Posted by Derf on August 01, 1999 at 16:29:52:
In Reply to: are 2's really?? empathic?? posted by bev on July 31, 1999 at 19:25:03:
It looks like there's a long string of arguments about this topic. I might read all of them one day, but I'll pass right now, because, though you could call me simple-minded, I insist that the answer is simple in terms of Enneagram type, etc., because it has nothing to do with variations *between* types so much as it has to do with variations of integration *within* a type. I've read a few messages in this thread, and I basically agree with Tal's view: I'll elaborate below.
The hypothesis goes like this: The more you're fixated, the more of a servant to your fixation you are, the more destructive - of self and others - you are, and the less open, affirmative, and empathic you can be.
Then, the thread below seeps into an argument about what empathy "is": an x + y deal. If empathy exists in a pure form (found at Riso's "Level One?"), then the definition of its nature in this pure form, being part of human nature at its most integrated, matters less than the problem of identifying the dark fixations that disturb it. For empathy, while undeniably egocentric, is still subject to variances of quality depending on the integration of the ego around which one's empathy is centered.
The ability to sense others' feeling states is something I take for granted. Yet, I am certainly not defending a state of blindness to my own limitations. Being a Four, I overestimate the influence of others' moods over them.
The capability of empathy depends on focus, temperament, faith, and, most important, *integration*. Without that last consideration, our empathy is stilted. If I integrated, my propensity of overvaluing the prominence of others' feelings in their psyche would shift to a more realistic perspective.
Chow for now,
Derf