The History of the Enneagram: Model, Myth or Method for Change?

Creek: 00:00:02

Well, howdy, folks. Grab your jungle boots. We're about ready to go on a safari to, you know, Enneagram historian, I guess.

Lindsey: 00:00:13

Why wasn't that in, like, an Australian accent?

Creek: 00:00:16

I always slip out of Australian, though. That's the issue. Like, I get into it and then it just doesn't happen. Today you get to meet your legendary teachers.

Our legendary teachers for this season that are going to be accompanying us. Accompanying. Accompanying us.

Lindsey: 00:00:33

It's a tricky word.

Creek: 00:00:36

Accompanying us through this season. Six different people, wonderful people. We enjoy them all so much. And, I mean, I think someone like Michael Naylor.

I've listened to these episodes, like, how many times editing them, and he still cracks me up.

Lindsey: 00:00:54

He's great.

Creek: 00:00:56

So we're going to get to know them a little bit more personally, their lineage, and they're also going to talk about how their school arrived to where they are, what their position is on the origins of the Enneagram. So there's a lot of ground to cover today.

tion, and that was founded in: 2007

And then: 2010

A former IEA president and authority, Mario has trained thousands of leaders worldwide with his pragmatic approach integrating the Enneagram into leadership in organizational development. He started working with the Enneagram like when I was, I don't know, almost out of diapers. I don't. It's. It's been a while. Um, so.

Maria Jose Munita, vice president of Awareness to action International, brings 15 plus years of experience coaching leaders worldwide.

A past president of the International Enneagram Association, Maria Jose delivers workshops and certifications in the Americas, Europe and the Middle East. Known for her practical and humorous teaching style.

Lindsey: 00:02:30

And she's just so sweet.

Creek: 00:02:31

She's the sweetest.

Abram: 00:02:33

And next up on my plate, we have the Riso Hudson Enneagram Institute. This is if you've seen the big blue book out there, it's actually at most Barnes and Nobles.

teaching the enneagram since: 1993

She's a former senior faculty member of the Riso Hudson Enneagram Institute and founding director of the Enneagram Mystery School of the Southwest. She's certified as a New Ventures West Integral Life Coach and shaped by 20 years, over 20 years in the diamond approach.

She also offers global workshops and consulting for creatives blending psychology and storytelling in her work. Michael Naylor is the CEO of the main Enneagram Center.

He's a certified Enneagram teacher and licensed addictions Counselor with over 20 years of experience as well. He specializes in leadership development, addiction recovery and self sabotage patterns teaching across the US and Europe.

Michael is a professional member of the IEA and a prolific writer on recovery and transformation. And just an all around hilarious guy.

Creek: 00:04:04

Yes, I couldn't help. He specializes in like self sabotage patterns. Like this is how you self sabotage better. Actually probably pretty good at that.

Abram: 00:04:20

You'll enjoy that.

Lindsey: 00:04:21

Plenty of experience. Probably, he would say.

Creek: 00:04:23

Exactly.

Lindsey: 00:04:27

neagram, which was founded in: 1988

So teaching with us this season, we have Terry Saracino, who is the founding president of the Narrative Enneagram, and she's been a leader in the Enneagram field for decades. A core faculty member and program creator, she integrates psychology, spirituality and somatics in her work.

Terri has trained teachers worldwide, co authored research on ego development, and shaped the Narrative Enneagram's accredited curriculum.

Terri's teaching partner is Christopher Copeland, who is the founder of Illuminating Paths, is the Narrative Enneagram teacher, spiritual director, and co creator of the Heart of the Enneagram podcast and book.

Blending his expertise in theology, law and spirituality, Christopher has taught globally, advancing personal and collective transformation through his innovative approach.

So we want to be really clear that these teachers in these schools are not a comprehensive representation, in our view, of all the brilliant teaching that there is out there or all of the schools of thought that are out there and who are influential. But we did choose them based on the impact that they've had on us and the Enneagram community overall.

Abram: 00:05:47

And, you know, so as we record this season, we're realizing that we, you know, we constantly were stepping into multiple roles, you know, host, interviewer, teacher, listener, learner, all those different things, all these roles kind of pulling something, each of them different from us, you know, so sometimes they even feel probably contradictory if you're listening. For example, when we are interviewing, our personal opinions might even take a backseat as they probably should.

But when we unpack an episode as teachers or listeners, you're going to hopefully hear a bit more of our own struggles and questions and what we personally did not quite land on. And that's all part of the learning and growing and same for you. That's what we want for the listeners too.

You might notice yourself moving between these different roles as well, the learner, the skeptic, the fan.

But we would just encourage you to pay attention to that and see how it shapes your experience of what's being said, what's being shared from each of the teachers.

Lindsey: 00:06:50

Absolutely.

Creek: 00:06:51

And I think we can all say confidently, these teachers are brilliant in their own right.

And even if we do, you know, end up disagreeing with them or not resonating with something they say, that doesn't mean that there isn't something valuable there. We're all kind of, we all have our own story, our own hang ups and opinions and subjective needs. Right?

So it's, and we hope you can adopt that posture as well as you're listening. So it's like, it's, it's okay to disagree, it's okay to resonate, it's okay, it's okay to feel angry even about certain things.

So just make notes of all of that and unpack it with us.

Lindsey: 00:07:35

So, yes, love it.

So let's get started with a few terms just to keep in mind as we're listening, just get us all on the same page of what we mean when, when we hear and use these words. So first off is history, which by definition is the study of past events, particularly in human affairs. Also the past considered as a whole.

Abram: 00:07:57

Ooh, ooh, good one.

Creek: 00:08:01

I liked, I like that one, both in a positive and negative sense.

Like we, it's like, yeah, we consider it as this whole thing that is affecting us or that has happened, but it is by no means unifying or, or one whole thing. And it depends on who's interpreting it and all this other stuff.

Um, and so I was kind of working on this and I added to this definition a little bit. So history is not just a record of what happened, but an interpretation of how and why things happened, shaped by the lens of the present.

A lens that by itself is built from the layers of the past.

Those layers include our biases, our privilege, our lack of privilege, our cultural, social conditioning, our personalities, all these sort of things. So, so much easy. It's, it's easy to think of history as just the thing that happened in the past.

Neat stories, you know, but I, I Think in this whole thing, I realized that it is, man, it's really important to understand history. Yeah. What. What do you guys. What do you guys think of that?

Abram: 00:09:15

I was just thinking about what the etymology of the word is. I don't have this memorized, so I did look it up. It's.

You know, the word history comes from the ancient Greek word historia, which actually has multiple meanings. Inquiry. So it's the act of seeking knowledge. Knowledge.

The knowledge that results from inquiry and testimony, you know, giving testimony, which I think is really. All those together are really important.

The idea is, though, that the word, the word history has actually evolved over time with its meaning shifting to emphasize different aspects of the past. So I think that's just a good filter to have as we're taking in different thoughts on history here.

Lindsey: 00:09:58

Right.

Creek: 00:09:59

And history is often written by the victors or those that are writing the history, whatever that is, that role is. So there's going to be a bias internal to that.

Lindsey: 00:10:09

That's what I was going to say, too. I think it's always good to keep in mind when you're hearing a history to ask the question of. I wonder whose perspective isn't.

Is not represented here, whose perspective is represented and who has been silenced. Right. Just as a general rule.

Creek: 00:10:24

Awesome. So what's the other term, Lindsay?

Lindsey: 00:10:27

Model. Model.

Creek: 00:10:30

That sounded like model. Moira. It's Greek.

Lindsey: 00:10:42

I couldn't keep it going if I tried. She's amazing. So model is a simplified and provisional description of a system or process to assist calculations and predictions.

Lindsey: 00:10:53

Whoa.

Creek: 00:10:55

Yikes.

Lindsey: 00:10:56

Yikes.

Creek: 00:10:57

Big words. Let's unpack it one more time. One more time. Nice and slow for the people in the back.

Lindsey: 00:11:03

Model is a simplified and provisional description of a system or process to assist calculations and predictions.

Creek: 00:11:16

And predictions.

Lindsey: 00:11:17

This is so important, I think, especially when we're doing enneagram work, to remember that it's limited. Right? It is limited. It's there to assist, help make predictions. But it's not everything. Yeah, it's very simplified.

Creek: 00:11:34

As we were working on this, I kind of came up with this saying that Lindsay has some issue with. So we're gonna. We're gonna duke it out. Okay. And see who's right. For me, the enneagram is a model, not a map. It's a destination.

It's not a destination. It's a tool for orientation. And that orientation can change depending on which model you're using. All right, Lindsay, you have five minutes.

Lindsey: 00:12:09

Yeah, I just. I do think. I agree that it's important not to get locked up in some kind of a destination. When we're doing Enneagram work.

At the same time, I do think the imagery of a map is helpful because the Enneagram does offer some direction, and it is not random. Right. Like, it is very informed direction.

And so I think not only does the map imagery work really well, because in my experience and many other people's experience, it kind of all of a sudden, you have the Enneagram and you go, oh, I can see where I'm at a little bit better. I can make more sense of what I'm experiencing and what's happening in my life and see my patterns a little bit more clearly. So here's where I'm at.

And then I can also see I've got some choices. I can go north, south, east, west, like, north. What are the informed choices that I want to make based on this map?

I think that's probably where the imagery stops working, where the metaphor begins to fall apart, because it's not like I'm going to start here and follow this very particular path, and it's going to lead me to the treasure of myself, you know, like, it can be a lot more complicated than that. And also, it's not like the Enneagram is there and someone else has decided who you are, and now they're informing you of who you are.

But I do think that imagery can be really helpful.

Abram: 00:13:33

Yeah. I just want to chime in and say, I can see that word definitely being valuable still.

But also, people who don't know how to read maps don't realize maybe they're holding it upside down. So even the map or the Enneagram as a map. Right. I think without a compass, you don't know what you're doing.

And I think, also coming back to that word model built in that definition you wrote the word description was there. And I just think model is also an interpretation that you saw. Like, I see this, and I'm going to give you what I see. Yeah, well, that's your model.

That's your interpretation. And I think all of these models are interpretations of.

They're people's best interpretations of how we have collectively put together different patterns in. In a person's psyche. You know, but there's still interpretations from someone. They are limited. Models are limited. Yeah, yeah.

Creek: 00:14:40

And I think simplified and provisional are the two main words for me. If you make a map as big of a city, then it's no longer useful.

Where do you just keep labeling things and labeling things and labeling things, trying to explain every single Part of human's experience in a certain box. It's just like, come on.

And then the provisional piece is as we gather more data, as we learn more about human nature, biology and psychology and all the ologies. Right. Then the. That that's extra data that is going to shift the model as it should. So and so that to me, yeah, I see your point, Lindsay.

And I think there is. There's something to more context. The Enneagram provides a lot more context than just like a direction.

But I guess I like the idea of it being more of a compass than a map because a compass is adaptable but consistent depending on where you're at, depending on who you are. And it will continue to point to some. To some direction. Whether you go that way or not is your choice.

But we, I don't know so far right, like striving to feel unique as A4 has. Has continued to be a direction that is consistently pointing and helpful to know which way to do my growth.

And that's going to look different from season to season. So.

Lindsey: 00:16:26

Yeah, I like that.

Creek: 00:16:28

Yeah. So I guess something, something we noticed and I think you'll notice as well, is that depending on the lineage of the school, it.

It shapes how they see what the Enneagram is for and the terminology they use and like what the emphasis is.

So as you're listening, something that you can start, you can think about is like, how does your lineage, your type lens or your view on the origins of the Enneagram affect how you use this tool? And I know that's kind of an open ended question, but just kind of hold that in your brain loosely and kind of see what comes up.

So with that lean in, stay curious and critique boldly. We are here with Mario Sikora and Maria Jose Munita. I don't have an adjective today because we're not on Awareness to action podcast.

That's not this podcast.

Mario Sikora: 00:17:32

We're doing your day job today.

Creek: 00:17:34

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Awesome.

Abram: 00:17:36

Where are your loyalties, Creekmore?

Creek: 00:17:39

Always. Always shots fired. Prioritize whoever pays me the most money. So right now, ATA wins.

All right, well, we're going to get into some wonderful things today, so I'll hand it over to Abram.

Abram: 00:17:57

Well, welcome, y'all. We're really, really, really excited to kick things off with both of you.

And what we want to initially start with is we want to get into some, some, you know, the origins of, of the sacred geometry and some of the lineage, you know, where, where y'all kind of find yourselves. Your, your School of thought in this process of the Enneagram coming into the Western world, if you will.

So we wanted to start off by helping our listeners get to know you a little bit. So we wanted to get things moving. Lindsay is going to ask just a couple fun questions for you. I might chime in here as well.

Mario Sikora: 00:18:38

Can we say it's Seth Abrams birthday before we get started?

Creek: 00:18:42

Yesterday.

Mario Sikora: 00:18:43

Oh, yesterday. Oh, that's right, yesterday. Okay, well, never mind that. You can cut that creed.

Lindsey: 00:18:49

We have a brand new 40 year old on the call today.

Creek: 00:18:54

Wow.

Lindsey: 00:18:54

Congratulations.

Abram: 00:18:55

So listen up for all.

Creek: 00:18:56

So he may be 41 by the time this comes out.

Lindsey: 00:18:58

Honestly, that's actually not an exaggeration.

Creek: 00:19:02

Not too far off.

Mario Sikora: 00:19:05

So what was the question?

Lindsey: 00:19:06

Yeah, do you have any advice for the new 40 year old?

Mario Sikora: 00:19:12

No, moving on.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:19:17

He doesn't remember how it felt.

Mario Sikora: 00:19:19

Yeah.

Creek: 00:19:22

What was that? 40 years ago?

Mario Sikora: 00:19:24

I could legally drink by the time you were born. So it's like, all right.

Gayle Scott: 00:19:30

No, I just enjoy it. I think that whatever people say that it's bad about any age, just. It's up to you. Just make the most out of it.

Creek: 00:19:41

Amazing.

Mario Sikora: 00:19:42

So what was the question?

Lindsey: 00:19:43

If money were no object, would you choose to be cryogenically frozen.

Mario Sikora: 00:19:56

Before death or after death? Or you can choose. Well, yeah, now, I don't know right away.

Creek: 00:20:06

When you die.

Mario Sikora: 00:20:07

When you die. Okay. No, I wouldn't. That's stupid.

Creek: 00:20:12

No.

Mario Sikora: 00:20:13

What, I'm gonna play baseball with Ted Williams? No, because I would wake up, you know, and it would be right out of idiocracy. Right.

I mean, you know, I don't know if you guys are familiar with that movie, but all the stupid people outbred the smart people. And so this guy gets cryogenically frozen, he comes back, and like, the average IQ is like 48 or something. So anyway.

Abram: 00:20:36

Yeah.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:20:36

And to me, the world makes sense because of the people that I'm surrounded by. It's just I. I see no point. I'm not curious enough, I think, to want to live at a time where I don't know anybody.

Mario Sikora: 00:20:55

Like being at a party where you don't know anybody.

Lindsey: 00:20:57

Yeah, well, money's no object, remember? So you can cryogenically freeze everyone you.

Lindsey: 00:21:01

Love.

Mario Sikora: 00:21:04

Whether they want it or not.

Creek: 00:21:07

Amazing.

Lindsey: 00:21:10

What about you, Ava?

Abram: 00:21:11

I have a question for you. When was the last time you remember belly laughing? And what was it about?

Mario Sikora: 00:21:18

For me, most of my belly laughs are around my kids. Right. So, you know, things we do with them. So I guess the last time I. I'm trying to remember.

So, no, there Was there was watching a Norm MacDonald video of him telling a couple of jokes.

I know I was belly laughing, but, you know, in kind of real life, I think it was just hanging out two of my sons with my mother and my wife over lunch and just observing them and listening to them having fun with each other and laughing. So that for me, yeah, yeah.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:21:53

To me it was. It's been these last few days I've been following in social media an Argentinian comedian who does stand up comedy and she's so, so funny. It just.

Now I cannot repeat any of the jokes because they're all very.

Mario Sikora: 00:22:12

Okay, that's. That's the problem. Yeah, it's the problem with the Norm MacDonald jokes.

Creek: 00:22:16

Yeah, yeah, fair enough.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:22:18

Yeah. I would not repeat any of them. But she's really, really funny.

So I don't follow a lot of people, but with her, I kind of actively look for her videos and watch them because they're hilarious.

Creek: 00:22:31

Well, now that we got the important questions out of the way, Maria Jose, you follow an Argentinian comedian. Do you speak Spanish? Is that something you do?

Maria Jose Munita: 00:22:42

I do.

Creek: 00:22:44

Wow. Okay.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:22:45

That's my native language. That's what I speak most of the time. Except when I'm talking to you guys.

Creek: 00:22:52

Yes. That's amazing.

Abram: 00:22:54

Thank you.

Creek: 00:22:55

So Maria Jose Munita lives in Santiago, Chile. And you have daughters.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:23:02

Two daughters.

Creek: 00:23:03

Yeah. You play tennis. What are some other things that the people should know about you?

Maria Jose Munita: 00:23:07

That I've learned what it means to have a lot of good friends. I've learned kind of what a treasure it is to have friends around me.

I've always had friends, but now that I'm turning 50, they are one of the most important things in my life.

Creek: 00:23:27

Is Mario on that list of friends?

Gayle Scott: 00:23:29

Definitely. But he has been for a long time.

Creek: 00:23:32

Okay.

Abram: 00:23:32

She said women.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:23:34

I said mainly I was very careful. I was very careful. Mario has been for a long time at the top of that list. But I don't know.

Mario Sikora: 00:23:47

Women. Friends with women.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:23:49

Now friends. But I've discovered kind of friendship amongst women later in life. I've had friends all my life, but sure.

Like it's become more, more, more and more important. I just don't know what I would do without my friends.

Creek: 00:24:09

Yeah, that's beautiful, Mario. Other than your newly discovered feminine side was. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Where do you live? What do you do? What's important to you?

Mario Sikora: 00:24:23

Let's see. So I live outside of Philadelphia. I've lived here, this area, my whole life. And I love Philadelphia. It's one of the Best cities in the world.

My wife and I have four boys who. Three in college as of last week, and one still in high school. And you guys know me, I'm relatively tall. I think I'm about 6, 2.

And they all tower over me, which is a very strange experience. Yeah. So, you know, I've been fortunate enough to be, you know, working as an executive coach and consultant, as Maria Jose does.

I'm going on getting close to 30 years, almost as long as Abram's been alive, it seems. And. Yeah. And. Let's see. So. And I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to be able to do what I do. Right.

I started doing what I do because I hated working for other people. Right. It was really what it came down to. And I have been very, very fortunate to be able to make a living doing what I do.

It has allowed me to travel to a lot of countries and a lot of interesting places and meet a lot of, you know, interesting people.

You know, I mean, all of you guys, and certainly with Maria Jose, and we've had the good fortune to be able to use what we do to see a lot of places in the world and meet a lot of people.

And for me, of course, in addition to friends and family and everything, just being able to get out and meet people and meet different kinds of people from different places is what truly brings me joy in life.

Creek: 00:26:07

That's great.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:26:08

Yeah. When you asked Lindsay about. When you started your question about if money wasn't an issue, I thought that you were going to say, what would you do?

Would you still work? And all of that. So my mind was ready to answer that.

Lindsey: 00:26:21

I could see that on you. I was like, oh, no, I'm gonna curveball this.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:26:27

And I think I would still do that because I love what I do so much. It would be different with less, I don't know, pressure or anything. But, yeah, we still use it somehow.

Creek: 00:26:42

Which brings us to why we're here today, which is to talk about the Enneagram. And let's start off with the basics. What's your definition of the Enneagram?

Mario Sikora: 00:26:52

The Enneagram, by, you know, under the popular conception, is a model of nine different personality styles. Right. Very simple. And it's. You know, we can get into why there's. It's important, you know, how we use it, all these sort of things.

But I think if we go a little bit beyond that elevator pitch, if it's a, you know, a model of nine different personality styles, it gets a lot more complicated, you know, And I think that, that, especially if we talk about the history, we really need to unpack what we mean by the term.

Creek: 00:27:25

Where did it come from?

Mario Sikora: 00:27:27

Well, again, we get into this, so let's start with definitions, right? And see, even with that, I mean, I agree with Maria Jose on that, but there's huge mythology about the Enneagram, right?

And you know, when I first started Studying the Enneagram 30 years ago, nobody knew anything about it. Right. Every time I mentioned it to somebody, it was the first time they heard the word. That's not the case now. Right.

I encounter people all the time who know about it. And there's all these myths about the Enneagram, all these misconceptions, one of which is that it's an ancient personality system, right?

So we've got to start with the word Enneag is Greek for nine gram, for drawing. So an Enneagram is a drawing with nine points and nine interconnected lines. That is what everybody can agree on.

And now when we get into, okay, well, how is the Enneagram used? Well, it's a model of personality styles, right? So that's one application of it.

Some people use it as a model to map, you know, the dynamics of the universe or different processes and all that sort of stuff.

And that's another use of gets a little bit fuzzier when people start kind of conflating older ideas with the Enneagram and start saying, well, the Enneagram's actually ancient because the Desert Fathers talked about vices and virtues and blah, blah, blah. And that's just not the case. Right? I mean, the Enneagram is not ancient.

The first we know of the diagram was with George Gurdjieff, the Russian Armenian mystic, who was kind of a crackpot, quite frankly, but, you know, very influential. And so he was the first person to talk about the Enneagram, but he did not talk about it as a personality model. Right.

For him, it was a diagram that mapped the workings of the universe, et cetera. He made up a bunch of stories about it coming from a mythical group called the Sarmoon Brotherhood.

You know, that was actually a non existent Sufi order that, you know, but it didn't. So the Enneagram is not. Didn't come from the Sufis, it didn't come from the ancient Egyptians.

It didn't come from anywhere, as we can prove, except from the mind of George Gurdjieff as a diagram and process model, and from the mind of Oscar Ichazo as a personality model.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:29:58

Now that you're making all these statements, Mario, maybe it's important to explain, not take for granted that you didn't just make that up. I mean, you have talked to people.

Mario Sikora: 00:30:15

Unlike most of the things I said.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:30:17

No, no, no, no. But I think it's important to explain why you're saying that.

Mario Sikora: 00:30:24

Well, the why I'm saying it is because there's so much mythology about it.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:30:28

How you came to those conclusions.

Mario Sikora: 00:30:30

Yeah. So the. I mean, when we talk about the Enneagram as a diagram, at the beginning, one of you guys mentioned Sacred Geometry.

So I've been to, I don't know, 25 countries or so, and I am a fanatic about going to bookstores, right? So everywhere I go, I go to the bookstores in every city I go to. And I always look at the books on Sacred Geometry.

And the Enneagram is not in any of them, okay? It just ain't there. And there is no evidence of the Enneagram existing prior to Gurdjieff as a diagram. Okay.

Some people will say, oh, no, Ramon Llull drew it on the wall of his monastery or something. No, he didn't. That's not the Enneagram. Okay? So there's just no evidence of it existing prior to that.

And it has been legally established in a court of law. Law. That Oscar Ichazo was the creator of the Enneagram personality. Right.

There was a big lawsuit between, you know, where he was suing Helen Palmer over publishing her book. And it's a settled matter of law that Ichazo started the Enneagram of Personality. Now, was he influenced by older ideas? Of course. Everybody is.

You know, I mean, everybody's influenced by older ideas.

But he was the first guy to say there are these nine personality types and map them to the Enneagram and all that stuff and everything beyond that is just. It's just fantasy.

Abram: 00:32:00

hen say that the enneagram is: 3000

Maria Jose Munita: 00:32:12

Yeah. And it's funny, because when I started learning about the Enneagram a lot of years ago, it was 2,000 years old.

And now it's only a few years later, it's 3,000 or 5,000 years old. It's interesting.

Mario Sikora: 00:32:24

And there are teachers suggesting that it's 30,000 years old. Okay? So there's the why of it and the what of it that are kind of different questions, Seth. And so the why of it is because people Love stories.

And they love. You know, evidenced by antiquity, right? This is really old, so it must be awesome.

And they want to feel like they're part of something ancient and deep and true and all this other sort of stuff. So there's a quality of that that some people seem drawn to, okay. Which is why that story gets repeated over and over again and that sort of thing.

Now, again, it is, you know, to say that, okay?

Because so what people will say is, well, you know, there's this idea of these three centers, you know, and VI and virtues and all these other sort of things. And, oh, if you look at. If you kind of squint your eyes and turn sideways, then the Odyssey depicts the nine personality types.

And so Homer must have known the Enneagram. Oh, and Dante identified nine levels of heaven and hell, so he must have known the Enneagram. No, they didn't. Right?

So it's one thing to take an old idea and incorporate it into a new idea and build off of something. That's what happens with every body of knowledge, okay?

It does not mean that people a thousand years ago or 5,000 years ago were doing the same thing that people are today. Okay? So we always have to define what we mean by Enneagram. And if we're talking about the Enneagram, personality starts with a chazo.

If we're talking about this idea that there are three centers, oh, that goes back at least to Plato. That's an old idea, and everybody has talked about that. We're talking about vices and virtues. Yeah, that's an old idea. And you know what?

Every version of it is different, Right? It was a chazo who said, here are the nine I'm going to talk about, right? He took the seven deadly sins and he added two. Little had 16.

You know, you can go to everybody's list, and it's different, okay?

So we, I think for just simple intellectual credibility, we need to be serious, define what we're talking about and quit grasping to these fantasies and repeating them to gullible people.

Abram: 00:35:01

To be real clear real quick, the personality model itself is new, but does the symbol itself get expressed anywhere in the past?

Mario Sikora: 00:35:10

There is no evidence of the Enneagram symbol as we know it existing prior to Gurdjieff, Okay? And I defy anybody to show it to me, okay? And if you do, that's great. I mean, that would be really cool, man.

You know, I mean, if somebody comes to me and says, hey, man, we track. You know, we found this somewhere, and it's 30,000 years old, and we can prove it. That's pretty cool, right? But you know what? Nobody's doing that.

Nobody has done it. What people say is, well, you know, there were nine of these and there were nine of that, and there was this and there was that.

So it must have been the Enneagram.

Lindsey: 00:35:49

I love that clarity that you brought. Just the. Just. If we can pivot a little bit from just saying enneagram to enneagram of personality, that alone brings so much clarity.

So thank you for laying that out. And you mentioned the Enneagram of personality starts with Achazo. So if we start the timeline here and we pick it up and take it forward, that.

How do we get from a chazo to awareness to action? Can you kind of take us through.

Mario Sikora: 00:36:18

That direct transmission, you know? Yeah. Oscar came to me in a dream one night.

Creek: 00:36:28

Download how many mushrooms were involved?

Mario Sikora: 00:36:32

No. So, look, the work of Ichazo regarding the Enneagram personality is brilliant, right? I mean, and what I. And I don't agree with it all, okay?

But what he put together is just. It's fascinating. It's great stuff. Again, there's a lot of stuff, and it's only a small, small, small piece of his system, right?

And, you know, and again, I think a lot of his stuff was just bonkers, okay? But this idea of these different personality dynamics was really, really a big contribution, okay? So I always want to acknowledge that, okay?

Now, one of the people he taught it to, and there are still people.

I mean, there are still people in his Eureka school who are sharing it today and their version of it, which is different from what the rest of us know, came from different traditions. But, you know, there's.

So there's still people promoting his version, but the first big kind of pivot or, you know, inflection point was with Claudio Naranjo, okay? Who was Maria Jose.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:37:35

Chilean psychiatrist.

Mario Sikora: 00:37:36

Yeah, yeah, Chilean. Right. So. And so. And what he. So he studied with Achazo, and. And they had this big falling out and all this stuff.

And depending on which version of Naranjo's story you listen to, because he did have multiple versions of it, he took the kernel of what he got from Achazo and then he built it out and he started applying it to more psychological understanding to it than Ichazo had. He mapped it to the DSM and, you know, all these sort of things, right? So that's the next big step, right? So you've got basically a Chazo to Naranjo.

Now Naranjo goes to Berkeley, California, and I forget what year this was, but it was a long time ago, you know, probably late 70s, early 80s, I think, but. And teaches it to a group of people. Okay. And there's a 10 week course that he's doing like one night a week in Berkeley.

And there were a number of people there. Right. Peter O'Hanrahan was in that class. Kathleen Spieth, who wrote a little book called the Gurdjieff Work. Ah. Almas and Sandra Maitrey were there.

And a Jesuit named Bob Oakes. Okay. So now Helen Palmer was not there, but she was very good friends with Kathleen Spieth, who was also Naranjo's girlfriend at the time.

And Kathleen Spieth taught Naranjo's version of the Enneagram to Helen Palmer. And Bob Ochs went back to Loyola University and started kind of the Jesuit version of the Enneagram. Right.

Now, one of the things you got to keep in mind, and we might loop back to this, was that Bob Oaks missed the last two sessions of the course, and there were very significant things about the Enneagram that he was not taught.

Abram: 00:39:30

Appointment. What was that about?

Mario Sikora: 00:39:31

No, the school year was starting. Right. He had to go back to Loyola to, you know, to resume his responsibilities as. Yeah, as a professor.

But he started teaching what he had learned to, you know, people at Loyola. And from there you get people like Jerry Wagner and Patrick O'Leary and Don Rico.

So when I was introduced to the Enneagram, it was the Don Riso at the time. Russell, you know, had started teaching with him, but hadn't written the books together yet.

So I learned the Riso and then Riso Hudson version of the enneagram first. And so they were my main teachers. This was 94, but, you know, I was learning from everybody I could at the time.

Was easier to keep up on all the Enneagram literature at the time because there hardly was any, you know, unlike today.

Creek: 00:40:23

All three books.

Mario Sikora: 00:40:24

Yeah, pretty much. Pretty much, yeah. Yeah.

Creek: 00:40:27

Hey, quick interruption Creek here from the future. So Mario called me in the middle of the night and he's like, I. I need to correct myself. Don't you dare put this out until I correct myself.

So, Maro, you have a few things to say about what you said?

Mario Sikora: 00:40:43

Well, I'm not going to say I'm correcting myself. I'm going to say we're adding nuance. Okay. You know, never wrong. Well, no, no, trust me, I'm. I'm often wrong. But. So look, we. We've had a.

We've had an ongoing conversation about, you know, clarifying some things around the history. That's actually been really good because, you know, you.

Things get lost in the sands of time and memory is unreliable and so forth, which is why it's so important to be rigorous in tracking things. We were talking about the use of or lack of knowledge about the instinctual subtypes in the Jesuit tradition.

And I think I told a story about Bob Ochs leaving a program with Naranjo early and not having the teaching of the instinctual biases. Let's see. That's a. We'll call that a condensation of reality, perhaps, you know.

But no, as well as we've been exploring this and talking to some people who were there and, you know, and digging a little bit deeper and more importantly, looking into the literature that was written around the time, and I think that's what we'll focus on here. It wasn't that Naranjo was doing one program.

You know, you always hear people saying, oh, I was in that training with program with Naranjo, or so, and so was there. Well, Naranjo was actually doing a number of things in the Berkeley area. And there were different people in different programs.

And Naranjo was still developing his ideas and formalizing the way he taught things. So different people got different things.

And some people would hear one version of what Naranjo said, and then somebody else would hear a later version of it and so forth. So I don't know exactly what Oakes was there for and what he wasn't there for.

I know that Naranjo did work with Oakes, and although he kind of told him he could teach some SAT activities, he did not specifically tell him he'd go teach the Enneagram. From what I can gather. The important thing, however, SAT being seekers after truth, which was Naranjo's group.

book, which was published in: 1984

So she heard about the subtypes.

s to the mid-: 1990

And then he went on to say that you could also have. You could think of subtypes at each level of health.

So you take those 18 versions of the types and multiply those by nine, and I think you get 156 or something. I don't know, I have to get my calculator.

And then your wing could have either a strong medium or weak influence, which created three more, more subtypes. And you end up ultimately with 486 subtypes, potentially. So that's the way Don was talking about the subtypes up until the mid-90s.

Now, what happened at that period was that people started to cross pollinate, right? So people would study with different Enneagram teachers.

And one, particularly the Jesuit approach, was not teaching instinctual subtypes, but the West Coast Palmer folks and others were, as were the Narano people and so forth.

So Don, in the second edition of Personality Types that he co authored with Russ Hudson, has a section where he starts to talk about what they called instinctual variants.

And it's in the back of the book, and it's only a couple of pages, probably only a couple of paragraphs, and they're basically saying, yeah, there is this other thing called instinctual variance. But we don't think it's very well developed and we don't think it's quite accurate as it is.

So we're spending some time exploring this, and we're going to write about it in the future, which they did end up doing in the Wisdom of the Enneagram. Okay, so whatever happened, we can say that the Jesuits were not teaching the instinctual subtypes. The Palmer Daniels folks and others were.

For whatever reason, whether Oakes got that teaching or not, they just didn't really, you know, but they weren't talking about it.

And the approach to the wings that they took, according to Sandra Maitre in a podcast interview I listened to, you know, she says, and she says this in her book, the Spiritual Dimension, the Enneagram as well, this idea that you're either four with a three wing or a four with a five wing, not only does she not think is accurate, but it's not the original teaching. Right. Again, it was a distortion from how I, Chazo, would talk about it and how Claudio would talk about it.

So I still stick with my premise that the instinctual biases grew or were not being used effectively or at all with the people who came up with this wing theory.

And I think that the wings, you're either this wing or that wing, really is just a cluj trying to fill in the gap of understanding variation by people who didn't understand the instinctual biases.

Creek: 00:47:03

And just real quick, what were the books that you referenced and the people that you talked to that brought this more to clarity?

Mario Sikora: 00:47:11

So there were a number. So basically, going back to. You can look at Helen Palmer's first book, and she does have a couple of lines on each of the 27 subtypes in there.

But if you go to the book the enneagram by Patrick O'Leary, Maria Biesing, and I think Peter Nogacek was the third author. They're not there. Right. That was, I think, the first Enneagram book, and they were Jesuits. Let's see.

You can also look at Don Riso's earlier, early books, Personality Types and Understanding the Enneagram. Now, you have to understand that there are earlier versions of those books. Right.

So in Personality Types, the second version, you'll see that in the back, yeah, they have something introducing this idea of instinctual biases, but you'll also see that they talk about subtypes in terms of the wings. So those are the kind of the key books that we look at for to track what happened here.

Creek: 00:48:08

And you did talk with Russ, Peter O'Hanrahan and Jerry Wagner to kind of fill in some other details.

Mario Sikora: 00:48:15

Yeah, yeah. And, you know, and the thing you find is that, look, we're talking about, you know, 50 years ago, right?

And so, you know, it gets a bit murky and, you know, and, you know, and look, I.

You know, stories that you hear decades ago, kind of shift in your brain and, you know, let alone events that happen in life, let alone events that you heard about secondhand.

So, you know, it's hard to piece this stuff together and get a really accurate picture of what happened, which I think is why you just have to look at the books. Okay, well, what books were published? Right. And what do they have in them? And go from there.

Creek: 00:48:59

Awesome. Well, thank you. And back to the show, and thank.

Abram: 00:49:03

You for taking us all the way through that. It was fun. A little excursion through history. Maria Jose, I want to ask you if you're up for answering this question.

The Enneagram is not a stranger by any means to division and inner fighting and turmoil and schisms. And I Wonder if you might be able to recount for us some of the history as.

As you know it, you know, from your perspective and maybe how your school of thought, your school is attempting to try and move beyond some of those conflicts that are probably still at bay.

Maria Jose Munita: 00:49:41

So Mario and I were on the IEA board and were part and witnessed some of the dynamics between the schools. So I also studied at the Riza Hudson at the Ingham Institute.

But when I started participating at the iea, I realized that there was so much more and I learned more about the other schools. And because I am from here and the SAT school, the Naranjo school is a big thing. I also know a lot of that of those people here as well.

And I think that years ago it was more kind of personalized. It was more about the people and who you were following. There was kind of a loyalty to a particular camp.

And that was kind of the true Enneagram or the Enneagram that I follow. And it was very linked to the person, the main teachers of that school and you were with or against them. I'm not saying that everybody but.

And to be honest, teachers kind of fed that mindset in that this is the Enneagram and the other schools are wrong in this and that Naranjo was not participating at the IEA kind of conferences or any of that. However, he did kind of send messages that they were not doing good work. But they were. I mean, the sad school was.

And the others didn't know what they were talking about. So it was all very much like that. And until teachers became closer and started teaching together.

er camp. That was around just: 2013

he IA conference in Denver in: 2013

And from then onwards I think that things started to relax a bit and people felt like they wanted to know more about the other approaches. And today I don't think it's much of a thing thing for people to study in one school or one approach or the other.

Neither the approaches are less kind of demarcated in some ways. And there are more schools. It's not just two or three schools, but it's a lot more than that.

Especially since, I don't know, the big names have lost the visibility that they had Helen Palmer, the passing of Don and David and all of that. So I think that it's a very, very different world in a few years. I mean, not such a long time. Things have changed a lot.

And our school now that it's different, that it's not so much about kind of the main teachers who started this. I think that we try to appeal and honor a more robust or a very robust body of knowledge with a rigorous mindset and appeal to people.

We don't try to appeal to everybody. I think that there are approaches that serve different purposes, and some are more body oriented or spiritual or this or that.

We try to appeal to the more pragmatic people, people who want something concrete that you can apply, that you can turn into action, that it's result oriented. And we try to do that kind of work.

Mario Sikora: 00:53:52

I think an important thing is to remind ourselves that if the Enneagram teaches us nothing else, it's that people see the world differently and there's value in that. Right?

So we all bring our own biases, our own perspectives, our own values to things and to recognize that other people see things differently and have something to offer. That may not fit me, but that's okay. Right. And so we are of the school of thought that there is no one true Enneagram.

But there are different approaches to the Enneagram. There are better approaches to the Enneagram and not as good approaches to the.

Lindsey: 00:54:38

Enneagram, but can we get a collection of gasp here?

Mario Sikora: 00:54:40

Come on. I can't go too far. I can't be completely generous. Generous. You know, so. But, you know. Yeah, so. So I think we have to accept that.

And so, therefore, if somebody teaches a little bit differently, that's fine, as long as what they're doing is ethical and, you know, relatively rigorous. And, you know, if your model is internally and externally consistent, great. Good for you.

Creek: 00:55:10

And of course, we don't. We don't bring up the past to just, you know, be dramatic about things.

But I think it is important for people who are, especially those who are more deeply involved in the Enneagram community, to understand the context of these things, why the terms are different and the emotional baggage and the emotional intensity maybe around certain ideas, around different schools.

And in some ways, it's the understanding our familial trauma so we understand how to better navigate these ideas and the people that hold those ideas.

Mario Sikora: 00:55:54

There's also. I completely agree with that. And I do think it's important to understand the history for those reasons. And there's a more practical thing here.

I mean, I write a book and I'm doing workshops based on the content of that book and somebody else comes along and writes a different book that has different ideas in it.

And so then if somebody start to say, well, what he wrote is wrong and this is what's right, people can see that as an assault, you know, for people who make their living teaching the Enneagram. And we really don't. We make our living as coaches and consultants who just do the Enneagram.

But you know, for people who are making their living off the Enneagram, to have somebody come along and say, well, here's a different way to think about it, that can feel threatening, right? That can feel, you know, invalidating of the other person's work. And so people get, you know, people get protective of that.

Creek: 00:56:57

So, Mara, is there a place that if people want to learn more about the history, the good, the bad, the and the ugly, where can they go to understand and learn more about that?

Mario Sikora: 00:57:08

So I actually did write a two part substack article. I have a substack@mariosakura.substack.com and I kind of trace out the history of the Enneagram as I explained it.

And I, to be clear, as we talk about this, right, this is how things work, right? I mean, knowledge evolves, things change over time. And it should, right? I mean, the Enneagram should be an evolving model.

So this is all fine, but we do need to be clear and understand what happens so we can not believe things that just aren't true and we.

Creek: 00:57:44

Can do better moving forward how to deal with this agreement. So absolutely. Great.

Lindsey: 00:57:50

So, Mario, a little bit earlier you mentioned the word model, and we decided we really loved that word. As we're talking about these different schools, what we're really talking about is some important models of the Enneagram.

And so we wondered if you could just start by defining for us, Mario and Maria Jose, what your preferred terminology is for your model for things like the nine types or maybe the instincts, how do you describe those within your model?

Maria Jose Munita: 00:58:23

Yeah, so overall we have a framework that has descriptive and prescriptive elements.

So our whole I want us to action approach to the Enneagram has three descriptive elements that are the three instinctual biases, the nine strategies, and the nine core qualities. And we will explain each of them. And on the other hand, we have four prescriptive elements.

So what to do about it, what we can do with those descriptive elements. And that includes the awareness to action process. It's like how we create change using this awareness.

The nine accelerators, which are nine practices to develop and mature the nine core qualities. We have 27 awareness and 27 action charts that put together kind of cues.

It's like a cheat sheet with all the things that we can become aware of, all the possibilities and what to do about them.

And we have 12 competencies that apply to leadership and to life in general that are linked to the three instinctual biases and the nine strategies in a way that we can all benefit from them, but are kind of. There's a correlation between the Enneagram and those competencies. So that's a whole framework that we. That would tie together all of our.

Mario Sikora: 01:00:00

Approach when it comes to specific terminology and definition around these things. One of my frustrations when I was first working with the Enneagram, one of how many learning.

Lindsey: 01:00:18

Get out the scroll.

Mario Sikora: 01:00:22

If you're not angry, you're just not trying hard enough.

Okay, So I know one of my frustrations early on was that when, you know, somebody would say, what does it mean to be a type 8 or a type 5 or something? There was no, in my mind, great definition of what that meant. Right? There was no kind of, well, this is what it means to be an 8.

There was, you could say, you know, well, that's the 8's the lust type, right? Or something like that. And the seven's the gluttony type. But yeah, you know, some circumstances that's fine, others it's not.

So I wanted to think about, okay, what does it mean when, when we use the word type? What are we talking about? Is it okay to say somebody's a particular type? Or should we say, oh, I lead with this or that, whatever.

I think it's fine to use the word type. I am a type 8. What is that saying?

It's saying that I am the kind of person who uses one particular adaptive strategy out of nine more than I use the other eight. And therefore we call me a type 8 because the strategy I use is mapped to 0.8 on the diagram.

Whereas with Maria Jose, we call her a type one because the strategy she uses more than the other eight is the one found at 0.1, striving to feel perfect. So the type is the outcome of a habitual preference, a habitual persistent preference to rely on one adaptive strategy.

And that adaptive strategy is a desire to feel a certain way. Okay? It's non conscious. We don't choose it. Nobody really knows why we do it, but just is.

And it establishes a tendency, not a universal, you know, must do this, but a tendency to exhibit certain feelings, experience certain thoughts. Experience certain emotions and exhibit certain behaviors that are the logical outcome of the tendency to use this strategy.

Lindsey: 01:02:45

Yeah.

And just before we get too much further, I want to be clear, if you could remind the listener for the Awareness to Action model, what are some terms that they will hear exclusive to your model? Like type is one that they might hear multiple places. But I heard strategy. Is that unique to Awareness to Action.

Mario Sikora: 01:03:06

I don't know that it's unique. I've heard other people use it, but I think I was the first to say so. I was reading when Bob Talen and I started writing Character Neurosis. Yeah.

We let Narano put his name on it because. Yeah. No, when we were writing Awareness to Action, I was reading Character Neurosis. And Naranjo makes this comment about the.

Gayle Scott: 01:03:33

Types of a journalist could get you in trouble with that statement.

Lindsey: 01:03:40

These are sound bite.

Maria Jose Munita: 01:03:43

There's the line before that, which could be used, misused.

Lindsey: 01:03:47

You can trust it.

Mario Sikora: 01:03:49

Yes. Fortunately, nobody's going to listen to this, so we're fine. But no.

So Naranjo makes this point that there are these, you know, these types are adaptive strategies, meaning strategies we use to solve the problems that life brings our way. But he doesn't really expound on that. Right. You know, he just kind of leaves that there. But I liked that idea. I said, that makes sense to me. Right.

Okay. That's something I can wrap my head around. And so we started thinking about, okay, what is this strategy?

It's a desire to feel a certain way because we're driven by this internal need for a kind of a homeostatic condition that lets me know everything's okay. Right. When I feel powerful, everything's fine. Right. When Maria Jose feels perfect, everything's fine.

When we don't feel that way is when we start to act out. When we start to try and get back to feeling that thing, everything feels fine.

Creek: 01:04:47

Not everything.

Mario Sikora: 01:04:49

Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. And I may use kind of maladaptive ways to get there. Right. I think is where you're going with that point.

So for, you know, what's distinct about what we do is we have defined these strategies as a need to feel a certain way. And if you go back and you read Awareness to Action, it says striving to be.

But that's only because we couldn't get the publisher to update the version of it. But the, you know, what we use now is striving to feel. So that's one thing that is very striving specific to what we do.

I think the other thing too, and I don't want to get ahead of us here, but our approach to the instinctual biases is pretty unique and the awareness to action process that we have is pretty unique. Now, I know that the narrative folks have something similar to that, but it's five steps. So those are kind of unique things to our approach.

Maria Jose Munita: 01:05:52

Yeah.

I would add that we have the core qualities, which are also something only we have, and they could be linked to the holy ideas, but philosophically they are very different.

Mario Sikora: 01:06:09

We're the essential aspects.

Maria Jose Munita: 01:06:11

Yes.

Maria Jose Munita: 01:06:11

Or the essential aspects. So we have the core qualities as well. And the accelerators are ours as well.

Mario Sikora: 01:06:18

Yeah. Actually, all seven of the elements, elements that Maria Jose mentioned are, you know, are kind of distinct to us and.

Maria Jose Munita: 01:06:26

Definitions, and we'll see that more in detail. The definitions of the strategies, some of them are very similar to the conventional way of understanding the types, but some of them are not.

And like type two, striving to feel connected, or type five, striving to feel detached, some of the labels are different as well.

Abram: 01:06:48

I just want to name. I really value just simply your. Your approach to the type as a strategy to feel a certain way.

Because for me, this opens up the person who, as I like to say, contextualizes the type, you know, makes it unique to them. Because striving to feel peaceful is going to be specific for what that means for me. And it can't.

It's not the same across the board for all type nines.

Mario Sikora: 01:07:13

And for us, I think one of the things that's a bit different is that we focus on extrapolating from very clear first principles. So when we talk about what it is to be a nine.

Now, we could give you a laundry list of traits and characteristics and that sort of thing, but they would not all be universal to every type 9. Right. What is universal to every type 9 is that of the nine strategies they use striving to feel peaceful more than the other eight.

And what that looks like in Seth Abram is very different than what it looks like in somebody else, but it's that same thing. And the other thing we find is that that feels much more liberating to people than being told, you are this type, you are this. Right.

So from a philosophical perspective, it's the difference between an ontological model and a phenomenological model. Right. Where the bingo. Right. Nominalistic or nominalistic? Yes. Okay, either one. But yes, nominalistic is correct. So it is better. Right.

So a nominalistic perspective is. This is what we call something that has this characteristics. Right. Whereas an Ontological perspective is, this is what this thing is.

And when you're telling somebody this is what you are, that feels like a life sentence. Right. It feels like something I can't do anything about.

But when we say no, you're just a guy using a particular strategy in a particular way, and you have some freedom to alter that if you choose to.

Abram: 01:08:54

Yep. This gives me the freedom to do nine in my way. Yeah.

Lindsey: 01:08:58

Yeah. I think striving to feel is also a way of naming an experience I'm having. So you're helping me go, oh, yes.

That is what it feels like, is there is a certain striving in a particular direction. So now I can name it. Now I can see it when it shows up. It's really helpful. Yeah. We are so delighted to have two very special teachers with us today.

We have Gail Scott and Michael Naylor with us. Welcome, both of you.

Michael Naylor: 01:09:29

Thank you.

Gayle Scott: 01:09:30

Hi. Thank you.

Michael Naylor: 01:09:31

Good to see you, Lindsay.

Lindsey: 01:09:33

So glad to see you.

Creek: 01:09:34

Just Lindsay. Not us, obviously.

Lindsey: 01:09:38

Michael is most happy to see me playing favorites. Obviously.

Well, just to get us started here, we wanted to just give you a couple of questions, a couple of icebreaker questions, so I promise it won't hurt too bad. But just to get us started, my question for both of you is, what is your favorite flower and why?

Gayle Scott: 01:10:01

I actually love gerber daisies. There's something about the color of the gerber daisies. They're like crayon colors, and they're so saturated.

You know, there's that beautiful crayon, red and yellow and orange and white. And whenever I see them, I get so happy I'm not able to grow them here.

But whenever I see them in the florist or in the store, I just, like, shriek with joy.

Creek: 01:10:31

That's great.

Gayle Scott: 01:10:31

And I buy bunches of them, and I have them on my dining room.

Abram: 01:10:37

That's awesome.

Michael Naylor: 01:10:39

That's interesting. Well, I was thinking I need to do more shrieking when I see my dandelion. Dandelions? Yeah, dandelions. That's my favorite.

And there's no really good reason for it. I just love the dandelion.

Creek: 01:10:56

That's great.

Lindsey: 01:10:58

Well, they transform, right? They get to be, like, different things.

Michael Naylor: 01:11:02

Within the die, and then they come back again, kind of like the four.

Lindsey: 01:11:07

Do you have a favorite phase of the dandelion lifespan?

Michael Naylor: 01:11:10

I really don't. I celebrate them all. And if you'd like to buy an island in New Jersey, I'll get you one.

Abram: 01:11:19

Amazing. Amazing. Well, here's mine for you. How would you rate your karaoke skills? On a scale from 1 to Mariah Carey.

Gayle Scott: 01:11:28

1 to Mariah Carey, I'm pretty good, actually.

Creek: 01:11:35

Hey.

Michael Naylor: 01:11:36

Yeah.

Lindsey: 01:11:39

Okay.

Gayle Scott: 01:11:40

I can carry a tune, and, you know, I can hit the notes. And I love to sing, and I love music, so I'm singing a favorite song. It's very joyful. So, yeah, I like it.

Michael Naylor: 01:11:57

Were you gonna sing now?

Gayle Scott: 01:11:59

No, I'm not.

Lindsey: 01:12:01

Gail, will you sing with me at the end of the episode?

Gayle Scott: 01:12:04

Maybe after the mics are turned off?

Michael Naylor: 01:12:09

Well, if we're using Leonard Cohen songs, I'm up around 8 or 9.

Creek: 01:12:14

Wow.

Michael Naylor: 01:12:15

Okay. The rest drops down dramatically.

Creek: 01:12:21

All right, so my question is going to be, what two movie characters make up your aspirational identity?

Gayle Scott: 01:12:34

Gosh. Does it have to be current?

Creek: 01:12:37

No, it can be whatever movie characters that you want.

Gayle Scott: 01:12:41

Okay. Well, the movie of my life, of my young life, I think I was in junior high when it came out, was the original west side Story.

Mario Sikora: 01:12:52

Oh.

Gayle Scott: 01:12:54

And I wanted to be not Maria, but Anita because her boyfriend was George Shakaris. And I had posters of George Shakaris in my room.

And I wanted to be that person who, you know, danced on the rooftops with George Shakiris and, you know, had petticoat dresses and sang and dance around town, and that was my happy place for a very long time.

Creek: 01:13:21

That's great. That's great.

Michael Naylor: 01:13:24

Movie characters.

Creek: 01:13:26

Yeah, yeah. Or tv. You know, film. Film character.

Michael Naylor: 01:13:30

Well, Tom Cruise in the latest. What is it called? Maverick. Top. Maverick.

Creek: 01:13:37

Top Gun. Yeah. Yeah.

Abram: 01:13:38

Top Gun.

Michael Naylor: 01:13:39

My favorite of all time. Just love him in that movie.

Creek: 01:13:42

Okay.

Michael Naylor: 01:13:43

And also, I really adore Dobby in Harry Potter.

Abram: 01:13:51

Well, those are very different.

Mario Sikora: 01:13:52

Wow.

Creek: 01:13:55

What does that say about you, Michael?

Michael Naylor: 01:13:58

I think we're going to lie low on that one.

Creek: 01:14:00

Okay.

Lindsey: 01:14:01

Do we have an impression of either of those readily available?

Creek: 01:14:08

Amazing.

Lindsey: 01:14:09

He just shapeshifted for the listener, for.

Creek: 01:14:12

Those that are not watching. So we're going to get into Enneagram stuff, but I want to do a little bit more introduction from you. So just a quick sort of, what do you do?

Where do you live, and what is important to you? And I know that's a kind of a big question, but, like, just the first thing that comes to your head.

What do you do, where do you live, and what's important to you in this stage of your life?

Gayle Scott: 01:14:40

You want to start, Michael?

Michael Naylor: 01:14:42

No, you go.

Gayle Scott: 01:14:45

Okay. So what do I do? Well, I'm still teaching the Enneagram. Where do I live is in a little ranch village in New Mexico near Santa Fe.

And I grew up in Santa Monica in Los Angeles. And lived around all the beach cities for a lot of years.

Santa Monica, Venice and Malibu, Civic Palisades, Topanga Canyon, just, you know, all the cool places. And I studied film production in LA and Hollywood.

Lindsey: 01:15:24

Oh, wow.

Gayle Scott: 01:15:26

First I was an English teacher. I'm a one. So you have to put in your time as an English teacher first.

Mario Sikora: 01:15:30

Sure.

Gayle Scott: 01:15:31

So I did that, and then.

But then I was studying film production, and I moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada, just at the time when the sort of film industry was just starting to develop there. And a lot of Americans expats were coming into Vancouver.

And we sort of got in on the ground floor and created this wonderful film industry in British Columbia. And so I did that for. Actually for about 25 years. But I learned the enneagram in the late 80s.

And while I was developing scripts, I moved back to Hollywood for a while, and I was casting and developing scripts and working with actors and writers. I was inspired to use the Enneagram, which I had recently discovered, for psychological character development with actors and screenwriters mostly.

And I was actually the first person to introduce the Enneagram to Hollywood people in Hollywood.

Lindsey: 01:16:39

Wow.

Gayle Scott: 01:16:40

And I taught. I taught lots of workshops primarily for actors and screenwriters.

But then directors started coming and casting directors and producers and different people. And so, of course, you know, it was an amazing tool because, you know, what do actors always want to know? It's like, what's my motivation?

And, you know, or when you're writing a character, what's their motivation? And that's the question that the Enneagram answers is what motivates us to do what we do, to behave the way we do.

So it was very exciting to be developing this specialty and using it with people in Hollywood at the time. And then in the early 90s, I studied with a lot of people. I was, like, just crazy about the Enneagram.

And I was studying with everybody and anybody I could find. And there weren't that many people teaching in the 90s. But in 93, I found Don Rico and Russ Hudson at the Enneagram Institute in New York.

tudying with them. And around: 2001

So eventually I became the senior Enneagram Institute faculty, worked with them, traveled all around the world with Russ and taught sort of everywhere. And then Michael and also Linda came on, and then there were like, total of five of us for teachers for several years.

Creek: 01:18:22

Yeah, Michael, same question. What are you doing now? Where do you live and what's important to you?

Michael Naylor: 01:18:29

So what I'm doing now is in between grieving, of course, as a type 4, but I do a lot of coaching, life coaching, change coaching. And right now, current project is I'm working with the recovery community out of Ireland.

They formed an international group around bringing in outside professionals into recovery circles to share their capacities so that people have more options added to their 12 step program, et cetera. So I've been doing podcasts for them, two a month. I'll be doing that for the next year. And that's been really, really fun. Yeah, Irishman show up.

Creek: 01:19:19

So much grief.

Michael Naylor: 01:19:21

I'm telling you, it doesn't get any better than this. So. But anyway, so I'm doing a lot of that and. And I'm also a writer. I wrote this, this book. It's not on Jiu Jitsu. It is on. And that's.

Abram: 01:19:38

I remember that story.

Michael Naylor: 01:19:39

Oh gosh, that's a throwback story. It. But I do a lot of work with people in recovery who are clean and sober who are working now on the deeper problem of their personality patterns.

So I do a lot of that. And then I've got my wife and my two kids and my dog and my three cats and we hang out together and he get.

Pema gets me up every morning at 5:30 no matter what. There's a tongue coming across my face to wake me up. I live in South Portland, Maine and lived here for, geez, eternity, I think.

I really love it here. I'm a couple minutes from the ocean and we get the Four Seasons. And so it's lovely here.

And what's important to me really, my relationships with my family is probably my number one, my connection with my kids and with my wife. But also I just really love to be a part of anything that supports transformation for people change. Just getting more freedom from their patterns.

For some reason that just inspires me. And so I will continue to try to contribute where I can.

Creek: 01:20:57

Yeah. So we're talking about the Enneagram today. I don't know if you all know that or not, but.

So there's a lot out there right now of where the Enneagram came from. From your school of thought, from the Rizzo Hudson approach. What is the origin of the Enneagram? The symbol and the Enneagram of personality.

Gayle Scott: 01:21:18

Yeah. So there, there's the symbol and then there's the Enneagram typology.

s far as we know, in the late: 1800

And he was a spiritual teacher and seeker, among other things.

And he taught people that people are not conscious of their essential selves and they live in a state of a kind of hypnotic trance, like a sleep state. Right.

But that it's possible, you know, through conscious work and through intention, to awake to a higher state of consciousness and awareness and basically serve our higher purposes as full human beings. He wanted to know, why am I here? What's my purpose? He formed this SAT group, which is the Seekers After Truth. Sat's a Sanskrit word for truth.

And he and his followers at that time happened to include several women, would travel around the world and they'd go to different countries, different cities, different monasteries, different. All over the Balkans, in North Africa and Russia and Afghanistan, the Middle east and India, Nepal.

They just went everywhere and they would gather what information, what spiritual wisdom they could from these different schools and different places, and then they would meet every three years and talk about what they had discovered, what they had learned. Want to take it from there, Michael?

Michael Naylor: 01:23:05

This is why I like teaching with Gail, because she knows everything. I can just relax and listen and just soak it in. I think it covered it quite well.

I would have said that the Enneagram came from Gurtiffe's discovery, and it was. Was it in Afghanistan? I think it was. He was hanging out and somebody had a symbol and he copied it, but no one really knows where it originated from.

You know, the original author of it that I know of, Unless we're talking about, you know, UFO transmission or something like that. But I don't think there's. We know that part. There's theories, and we see certainly the themes of the nine types in a number of different cultures.

You know, the Egyptian culture, a lot of.

If you have a chance to go on, Russ, great trip through the desert into the pyramids, there's a lot of, you know, symbolism for three and for nine and just the whole garment of what the Enneagram looks at. So, yeah, that's my understanding of the origin.

And I think a lot of that you were talking about, Gail, I found in man's search for the miraculous, similar sort of stories.

Gayle Scott: 01:24:21

The typology. The typology of the Enneagram goes way back to ancient Greece. Right. Actually, the idea of typology came from Socrates and Plato.

Socrates, as you know, is a philosopher who created a whole different approach to spirituality that was all about self understanding. His Motto was know thyself, right? So, which was inscribed on the temple of Apollo in Delphi. He said, the unexamined life is not worth living.

So it was all about understanding, learning about exploring, inquiring into discovering who you are on an essential level. His student, Plato, was interested in the building blocks, the irreducible essential forms of reality, if you will.

But when Plato died, the Neoplatonists, so called, took over and they tried to refine his ideas, and they kind of took him in a more mystical direction. And one of the Neoplatonists, Platinus, wrote a book called the Enneagrams.

He said there are nine fundamental essential forms by which all emanations of the soul could be understood, could be experienced, could be lived, really.

And sometime later, the Christian Gnostics actually developed from the Neoplatonists, and they started to look at the implications of these nine divine forms for their religion, for Christianity as a schema for Christian philosophy. And then the first group of ascetics of Christian monastics lived in the Seti's Desert of Egypt around the third century, right?

And they were called the Desert Fathers, or the Desert Elders. There were monks and nuns, Christians. And they had a huge. The Desert Elders had a huge influence on the development of Christianity.

And there was this one guy who was called Evagrius of Pontius, who was this highly educated classical scholar, very influential theologian, gifted speaker and writer. And he came to live among the monks and the nuns, you know, in the desert.

And he became very fascinated with something that they were developing which they called the nine mortal sins or deadly sins. And sin, the word. The Greek word for sin is hamarteia, which meant missing the mark.

And it described how nine ways that we have people, different people, have of missing the mark of veering off course in one's spiritual pursuits, right? It's that there's nine ways of kind of falling into a trance or, you know, losing focus.

And they also saw them as temptations, like deadly temptations, sins, passions, you know, that we lose awareness of our essence, of our, you know, of the oneness, of the all, of the source, you know, of divine reality. So he began writing down and recording and systematizing all of these oral teachings of the Desert Elders.

And yes, there were originally nine of them, nine mortal sins, right? And they became the nine passions of the Enneagram. So, and they were. If we start with eight, it was.

They were lust, acedia or sloth, anger or resentment, pride, vanity or vainglory, envy, avarice, doubt, faithlessness. And the seven was Gluttony.

And for some reason, we don't know why, but two centuries later, Pope Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, he revised the list and kind of made some changes, and he threw two of them out. He threw out the sins for the three and the six. Right. Vanity, vainglory and doubt. Faithlessness.

We're not sure why, but from that, it turned into the seven deadly Sins that we know of today.

Don Riso always thought that perhaps he did it because he wanted it to have the symmetry of, like, the second seven sacraments and the seven days of the week, you know, in Catholicism, but we're not sure. But those became the seven deadly sins. So there is that really profound Christian spiritual route to the Enneagram that we know.

Creek: 01:29:00

Can I ask a clarifying question here? What I'm hearing is, what you're describing is potential influences to the Enneagram of personality that started with Achazo.

Or are you saying that the Enneagram is going all the way back to, like, the Enneagram existed before?

Gayle Scott: 01:29:22

Oh, it absolutely existed before.

Creek: 01:29:24

Enneagram of personality.

Gayle Scott: 01:29:26

I mean, well, Achazo was very, very interested in all of these ancient spiritual and religious traditions, including the Kabbalah and the Tree of Life, which is the other major source. Right. Of the nine sparrows. In the Kabbalah, in the Tree of Life, you know, there are these nine spears or sparrows.

The idea is that each soul has a kind of a stamp or, you know, was a spark that emanated from one of those spheres, and they're all facets of different qualities of God or of absolute reality, and that each soul has a particular specialty in their life.

And that if you came to understand what your imprint was, your stamp from God, you would know what your life path was, what you were here to learn, and what, you know, what your unfolding path was about. And so those also go down in, you know, in. In the order of the nine. But Achazo was very, very aware of these. He studied these.

He was very widely read and was very interested in all of the ancient traditions.

Creek: 01:30:33

All right, one more interruption.

We did some minor fact checking throughout this episode, which, through collaboration with the schools, we either corrected, removed, or nuanced certain claims. So upon further research, we wanted to clarify just a couple of things.

First, the book was called the Six Enneads, or more popularly known as the Enneads. It was not called the Enneagrams. This book was the collection of writings of the philosopher Plotinus, edited and compiled by his student, Porphyry.

You can read more about it using the link in the short notes below. We also felt it significant to point out that though Evagrius did have a list of evil thought patterns, the list only included eight.

Those would be Gluttony, Lust, Greed, Sadness, Acedia, Anger, Vainglory and Pride.

According to some accounts, the ninth Fear is written about somewhere else, but at the time of this recording, none such documentation could be found. Regardless of if the 9th exists or not, we can at least say that Evagrius and Oscar Ochazo both articulated something similar about humanity.

Whether or not Oscar Achazo was influenced by this list is still on the level of speculation and actually counter to what he outlined in his letter to the Transpersonal Community, which you can also find through the link in the show notes. Alright, back at the show.

Michael Naylor: 01:32:01

Well, it seems like where there's a gap is that there's. We have a Chazo taking this wisdom and then placing it around the circle.

But it's like what seems missing is a coral or something in ancient history that has the graphic itself as a part of the. Whatever the teaching is, whether it's the desert fathers, etc. The graphic, you know, that the glyphs didn't show up until Gurdjieff found it.

So it seems like there's a bit of a mystery between, you know, the gap between the graphics, the symbol and the fact that Ancient wisdom has been here forever. I mean, that's the one thing that Gurdjieff talked about, is there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to Ancient Wisdom.

It's been getting passed on forever through different vehicles. But he.

In the creative work, which I'm a part of, you know, he uses the, you know, the Enneagram sort of the, you know, the sort of imprint of the universe about how things work and how there's a flow of energy and. But there's again, just a little bit of a missing piece with, you know, putting the two together, even though Chazio did a great job with it.

Do you think that's true, Gail?

Gayle Scott: 01:33:16

I. I think that. Yeah, I think there's a lot of. A lot of mystery around it. Who is it?

A rabbi, Howard Addison, who wrote the books about the Tree of Life and the Enneagram. And he shows how those two symbols can be superimposed and they're really sort of the same journey. Right.

In the Tree of life, the 4 and the 5 are reversed. It goes 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. But Gurdjieff was the One who said that there's always something out of place.

And when you understand what that is and solve that mystery, then the next. The gate to the next mystery opens. So he thinks that was, you know, that was intentional. Right. So if there's any.

The closest thing that we have to a symbol that predates the symbol that we know is the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah. The Latayam Achaso does acknowledge that one of the major pieces that helped him put this together, you know, was that was the Tree of Life.

And it's debatable whether he actually. Russ believes that he actually studied with a Gurdjieff group that went through Armenia, like in the 40s and 50s, although Ichazo didn't admit to it.

So we're not sure. Interesting, Interesting.

Lindsey: 01:34:40

Well, thank you for that history. I'm wondering if you can talk to us about the Enneagram Institute founders, Don Riso, Russ Hudson, how they enter into the story here.

You've kind of brought us up to Naranjo, Ichazo and Michael, you mentioned that you do some Gurdjieff work. I'm interested in hearing how that lineage carries through to Don, to Russ, the creation of the institute up to now.

Michael Naylor: 01:35:08

Okay, well, the piece of the question that I might be able to answer is. So I'm working with the Kurt chief work. My teacher was very clear.

d about the enneagram back in: 1996

And he says, yes, yes, it is an authentic school.

And then as I got to know him, he said that the Enneagram of personality is really different and separate from the Gurdjieff work, that there's not a blend. They never united.

That even though Gurdjieff talked about, you know, a variety of different types, I think he had 27 or 28, but he didn't use the Enneagram symbol for typing or placing types.

And so he said, you know, that really the evolution of the Enneagram personality was a new manifestation of understanding that took off next to the Gurchin for. So anyway, what else?

Lindsey: 01:36:18

Okay, yeah, thanks for that clarification.

Gayle Scott: 01:36:20

Yeah, that's important in terms of the, like, the chronological journey.

Like, before you talk about Don and Russ, there's, you know, the other seminal person is Claudio Naranjo, who was a type 5, and he was a Tilean psychiatrist. Of course, he was considered a pioneer in, you know, integrating psychotherapy and the spiritual traditions. He's just a very, very interesting guy.

He was around in Berkeley.

He became an apprentice of Fritz Perls in the early Gestalt therapy movement and eventually actually became one of Pearl's successors, one of his three successors that were named. He was a close friend of Carlos Castaneda. He became part of Leo Zeff's psychedelic therapy group.

then when was it? I think in: 1970

And he set off on a six month pilgrimage in the Atacama Desert in Chile with, you know, Erica Chile. Guess who with? Oscar Chazo. Right. So.

And another student on that, that trip, that retreat was John Lilly, the neuroscientist, the psychonaut, the guy that was into dolphin intelligence, Inventor of the isolation tank, that guy. So it was a pretty heady group of, you know, people on that pilgrimage. Lily says that Achazo, like kicked Naranjo out of the group for some reason.

Like kicked him out of the off the trip or something. But. And Naranjo went home early, however.

He went home with tape recordings that he had made of Ichazo's talks that he had been giving along on this trip.

Lindsey: 01:38:31

Oh, boy.

Gayle Scott: 01:38:32

Yeah. And he was not given permission to do that. He was explicitly not supposed to do that, but he did.

And so he began teaching Enneagram to his SAC groups in Northern California and at Esalen in Big Sur, and then later at his home in Berkeley. He had a home there for a while.

And the groups that studied with him there had to sign a confidentiality agreement saying that they wouldn't talk about, they wouldn't reveal this material, this Enneagram material. And among his students were Hamid Ali, who is the founder of the Diamond Heart, the Ridwan School that I've been a long term member of.

And Don and Russ are members of, and lots of Enneagram people. And Sandra Maitrey, also from Ridwan, was there. And Naranjo was dating a woman by the name of Kathleen Spieth at the time.

And Kathleen was good friends with Helen Palmer, right, who was at the time teaching the development of intuition in the Bay Area. But anyway, then Helen started teaching it to her intuition groups in Berkeley. Claudio hit the roof because she wasn't supposed to do this.

So Achazo was furious with Claudio for bringing it and teaching it. Claudio was furious with Helen for teaching it. But it seems like, you know, the Enneagram just wanted to be known and the cat was not in the bag.

You know, this is like Berkeley in the 70s. So, you know, there was just no. It was everywhere. It was being taught in various spiritual and transpersonal groups.

And, you know, it was just kind of this little. This little fire that was going on. So there was also a Jesuit priest by the name of Bob Oaks, who was. He was.

He was out of Chicago in the 70s, but he went on sabbatical in California, studied at Esalon and studied with Naranjo for a year, I think it was.

And Naranjo later designated this Jesuit priest, Bob Oaks, as one of the people authorized to teach his rendering of the Enneagram that he had learned from Achaso, the Enneagram of personality. So at this time, Don Riso was in Toronto studying at a Jesuit seminary. And he learned about.

Don learned about the Enneagram from the Jesuit faculty there, who had learned about it from Bob Ochs. So his connection was the Jesuit connection.

g them at the time, in around: 1973

And he was so impressed and so, you know, intrigued by the material that he stopped everything that he was doing in his life and started working full time researching and developing the Enneagram. I think he was in Massachusetts at that time. And he brought much more detail and development and nuance to the type descriptions.

And he greatly expanded the explanation of the system as a psychological, systematic whole.

And about three years into it, about three years into his work, he discovered the levels of development which is the backbone of the Rizo Hudson oeuvre school of thought. And I think it was about 10 years after that, because he did this for like 12, 13 years.

iscovery. I think that was in: 1987

s went to work for Don around: 1990

That was his initial big sort of contribution and connection. And then, of course, he made a lot of other significant contributions as well. And then that's how the Enneagram Institute got started.

Lindsey: 01:42:55

Incredible. Yeah, thank you so much.

Michael Naylor: 01:42:59

Have you written that down anywhere gal. That's such a beautiful story. That's amazing.

Gayle Scott: 01:43:06

It's in pieces. Everywhere it's from.

Michael Naylor: 01:43:08

You know, I thought that was as powerful as any story Russ has told about the whole thing. So that was really well done.

Creek: 01:43:15

This is why we're recording it. Yes.

Gayle Scott: 01:43:19

Yeah. You know, it's kind of sad, me, that the history isn't really out there.

I don't remember how much of this they talk about in the forwards of any of their books, I don't think.

Michael Naylor: 01:43:32

Yeah, that was really thorough. And I was seeing a map of connections and things and so you'll have to get your map going at some point.

Lindsey: 01:43:41

Yeah, I loved it. Thank you so much.

Michael Naylor: 01:43:44

She said, I go, yep, that's right on.

Lindsey: 01:43:47

unction as a formal school in: 2017

u talk about what happened in: 2017

Michael Naylor: 01:44:18

Well, what I observed was it was shortly after dawn passed that the Enneagram Institute had a hard time getting its feet on the ground again.

And I think that in my opinion, dawn was really the organizing principle, the one who had strong self preservation instincts and was able to be an organizer of much of the work. And so when, when he passed, trying to find someone else to sort of take that over just wasn't. Just wasn't happening.

And that, that wasn't necessarily Russ's strength. You know, he's brilliant in another sphere, but the two of them together, you know, remarkable.

You know, by hook or by crook, things just sort of slowly lost, empty. And I think the two of them together really created a spark for the future.

Work and, you know, energizing work and the loss of Don really cut that in half. So unfortunately, the Enneagram Institute just kind of quietly went away.

Or, you know, of course, when I remember asking, I remember asking Russ, is it Russ? You know, I don't feel like I'm healthy enough to teach. He said, if you wait to be healthy enough, you'll be dead.

That's just how it is with institutions. There's always within institutions. As my teacher would say, wherever there are people, it's going to be crazy.

So I don't think that's what caused the, the end of the Enneagram Institute. I think Don was a pivotal loss for us.

Abram: 01:45:56

Yeah.

Michael Naylor: 01:45:57

What do you think, Gail?

Gayle Scott: 01:45:58

Yes, I agree. And, you know, the institute, the barn, the place where we taught, the beautiful barn, was on his property.

d when Don died, which was in: 2012

And without Don, you know, it just kind of. We just sort of stumbled and fell apart.

So, you know, we stumbled along for another, like, you know, three or four years, but, you know, it just wasn't. It just wasn't the same. And we didn't have that, you know, the support or the infrastructure anymore, too. And, you know, we just.

We didn't have dawn, so. And, you know, Russ was sort of moving in other directions, too, and wanting to do other things and teach on his own and.

And write and different things like that, so just kind of petered out, but.

Michael Naylor: 01:47:09

We went out with a bang. That was it.

Abram: 01:47:13

Yeah. Yeah, I know. The Enneagram community really lost the treasure.

And Don Riso, I wanted to push in a little bit more to this, too, because I think it's a really valuable part of Yalls tradition.

I wanted to ask, what was his passing like for the Enneagram community at that time, and how did it affect yourselves as well as those people that were certified by the Enneagram Institute?

Michael Naylor: 01:47:40

Well, just speaking for myself, it's really heartbreaking. I just. Yeah, it was. It was just really mind blowing.

I realized how attached I'd become to him and just how he had impacted me on a really deep level, and both he and Russ and Gail, too. But, yeah, when he. When he passed, it felt like there was like a huge hole in the ground where he had been.

It was just something about his presence that really had touched so many people on so many levels, and myself in particular, I think just on a very deep level, I think brought forth my own passion for what I care about.

So, you know, there was a beautiful ceremony for him, I think, maybe six months later on the property, and just lovely people coming and sharing, you know, what he had done meant to them. And, yeah, I felt blown away for several years, just, oh, my God, he's gone.

Gayle Scott: 01:48:44

So, anyway, yeah, there was a lot of grieving. Don was only. I forget. Do you remember how old he was? He was in his 50s. I believe.

Michael Naylor: 01:48:54

Well, I think he was 63.

Gayle Scott: 01:48:56

Oh, was he that old? Okay. So it seemed, however, that he still had, like, a lot ahead of him.

A lot of ambition, a lot of work, you know, more books to write, you know, more things that he wanted to do. And, you know, it's always shocking when someone dies, but, you know, he was more than a. It was more than the person dying.

It was like this whole, you know, organization and something. I'd been working with him for, you know, like 20 years at that time. And so, yeah, it was shocking to everyone, and there was a lot of grieving.

And we happened to be there, Michael and I, because we were teaching, I don't know, a part one, I guess, at the barn when Don was literally on his deathbed. And at one point, I asked Don if there was anything he wanted me to convey to the students after his passing on his behalf.

And he was silent for a moment.

And then he said, I would ask that you do everything you can do to preserve and maintain the integrity, the integrity of the teaching as it has come through me. And he knew he was talking to a one teacher who placed a high value on integrity. And I said, I would do that. And I've tried to do that ever since.

Teach the Enneagram according to what came through Don in honoring of that. And he. You know, we all talk about how he.

When we're teaching anyway, when we were teaching, how his spirit is still there and how he still seems to be so around, because he just infused the whole experience with his intelligence and his humor and his dedication and the work that he did. I mean, the Enneagram field would not be where it is today had he not existed, had he not been able to spend the.

Those 12 years developing it the way he did.

Michael Naylor: 01:51:17

Yeah, I can remember, you know, in his last week of his life, he'd come back into his home and. And had been back and forth to hospice. But we were doing a lot of changing of his depends, and he was quite hefty guy.

So me and Brian would, like, anchor up and throw him onto the bed.

And at one point, he said to me, you know, Michael, if this Enneagram thing doesn't work out, I can see that there's another place that you could do some really good work here. You'll be a great aid for somebody and think, thanks, Don. But he had a beautiful sense of humor.

Lindsey: 01:51:55

Wow.

Lindsey: 01:51:57

That speaks. I got emotional when you said that, actually, because I think that's such a beautiful picture of what you all created together.

You Know, and that's what we're doing with the Enneagram is really hopefully lifting the beautiful.

Yeah, hopefully lifting the beauty of our humanity to the surface and the way that we, you know, have these beautiful chemical reactions when we're together. So I think that's such a lovely story of how you cared for him and. And what you all cultivated together.

Michael Naylor: 01:52:25

Well, you know, we had another moment where two days from death, he. He would sort of go off on a. A wheelchair ramp out the door and go on a journey.

We didn't know why, but I looked down the road and he was tipped over and he was just sitting there with his elbow on the ground and his cheek and he's just hanging out. And I came up and said, hey, how you doing? He says, well, now what are we going to do?

I said, well, I think we're going to call the emergency team to see if they can pick you up because you're too big for me. Okay, well, let's just hang here for a while. And just. It was just so sweet and cute and so human. And I think that's what.

There was a way he could really drop into that, you know, just being who he was without a lot of fanfare.

Creek: 01:53:11

Yeah.

Lindsey: 01:53:12

What was his type?

Gayle Scott: 01:53:14

4.

Michael Naylor: 01:53:15

4. 4. With a 3 wing self pres.

Creek: 01:53:19

Yeah.

Michael Naylor: 01:53:21

Mighty self Pres. Yeah.

Creek: 01:53:23

Yeah. And I mean, it sounds like you. You lost a mentor and a teacher, but also a friend on some level. And his passing is like.

Gail, you said you were saying, like, even when someone dies, it's always hard, but there was also a level of identity that you all lost.

Michael Naylor: 01:53:41

Yeah, well, yeah, the 50, 50 guardian angels went with him, so that it was like a real wallow.

Creek: 01:53:50

So I guess final kind of final question in this section. Obviously Russ Hudson is still alive at the time of this recording. And there's. There's so many hope.

Michael Naylor: 01:54:02

So one willing hope.

Gayle Scott: 01:54:03

Yeah, we're never sure, but we hope.

Creek: 01:54:10

And so. So the school is closed down and those that have been certified by the institute are becoming fewer and fewer, obviously. I mean, the Institute has.

Has influenced so many other teachers out there who aren't necessarily certified by the Institute, but inspired by. Who are some other people in. In that crowd that are still kind of doing Institute.

Certified by the Institute that are doing work out there that you know of.

Gayle Scott: 01:54:40

Oh, my gosh. They're just. Who can you think of, Michael? There are so many teachers out there that came. You know, there was a. I mean, there's just so many. But.

Oh, you were mentioning Susan Olesig for one who does the Enneagram prison project. Just so many. But, you know, back in the day, I can use that term, it was. People took pride in doing like serious study of the Enneagram.

Like, you know, our trainings were. It was a four parter and there were. It was six days each and you had to show up in person, you know, for all of. All of the schools.

You showed up in person and you lived together for, you know, six or seven days. And you did part one, part two, part three, part four.

And then if you were still interested, you went into the teacher training part of it and it was another six days, six day. And so it was a. It was really a major investment in time, money, energy, you know, commitment.

And there was a time for many years where people would also, they would do trainings like they were like notches on their Enneagram gun, like shingles that they would add, oh, yes, I've done the Enneagram institute training and I've done the narrative training and I've done this training and I've done. And people really wanted to get all of the best, you know, training and information with all the best teachers that they possibly could.

And that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Everything's got a little online now. You can become an instant expert just by, you know, listening to somebody for.

Creek: 01:56:20

A few hours or listening to this podcast, perhaps.

Gayle Scott: 01:56:24

Yeah, exactly. But. But it was, you know, there was a time when it was like getting a degree.

It felt like, you know, studying the Enneagram because it's so complex, you know, it's very, very easy to know a little bit, to have a very superficial knowledge of the Enneagram and to be able to talk about it like, you know, what you're talking about and when you actually don't or, you know, and you can actually be harmful, you know, or, you know, incorrect.

The idea of, you know, actually spending time, money, traveling, suitcases, you know, retreat centers, you know, and we like, you know, Michael and I and Russ, I mean, all of us, like, we were traveling every month of the year to some other city, you know, and living out of suitcases for a week at a time. Yeah, and we were just saying the other day, it's like, we don't even know how we did that. It's really hard.

But there was that sort of level of commitment.

Michael Naylor: 01:57:35

A memory, which I think is dear to me is I noticed when I taught with a self pres dominant teacher that they would bring their whole household with them in their four bags that were £300 each. And then the low self pres would just bring a little suitcase for six days. And it was always just hilarious to see that contrast.

Creek: 01:57:58

Oh, that's funny.

Gayle Scott: 01:58:00

Yeah.

When Russ and I would travel together, we pretty much had to charter a second plane for all of our gear because he would bring all of his AV equipment and computers and sound things and, you know, but. And Don was self pressed too, so he traveled heavy.

Creek: 01:58:18

My goodness.

Abram: 01:58:24

Today we have with us two absolutely brilliant individuals representing the narrative enneagram. Terry Saracino and Christopher Copeland. Welcome to you both. We are so grateful to have you.

Christopher Copeland: 01:58:35

Thank you. Glad to be here.

Creek: 01:58:37

Christopher, I've always wondered, do you like the band Copeland?

Christopher Copeland: 01:58:41

Oh, you know, I don't know the band Copeland, actually.

Creek: 01:58:44

Oh my goodness.

Christopher Copeland: 01:58:47

I guess I'm of a certain age that I chose.

Creek: 01:58:50

s, early: 2000

Lindsey: 01:58:55

I feel like they're multi generational, you know, like.

Creek: 01:58:59

Yeah, it's a. I'll send you a link later. We can talk about it later, but you need to listen to your namesake. Awesome.

Lindsey: 01:59:07

Yeah. We're really excited that you're both here today. Really looking forward to what wisdom you have to share with us.

But to get us started, we have a couple of icebreaker questions. So I am getting ready to go to my 20th high school reunion tomorrow. So I'm in a bit of a nostalgic mood lately.

So I'm wondering for both of you, what is your favorite nostalgic candy?

Terry Saracino: 01:59:31

Nekos.

Lindsey: 01:59:32

Really?

Creek: 01:59:34

Wait.

Terry Saracino: 01:59:34

Or Red Vines.

Lindsey: 01:59:38

Okay.

Terry Saracino: 01:59:38

Licorice. Red Vines.

Creek: 01:59:40

Describe Neccos. That sounds familiar, but I'm blanking round.

Terry Saracino: 01:59:44

Necco wafers in a cellophane wrap. Different flavors. It was about this long.

Lindsey: 01:59:51

They're thin and crunchy.

Terry Saracino: 01:59:54

They were thin? Yeah. Like 25 or 30 in a package.

Creek: 01:59:58

So like Smarties, but bigger.

Lindsey: 02:00:00

Yeah, sort of. And mintier too. I feel like the flavors are more classic indeed than Smarties.

Abram: 02:00:08

I'm with you, Creek.

Creek: 02:00:08

I have.

Abram: 02:00:09

I have not. I'm not familiar as well, but it sounds lovely.

Terry Saracino: 02:00:14

Might be a generation thing.

Lindsey: 02:00:16

We'll have to try Neccos if Christopher's gonna listen to Copeland. Yes, that's the pact we're making right now.

Creek: 02:00:23

Yeah.

Christopher Copeland: 02:00:24

Yeah. I would say Mary Jane. You know what a Mary Jane is?

Lindsey: 02:00:29

I do, but I don't think it's your thinking.

Christopher Copeland: 02:00:33

Oh, no, it is. It really is.

Abram: 02:00:37

Okay.

Terry Saracino: 02:00:38

I think it's a. I think it's a shoe.

Lindsey: 02:00:41

Yes, it is. It's a lot of Things, apparently.

Christopher Copeland: 02:00:44

No, it was. It was a candy in like the 70s or maybe early 80s.

Michael Naylor: 02:00:49

And.

Christopher Copeland: 02:00:50

Yeah, and. Well, and I'll add one that you probably do know, which is bit of honey. You know, bit of honey. That was another classic candy for me growing up.

Lindsey: 02:00:58

Pull a cavity.

Christopher Copeland: 02:00:59

Exactly.

Creek: 02:01:04

We used to pull our own cavities and drink out of the garden hose back when I was a kid. We certainly did. Yeah.

Mario Sikora: 02:01:12

Oh, wow.

Creek: 02:01:14

Okay. Abram, do you got a. Got an icebreaker?

Abram: 02:01:17

I do. It's a simple one, but a kind of a. I would say, a beautiful, innocent question. When was the last time you went on a bike ride?

Terry Saracino: 02:01:25

Well, what I remember more is my husband's bike accident.

Lindsey: 02:01:28

Oh, no.

Terry Saracino: 02:01:29

So that's more in my front of my memory than any time I went on a bike ride.

Abram: 02:01:34

Okay.

Terry Saracino: 02:01:34

Sorry.

Abram: 02:01:35

No, that's okay.

Christopher Copeland: 02:01:37

Good, good. Worst case.

Michael Naylor: 02:01:38

Thank you, Terry.

Terry Saracino: 02:01:39

Yeah, I know.

Creek: 02:01:40

Right.

Terry Saracino: 02:01:41

Well, I gotta tell you, what comes in, comes in.

Christopher Copeland: 02:01:44

Right.

Lindsey: 02:01:45

And he's okay.

Terry Saracino: 02:01:46

I gotta go. He's okay. It was a few years ago. Yeah.

Creek: 02:01:49

That's great.

Christopher Copeland: 02:01:50

Mine is. I'm doing this training in Mallorca in Spain. And one time I was there, I stayed on the coast, but the class was about, I don't know, 10km away.

So I rented an E bike, which was my first experience of an E bike. And I got to ride back and forth between the coast and this class, like twice a day. And. And among the, like, Mediterranean Sea and the mountains.

And it was quite spectacular.

Lindsey: 02:02:20

So that's very dreamy.

Creek: 02:02:23

Wow. Okay, here's mine. What fictional place would you want to vacation to? Could be a movie or from a book or something like that.

Terry Saracino: 02:02:34

The Field of Dreams.

Abram: 02:02:37

Wow.

Christopher Copeland: 02:02:37

Hogwarts.

Creek: 02:02:39

As listeners on this podcast may know, I've never seen Harry Potter, and so I'll watch Harry Potter.

Terry Saracino: 02:02:46

I've never seen all of them.

Creek: 02:02:47

You can listen to Copeland.

Michael Naylor: 02:02:49

Exactly.

Christopher Copeland: 02:02:50

I'll send you the link.

Lindsey: 02:02:52

Both of you will do neither of these things. Can we just be honest?

Creek: 02:02:59

Wow.

Abram: 02:03:00

Oh, man, this is going swimmingly. Well, just to. To continue on with our, I don't know, gentle disclosure, if you will, I wanted to get into just asking three questions to you both.

What is it that you do? Where do you live, and what is important to you?

Christopher Copeland: 02:03:18

So I'll start. What I do, It's a broad question. What comes to my mind as you ask that is something I've always done, which is teach. I've always been a teacher.

I sometimes tell the story that when I was a kid, my favorite game to play with other kids was School, and I was always the teacher, and I always gave them assignments to do. And so it's like teaching is part of what I do and who I am. And the other thing I would say is spiritual direction.

So working, walking alongside folks in their spiritual journey, that's the primary core of my. My work and vocation.

And I live in Winston Salem, North Carolina, in the US and what's important to me kind of echo back to what I just said is this work of tending to souls, if you will, or tending to what's most deeply important about who we are as humans, both in myself and doing that with and among others. And then to contrast that, what's also important is play. Play is really important to me. So being playful and having opportunities to do that.

Creek: 02:04:33

What does play look like for you? Just a small example. Yeah.

Christopher Copeland: 02:04:37

Part of it is a word that people use to describe me is mischievous. And so, like, part of my playfulness comes in wordplay or in kind of teasing or kind of listening for a funny thing to say.

I mean, it sort of comes in that way. And it also shows up like sitting by the ocean is play for me as well.

Creek: 02:05:04

I think this is a. It's a misnomer that fours aren't funny. I think we're hilarious. Indeed.

Christopher Copeland: 02:05:12

Of course we think that.

Creek: 02:05:13

Yeah, yeah. Everyone else is crying, but we. We're laughing.

Lindsey: 02:05:18

It's dark humor. Yeah.

Creek: 02:05:20

Terry, what about you?

Terry Saracino: 02:05:21

I work with my passion of the Enneagram in many aspects, many ways, in my heart all the time. I live in Denver, Colorado, and what's important to me is.

Is being as real as possible and keeping learning and keeping growing and keeping meeting myself where I am and meeting others where they are as best I can. And relationships are really important to me. Little fact, I'm a twin, so I came into the world with another being.

But relationships are really important to me.

Abram: 02:06:03

I know the experience of being a twin. I am one myself, so.

Terry Saracino: 02:06:07

Really?

Abram: 02:06:08

Yeah.

Terry Saracino: 02:06:08

Brother, sister, Brother.

Abram: 02:06:11

Yeah, me too. He's nine minutes younger, and I call him the unfiltered twin.

Terry Saracino: 02:06:16

And I'm 15 minutes younger, and my brother pushed his way out and has been pushing ever since.

Creek: 02:06:25

And the unfiltered twin is a four as well. So. Yeah, there you go. Amazing.

So on fathoms, we think it's really, really, really important to define our terms, to understand when we're talking about something, we are clear about what we're talking about. So could you all give us the narratives, perspective of what is the Enneagram? Define the Enneagram and Then where did it come from?

Terry Saracino: 02:06:53

I can riff on that. What is the Enneagram?

The Enneagram, to me is a sacred map that names how we think, how we feel, how we behave, describes patterns that we use to look at the world. Nine different patterns. And it has such wisdom in the naming.

It's such an accurate map, as far as my experience is, of the different perspectives that human beings have and the different patterns that have been formed over the years.

Christopher Copeland: 02:07:37

Yeah. Where did it come from? Well, we know some things and some things we don't know.

ff or Gurdjieff and the early: 1900

Now they're called the seven Deadly Sins. But you can kind of see how those threads inform what we now have as the Enneagram.

So there's this kind of many different traditions, mystical traditions. Gurdjieff creates the term and then pulls the symbol that already existed.

th,: 1960

And then Claudio Naranjo then kind of built on Oscar Tuzzo's work, expanded it, made the Enneagram more accessible. He brought his psychiatry, his psychologist and psychiatry background into this and gave it more terms of psychological terms.

am personality, really in the: 1960

Creek: 02:09:14

Yeah. And that, I guess that was my going to be my follow up clarifying question of Enneagram of personality. Eccazo Enneagram symbol Gurdjieff.

And then influences, but not necessarily the Enneagram, but different influences that made its way to the Enneagram of personality. Correct?

Christopher Copeland: 02:09:33

Absolutely.

Mario Sikora: 02:09:34

Yeah. Thanks.

Creek: 02:09:35

Yeah.

Lindsey: 02:09:36

Terry, you said sacred map, and that really popped out to me. I'm wondering if you could expand on that word sacred as far as it pertains to the narrative tradition.

Is that sort of your own phrasing in definition? Is that something that comes from the narrative tradition? And what does that mean?

Terry Saracino: 02:09:54

So I'm thinking of Cynthia Bargeau, who had a little book Called Wisdom way of knowing. And in that she called the Enneagram objective art.

And when I see the Enneagram in a way, it comes from the narrative in terms of when Helen and David started this, I can hear Helen saying spiritual method for psychological distress. So there was always an element of what's beyond, if you will. It just has such wisdom in it.

So I don't know if everyone in the narrative would use that word, but that's how it's felt to me. And we have a diagram we can talk about later that has the Enneagram at the top, which is this amazing system.

But that's not all that you need when you work with the Enneagram. It's the map. Does that make sense?

Lindsey: 02:10:52

Yes. Thank you for expanding on that. And you had mentioned Helen Palmer, David Daniels.

I'm wondering with these people in mind and even going back a little bit further, we mentioned Naranjo, Achazo. Can you give us a brief overview of the lineage of the narrative tradition? Kind of picking up with Achazo and Aranjo? Bring us up to Helen and David.

Bring yourself in and maybe kind of bring us up to where the narrative tradition is modern day.

Abram: 02:11:24

Yeah.

Terry Saracino: 02:11:25

This is where you may have to stop me. I've been around this for 35 years. So I have a lot of information I can share. So I'll give you the highlights.

It's touching as I've been preparing for this conversation. Like you said, nostalgia to start with Lindsay, A lot of memories. Memories are filling my heart. So the lineage is.

Helen actually took classes from Naranjo. And Helen started out as a teacher of intuition. And in these classes with Naranjo she witnessed him teaching.

Gayle Scott: 02:12:08

I don't.

Terry Saracino: 02:12:09

With a person. I. I was a five.

And I remember her saying with her students of intuition, she would see that they hit barriers and when they hit the barriers, they would stop the work. And in this class with Naranjo, she saw that these type structures were the barriers. And so that's where.

So Naranjo to Helen then Helen started teaching panels in berkeley in the 70s. And also she was a well known teacher of intuition and psychic. And someone invited David to have a session with Helen.

So David went and had a session with Helen.

Christopher Copeland: 02:13:00

And just to say, David is a Stanford psychiatrist.

Terry Saracino: 02:13:03

Yeah. Dr. David Daniels was on the faculty at Stanford. And on the way out the door she said, you might want to come listen to these panels up in Berkeley.

ctice. So he goes to Helen in: 1986

Gayle Scott: 02:13:31

Wow.

Terry Saracino: 02:13:32

We. We need. This is going to take off. We need to train people to do this. And David would say, the joke is, it took her two years to say yes.

So then in: 1988

u'd certify. I found Helen in: 1989

So a couple of months later, I went down to Santa Fe and saw the panel method. So one of the signature things in the narrative is these panels, panels. And when I first listened to panels, I was like, this is it.

I mean, this is what I want to do. So anyway, fast forward to going to the trainings in Menlo Park. Both David and Helen lived in the Bay Area, and they started these.

Train this training program. And people from all over the world came. And, you know, in those days, there was nothing. It was. Don Rizzo's first book was out.

There was a book out by some Christian authors. And so it was catching on. As it grew, different aspects of the training were added. It was more, you know, more practice you had to do.

I remember for certification, when I did it, it was like I practiced typing interviews. I talked probably six out of eight people as sixes. There was no instruction. There was no mentorship. There was nothing.

And so it developed over the years to have different components, different classes.

Gayle Scott: 02:15:31

So that.

Terry Saracino: 02:15:32

So we had this training program. And then Peter O'Hanrahan and I were invited to teach some certification weekends because they were having more than they could handle in a training.

And then in: 2003

Here are these two gurus. And then Peter and I are trying to come in. And I mean, talk about freezing.

Gayle Scott: 02:16:09

Geez.

Terry Saracino: 02:16:10

Anyway.

Lindsey: 02:16:13

Yeah, I bet.

Creek: 02:16:13

Can I ask a quick question here?

Terry Saracino: 02:16:15

Yeah.

Creek: 02:16:17

I've heard from other people that Peter was in the group that went to. Was in the class with Naranjo. Is that correct?

Terry Saracino: 02:16:30

I can't verify That I know Peter studied with Kathy.

Creek: 02:16:34

That's right.

Terry Saracino: 02:16:35

But I can't confirm that. Creek. I don't know if he was in that Naranjo class or not, but at least with.

Christopher Copeland: 02:16:42

I think when he talks about who he learned from, it's Kathy and Helen.

Creek: 02:16:46

Okay. All right. Well, that's. Yeah, that's really clarifying. Thank you.

Terry Saracino: 02:16:51

Yeah. So Peter and I came in as core. Well, we weren't called core faculty then, but we were on the staff.

And then in about: 2008

along the way, Too, in about: 2006

So kind of where we are now is with David has passed, Helen's retired, and we're. The four of us are the core faculty, and we have other teachers, but that's. That's where we are now.

A couple of things that are significant along the way.

They started out with the teacher certification, and then, as I say, we've always been looking at what can we do differently, how can we make this better for our students to Certify.

And in: 2014

that we're very proud that in: 2022

Creek: 02:18:46

That's amazing. Just making sure I have this in my head.

So we have Achazo Naranjo, Helen and David, and then Peter and you, Terry, and then Renee and Marion, probably Marion.

Terry Saracino: 02:19:03

First, and then Renee and then Christopher.

Creek: 02:19:06

Wow.

Abram: 02:19:07

And that family tree. The family.

Terry Saracino: 02:19:14

Thank you. And also we, over the years, Helen and David were a team of two with an administrator, and then we also were the faculty.

But then there's a whole organization with executive directors and a board and staff that supports this. So we're the faculty, but we're a team. We couldn't do this alone.

Mario Sikora: 02:19:40

Of course.

Creek: 02:19:41

Yeah, for sure. Terry, could you give us a brief overview of what the narrative Enneagram model entails?

Terry Saracino: 02:19:49

Sure, I'd love to. So we have this, basically, the narrative method. If you look at the word narrative, it's about personal stories and experiencing type.

It really comes alive when we hear people share stories on panels.

So I just want to say that because we're going to be talking about type, but we really like to hear people share their personal experience in many different kinds of panels. The Enneagram is the map at the top. And then we have methods or lines of development, spirituality, psychology, somatics.

And when we hold all this together, it helps us move into transformation. To really use the wisdom of the Enneagram to change, to grow, which we'll talk about later. It's held in community.

The community that comes is a significant part of the narrative as well. And the field that gets created and the exchange that happens when you speak your story and when your story is received in a compassionate container.

Abram: 02:20:54

Yeah, well, thanks for taking us through all of that. It really is a beautiful kind of reenactment of the family tree and some of the history from Yalls perspective.

It's really just exciting to hear that from your side of things. It's cool. And I wanted to come back to something. As I think some of our listeners know, the Enneagram is not a stranger to splits and schisms.

And so I wondered if you could recount some of the history as you know it, how your school has attempted to and is attempting to move beyond some of the conflicts throughout the history in the Enneagram world.

Terry Saracino: 02:21:32

So the lawsuit that was an early schism between Ereka suing Helen and also the author of the Christian author's book. But they settled for copyright, basically for using terms. None of us would be here if Helen hadn't won that lawsuit.

I think we owe her a huge debt of gratitude for the two years that she went to New York and was challenged in a court of law to teach this work. So that was a big deal.

Christopher Copeland: 02:22:11

As Terry Sundays. Her counterphobic six really came forth, you know, because she published this book. And after this book came out is really when the lawsuit happened.

And then she fought that and allowed us, all of us, to be doing this work today.

Terry Saracino: 02:22:29

actually sat in a meeting in: 1994

I was just a witness in this and the efforts to try to come together again. The irony of. In my idealization is I think, why can't people work things out? Right. Well, what I know is we're all human, right?

The IEA was actually for form to try to make a place where all schools could be represented. And that was an intention. And for years, I heard and it's. Is it the narrative or is it the institute? And there was a lot of, you know, taking sides.

And what I can say about what I tried and Russ. And we said, we're not doing this. We're not doing this. This is not what we want to perpetuate. You have your training. We have our training.

We respect what you do. You respect what we do. We do not condone this. And I think he would say that today for sure.

And when I hear you say they're still taking sides, it hurts my heart, really, because we don't need to do that. Why can't there be room for everyone? Again, we may disagree with method, we may not agree with the theory, but to, quote, take sides, it's childish.

Yeah. Could we all kind of grow up? And as I say that. Creek. I know we're all human.

Creek: 02:24:26

Absolutely.

Terry Saracino: 02:24:27

And we make mistakes, and we. I don't know. So we try to have some grace around it.

Christopher Copeland: 02:24:36

But I think part of what I think we say is, we say, you know, here. Here are some of the distinctive ways the narrative does this work. And there's no right. One right way. And there's no, you know, there.

There are many ways. There are many paths to engage this work and to talk about this and.

And really honoring that, because not everybody's going to resonate with everybody's approach. And so I really want to honor the different ways that people do this work and talk about this work.

My experience is that when people try to get clear about who they are and about identity, part of what happens is boundaries get drawn. It's a developmental process. Every human, every organization goes through this.

It's like, in order to say who we are, we have to say who we're not, and we're not like those people.

Creek: 02:25:24

And.

Christopher Copeland: 02:25:25

And so developmentally, I'm like, you know, that's just part of it. And I think part of what I hear you naming Terry is like, that's not the end of the story. It's like we. And as I said a moment ago, it's like we.

We come at this from different angles, maybe different language, emphasizing different things, but all of us are committed to this work of transformation, you know, we.

We teach and engage the Enneagram so that all of us, all of humanity, I hope, can have more choice, more freedom, can awaken to these patterns so that we're not stuck in them.

And I think everybody who teaches the Enneagram, at least that's my sense, is committed to that journey, and that gives me a sense of hope and I really respect and trust where people are on that journey.

Abram: 02:26:10

Yeah. And I just want to say that that, for me, points back to naming, that initial word that Terry said. You know, this isn't. This isn't just a typology.

This is something sacred. And I think when we're talking about the Enneagram in this light, it really does make it sacred because we're recognizing the humanity involved in.

In this whole. This whole thing. So thanks for taking it there. Yeah.

Creek: 02:26:32

And thanks for talking about hard things. We need to do more of that. Really appreciate that.

Terry Saracino: 02:26:36

So naming things is so important. It is just. And having them in the field and naming them, and then we can do something, you know.

Creek: 02:26:46

Absolutely.

Christopher Copeland: 02:26:48

To move from the profound to the benign. Can I screen share my screen for just one second? Because I want to show you what I was talking about earlier.

So I found a picture of a Mary Jane Candy. So I just wanted to. I wanted to prove to you that.

Michael Naylor: 02:27:05

In fact it is.

Christopher Copeland: 02:27:06

And when you look at it, it actually made by Neko, which makes it even more fun.

Michael Naylor: 02:27:13

Yes.

Creek: 02:27:14

It's amazing.

Terry Saracino: 02:27:15

I love that.

Christopher Copeland: 02:27:17

That's all.

Creek: 02:27:17

No, that's great. I'll have to look that up later.

Lindsey: 02:27:21

We like to say gravity and levity around here, but we might need to interchange that with profound and benign, because I liked that phrase too.

Creek: 02:27:32

Wow. Well, you made it through. Welcome to the other side. That was. That was quite the slog.

We are going to briefly kind of unpack our own thoughts and experiences as we recorded.

And just as we've continued to listen to this, but really, really quick, you may have been a little confused at Michael Naylor saying something about Jiu Jitsu. Book.

Gayle Scott: 02:27:59

Book.

Creek: 02:28:00

So you. You can go. You can go back to one of our original episodes with him.

And basically when he released his book, I ordered it on Amazon trying to get it here before the interview so I could like review it. And for whatever reason, whoever printed it, not only, I believe, not only printed it upside down, but it was a Jiu Jitsu book. So I like.

I open it up, I'll ready to read it. It's just like, like, wait. This so exciting. I'm Curious how he's going to tie this into, like, addiction recovery in the Enneagram.

Like, wow, this is strange.

Lindsey: 02:28:38

How far were you in before you realized it was literally not his book?

Creek: 02:28:41

Well, honestly, just. Okay, just the first page, I'm like, this doesn't feel right.

Michael Naylor: 02:28:46

I'm gonna.

Creek: 02:28:47

Does this go anywhere?

Gayle Scott: 02:28:50

It's just.

Creek: 02:28:50

Is Naylor just. Just doing a big prank on the whole Enneagram community, like.

So, anyway, so before we would get into unpacking, we wanted to quickly name our own lineages as well as maybe like, some of the biases that we may have so you can understand the context of how we are, you know, unpacking this episode. Because, of course, like we said at the top, there's. We love all these people, we think they're really smart.

We just have our own opinions and views on it. So hopefully that you can learn something from that. So, Lindsay, why don't you start?

Lindsey: 02:29:32

So my, my training in the Enneagram. Well, my introduction to the Enneagram was in a Christian spiritual space. So it did have those spiritual layers on it. And that's kind of.

I feel like the way you're introduced to something kind of sticks in your mind really strongly, you know, So I just. I was like, this is a spiritual tool. That's what it is and that's how it's used. And where has this been all my life?

And then when I decided to get certified, it was through a very open minded, but not. It was unapologetically a Christian approach to the Enneagram. And that was really, really helpful.

But it also did kind of further solidify those spiritual layers and that spiritual model of the Enneagram. I think that, you know, for me that my biases around religion, spirituality, that's how I was raised. I have a strong leaning towards spiritual.

So when it comes to the history of the Enneagram, I do feel myself kind of really wanting and hoping there to be like these really ancient mystical roots to it, because I think that would support the bias that I already kind of come to this model with, you know. So, yeah, that's a little. A little context for how I hold this tool.

Abram: 02:30:55

I don't even know where to start. I mean, here's the thing about the way my mind works, which may not surprise anyone who knows I do the primarily the nine thing first. You know, I am.

When I get excited about something, I. If I want to speak with some confidence and legit ground, I need to make sure that I'm not just speaking from one perspective.

I need to do my best to speak from all of the thought on it, because I don't.

I still remember growing up, anytime somebody talked confidently or had strong opinions, I never could understand that because it felt so weak, because I don't know how they could have understood every possible thing about the topic they're talking about before they made such a strong, bold claim.

And all that said, my history with the Enneagram has been trying to take in all of the different perspectives, all the different sides, all the different ways in which you can use the Enneagram and understand where it came from and why. So, you know, I've. For a lot of years, I was trying to read every book there was that was published in the Enneagram and was rather successful.

And so, yeah, my kind of context, I guess, is. Is the, you know, the ecumenical one, where I'm really trying to still find my own voice, as you may assume. But I do. I do have.

I do have my own voice as well. It has just come slowly through naming everybody else's voices first before my own. But that is.

That is part of my process, and that's how I've got to where I'm at now and why I actually do feel like I can, for the most part, speak confidently about what's valuable to me and know that I'm being rather inclusive when it comes to understanding this. Well, from lots of viewpoints.

Creek: 02:32:57

Yeah.

Mario Sikora: 02:32:58

Yeah.

Lindsey: 02:32:58

So do you not. So you don't have any biases, is what you're saying.

Abram: 02:33:02

I have no biases.

Lindsey: 02:33:03

You're a nine. Yeah.

Abram: 02:33:05

Yep. I. Yep. I don't even say biasee. I say bias. Like.

Lindsey: 02:33:09

Like have no bias. Not even one.

Abram: 02:33:11

Yeah, here's a.

Creek: 02:33:12

Here's another example bias of them all.

Abram: 02:33:14

Here's an example. Some people say pecan, other people say pean. I say pecan. I mix them. I. I just do all of it.

Mario Sikora: 02:33:22

What?

Abram: 02:33:23

Yeah, that's.

Creek: 02:33:25

This is a problem. Brilliant.

Lindsey: 02:33:28

He said it's a problem. I said it's brilliant. There's R2 and R4 showing up.

Abram: 02:33:34

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Creek: 02:33:39

Yeah. So I pro. I started off in Riso Hudson land, learning through that. And then Seth and I did a certification with Nan Henson and Linda Roberts down.

Sorry, Seth Abram. Abram and I did certification with them down in Georgia, both of which are trained in the Riso Hudson School. So we. We finished that.

That was what, like a six month process? I don't remember. Yeah, and I still, like when I. When I really need some help, I. I still call Nan, you know, and She's a.

She's a such a beautiful soul. That really has impacted me deeply in a lot of ways. So I haven't done as much narrative work. I mean, talked with Leslie several times.

She's part of narrative. We've learned. Learned of under different narrative teachers, for sure. Haven't done any sort of official schooling with them, but.

And then we met Mario Awareness Action through Fathoms, and he took a liking to us, and we've all gone through his certification program at least once.

I think I'm on, like, round three because I've gotten a lot more involved with awareness acting because I just really enjoy the model and I enjoy the. Enjoy the people. So that is. There's. Obviously there's a bias there of. I am most familiar with and prefer the Awareness Action model, but of course.

Lindsey: 02:35:15

Well, yeah, you're there. Any of son.

Creek: 02:35:17

Yeah. Yes.

Lindsey: 02:35:22

That's our running joke.

Creek: 02:35:23

Oh, man. Is it?

Lindsey: 02:35:26

Yes.

Creek: 02:35:27

Is this a joke that I'm unfamiliar with?

Lindsey: 02:35:28

That's what I call you too, Mario and mj. What, you didn't know this?

Creek: 02:35:34

This is completely new information for me. That's amazing. So anyways, of course I'm going to have some bias there. I'm going to try really hard to check that and counteract that.

But, you know, it is what it is. I like what I like. So that is what it is to be me.

Lindsey: 02:35:55

Yeah. And biases aren't bad. We all have them.

Creek: 02:35:58

Absolutely.

Abram: 02:35:59

It's how where you are and unaware you are is what matters more. Yeah.

Creek: 02:36:04

Biases. Another name for it could be preferences.

Lindsey: 02:36:07

So it could be.

Creek: 02:36:09

All right, so let's jump into unpacking this a little bit as you're listening. Like, thinking back through the.

The recording process of all these hours with these teachers, these wonderful teachers, what struck you guys the most when it came to the differences in how schools talked about the origins of the Enneagram?

Lindsey: 02:36:27

Well, first of all, Gail just hit it out of the park. I feel like she just knows this stuff in and out. So it was really impressive to me to hear just how thoroughly she was able to unpack.

But also, it didn't feel to me like she was really dogmatic about it, and I appreciated that. You know, she's just like, this is what people say, and here's what we know, and here's what we don't know.

I also thought, you know, listening to Mario and MJ talk about, I feel like their. Their approach was much more reductionist. Like, I'm going to throw out everything I cannot say with 100% certainty or close to 100% certainty.

Uncertainty. And what I have left is ultimately what's going to be most beneficial, because I know what. What's your favorite phrase? At least.

Creek: 02:37:20

At least statements.

Lindsey: 02:37:21

Yes, at least statements. So anyway, as I was saying, Mario and mj, I just feel like they are.

I think that I see the benefit of that being able to reduce it down to really clean, at least statements that you can present with certainty. Especially the field that they work in, where people tend to want. They're like, show me how I can get a return on my investment in this.

And so keeping it as simple as possible in that realm is really, really serving the people that they're taking the tool to in the best way possible.

Abram: 02:38:00

I think what I heard across the board from everybody was they were all striving for accuracy, trying to give their best interpretation of what the history was and wanting to make sure that it was true to their experience and to their. Their school's lineage. They were all trying to be as on track as possible.

In fact, some people even asked us to edit certain things because after listening, they were like, ah, I don't know if that's as accurate as I'd like it to be, or true to the way that my school communicates the history or lineage. And so I really. I valued people's desire to just be truthful and to be as honest as they.

As they could be about how the history is communicated from their school's perspective. You know, another thing that was when we kind of named this already earlier, Creek, you. You said just something along the lines of how.

How one holds their understanding of the Enneagram definitely speaks to what kind of clientele they are trying to communicate the Enneagram to. Like those. There seems to be pretty sincere correlation there. You know, if.

If it makes sense to me that the Awareness to action approach you hear is more geared toward not only business, but there is more of a bent toward that direction. It makes sense that they're not going to have a deep, esoteric history. That makes sense. The correlation there. I think the math adds up, if you will.

Whereas the other schools that are doing more obvious spiritual work, there is a spiritual component to their history, to their understanding of the history. So I just noticed that that correlation makes sense whether or not the history can be proven or not, which we'll get into a little bit here.

But I just noticed the math making sense.

Creek: 02:40:09

You know, I would say Awareness to Action does have a deep understanding of spiritual traditions, however they choose to kind of let you choose your own adventure, so to speak, in addition to their particular model.

I think I also noticed between awareness to action, comparing awareness to action to the other two schools, it's obvious that all of them really deeply want to help people grow and evolve and live a life that is more fulfilling and with less suffering.

I see a lot more pragmatic action based things in the awareness to action model and a lot more presence and awareness and explicit internal investigation in the other models.

And I think it's important to note that how they perceive the history of the Enneagram does inform what they use it for or how they frame their model and its purpose. And there's pros and cons to both.

But I think that just demonstrates the importance of how you quantify and define and explain history does have a downstream effect on how you implement actual lived in experience, how you explain things, how you what you assume about reality.

And perhaps in some regards you may get to the same place through these different models, but they do seem on some level to be different paths with different strengths and weaknesses, with different tools, definitions and bents towards what they define as meaningful, what they define as growth, and what the purpose is for all of that. All right, so next question.

For those that are drawn to any sort of mystical origins of the Enneagram prior to Gurdjieff, what do you think the benefits are and perhaps even the risks of believing in something that is not exactly is not clearly verifiable?

Lindsey: 02:42:15

Well, I think this leads me to a question I've really been wrestling with, which is noticing my biases, wanting I forget the exact name of the bias, but it's the bias that something is more true because it's old. I have to like, we'll put it in the show notes when we figure, when we Google it.

But I just find myself really drawn to that and I do feel like there is value in being able to say about some things. Well, these themes have been popping up all over the world for millennia, like antiquity bias, antiquity bias things. Yeah.

So there's gotta be something to this, right? I should at least be open to it. If for millennia people have found value in X, you know, whatever it might be, I think that's real.

I really do think that's real. If we can say that humans have been coming to these same conclusions over and over and over, like, why reinvent the wheel, right?

Why not use the wisdom that has already been being offered to us for a very, very long time? The other side of that coin, though, I think is when that gets used instead of good evidence as a crutch for supporting something.

So I do think that that is harmful, I guess.

Creek: 02:43:40

Well, the last part of that question as well.

And for those who don't want to or can engage in the mystical origins, is there any way that they can still engage into that story, into that narrative and find something meaningful in it?

Abram: 02:43:57

Yeah.

Where my mind goes is I think a lot of these more esoteric, mystical aspects of the history tend to be within the realm of the spiritual, if you will, category. I think that's where a lot of people would categorize them or place them. And I just.

My favorite definition that I tried to memorize because I think it's helpful from author named David Bennert. He says that spirituality is our way of living in relation to that which is beyond the self.

And so I just think these parts of the history, the value there is connecting yourself to something outside of just your, you know, your limited perspective. What is. What are you a part of that's bigger than you? I think that is ultimately what people are after in their.

Their pursuit for a spiritual connection to the Enneagram. And I think that's one way to look at it. Yeah, roots.

Lindsey: 02:45:02

People want roots.

Creek: 02:45:03

Roots, yeah, for sure.

Abram: 02:45:05

Roots. But I think it's just, how are we rooted together?

You know, something that's bigger than just me, something that's bigger than us, something that connects us all.

Creek: 02:45:13

Yeah. I mean, to that point, I do think, why are people drawn to more esoteric, mystical. Yeah, something bigger.

Like, the fascination with history is always a good thing. I think to make any progress, we have to push on the edges of the unknown to. To find what else is out there. The.

The issue I see is the antiquity bias, like you were saying, Lindsay, but also, like, doing good work is making sure you're not making up that last 2% to get it to 100. Just because you're like, I'm close enough.

Mario Sikora: 02:45:51

Enough.

Creek: 02:45:52

Because doing that, it just. I feel like that causes a downstream effect that is unintended, that it just. I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with it. And I think good.

Good theorists just are really respectful of the entire process, even that last 2%. So. And it's not saying. I'm not saying mystical stories are or, like, inherently harmful. I'm just saying I think they should also be tested.

Just like the. You know, the Enneagram encourages us to test our own narratives and holding our stories lightly because there's always new data.

There's always new things to be found. And if we believe a certain story that is slightly off, it can have a downstream effect long term.

Again, I'm not saying that, like, not making a claim either way on what is true fact and what is. Yeah. Accurate and what is just lore. But I think for me, that's where like, the.

At least statements come in of, like, all right, so I don't know beyond Gurdjieff, what happened. Of course, there's a lot of different streams of ideas that have impacted the Enneagram. The Enneagram of personality.

And then from Naranjo and Achazo forward, the different models that have sprung up because of the wisdom that this. This model holds. I, I, for me, I'm just. I'm only comfortable saying at least, you know, chazanurano and forward.

And behind that, it's like, okay, we can find Gurjeev and the Enneagram symbol, but much, much before that, partially. It's not. Doesn't seem that important to me. And there's not enough. There's not enough data for me to say one way or the other. So I don't know. That's.

That's where I'm at.

Lindsey: 02:48:13

I just.

In full transparency, I would like to confess that in hindsight, when I started teaching the Enneagram eight or nine years ago, I used this esoteric mystical origin history manipulatively. And I feel icky admitting that, but I didn't do it on purpose. I didn't know I was doing it at the time.

But in hindsight, I can reflect on that, and I can see how when I would start my presentations with this is the history of the Enneagram, I felt like what I was doing, doing was taking pressure off of me to have to defend the tool.

And I was putting it in front of my, you know, students as, here is a way that you cannot argue with me, and here is a way that you have to accept this because it's old. Right. So I think that I, Yeah, I, I just wanted to kind of offer that as a way of saying, like, this is. This is the harm that we're talking about.

And please don't hear me saying that anybody who's teaching it this way is inherently manipulative. Like, I'm not saying that. I just think that it.

That's why we're talking about it is because we have to be willing to have hard conversations and deal with people who are critical of the tool and people who are a little bit hesitant about it and not just be like, well, avagrious, solver you know, and think that now I don't have any other responsibility to thoroughly understand what is actually true. Does that make sense?

Creek: 02:50:03

Absolutely.

Abram: 02:50:04

Yeah.

Creek: 02:50:05

Yeah.

Abram: 02:50:05

I wanted to just come back to the initial question because I didn't get to quite answer it like y'all have yet.

But, you know, I think just the speaking from the benefit and the risk here, I think the benefit of viewing the history more in this way is that it offers, again, well, something, I guess, bigger than you, but it offers you a sense of connection to tradition, too. I think it offers a sense of sacredness.

So if you want or need either way, I mean, those are obviously different words, but your version of the Enneagram to feel esoteric or ancient, I think that's fine. I just would say to be mindful. Right. Because I like this word that I was thinking about earlier, these two words together.

But I think when the Enneagram as a tool becomes. When you give it uncritical reverence, then I think then we risk it being dismissed as a pseudoscience. So.

And this is where, like, it can move into, you know, trying to prove the history that isn't proved. It's never been proved. And so this leads to dogmatism, then. Right.

And then this is where you get into the same things as, I don't know, all these other religions. Then it turns into something it's not, and it becomes, you know, over. Mystical is not a bad word. And I wonder if we've not. Not. Not using it in the.

I mean, there's. We should define that word, too. But. But I just think esoteric, you know, I.

When it comes to, like, mystical content or esoteric content, those are not the same thing. But I think we also then have to look at. Do we. Are we talking about, like, parables or symbolism when it comes to this, or are we talking literal?

You know, I think that's pretty important to distinguish then, too. So I think you got to be careful with romanticizing histories, because sometimes what happens is then that those dogmatic beliefs that can.

Sometimes you can lead to that. What happens then is then you resisting critique and growth. Right. And that's where I would get hesitant.

Creek: 02:52:25

Yeah.

And I'm not saying that any of our teachers on this season are doing this, but in general, there's a big difference between honoring a tradition and, to me, making it sacred and untouchable. And I'm afraid we can too easily fall into making the Enneagram an object of worship rather than a tool of evolution.

The Enneagram is such a small in my head, it's such a small thing. If you want to be in line with some sort of meaningful tradition, go somewhere else. There's something. This is just a tool. This is just a compass.

Why are we worshiping a compass? Yeah, it's beautiful. It's so helpful. But go find. To me, I'm like, go find that elsewhere. It's going to sustain you a lot longer.

Has much deeper roots, many more things to offer you. So.

Lindsey: 02:53:27

And verifiable ancient history in other spaces.

Abram: 02:53:31

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If it really is ultimately meant to be a tool for self awareness and growth and transformation.

I like, I'm not going to get this exactly right, but something that I heard from Tom Condon years ago about correlating, you know, where does type come from? Is it nature or nurture? And he was also, what he was saying, does it really matter where it comes from?

If we, what we know is we are, through the process of growing up, we all learn to become conditioned in some way. And that's what we're working with. That's what we're, that's what we're trying to focus on.

So ultimately, the Enneagram as a tool for, for self awareness and transformation, it's not ultimately a tool for historical accuracy. Yeah. So I just think focusing on the.

Lindsey: 02:54:22

Point also, psychology in and of itself is very, very young. So I think anybody working in this field just needs to go ahead and be like, you know what? This is a baby field.

We need to be ready to throw things out as we get more data and more information and things become less accurate and less helpful. Let's be willing to let those things go so we can continue to evolve a very, very young field in the.

Creek: 02:54:48

Way, you know, you're holding something lightly is to put it down. I don't think there's another way. Put it down, see what it's like without it. And then you're like, actually, I think there's still something there.

Then you pick it up, and you can pick it up with much more lightness of touch. So, okay, last question. What have you all learned more broadly about like, history and its importance to the present?

Something that you're maybe gonna apply to your life in some way? I guess I'll. I'll start. So, like, for me, this has been kind of a hard episode to know what to articulate because history is so big.

And again, just like, why is this important? Is it just a fun story?

And I think I kind of landed on really, if we want to shape the future, we Must understand the past through the lens of the present and how it's affecting us. And once I kind of got that, I'm like, oh, wow. Yeah, no, history is really important because whether I know it or not, it's still affecting me.

I'm trying to find. There's this quote, Howard Zinn, History is important. If you don't know history, it's as if you were born yesterday.

And if you were born yesterday, anybody in a position of power can tell you anything and you have no way of checking up on it. Then there's another one by Arnold Toynbee. History is not a burden on the memory, but an illumination of the soul, which I liked.

So just been chewing on this episode for a while and I did some work on it and then I was like, I need to just relax. So I went to the. An art museum and they had a Native American exhibit on and it just kind of, it clicked.

It clicked for me after that because in one of the exhibits it's like it's so easy to just see these inanimate objects as something of the past, you know, but.

And we just especially as like, you know, the white privilege and sort of the white narrative over and over again seeing anyone that's not white as savage or less than, or not having some sort of normal life that, that we know. Right.

And the prompt in the museum was just like, imagine each of these things were held by people that had equally as rich, deep in full and meaningful lives, maybe even more so than you today. Right. And what does that look like?

And so I think if we don't double check our perception of history, we are, you know, you know, we're not going to see clearly and we're going to, we're going to miss out on the beautiful spectrum of life and those that have gone before us and how they're affecting us. And if I don't see how the history is affecting me today, I can't better shape my worldview to pass it on to whoever's next.

And I think that's, to me, where it's like, that's where the history really, really, really matters. And it's deeply tied to, you know, back to our last season of individuality, mutuality and unity.

If we are, if we're not able to see what's affecting us, like our enneagram type, then it's going to affect how we're able to interact with the world.

Lindsey: 02:58:36

Yeah, for sure. I think too humans, we are inclined to organize ourselves. We want to create groups, right. We want to create belonging.

And we see this throughout history, the. The way that humans organize themselves over and over and over.

And if we are faithful students of history, we can see how those projects have gone wrong and where it started. So that then as we continue, even in something like our enneagram communities, you know, our faith communities, our.

Our neighborhoods, whatever that looks like for you, we're trying to organize ourselves in a way that can mutually benefit everybody.

But then when we start to kind of see these historic patterns play out that we know leads to destruction or dehumanization or harming individuals within that organization, then we can know where we need to draw some lines, and we need to say this has to stop. And if we don't know that, then we can't protect each other. We can't protect ourselves.

We can't see when harm is just on the horizon, like, headed straight toward us. So that's one thing that I think is just sort of a broad application to our life together.

Abram: 03:00:04

I have been sitting with this question while you guys have been talking, trying to listen to you and gather my thoughts. So I'm going to read it aloud again to see what else comes up.

While I'm reading it aloud, what have I learned more broadly about history and its importance to the present? This is what came up when you read one of those quotes, Greg, that history grounds us. I think history gives us context and continuity.

But what I was thinking was that it is a lens. It's not really a blueprint. And I think that's really important to. Especially when we were.

When we were talking about history from the etymology earlier. Right? It is a blueprint. It's not like literally it. There's multiple different avenues or varieties or perspectives.

So I just think understanding history's fluidity is what helps us honor the past really well and maybe even adapt to the present, to the present as we need to, because we're holding it a little more loosely.

So with that in mind, like, it definitely it brings up humility for me and flexibility, because I just think of how even I think of how we are over time, conditioned to view how we hold things, how we see things. And history shapes our identity, right? Or what you believe about yourself.

And so so much of our growth and our healing or transformation is largely contingent on the reshaping of how we have. We have viewed ourselves and so how we are connected to the past.

And so making more of a coherent narrative about our history and retelling the truth once we have different ways to.

Creek: 03:02:05

See better, to reiterate like it's not a static thing. You don't make up your coherent narrative. And it's there. It's like, no, there's new data. And coherent doesn't mean simple, just means understandable.

Abram: 03:02:19

Totally.

Lindsey: 03:02:19

Yes, absolutely.

Abram: 03:02:21

Yeah. I think, I really do think transformation is about becoming more coherent with the narratives that we're telling about our story.

Yeah, that's where my brain went.

Creek: 03:02:32

Yeah. This brings up. This is my last point. And then we can finish up. This episode is kind of an inspiration for.

A lot of my thoughts came from an interview with Flint Dibble and Milo Rossi. Those are crazy names, but they're both archaeologists. If you want another three hour podcast to listen to, it'll be in the show Notes.

But I thought it was just a brilliant, brilliant just case study in critical thinking. The importance of history, how to communicate well and why all of those things just.

Is just a beautiful conversation and it was funny and something that they harked on. And this is my last point. What you were saying, Seth, made me think of this was when it comes to ideas and.

Or just history, the stories we tell, looking backwards, it looks like a straight line because we can see point A to B. Right. But from the perspective of point A, it's a. It's. It's not so much of a tree, right. It's more of a stream that weaves in and out, reconnects.

All these pieces come together into some sort of mosaic. And all those pieces are true, but how you rearrange them will redetermine whatever that meaning is.

So we apply the meaning retroactively and so it looks like a very clear line that makes sense, but that's not how it happened. It's hard to even quantify how many different variables and effects, cause and effects to all arrive to this point. It's just far more.

I don't want to say it's like history is not sexy, but it's just. It's far more complex and not as clear as we want it to be. Sometimes, therefore the at least statements, but also just. I don't know.

For me, just instead of making a really lovely story about some things, like leaning into wonder in the unknowing of history and how it all happened, it's just like, whoa, all of that is crazy. I don't know how it happened, but wow, that's pretty cool. And look at how it's affecting life today. So.

Abram: 03:04:50

Well, that recap was a wild ride in and of itself. But we wanted to just say at the end here that we this season have A lot of resources for you.

And the history episode is no exception is a hard word to say sometimes too. There's X's and C's too close together. Exception. So please be sure to check out the show notes, which I write.

So maybe you'll find a Easter egg in there.

Lindsey: 03:05:22

Easter egg. A secret code. Ooh, I should leave codes in the show notes.

Creek: 03:05:26

Maybe a random picture of Abram in his teens.

Lindsey: 03:05:30

Oh, that'd be great. Yes. With the swoopy haircut.

Creek: 03:05:34

Yes.

Lindsey: 03:05:34

Your punk rock ears.

Abram: 03:05:36

Yeah.

Creek: 03:05:37

So many more resources for your listening and viewing and reading pleasure. If you want to dive into the history of the Enneagram and just history in general.

Lindsey: 03:05:46

And we also want to make you aware of or remind you of our membership. What are we calling it? Our member portal. What's the. Yeah, Membership portal.

Creek: 03:05:56

Something.

Lindsey: 03:05:57

Yeah. We have some perks for you if you are part of our membership community.

We're going to be releasing some bonus stuff on our private feed, so you'll want to make sure you sign up for that.

And if you want more information on that, you can find us on instagram, facebook or fathomspodmail.com we'll walk you through it because we don't want you to miss any of the great stuff we have coming your way.

Creek: 03:06:22

It's going to be great. Thanks, y'all. We'll see you in a couple weeks.

Abram: 03:06:26

Later.

Creek: 03:06:30

For listening to Fathoms in Anam podcast. If this episode affected you in some way, we'd love it if you would share it with a friend or family member.

Don't forget to check out the show notes for ways to connect with us and continue your serious work as an unseen is human.

Lindsey: 03:07:02

Now, before we get into things any further, I'm going to pass it over to Abraham.

Abram: 03:07:14

And this is why we don't read from scripts.

Abram: 03:07:25

Everybody gets it wrong. I just hadn't heard it from you yet. That sounds so old.

Creek: 03:07:37

I'm pass it over to Abrams, Abrams, Isaacs and Jacobs.

Lindsey: 03:07:54

That needs to go.

Creek: 03:07:55

Yeah, for sure.

Lindsey: 03:08:00

Okay.