Fri Jun 13, 2003
RE: STEPHEN KING
For me, the jury is still out on Stephen King's soul age. There are his most
famous scary writings (old warrior Chelsea Quinn Yarbro also writes horror)
but there's also his beautifully wise pieces like The Green Mile (which I
know only from the movie). AND--there's no reason a baby soul couldn't write
something beautifully wise.
A key point is that sages at any soul age seek insight and wisdom, just as
priests at any age seek inspiration and higher alignment, and all scholars
seek knowledge. In my experience, soul age is a much more subtle thing than
a measure of overt spiritual knowledge and wisdom; it's best seen as what
our lessons are about. I don't find it easy to read offhand, compared to,
say, role. About two-thirds of the population aren't manifesting their true
soul age, which is another wrinkle. I go by feel: there's an airy lightness
to many old, especially late old, souls. Mature souls feel like they're
processing internally at deep levels. Young souls have a superficial
coolness about them. Baby souls feel like they live within a structure,
maybe "by the book" or rigidly. Infant souls seem simple and perhaps
clueless.
There are many factors that could lead to someone living reclusively. Role
(scholar, artisan), being an old soul, chief feature of arrogance (shyness)
or self-deprecation, lack of self-confidence or self-esteem, goal of
reevaluation (aka retardation), an inward life task, liking the country,
etc.
Yarbro got Hitler as a young warrior, which I agree with. I suspect he had a
discarnate priest essence twin bleeding through, and also that he was
manifesting baby. There's a school of thought that sees one kind of
negative-pole priest in a cold, hypnotic, Rasputin-like guise. Using this
picture, Hitler's entrancing oratory seems priest-like. However, to me, its
rhythms are more reminiscent of the drums of war, and it was a skill he
undertook to learn. I have personally never come across anyone like that
whom I validated as being a priest. Warriors and kings can also have intense
eyes, but with a more metallic, cooler feel. Priests can be severe and
guilt-tripping in the negative pole, but they're a high-frequency role.
I'm sure there were some ruthless, zealous Inquisitors who were priests
("This hurts me more than it hurts you.")--any role can be ruthless--but the
solid roles (warrior, king, and scholar) tend to be the most physically
violent and tough in the younger stages. The inspiration roles need to feel
that they're helping, no matter how misguided they are. The caveat is that
anyone who is severely emotionally damaged can be cruel and psychopathic.
Sometimes what you see in someone is his wounds rather than his true traits.
Hitler was insane toward the end of his life. Still, something of the true
nature is always there even if grossly distorted.
Overleaves of well-known people are controversial, with a lot of different
takes. To me, Sean Penn feels nothing like an artisan; I'd say he's a
warrior. OTOH, Brad Pitt and Keanu Reeves are classic artisans--they feel
much softer than Penn. They are "pretty," whereas Penn is rough, in more
typical warrior fashion (Harrison Ford is another example of warrior
roughness).
