Enneagram Main Board Archive

Re: Enneagram as core

Re: Enneagram as core

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Devon on December 29, 1999 at 18:45:45:

In Reply to: Re: Enneagram as core posted by Devon (let's respect our moderator this time no flames please) on December 29, 1999 at 18:39:47:

Which means, that the greater number of people you know and can connect with, the better off youare able to ensure your survival, because you're not as limited as you would be were you to limit yourself to just one or two or no others.
This is healthy for introverts to learn. Introverts need to expand their network of people.
I don't know what extraverts need.
Except other than maybe to learn exactly what it is they do need and not need, able to meet, and not able to meet.
Either way, it's all good.
We're all okay.

> > Pardon my confused 3-ness.

> > According to this, that means that our core personality is not a set of traits, but a fundamental need for love? Then why are the needs for love so different? And how does this fit in with Maslow's pyramid of self-actualization. (Survival, not love, is labeled as the most fundamental need there, I think.)

> The enneagram 'core' consists of our habitual 'methods', 'ways', of 'acquiring' our fundamental 'Maslow' needs, such as love and survival, which, btw, seems to be more 'entertwined' than I previously thought; that is, that 'love', as well as 'belonging' is perhaps a 'requirement' for survival.
> How many can survive for a long time without 'belonging' to a group, society, community of others?
> Is that not a need for survival?
> It seems that one can only live so long without water, food, shelter, clothes, and belonging.
> I now rank 'belonging' to a group of people as a 'requirement' for survival.
> One cannot survive alone for very long.
> Nor with only one other (even if significant).
> Nor with 3, or 4, 'close' others, for all that matters.
> We need whole entire continuous groups of people to ensure our survival.
> Which fits in to your other question, why are 'needs' for 'love' so different.
> That right there, that they are so different, explains why we need to belong a group.
> With a higher number of members, we are more likely to find others who share the same needs at different times, whenever we have the same need, just being alone, or with one other, or two others would not otherwise be able to satisfy.
> It's a 'numbers game', is what it all seems to boil down to, that's all.

Follow Ups:

Enneagram and Christianity. Morgan 01:03:45 1/03/100 (2)
- Re: Enneagram and Christianity. BlueLamp 13:52:28 1/03/00 (1)
  - Could we have an expanded version of this please. NT Tiggy 01:32:49 1/04/00 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
> Which means, that the greater number of people you know and can connect with, the better off youare able to ensure your survival, because you're not as limited as you would be were you to limit yourself to just one or two or no others. > This is healthy for introverts to learn. Introverts need to expand their network of people. > I don't know what extraverts need. > Except other than maybe to learn exactly what it is they do need and not need, able to meet, and not able to meet. > Either way, it's all good. > We're all okay. > > > Pardon my confused 3-ness. > > > According to this, that means that our core personality is not a set of traits, but a fundamental need for love? Then why are the needs for love so different? And how does this fit in with Maslow's pyramid of self-actualization. (Survival, not love, is labeled as the most fundamental need there, I think.) > > The enneagram 'core' consists of our habitual 'methods', 'ways', of 'acquiring' our fundamental 'Maslow' needs, such as love and survival, which, btw, seems to be more 'entertwined' than I previously thought; that is, that 'love', as well as 'belonging' is perhaps a 'requirement' for survival. > > How many can survive for a long time without 'belonging' to a group, society, community of others? > > Is that not a need for survival? > > It seems that one can only live so long without water, food, shelter, clothes, and belonging. > > I now rank 'belonging' to a group of people as a 'requirement' for survival. > > One cannot survive alone for very long. > > Nor with only one other (even if significant). > > Nor with 3, or 4, 'close' others, for all that matters. > > We need whole entire continuous groups of people to ensure our survival. > > Which fits in to your other question, why are 'needs' for 'love' so different. > > That right there, that they are so different, explains why we need to belong a group. > > With a higher number of members, we are more likely to find others who share the same needs at different times, whenever we have the same need, just being alone, or with one other, or two others would not otherwise be able to satisfy. > > It's a 'numbers game', is what it all seems to boil down to, that's all.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ] wwwboard/messages/13370.html

Your Ad Here