TRIADS
Translated by Albedo

Just a quick note: “Triads” is a chapter from the book Ensayos sobre psicología de los Eneatipos, where Claudio Naranjo explores various dynamics and classifications among the Enneatypes, aiming to enrich and strengthen the theoretical framework. Also, a big thanks to Adder for helping me review this chapter. If you still find any unnoticed mistakes or have questions about what the text is trying to say, please feel free to contact me on Discord (@secorta) or mention me on The Velvet Room. Without further ado, enjoy the reading.

ON THE IMPLICIT TRINITY IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ENNEATYPES

As a preliminary to the question presented in the title of this essay, I would like to say something about the different trinities that have been proposed by various spiritual traditions. For example, the Hindu Samkhya school proposes that everything that exists is woven from three principles (gunas): one of inertia (tamas), another corresponding to energy (rajas), and a third described as a principle of balance and purity (sattva). Also in India, in the syncretism that developed from the meeting of different forms of devotion whose origins go back to ancient times, three main gods were recognized as constituting the so-called Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva), associated with a Creative Principle, a Principle of Preservation or Protection of what has been created, and a Principle of Destruction, necessary for change or transformation and implicit in becoming.

The gunas are found again in the three fluids spoken of in Ayurvedic medicine, which are also related to the elements of fire, air, and water; they are also present in Tibetan medical philosophy, where they are referred to as substance, energy, and structure. All three are anatomically recognizable and are reflected, by analogy, in the triad of the belly, chest, and head, and also in the three parts of our limbs — such as the thigh, leg, and foot; in the three phalanges of each finger, where the proximal is more substantial, more material, the middle is more related to the energy of movement, and the most distant is more connected to perception.

How are these triplicities from Hindu culture recognized in relation to the three persons of the Christian Trinity, in which the divine is seen in the forms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? To explain this, we would need to clarify the relationships within the Christian Trinity, and I believe that neither the explanations of Saint Augustine nor those of Saint Thomas are sufficient for that — nor even what Saint Ignatius described as the central vision of his mystical life. Therefore, it is fitting to say that, for the Christian community, the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be explained conceptually, although the words of the mystics may be considered allusions to that ineffable understanding, accessible only in the form of mystical experience.

Personally, I think that the most original Christian philosopher may have been Raimon Panikkar, who related the Divine Persons to the inseparability of God, Man, and the Cosmos, and who also established an analogy between the Three Divine Persons and the three grammatical persons: the third person corresponding to the language of objectivity, the second person to personal relationships and the language of art, and the first person — the most intimate one — being the proper domain of mystical experience. In addition to what Panikkar calls “belief in a second-hand god,” it is interesting to consider the view of Leonardo Boff and other theologians from the Liberation Theology movement, who see in the Holy Spirit — associated with love (just as the Father has been associated with power and the Son with knowledge or the logos) — a masculinized transformation of the divine mother, or as they put it, of “the maternal face of God.”

Still, I believe it is relatively futile — and I suspect, disheartening — to seek a full understanding of the Christian Trinity in the writings of theologians, and that it is more realistic to think that the Trinity entered Christianity (like the capital sins) through the esotericism of the Hellenistic tradition, with Babylonian and Egyptian roots. It seems that this incorporation coincided with a time when Saint Paul’s heavily patriarchal form of Christianity did not allow women into churches; moreover, the time was more characterized by an interest in holiness than in philosophical ideas. It was only after contact with Greek culture that interest in the conceptual translation of experience began to appear in the Christian world, as well as the correspondence established between Christ and the Neoplatonic logos.

If we now turn from the Trinity of the Catholic Church to that of Gurdjieff — who claimed to be the representative of a mysterious form of Eastern, pre-Christian religion — we again find something very similar to the Indian gunas: three abstract principles, rather than personifications — a “sacred affirming force,” a “sacred denying force,” and a “reconciling or neutralizing force,” which implies that, unlike Hegelian dialectics (according to which the clash between thesis and antithesis is enough to produce a synthesis), it requires the mediation of a third term — a sort of neutral space where these opposites can meet.

If we consider that it is the human mind that provides this neutral space — or synthesis — through its faculty of detachment, we can also associate this triad with that of Taoism, according to which the human being is a Child of Heaven and Earth.

In Buddhism, we find various triads, including the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), the three poisons (attachment, aversion, and ignorance), and, most notably, the three bodies of one who has attained full enlightenment — which, like the Trinity, are a mystery that cannot be understood through intellectual explanation, but which can nevertheless be directly known by those who have reached the appropriate level of development. The kaya is the deepest reality underlying the visible world; the three kaya (Trikaya is the Buddha's doctrine of the three bodies) are the Dharmakaya, or body of truth — which corresponds to the invisible or empty substratum of mental phenomena, including perceptions of the physical world — the Nirmanakaya, or transformed physical body (which corresponds to a physical incarnation or spiritual experience), and the Sambhogakaya, also called the “body of reward,” which is the ecstatic realm of visionary experience.

But how can we hope to understand the many trinitarian explanations of spiritual reality — which claim to point to the spiritual root of all that exists — without considering that all of them originated as projections of the tripartite structure of the human mind? Through a careful study of the evolution of the nervous system, neuroscientist Paul MacLean argued that the human brain comprises an archaic area inherited from reptiles (which consists mainly of an instinctive brain), a midbrain inherited from mammals (from which we also inherit our capacity to form maternal and empathic bonds), and a properly human brain (the neocortex), which is predominantly associated with thought. Although it has later been argued that it is inaccurate to say that our archaic brain or our midbrain remained unchanged throughout evolution, it is still quite legitimate to think of ourselves as beings with three brains — as Gurdjieff did a century ago.

And I believe we should not let the academic scientific debates distract us from the fact that our brain comprises three fundamental areas predominantly associated with the instinctive domain, the affective domain, and cognition — the three fundamental divisions of psychology. We can even say that the structure of a human being is tripartite before the neural tube differentiates in the embryo, because long before that, the embryo is already made up of three layers: the endoderm, the ectoderm, and the mesoderm. From the innermost layer, the digestive system develops; from the outermost layer, the skin and nervous system (our connection to the external world); and from the middle layer, the muscles, locomotor system, heart, and genetic tissue develop.

The correspondence between these primitive embryonic layers and our mind was clearly appreciated when W.H. Sheldon conducted his studies on the human psyche. Sheldon studied the correlation between body and temperament, showing that elongated ectomorphs are more “cerebrotonic” (that is, cognitive and introverted), while rounded endomorphs are more “viscerotonic” (emotional and extroverted), and the mesomorphic body type corresponds to the “somatotonic” temperament (athletic and active). Thus, we can say that the relative development of these parts of our brains is reflected in the relative prominence of three parts of our body — and even our language reflects this when we say someone speaks “from the head,” “from the bottom of the heart,” or “from the gut.”

We can say, then, that the three principles manifest in our physical structure, and that in the anatomy of our brain, they correspond to thought, feeling, and action.

Tótila Albert, whom I consider myself a spiritual son of, preferred to conceive of the experiential correlate of these parts of our brains as three internal persons: three intrapsychic sub-beings he called father, mother, and child — not only because it is more appropriate to consider the core of our being as something more personal than “brains” or “faculties,” but also because the violent domination of the father over the mother and children in the patriarchal world perfectly corresponds to the repressive and devaluing intrapsychic domination of an authoritarian “inner father,” which has caused us to develop as anti-innocent beings with an underdeveloped capacity to love — a condition that I have, in turn, proposed to call the patriarchal mind.

How, then, should we name the points of the central triangle of the Enneagram — should we refer to them according to the psychological faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting, or in relation to the personification of father, mother, and child, which are quite close to the Christian Trinity? In what follows, I intend to explore both alternatives.

I.

The words head, heart, and gut, identified from the very beginning of Enneagram culture, were introduced through my initiative, although they echo those used by Oscar Ichazo to divide personalities into three groups of three, according to the three vertices of the central triangle. He called them the doing group, living group, and being group, and it was generally assumed that he was referring to the active types, the emotional types, and those more endowed with the perception of their own existence. However, based on my conversations with Ichazo, I concluded that this is not what he meant — but rather the opposite: those on the left corner were the ones who had trouble with action due to fear; those on the right corner were the ones who had many problems with life as a result of self-masking; and those at the top of the Enneagram were the ones who had the greatest difficulty in sensing their own being and therefore identified more with their body.

The fact that the terms head, heart, and gut have been universally accepted is already an argument for their adequacy, but we need to better understand how the spectrum of the nine personality types arises from the central triad. The answer is simple and is explained in the diagram below, in which three intellectual types, three emotional types, and three action types are distinguished according to the combination of a primary function with a secondary function.

Thus, starting from the top vertex, E9 is an Action–Emotion type, in contrast with E8, which is Action–Action, and E1, which is clearly Action–Intellect. On the right vertex, we find the emotional types, of which we can say that E3 is Emotion–Action (where the capacity to control emotion conceals the fact that it is emotional, and is masked), while E2 is Emotion–Emotion and E4 is Emotion–Intellect. On the left vertex, E6 is Intellect–Action, E7 is Intellect–Emotion (with some degree of resemblance to E2), and E5 is Intellect–Intellect.

The subtypes can also be distinguished in the same way — by adding formulas and indications already established in relation to the relative predominance of one of the three functions. For example, Self-Preserving E6 receives an Emotion point (IAE), Social E6 an Intellect point (IAI), and Sexual E6 an Action point (IAA).

FROM THINKING–FEELING–WILLING TO THE IDEA OF THREE INNER PERSONS

I now return to the question of an alternative to the psychic functions (cognitive, emotional, and instinctual) as the fundamental triad of the character Enneagram. Could the language of the three inner persons, which may be conceived as the experiential aspect of the three brains, suggest something new to us?

To explore this, we should begin by establishing the equivalence of Intellect (I) with the Paternal (P), Emotion (E) with the Maternal (M), and Action (A) with the Filial (F), and then examine what the generation of the nine human types tells us when seen through these three alternative roots. Does what results from this transposition make sense, or bring something new to our understanding of the nine basic personalities? Let’s take a look: does it make sense to say that E9 (Action–Emotion) is Filial–Maternal, that E8 is Filial–Filial, and that E1 is Filial–Paternal?

I’ll begin the analysis with E8. Until now, I’ve presented it as Action–Action, and it seems to me that, when we alternatively call it Filial–Filial, it indeed draws our attention to something new, as we usually think of this very strong and masculine character of the Enneagram (even in the case of women) more as an adult or a father than as a child.

The idea that an E8 is, at heart, a child reminds me of a debate I once had with Count Arnold Keyserling, a Viennese philosopher who was, at the time, president of the European Association for Humanistic Psychology. We were at a session of the annual congress in Geneva, and he said some critical things about my ideas that made me feel like a child. But as we were leaving, a well-known Scandinavian therapist said to me, “Keyserling is like a child; you’re the adult.” It hadn’t occurred to me to see him that way, precisely because of his implicitly intimidating nature — but today I would say that the strength of the E8 is that of a child who responds aggressively to the father and ends up usurping his place of power.

Let’s turn to E9: what does describing it as a Filial–Maternal character bring us? Once again, I think this new description is revealing, because E9’s character often seems more Maternal than Filial, in its selfless attention to the desires of others. But here too, the description that emphasizes the fact that we are dealing with a childlike character aligns with our understanding of this personality as that of a child with such little hope of being loved that they find no better solution than to collaborate with the needs of their mother, to the point of fusing symbiotically with her. Although E9 may appear maternal, it is, in fact, a pseudo-maternal character, adopted by a child who renounces childhood in order to prematurely take on the duties of the grown-ups.

In the case of E1, to consider it as a Filial–Paternal character implies a similarly shifted perspective from our usual perception, in which this is not only a paternal character, but a paternalistic one. The Filial–Paternal formula invites us to see it as a burdened child who had no choice but to become like the father in order to meet the repressive and dutiful demands that, in reality, didn’t belong to them as a child. The situation of E1 is therefore symmetrical to that of E9: in one case, the child must identify with the mother; in the other, with the father.

Translator's Note: Although “paternal” and “paternalistic” are similar words, there is an important distinction. “Paternal” simply refers to the role or figure of a father, whereas “paternalistic” implies an attitude of excessive control or protection, often limiting the other’s autonomy, like a father who makes all decisions for his child without consulting them. The sentence draws this distinction to show that the E1 is not merely a “fatherly” figure, but rather someone with a tendency to take on a dominant, controlling or overly protective role.

Let’s move on to the next triad, to the right of the Enneagram, and begin with E2, which until now we have understood as the most emotional type and will now consider the most maternal of the enneatypes — the Maternal–Maternal character. This formula is also revealing, because we often think of E2 as an eminently erotic character. Personally, I’ve hesitated between two relatively valid perspectives on this type: one, to consider it predominantly erotic, interpreting its empathic disposition as a form of seduction; the other, to view it as a fundamentally empathic character that, by virtue of its nurturing disposition, supports the erotic (and childish) both in itself and in others. The present formulation resolves this doubt.

The character of E3, previously described as Emotion–Action, is now presented as Maternal–Filial — and this is perfectly consistent with the fact that E3 is oriented toward pleasing others, whom they want to satisfy and win over. And how do they do this? Not only in a very active way, but also in a childlike way — like a child who delights the parents. They give like a mother, but also please like a child. In short, they please as both mother and child, with generosity and delight.

E4, Emotion–Intellect, becomes a Maternal–Paternal character — this is reflected in the fact that it is primarily a feminine character, but one in which feminine values are in conflict with dominant masculine values. It is the character of submissive women, or women who endure subjugation stoically, or who rebel furiously — but still feel contempt for themselves, despite their competitive pride.

Moving to the third triad, I begin with E5, in whom the formula of Intellect–Intellect becomes Paternal–Paternal. It’s surprising to discover that this character — so childlike in fragility and relative helplessness — now appears as the most “paternal”! How can we interpret that? One clue is the fact that Asperger’s syndrome or autism (which can be seen as an extreme complication of E5) has been identified as a form of hypermasculinity. And we can consider this confirmed by the fact that not only is empathy absent in this character, but so is joy, playfulness, and instinctual freedom. In short: it is a very repressed character, in which only the “thinking self” seems to live — and in which this “thinking self” exerts a great invisible repressive power, analogous to the repressive power of political and ecclesiastical authority figures. Paradoxically, then, the impotence of the E5 is a submission to the power of the “absolute” or systemic father — something like the spirit of social norms.

E6, previously described as Intellect–Action, is now presented as a situation in which first the father and then the child dominate: in fact, the psychology of E6 is that of a Paternal–Filial relationship, where the child obeys (though sometimes rebels or seduces) so as not to lose what little love they get from a critical father.

Finally, we arrive at E7, originally proposed as Intellect–Emotion, which now appears to us as a character where the paternal is followed by the maternal. Indeed, E7 appears far more frequently among men — but these are men who enjoy maternal sweetness and are also kind, empathetic, and generous. The masculine or paternal aspect is more visibly expressed in them than in the other characters of this triad (E5 and E6), whom we would describe as more oppressed and childlike. E7s know better what they want and how to get it, and — no matter how gentle they may seem — they tend to be exploitative, opportunistic, or dominating.

I end this analysis with the sense that the question I posed about the value or usefulness of the tripersonal language has been answered — and that it requires no further explanation beyond that contained in the analysis itself. But not only can the enneatypes be conceptually derived from the three psychic functions or the three subpersonalities that constitute our “inner family,” they can also be derived from the relational vectors proposed by Karen Horney, as will be seen in the next chapter. Later, I will also propose an alternative way of analyzing the characters as expressions of three inner persons — one that provides a clearer perspective, avoiding the ambiguities caused by a patriarchal distortion.

The inner personas according to psychic functions. In this figure, the categories Intellect (I) are replaced by Paternal (P), Emotion (E) by Maternal (M), and Action (A) by Filial (F), according to a primary and a secondary function. Thus, we can see, for example, how E8, although seeming to be a “great father,” often actually behaves as a “usurping child.”

THE CHARACTERS IN LIGHT OF HORNEY’S THREE RELATIONAL VECTORS

Since the beginning of my attempts to detail the characters (which, in summary, I call “enneatypes” to avoid specifying them as “ego types according to the Enneagram”), I was aware that the so-called E2 is a striking example of “Compliant” (that is, addressing conflict situations through flattery and concession). Likewise, it was obvious that the E8 character is an example of a striking strategy of “Aggressive”: problems are solved by crushing the other, threatening or attacking the other, and asserting oneself. The third alternative, “Detached” the other or “moving away” (which generally involves conflict between the other two alternatives, so that nothing remains but to withdraw when one can neither move forward nor move against, considering the fact that both movements are mutually exclusive and incompatible) is mainly represented by E5, because among all the characters the schizoid is the most typical case of withdrawal from relationships and the world. Thinking about the prominence of these three alternative relational tendencies particularized by Karen Horney, it seemed to me that the nine characters as a whole could be explained by reference to these tendencies, but I never tried to develop the issue fully nor presented to the public a complete explanation of how these three basic characteristics can be found in the nine highly differentiated characters of protoanalysis.

Therefore, I will first start by clarifying what the correspondences would be. I will begin by highlighting that the sequence 2, 8, 5 is perfectly symmetrical to 7, 1, 4 in the enneagram. And we have an affinity present in the successive members of each triad with the corresponding members of the other triad. There is a certain similarity between 8 and 1 in that both are resolute characters. In fact, the Vigorous (E1) and the Choleric (E8) are variations of what Karen Horney calls the “dominant solution,” and we can recognize both traits in the “perfectionist” and “vindictive” varieties she distinguishes as forms of this dominant solution. Similarly, there is an analogy between types 2 and 7, since both are seducers. The difference is that E2 shows more affection in seduction, while E7 is more intellectual in the use of its resources, at least comparatively, and so its seduction could be more properly called persuasive rather than seductive. Although it is a type of friendly and understanding person, it is more of an intellectual seduction. There really is a lot of similarity between E2 and E7 when trying to describe them in words, and I found it difficult to design a clinical questionnaire. When you look at them, you see that they are two different types of people, but when you want to describe them in terms of what they would answer yes or no to, practically everything you can say about one applies to the other. Of course, E7 is a “Compliant” character, like E2.

Finally, the third member of the new triad under construction — corresponding to E5 in the symmetrical triad — is E4. We could say that E4 is more “Detached” compared to the resolute E1 and the seductive E7. One could say that E4 is more introspective, more protective of their inner life. That is why many are artists, writers, and creative people. Much more could be said about whether E4 is or is not distant, but first I will talk about the third triad of the nine, which is the one located in the central triangle of the Enneagram. In that central triangle is E3, which would correspond to the “dominant solution” and "Aggressive" of Horney. E3 feels good about themselves, is brilliant and competitive, and corresponds to what Horney called the “narcissist” (which is not what everyone calls narcissist nowadays, as there are many narcissisms in the psychology babel tower). If E3 is considered by Horney as a form of expression of the dominance solution corresponding to “moving against”, — Aggressive — then where would withdrawing in the triangle be — at point 9 or point 6? I would say it corresponds to point 6, very introverted (even in the counterphobic variety). However, E9 is very adaptable, excessive in its self-denial, and resigned in its attention to others’ needs, which implies “moving toward” — Compliant.

We have thus seen three characters of each type, and we can ask whether these three could be described more accurately according to the combination of their primary characteristic with a secondary one.

Let’s first consider the three “moving toward” characters: E2, E7, and E9. I have the impression that among them, E2 is the most Compliant — and thus the most seductive —, while E7 is Aggressive moving toward–moving against (which, although superficially seductive, is secretly antagonistic and rebellious); while E9 is moving toward–moving away — Detached —, divided (and paralyzed) by the conflict between bending to others and withdrawing.

A similar analysis can be carried out on the more aggressive characters, and thus we find that E8 is Aggressive–Aggressive, E1 Aggressive–Detached, and E3 Aggressive–Compliant toward, firm and loose, competitive but friendly.

Similarly, we could differentiate the Distant characters and say that:

E5 is a case of Detached–Detached
E4 is a case of Detached–Compliant
E6 is a case of Detached–Aggressive

Thus, each character can be described by a specific formula combining Horney’s relational vectors, but we can also go further, estimating that the subtypes are very different when considered in terms of these categories.

For example, if we consider E6, there is no doubt that Counterphobic E6 is someone who, compared to other fear-based characters, goes “Aggressive,” being a threatening person who quickly adopts positions of authority. This involves adopting the dominance solution, very similar to that of an E3; but this cannot be generalized to all E6s, as Phobic E6 is someone who, feeling insecure, tries to calm the other by moving toward them and their interests. This is the type of person to whom Freud’s observation that friendship is a “grouping before a common enemy” applies most characteristically.

On the other hand, the Social subtype, which is largely focused on rules, neither goes against nor toward others, as this is related to an abstract, internalized authority, which allows the person to be Detached. And even in the case of the Self-Preservation subtype, which can be very distant, as the word “phobic” implies, it is the most seductive and appeasing of the three, while Social E6 is comparatively more resolute, so distancing is not softened by the desire to make friends that makes Self-Preservation E6 so talkative and warm — Compliant. In contrast, Social E6s are more fanatical in their orientation toward ideals.

What I said about E6 can also be said, it seems to me, about the subtypes corresponding to each of the passions and, although I have never done this analysis before, I will examine the question next.

I will start with E9, at the top. When I consider the three subtypes of E9, it seems to me that Social E9 is the most sociable and affable (moving toward), while Sexual E9 is the most withdrawn and shy, and Self-Preservation E9 is the most inclined to express anger.

As for E3, the Social subtype, the brightest and most talkative, is also the most competitive — which implies moving against — while generous and affectionate Self-Preservation E3 could be considered the most “moving toward” in its orientation, and Sexual E3, despite its seduction, the most withdrawn and hidden (moving away).

In the case of E1, “moving against” is obviously a characteristic of the vehement Sexual E1 openly choleric, while Social E1 is the most Detached (moving away) (and has much in common with E5, in which withdrawal and control are also very characteristic), while Self-Preservation E1 “moves toward” with its flattery, protection, and warmth (even if these traits constitute a compensation through reactive formation of a preconscious feeling of anger).

In E8, which in general can be characterized by a contrary attitude, Social E8 is the least antisocial, as it gains power through alliances and not harassment, as in the Self-Preservation subtype, and undoubtedly there is more expansiveness in that cordiality. In comparison, Sexual E8 is the most antagonistic and most inclined to be openly antisocial, very Aggressive oriented, while Self-Preservation E8, despite the selfishness of its pursuit of personal satisfaction, seems to me to involve more of a moving away movement, which makes it somewhat “cynical.”

Now let us consider the subtypes of E2, which I defined as moving toward. I would say that Social E2 is the most potent and antagonistic (as in the classic illustration of Napoleon, for example, whose ambition made him work to become superior to everyone), while Sexual E2, who is content to be the most important person for the chosen other, is moving toward, and in our childlike Self-Preservation E2, despite its emotional outbursts, there is more Detached — something that makes it somewhat E4-like — less daring than the sexual and more fearful because of its desire for protection.

Now let us consider the type that is on the opposite end of where the E2 lies, the E7, which I defined as a seductive or moving toward type. Which is the most antagonistic (moving against) 7? Undoubtedly, Self-Preservation E7, which is also the most similar to E8, with its rudeness, its use of vulgar language, greater self-interest, profit orientation, and mischief — Aggressive. Although it is the most prone to oppose others, I would say Sexual E7 is the most impulsive and moving toward extrovert, despite the low credibility of its generosity — Compliant; while Social E7, on the other hand, seems to be the most Detached (moving away) in its pursuit of goodness through the sacrifice of gluttony.

In the case of E5, it seems that Self-Preservation E5 is the most withdrawn, although despite its shyness, it is kinder, more protective, and cooperative (moving toward — Compliant), while Sexual E5, Aggressive, is the most inclined to opposition to the current (since, although all E5s are withdrawn, in the sexual subtype there is something like anti-withdrawal, comparable to the gesture of a Counterphobic E6, which makes it somewhat like an E8). This leaves Social E5 as the most Detached (moving away), which may not be apparent, as it is something masked by its desire to be someone to others, but insofar as it is a misanthrope, detached from the world, and without empathy.

In E4, it is not subtle, but it is very marked in Sexual E4, which is Aggressive (moving against) (and could be considered an E8 because of the extent of its opposition). Social E4 is more Detached and shy (moving away), while Self-Preservation E4 is more moving toward in relation to others — Compliant —, being a demanding and masochistic person who does their best to do whatever it takes to feel loved. In this case, we can talk about a type of seduction that manifests as a selfless capacity to endure.

Translator’s Note: During the explanation of this dichotomy, Social E4 is classified as “Lejo”, portrayed as a shy and withdrawn subtype, meaning it is a Detached type; while Self-Preservation E4 is labeled as a Moving Toward type because it is oriented toward relationships with others, Compliant, through demanding and masochistic attitudes. However, for some reason, in the image containing the table in the original book — Ensayos sobre psicología de los Eneatipos — which shows the classifications of all subtypes, Social E4 is marked as "H", Hacia (Compliant), and Self-Preservation E4 as "L", Lejo (Detached).
After reviewing this, I decided to follow what was written in Naranjo’s explanations and concluded that this is a small error in the book’s table. Social E4 is a Detached type, while its Self-Preservation E4 is a Compliant type.

THE THREE PSYCHIC INSTANCES OF PSYCHOANALYSIS IN THE ENNEAGRAM

"Psychic instances" is the term Freud gave to the three provinces he came to recognize in his cartography of the mind: the Ego, the Superego, and the Id. The idea of describing character in terms of the predominance of one or another of these psychic instances had already been formulated by Freud and is obvious to those familiar with human types, even before undertaking a systematic analysis. It is clear that there are characters typically Superegoic (such as the perfectionist E1), impulsive and driven by the Id, and others who, rather than being impulsive or compulsive, seem quite controlled, as is typical of E3.

Before embarking on a more detailed analysis, it is easy to imagine that not only can each type be described by the predominance of one of the psychic instances, but also in terms of the aspect of the mind that is less present. Let us then proceed to a careful analysis of each personality style.

I begin with the inner triad. Let us now look at the personality type that, in this central triangle, is associated with the predominance of the Ego. This will be a personality in which the forces of the Superego are more or less balanced with those of the Id, but in which the most striking characteristic is the capacity for control. These are the characteristics of E3, who, on the one hand, faithfully adapts to the ethical demands or social expectations of the environment and, on the other hand, can explosively manifest their own needs when these become severely neglected, as was formerly described in relation to the hysteric; the very vanity that characterizes this personality can be described as a form of indulgence toward the childish, impulsive, attention-seeking part.

What is most characteristic of E3, however, is self-control, whether at the level of behavior or emotional life. If it is true that the great triads of psychology are evenly distributed in the Enneagram, it is logical to suppose that the predominance of the Superego, Ego, and Id is represented in the central triangle. This logically leads us to expect that the character at the apex of the Enneagram is the one in which the Id predominates. But this does not seem to be the case with E9, where we see an inhibited character in which impulses tend to be unknown due to excessive adaptation to the environment.

Nevertheless, even if this is the pathological tendency of the character, structurally one can recognize in it something primitive and visceral: the simplicity of a Sancho Panza, with predominant attention to survival and the concrete, suggests the predominance of impulses rather than ideals; and, on the other hand, the relaxed and passive attitude of this type of person does not correspond to the predominance of the Ego, which is the integrating and synthesizing instance of the psyche. It seems to me that the dissonance between the theory — which leads us to expect the predominance of the Id in E9 — and the reality of the monotonous, sour, or resigned character will be understood once we consider that E9 is a structurally instinctive character who, in our patriarchal society, must necessarily be domesticated, which causes the instinctive to become active or motor — like a bull who, after castration, becomes an ox that is put to pull a cart.

Translator’s Note: Sancho Panza is a character from Don Quixote, known for his practicality and down-to-earth nature, in contrast to Don Quixote’s idealism.

E6, naturally, is a Superegoic type characterized by distrust and criticism, both of self and others, with associated fear and paranoid attitude.

Let us now look at the inner sequence triad 2-8-5, which we have already distinguished in the functions and relational vectors of Horney. It seems easy to identify in this triad the predominance of the Id in E8 and the predominance of the Superego in E5, which leads us to think that E2 is the one dominated by the Ego — and this may surprise us, since we might expect E2 to be the most erotic of the characters. But according to the surprising perspective resulting from this analysis, which shows E8 as the most instinctive in this triad, E2 moves from a seduction in the service of the search for love (that is, from an egoic strategy), not from instinct.

       Author’s Note: The apparent instinctive spontaneity of E2 can be understood as the result of the predominance of maternal values and indulgence toward the “inner child” (as well as a lesser internalization of patriarchal values) in this personality type.

I think it is unnecessary to explain in more detail that E5 is a superegoic character, since it is a personality type that is very inhibited, in which Superego oppression is aggravated by a compensatory rebellion that we could define as antisocial.

Let us now turn to the symmetrical triad 7-1-4. There is no doubt that the superegoic reaches its apex in E1, with its perfectionism, while E7 is the most instinctive of these three enneatypes, with its passion for pleasure and strong avoidance of pain. E4, according to the analysis of this triad, presents itself as the most controlling Ego character, which does not surprise us in the Self-Preservation subtype or even the Social subtype, but rather in the passionate and intense Sexual subtype.

The present analysis, however, leads me to think that this is a fabricated egoic intensity rather than a true instinctive intensity. In other words, E4 would be a person who venerates the instinctive but does not enjoy true freedom or spontaneity; and in light of this view, we would say that the sadomasochism of the famous Marquis — which may have impressed us as great freedom — constitutes a gesture of liberation by someone who, envying the instinctive freedom that their own Higher Self condemns, emulates, and falsifies.

A comment that comes to mind in the overall view of what has been formulated is the coincidence of egoic types with emotional characters (E2, E3, and E4). It seems to me that this complements the fact that the superegoic seems necessarily linked to the intellect, and that the Ego seems intrinsically instinctive — and, by association, active. The Ego would correspondingly be linked to the emotional aspect of our personality, even though when we think of the Ego, this part of ourselves seems more a thirst of love than true love. And the same happens in the field of individual or collective neurosis.

If the Superego is the father (as Eric Berne makes explicit in his transactional analysis) and the Id is the son (generally crushed), we must think that the Ego corresponds to the mother, only that in the patriarchal world this is a mother who systematically betrays the son because of her situation of dependence and service to the father.

This time I will not enter into a detailed examination of the subtypes, but it seems to me, as in previous analyses, that they can also be differentiated according to the psychic instances.

Let us see, for example, E6: The Sexual or Counterphobic E6 is highly superegoic, while Social E6 could be considered egoic, because despite a strong sense of duty, they feel more like a winner than a defendant; Self-Preservation E6 reveals itself as more "instinctive" due to the problematic presence of their desires and anger, which contradict their will to be "good".

In E3, on the other hand, the most instinctive is Social E3 (also the most selfish), the most Superegoic is Sexual E3 (guilty and depressed), and the most Egoic is Self-Preservation E3.

In short, the Freudian instances also help us understand and identify the characters, although somewhat less obviously than in the case of the previous categories; but the analysis also suggests that they are simply alternative concepts to the three inner persons to which I will return in the next essay.

Table of the Three Psychic Instances of Psychoanalysis (Ego, Superego, and Id)

The enneatypes according to Freud’s psychic instances: Ego, Superego, and Id.

THE THREE LOVES AND THE THREE PERSONS IN THE ENNEAGRAM OF PERSONALITY

I proposed that our three-brain mind involves a contraposition of three inner persons, each displaying a specific type of love: the father’s love is Admiration or appreciation; the mother’s is empathetic, caring, and Compassionate; and filial love revolves around pleasure and instinctive satisfaction (Erotic). However, if we continue to understand the internal personal structure of the types based on the functions of thinking, feeling, and loving, we will not find congruence between this structure and the expected forms of love, because an intellectual type is not always particularly admiring, nor an emotional type necessarily particularly compassionate.

However, if we want to understand the types in terms of paternal, maternal, or filial domination, we can alternatively examine the nine types in terms of types of love.

Let’s start with the inner triangle, more specifically with E6. There is no doubt that the predominant form of love in E6 is Admiration, as is intrinsic to the relationship between child and father figure in a healthy situation. Conversely, Erotic Love is buried in E6 under the "castration complex" and the taboo of pleasure, while Compassionate Love is subordinated to the service of authority or its derivative: the sense of duty.

In E9, Compassionate and helpful Love predominates, and therefore self-abnegation and self-renunciation in the face of others’ needs, which is typical of the character. Also in this case, the instinctive nature of the character is inhibited, although not so much as a result of obedience to authority, but due to the primacy of the generalized other. Regarding Admiration, it does not seem to be prohibited or undone by rebellion, but softened by indifference. E9s tend not to worship heroes and have no great ideals about themselves, but could be described as “common types.”

Regarding E3, this is a personality type in which seduction is more apparent than in E6 and E9, as well as pleasure and affection, while appreciation, which conflicts with competitiveness, seems to be the least developed of the three qualities of love.

Now let’s consider the three characters identified in the 2-8-5 sequence. It is clear that E2 is the most Compassionate, E8 the most Erotic, and E5 the most Admirative.

Regarding the symmetrical sequence 7-1-4, it becomes clear that E7 is the most Erotic, E1 the most Admirative (although also the most critical regarding what is not admirable), and E4 the most Compassionate (despite the cruelty of the sexual subtype).

The Three Loves

E3, E7, E8: Instinctive or Erotic Love (eros)

E6, E1, E5: Admirative or Paternal Love (philia)

E9, E4, E2: Compassionate or Maternal Love (agape)

Now let’s try to understand the differences among the three characters of each category, depending on the different combinations of the characteristic forms of love.

We saw three erotic types: E3, E8, and E7. How can we differentiate them? Which one can we identify as Erotic-Erotic? Obviously, E8, which is characterized by a lack of compassion and admiration or devotion.

Which one can be described as Erotic-Compassionate? E3, which is oriented toward others’ satisfaction.

This makes E7 an Erotic-Admirative type, which can be understood as consistent with the importance of idealization of their inner world, whether it manifests as admiration (as in Social E7) or as self-idealization (in Sexual E7).

However, there is the exception of Conservation E7, where we find cynicism instead of idealization (just as we find cruelty instead of compassion in Sexual E4).

Looking at E7 from the perspective of love invites us to consider narcissism as a matter of self-admiration that requires confirmation and is easily offended, leading to the de-idealization of the father and consequent rebellion.

Now let’s consider the three admirative characters: E1, E5, and E6.

What surprises me most about E1 is not so much the form of love that comes second in their life, but the most repressed form of love, which is Erotic. Similarly, in the case of E5, it is a characteristic that shows lack of empathy and compassion. Regarding E6, we can describe it as Admirative-Admirative and therefore lacking both compassion and eros.

Now let’s consider the three compassionate characters: E2, E4, and E9.

Which can we consider Compassionate-Compassionate? Apparently, E9, which is neither Erotic nor Admirative. In comparison, E2 is Compassionate-Erotic, and E4 is Compassionate-Admirative.

Now we need to discover if the subtypes can also be distinguished according to the qualities of love related to the three inner persons.

The answer seems quite clear from my personal experience, and I will share my insights below in the form of a sequence of formulas where I add to the common formula the type of love that confirms the subtype characteristic.

In summary, this examination shows that the subtypes systematically correspond to the qualities of love, with Self-Preservation types being the most Compassionate or Maternal, Sexual types the most Erotic or Filial, and Social types the most Admirative or Paternal.

I have not commented here on how these formulas translate into concrete aspects of subtype psychology, but I will at least point out that the characteristic "loves" of the subtypes are manipulative in the sense that saying an E3 Social is Admirative, for example, means both constructing an admirable image (in service of the subtypes) and frequently offering that admirable image — despite the fact that unconditional admiration would conflict with the competitiveness of this personality type.