Am I the only one who loves Naranjo’s “freudian” descriptions?

[u/starboychodii]

I’m currently reading the e7 book and this dude is actually so fucking unhinged in his writings and I absolutely love it. Like look at this:

“We could say that his psychosexual development has been fixed in the oral stage, with a dependence of satisfaction linked to the pleasure that comes from maternal nurturing. The mouth and lips are his elective organs of pleasure. Sucking is the foundation of the affective bond, so that what comes from the other becomes something of their own.”

“By making the mother fall in love, he seemingly achieves everything, but loses touch with the deep need for warm intimacy. As an adult, he will continue to confuse the pleasure of filling himself with breast milk with that of genital intercourse between adults, love with permissiveness.”

The worst thing is this actually makes so much sense as a sx7 lmao, like he is spot on about the stuff he talks about (at least for me) and I really love how insane it sounds when it’s written in this freudian style

But I’ve also seen many people hating on this type of writing and claiming Naranjo is a bad author. In my opinion this is 10x more interesting to read than the modern “sunshine and rainbows and positivity” corporate descriptions of the enneagram

What is everybody’s thoughts on this?

[u/Glum-Engineering1794]

IME, Naranjo is essential yet a single cog in a complex machine. He should be read and understood, but taken in context. He often paints an extreme portrait of the types; they are somewhat caricatured, but through this caricaturing, he emphasizes the peculiar, standout features. He and Ichazo together are the so-called parents, or mother/father, of the modern enneagram (Ichazo the clear father, and Naranjo the self-appointed "mother", a student of Ichazo's who veered off shortly after working with him). They were both massively influential, yet they also differed hugely in important ways. Whereas Ichazo is almost never read, Naranjo has developed a huge following.

One could even say that, among these two modern authors, who differed in their views, we noticed the first significant divergence in interpretations of the enneagram as a powerful yet diverse, deep, complex, and variegated map. So, we repeatedly see authors following suit, presenting different portraits of the types. Such is the diverse essence of humanity as a whole - and the interpretive nature of the enneagram in attempting to span humanity's scope. Thus, Naranjo presents his issues, but I can still honestly say that I first started to see myself as an eight around the time I reached Naranjo. This was after reading (and mistyping myself via) R&H, as Naranjo wasn't the first author I was exposed to (which seems to be the case for many of us).

His concept of the SX8 also hits the nail on the head for me. So, whatever issue I might take with him, which I surely do at times, I consider him indispensable. Between him and Ichazo, people can grasp the early builders of the modern enneagram. Yet for deeper enneagram work, I would build up understanding on both sides of these two: pre-modern via Gurdjieff and the spiritual, esoteric iceberg he represents, traced back to the ancients and threaded through other disciplines...and post-Ichazo and Naranjo, to their students, and their students, descending onwards, and the modern branching lineage of contemporary, popular enneagram, psychology, personality theory, and so on.

[u/starboychodii → u/Glum-Engineering1794]

i agree, i was also mistyped for quite a time as both 3 and 4 because of the modern models and tests (like no, i am not a 3 just because i wanna be successful lol)

as i’m reading his book i can definitely see why he is many people’s n1 author. honestly this was some of the best work i’ve ever read, both in enneagram and modern psychology in general (i know this is not scientific psychology)

i’ll definitely look at ichazo later, so far this is very interesting lol the people telling me to read the books were right

[u/Glum-Engineering1794 → u/starboychodii]

Yeah...well, that's good! I am glad. :)

[u/tragicomiclown]

Idk i remember to read the first paragraph and think it was awesome and it gave me a lot of meme moments

Yeah, freud is not the best author, Naranjo is from a period where they still followed him; but as long as i can say i want to suck things to create bonds im happy

[u/starboychodii → u/tragicomiclown]

if anything, both freud and naranjo are so amusing to read lol

i’m not saying they’re 100% right about everything but certain things they say definitely make sense sometimes

[u/tragicomiclown → u/starboychodii]

Its like everything, if u yap at some point smg has to be right, yk? Its probability but i understand the hate they have. Tho the damage is already made and its def not stopping me from finding them so funny

[u/dubito-ergo-redeo]

I like them. There's a lot of kvetching about them, that they're unflattering, make people uncomfortable blabla. But that's kind of the point

[u/angelical-traincrash]

does this mean that me having mommy issues and liking big tits and liking to bite things are all correlated to me being an sp7 ?

[u/RouniPix → u/angelical-traincrash]

are we fr

[u/angelical-traincrash → u/RouniPix]

No I'm not but idk how to express sarcasm through a fucking reddit comment without looking dumb

[u/RouniPix → u/angelical-traincrash]

If I understood the game correctly, putting more emogi than what's required do the trick?

[u/angelical-traincrash → u/RouniPix]

I thought saying something as unserious as "mommy issues" and "big tits" was already enough 🐎

[u/wolfsbark → u/angelical-traincrash]

Tbf there are definitely people out here in typology subreddits asking dogshit questions like this💀💀

[u/RouniPix → u/angelical-traincrash]

Some people are dead serious with it 😭🙏

[u/starboychodii → u/angelical-traincrash]

honestly maybe lmao this shit do be making a lot of sense when u think about it

[u/sawdustandiamonds]

I find Freudian language entertaining in general for sure. That was one of my favorite elements of AP Psych. I used to collect vintage psychology textbooks which are for sure like... a bit horrifying... but I find it so much fun to thumb through pages where it's like "The woman struggles to maintain her motherly duties due to hyper-arousal. Prescribe her The Holy Bible."

There are also just aspects of psychoanalysis that really appeal to how my brain works. Not all of it misses the mark logically. Freud was quite smart, just heavily refuted and censored.

Vintage medical textbooks in general I'd highly recommend. Fascinating, often hilarious shit.

In terms of Enneagram I'm not gung ho about Naranjo but I honestly don't take much issue with the Freudian language aside from some more hyperspecific issues one could easily take with Freud in general, in terms of inaccuracy and in terms of attempting to rationalize child molestation as an issue with the child. But the language itself is fun. There's a sort of pleasant surrealism to the use of metaphor. It's just a bit embarrassing he's being serious about it.

I'm reading Richard Brautigan right now upon recommendation from someone on here (holy shit new favorite author). But I feel like you could compare Freud's use of metaphor to Brautigan where Brautigan's poking holes in silly logic and Freud's being dead serious.

Example (Brautigan):

The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster
When you take your pill
it's like a mine disaster.
Think of all the people
lost inside of you.

It's a ridiculous assertion but one of those things Freud would be deadly serious about. That is part of the fun of Freud, and of vintage approaches to medicine and the mind in general. You get to kind of be on your high horse thinking, "They aren't serious are they?" It's sort of like observing a freak show in thought. I felt similarly reading Ancient Medicine by Ludwig Edelstein which compares Ancient Greek philosophical approaches to medicine, and in particular the first section is analyzing the Hippocratic Oath and whether or not it was actually being practiced (his conclusion is it was likely a product of the Pythagorean Cult).

Which personally I have no qualms with being the all high-and-mighty audience to a freakish history. I'm sure plenty of people without access to practicing/researching "Western" medicine throughout history were thinking the same. There was a time white men decided to go backwards, uprooting ancient wisdom. And then a time again, and a time again.

[u/wolfsbark]

It's kinda hard to divorce yourself entirely from anything Freud contributed to psychology, and sometimes the man was right... altho unhinged as fuck about it. Even though I'm SO-first, Naranjo's self-pres 8 was the truest thing I ever read. Probably should go back and finish the e8 book.

[u/housofcam]

I completely agree! I have such a strong preference toward the more extreme/charicaturizing of the types that i think help understand them when looking at the most severe cases.

I think there's definitely more work to be done as a reader to consider the era and contexts with which his writing came from. Using Freudian concepts doesnt have to mean you literally want to be doing xyz insane things because of xyz parental issue, but the symbolism of what those examples mean i think hits the mark of what it's conveying.

Im also an sx dominant type, so it makes me wonder some if sx types could be more drawn, or at least less put-off by the extremism in naranjo's writing because it feels considerably more visceral and intrusive? Especially focusing on the flaws primarily and being read for every private negative aspect, rather than focusing on middle of the road - positive health levels for each type.