# Sx The Sexual Instinct



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

ewdenore said:


> How would you describe Sx?


In the simplest terms, the impulse for the One, or, less spiritually, the need to find a partner/mate, especially in terms of one's sense of being fulfilled by and in union with the other, since looking for a mate can come from a Social need too, like all my friends are in relationships and/or married, so I should be too. (A good example of this is Ted Mosby in HIMYM (so/sx) who at the beginning of the series doesn't start looking for his One, until Marshall and Lily are engaged and he's left out.) It's more of a private union between You and I, deepening that sense of union/connection/intimacy with the desired/chosen One, in my opinion. Real sx-doms can add their input, if they see it differently. 






Love is careless in its choosing
Sweeping over cross a baby
Love descends on those defenseless
Idiot love will spark the fusion
Inspirations have I none
Just to touch the flaming dove
All I have is my love of love
And love is not loving

I'm probably so/sp or so/sx, no clue really, used to type as sp/so, but when I see things like this in descriptions, or attributing obsessiveness to sx, forgetting to eat/sleep, I'm like, well, I must be sx because I'm exactly like that and do that all the time, but I also think those qualities can be a result of my being Ni-dom and 5-wing obsessiveness.



> This intensity does not have to be met by another person—it can be satisfied by a project, hobby, or special interest.


because, on the other hand, I'm not fiery or intense...:smileys-sunbathing- 



> Sexual instinct can be called the instinct of attraction. It’s aggressive, competitive, single-minded, "all-or-nothing". Use of this energy is intensely fiery and affirmative, go-get-it approach, a life-and-death matter e.g. salmon swimming upstream to mate and die.


Although, I think descriptions can overdo this quality too. Are all sx-doms really like this? I mean, Social can be pretty intense, life-and-death matter, go-get-it approach too in its own way in a certain context (Think Hitler at a rally , or martyrs for a cause). I see sx-intensity as being more _focused_, though, not necessarily obsessive (It certainly can be, but like with John Nash, I still think he's sp/sx), like how Ricky looks at Jane in the above clip (That look alone at her is sx!), but says he's not obsessing (if we take him at his word). There's a certain kind of energy where you can just know it when you see it, I guess, when it comes to instincts, which is why I like that you brought in video clips too because I think characters can really display it. It makes it more concrete. I mean, Jennifer Connolly has that (subdued) sx-energy here a lot more than John Nash who is a bit oblivious to it at first. That's just what I notice, but you're free to disagree.


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

I read a great description of Max Planck discovering quantum theory. Can't find so unfortunately I have to approximate from memory.

He goes through his daily routine for years. Everything is scheduled. He wakes up at a certain time of day. He eats at a certain time of day. He sits and does his research in a certain block of time and always stops when the time is up. When he finds discrepancies he's resistant to taking them seriously. For a long time he tries to find the error. Eventually he realizes a discrete mathematical theory can explain his observations. Still he doesn't want to believe it actually matches reality. Eventually he publishes but even then for years afterward he expected a new development would overturn his theory, show where it was wrong and why it just happened to be a good approximation.

I propose this as an example of a non-Sx 5. It's highly focused, committed, but also highly structured, highly ordered, and all his research activity is fit into the rest of his life. It has a place. The larger life is primary, the research is subordinate. There's no ecstatic engagement here. He's not chasing some sublime vision. The life doesn't get sacrificed to the chase.

From the descriptions, when I think of Sx it has this chasing feeling. There's always something they're chasing. Newton and Archimedes seem to be intent on moving toward something, so intent that the rest of their life just doesn't matter. They don't do it for a little while then moderate. They don't do it for a day or a few days then stop and get back to life. They do it, then escalate, then escalate, then escalate more. It consumes their whole life, over an extended period (multiple years). The chase is primary, the life is subordinate. Planck doesn't do this.

[HR][/HR]



mistakenforstranger said:


> It reminds me of when my 4w5 sp/sx friend practices on his guitar all day with no interference from the outside world, and like you say, it's an obsessive _solo_ pursuit.


Does he organize his whole life around it? Doing interesting things once in a while is something anyone can do. Anyone can experience passion. But what role do you give that passion in your life? Is it your primary motivation, and it seems like life would not be worth living without it?

Everyone I've ever met who does this kind of devotionary absorption into a project recognizes there's a difference. Some people do it, some people don't. If Sx isn't the right term for it, that's fine. But the difference is real.

I've known people who when they get into a good time in their life start having get togethers. They want to spend time with people, to have friends they see regularly. It's the primary desire in their life. The descriptions I've read of So seem to describe this well.

I've known some people who are very interested in nesting and safety. When these things are satisfied, they kind of relax into it. They're happy to just stay in that place for an extended period. It's their primary desire and when it's fulfilled they're satisfied. The Sp descriptions seem to describe this well.

And I've known people who are very interested in creation. When their life is in a good place they don't go seeking people to spend time with, they don't just relax and maintain their situation. They have this drive to take a project and make it the center of their life. Descriptions of Sx applied to creative pursuits seem to describe this well.

[HR][/HR]



mistakenforstranger said:


> Again, how is this exactly sx and not just general Type 5 devotion to their chosen subject? I could see any 5s, regardless of their instinct, all having that view of mathematics.


Here's mathematician Bertrand Russell talking about an early math experience.



> At the age of 11, I began Euclid, with my brother as tutor. This was one of the great events of my life, as dazzling as first love. I had not imagined there was anything so delicious in the world.


He's the one who said this.



> Mathematics possesses not only supreme truth but supreme beauty -- a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.


Also Russell, about math.



> Knowing no compromise, no practical limitations, no barrier to the creative activity embodying the passionate aspiration after the perfect from which all great work springs.


To me this seems like the same language as someone waxing poetic about romantic love. This is a person talking about his beloved.

[HR][/HR]

You seem to be comfortable with every example of Sx applied to people. But you objected to every single example I gave of Sx applied to a project. Is that right? Do you just not think it's possible for the Sx energy to direct to a creative pursuit?


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

> It is as if they constantly set themselves on fire.
































The last one reminds me of the time I was in a Classics class and we were reading a poem about desire, described as being like petals falling from the sky and brushing your cheek like the softest kiss. I thought I was hiding my feelings, a mix of confusion while wanting to puke, but perhaps not since the teacher called on me to ask if I relate. I informed him that 

desire for me is like a fully loaded freight train at full speed smashing through a brick wall. 

[Silence]

The silence was one of those that continued long enough that you can hear everyone in the room think and you imagine that if there were a silent *weirdo* alert button hidden under the teacher's desk he'd be pressing it like one of those pedestrians at the crosswalk who don't seem to understand that it's not about the _number_ of times you press...

Now with only a moderately tortured expression he managed to string together a dismissive; "well... when you're older, it will feel like petals falling."

I'm older. I still want to eat your petals. Maybe while drowning in them.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think Ricky Fitts from American Beauty is more along the lines of sx-5, sx/sp 5w4.
> [...]
> If you've watched the movie, that's definitely him. He lets only Jane into his inner world, she's the chosen one. Probably another sx-5 (5w4 sx/so, contraflow af) is Donnie Darko.


Oooh yeah. Although, Gyllenhaal has more of the Sp/Sx vibes to him (_Nightcrawler_, _Enemy_'s ambience). I've met this couple on board game hangout and the dude was definitely some INTJ... how should I put... maniac eyes, mad scientist smile, ... generally reserved but I remember him exploding in expression once, like he had been keeping his energy in... and only opened up more about himself when asked about his "specialty"/hobby/interest, now then he flourished. More confidence than average 5s. And his girlfriend was also some Sx/Sp, both were cold, energetic (the werewolf-vamp power couple) and odd (idiosyncratic in their clothes as well, some mixture of raver outfit vs. gothic), like some offspring of the _Adams Family_. DDDD

Apropos of math, Aronofsky's _Pi_ (1998)


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

*there is a pattern*


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

Here's how I think this breaks down.

The core thing is a desire for union. It gets directed toward a pairing of 2 people.



> True love is rare, and it's the only thing that gives life real meaning.












Sometimes it can turn into a kind of spiritual quest for union with the divine. This is where people get into fervent prayer and monastic retreats, trying to put all their life into the fusion.

This can be contrasted with more collective activity around religion, which is maybe more an So thing. Church activities and picnics and Bible study with a group, going to Church every week and seeing the same people and keeping up with their lives, the Reverend is there for social support if you're having a tough time, etc. I think So will tend not to say -- I'm walking away from the world, removing all other people permanently, and putting every moment of my life to this quest for this 1 thing.










And sometimes for whatever reason it can get twisted up with creative work. I don't really have a picture for this 1. This is where people get unreasonably committed to A creative endeavor.

The guys who do this deep computer science research joke that the research is a substitute for a girlfriend. I think this is basically what they're talking about. It plays that role in their life. The research becomes the object of that fusion drive.

When I see this religious devotion to a project I have it connected in my mind to that kind of fervent search for God.

Einstein is always talking about the religious feeling necessary for high science. If you read this quotes page he goes on about it in several different places. He talks about devotion, yearning. It sounds like the spiritual seeker yearning for the divine and devoted to getting there. Sacrificing their life to the quest. I see this as basically the fusion drive turned toward research. That project becomes the object of the drive.



> I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength.





> A contemporary has rightly said that the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research.


Newton and Kepler both had a kind of search for God motivating them.



> For Newton the world of science was by no means the whole of life. He spent more time on theology than on science; indeed, he wrote about 1.3 million words on biblical subjects.


From Kepler:



> I wanted to become a theologian. For a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy.





> We astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature. God is the beginning and end of scientific research and striving.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

ewdenore said:


> I read a great description of Max Planck discovering quantum theory. Can't find so unfortunately I have to approximate from memory.
> 
> He goes through his daily routine for years. Everything is scheduled. He wakes up at a certain time of day. He eats at a certain time of day. He sits and does his research in a certain block of time and always stops when the time is up. When he finds discrepancies he's resistant to taking them seriously. For a long time he tries to find the error. Eventually he realizes a discrete mathematical theory can explain his observations. Still he doesn't want to believe it actually matches reality. Eventually he publishes but even then for years afterward he expected a new development would overturn his theory, show where it was wrong and why it just happened to be a good approximation.
> 
> I propose this as an example of a non-Sx 5. It's highly focused, committed, but also highly structured, highly ordered, and all his research activity is fit into the rest of his life. It has a place. The larger life is primary, the research is subordinate.


 Ok, so you're saying that sp-doms are more routinized/structured? In certain types I see that, like sp-1s or SJs in general, but I don't think it's always the case. If anything, it just sounds like he was a strong J, probably IxTJ.



> There's no ecstatic engagement here. He's not chasing some sublime vision. The life doesn't get sacrificed to the chase.
> 
> From the descriptions, when I think of Sx it has this chasing feeling. There's always something they're chasing. Newton and Archimedes seem to be intent on moving toward something, so intent that the rest of their life just doesn't matter. They don't do it for a little while then moderate. They don't do it for a day or a few days then stop and get back to life. They do it, then escalate, then escalate, then escalate more. It consumes their whole life, over an extended period (multiple years). The chase is primary, the life is subordinate. Planck doesn't do this.


How do you know there's no ecstatic engagement or chase in him? While I'm not at all familiar with his life to make an adequate judgment, and I'm not saying if he's sx, but some of these quotes that I just pulled up seem to differ on that point. I'd also say chasing a sublime vision is more along the lines of Ni-dom, and as I was saying earlier, 5s in general tend to be completely devoted to their chosen subject, whether they're sx or not.





































That is the face of a man lost in ecstatic engagement, wouldn't you agree? :laughing: 



> Does he organize his whole life around it? Doing interesting things once in a while is something anyone can do. Anyone can experience passion. But what role do you give that passion in your life? Is it your primary motivation, and it seems like life would not be worth living without it?


At one point in his life, yes he did organize his whole life around it, and it still is a huge part/passion of his life. It's not something he does once in a while, and he's not sx-dom, which is why I bring him up, because I don't understand why people tend to think only sx will have passion for something, or be obsessed, or take risks. He's definitely not someone who ever played it safe, despite being sp-dom. Here's the sp-4 description, for instance; although, I do realize sp-4s are more unique (How 4 lol!) in terms of their relation to sp, but I also think many sp-doms can push themselves beyond their capacities/limits in various ways too (even though it seems to be once again attributed to sx). It's similar to sp-last, but it comes from a different place, since sp-last just is oblivious to sp, or doesn't care about it, basically.



> Self-Preservation Fours
> 
> 
> • *Self-Preservation Fours are often risk takers*
> ...





> I've known people who when they get into a good time in their life start having get togethers. They want to spend time with people, to have friends they see regularly. It's the primary desire in their life. The descriptions I've read of So seem to describe this well.
> 
> I've known some people who are very interested in nesting and safety. When these things are satisfied, they kind of relax into it. They're happy to just stay in that place for an extended period. It's their primary desire and when it's fulfilled they're satisfied. The Sp descriptions seem to describe this well.
> 
> And I've known people who are very interested in creation. When their life is in a good place they don't go seeking people to spend time with, they don't just relax and maintain their situation. They have this drive to take a project and make it the center of their life. Descriptions of Sx applied to creative pursuits seem to describe this well.


So, sx is the realm of creation and a drive towards their projects? I just think it's too vague and could apply to Social or Self-Pres in the sense of a social cause to live for (Social, and I feel like this is Elon Musk whereas Steve Jobs seemed more contraflow sx/so) or their work/craft (Self-Pres, someone like Daniel-Day Lewis comes to mind, but very different from the Sx of an actor like Marlon Brando). I think if you're passionate about something, you'll make it the center of your life, regardless of your instinct. Why is this solely an sx thing? Yes, there are people like how you describe so and sp who are like that, but I don't think it's always the case and depends on the specific Enneagram type too.

Is that sx or sp? It sounds more like sp to me.












> Here's mathematician Bertrand Russell talking about an early math experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, not really familiar with Bertrand Russell, and I agree there's sx in those quotes towards the subject, but I would've said he's so/sx. Russell seems like a Social 5. I think a sx/so 5 would be Freud. There's just an obvious difference in their focus. This is what (rather unhealthy) sx-obsession looks like: https://lithub.com/how-sigmund-freud-tried-to-break-and-remake-his-fiancee/

Such a sx-dom/sp-last thing to say lol:



> In the same juvenile vein, Freud morosely reminded his fiancée that their ideal happiness couldn’t last for long, because “dangerous rivals soon appear: household and nursery.” He feared that Martha’s everyday wifely tasks, with or without children underfoot, were going to rob him of her full attention.





> Sigmund’s excuse for rehearsing Martha’s limitations was that he occasionally performed the same exercise on himself. As he wrote on November 10, 1883, “Since I am violent and passionate with all sorts of devils pent up that cannot emerge, they rumble about inside or else are released against you, you dear one.” The vices he acknowledged were a bad temper, a penchant for hatred—”I can’t hold out against silent savagery”—and “a tyrannical streak” that made “little girls [namely, Martha] afraid of [him]” and rendered him all but unable to “subordinate [him]self” to any other person.





> As Ernest Jones observed with unusual bravery, Freud was insisting on nothing less than “complete identification with himself, his opinions, his feelings and his intentions. She was not really his unless he could perceive his ‘stamp’ on her.” And again, the relationship “must be quite perfect; the slightest blur was not to be tolerated. At times it seemed as if his goal was fusion rather than union.”


It's possible he could be a 1 too based on that, but sx/so for sure.

[HR][/HR]


> You seem to be comfortable with every example of Sx applied to people. But you objected to every single example I gave of Sx applied to a project. Is that right? Do you just not think it's possible for the Sx energy to direct to a creative pursuit?


I'm not saying that I don't think one can be sx toward a project/thing, but I tend to think it can miss the point a bit because I think any person can be obsessed towards something they're passionate about, and they don't have to be sx-dom. Sure you could argue that there's some influence of sx in my examples that would give them that passion/obsession (Sp/sx or so/sx), but the other two instincts tend to get short shrift around here in favor of sx, if I'm being honest, which is why I'm trying to draw some clearer distinctions.


----------



## ukulele (Jan 3, 2017)

It's a life long quest to unite but can you ever achieve an union with an object?



> ere's the sp-4 description, for instance; although, I do realize sp-4s are more unique (How 4 lol!) in terms of their relation to sp, but I also think many sp-doms can push themselves beyond their capacities/limits in various ways too (even though it seems to be once again attributed to sx).


True, I've seen that. And it also looks like a drive to achieve something divine (it was even verbalized like this).

I personally think that energy derived from an object is different. It's more conditional. It's an obsession, distraction(?). Only it must exist. I must fuel it. The drive is to fuel it. As if it was a life long quest to unite...
Meanwhile a person fuels me. My energy is directed at them but they give back so I can (want) to be more than just be obsessed with them (when the union is obtained)




> And I've known people who are very interested in creation. When their life is* in a good place* (union achieved) they don't go seeking people to spend time with, they don't just relax and maintain their situation. *They have this drive to take a project and make it the center of their life.* (fueled by union) Descriptions of Sx applied to creative pursuits seem to describe this well.


This(!) is how it is for me.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

ukulele said:


> True, I've seen that. And it also looks like a drive to achieve something divine (it was even verbalized like this).
> 
> I personally think that energy derived from an object is different. It's more conditional. It's an obsession, distraction(?). Only it must exist. I must fuel it. The drive is to fuel it. As if it was a life long quest to unite...
> Meanwhile a person fuels me. My energy is directed on them but they give back so I can (want) to be more than just be obsessed with them (when the union is achieve)


Yeah, I think with my friend it isn't really seen in those terms, like fusing or being in union with the "object". It's more like a skill he wants to enhance, get better at for his own satisfaction/pleasure, and he is obsessed with perfecting it in that sense. He might be more that way with SOs with the sx-fusing energy, but even then I think there tends to be boundaries at times, where there's his own thing that he works on/is passionate about and that he enjoys solely to himself and her own thing, much like how Nash is with his wife in the movie (though, I'm not sure what instincts real Nash would be). 

How does this work for sx and fusing with objects/projects? Are there even boundaries to begin with?? How do you achieve union with someone/something? :thinking2:


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

mistakenforstranger said:


> So, sx is the realm of creation and a drive towards their projects? I just think it's too vague and could apply to Social or Self-Pres in the sense of a social cause to live for (*Social, and I feel like this is Elon Musk*...) or their work/craft... I think if you're passionate about something, you'll make it the center of your life, regardless of your instinct. Why is this solely an sx thing?


Ewdenore will need to answer for himself but the impression I got from his post is the same as my intent here: to explore themes/patterns in sx. I would never want to try to type based on a theme/pattern (too vague/not exclusive) -- the basic sx definition is simply 'merging with one' as far as I'm concerned. 

So if I talk about things like energy/obsession/passion/(pro)creativity/'fire'/risk here this is me playing with/exploring ideas already written of sx. I'm in no way claiming sx owns those words exclusively or in all contexts or that they can't ever be applied to sp & soc. In fact, I'm sure they can. 

I'm also sure there are sx dominants who 'merge with one' (they are, by definition, a sx dom) but they don't do all this other 'intense' stuff often described of sx doms. Hopefully all can be discussed  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re Elon Musk being a soc dominant: here's what he said to Rolling Stone recently. Perhaps this will get you to see him in a different light (I'm open to discussing further if you like):

"*If I'm not in love, if I'm not with a long-term companion, I cannot be happy*," he told Rolling Stone. "I will never be happy without having someone. Going to sleep alone *kills* me. It's not like I don't know what that feels like: being in a big empty house, and the footsteps echoing through the hallway, no one there - and no one on the pillow next to you. Fuck. How do you make yourself happy in a situation like that?

...It's so hard for me to even meet people. I'm looking for a long-term relationship. I'm not looking for a one-night stand," Musk told Strauss. "*I'm looking for a serious companion or soulmate. When I was a child there's one thing I said: 'I never want to be alone'.*"

^That's perhaps even more telling in light of the fact that the man is busy/obsessed (understatement) with his work and INTJs are said to be the most independent type -- it's really only sx INTJs who talk that way (while the other INTJs wonder; 'wtf, are you a mistype?').

I love how this has turned into a with-pictures thread


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

Maybe we need some love songs.


----------



## ukulele (Jan 3, 2017)

I can contribute with songs uffer:





Translation: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/petti-fyri-petti-piece-pice.html ( a bit e4 probably)


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

Wonderful. I like her.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

A love song from the INTJ sx 5 meets INTJ sx 5 perspective 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-BVF1Yj3k

Also, this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8KwItqaHto

For feelz:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z2hZ9CTLICs


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Dare said:


> Ewdenore will need to answer for himself but the impression I got from his post is the same as my intent here: to explore themes/patterns in sx. I would never want to try to type based on a theme/pattern (too vague/not exclusive) -- the basic sx definition is simply 'merging with one' as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> So if I talk about things like energy/obsession/passion/(pro)creativity/'fire'/risk here this is me playing with/exploring ideas already written of sx. I'm in no way claiming sx owns those words exclusively or in all contexts or that they can't ever be applied to sp & soc. In fact, I'm sure they can.
> 
> I'm also sure there are sx dominants who 'merge with one' (they are, by definition, a sx dom) but they don't do all this other 'intense' stuff often described of sx doms. Hopefully all can be discussed


Ok, I appreciate you saying that. I guess my intent here is just to question it all (to the annoyance of everyone probably :blushed. It'd be nice if Social and Self-Pres instincts received the same amount of attention that Sx gets on this forum (which has been the case for years), but I guess I could make a separate thread for each of those instincts if I wanted to...



> Re Elon Musk being a soc dominant: here's what he said to Rolling Stone recently. Perhaps this will get you to see him in a different light (I'm open to discussing further if you like):
> 
> "*If I'm not in love, if I'm not with a long-term companion, I cannot be happy*," he told Rolling Stone. "I will never be happy without having someone. Going to sleep alone *kills* me. It's not like I don't know what that feels like: being in a big empty house, and the footsteps echoing through the hallway, no one there - and no one on the pillow next to you. Fuck. How do you make yourself happy in a situation like that?
> 
> ...


Well, part of my reason for typing him as Social too is dependent on that I think he's 3w4 (while I know you type him 1w9), and he fits the Social 3 far more to me than the Sexual 3. I agree he has 1 in him, probably 371 tritype (The Systems Builder), but I see the self-promotion/workhaholism/drive-to-succeed of the 3 far more than the moral crusader of the 1. And yes, much of that is sx that you quote, but does it have to mean he's sx-dom? Couldn't a sx secondary have that same view of their sx? I just see Social leading over Sexual for him on the whole (not that there isn't an argument for sx/so), but I agree he is sp-last for sure.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

ukulele said:


> Translation: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/petti-fyri-petti-piece-pice.html ( a bit e4 probably)


A "bit e4 probably" lol. Very. I think the lead singer of Metric is a sx/so 4. There's even a song about risk! 






Not sure if Ian is sp/sx or sx/sp but this song is sx.






Then there's this unmistakably sx song.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

mistakenforstranger said:


> Ok, I appreciate you saying that. I guess my intent here is just to question it all (to the annoyance of everyone probably :blushed.


Questioning ideas is helpful/healthy but ideally there is a balance there -- not so much that nascent exploration of ideas is stifled. You aren't annoying 



> It'd be nice if Social and Self-Pres instincts received the same amount of attention that Sx gets on this forum (which has been the case for years), but I guess I could make a separate thread for each of those instincts if I wanted to...


I wish they would too. I enjoy reading about the internal experience of people dominant in a different instinct to mine. Some of the things soc dominants in particular say really open my eyes to a completely new way of seeing.

I suspect some sx dominants like talking about their instinct bc there is a sense of relief in understanding themselves finally! (after learning about enneagram instincts here). I don't think sp or soc dominants get quite such a relief (simply from the nature of the instincts: sp and soc are 'normal' where sx is often seen as 'crazy' or at least weird irl). I've heard multiple sx doms say that learning they're sx was the most impactful self awareness tool they've ever encountered (true for me too).

Off topic (Elon Musk core enneagram):

* *






> Well, part of my reason for typing him as Social too is dependent on that I think he's 3w4 (while I know you type him 1w9), and he fits the Social 3 far more to me than the Sexual 3. I agree he has 1 in him, probably 371 tritype (The Systems Builder), but I see the self-promotion/workhaholism/drive-to-succeed of the 3 far more than the moral crusader of the 1.


 You and I either have very different ideas of what a 1 sx & 3 soc are or we have _very_ different views on Musk. 

You see him as "prestige"!? over "reformer"? So much prestige to "stupidly" spending all your millions on two companies he knew were most likely to fail (he gave SpaceX a 10% likelihood of succeeding but did it anyway "bc no one else was going to do it and it needed to be done"). Throwing ALL your millions away on a gamble you don't believe will pay off isn't a prestige move (note how he was trying to REFORM two industries)








So much prestige to telling Wall Street they're immoral for short-selling Tesla stock (which comes across as insanity to the financial industry). Note the way he thanks early Tesla customers for 'doing the right thing' by supporting Tesla/what Tesla is trying to achieve (some might have thought they simply bought a car!)

So much prestige in doing things against the grain constantly and have people write negative things about you _endlessly_. He is so far from the picture of social perfection (soc 3) and he couldn't care less. He's on a mission of excellence, of doing 'the right thing', of 'perfecting' us (classic e1 sx). He erupts in short bursts of anger, he isn't as cut off from his feelings as a 3. 

1s are also workaholics although he's so driven that word really doesn't capture the relentlessness of his pursuits. As he said he'd "have to be dead or completely incapacitated to stop". Naranjo calls the 1 sx "zeal" (special intensity of desire) a rhinoceros of a man -- it fits Musk. He's driven by something other than prestige and he very clearly loves intensity.

From https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misidentifying-1-and-3 "In effect, Ones say, "Listen to me–I know the right way to do things," whereas Threes say, "Be like me–I have got it together." Ones offer themselves as examples of those who are striving for perfection, particularly moral perfection, they see themselves as those who can meet the highest standards" 

Musk openly talks about all his flaws and difficulties -- how he sometimes sleeps in the factory and doesn't go outside for days, how he's lonely, how he missed his birthday celebration to work, how he doesn't think anyone should wish they were him etc. Why does he do this to himself? Bc no one else can do what he's doing (and it's important) is his answer. In other words; moral imperative.



















> And yes, much of that is sx that you quote, but does it have to mean he's sx-dom? Couldn't a sx secondary have that same view of their sx? I just see Social leading over Sexual for him on the whole (not that there isn't an argument for sx/so), but I agree he is sp-last for sure.


If a boy who reads encyclopedias for fun, dreams of space and begins entrepreneurial undertakings in his teens grows up to say "the ONE thing I said as a child was I don't want to be alone" (in the context of being without a soulmate) and he "can't be happy without his soulmate" -- yes, this is unquestionably sx dominant talk. As a double check, I'm not aware of any case-closed must-be-a-soc-dominant equivalent talk from Musk (so no need to question sx for him as far as I'm concerned, especially with so much of his behavior being sx-ish).








It's interesting that we both seem to have a clearer view of the angle in him that is closer to our own type


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

The OP confused the fuck out of me. 
_
*General Sx*
-More plumage than the other instincts.
-Having the best plumage.
-Energy leaking through the eyes._

Which is true. I have no desire to show myself generally. When I 'dress for success' it's a slight tweak of my charisma and find a fitting surface to convey this charisma. 


But this makes me confused:
_*7 Sx - Suggestibility*

Cosmic traveler.

-Very hard to settle down.
-Very hard to have long term relationship.
-Like having attention span of chicken, loyalty of snake.
-As long as it's bright and shiny we can have a great time.
-As soon as it gets a little dull or cloudy, attracted to somewhere brighter.
-Lives in fantasy of perfect future, always chasing it._

Very true for myself. Except I don't live for a fantasy, I live for always improving what I have.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think Ricky Fitts from American Beauty is more along the lines of sx-5, sx/sp 5w4.
> 
> 
> * *


This Ricky guy reminded me of an Italian novel... forgot its title.... it's about some weird schizoid INTJ guy, his cold life and parallel is described the life of some rich ExFP girl.. and later in life they meet again but the guy is still single and she gives him a ride in her car... but the guy still sees her the world in a very detached way only matter, only flesh, no significance. The only thing that keeps him is this perverted intellectual curiosity.

But to follow up Ricky Fitts with a non-fictional Sx 5w4 character (because in hindsight, Sean Gullette in _Pi_ had more lunacy than Sx, besides artistically 5ish atmosphere), how about Mr. Mojo Risin, a.k.a. the Lizard King?

His real name carries heavy cultural baggage; and I think a lot of it is owed to how much he was hyped up by his bohemian time (when, basically, everybody had to break the rules somehow to be recognized as someone in the social game) and record producers. His songs on the records are clean, PC but what made him remembered was his antics on stage. When on Rock History, the teacher played a concert recording where he'd make these blood curling screams, as if going unhinged. But by most concert videos on Youtube, you wouldn't even consider him an Sx-dom - after all, rock'n'roll has always been, traditionally, about upping the ante. So I don't know how often do rock stars get carried off the stage by the police, whether that's considered "intense," "penetrating" or not but I've found something from him that's _a lot more_ *5w4* than what others have posted (I'm looking at you @ewdenore). People tend to forget that despite the w4, corefix 5s are still, primarily, a head type. And not heart - so how does the "head" sound in "music?" Here, I propose that nihilism of the 5 (misanthropy) with Sx is boosted to anarchy, artistic doom, void. A far cry away from melodic harmony and feel good sing-sang (even when most of their songs were palatable Beetlejuice-light-pop-gothic decadence-themed party songs).








> I think a sx/so 5 would be Freud.
> [...]
> If you've watched the movie, that's definitely him. He lets only Jane into his inner world, she's the chosen one. Probably another sx-5 (5w4 sx/so, contraflow af) is Donnie Darko.


Freud could be Sp/Sx too..., Sp enhancing his avarice, possessiveness. I've once read a translation of his _Unheimlich_ and there his writing seemed more So 5, more courteous, more shallow... as if he didn't have all knowledge but he still wanted to *look* like he had ideas sparkling, a proper scientist gentleman. Towards the end it did get rambly, I wasn't sure if he actually had had known where he had been getting at. And Darko..., yea, they are both contraflow but you lack the pattern of the Sx/So 5. Sx/So 5s're much more extroverted than you think, than Darko or Freud. They, I'd say have a healthier connection to 7. My form (as well as frequent English-) teacher can labeled like that, I guess, she was similar in character to Ursula from _The Little Mermaid_. If you wanna see non-fiction, I can only recommend porn: HarperTheFox (and the girl does resemble my teacher in character).



ewdenore said:


> Maybe we need some love songs.


Maybe that would derail the thread.



> I think the lead singer of Metric is a sx/so 4. There's even a song about risk!


On stage she might. Off stage, in this case, she comes off rather as an ESTJ 3w4.



> Then there's this unmistakably sx song.
> 
> * *


Yeah, Patti Smith does seem to be some Sx/So. I don't think she's an Sx/So *4*. "Gloria" comes across as more facetious.


> I-I walk in a room, you know I look so proud
> I'm movin' in this here atmosphere, well, anything's allowed
> And I go to this here party and I just get bored
> Until I look out the window, see a sweet young thing
> ...


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

There's an interesting talk about Sx.



> They almost want their life to be ripped away for a moment and feel alive.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

> They almost want their life ripped away for a moment and *feel alive*


Is there a better feeling? 





Although the feeling of union is sublime too (but that also makes me feel alive -- done right I feel connected to everything, to the universe, to life itself via being one with my one)








Here are some interesting notes I found quoting Russ Hudson from 2012:


> SX Instinct:
> ~ spends energy a lot (contrast with sp conserving)
> ~ "intelligence of the evolutionary process" / the drive to evolve / the sx instinct is what "attracts us to go beyond what's comfortable for us"
> ~ doesn't care about comfort; makes us leave the comfort zone to explore new things
> ...


Russ introduced an idea about "zones" within an instinct (something I've wondered about but never heard before):


> ~for each instinct, Russ described three arenas or "zones" (his word) that the instinct deals with. He said most people have stronger and weaker areas within each instinct, that very few people are strong in all three zones for a particular instinct, even their dominant one.
> 
> sx areas:
> ~ "edge" - exploration, pushing the envelope, risk. can involve aggression (the energy of hunting)
> ...


So it seems *there are three separate areas within sx* (which explains a lot). Notes on "zones" continued down the page (all from here: Instinct workshop notes sp,so,sx )

* *






> Sexual (SX)
> Manifest in 3 Zones, and distortions:
> 1) Edge/Aggression/ Pushing the envelope - Moving towards what draws you energetically, drive towards what is exciting and interesting, element of risk, of overcoming boundaries, destructive. Salmon swimming upstream to mate and die. Most aggressive version of their type. There's an element of risk and exhaustion. Jealousy and Competition, over-aggression, over-spending energy, can be heartless, this is hunter-prey dynamic. Everything else sidelined. Recklessness.
> 
> ...





 @ukulele you may be interested in this part since it describes different sx health/development levels:


> *3 Levels of Development*:
> - Unconscious - seeking peaks states of energy and intensity to point of self-destruction, or neurotic about where the energy fix is coming from, manipulating, forcing, hung-up on how to squeeze most intensity. obsession with object. addiction to object of attraction.
> - Growing - activated energy for creation and fulfillment, energy that undoes the log-jams.
> - Illuminated - be on wave of creative life force, energy fully engaged in awakening, sx generated in service of essence, the real juice is awakening. complete transmission.
> ...


----------



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

@*mistakenforstranger* 
Hm. It does feel intuitive to me, to associate creativity with the sexual instinct. Although I'm an artist myself, so of course I don't think only sexual types can be creative lol. But when you think about it - sex and the creation of art... symbolically it's the same. At least it seems that way to me. Although since I'm Sp, I have a bias towards thinking of things in an Sp-ish way. 

And I do think it's a mistake to think passion or intensity is solely an Sx-thing, though at the same time I don't think it's a good idea to simply say it's about one-on-one, or you know... 


Azranaes said:


> I almost envy sps ability to just treat humans as interchangeable and swap them out like tools, while I feel like I've lost a chunk of myself and have to readjust every time a relationship doesn't work out.


^Like I got so reactive over this comment earlier, but that's because I can relate to the inability to simply replace people in that manner, because yes I get really attached easily, and a relationship definitely feels like life or death to me... To the point where I've felt close to suicidal lately due to heartbreak and anxiety related to this. Yet I'm Sp-first. So you know. Although I don't express myself in the same manner Sx-firsts do, so perhaps on the surface it might appear like I'm less intense about it than I am. And I do think it's normal to feel this way.

I think there's something to Sx being more identified with passion for passion's sake - Sp and So seems more prone to want to sublimate it into something useful or appropriate, while Sx is about the spark itself basically.


----------



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

ukulele said:


> How come sparks aren't useful? What is?
> Sparks are very much useful...


Whether they are useful or not is not the point, lol. Seems like you really aren't paying attention to what I'm actually saying.

And neither am I saying attachment is Sx, in case that flew over your head as well.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

@ukulele
You're right, let's load the thread with moaaar (sx = romantic?) songs


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

I vote yes to Sx songs.


----------



## visceral (Apr 11, 2017)

so grateful to have found this thread


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

*SX is a concept.*

Every sx dominant, a real live person, has a core enneagram/personality (and other factors including health level) that their sx instinct 'filters' through (or is "interfered with" & "distorted by" to use words from Riso & Hudson _The Wisdom of the Enneagram_). *All sx dominants express sx differently* (true for all people/every instinct).

4s are often given the name 'romantic'. 4 generally is called sx-ish bc of the romanticism of the type. So it would be weird if a "romantic 4" who is sx (said to especially enjoy emotional intensity) didn't express her flavor of sx by posting 'romantic' songs. 

If this *or other things Ukulele says* is confusing to anyone --_if it's you who doesn't understand_-- perhaps open a discussion and ask the source for clarification/her experience. Unnecessary blocking/rudeness/bullying is uncalled for and there is little less lame in life than the pseudo intellectualism of an unsubstantiated *no*.

@ukulele I hope you re-post your songs, especially if they're going to come with illuminating sx commentary afterwards  :love_heart:







ewdenore said:


> I vote yes to Sx songs.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

But aren't the E2 people the ones pushing hard on the romanticism agenda? Romanticism happens until you read the "and they lived happily ever after..." sentence. By that I mean that E4 is a _hopeless_ romantic. They are idealistic, they crave love but that would not be the case if they had finally found it. So the drive, the engine of romanticism is that it is always out of reach. No perfect, "special" love is possible, only ordinary love with its flaws and problems (and abrupt endings). Hence, E4s have problems reconciling their fantasies with reality. I won't waste my time teaching each wave of newbies on the forum with sources and citation, nobody pays me. But just this: E4 is envy based: why would a core-fix E4 depict other couples? Of course, it's possible it's their imaginary, ideal selves the artists are depicting, but then again, where is the envy? Where's that bitter feeling of I can't have it? And where's the disappointment that when they finally got it, it's not what they expected, so they push it away? In sum: why would a core-fix 4 integrating E1 qualities (realism) lie about the unreality of their fantasies?

Following all these very young female users' appropriations ("reblogs") of tumblr porn, and the theoretical understanding this act implies, most pop songs are love songs, most tumblr pics are sensual, hence most music and love pictures are Enneagram 4. But if you look at it from the E2 perspective, the idealism portrayed in these videos and the way they quote them (without questioning their verisimilitude), the overall message is "loveability". And E2 wants the most to be loved (). Yet, "romantic love" has a lot of physical prerequisites. One is money, being good in the social-musical chairs-status game. All hear types want to be loved, yet E4 knows the best that love is not unconditional.


----------



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

Dare said:


> *SX is a concept.*


It's an instinct. =) 

Of course your core enneagram type will make you prone to conceptualize it a certain way, but deep down it all comes from instinctual drives.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ukulele said:


> It's a life long quest to unite but can you ever achieve an union with an object?


Depends if 'object' is material, physical, mental or spiritual. 




















Self Trancendence said:


> *The Need for Transcendence*
> 
> Need
> To go beyond oneself. To reach for heaven, nirvana, the stars. To feel connected to others, to God and the universe.
> ...





subject object duality said:


> Brahman is an infinite, self-luminous (self-aware) consciousness that transcends the subject-object duality. Unqualified and all-inclusive, perhaps its most significant feature is that it is "One without a second," for there is nothing outside it. Hence Atman -- the true Self, what each of us really is -- is one with this Brahman. Tat tvam asi: "That thou art." This is "All-Selfness": "...there is nothing else but the Self." "To realize the whole universe as the Self is the means of getting rid of bondage." "To the seer, all things have verily become the Self."
> 
> So the Atman should not be understood as a distinct self that merges with Brahman. To realize Atman is to realize Brahman because they are really the same thing; in fact, the two words are used interchangeably in some Upanishads. One may state, in answer to the Buddhists, that a consciousness, a self, is needed to organize experience, but that turns out to have been Brahman itself, when Brahman is realized -- that is to say, when Brahman realizes its own true nature. The world of multiplicity and change is maya, illusion. There is nothing but the all-inclusive Self: yet this sounds awkward, since the concept of a self seems to presuppose an other, a non-self from which it is distinguished (we will return to this later). So perhaps the term Atman should be rejected as superfluous, because it suggests another entity apart from Brahman. One should not multiply entities beyond necessity.
> http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Remnants said:


> It's an instinct. =)
> 
> Of course your core enneagram type will make you prone to conceptualize it a certain way, but deep down it all comes from instinctual drives.


Thank you, _so much_, for explaining that to me. Did you imagine me sitting on your knee as you explained how that works or was that just me?

On the surface it looks like you enjoy projecting your inability to understand onto others. But given the title of this thread, the fact that I called it "the sx instinct" in my post (from which you quoted) and I've written pages on the sx instinct in this thread (including me saying my own dominant instinct is sx), I'm going to assume that 1) you know I know it's an instinct and this was some sort of troll post and 2) this habit of yours of 'misunderstanding' others is nothing more than a game/excuse to be rude/belittling to others.

**Don't quote/mention me ever again**

Here's the definition of the word 'concept' on the off chance you actually need it:
-an abstract idea, a general notion.
-an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects.

Now if you'll excuse me I think I left my sx instinct in the car (comes in handy in holding the accelerator down), I need to go get it and put it away.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

If someone is failing to understand how a 4 sx loves, they might want to check their own beliefs/lens first (your view of romance/love isn't everyone's reality). It would also be a mistake to not factor for the instinct & health level. Sx typically demands boundaries be transgressed and fusion formed, in some fashion at least, _regardless of the nature of the core type_ (as seen in sx 5s). Health levels matter -- in 4s the health level of the _romantic_ (level 4) stands only two rungs above the _effete_ (level 6).

I wonder if Erich Fromm was a healthy 4 sx. Regardless, I share his views on love (I suspect healthy sx 4s will too -- it's quite a different view of love to that of an unhealthy 2, although the healthy 2s would no doubt relate). I'll note that with age comes no guarantee of psychological health, emotional maturity or practical experience in conducting a healthy romantic relationship.

Some Erich Fromm quotes from _The Art of Loving_:

* *




"Human values have become determined by economic values"

"Love is often nothing more than a favorable exchange between two people who get the most of what they can expect, given their value on the personality market"

""Deserved" love easily leaves a bitter feeling that one is not loved for oneself, that one is loved only because one pleases, that one is, in the last analysis, not loved at all but used"

"Infantile love follows the principle: 'I love because I am loved'
Mature love follows the principle: 'I am loved because I love'
Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you'
Mature love says: 'I need you because I love you'"
































"Love is an attitude, *an orientation of character* which determines the relatedness of the person as a whole. Yet most people believe love is constituted by the object, not the faculty... One does not see that love is an activity, *a power of the soul*, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object -- and that everything goes by itself afterward"

I wonder if this character/soul aspect is related to sx in some form for me (creating emotional intensity/ability to connect in this way easily, just not with people generally for me -- only my 'one'). In a weird way I can fall in love constantly: a tree, the sky, a bird, the perfect moment. My earliest memory was the feeling of loving life itself. This thrill/gratitude/love is something I still carry with me and, I suspect, always will.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

People tell you that you are visibly intense or even frighten them in some way. People been telling me this since high school.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Dare said:


> I wonder if Erich Fromm was a healthy 4 sx. Regardless, I share his views on love (I suspect healthy sx 4s will too -- it's quite a different view of love to that of an unhealthy 2, although the healthy 2s would no doubt relate). I'll note that with age comes no guarantee of psychological health, emotional maturity or practical experience in conducting a healthy romantic relationship.
> 
> Some Erich Fromm quotes from _The Art of Loving_:
> 
> ...


I don't know about Erich Fromm as sx-4, always saw him as Social instinct of some kind (I know, I know...), but like this:

"*If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others*, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism."

"All men are in need of help and depend on one another. Human solidarity is the necessary condition for the unfolding of any one individual."

"*Only when man succeeds in developing his reason and love further than he has done so far, only when he can build a world based on human solidarity and justice, only when he can feel rooted in the experience of universal brotherliness*, will he have transformed his world into a truly human home."

"To analyze the nature of love is to discover its general absence today and to criticize the social conditions which are responsible for this absence. *To have faith in the possibility of love as a social and not only exceptional-individual phenomenon*, is a rational faith based on the insight into the very nature of man."

But then people would say this is (underlined) is sx (although, I think there's a still a Social focus inherent to it):

I believe that love is the main key to open the doors to the "growth" of man. *Love and union with someone or something outside of oneself*, union that allows one to put oneself into relationship with others, to feel one with others, without limiting the sense of integrity and independence. Love is a productive orientation for which it is essential that there be present at the same time: concern, responsibility, and respect for and knowledge of the object of the union.

I think Byron was a sx-4 (He's like textbook sx/so). 










And I mentioned Patti Smith earlier too.










By the way, been mulling over the Elon Musk typing. You're right, he's likely not a 3, but I don't know if he's a 1 either. I'm sort of leaning towards 5w6 after reading about his life when he was younger. Still not completely convinced either way when it comes to him lol.


----------



## ukulele (Jan 3, 2017)

Dare said:


> If someone is failing to understand how a 4 sx loves, *they might want to check their own beliefs/lens first* (your view of romance/love isn't everyone's reality). It would also be a mistake to not factor for the instinct & health level.* Sx typically demands boundaries be transgressed and fusion formed,* in some fashion at least, _regardless of the nature of the core type_ (as seen in sx 5s). *Health levels matter* -- in 4s the health level of the _romantic_ (level 4) stands only two rungs above the _effete_ (level 6).


THIS!



> why would a core-fix E4 depict other couples?


To indulge in their fantasy world, DUH! 
Additionally, "other couples", what other couples? I personally use music for self-expression, perhaps I'm too self-absorbed to see it as a depiction of others, rather than my own internal world (and my experience). They're not random romantic songs. They're "ME".


MORE ROMANTIC SONGS :ninja:







> but then again, where is the envy? Where's that bitter feeling of I can't have it? And where's the disappointment that when they finally got it, it's not what they expected, so they push it away?


Are you a slave to it? Can't you go beyond it? Does e4 have to stay unhealthy? Not to mention, all of this might be present, but you can choose to push through it. You can turn envy into admiration, compassion, inspiration, motivation, or simply recognize there's nothing to envy. I don't say it will disappear but it's up to you what you will do about it.
You can recognize what this disappointment exactly is and what caused it. 
You can recognize that a life not lived isn't worth it. It is (indulgence is) safe and comfortable but at the end of a day it simply makes you (not you-you, e4) a miserable, passive emo pussy. To which I can relate but I want MORE! I want to break boundaries, comfort zones,* to feel alive*. You cannot feel alive when YOU not exist! Rather than to be loved, I prefer to love.
I want to live without giving up on my idealism. Is it hopelessly romantic enough to think I can have it?
"No perfect, "special" love is possible " -says who?  Its flaws and problems do not make love ordinary, it's your fears that make you see it as such and to reject. To be e4, do you have to give in to your fears?

* *





That's your "perfect", flawless, unachievable love you dream of







This is raw, flawed love you can make yourself







which one is ordinary? which one is more beautiful? 



The point is *to create* (to keep creating) something extraordinary, not to resign or settle.
Erich Fromm's view on love is an excellent example. His idea of love is an ideal to me, yet a realistic one. Realistic but not common. Realistic but not disappointing. Realistic but not limited. Not doomed but fulfilling. 
Idealism doesn't have to be passive.

No, I won't be no runaway. Cause I. Won't. Run.






* *




*another thing about the songs I post, I use dominant Ni and I probably connect some things that aren't apparent/there for others.

That's a healthy e4 to me 






> Profoundly creative, expressing the personal and the universal, possibly in a work of art. Inspired, self-renewing and regenerating: able to transform all their experiences into something valuable: self-creative.





> Self-aware, introspective, on the "search for self," aware of feelings and inner impulses. Sensitive and intuitive both to self and others: gentle, tactful, compassionate.





> Highly personal, individualistic, "true to self." Self-revealing, emotionally honest, humane. Ironic view of self and life: can be serious and funny, vulnerable and emotionally strong.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

ukulele said:


> MORE ROMANTIC SONGS :ninja:






some manipulation and deceit in the beginning,
"Sx juice" starts at 19:41, where she steals the police car (again).

To the perplexed people about the "heart type" militance on here: I was wrong, Sx 2 might still be a possibility but these "romantic" people here are most probably E8s, xSTJs, xSTPs (tertiary, social heart types). There's no point drawing this out further because they'll disagree and all I'll have achieved is giving them more hints on how to emulate Sx/E4. I've done these rounds already on 16types.info Sx subthreads and you can go and check it - this here is just the beginning of how deteriorated that forum is. A formerly intellectual place trashed by schlock, lowest of pop-culture and violent dogmatism in people defending their labels and by that their turf on the forum. Will open a different, more limited thread for Sx discussion.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

ukulele said:


> THIS!
> "No perfect, "special" love is possible " -says who?  Its flaws and problems do not make love ordinary, it's your fears that make you see it as such and to reject. To be e4, do you have to give in to your fears?























> Are you a slave to it? Can't you go beyond it? Does e4 have to stay unhealthy? Not to mention, all of this might be present, but you can choose to push through it. You can turn envy into admiration, compassion, inspiration, motivation, or simply recognize there's nothing to envy. I don't say it will disappear but it's up to you what you will do about it.












:happy:

Hesse was such a 4!


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

I don't know why it's so hard for some to grasp that we're here to discuss the thread topic rather than go off/make it 'personal'. Bringing up people's core enneagram & mbti (unsolicited typing) on a thread about the sx instinct is desperate but what's even more lame is the way they can't see the obvious: the only insulting material they've exposed has been about themselves (believing (all) women are "manipulative" in combination with the "no relationships ever work" delusion is too convenient/'poor me'/passive to be anything other than a bitter incel calling card). 

It's the same thing with the anti-sx insinuations. This reveals 'unhealthy soc dominant' more than anything else. *References to two manipulative female criminals doesn't convince anyone to hate sx or women* Manipulation falls into the soc instinct (as discussed/referenced previously). Perhaps this is why (unhealthy) soc dominants 'ankle bite' sx dominants rather than simply say: 'I don't like sx, here's why'. At least I could respect that and perhaps a real discussion on soc vs sx perspectives could actually come from it with mutual learning/understanding (how's that for idealism?)

Regardless, I'm happy we can get back to discussing the topic now.










ukulele said:


> Idealism doesn't have to be passive.


Indeed. I can't imagine how I could have the ideal life I want without being assertive in the planning/building aspects as well as having an active orientation generally ('present'/engaged/open/grateful etc). 'Perfection' isn't only unrealistic (and frequently a commercialized ideal), it's also not perfect, not really. Give me the man with the scar, the 'messy' bouquet of flowers, the person who gave it their all (regardless of outcome) etc. This is more 'real' to me and little is more beautiful than authenticity -- that sx 'denuding' idea. 








I'm also very particular about when I 'let go' (become passive). Perhaps I like both high control and full release, switching from one extreme to the other, bc I'm sx (increased intensity this way). One time I wanted to go swimming but the ocean was saying 'no' that particular day by unceremoniously lifting me up in the high/close to shore waves and slamming me down. My friends, way back on dry sand as if to say I'm-not-even-going-near-those-angry-waves, looked on with concern and compassionate cringes as I took nature's relentless pounding (after being spat out by one wave the next would slap my ass as I lay on the wet sand and the next would knock me over as I tried to get up). 

They also looked confused since I was laughing (getting rejected & pushed around by water is pretty funny). Still, at a certain point it was getting old so I redoubled my efforts to get past these never ending sets of powerful waves/rough current. This time I was taken under, being dragged along the sandy floor towards the open ocean. I completely let go and enjoyed it (I know how rip currents work, am good with water and accepted I momentarily had precisely zero control). The serenity I felt in those swift underwater seconds was beautiful (and afterwards I had a nice swim, far out from the waves). Ironically I suspect people who are passive in life would have tried to control in that moment, to no affect (except possibly drowning due to panicking). Timing is everything 

A while back I read through the entire sx rant thread. One of the things that struck me was someone described the difference between sx/so and sx/sp as between those who like to ride the waves and those who like to be submerged. I'm sure they didn't mean literally (lol) but I can say that this is true for sx/sp me. I like to get into certain things in a very all-the-way/over-my-head/risk-drowning type manner. 








Another thing that stayed with me from that thread was someone saying sx dominants are prepared to lose something of themselves and be 'forever changed' from a 'merging'. It seems like an absense of fear in a way (I've noticed others respond with fear to sx ideals) or perhaps classic sx risk taking: willing to lose/risk what you have for the intense experience and/or for what lays beyond the self -- giving up me-as-one to become a merged greater 'one' (the 'transcendence' idea brought up). Change/'growth' is embraced rather than avoided -- the focus on the gain rather than the loss. Of course it's more compulsive/magnetic/gravitational than choice would imply.


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

The only thing that drew me to open an account here is the word pounding on this thread. Letting go of control is where one becomes free. That sensation is the base for the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

Nice thread. A few flirts here and there, but that's always part of life.

Pounding. I'd like to be pounded, anyone willing to pound me? Pound me like a quid. Or a twat.

A riddle: what makes sx word envying for? So instinct? Not really. It's rather sx blind. But ... where's the riddle?!? )

Pounding. What a powerful word.


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

There is so much great material on this thread I could write a book using 5 writers at a time just to cover the basics of it. But when we all go to bed, at the end of our uniquely different days, what matters from a sx thread stand is if it supported us to feel alive when ever a notion of boredom made its presence known. The old thread gave us whom which some have, indeed, went through it all.

One member wrote that no sane person will ever write a wall of text on some internet site. Another wrote that its needy to write a lot on the virtual nothingness of the perc. Third wrote that the sx is gross. The world is full of opinions I guess. But. When the days are ending, even if life isnt always ideal, its a breath of fresh air to encounter another real sx. Especially those youve witnessed personally to have grown over the years from rootless emotional irrationals into people whom have rose to the wisdom where less indeed is more. Because its not the quality nor the quantity. Its the intention and by far more deeply, the motives behind those intentions that really matter. That is why a set of shitty flowers can and will have more value and worth than 900 trillion empires.

And that is a notion the rest of them will just never get. Its not just an instinct. It really is a concept. Operationally functional one too.

All that said. Im gonna go marry my left palm now, as the right palm has been severely damaged from - wait for it - and its not what youd think, but fishing really huge fish on the open ocean. Fishing is underated Id say. The rarely succesfull outcome of that is so tasty too, and has less fat than in land based meat to keep us in shape. If we just erased all the fat from between our synapses, life would really rock. Just that the all would need 1st to become One. Multiple emotional investments, never really got that one as it always seemed like itd take us all to just kinda be really just alone.

And for us who think we have lost something valuable, its never ever really that. As. One can only do two things in life: Succeed
Or learn FAST from failure and then
Succeed.

And the only key to do that is courage. Its courage to embrace fear. And once fear becomes ones bitch, withdraw changes into battle. And at the beginning, one will tend to loose some challenges. But with time errors will no longer be repeated, and the re-enforcement of multiple success over failures ratio will grow. And that will bring competence. And when that competence reaches perfection and one gets it kinda all done with the exact desired outcome the confidence kicks in. And when that happens one becomes the leader of leaders. Or even more grand the spark of change.

Elon is that. But he always respected the hands that built him. And that attitude is why he is where he is professionally. Its lonely at the top, but man is it not the most lonely at the most extreme top genetically speaking.

I wish many could admire instead of envy. But then again, hadnt i been born this way, id surely envy sx'ses too.

And not because of depth and whatever. But because we actually live this life.


----------

