Personality Cafe banner

Favorite Ennneagram Theorist(s)

  • Riso and Hudson

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • The Fauvres

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Ichazo

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Naranjo

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • Maitri

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Palmer

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • other (please specify)

    Votes: 6 27.3%
21 - 40 of 46 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
I see. Perhaps it amounts to something on a large scale then. I haven't found it a good predictor of type, but if people are finding something to it perhaps it's more substantial than his MBTI correlations.



Fair enough. As a source on Holy Ideas though, I think Almaas fairs better on his cloud.




No, because you can find a disorganized form of the meat of his ideas here:

Enneagram of Holy Ideas at The Almaasary

(Reverse-time quoting, but I'm already editting this =p)
It's only a few bucks on Amazon though...and I like hard-copy...and the full monty. :bored:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
It's only a few bucks on Amazon though...and I like hard-copy...and the full monty. :bored:
Hahaha, alright.

Well, to give an idea, Almaas's work centers around the issue of basic trust (or more to the point, loss of basic trust as being fundamental to the loss of essence). Everything in his book, especially when it comes to the elaboration of the Holy Ideas themselves, is written in terms of his personal philosophy. Most people, myself included, are given the impression that he goes to great lengths to explain something that could be conveyed in a fraction of the writing; however, I think if you did, you'd inevitably be elaborating the issue from a dualistic perspective, which is at odds with Holy Truth. Were you to internalize his way of seeing things, you could very well reverse the loss of basic trust (though to actually do that takes more than simply reading his work).

On the subject of his philosophy, note that Facets of Unity is precisely what it sounds like: a book about 9 facets of reality (as experienced by "enlightened consciousness," a.k.a. from an "objective view"). It is secondarily about the Enneatypes. Yes, he elaborates on each type in terms of specific difficulties and delusions based on the loss of the Holy Idea, but this all maintains the perspective of from the Holy Ideas. It can seem very removed if you don't understand how your development is a manifestation of what he describes, and even then I'm not sure it really follows. (For example, it took quite a while before I could recognize how my 9-dilemma could be an inferiority complex. I wasn't even defensive; I just felt like it was off until I really looked, and I still feel it misses the point.)

On the other hand, it's exactly for this reason that I put him on par with Naranjo (and find it impossible to say one or the other is my favorite). He doesn't paint a picture for you of what the type is like, but that's more the realm of the ruling passion. Each type is fixated on one of these ideas and responds to a loss of that idea. It's one of those "call it what you like" sorts of things. You understand what the Holy Idea is and how it can be lost, you have a feel for the type's core dilemma. How the type reacts to that is an open-ended question, even if there are strong trends (i.e. what the ruling passions sum up).

Anyway, that gives you an idea of what to expect. I don't really subscribe to the notion that these are objective views of reality (I'd argue they're just the idealistic notions beaten out of us by reality), but I think this book sets a great palette for how people come to develop their enneatype.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Hahaha, alright.

Well, to give an idea, Almaas's work centers around the issue of basic trust (or more to the point, loss of basic trust as being fundamental to the loss of essence). Everything in his book, especially when it comes to the elaboration of the Holy Ideas themselves, is written in terms of his personal philosophy. Most people, myself included, are given the impression that he goes to great lengths to explain something that could be conveyed in a fraction of the writing; however, I think if you did, you'd inevitably be elaborating the issue from a dualistic perspective, which is at odds with Holy Truth. Were you to internalize his way of seeing things, you could very well reverse the loss of basic trust (though to actually do that takes more than simply reading his work).

On the subject of his philosophy, note that Facets of Unity is precisely what it sounds like: a book about 9 facets of reality (as experienced by "enlightened consciousness" a.k.a. from an "objective view"). It is secondarily about the Enneatypes. Yes, he elaborates on each type in terms of specific difficulties and delusions based on the loss of the Holy Idea, but this all maintains the perspective of from the Holy Ideas. It can seem very removed if you don't understand how your development is a manifestation of what he describes, and even then I'm not sure it really follows. (For example, it took quite a while before I could recognize how my 9-dilemma could be an inferiority complex. I wasn't even defensive; I just felt like it was off until I really looked, and I still feel it misses the point.)

On the other hand, it's exactly for this reason that I put him on par with Naranjo (and find it impossible to say one or the other is my favorite). He doesn't paint a picture for you of what the type is like, but that's more the realm of the ruling passion. Each type is fixated on one of these ideas and responds to a loss of that idea. It's one of those "call it what you like" sorts of things. You understand what the Holy Idea is and how it can be lost, you have a feel for the type's core dilemma. How the type reacts to that is an open-ended question, even if there are strong trends (i.e. ruling passions).

Anyway, that gives you an idea of what to expect. I don't really subscribe to the notion that these are objective views of reality (I'd argue they're just the naive, childish notions beaten out of us by reality), but I think this book sets a great palette for how people come to develop their enneatype.
Almaas has his whole school of Diamond Approach thing. Facets of Unity is the intersection of the Enneagram and that, all from Eastern philosophies. Facets of Unity is a great alternate perspective on the Enneagram that moves people away from the perspective of the ego to the perspective of the universe. I can see how people can be stuck in a rut reading all these Enneagram books from the perspective of the self. Once you move yourself up, you can get a clearer picture.

His chapter on type 9 is great and it is very different from any other author. Another example is type 2 experiences "humiliated castration" and its number one compulsion is "willful action."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Yet no one has been able to define the Sx 6 fear. 'Just' doing a 180 against fear? Fear of what? Anything? This is the mot trivial definition of the sexual 6 where all the aggression is simply -fear-. The competitive nature of the Sx instinct (be the one to fuck or you are a nobody) gives rise to aggressive behaviour regardless of type. The fear of not being attractive enough, seen enough, getting enough attention from the desired object is present in all the types Sx variant.
SX 6 is fearful and cynical of the world and human nature, including their own nature, just like all 6s. The difference is that SX 6 adopts the idea that the best defense is to attack, hence their passion for intimidation. They're always ready to attack in order to ward off their anxieties.

I don't disagree that all SX subtypes can feel envy and jealousy when it comes to relationships, including SX 6, but with the SX 4 it is not only an envy of relationships but of anything from wealth to artistic merits. The SX 4 usually wants to be artistically brilliant. They are more arrogant than SX 6. The SX 4 is also the 4 that most denies they are envious (even though they are the most envious).
 

· Rebel without a cause
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
SX 6 is fearful and cynical of the world and human nature, including their own nature, just like all 6s. The difference is that SX 6 adopts the idea that the best defense is to attack, hence their passion for intimidation. They're always ready to attack in order to ward off their anxieties.

I don't disagree that all SX subtypes can feel envy and jealousy when it comes to relationships, including SX 6, but with the SX 4 it is not only an envy of relationships but of anything from wealth to artistic merits. The SX 4 usually wants to be artistically brilliant. They are more arrogant than SX 6. The SX 4 is also the 4 that most denies they are envious (even though they are the most envious).
Gun smoke doesn't appear without the bullet. This far the theorists has made attempts to define the bullet as a desire for security (related to authority) in order to explain the smoke. The only problem is that this does not explain the sexual 6. The contradiction here is that it would be a denial of the desire for security while simultaneously not explaining how this related to the sexual instinct in it self any further. The attempts to patch this mess up is via explaining that the sexual 6 wants to be seen as strong in order to stitch it together; desire for security, denial of desire for security, desire for being attractive, tendency to make reactive displays out of fear of loss of the security that the counter-phobic 6 actively is going against.

The most reasonable solution to draw from the authors faulty definition of the desire to both seek security and be attractive to a mate would look similar to a type 3; a person that works within the parameters in fear of ruining the security that allows for attraction of a mate. Building an impressive career would indeed be a goal that unites the so-called desire of the type 6 and the actual desire of the sexual instinct.
 

· MOTM Jan 2014
Joined
·
11,859 Posts
So far I've read multiple books by R&H, Maitri and Naranjo, one by Palmer, the Fauvres tritype book, and excerpts of Almaas and Ichazo. I voted Naranjo - if I had to pick one author that made me see "underneath" things it's him. However, I also think different authors nail the essence of different types more acutely and that the other perspectives are helpful, especially Maitri. There's sometimes perspective an author has to offer that another one did not quite present in a way that 'hit home.'
 

· MOTM Jan 2014
Joined
·
11,859 Posts
Also, this shit is catnip to me. /thread whoring

Socionics - the16types.info - Naranjo's Subtypes
Oh my god.. so many of the SX types describe me o_O

SX-1 - An animal in heat. Anger infuses desire. "I have to have it and I have a right to it."
SX-2 - Dangerous beauty :cool:
SX-4 - Shameless. Even if it's shameful, I will stil get what I want, do anything to satisfy my desires.
SX-5 - passionate about the one person (usually someone they can't find). Search for absolute love and it's too hard for others to pass the test. Very easily disappointed. Looking to trust in another - the one that will be with you and for you no matter what, beyond the level of marriage vows. Romantic.
SX-7 - Heavenly. Glutton for things of the higher world. Dreamer. Passion to imagine something better than [stark] reality, to embellish reality. NN to go for the sweetness of the imagined over ordinary reality. Need to fantasize.
SX-8 - Out front saying "my values are different from the norm". Hysterical, emotional 8. Possession of the scene in total, a little like being the center. Power comes through seductiveness and fascination. Colored feathers.

Longer descriptions are needed!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
The contradiction here is that it would be a denial of the desire for security while simultaneously not explaining how this related to the sexual instinct in it self any further.
First of all, I disagree that the passion of type 6 is at core a desire for security. A lot of authors are not so good at describing the core of the types, but if you want to understand Naranjo's subtypes you also have to understand how he describes the basic type - its fixation and passion. The passion of "fear" in 6 is actually a passion for doubting, of feeling "secure" only when in doubt and on guard. The SP 6 guard himself through a warm, friendly persona. The SO 6 guard himself by turning to ideologies and belief systems rather than trusting everyday people or himself, and the SX 6 guard himself by trusting only in himself and with a readiness to attack or bluff through intimidation. Here's an excerpt of the SX 6 description from Naranjo's C&N:

"An alternative to both the soft, obedient, ingratiating style of coping with anxiety [self-preservation] and the rigid, principled, rule-bound style [social], we find a cluster of traits that may be understood as a pugnacious intimidation through which the individual (as Freud described in connection with the oedipal struggle) competes with parental authority--and later in life uses the position of authority both to feel safe and to obtain what he wants. To the extent that competitive usurpation is involved, there is guilt, fear of retaliation, and a perpetuation of paranoid insecurity. Belonging in this category are, aside from the denouncing of authority and the competitive wish to stand in the place of authority, “argumentativeness,” “criticality,” “skepticism,” and “cynicism.” Along with these I have listed the descriptors “they think they know the right way,” “pressuring others to conform,” “bombastic,” “bluffing,” “strong,” “courageous,” and “grandiose.” The trait of scapegoating appears to be related to this “strong” expression of type VI rather than the warm and weak style. We are in the presence of the counter-phobic [sexual] manifestation of type VI--a strategy comparable to the barking of a dog.

As for how this relates to the sexual instinct. Unfortunately there is no authorative description of the three instincts. Ichazo started defining them only after he abandoned the stackings and replaced it with Tri-fix, in which the instincts were defined as "conservation," "relation," and "adaptation" which are each being linked to one center (i.e., gut, heart, and head).

The earlier version of the system, which we use, didn't come with a definition of the instincts, and Naranjo stayed away from trying to isolate/define the instincts as well, only pointing out some of their manifestations such as SP generally being more guarded, SO more intellectual, and SX more emotional. But there is no real definitions of the instincts themselves. Only recently there's been some attempts by Russ Hudson to describe the instincts, with material from workshops circulating the web, but it is questionable how authorative they should be taken given that it is second hand information and lately there's been a lot of criticism of R&H's material (and I agree with a lot of the criticism).

Also, Ichazo has a rather funny description if the type 6 fixation, calling it "over-adventurer," and suggests the type is perhaps only security oriented in their minds, but not so in practical reality:

The over-adventurer [type 6] starts by being a secure man. In reality he would like to have the security of the bourgeoisie, a kind of practical security in the sense that his feet are on the ground. But fundamentally he is a man of action; although he denies to himself as well as to others his insatiability for adventure, and insists that he is just going to speak about his fascination with security, he will engage himself in the first adventure he finds at hand.
 

· Rebel without a cause
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
@ShadowPrince Now that you made the effort to quote Naranjo, can I do it too? Can you connect the dots to the Sx4 description now?

SX-4 - Shameless. Even if it's shameful, I will stil get what I want, do anything to satisfy my desires. The more I complain, the more I get (this strategy works well as child, but not as adult). Viking ENVY, cannabalistic drive, competitive hate. Oral aggression - wishing mixed with anger. Sin of Cain - I envy you therefore I kill you. If I envy wealth, I start a revolution. Hateful, outspoken with anger, envy as competition.
The main difference between the text that you quoted and ^this quote is that yours describes it a bit contradictory as fully capable to behead kings to gain authority while simultaneously being more bark than bite. My quote describes the same, just without making it sound like a veneer.


Edit: Strength & Beauty. Sounds inherently image triad, does it not? A Sexual 4 seeking to prove to themselves that they are worthy of unconditional love. The wounded warrior.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
18,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Why are these wrong?
- most INTJs are more calculating, less optimistic and less hedonistic than a type 7. the majority of 7s are probably ExxP
- most 5s are Ns

PS: sorry, totally forgot about you. make that two INTJ 7s :laughing:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
Hurley-Donson would be my favorite Theorists though I do find their stuff to be quite different since it is just the 9 types and not so much any variants or other stuff. Just working through how to work out of one's type through a path of spiritual growth that does leave out a few things like the paths of integration and disintegration though they do cover the multiple intelligences quite well in their stuff. If they are covered by someone else, then I may be off but I remember H&D as my first Enneagram book so it is kind of special for me that way.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
- most INTJs are more calculating, less optimistic and less hedonistic than a type 7. the majority of 7s are probably ExxP
- most 5s are Ns

PS: sorry, totally forgot about you. make that two INTJ 7s :laughing:
You'd be surprised. It isn't optimism in the conventional sense as it is "muahaha, think, if I did this, then that, this will happen - it HAS to." It's optimism in the sense of getting planning-drunk. I see what you mean now though on second thought, no Ni dom in their right mind would be likely to think of themselves as some crack whore dingbat wearing a rainbow afro chanting hare krishna. It's the "stereotypical" INTJ that everyone rips on for being more archetypal than it deserves (in line with 7's habits).

As for S and 5, the "avarice" has always seemed very Pi-ish to me - equally Si and Ni. If you consider the American Gothic, Mr. and Mrs. Average kind of ISTJ then no, absolutely not 5. But the focused, detail-oriented, actuarial licensed kind of ISTJ - yes. Same thing for ISTP, both in addition to INTJ.

Many INTJ claim they are 5's and 8's, but I bet many are actually other head types, or 1's who simply haven't typed by core neurosis, but by type description.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
Hahaha, alright.

Well, to give an idea, Almaas's work centers around the issue of basic trust (or more to the point, loss of basic trust as being fundamental to the loss of essence). Everything in his book, especially when it comes to the elaboration of the Holy Ideas themselves, is written in terms of his personal philosophy. Most people, myself included, are given the impression that he goes to great lengths to explain something that could be conveyed in a fraction of the writing; however, I think if you did, you'd inevitably be elaborating the issue from a dualistic perspective, which is at odds with Holy Truth. Were you to internalize his way of seeing things, you could very well reverse the loss of basic trust (though to actually do that takes more than simply reading his work).

On the subject of his philosophy, note that Facets of Unity is precisely what it sounds like: a book about 9 facets of reality (as experienced by "enlightened consciousness," a.k.a. from an "objective view"). It is secondarily about the Enneatypes. Yes, he elaborates on each type in terms of specific difficulties and delusions based on the loss of the Holy Idea, but this all maintains the perspective of from the Holy Ideas. It can seem very removed if you don't understand how your development is a manifestation of what he describes, and even then I'm not sure it really follows. (For example, it took quite a while before I could recognize how my 9-dilemma could be an inferiority complex. I wasn't even defensive; I just felt like it was off until I really looked, and I still feel it misses the point.)

On the other hand, it's exactly for this reason that I put him on par with Naranjo (and find it impossible to say one or the other is my favorite). He doesn't paint a picture for you of what the type is like, but that's more the realm of the ruling passion. Each type is fixated on one of these ideas and responds to a loss of that idea. It's one of those "call it what you like" sorts of things. You understand what the Holy Idea is and how it can be lost, you have a feel for the type's core dilemma. How the type reacts to that is an open-ended question, even if there are strong trends (i.e. what the ruling passions sum up).

Anyway, that gives you an idea of what to expect. I don't really subscribe to the notion that these are objective views of reality (I'd argue they're just the idealistic notions beaten out of us by reality), but I think this book sets a great palette for how people come to develop their enneatype.
For the record, I am glad I have an ego. It's debatable I would have survived otherwise. :tongue:

I get that spiritualizing the "loss of essence" sells books, though, especially in a self-help culture...that ironically relies on books for self-help.

Of course, the ego is a constriction of essence but the ego isn't really evil. In fact, the ego is necessary to get to a certain point of development.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Now that you made the effort to quote Naranjo, can I do it too? Can you connect the dots to the Sx4 description now?
Alright, here is one for type 4, to give your quote some context:

It would be an incomplete statement to say that the unconscious dynamic in E4's suffering is only seductive. Suffering and the expression of frustration may be a substitute for demanding, it may be geared to the induction of guilt [all these traits attributed to the Social], or it may be punitive [Sexual], i.e., "See how I am suffering because of you!" It is a stratagem for creating guilt. Think of the mother who says to her son: "When I die you will understand me," or, "Your insensibility is going to kill me," or, "One of these days I am going to have a heart attack because of you," etc. Also, suffering may be "masochistic" [the self-preservation subtype] -- in the sense that the person is willing to take on excessive pain or frustration out of a need to be loved or to be deserving of love.

The main difference between the text that you quoted and ^this quote is that yours describes it a bit contradictory as fully capable to behead kings to gain authority while simultaneously being more bark than bite. My quote describes the same, just without making it sound like a veneer.
No, your quote doesn't describe the same, I think you're taking it too literally. First of all, the SX 6 description isn't a contradiction because the SX 6 doesn't "behead kings." Naranjo describes the SX 6 as more taking on the role of authority like a benevolent father or tries to more "pressure" others to accept their way through accusations or intimidations. Never outright violence.

The SX 4 isn't a wounded "warrior." It's more an angry, envious artist. SX 4 doesn't try to prove they are worthy of love, they arrogantly think they deserve things and deny their feelings of inferiority. The SX 4 anger and envy is more "feminine" anger and envy than the more masculine 6. If that makes sense. The SX 4 "kills" more often metaphorically (killing someone emotionally) than "beheading kings."

By the way, Ichazo never called SX 6 "beauty," he only called it "strength." There is an aesthetic tendency in the SX 6, but in order to understand the subtype, it is sometimes good to go straight to the source. I'll quote Ichazo directly, even though he doesn't give a long description:

Ego-Cow[ard] Strength: Since he is afraid, he must play the macho to be desired.
 

· Rebel without a cause
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
@ShadowPrince The main point is that a sexual 4 would compensate for feelings of inferiority. The confusion here is in regards to just that. The way Ichazo describes it is different from Naranjo in the sense that the sx6 isn't described as compensating for feelings inferiority, but rather being macho due to the core fear. The arrogance of a 4 is a compensation for feelings of inferiority. Naranjo is inconsistent when it comes to sx4 and sx6. On one hand he claims that sx4 is punitive, on the other 'Sin of Cain'.

Ego-Cow[ard] Strength: Since he is afraid, he must play the macho to be desired.

What is more macho than a viking? "I'm going to plunder you and take what you have for myself" :p
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
- most 5s are Ns
That's the assumption I have always worked under. Palmer, though, found fives were basically a sensing type. I don't really give that much credence, although I have seen some seemingly legitimate 5w6 ISTP around here. I need to leave this thread before I rip Palmer more...her examples of threes...ridiculous.

As for S and 5, the "avarice" has always seemed very Pi-ish to me - equally Si and Ni. If you consider the American Gothic, Mr. and Mrs. Average kind of ISTJ then no, absolutely not 5. But the focused, detail-oriented, actuarial licensed kind of ISTJ - yes. Same thing for ISTP, both in addition to INTJ.
I think the avarice has more to do with holding oneself back and hoarding energy. Basically not getting emotionally involved with others or what Naranjo referred to as pathological detachment. Taking it one step further, Naranjo also mentioned being greedy with learning. @Figure
 
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top