Every “cardinal” “ordinal” role has a unique friendship
style. The ordinal roles—artisans, servers, and warriors—often prefer to focus
on fewer but deeper friendships. Scholars, the neutral role, are also more likely to follow this path. They can also occasionally be more like the "exalted" roles—priests, kings, and sages—who are often drawn to having larger numbers of friends, or at least, acquaintances.
Artisans can often be contented being alone, working on their projects, although they can be warm and caring to those with whom they are friends. Servers have a natural ability to nurture, and sometimes know a great number of people from their service (positive pole of server), yet may have difficulty making a true connection with them because of an inability to receive, to be served. Warriors typically have a few friends with whom they develop great loyalty and camaraderie.
Scholars tend to run into a lot of people, and can be stimulating friends, but are sometimes more drawn to study people than to befriend them. Sages, being the most social of all the roles, tend to devote the most energy to friendships, and have the highest number of them, but are sometimes less good at listening than talking. Priests also tend to have a lot of friends, and often want to take care of them. Although kings frequently have a lot of people around them, and tend to be quite steadfast in their friendships, they can sometimes find themselves in an ivory tower making statements such as “it’s lonely at the top.”
Of course, there are many exceptions to these generalizations.
The inspirational roles of server and priest, and the neutral role of scholar, tend to be the best listeners. Having higher female energy or simply being in a female body also generally facilitates listening. Kings and warriors are sometimes less adept at listening, because their focus is on action.
Roles on the same axis generally get along comfortably:
servers and priests, warriors and kings, and artisans and sages. Other
often-complementary combinations include scholars and warriors, and kings and
servers. In fact, servers and scholars generally get along with all the roles.
However, no matter what your role is, you will likely be in mate relationships with each of the roles throughout your many lifetimes in order to have a full experience of the physical plane.
The following lengthy quotation from Michael (which continues to the end of this subchapter) is from a private session with a mature scholar. He asked Michael to discuss how people of each role relate to those of the same role and each of the other six roles. This resulted in a total of twenty-eight pairs. Michael went in this order: scholar, server, priest, artisan, sage, warrior, and king. When each role was considered, there was one less pair than with the previous role because that pair had been covered already. So when they discussed kings, the only combination left was king-king, because kings’ dynamics with the other roles had been covered already under each of the other roles.
Incidentally, the fact that this scholar would ask Michael for such extensive nonpersonal information in a private session is revealing of the scholar essence—as mentioned, in my experience it is virtually always scholars who do that. (The rest of the roles usually just stick with questions about their lives—life task, relationships, career, etc.)
Each of the roles correlates with a number between one and seven, in order from most ordinal to most cardinal,
as follows: one—server, two—artisan, three—warrior, four—scholar, five—sage,
six—priest, and seven—king. This will be discussed at length in the subchapter
“Number Correlations” in Chapter Eleven, “Cadences and Numbers.” If, in adding
the numbers that correlate with two roles, the total is seven, there is optimal complementarity, in that the ordinal and cardinal perfectly balance one another, making a neutral combination. Those combinations are server and priest, artisan and sage, and warrior and scholar. The first two pairs are on the same axis. Although warriors and scholars are not, both are “solid” roles. And kings are already the seven-position role.
The combinations that add up to less than seven are ordinal and therefore more low-key; those that add up to more than seven are cardinal and therefore more intense. The degree of the relationship’s ordinality or cardinality is the degree of the sum’s distance from seven.
For instance, the server-artisan combination adds up to three, so it is a low-key relationship, combining the two most ordinal
roles. A relationship consisting of two kings, the most cardinal role, adds up to fourteen. It is an intense, concentrated relationship, and can be tricky, with two “chiefs” and no “injun,” although it will probably not be dull.
Although ordinal relationships can feel understimulated, and cardinal ones can feel overstimulated, this is not a ranking of the desirability of different combinations—any two roles can get along fine and have a rich, rewarding relationship. Also, the correlations of the numbers do not apply to the sums. For example, the server-artisan relationship, which, again, adds up to three, does not itself correlate with the role of warrior (the three-position role).
The ordinal roles, especially the most ordinal, servers, like interaction with cardinal roles because that is “exalting” for them. For example, in the server-sage combination, servers’ behind-the-scenes support work is exalted through
sages’ large-scale expression (positive pole of sage). The servers are doing the ordinal work that is natural to them but find that it is magnified by association with the cardinal roles. The server-artisan, server-warrior, and server-scholar relationships are not particularly exalting for servers, although they might be quite warm and comfortable.
Michael’s comments apply to all kinds of relationships, not just to mate relationships. However, Michael often used mate relationships as examples to illuminate the dynamics of particular role pairings. Being the most intimate and intense of relationships, they can best illustrate how role energies combine.
Keep in mind that there are many exceptions to the generalizations given below. A great number of other influences contribute to the gestalt of relationships, such as essence twin role, casting, overleaves, imprinting, and, most importantly, the unique chemistry between two unique individuals.
SCHOLAR-SCHOLAR: Scholars see other scholars as particularly kindred, in ways that some of the roles cannot see others of their own role. Scholars can endlessly share notes, and therefore support each other in their endeavors; they share the alignment of colleagues. Unless the overleaves abrade or there is karma, it is unusual for two scholars not to get along.
This relationship may lack spice. Being neutral to begin with, scholars are more attracted to what is not neutral, which makes for an interesting study; scholars are not so likely to want to study other scholars, although scholars may wish to study something with other scholars. Scholars would certainly not want to live in a world that was all scholars, but they would also not want to live in a world where there were no other scholars with whom to share notes.
SCHOLAR-KING: Scholars and kings generally get along. Scholars tend to respect—not so much love—kings, but may not understand why kings can become impatient with them when they have trouble getting to the point, as they often do. Kings can master information quickly, which scholars like, and kings can match scholars’ intellect. But kings tend to be generalists, whereas scholars might settle down to fifty years of studying one insect genus. Because scholars find this focused study to be so interesting, they may be hurt if kings do not share their fascination. They know that if kings do share their interest, kings can promulgate this interest near and far. But kings generally don’t cooperate, and scholars can be impatient with this just as kings can be impatient with too much detail. Kings, though, are usually smart enough to recognize the necessity of scholars’ contributions. So it tends to be a good solid relationship, if a little more distant than some others.
SCHOLAR-WARRIOR: Warriors and scholars can be very good for each other. Warriors can bring out more of the “down and dirty” and the humor in scholars, so warriors tend to make better playmates for scholars than kings do. Warriors genuinely find scholars to be interesting. If warriors are in a hurry, they, too, can be impatient with scholars’ penchant for detail, but if warriors have some time on their hands, they may be willing to entertain a lot of detail from scholars, asking questions, challenging, occasionally practicing some one-upmanship—and making a pretty good time out of it.
Since scholars are the number four position role and warriors are the number three—together they add up to seven—they sense that they can complement or add something to one another. One way in which they complement is that scholars, being the neutral role, can absorb warriors’ focused, earthy energy.
SCHOLAR-SAGE: Sage and scholar is also a good
combination. Both love knowledge (positive pole of scholar) and information. Scholars are sometimes envious of sages, because scholars tend to fear that they are not as “spicy,” as interesting, as the other roles, and there is no role more potentially spicy than sages. (Sages feel that they have to be, in order to get everyone’s attention.) The fact of the matter is that scholars are usually genuinely content not being in the limelight—being wallflowers, even—but your society rewards sages with acclaim much more often. If scholars feel a lack of self-esteem, they can be envious of sages.
I’ve noticed that scholars can easily find sages irritating because scholars want knowledge (positive pole of scholar) to be just caretaken: neutral and available. Sages, on the other hand, often want to elaborate on it or exaggerate it. Scholars distrust that, feeling that there’s some distortion or ego in it.
A spice in your food can taste good in the right quantity, but can irritate if there’s too much of it. Sages often feel the urge to exaggerate when they are fulfilling their role of storyteller. The story has to be made interesting, larger than life. Most people find movies, for example, that present stories faithfully—in life-size projections rather than larger-than-life—to be boring. They have to be magnified somehow. But sages can get carried away with this—just as any role can get carried away with whatever it is doing—and not respect boundaries. This can also be a factor in starting and expanding rumors.
There is a certain amount of heightening of reality that reality can tolerate without being distorted. In great art, reality may, in fact, be clarified by being heightened, by being put under a magnifying glass. That is really what sages are trying to do. However, if they lack skill or insight, they may distort it, which puts them in their negative pole, oration (negative pole of sage).
Scholars are more concerned about the purity of information, but they are not
more dedicated to truth than sages. Scholars tend to see truth as fact; sages tend to see truth as what reveals the moral or insight of the story, since story is a big part of what sages are about.
Sages in the negative pole can be irritating to everyone, but we would not overemphasize the conflict between sages and scholars; generally,
they are quite complementary. Scholars like how forthcoming sages are in
providing information. Sages do not see it as an inconvenience, as a warrior,
for example, might, if he’s trying to get on to doing the next thing. Sages know
that disseminating information is their job, their role. And sages see scholars
as possible sources of “news they can use,” although the way scholars operate is
to take a big chunk of raw data and slowly distill it; if scholars give their
knowledge (positive pole of scholar) before it has been well distilled, it can
be more than is needed or can be used. Scholars are willing to provide data at
any stage in the distillation process, because it is all interesting to them,
but the other roles generally just want the end result: the fully distilled
version, the conclusions, the bottom line. That would also be why scholars like
each other so much. Right—there is mutual appreciation of the whole process.
Sages, being an expression role, do not hesitate to express to scholars just what information they want or do not want. If they do this without tact, that can be offensive to scholars. Sages are usually pretty tactful, but sages who have a warrior essence twin or warrior casting, for example, may be more blunt.
Sages, warriors, and scholars all tend to have particularly well-developed senses of humor; so sages are another role that scholars can play with. However, scholars are prone to the kind of puns and word play sometimes called “groaners,” and sages may tease scholars about this. Underneath, sages usually enjoy the word play or pun anyway. Sages do not really look down their noses at it (even though they may pretend to) because they appreciate all kinds of humor, even those that are not their own kind. If the humor is particularly complex or clever, sages may feel admiration and respect—even if it is not, in fact, all that funny. Wherever there is a demonstration of expressive ability, sages will acknowledge that on some level.
Scholars can be particularly humorous in their writing—often in a tongue-in-cheek way. Their humor is not as dramatic as that of sages, but it can be pleasant to read. Sages’ humor tends to be more broad and accessible, and being expressive, it tends to work better in performance than scholars’ humor. Scholars are not very often good at stand-up comedy, for example. They are just not expressive enough—unless they have a sage essence twin, or another expressive influence—to deliver their thoughts with enough spice. On paper it does not matter—the humor is all in the words themselves, and no role is more expert with words per se than scholars.
What about sages’ ability with words?
Scholars are generally the most facile in vocabulary and the intrinsic use of words—what words go where—whereas sages are more clever in manipulating words and playing with their meanings, as with innuendo. The scholarly puns and word games are more about the structure of words themselves than about playing with their meaning, as sages are more prone to do. Sages, of course, can also be funny on paper with words, but scholars can be endless in their ability to mine the gold in words themselves.
SCHOLAR-ARTISAN: What these roles share in common is a large capability to do many types of things. With artisans, it is intrinsic, a natural affinity for fixing, designing, and making things. For scholars, it more springs out of the knowledge (positive pole of scholar) that has been gleaned through study. They also share in common a high ability for design and structure. However, we do not see this as the best combination for relationships, because both can be isolated or moody at times; there is not enough overlap between them—they are both just off doing their “thing,” and their “things” often do not overlap, whereas with two scholars, their “things” more easily can. Of course, there are many exceptions to this, but, in general, this is not the strongest combination.
SCHOLAR-PRIEST: Scholars and priests work quite well together, because priests carry a great deal of concentrated higher energies, and scholars, being one of the three solid roles, and being neutral, are able to absorb a lot of that higher energy. So scholars feel grounding and also somewhat malleable to priests. Priests have the need to feel that others are receiving their inspiration,
that they are acting on it. Sages have no such need; they just need to be heard,
so they don’t have to see the results, but priests do. Also, scholars, perhaps
more than the other roles, enjoy priests’ inspiration and do not put up a lot of resistance to it, unless it has gotten them into deep trouble on a number of occasions. It would take quite a lot of negative experience with priests to make scholars wary. Warriors are much more prone to be wary of priests and resistant to them than scholars are.
Priests also appreciate knowledge, although when scholars and priests are together, the type of knowledge they share is usually higher knowledge, which to scholars is just one more category of interesting topics. Scholars, being neutral, are just as happy to discuss that as to discuss anything else, so it is not a problem. Priests would not be that interested in discussing a number of things of interest to scholars, but scholars can be perfectly happy with all areas of interest to priests.
Also, scholars can suffer from a dryness, a lack of emotion, and priests, being generally the deepest feeling of roles, can provide an antidote to this. So it can be quite warming for scholars to be around priests, unless scholars are, for example, trapped in the intellectual part of the intellectual center and do not want to be emotional or inspired, in which case they might have a wall to priests.
SCHOLAR-SERVER: Like scholars and artisans, scholars and servers tend to lack overlap. This combination can also get a little bland—there is not that much spice in servers either, although they often have a great deal of warmth. A scholar-server alliance might be chosen when both want to rest from a lot of stimulation or conflict, to have a safe harbor, to even be able to “zone out.”
SERVER-SERVER: Unless, of course, the overleaves or other elements of personality abrade, servers are usually quite comfortable with other servers. There is nothing very exciting about that combination, but servers do not tend to seek excitement anyway.
SERVER-PRIEST: Servers and priests are a very good combination, because servers, like scholars, can absorb some of priests’ higher intensity. They also share a quality of thriving on inspiration,
so they can keep each other inspired, something that priests and scholars
cannot—priests can inspire scholars, but scholars usually do not inspire priests
very much, except perhaps if some symbolic information is given that reminds
priests of a higher principle. Servers can inspire priests by their positive
pole selflessness, goodness, and open heart. Romantically, this combination
works especially well if priests are male and servers are female. If servers are
male and they adhere to cultural sex "sexual stereotypes" -role imprinting, they may feel threatened by powerful female priests.
Priests and servers think along similar lines, but sometimes priests, being so preoccupied with higher concerns, are negligent of the mundane in ways that kings, for example, rarely would be. (Kings notice if the mundane is not done, although they may not do it themselves.) So in those pairings the servers, usually comfortably, handle the mundane, often to the relief of the priests.
SERVER-ARTISAN: Servers and artisans are a little better together than scholars and artisans, because when artisans are off doing their own thing, servers do not usually mind being temporarily ignored and supporting artisans behind the scenes. This can be useful if artisans are focused on some intense creativity. Also, artisans may be inspired to do better work in the creative process by the solid support of servers.
SERVER-SAGE: Servers and sages can work quite well as long as the servers are not too much “by-the-book” kinds of people; some servers are, and sages do not tend to be—they like to play with the book, to stretch and expand it, rather than adhere strictly to any sort of pattern. (Sage is the five-position role, and the number five has a positive pole of expansion (positive pole of number five.)
Servers who are bureaucratic, who see going by the book as what is best for the
common good, tend to irritate sages to no end—and vice versa. However, if the
servers are not doing their negative pole in that way, this is generally a good
combination, because servers tend to be quite willing to let sages have the
spotlight. Artisans, who also work well with sages, may or may not be willing to
do that—they may just go off and do something else. They will not tend to try to
stop sages from being in the spotlight, but servers are more likely to really
listen and be supportive, fully receiving the expression (positive pole of sage) of sages. Sages can be very grateful for that.
Also, sages are often heart people. They may be quite intellectual and verbal, but they rarely become nearly as emotionally dry as scholars can be. Servers in their positive pole can epitomize the good heart, so servers and sages can love each other very deeply, in some ways more than servers and priests, because both servers and priests tend to stay busy taking care of other people. Servers might nurture priests, but priests might be out taking care of three hundred other people. Although sages might be entertaining three hundred other people, that is not as involving as the caretaking that priests engage in.
SERVER-WARRIOR: Servers and warriors usually get along
very well. Both tend to have much endurance, and it is easy for servers to view
warriors’ toil as benefiting the common good, even in the military, if that
jibes with the servers’ political beliefs. Warriors tend to like servers because
they see servers as being down-to-earth and practical. Servers and warriors do
not tend to fight as much as warriors can with most of the other roles. Servers
and warriors are especially effective together as a team working together—for
example, a server doctor and a warrior nurse would probably be very effective
together in a high-stress situation. The higher the cardinality of the relationship—in other words, the higher the number of the combination’s sum—the more stress there tends to be in the relationship. Sometimes that can be exciting and can make for a lot of energy, but it can sometimes be too much. In a high-stress situation such as a hospital emergency room or a battle front, the server-warrior combination, which adds up to only four, can be a calm center of productive work. The server-artisan combination would even be more calm, but not necessarily more productive.
SERVER-KING: This is probably the most comfortable pairing for kings. Kings like to be served; they feel that it frees them to serve the masses themselves. The seven and the one are two extremes, but in a sense they are right next to each other, too, if you make a circle out of the seven numbers.
Kings serve in an exalted way—they serve the kingdom, looking at what is best for the overall picture. They do not feel that they have time for the mundane. That doesn’t mean that they are lazy; it just means that they are occupied in other ways. So they like being served, and servers are generally thrilled to serve a king. However, in some of these pairings, servers get the short end of the stick. Kings can overwhelm and repress servers, which, of course, is not growthful for either role. Kings need to appreciate and respect the value of the service (positive pole of server) that servers render. Servers do not command respect, and usually do not demand it, either. Ideally, they inspire it. But they can be taken for granted, which is not to anyone’s benefit.
It is hard for any role to feel that it can add something to kings; they seem complete—they are already the number seven role. But being in the number one position, servers are the role that comes closest to being able to add something to kings.
PRIEST-PRIEST: In general, members of the same role get along, but there can be some particular problems when two priests come together, depending on the soul age. Two young priests can be competitive. Two mature priests can overload one another, since there is so much of a particular kind of power here. However, a young and mature priest may do very well together, and old priests tend to get along fine with each other.
Marriages between two priests are rare, because both would tend to look for those who need their inspiration. Unless one of the priests is having a hard enough time that he needs to forgo seeking a “congregation” and is willing to sit still long enough to receive inspiration from the other priest, the two would not find enough of a place in each other to put their intense energies.
PRIEST-ARTISAN: This is a pretty good combination, as long as the artisans are not cynics or skeptics and do not repel the inspiration of the priests, and as long as priests are not in zeal (negative pole of priest), their negative pole, trying to shove something down the artisans’ throats. Like scholars, artisans are pretty malleable. However, artisans are more changeable, chameleon-like, than scholars. Under duress, artisans may appear to go along with the priests’ zeal, and then it may be proven out later that the artisans did not really go along. That can enrage priests; it may seem like a lack of being faithful to the cause, as with fundamentalist Christians with the role of priest, for example. Initially, artisans may cave in under duress, and then snap back to their more natural point of view. They may have been pretending to adopt the priests’ views, or they may have actually swallowed them for the time being, but in either case, the priests would see the artisans’ reversion as falsity.
Artisans can provide inspiration for priests, just as the opposite is true, because artisans can make much beauty for priests, who can be a little battered by being out there on the spiritual battlefronts, trying to help people in need. Priests can come home to an inspiring, comforting atmosphere of beauty provided by artisans, male or female.
PRIEST-SAGE: This combination can be problematic, or it can be quite good. The problem would be competition, trying to get the attention of the same congregation/audience. Since both are exalted (cardinal),
and both often like to talk a great deal, it can be difficult for either role to
feel that they are fully being received. And, in some ways, they tend to not
understand each other very well. On the other hand, they can get along quite
well for a similar reason to the reason two scholars may get along—they may feel
like colleagues; they may complement each other. Sages are an expression role, but may feel a secondary impulse to inspire as well. So, for example, sage actors might want their performance not only to be technically good and to communicate what the author intended, but also to be inspiring, uplifting, and enlightening. Sages may see that as leaving the audience with more insight or understanding. Priests may see inspiration as more purely an emotional feeling of upliftment and dedication. However, these two approaches are not at cross purposes, and sages and priests can work together as a team.
So if they are mature enough to give each other an opportunity to be fully received, the relationship can work quite well, but this combination can take more work than many of the others.
PRIEST-WARRIOR: Priests tend to be attracted to warriors, because warriors are, in some ways, opposite from them. Unbalanced priests can be cut off from the full and free ability to enjoy their body and the physical life itself, whereas warriors excel in enjoying the body and the physical life. Warriors are generally less attracted to priests than priests are to warriors because warriors may not be all that interested in being inspired, particularly in the younger soul cycles—they may not want to look up to the heavens if they are having a perfectly good time on the earth. They may also suspect that priests have the ulterior motive of trying to convert them. They may see priests as being rather like spies from the enemy camp. If warriors are converted—say, to a religion—then they may align with priests in converting others. More commonly, warriors would rather be free of what they would consider to be the limitations that priests seem to want to impose—especially if they are sexual. Warrior women may go along with their priest husbands’ sexual limitations—against extramarital affairs, for example—as long as there is a good sex life in the marriage. Warriors have respect for boundaries, as long as those boundaries are not suffocating to their essence, and, more than the other roles, they need some kind of sexual outlet.
Warriors can be attracted to priests for priests’ healing ability. Warriors can get pretty beat up in life, and when they are finally ready to receive help, no role is better than priests for ministering to them, both physically and spiritually. But if warriors are perfectly happy in their physical involvements, priests may not be all that attractive, except perhaps as an object of lust, as the “mysterious opposite.”
PRIEST-KING: Surprisingly, priests and kings do not compete in the same way that priests and sages tend to. These two roles add up to thirteen, yet they are not competing for the same audience, because for kings, everything is in their domain, including priests, and kings see priests as fulfilling a valuable function in the whole. However, the partnership of priests and kings is very concentrated. A priest with a king essence twin,
or vice versa, has that partnership internally, and it is an intrinsically
high-stress situation—such a soul feels a constant stretch, the sense that
something exalted is required at all times. Priests and kings are “on duty” at virtually all times, making themselves available to their congregation and kingdom, respectively, and they can work well together. Priests, like servers, are also happy to minister to kings—not in particularly mundane ways, necessarily—it can be that, but someone else may be around to handle the mundane, since kings can have many people around them to help.
ARTISAN-ARTISAN: Artisans with other artisans can have a great variety of results—anywhere from very good to very bad. This combination is especially susceptible to the rest of the overleaves, but more often than not, it works pretty well. Artisans may not understand each other perfectly, but their lifestyles may meld quite comfortably because they tend to have a lot of flexibility. Artisans may have more excitement with warriors, but artisans can be frustrated by warriors’ desire to structure. Artisans often like to live more by the seat of their pants, improvising as they go along, and generally this will not do for warriors, so there can be conflict there. Two artisans can be quite comfortable living in a certain amount of chaos with each other. We do not mean that artisans are necessarily messier than the other roles; we are just referring to the way their lives look. Artisans are less likely to have a “five-year plan,” for example.
Artisans can fail to provide other artisans with what is needed in their relationships. There can be a feeling that one or both of the partners are neglecting the other because of being wrapped up in the project at hand. This combination usually works better if there is some overlap in the projects being worked on. For example, if the husband likes to work on their house, and the wife chooses colors and wallpaper, they can have much contentment together.
Many artisans like to feel anchored by the people around them. Generally, other artisans will not provide that, unless they have, say, a king or warrior essence twin,
or perhaps very high male energy.
ARTISAN-SAGE: Sages can be anchoring for artisans, and they can have much joy together. Sages are often able to cultivate the humor in artisans, so that they are truly playmates. Sages can make it safe for artisans to be more childlike, whereas artisans may not feel that this is permitted with the other roles, even with other artisans—artisans may feel that they have to try to be more adult, because the relationship does not feel very well anchored. Sages, however, usually have a pretty good grasp on external realities, since they are the ones who interconnect and communicate with everyone. So with sages, artisans can feel anchored but at the same time have the ability to express themselves.
Sometimes sages push artisans to bring their creations (positive pole of artisan)” before the public eye. That can be quite useful for artisans, but it may also bring up fear, since artisans are generally not as sturdy and do not feel that they hold up well in the public eye. So there can be a bit of a push-pull here. There is the need to put forth the artisans’ works, but if sages push artisans too much, there may be too much fear coming out at once for artisans to deal with it constructively.
ARTISAN-WARRIOR: Artisans do not have to deal with that when teamed up with warriors, because warriors do not seek the public eye that much either, and warriors have more of a tendency to protect others. They would be protective toward artisans’ sense of vulnerability. Warriors may also offer artisans some useful discipline, challenging them to complete a project they have been stalling on, for instance.
Warriors tend to be very appreciative of whatever artisans create. Warriors see what could be useful, how the world could work more efficiently, but unless it is a matter of simply jury-rigging something, they are generally not as good at actually coming up with the innovations that might achieve that. They can be in awe of the way that artisans can, often effortlessly, come up with new things.
On the negative side, warriors can lack understanding or even be intolerant of artisans’ process. For warriors, life is a pretty simple business—you do what needs to be done. For artisans, life is a pretty complex business, and there are many variables to be played with. Warriors sometimes see artisans as having an “odd logic” that may actually be quite sound, but warriors do not see how it was arrived at, and therefore may tend to dismiss it.
So the artisan-warrior alliance, which is quite common, is fraught with mystery for both parties, yet there is an unmistakable attraction. Warriors like to have someone to protect and to receive their help, and artisans like to feel that strength, that simplicity.
Would you say that, more than the other roles, warriors equals male, and artisans equals female?
In a sense, yes. These two roles certainly correspond with the male and female archetypes in this culture. Servers also correspond with the feminine, but a different aspect of the feminine—more the family-oriented, reliable, down-to-earth feminine. Of course, king is another side of the masculine archetype. Kings bring the sense of “the buck stops here, everything’s all right, I’m in control, leave it to me.” In your culture, that has been viewed as perhaps the highest manifestation of manhood—that is a much admired and valued trait in men.
It is not surprising that people are becoming confused now that so many women are warriors and kings, and so many men are artisans and servers—and this will probably increase. The dynamics still hold true: warrior wives protect and shelter artisan husbands, even if the husbands are the main breadwinners and the wives are staying home—the wives still shelter and protect their husbands from the hurts of the world. The husbands still balance their wives, giving them a sense of creativity and unpredictability that is both fascinating and exasperating to warriors, since warriors tend to be fairly predictable people.
ARTISAN-KING: Artisan-king is an unusual combination in terms of mates; it is not so much a matter of opposites attracting, as with artisan-warrior. Do not take us too literally or make too much of this generalization, but it can be that because artisans and kings are so different—not merely opposite—they feel that the other is from a different planet. There is just not much overlap, whereas kings and servers can overlap much better because their thrusts are complementary.
Would you say that artisan-king is probably the most polar of any of the pairings, more than priest-warrior, in the sense of being nonoverlapping?
We would probably agree to that, although it is a close call. Priests and warriors run into a similar problem, but we would say there is more attraction between priests and warriors than between artisans and kings. Artisans and kings do not tend to magnetize each other; they do not tend to push each other’s buttons that much, either—they just tend to occupy different realms. Warriors and priests do tend to push each other’s buttons, as do warriors and artisans.
This dynamic is also true internally of kings with artisan essence twins, and vice versa. These energies combined in the same person can create a dichotomy, a sense of energies that do not have too much to do with each other. So let’s say that a king has a discarnate artisan essence twin and has artisan casting, so he is an “honorary artisan” and has strong artisan influences; however, his artisan side is like a separate subpersonality.
The exception to this is when seeking mastery (positive pole of king) in a craft or in any area of technique, such as making or fixing things. Also, most kings sometimes use artisans as a resource in order to gain desired mastery, since artisans tend to inherently know how to do many things. However, kings may be a little exasperated when trying to learn from artisans, because artisans cannot necessarily teach well, and kings tend to be impatient—they want to be given steps: one, two, three—”This is what you have to do to master this.” Nonetheless, kings know that artisans do have the mastery they seek, and if they are smart, they just watch, observe, and pick up the desired skill from artisans more intuitively.
SAGE-SAGE: The only trouble spot between two sages is that both tend to be reluctant to yield the floor to the other. So if the sages involved have learned to be good listeners as well as good talkers—which is not very common—that problem is minimized. Sages can feel relieved to be in the presence of other sages who want to play, laugh, and joke, and who “get” and appreciate their jokes, especially if their sense of humor is a little off-the-wall. Sages’ sense of humor that is meant for the mainstream, which includes all the roles, is more, you could say, commercial; sages tend to save their more eccentric or leading-edge humor for other sages and maybe artisans who will get it. Warriors and scholars also tend to appreciate sages’ sense of humor, but do not always plug in to it in the same way.
Sages, then, can have much fun with each other. They can have long talks that may be in either their positive or negative pole, but often they have a sense of accomplishment through these conversations, and just the good feeling of being heard and received when each has enough time to share all he wishes to. On the other hand, these relationships can be shallow: if sages perform for each other instead of genuinely relating, there is not too much “glue” holding these relationships together or a sense of balance in them.
SAGE-WARRIOR: Sage-warrior is a good combination because there is the ability to laugh together, but whereas sages can procrastinate and play, warriors tend to exert pressure to get down to business as well. Warriors can play, but after the time for that has passed, warriors are ready to move on. So this is balancing.
Also, warriors are not generally very good at articulating, although there are exceptions to this—centering plays a part—and, of course, sages are expert at this, so sages can help warriors with their communication. Warriors sometimes feel that sages understand them well because warriors do not have to say everything—sages can intuit some of it, and warriors very much appreciate that. All the same, sages can put pressure on warriors to at least try to verbalize their feelings, because sages want to hear the words—the words are their validation—even if they already know, even if they are getting the communication nonverbally, which they often do.
SAGE-KING: Sages and kings can also get along very well. They do not tend to compete, as you might think they would. Sages can successfully convince kings to let down their hair and not be “on duty” all the time, although even then, even when recreating, kings do not tend to go off duty completely. Also, sages love to advise kings, to give information. However, if kings are in their negative pole, tyranny (negative pole
of king), it can quickly bring sages into their negative pole, oration (negative pole of sage),
because in tyranny kings are not really listening to sages’ advice. Then sages
may start to bluster in order to try to make kings listen, to try to get
through. Also, sages, like artisans, like to live a little bit by the seat of
their pants; they do not like to toe the line. So if kings become bossy, there
can be some big fights between kings and sages. I think of the archetype of the
court jester and king—it could be quite volatile and fraught with drama. Right.
Since sages are a cardinal role, they can generally hold their own with kings, unless they have a goal of submission, or
goal of acceptance, which makes it harder for sages to fight. This combination works best when kings’ overleaves are relatively soft. But sages generally do not mind fighting with kings, and kings may secretly admire the sages’ repartee. Kings may feel that they can learn something from sages’ retorts or insights.
WARRIOR-WARRIOR: Warriors almost always get along fine
with other warriors, and incidentally, since warrior is the number three
position role, two warriors add up to six, one off from seven. Warriors find in
other warriors a common basis for living, and if there are complementary life
tasks and they have planned to be together in that lifetime, either as mates or
in another close kind of relationship, they can, over time, fall in line with
each other. They may not overtly demonstrate or acknowledge that they are
compromising with each other, but in time they will gradually wear away each
other’s rough edges, and fall into line with each other. They tend to have very
good sex together if they are otherwise compatible. Warriors generally do not run into a problem with other warriors of wanting more sex than their partners, which can come up with some of the other roles and is very frustrating to warriors.
Warriors can easily find common values for raising children and common political beliefs; when there is this alignment between them, they can have a very orderly household. Problems can arise if they have artisan or priest children (or rebellious sage children) who challenge them. On the surface it looks like warriors want to maintain the order at all costs—they want their children to go along with the program—but unconsciously, they often do not mind being challenged. In their negative pole, they may be cruel, even, in repressing rebellious actions, but in their positive pole, warriors have a strong sense of fairness. If rebelliousness is proven to be for a good reason, warriors will generally bend a certain amount with these children. For example, if the warriors are diehard business people, Republican, right-wing churchgoer types, and they have an artisan child who wants to be an artist or actor, there may be some problems for that artisan in having such parents. But the parents will actually like being challenged, and if the child can prove his talent and his will to follow through on a different path than what his parents might have envisioned, they will generally go along.
WARRIOR-KING: Warrior-king is also generally an
excellent combination. There tends to be mutual understanding and respect.
Warriors see the leadership ability of kings, their ability to encompass the
large picture of things—something warriors cannot necessarily do very well—so
there is admiration, even awe, of this. But kings can greatly appreciate
warriors’ ability to dig in and do what needs to be done, in a way that kings
may not do; kings may be waiting to delegate to someone else. (They may do the
thing if no one shows up, sometimes reluctantly, and then may feel irritated
about it.) So this is a quite complementary combination, usually generating a
lot of loyalty. There are no real major problems in this combination. There can
be some huge fights, just as there can be between two warriors, but as long as
the fights stay under control so that there is no demonstrated disloyalty or
taking advantage of a known vulnerability in the other, these relationships are quite resilient in the face of a lot of fighting. (Deliberately bringing up a person’s most vulnerable place in order to get the better of him is considered unfair play.)
Incidentally, artisans generally try to avoid fighting, and cannot handle it well in matings
with warriors and kings. They can be confusing fighting partners for warriors
and kings because they do not fight like warriors and kings do. They can be
quite creative, subversive, and manipulative about it, often coming from left
field. But artisans typically avoid conflict in the first place, and this can
also be a problem in their relationships with warriors and kings, especially, who often like to bring their conflicts fully out into the open.
Sages and priests can better hold their own with warriors and kings than artisans or servers can when there is a disagreement. Servers typically react in fights with warriors and kings by trying to smooth things over. Like artisans, it is not in their nature to fight, but if they think that someone’s basic needs are threatened, they will go to bat, and they can be quite persistent—persistence is their main fighting technique. For example, if they see that a child is being abused, they can be like a little mouse at the toes of an elephant, staying with the problem until something is done. However, wherever they can, they placate.
KING-KING: When a king comes together with another
king, it is like a summit conference. It is not so much a relationship as it is
a joining of forces, a political alignment. Although these relationships do
exist, they do not tend to be emotionally all that close. There might be a lot
of respect, and if the female partner in a mated relationship has been raised to
submit to the male, there may be a fairly high level of compatibility. However,
if one of the partners feels that he or she has no kingdom, and if the other
partner is not willing to be that kingdom, there can be a rather dysfunctional
situation. The role dynamics are generally more significant in relationships
than the dynamics between any of the overleaves. However, certain overleaves are
tricky, and when they are present they may be more important to look at than the
role itself in terms of what may get in the way in a particular relationship. We
mentioned two warriors getting along together well, but if one is a cynic and one is a spiritualist,
or if one is in discrimination and the other is in acceptance, or if both have
strong chief features, with one in arrogance, and the other in martyrdom, for
example, you could have some real problems, especially when you add that to