Re: CHAT: the enneagram

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:58:21 -0400, Mike S. <mcslason@...> wrote:

>Stephen DeGrace <stevedegrace@...> wrote:
>
>"Mike S." <mcslason@A...> wrote:
>>> You are absolutely right.  We love to be flattered, don't we?
>>> I might mention that the enneagram evolved from a view of the
>>> soul in which a person's central vice was the most salient
>>> characteristic.  In fact, the enneagram was originally based
>>> on the Seven Deadly Sins, 1=anger, 2=pride, 4=envy, 5=avarice,
>>> 7=gluttony, 8=lust, 9=sloth, augmented by two additions:
>>> 3=deceit and 6=fear.  The idea of determining your type was to
>>> determine what virtue you most urgently needed to foster, IIRC:
>>> 1=serenity, 2=humility, 3=honesty, 4=equinimity,
>>
>>another joyous typo, though I cannot work out what it should
>>mean, though horses should be involved somehow.
>
>LOL, a good guess.  It was supposed to be "equanimity".
>
>
>>> 5=generosity, 6=faith, 7=moderation, 8=forbearance, 9=action.
>>>
>>> In addition, you'll find thorough descriptions of the unhealthy
>>> variations of the types (along side the healthy and average
>>> variations) in Riso's _PT_.  The unhealthy descriptions are
>>> far from flattering, and, at the same time, disconcertingly
>>> close to home (occasionally, at least for me).
>>
>>My further readings have indeed revealed an encouraging
>>degree of unflatteringness. Unfortunately my upbringing has
>>not provided me with an adequate understanding of the
>>traditional christian doctrines, so I understand the sins
>>only in their everyday meanings, not in their proper theological
>>context.
>
>Well, the traditional concept of sin is somewhat adopted to
>fit in with the more modern concept of ego in psychology.
>
>(The early religious forms of enneagram theory represent
>a very interesting fusion of creeds which are ostensibly
>incompatible.  Traditional Christianity insists that we need
>to acknowledge that we are each an imperfect, fallen being,
>and to strive through some combination of faith and works to
>win Grace;  most forms of modern psychology practically
>insist that we are "okay" just the way we are; if there is
>something wrong with us, it is because of society, parents,
>oppression, etc.--anything except our own faults;  indeed,
>we are urged to reaffirm our "self-esteem".  This is a
>breathtakingly vast difference of perspective.  I have very
>often wondered why those who would defend Christianity have
>thrown up such determined resistances to such utter
>trivialities as the Theory of Evolution at the same time
>they have almost completely ignored the rise of the modern
>psychologist, who has, in modernity, totally muscled out
>the holy man as preferred interpreter of our souls.)
>
I promised elsewhere not to use the "R" word, and I won't; but everything
I've read about the Enneagram (which admittedly does not include any
printed material) suggests that it was based on Sufism; which would likely
stem from the Sufi idea of the seven aspects of the Nafs ("self" - which
is both ego and soul).  Everybody must pass through each to become a fully
developed person, and each level has it's good points and bad points (for
example, commanding nafs is good for getting things done, but can be
obsessive and greedy; inspired nafs is great for, well, inspiration, but
can lead to pride).  A person must confront each of these seven aspects in
order to become fully realized.

The seven deadly sins are implicit (though formulated a bit diferently) in
the concept of nafs, as are the spiritual solutions to them.  The Sufi's
say that a human being is a jackass with angel's wings - in Sufism (well,
Mevlevi Sufism anyway) the self is not flawed per se, just confused.  Then
again, Sufism and Christianity both borrowed heavily from Hellenistic
philosophy - the concept of Sin is a re-interpretation of the Stoic
concept of first movements - judgements, passions, and the ability to act
on them - but the original Sin / inherently flawed state of humanity thing
didn't come along until later (Augustine??? - but I'm pretty sure he was
borrowing on neo-platonism anyway)

Interesting anyway... as for psychology - I think the growing popularity
of spiritual practices - the fact that I can hang out with Sufis, learn
Buddhist meditation, take up T'ai Chi, attend a Christian church, and
become a yogist all within the same North American city (kind of like the
Hellenistic period all over again eh?) when my parents couldn't attests to
the fact that psychology really can't contend with certain basic issues.
Psychology lacks the philosophical grounding (or rather, takes the wrong
philosophical approach) or it would have cured unhappiness already - and
it wouldn't need Prozac to do it (see Fight Club - which is mostly Zen
anyway, with a heavy dark twist).

Then again psychology does have it's uses (methodology, growing scientific
support for what mystics have known for eons) - and it already looks like
parts of Western psychology are slowly merging with various philsophical /
spiritual traditions anyway.  Daniel Goleman's theories of "Emotional
Intelligence" for example - a real hot topic in psych these days - are
heavily informed by Theravada meditation practices.

Andy

Reply