Limits of enneagram and rational fractions
I have always had a problem with the enneagram. A glyph of universal knowledge selects one rational fraction (1/7) as the basis (evidently implied) for indexing this. Another Pythagorean disregard of the real numbers.
Here’s a review of one of the enneagram types books with a similar sentiment:
a review of
The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types – by Don Richard Riso, Russ Hudson
1. Considering a few branches of math ( algebraic topology, plus some subvariants like graph theory or knot theory), any 2 dimensional graph/glyph immediately loses its Pythagorean mystique. If one can functionally transform a graph, “distort” it etc., – the supposition of a graph as a container of profound mysteries becomes ludicrous and preposterous. If a circle and an ellipse are topologically identical, there is no need to become pathologically addicted to one or another.