# I don't want to be connected to the universe



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> hmm
> 
> 
> I'm aware I've had a lot of help if that's what you're asking (which is something I'm not comfortable thinking about a lot :tongue: )


well, a little more general than that. I'm talking about the realization that the universe is not 100% mechanical, at least not mechanical in the way we expect. 

It's not like a vending machine: you don't put enough money in, you don't get the food; you put enough money, you get change back; you press the button for a twinkie, you get a twinkie. It seems to do some random stuff: some times you buy a twinkie and you get a candy or you put in all your money and you get nothing. Some times, the machine falls on top of you. So you expect it to follow the rules you can observe but may be *there are some other rules you don't know about*. May be it has wire to a temperature sensor that disallows buying certain items when it's too hot? 

So from your point of view when the machine doesn't give you the food, you think it's broken, that it fails to follow its rules but it has always been following its rules but not the rules you think. A typical reaction is to get mad and tune out :"I did everything I'm supposed to, how come I'm not getting the result I deserve? this is not fair", then they start kicking the vending machine and it falls on top of them  (then they get madder but it's just following the rule of gravity ) 

So the universe is following a different set of rules than what you can observe and reason, but there is even one step further... *it's not a dumb machine following rules*. *It is not dumb*. There is an *intelligence *behind it. Up to now we compare it to a vending machine with a simple micro-processor: if the temperature is higher than a certain value, stop dispensing certain food. What if the machine had artificial-intelligence? May be it had more than just a temperature senor but a visual sensor, a sound sensor, and a host of things to perceive its environment? What if it had this thing call a "douche-sensor" and if you're a douche, it doesn't sell you the food?  

So now comes the "_terrifying_" part you alluded to: it is watching you, *you are being watched. *More than just watching, observing but "processing", watching with an intention


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

OK, forgot to touch on the connection of one to the universe:

If we lived in a 2 dimensional world, that is we can not see anything in the 3rd dimension: we can only see length and width on the ground level but not height... Then if someone bounced a ball on the ground, from the ground level, we'd see some freaky ghostly magical thing appearing and disappearing at different locations. We can't explain it, we'd think it's random, we'd think it's out of our world, but it's just someone bouncing a ball. 

So if we could see how things are connected in another dimension, they can explain the random, inexplicable things in our world. My point is you and everything in this world is also connected somehow to each other in another dimension that we cannot perceive, and those connections orchestrate the events that don't follow the rules in our world. (Jung's Synchronicity  )

So you don't just do anything on your own, you are so connected that everything you do is part of an orchestration of many things working together, often unseen to you.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Musical intermezzo


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

meridannight said:


> there is no 'place in the universe' other than what you make for yourself yourself. you're not born with your 'place in the universe'. you determine it by what you do in life. and as long as you live you have time to do whatever.


I disagree. Whether a person does great things or if they're lazy and don't do anything, they do indeed have a place here. Everyone has a purpose too, even if it's only to serve as someone else's cautionary tale.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

Ice Ghost said:


> I disagree. Whether a person does great things or if they're lazy and don't do anything, they do indeed have a place here. *Everyone has a purpose too, even if it's only to serve as someone else's cautionary tale*.


Yep, and this not some ideological stance, it is reality when you really look at it. The reason it is opposed is because it offends the "equality" crowd. They cannot accept that all roles are unequal and complementary. They have to have all roles to be equal. And this is an ideological stance, not reality.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

Instead of thinking of yourself as connected to the world and people and stuff with this whole universe connection business, why not see yourself as connected to SPACE?

Woah there friends, alright, I see you looking at my Type 7w8 title but I'm (mostly) serious. Feeling connected to the earth and people and whatever makes me feel constrained. You can't please everyone. There will always be conflict if you try. Space is awesome. Space is cold and merciless and waiting to be conquered. There are a billion ways space could destroy the earth in a few seconds. And yet, space is vast and empty and calm. Space is both order and chaos. Look at this picture. That's one tiny square of the sky and in that tiny square are millions of things many times bigger than Earth. I do want to be connected with the universe, because I want to be intense and amazing and mindblowing. The Earth is just one speck but you can connect to that if you want I guess.

BE LIKE SPACE AND BE GLAD TO BE A PART OF IT


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

@*Swordsman of Mana*

If you want to talk about things that could have some kind of correlation to one another in a typological sense, your "I don't want to be connected to the universe" could be a characteristic of being social last in your instincts.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

Lotan said:


> Instead of thinking of yourself as connected to the world and people and stuff with this whole universe connection business, why not see yourself as connected to SPACE?
> 
> Woah there friends, alright, I see you looking at my Type 7w8 title but I'm (mostly) serious. Feeling connected to the earth and people and whatever makes me feel constrained. You can't please everyone. There will always be conflict if you try. Space is awesome. Space is cold and merciless and waiting to be conquered. There are a billion ways space could destroy the earth in a few seconds. And yet, space is vast and empty and calm. Space is both order and chaos. Look at this picture. That's one tiny square of the sky and in that tiny square are millions of things many times bigger than Earth. I do want to be connected with the universe, because I want to be intense and amazing and mindblowing. The Earth is just one speck but you can connect to that if you want I guess.
> 
> BE LIKE SPACE AND BE GLAD TO BE A PART OF IT


Space and time are part of the universe. You cannot run away from the universe, it's everywhere. There's also no chaos out there, it's all order but the rules are far beyond your comprehension for you to see order.

You are in The Matrix, you can take the blue pill and subservient to it, thinking you're living, doing stuff all on your own, not knowing you're just in sleeping state and be perfectly fine. Or you can take the red pill and see the real picture, it may not be more pleasant but it will ultimately give you more freedom.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

dfoster said:


> Space and time are part of the universe. You cannot run away from the universe, it's everywhere. There's also no chaos out there, it's all order but the rules are far beyond your comprehension for you to see order.
> 
> You are in The Matrix, you can take the blue pill and subservient to it, thinking you're living, doing stuff all on your own, not knowing you're just in sleeping state and be perfectly fine. Or you can take the red pill and see the real picture, it may not be more pleasant but it will ultimately give you more freedom.


_"Its not really more freedom, just...less ignorance"_


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> how do "humility" and peace outweigh personal gratification? I can understand the benefit realizing the extent of ones capabilities, but fundamentally I think the purpose of life is to serve the self.


Well, I can't imagine that someone with your perspective and desires would fit into an interconnected whole, and so there would be no place for you there anyway. So I wonder: Why are you even concerned about the question? If the possibility of being part of an interconnected whole bothers you, don't try to be part of an interconnected whole.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> _"Its not really more freedom, just...less ignorance"_


It is more freedom. Neo's extra ordinary powers only works when he's inside the Matrix but that only happens AFTER he realizes there's a Matrix. The people who took the blue pills just carry on their daily lives with their perceived limitations, fears, ect. 

When you think you are separated from the universe, it's a cold, hostile, uncooperative place. When you realize you are connected to the universe, it becomes *your playground*, like how The Matrix becomes Neo's playground. You can *leap without fear*. It's like in any sports, first you learn the rules/your limits, then you get real freedom, more so than before learning. For example: skiing/snowboarding: you learn the rules of gravity, of acceleration, of center of mass, of centrifugal acceleration... then you get real freedom, then you can fly. But only after you learn the rules.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

I feel this way sometimes too. Most of the greatest, most prestigious and accomplished individuals in human history have been average to unhealthy. Some, if not most of the greatest works of art have been made by the unhealthy and bipolar.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

dfoster said:


> It is more freedom. Neo's extra ordinary powers only works when he's inside the Matrix but that only happens AFTER he realizes there's a Matrix. The people who took the blue pills just carry on their daily lives with their perceived limitations, fears, ect.
> 
> When you think you are separated from the universe, it's a cold, hostile, uncooperative place. When you realize you are connected to the universe, it becomes *your playground*, like how The Matrix becomes Neo's playground. You can *leap without fear*. It's like in any sports, first you learn the rules/your limits, then you get real freedom, more so than before learning. For example: skiing/snowboarding: you learn the rules of gravity, of acceleration, of center of mass, of centrifugal acceleration... then you get real freedom, then you can fly. But only after you learn the rules.


I like how in a logical argument about enlightenment you are quoting the matrix. An object of cinematography with a strong cult following that I'm sure the screenwriter didn't mean to cultivate existential beliefs so much as he just wanted to portray an existential world through the power of cinema to show people how original his ideas can be.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> I like how in a logical argument about enlightenment you are quoting the matrix. An object of cinematography with a strong cult following that I'm sure the screenwriter didn't mean to cultivate existential beliefs so much as he just wanted to portray an existential world through the power of cinema to show people how original his ideas can be.



It is the best analogy that I can use to relate the concept to popular culture, as it is in the mind of most people. We don't know the real intention of the writer, but I do know there have been a lot of philosophical discussions about the movie. And this idea is not original, it has been expressed in one form or another in religions and philosophies.

Anyway, let's discuss the content and not the manner of the discussion.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> I like how in a logical argument about enlightenment you are quoting the matrix. An object of cinematography with a strong cult following that I'm sure the screenwriter didn't mean to cultivate existential beliefs so much as he just wanted to portray an existential world through the power of cinema to show people how original his ideas can be.


That's an original assumption I guess, however... 



The Matrix Influences said:


> The Matrix draws from and makes reference to numerous cinematic and literary works, and concepts from mythology, religion and philosophy. The premise of The Matrix can be tied into Plato's Allegory of the Cave. According to Plato's theory of Forms, the true essence of an object is not what we perceive with our senses, but rather its quality. Plato compares people uneducated in this theory to being chained in a cave. A fire glows behind them and they see the shadows of objects cast on the wall, but not the actual objects themselves. These people perceive the shadows as reality and thus do not know the true form of the objects, and therefore, are confined to this false perception.
> 
> The Matrix, or rather the AI that runs it, recalls Descartes' First Meditation, or evil demon, a hypothesis that the perceived world might be a comprehensive illusion created to deceive us. The same premise can be found in Hilary Putnam's brain in a vat scenario proposed in the 1980s.[4]
> 
> ...


Then again, has the Matrix got swag?


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

Ice Ghost said:


> I disagree. Whether a person does great things or if they're lazy and don't do anything, they do indeed have a place here. Everyone has a purpose too, even if it's only to serve as someone else's cautionary tale.


i don't believe we are contradicting one another here. i agree -- everyone has their place. i didn't mean to sound like only people who do ''great'' things, achieve ''big'' things, their dreams, whatever, that only they have a ''place''. i don't agree with that, that's BS. everyone does have a place, but what it is depends entirely on the person and what they do. if they lead a more quiet life and keep to themselves, then that's it. but it was still up to them to lead a life like that. universe or whatever didn't coerce them. they weren't born with that. they made it so. on their own. that's what i meant. and it goes for everybody. heads of state, musicians, actors, architects, or that guy who's been selling you your groceries for the past 3 years and will never be known to the public. everyone does have their place, but it's their doing.


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

I am going to agree with you. 

In fact, my gut reaction is that the "all is connected" view is exactly backwards, and that it is in recognizing and accepting how very alone we are that there is peace and understanding.

Oh, sure, the atoms that make up my body are a part of the universe, but my consciousness--the thing that makes me _me_? No one else can access that. They can guess what's going on in there, and if they know me well they'll be right more often than wrong, but they can't access it and I can't share it. That part of me simply *_IS_*. It does not belong to anyone else, and the desire to control it in others lies at the heart of every kind of totalitarianism.

The whole notion rather strikes me as a bit of self-loathing. How else do you describe the desire to kill the ego? Yes, the ego is an illusion, but _so is the universe_; we can only have _at best_ a puny grasp of anything so vast and complex; what we have is an image of it formed by our own consciousness. 

This is merely exchanging one illusion for another. At least my ego is a straightforward self-delusion.

I guess if you guys prefer the "one with everything" approach you may as well go for it. Hell, maybe you _will_ be happier, healthier people.

But if you think you're more enlightened than those of us who hang on to ourselves, you're wrong.

It's all in your head.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

braided pain said:


> I am going to agree with you.
> 
> In fact, my gut reaction is that the "all is connected" view is exactly backwards, and that it is in recognizing and accepting how very alone we are that there is peace and understanding.
> 
> ...


Thank you John Lennon, Amen. 



> Old Hare Krishna got nothing on you
> Just keep you crazy with nothing to do
> Keep you occupied with pie in the sky
> There ain't no guru who can see through your eyes​


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

There's a lot of spiritual terminology and concepts in the Enneagram, but for the sake of self-improvement - spiritual person or not - I quite like the "self-realization" it aims for, mostly because I don't think it's necessarily a permanent state, but just a place you know to strive for (not that you have to) - a way to keep things in perspective. As a 6, how does it keep things in perspective for me? Well, for starters it's nice to be reminded that I don't have to think in an Us vs. Them mentality, even though it's something I have to keep continually in check. I personally don't think most of reach a place of "enlightenment" and stay there standing above everyone else with enhanced perception. It's just a way of keeping yourself in check and having that self-awareness and that aim is beneficial to that process.

For instance, as a 7, it could be being reminded that they don't have be in a constant state of restlessness, jumping from one thing to the next; they can slow down for a minute and be present, enjoy the here and now and not just the grass beyond the hills. This connectedness the Enneagram celebrates seems to really be a way of being in touch with yourself and therefore the things you perceive around you - essentially a spiritual and tactful way of saying, "Chill the fuck out" to all the types. No one's out to get you; You are not unloved; You are an individual; You are powerful; You are exactly where you need to be - that sort of stuff. It's so easy to get swept away in our fixations and take them for granted. Al little reminder or even a wakeup call is helpful to show us that things are more than just how they seem; it's not all so scary.

Now this doesn't mean we have to adopt this mindset of looking outside ourselves or having to strive for it. It's not for all of us. Is it better? I can't say. Can it make for a happier and healthier life? It's possible, but who's to say when we only know what our lives are like through our own eyes and experiences? It's a lifestyle choice and a shift in outlook that you have to choose to make on your own. It doesn't make people who do that above anyone else, but if they feel happier for it, well, that's dandy! Are they happier than other people? Like I said, who can say? The only person they can truly compares themselves to in terms of happiness and self-fulfillment is themselves, how they were before. 

I've always found choosing a lifestyle of regular exercise and eating healthy a good example of this. Are those who are more inconsistent in their exercise and less mindful of their diet less happy? Again, you can't really compare. Hell, I imagine having a mountain of pie is quite the happy experience. It's a different type of happiness, I suppose. Another example is how you spend/save/etc. your money, or how you view it in general. At the end of the day, it's a matter of perspective and what works for us. What I think people can achieve with this "connectedness" Enneagram espouses is _expanding_ their perspective beyond the immediate view they've always held.

For me anyway, it makes life more meaningful. I suppose at the end of the day, it depends whether you feel it will do that for you or not. I'm simply speaking from my own POV on this one, and it may not be more reaching or expansive as any of yours, but it certainly is more than it was before. I really value the strength and integrity of the individual, and the uniqueness that sets us apart. However, in the end, we are all small parts of the "universe" - whether we like it or not - and just like everything else that came before us and will come after us, we are all just passing through. That is what makes us all the same. With that in mind, it opens up room for generosity, mercy, compassion, understanding, and love. That gives my life more meaning - when I am doing more than serving myself; when I can expand my sense of self and truly connect to something, be that all of the human race, every living being, a rock, or a person. No one wins at life for thinking this way. After all, we are all just making our own way, and this happen to be mine. Even then, I still have much to learn.

So, I have to say... I totally got side-tracked while writing this. XD The point I'm trying to convey is, good or bad, we are indeed connected. We come from the same place and we're headed toward the same place. What's in between is either choice or circumstance, it's up to you. No one can decide that for you. I just like to subscribe to the idea that it's generally good not to be a dick and be aware of this sameness that we all share, but I am just one drop in the ocean so what do I know?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but one is a constituent part of the universe whether countenanced or not; probably, though, you are predominately referring to feeling the oneness or something beyond an intellectual understanding of yourself in the same universe as me or anyone else. In SOM's case, I just assume this bellyaching is related to So-last. :kitteh:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

> society is not my family never will be. trying to bond with all of society in general is to undermine the specialness of those select few individuals with whom one can form a more private, intimate bond.


Society doesn't seem to exist in any objective or cosmological sense. If everyone stopped believing in society as a moral structure or set of ideas, it would be gone within the year. I don't think a national society exists in American anymore*; at best what you find is communal enclaves. There's really not the WWII-style of rallying around a set of bad guys and rationing food during the war, nor even the consolidation of fear vis-a-vis the Cold War. Politics are more polarized in a regional sense than ever before. Very basic things like the American Dream aren't a collective ambition because the US has fallen so far behind in social mobility. I don't see this fracturing tendency ending soon.

*Obviously there's something called "mainstream culture," with its overpriced appliances and Billboard 100 pop songs but I wouldn't define that as American. Some muslims would though.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Is it maybe you fear the loss of self identification,
Essentially what makes you "unique" and different in a world that likes conformity?

Personally I think this may be it,
But remember the theory relies on the fact that we somehow all fit a "machine like" way of life,
As if there is some external structure that governs social relations,
But we forget that it's a human construct,
And any theory of a great external way of living,
Where we all coalesce into one,
Is simply wishy washy,
And has not true scientific or real basis.

So indulge as much as you want my friend,
Just don't be shocked when people hate you or it 
People never like to see what they're missing out on haha


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I feel like the majority of Enneagram texts talk about spiritual growth as a journey of reunification with the world and viewing one's self as part of the whole of the universe (the "circle of life" if you will).
> 
> problem is, I don't want this
> 1) the concept is fucking terrifying
> ...


Yeah, I agree with you. I have similar feelings and I wrote about them similar times around the forums, once even getting into an argument 

I just don't like mysticism at all. I'm an atheist and rationalist. I'm not even 'spiritual'. Enneagram comes handy for me, but I don't see any mysticism or greater plan in it. I don't believe in transcendence. I like more rational approach to enneagram, where it allows to better understand oneself and others and help to achieve best of one's potential. Nothing more. Ideas that people can work on themselves and meditate until they reach enlightenment or transcendence seems to be a result of religious thinking.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

VamPie said:


> Yeah, I agree with you. I have similar feelings and I wrote about them similar times around the forums, once even getting into an argument
> 
> I just don't like mysticism at all. I'm an atheist and rationalist. I'm not even 'spiritual'. Enneagram comes handy for me, but I don't see any mysticism or greater plan in it. I don't believe in transcendence. I like more rational approach to enneagram, where it allows to better understand oneself and others and help to achieve best of one's potential. Nothing more. Ideas that people can work on themselves and meditate until they reach enlightenment or transcendence seems to be a result of religious thinking.


Do you believe in transpersonal states of consciousness? Is waking consciousness, in your mind, any different from consciousness under the influence of LSD? 

At any rate, the whole underlying notion of the enneagram is spiritual - the theory goes ego, or your particular type and defense mechanism, inhibits Essence. That's the theory anyway.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Rereading the thread, I think a lot of folks are misunderstanding the role that "being connected to the universe" plays in spiritual work, and that we're taking positions on whether or not it's true / desirable / legitimate that don't really relate to spiritual work properly understood. That is, I think we're kinda arguing about nothing; I have a lot to say about that and perhaps I'll expand on it later.

But on reflection I think the problem's bigger than that. I think the entire framework within which we're talking about "being connected to the universe" -- a framework that makes perfect sense given our backgrounds and the nature of the sources we've read -- fundamentally misunderstands the nature of spiritual work, and that we're doomed to continue to argue about nothing until we radically revise that framework.

Here's what I mean. The argument here seems to me to revolve around

- a body of received wisdom (our "connection to the universe") that describes an undertaking (spiritual work) that can be possible / impossible, desirable / undesirable, that's carried out in private but that we talk about in public;
- people who identify themselves with that received wisdom and undertaking (people who argue that we're connected to the universe / that spiritual work is inherently possible or desirable or a legitimate undertaking / who've claimed to have attained various degrees of self-realization);
- a kind of authority derived from that, or the fear of that kind of authority, ranging from "you should agree with this wisdom" to "you should dedicate some portion of your life and energies to this undertaking, which means submitting yourself to me and doing exactly what I say to do" to perhaps "or if not then you should at least dedicate some portion of your life and energy to supporting those who do undertake this, tithing hugely and/or supporting a kind of theocracy based primarily on moral force and maybe also actual force 'cuz why not we're the authority on all things moral it's OK if we say it is."

All this makes sense given our various cultural backgrounds, the nature of modern public life, and so on -- presumably for most or all of us that whole constellation of claims is implicit in the acknowledgement of "received wisdom" of any kind.

*BUT *as you'd imagine I think this completely misses the point of spiritual work. I don't want a theocracy, or really any kind of wisdom tradition with any kind of moral authority; I don't want anyone to claim enlightenment and to be treated differently as a result; and I think that to talk about things in these terms makes it a lot harder to understand the role that our "received wisdom" actually plays in spiritual work, not just for disinterested outsiders, but also for would-be mystics themselves.

*INSTEAD* I think we need, and would like to suggest, the following.

- an understanding of spiritual work that acknowledges that not doctrine nor belief nor any particular practice but "insight" is its most basic, fundamental unit;
- an understanding of "received wisdom" -- including the idea that we're connected to the universe, and the spiritual enneagram more broadly -- as a support for spiritual work, a perspective on oneself and conceptual vocabulary that aids insight;
- a conversation about this received wisdom, and about our individual processes as would-be mystics

*THAT FOCUSES ON:*

+ the practical application of this received wisdom so as to catalyze insight and self-realization;
+ on the legitimization of spiritual work (which can be kind of a difficult and lonely project) as a legitimate _personal _undertaking;
+ and on the legitimization of the received wisdom (which let's be honest can seem kind of hard to believe now and then) as an essential part of a _process that works_.

*SO* to that end I'd like to pose a couple questions.

- If you're not into spiritual work but into the enneagram for other reasons: how do you feel about spiritual work, "received wisdom," and its various supports? What are your concerns about that process, or about the way would-be mystics conduct themselves here more broadly?
- If you are into spiritual work -- why? What do you hope to get out of it, how do you hope it'll change your relations with the people around you? What are your concerns about the way would-be mystics and enneagram-non-mystics relate on PerC?
- How do we as an ersatz internet community feel about spiritual work, about the use of the enneagram to support spiritual work, and about the kinds of public conversations that lends itself to? 
- In particular, what are our attitudes about speech to "legitimize" spiritual work and the supports for spiritual work in order to aid one's process, which is the kind of discourse that comes closest to leaving the second framework sketched above, and reentering the first?


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Do you believe in transpersonal states of consciousness? Is waking consciousness, in your mind, any different from consciousness under the influence of LSD?
> 
> At any rate, the whole underlying notion of the enneagram is spiritual - the theory goes ego, or your particular type and defense mechanism, inhibits Essence. That's the theory anyway.


I believe they are just effects of brain acting weird. Just because somebody experiences amazing and moving feelings doesn't mean they are transpersonal. As far as I know, things like joining minds or leaving body have never been proven. 

I have no idea, I haven't tried LSD and I wouldn't like to. But I think such substances only mess with the brain, that all. If you push your eyelids, you see patterns, it doesn't mean see cosmic space. When you drink coffee you may become agitated, but coffee doesn't make you superhuman.


I know that origins of Enneagram are spiritual, but it doesn't mean it has to be spiritual. A lot of things in culture have spiritual and religious origins - for example theatre, a lot of morality, etc. I do realise that most Enneagram authors are really into it, but in general I think a lot of psychology, and especially pop psychology is tainted with wishful thinking, idealisations etc. It doesn't mean that all they do is worthless to me, it's just I see world differently.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> I believe they are just effects of brain acting weird. Just because somebody experiences amazing and moving feelings doesn't mean they are transpersonal. As far as I know, things like joining minds or leaving body have never been proven.
> 
> I have no idea, I haven't tried LSD and I wouldn't like to. But I think such substances only mess with the brain, that all. If you push your eyelids, you see patterns, it doesn't mean see cosmic space. When you drink coffee you may become agitated, but coffee doesn't make you superhuman.
> 
> ...


If you don't mind me being all rational and logical and down to earth, but you make assumptions, comparisons/analogies and draw conclusions without any personal experience, am I correct? Not saying that you should try LSD 

Can you name anything of the enneagram that you use and deem scientifically proven? In particular with regard to the paradigm of 9 types (Why not 8 or 10?), the 3 instincts (or 'subtypes'), gut, heart, head (and the presumed relation with resp. anger, shame and fear), basic fears, vices, virtues, fixations, (dis)integrartion, etc.


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Thank you John Lennon, Amen.


John Lennon. Smart man. Shot in the back, very sad.


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

mimesis said:


> If you don't mind me being all rational and logical and down to earth, but you make assumptions, comparisons/analogies and draw conclusions without any personal experience, am I correct? Not saying that you should try LSD
> 
> Can you name anything of the enneagram that you use and deem scientifically proven? In particular with regard to the paradigm of 9 types (Why not 8 or 10?), the 3 instincts (or 'subtypes'), gut, heart, head (and the presumed relation with resp. anger, shame and fear), basic fears, vices, virtues, fixations, (dis)integrartion, etc.


This argument about having to try everything to be able to have opinion about it is quite weak, in my opinion. There are a lot of substances or states that make people *feel* like they experience something supernatural or transpersonal. Narcotics including alcohol, various kinds of trance, prayer etc. but it was never proven it's really what it seems to those people. There is more proof that it's just how illusion. Why shouldn't I draw analogies? I don't think they are far-fetched, in fact they are common and scientifically classified as similar, aren't they?

I've never said that I consider Enneagram scientific. I just say it comes handy, but I don't follow it blindly or treat it as some enlightened wisdom. I have critical approach towards Enneagram. I think it can be helpful to better understand people, including myself, that's all. I don't exclude possibility that those aspects I can find helpful are for example just general knowledge which can be as well divided into 8 or 10 types or even in completely different way.


What I wanted to say, is that I don't see a reason why I shouldn't try to analyse and use Enneagram, just because I don't believe in it's enlightened or spiritual qualities. Because I don't believe in any spiritual or transcendent stuff, yet I use concepts and results of such thinking everyday, as they are integrated into culture.

Saying I can't use it is like saying that religious people shouldn't use computers, you know.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> This argument about having to try everything to be able to have opinion about it is quite weak, in my opinion. There are a lot of substances or states that make people *feel* like they experience something supernatural or transpersonal. Narcotics including alcohol, various kinds of trance, prayer etc. but it was never proven it's really what it seems to those people. There is more proof that it's just how illusion. Why shouldn't I draw analogies? I don't think they are far-fetched, in fact they are common and scientifically classified as similar, aren't they?
> 
> I've never said that I consider Enneagram scientific. I just say it comes handy, but I don't follow it blindly or treat it as some enlightened wisdom. I have critical approach towards Enneagram. I think it can be helpful to better understand people, including myself, that's all. I don't exclude possibility that those aspects I can find helpful are for example just general knowledge which can be as well divided into 8 or 10 types or even in completely different way.
> 
> ...


Well. I notice a very defensive attitude to begin with. I never said or implied anything, only asked questions. You judge other people having mere 'illusions', where you put several things with an arbitrary relation on the same group or belief (not being 'you' or 'the others' or 'them' or 'those' people) and you validate your own approach apparently on the basis of being 'handy' and you consider yourself not a 'blind follower' which suggests you find yourself a critical thinker and 'objective' by the way you collect 'evidence'. Who says people who follow the paradigm of 'connecting' to the universe don't collect 'evidence' or even 'handiness' or even assert some kind of 'hard truth' ? I suggest you read some stuff on the *concept* of 'maya'. 



> Maya is often translated as "illusion", since our minds construct a subjective experience, which we are in peril of interpreting as reality. Māyā is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates, and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe. For some mystics, this manifestation is real.[SUP][9][/SUP] Each person, each physical object, from the perspective of eternity, is like a brief, disturbed drop of water from an unbounded ocean. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this—more precisely, to experience this: to see that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body (refer bodymind), is the result of an unenlightened perspective.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)


You don't appear to be aware of your own ego-illusion, and the pitfalls of false assumptions and cognitive bias, that's my *humble* observation. You could have also said 'I don't have any experience with that so I am in no position to judge it right from wrong, true or false. Or like in the case of LSD, that it doesn't interest you. That's fine. Just don't compare it with pressing your hands against your eyes, because then you clearly have no idea what you talk about, let alone what others talk about.


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Well. I notice a very defensive attitude to begin with. I never said or implied anything, only asked questions. You judge other people having mere 'illusions', where you put several things with an arbitrary relation on the same group or belief (not being 'you' or 'the others' or 'them' or 'those' people) and you validate your own approach apparently on the basis of being 'handy' and you consider yourself not a 'blind follower' which suggests you find yourself a critical thinker and 'objective' by the way you collect 'evidence'. Who says people who follow the paradigm of 'connecting' to the universe don't collect 'evidence' or even 'handiness' or even assert some kind of 'hard truth' ? I suggest you read some stuff on the *concept* of 'maya'.
> Maya (illusion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are not aware of your own ego-illusion, false assumptions and cognitive bias, that's my conclusion. You could have also said 'I don't have any experience with that so I am in no position to judge it right from wrong, true or false. Or like in the case of LSD, that it doesn't interest you. That's fine. Just don't compare it with pressing your hands against your eyes, because then you clearly have no idea what you talk about, let alone what other talk about.


I just tried to explain, in relation to the thread topic, why I agree with attitude 'I don't want to be connect with the universe' etc. and at the same time use enneagram. I was asked whether I believe in transpersonal states of consciousness. So I stated my opinion and I evaluated why I think so. I also tried to explain it to you regarding your questions, I assumed that you were curious. 

Of course I make some assumptions to a degree, why not? That's how we think. I try to keep an open mind, but also I have to rely on assumptions and analogies. 

Yes, my attitude is somewhat defensive, because I try to explain my point of view without getting into unpleasant argument. If you challenge the sense of what I had written, and I don't find your arguments convincing then I try to defend my opinion. 


Believe me, it's not that I find people who are 'not me' stupid or wrong, it's just I experience a life of an atheist and non spiritual person. It's just a kind of argument I wanted to avoid. It's often hard for non-spirtual and spiritual people to understand the attitude of the other. It's very tempting to accuse of ignorance, but it's pointless. Can't you see that it works the same way for both sides? It's quite frustrating when you accuse me of ignorance, arrogance and send me to read encyclopaedia. Just because your beliefs are different. You know, I could just as well suggest you to read about Russell's teapot. Imagine I know what Maya is, I just don't find it convincing any more than any other religious belief or concept. It doesn't mean I don't find it interesting or important. Speaking about assumptions. It's nice how you analysed me from my words and drew conclusions how arrogant I am and what I think about other people and myself. I haven't said that my approach to enneagram is objective and superior, I tried to say I treat it as other things in culture. Kinda similar as people may use the concept of Maya without being Buddhist. In fact I don't find myself scientifically competent. Enneagram is often used in business for things like recruiting, team building, choosing career etc. There is nothing spiritual in such practical approach and mine is very similar. You may found it shallow and missing the whole point, but for me it comes handy, and is satisfactory. That's all. The OP asked for opinions and obviously some people on the forum have that kind of practical approach while others see deeper meaning or spirituality or however you want to call it. I just wanted to express my opinion, I thought we are here to compare them.


I don't need to have experience with everything to have an opinion about it. If you don't find my opinion convincing or valid, that's fine. You may say 'That's your opinion about LSD, but I think it's not valid and I prefer to rely on opinion of people who tried it themselves'. You know, LSD, as well as other psychoactive drugs are scientifically examined. I don't feel I need to try them to have any opinion about them, especially that there are other psychoactive substances and I think getting a general conclusion by comparing them isn't really as far-fetched and ignorant as you suggest. I know that humans are capable of amazing experiences, I just don't find it a proof that there is any transcendence or supernatural. 


And regarding to 'Who says people who follow the paradigm of 'connecting' to the universe don't collect 'evidence' or even 'handiness' or even assert some kind of 'hard truth' ?' Well, who says so? Not me. I just say that in my opinion, based on my knowledge and my experience, it seems most likely that transcendence either doesn't exist or is irrelevant for this reality. Actually I realise that what I perceive is not 100% reality but just a narrow spectrum of it, I just don't find it spiritual or particularly relevant in my life. I don't cover my eyes and I don't say it is the holy truth. I don't say that people who think otherwise must be wrong.

Actually for me, the conciousness that I don't perceive whole reality and can never be sure I am not deluded just draws me to different conclusions and attitude than that of spiritual people. I just prefer to focus on what I can perceive and understand more. Again, who makes assumptions about other's attitudes and opinions? About LSD, I don't think that risks are worth curiosity. I value bodies and conciousness as they are without trying to alter it. From what I know about myself, even if I tried some strongly hallucinogenic stuff, it wouldn't change my approach to the reality anyway. After all, if what I (my body) perceive is not the 'real' reality but a kind of illusion, or not fully capable, than why some chemical substance or some words should be more truth-inducing or revealing more. Of course you may see it otherwise. I respect that other people have different conclusions from similar observations and different beliefs. It would be nice if others wouldn't project their own presumptions on me, speaking about ego and false assumptions. I think that giving someone such unasked home-made psychoanalysis based on their posts is pretty rude.

And I apologise if I sounded arrogant or demeaning for those who have different opinions about transcendence, transpersonal experiences etc. I just wanted to explain my own approach towards enneagram, not to criticise your beliefs or challenge your knowledge.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> I just tried to explain, in relation to the thread topic, why I agree with attitude 'I don't want to be connect with the universe' etc. and at the same time use enneagram. I was asked whether I believe in transpersonal states of consciousness. So I stated my opinion and I evaluated why I think so. I also tried to explain it to you regarding your questions, I assumed that you were curious.
> 
> Of course I make some assumptions to a degree, why not? That's how we think. I try to keep an open mind, but also I have to rely on assumptions and analogies.
> 
> ...


Lol. Taking LSD doesn't bring you anywhere closer to the truth. At best it makes you aware of illusion, and the pitfalls of your perception, limitations of cognition and how for instance fear can really fuck up your mind. (hopefully in a fun, creative, intense and entertaining way), and I wouldn't suggest that on a daily bases, lol. Also that it's just a different illusion from the normal every day illusion and how fear fucks up your mind. That doesn't even imply that illusion (or even fear or desire for that matter) is 'bad' or 'wrong'. It's mere illusion, and the consequences of it. We need that illusion to operate as an individual (and as a collective for that matter). But you don't need to trip or meditate to understand illusion. It's a very smart tool for sure, and bullshit meter. You also don't need to use coke when having sex. But it's an interesting perspective and pretty intense experience nevertheless, heh. Then again, there's an awful lot actually that we don't really need. 

But in general you don't *need* to do anything. When you desire to gain or have something you are also afraid to loose it, making you try and cling to it (or the other way round, as it is sometimes hard to distinct fear of losing from desire to gain). Whether we call it security, competence, identity, peace, etc. 

You seem to have a very fluffy idea of spirituality where it's actually pretty down to earth and empirical and experience based. And I wouldn't even call it religious. Of course I could imagine some people might think 'wtf is he talking about?'. But the several persons that posted here, and the others that thanked them, seem to be on the same 'level of understanding'. Of course one could also say that with religious issues, but this is a kind of 'knowledge' or 'wisdom' that you cannot learn from a book, _only by experience_ and induction *not* deduction. You could often also detect whether someone is talking out of his ass or not. 

But I don't have a problem with any different opinion. But exactly what you would say about LSD or sex with coke, or vipanassa meditation, (whatever) if you don't have that experience you can't really judge it. If someone would say, but I use it to indulge myself because that's what it is about, then someone else would perhaps say, 'but it makes you addicted and cling to it I rather save the money for later when I'm old and get sick and slowly die', well you tell me who's got swag...


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I feel like the majority of Enneagram texts talk about spiritual growth as a journey of reunification with the world and viewing one's self as part of the whole of the universe (the "circle of life" if you will).
> 
> problem is, I don't want this
> 1) the concept is fucking terrifying
> ...


I laughed. I agree & disagree.

I believe in balance. 

1) You should indulge in carnal pleasure as much as you do selfless things. Give allot, take allot.
2) The key is unification of the paternal(head) maternal(heart) & child(body).
3) Indulge physically, mentally, emotionally & spiritually.
4) It's all about _when_, learning _when_ to indulge & _when_ to abstain.
5) It's more about self mastery & control.
6) Unification with the universe is more about finding your *individual* part in the system.
7) Enlightened people have allot of swag. 

The ego is a good thing, but it is no more or less important than the instinctual drive or superego. One should not encourage one & dismiss the rest. All should be indulged & developed fully. 

We are the universe trying to figure it self out, trying to define itself. The universe consists of matter & energy. Energy is ruled by the will to power, it collects & configures matter to form the cosmos. We are both energy & matter. Physical & spiritual beings. You cannot deny physicality or deny spirituality, we are both. Ego is simply matter & energy's consciousness of it's configuration. So yes I agree with you, why deny it? Why reject your configuration? What point does that serve?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

A misconception that crawled out of the sixties contends that the ego should be flattened, put out of commission. This is not the goal of spiritual work. You should seek to see through the ego and its moment to moment mythmaking but carry on with life. There will still be pain, per existence, but less repression and suffering. The idea of decimating the ego is perhaps too infused with the sanguinary Vietnam War mindset - search and destroy!


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Lol. Taking LSD doesn't bring you anywhere closer to the truth. At best it makes you aware of illusion, and the pitfalls of your perception, limitations of cognition and how for instance fear can really fuck up your mind. (hopefully in a fun, creative, intense and entertaining way), and I wouldn't suggest that on a daily bases, lol. Also that it's just a different illusion from the normal every day illusion and how fear fucks up your mind. That doesn't even imply that illusion (or even fear or desire for that matter) is 'bad' or 'wrong'. It's mere illusion, and the consequences of it. We need that illusion to operate as an individual (and as a collective for that matter). But you don't need to trip or meditate to understand illusion. It's a very smart tool for sure, and bullshit meter. You also don't need to use coke when having sex. But it's an interesting perspective and pretty intense experience nevertheless, heh. Then again, there's an awful lot actually that we don't really need.


That actually sounds pretty similar to what I think about illusion, just I don't feel like trying to explore it with psychoactive substances. 


mimesis said:


> But in general you don't *need* to do anything. When you desire to gain or have something you are also afraid to loose it, making you try and cling to it (or the other way round, as it is sometimes hard to distinct fear of losing from desire to gain). Whether we call it security, competence, identity, peace, etc.
> 
> You seem to have a very fluffy idea of spirituality where it's actually pretty down to earth and empirical and experience based. And I wouldn't even call it religious. Of course I could imagine some people might think 'wtf is he talking about?'. But the several persons that posted here, and the others that thanked them, seem to be on the same 'level of understanding'. Of course one could also say that with religious issues, but this is a kind of 'knowledge' or 'wisdom' that you cannot learn from a book, _only by experience_ and induction *not* deduction. You could often also detect whether someone is talking out of his ass or not.
> 
> But I don't have a problem with any different opinion. But exactly what you would say about LSD or sex with coke, or vipanassa meditation, (whatever) if you don't have that experience you can't really judge it. If someone would say, but I use it to indulge myself because that's what it is about, then someone else would perhaps say, 'but it makes you addicted and cling to it I rather save the money for later when I'm old and get sick and slowly die', well you tell me who's got swag...


Maybe my idea is fluffy, probably because it's so foreign to me. Maybe it's fear but for me identity is very important and spirituality is just a vague idea. So naturally I don't want to risk one for the other.

See, the thing is I don't judge in black and white terms, I was just asked about my opinion so I said what I think about it. I said my opinion is based on limited information, not experience. One cannot experience everything or know everything so many opinions must be based on what we read, heard etc. In general I don't find drugs interesting, but I don't mind if others do. There are so many things that make people addicted or that people indulge themselves with, I don't think it's even avoidable, it's human nature. As you say to live the life to the fullest, to each their own. It's not like anyone who is not interested in something automatically denounce it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> That actually sounds pretty similar to what I think about illusion, just I don't feel like trying to explore it with psychoactive substances.
> 
> Maybe my idea is fluffy, probably because it's so foreign to me. Maybe it's fear but for me identity is very important and spirituality is just a vague idea. So naturally I don't want to risk one for the other.
> 
> See, the thing is I don't judge in black and white terms, I was just asked about my opinion so I said what I think about it. I said my opinion is based on limited information, not experience. One cannot experience everything or know everything so many opinions must be based on what we read, heard etc. In general I don't find drugs interesting, but I don't mind if others do. There are so many things that make people addicted or that people indulge themselves with, I don't think it's even avoidable, it's human nature. As you say to live the life to the fullest, to each their own. It's not like anyone who is not interested in something automatically denounce it.


I'm not suggesting you or anyone should use substances or indulge the ego. You on the other hand was very clear in your judgement, and your agreement with the OP.



VamPie said:


> Yeah, I agree with you. I have similar feelings and I wrote about them similar times around the forums, once even getting into an argument
> 
> I just don't like mysticism at all. I'm an atheist and rationalist. I'm not even 'spiritual'. Enneagram comes handy for me, but I don't see any mysticism or greater plan in it. I don't believe in transcendence. I like more rational approach to enneagram, where it allows to better understand oneself and others and help to achieve best of one's potential. Nothing more. Ideas that people can work on themselves and meditate until they reach enlightenment or transcendence seems to be a result of religious thinking.


So you sort of state that 'transcendence' is something to believe in, where I think you just don't have any idea what is meant with it. You also see it as irrational, when I would say it's pretty rational and emprical, experiential knowledge. And wow, people even dared to disagree with you! 

Btw, Russell, like James, is a pragmatist, and simply stated for pragmatists it's not so much important or even interesting what is True, but what Works. So that would be Te over Ti. And you yourself sound very Ti to me. I never asked for proof, you did, so in response I just bounced the ball back to you, and asked what of the theory you consider proven enough to be true (and handy). I'm just using the same standard you proposed, but you can't really answer that question can you? That's the thing about Ti, it just needs to be 'inner consistent' or consistent with your 'inner framework' of understanding, and 'proof' or calling arguments like that 'weak' is actually very inconsistent, since you don't apply it to yourself and your own basic assumptions and a priori knowledge. I can even explain it in a rational way, referring to Douglas Hofstadter, cognitive scientist. 



Douglas Hofstadter said:


> A *strange loop*, technically called tangled hierarchy consciousness, arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through a hierarchical system, one finds oneself back where one started.
> 
> Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox. The concept of a strange loop was proposed and extensively discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in _Gödel, Escher, Bach_, and is further elaborated in Hofstadter's book _I Am a Strange Loop_, published in 2007.
> 
> ...


Transcendency is nothing more than to see through this, and a state of trance is best described as experiencing a mental state where this 'ego' is temporarily 'transcended'. To reach that state you need to get past all kinds of ego-mechanisms and self-serving tricks, and conditioned fear responses, increasing self-awareness. Meditation is a tool, that not only results in a blissful sensation, but also what Jung refers to as a 'higher consciousness', the application of the 'transcendent function', that reconciles 'opposite attitudes of introversion and extraverson, subject and object or conscious and unconsious', and the core of his theory for psychological growth, individation. 

Now you can even go beyond that, and do all kinds of freaky things that Buddhist monks train themselves at, but I can't judge about that because I haven't had that experience. They can do amazing things however, with regard to controlling their body functions, like sitting in the freezing cold high in the mountains covered with a wet cloth, which is dry the next morning, and a list of other things that science so far hasn't been able to explain. 

For us 'simple mortals', meditation is proven at harvard to influence the amygdala, which shown in research to perform a primary role in the processing of memory and emotional reactions as part of the limbic system.



Limbic System said:


> It supports a variety of functions, including emotion, behavior, motivation, long-term memory, and olfaction.[SUP][3][/SUP] It appears to be primarily responsible for our emotional life, and has a great deal to do with the formation of memories.


 And since fear and fixation is central to enneagram theory, I'd say that's pretty damn significant. 
Meditation’s positive residual effects | Harvard Gazette

So anyway, we agree on self-improvement and probably also on self-realization. How much more 'evidence' do you want, to accept how wholesome this tool is, and the knowledge and self-awareness gained from this? But mind you, you don't need to answer that, whatever is your cup of tea. :kitteh:






This is more Jung oriented, but we can discuss this with regard to enneagram also, if you like. I have a load more scientist to quote if you feel that need for rationality, argumentation and evidence.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@unctuousbutler @Oak @dfoster
based on everything you've written, it appears further along spiritually than I thought.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The enneagram has it's roots in religion/spirituality.
It is only natural for it to be rejoin the universe centric.
Cause they have always been about what happens when you die.
So the main view is to prepare yourself for death.
When you die you go back to the universe so to speak.
Death is terrifying, cause all that you are is erased.

Humans have the heavy lot of being concious and self-aware.
Since our only purpose was to make more babies and then disolve,
the human mind having a independent agenda outside of the main biological one, 
don't like the idea of being an expendable part in a process.
Thrown to the wayside when the job is done.

There is no simple answer to this issue.
Most likely all religions and Gods are just made up as a make belief to avoid having to stare death in the eye.
I like Jungs approach to it best.
Play with the objects of preferance as much as possible while you are here.
Create whatever meaning you need to feel alright.
And when death comes, be comforted that you made the best of the time you had.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I would agree with @_dfoster_ that it's not about what you want but rather what _is_.

At any given moment, I am a combination of my present, my past, my potential and my vision of my future. I am also part of the present world, and the world in its present state is made up of its past as well as its potential for its future. If I am honest with myself, the state of the world and other people around me _do_ impact me and I _do_ have compassion, which means it makes me feel good if someone else feels good. I can choose to block it out, or I can choose to listen, and neither choice is wrong; I make an unconscious or conscious choice to pay attention to what I am ready or willing to pay attention to at that time. Whatever state we are in is the state we are in, and if we follow our instincts they will inform us. Just as animals react to emotions and events and weather and other states around them, we do too; we are all animals and humans at once. The degree to which our ego kicks in is related to what we need out of life and what we are capable or willing to give and receive at that time. It's a question of will as much as capability. We cannot force spiritual awareness. Enlightenment is being exactly what we naturally are.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The idea that is being described is very Fe-driven in terms of logic. Fe types would find it desirable to seek this kind of unity that you describe but why would an Fi type do that? Fi is about realizing one's own independence and potential, that you are you and you are separate from a system and this is in fact, _a good thing_. 

Ultimately, I think self-growth has more to do with acceptance of oneself than needing to "merge" with the world or whatever. I also don't like this idea and I find it terrifying because it feels like they remove the part of myself that actually makes me me, and I like being me very much. There is uniqueness to be found in being separated and being separated is not always a bad thing. Being separated could equally be argued for stimulating growth. In nature we find that most animal parents forcefully remove themselves from their children in order to have them live alone because reliance on the parent would not lead to successful survival. 

So yes, the Fe logic of enneagram can go fuck itself over. There is more than one way to achieve self-growth. What is important isn't how you achieve it, but the fulfillment that you experience when you do.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Kamishi said:


> The idea that is being described is very Fe-driven in terms of logic. Fe types would find it desirable to seek this kind of unity that you describe but why would an Fi type do that? Fi is about realizing one's own independence and potential, that you are you and you are separate from a system and this is in fact, _a good thing_.


There might be something to that. The "gurus" I can think of off the top of my head (Maharshi, Adi Da, Osho) have Fe in their functional stack. The whole "enlightenment" non-dual consciousness idea is basically an ENFJ wet dream. Indeed, many of these salesman-like gurus are XNFJ.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Kamishi said:


> The idea that is being described is very Fe-driven in terms of logic. Fe types would find it desirable to seek this kind of unity that you describe but why would an Fi type do that? Fi is about realizing one's own independence and potential, that you are you and you are separate from a system and this is in fact, _a good thing_.
> Ultimately, I think self-growth has more to do with acceptance of oneself than needing to "merge" with the world or whatever. I also don't like this idea and I find it terrifying because it feels like they remove the part of myself that actually makes me me, and I like being me very much. There is uniqueness to be found in being separated and being separated is not always a bad thing. Being separated could equally be argued for stimulating growth. In nature we find that most animal parents forcefully remove themselves from their children in order to have them live alone because reliance on the parent would not lead to successful survival.
> So yes, the Fe logic of enneagram can go fuck itself over. There is more than one way to achieve self-growth. What is important isn't how you achieve it, but the fulfillment that you experience when you do.












additionally, it's a very So-first and superego way of looking at the universe vs one's self. 

my conclusions thus far:
1) growth is not the absence of the ego, it is the mastery of it.
2) no man is an island. true independence and self sufficiency are theoretically impossible; however, that doesn't mean they aren't ideals that are worth working towards. sure, I'm not an island, but I can at least become a peninsula. 
3) the ego is probably an illusion, but so are things like fairness, justice, equality etc. point being, that doesn't make it any less real or meaningful. I love and belief in myself just as I believe in justice. 
4) I've had a lot of help, luck etc and I'm grateful for that, but I also give myself credit for what I've done, and it is by my efforts that I will forge for myself the lifestyle which I desire.
5) the purpose of life is primarily to serve the self: one's own needs, desires and convictions. this doesn't mean that caring for people or making small sacrifices is bad. loving others is a reflection/biproduct of loving one's self. if you love yourself and are content, so too will your expression upon the world be.
6) There are two kinds of problems people can have: one is trying to control that which he cannot; the other is not taking control of that which he can.

come to think of it, my conclusions mirror Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs nicely.


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I'm not suggesting you or anyone should use substances or indulge the ego. You on the other hand was very clear in your judgement, and your agreement with the OP.
> 
> So you sort of state that 'transcendence' is something to believe in, where I think you just don't have any idea what is meant with it. You also see it as irrational, when I would say it's pretty rational and emprical, experiential knowledge. And wow, people even dared to disagree with you!
> 
> ...


Ok, thanks for stating so clearly what transcendence you were talking about. What I had in mind was more spiritual meaning of it, so it turns out we probably talked about two different things. 


Thing is I haven't asked for evidence, I just tried to describe my point of view. You seem to see hostility or smugness from my side that I believe isn't there, as I tried to explain. It's pretty frustrating how you keep interpreting my words as to show I'm a horrible person. I can increase level of tip-toeing but would it help? So in my first post here I let my feelings about this topic and conflict around it. Actually I'm very used to people disagreeing with me, I just don't like when they are impolite and disrespect that my opinion differs. For example by saying that the reason I disagree with them is that I'm dumb. Of course you may interpret my choice of words and emoticons as you wish... Don't forget it works both ways.

I know there are different states of consciousness, and that meditation and other ways of mental training may give amazing results. It's just... they are so biological. Not really what I would describe as going beyond human possibilities, but as you say, it may be because I never experienced anything it, or my ego is standing in the way. As for transcendence as a state of mind, I don't say it can't exist (I meant transcendence as literally going beyond human knowledge/capabilities). obviously people do experience it, but for me it doesn't prove that there is something supernatural or superhuman. Of course they are interesting, as they prove how mind can affect bodily functions. 

I don't actually feel that need for evidence and argumentation, I rather feel a need for good will and understanding.


----------



## Manifestation (Jul 4, 2013)

The universe cares not. You are apart of it, and it is you.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> additionally, it's a very So-first and superego way of looking at the universe vs one's self.
> 
> my conclusions thus far:
> 1) growth is not the absence of the ego, it is the mastery of it.
> ...


I totally agree with the first point. The people who have actually experienced ego death due to near-death experiences turn into blobs of flesh. Growth is thrown out the window. There's not an "I" there anymore to care about anything. 

And point five sounds like hippie hedonistic BS but that's also true. People who feel bad/good often do bad/good things; who would have thought? And...

The chief facets of life tend to be preservation, reproduction and dying. The ego is an evolutionary outcropping to serve the first two ends. That's all the significance I give it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> Ok, thanks for stating so clearly what transcendence you were talking about. What I had in mind was more spiritual meaning of it, so it turns out we probably talked about two different things.
> 
> 
> Thing is I haven't asked for evidence, I just tried to describe my point of view. You seem to see hostility or smugness from my side that I believe isn't there, as I tried to explain. It's pretty frustrating how you keep interpreting my words as to show I'm a horrible person. I can increase level of tip-toeing but would it help? So in my first post here I let my feelings about this topic and conflict around it. Actually I'm very used to people disagreeing with me, I just don't like when they are impolite and disrespect that my opinion differs. For example by saying that the reason I disagree with them is that I'm dumb. Of course you may interpret my choice of words and emoticons as you wish... Don't forget it works both ways.
> ...


FWIW I don't think you are a horrible person


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VamPie said:


> Thing is I haven't asked for evidence, I just tried to describe my point of view. You seem to see hostility or smugness from my side that I believe isn't there, as I tried to explain. It's pretty frustrating how you keep interpreting my words as to show I'm a horrible person. I can increase level of tip-toeing but would it help? So in my first post here I let my feelings about this topic and conflict around it. Actually I'm very used to people disagreeing with me, I just don't like when they are impolite and disrespect that my opinion differs. For example by saying that the reason I disagree with them is that I'm dumb. Of course you may interpret my choice of words and emoticons as you wish... Don't forget it works both ways..


Well, you did use the argument of having no proof or evidence, with regard to transcendence, and I figure you refer to the concept of astral (body) projection.










Because there is no proof, you regard it as religious. I can understand that way of reasoning, and therefore I can't really be bothered on a personal level. My point was that Enneagram theory is hard to proof either, and leans very much on introspection and elaboration of experience, using emperical evidence of subjective observation and self-report. In that respect the paradigm of astral projection, tantra yoga meditation or whatever isn't any different. 

However there is a big difference, in that this is not so much a 'belief' system (merely believing it isn't gonna take you anywhere, and could indeed be 'wishful thinking' and an illusion) as it is a technique or discipline, using experience based common sense, intuition and 'creative imagination'. Some people get stuck in that process because they can't get passed certain ego mechanisms, self-contradictions and illusions they cling to and fear letting them go or to confront oneself with fears the ego doesn't want to be exposed to. 

I think Enneagram theory is more likely to become a form of religion, in the sense of trying to extort reality to fit an internalized belief system or model (cognitive distortion, confirmation bias, correspondence bias, availability heuristic, rationalizations when there is cognitive dissonance, or just ignoring inconsistencies, etc), in particular when deduction is applied, based on stereotypes: 7s have a high sex drive. Tom has a high sex drive. Therefore Tom is a 7. Perhaps logically valid or sound, though not very critical towards the validity of the underlying premisse (belief or assumption). Let alone the fact that it's hard to quantify these attributes, how do you measure sex drive or reactivity? Correspondence bias is the tendency to attribute displayed behavior as a personal disposition and undervalue the situational influence.

Then with regard to 'argument', I apologize for my somewhat sarcastic remark, but we probably had a different definition of what is understood with 'argument'. What you meant is argument in terms of 'abuse', like in the clip below.



Argument Clinic said:


> M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
> A: It can be.
> M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
> A: No it isn't.
> ...


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't know but I think the whole point of life is the fact that we are separated from the universe or whatever. If we were just all 'connected' then we wouldn't even be alive in the first place. So, life is a thing in which you can do whatever the hell you want. Including becoming reconnected if the thing you desire the most is brain death.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Including becoming reconnected if the thing you desire the most is brain death.


Ha, that's really what ego-death means but few spiritual types want to acknowledge that fact. There's less suffering in an "egoless" state because there's nobody home to strive for anything other than what is.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Ha, that's really what ego-death means but few spiritual types want to acknowledge that fact. There's less suffering in an "egoless" state because there's nobody home to strive for anything other than what is.


What do you mean with ego-death, besides being braindeath? Are you and @ScarlettHayden referring to personal experience? 

As far as I can think of anything spiritual involving 'death' of ego, or 'egoless' state, it is a temporary transgression (or transcendence), not a perpetual state. 

What you describe sounds like what I would imagine to be a disengaged, detached, disembodied, depersonalized, dissociated, numbed out, anhedonistic, nihilistic, cynical, schizoid state of mind. Like perhaps a very unhealthy 9 or 5? Or someone on a strict diet of antipsychotics?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> What do you mean with ego-death, besides being braindeath? Are you and @_ScarlettHayden_ referring to personal experience?
> 
> As far as I can think of anything spiritual involving 'death' of ego, or 'egoless' state, it is a temporary transgression (or transcendence), not a perpetual state.
> 
> What you describe sounds like what I would imagine to be a disengaged, detached, disembodied, depersonalized, dissociated, numbed out, anhedonistic, nihilistic, cynical, schizoid state of mind. Like perhaps a very unhealthy 9 or 5? Or someone on a strict diet of antipsychotics?


Some people have permanently transcended their previous life stories, almost always via near-death episodes. I don't think any antipsychotics were involved, lol, and these people remained healthy. It didn't bring eternal peace - what happened is more like these people became human-animals or "people" without normal pretensions and manners. Basically unanimously they say "enlightenment" can't be taught and it shouldn't even be sought.


----------



## Tutankhamun (May 11, 2013)

@ SOM - Cool post. I have thought along similar lines: Why integrate with the enemy.. 
If we think of the the universe as God, and God is in all of us, then we need God to even be alive. But God doesn't need any single one of us to stay alive, so each and every one of us is rather insignificant to this God. Only as a whole are we important, and God can keep living without humans too, as long as there are other life forms. Cat, dog or human doesn't really matter to it, now, does it? That doesn't sound fair ........... I wanna be my own God.

However... I took that red pill, and I have seen what's going on. 

I agree with whoever said you are already part of "the universe" whether you want or not. You faded slowly into your consciousness, and you'll probably fade slowly out of it, both physically and mentally, at old age. It isn't sad. It's just a fact. You form and decompose out of dead matter - "God" gives you life. But your ego/your mind will think it is sad and be scared of it. Well, basically, for your ego/mind, it is a bit sad you aren't another God, I guess... The universe has a billion children, and your job in this universe, according to God, is to procreate and keep things happy for as many people as possible, yourself included, so that God keeps growing.

I want to fight it, but my life isn't long enough. I want to survive it, but my mind doesn't know how. I can only do one thing, and that is to try and be happy. I have to submit to the law of God (the universe) and just die one day. I know it means that everything I do on earth is futile. Life runs fast. Mentally, you have probably lived half your life when you are around 18. Time passes faster and faster after that so relatively, you are halfway through your life at 18. The mind doesn't keep as fresh anymore after that. The mind is like a sponge, and it can't take in enough impulses after a certain age, to keep time as long as it was as when we were children. We are already decomposing.So no time to build glory, definitely no time to enjoy it if you build it, and you can just as well give up from the start, when it comes to building things for the far future. It doesn't exist for us.

So all that is left, knowing these things, is to make myself as happy as I can, as often as possible. 

And then this damn catch 22: To get there, you have to get out of your mind and sink into the deeper part of you, that just moves you by itself. You have to give in to whatever gave you life - meaning the touch of universe in yourself. You have to stop thinking and just enjoy the moment. You have to submit to "God". 

If you are already happy, SOM, then you are probably already rather connected with that place in you. Then why would you try to connect? 

One day, if you are unhappy, start doing whatever the enneagram tells you as an E7 to do, but don't overthink it. Don't analyze it. Don't waste your mind on it. Just do it and sink into happiness again. You see? It's probably not so different from what you are already doing?

If you overthink it that day... Say you start reading a lot of theory, or try to do these things actively, then you will fail. You'll end up caught in your mind, instead of experiencing the full life.

A lot of these dried up people without swag that you talked about, are nothing but unhappy seekers, who are LOOKING for life, but they are caught in their minds instead. You aren't one of them, cause you are already connected. 

If you are connected, you are happy. If you aren't connected, you'll end up trapped in your mind, and then you'll be unhappy. Depressed people are caught in their minds.

So go ahead, experience and try to live in a healthy manner. Don't violate yourself mentally, physically, ethically, and you might never need to know more. 

And one day, if you aren't happy anymore, then just let go of the thoughts and sink into the deeper you and go out for a walk or feel your breath. E7s are quite good at enjoying life, and it really does work. The trap for E7s, is if they run ahead of themselves or just distract themselves. Be slower and be in the experience, then nothing is painful.

That's all it means to be connected to the universe. It is to be connected to some energy source _inside_ yourself and to life as it is in the moment. To not rush through life for something you plan in the future, but to experience in the here and now. As an E7, you might have to stop yourself from planning what you'll experience in the future, and rather stay connected in the here and now, but otherwise, E7s are good at enjoying what they are doing. THAT is how you use the enneagram. Just watch your tendencies to fall out of enjoyment of the here and now, and you'll stay connected.

Those who read too much ennegram theory are probably just trapped in their minds, thus not connected.



dfoster said:


> You are in The Matrix, you can take the blue pill and subservient to it, thinking you're living, doing stuff all on your own, not knowing you're just in sleeping state and be perfectly fine. Or you can take the red pill and see the real picture, it may not be more pleasant but it will ultimately give you more freedom.


I like the Matrix analogy, but there is an important difference between life and Matrix: You cannot be connected to the universe unless you let go of the thinking mind. You have to just let happiness and life happen. It cannot be DONE. And you have to let go of it all the time. It's not a one time pill, really. It has to be done again and again. Children do it natively all the time, they're just connected from the start, and the thread starter might do it, too, if he feels happy for real. I don't think anyone needs to know what to not do, if they aren't out of it. And if they know, there is the danger of making it mind knowledge instead of living it.



braided pain said:


> I am going to agree with you.
> 
> In fact, my gut reaction is that the "all is connected" view is exactly backwards, and that it is in recognizing and accepting how very alone we are that there is peace and understanding.
> 
> ...


No, there are other centre's of intellect than the head. I explained it a bit earlier, when I said you have to let go of mind to manage to live. It is real.



ephemereality said:


> The idea that is being described is very Fe-driven in terms of logic. Fe types would find it desirable to seek this kind of unity that you describe but why would an Fi type do that? Fi is about realizing one's own independence and potential, that you are you and you are separate from a system and this is in fact, _a good thing_.


This is wrong. It has nothing to do with Fe, even if maybe some Fe-writers of the enneagram have written about this phenomenon in a Fe manner, and thus scare away those who aren't Fe-types.



> Ultimately, I think self-growth has more to do with acceptance of oneself than needing to "merge" with the world or whatever.


That is what merging with cosmos means - to accept yourself and to accept how you are part of the laws of the cosmos, meaning to accept death, to love life, to promote happiness and fun, etc. This makes people feel better, less scared and stronger. But you can't do it with the mind. You have to just be that way.



> I also don't like this idea and I find it terrifying because it feels like they remove the part of myself that actually makes me me, and I like being me very much.


I think you should always stay you, and I think that people who lose too much of themselves to cosmos, are not healthy. So we somewhat agree. But you have to live in accordance with the rules of this universe, since this universe also has power over you - it decides if you live or die. Thus why I called it "the enemy" at first. 

But as somebody said - I'm part of it, already. I can't chose to not die. 



> So yes, the Fe logic of enneagram can go fuck itself over. There is more than one way to achieve self-growth. What is important isn't how you achieve it, but the fulfillment that you experience when you do.


As I said, it is not Fe. It is a reflection on humans. To the universe, we are small beings who's only purpose is to procreate. If the universe is "God", we are one of billions of organisms that make up this God, and if one of us die, it doesn't hurt the universe too much. We, on the other hand, can't live without the universe. Without "God" giving us life, we don't exist. So we need God, God doesn't need us. It sucks. I wanna be God.. But I'm not. 

But I can chose to be happy.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I've talked about this before with my INTJ friend, and he expresses the same sentiment (toned down somewhat) as @Swordsman of Mana. I find the idea of merging with the infinite and becoming one with a universal consciousness to be a very desirable notion, to say nothing of whether such a concept holds any weight in reality (I would guess it almost certainly doesn't). But in general, the ideal of finding one's place with the universe and living in harmony with it and all other beings is one of the highest goals I could ever hope to achieve. Heck, the quote in my signature (Tool - Reflection lyrics) show this quite clearly.

My friend finds this idea rather horrifying, because it would mean losing everything that makes us unique and gives identity, etc. I would agree with @ephemereality in saying that the whole idea does have a lot of Fe behind it, and I think that's why it appeals to me in all of its glory and even in its naivete. I recognize that, with Fe as my inferior, I don't feel as emotionally or spiritually connected with the universe as I'd like. That Fe-driven idea appeals to me on a very visceral and subconscious level.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tutankhamun said:


> tl;dr


If you don't understand why I claim there is an Fe reasoning behind the idea of merging with cosmos you just don't. See RosoDude's post above me for a better example. This idea of merging in a spiritual sense with the world and other beings (and original enneagram is very clear on that this is in fact the merging that is seen and suggested as growth, to let go of ego because the ego is in a sense, a neurosis that separates oneself from the world) is very Fe because it has this collective emotional idea behind it, similar to say, Jung's idea of collective consciousness. Fe types experience and want to experience being a part of an emotional collective of sorts. Either you understand this or don't. 

Fi then, being diametrically opposed this kind of view being extroverted, would of course not agree, because it means giving up one's introverted values over the extroverted world. Fe is about some kind of emotional merging and Fi is about separating oneself and becoming unique. 

Either you know and understand this or you don't. I can't explain it better than this. It just has to do with how functions inform certain desires pertaining ego and others in the psyche.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ 

I think it would depend on a lot more than just whether you're an extroverted or introverted feeler. Bearing in mind that feeling is to do with values and not _connections_. I would think that in actuality Ni would be more inclined to want to merge with the universe.

@_mimesis_ @_unctuousbutler_ 

I recognize the difference between connection and dissociation and no they're not the same. But using Jung's model of the collective unconscious we could say that the ego is the only thing that gives us our identity. In theory it would be _nice_ to merge and feel connected, but then we would all just be one blob of feelings and thoughts which have no chance for actualization. The ego gives humans that chance, to create and define and turn that connection into something tangible that makes sense. 

It's like dreaming, it feels good only because you wake up again. You don't even know what if feels like when you're actually asleep.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> @_ephemereality_
> 
> I think it would depend on a lot more than just whether you're an extroverted or introverted feeler. Bearing in mind that feeling is to do with values and not _connections_. I would think that in actuality Ni would be more inclined to want to merge with the universe.


No, because Ni is subjective and places emphasis on the subjective experience over the collective or external objective experience. That's why Ni types are described as so wack by Jung. 

What I am talking about here, the idea itself, to merge or desire individuality, has however a lot to do with Feeling in how Feeling formulates one's vision and understanding of one's relationship to the world around oneself in terms of emotionality. By this I don't mean feelings, but the interest to read and understand emotional values and so on within oneself and other people and draw conclusions based on that. Functions aren't just how we take in and understand the world around us, but functions are psychological perspectives that shape the way we see the world itself and what we find desirable or not. 

In socionics you for instance see how there's an aspect of Fe to try to make people open up and join an emotional atmosphere, this is precisely what I am talking about but in a more spiritual sense. It's the very same idea being conveyed. Socionics also explains why an Fi does not seek this, precisely because Fi devalues Fe. If one is Fi, why should one Fe?



ScarlettHayden said:


> In theory it would be _nice_ to merge and feel connected, but then we would all just be one blob of feelings and thoughts which have no chance for actualization.


And this is Fe logic in a nutshell. Fe types see this as desirable to a greater or lesser degree. Why would you not want to be a united blob of feels and thoughts? Doesn't it give a peace of mind knowing you are no longer just one person separate from other beings but exist in this collective consciousness where everyone is merged and has no sense of identity on its own? That's pretty much what Fe dual-seek is about as well, that's how they feel welcome or accepted.

Personally, this kind of thinking terrifies me very much and I find it kind of insane one way or another.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I have an INTJ sister who actually puts conscious effort into connecting with people. She's detached by nature and she sees social cues as a weakness, but she's constantly trying to work on it and become less detached. She even has a strong desire to do something that will have some effect on others. We've spoken a lot about these things and I know she tries to make sure her writing is able to be received. I think all of this is more about ego. I can tell you I'm pretty much the opposite. For me it's more of a self indulgent act. Attention to what she pays attention to would defeat the point, the drive
I'm not talking about socionics, though, fyi


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No, because Ni is subjective and places emphasis on the subjective experience over the collective or external objective experience. That's why Ni types are described as so wack by Jung.
> 
> What I am talking about here, the idea itself, to merge or desire individuality, has however a lot to do with Feeling in how Feeling formulates one's vision and understanding of one's relationship to the world around oneself in terms of emotionality. By this I don't mean feelings, but the interest to read and understand emotional values and so on within oneself and other people and draw conclusions based on that. Functions aren't just how we take in and understand the world around us, but functions are psychological perspectives that shape the way we see the world itself and what we find desirable or not.
> 
> ...


I think, that all people want to connect in some way or another, but the difference is that some want to connect subjectively and others want to connect objectively. So, Fe would want to connect with everyone, whilst Fi would want to connect with just one person, but in that merging of themselves with another person they're still connecting themselves to another part of the entire whole. The end result is the same but the process is different.

I think there has to be some sort of connection otherwise we would completely lose sense of what 'being ourselves' even means, but ultimately merging too much would negate our existence too. So I believe in balance. The line between the ego and the unconscious is what causes us to even be aware of our existence as a separate entity in the first place. Disconnecting completely would be just as bad as completely connecting.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I feel like the majority of Enneagram texts talk about spiritual growth as a journey of reunification with the world and viewing one's self as part of the whole of the universe (the "circle of life" if you will).
> 
> problem is, I don't want this
> 1) the concept is fucking terrifying
> ...


This is interesting, and I think it's _very _dependent upon culture. Most Western cultures are very against community, even as they are for it. It's all, 'Every man for himself!' Kind of thinking, which in the end, is self-defeatist, imo.

But, when you look to the East, there is a lot of community-based thinking- Think of others before yourself, we're all in this together, we are all affected by one another. I am naturally attuned to this way of thinking, maybe it's because of Fe (But we're in enneagram, so we'll say it's because of my 9yness, which also makes sense.)

In a way, I think of it as being liberating, and exhilarating. To be a raindrop falling into a vast, expansive ocean. That there is value in all of the universe's components. 

To be against it... It's like saying, ''I'm not apart of the problem, I'm special, I'm making my own way, I don't need anyone and nobody needs me.'' It's not only seemingly selfish, but also very lonely. And the more you think this way, and don't have connection with others, the more likely it is you'll die sooner. 

Just airing out my thoughts here, I hope you don't take offense.

Also: 'I don't _want _to be connected to the univeeeeerse T_T,'' I read as being very whiny in tone, and selfish brat-likeness in expression.  It's kind of ironic based upon the discussion.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

Word Dispenser said:


> This is interesting, and I think it's _very _dependent upon culture. Most Western cultures are very against community, even as they are for it. It's all, 'Every man for himself!' Kind of thinking, which in the end, is self-defeatist, imo.
> 
> But, when you look to the East, there is a lot of community-based thinking- Think of others before yourself, we're all in this together, we are all affected by one another. I am naturally attuned to this way of thinking, maybe it's because of Fe (But we're in enneagram, so we'll say it's because of my 9yness, which also makes sense.)
> 
> ...


Yeah I think in terms of relationship to people, I'm slightly more sympathetic to the East.


----------

