Jump to content

Talk:Enneagram (geometry)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number Games[edit]

Having read the above (and the "Introduction to N-Grams" link), I think it would be of interest to add a section about the numerical oddities of the Enneagram. The "repeating decimal" bit is good, but it doesn't capture the strangeness of the 142857 sequence. A simple illustration would be to show how the number sequence "rotates" as it's added to itself, while retaining its "direction of disintegration":

142857 x 1 = 142857
142857 x 2 = 285714
142857 x 3 = 428571
142857 x 4 = 571428
142857 x 5 = 714285
142857 x 6 = 857142
142857 x 7 = 999999

The 9,3,6 triangle doesn't have this quality, of course.

The link mentions other numeric bases, but doesn't mention the fun one, which is base-12. In base-12, both series do the trick (A=decimal 10, B=decimal 11).

186A35 x 1 = 186A35
186A35 x 2 = 35186A
186A35 x 3 = 5186A3
186A35 x 4 = 6A3518
186A35 x 5 = 86A351
186A35 x 6 = A35186
186A35 x 7 = BBBBBB (the equivalent of “all nines” in base-10).

2497 x 1 = 2497
2497 x 2 = 4972
2497 x 3 = 7249
2497 x 4 = 9724
2497 x 5 = BBBB

And, satisfyingly, 2, 4, 9, and 7 are the digits that don't appear in the first series. The resulting figuire would look like this:


I've attempted to remove redundancy (eg stuff which is on Gurdieff page) and to tighten up the explanation. I've begun to put stuff in the footnotes using the ref tag. Mccready 08:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irregular Hexagon[edit]

The irregular hexagon of 1-4-2-8-5-7-1 follows the layout of the Unicursal Hexagram of the Ordo Templi Orientis, though it has been shifted. Given references by Gurdjieff to a mixing of ways and symbols in the creation of the Enneagram, this may be the origin of this aspect of the Enneagram symbol (while not taking away from the 1/7 or other numeric representations) - or vice versa, I don't know.

A 14Kb visual demonstration of this is available here: http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/7482/centralpoint9zo.gif --Formerly the IP-address

History missing[edit]

Hi, can someone add a History section? Who invented it? And when? And how? -- Barrylb 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There was a history section but somebody erased it for no good reason!

I too think this is essential, as neither dictionary nor encyclopedia have it before 1965, apart from the Egyptian Ennead, which isn't mentioned here, and is the family of gods which includes Osiris and Isis which may or may not overlap the nine types. I went to archive.org and there isn't anything of the old history section. Looking up the data from Google, I came across the first school of Arica being opened in 1971 by the man born in 1931, so this is pretty new. Mentioning Jesuits in the context of Enneagrams has to be considered misleading. Links to the other personality classification types might be worthwhile in context, as well as historically.

Reply: The personality system of nine types is very old, and was referenced in The Iliad and The Odyssey, revealing the personality types forward in the first, and backward in the second. For any student of the enneagram who doesn't want to read those works, it is obvious watching the recent film O Brother Where Art Thou, which is based upon The Odyssey, that the nine personality types are all represented there, though not in order.

Humans are body, soul and spirit. The soul is mind, will and emotion. Three of the enneagram types are oriented around the will, three around the mind, and three around the heart, or emotion. [submitted by Cynthia J. Pirl December 2006]

I just came across this quote from Richard Rohr's book Everything Belongs [The Crossroad Publishing Company], p. 94:
" Many people condemn the Ennegram because they say it is from the Sufis (which it isn't).*", and the footnoted reference: Richard Rohr, Enneagram: A Christian Perspective (New York, Crossroad, 2001).
Perhaps someone could take a look at this book by Rohr? I think it might be an interesting addition to the discussion.
That discussion is 6 months old. If you believe that something is really relevant to the article and is sourced, then add it. And who is Rohr? Aeuio 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One known source of the "personality enneagram" is Ramon Lull. But the enneagram according to Gurdjieff was meant to be top secret oral transmission stuff until he went public. See my site; www.geocities.com/jesstraveller.geo (you will find more "authoritative" links there!) Jeremytrewindixon 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "fourth way" enneagram as we have it was first published in Ouspesky's In Search of the Miraculous published in 1950 from memory though I'd have to check. It any rate Gurdjieff is quoted in that book as saying that the enneagram in this form had never before been published (he was speaking to his groups in Russia during world war one.) However the "three triangle" enneagram was long known and has featured from time to time in esoterica. See Webb's discussion in The Harmonious Circle. Webb made an argument that the enneagram (both 4th way and 3 triangle) was an alternative glyph of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah, and discounted the theory of Sufi origin. Webb also looks at Lull's enneagram although from memory he misses the crucial point that Lull's "Nine deadly Sins" are identical to the sin types used by personality enneagram theorists, Jesuits in particular. After some checking I'll add this to the aritcle. Jeremytrewindixon 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Promotion[edit]

Could editors of this article please refrain from using it to promote particular Enneagram teachers, organisations, products etc. This is very inappropriate!


I must say I am shocked that the article does not mention Ichazo. Although there are issues with Ichazo and the Arica school, if you read the Gurdjieff material, especially the writings of Maurice Nicoll, there is no description of the enneagram in the matter it is typically presented in the 'modern' enneagram books. The modern enneagram books are a derrivative of the Ichazon ego descriptions with some additional material. I would say the Wikipedia article is a promotion and not accurate. (btw I am not a 'follower' of Ichazo)

Sounds like you know something of the matter, why don't you update the article? Also, what are you saying this article is promoting? --Chinawhitecotton 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did do the Arica work mostly in the 70s when there were no enneagram books and all that (I am not involved with them now and do not care to defend or accuse them). In the article, for example, the person who wrote it uses the psychic catalyzers - Holy perfection holy will, holy harmony, holy orgin, etc. These things were presented in the Aria material before any of these enneagram authors and books. If you look at the references to the Gurdjieff material (presented in this article) this kind of material is not presented. Since the main author of this material is not even acknoledged, it leaves me speechless. What's the use in getting into a pointless argument other than to say that this kind of disrepect for the origins of this theory undermines the approach that people take subsequently.

The history presented from the enneagram institute presents an accurate picture - http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/history.asp.

Fact tags[edit]

I found the following source for the "companies which use the Enneagram" comment, any thoughts on whether it's acceptable? [1] (scroll down to question #6) Perel 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article appears to be written from the point of view that the enneagram concepts are valid and widely accepted; I believe that it needs substantial editing to conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- The Anome 13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what exactly you are referring to - The concepts of the Eanneagram of Personality, or the concepts of Gurdjieff's Enneagram. If you found some critics on Gurdjieff's enneagram, feel free to add them, or even show me and then when I have time I will add them. If there isn't any intellectual criticism, then I'll move that NPOV tag down to the Enneagram of personality (since I am not familiar with the Enneagram of Personality I can't speak on behalf of the subject.)Aeuio 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use a seperate article?[edit]

Hi, I was just finding out about circles, and I find the page for Enneagram in the geometric sense is in the same article as this stuff about Personality and Psycology. I think a seperate article is needed, at least until all this controversy about neutrality is sorted out. Keshidragon 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the shapes bit in the middle doesn't relate to the rest of the article. Is there another article about geometric 9 sided things or something that it could go in?Merkinsmum 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the geometry of the enneagram completely relates and has everything to do with Gurdjieff's teachings (Although this connection is poorly described in this article and I'll expand it later). But, you do have a good point, and if you wish to create a separate article solely on the geometry of the enneagram, then something similar to the what I did "See also: Enneagram of Process" could be made. Aeuio 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socratesreplies edits[edit]


"It should be noted that these writers, particulalry Ouspensky, have claimed Gurdjief's works to be completely original but all of Gurdjief's ideas have been shown to a rehash of ideas from other traditions."

What do you mean completely original? He never claimed to have invented it. What part of "going through Asia and other continents for 30 years and gathering knowledge" don't you understand? Where he got most of his ideas is mentioned in his books. (And a "genius" thing to say after the made up "evidence" you provided):


"The "law of three, which he calls the sacred Law of Triamazikamno, is the same as the Stoic Law of Causation as presented by the Stoic, Posidonius."

Not only is it not the same, but Gurdjieff even attributed this law to ancient religions where it was expressed in the Holy Prayer - and therefore he never claimed it as original.(Out of Gurdjieff's enormous teaching, this is your best evidence point?)


"The concept that to obtain freedom by acknowledging and understanding the cosmic laws of the "Ray of Creation" (the law of seven) and the Law of Causation (the law of three, Triamazikamno)."

This is by far the most ridiculous thing you said. Where in the world did you find this nonsense? Not only is it not mentioned or claimed in ANY Gurdjieff related book, but you won't even find this claim on the wikipedia's Fourth Way, Laws, Ray of Creation, articles. PS. Why would you say that the Ray of Creation is the law of seven?

Its good to know that your source for Gurdjieff's teachings is one or another Enneagram of Personality book. (I wont even bother with your last sentence) Aeuio 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonagram merge[edit]

Nonagram is just a synonym for enneagram, and so nonagram should redirect to this page just like nonagon redirects to enneagon. / 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really correct. A nonagram is composed of three triangles whilst the traditional enneagram figure is composed of a triangle and a hexagon. So although they are both 'enneagrams' in as much as they both have nine points they are by no means synonomous - especially in terms of the enneagram article. Ontologicos 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ontologicos, its not synonomous. Aeuio 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the merger proposal.(unless someone has reason to object) Aeuio 02:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think nonagram and enneagram are just two names of the 9-gram, a special case of a "polygram" [2]. If you see the article heptagram, you see that it mentions a Latin variant of the word, septegram. It should be the same in this case. The articles should be merged. The external example [3] shows that the term nonagram is not exclusively used for figures composed of three triangles. / (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Can I suggest that anyone who knows of some appropriate external links to articles etc. on the use of the Enneagram figure within the Fourth Way and other related traditions add them to this article. The current links are mostly more appropriate for the Enneagram of Personality article. Ontologicos 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Math?[edit]

Let's take a look at the sequence of fractions with sevenths mentioned in the article. I've pasted the last two below.

6/7=.857142... 7/7=.999999...

I admit that I have not double-checked this with a calculator, but I have always been of the impression that 7 divided by 7 (write it as 7/7 if you please) is 1, not .99999999 . . .

If one puts 7/7 = 1, one misses out on the similarity with 7 * 142857 which will give you a whole string of nines . . . but the math will be correct. Mnentro 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only does it show you "the 7 * 142857 which will give you a whole string of nines" pattern, but it's also mathematically correct. Aeuio 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's really interesting. I would propose that the link be put on .0.999... in the text to preclude comments like the one I made before about this, and this comment itself,and the one I might make about it tomorrow . . . Mnentro 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Tom Ruen 16:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense already has its own entry. Mnentro 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know where you're getting at with "nonsense", but anyhow I made the numbers consistent while keeping the link to the .999 there - I think it looks better. Aeuio 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Some recent edits (late October 2007), although adding some useful information on the historical aspects of the Enneagram figure, have created some disjointed flow in the article. This is obvious in the sections on the Fourth Way and Gurdjieff. When editing the article please try to avoid this kind of disjointed flow. Thanks. Ontologicos 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disjointed flow can't really be avoided when the article is really two separate articles, one on geometry and one on the fourth way "enneagram" cosmic glyph. Jeremytrewindixon 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the problem I was commenting on. The problem has been principally between your own recent edits on the Fourth Way and the previous edits about Gurdjieff. This has resulted in similar comments being unecessarily repeated in both sections. I appreciate your recent edits but there needs to be some clarification about the reasons for your apparent distinctions between the Fourth Way tradition and Gurdjieff's teachings as most people probably think they are one and the same thing. On your comment about the articles really being two, I think there is a case for separate articles (such as there now is with the Enneagram of Personality). At one point there were two separate articles - one called 'Enneagram' which is now 'Enneagram of Personality' and another on the Fourth Way use of the enneagram called 'Enneagram of Process' which is now the 'Enneagram' article. I would not object to the current 'Enneagram' article being made into two - one on the enneagram as geometry and another on the Fourth Way enneagram. Ontologicos 01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some kind of confusion here because I also think the "fourth way" and "Gurdjieff" traditions are one and the same thing. The distinction was made by another editor. I tend to follow a policy of gentle revision of other people's work, so was planning to canvass the issue in discussion before (as I see it) "correcting" the article. But thanks for clarifying what you meant by "disjoint" , I accept your point of course. Jeremytrewindixon 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idries Shah & Sufism[edit]

I don't agree with the recent anonymous edit that removed the references to Shah and Sufism as "unverifiable". This seems to be a blatant POV edit. Regardless of the person's POV regarding Shah's writings the reference to Shah and Sufism is as verifiable as just about anything else on Wikipedia. Verifiablility is not the same as truth (as Wikipedia stresses). An article on the enneagram requires some reference to its alleged Sufi connection. Ontologicos! —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my POV that Shah is not an Islamic mystic; it cannot be ascertained that he ever even claim to be a Sufi teacher, in the traditional sense. So, if you, Ontologicos, are concerned about the logical connection of the comments, a true verifiable Sufi is needed to provide Sufi connections, because Sufis are supposedly Islamic mystics!.( It was my unwitting anonymous edit you are talking about ) Ernobe 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will resore the info. Thing is, I also doubt the truth of the Sufi provenance. But it is true and verifiable that the claim is often made, and in the context of belief systems (which is what we are looking at) that is important. Idries Shah was very influential and his books can be found all over, and he seemed to be a good source to example the claim. Gurdjieff's important disciple J.G. Bennet, who took an especial interest in the enneagram, also believed in the Sufi provenance of the enneagram. His chapter on the "Great Laws" in Gurdjieff: Making a New World should be used to source the article IMO, I don't have a copy to hand though. Jeremytrewindixon 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ernobe, Idries Shah certainly did claim to teach about Sufism, hence his books with titles like The Sufis and The Sufi Way; and although he avoided making direct claims about his own spiritual state under his own name he certainly held himself out as a spiritual teacher (see especially Learning How to Learn and The Commanding Self) and published books via his Octagon Press which boosted him as a Sufi teacher (see Among the Dervishes). So your comments in this regard are untenable. Whether Idries Shah was a genuine Sufi teacher I don't know. Or actually much care as I am not his student! I also don't know if his claim on the provenance of the enenagram is correct. I'm not claiming that Idries Shah is a reliable source of factual information but his books are so widely read and influential that it is the fact that he claims it that is important. OK? His comment about the octagram is of further intrinsic interest as Shah was also an expert on European magic (he was not a million miles away from the founding of Wicca, see Triumph of the Moon) eight-pointed figures appear in the grimoires....and I think I know something in that regard which I can't put on the article. For general interst I might put it on this page though. Jeremytrewindixon 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way I think there was an enneagram published in Herald of the Comming Good, 1933 , and if memory serves it was reproduced in Gurdjieff:Making a New World, a minor point but I'll look for the necessary reference ....and Occams razor would suggest that Mouravieff ripped off In Search of the Miraculous and is not an independent source. And the Fourth way section should be a "histroy" section. Jeremytrewindixon 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idries Shah is a spiritual teacher? So what? Spiritual is not the same as Sufi. So what did Shah claim to be? A popularizer of Sufism? Verifiability in Wikipedia terms means that the material is subject to editorial oversight by peers. Who are Idries Shahs' peers? The authors of 'Sufism for Dummies', perhaps? Ernobe 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernobe, I'm not quoting Shah to prove that the enneagram does have a Sufi provenance, I'm quoting him to show that the claim that it does is widely known. The existence of such a widespread claim is something that readers should know. The article already makes clear that there is no good evidence of it appearing anywhere before world War One. I'm adhering stricly to NPOV here. Jeremytrewindixon 04:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between widely known or widespread claim and verifiable claim. If the claim under consideration would be some aspect of the enneagram figure or its interpretation, it would be on topic and could be eventually verified. But if the widely known or widespread claim that Shah is a reputable Sufi teacher is proved to be unverifiable, as your own comments seem to suggest, then what he says about the enneagram is also suspect of unverifiability and subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Ernobe 04:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???!!! No one has claimed that "Shah is a reputable Sufi teacher". All that has been said is that he is a "populariser of Sufism" (true) and that he has made a claim (true) for the enneagram within Sufism so, frankly, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this matter. Nor has anyone asserted that Shah's claim itself is true - only that the claim is *verifiable*. A person doesn't need to be a "Sufi teacher" to make such a claim - as preferable as this might be. All sorts of people (scholars, for instance) are entitled - and do - make claims about ideas even when they are not members of groups that propose such ideas. Such claims may or may not be true but they are still 'verifiable' as claims. You really don't seem to understand what verifiablity means - and nothing in the article about Shah is against Wikipedia guidelines (quite the opposite). Ontologicos 11:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about Sufism, it is about the enneagram. The popularization of Sufism has nothing to do with the enneagram, unless it can be proved that Sufis use the enneagram. Ernobe 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ernobe, the aricle is about the enneagram. And people interested in the history of the enneagram will want to know of the existence of the widespread claim that it is of Sufi origin. Idries Shah has written many books on Sufism, and allowed the claim to be made on his behalf that he was a Naqshbandi sheikh (and has acted consistently with that claim), and was accepted as a genuine teacher by Gurdjieff's disciple and enneagram enthusiast J.G.Bennett (and by many others), and has also written at least one book on Renaisance magic. (I add the extra information, form personal experience, that his books are used as teaching material by at least one sheikh of the Mevlevi order.) Shah's books can be found in any general english-language bookshop. So the fact of his claim is in itself notable, even if bulldust.....especially since he is far from alone in making the claim. The truth or otherwise of the claim is far as I know not verified. Or disproven. Neither is the significance of the enneagram itself. Jeremytrewindixon 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable orignal research POV "Eight-pointed enneagram" of background interest[edit]

I encountered this version of the enneagram in witchcraft circles before Shah published his remarks about the "disguised" enneagram and found it of great interest. It resembles the "sigil of saturn" which can be found in the grimoires and has other points of interest relating it to cetain Chinese symbols..... Note that the numbers in sequence make an infinity symbol and of course the inner lines follows the same sequence as the more familiar enneagram. Jeremytrewindixon 04:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This seems relevant [4]:

23:6 · The enneagram, "nine-graph", a symbol denoting the essence of being in Cabbalistic mysticism. Through its womb-like form and the number nine it is associated with the conception and foetal development of new human beings.
With the circle closed this ideogram has been used as a symbol for the esoteric philosophy of Gurdieff. The sign is called Nokoonja by the Nakhsbandi Sufis from long ago.
Enneagram is also the name of the different structure 2720, used in Christian symbolism. Se that sign in Group 27 for more data.

I am looking for more info, but in the meantime I thought I'd post it here. --Chinawhitecotton 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great resource, eh. I was fascinated.....but I wish it was referenced! And its not infallible by any means; the articles on the pentacle for example are apparently unaware that it exempifies the Golden Section phi, a big part as I understand it of the symbols appeal and meaning....Jeremytrewindixon 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be nice if there were a reference. Google doesn't come up with any pages that don't seem to come from the symbols site/book, unfortunately, and I couldn't find any info on the enneagram as a "womb-like form"/connection to foetal development. --Chinawhitecotton 04:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check but I believe it was Robert de Ropp in The Master Game who said there was a complete description of the enneagram in Faust. I have found waht I believe he meant, an apparent nonsense verse in scene 6 "The Witches Kitchen", spoken by the witch who restoresd faust's youth with her potion. I don't read German so here give two modern english translations:

The first from Tony Kline (freely reproducible for non-commercial purposes) http://www.tonykline.co.uk/PITBR/German/FaustIScenesIVtoVI.htm

You shall see, then!
From one make ten!
Let two go again,
Make three even,
You’re rich again.
Take away four!
From five and six,
So says the Witch,
Make seven and eight,
So it’s full weight:
And nine is one,
And ten is none.
This is the Witch’s one-times-one!

And, from http://www.fullbooks.com/Faust-Part-13.html

This must thou ken:
Of one make ten,
Pass two, and then
Make square the three,
So rich thou'lt be.
Drop out the four!
From five and six,
Thus says the witch,
Make seven and eight.
So all is straight!
And nine is one,
And ten is none,
This is the witch's one-time-one!

In my view, this could well be taken to refer to a circle incribed with nine points, each point referring to the stage of a process. I wouldn't call it a "complete" description of course. The rhyme trnaslations of course tend to obscure the sense a bit, if anyone can read the German or has a prose transaltion of the passage that'd be good. 07:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Jeremy Dixon[reply]

Robert S de Ropp, I put in a stray full stop. Jeremytrewindixon 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...a cursory search tells me that these lines have been much commented on and there is theory out there in scholar-land that they refer to a version of the 3x3 magic square (which I have argued, google my 'Enneagram Notepage', is itself related to the eneagram). http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/notebooks/faust_notes.html I'm also reminded that Mephistopheles refers unambiguously to thhe law of three in the same scene. Still possible that I'll find soemthing referenceable that would relate the lines to octave mysticism, "the law of seven", or directly to the enenagram. The histroy section, btw imo, should be fleshed out with an overview of octave mysticism; which is certainly part oft he hsitory of the enneagram whatever may be the origin of the actual sign. Jeremytrewindixon 02
17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In German: Du mußt versteh'n, / Aus Eins mach Zehn. / Die Zwei lass geh'n. / Die Drei mach gleich,/ So bist du reich. / Verlier die Vier! / Aus Fünf und Sechs,/So sagt die Hex, / Mach Sieben und Acht, / So ist's vollbracht: / Und Neun ist Eins, / Und Zehn ist keins. / Das ist das Hexen-Einmaleins!

Jeremytrewindixon 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article in German wikipedia purports to explain it all. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexeneinmaleins Sadly I don't read German! Jeremytrewindixon 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All the occult stuff is now in a separate article. - (), 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I restored the link to Fourth Way Enneagram. Most people who come to this site will either be looking for that of the personality enneagram. the matter would have been better handled with a disambiguation page. Jeremy (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this called a nonagon?[edit]

I'm a little confused here. Last I checked, a nine-sided polygon was a nonagon, not an 'enneagram'. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, a regular Nonagon is a nine-pointed always-convex polygon, not a self-intersecting star polygon.... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just never seen ennea in a geometric context, and there seems to have been some confusion when the article was written, where people didn't realize that an N-gon isn't an N-gram. It really throws me off to see non-standard naming. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The Enneagram article started off about Gurdjieff and others' use of what they called the enneagram; then someone added the pseudo-maths; and finally someone decided to move the original material to another article. Hence, we're left with just the geometry, which is a repeat of the material in nonagon. :D Esowteric+Talk 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Some of the material is not in nonagram and it may be desirable to merge this. Esowteric+Talk 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ditch the geometry material here that is already in nonagon and replace it with Fourth Way Enneagram, with a redirect here from that article?, merge material from here that is worth keeping into nonagon, and create a disambiguation page here? Esowteric+Talk 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

See the above comments.

*Much of the material in this article is now duplicated in Nonagon, so how's about we merge some into nonagon and lose the rest?

  • Move in the material on Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way's use of enneagram, which was the original substance of this article, from Fourth Way Enneagram.
  • Redirect from Fourth Way Enneagram to here.
  • Add a page top link to Nonagon for the geometric object.

Just a suggestion, Esowteric.

More simply

  • Merge some content here into Nonagon.
  • Use Enneagram as a disambiguation page. Esowteric+Talk 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did something similar. Enneagram now points to Nonagon, nonagon mentions that this may be what people were looking for. This and the personality page have been redone. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm not sure that was the best solution. If you look at google books, all of the first fifty book hits for "enneagram" are books on psychological types, counseling, esoterica or self-help books. So the average user who's entered "enneagram" as their search term is probably going to be misdirected if we send them to nonagon. Note that we also have Enneagram of personality; I think that's probably the most common use of the word. I'd be in favour of either making a disambiguation page, or having Enneagram redirect to Enneagram of personality, simply because that seems to be the most common usage. JN466 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at google, you've got it in one. The vast majority would expect to find something about the enneagram of personality; the others (eg those who're into Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Fourth Way or Idries Shah) might expect to come across the Fourth Way enneagram. It's really little to do with nonagon. I think the "gram" on the end is used to suggest it's a diagram depicting certain things, rather than a geometric shape.
Whichever way it's done, there needs to be easy disambiguation of enneagram as used by the mystic G. I. Gurdjieff and Fourth Way followers; enneagram of personality, relating to personality types (which they also often simply refer to simply as "the enneagram"), and nonagram, a nine-sided or nine-pointed geometric figure. Esowteric+Talk 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have tentatively changed Enneagram from a redirect to Nonagon to a disambiguation page, as a temporary stop-gap, if nothing else. I really don't think that nonagon deserves more than a disambiguation link: very, very minor usage. Esowteric+Talk 07:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2009[edit]

Irbisgreif, I notice that you've taken out all the material explaining the application of the enneagram in the Fourth Way, (see Fourth Way Enneagram edit diff). Yes, there were no citations, but I think you are wrong to dismiss beliefs held in a school of mysticism as what you choose to label "pseudoscience". If citations can be found, then this material deserves just as much right to exist here as many other beliefs that others hold, one being the belief that this is pseudoscience. Esowteric+Talk 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to talk to you of "earth, water, air and fire", for example, you might dismiss this as pseudoscience, based on an unfamiliarity with the subject and an assumption that I believe that these are the elements which make up the world, when in actual fact I might simply find this a useful means by which symbolism might explain certain psychological processes and stages of development. And I could probably give you a reference to the works of the thinker, writer and Sufi teacher Idries Shah :) Esowteric+Talk 09:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main complaint was that it was being presented as some kind of fact. If you can find citations, feel free to work the information back in, as appropriate. But I think it's best to keep it presented as "X thinks Y" or "The X group views Y as Z", rather than the tone it previously had. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion on User talk:Professor Fiendish[edit]

I have actually seen Enneagram being used, though I don't remember where. But I agree that in this context nonagram is more common. Perhaps the disambig should be kept and the geometrical material moved to nonagram. In fact, that's what I'm going to do now. --Professor Fiendish (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait a minute, I forgot that I can't move pages yet. Oh well. I'll have to ask someone else to do it then. --Professor Fiendish (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I failed to strike through my earlier thoughts on the matter. I started off thinking the material in Enneagram was all covered in Nonagon, then only vaguely mentioned that some might not be. I just felt that a disambiguation page was better than a redirect to nonagon which would leave Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram of Personality out in the cold, especially when 99% of folk would be looking for those articles when searching for 'enneagram'. The link to nonogon from enneagram is a bit of a red herring, imo (but worth a disambiguation link for the 1%). Many apologies again. Esowteric+Talk 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have struck through earlier, superceded thoughts. Esowteric+Talk 13:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, just realized I didn't read you quite right. I've reverted to where we were a short while back. I'm ok with a move to Nonagram and disambiguate Enneagram as you suggest. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 13:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my fault, really, I should have been more cautious with the mathematical information. I know better. Thanks for coming along, Professor Fiendish. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone fancy making the move: it's one of the things I haven't tried yet and don't want to make a bad hair day any worse :) Esowteric+Talk 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the rescue, Irbisgreif. I've gone back to Prof's version of Nonagon minus the stars and added a See also to Nonagram. Esowteric+Talk 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I propose moving Enneagram (disambiguation) to Enneagram. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical prefix "ennea"[edit]

When this article says that the word Enneagram combines the numerical prefix "ennea" and the suffix gram, should it not say that "ennea" means " nine"? Vorbee (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]