As you said about Naranjo, I have to say: brilliant article, Mario 🙏🏼
I intellectually agree and intuitively feel that this approach of yours is so right, and, if it's not a problem, I would like to ask you whether you could develop these assertions in more detail please? (I am a deep admirer of Claudio Naranjo's work and I would be so grateful to understand in detail what you mean with these words, as I feel it will nourish my percetion of Claudio so much).
1.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment to an outdated, neo-Freudian idea of “instincts”.
2.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment.... to neo-Fourth Way ideas on centers".
3.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment.... to a variety of “Age of Aquarius” ideas and practices".
4.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but flawed book “Character and Neurosis".
Lastly, If you allow me to ask you one last question, about this: "feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior": which are you distinctions between "feeling" and "emotion" in this context?
Excellent questions. I want to start by saying I have great respect for Naranjo.'s contributions which were substantial and profoundly impacting on me. I believe he took Ichazo's Enneagram and made it much better.
However, the history of ideas is an evolution based on incremental improvement in response to trial and error or the discovery of new information. All theories, or "explanations," are provisional and should evolve over time. Today's good explanations are tomorrow's "outdated" explanations. That is not to denigrate those who come up with the best explanations for the moment, and I think Naranjo's were the best at the time.
That said...
1. The idea that we have "three instincts" is outdated in that he assumes there are three "basic instincts and goals behind the multiplicity of human motivation." Two of these are Freud's: self-preservation and sex instincts. I belief that late in life, Freud abandoned the idea of the death instinct and grudgingly added a "social" instinct, making the three that Naranjo posits. The simple reality is that this idea of having three instincts is not accepted in the modern sciences--you will not see anyone making these claims anymore. Biologists don't talk about "instincts" today, they talk about evolutionary adaptations and there are many of these, not just three. As far as their being a foundational set of drives from which others spring, I think Panksepp's idea of seven systems is more interesting, but I don't see a direct correlation to the Enneagram and Panksepp's ideas.
2. The theoretical framework that Naranjo lays out in the beginning of "C and N" is the Gurdjieffian model of centers. I find this model to be very simplistic. Human nature is far more complicated than the idea that we have three "lower centers" and three "higher centers." It's fine as a simple heuristic, but it's a limited explanation of human nature, which is the complex interplay of sensations (feelings), emotions, thoughts, and behavior. The "centers" model is a good introduction for people who haven't thought much about human nature or are new to self-development, but eventually one must understand that it is just a simple heuristic and there is better information about the dynamics of human nature available today. (A book such as "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky, just to name one, tells us far more about human nature than the centers model.)
3. I may be a bit unfair here, as, in general, I think Naranjo was a rigorous thinker. However, he makes numerous references to homeopathy in "C and N," he was an advocate of hallucinogenics, and his book "The End of Patriarchy and the Tri-une Society" strikes me as a bit of uninteresting utopianism.
4. It's primarily his emphasis of the Gurdjieffian theoretical framework that undermines the book. I also think his emphasis on dysfunction and the negative aspects of the Ennea-types was a limitation. I would have liked to see something on the adaptive elements of the types. Such things don't seem to fit within his framework because he saw the types as a manifestation of obscurations of the "true self" and "higher centers" rather than value-neutral ways of being in the world.
The distinction between feelings and emotions is very fuzzy and some (wrongly) use the terms interchangeably. For me, feelings are physical sensations; emotions are a complex of physical sensations mixed with cognition. For example, the pain in our chest upon the loss of a loved one is a feeling; "sorrow" is the emotion we experience as it is the result of a physical sensation mixed with a variety of cognitions that spring from that loss.
First of all thank you very much for your answer, and so sorry that I have just realized now that you already answered a couple of weeks ago (my fault because I deactivated too many notification settings when I sign up the first time 😅)!
I have to say that, in general, I understand and agree about all that you posted 👌🏻
Anyway, I would like to further comment the ideas that you presented:
0.Regarding the idea of "All theories, or "explanations," are provisional and should evolve over time.": absolutely, and what important is this assertion to keep doing in every fields of life and science (for obvious reasons)!
1 & 2.Regarding the "neo-Freudian idea of “instincts” and the "neo-Fourth Way ideas on centers": I completely see your point that, both visions of human condition are reducing too many aspects in only 3 instances (3 + 3 in the case of the Centers) and because of the fact that these visions may not have other uses or apply in more physical/biological practices (for example, what can a surgeon do with the higher intellectual center in the context of a brain surgery...😂).
3.Regarding the "variety of “Age of Aquarius” ideas and practices": I see your point and yeah, I as well see, sometimes, a naive utopianism in may of his ideas. Although I love many of those ideas I miss some more earthly and pragmatic proposals in terms of ways or steps to implement these utopian ideas...
4.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but flawed book “Character and Neurosis": that is an undeniable fact, that Naranjo's own intention (when he was alive) and the Naranjo's School (currently happening) were and are, many times too focused in work on the negative stuff of characters, leaving the positive and other stuff apart. Which if it wouldn't be like this, maybe more people would be more interested in these knowledge and maybe more people wouldn't have the difficulties and the few effectiveness in correctly identifying themselves. Despite that, I find interesting the idea that he presented of types being a manifestation of obscurations of the "true self" and "higher centers", becasue it sounds mystical and so on, but it is true that a more value-neutral ways of explaining these phenomena sound more balanced 👌🏻
And lastly, regarding your "feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior" distinctions: I find very interesting the idea of emotions being a physical sensation mixed with a variety of cognitions. I will use it from now on quoting you 😊
I will take a look at Panksepp and Robert Sapolsky work as well 👌🏻
Than you very much Mario! I appreciate a lot of your time answering the questions 🙏🏻
👍🏽👏🏽👏🏽
As you said about Naranjo, I have to say: brilliant article, Mario 🙏🏼
I intellectually agree and intuitively feel that this approach of yours is so right, and, if it's not a problem, I would like to ask you whether you could develop these assertions in more detail please? (I am a deep admirer of Claudio Naranjo's work and I would be so grateful to understand in detail what you mean with these words, as I feel it will nourish my percetion of Claudio so much).
1.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment to an outdated, neo-Freudian idea of “instincts”.
2.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment.... to neo-Fourth Way ideas on centers".
3.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but undermined by his attachment.... to a variety of “Age of Aquarius” ideas and practices".
4.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but flawed book “Character and Neurosis".
Lastly, If you allow me to ask you one last question, about this: "feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior": which are you distinctions between "feeling" and "emotion" in this context?
Many thanks in advance,
Best regards
Guille Fernández
Guille,
Excellent questions. I want to start by saying I have great respect for Naranjo.'s contributions which were substantial and profoundly impacting on me. I believe he took Ichazo's Enneagram and made it much better.
However, the history of ideas is an evolution based on incremental improvement in response to trial and error or the discovery of new information. All theories, or "explanations," are provisional and should evolve over time. Today's good explanations are tomorrow's "outdated" explanations. That is not to denigrate those who come up with the best explanations for the moment, and I think Naranjo's were the best at the time.
That said...
1. The idea that we have "three instincts" is outdated in that he assumes there are three "basic instincts and goals behind the multiplicity of human motivation." Two of these are Freud's: self-preservation and sex instincts. I belief that late in life, Freud abandoned the idea of the death instinct and grudgingly added a "social" instinct, making the three that Naranjo posits. The simple reality is that this idea of having three instincts is not accepted in the modern sciences--you will not see anyone making these claims anymore. Biologists don't talk about "instincts" today, they talk about evolutionary adaptations and there are many of these, not just three. As far as their being a foundational set of drives from which others spring, I think Panksepp's idea of seven systems is more interesting, but I don't see a direct correlation to the Enneagram and Panksepp's ideas.
2. The theoretical framework that Naranjo lays out in the beginning of "C and N" is the Gurdjieffian model of centers. I find this model to be very simplistic. Human nature is far more complicated than the idea that we have three "lower centers" and three "higher centers." It's fine as a simple heuristic, but it's a limited explanation of human nature, which is the complex interplay of sensations (feelings), emotions, thoughts, and behavior. The "centers" model is a good introduction for people who haven't thought much about human nature or are new to self-development, but eventually one must understand that it is just a simple heuristic and there is better information about the dynamics of human nature available today. (A book such as "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky, just to name one, tells us far more about human nature than the centers model.)
3. I may be a bit unfair here, as, in general, I think Naranjo was a rigorous thinker. However, he makes numerous references to homeopathy in "C and N," he was an advocate of hallucinogenics, and his book "The End of Patriarchy and the Tri-une Society" strikes me as a bit of uninteresting utopianism.
4. It's primarily his emphasis of the Gurdjieffian theoretical framework that undermines the book. I also think his emphasis on dysfunction and the negative aspects of the Ennea-types was a limitation. I would have liked to see something on the adaptive elements of the types. Such things don't seem to fit within his framework because he saw the types as a manifestation of obscurations of the "true self" and "higher centers" rather than value-neutral ways of being in the world.
The distinction between feelings and emotions is very fuzzy and some (wrongly) use the terms interchangeably. For me, feelings are physical sensations; emotions are a complex of physical sensations mixed with cognition. For example, the pain in our chest upon the loss of a loved one is a feeling; "sorrow" is the emotion we experience as it is the result of a physical sensation mixed with a variety of cognitions that spring from that loss.
Hello Mario,
First of all thank you very much for your answer, and so sorry that I have just realized now that you already answered a couple of weeks ago (my fault because I deactivated too many notification settings when I sign up the first time 😅)!
I have to say that, in general, I understand and agree about all that you posted 👌🏻
Anyway, I would like to further comment the ideas that you presented:
0.Regarding the idea of "All theories, or "explanations," are provisional and should evolve over time.": absolutely, and what important is this assertion to keep doing in every fields of life and science (for obvious reasons)!
1 & 2.Regarding the "neo-Freudian idea of “instincts” and the "neo-Fourth Way ideas on centers": I completely see your point that, both visions of human condition are reducing too many aspects in only 3 instances (3 + 3 in the case of the Centers) and because of the fact that these visions may not have other uses or apply in more physical/biological practices (for example, what can a surgeon do with the higher intellectual center in the context of a brain surgery...😂).
3.Regarding the "variety of “Age of Aquarius” ideas and practices": I see your point and yeah, I as well see, sometimes, a naive utopianism in may of his ideas. Although I love many of those ideas I miss some more earthly and pragmatic proposals in terms of ways or steps to implement these utopian ideas...
4.Regarding the following Naranjo's comment: "but flawed book “Character and Neurosis": that is an undeniable fact, that Naranjo's own intention (when he was alive) and the Naranjo's School (currently happening) were and are, many times too focused in work on the negative stuff of characters, leaving the positive and other stuff apart. Which if it wouldn't be like this, maybe more people would be more interested in these knowledge and maybe more people wouldn't have the difficulties and the few effectiveness in correctly identifying themselves. Despite that, I find interesting the idea that he presented of types being a manifestation of obscurations of the "true self" and "higher centers", becasue it sounds mystical and so on, but it is true that a more value-neutral ways of explaining these phenomena sound more balanced 👌🏻
And lastly, regarding your "feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior" distinctions: I find very interesting the idea of emotions being a physical sensation mixed with a variety of cognitions. I will use it from now on quoting you 😊
I will take a look at Panksepp and Robert Sapolsky work as well 👌🏻
Than you very much Mario! I appreciate a lot of your time answering the questions 🙏🏻