Posted by Quigibo (188.8.131.52) on September 21, 2003 at 02:16:19:
In Reply to: Manifesto posted by Hank (184.108.40.206) on September 20, 2003 at 05:39:23:
> first of all I dont mean to as sound mean cynical when I wright but when your on the internet I feel the need to exploit the privliage of being faceless and relatively anoyomous. So here are my two great manifesto's (and like all manifesto's I feel they should be argued so please feel free to offer retort no matter how acrimonious they may get)
> - ARe myths and dogmas about afterlife rooted in our subconscious fear of death. DO all people amuse themselves by believing in some great hearafter. Are we that terrified by the idea of disappearing one day. that we need these illusions to function while we are still alive. Does the sould exist?
I have thought about that from time to time, and what I believe is that in general, religion is equivelent to myth that is currently in style. I have never personally witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that any religion which I have seen has a factual basis of scientific impossibilities to support it. Any dreams I have had about religion, I attribute to the unsettled nature of my mind about the subject. That being said, science has the problem that it has totally failed to explain a number of things. In order to not believe in any form of religion, it seems that you must believe that there has always been matter in the universe (I've never heard of any reasonable explanation of gaining something from an immobile nothing.) and that life on earth, or at least some intelligent life, is a matter of luck. As far as the concept of a soul, even if a person is just the some of their biology and their experiences, each person has a unique mixture of both of these things, and even if they do not have a spiritual soul, they have a unique essence of self.
> -(this isnt the second thesis but rather a preamble-Man is inheriently flawed and thus all he creates are flawed in some way.
> So then what are the flaws witht the ennegram? Well the ennegram (or at least the Riso Hudson version)show inconsistancy in the levels of health. Why is there conviently nine levels of health? Why is being a 5 level of health worse than a 2? Isnt heirarchy something the ennegram tries to avoid. According to the system I am two level health and therefore inferior(?) to that of a three. All of the fives that are mentally healthier than I am have been these compliant book worms that abdicate form experiencing many things for more sedentary prusuits. Emerson said in his speach "The American Scholar that valetudinarianism should be avoided and things need to be experienced first hand" Emerson was a five however does that mean that That me and Ralphy are more mentaly unhealthy becasue we have a greater zeal to experiment first hand rather than reading about? I believe a mentally healthy fives choice to abdicate for certain experiences skews there interptratation of the world. Is six who is a paragon of mental health (becasue he has never been confronted with a real problem) a better person than a six that is a two level of health because his sister molested him as a child? i just dont think the system currently accepted is intricate enough to forfill something as complex as the individual human mind. What is more while I do feel there is some validity behind integration and disintergration. I have seen unhealthy sixes act like nines when in Theroy they should be acting like threes. and fours that act like one and then act like a two almost simontaneously.I still think the ennegram is the most complete,& concise work we have on personilties but maybe its too concise. Anyways thats my gripe.
-As far as I understand it- in the type system, the types are meant to represent different personalities, if anyone believes that the 9 types are ranked in order of preference, well, they certainly wouldn't be me. I know a 9, and while we generally get along, their nature can often prevent them from being clear in what they want (often they don't seem to know what that is.) At the least, I don't think a society of all 9's would be a utopian situation. Also given that each individual is unique, the way people act is at its heart, unpredictable. A typing system is more of a way of defining trends in personality than a science of factually determing actions and reactions. Part of the usefullness of a typing system is that it makes it easier to see what problems we are prone to have, and attempt to address them, which can completely changing how we act, whether it changes how we think or not.
Post a Followup