Stellar Maze Charts


:point_right: Herein :point_left:

you’ll find the graphical expression of Blake’s take on Myers-Briggs.

It’s definite yet not definitive. It’s out here yet it’s hidden.

Best taken with a grain of salt.

Thank you, I’d love to make a chart for this, but I need some more information.

Some of what you shared here is lacking in the official chart. In the current chart INFJ has:

Implied Sun in Sagittarius (Ni dominant)
Implied Ascendant in Pisces (Fe auxiliary)
Implied Mercurius & Jupiter in Aquarius (Ti tertiary)
Implied Uranus in Capricorn (Se inferior)
Implied Moon in Scorpio (upper Fi id)
Implied Venus in Pisces (lower Fi id)
Implied Saturn in Gemini (Te superego)

Since you’ve said this, and since you’ve added implied Venus (& Mars) in Cancer (5th house) for Fe auxiliary, inevitable questions arise.

  • Do INFJs have Ti Gemini implied as well? Now the chart suggests that Ti Aquarius is implied both in Mercury and Jupiter.
  • If INFJs have implied Fe Cancer in Venus as 5th house auxiliary, what about the lower id with 12th house Fi Pisces implied - also in Venus?

So, you say this:

9th house: Sun / dominant Ni Sagittarius
1st house: Ascendant / auxiliary Fe Pisces / trines dominant
5th house: Venus & Mars / auxiliary Fe Cancer / trines dominant

If there are two trines, logically there should be two sextiles (am I correct?):

7th house: Mercurius / healthy tertiary Ti Aquarius / sextiles dominant
11th house: Jupiter / overperforming tertiary Ti Gemini / sextiles dominant

So far I am using this as a reference.

Thus the next statements logically follow:

3rd house: Uranus / inferior Se Capricorn / opposes dominant

12th house: Venus? / lower id Fi Pisces / squares dominant
This one is puzzling. Since you talked about the 12th house solely in context of the lower id (which the official chart links with Venus, but in articles you only mention Fi Pisces of INFJs or Ti Gemini of INTJs, i.e., no mention of Venus), I don’t know where the Moon in upper id Fi Scorpio should be attributed. Visually speaking.

I’m puzzled. For one, I’m not really well-versed in astrology. So there is that. Then there’s a question of dimensions, as you’ve said yourself. It all goes pretty smoothly with trines and sextiles. Chartwise.

But the squares! The id, the superego, the 8th function. The squares get squarish. Acquires an interdimensional bent of sorts. :black_medium_square::sparkles:

Once again, I’d be happy to make a chart for this, @Blake , but I need some clarification on what I’ve said above so I can link this all together. :link:

Blake on the auxiliary

So, let me comment those implied positions line by line:



Implied Mercury in Aquarius and implied Jupiter in Gemini, not Jupiter in Aquarius.

Yeah, I guess that is the way it comes out if I assign Uranus to inferior function. So, yes.


No. And I think this is the one thing Prax added on her own authority to the chart.

Venus has nothing to do with the lower id, or the id, period. I don’t know where she got that from. I’ve never made that association, so you can strike that correspondence from the chart.

The lower id definitely relates to the 12th house. I don’t know what planet to assign as an implied position besides Saturn in the sense that it “joys” in this house.

I’d assign the lower side of Saturn to lower id and the higher side of Saturn to the superego (if that makes sense).

Yeah, I’ve said that before but I’d now say it’s more of an implied Saturn in Libra position, the other Te sign.

Yeah, I just answered both those questions in my commentary on the implied positions for INFJ.

Yes, that logically follows and is what I’m saying, but please take it with a grain of salt.


Exactly, I never ever mentioned Venus anywhere as having anything to do with the id function. Prax did that on her own accord. You can take it out completely because it’s wrong.


I can’t believe you’ve let this slide until now. Why didn’t you tell me this when I’ve sent you my version of the chart three months ago? As a Pisces Sun, I feel you. You are you. But as a Capricorn everything else, I say it’s unacceptable! My inner grammar nazi superego is raging as well. Scheisse! Just kidding. :v:

But seriously, what else is wrong in the chart?

Have you checked the astrological sign attributions? Are they all correct? Knowing that you’ve ignored the faulty id-Venus correlation in the chart for so long, I now suspect there may be more errors in the chart. Since unofficially this chart is official, I have to bring this into question:

For every MB function position, there are always two types who share it. So eight pairs of types in six of them: dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, id, superego. I exclude the 5th and the 8th functions because they don’t have astrological attributions (in the chart). So we have six positions with eight pairs in each and this amounts to 48 different pairings of types.

What I’m getting at is that usually these pairs with the the same function in the same functional position have different astrological signs attributed. For example, ENFJs have implied Pisces Sun (Fe dom), but ESFJs have implied Cancer Sun (Fe dom). Or, if INFJs have implied Aquarius Mercurius and implied Gemini Jupiter (Ti tert), ISFJs will have these astrological attributions switched, so Gemini Mercurius and Aquarius Jupiter . And so on.

Since there are TWO possible astro signs for every function, this makes sense.

However, the chart is inconsistent in this regard. I’ve said there are 48 different pairings. Now 42 of those pairs do have different astro signs for the quantitatively and qualitatively identical functions. As in the examples above. But there are 6 pairs that have the same signs.

What is it – your empirical observations not matching the overall “math” or mere typos coming from the initial chart? I do hope it’s not the latter.

Here are those 6 pairs:

ISTP & ISFP both have Leo Mercurius & Sagittarius Jupiter as Ni tertiary
ESTJ & ESFJ both have Aries Mercurius & Sagittarius Jupiter as Ne tertiary
ENFJ & ENTJ both have Capricorn Mercurius & Virgo Jupiter as Se tertiary
ISTJ & ISFJ both have Aries Uranus as Ne inferior
ESTJ & ENTJ both have Scorpio Uranus as Fi inferior
ENFJ & ENTJ both have Taurus Saturn as Si superego

I did update the chart regarding auxiliary, tertiary and id functions, but I did not yet touch the superego placements because of the same confusion I was talking about above. Let’s say I change it for INFJ, but what about other types?

Oh oh oh :thermometer:




It’s the latter :grin:

OK, let me correct them up :writing_hand:

ISTP has Sagittarius Mercury and Leo Jupiter, ISFP has Leo Mercury and Sagittarius Jupiter.

ESTJ has Sagittarius Mercury and Aries Jupiter, ESFJ has Aries Mercury and Sagittarius Jupiter.

ENFJ has Capricorn Mercury and Virgo Jupiter, ENTJ has Virgo Mercury and Capricorn Jupiter.

ISTJ would have Sagittarius version of Ne for their Uranus and ISFJ the Aries Uranus.

ESTJ would have the Pisces version of Fi for their Uranus position and ENTJ would have the Scorpio Uranus.

ENFJ would have the Taurus Saturn and ENTJ would have the Virgo Saturn.

It’s easy to do once you grasp the basic logic. The rule is that a type’s implied Saturn position is the implied Sun sign position of their absolute opposite.

For INFJ, their absolute opposite is ESTJ. ESTJ has an implied Libra Sun position, thus INFJ has an implied Libra Saturn position.

Your chart is looking good, Ignas!


Done. The chart is true for now.

Yeah, and once the typos are identified and eradicated. :upside_down_face:

I’ve put a second chart (intertype relationships) under the main one, so people can scroll down for that as well. And I’ve put the main link on top of this thread.

Regarding the aspects chart (with angles and stuff), I’ll see into it after I finish with the continuum project.


Your chart is aesthetically pleasing as well as technically fascinating!


Thanks, Stewart. I’m glad to hear that.


This is such a great resource, it’s hard to keep track of all the things blake talks about so really handy to have a great visual to refer back to!

Thanks Blake for the intel and Ignas for putting so much time and care into creating this for us all!



I’ve updated the chart according to your last article on superego.

Which reminded me again of this:

So a few more questions:

  • Do you think there are two versions of dominant and inferior functions as well?
  • If there are two versions of inferior, does Pluto play a part in there? (so far it’s the only planet missing in the chart)


Yeah, but I’m not too sure about them in an actual manifestation sense. For the id, aux., tert. and superego I have slowly evolved an idea how those work and it all started with the tertiary Ti function of INFJ many years ago. I realized that INFJ’s Ni-Ti looping is akin to Geminian Ti, but that they have another form of Ti that is Aquarian, which works fine and good for them.

Since I had broken up the mutable signs of astrology into two-in-one signs so that I could assign the zodiac evenly to the 16 Myers-Briggs types, it suggested two forms of each cognitive function. And it seems to work just marvelously.

And these things just come to me over time and observation and hypothesizing and theorizing.

I don’t really have much insight into the two forms of the dominant function besides to say that I think logically it follows that for each of the 8 possible positions of each cognitive function, that both versions of each cognitive function would be operant in that position. Usually, I call one of these 2 possible versions the more normative and correct version for the type in question and the other one as being more out of character for the type, either because it is overperforming, underperforming, or unbalances the type.

Like, for example, both INFJ and ISFJ have Ti tertiaries, but it is obvious that Aquarian Ti is more correct for INFJ and that Geminian Ti is more correct for ISFJ.

This is also true of their respective auxiliaries. Pisces Fe belongs more with INFJ and Cancer Fe belongs more with ISFJ.

For an INFJ to use Geminian Ti, for example, is really pushing it for them, whereas ISFJs use it as a matter of course. For example, there are quite a number of ISFJs who are computer programmers and software engineers and they do just fine in these object-oriented environments. It’s not their ideal environment, but it’s not pushing it either.

Also, each of the two versions of a cognitive function belongs more to one of the two possible perceiving or judging axes.

For example, Gemini Ti belongs more to the Ne-Si axis of perceiving functions and Aquarian Ti belongs more to the Se-Ni axis of the perceiving functions.

You could make a really cool chart of that, I’m sure!

Yeah, at this point, I don’t know. I’m not really sure how the two versions of the inferior manifest in reality. In time, I’m sure I’ll stumble across how that works. Just like everything else.

Frankly, if I was gonna assign Pluto to anything, I’d assign it to the id function. Pluto as an astrological symbol has everything to do with psychology and the discovery of The Unconscious. It represents deep buried ancestral drives. Could be a candidate for the deep id assignment.


There’s a small typo here.

I’m sure I’ll try!

Thank you for the answers.
I’m rejuvenated.


O yeah, thanks, I’ll fix that. :wink:

Ah, good. :blush:



In the meantime of brooding and not taking any actual steps towards some new chart, I’d like to better the one we already have. It’s regarding the enneagrams and it has to do with the Continuum List as well. Here’s why:

Let’s take the list of famous ENFP people. About 35 examples there. 12 of them are noted as E3s, the rest have no enneagram attributions. And that’s OK. As you say, you also recognize E7 ENFPs, so there’s this option and it’s good to know that at least those 12 people are not it.

But let’s look at ENTJs. 20+ examples, 5 of them with E8 attribution. But now that all ENTJs are E8s in your opinion, these attributions have no use. I guess I’ll just delete them.

Also ESTPs. Do you see them any other type than E3? If not, noting E3 in 3 of 12 cases does not make sense either. Same thing with the ESFP list (2 of 11 persons noted as E3s).

I can edit all that myself, I just need to know your current stance on all the E-points. So let’s calibrate:

  • E1 – ISxJ? xSTJ? ¿Si?
  • E2 – House-elves?
  • E4 – INFJ (still all 4w5?)
  • E5 – INTJ, INTP
  • E6 – ISTP, ISFP, …
  • E7 – ENTP, ENFP
  • E8 – ENTJ, ENFJ, maybe ENTP (the case of Robert Anton Wilson)
  • E9 – INFP (still all 9w1?), ISFJ, ESFJ

I understand the problem with E2 and E6 (catchall of different traits), and the overall numerological flaws (E4 being the actual E1 and so on), but still… What’s up? :slight_smile:

pinned globally #15


Yeah, E1 is the primary Si point on enneagram. SJ types congregate there, especially ISTJ, and secondarily ESTJ. The description of this point always sounds ISTJ to me.

  • E2 – House-elves?

E2, as well as numerological 2 are define the same way, as The Helper. I think the number 2 has the primary qualities of air/thinking function in it’s essence - duality. I also think it has Fe qualities to it in the way Fe is usually defined - kinda harmonious, polite, unobtrusive, deferential, a good secretary or right-hand man (woman) but incapable of being independent. They need a strong #1 type person to bring out the best in them. So, this also belongs with some of the qualities of Libra and 2nd house. To complicate things, Libra is often described similar to Fe, so, in a nutshell, I think number 2 is the crossover point between thinking and feeling functions in some way. Of the two forms of Te, Libra Te would be the one that is like Fe-ish-Te and Gemini Te is Te proper, the way most people think of Te - eviscerating, violent, cold, unfeeling etc.

Yeah, the most shit occurs at E3 apparently, by my way of assigning enneagram. It seems type 3 can hold all those types you mentioned, and I’d throw ISFP in there too, sometimes. I wouldn’t say (or couldn’t say really) that E3 belongs the most to one of those types. All those types can occur at least one other enneagram point so no one seems to exclusively belong to E3. Plus, I think I am fascinated with E3, which is why I focus on it over, say, E7, which I barely mention, but which has probaly even more types associated with it.

Yes, INFJ has exclusive rights to E4 and 4w5. I don’t know that I see any other type occurring with a primary E4 assignment. Also, I’ve been in a state of doubt for some time as to whether I would consider there really being a 4 w/5 wing assignment as I tend to think that E4 and E1 need to switch places to line up with their numerological qualities. Same is true of E5 and E7. If such were to occur, there would no longer be such as thing as a 4 w/5 wing INFJ. Perhaps, a 1 w/2 wing INFJ or 1 w/9 wing. I dunno yet. Anyway, yeah, as far as enneagram goes in it’s current guise, yes, INFJ is the only one with 4 w/5 wing, and probaly the only type that has E4 as its primary type.

Yes, I only see those two types with E5 as their primary enneapoint. No other Myers-Briggs type falls here.

Everyone is E6! Lot of types fall here, but I don’t see what the meaning is. I don’t see E6 as sufficiently defined for it to mean much as a designation. I would redefine it according to the meaning of the 6th harmonic in astrology - sextile-ish. In mathematics, six is considered the perfect number. I think there is more to six then is being described as either an enneapoint or in numerology.

E7 is exactly like numerological number 5. I’d say it is the primary number of EP, extraverted perception - Ne and Se. So, in addition to ENxP, any SP type can fall here too, I think. It’s kind of a garden-variety number. Gangbusters. I’d say it’s the masculine complement to enneatype 3, numerological 3. It’s Mars to E3’s Venus. I’d also say there is a Uranian component to it, hence ENTP. And, actually ENTP is the only Myers-Briggs type that seems to fall exclusively at E7. All other Myers-Briggs types that may fall here, can fall at at least one other enneapoint. Not ENTP. So, whatever that means…

I see E8 as the primary number (enneapoint) of the EJ, extraverted judging dominant types - ENxJ. Matter of fact, I don’t think I see any other type except ENxJ occuring here primarily. ESFJ has a wing here (from E9 primary), but that’s about it, I think.

Yes, INFP all still 9w1. ISFJ occurs here as does ESFJ. Yeah, I think that’s about it. It’s a phlegmatic number. Overly harmonized. 3 x 3. Etc.


I’m not too read up on Enneagrams and probs shouldn’t bother as I first have to get to grips with your whole type system but, if one were an INFJ by your lights but gets E9 most in repeat testing (with E5 & E4 being close behind) would you not ever say E9 INFJ?

If not would you chalk it up to unreliability of online testing?

How valuable is E number to typing, is it just that extra layer of info like Astro clothing? Would it be the accessories on top or the undergarments?

Sorry if you’ve explained this somewhere before maybe @Ignas can direct me [or just direct me to the eagerly anticipated Blake Book!]


No, there is no such thing as an E9 INFJ. I would attribute any E9ness to a subtype, like if an INFJ had an ISFJ or INFP subtype, you could expect to see some strong E9 component.

Yes, that too. Many of these tests yield different results at different times. That’s not reliable, consistent, or stable.

The E number is at least as primary as the Myers-Briggs type, if not more. I consider enneagram as implied numerology, similar to how I consider an Myers-Briggs type to have an implied astrology.

I would say that one’s numerology is similar to how I describe one’s astrology as the clothes versus the person wearing the clothes.

But, enneagram is on the same level as a Myers-Briggs temperament and even more primary in a way because it’s just one number vs. a whole MB temperament.

For example, between an E3 ENFJ and an E8 ENFJ there is a lot of primary differences and it all comes down to the enneagram designation.

It’s important.

I think enneagram is to numerology what Myers-Briggs is to astrology. However, the enneagram is fucked up in my opinion because E5 and E7 need to be switched, as do E1 and E4, to line up with their numerological equivalents. I think E3, E8, and E9 line up very well with their numerological equivalents and so it’d be nice to get the other ones switched around. I think both 2 and 6 in either system (numerology, enneagram) are under- or mis-defined. They need some work.

The meaning of a primary number is very important to delineate and very potent in its psychological effects on temperament.


Ok cool, I’m more comfortable with the ways and vibes of numerology & astrology (old school) so this is helpful to keep in mind.

Lovely summation, thanks for clarifying. Carry on. :grin:


Aren’t the enneagram numbers just arbitrary labels though? If you were to rotate all of the numbers around, you’d still be left with the same sequence of types, just under different names. E9 wasn’t labeled 9 because it’s phlegmatic, it was labeled 9 to tell us that it’s in between 8 and 1 on the cycle.

However, if E1 and E4 were swapped, the cycle would be broken. E4 would now be in the anger category and E1 in the image category; an E4 under stress would now act like an E1, etc. Is this what you meant?


Yes, however, enneapoints 2, 3, 8, and 9 line up pretty well with their numerological correspondences and 5 and 7 would if they were switched with each other as would 1 and 4. That’s all I’m saying. I know very well that it would break some of the wing sequences and that 1 and 4 wouldn’t belong to their previous anger/image categories. However, I’m not too invested in those features of the enneagram system. Switching would also break the cycle of integration/disintegration as well, or, at least, change it. I don’t hold much stock with that though. I most care about the numerological correspondences and the descriptions of the temperament that go along with them. I don’t agree with everything I see in any system. I think there is something to the enneagram as far as it mirrors numerological correspondences. And it’s quite interesting, like I said, that enneapoints 2, 3, 8, and 9 do line up with their numerological correspondences, more or less. That’s about half of the enneapoints. And I can only but help to notice that if enneapoints 1 and 4 were switched they would line up too, as would enneapoints 5 and 7.

If the enneapoint numbers were completely arbitrary (none of them lined up with their numerological associations) or they were just wholly different descriptions from their numerological counterparts, then I probaly woudn’t have made any association in the first place.

And the numerological associations for each number are the right ones. It’s quite obvious that enneatype 1 has the characteristics of number 4 rather than number 1. Same is true for enneatype 7. It matches the characteristics of the number 5 very well. Those sensation-seeking traits do not at all belong with the characteristics of number 7, the most reclusive and mysterious of all numbers. Etc.