relativism could also be understood as s symtom of a stage of psychological developement. though that implies a more vague deffinition of the term. people get more honest in introspection some day, and dont feel so determined by societiy or nature, any longer, but try to discover how their inner self determines stuff on the outside.
here relativism is nessesarry to tranced social "morals" that used to be determined by needs of survival. it takes guts to even look at the self, and relativism helps to accept whatever is comming to the mind.
indeed jungs teachings are a product of this stage, but they are not limited to this stage, and the good parts of realativism are also kept on further stages.
actually pluralism is a better term for this stage. afaik. i am never preceice with vocabularies.
next step is to develope an intrinsic moral, that has never been there before.
it tries to adapt the social world to the nature of the human beeings.
therefore the human beeing must be unterstood, to differenciate between helthy and common needs and pathological desires. (a total oversimplification of what has to be differenciated)
that next stage would be called integral.
integral includes the awareness of realativity, but it also understands and structures it (because it clearly transcends it), and thereby allows smart healty (natural) morals. at the same time it still includes this deconstruction of old survival-determined extrinsic social morals (rules), that has been achieved by relativism and pluralism.
but, since the integral stage is actually aware of how things are related, this stage would include this deconstruction of survival-determined moral rules only in situations were they are outdated. it would not unintelligible impose that deconstruction on folks who are still living in the claws of extrinsic determination (through poverty or pre industrial nature)
type as you know it from most sources is totally not jet integral. unfortunately. also the enneagram is verry poor in that aspect. most type stuff is on the sensitive stage before integral. the sensitive trial and error of introspection. but it lacks the structure and interdisciplinary differentiation from aspects of human nature that are not "type", not "horizontal" but developemental, that is "vertical". without understanding of the developement, one can never bring healthy moral judgements to the process of exploration.
all morals i hear "in type" are old social morals that are determined by outer needs of survival. we "need" peace, so we proclaim that all types are "equal" without realy understandig why that would be so. that moral is a verry early form of realtivism. and it is in constant conflict, with perception of truth.
we need to go boldly toward the exploration of intrinsic truth, no matter how scary and "unjust" the differences in people might be, so we realy understand the structures and know what phenomena are erroreous/subtimal or OK at that point but not forebver OR what is "just another type".
so we HAVE to cross relativism.
you can not skip stages.
if my language is to vague, you can allways read books about it.
(let me copy paste: Ken wilber, don beck (spiral dynamics), piaget,
kurtfischer, comons & richards, jane loevinger, deidre kramer. )
to me its enough to give a dirty picture of the patterns of developemental relativity.