Post by hiddenglass on Oct 31, 2020 5:29:21 GMT -5
Here's a post I wrote for my fb group, about how instincts can manifest within different dynamics, originally in response to addressing “one-on-one” vs “group” socializing being Social or Sexual. (a la Sexual instinct's recent illegitimate redefinition as '1-to-1')
I was recently asked about how my opinion on the Sexual instinct, as related to the definition given by some teachers as “the 1-1 instinct”. I don't think that rebranding Sexual as 1-to-1 is legitimate, and to explain why I think I'd start by reminding people that sexual relationships are, formally, social ones.
Even under enneagrammatic jargon, literal intercourse is, in my opinion, just as much or more under “Social” instinct, though can manifest significantly under "Sexual" just as it can under “Self-Preservational”. Maybe it's simply difficult to consider in a vacuum due to how common Social is as an instinctual force in interpersonal dynamics (and, perhaps, how impactful sex itself is on those relationships), but it is nonetheless true that the instincts build on one another—one cannot engage in any social interaction without ensuring one is fed and has slept, in at least a basic sense, after all. Contrast this with the ability (and commonplace nature of the sight) of one attending to basic Self-Preservational needs while even near-completely ignoring the Sexual instinct's rather volatile, chemical desires.
I think “I just like talking one-on-one and don't like being the center of attention” or the hackneyed “fuck 'how was your day', tell me what keeps you up at night” memes are, as has been rightly noted, perfectly compatible with sx-blindness. sx is not—any more than iNtuition is in jungian cogtypes—a “you're interesting” demarcator or badge.
HOWEVER, I do think there is an actual line to be observed in the type of draw one experiences interpersonally. I think you can divide what people see as “one-on-one” Social vs “group” Social THREE ways, rather than two:
There is, in the “slice” of instinctual fulfillment we're talking about, I think the following aspects:
• the aspect of Sexual instinct pertaining to the self's relation to the individual other, which (hopefully without bastardizing Buber) I'll call “sx (I-You)”
• the same aspect but for Social instinct I'll call “sc (I-You)”
• and the aspect of Social instinct pertaining to the self's relation to the group, which I'll call “sc (I-Them)”
More broadly, though, I think all three instincts can find fulfillment through either interpersonal (individual or group) interaction or through interaction with non-person entities. Shoring up relationships with people you consider critical to your financial stability would be fulfilling sp; and, let's say, getting high off of [literal] drugs fulfilling the instinctual drive of sx.
But, to go back to specifically “1-to-1” and what we were talking about… I think the first two (fulfilling Social instinct firstly through a broader focus toward "the crowd" or "the scene" at large, and secondly through a forging of an intimate social bond with 'the interesting person at the party', or a lover) are simply two manifestations of the same drive—to ensure survival by the solicitation of Social bonds with other individuals qua individuals. However, just as phobic Sixes and counter-phobic Sixes aren't displaying contradictory fulfillments of the core “problem” of Six, neither are these different “approaches” to Social contradictory in anything but appearance and personal predilection (which, yes, can also be typological).
The fulfillment of Sexual instinct through one-on-one interaction, though, sees this not as interactions with individuals qua individuals (as in the case with Social) but with individuals qua objects. I think the interpersonal interaction that characterizes sx requires the objectification of the other… and, in a way, even of the self. The other person has an (potentially “the”) energy that you're missing, and you NEED to combine them. This is the source of the magnetism spoken of in relation to Sexual. You want to use them and be used by them in pursuit of that transcendental loss of self that is associated with what the sexual instinct is even “FOR”: the objectification of self as a tool for the propagation of the species—of an energy that is merely instantiated in you as a specific individual, but is shared with all members of the species. And so, in that there is a naturally-arising desire to “penetrate” the boundaries of the sx object of fulfillment, and reciprocally “be penetrated”. This is thus innately transgressive and dangerous.
To lay it out this paradigm a little more concisely with some examples of different manifestations of instinct:
An important note: ALL of our interactions with people are, when in pursuit of instinctual satisfaction, at base an objectification. Regardless of if it's Sexual instinct's objectification of other or bonding driven by the Social instinctual drive, we aren't “speaking the sacred word I-Thou” to someone when we exploit them for instinctual fulfillment, to reference actual Buber.
To be clear, this is certainly not intended to be interpreted as a condemnation of instinctual fulfillment. We literally cannot continue living as individuals, as a species, or as a society without fulfilling our instincts. (this is, after all, their purpose) Nor can we remain wholly present, confronting every other soul as a “part of the Divine” at all times. Nonetheless, it is important to know, despite Sexual objectifying the individual perhaps more directly or visibly than Social, that this doesn't mean that Social isn't still, at root, motivated any less self-interestedly.
The examples I laid out were just a random assortment that is sure to be not only relatively caricatural, but also reflective of my perspective as someone with an scSX stacking. In the units section you can find Russ Hudson's tweets talking about the different “zones” of each instinct—I wouldn't be surprised if one could identify specific examples of instinctual fulfillment individually associated with those specific zones, and even correlate them to specific placements, such that sx, for example, may tend towards distinct presentations when in a dominant role vs secondary vs last. Like Anthony (SPsx) said, recently—he seeks to relieve his sp, body-centric anxiety through engagement with sx. This is completely foreign to me as scSX lol, but this is why some say the second instinct is “going into” the first. Everyone has all three instincts, and, just as with our type, understanding the full interplay is critical to understanding our own subconscious motivations in any area.
I was recently asked about how my opinion on the Sexual instinct, as related to the definition given by some teachers as “the 1-1 instinct”. I don't think that rebranding Sexual as 1-to-1 is legitimate, and to explain why I think I'd start by reminding people that sexual relationships are, formally, social ones.
Even under enneagrammatic jargon, literal intercourse is, in my opinion, just as much or more under “Social” instinct, though can manifest significantly under "Sexual" just as it can under “Self-Preservational”. Maybe it's simply difficult to consider in a vacuum due to how common Social is as an instinctual force in interpersonal dynamics (and, perhaps, how impactful sex itself is on those relationships), but it is nonetheless true that the instincts build on one another—one cannot engage in any social interaction without ensuring one is fed and has slept, in at least a basic sense, after all. Contrast this with the ability (and commonplace nature of the sight) of one attending to basic Self-Preservational needs while even near-completely ignoring the Sexual instinct's rather volatile, chemical desires.
I think “I just like talking one-on-one and don't like being the center of attention” or the hackneyed “fuck 'how was your day', tell me what keeps you up at night” memes are, as has been rightly noted, perfectly compatible with sx-blindness. sx is not—any more than iNtuition is in jungian cogtypes—a “you're interesting” demarcator or badge.
HOWEVER, I do think there is an actual line to be observed in the type of draw one experiences interpersonally. I think you can divide what people see as “one-on-one” Social vs “group” Social THREE ways, rather than two:
There is, in the “slice” of instinctual fulfillment we're talking about, I think the following aspects:
• the aspect of Sexual instinct pertaining to the self's relation to the individual other, which (hopefully without bastardizing Buber) I'll call “sx (I-You)”
• the same aspect but for Social instinct I'll call “sc (I-You)”
• and the aspect of Social instinct pertaining to the self's relation to the group, which I'll call “sc (I-Them)”
More broadly, though, I think all three instincts can find fulfillment through either interpersonal (individual or group) interaction or through interaction with non-person entities. Shoring up relationships with people you consider critical to your financial stability would be fulfilling sp; and, let's say, getting high off of [literal] drugs fulfilling the instinctual drive of sx.
But, to go back to specifically “1-to-1” and what we were talking about… I think the first two (fulfilling Social instinct firstly through a broader focus toward "the crowd" or "the scene" at large, and secondly through a forging of an intimate social bond with 'the interesting person at the party', or a lover) are simply two manifestations of the same drive—to ensure survival by the solicitation of Social bonds with other individuals qua individuals. However, just as phobic Sixes and counter-phobic Sixes aren't displaying contradictory fulfillments of the core “problem” of Six, neither are these different “approaches” to Social contradictory in anything but appearance and personal predilection (which, yes, can also be typological).
The fulfillment of Sexual instinct through one-on-one interaction, though, sees this not as interactions with individuals qua individuals (as in the case with Social) but with individuals qua objects. I think the interpersonal interaction that characterizes sx requires the objectification of the other… and, in a way, even of the self. The other person has an (potentially “the”) energy that you're missing, and you NEED to combine them. This is the source of the magnetism spoken of in relation to Sexual. You want to use them and be used by them in pursuit of that transcendental loss of self that is associated with what the sexual instinct is even “FOR”: the objectification of self as a tool for the propagation of the species—of an energy that is merely instantiated in you as a specific individual, but is shared with all members of the species. And so, in that there is a naturally-arising desire to “penetrate” the boundaries of the sx object of fulfillment, and reciprocally “be penetrated”. This is thus innately transgressive and dangerous.
To lay it out this paradigm a little more concisely with some examples of different manifestations of instinct:
| instinct / relation | I-It | I-You | I-Them or I-Us |
| sc | “Can I wear this outfit tomorrow if I want to give off the right image?” “I can't put this candidate's sign in my yard or it might make things awkward with my neighbors” “If I buy this car will others get an image of me I don't want them to have?” | “If I maintain a bond to this coworker then I can be assured that I'm bonded to my workplace community generally.” “Have I been a good enough listener to this friend? I want to ensure a connection that provides reciprocity of care” “If I go sit with the nerdy kid, people will see me as compassionate” | “I need to go protest for the sake of my community.” “Am I looking / acting cool enough at this concert to be considered part of the scene??” |
| sx | “I want to lose myself in these drugs” or “in this dancing” or “in my intellectual pursuit” | “Are you getting me high?” “Is our interaction consuming me?” “Does seducing this person make me feel powerful?” | “Am I adequately reassuring myself that I am capable of drawing someone in?” “Are people noticing me, whether positively or negatively?” |
| sp | “How much money do I have in the bank?” “Is this food going to hurt me?” | “If my car breaks can I count on him to give me a ride?” “If I speak my mind to my boss, will I get fired?” “Let me schmooze this dude because I'm trying to get freelance work from his roommate” | “Your coworkers aren't going to take care of you when your sick. [so make sure you maintain SP security in group connections outside of work!]” |
An important note: ALL of our interactions with people are, when in pursuit of instinctual satisfaction, at base an objectification. Regardless of if it's Sexual instinct's objectification of other or bonding driven by the Social instinctual drive, we aren't “speaking the sacred word I-Thou” to someone when we exploit them for instinctual fulfillment, to reference actual Buber.
To be clear, this is certainly not intended to be interpreted as a condemnation of instinctual fulfillment. We literally cannot continue living as individuals, as a species, or as a society without fulfilling our instincts. (this is, after all, their purpose) Nor can we remain wholly present, confronting every other soul as a “part of the Divine” at all times. Nonetheless, it is important to know, despite Sexual objectifying the individual perhaps more directly or visibly than Social, that this doesn't mean that Social isn't still, at root, motivated any less self-interestedly.
The examples I laid out were just a random assortment that is sure to be not only relatively caricatural, but also reflective of my perspective as someone with an scSX stacking. In the units section you can find Russ Hudson's tweets talking about the different “zones” of each instinct—I wouldn't be surprised if one could identify specific examples of instinctual fulfillment individually associated with those specific zones, and even correlate them to specific placements, such that sx, for example, may tend towards distinct presentations when in a dominant role vs secondary vs last. Like Anthony (SPsx) said, recently—he seeks to relieve his sp, body-centric anxiety through engagement with sx. This is completely foreign to me as scSX lol, but this is why some say the second instinct is “going into” the first. Everyone has all three instincts, and, just as with our type, understanding the full interplay is critical to understanding our own subconscious motivations in any area.
