The comparison between Gurdjieff & Ichazo is a study in how two eras defined "science" in the context of mysticism. Both lacked standard Western academic credentials but rejected the label of "religious teacher," instead claiming to present an objective, scientific technology of human development.

Oscar Ichazo possessed a high degree of erudition and intellectual capacity, but he did not have a traditional scientific career. His "science" was a metaphysical framework that borrowed the language and logic of Western science to systematize ancient wisdom traditions (Sufism, Kabbalah, Gurdjieff).

A critical distinction in Ichazo's history is legitimacy lent to him by his students. The "scientific" credibility of the Enneagram in the West largely came not from Ichazo’s credentials, but from the credentials of the men who studied under him in Arica, Chile, in the early 1970s: Naranjo & Lilly

Oscar Ichazo possessed a high degree of erudition and intellectual capacity, but he did not have a traditional scientific career. His "science" was a metaphysical framework that borrowed the language and logic of Western science to systematize ancient wisdom traditions (Sufism, Kabbalah, Gurdjieff).

Nothing in what I have written is based on Oscar's work. It is my understanding from looking at the Enneagram of Personality Types through Gurdjieff's understanding of the enneagram as a universal process.

This is based on Gurdjieff, not Ichazo's work, which I wouldn't classify as scientific, though it is certainly one person's deep dive into the subject.