Ocean moonshine

[No name]

Ocean moonshine's descriptions of instinctual stackings have been regurgitated across the internet, far and wide.
Does anyone know who created the original website? Do they have any credentials? Training?
Why was the website removed? -death of the creator? Plagerism and threats of lawsuit? Did they realise they got a lot of stuff wrong and decided to remove it? ( If that's the case, how cringe worthy it is that it has been copied and reposted numerous times.)
If anyone has any answers for me I'd really appreciate it. I'd really hate to be quoting from a defunct, outdated, unscientific source.

[Aramas]

Ocean moonshine's descriptions of instinctual stackings have been regurgitated across the internet, far and wide.
Does anyone know who created the original website? Do they have any credentials? Training?
Why was the website removed? -death of the creator? Plagerism and threats of lawsuit? Did they realise they got a lot of stuff wrong and decided to remove it? ( If that's the case, how cringe worthy it is that it has been copied and reposted numerous times.)
If anyone has any answers for me I'd really appreciate it. I'd really hate to be quoting from a defunct, outdated, unscientific source.

The Enneagram itself is unscientific, like the rest of typology. What do you want lol?

[No name]

I would like to have an intelligent conversation on this forum, but I think I'm aiming too high.

[Adam Strange]

I would like to have an intelligent conversation on this forum, but I think I'm aiming too high.

You start.

[Adam Strange]

Ocean moonshine's descriptions of instinctual stackings have been regurgitated across the internet, far and wide.
Does anyone know who created the original website? Do they have any credentials? Training?
Why was the website removed? -death of the creator? Plagerism and threats of lawsuit? Did they realise they got a lot of stuff wrong and decided to remove it? ( If that's the case, how cringe worthy it is that it has been copied and reposted numerous times.)
If anyone has any answers for me I'd really appreciate it. I'd really hate to be quoting from a defunct, outdated, unscientific source.

All human knowledge starts from a hypothesis, possibly dreamed up by some person who has neither training nor credentials. They state their hypothesis, either in the scientific, peer-reviewed journals, or at the local bar, and other people consider it and may argue or propose some way to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

I don't see Oceanmoonshine's theories about the enneagram or instincts as being significantly different from string theories in Physics. They probably make more sense, to be honest.

I remember when I was in my first year of college, doing lots of drugs with an IEI who lasted six months before he dropped out, and he introduced me to Gurdjieff. At the time, I thought my IEI roommate was screwed up and so were Gurdjieff's theories. Ichazo and Naranjo seem, on first blush, to be similar. But after reading their stuff, I think they may be onto something. Lots of people seem to think so, and the ones who don't will force the ones who do to greater rigor.

[No name]

I agree with your first paragraph. It's got to start somewhere. Here's my problem…

Psychology (I'm including the Enneagram) is a science. Backed up by years of research and case studies. And when a scientific paper has been published and then later retracted or disproven, the science community doesn't continually bring up that paper as a fact. They may look at and reference that paper and say "ok, this is wrong, but this may be right.. " But it isn't the gold standard.

It seems like Ocean moonshine is like one of those "papers" that was retracted by its author. Was it because the author realized there were some big mistakes in the writings?
Is the online enneagram community perpetuating misinformation by constantly reposting it? Yes.

I'm not saying every reference to Oceanmoonshine should be erased from the earth. (There is some good stuff there) I am saying we should re-evaluate the pedestal that it stands on. It has caused many mistypings and heated debates because people think it is an authority on the subject.

I have no problem with Naranjo and Ichazo.
(Are you saying one of those men was the author of Oceanmoonshine? - I doubt that's what you meant, but not sure why you brought them up.) I'm not questioning the Enneagram or instinctual variants.

I look forward to seeing that greater vigor in Enneagram exploration. Right now it's become pretty stagnant.

On a side note. I don't just blame the forums. One thing that is frustrating is the lack of transparent information from Enneagram "life coaches." I know they have to make money somehow, but dang I can't afford to go on a spiritual retreat. ��

[SaveYourself]

I always assumed Ocean Moonshine was an internet rando. I like the descriptions but feel like they have only been circulated so much because they are the only ones that exists. From what I've seen, other more 'legit' enneagram writers just do type + dominant instinct (Condon, Chestnut, Maitri, Fauvre, Naranjo etc all have these but none do stacks in any detail afaik).

Actually I think they can be slightly misleading due to their simplicity and are definitely no substitute for reading about instinct theory independently, so maybe that's why OP retracted them?

I first started looking at enneagram in 2010 and I think their site was already down then and was just being recreated on forums. So good or not, it probably: lacks credentials, is unscientific and is out of date.

[Adam Strange]

I always assumed Ocean Moonshine was an internet rando. .......

I read that as "I always assumed Ocean Moonshine was an internet radio."

I'd listen to that.

[WVBRY]

The Enneagram itself is unscientific, like the rest of typology. What do you want lol?

The rest of typology isn't entirely unscientific.

Big five is based on behaviors and thus has more appeal among people who are more attratced to exact sciences. Behaviors can be measured.

Jungian typology is based on cognition and so it is less exact and precise. MBTI does model itself on behaviors somewhat. It's still a part of psychology so it's technically in the human sciences.

The problem with eneagram isn't so much lack of scientific evidence, since you can test models, but rather that there is zero known explanation as to why it is conceived of as it is. Why are the arrows arranged as they are? Why is the romantic point four instead of point five? Why is point five an investigator - what is the connection between such a fixation and the number five, rather than say, the number eight? Nobody knows.

Nobody knows where Gurdjieff got the enneagram from, and his claims about a mysterious "Sarmoung brotherhood" (some kind of Sufi sect) are most likely fiction, and even if they are real, they don't say anything about the origins of the enneagram, nor anything about its arrangement of numbers which to me seems arbitray, though perhaps someone with knowledge of Sufi numerology might be able to see some kind of logic there, lol.

[ouronis]

First result in Google
https://oceanmoonshine9.wordpress.com

Looks like the original site maybe? http://web.archive.org/web/201008311...position=12:12

Nvm didn't read op

[Grendel]

[Mocean]

I put togther Ocean - Moonshine. What is the problem, and what do you want to know?

[xerx]

I put togther Ocean - Moonshine. What is the problem, and what do you want to know?

Who are you?

[Mocean]

No one you know. I went by the name "Ocean" on the EIDB, way back.

[Mocean]

The original site disappeared because of hosting issues. It was republished on a free site, wordpress. The authors have retracted nothing. We hold a copyright, registered with the Library of Congress. No one ever came after us for any reason whatsoever. The information presented was good. That is why it was widely sited. The authors were all part of the Enneagram Institute Discussion Board for many, many years, including a Doctor of Philosophy who was complimented by Riso for the contribution. It built upon existing ideas, expanding them, and was put together as a resource for all.

[Adam Strange]

It is a very fine site.

[Mocean]

It is a very fine site.

Thank you. Hope its still usefull.