|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 9:53:22 GMT -5
He's not social last. He was even yammering in some interview about how he was writing a book on governmental organizations. During my 4 foray with anthony I was looking at SOCIAL Four. so/sp tbc.
To clarify, it's not that you couldn't find an sp/sx writing a book on governmental organizations. Just like you'll find sp/sx politicians, teachers, social workers, etc. But the thing is, it'll be books, because for whatever reasons, that will be what they do. Or else it will be like a memoir of 'my time as a CIA spook' because that's what they did.This wasn't what he did, and he didn't have to remotely claim he was doing it. But he appears to have been instinctually propelled to not neglect that domain. In fact his films are all to my knowledge very social in their way. But that book on governmental organizations really is the most damning for anyone who wants to ascribe sp/sx to him at the end of the day. And btw it's also very Sixish.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 9:58:53 GMT -5
And with unlimited billions he would start a foundation to study police encroachment on civil rights all over the world.
Riiiiight....I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me! Very social AND Sixish. Very 368 "Justice Fighter" too. A hit and miss Fauvre tritype name because there are plenty of justice fighters of other tritypes but when it's 368 this is what it's like. Civil rights, police the authorities, the whole world...
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 10:03:47 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure why but even from the pictures, i didn't saw 6w7. When i considered 6 lead then it was 6w5 already. I still feel that's right.
Even more now that i just saw that
There is a Matador side of him which i think has something to do with 6w5.
Yeah, well, I was gonna say his obsession with Spain is very sx 6 but there was so much to say....and if I understood correctly from that trailer it was he who claimed he was the Hemingway of film? Hemingway was sx/so 8 with 6 and 4 most likely. I didn't consider 6w7 either, ever. I had no reasons because I just didn't consider it. I was only now here on this thread trying to explain why not due to the two typings with 7 fix.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 27, 2021 10:04:19 GMT -5
Well my guess would have been 8w7(9w8) 3w4(2w3) 6w5(7w6) too.
At first i thought one of subwing would have to be in the Hole, but with SX/so, 8w7 lead and its wormhole, it doesn't seem that necessary.
I hadn't really considered 3w2 though...
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 10:08:46 GMT -5
Well my guess would have been 8w7(9w8) 3w4(2w3) 6w5(7w6) too.
At first i thought one of subwing would have to be in the Hole, but with SX/so, 8w7 lead and its wormhole, it doesn't seem that necessary.
I hadn't really considered 3w2 though...
It's not so much that I was considering 3w2 as that I had (and have) an irrepressible itch to just give it to him. Because "Big Daddy" pater familias archetype. But it doesn't make sense with the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 10:15:23 GMT -5
There's too much 3w4 "Anointed One" > 3w2 "Golden Boy".
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 10:18:06 GMT -5
There's also too much 'competency' around zeal for aesthetic innovation with sleek precision. Him and Goebbels, peas in a 3w4 "trend radar" pod.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 27, 2021 10:20:01 GMT -5
The Twoness must just be coming from the 8 and the 3w4 overreach into Charmer territory.
|
|
Amy
Hummingbird
Posts: 149
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by Amy on Jun 28, 2021 3:22:22 GMT -5
My impression so far is 8w7 6w5 3w4, and maybe so/sp with movement to sp/sx. I don’t think he’s social last, but he moves from being formidable (but still ‘in motion’, like a bowling ball) to a frustrated eye popping stare (and I’m not sure if 7 is enough for that without higher sx. Though he doesn’t feel like sp last either). I was watching this interview of him.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 28, 2021 7:51:36 GMT -5
Good find Amy , and I agree that the person in this video appears to be some kind of sx last 368 Pater Familias, 8 lead and most likely so/SP. But what is he, this political speech writer as we discover, actually saying about politicians? He's saying that politicians aren't crooks, they're actors, and that actors are neither men nor women but a separate sex that sort of channels and embodies the Zeitgeist so that even when they lie, it's true. because they incarnate that which is/will be within a society. So...they have no individual identity, they're something like what McLuhan called 'antennas of the race' or perhaps a conduit for the Platonic forms into the social realm, almost not real, and in another way they're very real, they're the very fiber of the social fabric, the lava out of which mountains are shaped. And Welles himself was one of these actor/politicians. So this is not just any ol' Big Daddy. Watching Russell Brand, an obvious fs SX/so, I was struck by how very energetically similar we often are and how Welles is not that, but still, Russell and I are both on the 6/7 line. Also, in this video Welles is old enough that factors have shifted so the fires and waters of his youth aren't as upfront. Still they can't be ignored. Even with 8 lead and counterflow, sx last and no hole factor won't hold up. Of course, without subwings, we don't know if there's a hole factor or not. Although...for all I know...I mean at least I think we need the Hole factor... I'm going to try and wrap up a few site-related things and then block the site for the afternoon so I can catch up with my life. In the Brand-Shapiro video heading toward the hour mark you see Brand getting carried off by his own 'F' juices. fs SX/so = NO boundaries. When he lands Shapiro doesn't miss a beat and asks him to define compassion. I think when we're doing a poll, from now on we should stick compassionately to the materials on the thread. That way we'll agree on whatever we agree on, and then the difference with what comes later and why may be clearer. Also there would be enough people ready for someone to oppose me before I got wildly carried off by one idea.
Not saying this is the thread that set me back. Just sayin'. For now the only other thing I'll say about Welles is he wasn't a normal person, and it wasn't just the size of his work, so we're not done yet.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 28, 2021 8:21:23 GMT -5
(ps Everyone should feel free to post, I just need to hold back now so I can wrap up a few other things.)
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Jun 29, 2021 15:12:00 GMT -5
Firstly, I should communicate that my typing here was based primarily on energetic impressions(most of which I was directed to notice by Roshan ) from multiple interviews and photos. Welles is definitely one of the hardest people I’ve ever tried to type, and I’m still not clear on most of the smaller details in his configuration. I haven’t even seen Citizen Kane yet. Nevertheless, I’ll try to articulate most of the impressions I’ve gathered thus far. Okay let me try to get this clear, for myself included. My original impression from afar was 7w8, but it seemed obvious that he was very, very Eightish, especially when he was older, and I assumed 8 fix. But it also felt like it should be lead, but somehow that often didn't fit. I also thought he had 4 and I was very confused about the stacking. And I was very aware that he was considered a Four by RH and eidb. You wrote me and told me that you knew who he was from the first photo and that's why we discussed him. Your first typing was sp/so 7w6-9w8-3w2 and I said he couldn't be sx last, synflow, and have the 379 tritype and no actual 8 or 4 fix (even with 9w88w9) and you didn't see why not at first. This influenced me to think that maybe I was wrong about just how Eightish he was and it also led me to take a more serious look at whether I was missing something about Four lead and 4w33w2 was what we pretty much settled on.Yes. When I first saw him in interviews, my impression was basically that he was a slightly milder 'big game Hunter'—379 with subwings in 8. Something about him seemed particularly soft in a way that made his entire configuration harder to discern past "very general archetypes," and this is a small part of what made 4 more believable to me when we discussed it. Also, he LOOKED sp/sx to me, but I didn't think he could be social last, hence sp/so. It didn't occur to me just how wrong I was until you said "Steve Jobs is sp/so 7w6."I wasn't sure whether or not to tell you, or how or how much, and then for two days I got caught up in what I got caught up in--such is the level of driven obsessional focus of fireside sx/so that it didn't even occur to me to bring it up during that time--and then when you voted it was too late. But Orson Welles wasn't human, and I really don't think there's any other way to explain his alternating between hot and cold, the burning quality that then suddenly goes frozen, soft and hard, extreme boundary and no boundaries, extreme aloofness and extreme approachability, and the intensity of both focus and dissipation than fs SX/so. And once you have that there's just nothing stopping the 8 from leading and you also don't need that much 4. fs SX/so with its sp/sx shadow appears sp/sx--that is, sp first--until it doesn't. That was the problem I was having with the stacking. tbcd
Yes! I see exactly what you mean here.
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Jun 29, 2021 15:17:56 GMT -5
Something about his films--he was a visionary innovator but they're not exactly the deepest or even most romantic brooding. I am so so tempted to give him 3w2 but then I think why would he even have bothered? Still he could be commercially quite crass and he was also a life-long magician. I think a lot of his creative innovation came from the stacking with 8w7 'Maverick'. A lot of the visual effects using the set in Citizen Kane turn out to be just that: effects, and they're seen as proto-animation use in film. If he's going to be sx last then yes, he needs the 4 fix, but that wild look in his eyes...now you see it, now you don't.... Part of what made 4 very believable to me was also that his films(at least some of them) are apparently rather self-absorbedly autobiographical...and it actually reminded me of the aforementioned 368 who typed Bergman(and Mishima and Williams) as a 7.
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Jun 29, 2021 15:26:13 GMT -5
It seems like a huge theme of Welles' film work was 'veracity and falsehood', 'reality and image', but more from the pov of externals, of dismantling public image, of deconstructing its production, rather than from the pov of expressing his individual voice. So 3w4 seems to make more sense than 4w3 ultimately. And also 6w5, because of the avaricious component in the holding on to the image to begin with. Which his characters do and society does with them, and he seems to do even as he exposes them. and in one documentary about him(They'll Love Me When I'm Dead), which last night I only watched a small part of, Welles vehemently denied that his films were at all autobiographical, when some of the interviewees explained that they obviously were and everyone knew it. Welles did not want to be analyzed through his film. This seems both avaricious and deceitful. Welles experienced himself as a potent manipulator of others' mental models of him and his films, controlling others' realities and privately keeping his own behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 29, 2021 16:37:54 GMT -5
|
|