edited for gayness
Analyzing Enneagram Differently
edited for gayness
Last edited by strangeling; 07-20-2012 at 08:13 PM.
I'm a 5.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
This whole exercise seems to assume the point that each enneatype is an entity which forms and exists solely on its own accord without any sense of systematization behind it. Sounds like you're treating each type as some discrete chunk of personality characteristics floating around in a vacuum, with the assumed core fixations as irrelevant to the system.
If we are going to take this route, then I relate to 4 5 6 and 9 most, and to some smaller extent 8. Most assuredly not 1 or 2.
I relate to all of them to varying degrees and would have thought this was the same for all 3D humans.
It is. Not to mention that it's a principle of the enneagram theory that all types are connected and you should have a little bit of each type in you. Blahblah circles blah blah sins etc.Originally Posted by squirreltual
Yea, pretty much an exercise in futility. You must be bored lol......
edited for gayness
Last edited by strangeling; 07-20-2012 at 08:13 PM.
extreme gayness
Last edited by strangeling; 07-20-2012 at 08:13 PM.
I relate to all of the enneagram types on some level, to be honest...I definitely have all of these fixations on some level. I simply "type" myself according to the one that holds the strongest unconscious sway on my psyche, which would be 3, with a very definite 4 flavor, enacted mostly in the realms and with goals pertaining to the sexual variant.
I will say that I don't really relate to the typical flavors of manifestation of other types when they are in the dominant form. It seems to me that a dominant fixation is so deeply entrenched in the psyche that even when it doesn't overtly drive the main ambitions or day to day lives of the person, it is working deep in the cracks of their personality, which gives each type in this position a very distinct appearance, simply because of the far recesses of the psyche to which it has penetrated. That is how I discern what I see as a "dominant" fixation in others: the level of minute salience of the fixation, which betrays how long it has had to sink in, and its level of unconscious vigilance.
Last edited by Gilly; 07-09-2012 at 03:22 PM.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
This just sounds like an idle semantics game to me. What do you accomplish by doing this?
Who argues this and why?
I've got a better method. Shove a stick up your arse to get your E-type.
pts'hhhhhgzvs'gharephgnsxcvmn
I could say I don't relate highly to 3 but this is just for the current moment (and a lie I've used for an example). Obviously there's a deeper and more permanent focus on one particular type (and tritype if you're that way inclined). But it is my belief that a person will have to address every one of the 9 points during their life, ideally, unless they get stuck (i.e. all the E points become more highly relatable at certain stages); although not necessarily in a particular order and perhaps multiple times.
So yes, differentiation via l'enneagram may be helpful for direction in the short term. But the system you are proposing seems all fur coat and no knickers.
With all due respect, I'm not proposing a system, I'm proposing a different kind of meaning. Secondly, if you think everyone has to address all 9 points during their life, then you have a problem with enneagram itself. Thirdly, you're knocking this approach for meaning before even seeing what it might produce.And lastly, I'm asking people to entertain the idea of meaning without having to accept it - quite different from me proposing something that I want you to accept or even think you should accept.
Dude, I'm suggesting another kind of meaning I've explained explicitly. I don't care if you think my approach to describing the types is too minimalist/general and therefore not enneagram or not up to your standards of what you believe in the enneagram; if you want me to care, then pay me for the amount of time I'd have to invest in making walls of text up to your standards. And I'm not asking you to even approach this meaning the way I did/do. My opinion/example was/is just to get this started for people that prefer to be given some kind of direction.
And why are you even playing 'thought police' with me? Why exactly do you feel it is even right to do that to people? What do you accomplish by doing this?
And why would you even ask me that? I obviously don't have a list of people I've asked that directly to. You know that, but it doesn't mean there aren't people that have thought in such a way as to imply it. And even arguing about this is a red herring.Who argues this and why?
Oh just fuck it. This is boring. Fuck you guys and your petty bullshit.
Don't let Gaylen get to you, he's gone now
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Deep breath, pass gas, and emit laser beams -- in that order. Then, aim laser beams at said baddies for not being considerate of your thought.
I just want to understand what you find yourself learning by taking this approach on the subject. You may have misunderstood my question; I wasn't asking what you accomplish by playing semantics games, rather what you aim to achieve by looking at the system through this lens.
"Some would argue" doesn't provide any credibility to your argument without any sort of explanation of who is saying what; it's just a strawman at this point.
A better exercise would be interpreting different people's enneagrams in the context of IEs. Does one person's enneagram feature more emphasis on a particular IE than another person's? Enneagram is not objective, only subjective, and always will be. It's the psychology rebel's personality schema.
I'm 5, I have a question..Is it possible if the tritype and other similar tritype match and shared a bit of traits each other? An example, 458, 584 and 548?
Another question, is about socionic. Is it possible if the description of male and female almost same? They write ''he'', but could it be it means ''she'' as well?
Yes to both. Think of tritypes as fundamentally the same with a different emphasis. As for gender differences? They're not as important as you think.
Easy Day
Thanks for the info.
Reply With Quote
