s have little inner life / inner worth. (Which I also don't agree with.) The contrast of the definitions may have played a role.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

I appreciate your response, and I'm trying my best to be gentle here:


0+n*1 said:


> I don't think I end discussions, which I do a lot, because I find the tone disagreeable


 If you end the discussion because it sounds like "arguing", then yeah, you just made it into a tone issue. If it wasn't before, then it is now. My issue is that people, like stereotypical nines I know IRL, prematurely terminate what they view as "_arguments_", when it's more likely that while ignoring the content of the discussion (because they're uncomfortable with the topic), they are also ignoring and misreading people's involvement in the discussion. Not only that, but it's also assumed that the rest of the participants in the discussion:

1.) agree that it's an argument
2.) think arguing is a bad thing
3.) don't want to argue


> but *because I think the discussion is futile and I'm not getting something out of it (and I think nobody is getting something out of it).* I do think I am being lazy (intellectually lazy) by thinking like this. And I do resign. It's what Entropic said here:


 When you do that, you also *prevent* anyone else from getting something out of the discussion. Sometimes the fruits of the conversations take a while to materialize, and most (not all!) nines IRL I know will terminate discussions well before those points have been reached.


> I resign to the idea that everything is very subjective and I will never be able to know what's right/wrong, true/false and the only thing I can know entirely is myself, if I ever become able to get over all the contradictions.


 Sure, and that's your right. However, just because _you_ think and feel that way, does not mean everyone else agree, so I take offense when conversations get "mediated" like this:


> I think the discussion is futile and I'm not getting something out of it (and I think nobody is getting something out of it).


 Continuing from the job example, when people are trying their best to relieve their anxiety about an unstable work environment, and this topic makes those nines uncomfortable, then killing the conversation by plugging their ears going "lalala can't hear you!" when 10% of the company is getting laid off, not only means they're intellectually lazy, but insensitive dicks as well. _If_ there could be a solution to this discussion, then they've made sure no one will get it.


----------



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

cir said:


> If you end the discussion because it sounds like "arguing", then yeah, you just made it into a tone issue. If it wasn't before, then it is now. My issue is that people, like stereotypical nines I know IRL, prematurely terminate what they view as "_arguments_", when it's more likely that while ignoring the content of the discussion (because they're uncomfortable with the topic), they are also ignoring and misreading people's involvement in the discussion.
> 
> When you do that, you also *prevent* anyone else from getting something out of the discussion. Sometimes the fruits of the conversations take a while to materialize, and most (not all!) nines IRL I know will terminate discussions well before those points have been reached.
> 
> Continuing from the job example, when people are trying their best to relieve their anxiety about an unstable work environment, and this topic makes those nines uncomfortable, then killing the conversation by plugging their ears going "lalala can't hear you!" when 10% of the company is getting laid off, not only means they're intellectually lazy, but insensitive dicks as well. _If_ there could be a solution to this discussion, then they've made sure no one will get it.


What happened here is that I don't like seeing me as someone that denies truth or exaggerates truth to save myself from feeling pain. But I'm not certain I don't do that. I am certain I try to avoid it (lying to myself) when I am aware of it, but I am not always aware. I don't even know if I can be as aware as I want to be. I feel that would drive me crazy because it would be neurotic. I can admit I have prevented others from getting something out of the discussion when I do this (when I treat the discussion as just an "argue", something futile that won't make anybody change or progress; it's basically just resignation projected on others). I don't think it's always invalid though. Some discussions do evolve into fights over trifles, fuss and drama. But how I discern those things is different from how you do. The best I can do is to let the discussion evolve and try to act like a true mediator and not only end it when I start to think "we" (me) are not getting something good out of it.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

0+n*1 said:


> What happened here is that I don't like seeing me as someone that *denies truth or exaggerates truth* to save myself from feeling pain.


 1.) I'm not sure "how you see yourself" is relevant, to be honest. Redirecting the topic to be about something else is a form of evasion, so if you're not "denying" or "exaggerating" truth, then how about "evading" the truth? If I had to guess how, by making everything "subjective".

2.) When you resign that everything is subjective, you are attempting to evade the "truth" ("what is true"):


> *I resign* to the idea *that everything is* very *subjective** and **I will never be able to know what's* right/wrong, *true/false* and the only thing I can know entirely is myself, if I ever become able to get over all the contradictions.


[HR][/HR]


> But I'm not certain I don't do that. *I am certain I try to avoid it* (lying to myself) *when I am aware of it*, but I am not always aware. *I don't even know if I can be as aware as I want to be. I feel that would drive me crazy because it would be neurotic.*


 I'm sorry if I sound impatient, but I've had variants of this discussion before. Duh, nines avoid it by not being aware of it, make excuses for their inattention, and by rounding everything to the nearest "everything is subjective anyways".


> I can admit I have prevented others from getting something out of the discussion when I do this (when I treat the discussion as just an "argue", something futile that *won't* make anybody change or progress; it's basically just resignation projected on others). *I don't think it's always invalid though.* Some discussions do evolve into fights over trifles, fuss and drama.


 Yes, there are times when it's valid. When you frequently treat relatively regular conversations as "arguments", you are _still_ projecting your opinions onto others, you are _still_ insisting that arguments are bad, and you are _still_ trying to kill the conversation for your own selfish reasons. That "won't make anybody change or progress"? Kill conversations enough times, and people will find a way to exclude you. Not sure if that's what you were aiming for, but that's what happens.


> But how I discern those things is different from how you do. The best I can do is to let the discussion evolve and try to act like a true mediator and not only end it when I start to think "we" (me) are not getting something good out of it.


 Or! How about! If people don't like the conversation, they voluntarily leave, so that people who are not bothered by the tone of the discussion can continue? I mean, seriously, I don't see what's so hard about this? I do it all the time, and people still talk to me.

Again, not trying to be a dick, but the rest of the group will eventually pick up the fact that someone(s) is repeatedly killing their buzz, and they'll find ways to talk around those conversation killers. It's just rude, and a losing battle, to impose your own preferences ("everything is subjective"), definitions ("arguments" or even "agreement"), and your sense of morality ("arguments are bad, mk?") onto the rest of the group like this! Not to mention, all sorts of _factually_​ wrong too!


----------



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

cir said:


> 1.) I'm not sure "how you see yourself" is relevant, to be honest. Redirecting the topic to be about something else is a form of evasion, so if you're not "denying" or "exaggerating" truth, then how about "evading" the truth? If I had to guess how, by making everything "subjective".


It's only relevant to what I said and I am saying because it talks about the reason why I responded your comment in the first place. You said you hated 9s when they did something that I interpreted as you saying 9s ignoring the truth (I responded to what you said about 9s finding a disagreeable tone and ignoring content of a discussion). Summing up, I responded because I related to it and I didn't like thinking of me that way, mostly because I try to not be like this but despite my efforts I am still insecure about it because if I weren't insecure, I wouldn't responded in the first place.



> 2.) When you resign that everything is subjective, you are attempting to evade the "truth" ("what is true"):


True and I try to avoid it.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

0+n*1 said:


> It's only relevant to what I said and I am saying because it talks about the reason why I responded your comment in the first place. You said you hated 9s when they did something that I interpreted as you saying 9s ignoring the truth (I responded to what you said about 9s finding a disagreeable tone and ignoring content of a discussion). Summing up, I responded because I related to it and I didn't like thinking of me that way, mostly because I try to not be like this but despite my efforts I am still insecure about it because if I weren't insecure, I wouldn't responded in the first place.


 It's not necessarily the _ignoring_ the truth as much as killing conversations whose topics inherently center on the nature of unpleasant truths. I personally think it's because the "truth" blows through their illusions/delusions that "everything is subjective", because really, when a bunch of people get together and start talking about what their bosses said, they can no longer use the excuse "but how can we _really_ know? This is all pointless speculation!" And the reason I'm normally supplied is tone-related. *shrug*

Ok, so... why are you insecure about this? /type-eight bias


> True and I try to avoid it.


 Do or do not. There is no try. /more type-eight bias


----------



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

> Ok, so... why are you insecure about this? /type-eight bias
> Do or do not. There is no try. /more type-eight bias


To be fair with me, I think I am generally honest and I don't pretend things are cool when they aren't. But I am alert of someone pointing out I am unaware of dishonest or pretentious or similar, *even if they haven't directly adressed it to me*. It's a central theme in my life. This alertness talks about an insecurity I have. What else could be? I also think it's either done or not done. Part of it makes me feel it's useless to talk when actions will speak so much louder.

But I do end discussions or conversations or whatever with resignation, saying things like "everything is subjective". Not always, of course, but it happens even if it shouldn't. And when I say end, it's not much killing conversations but leaving things as they are and if I get involved, I say it, either directly and cutting the crap or elegantly by following tangents and blablablah, but people generally don't put attention to it and go on with the discussion/conversation without me. Rarely, I get reactions like yours with those 9s you talk about, telling me I am killing the buzz.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

cir said:


> 2.) When you resign that everything is subjective, you are attempting to evade the "truth" ("what is true"):
> [HR][/HR] I'm sorry if I sound impatient, but I've had variants of this discussion before. Duh, nines avoid it by not being aware of it, make excuses for their inattention, and by rounding everything to the nearest "everything is subjective anyways".
> Yes, there are times when it's valid. When you frequently treat relatively regular conversations as "arguments", you are _still_ projecting your opinions onto others, you are _still_ insisting that arguments are bad, and you are _still_ trying to kill the conversation for your own selfish reasons. That "won't make anybody change or progress"?!


In this context, I did not intend to 'kill the discussion' by suggesting the prior statement. I believe there are certain arguments which are meaningless to argue, because they are ways that we project our Ego, rather than actually striving for objective truth. Similar to how two contrasting groups of avid supporters start having heated discussions, when the underlying truth was that they wanted to confirm their own Ego; their attachments, their beliefs, their self-worth. Similar to common headlines like 'Why martial arts X is better than Y', 'game X is better than game Y" or 'religion vs science'... Most of these arguments gets people no where, because their Ego can't accept Oneness. The Ego cannot accept that there are two truths on opposite sides of the same coin.

I agree that there must be foundations that we must all agree upon in order to make progress. At some point, like art, people learn to walk their own paths without the urge of wanting to force their art down the throat of others. Everyone on PerC has undertaken their personal paths using the Enneagram, and I was under the impression that people who were interested in the Enneagram wanted to let go of their Ego, rather than strengthening it through indirectly projecting "My Enneagram is bigger than yours" (I personally see that 8s do this a lot). As a potential 9, it is better to gently facilitate change rather than tell people what is 'right'-- I guess this is why 9s go so well with any enneagram type.

If one wanted to discover the truth, then it is necessary to take into the account for the 9 perspectives or lens of seeing the truth, and when that is achieved, the one truth is that lies is that: everything is One. Every 9 perspective is true and a part of a larger truth. As I mentioned earlier, the ironic pitfall of using the Enneagram is using as an medium to project our Ego rather than actually make any meaningful progress according to the teachings (i.e. Riso & Hudson). Cir, the way that you attributed that 9s 'kill off discussions' urges me to perceive your response to be '8s way' to 'project their Ego/ force their own 'truth' to others. 

PS: I love you like I give EXP-share to a lv.5 Happiny.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

0+n*1 said:


> To be fair with me, I think I am generally honest and I don't pretend things are cool when they aren't.


 Things are "cool"? To whom though? A specific nine I know (every nine's mileage will vary) has a specific priority on _his_ "inner peace", and he will sacrifice quite a bit to prop up that delusion. He doesn't "pretend" things are cool when they aren't; he basically resigned to "if I don't think about the problem, then it isn't a problem". For example, he does not like talking about shitty things like a massive layoffs, and rests upon "he'll just find a new job then", when the fruits of those kinds of conversations with coworkers include trying to figure out how people are handling (gee, basic human empathy?), whether there are more layoffs upcoming, how much people's workload have increased to compensate for the people who got laid off, who is moving to which company, who is hiring, etc. Yeah, company just laid of 10% of its workforce, and he and some other nines go out of their way to take alternative routes to avoid facing people as they leave. It amazes me the amount of effort they put in to avoid unpleasant realities.


> But I am alert of someone pointing out I am unaware of dishonest or pretentious or similar, *even if they haven't directly adressed it to me*.


 Ok... Well, "reality" has "objective" parts and "subjective" parts, and being resigned to "everything is subjective" is a form of intellectual sloth and dishonesty. One of the points of arguments is trying to sort out which is which, because future actions depend on that present knowledge. When talking about the cold hard truths of business, "we can't really know" is _very_ easy to call bullshit on. /he thinks his company values him too much to let him go...


> It's a central theme in my life. This alertness talks about an insecurity I have. What else could be? I also think it's either done or not done. Part of it makes me feel it's useless to talk when actions will speak so much louder.


 We're talking about nines, right? Whose vice is sloth, and virtue is action? Actions speak louder than words, but nines tend to regularly fail on the whole "action" part. Ok, then words are the next best thing, and they generally fail there too (echoing your agenda back at you), until you've reach their secret "inner peace" threshold.


> But I do end discussions or conversations or whatever with resignation, saying things like "everything is subjective". Not always, of course, but it happens even if it shouldn't. And when I say end, it's not much killing conversations but leaving things as they are and if I get involved, I say it, either directly and cutting the crap or elegantly by following tangents and blablablah, but people generally don't put attention to it and go on with the discussion/conversation without me. Rarely, I get reactions like yours with those 9s you talk about, telling me I am killing the buzz.


 Yeah, not all nines do that. But many nines do. Be in a group with a bunch of people who likes debating, or work in a stressful environment that tends to attract those kinds of people. They assume "agree to disagree" is a given since the beginning of the conversation; they don't need reminders of that as people are trying to kill the topic. This specific nine I know gets called out on "killing the buzz", and unsurprisingly, he doesn't get invited to things and he's treated like he's invisible. Supposedly, he likes it that way.

Other nines _do_ (physically) leave the conversation; they're the people I learned this skill from! Others go to "invisible" mode. And when that "inner peace" threshold is breached, because they _really_ hate conversations that forces them to think about unpleasant things, they'll explode, and everyone is surprised because they've never done that before! Otherwise, they just narc out, and it's difficult to establish continuity with them. Like, it's impressive how they manage to "forget" basic facts that's been discussed ad nauseam for the last couple months.

When you anger a nine long enough, they'll harden into their place and refuse to move. That basically means everyone else has to move around them. And it takes a lot of energy to sustain that kind of inactivity that I personally wouldn't trust the situational awareness of most (still, again, not all!) nines I know. And when I say this to them, they think I'm accusing them of lying (WTF is with that?), when no, I'm accusing them of being unreliable. /sacred background is in my foreground


----------



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

cir said:


> Things are "cool"? To whom though? A specific nine I know (every nine's mileage will vary) has a specific priority on _his_ "inner peace", and he will sacrifice quite a bit to prop up that delusion. He doesn't "pretend" things are cool when they aren't; he basically resigned to "if I don't think about the problem, then it isn't a problem".


Cool to me, I meant. Personally (not talking as a 9, even if I consider it a potential type), I usually think about the things that need to change, that are wrong in me. I am honest when I do so... But when I look back, I see moments when I was just having a good time despite that my life isn't as I want it to be. This makes me think about it more. 

I have a problem with inaction (also insecurity) and lack of initiative and motivation. I am not changing myself if I tell you or anyone *or myself* this. I am just acknowledging it.


> We're talking about nines, right? Whose vice is sloth, and virtue is action? Actions speak louder than words, but nines tend to regularly fail on the whole "action" part. Ok, then words are the next best thing, and they generally fail there too (echoing your agenda back at you), until you've reach their secret "inner peace" threshold.


True. It's true for 9s and it's true for me. As I said above, I struggle with inaction. About the other part, having trouble with echoing my agenda back at me, it's true for me as well. I say honesty can also be a way to be dishonest. It makes no sense said like that. But when I see my mistakes and what should be different, like my inaction and insecurity, I am totally honest about it, but being honest, being aware, simply knowing is a way to create some kind of illusion that you are improving when you are not. Knowing is the first step. Knowing without doing becomes a trap. Being honest with yourself without acting upon it becomes a trap.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Quang said:


> In this context, I did not intend to 'kill the discussion' by suggesting the prior statement.


 Yeah, I don't even think we're talking about that anymore. I even specifically limited my answer to a work-context to prevent this from spiraling well beyond the premises, but whatever.


> I believe there are certain arguments which are meaningless to argue,


 Typical nine egoic bias. Just because it doesn't have meaning *to you* does not mean it is meaningless to others. This is an actual objective fact. While you have the right to disagree, you do not have the right to remove how people give meaning to their experiences.


> because they are ways that we project our Ego, rather than actually striving for objective truth. Similar to how two contrasting groups of avid supporters start having heated discussions, when the underlying truth was that they wanted to confirm their own Ego; their attachments, their beliefs, their self-worth. Similar to common headlines like 'Why martial arts X is better than Y', 'game X is better than game Y" or 'religion vs science'... Most of these arguments gets people no where, because their Ego can't accept Oneness. The Ego cannot accept that there are two truths on opposite sides of the same coin.


 You do realize that the sum of everyone's egoic perception is in itself an objective truth, right? If, for no other reason, than because 99.9% of the human population is functioning with an ego, and attempting to bypass that for "objective reality" is in itself, a delusion, right? Judging by your post, you appear to have a tone that projecting our ego is a "bad" thing, when Holy Law specifically allows for egoic experiences. And your judgmental commentary on the freedom/limitation of human expressions is evidence that you have yet to overcome your own egoic perception of the world, because *the "oneness" in your examples come from the fact that people care enough about a topic to argue their opinions on it, not from your arbitrary requirement that they must have the same opinions.* "Oneness" is yin-yang, *in its entirety*, not _just_ yin or yang, X or Y, good or bad, but where both sides are united is in the fact that they care enough to argue about it.

You should study harder! At a minimum, Holy Freedom, Omniscience/Transparency, and Law allows for subjective reality to govern our experiences alongside objective reality. *For you to eschew subjective experiences, which can have dynamic meaning to many different people, purely in favor of "objective truths" is a manifestation of your own ego's inability to accept oneness in reality*.


> I agree that there must be foundations that we must all agree upon in order to make progress. At some point, like art, people learn to walk their own paths without the urge of wanting to force their art down the throat of others. Everyone on PerC has undertaken their personal paths using the Enneagram, and I was under the impression that *people **who were interested in the Enneagram wanted to let go of their Ego,* rather than strengthening it through indirectly projecting "My Enneagram is bigger than yours" (I personally see that 8s do this a lot).


 *facepalm* Yet, despite my attempt to correct you on this, that no, not everyone wants to let go of their ego (or else, why is "being delusional" a _real_ danger of misinterpreting the enneagram?), nor is that a "desirable" or "useful" option (without an ego, you cannot function in reality), and that *Holy Law allows for egoic experiences*, you still parrot this. You are now projecting your own personal agenda and bias over "objective reality", that not everyone has the same agenda as yours, and trying to make it so is you doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. Congratulations!


> As 9, it is better to gently facilitate change rather than tell people what is 'right'-- I guess this is why 9s go so well with any enneagram type.


 What's the purpose of *intentional* change, if you're not doing it for reasons that you think is "right"? Who do you think is driving that change? *Rightness is also present in action itself*, and for you to _separate _"facilitate change" from "tell people what is right" is evidence that your actions are not in unity. If they were in unity, you wouldn't notice the difference.


> *If one wanted to discover the truth, then it is necessary to take into the account for the 9 perspectives or lens of seeing the truth, and when that is achieved, the one truth is that lies is that*: everything is One. Every 9 perspective is true and a part of a larger truth. As I mentioned earlier, one of the greatest dangers of using the Enneagram is using as an medium to project our Ego rather than actually make any meaningful progress according to the teachings (i.e. Riso & Hudson).


 1.) *Type eight's holy idea is Holy TRUTH*. So, already, you're factually incorrect there. You stuck an "if... then" requirement to seeing the truth, which is in itself, a delusion, because the "truth" is that "there exists". All is one, it always has been, and your failure to see _where_ it is, as evidenced in your previous example, _because_ you mandated a requirement, is evidence of your egoic bias.

2.) Three of those perspectives, the image triad, govern subjective reality, and how people assign value to their experiences. Reality and truth is dynamic, and for you to continue to insist on seeing "objective reality" as if it's a static concept, means your bias is ignoring a critical part of our "objective reality".

3.) At best, you can cite Riso & Hudson and the Fauvres, and the fact that you found this incomprehensible is evidence that your "truth" is incomplete. If I had to guess, it's the part that concerns intentional actions. Try reading Facets of Unity by Almaas.


> Cir, the way that you attributed that 9s 'kill off discussions' urges me to perceive your response to be '8s way' to 'project their Ego/ force their own 'truth' to others.


 Does it have to specifically be me, who happens to be an eight? What if a three or a six in the group calls him out on it first? What if I happen to agree with them? What if the fact that you immediately leaped to this conclusion, without considering the facts that I didn't mention, is a demonstration of your own egoic bias? Not all "truth" is "objective", but _numbers_ of people who support a side? Me + others want to discuss a topic. A nine wants to end the discussion and talk about something else. The rest of the group does not want to do that. If that's not an attempt at killing a discussion, a "valid" subjective interpretation, I don't know what is.


> PS: I love you like I give EXP-share to a lv.5 Happiny.


 roud:


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

0+n*1 said:


> I say honesty can also be a way to be dishonest. It makes no sense said like that.


 Sure it does. Nines typically mislead by omission.


> But when I see my mistakes and what should be different, like my inaction and insecurity, I am totally honest about it, but being honest, being aware, simply knowing is a way to create some kind of illusion that you are improving when you are not. Knowing is the first step. Knowing without doing becomes a trap. Being honest with yourself without acting upon it becomes a trap.


 Yeah... Good luck with that!


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> You're projecting the anxiety of other types onto type 1. Anger following from fear is primarily type 6, the Six wanting to avoid fear and thus becoming angry at whatever is causing the fear. Ones experience the inverse. Instead of becoming angry to prevent fear, Ones fear their own anger because they have felt its heat when it was directed at them and disliked it, and so they try to avoid anger. A Six becomes angry at what generates fear, and a One fears what generates anger.
> 
> 
> Again, this goes back to the primary emotion experienced by people of a type. Shame is the feeling of social rejection, the feeling that one is unwanted by others because of some characteristic (or lack thereof) in oneself. It's not "anger and grief", though those feelings may well follow from shame. As with the One that has learned to fear anger through experience, image types have learned to fear rejection -- but again, unlike the fear experienced by head types, the fear follows from the experience of shame, making shame, and not fear, the primary emotion of the image triad.


Okay, so your reply is that I was projecting, which is based on an internalized model of truth, and I guess protection thereof. If we follow that, both 2 and 1 can experience or display pride and indignation, but for 2 it is rooted in shame, where for a 1 it is rooted in anger. It is this kind of simplification that I object to.

I base this on personal elaborations of emotional experience, as well as observations of others, as well as knowledge outside of enneagram theory. Nevertheless, both you and me are projecting here, although in my understanding this is just an aspect of head center intelligence, and intuition to 'see', interpret and predict things that aren't seen in a purely physical sense. Type 6 is as a head type certainly related to this aspect, but since we all project, that would make us all 6s, which to an extent I wouldn't even object to. Though, in this case I don't think it is the kind of projection that is ascribed to 6 as a defense mechanism, but if that makes you feel better, by all means. 

From what I've observed, my overall impression of your view on type One is, that you still cling dearly to the (self-)concept of perfection. I don't think this is driven by anger, but a desire for inner peace, serenity or tranquility, whatever you want to call it. You need this concept of perfection to create an inner sense of peace. So I am more interested in the strategic function of perfection than the concept itself. Somewhere you know, perhaps by internalizing the wisdom of enneagram authority, that the path for growth is to accept the world around you. But yeah, as Karen Horney had put it, the perfectionist tends “to equate... knowing about moral values and being a good person”. Knowing right =/= act right. It makes you say contradictions like 'The path for growth of a One is to understand the world is already perfect, which allows us to forgive'.

The question is not so much whether to accept the world, but why a One can't reconcile his conception of perfection with reality. Why he can't let go. 












To explain desire for perfection, you use a metaphor of the creator of the universe, which certainly illustrates you aim for the highest degree of excellence! While we could argue about the perfection of that metaphor, it's worthwhile to stay with that biblical metaphor to reflect on the loss of 'serenity', discernment of right and wrong, compliance, and 'feeling the heat of anger directed at you'.


----------

