Posted by Charlie (18.104.22.168) on May 11, 2003 at 22:24:04:
In Reply to: Re: 5 and 7 relationships posted by Josie (22.214.171.124) on May 11, 2003 at 11:03:42:
>>Someone, who, for example, is a 3 at age 25, doesn't become an 8 at age >>40.
I cannot agree with you on this. I think this is the kind of false thinking the enneagram produces. It is a threat to human freedom. You see, the enneagram reduces personality types to ego motivations. Each type has a single motivation which drives its actions, and from that ego drive, the enneagram attempts to establish a behavior pattern that would logically arise. It attempts to say that our subconscious ego drive pushes us to do something and that is unavoidable. The enneagram is wrong. For animals other than humans it is unavoidable. They are condemned to their psychological egos==habits, desires, emotions--which are all the motivating forces behind a person's drive. But we are aware of our ego drives--our habits, desires and emotions, so therefore we can choose to act in a way different that what our so-called personalities dictate. We have the ability to transcend our ego drives because we can make conscious efforts to do so. For instance, eights want to control the environment, so they engage it in such a way that they are always dominant. And this is why the eight is associated with leadership, or the challenger. And he has either a seven wing or a nine wing or both. But if that eight one day wakess up and says, "Hey, I'm going to create something beautiful,"(type 4) or "I'm going to make an inquiry into the world,"(type 5), because he is a human being and has freedom of choice, he can transcend his eight tendency. And it has happened many times in society. Ghandi is associated as a two or a one. But if people took his whole life into account, he was at one time a hedonistic seven, a self-sacrificing two, a leading eight(and a great leader at that), an idealistic one...And all of these traits for good periods of time, sometimes mixed, sometimes alone. Many people of all types who turned to religion after reading the bible have gone on to sacrifice themselves for others, behaving the same way a two might. Do you suppose why? Because they were not locked into their patterns of behavior. Some people who have been characterized under types that show a repeated pattern of that type; however, that is because they enjoyed giving into their desires rather than transcending them, not because they had no other choice but to be that type.
A proper response to my argument would be that no matter the behavior, a person's ego desires remain the same. But if we have clear indication that a person for long periods of time exhibits different types, the burden is on you to prove that their ego drives remain the same. That proof rests, for the most part, on faith in the enneagram, because that drive is submerged in the subconcious, not accessible to inspection. To say that ghandi always remained the same type throughout life when I can show you long periods of time when he acted like different types rests on faith. It's like saying that a person who never wrote a book in their lives could have produced many great books in his life. It rests on a "could of" kind of assumption.
People's drives change and their habits can be transcended because the "I" is free of any specific nature. Human reality (I)is not characterized by anything. To say someone is a leader, or an idealist, or a motivator, or a creator is to say that a person has exhibited a certain pattern of conduct, not that a person=motivator, etc. With each new moment there is a new possibility...It takes a conscious effort to realize this freedom before one can transcend their psychologies.
>>> He's sexy, gorgeous, brilliant and fun to be with. He'll obviously be >>> the same person ten years from now.
The qualities about him that you based the statement "he'll obviously be the same person ten years from now" were sexy, gorgeous, brilliant, and fun to be with. Keep in mind that these categories are not specific to any type. The sexy, gorgeous part is fleeting with age, and relative to impressions. For instance, someone who is no longer fun to be around will not appear as attractive as before. BUt the gorgeous, sexy part was not what I intended to address, because I dont' think they are reasons for any two people to stay together. That stuff is superfical. What I addressed was what you wrote above, the fun to be with part.
The fun to be with part can change, and often does. It happens all the time. Issues in the relationship arise from both inside and outside the relationship that can affect one another's moods, and feelings toward the other person, and therefore, will effect behavior. In other words, the fun to be with part is not static and has nothing to do with type. Sure. A seven is fun to be with. But if that seven is fed up with the person, or is unhappy when the person is around, or whatever reason it may be, the seven will act in such that he or she is no longer fun to be with. Also, I know that many divorced couples would agree that their relationships were great to begin with, even through the early years of the marriage, and they would both agree that they had fun with eachother for a time, but then someone changes, things cause them to bicker, stress from the outside cuts in on their healthiness, kids, money problems, disputes, whatever the case may be, etc...there are a host of reasons not having to do with type that will effect anyone's "fun to be with" side of a relationship, regardless of whose got what type.
Post a Followup