# Do you embrace or reject your type's nature?



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

I'm sure most people try to work on their faults when they see them; that's pretty normal. 

I mean more whether you generally identify with or work against the tendency of the type(s) you see in yourself.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Dying Acedia said:


> I'm sure most people try to work on their faults when they see them; that's pretty normal.
> 
> I mean more whether you generally identify with or work against the tendency of the type(s) you see in yourself.


It depends on the tendencies that manifest, and the scenarios in which they appear. Some traits are fine, some are only desirable some of the time, and some are loathed.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Dying Acedia:4782613 said:


> I'm sure most people try to work on their faults when they see them; that's pretty normal.
> 
> I mean more whether you generally identify with or work against the tendency of the type(s) you see in yourself.


I would argue that with regard to the theory, only the instincts can be considered nature, and that type fixation describes the distortion, learned or conditioned behavior. 
I would call it a state, rather than nature.

Which isn't permanent, and can change. It's just that we are caught up in cognitive behavioral loops, and can't phatom how it could be seen or done differently, usually because we are in de grip of, or conditioned by fear, sometimes obsessed and predispositioned, due to former experience, and this makes it hard to let go, since we usually only change when we have a better alternative without risking what we already have. To move forward often means letting go without any guarantee for improvement or safety.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

I embrace all nine types as different aspects of myself. It's not so much trying to negate any type as understanding when it's most useful and when it's not, developing the skills of the types I'm not as familiar with in myself so that I have alternatives to lopsidedly responding to life through my more developed types.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Being a 6 is a trap. You seek security. You're a 6. You rebel. You're a 6. 

If I tried not being a 6 I'd probably just end up looking like more of a 6.


----------



## theredpanda (Jan 18, 2014)

Yes- I embrace my type. I mean, I've kind of learned that I have to just accept who I am and use everything to my advantage- and I like my type


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

I can't run from my vanity, but I embrace aside from that.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

The day I could admit to myself I had fear, was the most freeing day of my life. I had a good role model show me it was okay for incredibly strong intelligent people to be afraid too. Then I found my heart fix a few days later. Once my fear was acknowledged it disappeared. I could really see myself. For the first time.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I would argue that with regard to the theory, only the instincts can be considered nature, and that type fixation describes the distortion, learned or conditioned behavior.
> I would call it a state, rather than nature.
> 
> Which isn't permanent, and can change. It's just that we are caught up in cognitive behavioral loops, and can't phatom how it could be seen or done differently, usually because we are in de grip of, or conditioned by fear, sometimes obsessed and predispositioned, due to former experience, and this makes it hard to let go, since we usually only change when we have a better alternative without risking what we already have. To move forward often means letting go without any guarantee for improvement or safety.


Wow... If only there was a way to subscribe to someone's posts... 

In any event, I tend more to identify with - flaws especially. I seem to know how (in some small ways) to counteract them or move past them but often forget to and just allow myself to drift downwards. If I'm honest it's a case of laziness because I know I should fight against the "indolence" but I say I don't have the energy to deal with them, and have given up on trying to find ways to counteract them that have meaning and relevance to me... All the knowledge gained is being left to rot, and the patterns continue to play out...


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

I think one tends to have a better success rate if one is aware of their flaws and tries to work around them, rather than try to outright change them. To deny that I am a primarily anxious type, and to deny myself to feel anxiety, would be to go against my nature. My nature is who I am, and I won't let anyone else change who I am, so why should I allow myself to do so? 

Of course, I mean this in a broad sense: there are obviously traits in everyone which should not be encouraged, but the majority of the time it's detrimental to go into denial. I suppose my answer shows that I don't believe much in the mutability of personality; I believe people can improve and mature and, in this way, can appear to "change," but I think their fundamental nature generally stays the same.


----------



## wormy (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not positive of my type, but I believe I'm 4w5. Part of the reason it's difficult committing to this type is because so much of it sounds familiar, and I'm absolutely ashamed of it. 

No. I do not embrace my type. I would prefer to work against it.


----------



## Fallen cat (Jan 7, 2013)

I used to reject my type and think I was something else which I was not. Now I just fully embrace my type.


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

Embrace, I suppose.

It's not so much that I want to fight it, I want to transcend it, eventually.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

snowbell:4784484 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that with regard to the theory, only the instincts can be considered nature, and that type fixation describes the distortion, learned or conditioned behavior.
> ...


Why would you fight them? I can imagine that takes a lot of energy. Flaws are symptoms, and the result of an underlying cause or reason.

Although that is a nasty problem for withdrawn types, strategically. But still, there are underlying assumptions, and when you withdraw or disengage, there's usually no way to find out if the belief or assumption is correct.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Uh, I don't know. I'm still pretty displeased with the whole Four thing, in a lot of ways. I'm not as mortified about it as I was upon first learning the Enneagram, but I feel like I haven't fully accepted it about myself. I know that part of me still wants to somehow overcome the flaws and shames of being a Four, until I'm no longer bound to any of it. But I know that's not realistic, and the real solution is to focus on levels of health within the system.

But as it stands, I have a LOT of shame about my shame, hahahaa. 

Like was said by enneathusiast, in some ways I accept and embrace all nine types as different aspects to who I am. There really is a bit of every type in me, and I've learned something from all of them. I think the more I'm able to embrace and learn from all the types, the more I'll be able to do the same thing with my main type. 

I'll get there eventually, I think. I'm growing all the time and have come a long way.


----------



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

I don't think I could reject my type's nature if I wanted to. It's an overwhelming thing that's always kind of *there*.

My 4-fix's influence I might *attempt* to reject, I guess. Tbh it inspired more shame than type 6, but I guess that makes sense considering the former is a shame type. =P In a way it's disappointing, though. I remember hearing that once you find your core-type, you'll feel sick, but I never felt all that bad at the thought of being a 6. So I keep wondering if I'm a 4 or a 9 instead... or something else I would feel bad about. Hmm ok, I guess I don't really reject my masochism. =P


----------



## SOMALI PIRATE (Mar 18, 2014)

I embrace the hell out of my type , totally proud but I do realize the flaws it has and i intend to fix it .


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

I have come to terms with my type and I understand that I cannot be other than my type. I see that the greatest action I can take is to work on myself within the confines of my type.


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

Does embracing mean that I perpetuate and worsen my issues?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

snowbell:4784484 said:


> In any event, I tend more to identify with -flaws especially. I seem to know how (in some small ways) to counteract them or move past them but often forget to and just allow myself to drift downwards. If I'm honest it's a case of laziness because I know I should fight against the "indolence" but I say I don't have the energy to deal with them, and have given up on trying to find ways to counteract them that have meaning and relevance to me... All the knowledge gained is being left to rot, and the patterns continue to play out...


Of course, you need to embrace yourself -unconditionally- to even begin, whatever your type is or your flaws are. And you can only improve as much as you can handle, so it's no use to focus on improvements that are way above your head. 

When you accept yourself as you are, it will also become clearer what viable targets are, and the progress you make, rather than to define yourself in terms of all that is wrong about you, or in comparison with others. No need to look further than the next step.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Well, in some ways, I was happier typing as a 5w4 - only because I didn't really have that much psychological work to do with it; since it was wrong. In other ways, I feel more optimistic typing as a 4w5 because, for all of the pain and self-disparagement that 4s put themselves through; being primarily a frustration rather than a rejection type; there is a greater determination to overcome my issues.

The downside is that I actually have to DEAL with those issues and all of the attendant pain and childhood trauma of how feeling not good enough to merit unconditional love and acceptance from my mother and how it has impacted on everything in my life. I need to figure out a way to move past this in order to have the life I want but attempting to overcome this, is overwhelming and gut-wrenchingly painful.


----------



## DeathRipper (Jan 23, 2013)

I embrace it as who I am, but do not use it as an excuse (to anybody, including myself). I accept that it's what I am like and use it to understand my behavior, so I could influence it next time, or cut myself off of those motivations and think objectively for a moment. But 7 isn't really a problematic type, I guess. Taking into account I don't mind getting myself hurt as a consequence of my actions, I just hate hurting others. Ofc, there are people who care about me and are hurt when I am, so that's a bit of a difficulty, but meh.

Also I realize some of my flaws will never be gone or will at least take constant effort to surpass and those I mostly accept as a part of me. I can't be perfect if I don't enjoy being perfect as well, as that is not perfect (and that was so 7ishly said).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, it's a funny question, because we have no control over my type's nature - it just occurs as it is. I've tried to "change" it by re-framing the way I think about it and catching myself in the act, but ironically it's that very desire to change it that's the creating problem to begin with. I kept finding myself in a bluster of "do this's" and "don't do that's" that were made all the worse by being aware that _those_ reactions were also part of my type. In other words, my only way of trying to "accept or reject my type" is to use the strategy of my type. 

What I have learned can be changed is one's attitude toward their type. I've come to believe that we frame enneatype extremely negatively here by calling it a "delusion" or "distorted view of reality." The truth is that we're distorted with respect to a type of enlightenment that is sort of infinite in itself. Most of us aren't distorted to the point of psychopathy. Nowadays, I really kind of enjoy parts of my type, but I had to get to resigning myself to being entrenched in it at first. There will always be room for improvement in specific areas, but focusing so much on how one is "screwed up" in non-specific areas of their entire being, as many here do, can be extremely counter-productive. 

You have to embrace your type eventually, but you have to embrace what you know about yourself first.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I accept who I am. Type is not the entirety of it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@Figure

You mean these guys here? I mean, we could argue about truth, but it so happens to be the paradigm, or if you will "wisdom" that Enneagram theory is based upon.



Enneagraminstitute said:


> Thus, the Passions and Ego-fixations represent the ways that spiritual qualities become contracted into ego states. There are, according to Ichazo's theory, nine main ways that we lose our center and become distorted in our thinking, feeling, and doing, and are thus the nine ways that we forget our connection with the Divine. (The Passions can also be thought of as our untamed animal nature before it is transformed by contact from higher influences—awareness and Grace.)
> 
> Because of this particular relationship between the higher qualities of the soul and their corresponding ego distortions, a person could, by using presence and awareness to recognize the pattern of their distortion—their characteristic passion and ego-fixation—come to recognize the quality of Essence that had been obscured. By remembering or contemplating the higher quality, balance could be restored, thus accelerating the person's awareness of themselves as Essence. Knowing one's "type" was a way to direct one's inner work to facilitate the transformative process.





Almaas said:


> For various reasons, some innate and others environmental, we slowly become alienated from our Essence through the development of fixed patterns of perception and behaviour known as the personality or ego. Each of these patterns or ego structures disconnects us from a specific Essential Aspect.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

I guess I reject? I don't feel like a 6w5, they are way more serious than I am. Every time I take that test I get the same result.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

mimesis said:


> @_Figure_
> 
> You mean these guys here? I mean, we could argue about truth, but it so happens to be the paradigm, or if you will "wisdom" that Enneagram theory is based upon.


Yeah, them. And this remains my issue with enneagram theory. The idea of a fixation makes a lot of sense, but then defines the ultimate ends as this vague concept of "Essence" without saying that re-connection is even an ends worth considering as part of the journey. The first quote you posted implies that self-awareness is the ends - so, self-awareness in part that we are disconnected. And that's why I said, that acceptance of that is difficult when we're presented with an abstract concept like "Essence" that may not be attainable.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> Yeah, them. And this remains my issue with enneagram theory. The idea of a fixation makes a lot of sense, but then defines the ultimate ends as this vague concept of "Essence" without saying that re-connection is even an ends worth considering as part of the journey. The first quote you posted implies that self-awareness is the ends - so, self-awareness in part that we are disconnected. And that's why I said, that acceptance of that is difficult when we're presented with an abstract concept like "Essence" that may not be attainable.


The problem is that I think current enneagram teachings are far removed from Gurdjieff's more esoteric approach towards enneagram which really isn't all that much different from the goals of other esoteric movements that is, to serve the self. Aleister Crowley definitely comes to mind: 



Aleister Crowley said:


> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.


Almaas and perhaps also Ichazo, seem to have tried to (implicitly) re-frame this logic back to Christianity and the Christian idea of essence, which obviously is an entirely different kind of spiritual teaching. Hence the probable disconnect.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> The problem is that I think current enneagram teachings are far removed from Gurdjieff's more esoteric approach towards enneagram which really isn't all that much different from the goals of other esoteric movements that is, to serve the self.
> 
> Almaas and perhaps also Ichazo, seem to have tried to (implicitly) re-frame this logic back to Christianity and the Christian idea of essence, which obviously is an entirely different kind of spiritual teaching. Hence the probable disconnect.


Thanks - that's a very interesting way of informing our current takes on the theory. I know Sandra Maitri comes from Naranjo, and I want to say Naranjo comes from Ichazo as well. These are the more prominent authors we cite on-forum. 

Would you say that our conversations here as a whole are therefore more flavored with "essence" as a Christian idea than those of Gurdjieff's as well?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> Thanks - that's a very interesting way of informing our current takes on the theory. I know Sandra Maitri comes from Naranjo, and I want to say Naranjo comes from Ichazo as well. These are the more prominent authors we cite on-forum.
> 
> Would you say that our conversations here as a whole are therefore more flavored with "essence" as a Christian idea than those of Gurdjieff's as well?


I think so, yes. I haven't delved much into Almaas because he's just too damn fluffy for my tastes, but my overall impression of his idea of "essence" seems similar to the Christian idea of merging with a greater or grander entity or in other words, become one with God i.e. accept/love God within yourself in order to transcend one's current spiritual form. I am not sure this is something Almaas may have done on purpose, but anyway, I think there is a striking difference between Gurdjieff's idea of ego death and Almaas' idea of merging with essence in this regard? Again, keeping in mind that esotericism emphasized the importance of the _self_ and that godhood or what you want to call it does not come from merging with a higher state of being but by accepting one's mortality, kind of. I'm kind of reminded of Nietzsche in this regard as well, with his idea of ubermensch, or modern/LaVeyan satanism which focuses on ego/self-empowerment, rather than err, diminishing it? 

I can't comment much on Ichazo because I have never read anything written by the man himself, but I wouldn't be surprised that Ichazo coming from such a Catholic background would understand Gurdjieff from a similar point of view as Almaas. 

In general, it's probably not surprising that the idea of "essence" has become distorted over time as each author interprets the idea of "essence" based on their spiritual preferences, especially since it is a loose concept.

Addendum: I just remembered that enneagram has a long Christian tradition as well, obviously influencing the idea of "essence". Don't R&H derive their teachings from this tradition?


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

eydimork said:


> Does embracing mean that I perpetuate and worsen my issues?


I don't know. Depends on what your type means to you.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

A little of both, I'm definitely logical, spontaneous, and fun-loving. But I also go against the grain (often without knowing) more and often feel out of touch with fellow ISTPs.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Figure:4786187 said:


> ephemereality said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that I think current enneagram teachings are far removed from Gurdjieff's more esoteric approach towards enneagram which really isn't all that much different from the goals of other esoteric movements that is, to serve the self. Almaas and perhaps also Ichazo, seem to have tried to (implicitly) re-frame this logic back to Christianity and the Christian idea of essence, which obviously is an entirely different kind of spiritual teaching. Hence the probable disconnect.
> ...


I can quote Naranjo if you like.


Naranjo; said:


> The broadest distinction in de body of Fourth Way Psychology that I seek to outline, is between Essence and Personality - between real being and the conditioned being with which we ordinarily identify, between the greater and lesser mind.


Naranjo actually relates Essence to Sufism, and I believe Almaas compares it with Atman, as used in Eastern schools of thought. Then again, Eastern schools of thought, about the Self and mental formations (conditioned dispositions, 5 Skandha) have greatly influenced Jung as well, when he speaks about functions, Individuation and Self-realization.You can find on Naranjo's website:


Naranjo; said:


> Alongside these activities that explore our sense of self, or what we confuse with self, the retreat will also include important work in the apparently contrary direction of meditation. Here we will be exploring the Vipassana practice focused on observing the here and now and letting go of our attachment to thought. Meditation enables its practitioner to gain an experience of self that is not thought, of self beyond or outside thought, as well as the opportunity to see in what ways thought compulsively interrupts us.


More on conditioning, in Buddhism


Sankhara; said:


> The Buddha taught that all such things are impermanent, arising and passing away, subject to change, and that understanding the significance of this reality is wisdom. Sankhāra is often used in this first sense to describe the psychological conditioning (particularly the habit patterns of the unconscious mind) that gives any individual human being his or her unique character and make-up at any given time. English translations for sankhāra in the first sense of the word include 'conditioned things,'[3] 'determinations,'[4]'fabrications'[5] and 'formations' (or, particularly when referring to mental processes, 'volitional formations').[6] Wiki Sankhanda


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

There's a saying in Zen that I think is relevant here:



> Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers


I can't help but think this discrimination between personality and essence as getting stuck within the first two views. I keep looking for an author or teacher who understands the Enneagram in terms of the last two sentences (haven't found one yet).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4787691 said:


> There's a saying in Zen that I think is relevant here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean to explain that mountains are mountains? I think it's good enough to explain the distortion, and ego attachment. 

I like Naranjo's quote of Lao Tse addressed to the most wrathful of Ones.

"Virtue does not seek to be virtuous;
Precisely because of this, it is virtue"

You could say the same about seeking knowledge to know, or to be knowledgeable. The latter is ego attachment (fixation). That doesn't render the knowledge false, but it obscures. Fear or resentment can obscure or distort, like someone who has been cheated (personal narrative), believing it is okay to cheat on a cheater. And even more obscured when, because of this resentment, he takes everyone to be a potential cheater (worldview). Resentment may cause us to shut us from our feelings, or preoccupy and narrow our mind.

But you can't explain how to open your mind, can you? Or how to deal with resentment. It's a process of un-conditioning habitual patterns of perception and behavior (coping strategies). 
Sometimes there is too much resentment to be able to see clear. Or someone identifies oneself so much with this resentment, as a personal narrative, that it feels like losing your identity and worldview if you'd lose that resentment. To the extend of for instance self-sabotage, or learned helplessness. I know, because I've been there. At the time I would have said, that's just the way I am. (going berserk and recklessly putting on the line what I cared for). I wouldn't say I was fake or unreal, but I didn't feel being myself like I feel I am now. And I was too often clueless in how to explain my behavior. Of course you can always find an explanation, but it became harder not to contradict myself. 

Anyway, from the bits and pieces I read on Almaas' website, it seems to me he could be worthwhile reading for the purpose you mentioned. And I can understand why Naranjo combines Enneagram with Vipassana, as it has served me well (without Enneagram theory).

But my point was more, when you identify with type, that's basically attachment on a fixation, and resulting in more obscuration. For instance, if the stereotype says the (true) type has a poor self image, it harbours the chance of cultivating even more defeatism.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

...


> Before I had studied the Enneagram for twenty years, I saw personality as who I was. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that personality is not who I am, I am essence. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see personality as who I am and essence as who I am (for the distinction is just a concept in my mind and it's the concepts in my mind that have blinded me all along).


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm not sure I exactly embrace or reject. I try to be more aware of why I'm doing something, and make decisions based upon the situation to either keep doing what I'm doing or try something else.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4791803 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> > Before I had studied the Enneagram for twenty years, I saw personality as who I was. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that personality is not who I am, I am essence. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see personality as who I am and essence as who I am (for the distinction is just a concept in my mind and it's the concepts in my mind that have blinded me all along).


Now it sounds more like the distinction between egolessness and enlightenment.

This is how Almaas describes the latter.



Almaas; said:


> *Enlightenment Means Conceptualization is Ended*
> Enlightenment does not involve simply the perception that the person is only a concept. It means that all conceptualization is ended; all images and representations in the mind, whether conscious, preconscious or unconscious, are eliminated, or at least not identified with. When this profound stillness of the mind is achieved, it is asserted; true reality is perceived, not by an entity which is a separate individual. The experience is one of unqualified Being, wordlessexistence, infinite and eternal.


And could it be that this is also what the Zen saying was conveying?

Anyway, I don't see how the concept of ego distortion or the notion of a 'false Self' would imply the objective of abolishing the ego, or that writers like Naranjo or Almaas suggest this false dichotomy of either personality (type) or Essence. It is called distortion, like a lens can optically distort the light, or ripples in the water distort reflection.

But perhaps this explains why you can't find any enneagram author.



Almaas - distortion; said:


> As we have seen, our soul reveals its possibilities through its creative dynamism in two basic ways. The first is in an open and free manner, the second through a distorted and constricted process. In the former case, the soul manifests itself in a real and authentic way, while in the latter case, the soul becomes diminished, distorted, and disconnected from its true nature. Both of these experiences (authenticity and distortion) are inherent in the potential of our human soul. It is important to understand specifically and clearly the difference between these two major ways that our experience reveals itself … when our experience is free, and hence authentic, we discover that our soul is in touch with -- in fact, inseparable from -- true nature. The distorted experience, on the other hand, is characterized primarily by a lack of awareness of this true nature.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Anyway, I don't see how the concept of ego distortion or the notion of a 'false Self' would imply the objective of abolishing the ego, or that writers like Naranjo or Almaas suggest this false dichotomy of either personality (type) or Essence. It is called distortion, like a lens can optically distort the light, or ripples in the water distort reflection.


The distinctions are made so the novice has a path to follow. Once the experience is found, the concepts are no longer needed.

What I haven't found in any authors yet is the experiential understanding that we are all nine types. When that's experienced the illusion of the nine types falls away replaced by the realization that we're simply talking about different aspects of ourselves, some well developed, others not so much.

Many authors seem to not only forget that we are all nine types but continue to distance us from that realization by introducing more and more distinctions and concepts.

Although it may seem like I'm here exploring the types and instincts of others, I'm really looking to others to help me find that experience within myself. That seems to be a path that no one else is taking including the authors and "experts".


----------



## Belladonne (Mar 22, 2014)

I embrace it whole-heartedly, TBH. 

"And this above all: to thine own self be true."

Without sounding smug, though, I'd say that I have an unfair advantage in this regard as an ENTJ. Though we inevitably have a bad rep for being arrogant/dictatorial/impersonal etc. at times, the supposed positives of being our type - confidence, leadership, the sort of traits that lead to being very successful - are among the best ones of any type I've ever read. I'd say any type can develop such traits, but the fact they're often associated with mine definitely helps me accept it more.

Or possibly they only seem like some of "the best positive traits you can have" to me because I _am_ an ENTJ


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4792812 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I don't see how the concept of ego distortion or the notion of a 'false Self' would imply the objective of abolishing the ego, or that writers like Naranjo or Almaas suggest this false dichotomy of either personality (type) or Essence. It is called distortion, like a lens can optically distort the light, or ripples in the water distort reflection.
> ...


Yes, I have noticed you stressing the uniqueness of your perspective before, in such a way that I wasn't sure if telling you it is not so unique would be comforting or dissappointing.

Not just on this forum, but you can read it also on the website of the enneagraminstitute. It's possible that you missed all that, but also the post in this very thread of someone who said to share that view, who also had the courtesy to acknowledge that by mentioning you. A courtesy that is not reciprocated. 

I find it odd why you refer to a state beyond conceptualization, to address the distinction between two concepts, then say concepts are needed for the novice, although you still haven't said anything substantial about this distinction.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yes, I have noticed you stressing the uniqueness of your perspective before, in such a way that I wasn't sure if telling you it is not so unique would be comforting or dissappointing.
> 
> Not just on this forum, but you can read it also on the website of the enneagraminstitute. It's possible that you missed all that, but also the post in this very thread of someone who said to share that view, who also had the courtesy to acknowledge that by mentioning you. A courtesy that is not reciprocated.


I guess I'm just not being explicit enough to make the distinction for you. So be it. I'll make a point not to mention it anymore (unless it's to make clear to someone that my opinion may likely be different from others). It's a waste of time to debate it.



mimesis said:


> I find it odd why you refer to a state beyond conceptualization, to address the distinction between two concepts, then say concepts are needed for the novice, although you still haven't said anything substantial about this distinction.


I was referring to the concepts you were bringing up. I have no interest in sorting out those concepts. They hold no value for me. I prefer not to get all tangled up in mental conceptualization. I'm only interested in discovering the experiences being pointed to by the words not debating the words themselves.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4794014 said:


> I guess I'm just not being explicit enough to make the distinction for you. So be it. I'll make a point not to mention it anymore (unless it's to make clear to someone that my opinion may likely be different from others). It's a waste of time to debate it.


Before you restated your exceptional understanding, which you haven't found on this forum, and "keep looking for" amongst the authors and the (quote/unquote) experts, I had already posted quoting Naranjo on "conditioned Self" and "experience Self outside of thought". You may see that as "mental conceptualization" but is based on the same notion as your Zen quote, so if you don't see that connection, maybe you don't fully grasp it.

Or, it is willfull ignorance, like you also ignored the mention of someone who shared the understanding of the enneagram, as being "all nine types". 

With regard to this understanding, I'll refer to Enneagram Institute, which I know you are familiar with.



Enneagraminstitute; said:


> Ultimately, the goal is for each of us to "move around" the Enneagram, integrating what each type symbolizes and acquiring the healthy potentials of all the types. The ideal is to become a balanced, fully functioning person who can draw on the power (or from the Latin, "virtue") of each as needed. Each of the types of the Enneagram symbolizes different important aspects of what we need to achieve this end. The personality type we begin life with is therefore less important ultimately than how well (or badly) we use our type as the beginning point for our self-development and self-realization.





enneathusiast:4794014 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > I find it odd why you refer to a state beyond conceptualization, to address the distinction between two concepts, then say concepts are needed for the novice, although you still haven't said anything substantial about this distinction.
> ...


It appears to me that you make the same mistake as the ones who confuse egolessness with abolishment of the ego, or think it is wrong to have an ego. Even when mental conceptualizations are distortion and conditioning, you can't think outside thought. When you assert we are all types, you are conceptualizing. Moreover, when you say you try to learn skills from types that are not as familiar to you, I would even say it is a pre-conception and anticipation of "full potential".


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

*From AZIZ KRISTOF, a non-traditional Advaita-Zen Master:*

Additional info on former post, Fwiw

Enlightenment does not annihilate the ego. Why would someone want to annihilate something so useful and extraordinary? It has not been by chance that we have mentioned many times how important the mind and ego are as the creative force of our intelligence. We need to dissolve this dangerous spiritual conditioning that has taken deep root in our habitual way of thinking. Irresponsible psychological language has caused a lot of harm to those on the Path. The ego concept needs to be defined in a way that relates to our everyday experience, and to all those complicated processes in meditation and on the spiritual Path.

In the case of people without insight into the nature of consciousness, the mental activity is in the center of consciousness. Every thought creates a new center, a new identification which is the ego -- there is nothing else there. We cannot talk about “one” ego but rather about a flow of conscious or semi-conscious events, being capable of operating in a relatively integrated way. This is the function of the ego.

When Enlightenment takes place, the Presence becomes the center, and there is the feeling that all the thoughts are only witnessed objects-events on the periphery of consciousness; they are guests coming and going, having nothing to do with the stillness of our being. For that reason, it is easy to conclude that there is only Witnessing, and the rest is irrelevant, impersonal and objective. But this popular conclusion is one-dimensional and is not able to grasp the dynamics of human consciousness. Thoughts are being witnessed and observed. The center is empty and uninvolved. Is that all? Not fully. Although the thoughts are witnessed, the intelligence which is using them represents also a parallel center of relative consciousness - it is also the “Me.”

We can speak about two centers within us, as manifested beings: one is the Witnessing Consciousness -- a constant flow of presence, and the second is the moving self-conscious center of our personality. When we see this clearly, there is no doubt that the thoughts, which are being witnessed, are simultaneously an indivisible part of Me, and it is Me who is thinking them! In the case of an Enlightened being, although thoughts have a different quality, still they remain as a function of consciousness and as a functional self-relating center, which we interpret as “me.” The absolute Me and the relative me are one. Being and self-conscious expression are one.

The ego concept refers not only to the gross level of thinking or to the gross will. We have already spoken about the fact that to divide our consciousness into thinking and not-thinking is far too simplistic. Consciousness is extraordinarily rich. There is intuitive knowing, feeling, gentle checking and being attentive to what is happening in our consciousness and surroundings. This movement of intelligence has a quality of self-referral which is also what we call -- the ego. The personality without Presence is ignorance of course, but Presence without the personality is like a tree without fruit, the sun without rays or a flower without fragrance. They are one organic whole. When we fully understand that ego is “good,” the whole issue of eliminating it drops off by itself. But this is not yet the end. We are coming now to the next complicated problem: what kind of ego should we have?

From AZIZ KRISTOF, a non-traditional Advaita-Zen Master:


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@mimesis

<.< is it true that those who resist meditation the most also need it the most. -.- I have tried...and its very difficult to tame the impatient & turbulent inner turmoil that grips me when I'm standing still and observing my thoughts. Its also difficult to stop the mental stimulation for a while since my mood is strongly dependent on this said stimulation.

I have seen Ni&Si doms who enjoy meditation a lot...with Ne doms like myself where the focus is external its quite the opposite :S, plus I seem to have "chaotic" - "explosive chain reaction" thinking...which I exerience as not under my control.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> I embrace all nine types as different aspects of myself.


^ I love this. I do this too.



LeoCat said:


> The day I could admit to myself I had fear, was the most freeing day of my life.


For me it was the day I could admit to myself I had shame. Not only that I had shame, but that the thing I was most ashamed about was shame itself. And that shame was driving so many of my actions. I have always wanted to be shameless, and ironically now that I openly admit I have shame, I am closer to shameless than I was before, because I'm honest.



Cosmic Orgasm said:


> I accept who I am.


^ This is the real question isn't it? Enneagram is a tool to help us explore who we are and improve who we are. In the end, if we accept ourselves as we are, and understand who we are - then it's arguably irrelevant whether we're typed correctly, mistyped, or whether we believe tritype exists, etc. It is a map for a journey and if we reach the destination by taking a roundabout route, yet use the map as a reference point, then enneagram served its purpose. So in the end, it's really about embracing who _you_ are, not what your "type" is. From within the view of the theory, your type is part of who you are, so that balance of self-acceptance with the will for self-improvement would apply to an approach to type just as it would apply to an approach to self.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@mimesis

Zen is direct pointing to an experience. It's an attempt to penetrate all the concepts in the mind that interfere with finding the experience being pointed to. The problem is that people get caught up in the words and concepts and have difficulty finding the experience because they busy their minds with trying to understand the meanings of the words and concepts instead of seeing what's right in front of them.

You're throwing a bunch of words and concepts at me and expecting me to debate the meaning of those words and concepts. You're completely missing what it's all about when you do that. At this point, all I can do is let you wear yourself out on that path until you finally realize the futility of it. Then maybe, you'd be willing to look at where my words are pointing to see the experience that I'm pointing to.

The ego is one of those concepts that can really get you tangled up and send you spinning around in circles - do I embrace it, do I transcend it, do I ignore it. It's all a mind game you play with yourself and then invite others in to play too.

For your own sake, ask yourself the question of why you feel it necessary to assume you know what I mean, then assume I don't understand what you assume I mean, then offer unsolicited references and opinions on how ignorant I am about it all.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

FreeBeer:4796053 said:


> @mimesis
> 
> <.< is it true that those who resist meditation the most also need it the most. -.- I have tried...and its very difficult to tame the impatient & turbulent inner turmoil that grips me when I'm standing still and observing my thoughts. Its also difficult to stop the mental stimulation for a while since my mood is strongly dependent on this said stimulation.
> 
> I have seen Ni&Si doms who enjoy meditation a lot...with Ne doms like myself where the focus is external its quite the opposite :S, plus I seem to have "chaotic" - "explosive chain reaction" thinking...which I exerience as not under my control.


I see. Well, I started meditating just after the breakup of a 2 year relationship, and my mind was completely in the grip of compulsive jealousy. I was not able to stop or distract my mind from thinking scenarios of what could possibly hurt or humiliate me even more. It felt like bordering insanity, and I may have ended up doing something bad to my head, if I weren't so fortunate being able to call in the help of a new friend, who had told me about meditation a few times, in particular about mind focus. 

I am glad I did. He taught me the basics and a technique that focuses on establishing a mind body connection, and opening the energy channels. So it's not so much that you just control or observe your thoughts, which seems mostly a cerebral activity, but rather focus your mind and concentrate on (subtle) body awareness and breathing. You actually feel it tingle when you scan your body with your mind. If you distract you lose this tingle, and you have to start over. This is a technique that was much easier for me to keep track. And it indeed turned out to be thre way to regain control over my head. Possibly the jealousy had become an advantage now, in that I merely needed to redirect Sx (energy).


Edit: Along the way I learned how to use this technique to deal with conditioned responses, that were rooted in unprocessed traumatic experiences, tracing back the chain of cause and effect, observing former experiences from a more detachef pov. In some cases relatively small wounds had grown to bigger wounds over time, reinforced by self fullfilling prophecies, and interaction with environment.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4796241 said:


> @mimesis
> 
> Zen is direct pointing to an experience. It's an attempt to penetrate all the concepts in the mind that interfere with finding the experience being pointed to. The problem is that people get caught up in the words and concepts and have difficulty finding the experience because they busy their minds with trying to understand the meanings of the words and concepts instead of seeing what's right in front of them.
> 
> ...


Ah, right...You throw in a Zen saying about mountains and rivers, making an analogy with a metaphor, with regard to the distinction between Essence and Personality, to convey the message of not getting caught up with words or meaning? :tongue:

Why don't you just say that? Why do you need to lash out at the authors and experts, for not understanding the last two lines of your analogy? Which, as it turns out doesn't refer to Essence or Personality, but your personal conception of being all types. And then you blame me for not dropping what I was talking about, and not following you.

There's a discrepancy between what you say and what you do.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Ah, right...You throw in a Zen saying about mountains and rivers, making an analogy with a metaphor, with regard to the distinction between Essence and Personality, to convey the message of not getting caught up with words or meaning? :tongue:
> 
> Why don't you just say that?


You mean like my earlier reply below when I personalized the Zen saying?



> Before I had studied the Enneagram for twenty years, I saw personality as who I was. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that personality is not who I am, I am essence. * But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see personality as who I am and essence as who I am (for the distinction is just a concept in my mind and it's the concepts in my mind that have blinded me all along).*


I thought that was pretty clear on what I was trying to say. All I can surmise is that you read my response before I added what's in parentheses (I was still editing it) or you just missed that somehow.



mimesis said:


> Why do you need to lash out at the authors and experts, for not understanding the last two lines of your analogy? Which, as it turns out doesn't refer to Essence or Personality, but your personal conception of being all types.


Well, the last two lines meant what was bolded in my above quote. If you missed that, then I can see how it might not make sense what I was saying about the authors in my earlier reply below.



> Many authors seem to not only forget that we are all nine types but *continue to distance us from that realization by introducing more and more distinctions and concepts.*


I'm simply saying that many authors introduce more concepts that do little to help discover the experience of each type and instead distract us from even looking for the experience because we become too preoccupied with trying to understand the concepts they're presenting.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4796636 said:


> mimesis said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, right...You throw in a Zen saying about mountains and rivers, making an analogy with a metaphor, with regard to the distinction between Essence and Personality, to convey the message of not getting caught up with words or meaning? :tongue:
> ...


My point was that types refer to a type of distortion (of Essence), not 'nature'. I was expanding on distortion, e.g. conditioning although conceptualization can also distort or alienate, not in the least "self-concept" (e.g. Special Snowflake, Victim) or worldview (it's a dog eat dog world). 

You started with the saying, without the words replaced with Essence, Personality and Enneagram, to address the (problem) of distinction between Essence and Personality. First, you assumed there was a problem, but that had more to do with your own attitude. In other words, you had a problem (with conceptualizations in general, I guess)

You believe direct experience is more real, because it is not distorted by mental conceptions. My point being, a person may not be able, because former experienced has conditioned the response to the stimulus in a negative way. It caused him to numb his feelings or repress joy. Or it caused someone to hate himself seeing other people happy.
This distortion is not his "nature" or an intrinsic permanent quality, because a person can change and feel happy and generous when seeing other people happy. 

You assumed there was only one way to interpret it. Since your Zen quote also addresses distortion (of direct experience), I continued addressing ego distortion.

But apparently I misunderstood, because you replaced the words, and added "blinded by conceptualization". Which actually only made it more unclear because of your invalidation of the authors. Enneagram in terms of growth IS about direct experience, by eliminating distortion and be real (not so much about learning latent intrinsic skills). To be in the moment. Virtue as opposed to virtuous. Etc. So I thought your invalidation was incorrect, and I wasn't amused by the way you posted the "correct" interpretation. Which again, didn't refer anymore to ego distortion, or the conditioned self, or essence, but the distortion of theoretical conceptualizations. 

I would agree that the general conception is rather static. But I can't imagine personal growth of just core type, while the "other types in you" remain underdeveloped, whether you believe in this as a conceptual understanding or not, and whether you intentionally try to learn from other core types, or not. Whether you even heard of the friggin enneagram or not.

Well anyway. I guess you made your point. I'll continue conceptualizing though, but you don't have to agree with that, no problem.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

The way I see things, it's interesting to me to know what exactly was the goal of the 'esoteric schools' to see if I can grab something of interest to me, but what makes enneagram of personality an interesting theory for many is that it appears to have some utility regardless of the end aim, regardless of what the "distortions" are really blocking one from.

I think it's important to make some level of personal choice on what really one needs to be freed from, but this is an endless conundrum almost the way I do things, like why did I make the choice I did, and what does it reveal about my biases (and why do I turn things into endless conundrums). The type (and really, isolating how each of the 9 types plays out in oneself) is thus to me more of a symbolic thing that one gives meaning by making some subjectively relevant choices. Once one has done this, one attains a certain version of freedom.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@mimesis

In general terms, I think about my approach to the Enneagram in two parts.

1) Release yourself from the limitations imposed by the habits of your type - you're not simply one type.
2) Embrace and develop the other aspects of yourself - you are all nine types.

As far as I know, there is no book that approaches the Enneagram directly in this way (that's where I see the authors and "experts" falling short). I don't think they can write this sort of book until they've taken that path themselves (especially part 2).

Although I can see some other people agreeing with this general approach and using it, it's in the details where the differences become obvious to me (I don't think I could nor would I want to explain all that here). 

Some things I will share that I think are relevant to the back and forth we've been having:

I don't get into the ego vs. essence concepts because I've already found a way to cut through that for myself in what I studied before the Enneagram (this is what prompted the Zen saying in my reply). 

I often don't agree with the concepts that authors propose. I find the concepts are often pointing to some experience other than what's being described. Once I find that experience, my understanding of the concept usually becomes something different than everyone else's. Sometimes I offer that in replies or even start posts that explore those differences but I often qualify my replies by saying that's my approach or understanding which may be different from others. Once I've found the experience being pointed to by a concept, the original interpretation of the concept is of little value to me except to tell me where someone's interpretation is coming from.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast:4797391 said:


> @mimesis
> 
> In general terms, I think about my approach to the Enneagram in two parts.
> 
> ...


That is the pizza slice approach. Type 1 has anjovis and salami, type 2 olives, type 3 mozarella, etc.

All together make a perfect pizza.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

All of the above, as much as I can.

I enjoy growth.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> @_mimesis_
> 
> <.< is it true that those who resist meditation the most also need it the most. -.- I have tried...and its very difficult to tame the impatient & turbulent inner turmoil that grips me when I'm standing still and observing my thoughts. Its also difficult to stop the mental stimulation for a while since my mood is strongly dependent on this said stimulation.
> 
> I have seen Ni&Si doms who enjoy meditation a lot...with Ne doms like myself where the focus is external its quite the opposite :S, plus I seem to have "chaotic" - "explosive chain reaction" thinking...which I exerience as not under my control.


I dunno, I never got into meditation, though partly that's because I can't do most forms. I've thinking about trying visualization, but meh. Also tried "grounding," which I'm sure isn't the real name of it but a Google search may bring something up. I just get really bored during that stuff.

If sitting still is too annoying, have you considered exercise meditation? Tai chi is a version of this, I think. Martial arts could be, as well. It probably takes longer to learn, but it's definitely a thing.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Paradigm said:


> I dunno, I never got into meditation, though partly that's because I can't do most forms. I've thinking about trying visualization, but meh. Also tried "grounding," which I'm sure isn't the real name of it but a Google search may bring something up. I just get really bored during that stuff.
> 
> If sitting still is too annoying, have you considered exercise meditation? Tai chi is a version of this, I think. Martial arts could be, as well. It probably takes longer to learn, but it's definitely a thing.


I only agree with you.

I think reading a book is way better than meditating.

Crack the pages, yo.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@FreeBeer


I'll quote some wiki info that I think has some relevance with the enneagram passions, or if you will, passions we _all_ may have to some extend. 


*Five Hindrances*
The jhānas are states of meditation where the mind is free from the five hindrances—craving, aversion, sloth, agitation and doubt— and is no longer engaged in discursive thought.

In the Buddhist tradition, the five hindrances are identified as mental factors that hinder progress in meditation and in our daily lives. In theTheravada tradition, these factors are identified specifically as obstacles to the jhānas (stages of concentration) within meditation practice. Within the Mahayana tradition, the five hindrances are identified as obstacles to samatha (tranquility) meditation. Contemporary Insight Meditation teachers identify the five hindrances as obstacles to mindfulness meditation.

The five hindrances are:



*Sensory desire* (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling.
*Ill-will* (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject, feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
*Sloth-torpor* (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
*Restlessness-worry* (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.
*Doubt* (vicikicchā): lack of conviction or trust.

Dhyāna_in_Buddhism
Overcoming_the_hindrances


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Animal said:


> ^ I love this. I do this too.
> 
> 
> For me it was the day I could admit to myself I had shame. Not only that I had shame, but that the thing I was most ashamed about was shame itself. And that shame was driving so many of my actions. I have always wanted to be shameless, and ironically now that I openly admit I have shame, I am closer to shameless than I was before, because I'm honest.
> ...


For me, it was the day I could admit to having envy. While I knew that I did have it in some way; whenever I would feel shame or hurt; I would transform it into false pride: "I'm better than you are; who needs you, anyway!" type of thing. When I admitted my true envy to myself; I realized that it was really, mostly in my imagination. Everyone face obstacles and problems and acknowledging my envy helped me; both face it and release it.

Btw, I love your sigline; it's beautiful!


----------

