- Arthur C. Clarke
When I first conceived this blog, I had intended to post more regularly than I have, and in fact I have several partially written essays that I could finish easily enough. There are two main reasons why I have not posted much. The first is that I am not convinced that there is any demand for enneagram-related material beyond the narrow scope of personality theory; the second is that I prefer a more question-based format over extemporizing, so that I can measure the validity of my first reason.
On the other hand, the subtitle of this blog reads HUMAN POTENTIAL - INTENTIONAL FRUITION - OBJECTIVE ART, and it is on these topics that I may write more in the future without restricting myself to the enneagram, per se, at least explicitly (although some readers may infer a connection).
Nevertheless, I am delighted to receive three questions from a subscriber to my YouTube channel. Perhaps they may jump-start my delayed output. Without further ado, then, the questions are these:
1) What is the Devil's Dictionary? Where can one find it?
2) What are your thoughts on the Trivium? It seems to me that in
your Perils of Personal Growth post that you hint at the zero,
or reconciliation, being the context that gives meaning to the
"opposites" or "complements" in a given concept or situation.
3) Also, what are you into now? Since you haven't posted in a while,
I wonder what your current interests are - even if they're mundane -
but specifically I'm asking about your mental pursuits.
I should preface my answers by mentioning that I have two other blogs.
Unfortunately, I have not posted to them lately, either, although they are relevant and soon to be revisited along
with this one since the trio is intended to complement itself. The first is about the challenges of freedom, or
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND THE TEACHABLE MOMENT and the second, about language, or PROMOTING CORRECT USAGE IN THE SERVICE OF ENLIGHTENED MEANING. I mention this because the first question was inspired by the second of those blogs, specifically by a video version of one of its entries.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1) What is the Devil's Dictionary? Where can one find it?
As some will already know, the Devil's Dictionary was written by Ambrose Bierce, a journalist, satirist, fiction writer and veteran of the American Civil War, which you may learn by following the links. Its alternate title,
"The Cynic's Word Book", suggests the overall tone. Also, as the Wikipedia article notes, there have been
several successors who have borrowed the title and/or the theme - my version, The Devil's Dictionary, Revised,
is merely one among many.
Although some of his "definitions" are clever, I personally find sarcasm to be a boring expression of immature frustration. I was more impressed by it thirty years ago than I am today, yet the title serves me well for left-handed reasons of my own. Three typical examples follow, verbatim.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful, including what is
ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong. It is held
with greatest tenacity by those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity,
and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind faith,
it is inaccessible to the light of disproof— an intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment
but death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature
of the Unknowable.
While I seldom agree with Bierce's "definitions", I do believe two things. The first is that he and I each would agree that most folks use language moronically and, the second, that we both have been called elitists by unsympathetic peers. Of the three examples above, I have issues with the first two, CYNIC and OPTIMISM - which are forthcoming entries in my blog of "definitions" using the method described below - whereas the third, RELIGION, can hardly be improved upon, so far as I can see.
Actually, the method is meant to be opaque to those who read that blog and not this one, since their knowledge of the enneagram is irrelevant to that blog's purpose - they're complementary, not identical. For the benefit of those having or wanting such knowledge, I will outline the key features of the intent and its method. Once you see the pattern, you will recognize it in each of my "definitions".
 |
| P R O M O T I N G C O R R E C T U S A G E I N T H E S E R V I C E O F E N L I G H T E N E D M E A N I N G |
At this point, I should mention that I have a controversial premise. Almost nobody has agreed with it at first, although I have proven it to a few who have done the math, so to say. Ergo, prepare to be offended...
Rather, instead of the meaning of words changing over time, it is the speakers who forget (or never even learn) the meaning words and then use them incorrectly. The result, and indeed the proof of this assertion, is that individuals have their own private definitions of words unbeknownst to them and which differ from the private definitions of other individuals. For them, there is no such a thing as Objective Language - they cannot see it where it is written and they cannot hear when it is spoken.
To put it more simply, unless they discuss the most mundane things, such as the weather or pizza toppings, it quickly becomes impossible for nearly everybody to convey or understand more than fuzzy approximations between their contemporaries, whether spoken or written, without specialized preparation.
I would not be the first to notice that for exact knowledge, an exact language is needed and that, moreover, no new one needs to be invented for the purpose since such a language already exists. This is not the time or the place to dwell on further proof of this Tower of Babel syndrome that humanity enjoys, since the method and not the dilemma is my topic. As controversial as this premise may be to some, for now I will defer to my own linguistic training, my command of six languages and my experience as a translator, and move on.
So with my premise out of the way, let me describe the method, at least briefly. I assume my reader here has at least some knowledge of the enneagram, so that I may move beyond why these six terms of the hexad appear in this order. Following that, I will explain the three other terms, those on the triangle, in a bit more detail.
For context, it might be useful to refer to any entry of The Devil's Dictionary, Revised.
1 - assumption
Since I prefer the unpredictable, I select words for my list if I know them to be commonly misunderstood and misused - but it is equally important that my readers believe that they do use and understand those same words correctly. My intent is to shock my readers - why else would I choose an incendiary title? - to lead them to where they would not think to take themselves, and to their benefit. For this journey, the ideal arc begins with what you think you know, hence, with assumption.
Notice how point 1 - assumption follows point 7 - distortion. Already there is a problem here so, in case it doesn't feel like there is, try to remember and even to feel the Tower of Babel dilemma and try NOT to assume that you're not affected. The way out of distortion and assumption is to return to the source, which is exactly what folks do NOT do when satisfied with their assumption and which leads them to the next point, instead.
2 - confusion
Here I like to provide some provocative examples of word misusage. These misuses are often based on taking a false assumption to its logical conclusion, ad absurdum, if you will. For example, since passion means suffering, what does passionate about your job look like, or passionate sex?
The arc is far from complete, but in the midst of confusion there is an initial glimpse of point 8 - correction. Regardless of whichever subject is brought into focus via the enneagram, the line between points 2 and 8 describes a constant relation between their timing and significance - the dilemma, or 'problem', begins here and is not 'solved' until the end is reached. The other articles in this blog provide plenty of examples.
4 - etymology
Completing the first half of my "definitions" is that return to the source, which should surprise at least some readers. As I suggested before, unless you know a word's original meaning, you cannot intentionally change it, only unintentionally. Thus, language is not evolving so much as the speakers are devolving.
Here is another provocative fact, so prepare yourself again to be offended: the dictionary will NOT give you the meaning of words, since it is merely a catalogue of their most current usages.
Only a dictionary of word roots will give you a clue to the primordial meaning of a word and for that you must not only possess such a reference, you must also know the root of whatever word holds your interest. For yet another example, weird derives from the Old English noun -wyrd, meaning 'fate' or 'destiny', although its deepest root, the ancient Proto-Indoeuropean verb, -wert, 'to turn, to wind', is the source of our modern verb -to become. I use the word weird only when speaking of the twists of fate and not as an uncertain synonym for strange, crazy or unusual (which are not even synonymous with each other), and this is how I know that others are not aware of my meaning even though I am using an almost uniquely English word.
The meaning of weird has never changed, rather its use has been distorted. The reason in this case is ignorance, or accident, but weird is a special case. In general and within linguistics, when it comes to evolution (versus adaptation), deliberate accident is an oxymoron - in other words, INTENTIONAL FRUITION requires knowledge.
Here is another provocative fact, so prepare yourself again to be offended: the dictionary will NOT give you the meaning of words, since it is merely a catalogue of their most current usages.
Only a dictionary of word roots will give you a clue to the primordial meaning of a word and for that you must not only possess such a reference, you must also know the root of whatever word holds your interest. For yet another example, weird derives from the Old English noun -wyrd, meaning 'fate' or 'destiny', although its deepest root, the ancient Proto-Indoeuropean verb, -wert, 'to turn, to wind', is the source of our modern verb -to become. I use the word weird only when speaking of the twists of fate and not as an uncertain synonym for strange, crazy or unusual (which are not even synonymous with each other), and this is how I know that others are not aware of my meaning even though I am using an almost uniquely English word.
The meaning of weird has never changed, rather its use has been distorted. The reason in this case is ignorance, or accident, but weird is a special case. In general and within linguistics, when it comes to evolution (versus adaptation), deliberate accident is an oxymoron - in other words, INTENTIONAL FRUITION requires knowledge.
5 - intention
Those
with such knowledge may make changes, or even make new words - Dante
and Shakespeare leap to mind. Creative works, such as art, may be a benefit, but works may also be destructive and
intentionally deceptive, such as the realms of politics and law, and
these make many victims of the unwary and the uneducated - a genuine
hell-on-earth, hence the title. For yet another example, when you
realize that person means mask and not, as you might assume, human being, then this new knowledge might change how you understand corporate personhood. and/or how you use the word person.
Nowadays, folks (you may have noticed by now how I often avoid using the word people) take language for granted without ever troubling themselves to discover what it is, which is nothing short of a superior technology.
Nowadays, folks (you may have noticed by now how I often avoid using the word people) take language for granted without ever troubling themselves to discover what it is, which is nothing short of a superior technology.
7 - distortion
8 - correction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2) What are your thoughts on the Trivium? It seems to me that in your Perils of Personal Growth
post that you hint at the zero, or reconciliation, being the context that gives meaning to the
"opposites" or "complements" in a given concept or situation.
This is a vague question; I have several thoughts. I wrote about the Trivium (or, rather, in terms of it) for a few reasons, among them to establish a method and a means of discourse, a touchstone, if you will. To wit, it serves as a primer to other aspects of the Law of Three that I intend to write about, specifically the Six Permutations of Three Forces, as well as other topics entirely, such as the Law of Seven.
This is a vague question; I have several thoughts. I wrote about the Trivium (or, rather, in terms of it) for a few reasons, among them to establish a method and a means of discourse, a touchstone, if you will. To wit, it serves as a primer to other aspects of the Law of Three that I intend to write about, specifically the Six Permutations of Three Forces, as well as other topics entirely, such as the Law of Seven.
I continue to hope that such writing may respond to others' questions rather than my own subjective interests, however the truth is that it will inevitably be a blend, if it gets done at all.
I see now that my choice of terms may be misleading, or else it's merely a coincidence. The reconciling force and the zero are not the same thing, although they may appear in the same place. Instead of +, - and 0, I could as easily use the names beef, chicken and fish for the three forces, whereas the zero is a meaningful point in space.
With reconciliation and the zero, there are a few important points to consider. Again, they do not necessarily occupy the same position. The latter is always at the top of the enneagram (point 9 and point 0 are theoretically the same), by design, however the former is contextual - reconciliation may appear/occur at any of the apexes of the 936 triangle.
With reconciliation and the zero, there are a few important points to consider. Again, they do not necessarily occupy the same position. The latter is always at the top of the enneagram (point 9 and point 0 are theoretically the same), by design, however the former is contextual - reconciliation may appear/occur at any of the apexes of the 936 triangle.
Similarly, the active (let us call it 1 for the moment, without reference to points in space) and passive (or 2) may occupy any of those three positions (the third being the reconciliation, or 3). The essence of a process is entirely changed (or defined, if you prefer) depending on these locations. If none are omitted or duplicated then they may manifest in one of exactly six ways:
123
132
213
231
312
321
When speaking of the Law of Three, or the Three Forces, it is sometimes convenient to number them as 1, 2 and 3, although you could as easily call them A, B and C or anything else. As you can see, the reconciliation, or 3, is not fixed to any one position. Note, also, that these numbers in this context do not indicate quantity or magnitude, nor does their order strictly imply anything about their timing when taken as discrete moments but rather about their essence when taken as a unit.
Note that my use of the numbers 1, 2 and 3 may also be misleading, especially since I have put the list above in apparently "numerical order'. The true (i.e. correct) order that connects these six permutations with the six points of the hexad is different. Also, these triads have specific names of their own.
All that I will reserve for another time.
You now have a brief introduction to the Six Permutations or Six Processes, which may be studied with or without the enneagram. To see the idea more clearly, it helps to draw it out on an upward-pointing equilateral triangle. Another key idea here about process, that connects the triangle with the hexad, is that apexes of the triangle represent points of attachment to the real world, or sources, whereas those of the hexad denote steps in a process.
I do not want to get too far ahead of myself here, since it is beyond the scope of the question. The kernel of my answer is this: Of the three points of attachment to the real world, the zero is the point of maximum attachment in any given system or process, whereas the reconciliation (or the neutralizing force, let us say) is often found either in the medium or in the result. Furthermore, the zero may accentuate either the active, passive or neutralizing force.
Of course, don't let that stop you from looking up zero point energy and deriving the more quantum mechanical rationale behind my choice of terminology.
Of course, don't let that stop you from looking up zero point energy and deriving the more quantum mechanical rationale behind my choice of terminology.
One final point deserves mention: The zero, or reconciliation, is NOT the context that gives meaning to the "opposites" or "complements" in a given concept or situation, since raw data is merely a primordial stew. Again, the misstatement, if any, was mine, since I wrote that the rules (0) of a game give form and meaning to the actions of the players (+) on each other or on the equipment (-). To be more accurate, it is the observer (YOU or, if you prefer, I) who gives meaning.
Incidentally, this can be verified by comparing what meaning (if any) different individuals glean from the same event(s).
Incidentally, this can be verified by comparing what meaning (if any) different individuals glean from the same event(s).
For this reason, among others, I thought it might be useful to begin my blog with the trivium. Without means and method, discoveries and/or the benefit of experience cannot be reliably transmitted. As for the Perils of Personal Growth, I hope that that post will shed light on an oft-overlooked fact, namely that personality is not a thing, per se, but an event.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3) Also, what are you into now? Since you haven't posted in a while, I wonder what your current interests are - even if they're mundane - but specifically I'm asking about your mental pursuits.
My recent interests mostly fall into two categories, on which I will elaborate briefly. One category is making, which combines elements of electronic design and assembly with coding/programming within the prototyping cycle. The other category includes martial arts of various styles, both armed and unarmed.
The main idea with making is to create machines that respond to real world inputs (i.e. sensory data) with real world outputs (i.e. actions).
An automated greenhouse is a good example. Based on variations of temperature, humidity, light levels. motion and even time, among many others, actions may be taken, such as opening a valve or a vent, turning on or off a light or a pump or even a web-enabled security camera, among many others. The sensors are connected to, and the actions coordinated by, a microcontroller or, in some cases, a programmable logic controller (PLC).
My microcontroller of choice is the Arduino, unless I need more processing power in which case I am also learning the Raspberry Pi. I am happy to answer more detailed questions on these subjects, but I don't want to extemporize without a plan. Perhaps I will write more about this hobby in the future, since coding (i.e. objective language) and the prototyping cycle (i.e. intentional fruition) blend well with my aim of teaching the enneagram.
Meanwhile, my other main (fairly recent) interests are the arts of strategy and combat, which also make fertile topics for this blog. I'll add that my experience with the Gurdjieff Work has been a great benefit to my martial arts practice, both physically and psychologically. Anyways, I am currently receiving instruction in some combat arts and styles, as well as pursuing independent study in others.
In order to master anything, I will to need to focus my energies and that means trimming the variety. For now, though, I am learning these unarmed fighting styles: Bagua Zhang, Xing Yi Quan, Capoeira, Tai Chi, Pao Chui and general Gong Fu sparring strategy. If Silat classes were taught around here, I'd take them, too.
Nevertheless, my major area of specialization is swordplay, also of various styles - Bagua Jian, Bagua Dadao, Shaolin Jian, Wudang Jian, Miao Dao, Medieval Italian Longsword along with a smattering of other HEMA classes, and finally Visayan Escrima.
I also play with a few other weapons for fun, exercise and discipline - the staff, the spear and the rope dart - but the sword is a world unto itself. Swordplay completely changes how you see combat (armed or unarmed) and even strategy in general (military or otherwise). Most especially, it changes how you see yourself, for without the lethal element of "historical" combat, swordplay is more fun and more simultaneously introspective and expansive than drugs.
The benefits of swordplay are many but, as before, I don't want to extemporize aimlessly, so I will leave my answers there, with a hope that they clarify and satisfy as needed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
