Negativity About Roles

Negativity About Roles



Thu May 19, 2005



IMO, the value of the Michael teachings is in learning that there are
great
reasons for the differences among us so that we stop judging them
and
 instead celebrate the diversity. We need all the roles and
overleaves, and 
in their positive poles, they're all beautiful. It can
be good work to 
recognize how we react differently to different roles
and overleaves, both 
in terms of their innate chemistry and how
certain traits push buttons for 
us. However, making negative
generalizations about any role, soul age or
 overleaf defeats the
purpose of the teachings in our lives.





Best,
 Shepherd





Sun Nov 9, 2003



I've been seeing on the list lately a lot of over-generalizations about

roles, either idealizing a certain role or making it the bogeyman.
Either
way, the writer is projecting his own shadows; people aren't
that 
cut-and-dried. Traits can come from a variety of places besides
role, 
including overleaves, imprinting, and astrology. When someone
writes about
 how troublesome a particular role is for him, I suspect
that many of the 
people he's encountering aren't actually that
role--he's just jumping to
 conclusions based on his own issues.





A women once came to me for a session complaining bitterly about
the
warriors in her life. Boy! was she surprised when Michael told her
that she 
*is* a warrior. She is also in martyrdom, which is the
warrior chief
 feature, but sabotages the strength normally associated
with warriors. She'd 
also had a tough life and was feeling rather
beaten up at that time.





I've seen many roles made into bogeymen. Warriors and priests, the
two most 
intense roles, are favorites, but recently, artisans and
sages have been
popular. So far, nobody has complained about "those
darn servers!" but it's
 just a matter of time. :)





I have had an issue with heavy-handed authority figures. My father is
a
king/warrior e.t. with high male energy who is often heavy-handed.
Likewise,
with my older brother, who is also a high-male-energy (baby)
king with
al most all king overleaves: dominance, aggression, realist,
moving center,
 impatience, martial body. I also had painful
experiences as a child with 
people like a gym teacher who was probably
a warrior (maybe an ex-Marine, 
too). So I've tended to equate
heavy-handedness with kings and warriors, who
 certainly *can* be that
way. However, I can now think of many kings and
 warriors who have
tempered their strength with gentleness, who are not 
heavy-handed. I
can also think of other roles who *are* heavy-handed, 
because of their
chief feature (arrogance or impatience, especially), if for 
no other
reason. So it's more accurate for me to say that my issue has been
with
heavy-handedness rather than with kings and warriors.





Just as heavy-handed doesn't necessarily equal warrior, talkative
doesn't
necessarily equal sage, nor bossy = king, flaky = artisan,
guilt-inducing = priest, etc. On the flip side, reliable doesn't
necessarily equal warrior,
 nor does delightful = sage, admirable =
king, adorable = artisan,
 inspirational = priest, etc. Each role has
tendencies, but to use the 
teachings effectively, we need to consider
individuals carefully and see
 them for who they are, observing what
forces are actually operating in their
 lives, rather than pouncing on
circumstantial evidence in order to try to 
reinforce a prejudice about
how terrible or wonderful a particular role is. 
All the roles are
terrible and wonderful.





All the best, 
Shepherd
Sign In or Register to comment.