Re: A new Developmental theory

Subject:

Comments:
: Dear Dave and Kronos, : I believe that discussions over the formation of type are doomed to confusion unless the idea of type is carefully considered. : There are these possibilities: : 1. Type is learned in some way from the environment, an infant is : not born with a type : 2. Type is inherent to the individual : A. Type is, some form genetic, carried biologically : B. Type is innate but not biological : 3. Type is illusory, we see it because we want this sort of order to help us feel more in control. : I am going to exclude the third possibility. The sense of pattern in type is too compelling for me to disregard. But some other person might not experience the world this way. It would be a matter of my trying to describe and reveal this. : So to consider the first possiblility : Type is learned. : Type is an amazingly subtle and inclusive sort of pattern. It includes so many aspects. At what age is a child supposed to know, let alone decide this sort of thing. And why can't the child say, I'll take two traits from type 8 and three from type 5? And if this is a choice, why do people have to learn the enneagram types. When did we forget all this information? : This explanation just begs too many unanswerable questions. It does not explain the nature of the types in any productive way. : So to go on to the next possibility : Type is innate and genetic : If type is genetic, then why does the appearance of type seem so random? : Why don't we have merged types like a brown eyed and a blue eyed person having a green eyed child? Again, why nine? And worst of all, if it is : a genetic inheritance - then how can a culture or a group have a type? : How can anything which is the product of the actions of more than one : person have a type? Worse - why 9? : And people cannot agree on type. So it would be impossible to find a group of 100 (6)s and 100 (4)s where there could be universal agreement on their type in order to have a chance at demonstrating a genetic marker. : There is no reason to think of this as more than a convenient superstition. : So the third choice is left. : People are innately of a certain type which is not learned nor inherited from their parent. : I think of it as a spiritual legacy, their's alone apart from environment or biology. It's appearance is only in the world, not of the world. : There is an explanation for why there are only nine types - but it is : found within a spiritual tradition :

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: