LILLY:
Communication is sort of a ritual where accuracy or facts are not essential.
Making it up as they go along drives me crazy, but their [sages] response is
"whatever", or "everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's mine" - on
a point that is not subject to opinion. They're very creative with the
truth. I have heard my mother tell the same story (gossip), and have the
details changed with each telling, usually getting more dramatic each time.
It's crazy-making for me; I get a feeling of unreality and I just want to
get away from it....But what's a solid role (King here) supposed to do
when this "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude just drives her nuts!?!
SHEPHERD:
It drives me nuts, too. It's impossible to communicate with people in that
mindset. What you describe is not true communication. Communication is an
engaged exchange in which both people can be affected.
I was just thinking of this not in relationship to sages but to the
ignorance of people in general who don't want to be bothered to think or
change their views in light of new information, who don't value truth above
prejudice. Unfortunately, that seems to be the majority.
Relative to politics, the administration and media could not get away with
their lies and brainwashing if more people thought for themselves and
challenged inconsistencies. The media is supposed to question authority and
check facts, but is doing that less and less. Regardless, we collectively
have the ultimate responsibility for what is happening by reason of
accepting it.
The key point is not that your mother and husband are sages and you are a
king, but that you are apparently more conscious than they are; it sounds
like they are somewhat mentally asleep, on automatic pilot, and don't want
to wake up. Sages, awake or asleep, need to express, but only in the
positive pole is that expression grounded in what is real and substantial.
Similarly, only in the positive pole is the leadership of kings fair and
appropriate. We are more likely to be in our positive poles if we're awake.
In the negative poles, all the roles bully, but in different ways.
This sort of thing you describe is probably at the heart of the common
right-wing antipathy toward Bill Clinton, and the solid roles' problem with
sages in general: a perceived lack of straightforwardness and integrity. How
ironic that many who voted for Bush felt that he was more honest and
straightforward than Gore. It's a matter of style over substance, of p.r.
spin over actuality. Clinton clearly has some major issues that cause him to
try to please everyone and say what is expedient for himself rather than
being truthful and consistent, but he isn't so different from most
politicians in this regard other than perhaps in degree. The fact that he is
such an intelligent and articulate sage works against his image here,
because he has more verbal dexterity to smooth over the gaps in what he's
saying, fostering mistrust. Bush, being verbally clumsy and not very
intelligent, along with being a friendly, "average Joe" sort, is
automatically assumed to be more honest, when, in fact, his lies have done
far more harm than Clinton's did relative to Monica Lewinsky.
Diogenes went looking for an honest man; as far as I know, he's still
looking. The majority of people aren't that honest, especially with
themselves. That's why so many people continue to hold prejudices well after
they've been shown that their views don't hold water. Just one example is
the ridiculous fear promoted by some right-wingers that gays are trying to
convert innocent straight people, as if that were even possible. Knowledge
of basic psychology refutes that. Bigots get off on their hate mongering and
don't care about what's true.
The cause of communication is best served by scrupulous factual accuracy;
stretching facts for dramatic effect is part of negative pole oration and
erodes trust. If one isn't certain of the facts, it's best to say so or to
use modifiers such as "approximately." Cervantes wrote, in "Don Quixote,"
"Facts are the enemy of truth." Facts can be twisted or edited to support a
false point; however, facts presented fairly support truth. It's also the
case that, with three and five inputs, respectively, sages and artisans are
more complex than the other roles. We can weary of the solid roles,
especially, in their negative poles oversimplifying, disregarding subtleties
and mitigating factors. (Positive poles get along fine.)
You raise the question of whether the expression roles are inherently less
honest than the other roles. I don't think so. The action roles tend to be
more blunt and direct, less embellished, but that's not the same as being
more honest. On the other hand, sages are the role most concerned with
insight, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily on track; this drive can
also lead to rationalization. For all of us, our love of truth and
willingness to see it, no matter what, is what develops our ability to know
it.
I agree that the worst thing for a sage is to be unheard. Growing up
invisible is hard for anyone, but devastating for a sage.
Incidentally, sages with scholar casting and/or essence twin bleedthrough
(or the reverse, sage-cast and/or -e.t. scholars) can be especially
long-winded and detailed. Scholar energy tends to bring a desire not to
leave out any information; sage energy is more about core insights. A
scholar friend with a discarnate sage essence twin says she's a member of a
12-step program, "On-and-On Anonymous."
Also, there are some quiet sages and sages who are excellent listeners. Not
having an intellectual center can make one express more emotionally or
through the body, for instance. Those higher in female energy tend to be
better listeners. Some lifetimes are more introverted, even for sages. And
any of the roles can be verbose; I've known some priests and artisans, for
instance, who can be very talkative. In general, warriors and kings are the
least talkative, but even there I know some notable exceptions. Me, I'm the
strong, silent type. :)
Shepherd Hoodwin
