Instinctual Types Morality Shaming

I decided I wanted to learn more about Enneagram Instincts. I've read and studied quite a bit about the Enneagram over the past decade or so, but I haven't focused all that much on the Instincts. I recently discovered a podcast by The Art of Growth.

https://www.theartofgrowth.org/discoveryourtype?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwhIS0BhBqEiwADAUhc21WR5YYhkWss7rd2HqNGN3rt7PFqDwkmIIdsl2zaV2w1NUI7Cg3oRoC3FYQAvD_BwE

I found a season where they are really focusing in on the instincts - perfect.

I'm only halfway through the episode but it's really interested.

The instincts are presented in a way as having developed through our evolutionary biology, all having fundamentally important contributions to human survival. We all possess all three, but just as in the primary nine enneagram types, we will find ourselves dominant in one area. The goal is to bring these instincts up from the lizard brain to a more conscious awareness of how we employ them. Perhaps we need to harness more of one energy that we're not tapping into. This kind of reminds me of a book club I'm doing on the goddess archetypes and the active role we can have in tapping into energies that we need.

Here are the 3 instincts: These are my summary takeaways 

Self Preservation: tuned into comfort, security, rest, well being, resources

Sexual: tuned into risk taking, intense energetic connections with other individuals, attracting and charming others, close merge/bonding, referred to as "one on one" in corporate coaching

Social: tuned into hierarchies, groups, tribal roles, preservation of the group, to be honest, I haven't finished listening to this part!

What was standing out to me is the way that we can tend to morally elevate our own instinct as if it's intrinsically more valuable or better than others. My burning need to write about this is because it's been coming up a lot for me lately. I see how I've been the recipient of this type of shaming and the doler of it. (I mention in my bio that I invent words right?)

As a sexual instinctual type, risk taking is inherently something I both crave and contribute. (*For anyone slightly prudish out there "sexual" refers to one on one connecting energy, not the act of sex or being "sexy.") 

Risk taking is a vital part of my well being and if I don't have it, I begin to get depressed. This is something I'm only just beginning to acknowledge and figure out how to implement in ways that are not harmful, addictive, or toxic. My propensity to seek change, new experiences, new friendships, new groups etc. is something that's often frustrated me about myself and I see that I've been reluctant to accept. I also think it hasn't always met with approval by others and has been difficult to understand. However, I have felt encouraged in this by a few cheerleader people in my life and for them I am immensely grateful. Healthy productive risk taking was a part of my upbringing on a cattle ranch, and I'm so thankful that it was developed within me when I was young. I think it's extremely underdeveloped in most young people in "western culture" in meaningful healthy ways. 

On the flip side, I have experienced (mostly self pres) types giving me some flack for my propensity to want to live in the moment, and unwillingness to focus on things they think I should value more like: coupons, savings account, eating, sleeping, safety, and security. 

In my experience self pres types tend to moralize things like savings and prudence in ways that can make sexual types feel less than or somehow inferior. In the podcast, I love how they highlight how risk taking types might have contributed to the human story by being willing to brave predators and make changes that ended up being vitally important to the survival of the group. Ever since I read Keirsey's amazing book Please Understand Me, about MBTI, I've always embraced the notion of myself as a catalyst personality who tends to stir things up, be big picture thinker, and an agent of change. However, I have also simultaneously experienced type envy where I wished I could be more like the steady beaver types who were really good at routine and structure, and don't seem to mind doing the same things day in and day out. I think I largely disregarded the risk taking part of myself - also because I think it was shoved outside by my role as primary caretaker of my daughters. Now that they're getting older and more independent perhaps my subconscious risk taker self is shouting for more attention.

Some time ago I read something about Tony Robbins Essential human needs (listed below) and I was floored. It fits in so well with the instincts. The one that stood out to me at the time was #2. I felt it validated something deep within myself that was resisting all the incessant voices of safety, comfort, security, social status... Not that there's anything wrong with those things. Just I felt I valued them less than others and I didn't understand why I felt so resistant to it and I resented the implication that somehow focusing on these things has some kind of moral benefit. I want to take a moment to highlight how important it can be to distinguish values from morals. (another topic for another day)

1. Certainty: assurance you can avoid pain and gain pleasure

2. Uncertainty/Variety: the need for the unknown, change, new stimuli
3. Significance: feeling unique, important, special or needed
4. Connection/Love: a strong feeling of closeness or union with someone or something
5. Growth: an expansion of capacity, capability or understanding
6. Contribution: a sense of service and focus on helping, giving to and supporting others

I also have been guilty of feeling superior somehow to others. For example I have a disdain for focusing on micro money. It reminds me of the British elite. I might be completely broke, but I'd rather pretend to be wealthy and generous at all costs. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation about how much you spent on lettuce. Sorry. I also may have been guilty of mocking people who are too concerned with comfort and safety. I have pitied them actually - viewing them as people who are perpetually on the sidelines of life, which I'm acknowledging is rude and unfair of myself. 

Worst of all, I probably struggle most with social instinctual types. I may be dead wrong, but somehow I see them as the instigators of heinous social traditions like the tyranny of Mothers Day and incessant birthday festivities. (and may I remind you, these harbingers of social togetherness and groupthink bring up these topics every single year.) But ultimately, I see how these VALUES  of theirs have their place and I want to extend the gracious hand of freedom to those who wish to engage in lots of group activities and traditions at every opportunity. (as long as they don't shame me if I choose not to prioritize those things.) 

When I go on these tirades about Mothers Day and birthdays, I always want to make sure that I always make exceptions to my protest if anyone gives me a gift that includes: wine, coffee, going out to dinner, turquoise jewelry, or an outdoor experience, or a hug, a massage, monetary gifts must be included in this as well. Also please invite me to your party especially if there's Mexican food and alcohol, dancing, and a lovely outdoor setting. (We can't all be consistent all the time.)

I'm curious at the emotions that this has stirred up for me. I'm eager to keep listening to the whole season on the instincts and hopefully I can cultivate more awareness and extend more grace to self and others. I want to challenge myself to tap into and appreciate the strengths and contributions of others that are vitally significant to me and the group.

How Jesus became Became God - Bart Ehrman

 

https://www.bartehrman.com/

Standouts - 

• scholarship and references
• personal insights about faith journey from fundamentalism - Moody Bible Institute to Wheaton I believe - seems the classic deconstruction journey to more liberal forms of Christianity to exiting the establishment.
• putting Jesus in the context of other apocalyptic prophets of his era. I think this stood out for me because I had always thought Jesus' resurrection ushered in apocalyptic thinking for his followers, but actually to understand that certain Jews of that era (and others?) were immersed in the idea that the world was soon to end makes many of Jesus' teachings - especially the more radical ones, clearer. 
• the Resurrection. He does a fantastic analysis of the different viewpoints surrounding how people could interpret the event - from mass hallucinations to contradictions in stories. Interesting he parallels the many supernatural sightings that have occurred - especially the Mary visitations. He talks about how dismissive protestants are of them - despite numerous interesting eyewitness accounts in various places. Protestants who are quick to defend the validity of the resurrection of Jesus testimonies penned decades after the fact. 
• The gospels - I never realized (or forgot) that the gospels were written after Paul's epistles! Paul's epistles are the first things penned some 20 years after Jesus' death. The first gospel (Mark) was put down between 40-60 years after Jesus' death. That explains a lot about the discrepancies between the various gospels and the way that oral tradition can be a difficult resource for an accurate journalistic account which the gospels are not. 
• the above two bullets are believed through an act of faith just as not believing is an act of faith - he references Pascal and does a great analysis of how his theory may be a bit of an oversimplification. 
• "The history of my own personal theology is a mirror image of the history of the theology of the early church. In early Christianity the views got "higher and higher" with the passing of time, as he became increasingly identified as divine. Jesus went from being a potential (human) messiah to becoming the Son of God exalted to a divine status at his resurrection; to being a preexistent angelic being who came into the earth incarnate as a man; to being the incarnation of the word of God who existed before all time and through whom the world was created, to being God himself, equal with God the father and always existent with him. My own personal beliefs in Jesus moved in precisely the opposite direction." 

The above section from the epilogue I found to be quite a fascinating synopsis and an example of the way the author weaves his story in with his research. 

Spider Webs are my new friend

 

Have I ever mentioned that Barbara Kingsolver is one of my idols? Have you ever felt like someone was living the life you want to live? I recently read an excerpt of her discussing her two homes: one in Tucson and a farm in Appalachia. Enough said.

Appalachia - such an awesome word:

Mountains and deserts.

She's like a way smarter more scientific me.

A writer. 

She's doing it. What everyone always told me I should do.

It's not too late. 

This book as usual, combines her biology lore with some fabulous characters. She switches back and forth between three main characters (3rd person) narrative. Setting is in rural Appalachia. There's a constant thread of environmental activism. ( Barb is an activist and then a storyteller.) 

It's thought provoking, funny, sensual as all get out, and unpredictable with realistic complex characters. She has a refreshing view of humans as just "one of the animals" which fits nicely with my new thought patterns.

She's inspiring me to be more conscious. For example she does this whole little essay on predators. If you take down the web, you're going to have an influx of flies. Why are we so stupid? We're spraying for all this stuff that nature has already figured out how to seek a balance in.

I'm going to stop taking down my patio webs. Just a tiny step in the direction of natural balance. 

Some religious expressions might be candidates for true revelation from a creator. Most are just human Constructs (Stark)

 

Sociologist on the origins of "the great religions." His self proclaimed unique perspective is that according to him most sociologists and anthropologists have approached religion with the lens that it is of human origin - a human need to explain the mysteries of life and try to come to terms with the unknown. He doesn't deny this motivation, but he also posits that if there is a god, and he obviously believes in an intelligent designer, then perhaps religion or (certain revelations in certain religions) are actually God's method of connecting with humans. 

The first part of the book is a very detailed origin story of primitive society religion, temple religions in ancient civilizations, rise of monotheism, Indian religions, Chinese gods and "philosophies" like Confucianism, Christianity (Judaism), and Islam. 

Some interesting standouts: He talks about religion and the rise of certain religions in economic terms. What makes a certain religion attractive to converts? How does it meet a certain need that a group might have - for example the attractive concept of an afterlife based on merit or belief that Christianity proposed. 

Not all religions, in fact it is a more recent phenomenon associated God or gods with some kind of moral standard or code. In ancient times, gods were to be appeased and sacrificed to, but had little interest in how moral humans lived their lives. 

He is of the school of thought, that because monotheism (Judeo/Christianity) proposed the notion of an orderly universe, that it spawned the rise of science and advancements that otherwise would never have been attempted. (This makes me think of the Schaeffers and the rise of civilization based on this principle or one similar.) This has some baggage for me - so I won't touch that. 

He does a brief summary which focuses on the possibility of miracles if a Creator God does indeed exist and he ridicules dogmatics who rule out the possibility.

"Through the millennia, many Gods have been invented, and many religious founders were either deluded or charlatans. (I agree.) It could not be otherwise when the matters involved are so important and so impossible to fully verify. (yes) But it does not necessarily follow that all religions are rooted in fraud, illusions, or wishful thinking. (hmm) To conclude this study, I shall suggest that quite aside from any traditional religious claims, there are objective grounds for accepting the existence of God as the more rational conclusion." (makes sense)

He doesn't claim or seem to be a devoted Christian, but he seems to favor Christianity as a more likely candidate for being "revealed" rather than merely a human construct. This is a little hard for me. I can't warm to the idea of a particular religion or people group or point in the history continuum having more access to God or his "mind" than any other time, even if in saying this there are certain religious practices that are more or less distasteful to me personally. 

I am thankful for example not to be one of the thousands tossed off the top of the Mayan temple in their annual blood sacrifice ritual. 

I tend to be more of the thinking that an individual's relative openness to truth and spirituality will dictate their ability to connect with something or someone beyond the material. This obviously reflects my firm establishment in postmodern western civilization in the 21st century. It also is a reflection of my temperament. I have a profound distrust for the collective. I idealize societal life that is pre-industrial and agricultural and I have a disdain for institutions. (the larger and more cumbersome they are, the less I like them.) I have no particular liking for ceremony and ritual and I'm extremely non traditional. (unless I get a day off work of course) 

 I can barely stand to celebrate birthdays (unless you give me a gift I love ha) and superfluous holidays created by hallmark or imposing do-gooders are distasteful to me. That to say, I consider myself open to miracles, spirituality, and the idea that God might be interested in me personally (thought I doubt it - any more than he or she is interested personally in a snail or a microbe.) I think God is interested in us as some type of cosmic experiment or creative piece of art. I do believe in energy and harnessing positivity and healing which is God given. 

I enjoyed this book and the perspectives. Thinking about religion anthropologically is nothing new, but there were some definite take-aways from this.