• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Traditional Enneagram] Zarathustra's Enneagram Explorations

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I get a lot of random pm's, from newly joined members of the forum, about my thoughts on the Enneagram of Personality. I usually don't answer these messages, as they often end with or contain some sort of "type me" request, and, frankly, ain't nobody got time for dat, and there are plenty of other places on this forum (and elsewhere) for them to ask for such help. But I received a request recently that was a bit different than the rest, and it also just happened to dovetail well with something I've thought about doing for some time, so.... with all that being said, this will be a thread where I offer my personal thinking on the Enneagram.

Having spent most of my early years of typological discovery with the Jungian branch of the field, I've spent more of the last five years delving into the mysterious innerworkings of the Enneagram. I have found my greatest growth in understanding when I got away from the common fare (Riso & Hudson, Palmer), and into the more foundational, advanced and unknown (Ichazo, Naranjo, Molina).

The thoughts I'll offer here will reflect this, so don't expect the typical rehashing of the Enneagram Institute website, which most of the writing and thinking about the Enneagram online these days seems to be... I'll be offering up vistas and horizons most have not yet come upon, as, thus far, I am the only person I've found online who's actually taken up this material.

As such, expect new vocabulary, new frameworks, new thoughts and ideas (Molina), mixed in with the original ideas (Ichazo), as well as the most thorough, advanced, and rigorously fleshed-out ideas (Naranjo) in the history of the Enneagram of Personality.

Please refrain from asking me to type you; I will not do it, and there is an entire subforum for that. Also, I don't especially care to even discuss these ideas - I don't really have time for that, either.

But I do want to offer my thoughts, for those who are interested in learning, as I feel I really have come upon some ideas over these last five years of exploration that are largely undiscovered, revelatory, and the most original and important thinking on the Enneagram of Personality in existence.

If you'd like to discuss, or ask questions, feel free to do so (or via pm); I cannot promise I will answer, but if it's a good enough question or point, I will try to take it up.

Happy explorations, all!

:cheers:
 

Tilt

Active member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
2,584
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So with your explorations, do you put much stock in the health levels or are there more nuanced, alternative ways to look at such things?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
So with your explorations, do you put much stock in the health levels or are there more nuanced, alternative ways to look at such things?

I think the health levels are a decent idea.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in them, like, structurally, or anything, but it's worth thinking about the enneagram in terms of how healthy or unhealthy one is, how liberated or fixated one is.

The enneagram is a liberation teaching.

When thinking about the enneagram, that fact should always be front and center.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
So, to begin, I'm going to start with a pm I received about a month or so ago, asking for any "tips and advice" I might have for growth for a mostly counterphobic 6. This particular member ([MENTION=32476]KingRequiem[/MENTION]) gave me his permission to repost our pm's here, which will appear in the spoiler brackets below.

 

KingRequiem

New member
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
2
So, do you plan on writing about some aspects one by one whenever you get the time until it adds up into the whole picture or would you rather start this as a Q&A and expand upon it ?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
So, do you plan on writing about some aspects one by one whenever you get the time until it adds up into the whole picture or would you rather start this as a Q&A and expand upon it ?

I'm planning on addressing your original question tomorrow.

I'll probably then continue for another 4-5 posts on the matter, over the next week or so, as I build more layers into my response.

You can ask questions throughout, and I will get to them as it makes sense.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Macro vs Micro

KingRequiem said:
Got any tips you're willing to share concerning growth for a mostly counterphobic Six ? I mean I already have a good grasp on the faith issue as a whole, but it's the way to tackle it and the technicalities that don't glue.

So when I mentioned walking the dogs above, this was actually one of the specific issues that arose. And the way I decided to think of it is similar to how theory in economics classes is divided into two levels: micro and macro.

See, the whole "gotta have faith" admonition is accurate, but, as you pointed to, it's just not enough. It's too macro. It's a good one liner, to remind yourself in just one sentence, what it is you need to do, but, if you're just constantly telling yourself "I just gotta have faith", I'm pretty sure, as a 6, it's gunna do your head in.

There's just not enough meat there. Not enough substance.

This is where the micro theory comes in.

While it's helpful and beneficial to keep in mind the macro imperative -- have faith -- it's just as helpful, if not more, to have a fine-tuned understanding of what a 6 actually is, of what's going on inside them, so that the appropriate exercises, stratagems, realizations, awareness, and maneuvers can be developed to make the ship function at its optimal capacity, to free it of its demons, and help move it into the light.

KingRequiem said:
Like, the levels of health on Enneagram Institute seem phobic oriented as fuck for the most part at the exception of 1, 3, 5 and 6 I'd say.bless

And, as you point to here, places like the Enneagram Institute, et al (i.e. the places that most people get their Enneagram-related information from) have not done a good job diagnosing the real issues of point 6, especially on the micro level, and the primary reason for this failure is that they do not actually understand the Enneagram, they do not understand its underlying structure, and, as such, they cannot offer truly beneficial advice, on a micro level -- their advice ends up being of a much more handwavy nature, a la "you gotta have faith" (which, once again, is not so much wrong, as it is not useful enough).

And the only place where I have found this underlying structure is in the theory of Armando Molina.

Molina was one of Naranjo's top students, and in 'Character & Neurosis', after disparaging the likes of Riso & Hudson and Helen Palmer (the latter of whom also studied under Naranjo), Naranjo goes on to praise only one other teacher of the Enneagram, and that is Molina.

"Molina's axiological slant has represented the most substantial contribution, I think, and he provides more nourishing reading matter than other authors." - Claudio Naranjo

Having already studied Riso & Huson and Helen Palmer, and similarly finding them lacking, and with such praise from "the Mother of the Enneagram", it felt only sensible to look into what it was Molina had written (axiological? what?), especially as I'd never once heard his name mentioned anywhere, on any website, on any forum, anywhere.

Needless to say, upon reading his book, I am in complete agreement with Naranjo -- Molina is the first thinker on the Enneagram to move the theory from 9 distinct profiles that have what relation to one another exactly (why not 10 profiles? Or 12? Or 33?) to a fully fledged theoretical framework that ties all the enneatypes together utilizing a certain kind of math, or sacred geometry, if you will, that not only explains exactly why there are 9 types, but reveals the fundamental structures underlying all of them, why they are they way they are, how they relate to one another, and, most pertinent to your original question (and what, imo, was most lacking in the ideas of other Enneagram thinkers, and which, as such, was most frustrating to me after studying them), why are the enneatypes arranged along the Enneagram in the way that they are, and why do they move along the lines of integration and disintegration in the way that they do, and in the order that they do, and in the direction that they do.

As such, in order to properly answer your question, to give you those microtheoretical tools, so you can identify what is actually going on inside you, what might be going wrong, why it's wrong (if it's happening), and thus how to fix it, we will have to gain an understanding of the underlying fundamental structure of the Enneagram, and we will be doing so using Molina's thoughtpath as our roadmap through the theoretical darkness.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
So, for those who would like to grapple with Molina's theory direct from source:

For those who are willing to accept my summary of the theory:
And various applications thereof:
 

Starry

Active member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
6,103
So, for those who would like to grapple with Molina's theory direct from source:

For those who are willing to accept my summary of the theory:

And various applications thereof:


Z - I read your description and the examples you included and yet it is unclear to me whether or not I understand enough to even gauge how embarrassed I should be admitting this is all still very much unclear to me.

Are you saying that as a 7 I find value in discovering what is true/false and then sharing what I find with the external world?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Z - I read your description and the examples you included and yet it is unclear to me whether or not I understand enough to even gauge how embarrassed I should be admitting this is all still very much unclear to me.

You should not be embarrassed.

You do not understand enough, as I am not nearly finished.

I will be dealing with one of the pure (I have alternately considered 'single' as the name for these types) types first (6), and will get to one of the hybrid types next (maybe 7).

Anyway, don't trip, as I have not yet included nearly enough information for you to have arrived at a thorough understanding of all this yet.

Are you saying that as a 7 I find value in discovering what is true/false and then sharing what I find with the external world?

That is one way you could describe it.

That's not all bad.

But it does have a flaw.

I have not yet settled on just one way to describe what you have attempted.

Nor am I certain just one way would be the right way to approach things.

Some ways definitely offer more light than others, though.

In its most undifferentiated form, it would look something like this: a 7SE comes from the Systemic Center, and is the Extrinsic Manifestation of, or within, that Center.

I have long been toying with a formula that goes something like this: a 7SE experiences the concerns of the Systemic Center, and responds to those concerns in an Extrinsic manner (i.e., by "going out into the world" and/or "considering the others" and/or "exporting those concerns into the Extrinsic dimension/realm [i.e. the outside/external world {i.e. the concerns of the Heart/Image/Extrinsic dimension/realm}]").

I think it's a pretty good construction.

But I am not yet completely settled on it as the only one.

And, as I said before, thinking of it in only one way may be a less-than-ideal way of going about things anyway.

I will be addressing the "concerns" of each Center, as originally laid out by Ichazo, in a future (as in next couple days) post.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Also, [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION], Molina's book has:
- 4.5 pages on sound (i.e. healthy) 7SE
- 7 pages on unsound (i.e. unhealthy) 7SE
- 1.5 pages on 7SE in love (i.e. really really unhealthy)
 

Starry

Active member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
6,103
Also, [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION], Molina's book has:
- 4.5 pages on sound (i.e. healthy) 7SE
- 7 pages on unsound (i.e. unhealthy) 7SE
- 1.5 pages on 7SE in love (i.e. really really unhealthy)


I was excited until I got here (7SE sounds a bit like the Messenger which I don't know how the 4s & 8s feel about that but...). I should have known from the cover...I don't like philosophies that hold being in love is a sickness...

I'll trust though
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
So I'm about to full on kick this thing off, but before I do, I want to clarify a few things:

Some of what I will be expounding I am wedded to -- as in, I have forced radical doubt on the subject, and found it to withstand the test, or I have just found the structure to be credible, meaningful, valuable, and/or reliable. But much of what I will be saying is also tentative -- I may still be figuring out the precise arrangement of words to best explain the idea, or I might still even be working the idea out to full fashion. I usually try to properly qualify my language, so one can pick up what it is I'm dropping, and how, but sometimes, for various reasons, I might not. So, in other words, consider that anything I say in this thread may be tentative, a working hypothesis or template. But it also might not be.

Second, it is essential for the sake of this to discussion to realize the difference between essential and existential qualities. This is a bit like nature vs nurture. One (essence) gets to the very core of things, it cannot be changed, it just is. Possibly due to genetics. Possibly some other reason. But whatever it is, it is a quality so deeply ingrained it basically cannot be removed from the object it is a part of. The other (existence) is the opposite, it can be changed, it might not be especially easy to do so, but it is possible. You might think of it like a habit. Some are more ingrained, some less. They might be difficult to do away with, but with enough focus, determination, will power, and effort, they can be changed.

I look at one's Jungian type as essential (yes, other functions can be developed, but your dominant is your dominant, and your auxiliary is your auxiliary [and no, "being in the grip" doesn't count as a wholesale change of your type -- it's a temporary existential phenomenon]), whereas I look at one's Enneagram type as existential.

I really don't think the two should be thought of in the same way.

Your Jungian type: that's with you for life. Ain't no changin that. Yeah, you can develop other functions and become a more well-rounded human being and exemplar of your type, but you're still your type (obviously, granted, Jungian type is not all-encompassing, it does not circumscribe one's soul, and there is a ton of variation within type [you've still got those same dom and aux functions, tho]).

Your Enneagram type, tho: that's like a bad habit. It can change. Or, at the least, it can be reduced. And to the point of near eradication. You shouldn't even think of yourself as being an enneagram type. To do so is completely counter to the entire point of the Enneagram. Your enneagram "type" is simply a fixation that you have developed. And the point of the enneagram is to make you aware of this fixation (and the other fixations) so that you may free yourself of it (and them [and yes, I certainly think it's plausible to have the fixations of more than just one point on the Enneagram]). Now, yes, you may then become a healthy or liberated version of your enneatype (Naranjo and Molina actually disagree on this point), but inherent to becoming a "healthy version" of your "type" is to become less like your "type", i.e. less fixated on the specific issues of that enneatype, and more balanced, taking on the qualities of the other types along the circle, in the direction of the lines of integration of your type. The Enneagram is all about Liberation thru Balance. Or Equanimity, if you wanna be shmancy. The Enneagram of Equanimity, it could be called. Systemic-Intrinsic-Extrinsic. The proper balance of all three (i.e., not only balance, but balance in the right direction).

Oh, and lastly, just to be clear, Molina never said anything about love being really really unhealthy. Just really unhealthy.
 

jkall

New member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
4
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Vey good thread. Thanks for sharing your experience.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Three Laws, Three Shapes, Three Types

Three Laws, Three Shapes, Three Types

Now, to begin, I want to apologize once more to [MENTION=32476]KingRequiem[/MENTION], as I said I would answer his question, regarding tips and advice for growth for counterphobic 6s, and I will, but I still need to lay down a few more layers, the foundations, before we can get to specific cases.

And the most foundational levels of the Enneagram are the Three Laws, which are the origin of the Three Shapes, which then yield the Three Types.

Now, some of this material will be new, and some you might have seen before, if you've dug deep enough, and some will be a mix of both new and old.

In the past, this material has usually been taught as just two laws (the Law of Three, and the Law of Seven), and the two shapes they yield (the Triangle, and the Hexad).

But how many shapes actually form the Enneagram?

Take a second.

Look at it.

*pauses 15 seconds for the reader*

What's the number?

Hint: the Enneagram is based on trialectical reasoning...

So if you guessed just two, that would be a bit odd...

The number is indeed three.

The Triangle
The Hexad
The Circle

The Three Laws

The Law of Three is traditionally taught as the source of the triangle.

Why?

Well, the triangle has three sides.

And within the original 9 digits (note: before 0 was invented/discovered), there are three multiples of 3: 3, 6, and 9.

A triangle is also what you get when you divide a circle into three even, symmetrical parts (think of a pie chart, divided into three equal parts), and then connect the points on the circle between each section to form the three vertices of the triangle.

(Note: you can look to my avatar for a sample of what I'm talking about)

3, 6, 9

Law of 3

3
3+3=6
3+3+3=9

3x3=9

These are the standard types.

The central types.

The pure types.

The centers of the three Centers.

***

Next, you have the Law of Seven, also a traditional teaching of the Enneagram.

Now, if you can see the connections of the Law of Three, but you find them a little odd, the thinking behind it a little questionable, a little unscientific (*rolls eyes*), then the Law of Seven is gunna force you to go another step deeper.

I mean, the Law of Seven is traditionally taught as the source if the Hexad, whuch has only 6 points, so wtf is the deal with that? Why 6? Not 7? It doesn't make sense...

Well, hold your horses there, big fella.

Just as we divided the circle, or oneness (and nothingness), into 3, to get

1/3 = .33333333333333333
2/3 = .66666666666666666
3/3 = .99999999999999999

Well

1/7 = .142857142857142857

And, obviously, I'm not writing it all the way out, but these decimals repeat til infinity.

Now, that might not seem like anything to you, at first glance.

But do you notice anything about thise numbers?

142857

***pauses again***

Well, how bout first:

They are the six numbers between 1 and 9 that are not 3, 6, or 9 (the numbers that belong to the Law of Three).

So, among the traditional, original numbers, 1-9, there are two sets:

Those that belong to the Law of Three:

3 6 9

And those that belong to the Law of Seven:

1 4 2 8 5 7

* * *

* * * * * * (*?)

And, how about second, do you notice anything about the order of the numbers that belong to the Law of Seven?

1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 8 -> 5 -> 7

Repeating til infinity

Well, hopefully you have realized it by now, but they are the order of the hybrid types (i.e., the types of the Hexad (i.e., the types of the Law of Seven]), as they move along the Lines of Disintegration.

And 3 -> 6 -> 9 ???

Repeating ad infinitum

Along the Lines of Integration

So, with these Two Laws, we cover two of the shapes (Triangle, Hexad), two sets of numbers (369, 142857), the two Lines of Integration and Disintegration, and two of the types (pure, hybrid).

And that is just Traditional Enneagram teaching.

If you've looked hard enough, you should already have found, and know, this stuff (except maybe the pure and hybrid types).

There is nothing heretical about this.

This is Enneagram Orthodoxy.

*******

But hold up a minute...

Since when has Zarathustra been an orthodox???

Cuz the way I see it, if there really is something to the Enneagram.

If this really is a Wisdom Teaching, passed down from Ancient Babylon, from The Pythagoreans, from the Gnostic Christians, the Kabbalistic Jews, the Sufi Muslims, and many other esoteric mystic traditions, then why are we not traditionally being taught what seems patently obvious to me???

What kind of reasoning is the Enneagram based on?

Trialectic. (i.e., not Dialectic [like Jung {and Hegel, and Marx, and much of Western philosophy and thinking (mind vs body, reason vs emotion, faith vs science, rationalism vs empricism, man vs nature, heaven vs hell, god vs devil, good vs evil, hot vs cold, up vs down, black vs white, intuition vs sensing, thinking vs feeling, extroverted vs introverted, judging vs perceiving, rational vs irrational}])

And how many shapes are there in the Enneagram?

Three.

So why are we only traditionally taught TWO LAWS ???

Well, maybe they just got tired, and forgot to tell us that last one.

Or maybe they don't want it to be known.

Or maybe they want us to figure it out for ourselves.

(Or hell, maybe they did teach us the third law, and I just happened to miss that day.)

Whatever the case may be, I'm here to tell you what should already be obvious:

There are THREE LAWS, not two.

Just as there are THREE SHAPES, not two.

And, just as the THIRD SHAPE IS THE CIRCLE.

The THIRD LAW IS THE LAW OF ZERO.

Or, if you prefer, THE LAW OF ZERO AND ONE.

Because the Law of Zero represents EVERYTHING AND NOTHINGNESS.

And just as ZERO remained hidden from mankind, longer than the traditional firat numbers (1-9), so the Law of Zero has remained hidden, longer than the Law of Three and Law of Seven.

And just as 0 bookends 1 thru 9 on both sides:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

And on one side is NOTHINGESS.

And on the other side is EVERYTHING.

So does the Law of Zero represent the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, Everything and Nothingness, forever and ever, amen.

Thus spake Zarathustra.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've been reading Molina off and on over recent months... haven't finished the profiles yet. The introduction part was super interesting.

His use of the extrinsic, intrinsic and systemic also seems to replace the concept of wings and instinctual subtypes (or is a different way of viewing the same phenomena). Naranjo favored instinctual subtypes over wings, but didn't correlate triads with an instinct each (that I recall). It seems like extrinsic/heart triad is social, intrinsic/gut triad is self-preservation, and systemic/head triad is sexual. I would have guessed the gut would be sexual and the head to be self-preservation though...

Having a 4 fix, his association with 4 as extrinsic is hard for me to relate to because it sounds heavily like a social 4w3 (and an INFJ as well - more Fe than Fi), and being social last 4w5, that's the 4 I may be furthest from, although I can still identify myself in it. The 4 identity being labeled "class" feels off to me still, and I think Riso-Hudson referring to it as Significance is still closer.

I guess this is explained by the 4 subtype 4ESi, which seems like it would be the equivalent a self-pres 4 (given self-pres is connected to the gut), and I guess that would be the counter type 4 since 4 is most disconnected from the gut types, or that's the integration point we may resist.

Any clarifying comments on the instincts or am I jumping ahead?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I've been reading Molina off and on over recent months...

Oh, wow.

I wasn't expecting this.

Very cool.

You've always been one of the people whose thoughts on typology I appreciate and respect more than most any other - the seriousness of thought you give these matters is readily apparent - so I'm glad to hear, after years of light proselytization on my part, you, of all people, will be the second person in the online typology community to take up Molina's theory - I feel confident it will be well-placed in your hands.

haven't finished the profiles yet. The introduction part was super interesting.bless

Yeah, I couldn't agree more strongly on that.

Honestly, I'm not sure I ever even read all the profiles, but it was that introduction, where he introduces the Intrinsic-Extrinsic-Systemic framework of Robert S. Hartman's formal axiology, that really blew me away.

It immediately made perfect sense to me, and I started seeing connections between it, the Enneagram, the Hindu Three Gunas (Tamas-Rajas-Saatva), Taoism (Yin-Yang-Balance), Freud (Id-Ego-Superego), et al.

I was then blown away, as I got further into the book, when he brought up these exact same connections, in the exact same ways I was seeing them.

His use of the extrinsic, intrinsic and systemic also seems to replace the concept of wings and instinctual subtypes (or is a different way of viewing the same phenomena).

I wouldn't go so far as to say replace.

I would just say he presents, or focuses on, another way of looking at things.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive or anything, tho.

Naranjo favored instinctual subtypes over wings, but didn't correlate triads with an instinct each (that I recall). It seems like extrinsic/heart triad is social, intrinsic/gut triad is self-preservation, and systemic/head triad is sexual. I would have guessed the gut would be sexual and the head to be self-preservation though...

Wow

It absolutely amazes me that you saw these same connections

This is the EXACT same way I have come to think of things

Extrinsic - Heart Center - Social Instinct
Intrinsic - Gut Center - Self-Preservation Instinct
Systemic - Head Center - Sexual/Intimacy Instinct

Really makes a case for the mind being the biggest erogenous zone, right? :p

But yeah, what's really amazing is, I also thought it would be Gut = Sexual and Head = Self-Preservation

But then I came around to the same conclusion as you, that Gut = Self-Preservation and Head = Sexual

Having a 4 fix, his association with 4 as extrinsic is hard for me to relate to because it sounds heavily like a social 4w3 (and an INFJ as well - more Fe than Fi), and being social last 4w5, that's the 4 I may be furthest from, although I can still identify myself in it. The 4 identity being labeled "class" feels off to me still, and I think Riso-Hudson referring to it as Significance is still closer.

I guess this is explained by the 4 subtype 4ESi, which seems like it would be the equivalent a self-pres 4 (given self-pres is connected to the gut), and I guess that would be the counter type 4 since 4 is most disconnected from the gut types, or that's the integration point we may resist.

Well, here's the one rub:

Molina got 4s and 2s wrong.

Molina theorized that e4 is 4ES and e2 is 2EI

And that is so obviously wrong, I can't help but wonder if he did it wrong on purpose (I've actually been hoping to find his contact for the last five years or so, so I can ask him if that is indeed the case, and I just recently think I finally found it)

Enneagram 4s are just so obviously 4EI, and e2 is so obviously 2ES

So I would treat those profiles in his book accordingly

Any clarifying comments on the instincts or am I jumping ahead?

Jumping ahead a little bit, but not a problem at all, I thought your post was great

I would just add that the correlations mentioned above between the Instincts (Self-Preservational, Social, Sexual) and the Dimensions of Value (Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Systemic) do seem to exist, but are not perfectly 1:1 or anything, cuz being from one of the Centers or a Manifestation within a Center, of a particular Dimension of Value, does not mean you have to be, or are even any more likely, necessarily, to be of the Instinctual Subtype corresponding to that Dimension of Value.

Iow, while the Three Instincts seem to correspond, to some extent, to the Three Dimensions of Value, one's Instinctual Subtype is independent of the Dimension of Value of one's Center and the Dimension of Value of one's Manifestation within that Center.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Three Dimensions, Three Centers, Three Questions

Along with the Three Laws, Three Shapes, and Three Types (for those who didn't notice: I never explained what the third type was), there are also Three Dimensions of Value (Intrinsic-Extrinsic-Systemic), Three Centers (Body-Soul-Mind/Gut-Heart-Head/Instinct-Image-Thinking), and Three Questions (or Concerns, as defined by Ichazo).

The Three Dimensions (or Realms) of Value

As described above, Armando Molina uses the conceptual framework from Robert S. Hartman's formal axiology, and overlays this onto the traditional enneagram.

The primary concepts he brings over from formal axiology are the Three Dimensions (or Realms) of Value.

The Three Dimensions of Value are:

Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Systemic

Their meaning:

Intrinsic (I) - that which comes from within, is turned inward, is focused on the inner, the inside, the internal.

Extrinsic (E) - that which comes from without, is turned outward, is focused on the outer, the outside, the external.

Systemic (S) - that which is neither internal, nor external, but which is conceptual, is turned toward universal principles, focused on ideas, the ideal, that which is perfect.

(Note the similarities between the Intrinsic and Introversion, the Extrinsic and Extroversion, and the Systemic and Ambiversion. The similarities are not without meaning. They will bear themselves out later.)

Related concepts:

Intrinsic (I) - that which is inside, internal, introverted, feelings, emotions, authenticity, creativity, depth, tamas, yin, the self, the id

Extrinsic (E) - that which is outside, external, extroverted, action, wealth, status, money, fame, glory, shallow, rajas, yang, others, the ego

Systemic (S) - that which is conceptual, universal, ideal, legal, ethical, moral, codified, balanced, ambiverted, saatva, God, the superego

The Three Centers of Intelligence

The Three Centers of Intelligence of the Enneagram are:

The Gut/Body/Instinctual
The Heart/Soul/Image
The Head/Mind/Thinking

And, if it's not already obvious, the relationship between the Three Dimensions of Value and the Three Centers of Intelligence is:

Intrinsic = Gut/Body/Instinctual
Extrinsic = Heart/Soul/Image
Systemic = Head/Mind/Thinking

(note: if you're having an issue understanding how these relate, I recommend you put aside the normal definitions of those terms, and understand the meanings of those terms as used within the contexts of the Enneagram and formal axiology.)

The Three Questions (or Concerns)

Now, Oscar Ichazo, the "father of the Enneagram", originally proposed Three Questions, or Concerns, associated with each Intelligence Center.

They are:

Gut - "how am I?"
Heart - "who am I with?"
Head - "where am I?"

Now, just because Ichazo said them, doesn't mean they are perfect (I think two are better than another). But they can be helpful.

And the greatest use I see from them is that they illuminate the Concern of each Center:

Gut - the Self
Heart - the Others
Head - God (or, the Universe)

(The questions for the Gut and the Heart are the better two. The question for the Head is decent, and starts to get us to the point, but would best be followed up with a second question - "what should I do?" - to further illuminate its true concern [the relationship to fear should be obvious enough, with the first question, but its relationship to the "Fear of God" {i.e., the should, the ought, the thou shalt}, less so])

Conclusion

So, we arrive at our final construction:

Dimension - Center - Concern
Intrinsic - Gut/Body/Instinctual - Self
Extrinsic - Heart/Soul/Image - Others
Systemic - Head/Mind/Thinking - God

(note: God here need not mean the Christian God, or anything like that, but that which is Universal [like Kant's Categorical Imperative {which, of course, is just the Golden Rule stated in a Rationalist way}])
 

Starry

Active member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
6,103
Three Dimensions, Three Centers, Three Questions

Along with the Three Laws, Three Shapes, and Three Types (for those who didn't notice: I never explained what the third type was), there are also Three Dimensions of Value (Intrinsic-Extrinsic-Systemic), Three Centers (Body-Soul-Mind/Gut-Heart-Head/Instinct-Image-Thinking), and Three Questions (or Concerns, as defined by Ichazo).

The Three Dimensions (or Realms) of Value

As described above, Armando Molina uses the conceptual framework from Robert S. Hartman's formal axiology, and overlays this onto the traditional enneagram.

The primary concepts he brings over from formal axiology are the Three Dimensions (or Realms) of Value.

The Three Dimensions of Value are:

Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Systemic

Their meaning:

Intrinsic (I) - that which comes from within, is turned inward, is focused on the inner, the inside, the internal.

Extrinsic (E) - that which comes from without, is turned outward, is focused on the outer, the outside, the external.

Systemic (S) - that which is neither internal, nor external, but which is conceptual, is turned toward universal principles, focused on ideas, the ideal, that which is perfect.

(Note the similarities between the Intrinsic and Introversion, the Extrinsic and Extroversion, and the Systemic and Ambiversion. The similarities are not without meaning. They will bear themselves out later.)

Related concepts:

Intrinsic (I) - that which is inside, internal, introverted, feelings, emotions, authenticity, creativity, depth, tamas, yin, the self, the id

Extrinsic (E) - that which is outside, external, extroverted, action, wealth, status, money, fame, glory, shallow, rajas, yang, others, the ego

Systemic (S) - that which is conceptual, universal, ideal, legal, ethical, moral, codified, balanced, ambiverted, saatva, God, the superego

The Three Centers of Intelligence

The Three Centers of Intelligence of the Enneagram are:

The Gut/Body/Instinctual
The Heart/Soul/Image
The Head/Mind/Thinking

And, if it's not already obvious, the relationship between the Three Dimensions of Value and the Three Centers of Intelligence is:

Intrinsic = Gut/Body/Instinctual
Extrinsic = Heart/Soul/Image
Systemic = Head/Mind/Thinking

(note: if you're having an issue understanding how these relate, I recommend you put aside the normal definitions of those terms, and understand the meanings of those terms as used within the contexts of the Enneagram and formal axiology.)

The Three Questions (or Concerns)

Now, Oscar Ichazo, the "father of the Enneagram", originally proposed Three Questions, or Concerns, associated with each Intelligence Center.

They are:

Gut - "how am I?"
Heart - "who am I with?"
Head - "where am I?"

Now, just because Ichazo said them, doesn't mean they are perfect (I think two are better than another). But they can be helpful.

And the greatest use I see from them is that they illuminate the Concern of each Center:

Gut - the Self
Heart - the Others
Head - God (or, the Universe)

(The questions for the Gut and the Heart are the better two. The question for the Head is decent, and starts to get us to the point, but would best be followed up with a second question - "what should I do?" - to further illuminate its true concern [the relationship to fear should be obvious enough, with the first question, but its relationship to the "Fear of God" {i.e., the should, the ought, the thou shalt}, less so])

Conclusion

So, we arrive at our final construction:

Dimension - Center - Concern
Intrinsic - Gut/Body/Instinctual - Self
Extrinsic - Heart/Soul/Image - Others
Systemic - Head/Mind/Thinking - God

(note: God here need not mean the Christian God, or anything like that, but that which is Universal [like Kant's Categorical Imperative {which, of course, is just the Golden Rule stated in a Rationalist way}])


It's weird that Ichazo said the question for head types is "where am I?" I didn't know this and yet it has been a theme my entire life. My parents recall me talking about being separated from "my real family/tribe/world" long before my own memory kicked-in. To this day that feeling of separation haunts me some and yet I have always attributed it to sexual dominance. You are putting those two together for me now for the first time.

Your follow up question of "what should I do?" reminded me of this quote posted by anticlimactic...

"well there are projects for the dead and there are projects for the living.
though I must confess sometimes I get confused by that distinction.
so I just throw myself into the arms of that which would betray me.
I guess to see how far providence would stoop down just to save me."

^^I see head types do this. Go back and forth between too much fear/safety and too little.
 
Top