Validating Roles Visually
Nov 6, 2003
SHEPHERD: Eyes can be a helpful if uncertain guide to many Michael teachings traits, especially if coupled with other indicators.
In my experience:
Emotionally centered people have watery eyes.
Priests have intense, fiery eyes.
Warriors have intense, metallic eyes.
Sages have mirthful, expressive eyes.
Artisans have soft, doe-like eyes.
Servers have warm, sincere eyes.
Kings have "pointy" eyes.
Scholars have neutral eyes (that may especially reveal their secondary traits).
Those with a goal of discrimination (a.k.a. rejection) often have somewhat squinty eyes, as if trying to make something out.
A manifested, positive-pole old soul has open, easy-going eyes.
An old, emotionally centered warrior in discrimination has crossed eyes (just kidding). Seriously, her eyes might have several qualities at once.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just what trait you're picking up in someone's eyes. Is the warmth you see there the emotional center or an indication of a server or priest? It takes practice to discern, and cross-checking with other litmus tests can help. Does he thrive on inspiration? Does he easily cry?
From Messages from Michael:
REMEMBERING THAT THIS IS MOST SUPERFICIAL, AND EASILY COLORED BY OTHER FACTORS, WE WOULD SAY THAT INFANT SOULS MANIFEST FEAR. THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THEIR EYES. THIS FEAR IS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE SITUATION. THE WHOLE BUSINESS OF LIVING IS FEARFUL TO THEM. BABY SOULS ARE GUILELESS AND THIS SHOWS IN THEIR EYES. YOUNG SOULS ARE IN A STATE OF UNREST. THIS OFTEN SHOWS IN ERRATIC EYE MOVEMENTS, THE INABILITY TO HOLD EYE CONTACT FOR LONG. BUT THEN, THE MATURE SOUL FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN EYE CONTACT BECAUSE OF DISCOMFORT. OLD SOULS HAVE A DIRECT, PENETRATING STARE ABSENT IN EARLIER CYCLES. WISDOM IS REFLECTED THERE.
Note Michael's caveat at the beginning that these concepts are not cut-and-dried, just tendencies. In my observation, people of any soul age who are conscious (present, self-aware, working on themselves) and in their positive poles are comfortable with eye contact and can have great eyes; we're all eternal beings, after all. The more "there" that's there, the more there is in the eyes. Anyone in fear will tend to avert his eyes; being agitated will show up in anyone's eyes darting around.
Athletes tend to have shiny eyes just from being so fit; in their case, the eyes reveal vitality. Sick people have cloudy eyes.
Yep, the eyes are windows of the soul. There are many other clues to one's traits, but eyes are especially revealing.
BODHI: Your take on eyes is interesting. It could be a chapter in your new Michael book:) It rings with some veracity. But how how would you classify the eyes, say, of Asians? Would they also fit your descriptions below? I find that Michael doesn't so much describe the expression or structure of eyes as they do the psychology manifested behind the eyes.
SHEPHERD: I would think that these tendencies would cross ethnic and cultural lines. It might be helpful, though, if one knew enough about the cultural tendencies to take them into account. For example, if a culture is especially emotionally expressive or repressive, that might have a bearing on how much emotion manifests in their eyes when its people are emotionally centered. Maybe, for example, all Italians would tend to look emotionally centered to the untrained eye. Comparing an Italian validated as being intellectually centered with one validated as being emotionally centered might help "calibrate" one's perceptive yardstick. I wouldn't think that the shape of the eyes would matter--this is about what's coming through the form.
LAUREL: Penetrating, bright, X-ray vision quality....Is that sort of what you mean, Shepherd, when you say intense and fiery???
SHEPHERD: Maybe. Inspiration axis roles' eyes are warm, expression axis medium, action axis cool, and assimilation axis neutral or clear. The cardinal roles' eyes are more focused, and ordinal are more diffuse. Even though warriors' eyes are very strong, there's a blunt quality to their look, as opposed to the "pointiness" of kings'.
The two most intense roles and eyes are warrior and priest. Warriors are the most earthy, and priests are the most astral or spiritual: lowest and highest in frequency, two ends of one stick.
This is different from most ordinal (server) to most cardinal (king), which is a different "stick": least to most concentrated energy, in the sense that kings have the most energy "packed" into their soul, so they're highly pressurized. Servers have the least pressurized, compelling feeling about them, making them easy to be around. Kings command just by their presence, and servers comfort. This characterizes all cardinality and ordinality to some extent.
I don't know about the x-ray vision: I suppose any intense gaze could be interpreted that way.
All the best, Shepherd
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 19:12
Roles On Same Axis
Sun Nov 9, 2003
SHEPHERD: Roles on the same axis can be confused, but it's usually not difficult for a person to validate whether he's more ordinal or cardinal. Most artisans will tell you that they would rather connect with a few people at a time or one-on-one rather than be center stage in a large group, like sages. The exception to sages loving lots of attention is when they have arrogance, which creates a push-pull: "Yes, I want the attention, but I'm also afraid of being judged, so I want to hide from the spotlight at the same time."
DAVE: And what Artisans have been channeled as Sages?
SHEPHERD: Weren't you, Dave, at one point?
In any case, in the early years of the list, many people assumed Dave was a sage because of his humor. Dave has validated that he's a sage-cast artisan. His writing has a sage flavor, but, typical of artisans, he's shy and low-key--he doesn't want to be center stage.
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 18:52
One Role Not Better Than Another
Sat Oct 4, 2008
If one is inclined to think better of one role than another ("Oh, no, not server!"), it might be useful to think of the seven roles as being like the seven colors of the rainbow, each perfect, beautiful, and necessary.
Among manmade items, the only color I don't like is orange. Yet in nature, orange flowers are just as glorious to me as any other color. My favorite color is green, but I've seen shades of green paint I thought were hideous. In paint, there is no subtlety. (Of course, it depends on context, too.)
Manmade items that are not beautiful could be seen as analogous to the negative poles, whereas their full-blown subtle manifestation in nature would be their positive poles. I have never seen a positive-pole manifestation of a Michael-defined energy that wasn't beautiful. Some Michael traits are more apt to push my buttons than others, but that's my problem, someone else's negative poles triggering mine. If one has low self-esteem, one will find something on one's Michael chart, accurate or not, to feel bad about. However, the traits are all neutral.
-- Shepherd Hoodwin
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 18:46
Negativity About Roles
Thu May 19, 2005
IMO, the value of the Michael teachings is in learning that there are great reasons for the differences among us so that we stop judging them and instead celebrate the diversity. We need all the roles and overleaves, and in their positive poles, they're all beautiful. It can be good work to recognize how we react differently to different roles and overleaves, both in terms of their innate chemistry and how certain traits push buttons for us. However, making negative generalizations about any role, soul age or overleaf defeats the purpose of the teachings in our lives.
Best, Shepherd
Sun Nov 9, 2003
I've been seeing on the list lately a lot of over-generalizations about roles, either idealizing a certain role or making it the bogeyman. Either way, the writer is projecting his own shadows; people aren't that cut-and-dried. Traits can come from a variety of places besides role, including overleaves, imprinting, and astrology. When someone writes about how troublesome a particular role is for him, I suspect that many of the people he's encountering aren't actually that role--he's just jumping to conclusions based on his own issues.
A women once came to me for a session complaining bitterly about the warriors in her life. Boy! was she surprised when Michael told her that she *is* a warrior. She is also in martyrdom, which is the warrior chief feature, but sabotages the strength normally associated with warriors. She'd also had a tough life and was feeling rather beaten up at that time.
I've seen many roles made into bogeymen. Warriors and priests, the two most intense roles, are favorites, but recently, artisans and sages have been popular. So far, nobody has complained about "those darn servers!" but it's just a matter of time. :)
I have had an issue with heavy-handed authority figures. My father is a king/warrior e.t. with high male energy who is often heavy-handed. Likewise, with my older brother, who is also a high-male-energy (baby) king with al most all king overleaves: dominance, aggression, realist, moving center, impatience, martial body. I also had painful experiences as a child with people like a gym teacher who was probably a warrior (maybe an ex-Marine, too). So I've tended to equate heavy-handedness with kings and warriors, who certainly *can* be that way. However, I can now think of many kings and warriors who have tempered their strength with gentleness, who are not heavy-handed. I can also think of other roles who *are* heavy-handed, because of their chief feature (arrogance or impatience, especially), if for no other reason. So it's more accurate for me to say that my issue has been with heavy-handedness rather than with kings and warriors.
Just as heavy-handed doesn't necessarily equal warrior, talkative doesn't necessarily equal sage, nor bossy = king, flaky = artisan, guilt-inducing = priest, etc. On the flip side, reliable doesn't necessarily equal warrior, nor does delightful = sage, admirable = king, adorable = artisan, inspirational = priest, etc. Each role has tendencies, but to use the teachings effectively, we need to consider individuals carefully and see them for who they are, observing what forces are actually operating in their lives, rather than pouncing on circumstantial evidence in order to try to reinforce a prejudice about how terrible or wonderful a particular role is. All the roles are terrible and wonderful.
All the best, Shepherd
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 18:42
Sages, Talking, and Humor
Sat Jul 10, 2004
ALEXANDRA: So, how are we supposed to be able to figure out that the person who spoke for 4 hours, non-stop, in a VERY amusing and interesting way, imparting info (and numerology!) as he went, was NOT a sage? I must say that in my limited experience, I have never seen a scholar act that way.
SHEPHERD: There are people of all the roles who are non-stop, sometimes funny, talkers. Warriors have the stereotype of being the strong, silent types, but have you ever heard JP Van Hulle speak? Artisans have the reputation for being quiet and aloof, but what about Robin Williams? (Both do have secondary sage influences.)
I know several scholars who can talk me under the table once they get going, and I'm a sage-cast sage with a sage essence twin and several sage overleaves. One scholar friend said that she's a member of a 12-step program, On-and-On Anonymous.
The stereotypes work maybe 60-70% of the time. It's more reliable to look for underlying energies. Sages tend to be brassy, and our faces can be quite animated and rubbery when expressing; even with sage or artisan casting, scholars are more neutral and earthy. Sages require attention to do our job; scholars can hold forth but the need for attention isn't strong--they can just as easily listen to information from others. Sages seek insight; scholars seek knowledge. For the sage, insight is truth; for the scholar, knowledge is truth.
Sages specialize in wit, artisans, in whimsy, and both, in playfulness, but people of all roles can have a great sense of humor, even without sage or artisan essence twin bleedthrough and/or casting (although those can contribute). Humor is not just a sage attribute, it's an intrinsic part of being alive. Without smiles and laughter, we're in deep doo-doo.
Best, Shepherd
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 15:52
Learning To See Roles
A student trying to guess the role, etc., without anchoring perceptions in what's right in front of him--eyes, facial expressions, energy, etc.--can go wildly off-base, using circumstantial evidence. The roles look and feel different from one another. If you jump to the conclusion that someone is a sage, for example, based just on behaviors, then you might assume that a theatrical scholar with sage imprinting is a sage, because you have nothing else to go on. If you're expecting all artisans to be arty and unpractical, you'll miss the earthy ones working in construction and other trades. If you immediately assume warrior or king when someone is authoritative or bossy, you could miss the other roles with a goal of dominance, or power or aggression mode. Behavior results from many factors, including overleaves, body type, astrology, imprinting, and past lives, but your essence is what you *are*, not what you do. Behavior often but doesn't always reflect your essence, so you have to look deeper to see essence.
-- Shepherd Hoodwin
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 15:40
Early Channeling About Roles
SARI: The concept of the Sage Role has changed a bit during the decades. The impression you get from the early transcriptis about the Sage Role doesn't differ much from the Webster meaning for the word, but it does differ from the now prevailing image of some kind of clown, joker or light entertainer whose job is to bring amusement to the situation. I think there's quite many Artisans now that are channeled as Sages.
According to the transcripts, Sage is a masculine Role, they bring wisdom and sagacity to life.... And the early Michael doesn't connect the Sage Role with the Goal of Acceptance but with Growth. The Goal of Acceptance is rather connected to the Priest Role .
SHEPHERD: I think that sages can go either way here, from being a lightweight joker ("You can't get a serious word out of that man!") to being full of insightful, astute observations about life; usually, they are a combination. One way to bring enlightenment is to lighten things up. The core of humor is the surprise that causes us to look at something in a new way and gain insight about it, releasing tension and perhaps letting the air out of a false assumption. I find some of the most astute political insight in "Funny Times" magazine and in political cartoons in general: they can succinctly say a great deal.
I also noticed Michael's reference in the initial transcripts to people confusing the goal of growth with the role of sage, and acceptance with priest. There's two different strands here: one is that of "natural overleaves," the overleaves that are on the same side of the same axis as a role. Acceptance is the "natural" goal of the sage, because they are both on the cardinal side of the expression axis; this placement has been consistent, I believe, with all the channels and books. Sages naturally crave acceptance because we can't do our "job" if our audience isn't listening. Even sages not in acceptance inherently have some of its flavor. I'm a sage in acceptance, which makes the acceptance especially strong.
On the other hand, it is easy to think of sages, with our hunger for insight, as seeking growth, and that was what was confusing to the original group as they were first getting the overleaves information. However, the goal of growth refers more specifically to being motivated to be busy, to have new experiences that stimulate growth, which isn't really a sage thing--in general, we'd rather play.
Conversely, it's easy to associate priests with acceptance, since priests are compassionate, and acceptance tends to make one the stereotypical "nice guy." Still, these are different forces. Acceptance is more friendly and social (like sages), as opposed to the priests' impulse to bring healing and higher connection. There are other cross-axes resonances like this. The negative pole of server, bondage (inspiration axis) is reminiscent, on the surface, of the chief feature of martyrdom (action axis), but they are sourced differently. In bondage, the server feels that she *is* a slave; in martyrdom, a person *does* things to try to earn deservingness or greater influence over his life.
-- Shepherd Hoodwin
I absolutely agree! Shepherd !! We are all such a conglomerate of upbringing, background, destiny, astrological nemesis, roles, fake egos, overleaves (along with playing with overleaves), etc. - that to try to compartmentalize each role would be ludicrous! Each one of us is UNIQUE. More so than anyone can even imagine. There are so many variables going on in our lives - day-to-day - that it could make our heads spin! And yet, we all share and learn and grow, with each other, and for each other. THAT'S the beauty of our existence.
Each role has its attributes and negative aspects, yet if you took every Sage or every King or every Priest or every Artisan and put them in a room together, you would find such a plethora of different characteristics in them, you would only find a few common bonds. Those common bonds are the few things that you are talking about - and yet, they are only a fraction of who we are.
I am a Priest, and I have many very close friends who are Priests. I see our commonality, yet we are all so different. Think about it! - There are 7 roles in the world. Can you really generalize millions of people into 7 compartments?
The Michael teachings help us to place those around us into these different compartments (roles), but the overleaves bring a whole new dimension to the teachings. The different combinations, along with our environmental and mental differentials, can create such a wide variety of souls - no wonder The Universe (God, All That Is, or whatever you want to call It/Him/Her), has created each of us to live our lives to learn all the different aspects that we can gather for the benefit of all of us, along with our Maker. Even these thought processes that we all go through (in all these e-mails) is part of the progression. If we all stopped to think of the larger picture, we could see that.
Love, Light & Agape, Siggi (Ziggi)
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 15:37
Discerning Roles
I think that this discussion on Bush's role and overleaves has been really good work, as Michael might say.
There are several ways to discern roles (and other Michael traits). One is through intellect: comparing observable details with what we know about the roles. This is an essential part of validation--what is true should make good intellectual sense--but if it's the only approach taken, it can lead down the garden path of theory: we can come up with an idea that seems sound because it's supported by good arguments, but that's divorced from real life. There are several ways that the intellectual process can be cross-checked.
The most important one is to gain a sense of the look and feel of each of the roles, including facial expressions, body language, and, beyond that, the flavor or energy. If you're able to psychically see or sense the energy field, its shape and texture can also give clues: for example, artisans tend to have the largest, fluffiest auras, and warriors have the most compact, close-to-the-body auras.
Another tool is to note how different roles make you feel emotionally. When I find someone to be adorable, it's usually an artisan, and priests usually give me a warm feeling. Warriors and kings give me a bracing feeling. Of course, this doesn't always work--we're each complex, and there are exceptions to every rule--but it's a good supplement to other approaches.
The bad news is that with someone like Bush, with whom there might be mitigating factors, all bets are off. Then, it comes down to which channeling you most trust or what makes the most sense to you.
It's interesting that there wasn't even agreement among Yarbro channels as to his role. As Victoria shared, Yarbro herself got scholar, but one or two others got artisan, I understand.
This could be disheartening to students, especially those who are new to the teachings. It could appear that the teachings themselves aren't valid when something as fundamental as role can't be easily channeled or discerned. Older students are more likely to take discrepancies in stride, since we've seen a lot of them, but discrepancies do, of course, raise questions.
My controversial opinion is that the first one to channel specific information is most likely to be accurate, provided that the channel is good at getting that kind of material and was free of bias. However, there's currently no comprehensive way to know who got what when, when it comes to celebrity overleaves, and it's unlikely that there will be.
In terms of discerning Michael information rather than channeling it, in my experience some people are clear-cut and others are hard to read, for several possible reasons.
One is that some people have strong influences from other roles, through essence twin bleedthrough, casting, overleaves, or imprinting.
On the Gateway list, this pithy quote from Messages from Michael (p. 103) was posted:
"The life role often bears little relation to the essence role and if false personality is firmly in control, it will almost be impossible to detect the essence role."
I don't think that being President or otherwise successful necessarily equates with being in positive poles or true personality. In fact, being in true personality could hinder one's worldly success in corrupt circles.
Also, someone who has been through heavy mental/emotional trauma, either earlier in this life or in recent past lives, can be hard to read because you're seeing the distortion of the damage more than the true self. Physical trauma in this life could also mask the essence.
I channeled that Bush had "extensive brain damage due to drug and alcohol use added to learning disabilities that stem, in part, from a head injury at age three." Was this part of his pre-natal plan? "No. He was later drafted as a pawn in other people's game."
We can twist ourselves into pretzels trying to rationalize any role for any person, but if Bush is a scholar, this could account for him not looking like one, and being inarticulate.
My younger brother is a baby scholar who is mildly retarded. Still, you can see the scholar influence, such as in how he saves stacks of newspapers and other media--scholars tend to be collectors and packrats. Does anyone know if Bush is? My brother also has an encyclopedic knowledge of football statistics, and remembers small details from the past--the part of his brain that allows for that still works.
Also, if Bush is not in the intellectual center or part of center, he'd look less scholarly.
Bush probably has a strongly martial body type (good for athletics), and I understand he has a lot of Mars in his astrological chart. Mars was the god of war, and obviously there's a warrior connection here, but astrology and body type aren't necessarily indicators of role--they might relate more to life task, karma, etc.--issues for this lifetime only.
The chart item I have the least doubt about for Bush is his goal: flow/stagnation seems obvious. I've noticed that many people with this goal bounce around to a lot of different careers, and have (external) things easy. Another Messages quote: "Lawmaking is a stagnation activity."
I'd also vote for him being young manifesting baby. His life events look like Young Souls on Parade, yet his perspective has a black-and-white baby soul quality.
Scholar energy, being neutral, doesn't have a strong color, so other chart elements show up especially strongly. A small red plate catches your eye against a white wall much more than against a blue one. For example, a scholar with a discarnate artisan essence twin and casting, and soft overleaves such as emotional center and spiritualist, can look like a "watered down" artisan. He would lack the artisan's five inputs and creative chaos, but he might mimic them somewhat.
On the other hand, for the argument that Bush is an artisan, it's a mistake to expect all artisans (or any other role) to look a certain way. Artisans account for 22% of the world's population, according to Yarbro. The U.S. seems to be an artisan (and warrior) magnet, and it's probably closer to 30% here. 30% of the people I see aren't artistic or notably good with crafts, even discounting those of other roles who are (sages can be very creative, too, as can the other roles). Many artisans, like the other roles, work in a boring job, raise their children, flop down in front of the television at night, and get chores done on the weekend. Still, in many, you might see a particular flair for cooking or fixing things, for instance, that only comes out occasionally.
Also, artisans who practice practical trades such as construction or engineering are likely to look more grounded than those whose work is more purely creative, although they might take flights of fancy when they can. In addition to their occupation, other Michael chart elements as well as their imprinting and astrological chart can offer clues as to how stereotypical of their role people might be.
I think it's the MIchael Handbook that says that if you can't figure out someone's role, s/he is probably an artisan, because artisans are so chameleon-like. However, that's not my experience. Sages have a special resonance with artisans (and vice versa) and I often seem to be good at spotting them--I feel that affinity. For me, when I can't figure out someone's role and I later channel it, most often the person turns out to be a scholar. There are, of course, the stereotypical bookish scholars, but there are many scholars who take on other colorings. Spotting neutrality is harder than spotting a strong color.
My take on Bush is that no one's been home for a long time. Not only is he controlled by other people but his energy field is infested with psychic flotsam, such as fragments of earthbound souls. Heavy drug and alcohol use puts a lot of holes in the aura and make one highly vulnerable to being occupied by parasitic and sometimes controlling entities.
A friend who channels and who met both Gore and Bush said she got a warm, friendly energy from Gore, and a knot in her stomach from Bush's energy. It was probably not because of Bush himself, but because of the negative entities he carries.
I've never been able to really dislike the man, although I detest what he is doing and stands for. I think he's probably a nice guy; I'd feel fine about him fixing my car or selling me an insurance policy (although I'd shop around). One some level, he must feel very uncomfortable, that he's in way over his head, and I feel a bit sorry for him. The really sad thing, to me, though, is that so many people voted for him. Even if he didn't win legitimately, if more people had really looked at the man and his record, it shouldn't have been even close. Why was the media so gentle with him, for example, about his involvement in the S&L fiasco? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Carolyn Myss tells a story about man who had his business taken from him, and before he could tell his wife, she told him she was divorcing him. He told Myss that only God can screw up your life that much. In other words, it was too much to be coincidental. He figured that there was a higher reason for what was happening. He opened to guidance and made a decision to accept a settlement for his business that looked ludicrous at the time. It later made him rich and his life turned around.
I wonder if it's like that relative to the 2000 election. If any one of several factors had been different, Gore would be in office. If there had been no Monica, if Nader hadn't run, if Palm Beach hadn't used the confusing butterfly ballots, if the Supreme Court had had one more liberal...and, of course, if Gore had been a stronger candidate. He recently said in a speech that next time, he won't let his handlers and polls keep him from speaking out--I was really glad to hear that he got that. Both Clinton and Gore seemed to have lost their backbone at some point, believing that to win, they must only say what most people will like. Unfortunately, it's probably true to a large extent in these days of sound bytes and uninformed voters, but I'd like to think that the public could handle more frankness than we've gotten for a while, and that even someone of integrity who consistently speaks his truth could win.
I heard that, for a while now, every President who has won in a year ending in zero has been shot; in astrological earth years (as opposed to water, air or fire years) they've been killed. 2000 was an earth year. Maybe Gore was lucky.
Beyond that, the highest outcome I can see from having this disastrous administration (motto: Warren Harding for the New Millennium!) is that it will make people wake up and will function as a sort of inoculation against future reactionary backsliding. Maybe what is happening is being guided for the ultimate higher good. I'm not convinced of that, but I hope it's true.
Best, Shepherd
Comments (0) 05.03.2011. 05:00