Terra Incognita

He's an sx/sp Steve Bannon with a little more Seven. A high health sx/sp cross between Bannon and Trump.

This is where Syliva's and my harmonic triads can help.

sovereigns: 8 1 3
alchemists: 5 7 9
offerers: 2 4 6

Go back to where and how Rick countered Brian May trying to tell him he was the. more knolwedgeable one in music. There was no leveraging, no jockeying for position, there, which would be 2. He was neither proud nor proud to be humble. He was just matter of fact. You're Brian May and I'm Rick Beato, thanks. Which certainly contains its own brand of vanity.

The man is double sovereign.

If he appears to also be double offerer, that's the stacking and the TWO IN THE EIGHT. But he's just not fueled by any core passion Pride.

And as Vincent said, he can't not have a competency fix.

Roshan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:14 pm And another thing is, he did it as a challenge. The father said if you can play this then you'll be something, he laid down the gauntlet, and Rick took it--and he won.

This ^ is also 3.
368 Prize Fighter makes perfect sense for him imo.

Now, let me say that left on my own I probably would have not made him social last and would have felt like something was missing for quite some time and eventually adjusted the stacking. Especially as I unearthed more and more about his career in music production with the studio in Stone Mountain Georgia and noticed more about how all those guitars were laid out neatly in a row, as I have been...It's beyond obvious he's NOT anything near a fireside and that being the case why does he sometimes (old and young) seem sp/sx? Etc. So I think I probably would have eventually got it but stacking isn't my strongest suit and -Sarah- got it right away (even as I was posting the photos to show he's pretty obviously sx first).

So as I hit you over the head with a club one more time about the tritype, let it be known I'm also being hit over the head about the stacking with a club held in your hand but

THE TWO IS IN THE EI HT.

And with healthy 8, this is a rule of thumb.

So this is how those harmonic triads S. and I worked out help with typing. So you're thinking 862w3 but considering 3w2, you can ask yourself:

First of all, does he really seem double compliant (6 and 2)? No, he does not really, but to double check, does he seem double offerer? Hmmm...well maaaaaybe but with that stacking not so much but you know what he really seems? He really seems double sovereign.

This is if you're settled on a 6 fix. If you're not sure if it's a 6 fix with double 7 wings or a 7 fix you can ask yourself, does he actually have the fix of an 'alchemist'? Does he slip through the cracks, enter through the drain pipes and the floorboards, like a liquid or a gas, or something in an in-between state of transformation?

No, almost everything about him is solid and straightforward and anything that's not can be accounted for by wings and/or the stacking. He does not seem to have an actual Alchemist fix so no actual Seven fix.

Of course another way I already mentioned to approach that is that the sx/sp stacking is as frustration as it gets (Hungry Ghost) so if you feel settled with that, does he have an actually frustration fix on top of that? Seems quite unlikely.

Now looking at the frustration triad:

1 4 7

we see there is one frustrated sovereign (1), one frustrated offerer (4), and one frustrated alchemist (7).

The fact that this one to one correspondence with the object relations triads (attachment, frustration, rejection) exists (with 2 5 8 rejection triad you also have a rejected/rejecting offerer, a r&R alchemist, and a r&r sovereign, and ditto with the attachment triad 3, 6, 9) shows that our power dynamics triads are legitimate triads.

So there is a difference between being, say, frustration and being an alchemist, though both have a somewhat tangential, oblique, or perhaps you might say sneaky, non-straightforward relationship to what is going on around them. Four is a frustrated offerer, it gives you something precious with a hide-reveal while always slipping out the back door, because it will 'never be enough' because WE will 'never be enough'. But it's not doing the 'magic tricks' of 5, 7, 9--which may be more or less on the side of 'laboratory' or 'magician' act. WHAT Four hides/reveals is assumed to be stable in inherent value, non-contingent, and non-negotiable. The problem is us, not it. So 4 is going to keep on offering the same treasure. Compare to 5, with its subconscious desire for it and its treasure to become invisible. Four is a frustrated offerer, 5 is a rejecting alchemist.

So to get back to someone like Rick, when you start thinking 'meat and potatoes'. 'salt of the earth', super-grounded and grounding, you're probably not dealing with a frustration fixer or an alchemist either. So not 7 fix on either front. Especially if you're settled on sx/sp stacking, which is already plenty elusive in its own right.

There is always something tangential or oblique in an actual 7 fix, in the fix of a frustrated alchemist. There is a sense of 'shenanigans afoot'.

I suspect that with these correlations:

1 - So/Sp - sovereign
2 - Sx/So - offering
4 - Sx/Sp - offering
5 - Sp/Sx - alchemy
7 - So/Sx - alchemy
8 - Sp/So - sovereign

we can evaluate their stackings similarly. So, perhaps Sx/Sp is itself an offerer, and in Rick's case, that would also increase the appearance of it (maybe?). For instance, it's very easy to imagine, say, Sp/Sx as itself "alchemical," and the Sx last stackings as "sovereign."

Anthony wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:36 am

I think it's likely that he's 8 and 6 fixed, with double 7 wings, and 2w3 on the heart. I am tempted to give him 3w2—he seems to have been the 'heartthrob' when he was younger, but Sx/Sp could account for that, and besides, he really seems like he's 'hosting'(as in 'removing himself,' not as vain as he is pridefully tending to his viewers) while also putting his viewers in the role of 'the buddy.'

There is some confusion here of perceptions and/or terms. You see 3w2, not 2w3, as the 'heartthrob' and 2w3 as more removed than 3w2?

Well, I meant that I could see 3w2 because he was a heartthrob when younger, and by 'removing himself,' what I actually meant was something akin to the appearance of prideful humility—'removing himself' as in, not DIRECTLY in the spotlight, but perhaps the one introducing the star.

So I should take ^ that as a yes Anthony?



As in, you see 3w2 as more of the 'heartthrob' than 2w3?