Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:57:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: Michael's Old Soul Assylum

You-as-essence have the "benefit" of every experience of every
other essence in your entity.

Hmmmm so on that note do you think that the Entity containing the essence that was the fragment Hilter maybe shuddered just a bit when they felt all the experiences that were brought back? Talk about an Entity being able to say "been there, done that". Whew....must have been major leaps forward in experiences and evolution....:)

Hugs (cause SOMEONE needs it)
Diane

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:09:42 +0800
Subject: Re: Accidents/Mistakes???

At 05:59 PM 8/8/98 -0000, Dave wrote:

>Here's a quick question, since I'm off to a couple of gigs.
>
>Didn't Michael mention once that sometimes on the physical plane, accidents
>happen, and that not everything is preplanned? To go one step further, the
>Sethianss love to think that theres a blueprint for everything that occurs in
>life, but I could have swore that I once read Michael say that occassionally
>we just make a mistake.
>
>Just curious...
>
>Dave

"Mistakes" ... definition of "mistake" is? Wrong move? Wrong choice? Michael did say "all choices are valid", right? As well as "all actions are valid", right? Therefore, "mistakes" aren't real. :-) And no life is wasted, so nobody's life "is a mistake"... :-)

What Michael did say is that physical plane has it's hazards that don't exist anywhere else. What is called "random factor", or "plain luck". :-) Because of this, I always have reserve (as if that's not my Mode) whenever I hear "there is no coincidence in life". :-)

Regards.

J J Tan

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:16:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Changing Defaults

Hi JJ, you wrote:

>This post is just my observation. Despite the regular spiritual-sounding
>words spoken here, it seems that there is still a grading of levels of
>importance, according to who said those words. So I will repeat what I
>said again (almost same words about a year ago), and see who really
>remembered what I wrote then.

    As soon as I saw this, my head said, "No, it is too much like a Retrograde thing." So, I went about to prove it. Plowing through the archives, I searched for your original post and found it. It was not written a year ago, as the post I found is dated April 14th, 1998. That was during the last time Mercury was Retrograde. My computer had died so I didn't even see the list that whole month. Anyhow, I want to thank you. You inspired me to get into the archives. My limited brain cells thought I'd found this list a year ago, but in exploring the archives, I realized it wasn't until Jan 1998.
    Not to throw alot of astrology your way, but I will try to explain what I am referring to. Mercury which rules communication, when it goes retrograde (appears to travel backwards) has a cyclic effect. It does this 2-3 times each year for what ends up being a 2-3 week period. I have noticed that what is begun in a retrograde period, usually becomes connected to the mercury cycle, especially if it has to do with communication. To me, it makes perfect sense that the overleaves default discussion would take off again during another retrograde. I don't believe it was anything personal at all.
    Anyhow, I am back into the archives for further study as I am finding all sorts of wonderful posts/contributions to the list that I have missed, yours included :-)

Best to you all,
Sharon

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:51:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Sliding and "discrimination"

Dear JJ,

I recalled your original post on sliding very vaguely. What I did not recall was refusing to respond to it because of your nationality. That's an interesting interpretation and sounds a lot like a negative aspect of a chief feature. So I went back and checked on it.

That post occurred in the midst of a number of threads that were absorbing energies in other directions. Also, it was a very good and self contained post that seemed to me to need no other elaboration. Perhaps you were looking for an "attaboy" on it, I'm not sure, but you concluded with "Well, that's it... I have nothing more to add" which, in itself, does not leave a particular opening for continuing discussion.

Personally, I think that the energies of all overleaves exist to be drawn on to a minor extent. Mature and Old souls have enormous reserves of experience (and combinations of overleaves) to draw on from their higher selves. I disagree with the concept of actively trading out overleaves since it would negate the higher purpose of growth under specified conditions. I see it more as a case of, as we grow older, being able to function more fully under the positive poles of the overleaves we chose to come in with. The more use of the positive poles, the closer we are to agape, the more that condition reflects the best of all overleaves.

This, I think, is probably not the response you are looking for. It is however my honest opinion as a student, a sage, in power and growth, a woman with a jovial body type and someone who experiences discrimination on a daily basis. You are not alone in that arena. Welcome to growth. Your voice on this list is valued and heeded... as are all.

Kathy

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:24:56 -0600
Subject: Re: "Default Overleaves"

>I am amazed at this recent discussion of "changing overleaves" . . .
>because this is exactly the topic I talked about, about, oh, a year ago.
>I wonder why my post, then, was largely ignored. . .
>From my past experience among Americans (when I was there, a decade ago), I
>would call this a type of discrimination, albeit a mild one. (from J J Tan)

I wasn't on the list a year ago so I can't address events that went on then, but I do want to comment that I find the Internet remarkably opaque regarding racial/ethnic/gender. I never really thought to question your race and I can't tell where you're from by your ISP address, though recently I think you shared you were writing from Hong Kong. Actually, your signature doesn't reveal your sex, either. And writing style reveals little about the writer's background, since people from all around the globe write lucid, idiomatic English - so users of the internet can't express their identity through their accent, as people do in voice communication.

Racism and discrimination are very real, and there are always at least two versions of an event: that of the person accused of discrimination, and that of the victim. Rarely are these congruent. In addition, neither takes precedence over the other in determining the meaning of what happened. We all just have to be truthful and hash out each instance together, hoping we can learn to see the other side more clearly as we go on. I'm sorry you felt discrimination and I hope by addressing your post I am helping to alleviate the "ignored" feeling you described.

Actually, in my part of the U.S. (Great Lakes area) where there are few Asian people other than Hmong and Laotians, your name does not sound Asian. It could just as easily be a one-syllable contraction of an Eastern European name unpronounceable in English, whose owner decided to go with the flow and create a handle other people could spell and say. There are lots of Eastern European people here and lots of these abbreviated names.

I have a Caucasian acquaintance whose name is very similar to yours. And I have another woman friend whose surname is Yu, of course a Chinese name. She is also Caucasian and gained her last name in a marriage to a Chinese man. My own name belongs to people of both Aftican-American and European-American ancestry. In addition I have located Cajun and Native American families with the same name. (I'd love to know how this all happened and to find shared ancestors.) So what race am I? With the Net as our medium, it's not obvious.

Sorry if this was too-long and off-topic, but race issues are so important to global well-being that I can't just let them slide.

>>The key is to be conscious. (JJ Tan, from later in the post, and snipped
>>by me so as to be out-of-context)

Agreed. I'm trying . . . :-)

Mary

*******************************
7th level Old Artisan/Spiritualist/
Acceptance/Perseverence/
Stubbornness
*******************************

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:47:37 -0700
Subject: Waaa! ;-p

JJ!!!!

> I am amazed at this recent discussion of "changing overleaves", "default",
> etc. It seems that almost everyone hasn't heard it before, including
> "old-timers" like Lori and Kenneth Broom.

I didn't forget! :^) I knew it was a topic that had come up before, I didn't remember that it was You JJ Tan who may have "originally" said so, but it was definitely something that shaped my own view and agreed with what I already knew....It just seemed that a reminder was in order last week, in my mind anyways....

> From my past experience among Americans (when I was there, a decade ago), I
> would call this a type of discrimination, albeit a mild one. The sense of
> "we've got little in common with Asians, and we don't really understand
> what they are about, and let's just keep it that way."

Ok, rag on us Americans, sure.... I saw it in Europe even. Even though American culture was plastered everywhere (which amazed me, and sometimes turned my stomach what sort of American stuff was over there....maybe it did theirs too!) When I was in Germany and Switzerland in June, those few days, I saw who got asked for their passports on the trains--anyone darker-skinned than me. (This kind of checking I never see in the US except at the Mexican border, where they're totally paranoid.) No one in Europe seemed to notice I was a foreigner until I opened my mouth, when I responded to them with, "Uh...I don't speak German," and my accent, obviously American.... Interesting to me, because the only other really "foreign" country I've been to, Mexico, I stuck out like a sore thumb. But at least there I can speak to the natives in Spanish (I love chatting with the taxi drivers, hehe) who don't speak English, well enough to be understood at least.

But on the internet--I couldn't tell what nationality, race, or sex many people are at all (and honestly, I don't care)! And I really like that sometimes--it's as if, EVERYONE can have an equal voice. When what I say gets ignored, or refuted, or confused, I know I either didn't express my point the way I intended, or it was bad timing, or no one's interested...well, I had to work on getting OK with no one being interested in what I have to say....And like you Sages, I hate having my communications misunderstood....But anyway.... :^)

Personally I love talking to people on the 'net from other countries. You see so many different races here in the US but you hardly see much of their culture they came from, because it really does get to be the "melting pot" here in the US. I'm fascinated by other cultures. If I had the time and money, I'd love to travel the world. Maybe someday I will, but it's not a requirement, because here on the 'net there is a close approximation, and I can go there right from where I am. It's like astral travelling almost. I never cease to be amazed.

I remember a girl I was friends with in high school, she was a foreign exchange student from our sister-city in Japan, Matsuyama-ehime. At that time Japan was my fascination.... And my friend Rieko shared with me her music, and stories of what life was like for her growing up. She was so disappointed with her time at my high school. She said she had expected to be treated special the way they treated their foreign-exchange students there in Japan--where she had been very popular and a socialite. Here she was hanging out with me and the other social misfits of my school (she didn't say that but that's what it was) with no boyfriend, no one to take her to Disneyland, or teach her better English.... I was just impressed she'd had a boyfriend--it was more than I could have said! So there we were, lonely together, feeling sorry for ourselves. :-p What a drama. I told Rieko, no one knows you're a foreigner until you open your mouth--you look just like any other Asian-American at our school. No one knew I was an alien either, except when I opened my mouth. ;-p

> This post is just my observation. Despite the regular spiritual-sounding
> words spoken here, it seems that there is still a grading of levels of
> importance, according to who said those words.

Most of the time, what you say you say so well, who needs to add to it??? I feel that way when I see postings from Brin too! :^) Besides, you write in English better than a lot of Americans I know!! Your communications almost always look very clear to me.

And on another post you said:

> What Michael did say is that physical plane has it's hazards that don't
> exist anywhere else. What is called "random factor", or "plain luck". :-)
> Because of this, I always have reserve (as if that's not my Mode) whenever
> I hear "there is no coincidence in life". :-)

As I recall, many months ago, I was the one who originally brought up this point. :^) It wasn't my original idea though--I got it from a Michael channeling of Steve Cocconi's. Though I would say yes, there are coincidences, but I'm open to the possibility that there are no *accidents*.... :^) Just an IMO.

BTW: I hope you don't feel that I'm flaming you, I'm not.... I have a lot of respect for you JJ and enjoy your postings, and am really glad you're here. Please forgive me for having taken some of this personally. Even though I'm not sure, from your name, if you are a man or a woman, LOL! ;-) When someone ever accuses me of being discriminatory based on race, sex, religion, etc., I think to myself, sure--look at my Mexican husband, my African next-door neighbors, the gay couple across the street, my gay friends and friends & co-workers from other countries, diverse religious backgrounds, etc. And I feel insulted. But this is my problem, I know.... This diversity has provided such a richness to my life, I can only imagine what it might be like to live in such a closed-off world where everyone is the same....and I don't want it....

Mercury Retrograde, indeed! :^)

Love,
Lori

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:18:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Lori's impersonating a Priest -- taking the pulpit!!!!

In a message dated 98-08-10 00:30:44 EDT, Lori writes:

I would love to see the world embrace the Goddess within us all,

{{Snip}}

Well, that was certainly a fascinating read. :-)
In fact, I'm almost tempted to grab some lipstick, slip into a pair of wicked 9-inch high heels, braid my armpit hairs, and become a Goddess myself. ;-p

Dave

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:29:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Lori's impersonating a Priest -- taking the pulpit!!!!

Hi Dave--thanks.
Boy, this week sure is getting off to a slow start, huh....

Oh yeah--I forgot to mention last week, about when I went to see the Stevens' seminar they gave on July 25 in Los Gatos, CA. It was called <drum roll please> THE NINE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS. (It was a really good seminar BTW.)

Yes indeed, these are the 9 things you need to answer for yourself, in order to become enlightened. And if you don't, well then, you're doomed. ;-p Now, I can't tell you what these 9 questions were, at the moment, but I bet if we ask ubiquitous Dave nicely, he may channel these cosmic questions for us from Michael or even his spirit-guide Guido....won't you Dave, pretty please? :^) Or maybe just the answers? Don't tell me 42! ;-)

(((Hugs -- because sometimes more is better!)))
Lori

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:13:42 PDT
Subject: artisans

Hi Jody et al,

Jody wrote to me:

PS Are you SURE you're not a scholar????

As you know, I believe I am an artisam, and I have for 17 years now after my Ouija board told me I was. However, I am often mistaken for a scholar, and I have some theories about that which might be of general interest. 1) My casting is definitely scholar, maybe double scholar (position and cadence). An interesting point about casting is, in a question and answer session at the Pivotal Resources seminar in Santa Fe in June, Sarah Chambers mentioned that one often expresses one's casting more strongly than one does one's role. She said other people often detect another person's casting before they do their role. 2) I do not have any other overleaves that reinforce my artisan role. That is to say, I have nothing else in what I call the "analysis process" (what others call "ordinal expression"). Instead, I have four overleaves in the opposite process, "synthesis" ("cardinal expression") -- acceptance, higher intellectual ("conceptual") and fifth level old. I think this tends to neutralize some of my artisan-ness. The lesser preponderance of my overleaves are in "assimilation" -- observation mode, instinctive center, and the casting stuff as I said. The least preponderance is the "evolution process" (cardinal inspiration), namely arrogant spiritualist. 3) The older I get, the less definitive my overleaves seem to become. Perhaps I am becoming more flexible -- less in "default mode" -- or perhaps there is more influence from my scholar soul as the hold of personality weakens. Even though role might be a "garment" that the soul puts on every lifetime, it is still a garment for my scholar soul only on the physical plane. What I am saying is that as I am becoming a spiritual giant, role and other overleaves are diminishing.

While reading the recent postings about artisans, I found that I very much identified with your all descriptions of artisans. All I could think to add to them was, "Amen, brothers and sisters!" But there are a few others things that convince me I am an artisan. I enjoy creating a physical environment; I want to understand how things work; I am fulfilled in my engineering profession, designing things; I like to take things apart, make things, and fix things -- very high mechanical and spatial aptitude; I appreciate good craftsmanship; I am a scatterbrained technical type with a short attention span and a lot of projects in the works; warriors rub me the wrong way (this is a trait of artisans and an anti-trait of scholars). So, there I am.

Phil

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:34:50 PDT
Subject: default overleaves

Hi JJ,

JJ said,

I believe it is possible to change overleaves.

Michael also said that it was possible to change your overleaves, but this appeared in the transcriptions of the original Michael group during the first year, 1973-1974. (BTW, this coming Wednesday, August 12, 1998 is the 25th anniversary of the first "Michael" session. Happy birthday, Michael!) (Somewhere along the line, before MFM was published in 1978, this information got reversed.) Michael suggested that the goal of growth, the spiritualist attitude, emotional center, and any one of the cardinal modes was the best set of overleaves for accelerated spiritual growth. My opinion about this matter is that I tend to go with the default overleaves and not try to override the supposed higher perspective of the soul in its choice. It has been said that overleaves are chosen to fulfill karma, monads, agreements and such. Maybe after all that is accomplished, one can fruitfully experiment with putting on other overleaves. Also, rather than *react* unconsciously out of one's default overleaves, the more aware and awake one becomes, the more one can *respond* to a situation appropriately from a "higher self" than even the self driven by the overleaves.

Phil

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:14:18 PDT
Subject: monads

Hi Ed,

Ed wrote to me,

I see how you have 1,2,3 as ordinal and 5,6,7 as
cardinal; and if we regard husband-wife as not a monad but another kind
of agreement, still . . . how do you decide which of cop and robber,
artist and patron, etc., etc., are ordinal and cardinal?

Well, you got me to thinking there, Ed. Here is what I came up with, but there is probably more to it. (My brain is usually fried at this time of the day (after work), so don't expect too much in these answers.) By the way Michael uses the term, a "monad" is obviously a cardinal and an ordinal pairing. (I would rather have them called "dyads" for this reason -- as I said in a previous posting -- since per standard definition, a "monad" is not dual. All natural dualities, polarities, complementarities, counterparts, etc. are by my definition cardinal and ordinal. I plan to someday deliver a little discourse on these two mathematical terms.)

1. As I recall -- without checking the books -- the examples given of "monads" seemed self-evidently to me to be a cardinal and ordinal pairing. Others might not agree with my categorization, but even if my mind were too feeble to discern the polarity, that does not mean it doesn't exist. 2. Cardinality and ordinality are often *relative* rather than *absolute*. That is, what to one self might be an ordinal experience to another self it might be a cardinal experience. In a cosmos derived from conscioiusness, so many things -- if not *all* things -- depend on "point of view". None of us sees things as the absolute sees things. Our perceptions are partial, in quantity and quality.

Phil

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:21:59 -0600
Subject: Magick is Alive and the Goddess is Afoot

Wow Lori!

I loved it! Am copying and sending it on to friends!

I have a semi-developed theory that the feminist movement came about in part not because women felt oppressed but because men had not been living up the male attributes of being strong, in charge, protective, wise, creative, fathers, husbands, brothers, caretakers, warriors. . . Women found themselves filling the void, so began to question the whole system . . . I haven't worked this all out in my mind yet, so this sounds pretty vague. But just as women began to take back their wholeness 30 years ago, men are now beginning to do the same, and I think it is THAT that is allowing the Goddess to emerge once again. Here's a flash: what if the Goddess has always resided INSIDE MEN (think the yin-yang symbol with the dark circle inside the white paisley thingy) as the God has resided inside women (the white circle inside the dark)?

Jody, chin in hand, musing . . .

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:32:36 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: Waaa! ;-p

Lori, I am keeping all posting as relevant quotes. Sorry, webmaster, about the 'Net space... The challenge of being a foreigner in a country you choose as your own is a universal trial... It is more so in some cases and on some occasions...

Jose C

At 17:44 10/08/1998 -0000, Lori Tostado wrote:

>I didn't forget! :^) I knew it was a topic that had come up before, I
>didn't remember that it was You JJ Tan who may have "originally" said
>so, but it was definitely something that shaped my own view and agreed
>with what I already knew....It just seemed that a reminder was in order
>last week, in my mind anyways....

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:42:49 EDT
Subject: Re: artisans

In a message dated 98-08-10 19:14:48 EDT, Phil writes:

What I am saying is that as I am becoming a spiritual giant, role and other overleaves are diminishing.

Wow! What does it feel like to be a "spiritual giant?" Do you dislike seeing your reflection in a pool of water because the ripples might distort your image, thus, there's a wasted day? Do you have a special alarm clock that doesn't ring, but applauds? How should we address you in the future? Sir? Lord? Your highness?

Geez, three lousy beans and the only vine I could grow wasn't even tall enough to accommodate those little people who model for trophies.

Just teasing!

Dave ;-p

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:55:33 EDT
Subject: Re: Lori's impersonating a Priest

In a message dated 98-08-10 18:27:40 EDT, Lori writes:

Yes indeed, these are the 9 things you need to answer for yourself, in
order to become enlightened. And if you don't, well then, you're
doomed. ;-p Now, I can't tell you what these 9 questions were, at the
moment, but I bet if we ask ubiquitous Dave nicely, he may channel these
cosmic questions for us from Michael or even his spirit-guide
Guido....won't you Dave, pretty please? :^) Or maybe just the answers?
Don't tell me 42! ;-)

Yes, and I would give the world the answers for free. ;-p So why can't you reveal the questions? Some sort of copyright infringement? I bet Michael is enjoying the fringe benefits of royalties up there on the causal plane. ;-p

Perhaps Guido can be persuaded to do a bit of channeling on this topic. But if he requires some sick and twisted sexual favors as payment, would you prefer Motel 6 or The Sleazy INN? ;-) Yes, I know, he doesn't quite grasp the concept of incest.

Dave ;-)

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:20:44 EDT
Subject: Re: monads

By the way Michael uses the term, a "monad" is obviously a cardinal and an
ordinal pairing

All natural dualities, polarities, complementarities, counterparts, etc. are
by my definition cardinal and ordinal.

Dear Phil -- Sez who, why? These relationships seem to be pairs of polarized opposites, human soap opera eqivalents of black and white, up and down, big and small, odd and even, etc.

Cardinal (or "exalted") and ordinal [low-profile, limited, small scale] are terms which imply that the one is bigger, greater, more expansive, or some such than the other. A cardinal item is more evolved than something ordinal. But generally in pairs of opposites or polarities, one is not necessarily more evolved than the other, or an expanded version of the other. They are just opposites in contrast or in contest with each other.

Just being troublesome...all the best, Ed

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 21:03:53 +0330
Subject: Re: monads

>Cardinal (or "exalted") and ordinal [low-profile, limited, small scale] are
>terms which imply that the one is bigger, greater, more expansive, or some
>such than the other. A cardinal item is more evolved than something ordinal.

Wait a minute here - are you saying my role as an ordinal Server is less evolved that an exalted Priest? I think not. . . cardinal and ordinal only refer to the preferred range of the activity, not the level of evolution. My sister the Priest and I the Server both caretake and inspire people, we simply do it in different ways. . .she by alerting them to the big picture of the universe, and me by waking them up to what is in their heart. Like the yin/yang example Jody used in a previous post, cardinal and ordinal work together and support each other, and one is not inherently more evolved than the other, simply because its range is aimed upwards and outwards. None of us can move up and out without moving in, and that is what the ordinal is about.

Love,
Karena

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:31:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Phil an artisan? ;-p

In a message dated 98-08-10 19:14:48 EDT, Phil writes:

As you know, I believe I am an artisam, and I have for 17 years now
after my Ouija board told me I was.

Phil, I think your Ouija board needed a little oil. Everything about your posts smacks of dry, crumbling parchment, and an ageist reek of academia; in other words, a scholar. ;-p

My guess is that you are probably a Scholar/Artisan. But I think you should have one of our learned Michael channels help assist you with the validation. You could get a chart from Shepherd Hoodwin for about $40, I believe. Please do this poste haste, because if I keep thinking that you're a fellow artisan, with the added consequence of using you as a "role" model, I might be forced to kill myself. ;-p

Dave

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:36:17 -0700
Subject: Re: monads

A cardinal item is more evolved than something ordinal.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that I'm misunderstanding something here, but cardinal isn't more evolved than ordinal, there is simply a different kind of focus. Ordinal is a one on one focus, which can be highly evolved or less so. Cardinal is simply having a focus of dealing with larger groups....

Best, Brin

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:52:00 EDT
Subject: Re: monads

In a message dated 98-08-11 00:04:44 EDT, Karena writes:

Wait a minute here - are you saying my role as an ordinal Server is less
evolved that an exalted Priest? I think not. . .

Oh, just live with it, Karoke. As a server, you were born to be ordinary, plain, and when compared to the exalted energy of a priest, throw in boring, drab and awful. Come on, didn't you know the Michael teachings were hierarchical in nature? Someone has got to be subjugated, why not the worthless servers? What are they good for besides doing the laundry, and pointing their feet towards the ceiling? ;-p

Just kidding.

Dave

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:22:12 EDT
Subject: Inventory of Selves (another list)

>INVENTORY OF SELVES
>---------------------------------------
>
>The self that wants to impress...
>The self that wants acclamation...
>The self that wants enlightenment..
>The self that wants to be understood..
>The self wanting power..
>The self wanting wanting intellectual pleasure..
>The self wanting to learn..
>The self wanting to provoke..
>The self wanting to change others..
>The self wanting to feed..
>The self wanting to interact..
>The self wanting support..
>The self shocked at stupidity of others..
>The self angry with otherīs stupidity..
>The self impressed by others energy..
>The self confused with people..
>The self loving people..
>The self feeling wanting to be listened to.
>The self who laughs and plays.
>
> The self listens to others and likes them.
> The self that will reach out for another's hand.
> The self that gives support.
> The self that sometimes is stupid.

The self that's FULL OF SHIT!
The self that tries to put on a mask and say to everyone "oh, what a goodie-two-shoes I am"
The self that gives lip service to things and doesn't actually practice them.
The self that's arrogant at times

Dave

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:47:15 EDT
Subject: Re: monads

In a message dated 98-08-11 00:04:26 EDT, you write:

<< A cardinal item is more evolved than something ordinal. >>

Wait a minute here - are you saying my role as an ordinal Server is less
evolved that an exalted Priest? I think not. . . cardinal and ordinal
only refer to the preferred range of the activity, not the level of evolution.

What i probably should have said, rather than "evolved", is that the cardinal item is like the ordinal item taken farther, or expanded to a larger range.
Not qualitatitively better, God forbid!

All the best, Ed

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:28:34 EDT
Subject: NINE ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS (of Dave?)

In a message dated 98-08-10 18:27:40 EDT, Lori writes:

It was called <drum roll please> THE NINE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS.
(It was a really good seminar BTW.)

Well, my channeling of Guido was unproductive in terms of solving the mystery of the Nine Essential Questions, but I was able to extract The Nine Essential Insights from the astral realm.

The Nine Essential Insights

1. Expand in consciousness -- be ready to accept anything new, unless you're sitting on the toilet having a bowel movement and your rectum is bleeding.

2. Forgiveness recognizes what you thought your brother did to you has not occurred. At least that's what you'll make him think until you extract his wisdom teeth with a crow bar and a blow torch.

3. As a final symbol of your spirituality, ask the Mrs. to cut off your penis with a rusty toenail clipper.

4. There's no way of knowing what life will expect from you, but you can be sure of one thing: it's gonna hurt real bad.

5. Life is either a daring adventure, or a series of sexual failures with lovers who get Clearasil on the pillowcase. (Dedicated to Bill Clinton)

6. Learn to burn the "scandal" at both ends, and if this means making your own bed, learn to lie out of it. (Also dedicated to Bill Clinton)

7. Change is never a loss -- it is only a subtle message from the Universe that you're so fucking stupid that they had to find someone else to do the job right.

8. A loving person lives in a loving world. If you're a hostile person, kick the living shit out of such hopeless pansies.

9. Yesterday is but today's memory, and Tomorrow is yet another opportunity to prove to the Universe that you're nothing but a stupid jerk.

(Bonus Insight) Get a tattoo that says "Luv DAVE" placed on your ass.

Dave ;-p

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:24 +0800
Subject: Re: "Default Overleaves"

At 04:26 PM 8/10/98 -0000, Mary wrote:

>>I am amazed at this recent discussion of "changing overleaves" . . . because this is
>>exactly the topic I talked about, about, oh, a year ago. I wonder why my
>>post, then, was largely ignored. . .
>>From my past experience among Americans (when I was there, a decade ago), I
>>would call this a type of discrimination, albeit a mild one. (from J J Tan)
>
>I wasn't on the list a year ago so I can't address events that went on
>then, but I do want to comment that I find the Internet remarkably opaque
>regarding racial/ethnic/gender. I never really thought to question your
>race and I can't tell where you're from by your ISP address, though
>recently I think you shared you were writing from Hong Kong. Actually, your
>signature doesn't reveal your sex, either. And writing style reveals little
>about the writer's background, since people from all around the globe write
>lucid, idiomatic English - so users of the internet can't express their
>identity through their accent, as people do in voice communication.

Oh, I was posting about my trip to Hong Kong. I'm in Singapore, a Chinese, (Tan is a common Chinese surname. It is a dialect pronunciation of the word "Chen" [in Mandrin] which you may find among many Chinese names you might have come across.)

I would like to say that I only felt the discrimination, not accusing anyone of actually doing so. It may have been from my past experience in the States (as I have stated above), as well as feeling sorta ignored. :-) From my "frequency of posting" here, anyone may observe that I don't really respond to anything (in the sense that "just to hear myself speaking") unless there is something I want to say. This is my own exercise of responding as something volunteery, rather than reacting as something involunteery.

And yes, I have something to say to Lori... :-) Watch for my post in respond to yours.

>Racism and discrimination are very real, and there are always at least two
>versions of an event: that of the person accused of discrimination, and
>that of the victim. Rarely are these congruent. In addition, neither takes
>precedence over the other in determining the meaning of what happened. We
>all just have to be truthful and hash out each instance together, hoping we
>can learn to see the other side more clearly as we go on. I'm sorry you
>felt discrimination and I hope by addressing your post I am helping to
>alleviate the "ignored" feeling you described.

Aside from the "ignored feeling", there is a more "complete" feeling of being part of a conversation, rather than "I say" and then nothing comes back as if I'm in an echo-less room... :-) Which always makes me wonder whether I was heard. Perhaps it's from my CF of Self-Deprecation (yes, I'm fighting that, as well).

>Actually, in my part of the U.S. (Great Lakes area) where there are few
>Asian people other than Hmong and Laotians, your name does not sound Asian.
>It could just as easily be a one-syllable contraction of an Eastern
>European name unpronounceable in English, whose owner decided to go with
>the flow and create a handle other people could spell and say. There are
>lots of Eastern European people here and lots of these abbreviated names.

Well, Ed asked me about my name, JJ. :-) My name is Jwu-Jiun. If you want to really pronounce the name, remove the "w" and the last "u". :-) It'll make "Ju-Jin", which is closer to the actual sound. I didn't invent this phonetic spelling, neither did my parents. They got it off an old Chinese dictionary that tried to use Roman alphabets for Chinese pronunciation (about 15 years before China used the official version,.... and to confuse it more, the official version of phonetic pronunciation of my name is "Zhu Jun".).

Since my army time (compulsory conscription of 2.5 years in Singapore), people called me "JJ", and so it's a lot easier for others to remember and pronounce.

>I have a Caucasian acquaintance whose name is very similar to yours. And I
>have another woman friend whose surname is Yu, of course a Chinese name.
>She is also Caucasian and gained her last name in a marriage to a Chinese
>man. My own name belongs to people of both Aftican-American and
>European-American ancestry. In addition I have located Cajun and Native
>American families with the same name. (I'd love to know how this all
>happened and to find shared ancestors.) So what race am I? With the Net as
>our medium, it's not obvious.
>
>Sorry if this was too-long and off-topic, but race issues are so important
>to global well-being that I can't just let them slide.

Yeah. Most recently, the supposedly "racial peaceful" South East Asia is boiling up racial unrest again. And Singapore, being predominantly Chinese, is the smallest country in the middle of native Malays nations surrounding us (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei). The economic crisis that struck both Malaysia and Indonesia had fueled their jealousy and tried to instill unrest... perhaps to find themselves an excuse to invade Singapore (a rich country compared to them) by whatever means.

>>>The key is to be conscious. (JJ Tan, from later in the post, and snipped
>>>by me so as to be out-of-context)
>
>Agreed. I'm trying . . . :-)
>
>Mary

Haha... nice trying. :-) Well, perhaps I'm just a light sleeper, but I find that having a higher energetic state means I can't really sleep well. And ended up with lack of sleep throughout the day. Has anyone experienced this? I wonder what Michael has to say about it. Lately I have to keep taking some alcohol in order to just sleep better.

Regards.

J J Tan

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:40:10 +0800
Subject: Re: Waaa! ;-p

At 05:44 PM 8/10/98 -0000, Lori Tostado wrote:

>JJ!!!!
>
>> I am amazed at this recent discussion of "changing overleaves", "default",
>> etc. It seems that almost everyone hasn't heard it before, including
>> "old-timers" like Lori and Kenneth Broom.
>
>I didn't forget! :^) I knew it was a topic that had come up before, I
>didn't remember that it was You JJ Tan who may have "originally" said
>so, but it was definitely something that shaped my own view and agreed
>with what I already knew....It just seemed that a reminder was in order
>last week, in my mind anyways....

Thanks for the credit. :-) Well, I wasn't about to respond to this thread at first... at least not until I read Kenneth Broom's words that (paraphrased) he found this new and refreshing. It gave me a huge question mark and I had to respond to that, just to see who else really forgot all about it.

>> From my past experience among Americans (when I was there, a decade ago), I
>> would call this a type of discrimination, albeit a mild one. The sense of
>> "we've got little in common with Asians, and we don't really understand
>> what they are about, and let's just keep it that way."
>>
>Ok, rag on us Americans, sure.... I saw it in Europe even. Even though
>American culture was plastered everywhere (which amazed me, and
>sometimes turned my stomach what sort of American stuff was over
>there....maybe it did theirs too!) When I was in Germany and Switzerland
>in June, those few days, I saw who got asked for their passports on the
>trains--anyone darker-skinned than me. (This kind of checking I never
>see in the US except at the Mexican border, where they're totally
>paranoid.) No one in Europe seemed to notice I was a foreigner until I
>opened my mouth, when I responded to them with, "Uh...I don't speak
>German," and my accent, obviously American.... Interesting to me,
>because the only other really "foreign" country I've been to, Mexico, I
>stuck out like a sore thumb. But at least there I can speak to the
>natives in Spanish (I love chatting with the taxi drivers, hehe) who
>don't speak English, well enough to be understood at least.
>
>But on the internet--I couldn't tell what nationality, race, or sex many
>people are at all (and honestly, I don't care)! And I really like that
>sometimes--it's as if, EVERYONE can have an equal voice. When what I
>say gets ignored, or refuted, or confused, I know I either didn't
>express my point the way I intended, or it was bad timing, or no one's
>interested...well, I had to work on getting OK with no one being
>interested in what I have to say....And like you Sages, I hate having my
>communications misunderstood....But anyway.... :^)

Actually what I meant did not come out right. (hey that's new for Sages) I meant to say that I felt like some discrimination going on, albeit a mild one. My past experience with this mailing list has shown a lot of love and little negativity. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. If I may add, I used to say things in an exaggerate way that is out of proportion with what I intend to say. It's only recently (past year or so) that I tried to be as precise as I intend. Well, it seems that in that particular post, I failed miserably, causing misunderstanding. :-)

>Personally I love talking to people on the 'net from other countries.
>You see so many different races here in the US but you hardly see much
>of their culture they came from, because it really does get to be the
>"melting pot" here in the US. I'm fascinated by other cultures. If I
>had the time and money, I'd love to travel the world. Maybe someday I
>will, but it's not a requirement, because here on the 'net there is a
>close approximation, and I can go there right from where I am. It's
>like astral travelling almost. I never cease to be amazed.

So you have astral travelled before (and still doing so)? Geez that's something I always want to do but never been able to. Does Michael help in this aspect? :-) Like, say, come "pull" me out one of these nights?

>I remember a girl I was friends with in high school, she was a foreign
>exchange student from our sister-city in Japan, Matsuyama-ehime. At
>that time Japan was my fascination.... And my friend Rieko shared with
>me her music, and stories of what life was like for her growing up. She
>was so disappointed with her time at my high school. She said she had
>expected to be treated special the way they treated their
>foreign-exchange students there in Japan--where she had been very
>popular and a socialite. Here she was hanging out with me and the other
>social misfits of my school (she didn't say that but that's what it was)
>with no boyfriend, no one to take her to Disneyland, or teach her better
>English.... I was just impressed she'd had a boyfriend--it was more than
>I could have said! So there we were, lonely together, feeling sorry for
>ourselves. :-p What a drama. I told Rieko, no one knows you're a
>foreigner until you open your mouth--you look just like any other
>Asian-American at our school. No one knew I was an alien either, except
>when I opened my mouth. ;-p

:-) I suppose I have to record my voice and attach as a .WAV file in my post to this list... ;-=DE

>> This post is just my observation. Despite the regular spiritual-sounding
>> words spoken here, it seems that there is still a grading of levels of
>> importance, according to who said those words.
>
>Most of the time, what you say you say so well, who needs to add to
>it??? I feel that way when I see postings from Brin too! :^) Besides,
>you write in English better than a lot of Americans I know!! Your
>communications almost always look very clear to me.

Ah... that shows me contradicting my nature... "Sages always have the last words"... and that's it... last words, with no need of any further responds.

>And on another post you said:
>> What Michael did say is that physical plane has it's hazards that don't
>> exist anywhere else. What is called "random factor", or "plain luck". :-)
>> Because of this, I always have reserve (as if that's not my Mode) whenever
>> I hear "there is no coincidence in life". :-)
>
>As I recall, many months ago, I was the one who originally brought up
>this point. :^) It wasn't my original idea though--I got it from a
>Michael channeling of Steve Cocconi's. Though I would say yes, there
>are coincidences, but I'm open to the possibility that there are no
>*accidents*.... :^) Just an IMO.

Hmm... definitions of "coincidents" and "accidents"...? Accidents seem to imply something "bad", like physical destructive actions, car accidents, plane crashes, etc.? Or Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes? Or ... when I see the title "Incidental music", due to lack of practice, it came out as "accidental music"?

>BTW: I hope you don't feel that I'm flaming you, I'm not.... I have a
>lot of respect for you JJ and enjoy your postings, and am really glad
>you're here. Please forgive me for having taken some of this
>personally. Even though I'm not sure, from your name, if you are a man
>or a woman, LOL! ;-)

No your post didn't sound like a flame at all. :-) And thanks for your respond for this young (34-year-old) guy. Young, compared to the 50+s Old Souls here. ;-=DE

But ironically, I always feel old among people here in Singapore, who always seem to behave in childish (if not selfish) ways.

>When someone ever accuses me of being
>discriminatory based on race, sex, religion, etc., I think to myself,
>sure--look at my Mexican husband, my African next-door neighbors, the
>gay couple across the street, my gay friends and friends & co-workers
>from other countries, diverse religious backgrounds, etc. And I feel
>insulted. But this is my problem, I know.... This diversity has
>provided such a richness to my life, I can only imagine what it might be
>like to live in such a closed-off world where everyone is the
>same....and I don't want it....

I wasn't exactly saying that you are doing the discriminating... I was just making an observation on the list members in general, sort of a "cardinal view"... hmm...

>Mercury Retrograde, indeed! :^)

That particular puts me in the fog. :-) As in, I haven't the foggiest idea what it was about... well, that shows how much I know about astrology... (all I know about astrology is to run the chart off a computer program, print it out, and read.)

:-)

Nice participating again... for quite a while.

Regards.

J J Tan

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:13:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Waaa! ;-p

JJ,

I rarely have time for more than a brief post myself, but you are one of my favorite posters. Yours are usually very clear and to the point. I was saddened to think you felt discriminated against. BTW, I had thought you were female! ;) Maybe we need to start a site with our pictures on it so we know who we're talking to (Dave would probably put up a picture of Mel Gibson and say it was him!).

My brother lives in Hong Kong, so if I ever get the bucks to visit maybe I'll drop by Singapore.

Another thirty-something (okay, 37) among the fogies,

Martha

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:52:00 EDT
Subject: Re: Waaa! ;-p

Why would I put up a picture of a homely guy like Mel Gibson? ;-p

Dave

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:31:43 EDT
Subject: Re: artisans

I've enjoyed reading all of the recent posts on artisans, and, as an artisan myself, I've even found them quite validating. They also seem to be highly accurate, both in what I've experienced and what I've observed in other artisans. One thing I don't understand though is why, with all my artistic abilities, apptitudes and inclinations, I have no talent for interior decoration or design.
Flipping through a magazine or visiting someone's home I have no problem appreciating what I perceive as an attractive or comfortable space. I've even coveted some of those spaces. But in my own house I have no real drive to decorate. If I wanted to b.s. you, I could say something about the U-Haul box as a thematic element. (When I was a lot younger I used to tell dates returning to my house that I had just been robbed, and they believed me.) Forget Feng-shui. Too much theory about corners. Corners are for furniture to be shoved into to allow more room for walking, unless the furniture needs to be in the middle of the room to be under the best reading light. Friends have never allowed my attempts to mount wall art at stomach level, which I have tried to cover by saying they were intended as a nod to the spirit of the Americans With Disablities Act. Right. It was just me being eccentric. I try to get my mind in decorating mode, but it just won't go there. It goes somewhere else. That's why I think Feng-shui is dangerous for me. I know that even if I got one or two corners perfectly Feng-shui'd, I never have the mental follow-through to do the rest of the house. Then I'd be out of balance. I could have thriving health and relationships, but my finances could be lagging behind, screaming for attention, because I didn't get excited about putting a wind-chime in one airless corner. I could unbalance my whole life because I tried to decorate my house and go bankrupt.
I should tell you that I might be making some progress, though. I now have a fake Ficus tree, and my girlfriend just let me buy a 6x9 purple rug. (It was marked down.) And I recently got another free couch (my third in a row). Now, I'm trying to decide what color to paint the walls, to go with the purple. I don't want anything to clash. I think the thing to do is start with one thing, the rug, and build from that.
Anyway, back to the artisan thing. Am I un-artisan-like, or is this fairly common among you artisans out there.
Thanks
John C

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:28:42 -0400
Subject: Re: artisans/interiors

One thing I don't understand though is why, with all my
artistic abilities, aptitudes and inclinations, I have no talent for
interior decoration or design. ....Am I un-artisan-like, or is this
fairly common among you artisans out there.
John C

          Hmm...No, I'd say interior space is pretty critical for me-I agreed with the post-er who said that her every view framed by a door or walkway had to be as pleasing to the eye and aesthetic sense as possible. The fact that you notice the attractive and comfortable in magazines sounds like a clue...I wonder how many scholars regularly peruse Interior Design Mags (unless their study was antiques or interior design) At lease mine sure doesn't.

          Maybe you simply haven't had any experience in interior re-arranging, like someone just learning to draw. Or perhaps it is one area that is not "developed" from past lives- I don't have any special ability for music for example --that said after 7 years of piano lessons, but I almost "can't stand" to hear what I perceive as "bad" music playing ( I imagine that's the artisian hook.) As concerns feng-shui, I don't know much about it but it seems less concerned with aesthetic appearance then "energy flow."

          I suggest you name your new Ficus Dionysis :)

          (from the web somewhere: In the most popular stories of Dionysus, he is known as "The Frenzied One". This comes from the fact that he had a large following of women who had fallen into a frenzy or "mania. All of these different images of the god Dionysus make it appear as thought the Greek people saw in him all of the non-conventional aspects of society.)

________________________
Tracy L

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:48:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Digest No. 1998-08-11 of Michael Teachings List

Dave wrote:

Phil, I think your Ouija board needed a little oil. Everything about your posts
smacks of dry, crumbling parchment, and an ageist reek of academia; in
other words, a scholar. ;-p . . . Someone has got to be subjugated, why
not the worthless servers? What are they good for besides doing the laundry,
and pointing their feet towards the ceiling? ;-p"

Hey Dave, have you tried taking vitamin B6 for that PMS?

LOL,
Jody

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:46:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Nine questions

Lori wrote:

Oh yeah--I forgot to mention last week, about when I went to
see the Stevens' seminar they gave on July 25 in Los Gatos, CA. It was called
<drum roll please> THE NINE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS. (It was a really good
seminar BTW.) Yes indeed, these are the 9 things you need to answer for
yourself, in order to become enlightened. And if you don't, well then, you're
doomed. ;-p Now, I can't tell you what these 9 questions were . . ."

AAAAGH! Lori, you mean you have INFORMATION and you are not SHARING IT????
And you call yourself a Scholar?

C'mon, Lor', pretty please, oh please please please tell us . . .

Jody

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:11:44 -0400
Subject: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

I have been dying to ask a community of Michael types this question: Do you freely share your involvement in the teachings? Or do you keep it a secret?

Or do you do as I do--intuit who you can tell and carefully tell them? So far my instincts have been good, and the folks I tell are pretty much into it.

I ask this because I feel like these teachings have just become more and more important to me and part of me and I look at the world totally differently than I did before...it's been years since I first stumbled on this stuff (about 8 years), and I have a hard time sometimes just interacting with people (read family, esp. in-laws:-) that don't SEE stuff...

Just wondering if others feel this way--having children and living close to grandparents just increases the "family" involvement which sometimes are frustrating times for me.

And I won't even start with what shall I tell the kids!

Lynne T

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:21:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Nine questions

Lori wrote:

> "Now, I can't tell you what these 9 questions were . . ."

Jodi replied:

> AAAAGH! Lori, you mean you have INFORMATION and you are not SHARING
> IT???? And you call yourself a Scholar?

C'mon guys, don't you get it? Lori would never hold out on us. It's obviously some Zen thing, where the first question is to ask what the other 8 questions are, and the ninth one is to know enough to ask if there's really such a thing as a question in the first place.

I'm right, aren't I?!?

Snatch the question from my hand, grasshopper...

Dean

P.S. JJ is guy??

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 16:24:55 +0330
Subject: Re: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

>I have been dying to ask a community of Michael types this
>question: Do you freely share your involvement in the teachings?
>Or do you keep it a secret?
>
>Or do you do as I do--intuit who you can tell and carefully
>tell them? So far my instincts have been good, and the folks
>I tell are pretty much into it.

That's exactly how I do it. I think to just tell anyone and everyone would be a real big waste of energy (and also is a good way to alienate people who just aren't ready to hear about that kind of thing!)

>I ask this because I feel like these teachings have just
>become more and more important to me and part of me and
>I look at the world totally differently than I did before...it's been
>years since I first stumbled on this stuff (about 8 years), and I
>have a hard time sometimes just interacting with people (read
>family, esp. in-laws:-) that don't SEE stuff...

I've found that most of the teachings are actually really good practical advice! If I think someone needs to know some information, but would freak out if it was in "Michael" format, I find ways to say it in a way they will understand, speak more in their language so they can hear me. Of course, you wouldn't talk about parallel universes or the 7 plans or anything like that . . . kind of hard to put that in "straight world" terms!!

Love
Karena

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:36:17 EDT
Subject: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

Or do you do as I do--intuit who you can tell and carefully
tell them? So far my instincts have been good, and the folks
I tell are pretty much into it.

I usually try to find a way to let old souls know about the ideas of soul age -- my experience is that the old souls and some mature souls get a lot of relief from encountering those concepts, because the regular society is so much based on young soul values and doesn't appreciate the older souls' perspectives much.

I find young souls are very allergic to the idea of soul ages. They take it as a putdown. Mature souls like the idea that they are older than (as in "graduated from") the young soul rat race, but if they read the books they will find all sorts of material about how difficult and painful the mature cycle is and how they will have many more lives of drama and karmic paybacks, etc., etc. They don't want to hear about that. They also are pretty likely to overreact to Michael as "putting everyone into boxes", which they don't approve of.

I don't feel any urge to preach about overleaves unless someone has a situation where explaining overleaves would clearly be helpful.

I have double priest casting, and I used to be prone to get carried away with "preaching" about whatever I was enthused about (negative pole = zeal) but I've learned well that people don't want to hear about it unless they ask for it first.

All the best, Ed

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:40:55 PDT
Subject: artisans

Hi Dave,

In spite of your generous offer to do us all a favor and kill yourself if it were proven that I am indeed an artisan, I am not going to pursue the matter much beyond the following remarks that might be of general interest. I do not claim to be a shining example of the best that a pure artisan has to offer. As I said in my previous posting, none of my other overleaves and castings support my role, and many of them negate my role. In *spite* of this, doing artisan stuff all day for 30 years in my engineering profession is *still* fulfilling -- designing systems and drawing blueprints for architectural construction. I think that kind of gentle but sustained satisfaction (from the cardinal inspiration process) is what one's role *really* provides on the physical plane, and role doesn't *have* to be the most obvious trait in a personality. There are a lot of "scholarish" overleaves and casting in my personality in this lifetime, and that is what most people see in me, but in my *heart*, I am an artisan. The fact that I am in the neutral observation mode strongly reinforces the neutral scholar casting.

I seem to have an "author" personna (subpersonality) in this lifetime as well. I have been a compulsive "writer" since childhood, and I lapse into a certain generic ("dry") mode of expression when I sit down to compose for a generic audience, like the one here on MTL. In a one-to-one or face-to-face situation with someone I know and love personally, this pedantic, academic form of expression generally goes away. Among strangers, I act generic (like a scholar) until I get a good feel for the individual or the group, and then very slowly I can begin to reveal my artisan quirkiness. What you folks have seen so far is only a small part of me, and not a very real part at that, I am sorry to say. In time, I hope that will change, now that I have found "my people", but authenticity and intimacy does not come easily for me in this lifetime.

Phil

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:14:24 -0600
Subject: Re: artisans

Re home decorating tendencies/lack thereof

>When I was a lot younger I used to tell dates
>returning to my house that I had just been robbed . . .
>Am I un-artisan-like, or is this fairly
>common among you artisans out there.
>John C

No, John, you're right in line with me. I am having my house remodeled right now, but it's not a decorating thing. Instead, part of it had actually started to fall down.

I have less furniture than any employed American I ever met. If I could, I'd have even less than I do now. I do not have a livingroom and diningroom, I have the Computer Room and the African Drum Room. Those rooms have in them what their names would indicate, plus each has a chair. When I'm done with this carpentry project, there will also be the Tai Chi Room, which will not have anything it in at all.

I don't decorate, I arrange things according to how I want to use them. The results are nothing like those houses in the magazines. So don't feel so all alone out there among your packing boxes - I don't know if it's an Artisan thing or just a poor attitude toward consumer goods, but you do have company. Besides, your letter was funny.
- - - - - - -
Yeah, and Lori and her nine questions (c'mon, girl, don't leave us hanging like this):

> It's obviously some Zen thing, where the first question is to ask what
>the other 8 questions are, and the ninth one is to know enough to ask
>if there's really such a thing as a question in the first place. (Dean)

You were thinking along the same lines as me, Dean. I wondeered if it might be some trick where as long as you keep asking (9 times or 99), you haven't got it.

Actually I have found the Michaels have a definite sense of humor, and while you and I might think that's funny in sort of a Zen way, it isn't their kind of joke. When somebody said recently they'd said her life task included "herding people around," that struck me as quintessential Michael humor.
- - - - - - -

Mary
. . . who also liked the business about the Yin-Yang symbol being "the paisley thingy."

*******************************
7th level Old Artisan/Spiritualist/
Acceptance/Perseverence/
Stubbornness
*******************************

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:18:53 PDT
Subject: validation

Hi all,

Dave wrote to me, "I think you should have one of our learned Michael channels help assist you with the validation."

With all due respect to our learned Michael channels, this is not the way I "validate". It would not matter to me if *ten* channels said I was a scholar if I could not really see it for myself. Over the years I have learned, regarding personal matters, to consult and rely on my own "internal guidance system", which I take to be my higher intellectual and instinctive centers. Besides, I am too cheap to pay a channel -- really, I am not just saying that for amusement! All I want from a Michael channel is a preincarnate agreement to collaborate freely and at length to bring out new information that is beneficial to all, to be published.

I think I have studied the meaning of the overleaves almost as long and as intensely as anyone else on the planet, and I have a book manuscript to prove it. One of my conclusions is that the way people express their overleaves is very ambiguous and often difficult and sometimes impossible to discern accurately, either by the channels or by the owner of the overleaves. I do still question the validity of my own overleaves as given to me by my Ouija board 17 years ago, but my emphasis now is discovering the meaning of the pure abstract archetypes upon which the overleaf system is based. I think there is no ambiguity in the archetypes, and this pleases rather than frustrates me like trying to "validate" other people's overleaves.

Phil

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

Hi all,
      I keep a framed copy of the roles and overleaf chart on my desk at work and over the years have used it to explain the overleaf system. I have told people that I perceive the teachings as an extension of astrology with the idea of connecting the overleaf system to something that is already known about in many cases.
Mike H.

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Nine questions

You wrote:

>AAAAGH! Lori, you mean you have INFORMATION and you are not SHARING IT????
>And you call yourself a Scholar?

      My essence twin scholar is turning over in his grave (since he cycled off).
Mike H.

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:14:42 PDT
Subject: cardinal and ordinal

Hi Ed and all,

Ed wrote,

Cardinal (or "exalted") and ordinal [low-profile, limited,
small scale] are terms which imply that the one is bigger, greater, more
expansive, or some such than the other. A cardinal item is more evolved
than something ordinal. But generally in pairs of opposites or
polarities, one is not necessarily more evolved than the other, or an
expanded version of the other. They are just opposites in contrast or in
contest with each other."

Aha! I perceive we have different understandings of the meaning of the terms "cardinal" and "ordinal. I would like to clear this up. For the time being, I will provide a brief explanation of my understanding, but I suspect that more will come out in future postings.

I do not have the books here at the office, but if my memory serves me correctly, in MFM the three "axes" of "action", "inspiration" and "expression" were said to have an "ordinal" and an "exalted" pairing. In MMFM, Ms Yarbro changed the term "exalted" to "cardinal", and used the word "cardinal" throughout the infamous "Michael Math" chapter. It is my impression that many students have continued to use the word "exalted". I think this is unfortunate because it seems to have fostered a mistaken impression that "ordinal" means something like "ordinary" and "exalted" means something like "extra-ordinary". I am confident that this was not what Michael intended. I am confident that I do know what Michael intended.

People who are unfamiliar with "number theory" might be unaware that "ordinal" and "cardinal" are mathematical terms. Mathematicians say there are two ways of looking at "numeration". The "ordinal" way is "first, second, third . . ." -- giving the *order* of a number which reveals its position in the *sequence* of numbers. The "cardinal" way is "one, two, three . . ." -- giving the number as if it were a "principle" unto itself, without regard for its relationship to other numbers. I like to convey this meaning by saying it thus: "Oneness, Twoness, Threeness . . .". As you all know, mathematics is the "language" that God uses to create and sustain the cosmos. So how do these two ways of looking at numbers have anything to do with a cosmos derived from consciousness? I will give you two explanations or examples for now, one abstract and one concrete.

The simplest distinction in the consciousness of Tao is that between "yes" and "no". One can think of the "boundary" between these two pure abstract concepts two ways, the cardinal way and the ordinal way. The ordinal way is to see the boundary as *separating* the two concepts, and the cadinal way is to see the boundary as *joining* the two concepts. As yourself this: When Tao produced the One and the One produced the Two, etcetera, was Tao *dividing* itself or *multiplying* itself? Well, obviously, that depends on how you look at it, cardinally or ordinally. A good example of the difference between cardinality and ordinality from real life is cell reproduction. When cells are said to "divide", they stay joined together to form an "organism" -- this is a cardinal process. When cells are said to "multiply", they go their separate ways -- this is an ordinal process. So, in a cosmos derived from consciousness, the ordinal path makes distinctions by assuming the point of view of separation, and the cardinal path breaks distinctions by assuming a point of view of connection.

There is a lot more to say on this subject as it relates to the overleaves and monads and other aspects of the Michael teaching, but I need to go home and get something to eat.

Phil

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:37:16 -0400
Subject: Re: cardinal and ordinal

Philip Wittmeyer wrote:

> The simplest distinction in the consciousness of Tao is that between
> "yes" and "no". One can think of the "boundary" between these two pure
> abstract concepts two ways, the cardinal way and the ordinal way. The
> ordinal way is to see the boundary as *separating* the two concepts, and
> the cadinal way is to see the boundary as *joining* the two concepts. As
> yourself this: When Tao produced the One and the One produced the Two,
> etcetera, was Tao *dividing* itself or *multiplying* itself? Well,
> obviously, that depends on how you look at it, cardinally or ordinally.
> A good example of the difference between cardinality and ordinality from
> real life is cell reproduction. When cells are said to "divide", they
> stay joined together to form an "organism" -- this is a cardinal
> process. When cells are said to "multiply", they go their separate ways
> -- this is an ordinal process. So, in a cosmos derived from
> consciousness, the ordinal path makes distinctions by assuming the point
> of view of separation, and the cardinal path breaks distinctions by
> assuming a point of view of connection.

Phil, this is a truly beautiful explanation and interpretation of Ordinal and Cardinal. Thank you very much. It's almost like a poem. The Urantia Book speaks of the Beauty of Truth. Your paragraph above is an excellent example of this.

-----

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, The Happy Scholar, INFP
   7th level Old Scholar/Server, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist,
   Higher Emotional & Higher Intellectual, Impatience/Stubbornness,
aka I.A.M. Research, Columbia, Maryland, USA

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:12:33 EDT
Subject: Fwd: cardinal and ordinal

Phil says:

Ed wrote, "Cardinal (or "exalted") and ordinal [low-profile, limited,
small scale] are terms which imply that the one is bigger, greater, more
expansive, or some such than the other. A cardinal item is more evolved
than something ordinal. But generally in pairs of opposites or
polarities, one is not necessarily more evolved than the other, or an
expanded version of the other. They are just opposites in contrast or in
contest with each other."

Aha! I perceive we have different understandings of the meaning of the
terms "cardinal" and "ordinal. I would like to clear this up. For the
time being, I will provide a brief explanation of my understanding, but
I suspect that more will come out in future postings.

Well, this is a nice philosophical discussion about ordinal and cardinal numbers, but I don't see how it has much to do with my question: which is ordinal and which cardinal of artist and patron, cop and criminal, etc.?, and why? I don't think either one is ordinal or cardinal.

Another side of the number stuff: if 1,2,and 3 are ordinal and 5,6,7 are cardinal (4 neutral) that ordinalness and cardinalness would seem to pertain to whether they are related to the lower 3 planes (ordinal) or higher (cardinal) with physical being arbitrarily "lower", of course. This is the usage with the overleaves and axes. But again, why do the so-called "monad" pairings have to have a "lower" and a "higher" in this way?

All the best, Ed

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:41:35 EDT
Subject: Phil an Artisan? NO F-ING WAY!!!!!  ;-)

In a message dated 98-08-11 19:41:47 EDT, Phil writes:

Hi Dave,

In spite of your generous offer to do us all a favor and kill yourself
if it were proven that I am indeed an artisan, I am not going to pursue
the matter much beyond the following remarks that might be of general
interest.

Damn, Phil....how many more times do I need to die? I would have thought that my previous 922 demises would have been enough already. ;-p

I do not claim to be a shining example of the best that a
pure artisan has to offer. As I said in my previous posting, none of my
other overleaves and castings support my role, and many of them negate
my role. In *spite* of this, doing artisan stuff all day for 30 years in
my engineering profession is *still* fulfilling -- designing systems and
drawing blueprints for architectural construction. I think that kind of
gentle but sustained satisfaction (from ..>

{Stepping to the podium; turning on microphone} Phil, you don't need to justify your beliefs. If you believe that you are an artisan, that's just fine with me. Seriously, I respect your methods of validation, and I applaud your right to trust your intuitive self.
{Turning off mike; chuckling to the list} OH, MY GOD!......can you believe that guy? An artisan? I'm laughing so hard I'm going to pee in my pants. I mean, who would change their faith only because they no longer think they are God? A scholar! Who can pat themselves on the back better than a contortionist? A scholar! ;-p

BTW, I was just kidding.....I guess Artisan humor is very subtle. Of course, maybe I've been shittin' you guys all of this time, and I'm not REALLY an artisan. Oooh, intriguing.....

Dave ;-) - Not a spiritual giant yet....:-(

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:43:08 EDT
Subject: Re: validation

In a message dated 98-08-11 20:27:27 EDT, Phil writes:

With all due respect to our learned Michael channels, this is not the
way I "validate". It would not matter to me if *ten* channels said I
was a scholar if I could not really see it for myself. Over the years I
have learned, regarding personal matters, to consult and rely on my own
"internal guidance system", which I take to be my higher intellectual
and instinctive centers.

That's a very valid point. But I'm surprised that you have never been even remotely curious as to how others would perceive you.

Besides, I am too cheap to pay a channel --

Channels want to be payed? Oh, shit....that's why I've been receiving those death threats from Joya, Shepherd, and Ted.

I think I have studied the meaning of the overleaves almost as long and
as intensely as anyone else on the planet, and I have a book manuscript
to prove it. One of my conclusions is that the way people express their
overleaves is very ambiguous and often difficult and sometimes
impossible to discern accurately, either by the channels or by the owne
r of the overleaves.

No argument here. I have yet to truly understand how my overleaves operate, other than on a superficial level.

Dave

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:35:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Sharing of overleaves!

Shannon wrote:

>In a message dated 8/8/98 3:11:00 PM, Diane writes:
>
>>I never EVER get tired of learning about
>>life, people and the magic of this planet.
>
> Oh this summed up so much for me. My spiritualist attitude has been the part
>of my overleaves that I understand the least. In fact I was quite surprised
>about it. But the magical quality of life excites me so. Absolutely ANYTHING
>can happen in the next second and I find that so exciting.... so intriguing......
> I also find people so exciting-- their differences and their eccentricites.

Shannon.....EXACTLY!!!! Very well put! It's what keeps me going forward and thinking bright positive things. Just that possibility of what's next, what's around the corner... what might happen... <silly grin> In fact when there is so much gloom and doom, I think of tomorrow. Wonder if maybe Scarlett was using a Spiritualist attitude when it came to her desire to keep Tara? :-) There's always the next moment!

Hugs (cause they make me smile)
Diane

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:23:46 EDT
Subject: Re: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

Do you freely share your involvement in the teachings?
Or do you keep it a secret?

Or do you do as I do--intuit who you can tell and carefully
tell them? So far my instincts have been good, and the folks
I tell are pretty much into it.

I ask this because I feel like these teachings have just
become more and more important to me and part of me and
I look at the world totally differently than I did before...it's been
years since I first stumbled on this stuff (about 8 years), and I
have a hard time sometimes just interacting with people (read
family, esp. in-laws:-) that don't SEE stuff...

Just wondering if others feel this way--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WELL! Thats an interesting question...something I was wondering about others as well...!
I myself, as a sage who LOVES to express himself in words that hopefully mean something to people, to persuade and enrich...I BASICALLY tell most everyone as much as I can about the teachings..! When they seem to learn from them, and become enthralled with the messages and what the mean for their ability to understand themselves and those around them more readily, it validates ME, as I have a goal of acceptance..!( I think...do you love me.? ;) )
Sure, there are those who give me the "take it to the Art Bell Show" look, and there are those(who usually have chosen a road that is paved THICKLY with dogmatic platitudes) who make that "click-sigh" sound and look away. But, thats their decision, and theres nothin ya can do about them. So, I let them go about their devices and maybe, one day, they'll come around. I dont force them, cuz ya can't! However...
Of those who have listened, ,just in the past week, at least three have been to the major websites(dont you just LOVE Otterly's??), and two have gotten the 1st Yarbo writing, "Messages..."
So, I see no reason to keep something that means so much, gives(at least to me) a sense of rightness and comfort, and if allowed to be heard, can be a WONDERFUL thing to share with anyone who wants something that could very well mean MUCH to them as well. What better gift can you give, to as close as your friends/family or as far as your workmates/strangers?(Of course, if you find yerself in the Bible Belt, surrounded by men in monster pick-ups with the "stars-n-bars" painted on the side at a hardcore-batist-fundemental- biblethumpin'-preachin-and-drink-as-much-mash-as-ya-can" pro Jesus rally....SHADDUP QUICK-LIKE!) =)

            goin to beddy now!

              Steven A.

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:39:20 EDT
Subject: A question to those who'd know...

   Just a quickily question, fellow fragments!!

   I, as you may remember, just got away from "lurkin", and have started postin. Many gave me some advice as to who I should look into for channels on the items that I, myself am unsure of, either by way of my fear of false personality doing the work in assigning age, overleaves, etc. Other items too, of course...!
   Anyway, Im lookin STRONGLY at a fella who seems to be both very nice, and knowledgeable? Who you ask? Ted Fontaine MFA. Anyone here ever work with Ted?? He seems like a good guy, and I'd say a deal of talent; Id just like to hear what you fellow-babies have to say about him, if youve had the experience!

          thanks cats!
             Steven A.

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:31:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Phil an Artisan? NO F-ING WAY!!!!! ;-)

and I'm not REALLY an artisan.

Look out everyone! Dave might be gearing up to embrace the fact that he's really a sage.

Tina

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:45:03 PDT
Subject: ego and essence

long posting warning

“THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS”

A LOVE STORY

This is the love story of the mating dance between Ms. Ego and Mr. Essence. Remember my remark about your essence self being ecstatic about the agony of your personality self? Remember I said my explanation was incomplete? Now I intend to explain some of what I meant by that repugnant concept, but before I do, dear reader, I have to give you a little background in metaphysical physics.

Once again, I quote the Tao Teh Ching, chapter 42 (the chapter with the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything), by Lao Tsu:

“Tao produced the One. The One produced the Two. The Two produced the Three. The Three produced ten thousand things.”

Like Michael and Lao Tsu, I might at well start with Tao. You cannot get any more fundamental than Tao. So what is Tao? Well, Tao has no definition, other than to say it is the *source* of everything. You may have seen my statement in previous postings that the cosmos is derived from “consciousness”. You might say Tao is “pure” consciousness -- without any thoughts or perceptions or distinguishing features. It is a “blank” mind. It is beyond conceivability of any kind, and beyond perceptibility in any way. In physics terminology, it is like a “reference frame” -- a sort of background against which all phenomena appear, an arbitrary starting point from which all is measured. It has no distinguishing characteristics of itself, but it has a lot of potential. In fact, it has *every* potential. So what is “consciousness”? Consciousness is simply defined as that which makes and breaks distinctions and assumes a point of view with respect to the distinction. The most fundamental distinction in consciousness that I have ever been able to think of is that between “yes” and “no.” It is obviously more basic than either time or space, since it depends on neither for manifestation. So, the most primitive distinction in the consciousness of Tao is that between being and non-being, something and nothing, known and unknown. Obviously, this is the fundamental meaning of “yes” and “no.” Because “no”, being nothing, is a “dead end,” consciousness does not even go there. Instead, consciousness identifies with, or assumes the point of view of, “yes.” This is the “One” produced by Tao as indicated by Lao Tsu. This One is the ultimate “Self” or “monad”. It’s only distinguishing characteristic is a bias for existence as opposed to nonexistence. So, at the first distinction from the absolute void, there is only the distinction between self and no self -- but a pattern is established already. The first-most primitive distinction -- between “yes” and “no” -- implies the second-most primitive distinction, that between a self and another self. This is the “Two” produced by the “One”. It is this second distinction that I want to talk about in explaining the relationship of ego and essence.

We have been told by Michael and Theosophy that the middle level of the middle plane -- the “akashic” plane, the fourth level of the fourth plane – is like a photographic record of all history. This is not just a “record” of the “history” of the “lower” (ordinal) planes, but also of the “upper” (cardinal) planes, because consciousness exists and functions there as well. (BTW, evolution on the ordinal planes appears to be thru *quantitative* strata, whereas evolution on the cardinal planes appears to be thru *qualitative* strata.) The akashic plane is the neutral zone of the neutral zone where/when all polarities, paradoxes, dualities, opposites and complementarities are ultimately *unified*. Looking at it the other way, the akashic plane is the ultimate *source* of all the polarities, etc. This latter is the way I want to look at it, because in the theory of a cosmos derived from consciousness, the akashic plane is the One which “produces” the Two that Lao Tsu wrote about. The Creator, All That Is, the One, divides/multiplies its consciousness into Two. In effect, it looks at Itself “as if” it were not Itself. It *assumes* the viewpoint of half of Itself, thereby becoming Two. The One divides/multiplies into a self and another self, an observer and an observed. It might be helpful to visualize the akashic plane as a ”mirror”. Although the thing and the image of the thing in the mirror are the same thing, the “mirror” *reverses* the appearance of the thing. That which looks like a “yes” on one side of the akashic mirror looks like a “no” when viewed in the akashic mirror. The same can be declared for every other duality, polarity, dyad, complementarity, you care to name. I care to name a few: addition and subtraction, division and multiplication, fractions and whole numbers, space and time, synthesis and analysis, beginning and end, front and back, inside and outside, light as particle and light as wave, cardinality and ordinality, yin and yang, positive and negative, general and specific, animus and anima, spontaneity and determinism, entropy and syntropy, quantum and continuum, stability and instability, attraction and repulsion, reality and illusion, subjective and objective, animate and inanimate, organism and mechanism, wholism and reductionism, explicate and implicate, random and orderly, agony and ecstasy, role and chief feature, acceptance and rejection . . . et cetera ad infinitum/eternum.

To clear up a possible misconception, let me say that Tao is not “beyond” the seventh level of the seventh plane or something like that. Tao is “beyond” -- if such a term has any meaning in this context -- the cosmos as a whole (all seven planes, the One), not beyond one “end” of the seven planes. Besides, the seven planes have no “end” -- they are cyclically/circularly arranged in a way that I will not explain here/now. Furthermore -- and Michael may have been ambiguous on this distinction -- in my explanation, Tao is not the One, equivalent to “All That Is” in Seth’s terminology. Tao “produces” the One. The One is represented by the name “akashic plane” -- the combined total of all “history” (phenomena) of the cosmos. The One “produces” the Two, the “mirror” that reverses everything.

Seems to me that the definition of “essence” has also been a bit ambiguous in the published Michael teachings. Is it what other metaphysicians call your “oversoul”, or your “higher self”, or what? The only definition that Michael gives in the published teaching is, “the innermost core of your soul,” but what does that mean? Furthermore, the details of the process of “fragmentation” of the One -- and what force or forces might drive it -- have not been discussed at all, so far as I know. I propose the following definition. To the original group Michael made a comment that never got published; namely, that the personality is the negative pole of a “monad” -- the essence being the positive pole of the “monad”. Here, ego and essence are said to be at opposite poles. My understanding of this is that what Michael called the “fragment” half of the Self has its focus of consciousness (point of view) on what we call the ordinal planes, and what Michael called the “essence” in that particular passage is the half of the Self that has its focus of consciousness on what we call the cardinal planes. (Michael also seems to use the word “essence” to refer to that united One Self which has its focus of consciousness eternally/infinitely on the akashic plane -- this is the ambiguity of which I spoke. But, henceforth I use “essence” as counterpart of “ego”.) The point I want you to understand is that ego and essence are *identical* to one another in appearance from the viewpoint of the One -- meaning, they are the *same* thing -- but they are *opposite* in appearance from the viewpoint of each half of the Two. So, your ego self sees your essence self as everything your ego self sees itself as not, and your essence self sees your ego self as everything your essence self sees itself as not. This makes for a perpetually interesting and exciting situation. Namely, “you can’t live with ‘em and you can’t live without ‘em.” Thus the dance begins.

As you know from your physics class in high school, “opposites attract”. (Keep in mind that the One of the akashic plane is “neutral” from the viewpoint of the Two, just as Tao is neutral from the viewpoint of One. One has no “attractive force” to Two. The only bias of One is for existence/experience as distinct from nonexistence/nonexperience. The One is a monadic “reference frame” against which or within which all dyadic and triadic existence/experience manifests.) Ms. Ego yearns mightily for Mr. Essence and vice versa. Each sees the other as the fulfillment of all his/her dreams, the answer to all his/her prayers, the satisfaction of all his/her needs. In their reciprocal relationship, Ms. Ego moves toward integration with her “higher” selves through strata of the cosmos on the ordinal planes (parallel worlds, levels, planes, kindred souls or whatever), and Mr. Essence moves toward disintegration or “fragmentation” (or so it would appear from the ordinal viewpoint of Ms. Ego) through his strata of the cosmos on the cardinal planes. Due to the force of attraction of opposites, they experience an undeniable, irresistible urge to meet each other half way. Ego and essence are the quintessential lovers yearning to fulfill their desire and longing for union. These are the equal and opposite actions inherent in Twoness, as recognized by Newton. However, because of the apparent separation and distortion and ignorance caused by the “mirror,” each is very clumsy at the lovemaking process -- the mating dance is very awkward -- even painful. There are misunderstandings on both sides leading to suffering on both sides. (“You always hurt the one you love”.) They also have power struggles, and sometimes one or the other gets their way at the expense of the other. Each is oblivious to the grief they cause the other by their mutual ignorance, incompetence, and insensitivity. You know -- the usual story of lovers.

But through it all, the force of attraction they both feel urges them on to their union at the akashic plane. Along the way they experience, they learn, they grow, they change, etcetera -- they learn to “dance” gracefully. They get to know each other better and the relationship gets cozier and cozier. And “finally”, at “last”, in the “end”, at the culmination of their eons of longing, “when” they arrive at the akashic plane, they embrace in the perfect and sublime intimacy of agape. Ah, Camelot -- but just for one brief shining moment. The akashic plane is a mirror, remember. And like the swing of a pendulum their momentum carries them through the looking glass. Paradoxically, in an instant they switch identities and sail right past each other and continue on their ways, singing “God be with you till we meet again” -- or something like that. At any rate, round and round and round they go and where they stop nobody knows. Cycle after cycle. Like the perpetual motion machine. Like the never ending story.

Is this a sad story or a happy story? Is this comedy or tragedy? Is this agony or ecstasy? You decide.

Yours in love,

The romantic German engineer,

Philbert Wittmeister

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:48:41 PDT
Subject: growth and reduction goals

[excerpts from my book manuscript on the inspiration goals, for Dave's amusement and for your all's information]

Phil

THE GOAL OF REDUCTION
The Ordinal Inspiration Goal is Reduction, and it is the “pessimistic” Goal. A good way to explain this Goal is in terms of money. The analogy of behavior in times of economic recession is very similar to the situation with people in the Reduction Goal. Just as people during a depression are thrifty and want to spend their money wisely because they have so little of it, so a person with the Goal of Reduction wants to be frugal with everything in his life. He is a “bargain hunter”. He always lives as if he were in hard times and needed to get “the most value for his dollar” — but not just in monetary realms. He is continually asking the question, “Is this really worth it?”. He evaluates everything to make sure it is actually necessary. He does not feel comfortable with excess of any kind. He wants to live a plain and ordinary life. In many cases, people with this Goal have a “domestic” urge, and they become “homebodies”. In the home they need face fewer demands than in confronting the outside world with all its problems and complications and challenges. Here they can also avoid distractions and extremes. They certainly respect other people’s privacy, so they are never nosey or prying.
People with this Goal have a value system hierarchy for everything in their experience. It is as if they have a priority list with the most important things at the top and the least significant at the bottom. They naturally assign a value of relative importance to everything. The object of this Goal is to find ways to shorten the priority list. Even if they are not overloaded, they will still be asking themselves, “Is this really necessary, or can I do without it also?” They “weed the garden” of their life. The desire is to cut out all nonessentials. They seek what is elementary, fundamental, and basic. They do not like to carry around any “excess baggage”, so they “sift the wheat from the chaff” in every thing they do. Even in their speaking they do not elaborate or embellish any more than they have to.
In employment, a person with the Goal of Reduction is suitable for quiet and well organized situations that are not very demanding: nothing that taxes the resources of the person. If there is too much going on at once, or there are deadlines to meet, a person in this Goal will likely feel uncomfortable: he does not like intense input in his life. Nor can an employer expect a prolific output from him. The good thing about this Goal in employment is that people with it are usually single-minded in their pursuits, and can concentrate on the task at hand. They get to the heart of the matter and stay there, not dabbling in the extraneous and peripheral issues. You can count on them to take care of things in the order of their importance.
The original name of this Goal was “Retardation”, but to me this seems to have too negative a connotation. The Goal has nothing to do with mental or retardation or physical handicap as one might suppose from such a name. It is true that in the worst instances it can manifest as arrested development and emotional immaturity. Many people with this Goal avoid situations and circumstances which would help them to “grow up”. The reason for this is that they typically lack what others call “ambition”. People with this Goal feel they do have ambition — their ambition is the desire to find what is truly essential, and eliminate all the rest as superfluous. However, this does limit the development of what others consider “maturity”. People in Reduction rarely stretch themselves to the limit, and so they rarely reach their full potential. They will also often do something only if it is convenient and does not cause them any hassle — so they are often considered lazy. They dislike the “hustle and bustle” that is a part of modern civilization. Some have trouble getting up in the morning because they do not want to face the numerous challenges of another day.
The original name of the Positive Pole of this Goal is “+Atavism”. This word is not familiar to most people. According to the dictionary, it means a throwback to a more primitive state, or a reversion to traits of a remote ancestor. Indeed, people with this Goal often long for “the good old days”. Life was supposedly better then, back when things didn’t seem so complicated. They often prefer old homes to new homes, and antique furniture to modern furniture. They may like old automobiles better than the newer models. It frustrates them that the world seems to be getting more complicated because this is against their nature. “Recapture traditional values” is a good motto for this Pole.
Regardless of what the dictionary says, the original definition of atavism was “a return to complete simplicity”. The ultimate simplicity is of course to reduce everything down to one thing at a time. People with this Goal often pare down their options so they can concentrate on one thing. They seek continually to narrow their range of involvements. They want situations such that they can cope with them easily and without stress and confusion. They avoid circumstances that are demanding or intrusive.
For the Process Aspect System, the Positive Pole is called “+Efficiency”, a word more familiar to most people than atavism. Efficiency is doing things with the least effort. People in this Pole are seeking to “trim the fat” from whatever they are involved in. They avoid intricacy. They hate waste, so they are very economical in their lifestyle. It also means they shy away from ostentation, ornamentation, fancy or gaudy frills, and other such “excesses”. Because of their desire for simplicity and avoidance of complexity, they are often very tidy and neat in their personal lives. “A place for everything and everything in its place” is an appropriate motto for this. They are also inclined to stick with the familiar, to go over the same paths again and again to see if they can make it even more efficient.
The Negative Pole is -Withdrawal. This is expressed when the person seeks to reduce his experience even below the efficiency of oneness — down to nothing. In the Positive Pole the person will extract a lot of value from the few and the meager, but in the Negative Pole he leaves everything alone, confronts nothing, and shrinks from all life experience. He prefers to “get away from it all”, and he copes with problems by escaping into isolation. Interestingly enough, such people prefer dimly lit, enclosed areas. They feel uncomfortable in bright and open places. There is almost a “back to the womb” feeling here. Such people prefer to retreat to the wilderness, and they may even be reclusive, like a hermit. In any case, they are secretive, mysterious, aloof, and hard to get to know. They dislike people who invade their psychological privacy (“Mind your own business”) or intrude on their physical space (“Leave me alone”): they repulse intimacy. They seek seclusion when life gets too confusing (“I can’t deal with that”). They don’t want to know what is going on out there in “the big, bad world”, and they don’t want others to know about them. At minimum, they pull the window shades, and avoid the neighbors. The way to overcome -Withdrawal is to consider and apply the Positive Pole of Growth, which is +Unfoldment: to open up to interesting things, to be all that one can be, and to become intimate with the world and with other people. Reduction is the Counterpart of the Reservation Mode. Both are Aspects of the Involution Process, and both result in behavior which is less than enthusiastic or optimistic. A person with the Goal of Reduction would like to have his life as efficient, orderly, and limited as a person in Reservation has himself. In other words, a person in Reservation applies the principle of conservation to his own actions, feelings, and thoughts, rather than seeking this in the outer world as does the person in Reduction.
The Goal of Reduction is the Complement of the Goal of Growth. That is, each avoids what the other seeks. People in Growth want to experience everything they can. They thrive on complicated and demanding situations. They almost never turn down an opportunity to develop their potential. On the other hand, people in Reduction often avoid experience if they feel it is too intense or confusing. They seek quiet, comforting, close and familiar situations. They start looking for a way to cut back when too many things are happening at once. Whereas people in Growth are always trying to improve things and make them better, the person in Reduction is inclined just to “leave well enough alone”. After all, why mess with something he can get by with just as it is. The person in Reduction will do the minimum required to get by. The person in Growth will extend himself to the maximum and beyond. People in Reduction do not value variety for its own sake as do people in Growth. They avoid redundancy and superfluity.

THE GOAL OF GROWTH
The Cardinal Inspiration Goal is Growth, and it is the optimistic Goal. This is a difficult Goal for the person who has it do deal with. It causes him to always want more, better, higher, greater. It causes discontent and unrest, what I call the “greener pastures” syndrome. He is never quite satisfied with the present situation. To some extent this can be said about all the Goals, since the nature of a Goal is such that one never fully achieves it. It is true of Growth in the sense that the person who has it is never satisfied to “leave well enough alone”. He is always demanding so much of himself. Often he takes more upon himself than he can possibly handle. He likes feeling pushed to the limit of his capacity and beyond with challenging situations and relationships. The person in Growth does not want to let any opportunity slip by. Every life event is seen as a chance for further experience. He feels that the biggest sin one can commit is to not fulfill one’s uttermost potential. All talents must be developed. Every situation must be explored. To a person in Growth, the world is a realm of never ending variety. He gets bored easily if there is not an unending stream of new experiences. The more that is happening, the more he is fulfilled. He thrives on challenging situations where many things are happening at once. Circumstances that others might find tumultuous, he finds stimulating. He “has his fingers in many pies” at once. He delights in juggling the numerous activities in which he is involved. He likes to be “in the thick of things.”
Growth is the Complement of Reduction. In other words, each avoids what the other seeks. People in Growth are normally very open about themselves. This is the opposite of -Withdrawal in the Complementary Reduction Goal. People in Growth have nothing to hide. Their lives are an open book -- they want to reveal themselves. They are not mysterious. They like to have people around — “the more the merrier”. They are usually very gregarious and have no trouble revealing intimate things about themselves. If someone does not reciprocate by also “letting it all hang out”, this is frustrating to them. They are uncomfortable with people who cannot openly and freely express themselves. Quite unlike people in -Withdrawal, they have a desire for an intense intimacy, even to the point of being nosey and prying. People in Growth want everything. People in Reduction want only what is truly necessary, and ignore the rest. Both Growth and Reduction, being Aspects of the Inspiration Processes, are concerned with values: Growth values everything — it is unlimited in its scope of quality. On the other hand, Reduction values only the necessary — it is very limited. People in Growth often feel that their lives are too restricted, and this is uncomfortable to them. They avail themselves of every opportunity for progress.
The Growth Goal and the Passion Mode are the Counterparts of each other. The Passion Mode has what the Growth Goal seeks — an uninhibited approach to life. The difference between the two is that a person in Passion behaves as if every wonderful experience resided within him already, so he has no need to seek this in the outer world as does the person in Growth.
The original name of the Positive Pole of this Goal is “comprehension”. I do not think this meant intellectual understanding, since that is Ordinal Expression, and Growth is Cardinal Inspiration. I think the intention is the noun form of the adjective “comprehensive”, meaning “all-inclusive” or “wide in scope”. People in this Pole are interested in everything, and they want to get acquainted and involved with everything. They want to embrace everything, and become on familiar terms with it.
In order to avoid possible misunderstanding of this Pole as having to do with mental considerations, I use “+Unfoldment” rather than “comprehension” for the System. The meaning here is that a person in this Pole seeks personal development, evolution, revelation and intimacy in himself and in others and in the world. He wants things to be out in the open, in plain sight. He wants his experiences to be developed to their greatest potential, to their highest state, to the maximum degree. Such a person tends to be a gregarious extrovert.
The Negative Pole is -Confusion, which often results when the person in Growth tries to take too much upon himself or do too much at once. The seeking of challenging complications has degenerated into chaos. He has become prolific to the point of being wasteful. In the -Confused state, he still pushes for interesting experiences, but he is not sure where to push because he is bewildered. He gropes along with a hit-and-miss method that reveals his perplexity. He often mistakes intricacy or complexity for progress. He is disorganized, and feels befuddled, and confounded. His energy is scattered; he is disoriented, and his head is spinning.
Life presents a person with many and diverse opportunities, and it is quite impossible to fulfill them all. One simply cannot explore every avenue that is presented. If one tries to, he will not be able to concentrate on the most important matters at hand. The result of this can be the Negative Pole of -Confusion. The way to get out of this -Confusion is to consider the Positive Pole of the Complementary Goal of Reduction, which is +Efficiency. Make a priority list. Focus the attention on just one thing and apply your energy to it. There are so many things in the world that can distract one’s focus of attention. It takes a concentrated effort for a person in Growth to set priorities because everything is important to him. He wants to experience it all. As a consequence, he may flit about from item to item, from one concern to another, without lingering on one thing long enough to fully appreciate it. This is not the most effective way to promote growth. To get out of -Confusion, people must realistically evaluate what needs to be done by comparing the relative merits of the items they seek to experience.

[From the appendix:]

-REDUCTION- (“RETARDATION”)
Synonyms: regression, contraction, decrease, shrinking, slackening, back-pedaling, condensation
Mottos: “Do without it.”; “I want less, not more.”; “Maņana.”; “Leave well enough alone.”; “Boil it down to the essence.”; “Is this really worth the trouble?”
Description: Seeks the familiar, the cozy. Wants to be sequestered and ensconced at home. Desires to insulate self from complexities. Pessimistic about future and in no hurry to confront it. Seeks to draw back from experience and eliminate the non-essentials of life in the world. Seeks convenience and avoids excess. Lacks ambition. Does less than required. Concise. Likes the plain and ordinary.
Advantage: satisfied with the bare necessities, value-conscious. Disadvantage: doesn’t get very far in life, self-imposed limitation.
+Efficiency (“Atavism”)
Synonyms: economy, conservation, retrenchment, evaluation, appraisal Mottos: “Keep it simple.”; “Give me the good ol’ days.”; “Stick to basics and essentials.”; “Do the most with the least.”; “One thing at a time.”; “Trim the fat.”; “Get to the kernel.”
Description: Desires simplicity. Avoids complexity. Wants to recapture good times of bygone days. Seeks to be unencumbered. Shies away from hassles and intricacy. Dislikes frills and ornamentation. Prefers the uncomplicated and uncluttered. Avoids non-necessities and excesses. Dislikes waste.
Extreme: frugal, primitive, primal
-Withdrawal
Synonyms: privacy, aloofness, retreat, isolation, detachment,
concealment, hiding, cloistered, enclosed,
Mottos: “Get away from it all.”; “Leave me alone.”; “Mind your own business.”; “I can’t deal with that.”; “Don’t bother me.”; “Back to the womb.”; “Why bother?”; “Who needs this?”; “Life is so much trouble.” Description: Hard to get to know. Prefers to lead a sheltered lifestyle. Avoids hustle and bustle. Seeks seclusion when feels threatened. May resent intrusions into his time and space. Repulses intimacy. May insulate self in shell or cocoon. Copes by escape. Mysterious. Desires obscurity. A loner.
Extreme: reclusive, hermitic, secretive, ascetic

+GROWTH+ Synonyms: progression, increase, expansion, promotion, development, outreach, optimization, proliferation
Mottos: “I want to go forward.”; “I seek greener pastures.”; “Far and wide.”; “The more, the merrier.”; “Many irons in the fire.”
Description: Wants to press onward, upward. Aspires for more, better, higher. Ambitious for unfoldment of potential. Seeks self-improvement. Optimistic about future developments. Hates to backtrack. Sets high standards for self. Likes variety and proliferation. Frustrated if progress is blocked. Striving: gets bored if there isn’t a lot going on at once. Generous.
Advantage: tends to fulfill potential.
Disadvantage: often spreads self too thin.
+Unfoldment (“Comprehension”)
Synonyms: familiarity, openness, exposure, illumination, revelation, profusion, explication
Mottos: “I want to walk in the light.”; “I am wide open.”; “Just be frank.”; “I like the unfamiliar.”
Description: Feels full of enlightenment and inspiration. Knows where he is going and how to get there. Forward-looking and far-sighted. Has insight into possibilities for advancement. A gregarious extrovert. Gets acquainted with and involved in everything. Wants things new and different all the time. Comprehensive interests in life.
Extreme: intimate, nosey, candid, super-optimistic
-Confusion
Synonyms: perplexity, befuddlement, confoundedness, bewilderment Mottos: “I feel all mixed up.”; “Where do I go from here?”; “A finger in every pie.”
Description: Always pushing but not sure where. Gropes along with a hit-and-miss approach. Wants to be more, but finds life too complicated to grow wittingly. May mistake intricacy or complexity for progress. Has unsteady and tentative feelings about life. Dabbles in things without resolving them.
Extreme: wild, unorganized growth

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:22:52 -0700
Subject: THE GERMAN BOY BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE!

My God, Phil, I think I just had a higher-centered experience. ;-)

After reading your "ego and essence" essay, Thomas Dolby's '80's hit "She Blinded Me with Science" began blaring through my synapses. IT'S POETRY IN MOTION.... As he said! hehehee

And like the poster from NYC a few weeks ago said, that her neighbors will live to hear Loverboy once again, I think I shall blare my Science song loudly at home this afternoon. :^)

Seriously though, I love your work. Please PLEASE let me use some of this material you've been posting to the list on my website for explaining some of the deeper aspects of the Michael material won't you??? :^D

I'd like to add some things to my "channelings" pages to include some of your essays and I'll rename the page accordingly, because there's a whole lot of M info that isn't necessarily a channeling, that would be great to keep organized somewhere for us to study....What do you think?

I'd like to put some of Ken Broom's essays there too, but I didn't have the idea for making a collection of essays until recently, so Ken, if you'd like to contribute, please let me know too....

And if any of you listers have something written up anything you might like to see there that is in the general interest based on Michael stuff, please send it to me.

L&L Lori :)

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:44:17 -0700
Subject: 9 Questions, Ten Thousands Answers

> Yes indeed, these are the 9 things you need to answer for
> yourself, in order to become enlightened. And if you don't, well then, you're
> doomed. ;-p Now, I can't tell you what these 9 questions were . . ."
>
> AAAAGH! Lori, you mean you have INFORMATION and you are not SHARING IT????
> And you call yourself a Scholar?
>
> C'mon, Lor', pretty please, oh please please please tell us . . .
>
> Jody

No, No, NOOOOO!!! You have to beg me some more!!!

Just kidding. ;-)

Goodness, everyone's getting into some Zen thing about this, when all I really meant was *NOW* I can't tell you what these questions were--because I just didn't have time at the moment, and besides, I need to refer to my notes I took.... :^) Later! :^) I wasn't trying to be so enigmatic, hehhe. I just hoped Dave could come up with some questions for a distraction until I had some time. Tao knows Dave needs something to keep him occupied, lest he go postal on the quaint town of Riverside. ;-p You see, I was trying to save lives here....

And Jody--I liked your idea regarding Men and the Goddess, and the Yin-Yang thingy. You know it, girlfriend!!!

And now for a totally different topic from this little Scholar and Honorary Artisan, in Observation Mode :-) ----------

      You ever hear the news when they are talking about the stock market here in the US, and they say something like, "The Dow was up 2 and three quarters today..." and that Dow is how you pronounce the word Tao? It gets me thinking how archaeologists and anthropologists 10,000 years from now are going to find the ruins of Wall Street someday and think it was some big church-hall where large metal machines moved back and forth sacrificing people, or something like the Valley of the Dead....worshipping these little pieces of paper and stuff, hehe. Then whenever I'm looking over in West Sacramento, there's this new building that is shaped like a Mayan pyramid, and it belongs to, who else, but the Money Store. Heheh, these things amuse me....(But then again by now you should know I'm easily amused....)

The Tao made the One, the One made the Two, the two made the three, and the three made ten-thousand dollars. ;-p At least it seems to work this way in the young-soul society, hehe.

Giggles, because they are fun,
Lori

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:18:28 EDT
Subject: Re: Phil an Artisan? NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!

In a message dated 98-08-12 08:31:01 EDT, Tina writes:

Look out everyone! Dave might be gearing up to embrace the fact that he's really a sage.

Hahaha....Just trying to keep you guessing. I've always admired Sages, but I don't do that dance.

Dave ;-)

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:16:12 PDT
Subject: "publish" my postings?

Hi Lori,

Lori wrote to me,

"Please PLEASE let me use some of this material you've been posting
to the list on my website for explaining some of the deeper aspects
of the Michael material won't you???"

Not yet. Later maybe. I sense there is a lot more in the pipeline, but it is not coming out systematically. I am gratified that some of you like it and I thank you for saying so. But, let's wait till the whole picture gets presented and then we can edit the information into a publishable document. Some of this understanding has come to me from books I have read and mystical insights I have experienced over the years, but some is coming to me out of the clear blue sky even as I write. Quite frankly folks, I do not know where it is going to end up, or if it is even going to continue. I have some pieces of the picture puzzle already in mind, but I also know that I do not have all the pieces by any means. Some of what I have said and will say may prove to be "hogwash". Your feedback and participation gives me the incentive to try to translate my higher intellectual center visual images into intellectual center words. Thanks again. I appreciate it.

Phil

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:45:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

I've found that Jose Stevens' book "Transforming Your Dragons" is a safe way to introduce people to the concept of chief features without having to get into the Michael terminology, and the people I've told about it have loved it and passed it on to others.

I'm real selective about who I'll talk to about Michael. I've got a lot of spiritually-directed, New Age friends who put up a real wall when they hear about "channeled" information. I think JZ Knight did a lot of harm in that area. However I have found that people are interested in the concept of overleaves and in having theirs done.

by the way John C, you sound like an old soul to me, artisan or not.

Jody

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:39:45 +0800
Subject: Re: monads

Ed wrote on 11/8/98 3:21 am:

> << By the way Michael uses the term, a "monad" is obviously a cardinal and an
> ordinal pairing >>
>
> >> All natural dualities, polarities, complementarities, counterparts, etc. are
> by my definition cardinal and ordinal. <<
>
>Dear Phil -- Sez who, why? These relationships seem to be pairs of polarized
>opposites, human soap opera eqivalents of black and white, up and down, big
>and small, odd and even, etc.
>
>Cardinal (or "exalted") and ordinal [low-profile, limited, small scale] are
>terms which imply that the one is bigger, greater, more expansive, or some
>such than the other. A cardinal item is more evolved than something
>ordinal. But generally in pairs of opposites or polarities, one is
>not necessarily more evolved than the other, or an expanded version of the
>other. They are just opposites in contrast or in contest with each other.
>
>Just being troublesome...all the best, Ed

Just to add a "me too" here. There all sorts of "opposite pairs" possible and only a small minority _may_ be considered cardinal-ordinal. IMO, Phil is taking taxonomy a bit too far, and "see" patterns in categorization where there is none.

Perhaps that's what Scholars do best -- filing info into a neat library. But in this case, info is being filed inadequately. Some info just belong to the "miscellaneous", and leave it right there. :-) Don't try to mold the info to fit the slot.

J J Tan
=====
Put aside your concerns.
Silent your mind.
Stop the world.

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:01:05 -0700
Subject: RE: "publish" my postings?

Hi Phil,

Well, it was more a way of collecting organizing some things where they'd be easier for people to find, since, as you probably know, all postings to the list get archived anyway. But I'll leave it alone until you've got it all clear the way you want the picture to be. :^)

One thing I've wanted to do for a long time was make my page on the Overleaves chart clickable so that each overleaf has a page to describe each one detailed from the table, I just haven't had time to do that.... I'd have to write each description myself, unless I could talk somebody into "donating" a description of each overleaf from their own book or something, since I didn't want to infringe on anybody's copyright.

Well, maybe it's just a matter of asking someone.... :^) Joya? Shepherd???

Love,
Lori

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:29:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Cardinal/Ordinal

Ed wrote:

>A cardinal item is more evolved than something
>ordinal. But generally in pairs of opposites or polarities, one is
>not necessarily more evolved than the other, or an expanded version of the
>other. They are just opposites in contrast or in contest with each other.

JJ wrote:

> Just to add a "me too" here. There all sorts of "opposite pairs" possible
> and only a small minority _may_ be considered cardinal-ordinal. IMO, Phil
> is taking taxonomy a bit too far, and "see" patterns in categorization
> where there is none.

To paraphrase and rearrange; there are all sorts of "opposite pairs" possible and ALL may be considered cardinal/ordinal. I don't see any type of "evolution" or contest in these concepts -- contrast to a certain extent, perhaps. They are constructs of energies, as are all things. If you can see essence roles in cardinal/ordinal pairs, or overleaves in negative/positive poles, you can see energy identified. "Cardinal" sets the stage or goal with it's bright flares of energy, and motivates a response from the "Ordinal", whose lower burning fires maintain the drive to the goal.

Throughout the awesome order of the Tao you can "see" patterns of categorization -- but they are patterns within patterns -- all things are interconnected. The trouble is that on this plane we cannot get the "distance" of perspective it takes to perceive the larger design of these patterns nor is it intended that we should. That's what makes creating new patterns with "choice" so interesting and growth inducing.

> Perhaps that's what Scholars do best -- filing info into a neat library.
> But in this case, info is being filed inadequately. Some info just belong
> to the "miscellaneous", and leave it right there.

But Artisans create --- and to take bits of pieces of what is known and create a larger "known" is an entirely adequate and necessary process. "Miscellaneous" begs the issue of "randomness". I will concede that no matter how much we inspect the "extra" pieces we may very well never comprehend their purposes.

> Don't try to mold the info to fit the slot.

Quite valid observation, imo. With the understanding that the "slot" is a preconceived idea of "rightness". Still; twist it, turn it, look at it from all directions, bounce it around, tear it apart. That's validation. Don't discard it as "miscellaneous".

kath.

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 21:34:25 EDT
Subject: Re: RE: "publish" my postings?

In a message dated 98-08-12 20:02:25 EDT, Lori writes:

clickable so that each overleaf has a page to describe each one
detailed from the table, I just haven't had time to do that...

I'd love to have a BOOK that was so detailed. I constantly find myself grabbing several books just to get an adequate definition for one term, for example the goal of growth. I have always felt the need for a book that would take each term and go into considerable depth on it. Since roles, modes, and attitudes can be so varied and complex, a listing of a couple attributes for each just doesn't cut it for me. Who knows, perhaps Phil's book will be the ticket.

Dave :-)

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:53:44 -0600
Subject: Re: artisans

Hi Phil, don't mind Dave. He's still peeved that we all think he's really a sage.

LOL
Jody

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:04:37 -0400
Subject: MTL Reference Pages on Lori's Web Site

Lori,

I like very much your idea of clicking on an MT term and then being transfered to the appropriate page that discusses that term. It will be interesting to see how these pages evolve/change as our comprehension of the teachings keeps evolving. If your reference pages keep evolving then the teachings can't become dogmatized.

Maybe there could be a date and author above each of the essays (or mini-essays) placed in the order in which they were posted to the list.

Go kiddo! Yer doin jus' great.

-----

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, The Happy Scholar, INFP
   7th level Old Scholar/Server, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist,
   Higher Emotional & Higher Intellectual, Impatience/Stubbornness,
aka I.A.M. Research, Columbia, Maryland, USA

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:26:50 EDT
Subject: MUST HAVE 9 QUESTIONS!!!!!!

Okay, I can't take it anymore. I MUST have those 9 Questions. I'm begging you. I cant take the anticipation. PLEASE...could someone send Lori some money so that she can have the free time to draft out the necessary information? PLEASE...the focus of my continued existence absolutely depends on it.

Must have questions....must have questions...must have questions....must have questions...must have questions...must have questions...must have questions....must have questions....must have questions.....must have questions....must have questions.....are you still reading this?...must have questions....must have questions....must have questions....questions must have.....must questions have......have questions must.....must have questions...

Desperate Dave!!!!!!!!

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:54:08 PDT
Subject: monads

Hi Ed and JJ,

I did some research and some thought and I stand by my statement that "monads" *always* consist of a pairing of opposites which can *always* be categorized "cardinal" and "ordinal". "Sez who, why?" asks Ed. This is a Phil dogma based on my understaning of the *meaning* or *definition* of these words, but it seems to me that Michael understands monads this way also. I quote:

A MONAD IS A BASIC UNIVERSAL UNIT USED TO EXPRESS RELATIVE VALUES OF CONSCIOUSNESS [two opposite experiences are united into one complete experience]. A NEPHRON [kidney] IS A PHYSICAL MONAD — OR AN ORGANIC MONAD [two objects united into one thing].

THE MONADS DO NOT COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU, ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. IF YOU CAN COMPLETE ONE IN THIS LIFE, THOSE FRAGMENTS CONCERNED WITH THAT WILL UNITE.

TO BE LOVED AND TO LOVE IS A POSITIVE MONAD OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. YOU MUST BE ABLE TO REALIZE THAT YOU ARE LOVED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS MONAD, AND THAT IS WHAT IS DIFFICULT.

. . . THE DETACHMENT-CONCENTRATION MONAD.

YOU WILL BE [Fragmented] UNTIL YOU ARE REINTEGRATED. THE CHRIST ENTITY EVEN CONSISTED OF TWO FRAGMENTS. JESUS STILL HAD A GURU IN JOHN [the Baptist]. THE MASTER/PUPIL MONAD MUST BE EXPERIENCED FROM BOTH SIDES.

YOU ALL HAVE NEED TO SEEK A TEACHER. YOU MAY ALL TEACH AT THE SAME TIME. RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, THE PRIMARY ROLE IS THAT OF STUDENT. IN PREVIOUS EXISTENCES, YOU HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED RECEIVING THE GIFT OF HIGHER EXPRESSION. YOU MUST NOW LEARN HOW TO EXPRESS [teach] IT TO COMPLETE THE MONAD AND INTEGRATE THAT FRAGMENT.

IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU SIT AT THE FEET OF A LIVING MASTER. IT WILL BE IMPERATIVE TO YOU THAT YOU ASSUME THE ROLE OF THE MASTER THE NEXT TIME. THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST INCOMPLETE MONADS _____ HAS.

YES [the number seven is importatnt], BUT SO ARE OTHER ODD NUMBERS. THESE POINT TO THE YIN AND THE YANG AND THE COMPLETED MONAD IN THE CENTER. SEVEN IS IMPORTANT TO THOSE ON THE PHYSICAL PLANE.

SOMETIMES YOU ARE THE DEBTOR [in Karma]. SOMETIMES IT IS TO YOU THAT THE DEBT IS OWED. THE RIBBON IS THE THREAD THAT LINKS YOU TO THE OTHER FRAGMENTS OF A KARMIC PLAY. YOU WISH TO COMPLETE THE MONAD. AS SOON AS THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, THE FRAGMENT HAS EVOLVED. AS SOON AS THE MAJOR MONADS ARE COMPLETED, THE FRAGMENTS ARE INTEGRATED. IT IS NECESSARY THAT LIFE BE EXPERIENCED BOTH AS MALE AND FEMALE IN THE DIFFERENT SETTINGS. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR, AND THE ONE THAT BRINGS THE MONADS TOGETHER. {quoted in MFM}

TEACHER-PUPIL IS ONE MONAD FREQUENTLY INCOMPLETE FOR MANY LIVES. THIS MUST BE COMPLETED, BUT IS NEVER ADVERSE.

YOU STILL MUST COMPLETE THE TEACHER-PUPIL MONAD. . . THIS LIFE IS ALSO THE OTHER POLE OF THAT MONAD.

THERE ARE ALSO WHAT WE WILL CALL FOR THE MOMENT "SEQUENCES" THAT LINK SOULS TOGETHER LIFE AFTER LIFE AND ARE NOT TRUE KARMIC RIBBONS. IN THESE SEQUENCES SOULS AGREE TO PLAY OUT CERTAIN SCENES TOGETHER, AGAIN REVERSING THE GOALS AND COMPLETING MONADS.

THE GOOD AND EVIL MENTIONED IN THAT PARADISE REFERS TO NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE POLES OF THE MONADS.

. . . THE PAIN-PLEASURE MONAD. IT IS AUTOMATIC.

THE PERSONALITY HAS AN EXTREMELY LIMITED CAPACITY FOR EXPERIENCING POSITIVITY. WHENEVER YOU EXPERIENCE UNSOLICITED PLEASURE, YOU ARE EXPERIENCING IT FROM ESSENCE. THIS IS WHY THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF NEGATIVITY IS SO VITAL TO SPIRITUAL GROWTH. IF YOU HAVE NOT GUESSED THIS YET, THE PERSONALITY IS THE NEGATIVE POLE OF A MONAD [and essence is the positive pole].

IT WAS NECESSARY THAT YOU SEEK THE TEACHING IN SPITE OF GREAT PHYSICAL DISABILITY TO COMPLETE A MONAD, THE ONE LEFT HANGING OVER FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS. THE MAN, _____, WAS A STRONG MAN THEN — PHYSICAL STRENGTH, YES; THE HEALTH-SICKNESS (Monad) AS A SEEKER, WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE.

IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE MONAD, YOU MUST BE "CONSCIOUS" OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE, FOR INSTANCE, 'LOVED' [in the loved-loving Monad]. MANY TIMES YOU ARE LOVED, BUT DO NOT EXPERIENCE THIS. MANY TIMES YOU ARE A 'STUDENT' [in the teacher-student Monad] BUT YOU DO NOT ALWAYS PERCEIVE THIS. THERE ARE SOME MONADS WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE PERCEPTIONS CHANGE, AND YOU MOVE [graduate] FROM ONE LEVEL [strata] TO THE OTHER.

ONE [Monad] THAT MUST BE COMPLETE IN THE MATURE CYCLE IS THE PARENT-CHILD. THE MATURE SOUL IS OFTEN [the] ONE WHO MUST COMPLETE THE PARENT POLE [of the parent-child Monad].

VIOLENCE IS CULTURALLY INDUCED. IT IS WHOLLY A PART OF FALSE PERSONALITY. THE ESSENCE IS PACIFIC. VIOLENCE IS TRULY THE DARK SIDE OF THE SOUL. NO ONE COMES ONTO THE PHYSICAL PLANE VIOLENTLY. HOW VIOLENTLY ONE COMPLETES THE MONAD IS A CHOICE MADE AT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.

THE TRIBE AS A WHOLE DID INDEED EXHIBIT THE "POOR ME" [Self-deprecation] SYNDROME. HOWEVER, THE STUDENT IS CORRECT IN THAT THIS IS THE OTHER HALF OF THAT MONAD, FOR SHE WAS VERY MUCH IN ARROGANCE DURING THAT LIFE, SO MUCH SO THAT SHE JEOPARDIZED HER LIFE SEVERAL TIMES BY BEING ARROGANT WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE.

WITH THIS FRAGMENT, DEPENDENCY OF EVEN THE SMALLEST NATURE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE [without some type of disability to ensure it]. [Essence knows] THERE MUST BE A BALANCE. [Dependence and independence must both be experienced to complete the Monad and achieve balance.] NO PERSONALITY CAN WITHSTAND TOTAL DEPENDENCY, AND [so you] MUST RELY ON SPECIFIC [partial] DISABILITIES, EITHER PHYSICAL OR SOMETIMES EMOTIONAL, IN ORDER TO EXIST AS A MEMBER OF "SOCIETY".

THIS METHOD THAT IS TOTAL AUSTERITY SELDOM QUALIFIES THE SENSES ENOUGH TO COMPLETE ANY OF THE MONADS, AND THE SOUL MUST REINCARNATE AGAIN IN ORDER TO EXPERIENCE WHAT IT MISSED WHILE IT WAS SITTING IN ITS HAIR CLOTH.

YOU CAN WORK THEM [Monads] OUT WITH ANY OTHER FRAGMENT. THERE ARE SPECIFIC MONADS WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED AT EACH LEVEL BEFORE THE PERCEPTIONS CHANGE.

IF THE PERSONALITY CAN TAKE LEAVE LONG ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE TASK OF THE SOUL, THEN THIS WILL BE CLEAR. THE TASK ON THE PHYSICAL PLANE IS TO EXPERIENCE "ALL OF LIFE". MANY MONADS ARE NOT COMPLETED FOR MANY CENTURIES. OTHERS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE SOUL CAN PERCEIVE AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF BEING. THE MONADS ARE THE ONLY REASON TO 'BE' THAT WE KNOW OF.

If this is not yet clear, I think it will become so as my explanations proliferate.

Phil

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:37:19 EDT
Subject: Re: "publish" my postings?

Phil,

You're writing some of the best stuff I've seen in awhile. Don't stop. Ken's had a couple good rolls too. I like your style. It's orderly and flows logically and easy to read. Your descriptions make me want to stay a student of the Michael teachings. The Teachings need your talent and your fresh approach to the truth of self-validated authority. Any other pigeon hole or claim is dead wood of an evolving tree.

To protect yourself put "copr. phil wittmeyer 1998" and you retain full copyright to your material (USC 17). You do tempt public domain without a copyright -Not that I think you are concerned.

Bravo!

Dan

P.S.: Dave doesn't think I'm an Artisan either.

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:01:58 EDT
Subject: Re: monads

In a message dated 98-08-13 03:05:35 EDT, Phil writes:

ONE [Monad] THAT MUST BE COMPLETE IN THE MATURE CYCLE IS THE
PARENT-CHILD. THE MATURE SOUL IS OFTEN [the] ONE WHO MUST COMPLETE THE
PARENT POLE [of the parent-child Monad].

How would Michael continue to address this particular monad, given the ever increasing problems of over-population? In the future, would this monad need to be dismissed in consideration for the growing congestion on our planet?

Dave

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:33:07 EDT
Subject: Re: A question to those who'd know...

In a message dated 8/12/98 10:52:00 AM, you wrote:

Ted Fontaine MFA. Anyone here ever work with Ted??

Yes. Ted did my overleaves. And all I can say is... He is the coolest! The information that came up was not what I had expected. But, with more study it was clear that it was right on. There is nothing like having your overleaves done to open up these teachings to one's self. As Jeanne Holley once suggested on this list. Thanks Jeanne.
PJ

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:18:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Notes on overleaves...

Lori wrote:

I'd have to write each description myself, unless I could talk somebody into
"donating" a description of each overleaf from their own book or
something, since I didn't want to infringe on anybody's copyright.

I am not sure if this is something that you are looking for. But, here are my notes on my overleaves as given and channeled by Ted Fontaine. Most of these come from Shepherd Hoodwin's book "Journey of Your Soul" but, some are derived from the postings here. Sorry that I don't always acknowledge the authors.
PJ

SCHOLAR
aura is dense and close to the body
needs attention on the facts
too much talking becomes boring to others
will have an extensive collection of something
loves knowledge
loves any fact
speaks raw facts
for growth need to communicate more physically, spiritually and emotionally
+ pole knows rather than theorizes
- pole separates from experience, ideas about rather than connecting
Solid rode
- has one input
Deal with what is
Can become too absorbed in what their doing, forgetting mundane life
have few but, deep friendships
Drawn to study people rather than befriend them
good listener
Truth is fact
Likes any information
Heart chakra
Expert with words
innocence trust
wisdom endurance
+consolidation
-achievement

***Goal of Acceptance (Michael.. growth)
ACCEPTANCE
associated with warmth
balances idealism

GROWTH
harmonizing goal

***Attitude of Idealist
IDEALIST
Overlooks practical to institute the utopian. Inspirational vision of the possibility of something more or higher.
See things how they should be "improved".
Tendency to rail against what you cannot change.
+coalescence
Takes action to make a difference.
Express views as way of making change.
-abstraction or naiveté
assumes the "shoulds" are reality
+being grounded in what you have the power to change.
Tend to be hard on themselves
Optimist , bright

***Mode of Perseverance (M... aggression)
AGGRESSION
productive, method of operating is to be dynamic...
Ed Hammerstrom: + dynamism, is about. ...
"acting quickly";... that is, with minimal lag between making a decision and acting on it. "being decisive",...
Aggression moves fast. It's the king's mode.
Make a decision, snap your fingers and people jump to it! There's nothing
intrinsically harmful, warlike, or unfriendly about aggression mode, but many
people are made nervous by someone moving quickly before they are ready for
it. If you have aggression, pay attention to whether your associates will be
startled and caught unprepared by what you say or do.

***Emotional centering/moving part
EMOTIONAL CENTERING
can make a scholar appear to be less scholarly
soft eyes
Opera, emotional centered experience
MOVING CENTER
loves to travel
people of action
no intellectual centering, may be impulsive
Moving center "high"s, body seems to be moving on its own
If the fragment is in the emotional part of moving center, then it would feel about the shooting after
it was done. [T]hose who are not intellectually centered, either primarily or secondarily, often have
trouble expressing themselves in words, since words are the tools of the intellectual center. [M2.37]

***Chief feature: (M... greed/impatience)
Chief features can be eliminated with work
GREED
Fear of not having enough
Bottomless pit of emptiness
Can look like impatience but, motivation is to be fulfilled rather than fear of missing out
Greed attached to one area
Busy trying to get more
Don't see what they have
Affirmation: " I recognize and enjoy abundance in my life. I have enough".

IMPATIENCE
+ can see powerlessness of changing anything
Fear of missing out
Rushing
Belief that there is not enough
Action axis overleaf (moving)
Time is an issue
Trying to cram in many things
Can be excessively late or early

***4th level old
4TH LEVEL
Consolidate
Middle balancing point
Confident of abilities in relationships
Relationships are intense and central in life

OLD
You do what you want, I do what I want
Respect different points of view
Causal, Light airy
See relationships as a complex three dimensional interrelatedness
Tolerant
Inclusive
Open minded
Little need for accomplishment in the world
Can easily become lazy
Not motivated by success or greatness
High standards but must have strong reason to follow them
Barely making it financially
Not able to suffer hardships in order to "make it to the top"
If they don't like what they are doing, have difficult time making themselves do it.
Seem undisciplined, unless they care about something
Take a long time coming into their own, because of reviewing other soul ages.

***Body type: (M...About 50 mars, about 30 venus, about 20 solar)

WARRIOR   three   Submission   Perseverance   Cynic
SCHOLAR   four   Flow   Observe   Pragmatic
SAGE   five   Acceptance   power   Idealist
PRIEST   six   Growth   Passion   Spiritualist
KING   seven   Dominance   Aggression
SAGE   five   Akashic   Instinctive
SCHOLAR   four   Mental   Higher Intellectual

NOTES
Scholars with intellectual centering will have huge collections of something: books, records...
mid-life monad, mid 30s throw off imprinting
- pole warrior trapped in shoulds to self in others
Thinking, One track output, three inputs still going on feeding output, integration occurs unconsciously.
Mature souls: need to have their boundaries respected, know their own but may not know others
arrogant about those who do not take life as seriously as they tend to take physical plane seriously.
Affirmation: substitute word "and" for "or"... I accept and see room for improvement.
Physical centering. Feel physically before understanding that they are upset, people can read it in their eyes.

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:01:18 EDT
Subject: Something in the road

When a new earth bound group of people come upon it they ask, what is this?
The first one, a Seth believer says it is possibly and probably this, and that, and never says what it is.
The second one, a Religious believer, says it's a gift from God and defies definition.
The third one, a scientist, says its matter, formed from molecules, formed from atoms and that it's going to take a lot of research to know what it is.
As they ponder this new matter to them, a stranger comes down the road. When the stranger comes upon them they say to the stranger: "hey stranger, we've all seen this a million times before and yet for some strange reason we really don't know what it is. Can you help us?"
"Sure" the stranger replies. "What does it look like?"
"We're not sure" they reply.
"Taste it" the stranger said.
"What does it taste like"?
"Tastes like shit" they replied.
"Isn't it amazing how simple and easy it is to know what something is" said the stranger as he walked away.

Dave

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:09:17 PDT
Subject: Overleaves, Roles, etc...

Dear List:

      I've been lurking for a while, just observing. I have wanted to join in but have been unsure of my reception as you all seem to know each other so well. I have also wanted for a number of years to know what a channel would say about what role I've chosen, my soul age etc... I finally got my courage up to just post to the list and ask if anyone knows how I might find a channel who would be willing to ask the Michael entity. (I do strongly suspect a chief feature of self-deprecation, though :-) If I'm being rude or out of line please excuse me. I have read three of the Michael books and think I might get more out of it if I knew what it is I forgot this time around... (Did that make sense?... oh, well...) I'll check my e-mail later. Thank you.

            Kathy W

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:50:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Overleaves, Roles, etc...

In a message dated 98-08-13 14:10:28 EDT, Kathy W writes:

I finally got my courage up to just post to the list and ask if anyone knows
how I might find a channel who would be willing to ask the Michael entity.

Simply go to Lori's web site and peruse through the link concerning channels and other resources. To begin, have one of the channels do an overleaves chart for you. I think the average price for that is around $40.

Dave

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:38:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Do you tell lots of folks about Michael?

  Like many others on the list, i too am selective about who I tell about Michael. i do have an amusing story about that. I am a sign language interpreter at a college and my favorite class to interpret to date was Anthropology of Religion--very cool! the first section was on Voodoo! Anyway, I asked the instructor if he was at all familiar with Michael. He said he wasn't and asked me to tell him about the teachings. I told him a little about it and he asked to set up an appointment with me to really discuss it. I thought that was cool and I was very excited! So, I went to the appointment and he asked me more about the teachings and what I gained from them and what my background and upbringing were. Finally, he admitted to me that when I first told him about it, he was very concerned for me-- he thought I was getting mixed up in some type of cult or something. He then said that from what I told him it sounded very interesting and he asked to borrow my copy of MFM. I look forward to discussing his take on it when I see him in September.
Peace,
beth

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:31:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Phil's writings

This stuff is great, a/k/a very thought-provoking, hence happy times for a scholar. thanks Phil, and keep going!

Still, the debate on the monad question has got me thinking of the first verse of the Tao Te Ching:

The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Jody
scholar leery of the negative pole, theory

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:42:53 EDT
Subject: True wisdom

This is ancient, but still rather charming...;-p

Dave

The following questions concerning love and wisdom were posed to a group of children ages 5 to 10. Their responses were amazingly astute and very enlightening and amusing...

WHAT IS THE PROPER AGE TO GET MARRIED?
"Eighty-four. Because at that age, you don't have to work anymore, and you can spend all your time loving each other in your bedroom." (Judy, 8)

"Once I'm done with kindergarten, I'm gonna find me a wife." (Tommy, 5)

WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
"On the first date, they just tell each other lies, and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date." (Mike, 10)

WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
"You should never kiss a girl unless you have enough bucks to buy her a big ring and her own VCR, 'cause she'll want to have videos of the wedding." (Jim, 10)

"Never kiss in front of other people. It's a big embarrassing thing if anybody sees you. But if nobody sees you, I might be willing to try it with a handsome boy, but just for a few hours." (Kally, 9)

THE GREAT DEBATE: IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
"It's better for girls to be single, but not for boys. Boys need somebody to clean up after them." (Lynette, 9)
"It gives me a headache to think about that stuff. I'm just a kid. I don't need that kind of trouble."(Kenny, 7)

CONCERNING WHY LOVE HAPPENS BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE:
"No one is sure why it happens, but I heard it has something to do with how you smell. That's why perfume and deodorant are so popular." (Jan, 9)

"I think you're supposed to get shot with an arrow or something,but the rest of it isn't supposed to be so painful." (Harlen, 8)

ON WHAT FALLING IN LOVE IS LIKE:
"Like an avalanche where you have to run for your life." (Roger, 9)

"If falling in love is anything like learning to spell, I don't want to do it. It takes to long time to learn." (Leo, 7)

ON THE ROLE OF GOOD LOOKS IN LOVE AND ROMANCE:
"If you want to be loved by somebody who isn't already in your family, it doesn't hurt to be beautiful."(Jeanne, 8)

"It isn't always just how you look. Look at me. I'm handsome like anything and I haven't got anybody to marry me yet." (Gary, 7)

"Beauty is skin deep. But how rich you are can last a long time." (Christine, 9)

CONCERNING WHY LOVERS OFTEN HOLD HANDS:
"They want to make sure their rings don't fall off, because they paid good money for them." (David, 8)

CONFIDENTIAL OPINIONS ABOUT LOVE:
"I'm in favor of love as long as it doesn't happen when 'The Simpsons' are on TV." (Anita, 6)

"Love will find you, even if you are trying to hide from it. I've been trying to hide from it since I was five, but the girls keep finding me." (Bobby, 8)

"I'm not rushing into being in love. I'm finding fourth grade hard enough." (Regina, 10)

PERSONAL QUALITIES NECESSARY TO BE A GOOD LOVER:
"One of you should know how to write a check. Because, even if you have tons of love, there is still going to be a lot of bills." (Ava, 8)

SOME SUREFIRE WAYS TO MAKE A PERSON FALL IN LOVE WITH YOU:
"Tell them that you own a whole bunch of candy stores." (Del, 6)

"Don't do things like have smelly, green sneakers. You might get attention, but attention ain't the same thing as love." (Alonzo, 9)

"One way is to take the girl out to eat. Make sure it's something she likes to eat. French fries usually works for me." (Bart, 9)

HOW CAN YOU TELL IF TWO ADULTS EATING DINNER AT A RESTAURANT ARE IN LOVE?
"Just see if the man picks up the check. That's how you can tell if he's in love." (John, 9)

"Lovers will just be staring at each other and their food will get cold. Other people care more about the food." (Brad, 8)

"It's love if they order one of those desserts that are on fire. They like to order those because it's just like their hearts are .. on fire." (Christine, 9)

WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE THINKING WHEN THEY SAY "I LOVE YOU":
"The person is thinking: Yeah, I really do love him, but I hope he showers at least once a day." (Michelle, 9)

HOW A PERSON LEARNS TO KISS:
"You learn it right on the spot, when the gooshy feelings get the best of
you." (Doug, 7)

"It might help if you watched soap operas all day." (Carin, 9)

WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
"It's never okay to kiss a boy. They always slobber all over you that's why I stopped doing it." (Jean, 10)

HOW TO MAKE LOVE ENDURE:
"Spend most of your time loving instead of going to work." (Tom, 7)

"Don't forget your wife's name . . . that will mess up the love." (Roger, 8)

"Be a good kisser. It might make your wife forget that you never take the trash out." (Randy, 8)

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:24:47 -0600
Subject: Re: Phil's writings

>Still, the debate on the monad question has got me thinking of the first
>verse of the Tao Te Ching:
>The unnameable is the eternally real. ( . . . )
>
>Jody
>scholar leery of the negative pole, theory

I've been having a bit of the same problem. I'm not taking issue with the personal satisfaction possible when one puts ideas in order, and I didn't want to be picky and act out of some negative pole of my own, so I went web-travelling a while and came back with the following:

>Reality divided by reason always leaves a remainder.
>After everything has been said
>about the universe,
>after the entire world has been
>transformed on the basis of scientific knowledge into
>a hierarchial structure of ever-widening systems,
>we are still left with a profound sense of
> mystery. ...
>
> Haridas Chaudhuri
> Being, Evolution, and Immortality
> 1974, The Theosophical Publishing House

Hoping this is taken as a gesture toward balance, not a critique,
Mary

(PS - I loved the "Kids On Love" post enough to forward it to my sister)

*******************************
7th level Old Artisan/Spiritualist/
Acceptance/Perseverance/
Stubbornness
*******************************

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:57:04 -0400
Subject: OTTERLY'S NEW HOME (in more ways than one)

OK, Hi everybody! I did not have a clue how hard the last few months would hit me after it all settled.

At the beginning of the year, my friend, an ex of mine, died.

THEN, a horrendous evil pumpkin-headed girl we took into our lives because we are so compassionate (read: stupid) turned our home into a war zone.

WHILE that occurred, our house underwent some electrical disasters, creating problems with my computer. I had intended to get an all-new computer, but the place where I have my deals with the computers didn't have anything better than what I already have. To improve this wondrous machine, I erased the entire hard drive! I was so eager and hyped up and distracted by the terrors of the household, that I didn't quite save everything I should have. In fact, I lost almost everything important.

THEN, my grandfather died, which wasn't too horrible, but my father was my main concern and we are distanced by many miles.

I have found myself being overcome by the build up of sessions, getting farther behind during all of this.

FINALLY, a flash of peace was on the horizon!

Horrendous evil pumpkin girl was leaving!

She did not leave without a bang, though. She left us with a rather large amount of bills to deal with, and she broke many of our things. When she left, it freed up space in so many ways.

So, for the past two weeks, we (my family of Basil and Cyprus) have only now felt like we have settled into our home.

EVERYTHING is looking so good! Light has come back into our home in all directions! I mean this literally! The pumpkin horror would cover the windows with huge comforters, blocking sunlight from outside. My office has been rearranged throughout the house, I had to rebuild my software installation, work out the quirks from installing them all at once, and try to pick up the pieces as gracefully as possible. One of the things I lost was my wonderful email program OUTLOOK '98. I have to go buy it.

Anyway, I thought I was so happy with the break and the new sense of potential peace since round orange with toothpicks as legs was gone, and the impact of death seemed to have passed. But actually when it all settled, I just collapsed like a rag doll, inside and out.

I carried an ominous feeling for a few days while my body adjusted to NOT having to brace myself for the orange haze demon. Once I talked to my Instinctive Center and calmed myself down, I just wanted to sleep.

I have no clue at this point as to how I was managing while all this was going on. I've had much worse things happen before in my life, but this series just seemed like a long slow cutting razor down my heart.

Well, I am feeling so wonderful now. Really. I am just now "getting it", how it's all over. I am breathing again.

So, ...I'm back.

Well, the web site has moved, and it's all up now. Those who have been there before might think it's pretty much the same, or that it's actually more boring. But there are some new things, too. I wanted to make it more "newbie" friendly.

Oh, I did share some more of me at the Site. People were requesting more and more info about me, but I just think I am too abstract to just be describing myself like an object, so I put up some corny poetry of mine, and MORE pics!

You guys, can you believe it? I was told by Bellsouth.net to move my web site or pay $50/month or more because I was getting "hit" too much! Bellsouth.net only allows 2 MB of web space, and only a thousand hits per month! I was pushing past the limit! You people are insatiable. Though it was inexpensive to have them host my site (the 2 MB dinky version), I was just too limited.

Now, I'm at Geocities, but you will be beat to death with advertisements. Just ignore them, and I am so sorry about that. It is REALLY a nuisance. But it's free, plus I get a whopping 11 MB of space and plenty of amenities!

So, please! Go to the site, whoop it up, please please please sign my guestbook so it doesn't look so lonely and I don't come across like a looozza?

Fill out the FEEDBACK form cuz I lost my previous list and this enters you for the monthly drawing for FREE SESSIONS!

Oh, and I know there will be some typos, so just email me if you care, otherwise, I'll get to them...

PS: Lori? Can you update my link at your page? AGAIN?
(I know, I know)

Thanks everyone, I missed ya a little.

Otterly Blue

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 01:15:49 EDT
Subject: Re: OTTERLY'S NEW HOME (in more ways than one)

In a message dated 98-08-14 00:01:04 EDT, Otterly writes:

I am too abstract to just be describing myself like an object,
so I put up some corny poetry of mine,

Oh, my God.

and MORE pics!

Yeah, I saw them. That dog in one of the pictures has a tongue as long as your entire face. Cute little rascal. I mean the dog. Hahahaha...;-p

So, please! Go to the site, whoop it up, please please please sign my
guestbook so it doesn't look so lonely and I don't come across like a
looozza?

I did, I did! In fact, I was the 2nd person at the site. Yipee!!!! I just hope Geocities doesn't consider my post lewd and disguting. ;-p So who on earth is this Pumpkin demon? Did you have Poppy Z. Brite stay with you, or something?

Mr. Dave ;-)

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Role questions & thank you's

Thanks Phil for the information regarding monads. I had been unsuccessful in defining monads to a friend of mine because I wasn't all that sure of what they were myself. Mentally I was picturing "milestones" but they are so much more. I printed out your post and gave her a copy. It gave both of us insight as to what's going on with her in her marriage and me in my "so called life".

And thanks to Dave for his "True Wisdom" post.

That was a bright spot that will no doubt be forwarded by more than a few of us softhearted types to people we feel could make good use of it. Does your extreme old age (soul age) make you so varied in your personality? Really...from what I've read, the idea behind living a multitude of lives with different sets of overleaves is to ultimately experience the "completeness" of being human....or whatever life-form we choose to be in each cycle. This gives us the credentials, as it were, to advance and eventually become teachers (if we so choose) such as Michael. As we "age" are we more likely to project more than one role because we are simply more experienced? Is it harder to pin down a person's role just by observing their demeanor? I'm still new here, but if you (Dave) hadn't said you were and artisan, I would have guessed you could be ANY role just by reading your posts. You've definitely got quite a range! (Why do I think Dave is reading this thinking "Naw, I'm just schizoid....heheheheh"?).

And what about people diagnosed with multiple personality disorder? How do roles fit in there? The role goes with the soul (hey, I like that), but does each personality manifest a different role? Would a channeled chart be different depending on which personality is "out front" at the time? Has any channel out there ever experienced this? Deep breath.....

Finally, I'd like to thank Ernie for bringing so many "lurkers" out into the light. Has anyone else noticed there are more active participants since he stirred up some dust? Good job Ern! Those of you still out there, jump in even if it's just to say hi. As for Dave, BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID!! Ya just never know about these ol' dudes (992 lives in one cycle?). Sometimes they just bite to make sure their teeth are still in. Then they'll reward you with something very cool like the "Crystal Skull" or "True Wisdom"......if you stick around.

Love,
Morgan

PS: Welcome home Otterly!

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:03:44 EDT
Subject: Re: artisans

In a message dated 8/12/98 12:22:00 AM, you wrote:

I have less furniture than any employed American I ever met. If I could,
I'd have even less than I do now. I do not have a livingroom and
diningroom, I have the Computer Room and the African Drum Room. Those rooms
have in them what their names would indicate, plus each has a chair. When
I'm done with this carpentry project, there will also be the Tai Chi Room,
which will not have anything it in at all.

Mary,
Wow, when your guy is done, send him over here. That sounds like a great way to set up a house. I've had urges to things along the same lines. Part of what is going on here is that I don't want to "commit" to a rent house. I know what it is. I'm getting a jump start on entrophy. All the energy is evenly and randomly distributed throughout the house. It's energy democracy. "Hey energy, come over to my house, you'll get a square deal. Well, actually, rectangular." It's the rent house at the end of the universe.       --see ya, John C

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:12:04 +0800
Subject: Re: ego and essence

At 01:45 PM 8/12/98 -0000, Philip Wittmeyer wrote:

>potential. In fact, it has *every* potential. So what is
>“consciousness”? Consciousness is simply defined as that which makes
>and breaks distinctions and assumes a point of view with respect to the
>distinction. The most fundamental distinction in consciousness that I
>have ever been able to think of is that between “yes” and “no.” It is

I don't see the connection between "consciousness" and "yes/no". "Yes/no" is a state, much like the digital circuitry of 1 or 0. That has no connection with "consciousness".

>obviously more basic than either time or space, since it depends on

It does not seem obvious to me, especially when there is no connection.

>neither for manifestation. So, the most primitive distinction in the
>consciousness of Tao is that between being and non-being, something and
>nothing, known and unknown. Obviously, this is the fundamental meaning
>of “yes” and “no.” Because “no”, being nothing, is a “dead end,”

Again, not obvious to me. As of this point, you seem to be making assumptions based on "obviously", some sort of leap of logic on your part.

>consciousness does not even go there. Instead, consciousness identifies
>with, or assumes the point of view of, “yes.” This is the “One”

Nope, that is, again, not obvious to me. Why must "consciousness" assumes the point of view of "yes"? Consciousness is neither "yes" nor "no", simply because it is not an "on/off" state.

>produced by Tao as indicated by Lao Tsu. This One is the ultimate
>“Self” or “monad”. It’s only distinguishing characteristic is a bias

Since your "most basis" assumption is not so obvious to me, does not ring any bell in me, I have to say the rest of your post is what some would call, "mental masturbation"... well, I would call it "intellectual game" which means nothing because it is not connected to the reality of what consciousness is.

>Seems to me that the definition of “essence” has also been a bit
>ambiguous in the published Michael teachings. Is it what other

In my opinion, you have spent (wasted) too much time on defining terms. The reason I say so is simply because words (definitions) are products of this world, our linear perception. You can spend as much time as you like, coming up with a wide (creative) variaty of definitions, and you won't come even close to describing what is beyond this linear construct of words.

For the time being, I would like to just say... "let it go".

To translate a Chinese proverb, you are like trying to squeeze into the point of a bull horn. Let it go. Follow what is taught in Tao Te Ching -- enter the silence and darkness, where the real knowledge lies.

J J Tan

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:18:32 EDT
Subject: Re: 9 Questions, Ten Thousands Answers

In a message dated 8/12/98 4:43:56 PM, Lori wrote:

You ever hear the news when they are talking about the stock market
here in the US, and they say something like, "The Dow was up 2 and three
quarters today..." and that Dow is how you pronounce the word Tao? It
gets me thinking

...And if the Tao is all that is, then we are all Dow Chemicals...

John C

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Desperate Dave

Dave wrote:

      "Okay, I can't take it anymore. I MUST have those 9 Questions.
Lori some money so that she can have the free time to draft out the
necessary information? PLEASE...the focus of my continued existence
absolutely depends on it.

      Must have questions....must have questions...must have
questions....must have questions...must have questions...must have questions...must have
questions....must have questions....must have questions.....must have questions....must have
questions.....are you still reading this?...must have questions....must have questions....must have
questions....questions must have.....must questions have......have questions must.....must
have questions...

      Desperate Dave!!!!!!!!"

Would this post qualify Dave as a "closet scholar"?

Love from Morgan

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:23:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Desperate Dave

> must have questions....must have questions....questions must
> have.....must questions have......have questions must.....must
> have questions...
>
> Desperate Dave!!!!!!!!"
>
> Would this post qualify Dave as a "closet scholar"?
>
> Love from Morgan

No, he's already a closet sage. Besides, a scholar would post:

Must give answer...must give answer...have answer...must give...
Oh, oh, please call on me...have answer...

Dean

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:30:40 -0700
Subject: Re: 9 Questions, Ten Thousand Answers

First off, PJ--thank you for your notes on some roles and overleaves--they're very good! I think I might use what Phil sent me though, since it has all of them. :^)

Otterly--welcome back bud!!!! :^) We missed you. See my comment below about what happens when we do a good deed. ;-)

Hi John C!

> << You ever hear the news when they are talking about the stock market
> here in the US, and they say something like, "The Dow was up 2 and three
> quarters today..." and that Dow is how you pronounce the word Tao? It
> gets me thinking >>
>
> ...And if the Tao is all that is, then we are all Dow Chemicals...

Wow, John, that was really deep. I mean, that was a really good one. It makes my earlobes pulse. Such Good Work from you reminds me of the Ferengi 285th Rule of Acquisition:
"No good deed ever goes unpunished."
;-)

Lori
Author of the "Tao Te Cha-Ching: Ferengi's Guide to the CF of Greed and the Goal of Exploitation" ;-p

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:52:18 EDT
Subject: Re: Role questions & thank you's

In a message dated 98-08-14 02:15:49 EDT, Morgan writes:

And thanks to Dave for his "True Wisdom" post.

{Adjusting halo} Well, as you know, "true wisdom" is a term often associated with my name. ;-p

Does your extreme old age (soul age) make you so varied in your personality?

My personality has been the topic of numerous discussions, many of which were whispered in dark, forbidden alleys.

Really...from what I've read, the idea behind living a multitude of lives with different sets of overleaves is to ultimately experience the "completeness" of being human....or whatever life-form we choose to be in each cycle. This gives us the credentials, as it were, to advance and eventually become teachers (if we so choose) such as Michael.

There's a thought. Can anyone imagine Dave(me) someday becoming a teacher like Michael? Can you visualize Ott's, Ted's, Ken's or Shepherd's face when they sit down to channel Michael one day, and instead Dave(me) comes through? ;-p My fantasy would be to provide tips for card games. "Dear Michael (Dave in disguise), my client has been suffering from a bladder infection. Can you offer advice?" "Yes....If most tricks you bet were Kings and Aces, you should dump the middle cards (8-9-10) as they could lead to bags."

Personally, I like to imagine myself as being the spiritual equivalent of "Beetlejuice." Of course, whatever you do, never say "Dave" three times in a row. ;-)

As we "age" are we more likely to project more than one
role because we are simply more experienced? Is it harder to pin down
a person's role just by observing their demeanor? I'm still new here,
but if you (Dave) hadn't said you were and artisan, I would have
guessed you could be ANY role just by reading your posts. You've
definitely got quite a range!

That would be a good question to fence to our resident scholar tag team, Ken, Ed, and Philbert. And where's Dick when you need him?

As for Dave, BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID!! Ya just never know about these ol' dudes (992
lives in one cycle?). Sometimes they just bite to make sure their teeth are still in.

You're assuming that such geriatric, pus oozing old farts would have teeth to bite you with. A more likely course of activity would be a bad case of problem drool.

Then they'll reward you with something very cool
like the "Crystal Skull" or "True Wisdom"......if you stick around.
Love,
Morgan

Yes, I'm wonderful, aren't I? Demonstrate your love and appreciation - send tens and twenties. ;-0

Dave ;-)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:59:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Desperate Dave

In a message dated 98-08-14 14:02:46 EDT, Morgan writes:

Would this post qualify Dave as a "closet scholar"?

No, but it certainly gives credence to the idea of "institutionalization", doesn't it? They're coming to take me away, ha ha....

BTW, I see my darling sister, (Lori) is ignoring my cries for scholarly appeasement. No 9 questions....;-(

Two words: That bitch! ;-p

Dave ;-)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:07:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Desperate Dave

Dave said:

> BTW, I see my darling sister, (Lori) is ignoring my cries for scholarly
> appeasement. No 9 questions....;-(

:-p Haha, I wasn't ignoring you, I forgot!
Actually, such tantalizing teasing and withholding of information is something that this scholar really isn't very good at, teehee. But it sure is fun to watch you squirm sometimes. :^)

OK look, I'll give you the first question:

WHO AM I?

No, I'm not asking you who *I* am, Dave, you dimwit. ;-p
Now go squat in a yurt for the next 36 hours meditating on this question, and report back to me on what you come up with. Then I just *might* go into some of the other ones.... You see, these questions aren't just some list I can crank out, there is a lot more in each one than just the simple question itself. I might write up a little review of the seminar for Jeanne's newsletter.

> Two words: That bitch! ;-p
>
> Dave ;-)

Hey now, you watch it, young man.... <wagging finger>
<Meredith Brooks music playing in the background --- "I'm a bitch, I'm a tease, I'm a goddess on my knees, when you hurt, when you suffer, I'm your angel under cover, I'm invoked, I'm revived, can't say I'm not alive, you know I wouldn't want it any other way....." Or, something like that.....;-)>

Anybody wanna dance?
Lori

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 98 14:10:24 +0330
Subject: Re: Role questions & thank you's (MPD)

>And what about people diagnosed with multiple personality disorder?
>How do roles fit in there? The role goes with the soul (hey, I like
>that), but does each personality manifest a different role? Would a
>channeled chart be different depending on which personality is "out
>front" at the time? Has any channel out there ever experienced this?
>Deep breath.....

In my experience with MPD people, they are generally Artisans (ahem) and not many of the separate personalities are really *full* enough to have a role. . it is like each personality is in service to the full organism. . . for instance I know a woman who has one persona entirely devoted to watching birds, that's all she does. However, there are some more complex personae among them and these perhaps could have semblance of roles. But I tend to think MPD people are mostly Artisans, those creative Artisan folks deal with severe abuse by . . . creating *more* people, and *more* chaos! Woohoo! ;) Worlds in worlds in worlds! The inner life of a multiple is incredibly complex, intricate and a totally real, detailed, consistent, and operational inner world existing separate from the "real" world. All this to me screams "Artisan".

I would be very interested to hear if anyone else has thoughts or experiences with MPD people and how they fit into the overleaf system!

Love
Karena

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:02:24 PDT
Subject: The one-and-only Dave

Hi Dave,

Dave said,

That would be a good question [about Dave's apparent
versatility of role and personality in general]to fence to our resident
scholar tag team, Ken, Ed, and Philbert.

OK, I'll bite. As all of you except Dave know, even though I am an artisan, I am often mistaken for a scholar because of the inordinate strength of my "scholarish" overleaves and casting. A lot of people seem to be mistaking Dave for a sage. I do not remember *all* your overleaves, Dave, but I do remember 4th old artisan in stagnation, passion and stubbornness. I would guess realist ("anything goes") for attitude and emotional center ("playfulness"), but hey, its hard to discern a person's overleaves by their e-mail personna alone. I for one do see the artisan in Dave -- mock hostility is often a dead giveaway for an artisan. I have in mind the Car Talk guys Tom and Ray when I say that. I think most of what we are seeing from Dave comes from the passion mode. In my experience, only people in the passion mode truly enjoy outrageous-to-the-point-of-offensive behaviors/words for their shock value alone. Maybe I will post the section from my book manuscript on that overleaf.

Philbert

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:45:23 EDT
Subject: Memoirs of a Societal Faux Pas (Phil)

In a message dated 98-08-14 19:03:20 EDT, Phil writes:

A lot of people seem to be mistaking Dave for a sage. I do not remember *all* your
overleaves, Dave, but I do remember 4th old artisan in stagnation,
passion and stubbornness. I would guess realist ("anything goes") for
attitude and emotional center ("playfulness"),

I haven't made up my mind on passion yet. I could be in observation, and merely sliding to passion when the occasion demands. But my centering appears to be Intellectual/Moving, though I could easily accept Intellectual/Emotional.

I for one do see the artisan in Dave -- mock hostility is often a dead giveaway
for an artisan. I have in mind the Car Talk guys Tom and Ray when I say
that. I think most of what we are seeing from Dave comes from the
passion mode. In my experience, only people in the passion mode truly
enjoy outrageous-to-the-point-of-offensive behaviors/words for their
shock value alone. Maybe I will post the section from my book manuscript
on that overleaf.
Philbert

Now Phil, you told me you wouldn't hold a grudge. Yes, I know you were infuriated when you invited me over to your place and I subsequently drank all of your beer and got so shitfaced that I stumbled into your bathroom and took a wizzz in the clothes hamper, but I thought you had said "let bye-gones be bye-gones"? Well, if that's the way you feel, Phil (sniff, sniff), you can just return that Norelco "Back shaver" I bought you for Christmas!!!!!

Ah, yes. The life of an artisan is to be forever misunderstood. Scholars like Phil just don't have the insight to grasp the inner dimensions of our being. So with that in mind, I penned this brief essay that I think all artisans can appreciate. ;-p

           MEMOIRS OF A SOCIETAL FAUX PAS

My pungent presence has been the spoiler at almost every social gathering. My
unexpected, clamorous eruptions have led to the mortification of all modes of
society. My miasmic, intoxicated existence has allowed me to stretch my long,
gaseous fingers into every level of the commonwealth, deftly bridging the gap
between poverty stricken peasants to the decadent elegance of the royal crown; yet, I am an orphan...

A soulless entity, I have literally become a household name, encompassing every culture with enduring phrases that clearly define my presence. Where would the populace be without delightful epithets such as: "Did you cut the cheese?", "Was that a barking spider?", or "Did you just float a hot air biscuit?" In my own special way, I have become a part of the cornerstone of our community; if only a mere fragment in the mortar. Yet, I have few friends....

So when you aim your alimentary canal to the aft side, and send me bubbling
and sputtering into an indubitably pungent existence, I ask of you just one
simple favor -- think of me fondly. When your surprised friends fall to their knees, gasping for breath as you excitedly exclaim to them, "Hey, did you get a whiff of that one?", do me a simple favor -- think of me with a knowing smile.
For I am part of you and the collective whole of humanity. I am the gestalt of
the entire spectrum of society, and I am truly...ubiquitous.

Dave ;-p

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:02:55 -0600
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Societal Faux Pas

from Dave's thoughtful essay:

>My pungent presence has been the spoiler at almost every social gathering.
>. . . .
>A souless entity, I have literally become a household name, encompassing every
>culture with enduring phrases . . .
> . . . I am part of you and the collective whole of humanity. . . .

This just begs for some theme music. Everyone hum along (If you're old enough to name this tune)

"Please allow me to introduce myself,
I'm a man of wealth and taste . . . .

"Pleased to meet you,
Hope you guess my name . . ."

Yes, that's the Rolling Stones, those old *farts* - "Sympathy for the Devil"

Mary (who like Dave just may be an Artisan with a CF of Bad Taste)

*******************************
7th level Old Artisan/Spiritualist/
Acceptance/Perseverance/
Stubbornness
*******************************

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:06:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Role questions & thank you's

Dave wrote:

> There's a thought. Can anyone imagine Dave(me) someday becoming a teacher
> like Michael? Can you visualize Ott's, Ted's, Ken's or Shepherd's face when
> they sit down to channel Michael one day, and instead Dave(me) comes through?

I just tried channeling Dave to see what would happen.

"And a voice came down from the great beyond..."
"DAVE'S NOT HERE!" Toilet Flushing...

Geez... what on earth did I hook into? The Boss and Cheech & Chong...?

-----

Peace and Light to You and Yours,
Kenneth Broom, The Happy Scholar, INFP
   7th level Old Scholar/Server, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist,
   Higher Emotional & Higher Intellectual, Impatience/Stubbornness,
aka I.A.M. Research, Columbia, Maryland, USA

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:17:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Role questions & thank you's

In a message dated 98-08-14 20:06:33 EDT, Ken writes:

And a voice came down from the great beyond..."
"DAVE'S NOT HERE!" Toilet Flushing...

Geez... what on earth did I hook into? The Boss and Cheech & Chong...?

Yipee..somebody wants to play. Leave it to my soul bro to make a funny. ;-) Though, if you ever compare me with the mindless, musical skills of the Boss again, I might get testy with you. ;-p

Dave ;-) - a musical snob

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:09:33 +0800
Subject: Re: Cardinal/Ordinal

At 12:29 AM 8/13/98 -0000, Kathy wrote:

>To paraphrase and rearrange; there are all sorts of "opposite pairs" possible
>and ALL may be considered cardinal/ordinal. I don't see any type of
>"evolution" or contest in these concepts -- contrast to a certain extent,
>perhaps. They are constructs of energies, as are all things. If you can see
>essence roles in cardinal/ordinal pairs, or overleaves in negative/positive
>poles, you can see energy identified. "Cardinal" sets the stage or goal with
>it's bright flares of energy, and motivates a response from the "Ordinal",
>whose lower burning fires maintain the drive to the goal.
>
>Throughout the awesome order of the Tao you can "see" patterns of
>categorization -- but they are patterns within patterns -- all things are
>interconnected. The trouble is that on this plane we cannot get the
>"distance" of perspective it takes to perceive the larger design of these
>patterns nor is it intended that we should. That's what makes creating new
>patterns with "choice" so interesting and growth inducing.

You remind me of the other Priest member of this mailing list I had a private communication with, a while ago. He insisted that 1=2, while I remained that while "All are One", it does not make 1=2. The above paragraph reminds me of this little exchange. It sounds very contrived to make 1=2 simply because "All are One". Similarly, it sounds very contrived to make every pair (opposite or not) into cardinal-ordinal. "Very contrived", in a less "civilized" word, is "fake".

>> Perhaps that's what Scholars do best -- filing info into a neat library.
>> But in this case, info is being filed inadequately. Some info just belong
>> to the "miscellaneous", and leave it right there.
>
>But Artisans create --- and to take bits of pieces of what is known and create
>a larger "known" is an entirely adequate and necessary process.

Yes, so go create something brand new, not to recategorise into some contrived patterns.

>"Miscellaneous" begs the issue of "randomness". I will concede that no matter
>how much we inspect the "extra" pieces we may very well never comprehend their
>purposes.

That is not the case in my opinion. Miscellaneous is not the same as randomness. Miscellaneous is simply not particularly fit into any slot of categorization. It may be because of randomness, and yet that is just a possibility among many others. In my opinion, it is the linear nature of our minds that wants this neat slots of categorizations. And this particular linear nature of our mind is very limiting, hence when we encounter something different, or experience something extraordinary, the mind will try to reason it out, and fit them nicely into the "known" category. And the worst thing to do is to try to re-make the experience, or anything, and call it one of the knowns. That is precisely what I think Phil is doing.

I did not feel it this strongly when he proposed the archetypal concept to overleaves, just that I thought the idea was already off-the-mark by a mile. (Archetypes have everything to do with social conditionings and little to do with non-social, non-physical energy.) But I didn't respond then, because it bears a close similarity by approximation. Enough, as a trick, to entice new students to Michael's teachings, which was the reason of that thread at that time.

In this case, will forcing monad pairs into cardinal-ordinal, feels simply too fake for me to acknowledge any value in it. It reminds me of this little game we played at a party, called "taboo". (The game contains a box of cards with words (object names) written on it, along with a small list of words. A person is supposed to pick up a card and try to make his team mates guess that object-name without using the words listed on the card -- those are the "taboo words".) When a guy picked a card with object-name as "dog", he simply said "what's the opposite of cat?" This is supposed to be a joke, in which our minds, conditioned by lots of things (including Warner Brothers cartoons) to think of cat and dog as opposite pairs. But is "cat" really an opposite of "dog"? Is "cat" a cardinal of the ordinal "dog"? Or "dog" a cardinal of ordinal "cat"?

This is precisely what I am referring to as being "fake".

>> Don't try to mold the info to fit the slot. >>
>
>Quite valid observation, imo. With the understanding that the "slot" is a
>preconceived idea of "rightness". Still; twist it, turn it, look at it from
>all directions, bounce it around, tear it apart. That's validation. Don't
>discard it as "miscellaneous".
>
>kath.

I never meant "miscellaneous" as something to discard. There are lots of things that simply don't fit into neat little slots our minds enjoy doing. That don't make all these things that should be discarded. In this case, "miscellaneous" is simply a "KIV" file, isolated pieces of the puzzles to be fit together when more pieces of the puzzles are found. Not by forcing the incompatible pieces of puzzles into a warped picture that is as funny as cats being opposites of dogs.

Regards.

J J Tan

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:25:26 +0800
Subject: Re: monads

At 03:54 AM 8/13/98 -0000, Philip Wittmeyer wrote:

>*definition* of these words, but it seems to me that Michael understands
>monads this way also. I quote:
>
>A MONAD IS A BASIC UNIVERSAL UNIT USED TO EXPRESS RELATIVE VALUES OF
>CONSCIOUSNESS [two opposite experiences are united into one complete
>experience]. A NEPHRON [kidney] IS A PHYSICAL MONAD OR AN ORGANIC
>MONAD [two objects united into one thing].

Ok, which is the cardinal kidney? The left one or the right one? What happens to those who donated one kidney, or had one cut off due to severe problems?

So our physical hearts have 4 chambers that can be divided into 2 in different ways. So which half is the cardinal heart, while the other half the ordinal heart?

We also have 2 arms, which is the cardinal arm? Sure, they are on opposite sides of our bodies.

Same goes for legs, lungs, eyes, ears, etc.

Or even blood cells, red and white.

J J Tan

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:27:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Societal Faux Pas

In a message dated 98-08-14 20:05:23 EDT, Mary writes:

Yes, that's the Rolling Stones, those old *farts* - "Sympathy for the Devil"

Mary (who like Dave just may be an Artisan with a CF of Bad Taste)

I like that. A chief feature of bad taste. However, I'm a firm believer that farting is good for the body, and good for the soul. Uh, and you can quote me on that.

Dave ;-)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:31:38 EDT
Subject: Re: Cardinal/Ordinal

In a message dated 8/14/98 9:08:06 PM, J J Tan writes:

In this case, will forcing monad pairs into cardinal-ordinal, feels simply
too fake for me to acknowledge any value in it.

One of the most appealing features IMHO of the Michael Teachings is the structure it gives to help us understand personality and personal evolution. HOWEVER, let us all remember that it is a symbolic representation meant to help us poor physical plane folks remember the bigger picture and facilitate our growth. It is not a black and white dogmatic set of rules. Trying to grasp the Tao with a set of postulates deriving from a kind of physical plane philosophical academic view seems to be a very slippery bar of soap. I usually skim past a lot of the scholarly debate about the finer points of pigeonholing minutiae that seem to interest a lot of you - no judgment here (well, ok, a little bit but I still think of you fondly), it just doesn't interest me. I agree with most of what JJ has posted in this thread, and when I read the above quoted line I did want to comment. It just doesn't make sense to me to say that a relationship between two people - monad or not - has to be on/off, yes/no, etc. My personal experience with monads has been that apart from the focus of the particular monad (in older soul monads), there is the context of the relationship with this person throughout many lives (as monads frequently do occur between 'old friends'), which tends to balance some of the intensity of the energy, as you can sense the other ways you have related in the past. In many types of human relationships, the way two people relate over time can, and does change. The 'balance of power' can shift, or sometimes there is no power to be balanced, there are just two people in relationship. So how can you possible reduce a relationship to yes/no? Makes NO sense to me. Am I way off the mark in thinking that those of you who resonate with this cardinal/ordinal model are intellectually centered?

Just my 2 cents,

Martha

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:48:36 -0400
Subject: A method of learning

Dear listers,

This old scholar has spent many many years in this and other incarnations searching for, and researching in, many systems that were/are intended to describe TAO/reality. I have learned that any system that purports to do so... can not do so. The TAO that can be named is not the TAO. Spirit can not be defined by descriptions.

But then these are just my own personal experiences and perceptions.

However, and this a very important however, a way of learning and experiencing TAO/reality is to "LIVE" and explore your personal hypotheses and understandings and perceptions of the TAO as though they were the "real" truth.

And to try to describe them with words as best you can...

And to try to perceive correlations where correlations may not even exist...

And to play with your ideas in your personal reality just to see what happens when you do...

Even to the point of sharing your perceptions, and watching how others react to your descriptions of your explorations.

And to take your research and your descriptions so seriously until you, yourself, come to the point where you realize that no words can do justice to your comprehensions of the TAO,

... or until you realize that some of your words may be inaccurate,

... or until you release some of your prejudices and conceptions,

... or until whatever and whenever.

Like the elephant... the finger is not the moon.

So... let's write another version of the TAO... and try living it just to see what happens.

and bless those who have the temerity and courage to actively try to confront and comprehend the TAO.

and maybe let the words and the explorations of others be... whatever.

and maybe let their un-perceived errors and fallacies exist... until entropy envelopes them.

These are all grist for the wheels of wisdom...

and these wheels always grind true... eventually.

-----

The Happy Scholar says:
"The bear doesn't care, and the TAO doesn't give a shit either. It just is... is all."

-----

TAO... now... blesses us all... everyone.
So...
Peace and Light to You and Yours,
I love you.

Kenneth Broom, The Happy Scholar, INFP
   7th level Old Scholar/Server, Observation, Acceptance, Idealist,
   Higher Emotional & Higher Intellectual, Impatience/Stubbornness,
aka I.A.M. Research, Columbia, Maryland, USA

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 21:00:58 +0330
Subject: Re: monads

>So our physical hearts have 4 chambers that can be divided into 2 in
>different ways. So which half is the cardinal heart, while the other half
>the ordinal heart?
>
>We also have 2 arms, which is the cardinal arm? Sure, they are on opposite
>sides of our bodies.

Methinks JJ has a most excellent point here. I think it is a stretch to see cardinal/ordinal pairs in monads, but of course that is just me.
(BTW Husband/Wife *is* a monad according to _Tao to Earth_)

Love,
Karena

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:18:33 +0800
Subject: Re: Returned mail: Service unavailable

>Your mail is being returned due to one or more non-delivery conditions listed below:
>
>(Refer to the " ----- Transcript of session follows ----- " section)
>1: SMTP 550 .... User Unknown
> Your recipient no longer exists on AOL.
>
>2: SMTP 552 .... Mailbox Full
> Your recipient's mailbox is full.
>
>3: SMTP 550 .... is not accepting mail from this sender
> Your recipient has blocked mail from you.
>
>4: SMTP 550 ... Delivery not authorized
> Your site has been blocked from sending mail to AOL.
>
> -AOL Postmaster
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>... while talking to air-ya01.mail.aol.com.:
>... Service unavailable
>------------------------------
Your Box is full, out of AMO. (Not IMO) No chocholate.

Laughter.... Dave and Lori, the dynamic duo of MT list
Ha ha ha.....
-------------------------------

      Hay Scolar/Artist, I enjoy the idea of being ubiquitous. Why not try this good idea ? You have lots of friends and playmates. Unlike in your place, lots of old witches, and etc. You look scotist, with skirts when you joke with them. Join the banwagon, be with boys and enjoy life.

   Laughter...bye, happy posting... eeee(Sesame kid)rrrnnnniiieee

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:26:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Returned mail: Service unavailable

In a message dated 98-08-15 00:21:02 EDT, Ernie writes:

Your Box is full, out of AMO. (Not IMO) No chocholate.
Laughter.... Dave and Lori, the dynamic duo of MT list
Ha ha ha.....
-------------------------------

Kewl....I love it. ;-p
Now can I look underneith her cape?

Dave ;-)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 03:33:02 EDT
Subject: ==>The SETH ""CULT""<==

This was mildly amusing..;-p

Dave

        WELCOME TO THE SETH "CULT"
      ============================

It is so funny ..... Cults are STARTED by persons who are "alive and breathing" in
the flesh ... at least AT THE PRECISE TIME they started their CULTS.

Examples are Jim Jones's cult, the Moonies cult, Ron H's "scientologists", the
hareh khrisna's cult, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed - to mention a few.

They were all started by fellows who WERE ALIVE when they discovered they had the
persuasion abilities to "manipulate" the little brains of the "feeble", "little" people WHO ARE
DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES.

Now, the SETH CULT, "your" CULT , was started by a DEAD fellow, a fellow who
has been dead (IFFFF he ever existed in the first place) for a few hundred
years. Hei .... THIS HAS TO BE A FIRST !!!

Congratulations ... you were RECRUITED BY THE DEAD!!!

But again ... your cult is just one of many:

the christian cult      the catholic cult      the muslim cult
the buddhist cult      the moonies cult      the seth cult
you name it !!!

As I said before:
'THERE IS AN IDIOT FOR EVERY RELIGION AND A RELIGION FOR EVERY IDIOT"

Someone suggested that I should join this group because I would find a few SMART people. My response was:

"A SETH GROUP IS THE LAST PLACE I WOULD GO TO FIND SMART PEOPLE"


Now, get a grip of yourselves and look at FACTS - not wishful thinking:

1. Most of you simply accepted on BLIND FAITH that, indeed, Jane Roberts was
visited by a disembodied entity and given all these wonderful instructions
and messages.
How do you know that to be true? Were you there at the time? How do you
positively know that it was not a great plot to write some books and sell
them in great quantity?

2. Considering that most of what the so called guru seth said was already said
BEFORE by many others and many other so called "metaphysical' organizations,
one has to be "blind, deaf and stupid" to believe that his message is so
unique. Whatever the "supposed" seth told (?) Jane Roberts was READILY
available throughtout many books and many organizations that were already
in existence WAY BEFORE poor Jane was even born. And there are MANY
other truths and facts that poor seth is not even aware of.

3. Spirits in the spirit world are at different levels of evolution. The reason
they come to this planet and take a PHYSICAL body is because they want to
learn NEW lessons to EVOLVE. If spirits knew EVERYTHING, there would be
NO NEED to come to this planet and reincarnate many times (unless someone
or something is playing GAMES!!!).

Therefore, one has to be "blind, deaf and REALLY stupid" to believe that
seth is the most advanced soul in the Universes ... and therefore, his
doctrine is the ONE and ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

4. As I said to someone before: "You are putting this seth character on a
pedestal ... and YOU COULD just be MORE EVOLVED AS A SPIRIT THAN THIS
SETH IS". Maybe YOU really know a lot MORE than he does. And it is only
YOUR OWN LIMITING BELIEF that you don't know as much as he does, and even
more, that IS KEEPING YOU FROM MANIFESTING THAT GREATER WISDOM. If there
is anyone to put on that pedestal, PUT YOURSELF ON IT. AND BEGIN TO BELIEVE
THAT YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER , THAT YOU HAVE INSIDE YOU ALL THE
WISDOM YOU NEED. If that stuff about "You create your own reality through
your belief system" really, really works, your NEW belief should turn
into reality, right??? Or .... do you really believe "you create your
own reality"???


*** Time to lighten up ... The whole thing is becoming too serious.
Time to laugh ...
THE ONLY TIME I PUT SOMEONE ON A PEDESTAL IS WHEN I WANT TO
LOOK UNDER HER SKIRT !!!


5. Another point .... Has anyone of you EVER (except Jane Roberts, OF COURSE)
heard Seth, seen Seth, felt Seth, had a man to man conversation with the
fellow? If you haven't (and I suspect 100.00% of you NEVER had such an
experience) ... then, HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT THE FELLOW IS FOR REAL???
(Except BLIND, stupid faith, of course ... and those who are HIGH on drugs.
But those who are on drugs "see" everybody anyway).

Seriously, did you EVER see or hear this fellow? Did he ever show up to you?
Did he materialize in front of you? And for the females ... did you ever
feel him fondling your breasts, or saying sweet nothings in your ears?

No, no .... a DREAM doesn't count. I was dreaming the other night that I
had a 17 inch penis. But that didn't make it so. When I woke up I still had
only TWO inches. I guess I have to learn how to live with my own reality. I
heard about self-hypnosis being used to increase the size of the breasts
for females. Does seth have any method for penis enlargement????

6. The previous item (#5) brings me to a really CRUCIAL point. Except for the
two lousy methods on pages 348-9 and 359, the entire seth material HAS
NO METHODS WHATSOEVER TO ELIMINATE LIMITING BELIEFS, AND THEN,
PROGRAM/INSTALL NEW BELIEFS. IT IS PATHETIC. That is one of the reasons
your lives DON"T work.
YOU HAVE NO METHODS, NO STEP-BY- STEP PROCEDURE ON HOW TO (1) IDENTIFY,
(2) ELIMINATE LIMITING BELIEFS, AND (3) INSTALL/ PROGRAM THE NEW BELIEFS
UNTIL THEY MANIFEST AS YOUR PHYSICAL REALITY.

7. The ONLY PROOF that a set of teaching is good is when "YOU USE IT AND
IT WORKS".

Instead of wasting your time with framework II and framework I, and all
the nonsense you keep talking about, LOOK AT YOUR OWN LIVES AND ASK
YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

BY USING THE SETH MATERIAL,

(1) Am I as healthy as I want to be?
(2) Does my life work?
(3) Am I happy the way my life works for me?
---> (4) Am I able to CONSISTENTLY produce the RESULTS I want?
(4) Am I happy in my personal and intimate relationships?
(5) Do I have all the money I need and want?
(6) Do I consistently change limiting beliefs and manifest the reality I want?
(7) Do I know how to solve problems (health, financial, love/sex, business, etc) using the seth material?
And
(8) If I cannot make my life work with the seth material, why
am I wasting my life and my time with it?
----> (9) How/why is it that other people who don't know about the
seth material are so successful, and I am such a dismal
failure? What do these people know that seth doesn't know?

AFRAID TO DO IT?

I knew it !!!

I am willing to BET MY LIFE that 99.99999999% of you will NEVER DARE LOOK
AT YOUR LIVES AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS "NOT" WORKING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE
OR FORM.

Instead, you'd rather think of yourself as very 'spiritual', living in
framework II, and following someone (seth) who has all the wisdom of the
universe. (Hei, do you want to buy a beautiful beach house in the middle
of the Sahara desert???
Yes, I knew you would !!!).

Well, I have a surprise for you ..... when you die, you will have plenty
of time being "DEAD".

Right now, it is time to realize that you are a spirity who CHOSE
(supposedly !!!) to come and live in that body and this planet (framework I).
Therefore, STOP PLAYING "DEAD" and start using your knowledge to make your
reality in framework ONE WORK FOR YOU.

If you fail to do this, you will be forced to reincarnate again JUST to
learn the lessons you are so vehemently AVOIDING in the present moment.

8. The seth material did NOT do any good to Jane Roberts and her miserable death.
And look at the latest photographs of her husband ... he looks so pathetic
and miserable. HE IS A EXTREMELY UNHAPPY AND FRUSTRATED INDIVIDUAL. I guess
the seth material did not work for either of them !!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is only ONE, TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE REALITY. Here it is:

"ALL OF YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT ... I MEAN SETH".

If the seth material is SO GREAT, how is it that Jane's, Robert Butts's and your
life are so miserable, unhappy and full of frustrations???

==========================================================

And, by the way, who is that BULLY_BOB anyway and that stuff he writes about?
What is the matter with him? Who does he think he is?

==========================================================

So, to all of you my dear Seth WORSHIPPERS ...

How about becoming your own guru? Learn from others, adopt what works, no matter
who is teaching it. And then use it to make your life on that pedestal EVEN BETTER.

BE YOUR OWN GURU while still keeping your capability of learning from others without
giving away your OWN SENIORITY AND YOUR OWN POWER to ANY disembodied entity
who promises you the wisdom of the universe !!!

On your knees, and worship ME from this moment on.

NUMBER ONE.


As I said many time before:

"MEDIOCRITY IS SELF-INFLICTED.
GENIUS IS SELF-BESTOWED.
IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF BELIEFS (self-image)".

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:24:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Archetypes

JJ wrote:

(Archetypes have everything to do with social conditionings and
little to do with non-social, non-physical energy.)

As a student of the Tarot and Jung as well as Michael, I believe that archetypes express something much deeper than the current social situation. I think our very role names are a kind of archetype, and the roles are really just different energy vibrations.

Recently I saw a new Tarot deck advertised that had about 30 new cards to accommodate the "new archetypes" that are coming into being as the human race evolves and our collective unconscious becomes more complex. I have a feeling that this ties in somehow with the new chakras that people are seeing/becoming aware of (some now see 8 and a few are seeing 9, and the thinking is that they have to do with our interconnection with others). And that's all energy - although certainly social.

I'd love to know what these new archetypes might be. The Channel should be one, don'tcha think. (You're already there Dave, card 0 - the Fool.)

BTW JJ, in answer to your post a while ago about not being responded to: my sense is that people tend to respond much more when they don't agree or want to take the argument farther. Just assume that if no one replies, everyone thinks you are amazingly wise and have said all that needs to be said.

Love,
Jody

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:37:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Multiple personalities

interesting thought, Karena. My artisan ex has bipolar syndrome (manic-depression). In his manic phases he could access all five inputs at the same time easily, and became hyperactive, amazingly creative, and verbally diarrheaic. In his depressed phases he couldn't do anything, bear any kind of intrusion, even speak. I wonder if the lows were caused by, or caused, a problem with accessing the inputs? Or perhaps shutting them off deliberately to get some rest???

I know that schizophrenia is described as an inability to filter input normally, so that everything comes at the person all at once and without proportion. Now you've got me wondering if a lot of what we term mental or emotional disturbance is a problem with accessing inputs appropriately - which would mean that artisans, with so many, would be much more vulnerable in that regard.

Wish Barry was around to take this and run with it!

And on the subject of inputs, I just have to wonder if the reason why artisans like to have sex with warriors and scholars is because when we do something, ALL our attention is on it - meaning, of course, that we are the BEST lovers -

Jody
Scholar bitch & loving it

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 00:59:09 +0800
Subject: Re: Archetypes

At 03:16 PM 8/15/98 -0000, Jody wrote:

>JJ wrote: (Archetypes have everything to do with social conditionings and
>little to do with non-social, non-physical energy.)
>
>As a student of the Tarot and Jung as well as Michael, I believe that
>archetypes express something much deeper than the current social situation.
>I think our very role names are a kind of archetype, and the roles are
>really just different energy vibrations.

I have had time to re-think my words after I sent that post. Right now, I have to admit that my knowledge of archetype is rather elementary, since I learnt about it from "second-hand" sources -- authors who learnt about Jung and Tarot. In my opinion, "thought-forms" like demons, devils, angels, saints, etc. are archetypes. Sometimes the archetypes only exist in our present life-time psyche, sometimes they cross the boundary of life-time, as in archetypes of past-lives. But it is still my opinion that archetypes are a product of mass consensus, of mass conditioning, especially the social type. e.g. The archetype of demon is always something dark, or red. A more comical representative would be some pointed-tailed, red, horned, being, wielding a 3-pronged pitch fork. A more sinister representative would be some beast-like being with messy furs complete with fangs and claws.

Also, my understanding of archetype also includes "thought-form energy" that a society, as a whole, pour their energy into it.

Yes, I agree that the Role names sounded like archetypes, but I would say that that's where the similarity ends. Archetypes are constructs of human psyche (mass or individuals), which would not consist of "2-channel Server/Priest", "3-channel Sages", or "5-channel Artisans"...

>Recently I saw a new Tarot deck advertised that had about 30 new cards to
>accommodate the "new archetypes" that are coming into being as the human
>race evolves and our collective unconscious becomes more complex. I have a
>feeling that this ties in somehow with the new chakras that people are
>seeing/becoming aware of (some now see 8 and a few are seeing 9, and the
>thinking is that they have to do with our interconnection with others). And
>that's all energy - although certainly social.

I always go into Skeptic Mode when I see innovations like this. :-) As if several centuries of Tarot usage isn't enough to establish a wide-base of interpretation. But creativity has it's value. I don't think these 30 new cards are going to be static for the time being. It will probably stabilized in another hundred years or so, and perhaps settle at 20 new cards instead.

>I'd love to know what these new archetypes might be. The Channel should be
>one, don'tcha think. (You're already there Dave, card 0 - the Fool.)

And I would like to be the Hanged Man. :-) (it really just popped into my mind)

>BTW JJ, in answer to your post a while ago about not being responded to: my
>sense is that people tend to respond much more when they don't agree or want
>to take the argument farther. Just assume that if no one replies, everyone
>thinks you are amazingly wise and have said all that needs to be said.

Thanks for the compliments. I don't think I am that wise at all.... or was this supposed to be a joke? :-)

No I wasn't worried that nobody responded to my posts. I don't respond to many posts here, too. I am also not worried, or angry, that anyone uses my idea for further discussions. What I experienced was exactly what I wrote -- amazed. :-) Because nobody seemed to remember what I wrote, and treated it as a brand new idea. When I saw that, a voice went through my head that says "hello, anyone awake here?" :-) And then my self-doubts kicked in, and hence the feeling of being ignored, etc.

Perhaps that's a "button" on me that was being pushed. Perhaps that's just a "natural respond" from a Sage when not acknowledged. I think I need to work on this a little more.

Regards.

J J Tan

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:25:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Cardinal/Ordinal physically.

In a message dated 98-08-15 00:04:37 EDT, you write:

>So our physical hearts have 4 chambers that can be divided into 2 in
>different ways. So which half is the cardinal heart, while the other half
>the ordinal heart?
>
>We also have 2 arms, which is the cardinal arm? Sure, they are on opposite
>sides of our bodies.

But one side of the heart is larger than the other, and the functions vary. One side of the body dominates the other. One has right or left "handedness" in most physical aspects. Lose a kidney and the functions of the lost half will be mirrored in the enlarged version of the one that is left.

Certainly all of this is based on the "dominance" factors predicated by the human brain, which is very much left/right function specific -- or cardinal/ordinal.

kath.

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:31:03 EDT
Subject: Re: Archetypes

In a message dated 98-08-15 11:17:48 EDT, Jody writes:

I'd love to know what these new archetypes might be. The Channel should be
one, don'tcha think. (You're already there Dave, card 0 - the Fool.)

Fools of today are often called wise tomorrow, for when all are blind but one, only one believes in sight. If that one should dare to tell others what he sees, what else but a fool can they call him. Then when those who were blind begin to see, those who saw before, and were then called fools, are now called wise.
...or something like that. ;-p

Actually, I should have used that quote during the animal rights/environmental debate, eh?

Dave - making rude gestures at the blind people. ;-p

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 17:11:56 EDT
Subject: Dueling Sages

JJ wrote:

Similarly, it sounds very contrived to make every pair (opposite or not)
into cardinal-ordinal. "Very contrived", in a less "civilized" word, is "fake".

Cool, JJ - but what do you REALLY think?? LOL!

Well, has anyone noticed that JJ and I are doing our version of "dueling sages"? An old sage in reserve vs. an old sage in growth. Ok, well, maybe I'm the only one seeing it. That would be my personal reality -- which leads to a conversation better off on the Seth list.

It is entirely useless for me to pursue this particular thread of cardinal/ordinal (in my opinion) and so I will leave it where it lies. It is very much an intellectual part of intellectual center type of discussion, as Martha pointed out. I have no problem doing "theory" or "oration" but as this is not a conversation but simply two uncompromising points of view it serves of less value than usual. Unless you can use it as demonstration of the abradement between Growth and Reserve. I can see that I rub JJ the wrong way, and certainly it feels the same way on my side on occasion.

JJ's comment about his discussion with a priest fragment who maintained 1=2 was interesting. I recently was told in a channeled session that yes=no if you have a distant enough perspective. :D But anyway, thinking of channels I thought I would post one of mine from a couple of weeks ago.

I had asked about the accuracy of some conflicting channeled information I'd gotten about my pillars. Now, pillars haven't been something I've really focused on but I've been asked to write about them and was doing some personal validation on what I'd gotten. What I received as an answer demonstrates the point that getting trapped in intellectual center can be a difficult thing. It also supports JJ's point concerning "hierarchies" of information

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 August 1998 From the M's:

Regarding the 'quandary' you feel about your pillars:

There are always several answers that can be applied to our discussion and
dissemination of the four pillars of any particular 'student'. What we
highlight is what we see as either most active, or most NEEDED to be active in
order to facilitate that student's awareness at any particular time. We do
not suggest or require you follow ANY pillar that is given - they are given as
guideposts only, should you desire to 1. Perceive them and then 2. Follow
them. In terms of your question (which we perceive as truly being 'are my
pillars accurate or not?', we say 'Of course they are'. It is a pernicious
self deception to think or feel that any information, accurately and honestly
given, through these mediums we call 'channels' is not in service to the basic
cause you seek. Why relegate the sources of the information or the
information itself to hierarchies when all can be applied of equal benefit?

There are many layers of information available to any student, or flea, or
piece of dirt that finds a way to ask. You place yourself as subordinate to
the information when in reality you ARE the information. Be aware of this
placing, and you will gain power and advantage over yourself - which is
actually a very amusing anecdote in our view - as there is really nothing to
fight at all. There is only listening and understanding, and then choice.
WHICH of the pillars to use, or which VERSION of the pillars to use is up to
you. Remember that very very very few people have access in this way to this
level of information. Generally, people just do what 'feels right' (if they
have that level of capability, another discussion altogether) and most of the
time that feeling of rightness will happily lead them down the path of true
work or life task or whatever grandiose title you wish to proffer on it. It
all just comes down to experience, and that is a simple thing entirely.

In terms of our recommending anything, we would say, forget about it. You're
over thinking a simple concept, put in place to 'grease the skids' of life a
little, not to overwhelm you with concepts or ideologies of yet another 'must
do' in order to 'succeed' at life. Live a little. Leap occasionally. Find
your heart and wear it proudly for all to see. That is your gift to life -
the doing and the showing. We remind you that your closeted reclusiveness is
wearing and a burden to the deepest part of yourself. Open the door and light
will flood in. You will then cease to be so concerned with the form of
things, and will simply be amazed and delighted by function.

This we say to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all this was information that was not unknown to me. It did catch me off-guard to a certain extent, but then it also works on several different levels. Feel free to comment on any of this -- or not. As Jody says "Just assume that if no one replies, everyone thinks you are amazingly wise and have said all that needs to be said." {{{{Jody}}} I welcome all perspectives.

Love, Kath.
5th level old sage who is even happy when doing -confusion.

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:57:22 +0800
Subject: Re: Cardinal/Ordinal physically.

At 05:26 PM 8/15/98 -0000, Kath wrote:

> >So our physical hearts have 4 chambers that can be divided into 2 in
> >different ways. So which half is the cardinal heart, while the other half
> >the ordinal heart?
> >
> >We also have 2 arms, which is the cardinal arm? Sure, they are on opposite
> >sides of our bodies.
>
>But one side of the heart is larger than the other, and the functions vary.
>One side of the body dominates the other. One has right or left "handedness"
>in most physical aspects. Lose a kidney and the functions of the lost half
>will be mirrored in the enlarged version of the one that is left.
>
>Certainly all of this is based on the "dominance" factors predicated by the
>human brain, which is very much left/right function specific -- or
>cardinal/ordinal.
>
>kath.

:-) Note that I did not ask "which is dominant over the other". Sure, in lots of pairs, opposites or not, there is one part dominant while the other part less so. But does "dominance" equate "cardinal" or "exalted"? Not necessarily so. But that is precisely what Phil said, "every pair is a cardinal/ordinal pair". He did not say "dominant/not-dominant" pair. Even in traditional (Baby Soul) religious systems, "good/evil" does not mean "cardinal/ordinal". Either of the "good" or "evil" can be the dominant. Does that mean either of them can be the "cardinal"?

For monad pairs, there are also some that involves "good/evil", such as "cop/crook". They may be on pair, but neither of them is more exalted than the other. Neither of them is more cardinal (using the mathematical definition provided by Phil) than the other. For monad pairs like parent/child, mentor/student, they show an imprintment agreement. The "imprintor" isn't necessary more exalted or cardinal, though outwardly more dominant.

By calling all these pairs as cardinal/ordinal pairs is, IMO, "forcing them into slots that they don't fit in". Or to create a mental barrier that forbids pairs that don't fit into cardinal/ordinal definitions. It may be "creative", but it is not "expansive." Perhaps I'm just trying to say that it doesn't widen our perspectives, but narrow it down in order that the "unknowns" are fitted into some known slots, rather than creating new slots where the unknowns will slowly fill up. It is no longer an exploration of the unknown.

PS: with regard to "dominant" or handedness, well, I'm right-handed. But I play the violin, and left hand fingers are quite agile due to lots of practices. Thus I ended up doing a lot of stuffs with my left hands (handling keys, carrying things, etc. and even right, after a fashion). I'm still not amphidexterious, but I don't think my right hand is more dominant than my left. Also, with the help of Hemi-Sync technology developed by the Monroe Institute, both of my brain hemispheres can work in a more synchronous manner, so I have the option of not having a "dominant hemisphere". Which is, perhaps, why I find intellectualizing monad pairs into "cardinal/ordinal" something too left-brained and out-of-balanced.

J J Tan

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:06:30 EDT
Subject: Re: Multiple personalities

In a message dated 98-08-15 11:30:06 EDT, Jody writes:

I know that schizophrenia is described as an inability to filter input
normally, so that everything comes at the person all at once and without
proportion. Now you've got me wondering if a lot of what we term mental or
emotional disturbance is a problem with accessing inputs appropriately - which
would mean that artisans, with so many, would be much more vulnerable in that regard.

Below is an excerpt from the 1997 (vol 1) compilation of group work by Sarah Chambers and others on the above subject which I felt was worth sharing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Could Michael please comment about how multiple personality
disorder works? Is it true that several essences "trade" within the
personality?

Answer: In the first place, multiple personality disorder only occurs in
fragments who have the combination of submission as a goal and self-
destruction as the primary chief feature or in fragments who have retardation
as a goal coupled with the power mode. What "trades" off in the disordered
minds of these fragments are not essences, but rather sets of remembered
overleaves. Most of these troubled personalities spend a great deal of their
lives in dream-time, and are not completely oriented at any time. There are
actual monads that are generally completed during the fourth (Mid) level of
the mature cycle that involve mental aberration and physical handicap and
require both the experience and the observation of these conditions in order
to establish right relationship with the mind/body complex, and learn its
limitations as well as its limitlessness. While these need not be severe and
totally disabling, some fragments do choose to experience the more serious
disorders, while others simply choose overleaves that lead inadvertently to
these disorders.

We do have to say at this juncture, that to our knowledge, and in our
experience, there is no such occurrence as a "possession" or a "walk-in"
except during manifestations of either the transcendental or the infinite
soul. Therefore, when a given fragment exhibits the personality of what seems
to be an altogether different personality, you can be sure that what is being
exhibited her is a set of overleaves that were chosen by that fragment at
sometime in the past. For instance, in fragments with self-destruction and
submission, you will often see an alternate personality who exhibits the
overleaves of the life of the party - both raucous and self-confident, rude
and obnoxious. A shy, unassuming wall-flower suddenly becomes the type of
person no one wants at their table; a truly good and gentle person becomes a
brutal killer and then remembers nothing of the deed. And this is an
important point. These fragments rarely remember any details of their
alternate lives. The personalities do not know each other, so to speak. Re-
integration can sometimes occur when a skilled therapist introduces the
fragments to one another, but this is risky because it does not take into
consideration the root cause of the disorder.

Each soul level has its own "preferred" mental disorder to experience. The
infant soul level has autism; the baby soul level has obsessive/compulsive
behavioral problems; the young soul cycle has manic-depressive disorders, the
mature soul cycle has personality disintegration disorders (literally, you are
the sum total of all of your past lives, but in this disorder, the different
overleaves split apart again and act on their own); and the old soul cycle has
melancholia and a tendency toward substance abuse.

Used with permission, Volume 1, 1997 -- Copyright 1997, Sarah J. Chambers for
Soul Weavers & The Gateway Associates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The group work in these volumes is extensive, diverse and very interesting information. Both 1996 and 1997 are still available as far as I know. My thanks to Sarah for allowing me to share it with you.

kath.

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:19:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Archetypes

The Fool is also the blessed one, the one without fear, the one in a state of grace. It's always a good reading when one gets the Fool in a tarot spread.

Jody

> > I'd love to know what these new archetypes might be. The Channel should be
> > one, don'tcha think. (You're already there Dave, card 0 - the Fool.)
>
>Fools of today are often called wise tomorrow, for when all are blind but one,
>only one believes in sight. If that one should dare to tell others what he
>sees, what else but a fool can they call him. Then when those who were blind
>begin to see, those who saw before, and were then called fools, are now called
>wise.
>...or something like that. ;-p
>
>Actually, I should have used that quote during the animal rights/environmental
>debate, eh?
>
>Dave - making rude gestures at the blind people. ;-p

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 98 12:20:41 +0330
Subject: Re: Multiple personalities

>soul. Therefore, when a given fragment exhibits the personality of what
>seems to be an altogether different personality, you can be sure that what is being
>exhibited her is a set of overleaves that were chosen by that fragment at
>sometime in the past. For instance, in fragments with self-destruction and
>submission, you will often see an alternate personality who exhibits the
>overleaves of the life of the party - both raucous and self-confident, rude
>and obnoxious. A shy, unassuming wall-flower suddenly becomes the type of
>person no one wants at their table; a truly good and gentle person becomes a
>brutal killer and then remembers nothing of the deed. And this is an
>important point. These fragments rarely remember any details of their
>alternate lives. The personalities do not know each other, so to speak.

Hmmm.. . In my experience, they certainly *DO* know each other, in fact they quite literally run an entire "household" together inside of them, for instance they "eat dinner" together, and if they choose to communicate, they know about each other's experiences, many of which happen entirely within their inner world. They even mock and imitate each other to outsiders who know them!! It is true that often the rest of them don't know what one of them did, but usually SOMEONE in there knows. Also, the dichotomous personality example is too simple; when there are 70-some people in there, some whose sole purpose it is to be angry, or to be business like, or to be a sweet storyteller, or to be a wild party girl. . . they are not simply a bunch of sets of opposites. It is a whole person fragmented into individual personas, some more substantial, some quite insubstantial, some representing different people entirely, like the abuser (s).

Take care
Karena