| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sterling Doughty
Member
Switzerland
143 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 02:51:12 AM
|
*** LET'S START WITH SCIENCE ***
I have noticed that this discussion has recently featured the word "SCIENCE" on several ocassions, so it might be appropriate that I begin this series of comments in that domain.
In Lord Oscar's Arica/Ichazo Cult, "science" has often featured prominently, especially insofar as to justify claims based on the Delusions of Grandeur that feature so prominently in the statements of Lord Oscar. In the beginning there was The Word and The Word was "OscarSays" is a basic scientific postulate of the cult. We were told beginning in 1969 (I was peripherally involved in Big Sur in the discussions leading up to the original Arica 1970-71 10 month trainiing in Chile.) that every aspect of the Arica training and theory, not just Protoanalysis TM, was scientifically provable and verifiable. We assumed, rather naively, that when Lord Oscar said "science", he meant "science". As the years passed, most of us began to realize that, even thoough there was much intereesting and valuable material squirreled away in CultIchazo, scientific proof was, alas, not to be found. Some us also noticed,and even on occassion, to oiur peril, remarked upon, that when anyone attempted to analyse the material in a scientific way, say in a universsity course, they were immediately contacted by Arica Institute and told to cease and desist or they would be hit with a law suit. Infact, in the early days, while there was still some spare change lying around, CultIchazo spent around $1,000.000.00 on suits by suits. (smile)
But, to return to the point, let me illustrate the science question with a few quotes: (Some have been posted for years at: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/metaton/ton5b.html , Point 6, others await integration.
Four Conflicting views of Science: the Oscar Ichazo view, the Oscar Ichazo view, the Oscar Ichazo view, and the Oscar Ichazo view:
a) "The Arica theory is based upon a strict logic which allows us to approach the human psyche with a concrete scientific method grounded in ontology and philosophical history". Oscar Ichazo, tA Reunion, 1990
b) Mary Ellen Klee: Do we (Arica) really have adequately reliable and provable results based on scientific principles? Oscar Ichazo: In fact the word science becomes problematic because I am employing the term in the Aristotelic sense which he gave to the word 'episteme', translated as science (L.sciencia), but it also implies the notion of knowledge. …in the last century there arose a need to have a different wording for the knowledge acquired by modern experiential science. For this purpose it was proposed that the word episteme should imply knowledge, obtained by the means of experience, pretty much in the same sense that Aristotle used it and to use the word gnosis to imply intuitive knowledge……In the case of Arica, what we are really implying by the use of the word 'gnosiology' in a doctrine of knowledge or 'gnoses' that can be pondered and evaluated. Thus for the first time, in Arica, we mean a real 'science of gnoses' with a theory supported by a praxis or actual experience. In the ASSC we are changing the word 'science' to the word 'doctrine' in its philosophical acceptance."
c) "The Autumn 1996 edition [of the Arican] presents a fresh, in-depth review of the Arica Protoanalytical theory, system and method proposing answers to the problems of Western philosophy, theology, and science." Arica ADU Report December 1997, referring to an Ichazo exposition.
d) Excerpts from Presentation by Oscar Ichazo at the Nine Hypergnostic Systems Training, Maui, Hawaii 2003
"……Our science has already progressed so much that any possibility of believing in miracles is destroyed…..Now, because of that, we start by studying ourselves, using our Integral system, from a psychological presentation, description, classification and definition. How do we do that? We do it with Protoanalysis. Protoanalysis is, for the first time, a real scientific psychology that can be proven, that has been proven and tested in all possible aspects and angles, and that works. You have seen it in this training, immediately and practically, as it should be if a psychology is to be scientific. When Protoanalysis is used outside the School, without the School's specific Protoanalytic science, it becomes a ridiculous proposition and a total nonsense.
Imagine all of the "enneagram people" trying to know the Fixation by this and that characteristic. Never in a million years will they find the correct Fixation. They will always go to the wrong one, because we can never see our own Fixation, let alone our own Trifix, by identifying characteristics. On the contrary, we ordinarily always deny the real basis of our Trifix. For example, we see that a Seeker, the abandoned one, will never accept that he is the abandoned one. He will say instead, "I didn't seek enough, I have not found myself yet." He will avoid the problem of abandonment, and by avoiding the problem will avoid the most important thing-understanding the basis of his ego self. All the rest of the theory of Protoanalysis has its beginning and foundation upon that basis of understanding, which is further clarified with a psychology that is practical as well as theoretical, and which is actually experienced as well as being a pure abstraction of a speculative and rational system. This is a psychology that is scientific-not simply as a theoretical hypothesis, but as a concrete analysis of a reality that can be tested scientifically…."
Well, that clears it all up! [Make way, again, for the Lebon Prize.]
Have a nice day, Sterling
|
 |
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 07:16:50 AM
|
Dear Carlos,
I'm sorry to hear you feel unwell. If you identify the cause of your malaise, I would be interested to hear of it.
I spent so much time looking into your recently restated sexual/syntony question that I want to answer it. I looked back through my old notes and manuals looking for the Syntony Enneagam cited in The Arican, but I can neither find nor remember it. The date on the citation is before my involvement with Arica. I am confident, however, that the term Syntony relates to the Instinct now called Adaptation.
As I read all the individual correspondences cited between Ms. Palmer's text and Oscar's work, it seems clear to me that Ms. Palmer took an Enneagram which Oscar had developed to describe the Adaptation (Syntony) Instinct and applied it to try to analyze sexuality. For example, on page 118 of The Arican, we see the complete listing of an Enneagram that she calls "BELLY CENTER - SEXUAL" and the direct and obvious one-to-one correspondences with an Enneagon that Oscar clearly developed to analyze the Adaptation instinct. I have to say in this instance that it appears that she not only plagiarized, but also completely misinterpreted Oscar's material. (Please note: I honestly believe that Ms. Palmer thought she was applying ancient wisdom and had no need to attribute Oscar; I do not accuse her of malice or conscious stealing.)
The confusion regarding Sexual and Syntony almost certainly originates with Ms. Palmer, not with Oscar.
Get well soon.
Patrick |
Edited by - Patrick Wooldridge on 17 Dec 2004 03:47:54 AM |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 10:54:00 AM
|
Dee - My wife Patrice also has Dyslexia. I have seen how difficult it is for her and I empathize with you. She has managed to find a career that suits her and that she excels at, and along the way struggled through two Master's degrees. I hope her example may be an inspiration to you.
Sterling - How nice to hear from you!
I'm laughing with delight because you have chosen to address a subject that is very dear to my heart. I recently visited the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and was crushed to find that nowhere in the museum did I observe any reference to the Scientific Method. Not only was there no attempt to present and glorify this marvelous investigative tool, but all over the museum, various theories were presented as though they were facts. Even in the Rose Center, which represents state-of-the-art investigation and discovery, popular current theories were presented as fact. I really cannot describe how upset this made me. I wrote a email to the museum's education department. (and I hate email)
The Scientific Method can be graphically represented as a triangle: the top point is Observation, the right point is Hypothesis (model) and the left point is Experimental Design. Scientific investigation flows in a clockwise direction through these three points. Because it's a constant flow (a cycle), one can start an analysis anywhere, but the classical starting point is the top - Observation.
We observe the natural world, and exercise our God-given capacity to try to understand it. We develop an explanation (a model; an hypothesis). Now comes the point that makes it Science: we design an experiment to test our hypothesis. We try to design the experiment so that it most directly tests our model; the particular gift of an experimental scientist is the ability to design a good experiment to test a particular hypothesis. Now we run the experiment and return to the top point: we observe the results (including any unexpected observations). On the basis of these observations, we either refine our model or develop a new one, and the cycle continues.
I was so fortunate to have a series of great teachers in the sciences. They engendered in me a love of investigation and the Scientific Method. I believe the Scientific Method is one of the pillars of our civilization. I am not surprised to learn that historians trace its origins back to Aristotle.
< We were told beginning in 1969 ... that every aspect of the Arica training and theory, not just Protoanalysis TM, was scientifically provable and verifiable. >
< "The Arica theory is based upon a strict logic which allows us to approach the human psyche with a concrete scientific method ..." Oscar Ichazo >
< Oscar Ichazo: "Protoanalysis is, for the first time, a real scientific psychology that can be proven, that has been proven and tested in all possible aspects and angles, and that works. You have seen it in this training, immediately and practically, as it should be if a psychology is to be scientific. ... This is a psychology that is scientific - not simply as a theoretical hypothesis, but as a concrete analysis of a reality that can be tested scientifically…. " >
< when anyone attempted to analyse the material in a scientific way, say in a university course >
With regard to all these points, remember the Scientific Method: the experiment has to test the model. Now, design in your mind an experiment that directly tests Oscar's Protoanalytic Theory. It is a theory of Mind. How do we examine Mind? Against our personal experience. And in the science of social psychology, when a proposition is validated by over 200 people with no exceptions, it is considered statistically highly reliable. Over 25 years, many thousands of people have tested the Protoanalytical Theory against their experience and, to my knowledge, not one person has refuted it. In fact, tens of thousands have found offshoots of that theory very useful. Now, I have education in the Physical Sciences and make my living in Social Science, and I assert that this is pretty compelling experimental verification of the usefulness and applicability of the model.
< the Arica Protoanalytical theory, system and method proposing answers to the problems of Western philosophy, theology, and science. >
This is a different issue. Here the ADU is asserting that Oscar's theory proposes answers to current questions in science. Certainly the structure of the mind is a subject of scientific investigation, so this is kind of a tautology: theory = proposed answer.
< Oscar Ichazo: "... In the ASSC we are changing the word 'science' to the word 'doctrine' in its philosophical acceptance."
I have no idea what this means. I don't even know what the ASSC is.
< Never in a million years will they find the correct Fixation. >
Since you seem so eager for me to take issue with Oscar, I am prepared to dispute with him here: I think he overstated this case. I think a person might, especially if they had some training in meditation, read the best of the current published material and accurately identify their Enneatype. A person of exceptional insight might correctly identify their Trifix. But the much more important point from the Arica perspective is whether they can break their Fixation by this method.
Everyone - I have to ask: Did my analysis of the three Fixations in Pseudo-Adaptation make sense to anyone? It seems like that part, at least, should have been easy to compare with your standard models and experience.
Peace
Patrick |
Edited by - Patrick Wooldridge on 17 Dec 2004 03:54:10 AM |
|
|
|
Crooner
Member
USA
3968 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 2:43:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Wooldridge
Crooner - What is the distinction between "Classical System" and "modern system"?
Patrick… I noticed that you use the expression
“Classical System” in reference to Oscar Ichazo’s system.
What I mean by the modern system or the “Popular Enneagram”
is the version adapted by Claudio Naranjo and subsequently
refined by those who came after him.
If you read some of the EnneaType descriptions on the
Homepage of this web site, I’m sure you’ll find descriptions
that are at variance with Ichazo’s definition of the nine
EnneaTypes. In fact, you may even take the RHETI sampler
to see if you still come out with a 7-1-4 Trifix.
Some of the more noteworthy differences that come to mind:
Classical system: 8-9-1 is associated with Sadness
Modern system: 8-9-1 is associated with Anger
Classical system: 2-3-4 is associated with Anger
Modern system: 2-3-4 is associated with Shame
Classical system:
Identifying one’s fixation in the Gut Triad depends
on nature of relationship with one’s mother.
Identifying one’s fixation in the Heart Triad depends
on nature of relationship with one’s father.
Identifying one’s fixation in the Head Triad depends
on nature of relationship with siblings.
Modern system:
Each EnneaType is characterized by a
specific permutation of:
(A1) attachment (A2) rejection, or (A3) frustration towards
(B1) the father and (B2) the mother
Relationship with one's siblings is not a determining factor.
Crooner
|
|
|
|
anon1
Member
7600 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 6:37:31 PM
|
| Thanks, Patrick. Yes, that is inspiring for me! |
Edited by - anon1 on 13 Dec 2004 8:16:38 PM |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 6:47:21 PM
|
Crooner - < I noticed that you use the expression “Classical System” in reference to Oscar Ichazo’s system. >
I am laughing so hard I can hardly type. This confusion is entirely my fault. I have used the term "classical" exactly once - and it was in reference to the Naranjo/Palmer/Riso system - not Oscar's system. In my posting of 29 Nov 4:47 PM, I gave a one-line response off the top of my head to Carlos.
In response to one of Carlos' earlier questions, I had numbered a list of names that Oscar had given to the Domains of Consciousness. I had thought that simply putting the numbers next to the names of the Domains would provide Carlos with the correspondences (how the points lay out on the Enneagram). Carlos then asked:
< i still don't understand-- which fixations correspond to which domains? >
To which I shot off an instant, unedited reply. I thought, "How can I convey that the numbers I used correspond to the system that he (Carlos) is familiar with?" so I employed the term "classical" to refer to the normal, usual layout of numbers around the Enneagram (which Oscar never uses - he names each point on each Enneagram). Again, I was using the term "classical" to refer to the numbering of the ancient/usual/normal numbering system - not specifically Oscar's work.
Why don't we just call Oscar's system "Oscar's system" or "Ichazo's system" or, more properly, "the Protoanalytical Theory"?
My reposting of your comparison would then be:
< Some of the more noteworthy differences that come to mind:
Protoanalytical Theory: 8-9-1 is associated with Sadness
Modern system: 8-9-1 is associated with Anger
Protoanalytical Theory: 2-3-4 is associated with Anger
Modern system: 2-3-4 is associated with Shame
Protoanalytical Theory:
Identifying one’s fixation in the Gut Triad depends
on nature of relationship with one’s mother.
Identifying one’s fixation in the Heart Triad depends
on nature of relationship with one’s father.
Identifying one’s fixation in the Head Triad depends
on nature of relationship with siblings.
Modern system:
Each EnneaType is characterized by a
specific permutation of:
(A1) attachment (A2) rejection, or (A3) frustration towards
(B1) the father and (B2) the mother
Relationship with one's siblings is not a determining factor >
First, although most of your representations of Oscar's model are the exact terms he uses to describe his theory as presented in the Autodiagnosis training, as long as you are essentially trying to quote him directly, why don't we just go ahead and get the quotes right?
Oscar doesn't use the terms "Gut Triad," "Heart Triad" or "Head Triad." These terms could lead one to infer that the Fixations are based in reality - they are not.
The identification of the Fixations is based on one's subjective experience of one's relationship with the figures you cite - not the relationship itself. This is a really important distinction because it points directly to the (subjective) nature of the Fixations.
One can identify one's Fixation in the area of Pseudo-Adaptation (the grouping you have referred to as "Head Triad") by examining one's subjective experience of one's relationship with both siblings and peers. This is also an important distinction, especially for only children or any other situation where peers were closer than siblings.
Secondly, yes, I am aware of these differences. In my experience, Oscar's model is much more complete and accurate than what you are calling the Modern system. Not only in my own stream of experience, but also in others'. Between the old Protoanalysis training and the Autodiagnosis training, I have probably taught this material to around 200-300 people, and I have processed the Fixations with at least a thousand. My observation (confirmed by my fellow Arica instructors) is that the existential attitude of the being group is, indeed, Sadness - not Anger (perhaps the analyst who came up with the Modern system was seeing the Passion at the 1 point - which is Anger - rather than the existential attitude of Pseudo-Conservation - which is Sadness). Plus, Oscar's theory just makes perfect sense - it is internally consistent - it is complete - it stands up to examination and analysis. Consider your last paragraph: you have A1, A2 & A3, but only B1 & B2 - there's no correspondence to the Enneagram.
It really, deeply conforms with my experience that anyone who, with an open mind, honestly devoted the same amount of time and personal reflection to Oscar's system as they have to the Modern system would find Ichazo's system more complete, more accurate and more useful.
Thanks for your postings.
Patrick |
Edited by - Patrick Wooldridge on 14 Dec 2004 02:16:41 AM |
|
|
|
Crooner
Member
USA
3968 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 7:17:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Wooldridge
Consider your last paragraph: you have A1, A2 & A3, but only B1 & B2 - there's no correspondence to the Enneagram.
Patrick... Here's what I mean:
Conservation Triad
Type 8
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Mother
Modern: A2*B2 = Rejection of Mother
Type 9
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Mother
Modern: A1*B1 + A1*B2 = Attachment to both Mother & Father
Type 1
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Mother
Modern: A3*B1 = Frustration with the Father
Relational Triad
Type 2
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Father
Modern: A2*B1 = Rejection of the Father
Type 3
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Father
Modern: A1*B2 = Attachment to the Mother
Type 4
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by the Father
Modern: A3*B1 + A3*B2 = Frustration with both Mother & Father
Adaptation Triad
Type 5
Ichazo: (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) by Siblings
Modern: A2*B1 + A2*B2 = Rejection of both Mother & Father
Type 6
Ichazo: Feel (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) to Siblings
Modern: A1*B1 = Attachment to the Father
Type 7
Ichazo: Feel (Edited to avoid Copyright infringement) to Siblings
Modern: A3*B2 = Frustration with Mother
Crooner
|
Edited by - Crooner on 13 Dec 2004 9:17:06 PM |
|
|
|
marie
Member
5079 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 7:22:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Wooldridge
Marie - Again, thank you for your very direct feedback.
Oh you're quite welcome.
< you said that those who are fixated in pseudo-Adaptation focus on doing >
Actually, the posting reads:
When we are ... Fixated in the area of Pseudo-Adaptation, we tend to dwell on how we do (especially in the world).
Still sounds misleading to me!
When we are awake, the three Instincts inform us directly; being, living and doing are easy and natural (we don't have to think about it). When we are Fixated (and all of us have a Fixation in Pseudo-Adaptation that we get stuck in from time to time), then all kinds of mental structures get in the way, including the Pseudo-Instincts. You can think of Pseudo-Adaptation as a kind of obsession regarding our Adaptation. Some trauma or series of traumas has caused a defensive reaction wherein we get caught up in our head, continually returning to thoughts of Adaptation in an attempt to avoid further pain and suffering. The essential process is to learn to pay attention to Adaptation (mindfulness); the ego process is to form mental barriers/rules/structures between ourselves and reality (monkey-mind).
Yes, I learned this from studying Gurdjieff.
Because Adaptation addresses our perception of and interaction with the world, Oscar has characterized it as being associated it with "doing". This is not a definition, but a pointer.
OK...but it's confusing at best. It ought to be clear what is being pointed to by a pointer. I'm kind of old fashioned that way.
Consider the three Fixations in Pseudo-Adaptation: point 5 has a wing in Pseudo-Relation and tends to obsess on what others are doing and what one should do in relation to others;
This doesn't seem essential to the type Five fixation as I understand it and have experienced it.
point 6 has all 3 points in Pseudo-Adaptation and tends to obsess on work, activities, recreation, etc. and how to get the most out of life and be the most productive;
Work, activities, recreation etc...I guess you are just saying that point Six gives rise to obsessive attitudes or behavior? OK...but again I've known some obsessives who weren't fixated at Enneatype Six, so this has only limited efficacy. Again, we seem to be missing what is essential or distinctive to type Six. As an admirer of Aristotle, surely you can see just how troubling this is?
point 7 has a wing in Pseudo-Conservation and tends to obsess on what is really, essentially happening and what to do to improve being (to make the world a better place, to improve oneself, etc.).
No argument here. You know your point well!
Plus, we have to consider the Dichotomies; the Fixation can attach to either side of the Dichotomy. Point 5 can be either a social butterfly or a detached observer (or bounce back and forth between the two).
I suppose an individual type Five could...but it's quite uncommon imo. Again, we seem to be missing the essential features of type Five and focussing on an occasional manifestation.
And we also have to consider the Realms; one can be Fixated on the A side in the Intellectual Realm and the B side in the Emotional Realm. (E.g., seeking out intellectual interactions but avoiding emotional ones.)
I go into this detail to address your points < A theory which says both X and not X about the same type has limited viability in my opinion > and < He consistently fails to define key terms and tends to draw conclusions that are not warranted from his premises. >
The real issue is that his model is not simplistic (as some people seem to want it to be). The human psyche is complex; any model of it must reflect this complexity. Let's return to the analogy of the human body: one can choose to study the muscles and learn something about them just by observing their structure and function, but for any depth of understanding, one must learn their neurology, blood supply, metabolism, electrolytes, common pathologies, etc. If one simplistically believes, "This muscle moves in this way," one may be right 70% of the time, but one will be wrong 30% of the time. On the other hand, if one has studied in more depth, one may be able to formulate a much more accurate description that will be right 99.9% of the time. (This description would undoubtedly be complex, and difficult to follow, but very accurate.)
Sure...but the problem is that Ichazo isn't at all clear about what is common and what is not, what is peripheral and what is not. As I said, he seems to struggle with expressing his opinions in a concise and clear fashion.
< I'm sure I would really get on your nerves irl though. >
What is "irl"?
In real life.
And please know that I value you and respect you. If my nerves got jangled, it would be because you were showing me some aspect of my ego that I was uncomfortable looking at. I know that your observations of my process are motivated by compassion (even though it may be difficult for me to see in the moment).
Actually, I seem to be motivated by equal parts intellectual curiosity and pure cantakerousness.
< many delusions of having attained the summit ... But one who knows is in no need of a teacher. >
I am under absolutely no delusion of having attained the summit. On the contrary, most of the time I feel great revulsion for my (flagrant, outrageous, exhausting) ego process.
Revulsion must be worked through I think.
Secondly, in most Traditions it is taught that, at the higher levels, one never feels separated from one's Teacher; one sees one's Teacher everywhere and learns from every aspect of life. The High Lamas and Hindu Yogis continually invoke and express gratitude to and devotion for their Gurus; the Zaddikim express great reverence for their Rabbis; no Christian Saint has ever asserted independence from Lord Jesus.
I'm not into this hero worship stuff. But, if it works for you...
< the fact that no true teaching could be left in written form >
Yes, exactly. Given that Arica is a mystical Tradition, why do so many seem to obsess about Oscar's book?
I don't feel obsessed about it. But I think he has brought this sort of focus upon himself by promising what he has failed to deliver. Surely an enlightened master ought to do what he says and say what he does.
< Plato ... lacked compassion >
Because I am not Enlightened, it would seem to be appropriate for me to be "nice" and to act from the attitude that can be called "contrived compassion." This lessens the chance that I will cause harm. True Compassion, however, gives no quarter to the other's Ego; if the Teacher sees that Her student needs it, She will not hesitate to employ Her sword.
Yeah...there have been lots and lots of swords unsheathed in the service of Lord Jesus.
As for Plato...he was kind of soft on slavery and argued that, while there were some individual exceptions, women in general are morally, physically and intellectually inferior to men. This is not at all incidental to his belief system btw, as his over emphasis on intellectuality strikes me as symptomatic of the patriarchy. (This is all quite clearly stated in the Republic btw.) My inclination is to think that if someone is wrong about such basics, he simply can't be trusted anywhere along the line. To give the man his due, he does warn us not to trust him. In the end, we are always thrown back upon ourselves.
The Teachers focus on the needs of the moment and of their students. Moses focused on the Law (and was pretty swordsy).
Yeah...didn't he order a third of the Levites killed after that little incident with the golden calf? Lord Moses has never been one of my faves to tell the truth. I'm kind of funny when it comes to murder in the name of God. Just sets me off for some reason.
Peace
To you as well.
|
Edited by - marie on 13 Dec 2004 10:21:59 PM |
|
|
|
anon1
Member
7600 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2004 : 12:10:06 AM
|
Sword meaning "love".... [he came with love] after all, it does conquer and being this said, it is the weapon of choice that so few use which is why a person in their gut might find war wrong. go and educate the very people who despise you and love develops but when we go and kill their families so to bring peace, the teachings of many are slain.
4 sx/sp/so
If you are not being proactive in life you are being reactive.
|
Edited by - anon1 on 14 Dec 2004 12:15:54 AM |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2004 : 02:08:06 AM
|
Crooner - I went back and edited my first paragraph of response to you. I saw that my posting didn't clearly indicate that I was laughing at myself and the comical miscommunications inherent in just typing a quick response. I was completely confused when you said I had used the term (I didn't recall having done so) and had to search back through pages of postings. When I finally found it, I just started laughing because I remembered right after hitting the "send" button on that posting thinking, "That wasn't very clear, I know better than to hurriedly respond to posts," but I didn't know how to edit at the time. Seems like my Karma comes around real quick these days.
Interesting analysis. I'm going to lay it out in a spreadsheet so I can consider the various factors and compare against my experience. I'll get back to you.
I'm smiling at all the censorship. I'm no lawyer, but I'll bet that we can talk about Oscar's work as long as we don't present it wholesale and are conscientious in properly attributing it. It's uncomfortable to feel like one has to walk on eggs.
Marie - Since you seem to grok the mystical/transcendental application of this work, the only way to really address many of the excellent points you make (< we seem to be missing what is essential or distinctive to type Six >) is to present you the entire theory with regard to the Domains and Fixations, and I can't do that in this forum. When you see the whole map and realize that it really is a complete map, all the questions resolve themselves; everything falls into place. But I am not the author of the theory and it's not mine to do with as I wish. Further, it is my experience that the best way to get this material is by taking the Arica trainings. I'm sorry I am unable to clarify these points for you.
One point I can address: every Fixation is more or less obsessed. The scale which Art published earlier can be seen as a behavioral measure of the degree of obsession (Level of Consciousness) for each Fixation.
< Revulsion must be worked through I think. >
It's a balance; love and nurture the Essence, cultivate revulsion for the Ego.
< I'm not into this hero worship stuff. But, if it works for you... >
Yes; for me it is a method for Transcendence. When real Devotion arises, I disappear.
< I think he has brought this sort of focus upon himself by promising what he has failed to deliver. >
It's funny to me: Oscar has never promised the book to anyone but the School (I've always envisioned it as a handbook/reference for Aricans, not a best-seller). He hasn't given a press release or taken out an advertisement. Yet no one in the School really seems to mind; the delays are kind of a running joke. The only people who seem to mind are people he never promised it to.
< didn't he order a third of the Levites killed >
I have heard that Lord Shakyamuni Buddha once cut his foot. His disciples were amazed, asking, "How could this happen to the Tathagata?" He answered, "I still owe karmic debts. This cut is the result of action taken a few lifetimes ago. I was on a ship filled with pilgrims carrying treasure to be offered to the Holy, and a murderous thief was about to kill them all for the treasure. By killing him, I not only saved the lives of the pilgrims and gained special merit by assisting them on their pilgrimage, I also directly helped the thief by saving him from committing such a karmically burdensome act. Nonetheless, and irrespective of my motivation, I did kill him, and there is always a price to be paid for killing."
Art - Thank you very much for the pointer to the history page (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/history.asp). I found it a very well-written and predominantly accurate presentation, beginning to end. Even the descriptions of the Fixations and Holy Ideas have some depth to them. Thanks again.
Patrick |
Edited by - Patrick Wooldridge on 02 Jan 2005 8:42:36 PM |
|
|
|
Ocean
Member
4460 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2004 : 6:42:50 PM
|
Patrick,
I have a few questions, if you can answer.
The newer systems tend to tell us that as we get healthier, and less fixated, we "integrate" along the enneagram lines in a particular direction - 3->6->9-> 3 and 7->5->8->2->4->1->7 and so on. In Oscar's system, this seems to be reversed? In Oscar's system, how does the movement flow as we become healthier and less fixated, and in which direction does it tend to flow as we become more fixated?
Another question. Could you, in your own words, describe your understanding of each of Oscar's three instinctual realms? (I am also having trouble corelating the newer sexual instinct with Oscar's adaptation).
Oh, and anything you can add about that trifix question would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
...ocean
|
Edited by - Ocean on 14 Dec 2004 6:45:07 PM |
|
|
|
Sterling Doughty
Member
Switzerland
143 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2004 : 08:31:57 AM
|
Hi Patrick (et al):
I am preparing another post, which of course I want to be as accurate as possible, and have a couple of questions.
1. In terms of the 108 enneagrams in the Protoanalytic theory, have you ever seen them all in relationship or a list of all of them?
2. You made reference to the awards ceremony of the UN Writers Award. It was followed by some sort of Smiley. Were you making a joke or did you actually attend the event?
3. I don't have a copy of the Letter to the Transpersonal Community and would appreciate it if someone could send me a digitalised or scanned copy to metaton@hotmail.com . I could also provide a fax number if anyone has photocopies of the document. However, my specific question refers to something I believe Oscar said in the letter about Helen Palmer et al and I am not sure enough about my memory to use it without verification. I thought he said that the Helen Palmer - Enneagram Community use of "his" work was one of the worst things to have happened in history. Is that reasonably close?
Thanks in advance,
Sterling
|
|
|
|
marie
Member
5079 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2004 : 11:42:20 AM
|
Sterling
The Letter to the Ttranspersonal Community is contained in a volume called Letters to the School, is it not? If so, I can get a copy of it as it is held at the local university library. I could then fax it to you. Let me know.
|
|
|
|
marie
Member
5079 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2004 : 11:59:28 AM
|
| Thanks for your help Patrick. Best of luck to you on your chosen path. |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2004 : 6:08:33 PM
|
Ocean - Regarding your first question about the internal movement of the Enneagram, the principal difference seems to me that in Oscar's system, the internal movement is in space - not time. Analyzing across time, the evolutionary flow is clockwise (9-2-1-3-2-4-3 etc.) and the degenerative flow is counterclockwise. The internal movement is structural. To use the analogy of a bridge, as long as the primary forces are downward (traffic on the bridge, the weight of the bridge, etc.), the bridge will function properly. If the forces are upward, however (e.g., a tornado), the bridge is not as strong and will be weakened or collapse. (Those who have studied the Five Element system of Chinese medicine will get this immediately.)
< Could you, in your own words, describe your understanding of each of Oscar's three instinctual realms? (I am also having trouble correlating the newer sexual instinct with Oscar's adaptation). >
Here I think the principal issue is that Claudio left before the presentation of the two Poles. If one has only the map of the Instincts, then one has to put sexuality somewhere, but the Instincts are functionally distinct from the Poles. If one wishes to look at sex and the Instincts, sexuality must be analyzed across all 3 Instincts; it does not fall into just one. The Conservation aspect of sex can be seen as the propagation of the species and making one feel satisfied. The Relation aspect can be seen as sexual intimacy and the sense of really knowing and trusting the other. The Adaptation Instinct regarding sex would then be the sense of belonging, family, feeling whole/complete, etc.
Remember the best sex you ever had. It wasn't just your belly that was involved; your heart was wide open and your brain was singing.
< that trifix question >
I'm sorry; would you restate the question?
Sterling - I'm certain I have seen more than 108 Enneagrams. I do not know to which specific Enneagrams Oscar is referring.
I was present when Oscar received the Award of Excellence from the United Nations Society of Writers and it was indeed a very nice ceremony. The presenter said some very complimentary things which showed he had knowledge of and appreciation for Oscar's contributions to Philosophy (and gave him a nice plaque).
I'll email you a scanned copy of Oscar's Letter to the Transpersonal Community. It's a long document; hopefully I can JPEG it down to a reasonable size.
Everyone - Last night I was at a concert, and when the orchestra and chorus belted out Handel's Hallelujah Chorus, I was overwhelmed with gratitude, and one of the things I was feeling grateful for is this conversation we are having. Thank you all for your comments and questions and links, etc. I have learned a lot from your perspectives and instruction and from examining my own understanding in trying to address your questions concisely.
Happy Holidays. God bless us, every one.
Patrick |
Edited by - Patrick Wooldridge on 16 Dec 2004 07:21:50 AM |
|
|
|
shakti
Member
USA
8529 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2004 : 8:53:27 PM
|
Moderators - Do you have any idea why my use of the term "assisting" (14 Dec 2:08 AM) has been rendered as [offensive term]isting? It makes a reader of the posting kind of have to work for the meaning. We could change the word to "aiding" if necessary.
We had a software upgrade last night that had an unexpected side effect. It has been fixed. Thanks to you and others for noticing earlier today. You are, of course, welcome to edit your message to put "assisting" back in. Sorry for the trouble. |
|
|
|
Sterling Doughty
Member
Switzerland
143 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2004 : 2:30:55 PM
|
Thanks for the clarifications Patrick.
I will add my next post soon.
Sterling |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 03:19:51 AM
|
Crooner - Thank you again for the analysis you posted. It was very interesting to contemplate. Allow me to propose a line of observation and logic:
First, we are all in agreement that there are 3 Instincts, and we have general agreement that they are centered in the "belly", "heart" and "brain." Since I have heard no contradiction in this forum with Oscar's characterization of these Instincts being named Conservation, Relation and Adaptation, I will use those terms. We also agree that the Instincts can be mapped onto the Fixations such that 8,9,1 form the Conservation triad, etc., and that within each of these triads, each of the three Fixations has a characteristic "flavor" (which you have named A1, A2, A3; for this discussion, it will be convenient to use these terms). So we see that we have much in common; let us now discuss the relationship of the Instincts to the figures of the mother, father and siblings/peers.
We are born with all our physical parts (head, arms, torso, organs, etc.) and as we age, these various parts grow and develop at different rates (at birth, the head is quite large in proportion to the torso, etc.). The same is true of the Instincts: they are all present at birth, but they most rapidly develop at different rates/times. During the first 6-9 years of life, our principal relationship/growth/learning is with the mother figure in our life, and this is when the Conservation Instinct has its growth spurt; we learn about ourselves. During the next 6-9 years, our principal relationship/growth/learning is with the father figure in our lives, and the Relation Instinct develops concurrently; we learn about others. In the next 6-9 years, our principal relationship/growth/learning is regarding our siblings and/or peers, and the Adaptation Instinct develops; we learn about society, the world and how we fit in. I encourage you to take a moment and compare these statements against your personal experience of your life and of children you have known. Although I have presented these points briefly, I hope I have provided enough information for you to compare against your experience.
A digression: Keep in mind that is is the *figure* we are discussing; it is possible for someone with a single parent to develop perfectly normally, etc. However, if we really lack experience with one of these three figures, or if one of them is consistently abusive, then the corresponding Instinct will be traumatized, and may not develop properly/healthily. In extreme cases, we see sociopathy or other disorders.
So now, if you can see how the Instincts naturally and sequentially develop and their relation to these three figures, and you already know how the Instincts map against the Fixations, it follows that you will also see why Oscar applies A1, A2 & A3 against (our subjective experience of) our mother figure for the Conservation triad, our father figure for the Relation triad and our siblings/peers figure for the Adaptation triad.
Everyone - As I have studied the material published on this site, there is one critical point to which I must take exception. That is the assertion that we are born with a predisposition toward a particular Fixation (Enneatype). Unless one is taking some metaphysical view that all our life experiences are completely predetermined before birth, this assertion is both false and counterproductive to our Conscious Evolution.
Our body, our Instincts and the Domains of Consciousness are all a direct consequence of our birth as human beings. All human beings share these same general structures or patterns at birth. We carry these structures throughout our lives, and although (from an esoteric perspective) they do not define our "self," they are so intimately a part of our human experience that we may consider them to be natural and organic manifestations and, to a certain extent, it is not harmful to identify with them.
The Fixations (the Enneatypes), on the other hand, are mechanistic defensive reactions to our life experience which take us out of the direct perception of reality. They are neither organic nor natural, and our identification with them is the root of our suffering and confusion. The Fixations do not appear until we have developed both the faculty of language and the capability to ideate the concept, "I am." Sometime after these developments have occurred, a trauma or series of traumas will provoke us to withdraw into a cocoon of subjectivity - a suit of armor to insulate us from reality. We begin to identify with a particular set of ideas which we believe will protect us (e.g., "I will be tough; I will not cry," or, "I am better than others," or "I can think my way out of problems," etc.). Again, our identification with our Fixations ("I am a 5," etc.) is a self-generated barrier or veil between ourselves and Reality.
While all but the most highly Realized beings will go through the process of Fixation, it is also true that it is natural and essential for every person to break or transcend his or her Fixations. This is our birthright - to achieve Transcendence. For this reason, it is important to understand that the Fixations are entirely subjective, a consequence of our reaction to particular experiences, and not at all an accident of birth. Our Fixations are neither our true selves nor our friends and we have no need to remain Fixated. On the contrary, true Freedom is only possible once one has broken (disidentified with) one's Fixations.
I pray that I have expressed these truths in a way that can be heard and understood.
Peace
Patrick |
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
4189 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 06:08:36 AM
|
"The Fixations (the Enneatypes), on the other hand, are mechanistic defensive reactions to our life experience which take us out of the direct perception of reality. They are neither organic nor natural, and our identification with them is the root of our suffering and confusion. The Fixations do not appear until we have developed both the faculty of language and the capability to ideate the concept, "I am." Sometime after these developments have occurred, a trauma or series of traumas will provoke us to withdraw into a cocoon of subjectivity - a suit of armor to insulate us from reality. We begin to identify with a particular set of ideas which we believe will protect us (e.g., "I will be tough; I will not cry," or, "I am better than others," or "I can think my way out of problems," etc.). Again, our identification with our Fixations ("I am a 5," etc.) is a self-generated barrier or veil between ourselves and Reality."
My understanding, exactly.
|
|
|
|
Crooner
Member
USA
3968 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 2:06:38 PM
|
Thanks, Patrick… I appreciate your taking the time to prepare such a detailed response.
quote:
I encourage you to take a moment and compare these statements against your personal experience of your life and of children you have known.
I can see how my original Trifix would have been 8-4-5 or 4-5-8 or 5-8-4 by Ichazo’s definition. It would have been a close call between 3 and 4 according to Ichazo’s AutoDiagnosis criteria. Even 2 would apply to some extent. I can definitely see myself as a Moralist (8) or a Reasoner (4). I don’t see myself as an Observer (5) – a socialite who meddles in the affairs of others, revealing little about himself, while extracting personal information about everyone else.
quote:
As I have studied the material published on this site, there is one critical point to which I must take exception. That is the assertion that we are born with a predisposition toward a particular Fixation (Enneatype).
You mentioned EnneaType being developed over three 6-9 year windows. In the modern theory, distinct personality characteristics can be observed at birth and there is a predisposition toward fixation on a particular stage of child development.
For example, Type Three corresponds to fixation on the Practicing Phase of development, Type Six corresponds to ineffective/incomplete Rapprochement, and Type Seven corresponds to fixation on a reversion to Practicing (when a child learns to substitute Transitional Objects for the Mother figure).
There is even correlation between EnneaType and one’s experience of the birth process. The cause of Nines feeling paralyzed may stem from being stuck in the birth canal for a protracted period of time. And CounterPhobic Sixes often experienced a bloody birth process where the mother’s life was at risk.
quote:
The Fixations (the Enneatypes), on the other hand, are mechanistic defensive reactions to our life experience which take us out of the direct perception of reality.
Indeed. And elegantly stated, Patrick. Egoic structure is a defense against Enlightenment. Enlightenment is our natural state.
quote:
Sometime after these developments have occurred, a trauma or series of traumas will provoke us to withdraw into a cocoon of subjectivity - a suit of armor to insulate us from reality.
Apt analogies… and once again… elegantly stated. It also reminds me of something Russ once said: “Does a Butterfly care what kind of cocoon it emerged from?”
In the Riso & Hudson Parts I/II workshops, all students participate in all the exercises. In my mind, accurate self-typing is not even necessary if we take this shotgun approach to addressing our fixation.
Crooner
|
|
|
|
Sterling Doughty
Member
Switzerland
143 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 6:45:14 PM
|
Very fine.
Let us discuss, ad infinitum, all the little aspects of personality, which, of course,by definition, have no value whatsoever. Identification with, as distinguishêd from, understanding of, these points is a problem for CultIchazoians and Enneagramonians.
Next
|
|
|
|
anon1
Member
7600 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 7:06:50 PM
|
I would like to know if there has been any discussion on introversion and extraversion. Introversion in people can seem rather 6-ish to me because there is some kind of paranoia associated with people whom I know including myself who are introverts. The sp/ on Types has a 6-ish feel and you add that to an introvert and I get 6 right away from people. I gather we have all heard the saying (not saying it's correct)"Be weary of the quiet ones." This however is what an extrovert might say and so what are they seeing that the introvert doesn't? Maybe our vigilance. An introvert sensor seems phobic 6 to me and an introvert intuitive seems cp 6 to me and the types seem to manifest from there. It's like we all have a "6" window or so it seems when an introvert. Anyway, any discussion on the instincts - social/sexual/selp-pres would be appreciated.
4 sx/sp/so
If you are not being proactive in life you are being reactive.
|
Edited by - anon1 on 17 Dec 2004 7:15:16 PM |
|
|
|
Duncan
Member
USA
5071 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 8:41:36 PM
|
kudos, Sterling.
Very well put.
It has been on my mind to e-mail for a week or two. Perhaps I shall.
Be well,
Duncan |
|
|
|
Patrick Wooldridge
Member
USA
65 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 09:33:47 AM
|
Crooner - < I don’t see myself as an Observer (5) – a socialite who meddles in the affairs of others, revealing little about himself, while extracting personal information about everyone else. >
The first possibility is that this is not your Fixation in Pseudo-Adaptation. The majority of us will correctly identify our Fixations by simply applying the questions (as posed in the Autodiagnosis training), "Did I (subjectively) experience my peers/siblings as more A1, A2 or A3?" However, a non-trivial percentage of the population have structured our armor such that when we consider these questions regarding our Fixated point, we have a strong reaction like, "Oh no! Definitely not!" If this type of reaction is very strong, it may be indicating that this is indeed the Fixated point. Try reexamining your experience from this perspective. (Also, I remember that when you laid out the schema, you omitted peers from your description; have you only considered siblings thus far?)
The other possibility is that you are Fixated on the other side of the Dichotomy. Do you observe your Fixation as being aloof, scrupulously non-invasive, and disinterested or even averse to social interaction and gossip? If so, your Ego may be Fixated on the B side of the Observer Dichotomy. (This also occurs in a non-trivial percentage of the population.)
< You mentioned EnneaType being developed over three 6-9 year windows. >
I'm sorry I was not clear: It is the Instincts which most rapidly develop during these periods - not the Fixations (Enneatypes). Most people become Fixated between 5 and 12 years old, and their primary Fixation can be in any of the 3 Pseudo-Instincts. By the time we are 16-21 years old, the entire Trifix (one Fixation in each of the three Pseudo-Instincts) is usually well established. And (although this rarely happens) our Fixations can change at any time due to subsequent trauma.
< distinct personality characteristics can be observed at birth >
Yes, absolutely. Anyone who has observed different children shortly after birth (or even litters of puppies or kittens) can see that this is true. This is one of the proofs that is given in some esoteric Traditions that we have preexisting karma before birth (and are therefore reincarnate beings). And, from this perspective, one can argue that our life experiences (e.g., getting stuck in the birth canal) are also at least partially a result of previous karma. However, with regard to the Fixations, there are two important points to consider:
First, we are constantly making decisions which affect our experience. There is an old saying, "If you want to know your actions in the past, consider your current situation. If you want to know what your situation will be in the future, consider your current actions." As we grow up, our attitudes and perspectives are heavily influenced by our experiences, the decisions we make and the decisions that others make regarding us. By the time we become Fixated (which, again, cannot happen until we are fluent in language and capable of ideating the concept, "I am." - not pure self-awareness, but the *concept* of self), the karma we had at birth is only one of a number of factors bearing upon our particular Fixations, and the most influential of these factors is the trauma which causes us to withdraw into Fixation.
Second, and more importantly, if we adopt the position that our particular Fixations are somehow predestined or inevitable or that they have been "us" or our true nature from the beginning, then it becomes much more difficult to break the Fixation. We rationalize, saying, "Oh, I have always been this way," or, "That's just me." or some other platitude that allows us to wallow in our subjectivity and avoid responsibility for our actions and for our Conscious Evolution. True self-responsibility and its corollary - freedom - are only possible when we disidentify from the mechanistic process of the Ego, and this is much easier to do when we see that the true origin of our Fixations was a choice we consciously made to try to avoid suffering - not an accident of birth.
Regarding the correspondences you propose between various Enneatypes and stages of child development, it looks to me like it could be perfectly reasonable for a point of Fixation to attach to memories of a particularly safe and non-threatening phase of development and to withdraw into and Fixate upon a remembered childhood perspective. I'll have to contemplate this and get back to you.
< In my mind, accurate self-typing is not even necessary if we take this shotgun approach to addressing our fixation. >
I agree completely. Until this moment in history, Autodiagnosis has not been available, yet many great Teachers of the past have clearly transcended their Fixations.
Sterling - < Let us discuss, ad infinitum, all the little aspects of personality, which, of course, by definition, have no value whatsoever ... a problem for CultIchazoians and Enneagramonians. >
Disrespecting Oscar and the Arica School (and now, surprisingly, the Enneagram community as well) is apparently your agenda, Sterling. I think that most of us are here to discuss the Enneagram and its usefulness and applications toward Self-Observation and Conscious Evolution, and in this particular thread, the contributions and perspectives of Oscar Ichazo and his Protoanalytic Theory. Although I would not assert that examining one's "personality" is essential to awakening, it is certainly my experience that it can be useful.
Dee - As I see it, there are a few distinct parameters that are often lumped together as "introversion" or "extroversion." For example, if one is highly self-absorbed in one's subjectivity (irrespective of one's Fixation), then one will appear to be introverted. On the other end of the scale, there is a state sometimes called Divine Silence where one is not at all attached to subjectivity, yet appears detached and withdrawn - introverted. We can say that the B side of each Dichotomy is more likely to appear introverted than the A side. It doesn't seem to me that the qualities of introversion or extroversion are particularly associated with individual Fixations per se, but I will contemplate the possibility.
Patrick |
|
|
|
anon1
Member
7600 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 7:43:08 PM
|
Thanks for you take on it, Patrick.
EQ is to some degree describing a person who is extroverted and social. Enlightment seems to entail introversion in B that you mentioned. Jesus imo represents A. IMHO, unless a person can relate because they are naturally motivated to, the person might not take any of the chosens paths I've mentioned and of course there are many more. I read on someone who is a practising stoic and he scores Type 5 so this might be a person fixated and now practising his/her fixation. Many feelers and phobic sensors at church and it seems like it goes along with their fixation. EQ studied at my place of work and many extroverted socials were given a high-five for relating so well and determined emotionally healthy, mind you it was just a workshop so more a political maneuver to pump up low morale. Do you see where I'm going with this?
imo - in my opinion
imho - in my humble or honest opinion
4 sx/sp/so
If you are not being proactive in life you are being reactive.
|
Edited by - anon1 on 18 Dec 2004 7:49:57 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Oscar Ichazo and Arica
