the 'Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting' and the 'Enneagram of Self and Ego'
Introduction
In early June, the following message was left at the Community Forum Message Board at this site -
Regards,
We decided to use the response we posted, which follows, as an introduction
to the present paper.
This is a great question. When one really attempts to do what you say, however - as we're sure you know - one begins to realize that there are MANY different things that one can try to affirm. Some turn out not so easy to do, and some are beside the point. So it really becomes a matter of WHAT to affirm, and how to do it, doesn't it?
This question, about what to affirm, is very similar to one that the person who practices lucid dreaming is faced with. A dream turns 'lucid' when one becomes aware that one is dreaming, and at that point one begins to be able to change elements in the dream. You can make a bird fly through it, for instance, or change the color on the walls of the room in the dream - by simple affirmation.
As a result, some questions naturally arise - 'WHAT should I try to change, what should I affirm in the dream when it becomes lucid?' 'WHAT will really be the most productive thing to do for my psycho-spiritual growth at this point?'
Some experts in this field of lucid dreaming have developed methods for helping one to decide what to do at these critical junctures, what to affirm.
As synchronicity would have it, as part of our series on the 'Enneagram as Mandala'
we are preparing to post a paper on this subject, in the next issue (Issue Five) of the 'the Enneagram and the MBTI'. In this paper we extrapolate from the methods developed for lucid dreaming to similar methods that would help us to identify the pivotal characterological points around which effective personality change can be successfully affirmed.
We believe, as you intimate, that as a result of the hypothesis that Enneagram type results exclusively from negative childhood incidents (or from genetic causes - as asserted by the MBTI), too much emphasis has been put on resolving childhood issues (in the Enneagram) or on the IMPOSSIBILITY of change (in the the MBTI).
The latter belief is, unfortunately, tantamount to a NEGATIVE affirmation (eg, it is equivalent to telling ourselves 'I can't change'). And the former theory, as useful as it may be in helping the individual to achieve insight into who he or she is, nevertheless has the negative effect of construing the Enneagram as PRIMARILY a defense mechanism. It ignores the fact that we are each initially pulled toward a
given personality type as the result of a particular kind of 'wisdom' within us that
promises to bring us to 'enlightenment'.
We must learn to affirm that particular wisdom to which we are partial, but in a way that does not fixate us in a mundane personality pattern that is limiting.
But how do we do that? First we must begin to understand the Enneagram types in a slightly different way. Each is uniquely associated with a profound psycho-spiritual 'riddle'. By identifying with a type, we are, in effect, posing that riddle to ourselves. We must meditate on that riddle, and treat is as if it were a profound Zen koan, until we have glimpsed a solution, had an 'aha' experience.
Only then do we have the raw material for an effective psychological 'affirmation' regarding type. The solution, for example, to the E4 riddle, will provide the E4 with what he/she needs to remain in contact with the 'wisdom' characteristically
associated with E4, with what he/she has 'forgotten' about his/her own true nature and needs to 'affirm' in order to avoid ego-fixations and stay in contact with a more expansive kind of awareness of self and its relationship to others.
We hope that the remaining papers comprising our 'Enneagram as Mandala' series will
go into these matters in sufficient detail to be helpful in a practical way with this
very important matter of 'affirmations' that you raise.
Section One - The 'Enneagram of Paradigm
Shifting'
Incommensurability and Paradigms
When philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of
'paradigms' and 'paradigm shifting' into the discourse that was taking
place in that field in the early 1960s, he explicitly identified
'incommensurability' as a key feature of the relationship between
competing paradigms in science. Rival paradigms are so profoundly
UNLIKE each other, he observed, that they have no COMMON MEASURE.
Incommensurability was also an issue foremost in the minds of those
whose main concerns were 'spiritual'. They turned to the mandala,
as we've seen in earlier papers in this series, to 'reconcile' incommensurable
orders of existence, to visualize the type of organizational structures
that were conducive to this goal, and to symbolize such a reconciliation.
It is not a mere coincidence that the interplay between
incommensurables should attract significant attention in these
seemingly disparate fields. Or in the psychology of the 'unconscious',
where, for instance, Sigmund Freud explicitly concerned himself with
how rival 'texts' could be held in mind by the same individual at
the same time. For human consciousness ultimately plays a key role in each of these endeavors, and individuals who are seriously involved in trying to understand
theory-building, individual psychological process, or spiritual growth
will all sooner or later bump up against signs of the strange, paradoxical
way in which consciousness is structured.
Kuhn's choice of the term 'incommensurable' was not hyperbole; it
is indeed difficult to exaggerate the discontinuity that can occur between an 'old', prevailing paradigm in science and the 'new' one that would replace it.
Like Von Franz, who used the same term to describe the key feature of the 'double' mandala, or Freud, who used it to emphasize the manner in which consciousness was inexorably 'split', Kuhn was interested in bringing into stark relief a kind of disparity so fundamental to the workings of the human mind as to
defy further explication. The best he could do was appeal to analogies;
the shift from an old to a new paradigm, he proclaimed, is more akin to a
a 'revolution', a 'conversion experience', or a gestalt 'shift' (in which
there is a sudden REVERSAL of 'figure' and 'ground') than to an incremental
evolution of knowledge that slowly and imperceptibly takes place over time.
Kuhn elaborated on what he called 'the most fundamental aspect of the
incommensurability of competing paradigms' in the following way -
It is important to recognize the extent to which Kuhn insisted on seeing 'incommensurability' as a key feature of the relationship between
competing paradigms. And to understand that he was using the word
'incommensurable' in the strictest sense of the word possible. For in the intervening years since Kuhn first introduced it, the term 'paradigm' has become increasingly more popular and, as an unfortunate result, it has become progressively watered-down.
A 'paradigm shift' is virtually tantamount these days to any new idea that happens
to pop into someone's head, and Kuhn's original concept is often hardly recognizable in such usages. But in this paper we are interested in using the term in the original way.
Why is this so important? Because the 'spiritual' path involves 'paradigm shifting',
in this STRICT sense of the term. We move from one paradigm to its incommensurable
rival - namely, from an Ego-based frameworkto a rival paradigm that posits a
non-object as its 'center', the so-called 'Self'. 1 And these two paradigms are 'incommensurable', in a very
strict sense of the term that renders such a shift indeed EXTREMELY difficult to practically accomplish. Although Jung originally conceived of the 'Ego' and the 'Self' as incommensurables - 'The experience of the Self', he insisted, 'is always a defeat for the Ego' 2 - psychologists these days are prone to think of the 'Self' (insofar as they recognize it at all) as merely a 'new and improved' Ego. And this defeats the purpose for which the
term was introduced in the first place.
So, in Section One, we will present the relationship between Ego and Self
primarily in terms of incommensurable paradigms. In preparation for that, we want to stress the extent to which rival 'paradigms' were conceived by Kuhn as constituting alternate realities. In a (1994) paper that sought to explain the nature of a new paradigm emerging at the time in the field Organizational Development and Management we listed 12 features that all paradigms can be said to have. We treated these features as 'variables' that cannot be counted on to remain constant as one moves from within the world circumscribed by one paradigm into a world defined by its rival. The following brief review of that material will help to show the extent to which the differences between rival paradigms must be considered FUNDAMENTAL ones.
The twelve features are -
In any given 'paradigm', these twelve features will support and complement
each other in a way that is internally consistent. In Jungian psychotherapy,
for instance, the language that is used (eg, 'archetype', and 'synchronicity',
and so forth) will be relevant to the methodologies employed (eg, 'active imagination'), and the tools that are utilized (eg, 'mandala painting'). There will be associated 'Ways of Knowing' (eg, 'amplification'), and so forth and so on.
One can learn alot about a paradigm by trying to delineate its twelve features and explain how they work together. Often the best way to do this is by comparing
the paradigm to a rival. It can be surprisingly instructive to delineate and compare the twelve features of each - as we found out in comparing the 'new' paradigm in Organization and Management to the 'old'.
A 'paradigm' in science is not unlike a 'culture' in society - and, as anyone
who has lived in a culture different from the one into which he or she was
born may come to realize, the difference between cultures can run quite
deep. Often when cultures clash it is because we do not recognize
the profound nature of some of the differences that exist between them. Similarly,
when we mistakenly assume that one or more of the features of a new paradigm will be
just like the corresponding feature in the old paradigm, we are apt to misconstrue
it. We often try to use new (paradigm) objects according to old (paradigm)
rules. We think of an automobile as a 'horse-less carriage', or an on-line electronic journal as a hardcopy magazine, or the 'Self' as a bigger and better 'Ego'.
As human beings we often strive to understand what we don't know in terms of what we do know, and this strategy, although in general helpful, can also be severely limiting. Especially at certain points on the spiritual path, where we are seeking
to effect a fundamental CHANGE in point view - a change so profound and thorough-going that Kuhn, in attempting to explain change in science, used IT (in the
form of 'spiritual conversion') as one of HIS 'root metaphors', knowing all the while that he could offer 'no further explication' than this.
In such a change-process, at some point, the familiar must be surrendered.
At that juncture the concept of 'incommensurablity' is like a helpful
theoretical foot in the door. It gives us some inkling of the fact that the new is not going to be anything 'like' what we've ever seen before, in the 'old' framework.
The old likenesses, which are more likely to have the effect of filtering OUT what is new, cannot therefore be relied upon. They will not be the measure of the 'new' objects; the new objects come with their own 'measuring sticks' -appropriate to their ontology, epistemology, belief system, theories, language, methodologies, tools, competencies, authorities and root metaphors.
This is a frightening thought, actually, when put this way. It kicks up a fear
in us that helps to explain why we resist change, and resist it all the more
strongly the more profound it is.
One last point about paradigms. If we are to take seriously the other proposition
that we have been exploring in this series - that consciousness itself, as we have proposed, has an essentially and inescapably 'paradoxical' structure - then
we can expect the presence of RIVAL paradigms to be inevitable, and unavoidable. And this can only lead to a state of affairs in which our world always verges on presenting us with something new - something unexplicable in terms of what we thought (by virtue of being embedded in the old paradigm) that we ALREADY knew.
Is such a view, one built on a paradoxical foundation, doomed to inevitably collapse in on itself? Or does it simply require a new psychology - a spoon that can hold the soup that forks can't manage to contain? Will we revert to an attempt, as contemporary Western psychologists are wont to do when confronted by Eastern philosophies,
to fortify the embattled Ego? Or will we move forward and learn how to become architects in a land that is liminocentrically structured?
In the remainder of Section One, we will use Bennett's ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS to shed light on the psychology of paradigm shifting as we see it taking place in the individual, and will apply this, in Section Two, to a discussion of the relationship between the Self and Ego.
The 'Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting'
The reader may recall mention, in previous papers in this series, of
the fact that Bennett used the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS as a tool for analysing a variety of systems - calling such applications the 'Enneagram of the Kitchen', the 'Enneagram of the Lord's Prayer', and so forth. Here we present something
similar - what we call 'the Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting'. Paradigm shifting is, we believe, the quintessential mental/psychological activity of the human being.
Bennett's methodoloy, the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS, can be applied to paradigm shifting in a way that sheds light on certain features of paradigm shifting that might otherwise go unnoticed, demonstrating the Enneagram's strength as an an instrument for
describing fundamental psychological processes.
In our last paper we saw how Terence Turner ultimately took 'irony' as the
trope that underwrites the complex 'tropic interplay' which renders
individuals capable of 'transcending themselves'. If it is true, as we propose, that
consciousness itself has, built into its very structure, a 'liminocentric'
form of organization that enables it to ironically 'be what it is not' and
'not be what it is' while simultaneously reconciling all such differences,
might not such a state of affairs be aptly represented by the Chinese 'Tai-gi-tu' (yin-yang) diagram?
In such a figure we can recognize 'polar opposites' that stand in contrast
But lets not look at the diagram EXCLUSIVELY as an attempt to picture
a temporal happening (the 'enantiodromic shift') in a static way (as two poles of one process). We might also read the figure as a representation of
liminocentric structure. When we go far enough into the innermost center of the 'white' area (by opening boxes contained within nested boxes), we eventually find ourselves back at the outermost limit, but now it is a 'dark' area. And then, when we travel far enough into the inner recesses of the 'dark' area (by opening boxes within boxes, we find ourselves again at the outermost level, where it
is 'white' again.
What we are trying to picturing here is what it would look like if the
the T'ai-gi-tu diagram were to be made three dimensional. In mathematics there is a topological form known as a 'Klein bottle' (below).
Notice how the figure wraps back on (and into) itself. Like the Mobius strip, which is generally conceived as a three dimensional figure with ONE 'side', the Klein bottle is a shape whose 'inside' is generally understood to be equivalent to its 'outside'. If
It seems to us that the 'Enneagram of Process' has basically the same structure
as the T'ai-gi-tu figure . Imagine pulling the white dot in the yin-yang figure out to the right, to a place on the circumference of the outer circle where 'Point 3' would be on the Enneagram. Now similarly pull the darker dot out to the left, to a place on the circumference approximately where 'Point 6' is on the Enneagram. What you'd get is similar to the arrangment depicted in the Enneagram.
Like the smaller 'dots' in the yin-yang diagram, they are in foreign territory,
as it were. In the context of the 1-4-2-8-5-7 circuit, which plays such an important role in the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS, both points 3 and 6 are like NEGATIVE 'strange attractors'. We might even call them
Continuing to follow the 1-4-2-8-5-7 path, one is finally shot about as far away from Point 3 as possible, to Point 8. On that side of the diagram, a similar pattern occurs, but this time the action hovers around Point 6, which acts as 'strange attractor/repellor' for the left side of the diagram.
Keeping in mind this 'feel' for the motion that is going on within the Enneagram,
let's plot onto the figure the process that occurs in the individual who is
undergoing a personal 'paradigm shift' (see below). Interestingly, this can be done in a way which is in general consistent with how meaning is assigned to the Enneagram Points in the ENNEAGRAM OF TYPE. That is more than can be said for many of the systems that Bennett maps onto the Enneagram. This seems significant, and
suggests that the PROCESS that we are mapping onto the Enneagram (the process of paradigm-shifting) may be a key process in understanding the relationship between the two currently predominant approaches to the Enneagram (represented respectively
by the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS and the ENNEAGRAM OF TYPE).
Please keep in mind that insofar as consciousness is conceived as paradoxical, NO paradigm that the individual might embrace, no matter how comprehensive or 'perfect', can be introduced without importing with it, at its very center, the seed of its opposite. So, at Point One, although the Prevailing Paradigm reigns supreme, by longing for its 'perfection' the individual will be planting the seed for the dialectical movement that follows - leading to the paradigm's own self-destruction, and the shift to its rival. This 'need to be perfect' that happens at Point One will be experienced, at the mundane level, as some HINT of imperfection that is revealed there. This sense of 'incompleteness' will inevitably arise from the paradoxical nature of consciousness itself. There is a restless need to get it more right than it is now, even if it IS currently as 'perfect' as it will ever get. The suspicion of imperfection that occurs at Point One will prefigure the actual anomalies that arise at Point Four - which we can visualize as 'holes' in the old paradigm, rips in the fabric of the prevailing framework. The presence of these anomolies creates a feeling of deep unease by the time one has reached Point 2. It is as if one's very identity is being called into question. According to Kuhn, the identity of scientists ARE actually deeply called into question at some point in the paradigm-shifting process IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the 'new paradigm' actually clearly and consciously presents itself. This is represented on the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS as Point Two. All of the activity that takes place on the right hand side of the diagram pivots around the invisible 'presence' of the New Paradigm, which threatens to intrude at the 'shock point' (Point 3). But it is not capable (by definition) of DIRECTLY manifesting itself, as the Old Paradigm does not support it as an object of attention. It is thus rendered 'invisible' - not something that is recognized, in its own right, within the old framework. Nevertheless, it is at Point 3 that the new illusion is first put forward, even if we must consider it as an object that is 'latent' at Point 3 - a 'hyperobject' in the 'unconscious' of the individual. Its presence can be INDIRECTLY felt in the 'reality' described within the 1-4-2-8-5-7 circuit, but it is not yet capable of becoming an object in the foreground of consciousness. At some point in the process, however - namely, as one moves from Point 2 to Point 8 - the preparatory work on the right hand side of the Enneagram comes to fruition in a state of affairs which results in the 'foreseeing' of the shape (and ultimate power) of what is to come. Point 8 plays a similar role on the left hand side of the diagram that Point 4 plays on the right - we 'look ahead' in the process and get some idea of its final 'goal'. The 'new paradigm' stands in all of its glory at Point Eight - not yet as an accomplished fact, however, but as an ideal. In order for the shift to actually take place in reality, the anomalies scattered throughout the old paradigm must first be consolidated. This is the unconscious systematizing work that can only happen at 'Point 5'. Kuhn, for instance, marveled at the way in which Einstein, prior to the 'aha' experience that heralded the final falling together of his new paradigm, was able to correctly recognize that a number of anomalies in the old paradigm in physics, which seemingly had nothing to do with each other (in the old paradigm), were actually intimately related. Once the anomalies pull together and gell in this way, all that remains to be done is to pull the rug out from under the old paradigm. As long as the old paradigm remains as the predominant 'frame', the emergence of the objects of the new paradigm will be obstructed. The constellation of anomalies must be taken out of the context provided by the framework of the old paradigm. We call this part of the process 'de-contexting'. The actual 'aha' (that occurs at Point 7) must be preceded by a surrender, a letting-go of the old frame. And this happens at, or around, Point 6. Imagine someone who is looking at the the ambiguous gestalt illustration of the 'old woman/ young woman', and can only see the face of the older woman. How would you get that person to see the 'young woman' as quickly as possible? You'd point out features of the 'old woman' that are anomalous, and assign new meanings to those features in the context of the 'new woman' gestalt - eg, 'Can't you see that the nose on the old woman is too big - that's because its drawn so as to accomodate the chin of the young woman', and 'The line that consitutes the old woman's mouth is flat and too non-descript - that's because, in the rival gestalt, its the young woman's necklace'. In addition to consolidating the anomalies, in other words, one must do something to deprive the old frame of its power to organize the mind. Milton Erickson called this 'depontiating the old [mental] set'. This is where the E6, the 'devil's advocate', excels - in 'seeing through' things. According to the process that is being illustrated in the 'Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting', it is clear that the deconstruction of the old paradigm (at Point 6) is occuring approximately at the same time as the individual is unconsciously or 'intuitively' putting the finishing touches on the construction of the new paradigm (at Point 5), in its embrionic form. The activities on the left hand side of the Enneagram culminate in the 'aha' that happens at E7. Here we have the quintessential of the PEAK experience that E7s so love. The breakthrough of the new paradigm is actually accomplished. This is the moment of discovery, the actual 'birth' of the new paradigm. The rival paradigm is now present and is in position to become the prevailing one (at Point 8). Then there is a brief moment of harmony (at Point 9), a rest that occurs before the whole process starts again with the suspicion that things aren't quite right (at Point 1). Now what if we take the 'Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting' and use it to describe the profound shift that occurs in the individual's personality when it moves its center from the 'Ego' to the 'Self'? To this interesting question we turn our attention in the next section.
Section Two - The 'Enneagram of Self
and Ego'
Using the 'Enneagram of Paradigm Shifting' to model the profound change that occurs when the personality of the individual shifts from 'Ego' to 'Self' - we arrive at the following diagram.
In general terms, we can say that under the dual influence of the appearance of the Self (at Point Three) and the concommitant dissolution of the Ego (at Point Six), the individual's psychology shifts in a radical fashion. The process whereby the Self begins to make itself felt is represented on the right hand side of the diagram. From the point of view of ego-based reality the Self is a 'hyperobject' that first make its appearance in an unconscious or indirect way. Point 3 is not actually traversed in the 1-4-2-8-5-7 circuit. But the presence of the Self at Point 3 nevertheless begins to be experienced felt at Point One. There is a pull toward personal 'perfection' - not in the mundane sense of the word, but in a new, transcendental way that is consistent with the teachings of 'Dzoghchen' (the 'great perfection'). The individual has some glimmer, in other words, of what a 'perfection' that is not founded on Ego might be like. And there is also some inkling of what is directly experienced at Point 4 - were objects are recognized as 'empty', or 'without (as it is said in certain Buddhist schools) independent identity'. But the consequent de-reification of the world is applied not only to OBJECTS in the individual's world (at Point 4), but also (at Point 2) to the person's SUBJECT. The individual not only sees herself as SUBJECT (as opposed to OBJECT), there is also an appreciation for the EMPTINESS of Subject. The 'Ego' is thoroughly de-reified - an experience that is sometimes referred to as 'Egolessness'. Notice that while we might ontologically speak of the appearance of the 'Self' at Point 3 as a 'hyperobject', its advent is indirectly experienced at Points 2 and 4, as an ABSENCE. Here the tension between Point 3 and the two Points that surround it (2 and 4) is very much like the tension between the white whole and dark central circle in the yin-yang diagram. Similarly, as we move to the left hand side of the diagram, a similar kind of tension prevails. But whereas the goal remains the same - the shift of the center of personality from Ego to Self - the emphasis at Point 6 is no longer primarily on the advent of Self, but on the dissolution of Ego. While this deconstruction takes place, however, the individual is encouraged to nevertheless remain IN the 'mundane' world, the world of objects and body. Emphasis, in this second half of the spiritual 'path', is put NOT on introducing the individual to the UNDIFFERENTIATED STATE of awareness (which is emphasized at Point 4, and is the almost all-consuming goal there), but rather on the development of what is called 'discriminating awareness wisdom' (at Point 5). This wisdom entails an appreciation for form, one that does not however obviate its own essentially empty character; it is sometimes simply called 'Clarity', in contrast to 'Emptiness'. Interestingly, while the emphasis on the part of the path described on the left hand side of the diagram is on form, the individual is also (paradoxically) surrendering the essential INTRAPSYCHIC 'object' - the 'Ego'. Having had an earlier glimmer of what 'Emptiness' might be on the right side of the diagram, as one then moves from Pt Two to Point 8 one can afford to begin to treat the 'clouds in the sky' (as Buddhist metaphors would have it) as no longer obscurations or impediments to the sky's 'Emptiness', but rather as EXPRESSIONS of it. The emphasis has shifted from appreciating that 'form is emptiness' (at Point 4), to appreciating that 'emptiness is form' (Point 5). And the root metaphor in spiritual practice changes with it - from 'emptiness' and 'insight into emptiness', to 'clarity' and 'clear light' experience. The body itself is conceived as an expression of such 'emptiness', and Sensation is accordingly conceived as 'bliss' (at Point 7). We are not talking about reverting here to an attachment to Ego, or to fascination with the material world and its pleasures, but to an appreciation of sensation that simultaneously maintains a core connection to that which 'transcends' it. Likewise, the 'power' that is ultimately achieved (at Point 8) is not the same as the 'control' that the ego-oriented Type 8 might seek to achieve in the mundane world. It is a power that cuts through the need the Ego feels to fulfill its selfish objectives, and is thus experienced as comparatively 'effortless' - as if power is working through one to accomplish IT's aims, as opposed to one using power to achieve one's personal goals. These 'powers', which are sometimes referred to as 'siddhis', are not the point of following the spiritual path, and this is repeatedly emphasized in spiritual teachings. Nevertheless, they are part of the fruition of a point of view that honors emptiness by making it the centerpiece of form. Indeed, insofar as they are pursued for their own sake, one can be assured that the Ego has not been surrendered or supplanted by Self. So there are pitfalls associated with each half of this process - 1) an INFLATION that can occur at Points 8, 7 and 5 (if the individual loses connection with 'emptiness' and falls into the respective traps of seeking ego control, sensual pleasure, and mundane knowledge); and 2) a kind of nihilism/self-deprecation that occurs at Points 4, 2 and 1 (insofar as 'emptiness' and 'egolessness' are taken too literally - reified - and conceived as 'nothingness' and 'identitylessness', or when one uses one's percieved 'imperfections' as a way to whip one's self into a mundane kind of 'righteousness'. There are also related pitfalls that are experienced at
The 'Qualities', which manifest as SKILLS at various points of the process as the shift from Ego to Egolessness/Self occurs, can be somewhat difficult to define (and/or appreciate) from an Ego-based perspective. The kind of 'perfection' about which Dzogchen speaks, for instance, does not entail becoming a 'superman' or 'superwoman', in the mundane sense - correct at all times, and capable of achieving anything. It is rather a matter of TRANSCENDING the need that is expressed in seeking that kind of accomplishment, and recognizing that at some level things are ALREADY perfect, as they are. At Point One, the 'Skill' is a capacity to be satisfied with what is - not in a way that eradicates mundane need, but in a way that renders it psychologically superfluous. Although there will be 'Qualities' associated with these skills, which can be located at each of the Enneagram Points, they may also be difficult to define. From the perspective of Ego, the Qualities will have an enigmatic character. They will only be able to appear as paradox or 'riddles' that are expressive of those parts of the profound personality-shifting process with which they are associated. We might think of them as 'archetypes', if it weren't for the fact that that term is nowadays often used in a way that does not invariably entail paradox - as if an 'archetype' is merely a primary 'idea'. 3 The E2, for instance, will be naturally drawn toward Egolessness, even if she is presently firmly rooted in Ego. She may unconsciously manifest many personal qualities associated with the wisdom of Egolessness - compassion, selflessness, and so on. But, as a result of the presence of Ego, she is also likely to worry that Egolessness may in fact lead to a kind of vegetative state, or existencelessness. So here we begin not only to see a complex of mundane characterological qualities and issues associated with a profound, albeit unconscious, appreciation for Egolessness. We also begin to understand the riddle with which the E2 is dealing on a daily basis. It is the riddle of identity - "How can I continue to exist if there is no 'Ego'?" This is a riddle which the E2 may spend a lifetime trying to solve. We shall come back to these matters in the Conclusion to this series. In the meantime, we must turn our attention to the matter of lucid dreaming. We will see how the problems that our characterological preferences kick up for us might be used to design 'affirmations' that are effective in assisting one to make the shift from 'Ego' to 'Self'.
Section Three - Lucid Dreams
In our three-dimensional worlds, the word 'meaning' is often construed in a passive manner. Words stand for an object, and, as a result, language 'has' meaning. But we can bring into relief a more active aspect of the phenomenon by shifting our attention from the noun-form ('a meaning') to the verb form ('to mean') of the word. The ACT of meaning involves intention. We INTEND objects into existence, and we do this by entering an imaginal space in which we conjure up the THOUGHT or FEEL or ANTICIPATION of the object, which we seek out (or create) 'in reality'. Getting ready to go to work we look for our car keys; we have the image of the ABSENT object in mind when we intend to find them. As a prototypical activity in this regard we could take lucid dreaming. When we realize that we are literally in the midst of a dream, we step just far enough out of the reality of that dream (and into a 'higher' reality - from which we can recognize it 'as dream') to be able to exert control over it. As a result of this process we become capable of 'intending' objects in that lower-level dream reality, creating life-like dream objects. In dreams, in other words, we can practice a fundamental kind of 'projection' or 'emanation' that is more subtle in waking life, and hence more difficult to appreciate, let alone control. As we've suggested in earlier papers, actions that take place in a 'lower reality' can create objects in a more inclusive 'higher reality'. This is done all the time in science. So-called 'imaginary' numbers are, in some sense, impossibilities. There IS no number which, when squared, can possibly yield a negative real number. But we take the liberty to ASSUME that there is, albeit in some other reality. And the construct that we accordingly create, although it does not exist in this reality, our ordinary reality, it nevertheless is PRODUCTIVE here. Another example of this is the concept of the 'unconscious', which is, as philosophers have pointed out for ages, a similarly paradoxical construct. This, of course, has not held psychologists and psychotherapists back from making practical USE of it! These 'imaginary' objects, or hyperobjects, often provide us with a way for handling the 'missing links' that appear WITHIN the confines of our three-dimensional worlds. By acting 'as if' imaginary numbers existed, although they are in (this) reality impossible, we wind up with certain types of mathematical equation that in (this) reality deliver the goods. By acting 'as if' there were another, separate 'conscious' subject (the socalled 'unconscious') within us, and honoring its presence even though we are not (and can never be) conscious of it AS subject we become capable of a new level of creativity that lays otherwise outside of our grasp. As we showed in an earlier paper, Points 3, 6, and 9 represent these 'missing links' in the ENNEAGRAM OF PROCESS. Like 'strange attractors', or what Turing (the guy who invented the 'Turing machine', the prototype for the computer) called 'evocators', although INVISIBLE in the reality in question they are in that reality somehow PIVOTAL constructs. When we invoke the presence of the 'Self' (and its 'Qualities'), which is a psychological hyperobject of this sort, we provoke change in our mundane 'reality' that is tantamount to a kind of (psychological) 'solution' to some seemingly incorrigible problems that crop up in that lower reality - amongst which are the characterological problems that are the concerns of the Enneagram. In the same way that we might first learn to drive a car within the safe and comparatively narrow confines of an empty parking lot, we can begin to learn how to affect change in our personal worlds in lucid dreams. In the following, we shall take a look at how the method that Sparrow recommends using for lucid dreams can be expanded into a model for dealing with characterological change.
Gregory Scott Sparrow Gregory Scott Sparrow, in his little book on subject 4, provides an interesting model for dealing with decision-making during the lucid dream. Sparrow's book, a Western classic that is as important a work today as it was when it was written in 1976, reaches far beyond more superficial understandings of the phenomenon promoted by its recent acceptance in Western experimental psychology. Like the Tibetans, who have for centuries treated lucid dreaming as a spiritual tool, Sparrow recognizes that lucidity in the dream state can open the door to more profound kinds of experience that have important ramifications on the individual's psycho-spiritual progress. He wisely advises that the practitioner learn to honor dream images and avoid the temptation that the prospect of lucid dreaming engenders - to merely 'manipulate' them.
When we begin to experience our capacity to shape the dream environment, it becomes easy to forget that the goal consists of reconciliation with the dream elements, not a mastery over them. We have to go beyond a rigid sense of independence. As we are able to do this we can move beyond the lucid dream into another level of experience. (Gregory Scott Sparrow, Lucid Dreaming - Dawning of the Clear Light, 1976/1990, A.R.E Press, Virginia Beach, Virginia, page 48 Lucid dreams happen relatively infrequently, even amongst some who have learned how to cultivate them. And since they can be brief, and one's thought processes can be relatively impaired in dreams, Sparrow advises planning ahead. For this purpose he suggests using a diagram that structurally resembles the 'triple-mandala' as we've described it in this series. It has 'outer', 'inner' and 'innermost' levels - which he respectively labels 'physical', 'mental', and 'spiritual'. The reader may recall a similar that we've discussed, which LePage used to understand the 'three types of meaning' that she associated with the Shambhala teachings. Sparrow recommends that the person making the diagram place a word that stands for a 'spiritual ideal' that he or she wishes to make the cornerstone of his/her lucid dream work at the center of the arrangement (in the circle marked 'spiritual'). Then, using phrases that summarize four different situations that regularly show up in his/her dreams, these should be placed just outside of the outermost circle, in four quadrants. 'Love' is the spiritual quality that Sparrow chooses in the example that he diagrams (below left). And as one of his recurring dream motifs he selects the frequent appearance of his 'deceased father' in his dreams.
Now, following Sparrow's instructions, once we have the innermost and outermost areas of the diagram filled, we can procede to design the lucid dream activitites (at both the 'mental' and 'spiritual' levels of description) which one hopes to be able to perform when these motifs appear again in one's dreams. In Sparrow's example, for instance, he proposes to respond to his deceased father by (mentally) exhibiting forgiveness in the dream when it becomes lucid and (physically) telling his father explicitly that he forgives him. By using Sparrow's method, one is creating a lucid dream agenda, as it were - and mentally rehearsing, in one's imagination, the kind of actions (based on a particular spiritual quality that is important to one) that one hopes to be able to take in dream scenarios that are LIKELY to occur (because they have already happened repeatedly in one's dreams). This is tantamount to creating an 'affirmation'. But one is not just picking what one proposes to affirm willy nilly; Sparrow has us narrowing down our search for the most appropriate affirmations by 1) making them responsive to what our dreams our forcing us to face, and 2) invoking a 'transcendent' power, in the form of a 'spiritual energy' that we would ideally like to draw down into these situations. In this exercise Sparrow has incorporated the mandala not only in form, but in spirit. What we propose doing in the remainder of this paper is extrapolating from Sparrow's lucid dream method to one that can be used to understand and affect the kind of PERSONALITY change about which we've been speaking in this series. Instead of mapping dream scenarios on the outermost edge of the mandala, we would map characterological 'defects' and 'problems' (associated with the Enneagram types). And rather than starting with specifying a 'Spiritual Quality', we'd suggest working backwards from the outermost edges of the diagram, in such a way as to DISCOVER what 'spiritual quality' is the most appropriate response to the characterological defects/issues in question. And instead of diving the circle into four quadrants, like Sparrow does, we could divide it into nine quadrants. And on the outer edge one can place nine points that correlate to the nine characterological types and their associated 'defects'. Now try to understand these not as MERE defects, to be avoided or somehow repressed, but as 'riddles'. Place a description of each in the intermediary ring of the diagram, in the appropriate quadrant Then, taking each riddle one at a time, we must ask, "What 'spiritual quality' is associated with that riddle?". Label that quality and place it in the center of the diagram. At this point we are ready to design specific responses to the specific personality-based dilemmas - by locating the particular 'dilemma' on the outside of the wheel, and invoking the associated 'quality' (at the center) to shape a 'mental' and 'physical' agenda (in the middle areas of the mandala). The theoretical assumption that we are working on is that the very APPEARANCE of the problem in the first place actually signals (or 'prefigures') the spiritual quality that is trying, as yet unsuccessfully, to emerge. Following the kind of arrangment we saw in the Dzogchen diagram (with the 'lower realms' mapped onto the outer ring), we can expect that at the outer edges of our Enneagram mandala, the influence of the Ego will be felt more strongly. The associated 'spiritual quality' that will be mapped onto the center will, by definition, transcend Ego. So, from the problem that our Ego presents us with - the characterological ANOMALY (or 'neurosis') that haunts us - we will be able to extract a message from the 'Self' - and derive hints about what that Quality would look like in its 'pure' (Egoless) state. Once we have some understanding of what KIND of 'quality' is hiding behind the persistent demand that is made on us by the characterological problem as it continues to rear its ugly head in our lives, we are in a good place to foresee what activity (at the 'mental' and 'physical' levels) might successfully bring that insight into a more appropriately 'embodied' state. Just as Sparrow recognizes that his deceased father continues to come back in his dreams because he WANTS something that has not yet been offered (ie, 'forgiveness', in this case), the characterological defect continues to reappear because it is unsatisfied - a ghost of the 'spiritual quality' that has not been very successfull in manifesting in a way that is more appropriate. What makes this primarily a 'Path of Realization' approach, by the way, is that we are extracting the 'enlightened' feature from the CORE of the neurosis, the personality fixation. In doing this we are indeed conceiving of the Ego itself as a messenger of the 'Self', and the neurotic fixation its 'message'. If it is 'perfection' that I am obsessed with, for instance, then the obsession is a sign that I have not yet understood WHAT this perfection is, ultimately. As long as I fail to permit the associated Quality (of the Self) to fully emerge in my life, I am fated to remain FASCINATED with my personality type and fixated on it. An addictive substance is one that promises to satisfy a need, but in fact does not. Indeed, it actually INCREASES the need. As an E1, no matter how much (mundane) 'perfection' I get, it will never be enough, and yet I will continue to be hooked on it, and indeed exacerbate the need that I feel for it. The only way to cut through the obsessive nature of our typological 'preferences' is to appreciate what lies behind them. The way to begin to 'tame' a wild animal (and/or the 'mind'), says Suzuki Roshi, is to give it a big enough area in which to run. In the next (and concluding) part of our seven-part series on the Enneagram and the Mandala, we will map the Defects, Riddles, Qualities, and Affirmations onto the Enneagram in the way outlined above. We'll also take a look at how knowing the correlations between Enneagram Type and MBTI Type helps to identify the 'Riddle' associated with each of the Enneagram Types. Footnotes
|
'strange repellors' or, better yet, 'attractor/repellors', as these points actually seem to do both simultaneously. Starting at Point 9 and moving in a clockwise
direction around the outer rim of the Enneagram, one moves toward Point 3, as
if attracted to it. But one is deflected at Point 1, repelled by an invisible shield around Point 3, and pushed off course toward Point 4. One then bounces back to Point 2, again by-passing Point 3 in the process. This motion is like what Jung called 'circumabulation' - but it is Point 3 that is being indirectly or circuitously approached in this way.
