Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:23:18 -0500
Subject: Re: perception?

Brin,

Enjoyed your post. Very good points!

FWIW, here's how I try to teach responsibility, consequences and compassion to my children (I have to try and keep it very simple and basic since they are kids, so this may seem overly naive)). This information isn't, in its parts, all from me but borrowed all over the place. But the whole "lecture" is from me:

Responsibility is defined as admitting what *is*, the truth of the matter, that I am or was "cause" in the matter in question. Most specifically, I admit it when I hurt someone or cause property damage.

Blame and guilt are passive actions. They are about being a victim. They don't change anything in a positive way. They don't fix anything that has been broken.

It doesn't matter whether you "meant to" hurt someone or not. If you hurt them, you need to fix what was broken. "Fairness" doesn't make sense in this equation. If I accidentally trip someone and they drop and break something they own (a toy or their arm), who should pay for the repair of the injury? I should. If I do not, the injured party, who never chose or asked to be injured by me, gets stuck with not only suffering, out of the blue, but paying for the cost of that suffering--and my mistake. Nothing is less "fair" than that.

Also, in any situation of injury, if neither party feels it is "fair" that they pay for restoration (or both are partially responsible for the injury and both blame the other entirely and won't pay to fix the problem), will "God" or some outside force like an extraterrestrial or some act of magic make the restoration for me or us? No.

So, in sum: responsponsibility means admitting that *I* caused harm when that is the truth of the matter. It also means that *I* must do whatever it takes to restore the person I harmed as close to the state they were in before they harmed them as is humanly possible. This is restitution/restoration. This is the most positive "consequence" of harming others that there could be. The most negative is to be irresponsible, to sneer or whine and walk away from fixing the harm I have caused.

Another consequence is to be forced, dragging my feet all the way, by authority figures to fix the damage I have done. A worse consequence is to be "punished" to be made to suffer "as much" or partially as much as I made my victim suffer. This is pretty useless because it only creates resentment in the punished one, and no restitution at all is made to the victim, other than the hollow sense that "justice" has been done by "hurting the bastard like I was hurt."

Compassion is involves a sincere apology. This means allowing yourself to experience the pain and suffering someone you harmed felt during and after the time you harmed them. It means admitting that the person you harmed is in pain, and that you are cause in the matter.

I tell my children that a harsh saying of the word, "Sorry!" which is forced and hurtful in tone, slaps insult on injury.

But, I say, further, even when a "Sorry!" is utterly sincere, it is offered with empathy to the point of tears and penitence, the other still has pain and harm that needs to be restored.

So an ideal state of responsibility, for me, involves both of these things: compassion and a willingness to fix what was broken.

I have also used the legal concept of indemnity to explain all this to my children to show them that what I am teaching is vital for functioning as a mature, lawful adult

I say that under the law, when you damage someone, their health or property, you are legally required to pay whatever it may cost to fix that damage. You can also be assessed damages for "pain and suffering" and "emotional harm." If you "intentionally inflict emotional harm," that is, you "hurt someone on purpose," you can be assessed "punitive damages," a fine made large enough, based on your income, to pinch your pocketbook and teach you a lesson.

I tell my kids that under the law, you are *always* responsible to pay for any damages you cause. Whether you meant to or not. But if you meant to, if you commit battery or vandalism (intentional harm of another's person or property), you won't just face civil charges (paying for damages in civil court and potential assessement of punitive damages) but will also face criminal charges (a fine and possible jail time).

I don't think kids are too young as early as 6-7 to start talking about consequences, responsibility and compassion in this realistic a manner.

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:27:16 -0500
Subject: Re: karma and perception

Brin wrote:

> Sometimes I get the sense that there's a feeling of karma being like
> some mac truck bearing down on us that we have little control over. But if
> you see the truck, you _can_ step out of the way. We don't have to be like
> deer, night-blinded, and just let it hit us. Once you see the truck,
> there's usually a range of choices possible and the more conscious we
> become, the more choices open up to us....

That karma is not an excuse for us to be irresponsible in our lives and

> with each other. Unless we want to wade in it forever. As soon as we > see another choice, we _can_ go for it. Yes, sometimes it will take a > while to learn the rest of what it takes to make something possible. Yes, > sometimes learning seems and is very gradual. Other times there will be insights > and we can leap into new ways of being.

yes, so true! Thanks!

Kate

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:26:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Kate's comments (1997-47/192)

| From: Shepherd
| Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:37:29 -0500 (EST)
|
| Kate wrote <<Maybe the 7th level old is just the extreme intensification
| of tendencies *all* old souls have in this regard, esp. when they are
| in a non-old soul society?>>
|
| I agree. And it can apply to unconventional mature souls, too, and artists
| of any soul age, that there is a desire to avoid a rigid 9-5 life.

Yes!

| For the record, the word "quadrant" refers only to the quarter, or the
| part. The word "quadrate," found in Yarbro, refers to a whole that
| contains four parts.

Thanks for explaining this; I've wondered about it.

| [My apologies to Ed who thinks numerology is nonsense. My own take is
| that everything has a vibration that affects us, including our names.
| Maybe numerology translates them into a meaningful form.]

I tend to agree with Ed on this, and so far am unable to find what I recall of information on Michael's position that it is not meaningful.

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:36:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Perception

> What you two have to say on the subject of perception is very valid
> and I also disagree with. I believe absolutely that people have to take
> responsibility for their feelings based on how we perceive things. I
> agree that we are all connected and that what we do affects the whole. I
> also see often times that what I believe to be good or bad actions, attitudes
> or behavior is nothing more than my perception of it.

Peter, I just loved your post. Very eloquent and very good points. I perceive life as you do. :)

OTOH, I see the points Lori and Brin are making about influence, and I believe that it is also important, out of compassion, to acknowledge that very few people are living in the level of freedom of choice (due to consciousness) that you are. Therefore, the more limited the consciousness (compared often to blinders on a horse), the more limited a person's freedom can be. I find that people who do not have available to them the knowledge you are talking about (which I understand very well, appreciate and value highly), truly can't apply it.

Analogy: though planes have existed for some time now, many people do not live where there are planes available, many people live where they are but can't afford to ride on them, and many people believe that "if peole were meant to fly, they'd have wings." For all three of the latter groups, the "choice" of flying on a plane is lost. Yes, they don't have the "choice" to fly because of the way they "choose" to think about planes. Another way to put it, is that they can't, in their perception, choose to fly, because for them the choice does not exist. It is blocked off. Like a room barred off in a house that is never gone into.

The whole topic of free-will/choice vs. determinism/victimization is utterly fascinating to me and has so many wrinkles and permutations to it.

Thanks ahead of time to anyone else who wants to participate. :)

Love,
Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:39:41 -0500
Subject: Re: karma and perception

Lori Tostado wrote:

> I think that if we're here in the physical, then we've opted into the
> big game. Whether or not we play the smaller games, like the blame
> game, the judgement game, the competition game, is up to us. Although
> it's often hard to identify all those limiting core beliefs about
> ourselves and how life is, that make those littler games show up in our
> lives. But when we do change our limiting beliefs, that changes our
> whole reality.

> Steve Cocconi told me this Michael quote, "Everyone is responsible,
> but no one is to blame." (Ok, ok, that's my last quote for today! I
> promise! Please refrain from throwing flaming perishable
> projectiles!) ;-)

> Anyway--there is another choice! You can choose to hold onto your
> stuff and live a miserable life, or you can choose to put it behind you.
> Eventually, we let go of everything--the choice is whether it's now,
> or later. The compassion comes in when we care enough about ourselves
> and other people to forgive and move on, and help each other do the same.

Love,
Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:51:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Perception

Lori Tostado wrote:

> Well, I'd say you do need to look at the results in addition to the
> intention. I think you need to be responsible to at least clarify to
> the person who is hurt that it wasn't your intention to do so. Does
> this mean you're taking their blame they are putting on you? It could
> be perceived that way, in this victim/victimizer way, but sure, you
> could choose something different--to just be responsible for your
> words, and let them know your intention, where you're coming from.
> After that, well, obviously they've got some issues you triggered and
> that's their stuff. Words are so easy to misinterpret....

Lori, you're making some excellent additional clarification points here. In any clear communication, I agree, you have intent, yes, but you also have to look at the reception of the communication. How the other os perceiving what your intention is. Deborah Tannen has written some great books on how we, for example, tend to assign bad intentions to people with good or neutral intentions based on different (culturally created) communication styles.

> I think that one of the major problems with language is the way that
> it is structured to assume victimization. How often have we heard, "Do
> you know how that makes me feel?" or "How does that make you feel?"
> Nothing outside of you "makes" you feel anything. It is how we choose to
> perceive it that creates the emotion.
>
> I don't know if it's just that simple though. I guess I'm just more
> interested in finding what works. Results show you what works and
> what doesn't. When people start saying the words always, never, all,
> nothing, and all those extremes, I get skeptical. There is such a
> large gray area between these black and white analogies.... Sometimes,
> I feel

I'd interpret what Peter is saying as employing the technique of "I statements," One stays in one's own skin or "boundaries" by being self-responsible. Instead of saying, "You make me so mad," the technique (which takes practice) is to say, "I get mad when you do such-and-such, because...." It is also called using "I--about--because" statements.

In English we tend to talk in shorthand. But then we often forget what we left out of the sentence. On one level, it is obvious that what we mean when we say, "You're making me mad," is, "Because of my personal, unique history, when someone speaks to me in that particular tone or on that particular subject, anger is triggered in me." But when we constantly speak in shorthand, "You make me mad," after a while we can come to believe this reality. That the other person has a magical power over me. Whenever she speaks in a certain way, I am doomed to get mad.

Another example of this is stating opinions. Whenever any of us is in a discussion, we are always, even when ostensibly presenting concrete, supposedly verifiable scientific "facts," giving our opinion. Our own particular take on or perception of reality. But rarely do people in conversation remember to preface what they are saying with, "It's just my opinion," or even "in my opinion," let alone, "in my humble opinion." I was so excited when first going online to discover that the abbreviations for IMO and IMHO even existed! But when we don't remember to say those things, esp. when anger or any kind of vehemence is added to our statement, it can sound like to others that we are making pronouncement of The Truth from the mount. And this can result in defensiveness and anger in our listeners. They see us as arrogant. And even if we have an intention of humility, I think if we talk without admitting, to ourselves as much as others, that what we are saying is opinion, we can *make* ourselves arrogant over time.

Ever hear of the concept of name and form? I think language that we use, however unconsciously, can summon what it is projecting into reality.

I love the topic of effective communication and conflict resolution very, very much. Thanks for anyone participating. <G>

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:56:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Perception

Mixchel wrote:

> This was one of the best things I learned early on that has changed my
> "victim" thinking into realising my own power.It was at a place called the
>
> No one can make you feel anything ...we feel however we choose to.
>
> I just came across something Lori wrote (Michael ) called The Poles of
> the Emotions showing us how we can change our attitude to get out of the
> emotional-center trap.

Good points!

> In my house now I correct statements that slip out ...like "he made me
> feel..." or "I made him feel..." "It made me feel..."instead hearing
> myself say "I made myself feel so angry when ...." helps me see that the
> feeling part is my responsibilty . My kids are still little and Im happy that
> even the 4yr old feels in charge of his own experience.And he´s a very
> emotionally passionate guy and can feel the full range of emotions all
> in the same breath!

I try to do this too with my kids. :)

> I too believe that we affect the whole and that intention is
> important. I used to make myself really upset when trying to make
> decisions....there are seems to be someone who feels hurt by my actions,
> words,inaction etc..I chose to feel pain over this until I realised that I can
> only take responsibility for myself and chose what feels true to me.

I believe you can also ask that what you do will cause "harm to none" and ask the universe to assist in carrying out this intention.

> each other again.These partings have most often been very centered and
> easy...once I needed my "path" to give me a big push...ok,several
> times. But it works for us and we are both free to do whatever we need to
> honor whats

Thanks for sharing about your relationship. Fascinating.

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 01:59:20 -0500
Subject: Re: points of power

Brin wrote:

> Hi again everyone,
>
> I just got this in the mail recently and it seemed to speak to our
> current discussion so I thought I'd throw it out for everyone's
> consideration. It comes from a Healing Heart Productions newsletter.
> And it's called the 5 Points of Power....

Brin, thanks for printing this. These are all part of my personal Plan for Living <G>, and I appreciate seeing it written out like this. I'm in the midst of typing out some concrete, simple stuff for my kids, and I can really use this. Thanks!

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 02:02:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Kate's comments (1997-47/192)

Dick Hein wrote:

> | [My apologies to Ed who thinks numerology is nonsense. My own take
> is that everything has a vibration that affects us, including our names.
> | Maybe numerology translates them into a meaningful form.]
>
> I tend to agree with Ed on this, and so far am unable to find what I
> recall of information on Michael's position that it is not meaningful.

Interesting. Does this prejudice extend to Michael Math?

I've been using numerology for over 20 years and find it extremely accurate as a "chart" in learning about people's karmic choices. I think astrology provides a lot more detail, but numerolgy never disagrees with astrology info, in my experience.

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 00:33:20 -0600
Subject: Re: points of power

uhoh. here I delurk again.. could be scary...

At 05:42 01.12.97 -0000, Brin wrote: (among other interesting things)

> 4. Speak the Truth. Not part of it, all of it. Every time you speak the
> truth about what's going on with you, a little more peacefulness drops into
> your life..."and the truth shall set you free".

This about sums it up for me. I should make about 100 copies of this and put it in 100 places where I will see it everyday. I don't think I have ever been totally honest with *anyone* in my life. I have become so adept at censoring and distorting what I really want to say for fear of criticism and that it won't be understood. To think of letting my friends in on all my secrets is a terrifying thought. If I did they would think that they don't know me at all.

It all seems like such a tangled web of a mess. All these overleaves getting in the way of one another..I want to protect myself but at the same time I'm not telling the whole story. Does anyone ever really get beyond this? Is it truly possible to speak the whole truth? It's too scary!!! I can't do it!! <running and hiding>

sigh.. I don't even know if I can communicate the truth with myself much less with other people. Perhaps it would just be my false personality coming through..
 

Oh!! That's what I'm doing already. Safety mechanism, right? I have all these defenses in place.. for what?? I'm all prepared for my own interpersonal World War III, I guess. So much spent on defense.. and how has that really protected me? It's made me more vulnerable!

I'm afraid!!

Melissa. (who, like Piglet, is also afraid of heffalumps and other things that don't really exist).

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:24:49 -0400
From: "Mixchel"
Subject: RV: points of power

Thanks Brin for these 5 reminders ----------they speak volumes

1. Pay Attention. Be conscious and awake about what's going on around you.
When you're trapped (unconscious) in your history, doing things in the same
old way, you miss the opportunities available to you.

2. Keep Your Agreements. One of the causes of an enormous amount of
suffering is the way we break agreements. The costs are trust, self-esteem,
dignity, relationships, and success. Don't make them if you're not going
to keep them.

3. Be Accountable. What you are _accountable_ for is your own experience;
no one else can be. We are _not_ responsible for what other people say or
do, but we are accountable for how we set things up. Notice that every
time your life was screwed up, you were present.

4. Speak the Truth. Not part of it, all of it. Every time you speak the
truth about what's going on with you, a little more peacefulness drops
into your life..."and the truth shall set you free".

5. Ask for What You Want. If you don't ask, you'll never receive. No!
does not mean that people reject you. They are simply declining your request.
________

These seemed like good food for thought. I can't say I nearly have these
all down and live them in my life....but they seem good things to shoot
for. And they seem to have some balance of responsibility in terms of
what we've been discussing today.

Best to all,
Brin

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:35:23 -0400
Subject: Re:points of power ...on truth

Dear Melissa and All,

You mean heffalumps aren´t real?And all this time I......(just kidding )

I enjoyed your post a lot. Thanks for sharing.

I too don´t always reveal the entire truth at different times but I´ve come to realise( maybe the hard way) that exposing myself completely to others is sometimes very inapproprate resulting in a painful experience for myself or the other.

I was raised in the States (Young but Maturing?) and being an old soul Ive realised that to expose my true nature and honesty can get me in big trouble .....not just affecting relations but the laws our country lives by don´t honor anything "out of the Box".I´m not sure I´m making sense but I know from my own painful experiences of revealing too much truth (I have a big mouth) that sometimes its just not in my best interests to do so.I think its a healthy boundary thing actually.

here´s a simple example: say you like to be naked.....fine .(I just had this talk with my 4yr old-who loves being naked outside).Walking around naked in a society where everyone walks around naked is appropriate and works.No one gets their feathers ruffled and you don´t get thrown in jail for indecent exposure.And no one redicules you for being different.Its Safe.Now,walk around naked in a society that feels uncomfortable with this and everybody is covered up and youre going to have a very different experience.....and not neccessarily a safe one ...it may be very inappropriate. So what I´m saying is its healthy to have boundaries and respect others boundaries.Expose yourself where and when its appropriate to do so .
 

And my 4yr old goes around naked in the safety of our own home sometimes and dreams of a place and time when he can run free outside in the full light of day butt-naked whether anyone else is or not and for that to be a-ok .Its ok by me but we live in probably a baby-soul country at the moment(just a guess)(Chile)But Im pretty good with infants and babies in the human body sense so maybe thats why I ´ve been sent here.Believe me I do not reveal my whole self in this society.....it doesn´t serve.But I do readily expose more and more where and when and with whom it feels appropriate to do so .And like my son I dream of the day when it is different.
 

Fear is a healthy tool to use sometimes.....it warns us of danger. We weren´t infant souls at one time for nothing.

      Ok I´m off the soap-box,

PS.Melissa ,I´m willing to bet you are a lot wiser and braver than you think you are.
(perhaps in truth we already are free)

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:20:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fwd: Numerology

I agree that one's name has a vibration as spoken and that this has some subtle influence, certainly minor compared to the many strong factors affecting us, not the least of which are our purposes, overleaves, the impetus of karma, biological demands, and so on.

However, when one deconstructs one's name from a physical sound pattern vibration to the written symbolic form and converts the letters to numbers, then you are completely into abstract theory. You can believe in it or not and it will be true or not according to your belief. If there is any validity to the idea that the deconstructed numerology of the spelling of your name means anything at all, it isn't in the physical plane. I doubt that in any of the higher planes it would be true, either, except in the sense that absolutely everything is true.

I found myself very disappointed to see JP being so absorbed in this idea.

I have dimiished respect intellectually for people who casually go along with the "authority says" of numerology without trying to come up with an explanation for how it could work down here in the physical plane; also I have even more diminished respect for people who try to find answers in numerology while they neglect all the so much more important and blatantly obvious factors in their lives which they could look at and work with or work on and in doing so, learn about the effect of choices in the physical plane.

Okay, sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

All the best, Ed

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:05:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda Champion
Subject: Re: Soul Age

I am just wandering how a soul could be older than the other....when all of us were made at the same time??????

Is it not so much the soul age but to what level one is???

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:18:52 -0400
Subject: Re.Numerology,Astrology,overleaves,tea leaves........

Hi All,

I´m really enjoying the posts these days.We have such nice manners when we disagree.The love is always there....

On this note I´d like to share that while I was a teen and searching under every rock to find myself my dad-a genuine know it all (he was usually right by the way...IMO) tried to tell me something about myself by way of astrology.Now , since what he said wasn´t put very nicely I decided to "prove" him wrong.To do this I began reading his books ,jotting down notes ...trying to build a case.Also my mother started channeling about this time and that rocked my boat too.I ran to church thinking she was possessed. To make a short story even longer.........I haven´t put the books down yet,numerology included because IMO the more I get into them the clearer the picture gets.I recognise myself in both .Numerology I like because its simpler and faster.I especially like Numerology and the Divine Triangle by Faith Javane and Rusty Bunker which links geometry,astrology, and the tarot,among other things.And I find The Spiritual Approach to Astrology excellent as well,by Myrna Lofthus.Jyotish astrology has entered my awareness lately and I get a strong feeling that it is even more acurate than western.

I´m fairly new to the Michael teachings but have read everything on every sight related to it that I´m currently aware of and find it to be pretty terrific stuff...I love it.And another thing I like about it is that it validates and clarifies things I touched on in astrology and numerology.Also, maybe Im getting lazy but I don´t have the drive to start over with another form of astrology.....Michael teachings suit me just fine I think.
However ,just because I think something is too complex for me doesn´t mean its not valid IMO.Its just too much work.

I believe we always get what we need in the form we can best receive it in.I´m pretty open I guess because I can get clarity off a bumper sticker if thats how the answer needs to come.This really happened once when I had a big decision to make and was fighting myself about it and I asked for the answer to just stare me in the face......sure enough I was driving at the time and the light turned red and when I pulled up behind the car in front his bumper sticker stared me in the face saying:"Just Do IT!". It really fit and was what I needed at that moment.

What serves one person may or may not serve everyone else,IMHP.

    Just my two cents,
     M´Ixchel

PS:Thanks to all of you who share the Michael teachings on the net.I don´t have easy access to books and am enjoying the fruits of your labors.For this I am very grateful!!

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 12:46:09 -0800
Subject: Michael and Astrology

We asked Michael about how astrology works with the teachings and got this reply:
<< Astrology is an overlay to the role/overleaves, in that it strengthens certain aspects of the person and provides other day-to-day ways to understand energy shifts. The two systems use different numbering methods, so there is not a direct correlation between role and sun signs for example. Astrology is a useful tool for Michael students to help understand other aspects of the whole personality.
    Also, Michael said astrology would be much more useful if it could pinpoint the moment of conception rather than the moment of physical birth. >>
 

    Those are not word-for-word quotes, but what I remember of the discussion. The part about plotting conception date/time rather than birth date/time raised interesting questions for all of us that heard it.

--
Barbara Taylor

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:23:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Perception

In a message dated 97-11-30 19:20:43 EST, Peter writes:

<< That does not mean that we have to tolerate someone who continually has the
intention to insult us. Removing your self from vicious, petty, and
insulting people is a sign of healthy boundaries. People like that never
realize that others find them insulting and will not take the time to tell
them so, they just move on. >>

Good points on your post, Peter, but I think you slightly weakened your argument with your phrase, "someone who continuously has the intention to insult us."
 

Lets not forget that the world is your mirror. Your inner thoughts help to weave the fabric of your existence. In other words, if you think vicious, petty, and insulting thoughts, or even FEAR being the hapless recepient of them, you will tend to attract real life experiences that reflect this mental processing. Thus, regarding perceptions, the question is: are certain people actually "vicious, petty, and insulting", or is it your PERCEPTION that makes them so?
 

I believe our perceptions are largely governed by what we EXPECT to perceive. For example, if we metaphorically paint a canvas of a person that is both negative and derogatory, our future encounters with them will undoubtedly bring us perceptions that fulfill this expectation.

This has been an interesting thread everyone. :-)

Dave

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 19:19:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Thus the question is.....

Dave,

<< Lets not forget that the world is your mirror. Your inner thoughts help to weave the fabric of your existence. In other words, if you think vicious, petty, and insulting thoughts, or even FEAR being the hapless recepient of them, you will tend to attract real life experiences that reflect this mental processing. Thus, regarding perceptions, the question is: are certain people actually "vicious, petty, and insulting", or is it your PERCEPTION that makes them so? >>

Well, you tell me Dave. Using this intellectual theory, let me ask you, "Were the Nazi's vicious killers who practiced genocide? Or was it just the PERCEPTION of the rest of the world that they were?" Or could both be true? If someone punches your nose every time you see them, are they trying to hurt you or is it just your PERCEPTION? If someone only talks about bodily functions and rude noises, does that mean their life is nothing more than one long attack of gas? Are you saying that women who are beaten by their husbands everyday only perceive that they are getting beaten, and it's not really happening? I used my common sense before I put out my statement. We can perceive viciousness in others, and it can really exist outside of us. That is called OBSERVATION.

<<Lets' not forget that the world is your mirror.>>

How true. Does that mean that everyone who finds child abuse repugnant is secretly a child abuser? Or that if we consider rape a crime that we are all rapists? Is that your theory? What do you mean?

Peter

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:58:42 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: Re.Numerology,Astrology,overleaves,tea leaves........

Hi, Mixchel,

I am tuned into the Micheal energy, as Michael is with all of us in this mailing list, but, as I am also just a Michael student, don't take anything I write as Michael channeled material...

There was a recent discussion here related to Michael channeled information about numbers. I only followed it with great interest, but quietly, because I didn't have anything to contribute. If you can check the archives, you might find some interesting insights or leads.

Before coming across the Michaal teachings, of which I have a working understanding by now, I only had this vague idea that Numbers had a meaning and, at a time when I was driving intensively in Tokyo, I couldn't help checking out all number plates ahead of me. At different times there was always a consistency of different digit combinations. Recently, though, I have gradually got immersed into Numerology. So I can see, you were very "lucky" to have your father splash Astrology on your face at an early age and then see your mother start channeling.

I had some slightly different awakening experiences within a family environment, but aren't they all wonderful when we look back? I had a one-month exposure to a black family when I was 17, that left a big good mark on me: somehow "coincidentally" all of us were gathered in their home when the mother that was ironing a bundle of clothes had a sudden jerk and behaved like she was having a fit. I reached to help her and my aunt that knew what was going on told me to leave her alone. I obeyed. The lady's guide came over and some of the messages literally pointed at me with shining fingers... It was a great learning, honestly, ego-boosting experience, one of those that you can tell your grandchilddren...

There are also so many imprints (to use a Michael term) that at the time felt bad but that in the long run proved to be so positive, so enriching... There is no end to this kind of persoaal account...

At 21:33 01/12/1997 -0000, Mixchel wrote:

> answer to just stare me in the face......sure enough I was driving at the
> time and the light turned red and when I pulled up behind the car in front
> his bumper sticker stared me in the face saying:"Just Do IT!". It really
> fit and was what I needed at that moment.

Nice piece of synchronicity!!! My graduation paper in Sociology was based on a collection of racist bumper sticker sayings, taken from a book whose Brazilian Portuguese title could be translated as Bumper Philosophy (or Bumper Sticker Philosophy) -- Filosofia de Parachoque.

People who are into Jung (who Michael referred to in the classic "Michael Messages" as the one who, academicaly, had come closest the Michael teachings in his perception of human reality) might agree that a lot of sayings reflect collective perception (or collective uncounsciousness) -- sometimes wisdom, sometimes wit, sometimes negativity.

Love,

Jose (Caldeira)

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 23:28:30 -0500
Subject: Re: points of power ...on truth

Mixchel wrote:

> I too don´t always reveal the entire truth at different times but I´ve
> come to realise( maybe the hard way) that exposing myself completely
> to others is sometimes very inapproprate resulting in a painful experience
> for myself or the other.
>
> Fear is a healthy tool to use sometimes.....it warns us of danger. We
> weren´t infant souls at one time for nothing.

Great post, Mixchel. Really helpful and clarifying! :)

I'd also highly recommend The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals that Protect Us by Gavin DeBecker. Incredible book!

He has written an amazing explanation about fear. He defines fear as coming from an instinctual place inside us. It warns you to take immediate steps to save yourself from harm, even death that is about to happen to you. Anxiety, on the other hand, is a message from your intuition not about immediate danger, but that some overall changes in your life need to be made. Persistent anxiety is a message to you that you do not, deep inside, feel comfortable with the way your life is. It is telling you that you may need to look at the overall configuration, where you work, the people you live with, things like that.

He also gives two self-defense rules about fear, as he defines it, that he says can totally change your life:

"Rule #1. The very fact that you fear something is solid evidence that it is not happening. Fear summons powerful predictive resources that tell us what might come next. It is that which might come next that we fear--what might happen, not what is happening now....Panic, the great enemy of survival, can be perceived as an unmanageable kaleidoscope of fears. It can be reduced through embracing the second rule:

"Rule #2: What you fear is rarely what you think you fear--it is what you *link* to rear. Take anything about which you have ever felt profound fear and link it to each of the possible outcomes. When it is real fear, it will either be in the presence of danger, or it will link to pain or death. When we get a fear signal, our intuition has already made many connections. To best respond, bring the links into consciousness and follow them to their high-stakes destination--if they lead there. When we focus on one link only, say, fear of someone walking toward us on a dark street instead of fear of being harmed by someone walking toward us on a dark street, the fear is wasted. That's because many people will approach us--only a very few might harm us.

"Surveys have shown that ranking very close to the fear of death is the fear of public speaking. Why would someone feel profound fear, deep in his or her stomach, about public speaking, which is so far from death? Because it isn't so far from death when we link it. Those who fear public speaking actually fear the loss of identity that attaches to performing badly, and that is firmly rooted in our survival needs. For all social animals, from ants to antelopes, identity is the pass card to inclusion, and inclusion is the key to survival. If a baby loses its identity as the child of its parents, a possible outcome is abandonment. For a human infant, that means death. As adults, without our identity as a member of a tribe or village, community or culture, a likely outcome is banishment or death.

"So the fear of [public speaking] is linked to the fear of being perceived as incompetent, which is linked to the fear of loss of eimployment, loss of home, loss of family, your ability to contribute to society, your value, in short, your identity and your life. Linking an unwarranted fear to its ultimate terrible destination usually helps alleviate that fear. Though you may find that public speaking can link to death, you'll see that it would be a long and unlikely trip."

Melissa, I'm thinking this information from Gavin DeBecker might well apply to your deep fear of revealing yourself in any situation, even ones where it is warranted, such as close personal relationships.

But there is another thought on this, too, which is related to the idea of appropriateness that Mixchel brought up: it may be that you choose for your close, intimate relationships people who are guaranteed to reject and hurt you (due either to personality or the fact that they are very damaged with little love and compassion to give). Why would any of us choose people like that to be close to? Well, according to the theory of dysfunctional families of origin, our "primitive brain" gets imprinted during our formative years in such a family with the pattern of rejection. It sounds weird, but the primitive brain likes that which is familiar and seeks it out, even if that which is familiar is suffering and pain. It is especially likely to seek out a particular type of suffering which we are very familiar with from our earliest childhood on up, such as the kind of rejection you fear, being rejected or ridiculed for speaking out, revealing who you really are, your "true self and authentic emotions."

Clinically, "narcissistic damage" is when we are taught to deny our true selves and our authentic emotions--because they are uncomfortable for, or don't fit in with the personal or social agendas of our primary caretakers in childhood. We build up a "false self" (very like what Michael calls the "negative overleaves") to which we become very attached. Losing it is, to use DeBecker's terms, linked very directly with death--survival as he describes above. However, every human being is also born with an incredibly strong drive to manifest the True Self (positive end of the overleaves). So the starved little True Self will always be trying to peek through. Rather like a turtle peeking its head out of its shell and jerking it back in.

It becomes a lose-lose situation when the primitive brain input says, "Choose only people who will reject me the way I was rejected in childhood," and the True Self says, "But if I do, they will only reject and humiliate me." Since we are trained only to listen to the False Self, which says, "You won't get rejected if you keep me well propped up," we tend strongly to listen only to it. Some of the "death" fear comes, when we try to go in the direction of the True Self (and this could be the ultimate form of "truth telling" for all of us), the False Self cries out in terror and agony. It fears annihilation. It is a three-dimensional aspect of ourselves as tenaciously entangled with us as some sort of blood-sucking parasite that has all but devoured our bodies.

Of course, all of this is theory, not received truth, but I can honestly say, FWIW, I have tested it out a lot, appied to my own life and that of many of my friends and clients over the past 10 years, and have found it to be very useful information to have. Maybe it might make some sense to you. I am just now, well into my 4th monad, breaking free of my imprint of having people in my life who don't see and value me for who I really am, who use me and take me for granted. So age itself can be a great help in breaking through primitive-brain-imprinted fears of survival.

Another thing that helped me break through this pattern of fear and anxiety related to patterns of rejection is homeopathy. For this sort of issue, you use a "constitutional" dosage, which works on long-term problems. I was this past year led to one of the best constitutional homeopaths I've ever known here in the Atlanta area. She specializes in emotional/mental problems. However, she does prefer that I only refer to her people who at least are somewhat familiar with how homeopathy works. If you do know about homeopathy and are interested in connecting with her, I can give you her name.

Kate

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 23:42:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Numerology

Ed wrote:

> However, when one deconstructs one's name from a physical sound
> pattern vibration to the written symbolic form and converts the letters
> to numbers, then you are completely into abstract theory. You can
> believe in it or not and it will be true or not according to your belief. If
> there is any validity to the idea that the deconstructed numerology of the
> spelling of your name means anything at all, it isn't in the physical plane. I
> doubt that in any of the higher planes it would be true, either, except in
> the sense that absolutely everything is true.
>
> I found myself very disappointed to see JP being so absorbed in this idea.

I'd be sincerely curious to know what you think about astrology. Do you think it is bogus abstract theory, too?

> I have dimiished respect intellectually for people who casually go
> along with the "authority says" of numerology without trying to come
> up with an explanation for how it could work down here in the physical
> plane; also I have even more diminished respect for people who try to
> find answers in numerology while they neglect all the so much more important
> and blatantly obvious factors in their lives which they could look at and work
> with or work on and in doing so, learn about the effect of choices in the physical
> plane.

I'd have to say that I find it, personally (but I'm a pragmatist), dumb on anyone's part to take any typology (and numerology is but one among many, many, many that exist out there, and the Michael Teachings itself is another), and not test and self-validate if the explanations and descriptions about reality it contains have any practical usefulness.

For myself, I love typologies and theories about human relationships of all sorts. I collect them like some people collect art. <G> The difference is that, unlike art, I don't just stare at my typologies, I test out each and every one, rigorously.

For numerology, I tested it for accuracy before ever giving a paid reading by doing free readings on over 100 people whom I knew well. I asked each for feedback on its accuracy and each replied that it was very accurate told them a great deal about themselves and their lives that was very useful, such as information about their personality and life choices and relationships. Over the years, I have found it very useful, as have my clients, much in the way that astrology, and the Michael Teachings, can be useful. They are a tool. One among many, for gaining self-knowledge. To go back to our topic on choice: they are a means to plumb the utter mystery of what my Higher Self or Essence has chosen for me in this lifetime and has imprinted, unknown to me, in my Instinctual Center (ready to go off at any time like little land mines <G>).

IMHO, I think it is a Baby Soul tendency to look for one Absolute Truth, one rubric, one dogma, to faithfully adhere to, come hell or high water. Many soul ages choose to never rise above that level of emotional thinking, or will revert to it in situations of fear. Part of me, before Michael, tended to very much scorn or "disrespect" that kind of fearfulness and timidity. But I am also in Growth, and it is always "damn the torpedos" for me. <G> I've since come to respect the right of people to cling to, at various times in their lives, a particular rubric or typology that has a great deal of present meaning and explanatory value for them. This is a very chaotic world we live in, and many of us struggle to find meaning, sense and a reason to put one foot in front of the other from day to day.

I have been very surprised that the Michael Teachings, as a typology, has stood the test of time for almost four years now for me. Rarely do I stay loyal to a descriptive rubric like that for this long, because its explanatory value and theoretical positions tend to break down over time in their ability to make sense of many of the situations I apply them to. The Teachings have been very useful in all kinds of situations, so I continue to be loyal to them in a very pragmatic, ecumenical, Old Soul kind of way. (As the song goes, "I'm faithful to it in my careless fashion." <G>)

I'm sorry if my experimentation and practical application of Numerology puts me in the same camp as JP, people you can't respect. ;>

> Okay, sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

You haven't hurt my feelings at all. I adore strong opinions. <G>

Love,
Kate

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: children and responsibility

I generally agree with Kate on the post about teaching kids the right values with regard to responsibility and so on.

One simple idea: I had really good parents, and they learned fairly quickly with me and my younger brother that the baby-soul way didn't work very well. Just telling us or ordering us "don't do that" immediately creates a young-soul urge to rebel against the authority (if it's unreasonable) and to be talked to in a non-patronizing way. So they learned to always explain why we shoudn't do whatever it was. They explained it reasonably both in terms of manners (a mature soul approach; how what you do affects other people in a way that isn't nice and you wouldn't want done to you) or in terms of practical physical plane info. My brother and I, being nice older souls, once we understood a good reason why not to do something, never had much urge to do it again. Since most children we have around today are older souls this approach would always seem to be in order after they get beyond toddler stage, and probably earlier, too, because they will benefit greatly from being addressed with respect, not talked down to.

All the best, Ed

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 23:49:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Re.Numerology,Astrology,overleaves,tea leaves........

Mixchel,

I liked very much what you wrote about astrology and numerology! Thanks!

> I believe we always get what we need in the form we can best receive
> it in.I´m pretty open I guess because I can get clarity off a bumper
> sticker if thats how the answer needs to come.This really happened once
> when I had a big decision to make and was fighting myself about it and I
> asked for the answer to just stare me in the face......sure enough I was
> driving at the time and the light turned red and when I pulled up behind the
> car in front his bumper sticker stared me in the face saying:"Just Do IT!". It
> really fit and was what I needed at that moment.

I loved this story. A lot of the channeling I did in my early years of channeling that was just for me rather than others was in this manner. I still use it and love it. I pose a question to the universe or a request for information, then leave myself wide open for it to come from literally anywhere. I feel I have a huge advantage, though, in this type of channeling, because I am a voracious reader. I think the universe has a much easier time of it sending info to someone who reads, because there are millions and millions of books out there all chock full of potential information you might want or need.

OTOH, a box boy at the grocery store, or as you say, even a bumper sticker that hits me ZING between the eyes can be the very answer I need to a given question. :)

This ability was particularly useful, btw, when I used to do a lot of research papers for college. I would wander through the stacks in the general area of books on my subject and let my intuition and guides lead me to the books I needed. I never met anyone else who did this until my dh, and he is really great at it. Much better than me.

Of course, as you can imagine, we are both Scholars. Any other Scholars channel this way?

Kate

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 00:09:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Perception

Dave wrote:

> ILets not forget that the world is your mirror. Your inner thoughts
> help to weave the fabric of your existence. In other words, if you think
> vicious, petty, and insulting thoughts, or even FEAR being the hapless
> recepient of them, you will tend to attract real life experiences that reflect
> this mental processing. Thus, regarding perceptions, the question is: are
> certain people actually "vicious, petty, and insulting", or is it your PERCEPTION
> that makes them so?

I agree with what you are saying and not to contradict you in any way, but only to amplify what I think is a fascinating threead, I want to point out several layers of interesting truth contained in what you are saying. They may seem mutually exclusive, but they are all, to me, at least, equally valid.

Yes, the world can be our mirror, and I go into this another way in my post to Melissa today about primitive brain fear programming. We can literally be programmed to seek out people who will be likely to harm us in ways we are familiar with and "comfortable" with.

I think it is also true that certain people actually *are* so hooked on behaving habitually in a petty, mean and vicious manner, it becomes their major way of being. So much so that it is pretty accurate to sum them up as *being* petty, mean, vicious people. IOW, if someone lies constantly, it is not out of line to call them a "liar," which most people will do, rather than saying, "Oh, Joe is a pretty good guy except for the fact that he lies most of the time." <G>

> I believe our perceptions are largely governed by what we EXPECT to
> perceive. For example, if we metaphorically paint a canvas of a person
> that is both negative and derogatory, our future encounters with them will
> undoubtedly bring us perceptions that fulfill this expectation.

I think there are a couple of interesting layers to this statement, too. :)

Yes, I agree, that what you are programmed to expect to see, you will see, even if it is not actually there (the whole perception thing we've been talking about). This programming happens via "nurture," our life experiences, and also through "nature." For the latter, I understand there is strong evidence that some people are born pessimistic and some optimistic via the conventional scientific route, and, of course, we know that people can choose pessimistic, cynical and optimistic overleaves via the Michael teachings. Many spiritual teachers call this effect our "filter."

Another way I find myself looking at what you are saying is the concept from psychology of expectations theory, "What you expect to happen you create." I worked with the ed psych prof who developed this theory some years back, Dr. Tom Good. He found that when at the beginning of the school year experimentors, in a casual aside, and totally unrelated to actual testing or concrete data, told a teacher that certain students in her/his class were high achievers and intellectually gifted, the teacher would not conciously remember by the end of the year having been told that. But, lo and behold--by the end of the year each of the students who were declared to be gifted were performing exceedingly well. No other interventions other than the teacher's high expectations were done that could account for this remarkable change. Esp. for many of the students who were formerly seen as low achievers.

This idea is also known as the theory of "self-fulfilling prophecy." Often, and this isn't just something "spiritual" people know about, we will behave in ways that cause people to respond as we expect them to. For example, a cynical person who has developed a cold, guarded, abrupt demeanor really turns people off. He thus may find the whole world, unaccountably to him (if he is low in self-knowledge) cold, guarded and abrupt. But to those who can see him objectively, it is obvious that the world is, as Dave says, simply "mirroring" back to him his own external personality.

And speaking of external personality, IMO, this is everyone's greatest blind spot. People pay thousands of dollars for group therapy for the sole purpose of finding out what the heck the world is seeing of them when they talk and walk around in it.

What I love so much about numerology, astrology and the Michael teachings, and other typologies like Myers-Briggs, is that they allow you, much more cheaply and easily (if you have eyes to see and ears to hear) what your "blind side" is, the external personality. How you "come off" to other people.

> This has been an interesting thread everyone. :-)

I think so, too. Thanks so much for joining in!

Love,
Kate

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:23:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Thus the question is.....

Dave,

<< Lets not forget that the world is your mirror. Your inner thoughts help to
weave the fabric of your existence. In other words, if you think vicious,
petty, and insulting thoughts, or even FEAR being the hapless recepient of
them, you will tend to attract real life experiences that reflect this mental
processing. Thus, regarding perceptions, the question is: are certain people
actually "vicious, petty, and insulting", or is it your PERCEPTION that makes
them so? >>

Peter writes:

<< Well, you tell me Dave. Using this intellectual theory, let me ask you,
"Were the Nazi's vicious killers who practiced genocide? Or was it just the
PERCEPTION of the rest of the world that they were?" Or could both be true?
If someone punches your nose every time you see them, are they trying to
hurt you or is it just your PERCEPTION? If someone only talks about bodily
functions and rude noises, does that mean their life is nothing more than one
long attack of gas? Are you saying that women who are beaten by their
husbands everyday only perceive that they are getting beaten, and it's not
really happening? I used my common sense before I put out my statement. We
can perceive viciousness in others, and it can really exist outside of us.
That is called OBSERVATION. >>>

Peter, you have misconstrued my message, or was this my perception? Heh heh. My post concerned perceptions that affect the framework of individual personal reality, not complex issues of mass genocide. I really did think that was clearly presented. But if you want me to counter your comment that "perceived viciousness (not on a mass level) exists outside of us", well, I would say it exists because your mental architecture layed the foundation for its structure, and I'll explain more about that below.

<< How true. Does that mean that everyone who finds child abuse repugnant is
secretly a child abuser?
-- Peter >>

Of course it doesn't, but according to prevailing metaphysical concepts, our thoughts are like magnets -- drawing experiences to us that reflect the framework of our inner world. This doesn't mean that hating child abuse will impel you to commit such hideous crimes, but it COULD mean that if you devote a sufficient amount of hatred to the act, the sheer emotional intensity of your thoughts could manifest experiences where child abuse is more visible in society to you. It has been said "that if a person sees only evil and desolation in the world, it is because he is obsessed with evil and desolation, and projects them outward, closing his eyes to other aspects of reality." Christ even suggested this with his "Sermon on the Mount" speech with "the meek shall inherit the earth." He attempted to convey that those who think thoughts of peace would find themselves safe from war and dissension, and therefore left behind to indeed inherit what's left after all the desolation.
Concerning the Nazi's and the holocaust, this topic has been discussed numerous times on the list, and its evolution is too complex to narrow down to one component; however, to Hitler and his henchmen, the cleansing of the Aryan race was viewed as a noble endeavor, whereas to the rest of the population, it was considered an abomination, or the rape of humanity. Yet, both of those perspectives, even on a very elemental scale, could be viewed as "perceptions." Therefore, to summarize by digressing to the earlier topic, "viciousness" for one group was community building for another, despite all of its horrific implications.

Now bear in mind that my original post was not intended to venture into areas of global conflict, despite Peter's insistence on taking it there. I was simply pointing out that perceptions (and the emotional intensity behind them) can result in how we perceive our world on a personal level. This is why New Agers so frequently advise us to "react only to constructive suggestions." By doing this we can accumulate positive arsenal that will help combat our own negative thoughts, and those of others.

Of course, we can always choose to embrace the opposite polarity and become so narrow minded that we can look through a keyhole with both eyes. Heh heh ;-p

Dave :-)

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 01:14:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Thus the question is.....

Peter wrote:

> hurt you or is it just your PERCEPTION? If someone only talks about
> bodily really happening? I used my common sense before I put out my
> statement. We can perceive viciousness in others, and it can really exist
> outside of us. That is called OBSERVATION.

Very good point. I hope I addressed some of your concerns in my answer tonight to Dave's post. :)

I think it is very important to remember that there is also the possibility of having a degree of objectivity in our observation. And that some events are just so plain *obvious* only the most mentally deranged can't fail to see they are happening. (Though some people continue to claim the Holacaust never happened. =o )

I think where the waters get muddy in personal power issues are around control and personal leverage in the sense of the ability to change situations, that is, especially, changing them for the better, which, for me, implies alleviating suffering.

Why do we decide certain events are "right" or "wrong"? Well, of course, depending on the soul age, there can be a lot of reasons to use those particular, very loaded, words. Many Baby Souls may say that something is "right" or "wrong" because their version of theology or the mores of their little culture says so. But I think the higher the soul age, and the moral level, the more we tend to decide certain things are "right" or "wrong," particularly Matures and Old Souls living their true soul age, because those things cause suffering. Suffering we long to alleviate.

In this regard, and I go round and round on this philosophically within myself, being a "world changer/saver" by deepest nature, one of the clearest guidances I've ever seen about the when and how of "righting wrongs" is the Serenity Prayer (I have had it on my desk for a number of years and it continues to makes sense of madness to me):

"Grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." Of course, the trick is the wisdom part. And when, we must decide, is there actually, truly *nothing* we can do? (There is always energetic work to be done, when all avenues are closed on the physical plane.)

Another problem, in my perception at least, is that old souls, esp. in a younger-souled culture, tend to become disempowered. IMO, a reflection of that disempowerment is the passivity-inducing philosophy that "this is a perfect world" and that all the horror and suffering going on since the beginning of time are "meant to be" because the "laws of karma are being served" by its existence, and therefore we ought not to bother trying to "Mess with Mother Nature," that is, any horror or injustice that is going down around us. Just let it lay. Let all those younger souled idiots tear each other apart. What does it have to do with elevated, enlightened me?

IMO, this latter attitude is the arrogant side of the grandiosity continuum that Old Souls are prone to. The pathetic/passive side of the grandiosity continuum (self-deprecation) often goes something like this: "Nothing I try to do ever makes any difference anyway, so why bother?." When the latter is repeated often enough, a virtue is made of powerlessness, a perceived inability to have any leverage at all in a world where they are out of step with the karmic agendas of 90% of their fellows.

> Does that mean that everyone who finds child abuse repugnant is
> secretly a child abuser? Or that if we consider rape a crime that we
> are all rapists? Is that your theory? What do you mean?

I don't think he is saying that, exactly. What you are setting forth may *seem* to be the logical extreme of Dave's argument, but, in my perception at least, he is not going there even if his words, on the surface, might at first seem to imply that, at least theoretically. I think he responding to the discussion on a more simple, basic level, like what I was describing as an amplification of his position in my post to him tonight: to wit, that the world can reflect or mirror back to us our own (out of our sight) external personality.

In this regard, a bit more expanded: It is an interesting fact that I've noted frequently over the years that some of the people I've found to be very morally repugnant in their actions, in fact most of them, when challenged face-to-face, will honestly, sincerely, *believe* that they are well-meaning, even good and virtuous people. For example, many of the white supremists really believe in their hearts that they are doing the world good by their stance of extreme violence and hatred. Just as the Nazis were convinced that genocide was an act of "extermination of vermin" that would "improve the quality" of people on the earth.

Also, taking another angle on this, many people are very much against capital punishment and euthanasia for the reason that the people selected for these events may not, respectively, truly "deserve" to retributively murdered (be guilty of the crime accused of) or deep-down "want" to be put to death like a sickly cat (such as an old person who doesn't want to be a bother to his/her family and "chooses" to be put to sleep to get her/himself out of the way).

On a petty level, one small example: years ago I tried to get out of a lease for a badly leaking apartment, leaks the a landlord had lied to me about before I rented it. He refused to release my deposit and drove me around showing me a series of dumps he owned next to the university I was attending as a replacement for the other place I was renting. I confronted him on being a"slumlord" and asked him how he could live with himself. He bridled and said that he was certainly not. That he provided a service to the community--cheap, affordable housing! =o I ended up taking him to court, paying an inexperienced, young attorney a retainer of $250 to get back my $250 deposit. It was the principle of the thing, I told myself.

The landlord hired a $250/hour, hand-made-silk-suited shark of an attorney who tore me and my attorney and our witnesses to shreds! My opponent was determined to fight to the death my assertion that he was a slum lord. The final irony was that after I lost, all he kept was my deposit, didn't make me pay his attorney fees, which he could have, and he proceeded to invest a great deal of money visibly improving the house the basement apartment was in to fix the leak, a leak he refused to admit existed in court!

I chalked that one up as doing a good deed for all the future tenants of that pit of an apartment, but it proved to me in spades how far people of dubious morals and behavior will go to prove to themselves as much as the community that "they really are good people."

On a larger scale, of course, there is the situation with all the wars that have been fought and the millions who have died on behalf of religions that preach "love and forgiveness and compassion." Also all the people over the history of human civilizations who have been ready to sacrifice themselves, their family and their country to their "cause" (one example: Japan in WWII).

Oh, one last thing, I agree with you that when you notice rape and child molestation and are morally (and emotionally) apalled by it that your clear seeing (admitting it exists and needs to be dealt with) does not constitute a mirroring back of your own innate rapist mentality.

Maybe this is confusing the waters here, but I think that rapists and child molestors are unable to even use those terms, which are the names of crimes. People who commit these crimes don't see them as crimes but as deserved, you might say, "prizes" they have taken as booty in their own personal war. Or, in the other weird extreme, they can see their acts as "charitable kindnesses." As an example of the latter: a friend of mine, suffered incest at her father's hands for a number of years, from age four on. She is now 42, and he has never shown any remorse for his crimes. In fact, he, like many incest perpetrators, sticks to a position of "goodness." He says he did her a "favor" by introducing her to sexuality in the "safety" of her home. (BTW, as you can well imagine, she found the newagey belief that "you choose your own reality" to be another, sophisticated version of the common "blame the victim" mentality of this and many other violence-prone cultures. It is a spiritualized version of "She asked for it." And as such, is a vomitous logical extreme of this philosophical position.)

In terms of the "booty of war" position, many women-haters (who emotionally see women as "the enemy" and "ball busters") feel that the "solution" to the "problem" of "uppity women" who say they don't need men, that is, lesbians, is to introduce them to the "joys" of heterosexual sex by raping them. Do these men see rape, defined as a crime of violence and power, in their acts or the acts of other men like them? I think not. They see themselves as giving the women a "gift." Or, if you can admit what they did is violence, at all, they say the woman "deserved" it for "daring to step out of her proper place" as a sexual vessel for men's pleasure.

In short, rapists don't "see" violence as those who morally (and emotionally) decry it, that is, as a repugnant, unnatural act. They see it simply something they do, a natural extension of who they are, a perfectly acceptable way of fulfilling some basic needs they happen to have. IOW, they are so at one with their violence, we can accurately say they *are* violence--they have become the violence that they constantly act out.

The world to them is a rending and slashing place, and the people in it merely objects to prey upon. They have no true emotions, so the world cannot "mirror" back to them anything but a barren landscape of emptiness. (In this version of the mirroring theory, *you* are the mirror, and the world reflects you, or in the filter theory, your filter of emptiness only allows in a perception of emptiness.) IOW, a person who has lost all humanity (all sense of true self and authentic emotion) is incapable of having mirrored back to him humanity.

OTOH, when a person is looking at rape or any other form of violence and feeling horror, this is not a "mirroring." It is a prayer of, "How can this be? And how can it end?" Then the issue is to find a leverage point to make some changes in the hate levels that produce such crimes.

Gavin DeBecker, in The Gift of Fear, says that when we are talking about violence, we might as well drop the "she" pronoun entirely from the discussion, because 90-some % of violent crime is committed by men. Not because, IMO, men are innately violent, but because they have been systematically, since the beginning of time, socialized to be that way. IOW, men are socialized to *perceive* the world as dog-eat-dog. They have very little conscious say about it until their fourth monad, many times, unless lucky enough to have the mitigation of caregivers who are "world-changers" or naturally deflect this social imprint in their lives for some reason (soul age, etc.).

DeBecker says that the terrifying thing for women is this: "Men and women live in different worlds....At core, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them." He says we live in a society where "crimes against women have risen four times faster than the general crime rate, and three out of four women will suffer a violent crime....These are life-and-death issues," he says, "that men know nothing about" causing them to ridicule women and "make them feel foolish for being cautious even though [women] live at the center of a swirl of possible hazards." He says that, "Whether or not men can relate to it or believe it or accept it, that is the way it is. Women, particularly in big cities, live with a constant wariness. Their lives are literally on the line in ways men just don't experience."

Rape is a powerful weapon in the war of supremacy to keep women so afraid they will remain in their historical position of one-down. "If this man can brutalize me by the act of rape, he is certainly capable of killing me," a women is wise to admit to herself about her rapist.

I had a friend years ago who was a typical old soul who took the Old Soul belief that "I create my own reality" to a real extreme. She would hitchhike regularly, get picked up by red-neck truck drivers, and make a point of announcing that she was a lesbian! =o She figured that she could tease the tiger all she wanted, because her picture of reality was that she would never, could never get raped because she wouldn't let that be part of her universe.

I told her she was nuts and she was fast soaking up whatever gallons of good karma she brought into this lifetime by taking insane risks.

Kate, the still, after all these years, unabashed world changer <G> (and determined as hell not to raise a son who has a rapist mentality--a damned hard job in our culture of rape)

--
Kate McMurry

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 01:24:00 -0500
Subject: Re: children and responsibility

Ed wrote:

> Ido it again. Since most children we have around today are older souls
> this approach would always seem to be in order after they get beyond
> toddler stage, and probably earlier, too, because they will benefit greatly
> from being addressed with respect, not talked down to.

I agree absolutely, Ed. Good point! :)

The parenting theories I find most enlightened, and effective, involve a "democratic" parenting style (which IMO has become a *demand*, historically of the times we live in since WWII), wherein responsibility, choices and logical consequences, are shared. Children are from earliest babyhood given choices, "Do you want eggs or cereal for breakfast?" or "Do you want to take your shower now or after your story?"

You give them only choices you can live with and you allow them to be involved in deciding on consequences for infractions. When they commit an infraction, without any emotion other than empathy and sadness, you apply the consequences. If you can manage to do this, they can have a clear, undiluted learning experience around the consequences. If you get lost in resentment or anger, then the child gets into a karma with you around that and learns little or nothing about the consequences of their original action.

I find this a simple, elegant way to parent, but a lot easier to talk about than carry out. As most theories are. <G>

I also agree with you about explaining the *why* of things. I was raised by YS's who were very rigid and authoritarian. My father's favorite sayings were, "When I tell you to jump, you ask how high on the way up!" and "Do as I say, not as I do." And in response to, "Why?" the answer always was, "Because I said so." "No" was not a word that was ever tolerated in our household.

With my kids, I have made a point of explaining everything I possibly could to them since infancy. As a result, since age 2, my daughter, a mid-level Old, has held philosophical conversations with me. My son, a 7th level Mature, has held such conversations with me, with great fluency, since about age 6.

Thanks for your comments! :)

Kate

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 01:26:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Thus the question is.....

Dave wrote:

> Peter, you have misconstrued my message, or was this my perception?
> Heh heh.
> My post concerned perceptions that affect the framework of individual
> personal reality, not complex issues of mass genocide.

Enjoyed your post, Dave! :)

Kate

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 00:27:47 -0600
Subject: Re: points of power ...on truth

< what Kate said..at bottom >

Wow thanks everyone for the imput!

    This is totally valid.. the funny thing is *I* was the one doing the rejecting in the beginning. My friends, all of whom have turned out to be fairly critical in nature, not to mention far more emotional than I am, drove me crazy in the beginning. I tried and tried to get away from them, but they clung on for dear life. I attract people who want to swamp me.. and I don't want anything to do with them. They get what they want.. me, in a sense, and I distance myself from them as a protective measure of some sort. After a period of time, I grow close to them but still, despite the closeness, there is still that protective distance. After 10 years, it's a strong habit.

    If anything, this has been evidence to me of us choosing our lessons (such as fear of rejection) long before we are ever reincarnated. Apparently, I REALLY have to learn this lesson now.. I'm not getting away from it. I can't postpone it. I have to deal with it. Or it is going to seek me out.

> However, every human being is also born with an incredibly strong
> drive to manifest the True Self (positive end of the overleaves).
> So the starved little True Self will always be trying to peek through.
> Rather like a turtle peeking its head out of its shell and jerking it back in.

Too true. I'm doing this all the time.. sometimes I feel like I'm doing it in an inappropriate situation. And it confuses people. I pick the wrong time to reveal something about myself.. in a particular moment when I *know* I'm going to get backlashed for it. I'm sure it's not coincidence. It's just too tempting sometimes..heh heh.

I like to stir things up sometimes.

Here I digress:

The people I work best with, however, are dominant people. I'm in the submissive role this time around. I'm finding it difficult to understand the positive pole of submission -devotion-. Being in a dominant/submissive relationship, I don't mind when my friend takes charge of things in order to get something done. I'm fairly comfortable with that. I know *I'm* not going to get around to it. However, I'm finding that there's a delicate balance in our relationship. I can see how it could be so easy to slide into the negative poles.. We work well together, but maybe I'm just being lazy. I feel guilty for not taking action myself. I have plenty of input in the choices we make, but I feel guilty for not being the leader. Could part of this be due to warrior tendencies? Am I sliding towards the negative pole?

I'm finding it hard to (not in theory but in actual practice) work in the positive pole of devotion into my life. I think it would be easier for a server to do. I'm so wrapped up in myself at this point.. I'm not seeing how to approach this. I guess right now I would associate devotion more with being submissive and since I have such guilty feelings regarding submission (is it my laziness?) I'm afraid to even go near devotion. My habit is to keep the distance/keep myself safe and since I'm afraid to reveal things about myself to others I fail to learn about myself. And since I don't know myself, how can I be devoted? I can't give my true self to a cause if I don't know what my true self is.

well. This is far more than I was planning to say. You usually can't get *this* much out of me in a week. :)

thanks for listening,

Melissa.

(oh PLEASE tell me that heffalumps don't exist)

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 05:15:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Thus the question is.....

In a message dated 97-12-02 02:23:23 EST, Kate McMurry writes:

<< only the most mentally deranged can't fail to see they are happening. (Though some people continue to claim the Holacaust never happened. =o ) >>

I was at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. this past summer (made for a sober afternoon), and believe it or not, I learned that there is actually a periodical called "The Journal of Historical Review" that publishes articles attacking the claims and accuracy of the Holocaust.

Dave

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 15:58:40 UT
Subject: RE: children and responsibility

Kate stated: "I also agree with you about explaining the *why* of things. I was raised by YS's who were very rigid and authoritarian. My father's favorite sayings were, "When I tell you to jump, you ask how high on the way up!" and "Do as I say, not as I do." And in response to, "Why?" the answer always was, "Because I said so." "No" was not a word that was ever tolerated in our household."

Oh my goodness did YOU hit cords allllll over my body!!!!!!! You have just hit on one of my biggest pet peeves. My father was such a big man and being that he was an officer in the US military, he seemed even more forceful to me and my brother growing up. He is the one who could say it with such authority but my mother was also able to come across with a very stern attitude with the statement "Because """I""" said so". I swore when I grew up that I would always have an explanation for any of the "why's" if I had children. To me it was the MOST frustrating statement I had ever been given as an answer to my questions. What arrogance and power they had....sigh. Me... I was just a curious kid and so wanted to understand. They squashed a lot of that. I know they loved me and did the best they could raising me (as I have tried to do raising my own) but for some reason this whole concept looms large in my memory.....:)

Hugs (cause they are so much fun)
Diane

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:04:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Soul Age

Linda Champion wrote:

> I am just wandering how a soul could be older than the other....when all of
> us were made at the same time??????
>
> Is it not so much the soul age but to what level one is???

Hi Linda--The thing about soul age, as I understand it is, that it is like this: we have on the physical plane, a period of time that we'll experience lifetimes, and in general, the first lives are at the younger ages than the last lives.... Just like a person growing up. There is spiritual wisdom at each soul age, but there tends to be more awareness the older the soul age. Just as children show great wisdom sometimes, but they are unaware of it. Well, this is how I think of it. :^)

Love,
Lori

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:26:33 -0400
Subject: Re: children and responsibility

I just wanted to share something funny that my 4yr old says whenever I ask him "why" about something he has done.
    "Because Yes" Toby innocently says.I think its a pretty good answer!

    Isn´t parenting fun.........

      M´Ixchel

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:36 -0400
Subject: Re: points of power......truth

Dear Melissa,

I couldn´t help but catch a clue ........
you wrote:
(Big clip)

"I'm so wrapped up in myself at this point.". (big clip)

Sounds like devotion to me..........just a thought.

    Namaste,
      M´Ixchel

Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:04:07 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: perception?

At 00:38 01/12/1997 -0000, Lori Tostado wrote:

> Jose Caldeira wrote:
> > Lori,

> Hi Jose! I do think your physical age makes a difference in many
> cases--you've got a lot of direct life-experiences to share, and the
> wisdom that comes from that. For example, back when the discussion
> thread was all about the 4th internal monad--I didn't post anything
> about that, because I haven't been there yet in this life, and other
> people on the list were much better equipped to handle that subject, all
> those who have been through it. :^) (I'm 28.)

Hi, Lori, thanks for the comments! Is there any Michael information on whether the age span for each internal monad applies to any society at any point in history or does it vary?

> there, even if it was just as a paying customer to her. Business people
> who don't appreciate their customers lose them. I really like to
> express my appreciation to my spiritual teachers too, like you! It
> would hurt me too if they wouldn't accept it.

> were and who they really are. Reminds me of this quote from Ralph Waldo
> Emerson: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say."
> This is one that I think about often. Is who we are defined by what we
> do? Society would say yes, but, I would say no..... But what we do or
> say often speaks multitudes about who we are, doesn't it?

That is a good one to remember and hang up on the wall.

> > In the example I am giving, the teacher in question was affecting others
> > with their own stuff. I have learnt how to elect a teacher as one my
> teachers.
>
> I'm sorry--I don't understand your last sentence above--can you explain
> further?

Oops, it is getting could and my fingers were trying to catch up with my brain. :-) I just meant to say that that incident served as a lesson on how to choose a teacher. I want to bear in mind that no-one is perfect, though.

Love,

Jose

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:34:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Numerology

Re: Numerology

I'm not especially "into" numerology, but I've noticed that a Cathy (with a C) feels different to me than a Kathy (with a K), even though the names sound the same. Cathy's feel much more casual to me and soft to me. So the written vibration also carries weight for me.

<< Also, Michael said astrology would be much more useful if it could
pinpoint the moment of conception rather than the moment of physical birth. >>

My understanding is that this especially applies to those who were "premature" or "late."

Shepherd

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:45:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Numerology

Not to pull a cloud over today's sunshine, but the skeptic in me has always questioned the validity of Numerology. I've experimented with many different readings using this methodology, and have never seen substantial evidence that the results gave insights into the true nature of my personality, other than the instances when the results indicated I was "vicious, petty, and insulting." (Ooops...just kidding. ;-p)

Here's a short list of points of contention that have always disturbed me about Numerology:

- what are the numerical odds that sets of numbers aligned with letters can reveal the personality traits of over a billion people on this planet?

- Considering we live in a world flush with multiple cultures that have both different languages, alphabets, and calendar systems, doesn't it seem outlandish that the universe could be arranged according to a numerical transcription of names, and arranged so that provisions are made to offset the cultural disparities?

- How often do people just use "selective thinking" in analyzing their results? (Selective thinking being the process where the individual focuses on the favorable information, while ignoring the obvious inaccuracies.)

Now my mind is not closed on this subject, but until the skeptic in me can see more reliable evidence that personality traits can be disclosed with numbers, I'm afraid I'll have to remain somewhat neutral in this area. Does anyone have any non-hostile arguments to sway my thinking? I think that secretly I would like to believe in numerology. Of course, I still miss Santa. ;-p

Dave

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 16:40:36 -0800
Subject: Michael Line 2-14/Ask Michael 2 For a while I am experimenting with a new format for the Michael Lines where I take questions from subscribers and channeling answers. Here is one that we hope you will find interesting.

Dear Michael,

 

QUESTION: I have received three different overleaves from three different Michael Channels - can you explain this? A.F.., Springfield, USA (wondering about the whereabouts of Springfield, one of these most popular names for towns? Well, I have received this question a number of times from different people and felt it deserved an answer - A.F. is Anonymous Fragment and Springfield is anytown).

Dear A.F.

ANSWER: As one who is one of our students you through agreement on the astral plane are in the process of studying the overleaves. It would do you little service to be given a set of overleaves and not go through the process of evaluating them for personal validation. Without evaluation on your part they are useless, somewhat like being told you are an Aries because of your birth date., although in the case of astrology at least their is a quantifiable relationship. It is more important to go through the process of learning the overleaves through self study than by simply having them by the "magic of channeling". Through study of the overleaf material you will learn to discover your own overleaves as well as the overleaves of others. Channels only serve to aid you in this process. The bottom line is, "you are your highest authority."

You will probably notice though that there is a little similarity in the readings. This is due to the intuitive faculties of the channelers. They "read" or "see" your energy then describe it using the overleaf terminology. Some are more experienced than others but all channels bring in their personal expectations (their 'stuff') into the channeling process. Part of the process means the passing of consciousness through the subconscious mind which invariably influences the channel.

To think that we give channels the overleaves would be a mistake. We do not. We are teachers and teachers allow their students to think to find solutions. Intuitive thinking in none the less thinking. In most channeling there is a higher emotional component that helps to "feel" the "correct" answer. We teach the overleaf system which is simply a way of describing the essential energies that create the physical plane. The energies can be described in other ways and are described in Tarot as well as Astrology. Modern psychology also describes these essential energies using their terminology. We have simplified the description to its most root level. Overleaves can be used to describe all events, places, things and ideas. However, personality is a composition of these root energies and the overleaves are useful in describing the individual personalities.

You will note that there are 823,543 possible overleaf sets. Some are extremely rare or non existent. There are only a few fragments that maintain higher centering. Higher centering is not conducive to chief feature and any fragment who maintains a higher center has no chief feature. You do however, enjoy the higher centers from time to time and many of you are enjoying them more often. It takes extraordinary circumstances to plan a lifetime that will allow permanency of the higher centers. If overleaf sets were distributed on a bell shaped curve you would find about 50 among the thousands that are most popular (not including body types and roles). For example, growth and acceptance are popular goals, idealist and realist are popular attitudes, observation is a popular mode followed by power and passion.

As a reminder it is important to note that one role or other overleaf is better than another. All are vital to the functioning of the incarnational game. An artisan, cynic, in aggression mode, and goal of reevaluation is just as important as a King idealist in passion mode with a goal of acceptance. Both can be interesting personalities and both have their drawbacks.
When given three different sets of overleaves you may find that all three channels are getting one or two of the same ones. This could be the result of good intuiting on their part or luck, but it is probably accurate for you to say that you have that overleaf. Here is what we suggest you do however. Ask yourself if the overleaves feel right to you. Which one fits you the best? This requires a little reading into the material and there are many fine books to choose from. The best overleaf readings come from studying the material first and getting few readings from a Michael channel that you like. When the channel gets to know you better many of the constraints of false personality will dissolve and she will be able to see your overleaves in your body, and especially your face.

Overleaves can be seen with some practise and study. They are energies and energy effects matter. The energy in flowing water will gouge a channel in water, likewise the constrictions imposed by the chief feature of stubbornness will cause the jaw to stiffen and the muscles of the jaw will swell somewhat and look tight. Idealists will have a wider smile. Spiritualists will have eyes that open just a bit more. The cynic may have a sneer embedded in her mouth. Pragmatists will have that deadpan look. Submission will have a drop in the forehead, power mode will hold the lips tighter and aggression will throw their face forward. These are the results of the way the overleaf energy interacts with the body type.

We advise you to take your three readings and compare them to each other. Which one feels the best. You can even take the simply words such as idealist or realist and feel them for accuracy. When you think the word artisan versus sage does your body elongate a little? Do you sit up straight? The answers to the overleaves are in the words. By saying the words to yourself you can feel the correct answer in your body. The words for the overleaves were chosen for their vibrational resonance and somewhat like tuning a guitar, when the strings are in tune you will know it. It is also more likely that what is obvious to you about yourself is the most accurate. That is if you search out argument you are probably a cynic. If you find yourself constantly disappointed by the behavior of your fellows you are probably an idealist. You can easily look at the patterns of your life and apply the overleaves to them.

As for your three different readings, reading overleaves is a process for both channel and student. Channel are only students who agree to work with our energy to disseminate information. There will be so called inaccuracies in most first readings. If you get to know the material and the channel you are working with you will find though that this material will take on a greater meaning that you may have expected.

***********************

Do you have a question for Michael? Then, send it this way. I cannot take all questions but if your question looks interesting I will make it the focus of the next Michael Line.

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:10:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: Michael Line 2-14/Ask Michael 2]

>> To think that we give channels the overleaves would be a mistake.
>> We do not.

Hmm, seems to me I recently read a statement by Michael contrary to this in _Messages_.

Must've been the channel adding her "stuff". ; p

This creates quite a paradox. What information is valid, and what is not? When validating the channeled information for ourselves, aren't we adding our own "stuff"? That is certainly an issue for me.

And back to the terminology issue again -- I won't even go into quadrates and quadrants, and why is the six fragment cousin to a quadrate a sextant, and not a sextate?... But this term "stuff"... There has to be a better term. I bet Dave has some more descriptive synonyms.

John

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:28:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Numerology

Dave wrote:

> numbers, I'm afraid I'll have to remain somewhat neutral in this area.
> Does anyone have any non-hostile arguments to sway my thinking? I
> think that secretly I would like to believe in numerology. Of course, I still
> miss Santa. ;-p

I can't think of any reason to "convert" you to numerology. Since I've been doing the Michael system, I rarely use numerology anymore. The Michael stuff is so much easier to deal with and has more descripton. But while I used numerology it was useful to me. I still find it an interesting adjunct. But it's certainly nothing that has to be "proved" valid. Or to get emotional about in any way, good or bad, IMO. It's not a belief system, a dogma, a religion or a way of life, the things that usually inspire a lot of emotion. It's just one among many typologies for knowing the self better. If someone doesn't feel drawn to it, no biggie. There are dozens of other things to choose from. :)

Kate

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:32:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Numerology

Shepherd wrote:

> I'm not especially "into" numerology, but I've noticed that a Cathy
> (with a C) feels different to me than a Kathy (with a K), even though the
> names sound the same. Cathy's feel much more casual to me and soft to
> me. So the written vibration also carries weight for me.

I read a book back in the early 70s which I wish so much I could find again. It had nothing to do with numerology, but some social researchers asked people in a study their responses to different names. Some of the responses were really funny. I only remember a couple, of course, I remember what "Kate" was! <G> It was "unstoppable," which I liked. <G>

> <<Also, Michael said astrology would be much more useful if it could
> pinpoint the moment of conception rather than the moment of physical
> birth. >>
>
> My understanding is that this especially applies to those who were
> "premature" or "late."

That's interesting. Both of my kids were 2 weeks late. I know both their times of conception, too.

Kate

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:33:53 -0500
Subject: Re: children and responsibility

Mixchel wrote:

> I just wanted to share something funny that my 4yr old says whenever I
> ask him "why" about something he has done.
>     "Because Yes" Toby innocently says.I think its a pretty good answer!

Cute! :) </>

--
Kate McMurry

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:38:34 -0500
Subject: Re: children and responsibility

Diane L. Smith wrote:

> Oh my goodness did YOU hit cords allllll over my body!!!!!!! You have
> just hit on one of my biggest pet peeves. My father was such a big man
> and being that he was an officer in the US military, he seemed even more
> forceful to me and my brother growing up. He is the one who could say it
> with such authority

> questions. What arrogance and power they had....sigh. Me... I was just a
> curious kid and so wanted to understand. They squashed a lot of that. I
> know they loved me and did the best they could raising me (as I have tried
> to do raising my own) but for some reason this whole concept looms large in
> my memory.....:)

My father was 6'4" and a school superintendent, raised in Texas and a racist and sexist. Intense. I can relate! :)

--
Kate McMurry

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:13:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Kate's super long/ Saddam & Hitler (1997-47/203)

/ Dick Hein wrote:
/
/ > 1. In _Cosmic Journey_ Courtney Brown states (recalling now from
/ > having read the book almost a year ago) that his contacts with ETs
/ > through remote viewing (RV) provided him the knowledge that they will
/ > not interfere with the activities of humans unless asked. They will
/ > not "rescue" us from our destiny, as we are a free-will species. If
/ > there is an exception to this, I don't recall seeing it mentioned.
/
/ Dick, this is, in a nutshell, my personal take on it. We are free-will.
/ There will be no unasked for interference. OTOH, though, there are a
/ heck of a lot of fragments frantically petitioning any ET who will
/ listen for help, so maybe enough *have* asked for help to warrant the
/ kind of "interference" that Ed is talking about?

Interesting point; I hadn't thought of it like that. Courtney Brown makes the comment that we (the human species) will be admitted as full members of the galactic community only when we have our act together (my words) enough to have one representative body for the planet. IMO we are far from that. I don't know whether assistance requests from large numbers of individuals would be enough to elicit a response, or whether it would need to come from a body truly representative of the planet.

/ > | This gets me to thinking: it is said that *all* human events are in
/ > | the Akashic Records, and in a like manor, for a given lifetime, all
/ > | events that happen to a fragment are in the Instintive Center. So,
/ > | one could extrapolate, that all events in my Instinctive Center, and
/ > | yours and everyone else's, are in the Akashic Records.
/ >
/ > Not exactly. Again, recalling from memory without going back to
/ > research the info, partly in _Journey_ and partly from channel
/ > sessions. There are two different things - akashic records and the
/ > akashic plane. Each fragment (and each hierarchical grouping of
/ > fragments?) has their own akashic records. For fragments, they are in
/ > the instinctive center. The akashic plane consists of distillation of
/ > those akashic records, retaining only the lessons learned. Scholars
/ > are the ones who do the distillation, in a manner I'm unaware of.
/ > It's done at the time of a particular reintegration, but I don't
/ > recall the details.
/
/ Interesting. I'd like to hear more on this. I'm still digesting various
/ parts of Journey but haven't gotten to that one. Very dense and
/ wonderful. :)

That it is. I went back and looked up the info about the akashic records. It starts on page 25, and it looks like I remembered it pretty closely. The chapter on reincarnation is also quite good IMO.

/ [It] seems that [perceptions are] what would be in the Akashic records.
/ A distillation of what was learned would imply *perception* not raw
/ data, that is, raw, actual events in space-time.

Yes, as explained in _Journey_.

/ > | Could this be yet another reason (excuse? ) that channels get
/ > | different readings, even from the Akashic Records, on a person's
/ > | overleaves?
/ >
/ > As I understand it, it takes quite a bit of energy to research the
/ > akashic records on the akashic plane. I think it's probably the case
/ > that most channels provide overleaves from Michael's reading of the
/ > person's aura and whatever else they can see, that indicate what is in
/ > the instinctive center.
/
/ I think you're right. A lot *do* read this way. My perception is that
/ when I call on Michael to help me read the Akashic Records, I myself
/ don't have to expend the energy to do it. Michael does the work.

That's correct. WRT channels getting different information from the akashic records - Shepherd covers that also in _Journey_ (in the section starting on page 25).

/ > | I find this kind of train of thought to be incredibly mind boggling.
/ > | Which is why I have *real* trouble with the whole Parallel Universe
/ > | concept. It adds, for me anyway, yet another dimension of confusion
/ > | to the whole Michael theory I don't want or need.
/ >
/ > It =is= an added dimension, and can be confusing. But it is very
/ > real. Within the last few months I have had 3 convincing
/ > demonstrations of parallels, one just a couple of days ago. Very
/ > interesting, actually.
/
/ I'd love to hear about it, if it isn't too time consuming to explain. :)

I'll explain the last one, but the others are similar in nature.

Each night before I go to bed I look out my front window to be sure everything appears to be in order. A few nights ago I noticed an unfamiliar vehicle parked at one of my neighbors. It's not overly unusual to see a strange vehicle there, so I didn't think too much about it. It appeared to be white, either a small van or a pickup with camper. I couldn't tell for sure what it was due to the darkness and the rain.

The next morning when I looked out I saw it was a van. I didn't recall having seen that particular van before. It was fairly small as vans go, and white with one window on the side. During the next couple of hours I looked out a few more times, and it was still there. The next time I checked it was =tan=! Not beige; darker than beige - tan. Right away I figured I'd seen another parallel. During the next maybe an hour I checked several more times, and it was still tan. After that it was gone and I haven't seen it again.

Now, the first question one is likely to ask is - was it really white? Yes it was, and two things tend to substantiate this conclusion - 1/the pronounced color change and how strongly I noticed it, and 2/the van had been parked next to a white car, which provided an unnoticed-at-the-time color comparison.

When I had my first (noticed) experience with a parallel universe, I wasn't sure that was what it was. I recalled a friend whose son had seen glimpses of parallels, but they were just that - glimpses. This is what she said about it -

He just sees (or perceives) things that "shouldn't" be there. For instance, once he saw, just for an instant but very clearly, a black kitten playing on the couch while our only cat, a gray tortoiseshell tabby, was asleep in the other room. Another time we were driving by a bridge and just for a second he saw a man walking across the bridge. An instant later, he was gone. It's like he "beamed" in and then out again.

I was confused because my experiences were longer. The first was several minutes, the 2nd was at least a few hours, and the 3rd was several hours. Then I recalled something from a channel session, and found this in my notes -

One person described a particular tree that had pink blossoms. One day they were white! She thought that was strange, but the next day they were pink again. Another person described concern about the length of something, straps I think (I don't recall the details). She wanted to cut them off, then found they had been. Her roommate (or other person) said she hadn't done it. Later the straps were long again.

If you don't already have it, I suggest you get and read _Parallel Universes_ by Emily Baumbach. It's small in physical size, but it's packed with good info.

Here are a couple of short quotes from the back -

Everything is connected; all experience and events are connected, in all times and places. You are connected to your thousands of parallels, and they are connected to you here.

 

Remember: Time, space, and thought are all the same thing.

In your myriad and infinite parallels, you get to do it all.

I didn't notice anything strange about the situation other than as described, so I don't know if I was =in= the parallel or just observed it.

/ > | I've read that Hitler consciously contacted Satan. Michael doesn't
/ > | really go into the "dark side" and the "light side," does he? If so,
/ > | I haven't heard it.
/ >
/ > Neither have they done much WRT ET species and their activities. I
/ > guess the closest thing Michael has done WRT "dark side" and "light
/ > side" is the basic idea of love- or fear-based actions,
/ > positive/negative poles, and the Chief Negative Feature (CNF).
/
/ What is "WRT"?

With Regard To. (Private email sent also.)

Some of the points raised in recent threads really get the old neurons firing - most interesting, at least for this M/5 Scholar!

Regards,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/4.5=26/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:13:25 -0800
Subject: Re: Perception (1997-48/210)

| I believe that it is ... important, out of compassion, to acknowledge | that very few people are living in the level of freedom of choice (due | to consciousness) that [we] are. Therefore, the more limited the | consciousness (compared often to blinders on a horse), the more limited | a person's freedom can be. I find that people who do not have available | to them the knowledge [we are discussing], truly can't apply it.

Excellent point, and well put.

Regards,
Dick [2.1(3)/5/4.2-144=4.7.3<5.150/4.5=26/4.11>]
----------------------------------------------------
Dick Hein / Mountain View, California.

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:13:19 -0800
Subject: Re: perception? (1997-47/204)

| From: Kate McMurry
| Subject: Re: perception?

| I think many times that the "I" that is me, the fragment who is acting
| out a specific set of overleaves this lifetime, is about as aware of
| "choosing" my life karmas as my big toe is the reasons why it finds
| itself sometimes stuffed it into an uncomfortable pair of shoes. The toe
| knows it is cramped and hurting, but doesn't experience the how and why
| of choosing the damn shoes. <G>

Interesting way to put it. :^)

| IMO, even if you are omnicient, as the Diety (however you see that)
| supposedly is, since humans have free-will, there is no way to make
| exact predictions of group outcomes. You can only deal in probabilities,
| which are constantly shifting.

That is the bottom line.

| What I've come to believe is true, and this is my perception of what the
| Michael Teachings present about karma (and as such may not agree with
| others' perception): is that each of us has chosen particular themes. We
| haven't mapped out specifics like a particular miscarriage, or that a
| specific friend will dump us on a specific day in a particular way. Or
| that we will marry a One and Only True Love. My understanding is that
| situations and even people can be quite fungible in the
| Theme-fulfillment department.

"Fungible"? My dictionary doesn't have it. I assume "flexible" is close. At any rate, I think you're on target here.

| Another issue of choice: the more experience and wisdom we gain in life,
| the more choices that open up to us, the more freedom.

Yes.

| There are always multiple sides to an issue. While on one level of
| reality, it is true that you can't *make* anyone do anything, yes, it is
| obviously very true that people vary, greatly, in the degree to which
| they are imprintable by others' desires, that is, the degree to which
| they can be influenced. I think Baby Souls are hard wired to crave being
| influenced and that Young Souls are hard wired to *not* be influenced in
| many ways. <G> You can manipulate BS's by appealing to duty to a shared
| ideology. You can manipulate a YS by convincing him or her that doing
| what is in your best interests (or that of the group or the world) is in
| the YS's best interest. You can motivate a MS to do what you want by
| appealing to the heart and sentiment. You can motivate an OS by
| appealing to some sort of spiritual perspective. (The trick is finding
| a shared esoteric language to talk in. <G>)

Interesting observations.

| I think humans have two competing drives, the need for
| affiliation/relationship and the need for freedom, to "do our own
| thing." As these two opposite and often each-other-extinuishing drives
| battle it out, we are constantly trying to influence (aka manipulate or
| "educate" <G>) other people to assist us in achieving our desires. Just
| as others are always trying to get us to go along with their agendas. It
| is a system that guarantees that we all keep constantly interacting,
| garnering karma and learning new stuff. <G>

Sounds about