Another Year... Revisiting the Enneagram

As I have written in the past, I don't really "do" New Year's Resolutions.

Bottom line is that I don't need to manufacture my own reasons to feel bad about not accomplishing things I set out to do... just to feel like I am part of the "Societal Mores Club."

Are goals a bad thing?

Personally, I don't think so-- what feels "bad" to me isn't the resolutions, but pressuring ourselves, especially when that pressure is the product of societal expectations, rather than our own authentic sense of what we want. Or want to accomplish.

I believe the vast majority of people who make New Year's Resolutions do so because it's part of the collective societal hypnosis and they feel like they "should;" because "that's what people DO." not because they are genuinely ready and able to set goals in a sensible fashion, and then take the organized steps-- with positive intent-- to accomplish them.

There are exceptions, of course.

As of late, I have been "revisiting" the Enneagram... in part because I was organizing my office bookcase and the 30-odd books on my shelf on various aspects of the system reminded me of how much I used to "study" typology... and how I invested almost 20 years in gaining a better understanding of myself and the world around me... in large part through the Enneagram.

As I started to read again... and visited some of the many groups, web sites and forums that have sprung up... I was also reminded of why I stopped: The pervasive focus on "fixations" increasingly felt like the eternal emphasis was on "not being well" rather than on being well.

It seems like there is always this assumption that we are "not well" and need to be "healed," but there is very little information and guidance about actually LIVING and BEING well.

I remember sitting with that-- back around 2005-06-- and growing disgruntled at the realization that it felt like yet another variation on certain branches of religion (and Christianity, especially) where the eternal assumption is "we're all sinners."

In the Church of the Enneagram, it felt like "we're all in our fixations."

Don't get me wrong... I "get" the underlying logic, purely from a psychoanalytical perspective. If you're emotionally healthy, balanced and well, you're not going to BE on the Internet a lot, looking at systems like the Enneagram, you're going to be too busy being "out there, living life." And so... both the "givers" and "takers" in the Enneagram equation are going to be disproportionately those with a perceived need to "fix" something.

And that's kind of why I left... to get out of "analysis paralysis."

So why am I revisiting the Enneagram, now?

Actually, because I like to write (and finally have some time!)... and it's an interesting field, as well as one of my favorites.

The Paradoxes of "Emotional Sloth"

Recently, my wife and I spent three weeks in Denmark, the country where I was born and raised.

For three lovely weeks, we had "nothing to do," in the sense that the clamor and demands of everyday life were nowhere to be found.

I spent a lot of time "just sitting" and thinking about life and the world and the human condition... against the backdrop of a family summer cottage where I spent many a summer holiday as a kid.

When I am on vacation, I am just not one of "those people" who feels compelled to cram "activities" into my every waking moment... for me, the entire purpose of being on vacation is that it represents an opportunity for me to totally "unplug" without feelings of guilt.

So I do.

I got to reflecting on the reality that my most desired state is "stillness."

When characterizing Nines and their fixations, a word/phrase that is often used is "sloth." Sometimes the more specific classical term "acedia" (Claudio Naranjo is fond of this one) is used-- specifically meaning spiritual or mental sloth. I also see the term "indolence" used, quite a bit.

The interesting (apparent) paradox is that we criticize Nines for being in this "nothing" place... yet society broadly endorses the positive idea of stillness through meditation, and we "value" people who have the ability to stay unflappable and calm.

There's a strange duality there... and I fell into this type of thinking, myself, for many years... with an internal dialogue that went something like:

"So you want me to be calm and peaceful, and you openly declare this a GOOD thing, but because I am calm and peaceful I am in my FIXATION and need to snap out of it???!?!??"

Ultimately, we need to scratch beneath the surface and examine intent.

Meditation and striving to keep oneself in a Zen-like state of calm is an active practice... not a way to zone out and avoid the world, out of a sense of apathy. At a glance, an external observer may see the two as fairly similar... but when you examine the underlying states of consciousness... one is motivated by a true sense of peace, the other is motivated by apathy.

I genuinely like to be peaceful.

I have no fear of "doing" or of "engaging." But when offered the active choice between engaging in a bunch of stuff and sitting still in a state of peace, I am always going to choose peace. There's little to no ongoing "monkey mind/monkey body" within me.

Does that make me emotionally or spiritually slothful, or merely a peaceful sort of person?

Beats me... but I always return to the same basic question: "If someone is functioning and content in their life, WHO decides what 'healthy conduct' looks like?"

Nines and what Feels Good

I'm going to make a few sweeping assumptions, before starting this post.

For one, I'm going to assume that-- as a species-- we are inclined do be drawn to things/activities that "feel good." I find it difficult to wrap myself around the idea of someone thinking "Oh, this is going to make me feel really BAD or IN PAIN, so let me rush out and do it!" as a modus operandum for life. It just doesn't make sense... sure, it may be the "reality" of someone with a psychological disturbance, but I just can't parse it as "healthy behavior."

Second assumption: We are not "all the same," even at our core. What constitutes a "Healthy, Well-adjusted Life" is not a generic concept-- it will vary from person to person, dependent on a whole load of different factors.

That said...

For many years, I have been contemplating the core issue of "WHO decides" what an ostensibly healthy well-adjusted life "looks like?"

After a lot of self-inquiry-- and reading the better part of 50-odd books on the enneagram, as well as scores of others on psychology and self-improvement-- I reached the conclusion that two of the most important words in this whole "self-awareness" ball of wax are:

".... to ME."

We talk a lot about enneagram Nines and their desire for peace. I'll be the first to admit that most of my choices in life are motivated by desiring a peaceful outcome; to maintain a state of inner (and outer/environmental) peace.

Being at peace feels good.. "... to ME."

Being in a state of turmoil where it seems like everything is chaos and I live with a constant sense that I am falling off a cliff into an ocean of disruption and chaos... does not feel good... "... to ME."

I'm totally aware that it may feel like a perfect way to live, to YOU... you, who crave constant novelty, excitement and change, and who gets bored if you have sat still for more than three minutes straight. And I honor that.

Where I get angry (<-- Yes, Nines DO get angry!) is when I somehow get labeled as "psychologically unhealthy" and "in my fixation" because my choices don't look like yours. In Western society-- and especially in the USA-- we tend to idolize "Adventurer Daredevil" personality traits, while dismissing those who prefer to peacefully go with the flow as "colorless doormats," or-- at the very least-- "sheeple."

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that kind of blanket labeling.

To ME, part of living a "Healthy, Well-Adjusted Life" includes the capacity to not only examine, but also understand and embrace, the difference between simple "preferences" and unhealthy "fixations." We are not "sheeple" and we are not "all the same." We must honor the "Peacekeeper" just as much as we honor the "Adventurer/Daredevil."

Part of my "issue" with the enneagram-- and I have written about this, at length-- is its tendencies to place a huge emphasis on our fixations; our defects; the ways in which we are "broken." Very little time is given to examination and description of the healthy manifestations of the nine enneagram points.

And that feels wrong..."... to ME."