quote:

---

Originally posted by pork

walden: Enneagram authors/leaders

Are there also Enneagram rulers?

^(oo)^

4w3-8w9-6w5
SP/SX (almost SX/SP)
INFJ (almost INFP)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skunk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orpheus

quote:

---

It's everywhere. I see consistency. Regardless of the nature of his image he seems to display the one giveaway: it's 100%

This is a key reason why I never saw dfgray as core Three. He can step outside of it sometimes and poke fun at the 'promotional package'. In their image, lower health Threes are sort of analogous to Ones: Ones can't see that they're being a jerk.

---

---

3s can step out of it and do, with humor. my essence emerging partner is a 3, she's as dynamic a 3 as anyone else of other types.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orpheus






this statement seemed to be about 3s in general, unless with your following sentence you are suggesting wilbur (or df) is lower level health.

quote:

---

I doubt either of them (the Three or the Nine) are at much more than mid-average (-- on a good day).

---

i've been watching wilbur's videos.

quote:

---

I've been reading some of his writings. They're flabby, rambling nonsense. I was six pages into one of his introductory 'pieces' and had learned that the Integral 'HQ' is in 'Cambridge, MA' (hint, hint...) and that they figured out some 'code' that went to the depths of the nature of the universe and that the Pentagon were getting edgy about it...

I think he's got his priorities in order, and they're not Five-ish.

---

the way he explains things seems very 5ish to me, with a lot of the schizoid "Static" out of the way, as if he's processed a lot of it, which i don't doubt he has. there's no center heart to it - whether higher or lower expressions of it - but plenty of head center. There's no "touching", no connection, no appeal to the heart, very little emphasis on the relational elements of his work. He's very dry given the material he's covering.

quote:

---

Rather odd, since I believe he claims to be a 5w4.

---

No doubt he's got a 3 fix. He clearly gets a charge out of ideas, elaborating on ideas.

5s are also far more self-promoting and ambitious than anyone's giving credit to. Some of the 5s in my life could easily give a good number of 3s a run for their money. While an unhealthy 3 has loads of narcissism, unhealthy 5s can have a kind of megalomaniacal tone and attachment to power.

quote:

---

Of course they are. I remember one particular idiot self-proclaimed expert on SX 5w4s trying to retype VO as 4w3 because she had 'a tonne of image issues'. Of course she does. Vanity, meglomania and narcissism are second nature to a certain breed of 5w4.

See this for narcissism. Riddled with self-consciousness yet loving the spotlight. 9w1 fix and all.

---

Besides, if he's a 3, 3/4 would make sense over 3/2, but where's the 4 wing? It's not there, even if we take "the professional" title seriously. He's got the systematic total-package 5/6 processing, but he's not as 'deaf' as many 5/6s seem, which is one of the reason people see him as a 3, probably because he's done a lot of work on himself, regardless of how annoying he might still come across.

quote:

---

That's the best argument. But Threes can bury their connection to the heart center or choose not to utilise it. Where is it in Madonna, or porn star Sasha Grey or David Bowie? If it doesn't serve a purpose it can be dispensed with. On the oher hand with someone like Sting it can be over utilised to the point of cliche.

---

The boardie awakening is a good person to compare him to. Awakening has a 3-fix, has image stuff operating, but is in 5/6 space.

quote:

---

No. From his photos, the boardie awakening has a tonne of head energy. Wilbur does not. The celebrity and pop star Sting is a good person to compare him to, as has already been hinted at.

(Although there is one particular boardie that his web site instantly brought to mind.)

---

---

quote:

---

this statement seemed to be about 3s in general, unless with your following sentence you are suggesting wilbur (or df) is lower level health.


quote:
________________________________________
I doubt either of them (the Three or the Nine) are at much more than mid-average (-- on a good day).
________________________________________




i've been watching wilbur's videos.
quote:
________________________________________
I've been reading some of his writings. They're flabby, rambling nonsense. I was six pages into one of his introductory 'pieces' and had learned that the Integral 'HQ' is in 'Cambridge, MA' (hint, hint...) and that they figured out some 'code' that went to the depths of the nature of the universe and that the Pentagon were getting edgy about it...

I think he's got his priorities in order, and they're not Five-ish.
________________________________________

I’ve read “A Brief History of Everything”. I think he has helpful ideas conceptually, but I think he tries to make too much conform to his theories and categories. I don’t think they’re “flabby, rambling nonsense”, but I’m not particularly invested, inspired or convinced by his ideas. Being a poor writer does not disqualify one from being a 5, as your only argument seems to suggest.




the way he explains things seems very 5ish to me, with a lot of the schizoid "Static" out of the way, as if he's processed a lot of it, which i don't doubt he has. there's no center heart to it - whether higher or lower expressions of it - but plenty of head center. There's no "touching", no connection, no appeal to the heart, very little emphasis on the relational elements of his work. He's very dry given the material he's covering.
quote:
________________________________________
Rather odd, since I believe he claims to be a 5w4.
________________________________________
I think Bear said he claims his self-typing to be social 5/6, which fits very well in my opinion.

No doubt he's got a 3 fix. He clearly gets a charge out of ideas, elaborating on ideas.

5s are also far more self-promoting and ambitious than anyone's giving credit to. Some of the 5s in my life could easily give a good number of 3s a run for their money. While an unhealthy 3 has loads of narcissism, unhealthy 5s can have a kind of megalomaniacal tone and attachment to power.
quote:
________________________________________
Of course they are. I remember one particular idiot self-proclaimed expert on SX 5w4s trying to retype VO as 4w3 because she had 'a tonne of image issues'. Of course she does. Vanity, meglomania and narcissism are second nature to a certain breed of 5w4.

See this for narcissism. Riddled with self-consciousness yet loving the spotlight. 9w1 fix and all.

________________________________________


Besides, if he's a 3, 3/4 would make sense over 3/2, but where's the 4 wing? It's not there, even if we take "the professional" title seriously. He's got the systematic total-package 5/6 processing, but he's not as 'deaf' as many 5/6s seem, which is one of the reason people see him as a 3, probably because he's done a lot of work on himself, regardless of how annoying he might still come across.
quote:
________________________________________
That's the best argument. But Threes can bury their connection to the heart center or choose not to utilise it. Where is it in Madonna, or porn star Sasha Grey or David Bowie? If it doesn't serve a purpose it can be dispensed with. On the oher hand with someone like Sting it can be over utilised to the point of cliche.
________________________________________
” But Threes can bury their connection to the heart center or choose not to utilize it.“
Heart energy doesn’t always take on emotive qualities, especially in fixated states. Think of 9 and 6. There’s an underlying play of relatedness and connection – drawing in, keeping distance, enticing, appealing to, ect.

The boardie awakening is a good person to compare him to. Awakening has a 3-fix, has image stuff operating, but is in 5/6 space.
quote:
________________________________________
No. From his photos, the boardie awakening has a tonne of head energy. Wilbur does not. The celebrity and pop star Sting is a good person to compare him to, as has already been hinted at.

(Although there is one particular boardie that his web site instantly brought to mind.)
________________________________________
No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veiled One

quote:

---

Originally posted by enforest

Why do you think 3w4?

---

Look at his website....

http://www.kenwilber.com/home/landing/index.html

I have worked in the scientific field for several years and there is a subset of "intellectual 3w4s" among them.....and every time I sat through a talk from those Three scientists there was a similar extraordinary presentation-consciousness as to their powerpoint slides, reminescent of Wilbur's website. There is a sort of extreme meticulousness in finding just the right color, sound, accompanying image, icons, and fonts. The data has to "look good" in the best possible way.

8w7 soc/sx, because sexual fives suck

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OrpheusI’ve read “A Brief History of Everything”. I think he has helpful ideas conceptually, but I think he tries to make too much conform to his theories and categories. I don’t think they’re “flabby, rambling nonsense”, but I’m not particularly invested, inspired or convinced by his ideas. Being a poor writer does not disqualify one from being a 5, as your only argument seems to suggest.

quote:

---

Strange. I think the paragraph of mine you're referring to contained two arguments: namely that his writings (which present his ideas) are poor and that they contain subtle hints at self-importance. I don't think being a poor writer disqualifies the typing; I think his attitude to presenting his ideas does, especially if he's supposed to be Soc Five.

---

the way he explains things seems very 5ish to me

I think Bear said he claims his self-typing to be social 5/6, which fits very well in my opinion.

quote:

---

The way he explains things doesn't seem very Fiveish to me; I don't think he fits Five, least of all Social:

http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/58

As for trying too hard to make everything fit his categories (that's what you said?) - that can just as easily be Three. It's grandiose self delusions, just like Chopra*, with or without the '5 fix'.

*Life After Death: The Book of Answers.

---

Heart energy doesn’t always take on emotive qualities, especially in fixated states. Think of 9 and 6. There’s an underlying play of relatedness and connection – drawing in, keeping distance, enticing, appealing to, ect.

quote:

---

And that's what I meant by 'burying their connection to the heart center' -- and Six was precisely what I was thinking of. Sting's sentimental lyrics are a good example of how the Heart Center looses its authenticity, just as a fanatical system-adherent Six is an example of how the Thinking Center loses its authenticity.

And he draws you in alright - with the full, in-your-face force of his personality on every page of his site.

http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1

---

No.

quote:

---

So you're using as an examplar a boardie I'll never have the opportunity to meet and see for myself? Good stuff.


But arguments aside, I guess it's a bit like your strong objection to, say, AJMcFly as a 4w5. It's ultimately an 'aesthetic' thing. Isn't that how you felt when you categorically dismissed his self-typing? I felt that's basically where you were coming from -- and that's basically where I'm coming from with Wilbur's. As I've said before, I think there comes a point where an aesthetic or an intuitive impression overides all 'argument' and 'evidence' if it is strong enough.

---

---

quote:

---

We are blessed to live at a time when virtually all of the world's practices from all of the world's spiritual traditions are freely available to us. In fact, we have so many different kinds of practices it can be downright intimidating: Which should I do? How many should I do? How do I know it's working? Where should I begin? How am I even going to find time for all this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pork

I used to figure Jodie Foster for 6w5, but I think that's because she played 6w5s in movie roles fairly convincingly and I had not seen her in action outside those roles. Recently, I watched some interviews with her, and I can see why she's figured for 5w6 SX/SP. I may have suspected SO/SP on the basis of her sociopolitical bent before I saw her interviews, but her energy is 5/6 SX/SP, probably 5w6, but I guess I'm still open to the faint possibility of 6w5 for now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsc

The first paragraph from one of his blog articles sounds undeniably like a 7 that can't decide between all the myriad options he sees available on his plate.

quote:

---

We are blessed to live at a time when virtually all of the world's practices from all of the world's spiritual traditions are freely available to us. In fact, we have so many different kinds of practices it can be downright intimidating: Which should I do? How many should I do? How do I know it's working? Where should I begin? How am I even going to find time for all this?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skunk

At 1:35 there's a couple of seconds of Leonard Cohen which I think conveys something of the spirit of 'healthy' Four:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MDlMdu2gjw&feature=related

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crooner
Foster probably played Ellie Arroway close to home in Contact.
I see Ellie Arroway portrayed as Tritype 5-8-3.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roshan
But doesn't it bug them that after their no doubt many conversations about it, one still thinks he's a Seven and the other thinks he's a Five?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roshan
But doesn't it bug them that after their no doubt many conversations about it, one still thinks he's a Seven and the other thinks he's a Five?

---

Ah, the old six isn't-there-something-so-obviously-wrong-with-this-picture detecting antennae...........
But ye have leaped to far. These two people do not know each other, but both know me. And as far as I know, they haven't even separately had many conversations about it.

____________

Hahahahaha! Well, yes, I do do that, leap too far. Just call me Overshooting Grasshopper.

Although, honestly, I'm not trying to find things wrong here, I'm trying to understand what's right. Since I came here two months ago I've kind of lost my bearings (no pun intended). I thought I knew a lot and now I often feel so lost...(it's improved a bit this past week, though). And I want so much for people to be able to reach consensus more often because it would help expand the knowledge of this system...it's so...young. And really, I'm not the kind of Six who doubts anything's ever completely right. It's more like I doubt anything's ever completely wrong. Like I said to JoL on the Sheen thread before, I'm as P as it gets. I might not sound like it with my hyperanalytical verbal diarrhea, but I am.

And I don't understand how certain people here who know so much can be so often so at odds...In fact, on Envy's thread, The Thread That Would Not Die, a few days ago, while you were doing your taxes, 3w4 came up in Celebrity Seduko and I asked Veiled One how Wilber could be a heart type if he seems so autistic, which I associate with Five. Just so you know. Aaaaaand I had even written another post to you as an afterthought to the last one, saying that another thing that bugs me is how can he be so unattuned to people if he's a Three? I had asked you way back to explain in what ways he's 'unattuned', either you missed my question or I missed your answer, so I asked you again. But I deleted the post because I didn't want to look like I was hogging the blog. (Did I overleap? Would nothing have gone wrong if I had not deleted it? No, Roshan replied to Roshan, because some people would've found it quite rude...)

Well, you get the point, Bear, but anyway, regardless, yes, I do do what you say. I overshoot the mark when I question things, I make assumptions, sometimes I don't go back and fact check, etc. Sometimes the assumptions lead to those ol' paranoia blues...etc. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to be more aware of it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfgray44
I see his overview as fitting easily into a 3 style (not that it's only 3-ish): It's about modeling things that are known to be the best.

I don't think I understand your point about this. Here's the model for AQAL:

... I'm not making the connection between that and "the best." What I get is the imitation of Holy Omniscience - that's also what the title Brief History of Everything reeks of to me.

There's also the criticism of Wilber, such as in this article:
The first thing that pops to mind is that Wilber is certainly not the first 5 to be a commercial success.
The second is that this whole argument that if someone is (or finds the resources to be) successfully commercial and self-promoting means that they must be a 3... especially if they are "spiritual", is not one I agree with. In fact part of what I said earlier is more often the case - level 3 and higher, you see threes become less self-promoting. As they become aware of how pervasive their promoting is, they have to modify it. The alternative is to feel the unavoidable shame each time they see themselves doing it and realize that others are on to it (likewise 5s have to give up the hiding and holding back of self). The selling of spiritual "product" is everywhere you look, done by people of all types. There've been plenty of remarks about it on this board over the years, levied against many teachers; R&H have gotten their fair share of the criticisms.


It's not that the above excludes 5w6, but, as an accident of style, it points more toward Three than Five.
I absolutely get your point here, and if I were to come upon some of Wilber's website w/o knowing anything about him, would I type him as a 5? No. Video clips? I don't know, I don't have the benefit of no prejudice. But knowing what I do know - that he self-types as a 5 & that he has a level of awareness that is well beyond average, I believe I need to find very good reasons that he is not one, and so far that evidence has not turned up. It's not that I don't think it's out of the question that he's a 3, but I don't see enough reason to toss off his self-typing.


Back to the article you quoted... BTW, note the tone of the writer of this article, who has his own agenda. Not unlikely to be a 6.

For much of his career Wilber resisted the
typical glories of the spiritual guru, opting instead to
remain largely secluded in his writing.


Wilber's infusion of $1M from Firmage may have something to do with his success and the look of his website.

I-I’s history claims that Internet entrepreneur Joe Firmage “announced that ‘there is nothing anywhere in the world that is doing what Integral Institute is doing,’ and then promptly donated a million dollars in cash.”
No doubt Wilber genuinely considered the funding of the institute as a wonderful opportunity to share his integral vision, but in a few short years Wilber’s dry, pseudo-academic writings had been repackaged for a consumer market. We will not know until either Wilber or one of his inner circle publishes a full account of the development of I-I whether the centralising of the indigo dollar was a conscious shift on behalf of Wilber, having had a taste of “a million dollars,” or whether it was down to the business advisors.

The man behind financing Integral Institute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NUfw1_o_88
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhZipp2WnI

Here are the website designers (dude on the left seems like a pretty likely 3]:
http://www.lionisis.com/bio/


I'd also like to point out that a lot of what is propelling Wilber is the II, and the II is not just Wilber.
http://www.integralinstitute.org/?q=node/1


One question I'd have, if health is to be a main part of the debate: How long, through the span of his career, has he been healthy? The entirety? The narcissism you're assigning to him, as a trait which shows up at Levels 2/3, is there very early on....in the '80s.
To me his narcissism has a particular 5-ish quality to it - it's totem. And yes, 80s is early enough. It was late 60s when he turned twds eastern religions, so certainly 10-15 years of instruction could have worn off a great deal of ego. And... I'm not necessarily saying narcissism shows up at levels 2/3. I think it often does that, I think teachers are susceptible to it, but it may also be that that he's simply narcissistic, always has been, hasn't worked through it. He may have worked through other things... central narcissism may be what's still left, so without all the other goo around it, comes up more prominently in relief. Just to not get any fixed ideas about it as there can be a variety of reasons.

look at how he's lighting these people up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4g6YDZDlGk
This is also pretty telling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w4N5oMxlP8


[bear] Describes Russ pretty well. Almaas can get like that, too. Not as wired up as Wilber because he's actuating a state, not rapping on ideas, but he can be pretty funny, excited and engaging. And respond to everyone exactly where they are.
As you say, Russ and Almaas don't get "as wired up as Wilber". That's pointing to different degrees of switched-on...and is what I'd expect in contrasting even healthy 5s with healthy 3s.
Actually, that's not what I was saying at all. First, I wasn't equating RH & AHA's energy (it wasn't clear, but when I said "not as wired up" I was referring to Hameed not to both of them). From what I've seen of Wilber, I'd say that Russ is much more dynamic (or wired if that's the word you use for energetic, engaged, excited). There is the difference in wing and stacking that creates a different type of wiredness - Russ is more wet and far more personal than KW. Second, I was talking about the differences being related to manifesting states of consciousness. When I hear "wired" I feel head territory, and I'm referring to the head buzz from Wilber. So when I say "not as wired up" it's because there is not as much static electricity because there is more fullness and groundedness (more actualization, if you will). It's a bit of an unfair comparison really, because I've only got videos of KW to go on, but live experiences with the other two. KW may be bringing a state of awareness into the room that I can't pick up on watching a youtube, especially from the analytical viewpoint I find myself in. I personally don't find Wilber to be terribly dynamic, he feels quite dry & heady to me. I don't feel drawn in by him at all and find him less interesting the more I hear from him. BTW on one of the WIlber clips someone posted I saw some traces of Russ in a few of his mannerisms.


I'm not sure where you're getting the overflowing-heart impression of 3s. Insensitivity is a common complaint about them. Part of the definition of narcissism (which 3s are the quintessential prototypes of) includes unemotionality. Not that I haven't known and experienced Threes having significant heart - but it's not the first thing that comes to mind for the type.
I'm talking about healthy 3s, and this is where we keep coming back to, because at levels 3/up the types start flipping. They begin to be the real version of that which they are normally faking. Healthy 3s have a talent for being highly attuned to the states of others - they're built for it, at average levels that talent is used in service of morphing into that which is valued. When 3s learn their intrinsic value, and learn what their heart wants, they have especially good interpersonal skills that engage people in a heart-felt way. They are highly personal. The idealized aspect of point 3 is the pearl - average 3 is an imitation of that, at upper levels they are becoming the real deal.


[bear] Getting back on topic... one of the interesting things about development and easing of ego patterns is that narcissism is the monster that comes out most clearly. [/i]

That's an interesting and subtle concept/subject (seriously). I've mentioned it here before: I had one experience of 'high health' - for no known reason - it lasted about a day and half or so, and the freedom of it felt like what I can only describe as eerily satanic, partly from experiencing a type of narcissism I hadn't known before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FLsVngJkwY
around 3.45-8 talks about forceful "personalities" in realized people, and is explaining something close to what I'm trying to get across here.

I think I got this from Wilber as I was swimming around in some of this: "Enlightenment is tricky because it's so simple. It's identifying your true self (the true self which is that which is not an object)." His focus on objects and the observation of "I" across time as a central point revolves around an understanding about objectifying, which I see as 5s raison d'etre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roshan
Although, honestly, I'm not trying to find things wrong here, I'm trying to understand what's right.

FTR I was simply being humorous, while simultaneously knowing that you would like to know the answer. Not pickin' on you or anything.


Since I came here two months ago I've kind of lost my bearings (no pun intended). I thought I knew a lot and now I often feel so lost...

Don't get too lost. Your orientation feels very solid to me, we can get a little too caught up in the details here. Confusion will abound if you listen too carefully.


And I want so much for people to be able to reach consensus more often because it would help expand the knowledge of this system...

That I do see as more of a need for point six than others. I see consensus as impossible with something that can not be divorced from the subjectivity of ego.


And I don't understand how certain people here who know so much can be so often so at odds...In fact, on Envy's thread, The Thread That Would Not Die, a few days ago, while you were doing your taxes, 3w4 came up in Celebrity Seduko and I asked Veiled One how Wilber could be a heart type if he seems so autistic, which I associate with Five. Just so you know. Aaaaaand I had even written another post to you as an afterthought to the last one, saying that another thing that bugs me is how can he be so unattuned to people if he's a Three? I had asked you way back to explain in what ways he's 'unattuned', either you missed my question or I missed your answer, so I asked you again. But I deleted the post because I didn't want to look like I was hogging the blog. (Did I overleap? Would nothing have gone wrong if I had not deleted it? No, Roshan replied to Roshan, because some people would've found it quite rude...)

LOL. No, I just really haven't had time to read and missed most if not all of what you're referring to. Wilber... one thing that was consistent with both people who scoffed at the idea of 3 is that he is not attuned in the way he runs his office - meaning that people's feelings are not addressed, he's not attendant to others' needs, to presentation, etc. What I see in some of the videos is a lack of the attunement antennae. He's not doing a dance of reflecting back, finding a mirror to get reflected in, and so forth. I can't really say much beyond that - it's a gestalt I'm talking about that I see in 3s. It's like a pinging that they do "who shall I be now" - completely unconscious (until it's slowly and painfully brought into consciousness) - that is based on reading a room and then seducing accordingly. As you said, I see someone more autistic than that.


Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to be more aware of it

Only for your sake, please, not for mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orpheus

5s and 3s are much more dynamic than most in this thread give credit to. 3s have an eye to presentation, but they can have depth, sensitivity and substance. Not every attempt on a 3s part is laughably transparent and superficial. 5s can work on their bodies, engage the world, and don't always come across and sickly and opposed to any image presentation.

Someone doesn't have to be particularly healthy to overcome a stereotyped expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orpheus
________________________________________
skunk: Rather odd, since I believe he claims to be a 5w4.
________________________________________
I think Bear said he claims his self-typing to be social 5/6, which fits very well in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skunk

I wouldn't call him underdressed so much as over-underdressed. Tries a bit too hard. Calculated and pretentious.

In their image, lower health Threes are sort of analogous to Ones: Ones can't see that they're being a jerk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skunk
For those of you trotting out the convenient but-he's-a-healthy-Five argument, here is an arguably healthy person who actually is a Five.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7pjZ87XII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Padfbf_8ROU

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bear


This is also pretty telling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w4N5oMxlP8

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about healthy 3s, because at levels 3/up the types start flipping. They begin to be the real version of that which they are normally faking. Healthy 3s have a talent for being highly attuned to the states of others - they're built for it, at average levels that talent is used in service of morphing into that which is valued. When 3s learn their intrinsic value, and learn what their heart wants, they have especially good interpersonal skills that engage people in a heart-felt way. They are highly personal. The idealized aspect of point 3 is the pearl - average 3 is an imitation of that, at upper levels they are becoming the real deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfgray44

quote:

---

Originally posted by bear

This is also pretty telling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w4N5oMxlP8

---

I had a long response to your post (and might post some of it later) but am willing to do a total reassessment based on that video alone.

It shows up the particular acute unintelligence of 5w6 in the area of 'body as communicator'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skunk

quote:

---

Originally posted by OrpheusI’ve read “A Brief History of Everything”. I think he has helpful ideas conceptually, but I think he tries to make too much conform to his theories and categories. I don’t think they’re “flabby, rambling nonsense”, but I’m not particularly invested, inspired or convinced by his ideas. Being a poor writer does not disqualify one from being a 5, as your only argument seems to suggest.

quote:

---

Strange. I think the paragraph of mine you're referring to contained two arguments: namely that his writings (which present his ideas) are poor and that they contain subtle hints at self-importance. I don't think being a poor writer disqualifies the typing; I think his attitude to presenting his ideas does, especially if he's supposed to be Soc Five.

---

the way he explains things seems very 5ish to me

I think Bear said he claims his self-typing to be social 5/6, which fits very well in my opinion.

quote:

---

The way he explains things doesn't seem very Fiveish to me; I don't think he fits Five, least of all Social:

http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/58

As for trying too hard to make everything fit his categories (that's what you said?) - that can just as easily be Three. It's grandiose self delusions, just like Chopra*, with or without the '5 fix'.

*Life After Death: The Book of Answers.

you're going to have to go into more detail than citing something I've never read (since you took such issue with me pointing to a board member who you've interacted with but never met) to prove your point. Describe how "trying too hard to make everything fit his categories" is particularly 3ish rather than a 5ish attempt at subsuming everything under a system. You're going to have to give me something better than "3 grandiosity", that can be kind of a meaningless catch-all when trying to discern if someone's a 3 or not.

---

Heart energy doesn’t always take on emotive qualities, especially in fixated states. Think of 9 and 6. There’s an underlying play of relatedness and connection – drawing in, keeping distance, enticing, appealing to, ect.

quote:

---

And that's what I meant by 'burying their connection to the heart center' -- and Six was precisely what I was thinking of. Sting's sentimental lyrics are a good example of how the Heart Center looses its authenticity, just as a fanatical system-adherent Six is an example of how the Thinking Center loses its authenticity.

And he draws you in alright - with the full, in-your-face force of his personality on every page of his site.

http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/list/1

No he doesn't. Sure, he's got his face everywhere, but one of the best indicators of his not being a 3, and something that is repeated by folks in this discussion and elsewhere (his site, in youtube videos, in interviews) is his lack of 'hooking' anyone with his personality. You can cite his narcissism all you like, but that's not an argument against 5. 5s self-mythologize, congratulate themselves all the time on these boards, 5s are far more ambitious, manipulative and self-inflated than is usually given credit to. One of a 5's primary defenses is their arrogance and rigidity in their position to contrast with how frail their grasp on it really is (same mechanism at work in 3s with their weak persona taking on grandiose significance in their minds as a compensation).

It's just whenever that particular point comes up, instead of addressing it, the "weak, frail, tortured" 5 stereotype is pushed forward in people's minds - 3ness, as bear pointed out, is a shadow to many 5s, especially in the portrait of 5 (4 wing bent) that is popular here, where depth, authenticity, and intelligence are the highest prized, and with 5/6 as being written off as helpless dorks.

"Wilbur can't be a 5, he's too narcissistic... he lifts weights... he's not dorky enough... his writing isn't very good..." Wilbur may well be a 3, I don't have much personal investment on whether he is or not. Why I continue to argue is because of the pattern of argumentation you're falling into, which preserves a particular image of 5 that fails to address a lot of what are shadow qualities for 5s, especially on the boards (here, typewatch, ediots), and provokes a lot of defensiveness in 5s when they're addressed, like the defensiveness you're demonstrating here. It preserves a particular limited kind of way of exploring type, and not just 5, to say the least.

1s and 3s get all kinds of crap on the boards for having the same competency-triad issues that 5s have - a one-sidedness that happens when their heart center is blocked off or channeled into something else. It shows up in different ways, sure, but there are common themes that can resemble one another in more ways than credit is ever given to. One of the ways 5s retain power, consciously or unconsciously, is not revealing all of their position, not exposing.

---

No.

quote:

---

So you're using as an examplar a boardie I'll never have the opportunity to meet and see for myself? Good stuff.

I thought you capable of picking up on the "vibe" of another via text and discussion, as you have done several times in the past. The games you play to avoid having to make a point are tiring.

But arguments aside, I guess it's a bit like your strong objection to, say, AJMcFly as a 4w5. It's ultimately an 'aesthetic' thing. Isn't that how you felt when you categorically dismissed his self-typing? I felt that's basically where you were coming from -- and that's basically where I'm coming from with Wilbur's. As I've said before, I think there comes a point where an aesthetic or an intuitive impression overides all 'argument' and 'evidence' if it is strong enough.

---

Agreed for the most part, but there are reasons behind an aesthetic sense, even if they can't always be properly articulated.

---

---