# The definition of the body and the physical realm



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sandra Maitri alludes to this a lot but she seems very unclear on what this means. What does it mean to identify with the body and the physical realm, to ignore reading between the lines?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I think she uses it to mean identifying with the ego rather than with the essential self. Basically her point is that you shouldn't identify WITH anything, except your essential self, which is essentially the same as all of creation. People identify with their bodies/selves/egos/personalities and make false distinctions-- "this is me, everything out there is NOT me." Its false because really you're just part of everything.

However it does seem misleading of her to talk about "identifying with the physical realm" since TECHNICALLY speaking, if you sense the fact that your essential self is just a part of the entire cosmos, that INCLUDES the physical realm.... lol. But I think she means it as just another way to say don't identify with the self.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> I think she uses it to mean identifying with the ego rather than with the essential self. Basically her point is that you shouldn't identify WITH anything, except your essential self, which is essentially the same as all of creation. People identify with their bodies/selves/egos/personalities and make false distinctions-- "this is me, everything out there is NOT me." Its false because really you're just part of everything.
> 
> However it does seem misleading of her to talk about "identifying with the physical realm" since TECHNICALLY speaking, if you sense the fact that your essential self is just a part of the entire cosmos, that INCLUDES the physical realm.... lol. But I think she means it as just another way to say don't identify with the self.


Ok, that makes more sense. I was getting confused because the way she writes about the physical seems to suggest as in, identifying with the physical world which narrows it down to the sensory as-is experience of the world, which just doesn't make any sense seeing how she also seems to allude to the spiritual so she couldn't mean to suggest concrete or abstract thinking or the like, though one could read that from what she writes. 

So, from a Maitri sense at least, the body triad has nothing to do with the whole "move with your gut" or "identify with your body" or "being concrete" that Naranjo for example seems to suggest. I too found it misleading. Makes it seem like gut types cannot think.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> . Makes it seem like gut types cannot think.


Ahahaha that made me LOL

Anyway, there are several issues kind of getting conflated here: 
1) sensory vs abstract thinking
2) identifying with the body (which I thinks is the same concept as identifying with the SELF or EGO)
3) accessing the body intelligence / fully inhabiting the body

Number one is not what we're talking about, except number three can often seem like pure sensory thinking. 
NOT doing number two is the goal of self-work. 
Number three is not the same as number two; if we learn to fully inhabit our bodies through mindful awareness, we can access our body's intelligence, but this is not at all the same as identifying with the body. Ideally, we do not identify with the self or the body or the ego, but only with our essential nature; however we are fully PRESENT in our bodies, so we can hear and feel it's intelligence. Likewise, our hearts our open (ideally) so we're fully aware of, but not necessarily controlled by, our feelings, and our mind is clear and receptive so we're fully aware of the world around us.

Also the body center IS definitely all about body intelligence-- if we're healthy body types, we are fully in touch with our bodies. If we're unhealthy, we can be quite out of touch with them. For body types the path to health usually involves some form of getting in touch with your body.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Entropic said:


> So, from a Maitri sense at least, the body triad has *nothing* to do with the whole "move with your gut" or "identify with your body" or "being concrete" that Naranjo for example seems to suggest. I too found it misleading. Makes it seem like gut types cannot think.


 I disagree. I think different themes matter at different levels, or else, why would we be categorized as a gut type and not hand type or whatever. There's even an NPR article about how gut bacteria affects aggression. I really like and agree with what @charlie.elliot describes as body intelligence.

ENTJ:
Extraverted Thinking <-- This is how I approach the physical realm.
Introverted Intuition <-- Both converge here
Extroverted Sensing <-- But most people will think of this instead.
Introverted Feeling


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Ahahaha that made me LOL
> 
> Anyway, there are several issues kind of getting conflated here:
> 1) sensory vs abstract thinking
> ...


How so? And how does this differ from abstract thinking? 



> NOT doing number two is the goal of self-work.
> Number three is not the same as number two; if we learn to fully inhabit our bodies through mindful awareness, we can access our body's intelligence, but this is not at all the same as identifying with the body. Ideally, we do not identify with the self or the body or the ego, but only with our essential nature; however we are fully PRESENT in our bodies, so we can hear and feel it's intelligence. Likewise, our hearts our open (ideally) so we're fully aware of, but not necessarily controlled by, our feelings, and our mind is clear and receptive so we're fully aware of the world around us.
> 
> Also the body center IS definitely all about body intelligence-- if we're healthy body types, we are fully in touch with our bodies. If we're unhealthy, we can be quite out of touch with them. For body types the path to health usually involves some form of getting in touch with your body.


But by body here, physical body or ego?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> How so? And how does this differ from abstract thinking?


Ok sensory vs abstract thinking is really not what we're talking about lol. The enneagram really doesn't discuss it. When you're fully in touch with your body, you can become really intelligent in a sensory way because you're in touch with the physical world and you're paying attention to your senses. It doesnt have anything to do with abstract thinking; it's just different. 



> But by body here, physical body or ego?


Um I was saying you shouldn't* identify with* the body or the self or the ego; But you can be in touch with your body. Keep in mind that accessing your intelligence centers (body, heart, mind) is a *totally different issue* than identifying with the body/self/ego... I feel like you're still conflating them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Ok sensory vs abstract thinking is really not what we're talking about lol. The enneagram really doesn't discuss it. When you're fully in touch with your body, you can become really intelligent in a sensory way because you're in touch with the physical world and you're paying attention to your senses. It doesnt have anything to do with abstract thinking; it's just different.
> 
> 
> 
> Um I was saying you shouldn't* identify with* the body or the self or the ego; But you can be in touch with your body. Keep in mind that accessing your intelligence centers (body, heart, mind) is a *totally different issue* than identifying with the body/self/ego... I feel like you're still conflating them.


Well, the use of the terms in this context isn't making it clear. That's why I'm asking.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Ok, that makes more sense. I was getting confused because the way she writes about the physical seems to suggest as in, identifying with the physical world which narrows it down to the sensory as-is experience of the world, which just doesn't make any sense seeing how she also seems to allude to the spiritual so she couldn't mean to suggest concrete or abstract thinking or the like, though one could read that from what she writes.
> 
> So, from a Maitri sense at least, the body triad has nothing to do with the whole "move with your gut" or "identify with your body" or "being concrete" that Naranjo for example seems to suggest. I too found it misleading. Makes it seem like gut types cannot think.


Naranjo doesn't ever mention the word "gut" in Character & Neurosis. Perhaps you were reading between lines? 

And also, why would seeing things in the physical realm of matter, as they are in the here and now, without abstraction or focusing on what else than what is concrete could be, or should be, might be, used to be, or could have been, etc. in any way rule out thinking?

And you don't need to be grounded to read between the lines, construe a abstract model of reality in metaphors or chasing ideals, fighting dragons and windmills. But I'd strongly recommend it.

I copied this from what you posted from Maitri:



Maitri said:


> So while an Eight may pride himself on being down-to-earth, matter-of-fact, and facing life squarely without the blinders of sentimentality and idealism, his realism leaves out all goodness and allows for only the material world as a fundamental reality. Even though his behavioral style is an imitation of Holy Truth in his exaggerated forthrightness and plain-spokenness, his version of truth is only partial and prejudiced.


I don't see how this is so much different from what Naranjo writes, with regard to the physical realm.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Naranjo doesn't ever mention the word "gut" in Character & Neurosis. Perhaps you were reading between lines?


It has nothing to do with the fact that he uses that particular word lol, I don't even know why you think that. Instead it has to do with how he, and other authors which he was merely used as an illustrative example, are writing about gut types as a whole. 



> And also, why would seeing things in the physical realm of matter, as they are in the here and now, without abstraction or focusing on what else than what is concrete could be, or should be, might be, used to be, or could have been, etc. in any way rule out thinking?


Yeah, you don't understand what I was talking about at all. 



> And you don't need to be grounded to read between the lines, construe a abstract model of reality in metaphors or chasing ideals, fighting dragons and windmills. But I'd strongly recommend it.


What? 



> I copied this from what you posted from Maitri:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this is so much different from what Naranjo writes, with regard to the physical realm.


You aren't even referring to what I am referring to. Why do you even try?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Well, the use of the terms in this context isn't making it clear. That's why I'm asking.


Whenever you see the word "identify" being used, it's pretty much always referring to the mistake of identifying with the ego. (identify = needing it to look good or be good or be safe in order for you to feel good). It's an issue of who you think you are. 

Pay attention to the verbs being used, (identify, access, etc) and try to pick up on when those verbs are being defined. Mairti uses a lot of incredibly esoteric language, so it's easy to put your own interpretation on it and (inevitably) get very confused. However, each of these terms are enneagram code words-- they actually mean something very specific. If you read the whole book cover to cover, you will pick up on the definitions of each code word. If you read certain quotes out of context, you are definitely going to be confused.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Whenever you see the word "identify" being used, it's pretty much always referring to the mistake of identifying with the ego. (identify = needing it to look good or be good or be safe in order for you to feel good). It's an issue of who you think you are.
> 
> Pay attention to the verbs being used, (identify, access, etc) and try to pick up on when those verbs are being defined. Mairti uses a lot of incredibly esoteric language, so it's easy to put your own interpretation on it and (inevitably) get very confused. However, each of these terms are enneagram code words-- they actually mean something very specific. If you read the whole book cover to cover, you will pick up on the definitions of each code word. If you read certain quotes out of context, you are definitely going to be confused.


I'll confess I skipped the introduction and just went for the descriptions lol.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Haha quite understandable.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Ahahaha that made me LOL
> 
> Anyway, there are several issues kind of getting conflated here:
> 1) sensory vs abstract thinking
> ...


Perhaps it's because you type as 9, but identifying with body or physical realm (2), is as compared to identifying with emotional realm, or mental realm (e.g. detached, disembodied mind of type 5). So for a 4 or 5 it's necessary to connect with physical realm, become grounded, whereas a 9 or 8 should connect with emotional realm (e.g. Anhedonia of type 9, Holy Idea Love)

In other words, not everyone or type identifies with physical realm. If one doesn't identify with physical realm, or doesn't understand what it means, that's telling for me.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> whereas a 9 or 8 should connect with emotional realm (e.g. Anhedonia of type 9, Holy Idea Love)


 I agree, but for body types (who are most out of touch with their bodily intelligence center), getting in touch with the emotional realm requires getting in touch with the physical realm.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I dont understand getting in touch with physical realm either. Is it sth like your impact in a environment or world in general ?

That sounds similar to Se in socionics.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

I will quote David Daniels




David Daniels said:


> *Leading with the Body Center: Enneagram Types 8, 9 and 1*
> If I am leading with the Body Center, I tend to filter the world through an intelligence of my kinesthetic sense of movement and position in space, from physical/somatic sensations, and sensate knowing. I will use personal position and power to make life conform to the way it should be and to get what I want, and to get what is in my way of getting what I want, out of the way. I will tend to devise strategies that assure my place in the world, get what I want, and minimize discomfort. All types depend upon the Body Center of intelligence to develop the higher qualities of being that is in touch with the energy needed for action, to discern how much power to use to get what it wants and values, and to supply a sense of “being grounded,” of being here, in the world.
> 
> In infancy, though not conscious that this is where we are, we are innately grounded in the present moment. Across our entire life, it is the Body Center that brings us back to the present moment and we do so by consciously calling on the Body Center to remember. When we are truly grounded (we know exactly who and where we are in time, space, and spirit), we develop healthy personal boundaries in that we’ve manifested having our own sense of personhood from which we can move through our own life, and healthily connect with others.
> Our Neurobiology | David Daniels M.D. website on the Enneagram and Life


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> I dont understand getting in touch with physical realm either. Is it sth like your impact in a environment or world in general ?


 Welcome, type who is situated in the center of the body/gut/instinctual realm, and even the enneagram! Learning to get in touch with the physical realm is the first major obstacle/battle/adventure in your life journey. It's the first triforce you get.

I think this article is a good starting point for understanding the body triad.



> That sounds similar to Se in socionics.


 My point exactly. These kinds of comparisons only confuse things further. My Te interacts with the physical world, but differently. My idea of what constitutes a "physical world" involves a lot of abstraction, and I've found lots of theories and applications of physical systems to be translatable, but that does not mean what I experience is neither "real" or "physical". It's just operating in a different dimension.

That and other "physical" and even non-physical dimensions are "real". This is one of the lessons of the Holy Truth.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

mimesis said:


> Perhaps it's because you type as 9, but identifying with body or physical realm (2), is as compared to identifying with emotional realm, or mental realm (e.g. detached, disembodied mind of type 5). So for a 4 or 5 it's necessary to connect with physical realm, become grounded, whereas a 9 or 8 should connect with emotional realm (e.g. Anhedonia of type 9, Holy Idea Love)
> 
> In other words, not everyone or type identifies with physical realm. If one doesn't identify with physical realm, or doesn't understand what it means, that's telling for me.


Yeah but.. You're using the words *identify* and *connect* to mean the same thing here.. I think? Which they're not. Identify is when you think you ARE that (it's your identity..). Connect means being aware of it and accessing its intelligence.* You do NOT have to identify with something to access it or connect with it*. 
Everyone, regardless of type, should connect to, or access, all three centers. But no one, again regardless of type, should identify with any of them.

And nothing in that quote had to with the concept of identification... Which was the original question in this thread. (.... I think....lol).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah but.. You're using the words *identify* and *connect* to mean the same thing here.. I think? Which they're not. Identify is when you think you ARE that (it's your identity..). Connect means being aware of it and accessing its intelligence.* You do NOT have to identify with something to access it or connect with it*.
> Everyone, regardless of type, should connect to, or access, all three centers. But no one, again regardless of type, should identify with any of them.
> 
> And nothing in that quote had to with the concept of identification... Which was the original question in this thread. (.... I think....lol).


No, I used connect and identify to mean different things. I didn't say they 'should identify', I used 'connect' for a reason. 

Your answer was merely focusing on body and identifying with body or getting in touch with body. I'd agree if you say it equals to identifying with Self or Ego, but my point was that for a 4 or 5, ego identification would be (more) within the emotional realm or mental realm. But mind you, a 4 could still suffer Body Dismorphic Disorder, and identify with their physical appearance. We identify with many things.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

@cir We're getting pretty far away from my main point, which was simply that "body" is ill-defined and not particularly meaningful, and that there's no good reason to call the will-focused e-types "body" types. There's nothing special about the gut (the literal, actual region of the body) that would make an association between it and the will plausible. Though I guess it does make some sense culturally, along the lines of "whoa, you have guts".



cir said:


> Despite how aggressive my answers may seem, I appreciate your contributions to this thread.


If it seemed like I was ridiculing you, that's not how I meant it.

On a side note, I just noticed that a couple of the posts here succinctly sum up the difference in how Ones and Eights see the will.



Entropic said:


> what situates my type as a part of the body triad is that its primary focus is ultimately on *will meaning how to push, where to push, who is pushing, whose space, whose boundaries etc.*





Zamyatin said:


> If you were talking about *the will* and not the physical body, your post wouldn't have made sense -- there's certainly no shortage of Western philosophy and thought on the importance of *self-control*, the will, and *learning about how to relate to the external world.*


It's interesting that @Entropic doesn't agree that the will and desire are essentially the same, because that seems obvious to me. There's obviously a distinction between the two, in that the desire is the motive and the will is the expression of desire, but to me they've always felt like they're two sides of the same apparatus. I want something, so I will it. There is no will without desire, it's simply me putting my emotions, the things I want, into a physical form by becoming assertive. My feelings are in the driver's seat at all times.

Wonder if that's another Eight-One difference.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> @_cir_ We're getting pretty far away from my main point, which was simply that "body" is ill-defined and not particularly meaningful, and that there's no good reason to call the will-focused e-types "body" types. There's nothing special about the gut (the literal, actual region of the body) that would make an association between it and the will plausible. Though I guess it does make some sense culturally, along the lines of "whoa, you have guts".


 As my favorite engineering professor who happens to be a one would say, "Convince yourselves. Use your imagination." The "gut" is associated with aggression, which is apparently the emotional problem that ties us together. The gut is located to where our two legs are joined, which would symbolize movement. The GI tract is mouth to ass, which is input and output, and passes through the gut.

In lower-order term, the body is a literal, countable, definite, discrete boundary, and the will triad cares about boundaries. Body houses the brain, heart, _and_ guts, and in the enneagram, the body symbolically mediate between the brain and heart. "Body" in the higher-order term, describes the inclusive functional relationship within all of our constituent parts. Our triad lacks a holy idea (thinking center) or virtue (image center) to evolve towards, because our symbolic purpose is to evolve, to enact change, or else, why would we obsess over expressions of will in this thread right now?



> On a side note, I just noticed that a couple of the posts here succinctly sum up the difference in how Ones and Eights see the will.


 That is why I found this conversation to be quite fruitful in spite of the aggression that could leak through.



> It's interesting that @_Entropic_ doesn't agree that the will and desire are essentially the same, because that seems obvious to me.


 Yeah... In a healthy person, the will and desire will _point in the same direction_. Perhaps it's because ones have a better connection to the heart center, and eights have a better connection to the head center?



> There's obviously a distinction between the two, in that the desire is the motive and the will is the expression of desire, but to me they've always felt like they're two sides of the same apparatus. I want something, so I will it. There is no will without desire, it's simply me putting my emotions, the things I want, into a physical form by becoming assertive.


 They both function by giving you a "point 2" to work towards. Your body, by "being present", is "point 1". Body types basically obsess over these kinds of things.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll offer a more thoughtful response at a later time (also I realized this wasn't in the 1 forum, that's why I got confused yesterday), but I was wondering if the discrepancy in views here connects to how 1 is in a sense, the most "rational" gut type? By rational not so much being able to think logically, clearly we are all doing that lol, but there's a stronger desire to have rationale behind what occurs. Things cannot simply be on their own but there's a need for inference, especially in a way that removes whatever happens or at least diminishes the input from carnality and carnal desire that the 1 often shies away from and usually wants to deny in themselves and others. The body, of course, its physical reality, represents an aspect of that. Our bodily functions are carnal whether we like to think they are or not, and there's nothing sophisticated about it. Suggesting this is all a part of our brain removes our sense of connection to this innate reality of our bodies, and may perhaps be felt as easier to accept/comfortable to deal with?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> On a side note, I just noticed that a couple of the posts here succinctly sum up the difference in how Ones and Eights see the will. It's interesting that @Entropic doesn't agree that the will and desire are essentially the same, because that seems obvious to me. There's obviously a distinction between the two, in that the desire is the motive and the will is the expression of desire, but to me they've always felt like they're two sides of the same apparatus. I want something, so I will it. There is no will without desire, it's simply me putting my emotions, the things I want, into a physical form by becoming assertive. My feelings are in the driver's seat at all times.
> 
> Wonder if that's another Eight-One difference.


I agree that desire is related to will, but no, I do not see them as the one and the same in that one can pursue a goal without having a desire to pursue it, and one can have a desire to pursue something without having the sufficient will to actually pursue it. To me, will is just the ability to push in this way, but it is not intrinsically linked to desire in itself. Realistically speaking, they may be analogous in most situations for most people, but that does not make them equal or one and the same. I find that's still an important distinction to maintain. 

And perhaps yes, it could be a difference between 8, 9 and 1. 8 and 9 numb themselves and by and large, become pretty oblivious to their actual desires, replacing them with a monotonous use of mindless will to keep them going but without the self-reflection of what these actions have or what they mean for them. As @cir said, could be because these types are further away from the heart center.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I agree that desire is related to will, but no, I do not see them as the one and the same in that one can pursue a goal without having a desire to pursue it, and one can have a desire to pursue something without having the sufficient will to actually pursue it. To me, will is just the ability to push in this way, but it is not intrinsically linked to desire in itself. Realistically speaking, they may be analogous in most situations for most people, but that does not make them equal or one and the same. I find that's still an important distinction to maintain.
> 
> And perhaps yes, it could be a difference between 8, 9 and 1. 8 and 9 numb themselves and by and large, become pretty oblivious to their actual desires, replacing them with a monotonous use of mindless will to keep them going but without the self-reflection of what these actions have or what they mean for them. As @cir said, could be because these types are further away from the heart center.


You see, from my perspective, it's literally impossible to separate will from desire. For all the repression of the Enneagram One, I am at all times serving my desires; when I "repress" a desire, I'm simply moving up the hierarchy of desires to the one thing I desire most, to be and do right, at the expense of lesser desires. The only thing resembling a disconnect from my desires is reaction formation, when I lie to myself to pretend contrary to my desires, and even then all I'm really doing is juggling competing desires, not losing them outright. The passions and emotions and desires are always there. They're the muscle of my will.

Both of the One's points of integration and disintegration reflect this central position of desire; when a One integrates to Seven, we effectively learn that the desire to be right does not have to preclude the enjoyment of other desires, and when a One disintegrates to a Four under stress, we're basically forced to reflect on the absence and loss of the perfection we're driven towards and the imperfection within we're trying to overcome. The Seven represents gain, and the Four loss. Moving to Seven is positive because we are able to enjoy more of what we desire, moving to Four negative because it means our desires are unfulfilled.

I remember reading somewhere that Ones lose touch with their sense of innate strength, and learn to cope with that loss by using emotion to fuel action -- outrage to cause reaction, fear of emptiness to motivate improvement. We _have_ to feel to act. I guess I just never realized that that connection between feeling and action is not something everybody experiences.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> You see, from my perspective, it's literally impossible to separate will from desire. For all the repression of the Enneagram One, I am at all times serving my desires; when I "repress" a desire, I'm simply moving up the hierarchy of desires to the one thing I desire most, to be and do right, at the expense of lesser desires. The only thing resembling a disconnect from my desires is reaction formation, when I lie to myself to pretend contrary to my desires, and even then all I'm really doing is juggling competing desires, not losing them outright. The passions and emotions and desires are always there. They're the muscle of my will.
> 
> Both of the One's points of integration and disintegration reflect this central position of desire; when a One integrates to Seven, we effectively learn that the desire to be right does not have to preclude the enjoyment of other desires, and when a One disintegrates to a Four under stress, we're basically forced to reflect on the absence and loss of the perfection we're driven towards and the imperfection within we're trying to overcome. The Seven represents gain, and the Four loss. Moving to Seven is positive because we are able to enjoy more of what we desire, moving to Four negative because it means our desires are unfulfilled.
> 
> I remember reading somewhere that Ones lose touch with their sense of innate strength, and learn to cope with that loss by using emotion to fuel action -- outrage to cause reaction, fear of emptiness to motivate improvement. We _have_ to feel to act. I guess I just never realized that that connection between feeling and action is not something everybody experiences.


Isn't this also part of your own ego-delusion though, that you maintain an idea that you always do desire the right thing and if they do not overlap you will make them so? 

I've done a lot of things in my life, things I must or have to do, even though I have no desire in doing it, to know that there can be heavy disconnect between the two. Similarly I can know that I may have to do certain things in order to actually be able to do what it is I do want to do e.g. I must work in order to make money so I can do something I do desire because money can buy me that, but it does not mean that I desire to work as an intrinsic action in itself.

lol as an afterthought, this is why they separate 1 as a superego type and 8 as an id type I figure, because anything that does not cause pleasure to me is seen as something of "not desire", and thus something I do as a part of something I feel I must do so there's will there because I'm doing it, but it doesn't mean I have a desire involved.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Isn't this also part of your own ego-delusion though, that you maintain an idea that you always do desire the right thing and if they do not overlap you will make them so?
> 
> I've done a lot of things in my life, things I must or have to do, even though I have no desire in doing it, to know that there can be heavy disconnect between the two. Similarly I can know that I may have to do certain things in order to actually be able to do what it is I do want to do e.g. I must work in order to make money so I can do something I do desire because money can buy me that, but it does not mean that I desire to work as an intrinsic action in itself.
> 
> lol as an afterthought, this is why they separate 1 as a superego type and 8 as an id type I figure, because anything that does not cause pleasure to me is seen as something of "not desire", and thus something I do as a part of something I feel I must do so there's will there because I'm doing it, but it doesn't mean I have a desire involved.


I'm not sure I'd argue that Ones delude themselves into desiring right. That's actually pretty central to our self-concept. Perfection _is_ pleasurable to us. Even momentary, flawed encounters with it, like when a task is performed perfectly, are exhilarating and probably even slightly addictive. The dysfunction and delusion arises from the subjective, and hence flawed and impossible, nature of our attempts to create perfection, which require sacrifice because they are artificial and by definition unreal. The more rigid our definition of perfection, the more that must be given up to attempt to materialize that fiction. Most Ones simply subsist on the temporary and imperfect encounters with perfection (our "perfectionism"), briefly enjoying one high and hoping for/working towards the next so we don't have to look at the lack of perfection within and without us.

It's not that we lose touch with our desires. It's just that we prioritize our highest desire, perfection, and the arbitrary definition we attribute to perfection forces us to give up more worldly desires. That's why our path of growth lies in learning to accept the inherent perfection in everything, which in turn allows us to both enjoy more of our other desires and to forgive the world and ourselves.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Ok yes now I agree. I think the three terms *are* user interchangeably in some contexts (whether or not they _should_ be) but in other contexts, you can definitely separate them.
> 
> It's funny though, because while I understand what it means to identify with the mind, or the heart/self image, I don't really understand what it means to identify with the body as a body center would. What does it have to do with anger? Does anyone else find the body center concept the most abstract (ironically)? I mean head center is easy to understand-- we all feel that our brains are "who we are" since that is where our consciousness is-- and heart center is just as easy-- it's all about shame and emotions-- but what does the body center really MEAN? I've asked this question before but never really got an answer.
> Even though I'm a Nine, I feel like my "journey" or whatever has been all about shame..... Shame is by far the most profound for me among shame, fear, and anger. But maybe I'm experiencing it differently than a heart center would? Who knows....


Sorry it took some time for me to respond.

Yeah, I see your point. It may be related to numbing gut impulses, for the sake of keeping peace in the tummy.  The third chakra (or power chakra) is related to will, but also self-definition.

http://www.energyenhancement.org/chakras/Chakra_general/chakras table.htm

I'm inclined to look at the attachment triad from a somewhat different perspective, but I haven't figured that out yet. They seem to belong to sort of a proto-ego structure, as compared to the hexagram (241etc) and for instance more focused on the collective (or herd if you will). Though different from social instinct per se. More compared to how a child feels as one with the mother (or not).

Naranjo also approaches these differently in his book on meditation. 

http://www.claudionaranjo.net/content_phoenix_english/meditation_english.html


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...2-clear-thorough-understanding-enneagram.html

I tried doing a very similar thing with those triangles in a previous post, but looks like someone figured it out! Yay! I bet that poster is a one.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...2-clear-thorough-understanding-enneagram.html
> 
> I tried doing a very similar thing with those triangles in a previous post, but looks like someone figured it out! Yay! I bet that poster is a one.


Meh...That's a bit too rethorical for me.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> meh...that's a bit too rethorical for me.


 This is so beautiful, I could cry.

Tl;dr:
1.) Action/Desire/Thought : the three basic triads
2.) Triangle (3/6/9) are about qualities of energy (nouns)
3.) Absorb/Search/Attach : Freeze/Flight/Fight
4.) The words that end in "ing" (verbs) refers to to the influence of the twisted structure in the enneagram (1/2/4/5/7/8) (those types are about movement of energy).



> action is in opposition with absorb*ing* - for action, *first* you must absorb information.
> 
> desire is in opposition with search*ing* - for desire, *first* you must find what is desirable.
> 
> thought is in opposition with attach*ing* - for thought, *first* you must attach to something to think about


 God damn, that's my subjective definition of "beauty", in a mathematician marveling over the beauty and simplicity of a brilliant solution or something, like how people treat Maxwell's equations. That, or it's validation that other people see my crazy, either way, I'm happy I found it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> This is so beautiful, I could cry.
> 
> Tl;dr:
> 1.) Action/Desire/Thought : the three basic triads
> ...


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processing_fluency_theory_of_aesthetic_pleasure


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Processing fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Hey! Thank you! At least you didn't immediately suggest I have Asperger's (entertaining the idea of seeing if I can get a diagnosis though), and I really appreciate that! (I'd rather write that off to my incredibly strong seven wing, which means I have a reinforced connection to five.​)


----------

