Archetypal Stackings

[Pallas]

This is all based on personal observation, and will probably drive a lot of people up the wall due to being unconventional. This more or less removes all the obscurantism and focus on irrelevant details from the concept of instinct stackings and makes it easy to quickly and uncontroversially type people, at the expense of removing almost any relationship to the original idea of "instincts" at all (hence the name "Archetypal Stackings"). These are not the "Wheel of Saṃsāra" archetypes at all, or the common ones listen on any site that I've seen, but chosen based on personal observation and an attempt at actually making them easily-understood.

The "instincts" themselves seem most easily defined as:

So - position
Sx - influence
Sp - stability

Now, onto the archetypes:


Gods - So/Sx (position through influence):



The gods live in realms like Mount Olympus that are quite removed from the affairs of mortals. They consume their ambrosia and golden apples with scarcely a care for what is going on in the world. Mortals pray and give them offerings, but they could scarcely care about the mortals themselves. They are known for being incredibly fickle, even in their relationships with each other - think of all the wild and ever-changing divine love affairs in Greek mythology.

In the normal world, these are the typical administrators and moderators, the "popular kids" in schools, flighty socialites, and disconnected businessmen and politicians. Obviously, their fault is being disconnected from normal affairs and using Sx/Sp "monsters" to do their dirty work.

Monsters - Sx/Sp (influence through stability):



Dragons, rocs, minotaurs, cyclops, hydras, leviathans - they are essentially forces of nature, and largely work to the will of the gods. Zeus could have little effect without his eagle, Thor without his goats, Diana without her stags, Odin without his ravens, Freya without her boars. The gods are raw position, and the monsters raw power.

In the normal world, these are the enforcers, "bullies" in the sense "blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing people who habitually badger and intimidates smaller or weaker people" rather than "sadists", procurers in every sense of the word, and the "bad cops" in "good cop/bad cop" duos (or groups) with So/Sx "gods" as the "good cop".

Commoners - Sp/So (stability through position):



These are just ordinary mortals, peasants and farmers as well as scholars, craftsmen, and merchants who just want to go about their business. These are the hobbits in Lord of the Rings, and most humans as well.

In the normal world, these are just typical club members, forumites, and ordinary citizens focused on engaging in ordinary (and sometimes not ordinary) activites. They tend to be the most stable influence and reasonable, and have tremendous influence through numbers and their universal recognition as being stable influences, generally playing a jury-type role in conflicts (often with some Sp/Sx in the jury as well).

Heroes - Sx/So (influence through position):



Heroes are typically demigods, and have superhuman abilities such as strength, cunning, speed, invincibility, sometimes even getting into outright magic like invisibility and powers over the elements. A hero might appear as a commoner if there is no apparent trouble, or else go out to live in the wilderness or unknown regions. This category includes antiheroes as well, and even the most traditional heroes have somewhat of a tendency to throw their weight around. This archetype is characterized by instability, since whatever tremendous power they wield is just as likely to be turned back on them, dying in a battle or due to murder, if their downfall is not their own self-undoing. They never have any real stability in terms of their position (think of the wandering adventurer) or their influence (usually, a King has to act to stabilize the changes they try to bring about, and the Commoners have to accept it).

The advantage of Sx/So "heroes" is, of course, their tremendous personal power, that easily equals that of the Sx/Sp "monsters" and can challenge and even sometimes take down the "gods". The disadvantage is that they tend to be somewhat "free radicals" no matter how disciplined and in control of themselves they are, as has been outlined above, and Sx/So "heroes" and Sx/Sp "monsters" are more or less perpetual enemies by nature no matter how much they try to make peace. Although this relationship largely exists between all archetypal roles that share the same first element (So/Sp "Kings" and So/Sx "Gods" are adversarial, as are Sp/So "Commoners" and Sp/Sx "Fae"), coexistence in these relationships is often trivial due to the fact that being unstoppable forces in perpetual conflict and on the brink of destruction is not the nature of these archetypes. Sx/So "heroes", despite their tremendous personal power, seldom ever get formal power due to their unstable influence and position, instead tending to act as the perpetual challenger. If So/Sx are the "good cops", Sx/Sp the "bad cops" and executioners, and Sp/So the jury, Sx/So are the lawyers, attorneys, and advocates.

Kings - So/Sp (position through stability):



Kings tend to have divine ancestry, but not typically divine parentage. They bring stability out of chaos in an active role, in contrast to the passive being stability of the gods, and their connection to and sympathy with the common people gains them admiration. They cannot truly cause change themselves despite their stabilizing influence, and often seek out heroes to do these roles, slay monsters, and keep the wrath of the gods at bay.

In the normal world, these are typically lower administrators, having irregular positions more often than So/Sx types (who typically have regular positions) or respected community members. They form duos with Sx/So to challenge So/Sx in the same way So/Sx forms duos with Sx/Sp to enforce their will. So/Sp members tend to be the most generally well-liked since they have considerable influence, are more "in touch" with people in general than So/Sx (who have power through convoluted politics more than anything) and are less out of control than Sx/So. In a legal situation, these people are the judges.

Fae - Sp/Sx (stability through influence):



Faeries, nymphs, sirens, fauns, satyrs, elves, dwarves, trolls, goblins, yotuns, djinn, kitsune, and all manner of nature spirits and other spiritual creatures fall into this category. Like the gods, they are largely uninvolved in the mortal world, but they are more of a stable fixture that constitutes it rather than fickle entities lying above it. They tend to wield a considerable amount of power, but largely only use it out of boredom or reasons that no one can quite discern.

In the normal world, these are loners, mercenaries, forum trolls, aesthetes, libertines, recluses and ascetics. Their problem is a tendency to get disconnected from the wider world in terms of pursuing their own selfish motives, and thus not contributing their often-needed Sp-stabilized secondary Sx to situations. In a legal situation, these people are those presenting testimonies on either side.



Advantages and disadvantages of individual "instincts":

So: So is about position, and naturally So-first types will go into the highest positions in a system as if they were falling upwards. The disadvantage to So is separation (despite it generally being considered "social instinct" implying that it's geared towards social interaction itself) when one manages one's position in such a way it gets out of whack. The aristocrats in the French revolution cried "Let them eat cake!" before their heads were chopped off with the guillotine.

Sx: Sx is raw individual influence, and Sx-first types are essentially unstoppable - although in directions they would prefer not to go just as much as ones they would prefer to go in. Just as they wield the power to quite possibly bring anyone else down at any time, anyone else could just as easily turn that back against them, and they are constantly alive on the edge. Dragons horde gold for centuries only to be slain, and the hero that comes to slay them seldom dies in old age, usually meeting a violent end. Sx-first is a perpetual dance of death which can never be truly escaped, only moved away from.

Sp: Sp is stability, and as such Sp-first types can relax far more than the other two types generally. However, things can very easily turn into stagnation and even decay quite easily in Sp, such as when the local dragon or the plague falls upon the village, although such terrors are incidental, rare, and generally predictable.


The actual enneatypes, tritypes, etc. more or less just adds a "type" or "sphere of influence" to these 6 roles, which in mythology and folklore are things like god of the underworld, trickster hero, etc.

[niffer]

cool as hell even if potentially inaccurate

[Pallas]

cool as hell even if potentially inaccurate

Thanks! I said it's based on personal observation, so maybe it can be a different typology system if it doesn't quite align.

[niffer]

@Wyrd Pondering this more, it makes an incredible amount of sense to me. Possibly the best work on typology I've ever read online, in my opinion. Thank you for this. You are godly.


Based on this alone I'm much more confident in being able to narrow my stacking down to either Sx/sp or Sx/so.

[Jarno]

This is all based on personal observation...

pretty much spot on! I like the pictures a lot too!

[niffer]

@Wyrd I hope you find some way to capitalize on this

[Pallas]

@Wyrd I hope you find some way to capitalize on this

I'll try. It should be protected from other people capitalizing on it since there's proof it's my idea, but I could go into more detail and theory somehow and sell that. The prose is just Strati-ish at this point, some mix of overblown and unclear, so that'll definitely need work.

@Jarno - Thanks.

[Chae]

1000% Chae approved, this is dope

[Tigerfadder]

this is almost as poetic as genius, So -> position and Sx -> influence.

[maniac]

You define sx as 8ish and um sx is not 8-like. In fact, sx is anything but 8-like. 8=armored, guarded, sx=vulnerable, setting up self for death.

[Jarno]

...

I have a question.

According to this story So/Sp and Sx/So go well together, just like the stacking flow would predict.

But how about So/Sp and Sp/Sx? And Sp/Sx and Sx/So? They should also go well together according to stacking flows. I don't see that in your story. What are your thoughts about those connections?

[niffer]

@Ghost You created the non-existent E8 association yourself. But if you want to play, E8s are actually both guarded and vulnerable at the same time.

[maniac]

@Ghost You created the non-existent E8 association yourself. But if you want to play, E8s are actually both guarded and vulnerable at the same time.

They are not vulnerable, since their Fear is to be vulnerable. They deny their vulnerability and sensitivity's existence. Sx and 8 is a big contradiction that way.

• Basic Fear: Of being harmed or controlled by others
• Basic Desire: To protect themselves (to be in control of their own life
  and destiny)

[niffer]

They are not vulnerable, since their Fear is to be vulnerable. Sx and 8 is a big contradiction that way.

Why would a type be afraid of something that would be impossible for them to become? The 8 path to enlightenment involves integrating self-assertion with vulnerability. In other words this guardedness and vulnerability are two sides of the same coin, and they need to balance them. Also, what on earth do you think that guardedness and strength could possibly be protecting? Hmm? More endless layers of bricks and steel? No. Vulnerability.

https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/types/the-protector/

Life lesson

To harness the life force in productive ways, integrating self-assertion with vulnerability

[maniac]

Why would a type be afraid of something that would be impossible for them to become? The 8 path to enlightenment involves integrating self-assertion with vulnerability. In other words this guardedness and vulnerability are two sides of the same coin, and they need to balance them. Also, what on earth do you think that guardedness and strength could possibly be protecting? Hmm? More endless layers of bricks and steel? No. Vulnerability.

https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/types/the-protector/

Yes. And what I'm saying is this has no relation to the sx instinct, and is rather the opposite.

OP wrote this on sx/sp:

In the normal world, these are the enforcers, "bullies" in the sense "blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing people who habitually badger and intimidates smaller or weaker people"

Which has nothing to do with the stacking sx/sp but, 8. Sx/sp is the 4ish masochistic stacking. Which the bhavacakra ones explains very well:

They are described as human-like, but with sunken, mummified skin, narrow limbs, enormously distended bellies and long, thin necks. This appearance is a metaphor for their mental situation: they have enormous appetites, signified by their gigantic bellies, but a very limited ability to satisfy those appetites, symbolized by their slender necks.

Pretas are often depicted in Japanese art (particularly that from the Heian period) as emaciated human beings with bulging stomachs and inhumanly small mouths and throats. They are frequently shown licking up spilled water in temples or accompanied by demons representing their personal agony. Otherwise they may be shown as balls of smoke or fire.
Pretas dwell in the waste and desert places of the earth, and vary in situation according to their past karma. Some of them can eat a little, but find it very difficult to find food or drink. Others can find food and drink, but find it very difficult to swallow. Others find that the food they eat seems to burst into flames as they swallow it. Others see something edible or drinkable and desire it but it withers or dries up before their eyes. As a result, they are always hungry.
In addition to hunger, pretas suffer from immoderate heat and cold; they find that even the moon scorches them in the summer, while the sun freezes them in the winter.

[niffer]

Yes. And what I'm saying is this has no relation to the sx instinct, and is rather the opposite.

No, you said this actually in your very first post here:

sx=vulnerable

And I just described to you how 8 can be vulnerable like sx, and you connected her description yourself by calling it 8-like.

Do you have any proof that sx/sp has an association with 4 or necessarily an anti-association with 8, or is all you have associations that you've made up yourself?

[maniac]

No, you said this actually in your very first post here:

How is that relating it to 8? Every type has a vulnerability, but 8s push it down the most. Which makes sx and 8 furthest apart.

And I just described to you how 8 can be vulnerable like sx, and you connected her description yourself by calling it 8-like.

Do you have any proof that sx/sp has an association with 4 or necessarily an anti-association with 8, or is all you have associations that you've made up yourself?

8s standard is to NOT be vulnerable at all. Enneagram experts association and my own. Sx=risking death + soc last=lack of light and wholesomeness, do the math.
There is no "proof" in enneagram and spirituality, lol.

sp/so=8
so/sp=1
sx/sp=4
sp/sx=5
so/sx=7
sx/so=2

sp=6
sx=9
so=3

[niffer]

There's nothing more I need to say. Carry on with reasoning yourself in circles in your gimp corner, like the Inception top that never stops spinning. I've done my job setting you up with your first twirl.

[maniac]

Lol. Keep living in a typology delusion.

[Pallas]

There is no "proof" in enneagram and spirituality, lol.

Well, the whole point of this idea is to make enneagram into more of an actual typology and less of a purely spiritual thing that's so removed from the actual world that people who would have in their description "believes deeply that chaos and disorder are the truest expressions of life and would disrupt harmony wherever it is found" get typed as core 9s. Yes, what you highlighted is 8-ish, but that isn't the entirety of the description either, even if it as a whole isn't particularly well-written. I also very much said that Sx tends to risk death, since their just going after what they want opens them up to both self-undoing and being attacked and/or manipulated by others. By your definitions, the So-first types would also be 8-ish since they're focused on their status (regardless of whether or not people actually think well of them in the E3 = being admired, approved, accepted sense). Enneagram also isn't supposed to have 1-to-1 correlations between stackings and types or else one or the other system is redundant.

And as I said, this whole system I made was based on personal observation, which consisted of 1. watching how people interact in real life (often in conflicts) 2. watching how people interact in forums, chatrooms, etc. and 3. referencing mythology, folklore, literature, going on into pulp fiction, Hollywood films, TV shows, and the abyss of amateur role-playing and fanfiction, and then looking for commonalities and patterns in people's motivations and behaviors. Most of the "enneagram experts" seem to be using completely theoretical information that's passed down from other "enneagram experts" and that gets distorted over time, and the theory is rather interesting, but as I said in the last paragraph, doesn't seem to really correlate to real life (and "there is no 'proof'" more or less means "this doesn't exist". Information that's accessed intuitively at first tends to be verifiable by other means later).

On a wider note of the sort of "Weltanschauung" being different schools of typology, I would actually classify this site (and much of enneagram in general) as very typical occultism. "Occultism" doesn't mean summoning demons and worshipping Satan and Moloch and the various devils of the week (although there are definitely groups that lean that way) so much as "special knowledge that only the initiated can access", and then the fact that it tends to be presented as spiritual and used to gain power or privilege over others are the connotative parts of the definition that separate it from wider esotericism (which is generally spiritual or presented as such, but not necessarily aimed at power or privilege) or obscurantism (which is the obscuring of any sort of knowledge for the "elite few" regardless of the type of knowledge, presentation, or purposes of it, which is a wider category encompassing both of the former views. Of course, there are also different definitions for terms like esotericism and obscurantism that aren't quite the same, which is well-summarized in this article). As part of my worldview, I oppose the restriction of the dissemination of knowledge on principle, and think that it should be free for anyone who wants it (well, scientific, philosophical, etc. knowledge, not things like people's diary entries and bank PINs). Of course, this comes from a sort of view that the individual should have the freedom and power to determine their own life and destiny common to both Romanticism and the Enlightenment (regardless of the stereotype of these movements being in opposite to each other in every single way), which the opposition to is that most people aren't good enough to have control over their own lives and need the elite few to control them, i.e. authoritarianism (this is basically the original meaning of "left and right" in politics as well if you look at the French Revolution origin of the term, and it's how I would prefer to use the terms if it weren't generally used to mean pro- and anti-capitalist). It's also quite clear from these enneagram sites and many occult groups in general that they support authoritarian worldviews, with "humans aren't good enough so aliens had to build the pyramids with UFOs, so let us now submit to our enlightened alien overlords" and all that, as well as the general hierarchies and attitudes they exhibit if only you look for them. And you can see my attitude just with my choice for mythical metaphors where we are heroes, monsters, faeries, Hobbits, etc. rather than the "we must escape the wheel of Samsaara" metaphor. So this is a very fundamental conflict of worldviews. What determines whether the anti-authoritarians or the authoritarians win tends to mostly come down to chance, since in this case knowledge that is easily understood tends to spread freely, while these occult groups often don't tend to learn all of their own doctrine completely and it becomes distorted over time until the original teachings are lost and only the bells and whistles are left, which alienates most everyone, while on the other hand authoritarians tend to have more power on the level of doing things, which includes suppressing knowledge.

[Chae]

[Pallas]

What I said would happen happened and someone was driven up the wall, then I presented a deconstruction of the underlying worldviews of the different parties involved that doesn't make sense unless you've really examined them (and know that the linked site is Ghost's pet site).

[Jarno]

.

I have a question.

According to your story So/Sp and Sx/So go well together, just like the stacking flow predict.

But how about the rest of the stacking flow, So/Sp and Sp/Sx for example and Sp/Sx and Sx/So? They should also go well together according to stacking flows. I don't see that in your story. What are your thoughts about those connections? How are they related.

[Samson]

Beautiful explanations that match up with my experiences as well. This is great!

[Pallas]

I have a question.

According to your story So/Sp and Sx/So go well together, just like the stacking flow predict.

But how about the rest of the stacking flow, So/Sp and Sp/Sx for example and Sp/Sx and Sx/So? They should also go well together according to stacking flows. I don't see that in your story. What are your thoughts about those connections? How are they related.

I don't the stacking flow concept really has the entire picture. The synflow "stacking flow" works to maintain dynamics that are already there, and the contraflow one works to change them and introduce new ones, but I don't see compatibility as entirely relating to the stacking flows. The whole concept of "stacking flows", at least the normal conception, essentially treats the two "flows" as mirror-image topological loops. I don't think that's accurate, since the nature of the instincts themselves seems to already include asymmetries, but I can't say anything more than that. Now, in addition to having to work on the "main" parts of enneagram and possibly do some experiments with statistics instead of just case studies, I might have to do topology (which is what it seems like enneagram really is anyways). Yay. In the same way that "IEs don't exist" (in the sense that if you have the + and - IEs, which are process and results, they imply specific relationships to all the other IEs), enneatypes might not exist either.

There is also potentially a direct relationship between Sx and E8 (and the other instincts and other centers). It's accepted as matter of course that Sx correlates to assertive, So to compliant, and Sp to withdrawn. I would also say Sx definitely correlates to reactive, and So seems to correlate to solutions-seeking (since it's the most focused on political issues, intellectual topics, other people's problems, etc.) and Sp to positive-outlook (since they want stability and to just survive and enjoy life, which seems like the sort of "avoid negative things" in various aspects found in 2, 7, and 9). The assertive, reactive type is E8, the compliant, solutions-seeking type is E1, and the withdrawn, positive-outlook type is E9, so the instincts would actually line up nicely with the gut triad in this case, even if they don't imply that the person has that type in their gut center. The secondary instincts have to be a bit contorted to line up with wings (for example, 8w9 would be Sx/Sp, which would leave 8w7 as Sx/So, but E7 is an assertive, positive-outlook type which doesn't line up with So at all), which makes me think that these are most likely separate things.

[Jarno]

So to compliant

Thanks for your long answer. Though I spotted something I cannot relate to, So doesn't seem compliant to me, usually they are delegaters, a bit annoying even. They like to tell others what is good, and what to do. Most of the time it's useful but sometimes annoying. Just the way I personally see it...

[Pallas]

Thanks for your long answer. Though I spotted something I cannot relate to, So doesn't seem compliant to me, usually they are delegaters, a bit annoying even. They like to tell others what is good, and what to do. Most of the time it's useful but sometimes annoying. Just the way I personally see it...

That is what any site I've seen that has anything to say on the topic says though. I think really just "compliant" isn't the best name for what it's describing, especially considering the three compliant types are 2, 6, and 1, and those types don't necessarily comply with other people at all.

On the same topic, I did figure out the basic enneatypes from one perspective, although I should probably be careful how in-depth I go here if I intend to make money off of this (which seems easy enough). Head/heart/gut x withdrawn/assertive/compliant seems like the most basic way to categorize and recognize them really, but the names don't seem to really be describing what they are in anything resembling plain English. "Fix(ation)" (which, as a side-note, I always thought made it sound like "crucifix", especially with the term "trifix" and the three crosses on the hill in the Gospels) also doesn't seem like the best way to describe what's going on but that part is part of what seems unclear to me. It seems like the enneagram types are better represented as something being blocked or excluded (which unfortunately supports the enneagram-as-topology idea by potentially representing discontinuities), but most of the way people discuss them metaphorically actually points to that anyways ("excluded middle" for E6, "alien" = outsider for E4, everything in enneagram being "harmonics" which relate to something blocking a point physically in harmonics, "blindspot" for the tritypes, etc. It's so pervasive but people don't seem to connect the dots).

I also sketched a picture based on the sort of dynamics I tried to describe in the original post. Despite being able to describe it in great detail, I still don't know what it is or exactly where I got it from, which perpetually frustrates me. Intuition is fun. I did notice some more dynamics from the picture though, like the reversed stackings forming some sort of actual polar opposition (which is very pronounced in the So/Sp Sp/So relationship, and subtler in the other types, although even the in my opinion inaccurate Star of David/Seal of Solomon diagram hints at that), a somewhat jarring paradox in Sx/Sp, and some sort of weird limit on what I see as mobility in Sx-second types. What I saw as the vertical position order of the 6 stacks (which is represented in the original post if you place synflow and contraflow horizontally, and I did that intentionally), the tendency of Sp-first types to not necessarily fit into the "flows" readily at all, and the atomization of Sp/Sx, which I noticed before, are pretty easy to visualize.

This is the diagram I'm referring to:



And as I said before, I don't think it's really accurate, since it seems to include things that aren't really there, and to the extent that it portrays things that are accurate, it leaves out far more than it portrays. I think it's just there since it's an archetypal symbol, so people seeing it will be like "wow!", but it's not the right archetypal symbol. I might just post my attempt at a diagram for contrast, even though the sketch I have is not super elegant and shows places where I've erased (in addition to my not knowing exactly what it is or where it comes from that's fun in itself). It doesn't form any obviously visible archetypal symbols but I think it would easily have more than one if I got it more refined.

[Tigerfadder]

Some when telling about an event for example leave out details about the position. Can that mean that So is disvalued? In a general sense of stories.

[Aylen]

On the same topic, I did figure out the basic enneatypes from one perspective, although I should probably be careful how in-depth I go here if I intend to make money off of this (which seems easy enough).

No, making money on something like this will not be easy. Stay in school or go back to school. Making money on something like this is not going to pay your bills. I am not trying to be mean. I think you should continue your explorations but it is way too early to be thinking about making money on something that is not yet cohesive. It would be good if you can give some examples of what you have observed and show a real pattern. I am sure most of the people making money on it have invested quite a bit of time and research. Your other option is to just write a novel and renaming the instincts like other enneagram authors have done.

If you are worried about someone stealing ideas. It may happen or it just might be that someone else has the same idea as you. As you already know, I mentioned making a mythological series on the instincts on discord and the forum, now I see you did it. I am glad someone did since for me it was a passing idea and what I have so far is different from what you have. I don't want to make money on it though so you have nothing to worry about. It is just for fun.

I think this is a good summary of the history of instincts. Katherine has done her research and so has enneasite.com guy.

http://www.enneagram.net/instsub.html

Good luck

[Pallas]

I didn't think it'd completely pay my bills, just that it'd help. And some people live off of blogs anyways (although it's rare) so at the least it could be fairly significant. But in any case, I don't think what I have so far would be sufficient to make money off of (no matter how little) or for someone else to steal.

Anyways, here's my doodle (I did it while I was bored, tired and didn't have the proper supplies, or even what would be considered "normal" to have on hand, hence the colors). The top was done a significant time before the bottom one. I apologize that this scanned really poorly and no editing I can do now can fix it.

Stacking diagrams 2.jpg

The bottom one might look superficially "the same" as the thing I posted earlier that I said was wrong, but if you really look it it's very structurally different even if the geometric symbol looks basically the same (I'll have to resist making any jokes about projecting now since that'd be the worst pun ever made on the site, but the fact that it is something else projected and I can perceive that rather clearly makes me mentally cringe when I think that some people will inevitably think this is an arbitrary re-drawing of the other diagram). I know intuitively what these are (they're actually two views of the same structure containing complementary information) but can't describe it as rigorously as I'd like yet (and should probably not work too hard at it for the time being). Most of the people who would be actually interested in this (it gets technical fast even without high levels of rigor) seem to avoid the enneagram section like the plague for a lot of obvious reasons so I don't think many people who would care will see this for a while. I still find this to be one of the most conceptually interesting things I've found myself though, but why would generally give me a lot of funny looks at this point. The first one could be a bit more elegantly drawn but meh.

[Grendel]

It's true - shoehorning all this spiritual crap into the rough equivalent of the alchemy of psychology just muddies the waters and keeps the field mired in useless navel-gazing. It was alchemists who discovered many of what we now know as chemical combinations, and it was the trade of mixing and splitting substances that outlived alchemy, not the pursuit-of-God's-mind spiritual bullshit.

[Pallas]

As much as this seems contradictory, this is pretty much why I put the whole Grecian Urn thing in my signature when I first joined this site. A lot of people reading those two lines are like "Wait, what? That's obviously wrong! Beauty isn't truth!" but it's the fact that it goes both ways that makes it an actually meaningful maxim and not just a poetic expression of wishful thinking. If truth is beauty, then you look for what's true regardless of what you'd like to be true, and if beauty is truth, then you recognize what is beautiful (even if imperfectly) as true (even if imperfectly, since beauty = truth, the amount of beauty and the amount of truth aren't going to be different. If you don't like something, you're not thinking about it correctly). And the original enneagram system is just not remotely conceptually beautiful. From my Devil's Dictionary (which I update off and on):

E1: 1. morally upstanding 2. painfully moralistic
E2: 1. helpful 2. a narcissistic parent
E3: 1. highly successful 2. a mindless conformist
E4: 1. deep, imaginative, intuitive, and emotionally in-tune 2. self-loathingly melodramatic
E5: 1. smart 2. dorky
E6: 1. banal 2. knows how to survive in the real world
E7: 1. Indiana Jones 2. a naïve optimist
E8: 1. invincible and super-strong 2. mean
E9: 1. spiritually enlightened 2. a member of Hufflepuff
So-first: 1. mindless conformist 2. aware of the real world
So-last: 1. unique 2. out of tune with the real world
Sx-first: 1. codependent 2. the Most Interesting Wo/Man in the World
Sx-last: 1. possessing no desires of one's own 2. independent
Sp-first: 1. excessively focused on the details of one's physical conditions 2. mature and grounded
Sp-last: 1. a perpetual child without a sense of responsibility 2. not excessively focused on the details of one's physical conditions
synflow: normal and acceptable
contraflow: (often spelled in the variations "kontraflo", "kontrafloh", and "kontraflow") anti-social and weird

Why those things? You can't just declare that they have to be so by fiat any more than you can square the circle by fiat (I'm sure this is a lot of why the very Ti-focused socionist people of the forum tend to ignore or laugh off enneagram), and the definitions seem excessively upper-middle-class Baby Boomer-oriented generally, which makes sense considering who most of the Internet "researchers" are, but that's even worse than doing basically all of psychology based on American university students. Most people don't and don't like to think in sort of "universal" mindsets at all, due to basically (and largely unconscious) xenophobic tendencies, and that stops you from doing any real research on universal ideas, since you're scared to think. So basically a bunch of upper-middle-class Baby Boomers appropriated some old ideas that Gurdjieff appropriated from Sufi mystics to say "this is mathematical and rigorous!" to try to tap into rising science after the cultural death of God to make cults and pocketbooks, and then tied this into narcissism ("I want to know about me! I also want to know more about other people than they do,") and laziness ("...but I don't want to introspect or look at what makes other people tick, too much work, yawn"). So the "spiritual navel-gazing" comes in from the fact that it's largely used as a cult of self. But the basic idea is kind of mathematically cool and does intuitively match up to things that actually pretty much exactly match up to descriptions to the extent that you remove the contortions on the system by people trying to exploit it, so it ought to be saved. Especially since it's fairly simple to save it intellectually, and politically after that, considering the minority of upper-middle-class Baby Boomers compared to the general population.

I should probably just post everything here, since the chance to meaningfully capitalize on this for the time being is basically null and won't be harmed by my posting. Anyone who would steal this idea doesn't want to.

[Pallas]

Anyways, here's my basic information on the structure of enneagram proper so far:

As I said before, the types are basically discontinuities where something is missing rather than fixations to something that is actually there. Also, as I said before, what seems to be the basic way to identify them so far (whether or not this is actually the cause of them, this is the cause of the apparent aspects of them) is basically cognitive, affective, and conative in psychology, also known as thinking, feeling, and acting, which is pretty intuitive (head, heart, and gut centers, respectively) and what determines the actual apparent behaviors in each one is basically the nature of the discontinuity, which is described as "withdrawn, compliant, assertive" (I think these are rather poor descriptors in terms of their typical associations though).
Withdrawn is 4, 5, and 9, and I noticed a long time ago that each of them has a strong tendency to dissociation, but in rather different ways ("dissociation" in the dissociative identity sense pretty much just is E9, but less stereotypical forms are actually what creates the behaviors in the other two as well). The withdrawn types cut off access to the outside world (keep in mind all of these descriptions actually more or less rely on no one being a pure type) and there is an internal split (which is the dissociation: thinking of oneself as both subject and object, introducing a "meta" element and from there depths, also a tendency to just get lost in those depths). The compliant types are essentially the inverse of the withdrawn types (although based on the names, people would assume that the assertive types are, and this is incorrect), where internal access is cut off and there is an external split (evaluating one thing in the outside world against another, and aligning yourself with it out of compulsion, since you don't have internal access). The assertive types see the internal as uniform and the external as also uniform, so the conflict is in the relation between the person and the outside world, but the person is always held as the good and essentially tries to conquer the world so to speak. The withdrawn and assertive types have in common an "individualistic" orientation valuing the person over the outside world, the assertive and compliant in having an "extravert" orientation in how the individual interacts with the world, and the withdrawn and compliant in having an "introvert" orientation in focusing on the influence of the world on the individual (and from the essentially contradictory descriptions of all 3 groups, the types not in isolation, like in tritypes and wings, never mind instinct stackings, turn into something rather different in behavior than hypothetical isolated types. This is why I think the "types" and "fixes", the latter term which needs to be done away with due to connotations, should be thought of more like morphological characteristics than the colors of bird's feathers, while generally nowadays people are typed very much due to feather-color. I know that article will generally not be well-understood subject-matter-wise but I've never seen the same kind of point brought up elsewhere).

Now, for how these apply to the three centers (which is much more easily-researchable in terms of what they stand for, since they're fairly mainstream in psychology already):

In the heart center, 2 is the compliant type. This manifests by seeing feelings as happening entirely "outside" in how people relate to each other, so the person tries to relate to other people as best as possible, often to the exclusion of themselves, since the compliant types exclude the internal. The assertive type is 3, so they see how they feel as being based on their individual relation to the world, and that drives the going after success, status, admiration, etc. in E3. The withdrawn type is 4, and this is basically meta-feeling that is cut off from the world, so they can decide that they feel good about their despair, or conversely, like in the words of Franz Kafka, "unbearably happy", and this creates the "angstiness", even if E4 isn't actually more "depressed" and unhealthy than any other type (they just have feelings-about-feelings that other types don't so they only focus on what they see as the surface manifestation of this. The downside to depth is that you can easily drown in it, and this goes for all withdrawn types in different ways).

In the head center, E5 is the withdrawn type, so it is basically meta-cognition and thinking about thinking that is cut off from the outside world. This is good since you can handle problems internally before you have to deal with them in the outside world, but the "drowning in the depths" in E5 is that it just decides external problems are no big deal and intellectualizes them to the point of "analysis paralysis" and indifference (since they tend to become more of an object of curiosity than a real issue relating to yourself. This is the "dissociation" in E5, that you are excluded from your problems at least momentarily). E6 doesn't have access to their internal thoughts, so the problems are seen as one thing in the outside world vs. another. All of the problems being real and in the outside world leads to paranoia in the unhealthy levels, and the conflict being seen as completely external leads to the looking for loyalty and an actual ability to not align yourself with something (since you don't have internal access to withdraw into, you are forced into "compliance" with one or another outside thing, hence the name of the compliant types, even if they're not necessarily compliant in the sense of accommodating). E6 has the advantage that it really can't be overwhelmed when there's actual danger - "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you aren't right". It is also directly responsible for all real social cohesion (rather than So instinct - I have a whole thing about political stability and instability and the head center. Social cohesion is not sociability, as people can be "social butterflies" who talk to everyone but don't have any stability in terms of groups or relationships. People might want to be 4-5-8, 4-6-8, and 4-7-8 since they're the "most nonconformist", but those three tritypes alone are actually exactly how you got Nazi Germany. Not that having one of those tritypes make you a Nazi. I probably just need to post some of that after this to explain how that works). 7 is the assertive thinking type, so it considers problems and pain as being in how the outside world influences the individual and tries to resolve them that way through removing them and seeking pleasure. This type won't suffer from thinking away problems that actually exist like E5, or from inventing ones that don't like E6, but it is the type that can actually become overwhelmed by problems in cases where E5 and E6 wouldn't, and this is where you get the infamous escapism and addictive tendencies.

The gut center is somewhat interesting in that it seems to be the most directly connected to morality. E1 is stereotypically the moralist, since it's the compliant conative type and sees good and evil as things existing in the outside world which the individual has to align themselves to. E8, on the other hand, is the assertive type, so it sees "good for me" and "bad for me" - what Nietzsche referred to as "master morality" in the whole rather disparaging and sarcastic concept of "master and slave morality". E1 isn't necessarily more compassionate than E8, since the stereotype of E1s going on the Spanish Inquisition is fairly well-known, and E8s can have empathy and extend "good for me" and "bad to me" to "good for particular other people (potentially everyone)" and "bad for particular other people (potentially everyone)", hence the "healthy 8s are protective and maternal/paternal" stereotype. E9 would be like the Taoist system of morality, where you do what's natural and doesn't disrupt "internal harmony", since it is meta-action and the tendency is to see any forced external action at all as bad (the original meaning of the phrase "non-striving" in Taoism).

This doesn't cover tritypes or wings, and I don't think these types really exist independently of tritypes, wings, and instincts or else you end up classifying people as blue and non-blue birds using basically my Devil's Dictionary descriptions rather than anything actually meaningful, but I do think with a good enough intuitive understanding of these principles you can get significantly beyond the blue-bird level even if it's not perfect and complete.

[Pallas]

I'm just going to post the thing about tritypes and Nazi Germany to get it out. I have tritypes in general beyond the blue-bird level as well, but very little theory for them compared to everything else (the order is instinct stackings > types > wings > tritypes so far. Wings are fairly simple conceptually but the underlying structure seems more complex than the other things before it. Tritypes are really far out there and even though I think tritypes and stackings are "more real" than the abstracted individual aspects that "constitute" them).

When I said "E6 is responsible for all social cohesion" that becomes rather apparent when you try to type and tri-type different aspects of a society. 5 is individualized and internalized, and always comes with a sense of alienation, and this atomizes a society. 7 avoids pain and has addictive tendencies, and this is where you get all the "decadence" and "escapism" that is always complained about in times of social instability. Since the head triad is the fastest-moving, and only social elements are socially stable, any unstable society will almost always move from 5- and/or 7-dominance to 6-dominance before the other instincts attempt to move back into place (which are actually fairly stable long-term even if they're intrinsically unstable - "slow decay rate" is a good chemistry analogy). E6 is also dealing with issues automatically in the real world, which is what governments are for, not for intellectualism or pleasure-seeking, and the "cutting off internal access and forcing people outwards" directly creates large-scale cohesion due to the dynamic of pushing against external boundaries and "solidifying" the otherwise fluid head center (this also can't happen with 5 or 7, since 5 stays "atomized" and 7 tries to escape and break the boundaries). The Weimar Republic was in a horrible state due to the Treaty of Versailles, so socially, people were in a state of feeling alien and trying to make something good of what's externally bad (E4) and trying to fight back for power over their lives (E8), but the most dominant tendencies were a sort of isolated, alienated, intellectual stream (E5) and the sort of wild, "decadent" stream that did cabaret and things along those lines (E7).

On those two tritypes, German Expressionism is a rather perfect example of the 4-5-8 tritype, even if some people might think that from "4-5-8 is the darkest tritype!" some Expressionism is a bit tame for that (although it's really not). The "darkness" in 4-5-8 tritype doesn't mean "evil" so much as "being pushed into the darkness" on an archetypal level (although most individual crimes happen in the dark, so there is a definite connection, that just isn't the basic essence of the tritype), and the vaguely-accurate list of archetypes given for it on enneasite.com is "the psychopomp, the underworld shaman, the vision quest, the otherworldly iconoclast, the ethereal beast". The name for a shaman in some cultures is "one who sees in the dark" and likewise the vision quest is about deprivation in order to see something else more subtle. But all of these themes revolve around alienation and a bit of madness as well. Expressionism is about those, and also the person's internal state being projected and merged onto the world (which is the origin of the name, rather than "emotional expression"). And Expressionist film and literature inevitably involves death, killing, and sex along with darkness, madness and alienation - Caligari, Nosferatu, Pierrot Lunaire, etc. On the other hand, 4-7-8 is "478: the free radical, the avant garde, the protocol jettison, the mold breaker" and that should be much more straightforward, but the tendency of E7 to try to destroy boundaries to avoid being contained is the most highlighted in this tritype compared to any other, and that is about as bad as it gets on a large scale for a coherent society. So, since the heart and gut triads tend to be much more stable over time, it quickly shifts to "468: the portent, the harbinger of doom, the incendiary truth, the blood fire".

I actually type Adolf ****** himself as 4w3 6w5 8w7 Sx/So, which I'm sure a lot of people will hate me for, but I find this typing rather commonsense. ****** was, as many people have analyzed it, "another 4w3 artist", and considered himself an artist first and everything else second, and actually had no interest in politics at first. 6 and 8, aside from being the most common typings for him, tend to be rather necessary for a dictator. All the dictator really is is the figurehead for the dictatorship, as rulers like that are figureheads for the zeitgeist in general, so as long as that particular zeitgeist is going, their type will match it exactly, and when it ceases, that's when their rule is over. To have a dictatorship, you need unquestioning social cohesion (E6) and strong figure(s) who just take control without hesitation (E8) but the image center is undefined. Despite the image center being undefined, in almost all if not all dictators, it will be primary, due to their status as a figurehead. "Populist" leaders in the broad sense are always Sx/So or So/Sp, since they are always either savior types or protector types. Now, look at some images of ******. He tends to be depicted as some sort of "savior" of Germany. On the other hand, do an imitation of ******. What do you do? You just randomly fly off the handle! That's the triple-reactive tritype. And it's the fact that the whole system was some unstoppable doom-machine that no one felt like they could do anything about (triple-reactive, "portent, harbinger" - see the "Thousand Year Reich" and all that prognostication) that distinguishes it from Stalinist Russia (which I have as "268: the advocate, the first responder, the rescue, the triple parent" and Stalin himself is So/Sp) and other dictatorships. The fact that Nazi Germany fits the 4-6-8 tritype is why people react to it the way they do - so strongly negatively and viscerally, but often (in Anglophone and non-German-speaking countries in general) going on to try to contradictorily justify their interest in the Wehrmacht and all the 4-6-8 glamour and romanticism of the period.

But those aren't the only way those tritypes can play out, just the way they happened to in this case, although probably x-6-8 in general is the definition of a totalitarian society.

Prepares to be mobbed

[Volcana]

****** is definitely 468 tritype in some order but he's So/Sp. His whole thing was social influence. Sex was a weird guilt problem for him and his sexual expression was kind of 'at odds' with the rest of him, came out black and white and wasn't nuanced at all, whereas his social stuff was very nuanced. If you look through his quotes, or read his bio, his whole thing was about society, us vs. them, othering, social influence, and "This GROUP of People [Jews] rejected my art and did XYZ in society so I will make THEM pay" (us vs them)...

So - position
Sx - influence

Position and influence are both the same thing. Soc.
Sx is about losing yourself, creation & destruction of yourself and the other, the polarity between two people, mixing energies.


I loved a lot of the things you posted. But I feel Sx is being redirected toward Social, and it's not quite accurate. Some of the energy descriptions that include Sx are somewhat on the mark and somewhat off, but the idea behind it is being redirected through a Social lens. If you look at the links in my signature, you'll see what I mean - it's is not about "influence" - it's about SEX, losing myself, and mixing energies.

When rockstars sing about sex, not all of them are trying for social position or influence; they're losing themselves in the music, turning people on and spreading their potent energy. The point is not to make a socially impactful statement, it's to infuse people and spread your seed anywhere you want.


Wolverine is an archetypal Sx/Sp example. He gives zero shits about influencing people in general. He wants to be left alone to bask in a woman's glow. He turns down ample suggestions from Charles (an So/Sx type) to be "part of something greater," but he gets dragged in either because of hot women or because he gets caught up in the energy of it.

[Volcana]

Here is a strong Sx image of Kali, the goddess of destruction and creation..

[Aylen]

I
I actually type Adolf ****** himself as 4w3 6w5 8w7 Sx/So, which I'm sure a lot of people will hate me for, but I find this typing rather commonsense. ****** was, as many people have analyzed it, "another 4w3 artist", and considered himself an artist first and everything else second, and actually had no interest in politics at first. 6 and 8, aside from being the most common typings for him, tend to be rather necessary for a dictator. All the dictator really is is the figurehead for the dictatorship, as rulers like that are figureheads for the zeitgeist in general, so as long as that particular zeitgeist is going, their type will match it exactly, and when it ceases, that's when their rule is over. To have a dictatorship, you need unquestioning social cohesion (E6) and strong figure(s) who just take control without hesitation (E8) but the image center is undefined. Despite the image center being undefined, in almost all if not all dictators, it will be primary, due to their status as a figurehead. "Populist" leaders in the broad sense are always Sx/So or So/Sp, since they are always either savior types or protector types. Now, look at some images of ******. He tends to be depicted as some sort of "savior" of Germany. On the other hand, do an imitation of ******. What do you do? You just randomly fly off the handle! That's the triple-reactive tritype. And it's the fact that the whole system was some unstoppable doom-machine that no one felt like they could do anything about (triple-reactive, "portent, harbinger" - see the "Thousand Year Reich" and all that prognostication) that distinguishes it from Stalinist Russia (which I have as "268: the advocate, the first responder, the rescue, the triple parent" and Stalin himself is So/Sp) and other dictatorships. The fact that Nazi Germany fits the 4-6-8 tritype is why people react to it the way they do - so strongly negatively and viscerally, but often (in Anglophone and non-German-speaking countries in general) going on to try to contradictorily justify their interest in the Wehrmacht and all the 4-6-8 glamour and romanticism of the period.

But those aren't the only way those tritypes can play out, just the way they happened to in this case, although probably x-6-8 in general is the definition of a totalitarian society.

Prepares to be mobbed

You do tend to focus on worst case scenario which makes it hard to give you any constructive criticism since you already frame it as being "mobbed" or "hated" if someone disagrees with you. Why would you be hated for a typing... I get there is an underlying sense of anxiety when you share something and maybe this is why you type sx/sp bullies.

I know you have been corrected on sx instinct by sx/sp types. Perhaps you feel bullied but what I have seen is that most of your disagreements are due to your perception of what sx first is. You have a tendency to diminish the value of it and belittle sx first types with pa comments or threads. I can see this as your defense mechanism. Not all sx/sp want to beat you up.

I have encouraged your to explore and refine your ideas and I think you have relaxed quite a bit with constructive criticism which is a plus. Stop worrying about what others think. You are learning a lot about yourself through this process and who cares that someone is petty enough to hate you over a typing.

I agree with @Anima's assessment. I feel you view the world through an social first lens which colors you perception of the other instincts.

[Pallas]

****** is definitely 468 tritype in some order but he's So/Sp. His whole thing was social influence. Sex was a weird guilt problem for him and his sexual expression was kind of 'at odds' with the rest of him, came out black and white and wasn't nuanced at all, whereas his social stuff was very nuanced. If you look through his quotes, or read his bio, his whole thing was about society, us vs. them, othering, social influence, and "This GROUP of People [Jews] rejected my art and did XYZ in society so I will make THEM pay" (us vs them)...



Position and influence are both the same thing. Soc.
Sx is about losing yourself, creation & destruction of yourself and the other, the polarity between two people, mixing energies.


I loved a lot of the things you posted. But I feel Sx is being redirected toward Social, and it's not quite accurate. Some of the energy descriptions that include Sx are somewhat on the mark and somewhat off, but the idea behind it is being redirected through a Social lens. If you look at the links in my signature, you'll see what I mean - it's is not about "influence" - it's about SEX, losing myself, and mixing energies.

When rockstars sing about sex, not all of them are trying for social position or influence; they're losing themselves in the music, turning people on and spreading their potent energy. The point is not to make a socially impactful statement, it's to infuse people and spread your seed anywhere you want.


Wolverine is an archetypal Sx/Sp example. He gives zero shits about influencing people in general. He wants to be left alone to bask in a woman's glow. He turns down ample suggestions from Charles (an So/Sx type) to be "part of something greater," but he gets dragged in either because of hot women or because he gets caught up in the energy of it.

That's not really what I meant by "influence" in general, but this whole thing is so abstract it's hard to bring it back down to earth really.

When rockstars sing about sex, not all of them are trying for social position or influence; they're losing themselves in the music, turning people on and spreading their potent energy. The point is not to make a socially impactful statement, it's to infuse people and spread your seed anywhere you want.

This is literally exactly what I meant, "spreading their potent energy". Influence on existence, not just society. Do people literally just think of "influence" as "social influence"? Do all the things I've written before to explicate mean nothing? If they do, that's fine, since this was a draft, I'd just like to know since overall making these things I tend to get so lost in the idea I don't necessarily know how it'll be received.

Influence:

late 14c., an astrological term, "streaming ethereal power from the stars when in certain positions, acting upon character or destiny of men," from Old French influence "emanation from the stars that acts upon one's character and destiny" (13c.), also "a flow of water, a flowing in," from Medieval Latin influentia "a flowing in" (also used in the astrological sense), from Latin influentem (nominative influens), present participle of influere "to flow into, stream in, pour in," from in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + fluere "to flow" (see fluent).

The range of senses in Middle English were non-personal, in reference to any outflowing of energy that produces effect, of fluid or vaporous substance as well as immaterial or unobservable forces. Meaning "exertion of unseen influence by persons" is from 1580s (a sense already in Medieval Latin, for instance Aquinas); meaning "capacity for producing effects by insensible or invisible means" is from 1650s. Under the influence (of alcohol, etc.) "drunk" first attested 1866.

This is the sense I got from the overall dynamic. And overall this dynamic is actually tied into all of existence but tends to manifest in specific ways in people, but I certainly can't push it that far even if I can explain. Aylen is already like "Why do you think people will shoot you down?" ...after she just shot me down. Ad hominems are not a great response to self-standing theory. Your comment is constructive though, thanks.

[Pallas]

@Aylen So historicist thinking and perspective-taking is So now? C'est la vie. You can completely blow off my theoretical work if you'd like, although I'd say it's rather more stereotypically So to go with what all "the experts" say rather than some rogue theoretician challenging the world. Anima's corrections were fine since they somewhat tied into what I said, but yours is just character assassination, since you're not even addressing the theory I gave behind Sx/Sp being potency-directed-downwards (which doesn't work independent of the rest of the model actually), but just saying it's because I'm butthurt. Yes, I didn't word it that well, but I didn't think I had to since it was just a draft I wanted feedback on. I can change "influence" to "potency" since influence is often interpreted as only "social influence" by people who don't know the history and construction of the word, and Anima's comment is helpful on that matter, but how does yours help anything?

[Aylen]

@Aylen So historicist thinking and perspective-taking is So now? C'est la vie. You can completely blow off my theoretical work if you'd like, although I'd say it's rather more stereotypically So to go with what all "the experts" say rather than some rogue theoretician challenging the world. Anima's corrections were fine since they somewhat tied into what I said, but yours is just character assassination, since you're not even addressing the theory I gave behind Sx/Sp being potency-directed-downwards (which doesn't work independent of the rest of the model actually), but just saying it's because I'm butthurt. Yes, I didn't word it that well, but I didn't think I had to since it was just a draft I wanted feedback on.

I didn't address it because I don't agree with it but it is your perception so whatever.

You do tend to focus on worst case scenario which makes it hard to give you any constructive criticism since you already frame it as being "mobbed" or "hated" if someone disagrees with you.