[Traditional Enneagram] Zarathustra's Enneagram Explorations

[Zarathustra]

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!

 

[Tilt]

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]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

Hey. 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. 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. Reading what Naranjo has to say feels like getting roasted more than anything, though Helen Palmer does seem pretty good. What do you think ?

Thanks.

Hey there,

I usually don't respond to these random pm's I get asking me about the enneagram, but you haven't asked me to help figure out your type, and your message struck me as coming from someone who is pretty intelligent, and has already done some work, so I'm going to go a different route one this one, and offer what help I can.

First off, good thing you've read Naranjo. I'm assuming it was 'Character & Neurosis', and yes, I kniw exactly what you mean by "feels like getting roasted". Still, that is one of the two best books on the enneagram, and you should consult it, cuz, while it does feel harsh, it's far more substantive than pretty much everything else out there.

Second, fuck Helen Palmer, her books suck.

Third, get 'Personality Types' by Riso & Hudson, if you don't already have it - it is much more detailed than the EI website, and is actually quite good (probably the best "introductory" book to the enneagram there is).

Fourth, get 'Our Ways: Values & Character' by Armando Molina. This is expert level, like 'Character & Neurosis', and, along with that book, is one of the two best ever written on the subject.

Most of my thinking on the enneagram is informed by this last book, as it provides (in Naranjo's words) a theoretical foundation/framework, almost rooted in mathematics/sacred geometry, completely unlike any other material out there.

Honestly, I think it's something extremely special, and makes all the other material, with the exception of Naranjo, look like child's play (random profiles without any reasoning as to why they exist, or how they are connected).

I could go into a long explication of Molina's framework, but it would probably just be best for you to get the book, and come back to me.

I have tried, in various places, to get some discussion going on his framework, but he is essentially completely unknown (I've never heard anyone mention him, other than Naranjo and myself [and I, only due to Naranjo's mention of him in the prologue/foreword (?) to C&N]), and people seem content playing with their toys, as opposed to getting into some truly rigorous thinking (i.e., mathematics/sacred geometry).

I had to buy the book from a publisher in the Netherlands for >$50, but apparently it's now available electronically on google play, or books, or something, for $5-$10, so you might want to go that route.

The key conceptual framework to learn is how the Hartman Value Inventory maps onto the Enneagram, via its concept of Realms/Dimensions of Value, which are divided into three: the Intrinsic (I), the Extrinsic (E), and the Systemic (S).

If you can get those down, we can take the next step.

Best,
Z

Oh, well great then ! I was never able to stand typology newbies that come in with no prior understanding of the system (even if it's from bits taken out of others' posts, which often carry bad stereotypes themselves) and expect to be served everything on a silver platter, I'm not about to become one just yet. Asking to be typed while skimming over the self awareness process is both self-defeating and retarded.

In any case, yup it was "Character and Neurosis", which I agree is pretty neat. I was surprised by how intelligent a man Naranjo is, first time I see someone putting the Enneagram in such an abstract framework, and he doesn't hold back on the literary references to tickle my inner pedantry. Thomas Condon seems to follow those lines to a lesser extent, but I haven't read anything by him beyond the brief excerpts available on the internet.

Hmm Molina huh ? Doesn't ring much of a bell indeed... The I/E/S Triad I'm somewhat familiar with though, and the way S is connected to the head triad, I to gut and E to heart. I remember reading Sixes being SS (double systemic if I understand it right), which explained their strong orientation towards higher ideals, justice, Truth and any abstract structures as a whole. Fuck it, I'll just Google it up.

*10 minutes later*

Dude... You're like nearly the only one talking about it at all on the internet... And you typed down the entire foundation of the system several times in some threads, with some half assed feedback in return. Why the fuck is it not getting any more attention...
I do note the fact that there are also subtypes to it, with the SSs, SSi and SSe. Would I be mistaken in associating them with Naranjo's three subtypes ? I'm not gonna ask more of you after that, at least not until familiarizing myself with Molina's book (I'll take the cheap ebook way lol), but care to make an overview of those three SS subtypes ?

I'm not sure I see the correlation between sacred geometry and a typology system... As in Molina's framework being full of pieces that work interdependantly, going full circle and covering each other in a consistent manner ?

Thanks again btw!

Oh, well great then ! I was never able to stand typology newbies that come in with no prior understanding of the system (even if it's from bits taken out of others' posts, which often carry bad stereotypes themselves) and expect to be served everything on a silver platter, I'm not about to become one just yet. Asking to be typed while skimming over the self awareness process is both self-defeating and retarded.

Exactly.

In any case, yup it was "Character and Neurosis", which I agree is pretty neat. I was surprised by how intelligent a man Naranjo is, first time I see someone putting the Enneagram in such an abstract framework,

Well, wait til you get a hold of Molina.

His approach is actually far more abstract.

I would also recommend lookimg into Gjurdieff, Ouspensky, and Ichazo.

Studying the history that led to Ichazo's theory, and the Arica School, has been invaluable.

and he doesn't hold back on the literary references to tickle my inner pedantry.

Yes, the many references (and frameworks) are one of my favorite aspects of the book.

Thomas Condon seems to follow those lines to a lesser extent, but I haven't read anything by him beyond the brief excerpts available on the internet.

Most everything I've read of Condon's, I have enjoyed, but I have not found much.

Hmm Molina huh ? Doesn't ring much of a bell indeed... The I/E/S Triad I'm somewhat familiar with though, and the way S is connected to the head triad, I to gut and E to heart. I remember reading Sixes being SS (double systemic if I understand it right), which explained their strong orientation towards higher ideals, justice, Truth and any abstract structures as a whole. Fuck it, I'll just Google it up.

*10 minutes later*

Dude... You're like nearly the only one talking about it at all on the internet... And you typed down the entire foundation of the system several times in some threads, with some half assed feedback in return. Why the fuck is it not getting any more attention...

I never pressed it full bore, and to get over the rather sizeable hump dictated by the enitrely new conceptual framework (the Hartman Value Inventory) and requisite language would have required it.

You might or might not have noticed, but I have been rather absent from this forum, and the typology community online, for the most part, for the last several years.

I found the marginal return of spending time here had fallen well below the return on my engaging in my own personal study, and I have been extremely busy with what is going on in the real world as well.

I do note the fact that there are also subtypes to it, with the SSs, SSi and SSe. Would I be mistaken in associating them with Naranjo's three subtypes ? I'm not gonna ask more of you after that, at least not until familiarizing myself with Molina's book (I'll take the cheap ebook way lol), but care to make an overview of those three SS subtypes ?

I would recommend checking out the descriptions in the book, as they are excellent, and I would simply be summarizing what he says in them.

I do recall associating them with the three subtypes Naranjo mentions, as well as with the three instinctual variants. I thought all three correlated pretty strongly.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between sacred geometry and a typology system... As in Molina's framework being full of pieces that work interdependantly, going full circle and covering each other in a consistent manner ?

I'm not an exoert (at all) on the subject, but I did take a dive into it one day, and found some really interesting stuff about how the Ancients used to look at mathematics, and it was so incredibly different to how we view things, I found it astounding and fascinating.

Think astrology vs astronomy.

But the former did both, and the latter only the latter.

I'm talking the Pythagoreans, Babylonians, ancient esoteric traditions (Kaballah, et al).

If you look at my avatar, that was actually aoparently the source of the Enneagram

Or, well, one part of it, according to Ichazo

And it relates back to the Kaballah

It's also the most astounding figure I've ever come across

Molina's discovery reveals a Balance that dictates the lines of integration/disintegartion

The whole thing ends up coming back to Balance, or Equanimity, if you will

None of that part gets covered hy Molina, tho

I've just been working it out myself over the last several years

A couple months ago, while walking the dogs, it was on my mind more than usual

And I finally think I figured it out

The ideas are the same I'd been having some years before

But, after mostly putting them aside for a couple years, upon revisitimg them, rediscoverimg the connections, casting doubt on them, and then fully realizing them, I can for the first time say with a high degree of confidence that I've come upon something legitimate

I've actually been looking for a place to expound what I have found, but I have been reluctant to make a thread, and am still very busy

Perhaps we will figure something of that sort out, tho

Thanks again btw!

No worries

 

[KingRequiem]

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]

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]

Macro vs Micro

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.

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

So, for those who would like to grapple with Molina's theory direct from source:

Here's his book, and a few places you can buy it. Unfortunately, it costs >$50 from its European publisher, Brill (formerly Rodopi), but I assure you, it's worth every penny.

We thought it might be available for $5-$10 electronically through google books, but apparently there is some kind of regional restriction on it, so you might not be able to purchase it that way.

(Don't judge a book by its terrible cover)

Our Ways | Brill
Our Ways: Values and Character (Paperback) by Armando Molina, Rem B. Edwards: Brill, Netherlands 9789042002524 Paperback - The Book Depository US
Amazon.com: Our Ways. (9789042002524): Armando Molina, Rem B. Edwards: Books

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

Most people don't know this yet, but the Enneagram is based on a 3x3 system.

And the first element has the same 3 options as the second element.

As I have explained here before, Armando Molina breaks these down according to the categories Robert S. Hartman created/discovered to ground ethics on an objective basis, which became the basis/foundation of his formal axiology, and subsequently the Hartman Value Profile.

Hartman called these three categories the Realms of Value.

They are:

Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Systemic

Or, in shorthand:

I
E
S

The first element of the 3x3 refers to the Center of Intelligence.

Thus:

The Gut is the Intrinsic (I) center
The Heart is the Extrinsic (E) center
The Head is the Systemic (S) center

Thus, we get:

8I
9I
1I

2E
3E
4E

5S
6S
7S

The second element of the 3x3 refers to each type's Manifestation within its Center.

Thus:

8IE
9II
1IS

2ES
3EE
4EI

5SI
6SS
7SE

Center (I or E or S) x Manifestation within Center (I or E or S) = 9 types

This is the fundamental underlying structure of the Enneagram.

Even Naranjo gives Molina enormous kudos for this realization.

And various applications thereof:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/62235-difference-e3-e7.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/63881-hardest-type-enneagram-4.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/61507-relation-wings-core.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneatypes/59793-type-4s-type-drawn-2.html
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...s-counter-phobic-6-clarifying-difference.html
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ts-enneagram-type-head-heels-attracted-3.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/67911-balance-applicable-enneagram.html

 

[Starry]

So, for those who would like to grapple with Molina's theory direct from source:

Here's his book, and a few places you can buy it. Unfortunately, it costs >$50 from its European publisher, Brill (formerly Rodopi), but I assure you, it's worth every penny.

We thought it might be available for $5-$10 electronically through google books, but apparently there is some kind of regional restriction on it, so you might not be able to purchase it that way.

(Don't judge a book by its terrible cover)

Our Ways | Brill
Our Ways: Values and Character (Paperback) by Armando Molina, Rem B. Edwards: Brill, Netherlands 9789042002524 Paperback - The Book Depository US
Amazon.com: Our Ways. (9789042002524): Armando Molina, Rem B. Edwards: Books

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

And various applications thereof:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/62235-difference-e3-e7.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/63881-hardest-type-enneagram-4.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/61507-relation-wings-core.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneatypes/59793-type-4s-type-drawn-2.html
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...s-counter-phobic-6-clarifying-difference.html
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ts-enneagram-type-head-heels-attracted-3.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/67911-balance-applicable-enneagram.html

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Vey good thread. Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[Starry]

Bust it Zarathustra

 

[Zarathustra]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.