As you can imagine, I have a major reservation about essays like these, for they perpetuate the misconception that the enneagram is a system of personality types, or that its domain is human motivation. It's as if, while reading the menu at an Italian restaurant, I were to say, "The alphabet is set of symbols to describe pizza toppings". That would be absurd, and anybody would be right to call me out on my cognitive myopia.
Anyone can see from a cursory glance at my page that I write extensively about the enneagram, and yet I scrupulously avoid reiterating what every other author publishes. They have done a tremendous disservice to the discipline that created it, and not because their ideas are wrong, per se, or inaccurate. Incomplete would be closer to the mark. I can see why people regard the enneagram as just another MBTI or astrology wheel, either with dismissal or, worse, adulation.
Am I the only writer who does original work with the enneagram?
Of course I am well-versed in the main-stream theory, with its highways and byways, its wings, dings and flings, if you will. It all goes back to Claudio Naranjo's insight about the Seven Deadly Sins' overlay onto what you call the Centers of Intelligence. Therein lies the problem. Over 99% of subsequent writers have colonized that tiny island of thought as if it were the only dry land in a sea of possibility. As for the Gurdjieff foundation, its members cannot see past the seven-tone musical scale. They cannot describe any process or event beyond the note Do, even as they literally dance across a tracery on a hardwood floor.
If you spend years looking (as I did), you might discover a few experimental exceptions. They comprise less than 1% of the published word count. By now, the topic is become an echo chamber, with nobody even stopping to answer the question as to what is the enneagram, itself, independent of the ideas they attempt to stuff into it.
Therefore, I pose that question of first principles to you: What is the enneagram, itself?
Yes, the enneagram can have many uses. I am deciding to establish my understanding of it as a psychological system before diving into other forms as to help give clarity. And yes, I prefer my version of the material, which is why I am writing it.
I will take content suggestions if you have anything you’d like to see from me!
I'd like to see anything except human psychology. What are you good at, that others find difficult? That always makes for interesting content.
Me, I use the enneagram in finance, litigation, combat, physics, strategy, etc., etc., etc.. It has been said that a man knows, that is, understands, only what he can put on the enneagram. That is an idea worth pressure testing.
At the most basic level, the symbol codifies the interaction of the Law of One, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. In plain English, that amounts to the union of dynamism and coalescence. Furthermore, the enneagram is a fractal, like time itself, such that it functions as both a microscope and a telescope, depending on the level of detail required.
How do you apply these Laws to other disciplines and, in doing so, how do you rename the points for each specific use-case?
Ooh, I recognize this concept in the book of The Intelligent Enneagram by A.G.E Blake. I’ll have to think on it as there’s no discipline I practice which comes to mind right now. You works from that perspective are very nice. I’ll keep this suggestion in mind and will let you know when I act on it.
A.G.E Blake is among the 1% of authors whose work wisely avoids the usual tropes, and his book is considered a must-read by the few who've read it. It's derivative of his teacher's work, which is arguably superior for its brevity and precision. J.G. Bennett's "Enneagram Studies" is difficult to find, however, as are many of his other books.
That being said, establishing an understanding of the enneagram as a psychological system does not result in clarity, but ossification. That is why I do not recommend such a practice. In your case, that has apparently already happened. It will be that much more difficult for you to see the symbol on its own terms. By analogy, it's like imagining that eating at Chinese restaurants outside of China twice a week will give you an accurate idea of what actual Chinese people in China actually eat. It won't.
In short, you will have a ton of unlearning to do.
As for me, I take no personal offense at your comments (edited and otherwise) despite how off-the-mark they are. Calling my work "nice" (particularly after calling me unsatisfiable), for example, is a Disneyland mindset. Those who've cut their teeth in the Work would never call any discipline "nice". Let us not forget that the enneagram was introduced to the modern world by George Gurdjieff, whom nobody would call "nice". So, while I'm not offended, I can't take your approach very seriously, either.
More importantly, unless you are an expert at something, it will be almost impossible to discover anything with the enneagram. I suspect that that is one of the major reasons that 99% of authors simply paraphrase each other; they have nothing of their own to bring to the table. The most egregious example, of course, are psychologists, who tend to be expert at very little in the real world. Me, I have never met one who state, in plain English, the Law of Three or the Law of Seven. How, then, can they hope to use the enneagram to describe water, much less how a water heater works?
Have fun with the head-shrinking, and try not to lose your mind ... cheers.
As you can imagine, I have a major reservation about essays like these, for they perpetuate the misconception that the enneagram is a system of personality types, or that its domain is human motivation. It's as if, while reading the menu at an Italian restaurant, I were to say, "The alphabet is set of symbols to describe pizza toppings". That would be absurd, and anybody would be right to call me out on my cognitive myopia.
Anyone can see from a cursory glance at my page that I write extensively about the enneagram, and yet I scrupulously avoid reiterating what every other author publishes. They have done a tremendous disservice to the discipline that created it, and not because their ideas are wrong, per se, or inaccurate. Incomplete would be closer to the mark. I can see why people regard the enneagram as just another MBTI or astrology wheel, either with dismissal or, worse, adulation.
Am I the only writer who does original work with the enneagram?
Of course I am well-versed in the main-stream theory, with its highways and byways, its wings, dings and flings, if you will. It all goes back to Claudio Naranjo's insight about the Seven Deadly Sins' overlay onto what you call the Centers of Intelligence. Therein lies the problem. Over 99% of subsequent writers have colonized that tiny island of thought as if it were the only dry land in a sea of possibility. As for the Gurdjieff foundation, its members cannot see past the seven-tone musical scale. They cannot describe any process or event beyond the note Do, even as they literally dance across a tracery on a hardwood floor.
If you spend years looking (as I did), you might discover a few experimental exceptions. They comprise less than 1% of the published word count. By now, the topic is become an echo chamber, with nobody even stopping to answer the question as to what is the enneagram, itself, independent of the ideas they attempt to stuff into it.
Therefore, I pose that question of first principles to you: What is the enneagram, itself?
It sounds like you much prefer your own content. No answer I give will be satisfactory to you. Thanks for your comment!
Edit: I do find your different usage of the enneagram very fascinating. I’m happy you decided to check my work out.
It is a simple question, and one that few people stop to ask.
The simple answer is this:
The enneagram is the fundamental hieroglyph of a universal, objective language.
My irrelevant preference is for not for self-reference, but rather for discovery.
My follow-up question is:
Can you use the enneagram for anything else, besides human psychology?
If so, then that might be more fruitful to more students.
If not, then what purpose does the repetition serve?
It would appear that you (not I) prefer your own version of the same old material.
Am I mistaken?
Cheers.
Yes, the enneagram can have many uses. I am deciding to establish my understanding of it as a psychological system before diving into other forms as to help give clarity. And yes, I prefer my version of the material, which is why I am writing it.
I will take content suggestions if you have anything you’d like to see from me!
I'd like to see anything except human psychology. What are you good at, that others find difficult? That always makes for interesting content.
Me, I use the enneagram in finance, litigation, combat, physics, strategy, etc., etc., etc.. It has been said that a man knows, that is, understands, only what he can put on the enneagram. That is an idea worth pressure testing.
At the most basic level, the symbol codifies the interaction of the Law of One, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. In plain English, that amounts to the union of dynamism and coalescence. Furthermore, the enneagram is a fractal, like time itself, such that it functions as both a microscope and a telescope, depending on the level of detail required.
How do you apply these Laws to other disciplines and, in doing so, how do you rename the points for each specific use-case?
Ooh, I recognize this concept in the book of The Intelligent Enneagram by A.G.E Blake. I’ll have to think on it as there’s no discipline I practice which comes to mind right now. You works from that perspective are very nice. I’ll keep this suggestion in mind and will let you know when I act on it.
A.G.E Blake is among the 1% of authors whose work wisely avoids the usual tropes, and his book is considered a must-read by the few who've read it. It's derivative of his teacher's work, which is arguably superior for its brevity and precision. J.G. Bennett's "Enneagram Studies" is difficult to find, however, as are many of his other books.
That being said, establishing an understanding of the enneagram as a psychological system does not result in clarity, but ossification. That is why I do not recommend such a practice. In your case, that has apparently already happened. It will be that much more difficult for you to see the symbol on its own terms. By analogy, it's like imagining that eating at Chinese restaurants outside of China twice a week will give you an accurate idea of what actual Chinese people in China actually eat. It won't.
In short, you will have a ton of unlearning to do.
As for me, I take no personal offense at your comments (edited and otherwise) despite how off-the-mark they are. Calling my work "nice" (particularly after calling me unsatisfiable), for example, is a Disneyland mindset. Those who've cut their teeth in the Work would never call any discipline "nice". Let us not forget that the enneagram was introduced to the modern world by George Gurdjieff, whom nobody would call "nice". So, while I'm not offended, I can't take your approach very seriously, either.
More importantly, unless you are an expert at something, it will be almost impossible to discover anything with the enneagram. I suspect that that is one of the major reasons that 99% of authors simply paraphrase each other; they have nothing of their own to bring to the table. The most egregious example, of course, are psychologists, who tend to be expert at very little in the real world. Me, I have never met one who state, in plain English, the Law of Three or the Law of Seven. How, then, can they hope to use the enneagram to describe water, much less how a water heater works?
Have fun with the head-shrinking, and try not to lose your mind ... cheers.
Loved this article, can't wait to read more of what you publish!
ZOOWEE MAMA 🩵🩵🩵