The Enneagram as used in the Gurdjieff tradition uses the inner triangle in one way and the inner hexad in another. The inner triangle and inner hexad in the Enneagram personality types are combined to commonly describe the stress/security points or directions of integration/disintegration. While the triangle can be illustrative of the triadic nature of 9 equaling 3 x 3, the hexad contradicts that triadic nature.

The inner triangle connects points 3, 6 and 9 in a consistent way (each point is 3 points away from the other). However, the hexad violates this consistency at points 2, 4, 5 and 7.

• 2 connects to 8 and 4, 8 is three points away but 4 is only two points away
• 4 connects to 1 and 2, 1 is three points away but 2 is only two points away
• 5 connects to 8 and 7, 8 is three points away but 7 is only two points away
• 7 connects to 1 and 5, 1 is three points away but 5 is only two points away
• 4 and 5 reverse direction, 4 goes back to 2 and 5 goes back to 7

The question raised is "How can all the inner lines mean the same thing when points 2, 4, 5 and 7 indicate different relationships?"

I think the answer can be found by following the Gurdjieff tradition to say that the inner triangle and hexad mean different things. The enneatypes have placed an emphasis on the triadic nature of the symbol by emphasizing such concepts as the centers of intelligence and Karen Horney's triads. The inner triangle is indicative of this triadic nature. However, the inner hexad is used in the Gurdjieff tradition to better understand the relationships between the steps in a process going around the circle. So what does the inner hexad have to do with the types?

A more consistent relationship between the types can be found by using something like Ramon Llull's 2nd figure in his Ars Magna. If we did that, could we still call it the Enneagram?

If you're interested in exploring the triadic relations within the Enneagram symbol further then you may want to check out the Enneagram as Relations and OverTones that I've developed.