A while back I posted some ideas concerning the habit of categorising people into various groups — tribes, astrological signs, enneagram and other groupings.
- The candidates
- Table of comparisons
- Implications, clarifications and applications
- Purpose and benefits
The Table of comparisons highlights a noticeable difference between the 3 methods of classifications. Column 1 (Seth) responds well to the question: "Where do those who belong to a particular category focus their energy, time and commitment for best effect and fulfillment?"
The Enneagram responds "less directly" to this question (in that the Enneagram may offer insight that one is a 'leader' but not where to apply leadership for best effect or fulfillment).
Astrological categories provide little if any meaningful answers to this question.
Astrology and the Enneagram are not in the least "systems-orientated". They do not take account of the interactive dynamics of biological, ecological or social systems, such as that of one's local community, or how the global economy impacts and influences behaviours and attitudes. They do not therefore provide substantial insights into how we ought best interact with the world around us. They, in effect, offer little guidance as to where we might apply our energy and focus for best results and fulfillment.
So when we seek to group people into meaningful categories it's prudent to first establish the belief-system by which those categorisations are made. If the belief-system is unduly limited, individuals and groups will necessarily be categorised or 'squeezed' into various psychological or astrological 'boxes' to fit the observed behaviours. In the process those capabilities and potentials that lay beyond the accepted framework of belief — which could otherwise be recognised and developed for personal and social benefit — will be ignored or denied.
As explained on the About page, my focus as The Belief Doctor®1 is to work with people and provide examples and information that reveals the power and productive benefits gained from combining "masculine" and "feminine" energies in one coherent approach to life, in all areas of life. This combination — of effectively combining both 'head' with 'heart' to enable intimate, powerful and rewarding personal, business and social relationships — is recognised by leading thinkers as being crucial to ease, wellbeing, intimacy, creativity, productivity, innovation, health, wealth, fulfillment and happiness.
Do you genuinely seek answers to the deeper questions and problems of life?
Then you'll find some different and arguably deeper, and more congruent perspectives at this site. Hopefully they'll be of value to you. The ideas provided are based on timeless truths, and are (at least in my experience) able to be applied in all areas of life. Enjoy. Stephen Pirie The Belief Doctor
One of the central points of Jahn's paper is that not understanding the complementarity of 'masculine' and 'feminine' fuels "immensely destructive" behaviours and results, both personally and socially. From Jahn's paper:
When posed in polar opposition, whether within a single personality, or in the context of the ubiquitous interactions between the male and the female sexes, the failures of this interface are legion, legendary, and immensely destructive, both personally and socially. Yet, when deployed in constructive complementarity, the masculine/feminine integration within the individual can enable the highest creativity and personal satisfaction, and in the male/female partnership can generate some of the highest accomplishments, profoundest insights, and most beautiful resonances of human existence. In this form, it is probably the species' most powerful resource for spiritual as well as physical survival and evolution.
Why I concur with Jahn is that the deeper nature of what 'feminine' and 'masculine' actually mean is not widely understood or appreciated.
- 1. or infamous, according to skeptics and assorted naysayers. See my article on sceptics and their brethren
- 2. I used to think that I was well ahead of other thinkers on the subject of the deep frameworks of life, but Jahn has demonstrated he largely got there first! I suppose my contribution is the comprehensiveness of my work, going well beyond that of Jahn's paper. Still, I freely give recognition when it is appropriate and deserved.