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
05.03.2011. 18:42
Comments
This article hasn't been commented yet.
Write a comment
* = required field