Astrology, the Enneagram and Seth

Contents:

• Introduction
• Background
• The candidates
• Table of comparisons
• Implications, clarifications and applications
• Purpose and benefits
• Conclusions

In brief

The Table of comparisons highlights a noticeable difference between the 3 methods of classifications. Column 1 (Seth) responds well to the question: "Where do those who belong to a particular category focus their energy, time and commitment for best effect and fulfilment?"

The Enneagram responds "less directly" to this question (in that the Enneagram may offer insight that one is a 'leader' but not where to apply leadership for best effect or fulfillment).

Astrological categories provide little if any meaningful answers to this question.

The first two categorisations (Astrology and the Enneagram) are not in the least "systems-orientated". They do not take account of the interactive dynamics of biological, ecological or social systems, such as that of one's local community, or how the global economy impacts and influences behaviours and attitudes. They do not therefore provide substantial insignts into how we ought best interact with the world around us. They, in effect, offer little guidance as to where we might apply our energy and focus for best results and fulfilment.

Introduction

The fields and disciplines of psychological testing, astrology, numerology and the Enneagram, are, like all fields of human understanding, based on certain beliefs about the nature of reality.

So when we seek to group people into meaningful categories it's prudent to first establish the belief-system by which those categorisations are made. If the belief-system is unduly limited, individuals and groups will necessarily be categorised or 'squeezed' into various psychological or astrological 'boxes' to fit the observed behaviours. In the process those capabilities and potentials that lay beyond the accepted framework of belief - which could otherwise be recognised and developed for personal and social benefit -- will be ignored or denied.

While the categorisation of personality via astrology, the Enneagram, or various other psychological tests might seem harmless enough, the judgements and recommendations made in light of the supporting belief-systems can severely diminish or limit the subsequent expectations and abilities of the individuals involved1.

This analysis (of the various means by which the character and potentials of people are 'categorised') is based on a belief-system that is deeply anchored in, but not limited to, the facts and theorems of quantum mechanics.

In broad terms, the analysis provided is couched within a holodynamic-systems view - a view that all aspects of life are interconnected and interdependent with all others, and that there are NO perfect disconnects that enable independent events to "just happen" entirely by chance. Volition and intent within and by the system is always involved.

I believe it's important to highlight the belief-system by which this analysis is made at the outset, to better guide the reader, and to provide a more substantial context with which to understand why we might otherwise limit ourselves, or ignore our potentials.

Background

In a great many discussions I've had with people over the years, I've observed that the habit of others seeking to categorise me, and others, has been frequent. Typically I've had people say to me "oh, you're an Aries" or "you're a 4 (Enneagram) or "ah, now I get you, you're an Existentialist", and so on.

To each, I frequently reply, "no, I'm a 13 on the Astrological chart" or a 10 on the Enneagram -- meaning, that I prefer to not abide by any specific categorisation, per se, but to rely on an across-the-board range of potentials that can be tapped and developed, according to my personal like or needs. In other words, in the case of astrology, to be all signs-at-once, favouring some abilities or characteristics at any particular time to suit one's circumstances or goals.

This immediately causes astrologers in particular some difficulty, for in applying the science of quantum mechanics2,3, we can realise that we can skip the limiting-belief that we are tied to a particular biological past or present physiological/neurological structure: our brains, bodies and indeed the physical system is far more 'plastic' and malleable than most appreciate. As Harvard Medical School research has confirmed, we can learn to 'switch on' disease fighting genes, and alter our inherited physiology in profound ways. In short, if we like the qualities of, say, Cancerians, we can simply develop those qualities, even though we weren't born into that particular group.

This 'rewriting the past' is normally ignored, in any substantial sense. However, there are some, for example terminally ill patients who often unknowingly engage this process to achieve 'spontaneous remissions' of their disease.

Others abound.

What is important at this point is to set out the frameworks with which to understand the placing and limitations of the various belief-systems (methods of categorisation).

The candidates

This article compares the impetus and efficacy of 3 approaches based on various resources and beliefs:

1. Astrology (includes other birth-dependent physical groupings, such as Numerology)
2. the Enneagram (and other personality tests and categorisations)
3. Seth's families of consciousness (see The Urge to Categorise)

Each is reviewed within the expanded context of a simultaneous-time landscape: that is an expanded context that capitalises on Einstein's observation that people "who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

This has particular importance in seeing the limits of the first two categories: Astrology/Numerology, and Enneagram/psychological testing. They are past-based belief-systems, in that the past is believed to cause the present. Both these systems of belief maintain that we live within a cause-effect (deterministic) universe, in that for each physical effect (behaviour, character, ability) there is an identifiable physical past-based cause (inherited genetic code, birth date, number, etc). If this physical cause is not identifiable due to limits of current technologies, it is believed that it is at least identifiable in theory.

Only the third category, that of Seth's families of consciousness, is aligned with the quantum evidence of temporal nonlocality -- that in our holodynamic-systems reality, immediate connections must and do reach across time (It makes no sense to believe that the future can be entirely disconnected from our present 'now'.) A holodynamic-systems perspective sees life and the entire universe in terms of self-organising systems that evolve with intent.

What all this means in personal terms is that the future actively influences our present physical circumstances, choices and development, and that we can physically change the past, from the present. The nine families of consciousness identified by Seth involve to varying degrees the ability to utilise a natural precognitive awareness and connectedness for benefit, efficacy and physical development.

From this expanded context of a simultaneous-time landscape (one that is required for a holo-dynamic systems reality), we can better analyse the features (and limitations) of the various approaches.

A simultaneous-time, or holodynamic-systems perspective enables us to recognise those who focus their energies forward (artists, entrepreneurs, visionaries, reformers), helping to work fluid, intuitive, precognitive possibilities into new forms, ideas, social-systems, structures. experiences etc. This focus complements those in society that are past-based (historians, engineers, teachers etc who build, maintain, teach and strengthen existing structures.).

Also, as the future is still 'fluid' (from our usual perspectives), those who are spontaneous will generally be more precognitively developed than those focused on maintaining or building structures (rigid, fixed, stable, ordered) who will excel in logical, technical abilities.

Hence the relevance of the the Theory of One and All figure below:

Table comparison

---

Implications, clarifications and applications

The Table provided (previous page) highlights a noticeable difference between the 3 methods of classifications. Column 1 (Seth) responds well to the question: "Where do those who belong to a particular category focus their energy, time, and commitment for best effect and fulfillment?"

This is a seriously important question, for it leads directly to psycho-social development that is the key element in longevity and wellbeing. It's also a pivotal question in the context of cultural (systems) integration of finding place and purpose within the community, city or nation within which we live.

The Enneagram responds "less directly" to this question (in that the Enneagram may offer insight that one is a 'leader' but not where to apply leadership for best effect or fulfillment).

Astrological categories provide little if any meaningful answers to this question.

For example, someone who is an Aries is purported to "take the initiative", but in what area of life would they best do so? Would "taking the initiative" by developing their physique in order to win at the Olympics (Zuli) best suit them?

Would they best take the initiative in building large organisations, or maintaining them (Gramada)?

The Seth categorisations are of value simply because we cannot be all things: each category of consciousness takes focus, energy and desire to excel or focus in that direction.

The astrological generalisations do not specifically help those who want to apply their initiative, for example. Those generalisations do not provide the means or clarity to suggest that someone who, for example, belongs in the Ilda family, would best take the initiative by travelling, or being a 'travelling salesman' or a diplomat. It would almost certainly not be helpful to suggest to an Ilda person that they take the initiative and be more physically developed (Zuli) or that they take the initiative and be more creative, or to take the initiative by running a large organisation (Sumari and Gramada resp.).

Recognising where one is best suited to "put one's energy" is highly useful and beneficial. Someone who belongs to the Milumet family will, for example, often seem 'useless' in our modern technological results-now culture, but will shine in areas where innocence is prized ... for example, they will be "naturals" when working with, and teaching children (prior to those children losing their innocence and becoming too conditioned).

It should be noted that Seth is quite clear that there is NO connection between one's birth date and the focus or family of consciousness. The focus is one's spiritual focus, expressed in physical form, and that expression or preference has nothing to do with when one is born, other than serving to be born into an era (e. g. prior to great social changes) that suits that focus.

Purpose and benefits

While it might not be evident from the material quoted in this article, Seth quite clearly explains that each family performs a valuable role in various cultures and times.

They form checks and balances that help cultures, civilisations and organisations to be stable, to grow, and to change, Sometimes, obviously, the impetus to change will be resisted by those who's purpose is to establish and maintain stable organisations, social systems, etc.

"Chaos" and "order" appear to be conflicting aspects and dynamics, but when the deeper cycles to life are understood, they can be seen to be complimentary aspects to the fundamental cycle of life; of certainty and uncertainty, of focusing then letting go; of work and play; of being logical and intuitive; of journeys and ends, of life and death.

The paradox is that both are vitally necessary to life. In fact one cannot exist without the other.

Each family or focus of consciousness performs a role that helps embellish, enrich and deepen the cycle of life. Even in the case of those who might appear "stupid" (Milumet) due to their natural innocence, they help "nourish the psyche of mankind."

Being a custodian of information during the Dark Ages, for example, was of pivotal importance to the future development of the culture. In contemporary times, with the wide-spread use of the Internet, that role has now been "out-sourced" to almost everyone (who has a computer).

Some families will be predominant at various stages and eras. Knowing which family of consciousness one naturally belongs to (again, we belong because it suits us), and the relevance and purpose of that focus in relation to the present era can be immensely valuable and reassuring.

Conclusions

Evidence and theoretical developments (e.g. Process Physics) is now revealing we live within a participatory universe: we live within evolving, changing "self-organising" groups, communities, ecosystems and an evolving "self-organising" physical universe.

We are not prisoners to some past over which we have no control. The alignment of a belief-system (in particular, Astrology) to a perceived set of locked-in constraints (birth date) is a severe disincentive for people to enjoy new abilities and potentials, and to find answers within themselves.

The very process of referencing the past ties those who believe in it, to it, limiting individuals who would otherwise develop intuitive potentials of character and awareness. When we believe we are locked into some past, we can only look "over there" at other people's abilities, to feel left out. This results in an us-versus-them tribalism that helps generate and fuel myopic, selfish attitudes and associations.

When we are born does not affect what we want, who we want to be with, or what we want to achieve.

Who we are and what we do is greatly determined by the present and future ecologies within which we live ... the social groups and peer-groups; the political systems; the religious, scientific and spiritual beliefs common within our cultures. They have direct influence on our behaviours and expectations.

Belief-systems (e. g. Astrology) that lack 'systems integration' and simultaneous-time awareness (which together provide meaningful context relative to the groups and times within which we live) cannot provide meaningful guidance for living within an increasingly dynamic, interactive world.

Of crucial importance is recognising that assigning oneself or someone to some group undermines the primary impetus towards individuality. As Jane Roberts (Seth) clearly states: "these categories do not come first. Your individuality comes first. You have certain characteristics of your own. These place you in a certain position ... your individuality places you in a particular family or species of consciousness." Accordingly,

See also

• Good systems thinking
• The feminine urge to tribalize

• 1. History is replete with examples of scientists, artists, writers, philosophers, explorers and entrepreneurs who have received severe punishment for being too radical or too far ahead of their times. Both Giordano Bruno - who was burned alive at the stake in 1600, and Galileo Galilei -- who was some years later placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, received their punishments for voicing ideas that we now take for granted and publicly discuss. In light of Giordano's fate, and that of countless others, the issue of what belief-system is used to categorise personality, character and individual potential is a highly important one to consider.
• 2. In particular I refer here to the work by physicist John Wheeler. Wheeler, who first conceived of the 'delayed-choice experiments' believed that we live within a participatory universe, in that it is newly forming (including our past, newly forming all the way back to the Big-Bang).
• 3. Recent research in the field of neuroplasticity is confirming our brains are far more 'plastic' than previously understood. Furthermore, developments in quantum physics reveal an even deeper 'physioplasticity' of brains, bones, bodies and our entire physical reality.