i still don't think i can read what i want to mean from what i've said.
infjs focus of the goodness of the meanings that bind everything together. intjs focus on how the meanings can do specific things (by constraining what is possible more precisely). the difference between a holistic alchemist and an actual chemist. a willingness to venture even further into the unseen in order to do a broader, less refined diagnosis (a more values expansive, socially expansive one). i see plato's project as an attempt to re-balance the good, the true, and the beautiful. he gets torn to shreds in scholarship because of his essentialism and his belief in an ultimate truth. i don't think the platonic realism reading is particularly compelling. i think the neo-platonist reading seems more interesting as a way of being rather than doing, a way of understanding the recursive hierarchy of all things. it is simply an analysis of the world from the perspective of meaning, or from a communication systems perspective. the value of his project, i think, is in trying to invest one's self-expansion, one's identifications, in ways of life that feel ecologically valid, that inspire one to reach out all the way to higher and higher selfhoods. the meanings constrain how we can be together, how we can communicate, how we can live in community and recognize opportunities for beneficial communitas/shared transformational periods. this kind of responsibility and urging seems like the foundation of plato's work to me. creating conditions in terms of our knowledge/discourse/truth that inspire us to be the best we can be individually as we go down our respective paths (driven by the dialectics of life).
admittedly, this is kind of my own perspective because i've only read a bit for some rhetoric classes a ways back. i'd be more interesting in reading plotinus work "the enneads." which kind of seem to have many of the same insights of enneagrammatic theory and relate to a lot of the spiritual insights we discuss and try to codify in typology.