[Traditional Enneagram] What is REALLY, at the core of a 9?

[GavinElster]

but type 6 is about seeking support and reassurance, and I also have this impulse towards independence and towards defying authority

On balance, I'd say there's phobic and counterphobic varieties of type 6, and the latter won't tend to be support/reassurance oriented. In fact, when it comes down to it, I think 6s actually have more of a complex about authority than 7s, and thus can be especially negative about perceived authority abuses.

Being denied pleasure is pain, so it's also about not seeking something that one can't get.

Yeah, I mean, this is a good point, and I have thought of these issues for myself,too.
The bottom line is I think there are sixish and sevenish themes both; I don't think everyone should be assigned a wing, but I think people like you probably need a wing to really capture what's going on. You can see how the more you start limiting pleasures to that which doesn't lead to disappointment, you're starting to value emotional security, which has some 6-ish tones. But you're right that the theme of gluttony does involve a kind of picking-at things, not diving wholly in, out of not wanting to face disappointment. At the extreme all this leads to type 5, which it's safe to say has crushed much of desire by rejecting the external world, which is why there's a clutching at oneself+painful awareness of insufficiency within oneself.

Ultimately, these don't strike me as (my definition of) purer 6-ish concerns, because I tend to believe at some core level, while 6s do seek security, the focus seems to be less on security and the pleasure-pain continuum and more on what it takes to be assured of security...or even just the level of security one can reasonably expect. Even the counterphobics are seeking assurance, because by denying the danger, they're trying to assure themselves they won't be overwhelmed by any situation.

I still think at some core level, what distinguishes the options for you (6w7/7w6) would be whether your focus is on assurance/certainty of what one can/cannot attain or on ways to avoid feeling limited. I think a 7-ish tactic would look more like trying to rationalize why one hasn't got the short end of the stick+really did get what one wanted/escaped being trapped/limited.


A general example: I think a lot of very 6-ish people have a complex about religion and losing their faith, because they feel it set up a false hope/false assurance for them, and this is especially jarring for them. This is about feeling cheated by a fallible authority -- it's more about the assurance/security one can have in mind that one isn't going to be disappointed than it is about finding ways to avoid pain by, say, rationalization. An example of how a 7 with 6-ish overtones might proceed similarly is by finding out more about a company's hiring practices to avoid feeling bad about being rejected (e.g. "now I know this, I realize they're stupid/not worth my time anyway!"). (Some attribute narcissim to 7s, but I'd say it's not always gloating levels, just an aversion to hearing what's negative/almost never viewing it as acceptable to just "have" to)
The key difference here is the 6-ish issue above intimately involves feeling like they used to have a belief system, a way of feeling certain, and it was just swept away. There's a greater entitlement to feeling good/not feeling bad in 7s' take on not setting up false hopes, and a greater emphasis on what it takes to believe something in 6s.

You can usually intuitively tell just by seeing if the person has more of a complex about being cheated or more of a complex about facing unnecessary pain. Obviously they're both true, but usually the vibe of the 6-ish reaction is pretty recognizable once you get used to it. There's a saying that most of the things we dread are worst because we don't know what's coming, and the actual thing is not as bad as the anticipation. I think this is related to 6 being a fear type, because the only thing you can do, once you have accepted the world is a fearful and/or uncertain place, is to seek assurance as to its nature.

 

[Agent Washington]

On balance, I'd say there's phobic and counterphobic varieties of type 6, and the latter won't tend to be support/reassurance oriented. In fact, when it comes down to it, I think 6s actually have more of a complex about authority than 7s, and thus can be especially negative about perceived authority abuses.



Yeah, I mean, this is a good point, and I have thought of these issues for myself,too.
The bottom line is I think there are sixish and sevenish themes both; I don't think everyone should be assigned a wing, but I think people like you probably need a wing to really capture what's going on. You can see how the more you start limiting pleasures to that which doesn't lead to disappointment, you're starting to value emotional security, which has some 6-ish tones. But you're right that the theme of gluttony does involve a kind of picking-at things, not diving wholly in, out of not wanting to face disappointment. At the extreme all this leads to type 5, which it's safe to say has crushed much of desire by rejecting the external world, which is why there's a clutching at oneself+painful awareness of insufficiency within oneself.

Ultimately, these don't strike me as (my definition of) purer 6-ish concerns, because I tend to believe at some core level, while 6s do seek security, the focus seems to be less on security and the pleasure-pain continuum and more on what it takes to be assured of security...or even just the level of security one can reasonably expect. Even the counterphobics are seeking assurance, because by denying the danger, they're trying to assure themselves they won't be overwhelmed by any situation.

I still think at some core level, what distinguishes the options for you (6w7/7w6) would be whether your focus is on assurance/certainty of what one can/cannot attain or on ways to avoid feeling limited. I think a 7-ish tactic would look more like trying to rationalize why one hasn't got the short end of the stick+really did get what one wanted/escaped being trapped/limited.


A general example: I think a lot of very 6-ish people have a complex about religion and losing their faith, because they feel it set up a false hope/false assurance for them, and this is especially jarring for them. This is about feeling cheated by a fallible authority -- it's more about the assurance/security one can have in mind that one isn't going to be disappointed than it is about finding ways to avoid pain by, say, rationalization. An example of how a 7 with 6-ish overtones might proceed similarly is by finding out more about a company's hiring practices to avoid feeling bad about being rejected (e.g. "now I know this, I realize they're stupid/not worth my time anyway!"). (Some attribute narcissim to 7s, but I'd say it's not always gloating levels, just an aversion to hearing what's negative/almost never viewing it as acceptable to just "have" to)
The key difference here is the 6-ish issue above intimately involves feeling like they used to have a belief system, a way of feeling certain, and it was just swept away. There's a greater entitlement to feeling good/not feeling bad in 7s' take on not setting up false hopes, and a greater emphasis on what it takes to believe something in 6s.

You can usually intuitively tell just by seeing if the person has more of a complex about being cheated or more of a complex about facing unnecessary pain. Obviously they're both true, but usually the vibe of the 6-ish reaction is pretty recognizable once you get used to it. There's a saying that most of the things we dread are worst because we don't know what's coming, and the actual thing is not as bad as the anticipation. I think this is related to 6 being a fear type, because the only thing you can do, once you have accepted the world is a fearful and/or uncertain place, is to seek assurance as to its nature.

I'm not sure I can adequately respond to you point by point, but I'll try. Sorry if I got personal, I'm still trying to figure out if I truly "got" it or if I'm just kinda deluding myself about a fear I can't face. (I'd rather face a fear.)

I still think at some core level, what distinguishes the options for you (6w7/7w6) would be whether your focus is on assurance/certainty of what one can/cannot attain or on ways to avoid feeling limited. I think a 7-ish tactic would look more like trying to rationalize why one hasn't got the short end of the stick+really did get what one wanted/escaped being trapped/limited.

I just watched a TED talk about how people do that to generate happiness. The problem, though, is that I don't do that. I've been working on understanding psychology for so long that these sort of self-defense mechanisms don't work.
Assurance does come into play at some point, but the desire for assurance is largely tied to security, not to identity or faith, as you have used in your example.
I sometimes get spiritual to escape a sense of being trapped, and to seek hope. But I've lost my religion so long ago - and actually, thank you for your comment, because I just had another moment of insight:

I lost my religion precisely because I believed, at that time, that a benevolent god would not create a person who is equipped with the faculties for pleasure while simultaneously considering it sin. There was no betrayal. Only rage. I mean, I did put my identity in the group for a bit, but it wasn't the church that failed me, it was my complete rejection of everything they stood for. There's disappointment in personal relationships, but a lot of it is due to people actively limiting my freedom, causing me pain, neglecting my pain, and denying me pleasure.

I've thought a bit about narcissistic traits, but I pretty much don't do it, because I am aware of how they work and what sort of mechanisms they are. Also, the urge to pathologise pleasure-seeking sensations as 'narcissistic' is really part of the reason i kinda didn't think it fit.

And now that I review the 7sx again, I think it definitely does describe what's going on with me. The term is called "maladaptive daydreaming".

One last question, if you've read through this
Now that we know what the root of the problem is and what coping mechanisms are used, what should be the basic step to 'integrate' into a healthier psyche? how can i manage pain avoidance/seeking pleasure better? is there a way to change the cost/benefits of pain/pleasure dichotomy so that it's more beneficial to seek things which may not necessarily bring pleasure rather than avoid pain?

 

[GavinElster]

The problem, though, is that I don't do that. I've been working on understanding psychology for so long that these sort of self-defense mechanisms don't work.

Well, it can work if it's such a good rationalization that it is based in truth! It doesn't have to be a silly one, it can be complex reasoning. I would say I'm able to do this a lot, and I doubt people could out-argue my rationalizations.

that a benevolent god would not create a person who is equipped with the faculties for pleasure while simultaneously considering it sin.

My personal reaction to religion is that metaphysical speculation just doesn't seem to me as conclusive as other kinds of knowledge pursuit, such as mathematics or physics. It's not that we don't ultimately adopt some naive metaphysics to go about our lives, and it's true many theologians have much more sophisticated metaphysical speculation than the average scientist, and in fact it seems obvious that many eminent scientists have incredibly trite and ridiculously shallow views of the issues at hand when responding to such speculation. However, sophisticated thought doesn't change whether something is speculative or certain.
For instance, advanced physics theories like string theory seem incredibly speculative, and seem to be very far from things even the best proponents can claim certainty about, despite people having pretty sophisticated reasons for suspecting them. The fact that the average, say, construction worker holds a very simple, even naive view of the physical world compared to string theorists does not change that the construction worker can be much more certain of his/her knowledge than can the string theorist.
I think we may resolve the conundrums motivating metaphysical speculation some day, but I wouldn't be surprised if we never do, and I'm especially confident nobody I've encountered has today genuinely done so.

Now that we know what the root of the problem is and what coping mechanisms are used, what should be the basic step to 'integrate' into a healthier psyche? how can i manage pain avoidance/seeking pleasure better? is there a way to change the cost/benefits of pain/pleasure dichotomy so that it's more beneficial to seek things which may not necessarily bring pleasure rather than avoid pain?

Usually the way suggested in enneagram is transcendence, which is where you can see enneagram 5 is 7's integration (it gets you out of the pleasure-pain dynamics, because as I said, enneagram 5 tends not to be fixated on chasing the external).

 

[violet_crown]

An enneagram 3 who wants to be seen, heard and admired.

 

[1487610420]

An enneagram 3 who wants to be seen, heard and admired.

I've been touted

 

[Agent Washington]

Well, it can work if it's such a good rationalization that it is based in truth! It doesn't have to be a silly one, it can be complex reasoning. I would say I'm able to do this a lot, and I doubt people could out-argue my rationalizations.

so... you're good at interpreting reality and manufacturing your own truth
... Give me some of those skills

My personal reaction to religion is that metaphysical speculation just doesn't seem to me as conclusive as other kinds of knowledge pursuit, such as mathematics or physics. It's not that we don't ultimately adopt some naive metaphysics to go about our lives, and it's true many theologians have much more sophisticated metaphysical speculation than the average scientist, and in fact it seems obvious that many eminent scientists have incredibly trite and ridiculously shallow views of the issues at hand when responding to such speculation. However, sophisticated thought doesn't change whether something is speculative or certain.
For instance, advanced physics theories like string theory seem incredibly speculative, and seem to be very far from things even the best proponents can claim certainty about, despite people having pretty sophisticated reasons for suspecting them. The fact that the average, say, construction worker holds a very simple, even naive view of the physical world compared to string theorists does not change that the construction worker can be much more certain of his/her knowledge than can the string theorist.
I think we may resolve the conundrums motivating metaphysical speculation some day, but I wouldn't be surprised if we never do, and I'm especially confident nobody I've encountered has today genuinely done so.

I have to say, I was like 11? at that time, and was just going thru puberty

Metaphysical speculation is something that is never going to be concrete; it either makes internal logical sense, or it doesn't. Something that doesn't hold internal logical integrity when you pull it apart is going to be useless as a belief system. Some of these metaphysical theories actually do not contradict various means of measuring reality, and some of it is applicable to different planes of mathematics and non-newtonian physics. I'd say that a theory that does not contradict multiple theories that have been already understood via empirical means is certainly a plus.

I realise that you're saying that there's a lot more complexity to thought systems, theories, and belief systems, and my understanding of what you've said is that it is subjective and goes from individual to individual. I agree with it on some level, but on a personal level, I have incredibly rigorous standards of seeking "truth", shall we say (and yes, it is in quotation marks because I am aware of how elusive it is), and I don't think being right or wrong is the crux here. Something either holds up to scrutiny, or it doesn't. If it is beyond my understanding, I will let people who have proven that they've understood it better to sort it out. (If they can explain it to me in a way that I'd understand, I'd consider that a bonus and +5 knowlege )

Usually the way suggested in enneagram is transcendence, which is where you can see enneagram 5 is 7's integration (it gets you out of the pleasure-pain dynamics, because as I said, enneagram 5 tends not to be fixated on chasing the external).

There's this internal pull, yes. (There's a reason I keep testing as iNtuitive and 4/5/6 rather than 7). The problem that I've find with attempting to achieve some kind of spiritual clarity is that spirituality is usually irrelevant to day to day life, even if some semblence of perspective is gained. Is there any specific and concrete step-by-step thing that's been suggested, and have you tried anything that actually works? I'd like to know because all that has happened with me pursuing the 5 streak is that it basically leaves me without the psychological defenses that an unintegrated 7 would have, and no adequate means of coping with it.)

 

[GavinElster]

Metaphysical speculation is something that is never going to be concrete; it either makes internal logical sense, or it doesn't

Basically this is the problem; I have no problem with a theory that just is based on internal consistency, but then there's no reason to suppose it corresponds to anything more than a formal system where you can shuffle symbols. It may not contradict any existing physics, but the point is what criterion do we use to decide if it has more than a purely logical meaning? I have strong doubts that unless speculations about anything we call "real" are in some way brought to relate to physical truths (relation does not have to imply reducing to), there will be much certainty that we've found a meaningful interpretation.

I think the only hope is that metaphysical speculation is brought in relation in the future to modern advances in science. That is, it should be the inevitable foundations we are somehow lead to adopt if the modern picture is to make sense.
This all may or may not happen, but that's sort of the crux of it to me.

There's a reason I keep testing as iNtuitive and 4/5/6 rather than 7

The reason for that might simply (likely even) be that you ARE an N as per the MBTI test. There is absolutely no reason to suppose your type by a functions-based interpretation is going to exactly correspond to the test-based type (as you saw, I think the same with F/T, as quite frankly, there's no reason an F-type in terms of value judgment has to be an F-type in terms of being a lot of Isabel Myers' stuff that is more tenderhearted; and similarly, there are plenty of gentlehearted people I think just fit better as Ts in a functions framework). You can think that there still is a connection to the logic/feelings dichotomy, but no longer as much to the compassionate, tenderhearted things. It's more like the connection of logic/feelings to the idea of value-neutral vs value-based judgment.
A lot of N as per the test involves being not overly practical, being interested in the novel, questioning, reforming things. There are cases of what I'd call clear sensation-dominant types who are also clear MBTI (test, not functions) Ns.

In fact, a lot of scientist types are probably S-Ts by a more functions theoretic approach. Obviously just being a scientist by occupation isn't enough, but in a lot of cases there's a typical psychology.

Anyway, yes, in typical (Riso Hudson) interps, you'd have lots of 4/5 points just from being N-ish on the MBTI test. I would probably be a 5 by some of those tests. I think one has to expand beyond the tests to get at some of the richer ideas. At the same time, there's this unfortunate tendency to build speculative religions out of non-test-based content, and it's rampant on typology communities, but it's possible to avoid if we try to give real critical scrutiny and motivate everything we talk about, rather than kinda just jump on board some school of thought.

Is there any specific and concrete step-by-step thing that's been suggested, and have you tried anything that actually works?

Unfortunately I only speak in nonsensical abstract generalities

But to be honest, I think the serious answer is that there's really some value to the enneagram type way of thinking, because it brings psychology into contact with the other more purely philosophical subjects. If you can really internalize why 7 integrates to 5, that's not a bad way to go, as it should directly affect how you approach life.
To some extent, this is about finding a good interpretation of the system that works for you, because it's not like the enneagram is one obviously coherent system of thought. It does have many different authors with different takes, so the important thing is getting the gist of it and having a strong understanding of the ideas, so you can flexibly apply them, rather than essentially taking what a given book says and expecting it to work.
As far as I can tell, you're already being pretty thoughtful about it.

 

[violet_crown]

I've been touted

Toot toot

 

[Dreamer]

Toot toot

Wth?! Hahaha I love it!

 

[Agent Washington]

Basically this is the problem; I have no problem with a theory that just is based on internal consistency, but then there's no reason to suppose it corresponds to anything more than a formal system where you can shuffle symbols. It may not contradict any existing physics, but the point is what criterion do we use to decide if it has more than a purely logical meaning? I have strong doubts that unless speculations about anything we call "real" are in some way brought to relate to physical truths (relation does not have to imply reducing to), there will be much certainty that we've found a meaningful interpretation.

I think the only hope is that metaphysical speculation is brought in relation in the future to modern advances in science. That is, it should be the inevitable foundations we are somehow lead to adopt if the modern picture is to make sense.
This all may or may not happen, but that's sort of the crux of it to me.

Hmm. Actually, that's kinda what I believe will probably eventually happen in thef uture as technological advances HOPEFULLy shall allow us to be able to test out some of the more ... out there physics theories, and my guess, from looking at past theories, is that eventually some guy will actually synthesize them. the thing about philosophy though is that as a discipline a lot of it is so ass backwards, so it'll probably take a long time, and it will likely lag behind actual scientific/social science advances. frankly a lot of this is bound up in academic structures- i think thes a certain trend towards interdisciplinary thematic focuses too, it's probably funding that's going to be a problem for metaphysics and science. a wild guess.

The reason for that might simply (likely even) be that you ARE an N as per the MBTI test. There is absolutely no reason to suppose your type by a functions-based interpretation is going to exactly correspond to the test-based type (as you saw, I think the same with F/T, as quite frankly, there's no reason an F-type in terms of value judgment has to be an F-type in terms of being a lot of Isabel Myers' stuff that is more tenderhearted; and similarly, there are plenty of gentlehearted people I think just fit better as Ts in a functions framework). You can think that there still is a connection to the logic/feelings dichotomy, but no longer as much to the compassionate, tenderhearted things. It's more like the connection of logic/feelings to the idea of value-neutral vs value-based judgment.
A lot of N as per the test involves being not overly practical, being interested in the novel, questioning, reforming things. There are cases of what I'd call clear sensation-dominant types who are also clear MBTI (test, not functions) Ns.

In fact, a lot of scientist types are probably S-Ts by a more functions theoretic approach. Obviously just being a scientist by occupation isn't enough, but in a lot of cases there's a typical psychology.

... hmm yes. also yes, actually. when you put it that way. that was also why i came to self-type and ended up as an istj, after double confirming with a friend about my usage of functions. (that also lead me to the question of why, if we have access to functions, they have to be stacked a certain way, and i would love to see more empirical support for theory of cognitive functions; eg: functions, association with brain regions, etc etc, preferences in clinical observations)

actually the functions framework is more coherent for me precisely because how it explains tenderheartedness in people who also have a predisposition towards using logical faculties, and this framework SHOULD allow us to more adequately explain certain 'contradictions' in people, whereas the I/E S/N etc based approach doesn't. (That's kinda why I don't bother taking much stock in it; if the point is that it'sgoing to be descriptive and doesn't seek to explain, I literally don't see the point because there's so much to be explained rather than described when it comes to consciousness, and it's a huge complex area; and honestly i think that's why the big 5 doesn't have as much of a ... ... following... (not sure what word to use here) as mbti/jungian/kiersey.)

Re:S/T approach. That's basically what annoys me the most about the N/S perception that's so prevalent in the mbti community. S/T function based methods of seeing the world is essentially materialistic on some level; the big picture synthesizing comes in at a later stage. yet the community will assign N functions to intelligence... that low key reminds me of a video i saw the other day that was like 'ifyou're interested in intelligence theory, check out IQ tests and similar stuff!' and i was like "YEAHHHH"

Anyway, yes, in typical (Riso Hudson) interps, you'd have lots of 4/5 points just from being N-ish on the MBTI test. I would probably be a 5 by some of those tests. I think one has to expand beyond the tests to get at some of the richer ideas. At the same time, there's this unfortunate tendency to build speculative religions out of non-test-based content, and it's rampant on typology communities, but it's possible to avoid if we try to give real critical scrutiny and motivate everything we talk about, rather than kinda just jump on board some school of thought.

Fascinating... It does sound like you know a lot about tests and theory and such in detail, which I don't because I lack the expertise (an estimate of... a lot of time and resources will have to go into adequately researching this, so I'll pass on it xD)
Thank you for your insight. I do agree that one has to get beyond the tests and that these tests, because of their descriptive nature being unable to account for human complexity, getting straight to the theory is the best.

Unfortunately I only speak in nonsensical abstract generalities
But to be honest, I think the serious answer is that there's really some value to the enneagram type way of thinking, because it brings psychology into contact with the other more purely philosophical subjects. If you can really internalize why 7 integrates to 5, that's not a bad way to go, as it should directly affect how you approach life.
To some extent, this is about finding a good interpretation of the system that works for you, because it's not like the enneagram is one obviously coherent system of thought. It does have many different authors with different takes, so the important thing is getting the gist of it and having a strong understanding of the ideas, so you can flexibly apply them, rather than essentially taking what a given book says and expecting it to work.
As far as I can tell, you're already being pretty thoughtful about it.

I see. I know the first 40 pages of Naranjo's book is ... on google so I'm slowly going through it. That's essentially my take on theory as well; if it doesn't fit fully I will probably modify it to suit my own needs. It's an interesting starting point, though, and idk why but it does have its appeal on a... i hate to use this phrase, but for a lack of a better term for now, mystical level.
i've just seen it compared to some of the ... ancient texts and actually some of this is ... i think research still needs to be done on this matter, but actually in pre-enlightenment era there was no concept of secularism and so on; religion was fundamentally bound up with science and so on; so i imagine the fact that it's mystical is because of a post-enlightenment approach towards what's old. a lot of the science is, i can say, ..... needs more. ... hmm... ... beef, and cursorily speaking i feel like it needs fine tuning.

 

[cosmictone]

9 here, what is even a sense of self.
Is that like someone subconsciously knowing/saying to themselves "I'm Belinda. I like strawberry ice cream. I had a ferret when I was 12. I like assholes because my dad was an asshole. I have a habit of tying my laces backwards." ??

Despite all of my introspection, I just don't know "who" I am. And it feels like any answers I give to those who inquire are just made up.
I mean, I'm constantly changing. We all are. A lot of things I like, I actually like the experience more. The moment means infinitely more to me than the object.


Being a 9 (if that is what I am), it really feels like I am a "journey" more than any particular destination, so to speak.

Separation is a pretty big fear. I don't want to be separated from anything...
But you know what I really fear.....
I fear being separated from everything I know: myself, the people I love, my desires, my knowledge, life as I know it...
and death is pretty much all that wrapped up into one..

death is the ultimate separation..

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

9 here, what is even a sense of self.
Is that like someone subconsciously knowing/saying to themselves "I'm Belinda. I like strawberry ice cream. I had a ferret when I was 12. I like assholes because my dad was an asshole. I have a habit of tying my laces backwards." ??

Despite all of my introspection, I just don't know "who" I am. And it feels like any answers I give to those who inquire are just made up.

This so much. I live in fear of being asked to describe myself - I never have an answer. Those people who can, confidently say "I am..." and describe and identify themselves are absolutely spectacular and foreign to me: how are you so sure? So complete and whole?

 

[Dreamer]

9 here, what is even a sense of self.
Is that like someone subconsciously knowing/saying to themselves "I'm Belinda. I like strawberry ice cream. I had a ferret when I was 12. I like assholes because my dad was an asshole. I have a habit of tying my laces backwards." ??

Despite all of my introspection, I just don't know "who" I am. And it feels like any answers I give to those who inquire are just made up.
I mean, I'm constantly changing. We all are. A lot of things I like, I actually like the experience more. The moment means infinitely more to me than the object.


Being a 9 (if that is what I am), it really feels like I am a "journey" more than any particular destination, so to speak.

Separation is a pretty big fear. I don't want to be separated from anything...
But you know what I really fear.....
I fear being separated from everything I know: myself, the people I love, my desires, my knowledge, life as I know it...
and death is pretty much all that wrapped up into one..

death is the ultimate separation..

Thank you so much for this Cosmictone. I've heard of 9s and separation, but I feel the way you've expressed it here just really sunk in for me. I would say that I do not have an absence of identity, and actually, I relate much to what you said above, in feeling like this journey more than any particular destination, but instead, that I am a being, on a journey. So I see this core essence of who I am, and though I am constantly changing, this inner being does not change. It sees new perspectives, feels new things, discovers new turns, but is at its core, still the same. I am still me.

If someone were to ask who I was, I find the difficulty not in being able to answer this, but being able to define this essence I feel. And there really is a difference between the subtly of the two here. You see for me, my identity is encapsulated in my world perspective and view on life and on people. The problem isn't how do I describe that to someone, but arises when I try to encapsulate so much into such a short space of say, a few sentences. I find an impossibility in that. Life is far to expansive to try and condense in such useless words.

 

[Ayuhime]

if there's one thing 9s are prone to do, it's forgetting their sense of self -- there are some more rugged/rebellious 9s who still display a kind of numbing psychology (not unrelated to 8's repression of fear/inhibition) and loose sense of self, and some more "traditional" soft and compliant 9s. There is a sense in which this forgetting the sense of self is both symbolic of the fundamental problem and solution of the enneagram, because on the one hand, the dissolution of the separation is the aim, but the means ought not (so the theory goes) be repression of it. This lies exactly parallel to Jung's theory of needing to differentiate and then individuate -- neither deny the superior/inferior function dynamics nor deny the need to transcend them.

Yeah. See, people in the outside world tend to see me as highly independent and autonomous- they don't really see me as compliant so I fit more with your description of 9s "who still display a kind of numbing psychology and loose sense of self". In fact, before reading your reply, when I saw the title my first thought was "There is something at the core of a 9? Since when? Isn't that kind of our type's problem- the forgetting and diffused sense of self?" Heck, I even wrote a blog entry just about that a hour or two ago.

So, even if there is "something" at the core of a nine, they probably would be unable to truly answer this question as this is one of the main issues/challenges of their type- to be aware of self and trying to stay aware of it and not let it diffuse as much for other people. (not just with people though, as a sp 9 I can easily 'merge' with my room or any fictional character I like and tend to roleplay as or with any series/any analysis of the series or character I like etc. It is laughably easy and tempting to stay mostly numb to my own existence and self.)


Edit: Just saw this reply too

9 here, what is even a sense of self.
Is that like someone subconsciously knowing/saying to themselves "I'm Belinda. I like strawberry ice cream. I had a ferret when I was 12. I like assholes because my dad was an asshole. I have a habit of tying my laces backwards." ??

Despite all of my introspection, I just don't know "who" I am. And it feels like any answers I give to those who inquire are just made up.
I mean, I'm constantly changing. We all are. A lot of things I like, I actually like the experience more. The moment means infinitely more to me than the object.


Being a 9 (if that is what I am), it really feels like I am a "journey" more than any particular destination, so to speak.

Separation is a pretty big fear. I don't want to be separated from anything...
But you know what I really fear.....
I fear being separated from everything I know: myself, the people I love, my desires, my knowledge, life as I know it...
and death is pretty much all that wrapped up into one..

death is the ultimate separation..

This exactly. The first parts, especially. And funny thing is, how I see "total peace" is either a snapshot of a scene where two person -family to each other, be it lovers or siblings or friends or whatever- lying lazily on a couch and just having a hearty chuckle in a warm and cozy atmosphere or as being inside an ocean without any waves or any other living being passing by- suspended in it without awareness as if suspended in space. I...am not sure if I fear or like last one more though.

 

[KKB78]

"I am unlovable". (Resignation as the approach/response to the subconcious love wish)