Posted by Dave on June 26, 1999 at 09:54:06:
In Reply to: Re: Does dysfunction mask type? posted by Ryan on June 25, 1999 at 22:38:30:
>Ryan,
> I apologize for Dave's pseudo-answer to your question.
-----------------------------------------------
Thank you for apologizing on my behalf, however no apology here is needed. In the future please refrain from from speaking for me. Thank you.
> Dysfunctional is defined by many enneagram theorists as when a person is at an unhealthy state of development, rather than a healthy one.
------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. All types are a dysfunction in the view if the enneagram, since the ultimate goal is a return to essence. Anything less is technically a dysfunction. Psychology has a different definition, one that started with Freud's definition of function as the ability to effectively love and work. Spiritual psychology adds the ability transcend the ego, which is more along the lines of the enneagram.
Furthermore, the term "dysfunction" is interpreted in the eye of the beholder. It is a much abused term since one has to have a definition of "function" first in order to define dysfunction. Today's pop-psychology and multi-varient schools of psychology define function and dysfunction often in contradictory ways. Individuals further have their own meanings of the terms, so rather than read my bias into the question I prefer to find out specifically what is being asked.
Dave