|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 9:02:33 GMT -5
This line has some paradoxes. Today there was a short Facebook thread about who gives more to charity, Democrats or Republicans. I posted this 'first hit', which corroborated what I'd heard: Republicans give more but probably due to giving to institutions such as churches that most Dems don't associate with 'charity'. But then I added: "But I know I donate more when I'm 'on top of my finances' (regardless of what I'm earning) so that may be part of it too. Conservatives may be fiscally conservative at home so charitable requests become part of 'the ledger', just because they have one, in contrast to 'junk mail', more chaos..." This brings us to a 'Paradox of the 7<-->1 Line'. Average 7 'Gluttony', associated with openness and liberalism, tends to lead to a lack of 'moral responsibilities' due to its lack of 'control'. While with average 1, integrating, the control of 1 Righteousness', in enhancing 'moral responsibilities' may enhance a kind of generosity. And generosity is by nature 'liberal' and 'open'. So the chaos engendered by profligacy--squandering resources at 7--can carry the underbelly of stinginess (7 between 1 AND 5), because "I must be way over budget, can't afford to give, don't have time, I forgot...". Whereas keeping a 'tighter belt' for oneself can have the opposite effect--more generosity toward others. This at average levels, and this is one possible 7<-->1 line paradox. There are more. tbct'd vincent
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 12:00:35 GMT -5
I guess a way of saying this is that the 7<-->1 line has to do with abandon and control and that both generate each other in interplay as equilibrium or harmony is sought. Sought by the 'energy', not necessarily by the person. This should be the basic structure for all the 'lines' in core dynamics but 7 and 1 seems to come up an awful lot in societal dynamics. I guess in the US it has to do with the oscillation between the E1ish Puritanism of the Protestant Reformation that founded the country and the E7ish gluttonous 'perpetual growth' of consumer capitalism--which the Reformation led to ( cf Weber et al)....
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 31, 2020 12:28:47 GMT -5
So it's a big mistake to assume that Peterson's character trait 'openness' of the Big 5, correlating with 'liberalism', is stable, likewise that 'low openness', correlating with 'conservatism', is stable.
Peterson is obviously himself aware of the authoritarian underbelly of 'openness' (7) but gave less attention to the potential openness of tradition, of senex, of 1.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 31, 2020 12:29:57 GMT -5
This line has some paradoxes. Today there was a short Facebook thread about who gives more to charity, Democrats or Republicans. I posted this 'first hit', which corroborated what I'd heard: Republicans give more but probably due to giving to institutions such as churches that most Dems don't associate with 'charity'. But then I added: "But I know I donate more when I'm 'on top of my finances' (regardless of what I'm earning) so that may be part of it too. Conservatives may be fiscally conservative at home so charitable requests become part of 'the ledger', just because they have one, in contrast to 'junk mail', more chaos..." This brings us to a 'Paradox of the 7<-->1 Line'. Average 7 'Gluttony', associated with openness and liberalism, tends to lead to a lack of 'moral responsibilities' due to its lack of 'control'. While with average 1, integrating, the control of 1 Righteousness', in enhancing 'moral responsibilities' may enhance a kind of generosity. And generosity is by nature 'liberal' and 'open'. So the chaos engendered by profligacy--squandering resources at 7--can carry the underbelly of stinginess (7 between 1 AND 5), because "I must be way over budget, can't afford to give, don't have time, I forgot...". Whereas keeping a 'tighter belt' for oneself can have the opposite effect--more generosity toward others. This at average levels, and this is one possible 7<-->1 line paradox. There are more. tbct'd vincent
Yes, this makes perfect sense to me.
(thanks for the tag)
|
|
|
Post by winter on Dec 1, 2020 19:46:16 GMT -5
As someone with a 1 wing and most likely line to 7 elsewhere I would agree. Makes sense politically also.
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Dec 2, 2020 2:49:29 GMT -5
So the chaos engendered by profligacy--squandering resources at 7--can carry the underbelly of stinginess (7 between 1 AND 5), because "I must be way over budget, can't afford to give, don't have time, I forgot...". Whereas keeping a 'tighter belt' for oneself can have the opposite effect--more generosity toward others. Openness is also correlated with high iNtuition, and this sort, I imagine, especially with Ne. I know this is exactly why I have never consistently tithed, whereas people like my parents (SiTe 125[?] & TeSi 396) DID do it "as part of the ledger" Interested in both the more paradoxes hinted at, but at also a deepened understanding of the nature of the inner lines themselves.
|
|