Negotiating Leverage, Part 1

                                     Δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω

                                    -Archimedes

One of the most challenging arenas of intentional fruition, and among the most rewarding, is that of deal-making. In my experience, the enneagram is quite useful in preparing and executing negotiations. A discipline straddling art and science, I believe that negotiation may prove to be the single most vital skill that humanity can acquire at this time, certainly as individuals and especially as a species.

As always, I am delighted to receive questions. The three below came in response to an earlier draft of thematically similar material. Together, they afford me an opportunity both to share my experience and to test my belief.

Here they are:

1) How would you strategize negotiating a price
    on a purchase of real estate?

2) How do you establish true needs, desires and
    fears in negotiation?

3) If a buyer is unable to force concessions or 
    increase the offer, does this negate the process?


In order to explain my answers, if not live them, I will draw upon the enneagram. There is no better map than the enneagram, yet the territory will always be more interesting, if interest can be measured as a specific potential for gain and loss in wordly matters. To actually live them, of course, requires other virtues.

There is more than one approach to negotiation, depending on the relevant circumstances and intentions. All too often, though, the parties involved treat it as an exercise in winning and losing - a purely zero sum game. Ever the contrarian, I prefer not to pretend that deal-making is a metaphor for combat, or vice versa.

I do try to deal exclusively with others of like mind, those who prefer the win-win scenario. Of course, I also know how to deal with combative types (who for their part strike me as predictable and boring) - indeed they can make for good practice, like sparring. More importantly, though, as much as I love human interaction, my ideal position is to retain the freedom to walk away from any deal whatsoever if I choose to do so.

It is not that I am stubborn; rather, it is a forceful reminder of the voluntary nature of any negotiated agreement and the best reason to stand by my word once I have given it.

T H E   E N N E A G R A M

Whether from fear or from shame, many laypersons simply dread negotiation, not unlike public speaking. Me, I love both these arts, for dissimilar yet overlapping reasons. Based on my experience, I advise that the best thing anyone can do to enjoy high-stakes engagements is to prepare.

If you are not enjoying yourself, then you are either failing to do something, or doing something wrong, or both. You might begin by refining your intention since an ability to maintain sang froid is crucial to success - whereas joylessness will undermine even the best strategy. In short, feel the fear - if any - and do it anyway.

I am seldom surprised or bored by the timeless connections between strategy and games, which are curiosity and joy. By finding ways to enjoy myself and fulfill my needs with one and the same gesture, I save energy and attention for those times when such gestures are not available.

Speaking for myself, what I enjoy most about negotiation is the balance of leverage between the parties. I admit this subjective detail in order also to highlight that there are other, equally important, aspects to the discipline - what I enjoy says as much about me as about anything else. Other, no less enjoyable aspects include simply knowing what kind of negotiator you are ... and what kind your counterpart is.

The third part of this essay surveys those idiosyncrasies in greater detail. Before that, though, the second part reconciles force and voluntarism at a delicate point. Meanwhile, this installment takes advantage of the first question to establish the causes of which leverage is the effect.

Q: How would you strategize negotiating a price on a purchase of real estate?

Speaking in general and only for myself, I would strategize any negotiation - be it a purchase, a sale or any other transaction - by maximizing my leverage. This, and not closing the deal, per se, is the focal point of the strategy. Each of the steps I describe, and the nonrandom order of their application, is subject only to this intention even though there are other aspects and approaches to negotiation.

A   P L A C E   T O   S T A N D

The reasoning is that with more leverage, you will need less energy in order to achieve a specific result.

Every deal is bound by an internal logic, its own unique permutation of the Law of Three, the generic terms of which are need, desire and fear. By defintion and in practice, they constitute the specific anchors binding any negotiation to space and time. Whether or not we trouble ourselves to discover them (much less than to name them correctly), they must necessarily be real and not theoretical, which is to say that the specific terms will vary according to the details.

Of the three, the greatest is need, and as such it constitutes what may be called the point of maximum attachment.

By convention, that point is placed at the zenith of the enneagram, position 9. The unique horizontal line connects the other two apexes, desire and fear at postitions 3 and 6, respectively. Because all three are real, they are independent of any strategy, no matter how arbitrary or how reasonable it may be.

A L W A Y S   K N O W   T H E   S T A K E S

As the antonym of ire, desire has its source in rage and lives in tension with it. Many folks ignore this truth about the bulk of their wishful thinking. As the active force in the triad, the heart, if you will, it also tends to be the most obvious - more deals are brokered to satisfy desire than to satisfy need.

For its conspicuousness, desire is placed in the right-hand corner.

The least obvious element is fear, perhaps because negotiators instinctively, if not strategically, attempt to hide it, or at least obfuscate it - some better than others. Note that fear does not result in need, but need often results in fear. Ergo fear is not the passive force, but the neutralizing.

Notice also that need supports desire. The medium, being unknown, tends to inspire fear in one or more parties. So fear, not need, is the check against runaway desire.

S I X   S T R A T E G I C   P O I N T S

Although it is the passive force among the three, need is the point of maximum attachment. This may be because the environment (i.e the medium) is intrinsically abundant with challenges and scarce in resources. Therefore, once you know what is at stake for everyone, there are six steps to accumulating leverage, and the first (1) is this:

1 - discover your counterparts' TRUE need(s)

The easiest way to discover these is to ask questions, but this does not mean that you should believe all the answers that you hear. Even if you know the answer to a question, it may be useful to ask it anyway, in order to gauge your counterpart. The important thing is to learn as much as possible without asking, since relying on the counterpart at the outset does little to build leverage.

I mention this because there are needs and there are TRUE needs.

D R .   M A S L O W ' S   H I E R A R C H Y   O F   N E E D S

The third part of this essay will take a detailed look at the variety of true need(s) using the enneagram as a lens. This is not to reject Dr. Maslow's work on the subject (with which I recommend acquainting yourself, at least cursorily). Rather, my thesis is that individuals experience need subjectively, as individuals, especially nearer the top of the pyramid, which is to say, it varies as a function of an individual's type.

When someone's type is known, and it can be known, then their TRUE need, or what Dr. Maslow might call their individual sense of self-actualization, is also knowable. As we shall see, the variety is smaller than many professional negotiators might suspect. I will also include at that time some anecdotal advice on the most important question - how to discover these needs in real-live people or, in effect, how to determine your counterpart's type.

Meanwhile, you can discover plenty about your counterpart's superficial needs through research. This is true now more than ever, by means of the internet and especially social media (and if you can learn your counterpart's 'type', so much the better). There is no reason to walk into a negotiation uninformed.

Ideally, the more you know about your counterpart, then less s/he should be aware of the fact. Furthermore, your own inner motivation  - why you need whatever it is that you may need - should be as opaque to others as possible, whereas your desire should be more obvious. The same is true of fear, by the way - it should be opaque and desire should be more obvious.

The second step (2) in the strategy depends on the first (1) and has an unpleasant ring to it, which is this:

2 - acquire and display credible power to disable your counterparts

Here it should be remembered that we are considering only how to apply leverage and not how, for example, to establish rapport. This step need not be unpleasant, and indeed it may well be the lack of preparation and practice that often makes it seem so, whether one is sending or one is receiving the message. Nevertheless, skillful deal-makers can do this, or even get their counterpart to do it for them, without insulting anyone.

It may be wise to reread the previous paragraph several times, and then periodically after that.

To continue; two critical steps in the process depend almost exclusively on this second one, as we shall see. Uncouth, uninterested and unskilled individuals, if they think to include this step at all, may do so roughly. This is usually unnecessary, just as surely as a sincere disrespect for one's counterpart tends to squander more information than it accumulates.

Many folks balk at the apparent political incorrectness of the power display. Yet consider two real-world scenarios, one unusual and the other, universal. This is a relevant indulgence and not at all a detour, since there is far more to negotiation than buying and selling. 

The point is to make a case for this otherwise distasteful-sounding maneuver.

For example, suppose that a bank robbery gone wrong has evolved into an unplanned hostage crisis. When the response team arrives, both sides obviously and inevitably resort to this tactic, the power display, and with good reason. There are a great many other complex arenas where a show of power is natural and necessary.

Or else suppose that your child refuses to go to school anymore because - let's face it - school sucks. My aim is not to solve this particular problem just now, although it's a good one (and if you prefer, substitute going to school for eating Brussels sprouts, since the dilemma is the same). Rather, it is to demonstrate that, short of outright force, one must somehow establish enough credibility to compel at least the counterparts' attention, if not cooperation.

To take the initial question as yet another example - i.e when negotiating a price for a plot of land or for anything else - this step becomes difficult if you have an upper limit on what you can spend. In this case, the seller will likely display power before you can. If you are trying to buy in a seller's market, then you must try to concentrate on the non-financial details, if possible, and do so early.

In practice, one develops skill at the power display tactic over time by learning to neutralize it.

Under no circumstances should you bluff at this point, nor antagonize your counterpart. It is better to have almost no leverage than to risk losing what little you may have, since leverage is more easily regained once lost than is credibilty. You will probably make better, albeit less glamorous, deals in the long run with humility than with subterfuge, and you will definitely become more immune to scams and trickery.

It is never better to fake the power display. Bluffing alters perceptions but does nothing to enhance real leverage. Furthermore, it undermines later steps, such as the next (4), which is to:

4 - reciprocate

By now you should have discovered some or all of your counterparts' needs, ideally by your own efforts and/or research. Again, the third part of this series discusses that at greater length, laying out both a framework and a vocabulary for human motivations that are consistent with the universal laws encoded within the enneagram symbol. That being said, in order to genuinely reciprocate, you will need to put yourself in your counterpart's position - and your counterpart will know the genuine article from the ingenuine one just as surely as you will.

Any discussion of negotiation would be incomplete that fails to mention the existence of regionalisms, or local variations of conduct. These are virtually infinite, however it is your responsibility to learn whichever may apply to your situation. For example - since the given question pertains to sales - in certain traditions it is more customary to haggle than in others, and it is considered an insult not to do so.

This is one side of the coin - to demonstrate that you understand what your counterpart wants and what behaviors are "normal". In short, you want to show that you are a qualified buyer or seller in a manner that your counterpart will accept (which depends on him or her more than on you). The other side is that you should also make sure that your counterpart does likewise, or at least recognize if he or she has not done so and possibly use that to your advantage later (especially at point 7).

For now, let us take another, closer, look at the line connecting point 4 to point 2.

If you have more leverage than your counterpart at the outset, then by allowing him or her to take the second step before you do, you may be able to reciprocate by displaying your power (thereby gaining even more leverage). It is not a good bluffing tactic (see above), but requires experience and - how shall I say it? - good taste. It is not for everyone, and I include it for the sake of completeness.

In any case, reciprocity always depends at least partially on what is received. Similarly, if a counterpart does not display power, you may reciprocate by not displaying any either. Establish a foundation on which to reciprocate before initiating any potentially disruptive display of power - which is to say, see the third step before taking the second (encoded in the line from 1 to 4).

S O W   T H E   C A U S E S

The terms of the enneagram do not comprise an ordinary list. The order is nonrandom and nonlinear. In practice, we see the steps occur clockwise - 124 - yet they are causally connected by the hexad in another order - 142 - which is independent of time. Taken as a triad of its own - 142 - position 4 is the reconciling member relative to positions 1 and 2, or affirming and denying, respectively - inasmuch as positions 1 and 2 unfold in a medium of reciprocity.

These first three steps - 142 - those in the right half, illustrate the hemisphere of cause. The fourth step (5) in the strategy, perhaps the most critical step, has an even more unpleasant ring to it, namely to force concessions. The second part of this essay will examine and discuss this step as the first position in the hemisphere of effects.

Also, I will revisit one of the initial questions above - If a buyer is unable to force concessions or increase the offer, does this negate the process? - with this step in mind.

If any questions from readers should result from this series on negotiation, they will comprise a fourth installment. I hope that this topic, and its application with the enneagram, will prove as useful to you as it has to me. If you can think of another other arena of intentional fruition that you would like to see rendered with the enneagram, I hope that readers will let me know that, too...

U S E   F O R C E   W I S E L Y

Trivium and The Law of Three

Whenever and wherever we survey the natural world, around us or within us, we see nonrandom patterns at work, not only in objects but also in events. There have always been individuals among us consumed by the wish to understand these patterns, to be able to gaze upon the world and read its laws plainly, in effect to know the future. Attempts to understand these patterns are the basis of education itself, with historically mixed results.

T H E   E N N E A G R A M

The enneagram is inarguably the most useful tool to any teacher or any student, no matter the discipline. One of my aims is to prove just that. Through the lens of the enneagram, the ‘what, how and why’ of anything you care to observe comes into surprising focus.

You may look on it and think of it as the fundamental hieroglyph of a universal, objective language.

At first, the symbol may be daunting or imposing - complicated, at least. It comprises three geometrical figures – a circle, a triangle and an irregular hexad – each signifying a universal law. When those laws are known and understood, what once looked random will look orderly, even trivial.

U N I O N   O F   T H R E E   A N D   S E V E N

Trivial?

I use the word in its medieval sense of ‘rudimentary’ since it fits the context so perfectly. Method and guidance are indispensable to correct education. In order to demonstrate this, I will apply the classical method of the three-way path, known by its Latin name, the Trivium.

GRAMMAR – LOGIC – RHETORIC

The laws informing the construction of the enneagram are the Law of One, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. As a whole, it symbolizes the union of these three laws. I will defer for another time a detailed discussion of both the Law of One and the Law of Seven.

For now, the Law of One may be stated thus:

ALL IS ONE

Unity is not something that our sense organs are designed to perceive. We naturally distinguish one thing from another, although we seldom, if ever, ponder the laws on which this division is based. As a result, many of our perceptions and impressions are effectively random.

This alone inspires a need for method, hence my choice of the Trivium. The relevant Wikipedia article includes Sister Miriam Joseph’s description, although I do not consider it to be a primary source, per se:

“Grammar is the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; logic is the art of thinking; and rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance.”

I have my reservations and additions to these formulations, which are for most intents and purposes decent enough to begin with. Thus I will use this description as a point of departure, if not arrival. My application of these three Latin concepts to the Law of Three may seem modern and informal, yet I doubt they would inspire contemporary controversy.

GRAMMAR

The Grammar of the Law of Three is fairly straightforward. By convention, the Law of Three is depicted by a triangle, usually equilateral. One advantage of symbols over words is that by design they transmit the ideas of unity and the laws of its division across cultures and over time with minimal distortion. Some amount is virtually inevitable, though.

Another advantage is that by means of symbols, some of the inevitable distortion may be deciphered and decoded, so to speak.

Attempts to codify such impressions and ideas are nothing less than a striving to perceive a nonrandom world and exist there. This is where Intentional Fruition meets method. Indeed, if we knew and understood the laws of Creation, our best wishes, more often than our worst ones, might well become realities.

Grammar may be trivial, yet Creation is not. Any tool that enables accurate depiction of the ‘what, how and why’ of the unfolding of any process is a treasure. A Grammar of the Law of Three is only one among several.

LOGIC

The Logic of the Law of Three is also straightforward, if less apparent. Meanwhile, the proposed description of logic as the ‘art of thinking’ is made of entirely undefined terms.

It may not be wrong exactly, but in a world where trash may pass for art and daydreams pass for thought, it may not necessarily be right, either. With grammar comes the ability to symbolize ideas and combine them - with logic, the ability to analyze impressions and relate them.

And yet what is logic, the thing itself?

I would not presume to have the final word on the subject or to spoil the mystery even if I could, but even that much is a good start – the WORD. Experience tells me that logic is roughly the same as having ‘access to the LOGOS’, which translates as more than merely WORD. LOGOS is the law – the proposition, the statement of how things are – for a start.

The triangle is the symbol of the LOGOS within the enneagram, a sign denoting that some force of law is at work. Scholars have always struggled to formulate a concise statement of this otherwise simple Greek word, LOGOS. Whereas it is challenging enough to compare the merits of someone else’s attempts, the real pay-off results when you try to do so yourself.

Since it is relevant, tangential and trivial (an usual coincidence of adjectives in praise), I shall paraphrase Heraclitus:

1. “The LOGOS is eternal yet humanity proves unable to understand it, both before hearing of it and even after the first telling. All things agree with the LOGOS, yet men and women are like babes when they experience my words and deeds, though I distinguish each by its nature and tell exactly how it is. They fail to notice what they do when they are awake as fully as they forget themselves when asleep.” 
2. “Although the LOGOS is universal, most individuals live as if they had their own private understanding.” 
3. “Do not take my word for it. The LOGOS says that all things are one. It is wise to agree.”

I intend to build my telling of the Law of Three on a similar foundation. I, too, have three impressions to share. Mine are concerned with the ‘what, how and why’ of processes as they arise and unfold in the real world, on any and all scales.
  

Processes are a union of three distinct, though complementary forces, which are Affirming, Denying and Reconciling. Staying true to the method of the Trivium, I will employ a symbol to denote each, respectively.

The use of symbols is preferred over the use of names since the latter change with context and depth of focus, among other variables. The former may be applied universally and at any time. Also, the practice reminds the seeker to look for all three forces in any process, which may be more opaque to some than others – especially the third, or reconciling.

As the examples become more specific, the relativity of names becomes less confusing. Generally speaking, mankind is born ‘third-force blind’. So, too, is the rest of the animal kingdom, for that matter.

This cognitive hurdle may be surpassed with proper preparation and instruction. The same may not be said of the rest of the animal kingdom. No amount of method and guidance will impart rhetorical ability to an animal.

How and why this is so is connected to the Law of Three and may be explained by it, but that is another story for another day.

Again, the forces themselves may be described by different names. Common synonyms for ‘Affirming’ include ‘Positive’ and ‘Active’, or, even, ‘Yang’ or ‘The Father’. For ‘Denying’, other common names include ‘Negative’ and ‘Passive’, or even, ‘Yin’ or ‘The Son’.

The experience of these two forces, ‘Affirming’ and ’Denying’, whether internally or externally, is known to anything that breathes, whether animal or vegetable. At a minimum, we, the living, tend to notice the difference between pleasant and unpleasant - sometimes even the polarizing effect this has on our attention and our efforts, too. In practice, though, the assumption that pleasure is positive and pain is negative, this presumptive confusion of terms, may be tragically misleading.

A F F I R M - D E N Y - R E C O N C I L E

A more complete perspective includes a third point of reference, without which the linear existence limited to positive and negative is literally flat, two-dimensional. In general, the elusive third force is manifest in the medium or in the result of a process or product under consideration.

This ‘third dimension’ introduces relativity, without which positive and negative forces may be difficult to distinguish correctly. No less important to the cause of Human Potential and Intentional Fruition is the experimentally verifiable fact that without some other force at work, positive and negative impulses tend to cancel one another out, producing nothing. Synonyms for the third, or ‘Reconciling’, force include ‘Neutralizing’, ‘Harmonizing’ and ‘The Holy Spirit’.

This idea of three forces may be described otherwise, based on a slightly different observation, on a slower, possibly atemporal frame of reference – as more of a snapshot.

Products and predicaments are triadic. They unfold from exactly three interdependent sources. With the right method, all three may be recognized.

By now, though, some simple and concrete examples are necessary.

Because we often try to ‘do’ things, to push our will, we notice that the world pushes back. This is obvious when we try to make, or break, any habit. Suppose that most nights you tell yourself to get right out of bed tomorrow when your alarm clock rings but then, instead, each morning you ‘snooze’ for 20-30 minutes.

H O W   T O   M A K E   A   N E W   H A B I T

How can you free yourself from the cycle and make a new habit? Or, suppose you wish that you could quit smoking or drinking alcohol. How can you free yourself from the cycle and break the old habit?

Can you see what is missing? The wish to change, no matter how powerful it may be, will not exceed the force of inertia. At most, it will be equal to the resistance (and even that is unlikely) and will yield only temporary and/or illusory gains.

The wish is spent overcoming the inertia.

W I S H   V E R S U S   I N E R T I A

Without introducing a third force, nothing new will result. In practice, that third force may be one of several things, depending on the circumstances. One possibility is to work with a partner to overcome the impasse.

Options vary, especially if you know of them.

An altogether different example might help to clarify the cooperation of the three forces. Consider a hammer and a nail - the hammer constitutes an active force in relation to the passive nail. Furthermore, they could easily be a rock and a wooden peg, or power drill and a lag screw, even a stapler and a staple; the principle is the same.

The objects in question are irrelevant to studying how the law operates - their relation to one another is what matters, which may be codified by the symbols (+) and (-).

Can you see what is missing?

In this case it is wood (or possibly paper, where staples are concerned). Without it, the other elements would have no medium (0) to join them and make them useful. The complete triad may be pictured as:

H A M M E R  (+),  N A I L  (-),  W O O D  (0)

Once more, an altogether different example might help. This time consider an ordinary game, from Mahjong to Monopoly or from billiards to baseball; which one makes no difference. Any game may be triadically pictured as:

P L A Y E R S  (+),  E Q U I P M E N T  (-),  R U L E S  (0)

From the partial (i.e. subjective) point of view of one of the players, it might seem that “I” am the active, or positive, force and that my opponent, “the other”, is the negative force. Heraclitus might call this perspective out as ‘having one’s own private understanding’. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Greek word for that predilection is idiot. 

Any player (+) is active, whether in a game of solitaire or king-of-the-hill. The equipment (-) may be a tile or a table, a ball or a stick – that which is ‘acted upon’ – it might be a basement or a stadium. The result is determined by the rules (0), which impart form and meaning to the players’ (+) actions.

RHETORIC

Information and language may be served by logic and grammar, however something more is needed for the expression of will. Here, too, “the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance”, has merit but still fails to satisfy.

The key and the measure of rhetoric is the ability to convince anyone with “their own private understanding” of the truth by way of elementary principles, to change others’ minds, to persuade.

A N   A L M O S T   M A G I C A L   E N D O W M E N T

Rhetoric is a volatile art. This is especially evident whenever its techniques and practice are reserved for specially designated classes. Persuasiveness is an almost magical endowment, but without virtue it leads to untruth, slavery and ruin, eventually but predictably.

T H E   T R I V I U M

The Law of Three clarifies the situation.

Triads are of finite variety and may be qualified by the order of the application of forces. The variety of triads, or of processes, is independent of their magnitude. You can find instances of growth or decay on any scale, from the smallest to the largest, and they will unfold nonrandomly.

Growth and decay are not the only types of process that occur, of course. This may come as a surprise to readers who assume that the enneagram is a set of personality types and think no more about it. Processes, too, are typical, in accord with the LOGOS.

There are exactly six permutations of three forces. The implications of this idea to the study of Human Potential and Intentional Fruition are as subtle as they are enormous. I can only reparaphrase Heraclitus: “Do not take my word for it”.

Ultimately, whether large or small, partial or impartial, only six types of events ever really happen.

If you are wondering what those six types may be, then you might have a taste for mystery and enjoy this blog. I promise not to disappoint, and actively encourage and solicit questions. Your questions are an ideal framework for any description of the six processes that I can offer.

Meanwhile I wish to relate the Law of Three to the Law of One, which was stated above, even if only by analogy. What joins these domains to our own and others is the idea of scale.

Unity is too vast to encompass from a lowly frame of reference such as ours. Similarly, the Law of Three is almost imperceptible and only slightly denser. Our frame is even denser and grittier still, as are the even lower layers.

M O R E   L A W   M E A N S   L E S S   F R E E D O M

Unity is so opaque to our senses that we do not notice how we constantly carve it up or even where we come from. At the top, so to speak, there is one law, and it applies from top to bottom. Below, there are more laws, but they ramify only downward.

Take a moment to digest this, because it bears directly on Human Potential: Where there are more laws there is less freedom, and there are fewer laws ‘above’. I will add that true creation is rare and, unlike evolution, it is not a bottom-up process. Rather, it is the ultimate (or perhaps primordial) and purest form of freedom.

The foregoing are impressions, echoes of the Law of Three, but not an explicit statement. Nevertheless they bear repetition. This much has been established for ‘worlds’ of different sizes:

1. Processes are a union of three distinct, though complementary, forces, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which are Affirming (+), Denying (-) and Reconciling (0); mankind is born ‘third-force blind’. 
2. Products and predicaments unfold from exactly three interdependent sources; with the right method all three may be recognized. 
3. Triads are of finite variety and may be qualified by the order of the application of forces; there are exactly six permutations of three forces.

The statement of the Law of One indicates how the laws in one ‘world’, so to speak, might ramify and operate in another, might cross pollinate, ultimately creating ‘worlds within worlds’. Triads are a vector, though, and a consequence of cognitive fragmentation, not a law unto themselves. The statement of the Law of Three that connects it to the foregoing and to the Law of Seven (forthcoming) may be made thus:

THE HIGHER AND THE LOWER BLEND

IN ORDER TO ACTUALIZE THE MIDDLE

The reason I endeavor to set all this down is threefold. First, it will clarify, if not ‘trivialize’ my other soliloquies and designs in this blog. Second, it establishes a method. Third, these data are absent from nearly all instruction of the enneagram, to my curious consternation.

. .   . .   . .