# Questioning the Enneagram



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> But _why _those points. I've never heard any reason except for there being lines on the symbol.


The points of connection stems from Gurdjieff's "fundamental cosmic laws", "The Law of Seven" and "The Law of Three". The enneagram has a (historic) relation to geometry and math, which may for some also be a matter of spiruality. 

The law of seven encompass the idea that life does not occur in a straight line, but always changes. I don't know the full extent of this, or all of Gurdjieff's teachings, but the relation it has to the enneagram theory that is teached today is that if you take 1/7 so that you devide the 1 with the 7 you'll get an endless line of 0,142857142857... - and there you have the points of disintergration as it is called (for the types outside the "main triangle" anyway).

The law of three or "the law of process" states that every process in the universe comprise of three parts: Active/affirming (3), Passive/resistant (6) and Neutral/balance (9). It's not clear to me why the points of (dis)intergration goes one way rather than the other in this case. 

So there is tradition and method to why the types are connected the way they are. One may still claim it to be arbitrary, but it's not random. 

You may have already been aware of this. I just thought I'd mentioned it in this thread since I myself found it quite interesting.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Dyslexicon said:


> The points of connection stems from Gurdjieff's "fundamental cosmic laws", "The Law of Seven" and "The Law of Three". The enneagram has a (historic) relation to geometry and math, which may for some also be a matter of spiruality.
> 
> You may have already been aware of this. I just thought I'd mentioned it in this thread since I myself found it quite interesting.


Yes, in the Gurdjieff or Fourth Way use of the symbol the numbers pointed to by the hexad (142857) represent the law of 7 and the numbers pointed to by the triangle (963) represent the law of 3. The problem is that the personality types don't use the symbol the way Gurdjieff did. With Gurdjieff, the numbers represented by the law of three or triangle are used to represent something different than the numbers represented by the law of seven or hexad. With the personality types, all nine numbers represent the same thing thus ignoring the differentiation. You can't have it both ways - the types need to either be set up so the law of 3 and 7 apply or stop trying to apply those concepts represented by the triangle and hexad.

Bottom line is that the personality types just don't use the symbol as Gurdjieff did so bringing in Gurdjieff's use of the symbol simply isn't applicable. Unfortunately, this law of 3/law of 7 premise is the only reasoning I've seen put forth for justifying the use of the inner lines.

By the way, a good example of how types are applied to the symbol in the Gurdjieff tradition can be found in the planetary types, which not only was created by a 2nd generation student of the Gurdjieff work but also predates the Enneagram personality types we know today (however, the planetary types and personality types aren't related even though they both make use of the same symbol). Notice that the hexad points represent types but the triangle points don't (there are no types placed on points 9, 6, and 3).


----------



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> Yes, in the Gurdjieff or Fourth Way use of the symbol the numbers pointed to by the hexad (142857) represent the law of 7 and the numbers pointed to by the triangle (963) represent the law of 3. The problem is that the personality types don't use the symbol the way Gurdjieff did. With Gurdjieff, the numbers represented by the law of three or triangle are used to represent something different than the numbers represented by the law of seven or hexad. With the personality types, all nine numbers represent the same thing thus ignoring the differentiation. You can't have it both ways - the types need to either be set up so the law of 3 and 7 apply or stop trying to apply those concepts represented by the triangle and hexad.
> 
> Bottom line is that the personality types just don't use the symbol as Gurdjieff did so bringing in Gurdjieff's use of the symbol simply isn't applicable. Unfortunately, this law of 3/law of 7 premise is the only reasoning I've seen put forth for justifying the use of the inner lines.
> 
> ...


Could one argue that the triad types are inherently different than the hexad types to bridge this gap? 

I honestly have too limited knowledge of Gurdjieff's work to have an informed opinion on this. I would need to investigate this further. My current, but limited, understanding is that both laws pertain to process in some way, where the law of three (correlating to 369) relates to forces within any process and the law of seven (correlating to 142857) relates to the motion of process, specifically how a process will not go on forever in the same way but always change. Is that fair to say, and is this problematic when constituting the 9 types? Is it not possible to see the 9 types as a combined whole of the two laws?

Personally I can see, or at least argue the theory of, these laws correlate to the nature of the types to some degree, where the types outside the triangle represent the ever changing motion and the types within the triangel represent the forces/potential/material. However I'm not familiar with how exactly Gurdjieff originally used the symbol of the enneagram since you say it's not applicable to enneagram theory today (if I understand you correctly). 

I would appreciate suggestions to sources I could go to in order to investigate this further if you feel like sharing.^^


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Dyslexicon said:


> Could one argue that the triad types are inherently different than the hexad types to bridge this gap?


 The personality types sometimes use the triangle to say that 9, 3, and 6 are the core types and the types on either side are variations (e.g., 8 and 1 are variations of 9). This creates the three centers (891, 234, 567). The personality types make exclusive use of the law of three in this triadic way (think Centers of Intelligence, Horneyvian Triads, Harmonic Groups, Harmony Triads, Object Relations Groups, Tritype, Trifix, etc.) but the law of seven is nowhere to be found. So, attempting to use the hexad representation of the law of seven contradicts the triads (the law of 3 is applied to all nine numbers and the law of 7 is applied to none). The Gurdjieff symbol is a symbol that Oscar Ichazo (from whose work the personality types were derived) borrowed and began using in his own way that didn't follow anyone else's use of it. It was a misapplication of the Gurdjieff symbol from the very beginning (he claims he first saw the symbol elsewhere as a Chaldean seal). Here's a video clip of Claudio Naranjo (the originator of the ennea-types) discussing how the Enneagram symbol itself really doesn't have anything to do with the types (he prefers the types be called "Psychology of Ennea-Type" because it has nothing to do with Gurdjieff's Enneagram symbol).






There are a number writings about Gurdjieff's use of the Enneagram by various people on the web but here's a lecture about the Enneagram from Gurdjieff himself.


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

I´d like to reverse the questioning the enneagram. Some people regard the Gurdjieff´s and Ichazo´s one as incompatible. But the process-enneagram is just one important application of the synthesis of the law of 3 and the law of 7. In this case the connection lines 142857 play a major role. In the more static application of the types, these lines are still there but in the background. Here there are the central points 9-3-6 with their wings or the tritypes in the foreground. I myself see also an individual structure in it, as some people who know about it begin to recognize, but many others don´t. You can compare it with looking at a movie: you look at the movements of the figures because that´s what mostly interests you, or you look at the shapes and colors, because that´s important at the moment. But you also could pay attention to something else that´s contained in the movie, too. Gurdjieff taught the enneagram as a process model, but I don´t think he said, it´s only that. There are possibly many other applications of the enneagram, which will be discovered in the future.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@janusz

Where do you see the law of 7 or octaves being applied with the personality types? All I see are triadic relationships used and a forced use of the hexad that is misleading.


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

@_enneathusiast_
The law of 7 is dynamic, but it doesn´t exclude the static moments. An example of the static moment - in the movement - is an astrological natal chart in which the transiting (means moving) planets are frozen and still decisive for the character of a person. Something similar happens with the law of 7. A conception of a human being “freezes” the functioning of the law of 7 (in interchange with the law of 3). The result is a will structure. There still remain the universal connections but, in my opinion (and maybe here I´m nearer to you) they are overrated. Many people find the connections of the hexagram important because they think they have to stick to the importance of Gurdjieff´s interpretation, but he didn´t use is psychologically. Nevertheless, I wouldn´t leave it completely out.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

janusz said:


> Many people find the connections of the hexagram important because they think they have to stick to the importance of Gurdjieff´s interpretation, but he didn´t use is psychologically. Nevertheless, I wouldn´t leave it completely out.


I'd replace the hexad with two equilateral triangles similar to the 369 triangle (369, 147, 825). Then all the lines are consistent and mean the same thing (whatever meaning it is people want to assign to them). IMO, the inconsistency of the hexad with the triangle in the Gurdjieff symbol creates a contradiction between the types because of the way they use the symbol (emphasis on each type being equal and triadic patterns of relationship).


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

@enneathusiast
Maybe I have to repeat myself when I say, that we – human beings – have a double nature: we are individuals and at the same time belong to the universal flow of the cosmos. If we look from the perspective of our self, we can use the triangles (even Almaas does it in his “Facets of Unity”), but in the background, there is a universal flow. The contradiction for you is maybe due to the wish of having only one valid application? Using Models is not the same as dealing with truths – it is dealing with approximations (always!).:wink:


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

janusz said:


> Maybe I have to repeat myself when I say, that we – human beings – have a double nature: we are individuals and at the same time belong to the universal flow of the cosmos. If we look from the perspective of our self, we can use the triangles (even Almaas does it in his “Facets of Unity”), but in the background, there is a universal flow.


Sure, that's just duality which the Enneagram types and Almaas tie into with the Holy Ideas. Why complicate it beyond that with the symbol?



janusz said:


> The contradiction for you is maybe due to the wish of having only one valid application? Using Models is not the same as dealing with truths – it is dealing with approximations (always!).


I'm not using the Enneagram as a model. I'm using it as a map. As is, it's not a very accurate map though and I'm trying to make the map more accurate for others. It's easy to get lost using an inaccurate map and I continually see people getting lost with the Enneagram. 

Understand, I'm not using the Enneagram as a map for myself. I've already found what I was looking for from it. I'm just trying to uncomplicate things for others who are trying to use it.


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

enneathusiast said:


> Sure, that's just duality which the Enneagram types and Almaas tie into with the Holy Ideas. Why complicate it beyond that with the symbol?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For me the words “Model” and “Map” mean the same. It is your experience that people get lost with the enneagram, but life is both: easy and complicated, non-dual and dual. I think we all are learning, and you don´t mean to have come to a standstill? If your map functions for you, that´s perfect, but you see, I happen to work as well with a special application of astrology and I know there are many other sub-systems of this general concept, which are not only very different from each other, but apparently contradicting/incompatible. Does it mean, my system is right and the others wrong? Of course not, if they function for their practitioners. If something doesn´t work, that´s another matter. If you yourself choose simplicity, maybe you waive some richness and openness? I myself learn to include other vantage points rather than exclude them, because in this way I´m not remaining with my prejudices but opening to all perspectives. So it´s not a question of right and wrong but the understanding, that the Total Being has more than one dimension.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Map vs Territory. 

It's been discussed before
http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...nneagram-so-often-called-map.html#post9586274 



Map=/=Territory said:


> Polish-American scientist and philosopherAlfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.





Bonini Paradox said:


> Bonini's Paradox, named after Stanford business professor Charles Bonini, explains the difficulty in constructing models or simulations that fully capture the workings of complex systems (such as the human brain).
> 
> In modern discourse, the paradox was articulated by John M. Dutton and William H. Starbuck. "As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable. Alternatively, as a model grows more realistic, it also becomes just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents" (Computer Simulation of Human Behaviour, 1971).
> 
> ...


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

janusz said:


> For me the words “Model” and “Map” mean the same.


A map for me is a navigation tool ("how to get there from here"). A model for me is either an example of something or a mental construct to give structure to people's thinking but has the potential to keep people caught in the abstract or conceptual. 

I see the Enneagram as pointing to nine aspects of being human at the personality level and nine ways of structuring reality at a deeper level. My goal was always to discover all nine aspects within myself. It didn't have to do with creating a better model but discovering the actual experience the Enneagram types were pointing to then disregard the limitations of it and go deeper. It's only a starting point but it's often taken as an endpoint by those who use it as a model. As a map, it's deficient as is. I think that's because it's being used for a different purpose (although some people call it a map) and a map has to be constructed by someone who's actually experienced the terrain and I simply don't know anyone who's found the experience of each type within that goes deeper than personality traits and characteristics.



janusz said:


> If you yourself choose simplicity, maybe you waive some richness and openness? I myself learn to include other vantage points rather than exclude them, because in this way I´m not remaining with my prejudices but opening to all perspectives. So it´s not a question of right and wrong but the understanding, that the Total Being has more than one dimension.


That's typically how type 5 experiences the world and I can relate. Not all types experience it that way however and that's where it gets interesting for me because it's contrary to my experience.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> > Bonini's paradox can be seen as a case of the map–territory relation: simpler maps are less accurate though more useful representations of the territory.


For me maps have a specific use. They do this by including only the information that's relevant for that purpose. Here are some examples of what I mean.


a road map for navigating the road system
a topographical map for navigating the physical terrain
a water depth map for navigating through the shallows in a boat

Perhaps I should be using the term "navigational map" to distinguish map from model as I'm using it (I have a feeling that could lead to additional confusion however).

When I'm using the Enneagram as a map, the purpose is to help me find the deeper experience of each type within myself and others. The way to do that for me is to eliminate the information that doesn't serve that purpose or misleads. That's one reason I say it's only a starting point. It's basically a map of nine different aspects of myself that I've lost awareness and acceptance of. 

When the Enneagram types are looked at on the surface, it's a model of personality types. When you go underneath that, it's a map of nine different types of awareness that may or may not get expressed through personality.


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

enneathusiast said:


> A map for me is a navigation tool ("how to get there from here"). A model for me is either an example of something or a mental construct to give structure to people's thinking but has the potential to keep people caught in the abstract or conceptual.


When I meditate about the “territory”, which can be grasped and made conscious only by means of thinking (in the broadest sense of the word), then it doesn´t matter, if I call it a map, model, system, etc., because the only sure thing about it is the fact that it is “thinking”.
Many people (probably nearly everybody) think, that there is a territory, which could be experienced without any structuring of the mind. That´s why they look for an “objective territory”. I don´t know if you belong to this group, I do not.




enneathusiast said:


> I see the Enneagram as pointing to nine aspects of being human at the personality level and nine ways of structuring reality at a deeper level. My goal was always to discover all nine aspects within myself. It didn't have to do with creating a better model but discovering the actual experience the Enneagram types were pointing to then disregard the limitations of it and go deeper.



Although we look differently at the subject of the variety of perspectives, here our views are alike. And I appreciate your sharp discernment.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

janusz said:


> Many people (probably nearly everybody) think, that there is a territory, which could be experienced without any structuring of the mind. That´s why they look for an “objective territory”. I don´t know if you belong to this group, I do not.


I'm not sure what you mean. All I can say is that I see Enneagram type as that which creates the structure (in large part) and thus the reality according to the individual. How people structure their "reality" so differently and how I can see that for myself is what I find so interesting about the Enneagram types (although it's the Enneagram types at a much deeper level than can be found in the popularized interpretation - to the point where they can no longer even be called Enneagram types because that's too limiting).


----------



## janusz (Feb 5, 2016)

enneathusiast said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. All I can say is that I see Enneagram type as that which creates the structure (in large part) and thus the reality according to the individual. How people structure their "reality" so differently and how I can see that for myself is what I find so interesting about the Enneagram types (although it's the Enneagram types at a much deeper level than can be found in the popularized interpretation - to the point where they can no longer even be called Enneagram types because that's too limiting).


I mean there is no territory outside of the mind, because in that case there is “only” an inconceivable mystery. But here in this passage you look at it quite like I do. :happy:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> For me maps have a specific use. They do this by including only the information that's relevant for that purpose. Here are some examples of what I mean.
> a road map for navigating the road system
> a topographical map for navigating the physical terrain
> a water depth map for navigating through the shallows in a boat
> ...



Models have a specific meaning too. Like a model airplane is a simplified representation of reality, or even what is intented to be realized on a large scale. Models can also be abstractions that is separated from irrelevant information. You can check definitions of different types of models here. 

We've been mapping the stars for quite some time now, but that's more to do with orientation than primarily navigation (at least not to navigate amongst the stars). 


There's also "mind-mapping" or "semantic mapping" (cognitive schemas). For example:












Semantic Mapping said:


> Semantic mapping is a strategy for graphically representing concepts. Semantic maps portray the schematic relations that compose a concept. It assumes that there are multiple relations between a concept and the knowledge that is associated with the concept. Thus, for any concept there are at least these three types of associations:
> 
> 
> associations of class-- the order of things the concept falls into;
> ...



Then you can think of "mapping" Karen Horney's interpersonal coping styles (Moving with, Moving away from, Moving against), with Ennea-types, or mapping Freud's model of Id, Ego and Superego with the model/map of Enneagram (e.g. "Id-types", "Ego-types", "Superego-types"). Or mapping to 'Head','Heart' and 'Body' centers of intelligence (which could be mapped to chakra's)












Personally I'm not bothered much by the difference, which I don't consider very relevant, as much as I am concerned about the attitude, as I referred to in previous post. 




A.H. Almaas said:


> Yes, as the Enneagram is part of a larger teaching used in the Ridhwan school, we only use it at certain stages in our work. The Enneagram seems to work very well at those particular times. For instance, the Enneagram of Fixations is very useful at the beginning stages for people to learn about their character and their basic personality tendencies, and to help their orientation and self-observation. Having a good map like the Enneagram helps to orient people.



You could also argue that every ennea-type is in itself an orientation, perspective, an attitude or habit, or what in Buddhism is called "Saṅkhāra". 




Perspectivism said:


> Perspectivism is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato's rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.





Saṅkhāra said:


> In the first (passive) sense, saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but specifically to all mental "dispositions". These are called 'volitional formations' both because they are formed as a result of volition and because they are causes for the arising of future volitional actions. English translations for saṅkhāra in the first sense of the word include 'conditioned things, 'determinations,' 'fabrications' and 'formations' (or, particularly when referring to mental processes, 'volitional formations')
> (...) saṅkhāra can refer to any compound form in the universe whether a tree, a cloud, a human being, a thought or a molecule. All these are saṅkhāras. (...) Saṅkhāra is often used in this first sense to describe the psychological conditioning (particularly the habit patterns of the unconscious mind) that gives any individual human being his or her unique character and make-up at any given time.
> (...) "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives. The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions."





enneathusiast said:


> When I'm using the Enneagram as a map, the purpose is to help me find the deeper experience of each type within myself and others. The way to do that for me is to eliminate the information that doesn't serve that purpose or misleads. That's one reason I say it's only a starting point. It's basically a map of nine different aspects of myself that I've lost awareness and acceptance of.
> 
> 
> When the Enneagram types are looked at on the surface, it's a model of personality types. When you go underneath that, it's a map of nine different types of awareness that may or may not get expressed through personality.



To see them as 9 aspects is seeing them as "real", discrete aspects. I would certainly agree that it's worthwhile to reflect on other types than core type, but it's not like we're collecting all the happy meal surprises. You seem to assume that becoming "whole" is just a matter of collecting those aspects, "finding them underneath", even though you haven't so far been able to give just one concrete example, which makes it all really very conceptual, not experiential knowledge, as 'direct experience'. 


If we look at it from your perspective of 'navigation', I also suppose that collecting all these aspects is the objective in itself and the map is expected to lead to, like from A to B. But the thing is, every enneatype already has an objective, whether they are aware of it or not, or whether someone has ever heard about enneagram or not. People have their ways to navigate through life, like type 5 may hope to find an intellectual niche and may fear their ideas are too conventional. That is a coping strategy and a way to navigate towards an objective or avoid what is the type's core fear. The question is not so much whether they find that niche or not, but what underlies that desire (or need) to find that niche or why even just the notion of having conventional ideas may cause a knee jerk response of resistance at a visceral level? 

If we understand it as 9 types of Saṅkhāra perspectives, or the mental processes of volitional formations and dispositions that are conditioned by core fears and desires, it's better to speak of 9 types of conditioned 'narrowmindedness' (or 'fixations' or 'ontic obscurations' [Naranjo]) at unhealthy levels of awareness, whereas the healthiest level of awareness, we find 'openmindedness', or 'Presence', which is the state of consciousness of being 'liberated' or free from from being controlled by core fears and desires. 



A.H. Almaas said:


> Presence is the Essence of the Self
> The self can experience itself either purely and immediately, or through memories and structures created by past experiences. When it is seeing itself directly, it is aware of itself as primordial purity, without veils, without obscurations. It recognizes this pure condition as its ontological nature. This primordial purity or ontological nature is recognized as the self’s ultimate truth. So we say that the self has an Essence. The central property of this Essence, or true nature, is that it is an ontological Presence. Presence is the Essence of the self, just as protoplasm is the Essence of the body.
> Presence - Glossary - A.H. Almaas



_“When someone is searching then it might easily happen that the only thing his eyes still see is that what he searches for, that he is unable to find anything, to let anything enter his mind, because he always thinks of nothing but the object of his search, because he has a goal, because he is obsessed by the goal. Searching means: having a goal. But finding means: being free, being open, having no goal." [Herman Hesse] _


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> You seem to assume that becoming "whole" is just a matter of collecting those aspects, "finding them underneath", even though you haven't so far been able to give just one concrete example, which makes it all really very conceptual, not experiential knowledge, as 'direct experience'.


No, it's not _collecting _those aspects. It's _recognizing _them. _They're already there _but to see them you have to get out of your own way (in Enneagram terms that's being able to recognize how your dominant type keeps you from seeing them). There's not really any example to give. You just have to see it for yourself. The best I can do is offer the pathway I took. I'm still trying to do that but I find myself continually backing up to where most people are with the Enneagram types. I'm working my way through the fifth book I've started writing on the Enneagram types - hopefully I've finally found the right starting point to begin explaining it. 



mimesis said:


> If we understand it as 9 types of Saṅkhāra perspectives, or the mental processes of volitional formations and dispositions that are conditioned by core fears and desires, it's better to speak of 9 types of conditioned 'narrowmindedness' (or 'fixations' or 'ontic obscurations' [Naranjo]) at unhealthy levels of awareness, whereas the healthiest level of awareness, we find 'openmindedness', or 'Presence', which is the state of consciousness of being 'liberated' or free from from being controlled by core fears and desires.


That's still seeing Enneagram type at the level of personality or ego. This is where the popular understanding of the Enneagram types seems to be stuck. You have to go beneath that to find all the types within. They don't all get expressed through an individual's personality. At that deeper level they take the form of an awareness that structures reality. Our dominant type tends to push that awareness away though (the ego says _that's not me_ and pushes it away). That's why you have to get out of your own way to see it - this first step is what your quote above is referring to but most people see this first step as the final goal.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> No, it's not collecting those aspects. It's recognizing them. They're already there but to see them you have to get out of your own way (in Enneagram terms that's being able to recognize how your dominant type keeps you from seeing them). There's not really any example to give. You just have to see it for yourself. The best I can do is offer the pathway I took. I'm still trying to do that but I find myself continually backing up to where most people are with the Enneagram types. I'm working my way through the fifth book I've started writing on the Enneagram types - hopefully I've finally found the right starting point to begin explaining it.
> 
> That's still seeing Enneagram type at the level of personality or ego. This is where the popular understanding of the Enneagram types seems to be stuck. You have to go beneath that to find all the types within. They don't all get expressed through an individual's personality. At that deeper level they take the form of an awareness that structures reality. Our dominant type tends to push that awareness away though (the ego says that's not me and pushes it away). That's why you have to get out of your own way to see it - this first step is what your quote above is referring to but most people see this first step as the final goal.


So your 5 type ego pushes the aspects away of not only the approximate 6 and 4, the 'integration/disintegration types' 7 and 8 but also 2, 3, 1, 9 types of awareness within? (not meaning to start a debate on wings or integration lines btw)

What does that type of deeper level awareness mean? I mean there's plenty of people who can't figure out their type, because they can in fact relate to more than just one type. I don't think a 'wannabe 8 type 6' is repressing their '8-ness'. In fact, perhaps the ego says 'I'm not a fuckin' 6! I fear nothing! rawr'. According to Katherine Fauvres elsewhere on this site, some 6s may never arrive at self-typing 6. 

Not that I think that fear is the essential aspect or 'deep awareness' of 6, it's in fact what obscures essence or presence. Or like people saying 'I thought I was a 4 but I was depressed'. Not that I think that depression or even melancholy is the essential aspect or 'deep awareness' of type 4. Melancholy is what obscures the essential aspect of Joy at point 4, at least according to this map/enneagram. And of course this obscuration is not exclusive to type. Likely, the more unhealthy a person, the more obscuration of all aspects. 










But even aside from what type of deeper awareness is repressed by the dominant type, or whether or not the ego rejects the notion of core type (fear/desire/passion/fixation), how can someone become aware of aspects that are rejected from awareness as 'alien' to the ego (to say the least)? 

Like I said, you seem to quite passionately identify with your ideas as being an intellectual niche and unconventional (where 'popular understanding seems to be stuck'). I mean, just read through your own posts, it comes back almost every other post one way or the other, although I could imagine this is so normal or second nature to you that you are not fully aware of it. And it's not that I disapprove of that desire, but I would argue that one of the reasons why aspects are kept from awareness, or why understanding is 'stuck', is because of ego attachments, and in this case you seem to cling to it as to dear life. That's just my observation, of course, but perhaps you understand my point?


----------

