Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 14 points
    Considering my bedroom and bathroom got flooded two weeks ago from a leak from my upstairs neighbor's apartment and I spent a lot of money recently replacing an exploded water heater at my mom's house and have several dreams regarding mass destruction of the nuclear variety, black one-way portals in space, etc, and have spent the past year consciously isolated myself from others outside of my immediate social circle as a means of rejection of the various forms of disappointment and rejection I have received from others during my various attempts to learn and enjoy socialization, I'm going to venture a guess I am solidly in the Subjective side of this. Not sure if I'd be so happy about that divergence nexus coming up. Perhaps I do need a bit of a reality check and not let my perceptions guide my judgment and choices. Anyone else have water-related issues recently in their lives?
  2. 13 points
    I just started reading it. It's going to take a while and I'm going to have chills the entire time. I'm so glad it exists. May we find our way to a just future. Here's a no-paywall link someone shared on Twitter. http://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/full_issue_of_the_1619_project.pdf
  3. 9 points
    @KurtisM The lethargy comes from Essence 'stepping back' to look at the bigger picture and see the range of possible outcomes before entering the Divergence. Energy Reports only describe the window of time during which the parallels actually split or merge, but the Nexus process begins well before that, and continues for a while after. So feeling the lethargy at this point doesn't necessarily mean you're early. I think you're right on time. EDIT: Well, Janet has a much more comprehensive answer. We posted at the same time. LOL
  4. 8 points
    I don't think it's Subjectivity to see one's principle as the right thing to do. It's Subjectivity when we start thinking of someone as a "bad person" because they haven't come to terms with it like we have. I believe enslaving sentient, feeling animals is wrong, but I also understand that we are still near the beginning of reversing millennia of imprinting and habit. Veganism is up against the culture of convenience, food as entertainment, food as emotional comfort, food as a way of relating, traditions/imprinting, the disconnect between food on our plates and its sources, confusion around what we need for healthy diets, and whatever else is going on in someone's life that makes them not care enough to want to challenge all this. Veganism in Objectivity would include that all of these are factors in why someone eats meat, and not just because one is a horrible person who condones animal cruelty. I personally still have meat cravings in certain communal situations, because I still see it as a comfort food and I don't like to refuse food that someone else cooked for me. But to me that's an imprinting that I don't always have the willpower to fight, and it occurs fairly infrequently anyway. One day I might get to a point where I wouldn't want that anymore (or it wouldn't matter because "animal" foods would be lab grown), but I don't see that as negating my belief that animal enslavement is wrong. Real vegans would probably disagree with me and tell me I'm not actually doing what I believe, and I think that's unfortunate because that attitude turns people away. The more people feel good about eating less meat, the more they can be inspired to embrace it. It's the long game. It simply doesn't work for those who wake up to certain truths to condemn those who are asleep. It's the responsibility of those who care enough to teach others to care. And all we can ever do is keep inviting.
  5. 8 points
    Glorified visualizations is a very good way to put it. I got over the appeal of spell craft pretty quickly. They never worked the way I wanted them to. It was easier to focus on moving energy around. I did like “an it harm none do as he will.” It’s super simple. There’s no holy book, no commandments, no nonsensical restrictions. Just, don’t be mean. LOL
  6. 8 points
  7. 7 points
    @Uma ditto @Troy Thank you for our energy report.
  8. 7 points
    Good time for a re-read of this content. Its impact is not limited to 2010. Interesting info about how Attitudes impact our interpretation of the news. The importance of Now is something that Seth also emphasizes.
  9. 7 points
    Howdy! New member here. Been studying the teachings for 7 or 8 years and finally got a channeling last year by David Gregg. I'm fascinated by the Michael Teachings and the more I learn about it, the more it makes sense. I generally don't bring it up to other people because if they aren't familiar with the teachings then I come off as crazy. (huh?, a Ouija board? what?) So I'm glad this community exists. Any 10/7 cadre/entity peeps out there? Anyone else have Aggressive, Impatient or Skeptical overleaves paired with the goal of Flow?
  10. 7 points
    I seriously thought I remembered a session from an election year in which a number of candidates were from C5. But perhaps that was another parallel. Anyhow, while searching for that session, I ran across this session about the 2016 election: Politician Overleaves. I was very surprised to see that the GOP candidates still standing at the time were ALL Cadre 11! And I also found this article: Cadres and Entities 101 -- Cadre 2 = Knowledge (questioners, insight givers, facilitators) Cadre 5 = Beauty (artists, highlights the best of things) Cadre 11 = Enlightenment (teachers, ‘light’ bringers, providing structures for perceiving reality) I remembered that Michael is also Cadre 11 from their Energy Ring. Hopefully our "local" Cadre 11 that is trying to hold back the tide of the Mature Soul Age is learning a lot from the experience. I'm trying to remember that SOMEDAY they will wise up. We do need to confirm that the current candidates are all from our own Energy Ring. In one of my own sessions with Michael they indicated that "Cadre 2 has had a long-game, so to speak, in regard to moves into power for help in securing a Mature Soul paradigm." The context of that particular discussion -- to me -- opened the door for them to say the candidates mentioned at the time (Biden, Harris, Warren, Bennet, Buttigieg and Booker) were not from the same Energy Ring, but Michael did not make that distinction. So I'm fairly sure these are all our own Energy Ring's Cadre 2 members, but it would be wise to ask, along with the extended question of why our own Energy Ring is so heavily represented among candidates given the very large number of Energy Rings on the planet.
  11. 6 points
    Not sure if this is related, but it is my best guess that it is and wondering if any of you guys experienced this aswell. Yesterday I woke up and felt like I had the energy levels of a 110 year old. Like I could've literally layed down anywhere and fallen asleep within seconds throughout the day. But then I start learning that more people experienced yesterday as a day of very low energy. My wife, our friend who lives in the states. Even my coworkers reported feeling tired. Today the energy levels were still bellow normal, but I think that is probably just because we're still recuperating from whatever the heck happened yesterday =p
  12. 6 points
    Just thought I'd share this here, in light of what's going on in Brazil. https://youtu.be/CqCx9xU_-Fw Should probably mention that it's rather... theatrical, so don't expect a straight-to-the-point lecture or anything, but stick with it, it's good stuff.
  13. 6 points
    @KurtisM and @Luciana Flora somehow I can relate to both of your stories even though they are different. There were times in my life where I felt like I was the intelligent one who had a bright future ahead of me and there have been other times where I felt like I was just a failure and a burden on society. I think one of my issues was that I had too much of a traditional and limited sense of what success could be, and when that success became unreachable, or I felt fatigued because that notion of success was not fulfilling to me deep down inside, I became very depressed and lost. I feel like I've recovered from those feelings somewhat now, and I can focus on constructive hobbies again without the constant strain or guilt of not reaching milestones that I felt I should have before, and I can just take life as it comes. I think sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, in life, you have to build your own success and find out what it means to you, rather than just going with what the world tells you about it. This is probably especially true for Old Souls, as part of our learning here on Earth is to break through previously defined thresholds to find a clearer truth behind them.
  14. 6 points
    I don’t have self destruction as a Chief feature but definitely have an intimate dance with isolation as I’ve basically pulled myself from all relationships in close proximity to me that aren’t work related. I also have always had a very hard time making things I want and going after the things I love. It sucks donkey balls but it’s not something anyone can fix for anyone who is like this. All I can say is reach out to those people who you see as having these issues if you have the inclination. I think Michael said self-destruction is one of those chief features that needs intervention from an outside source in order to get what ball rolling in dismantling it. I do know all the people that stick with me are the ones who reach out from time to time, seem to give a shit even if I’m in a low depressed state, which admittedly is most of the time. They mean the most to me. If it means something to you, just stay available for them. It’ll more likely than not end up helping them in the long run and they will be oh so grateful for it. I know I am.
  15. 5 points
    So I had two really interesting dreams. 1. In one dream I appear to have met @NickG in person at some kind of food vendor on the road he was closing. He had a bike with him and so did I. I was riding with my sister and her friend. Nick wondered if perhaps we should bike together, as he had somewhere he wanted to show me. We joined him and biked away on a beautiful sunny day to his location, which turned out to be a vibrant green grassy park that merged into a resort building below, with absolutely stunning scenery of a half natural half artificially constructed stream/lake lined with various arrangements of rocks. This lake/stream wasn't just outside, but built into the resort building inside in a way that's hard to explain. Here I talked to NickG quite casually outside the resort, trying to get closer to him and to thank him for bringing me to such a beautiful place. He felt like someone I wanted to hug. I was a bit sad we couldn't get closer as he seemed to get busy thinking or doing something else. 2. In another dream I was shopping inside a super market with my dad that is close to home. Though the atmosphere was really weird. Everyone was angry and frustrated inside, various products and services usually available were not and were dwindling, while other products added in place were propagandist or clearly unhealthy government sanctions- and it seemed everyone knew everything they said and did were being recorded. I eventually clued in that the place had been turned into yet another outlet for extreme alt-right views after what seemed like a red wave blow. Canada was being turned into a policed nation and no longer so inclusive and peaceful. I didn't care whether I was being recorded or not, I continued to voice my views that this happened because of people's complacency and I was angry. My dad agreed with me about this. We bought what stuff we could, including some chinese food I munched on, and exited to walk to a plaza on the other side of the supermarket. It was an uncomfortable boiling hot day, as we sat on a city bench in the direct sunlight. My friend and mom joined us and an old frenchimmersiom classmate and a friend/family member of hers. Though the classmate in my memory was usually very lively and optimistic, this day she was very tired and depressed, with bags around her eyes. She looked unwell to me. Everyone was drained. I was still angry. I got up and raised my voice to them to tell them that they had to vote in the coming elections if they wanted things to get better, as this was the cause of complacency. No one denied, they all accepted this and I thought I was making a difference through my voice. The classmate and her friend/family member both left and said goodbye to us and then the dream fragment changed.
  16. 5 points
    Coconut oil is a saturated fat, which, as far as current medical science knows, is not the greatest for you to consume. I’d recommend cold-pressed olive oil or sesame oil if you need to cook with an oil. Coconut oil is wonderful for the outside of you though; it provides some great binding ingredients for your skin and hair that help to keep moisture in.
  17. 4 points
    I'm (darkly!) amused. My computer apparently decided to get an early start on "self destruction." The monitor died today, and it took some key parts of the computer's core software with it. Enough that while I was eventually able to get a new monitor and gain some sort of access to my machine, it couldn't boot -- not in safe mode, nor to restore to a previous setting ... and I was forced to reset it to the factory default settings. End result, I have a computer that works, but lost all of my files, pictures, videos, and programs. Some of it was backed up elsewhere, and those bits I can recover it. Some of it is lost forever. All in all, a most frustrating and disgruntling afternoon. I am running quite short in the gruntle department! I should see about re-gruntling myself sometime soon. In the meantime, I hope things go well with y'all during this time of emotional evaluation. Stay awesome!
  18. 4 points
    This needs so much more elaboration!! I live on the west coast, it is mainly wet, which I adore, but it is also humid and hot in summer, which I detest. I love rain but not humidity. Also I dislike fohn winds heaps. For ages I lived in a very windy city, and I don't miss the wind. Windiness is kind of unsettling to me.
  19. 3 points
    Funny enough, I was recently reminded of when I had done classes in reiki energy healing many years ago. Part of the attunement ceremony at the end of the class was a period of meditation. During that meditation I saw images of an owl, a fox (or rather, more specifically, a vixen), and a bee with a flower. It was afterward that my reiki teacher mentioned that those were likely symbolic of my guides. It's interesting now to read about three guide positions and then remember having had three totems then. The owl was the strongest and clearest; it's been a symbol for my Primary guide for a long time. The vixen was likely the Relationship position and the bee and flower likely the Event position. They weren't as prominent and I haven't recalled those totems as often. Given this context, though, I might see if they are still handy for differentiation practice.
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    I too wonder about this. It is easier said than done to be objective and set aside judgement until you know enough about the situations and choices people make. I think on an individual level, veganism may or may not apply depending on what the person's body can handle. There are some people who desperately want to be vegan, but have severe allergies to certain plant foods and find that the only other option for them is to consume animal products in order to stay healthy, for example.
  22. 2 points
    Incoming text wall. Hope it's not too messily written as I didn't do a lot of proof-reading. @KurtisM I've had a bit more of a think about the Support Position framework. If my theory has any validity to it, then the year that you are born in will indicate imprinting for the first three or so decades of your life. For example, people born between 1990-2001 will all grow up with a sort of Scholar imprinting, with my birth year, 1991, playing the Knowledge support within that imprinting whereas 1998 would play the Discipline position. If I use my imagination and experience as to how this may manifest, a lot of people born between 1990-2001 will grow up with an emphasis on observing, learning and knowing things like Scholars do with 1991 borns having more of an emphasis on knowledge for its own purpose and 1998 borns having a focus directed more on the consequences, long-term goals and necessity of learning and turning what may be theories into real knowledge. In my mind I think of 1991 borns being more like a pre-recession college attending Millennial who learns for the leisure of it instead of directing that learning toward a specific outcome or plan, they would simply build themselves into a bank for the scope of knowledge that is available and may be used at a later date (I can relate to this a lot, actually). 1998 (Discipline year) in contrast feels like more of a late-Millennial / Gen Z college student who is a bit more anxious about where their education is heading in a world with less guarantees for success and a lot of societal problems. They would become knowledgeable for the sake of learning things of worldly importance that could directly help the future, and how to do this would be in mind as they learn and choose what to learn. If we look at a few other examples, the birth years of Emma Gonzalez (1999) and David Hogg (2000) are the Healer and Enlightenment positions of the Scholar imprinted generation. Even though both have accomplished a lot so far, they are still short of a Saturn Return and are largely reacting to the circumstances that are presented to them, rather than living as a result of their own written path, at least in my interpretation, at this stage. Those who complete a 4th IM before their Saturn return may go through a similar process, they would simply choose well what is thrown at them and make what they can of that, and by the time the return arrives, they will be in a good position to make full use of it and cruise through it smoothly. Hard to say though as Saturn returns are highly variable circumstance for each individual and are subject to interpretation. Emma's birth year of Healer is incidentally the year of the Columbine School shooting. This shooting shed light on the wounds of American society and provided unprecedented knowledge on an aspect of it that needed to be healed like nothing before. The Parkland shooting is a reflection of the same issues that made themselves known at Columbine, and Emma is using her power, along with that of her similarly-aged cohort, to bring healing from an angle of Scholarly knowledge and fact over previous theories. David was born a year later, 2000 being the Enlightenment year of the Scholar birth generation. Y2K brought attention to the framework of the times in which we lived, moving into a new millennium where technology was increasingly becoming an integral part of our lives, complete with all the fear and panic of whether it would all come crashing down on us and leave us further behind than ever. Born from this year, David is is assisting in providing a framework that illuminates our power and political strength from a grassroots level along with his peers, turning previous theories of what we could accomplish as a collective into action and applied knowledge. Greta Thunberg might be worth a mention as well. She was born from the Sage-imprinted generation (2002-2013), specifically the year 2003, which was a Knowledge year. Her passion is building upon her great knowledge of the affect of humanity on our environment, and she uses this knowledge to speak truths to a wide audience and dispel bullshit on the matter, like an empowered Sage would. Before Greta became a hot topic, Severn Cullis-Suzuki, who delivered a famous speech at the 1992 Rio summit, was also born in a Knowledge year (1979), this time of the Warrior-imprinted generation. Severn also drew upon knowledge that was being dismissed at the time about the state of humanity, except perhaps one could interpret this as emulating the fighting spirit of the Warrior on this occasion, while perhaps Greta simply lays out the facts in a Sagely way, in an era where there are still so many lies about how we treat our planet. It is important to note that 1992 was a Compassion positioned Scholar year, where theories about our caring for the world were to be blown out by honest knowledge. Saturn Returns Saturn returns to a given position within its orbit every 29.5 Earth years. Coming of age in my theoretical Saeculum cycle takes 29 years. Saturn returns, when measured astrologically, are complicated by the fact that Saturn's return to a position in the Earth's sky is what's actually taken note of, instead of the specific orbital return of Saturn, the latter of which always occurring on a predictable schedule while the former is much more variable. If we view Saturn from Earth and measure its position from where we stand, we are taking into account variations in Earth's position around the Sun as well as Saturn's, which can give a range of results in terms of its movement. When we measure the movement of the planets in the sky and events such as the Saturn Return from Earth, I consider this the tracking of when particular events are going to affects us and be felt in everyday life, in ways that we perceive it. When we perceive an event however, may differ from the timing of when a certain cyclical event actually happens, like Saturn returning to orbit. Considering this, and considering that my Saeculum theory is one of an organised cyclical pattern, it makes more sense to me to consider a Saturn return to always be 29.5 from birth within the context. That being said, the 'coming of age' in my theory takes only 29 years. I see it this way, if someone is born in March 1991 and subsequently has a Saturn return in September 2020, then 2020 counts as the Saturn return / coming of age year because the year is mostly complete by the time the Return comes. However, if someone is born late in the year, say August 1991 and has the return February 2021, the coming of age year will still be 2020, as the year 2021 is not even half complete by the time the Saturn return comes and is therefore, less influential. This means that a Saturn Return year will always be 29 years from the birth date, as more than six months of a year are needed to be preceding the return for that year to count. Why is the Saturn Return so Important to Coming of Age? Saturn and Uranus are like the gatekeepers to the personal, observable astrological world and that which requires a degree of insight through technology, like a telescope, to be revealed. Saturn is the outermost of the personal astrological planets looking over us in the observable sky. It is the key to our personal development and the cycles we go through as individual people. Uranus is a reflection of this, being the innermost of the 'unseen' planets, but Uranus works on a more collective level. Uranus tracks our progress and cycles as a species like Saturn does for us personally, delineating Generational Saeculums like Saturn will measure a Coming of Age for an individual with its return to that person's birth position. When an age cohort reaches age 29, they shed the imprinting they were born with and begin to demonstrate their true aspects as a group. For example, those born in 1991 will begin as a Knowledge Support of the Scholar Group, but will grow into the Humour Support of the Priest Group in 2020. This could illustrate a group that starts off very keen on learning about everything, and then uses that to develop a sense of lightheartedness for the greater good of society, perhaps rebelling against sternly held, zealous concepts, ideas and groups or simply being a beacon of fun to break an atmosphere of collective misery and despair once they experience the Saturn Return. 1998 borns will reach the Return in 2029, growing into the Knowledge support of a King oriented generation. By this time, the annual cohort which began as disciplined Scholar types may become masters of what knowledge they have attained, and can then work with the rest of the King Generation to bring real change to the world, building on the ideological efforts of Priests in the previous era (the one we're in now, 2014-2025). The King Generation is likely to undergo a process of coming into its own from 2026-2037, and will be made from the cohort born between 1997-2008, those who were originally imprinted as Scholar and Sage generational types. The second Saturn return, occurring after 59 years of life, is likely to bring reflection to a cohort on who they have been. For 1991 borns like myself, the reflection year will be 2050, an Old Soul oriented, Artisan generation, Love support year. The last Love support year for an Artisan generational era was 1966, when the Hippie movement first started to break out. There may well be a new wind of change and inspiration similar to the 1960s in the mid 21st Century, and 1991 borns may find themselves looking back and feeling increasingly inspired and open to the structure and beauty of their world and life, as the Love support is about love in an unconditional sense, and Artisans are about creation and seeing life as an artform. 1998 borns reach their second Saturn return in 2057, an Anchor support year of the Old Soul Artisan generational era, perhaps similar in ways to the Artisan-Anchor year of 1973. After using their knowledge to create the blueprints for a reconstructed world, the 1998 borns may especially feel at ease in a new creative, authentically expressive world, and there they may find a true sense of home. I don't know though, this stuff is all theoretical and hard to interpret, but there are some interesting correlations to be drawn.
  23. 2 points
    Coconut oil has so called medium length fatty acids which are said to be healthy for the gut and gut flora because they are absorbed well by cells of the intestine and are food for the friendly gut bacteria, and have antimicrobial properties. If you google, you'll find lots of information on that, I have copied a few links. I use it externally and internally, e.g for skin infection with neem oil, or as a "lotion", and cook with it. I don't think it's as bad as animal-origin saturated fatty acids, unless you eat kilos of it.... but you shouldn't do that with any fat https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/coconut-oil https://www.amymyersmd.com/2019/07/what-is-mct-oil/
  24. 2 points
    @AnnaD Up to date poll numbers can be found on https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
  25. 2 points
    @Christina Lily Pedersen, you might enjoy reading this Michael Speaks we had in 2010 on How Guides Work. Here is an excerpt: "The Old Stage of Differentiation would find the relationship with one's Essence and Guides to have lost all boundaries, nearly all differentiation, and to have moved into a relationship we might describe as "soft intuition." We use the phrase "soft intuition" because, for the most part, the fragment will have grasped that he or she is supported, loved, and that there are forces and resources at work that will take care of the non-physical aspects of the life so the Personality is free to focus on the living of life. The "soft intuition" is the general tuning in to the self and to guides that allows for alerts, sensations, cues, synchronicity, etc. that help in the various contexts of life. However, as in the Old Soul Age of living, it includes all previous Stages of Differentiation, so that the fragment can, if necessary, call upon Guides for help, insight, force, resource, guidance, etc., but this is usually done from a different angle than ever before, in that even when this support is called upon for more tangible effects, it is understood that those tangible effects will have to come from your implementation of the insights, guidance, influence, etc. There is no urgency, no fantastical representations, no necessity for theatrics, no call to rescue the world, no secrecy, no recruitment, no warnings, no advice or instruction, etc. There is only support, insight, guidance, resource, and force to the extent that one receives, translates, and expresses that through oneself."
  26. 1 point
    This was kinda cool. Seeing someone not familar with past lives and such experiencing it.
  27. 1 point
    As I lie here riding out being sick and reading through strained and swollen eyes , I stumbled across a great article... A couple of times over the past few years and even as recently as a month ago, we have witnessed what is called "Bad Faith" arguments. These "arguments" are distraction tactics that seek to diminish valid positions in science, politics, life, and even communities like this. Some Bad Faith Arguments that have been showcased on TLE and if you were lucky enough to be a part of these, you will recognize several of the tactics below. The article focuses on politics and science, but these Bad Faith arguments come up in many online "debates" and arguments. One of the reasons I shut down a couple of these "discussions" was because they were drowning in Bad Faith. Recognizing that you are being dragged into a Bad Faith Argument can help you to back out and back away. And if you recognize that you may have unintentionally been using some of these Bad Faith tactics, maybe step back and reconsider listening more. *** ORIGINAL ARTICLE LINK A Field Guide to Bad Faith Arguments Once you recognize these weak tactics, you can easily outwit them by Aaron Huertas Bad faith arguments are common in politics. And while they’ve always been part of political culture, they’re much more rampant on social media. It’s easy to fall prey to bad faith arguments and waste time engaging someone on points that obscure rather than shed light on how we’re all affected by policy and politics. So with that in mind, here’s a field guide for spotting and responding to bad faith arguments and staying focused on the real-world issues that matter. WHAT'S A BAD FAITH ARGUMENT? The hallmark of a bad-faith argument is that it disguises the core point of a debate rather than addressing issues, beliefs, and values head-on. Bad faith arguments aren’t “real” positions; they’re proxy positions people take for rhetorical purposes. In some cases, a bad faith position can be intentional. For instance, Sen. Mitch McConnell made up a “Biden rule” to justify stealing a Supreme Court seat. Instead of arguing about the merits of refusing to hold a vote on President Barack Obama’s justice nominee Merrick Garland, McConnell made a proxy argument about Democrats being hypocrites for complaining about his power grab. And indeed, many Republicans and independents came to believe that the “Biden rule” was real and that McConnell was simply playing hardball politics just like the Democrats. But most bad faith arguments aren’t from wily, professional politicians like McConnell. They simply come from a place of not wanting to confront the actual arguments someone else is making. For instance, climate policy advocates point to scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing seas to rise, more wildfires, and disruptions to rainfall patterns on which we rely. They argue these risks are severe enough to warrant dramatically reducing fossil fuel use and switching to clean energy. But anti-climate-action groups will often say the science is not certain enough to justify action. Climate advocates will respond by citing more and more scientific evidence demonstrating climate risks. But there’s a problem: The advocates are responding to a bad faith argument because anti-climate action groups never say what level of scientific certainty would be necessary to justify climate policy. Indeed, if you ask them to name the level of certainty they need or the type of evidence that would win them over, they’ll never do it. Although their argument is premised on the idea that more science could justify climate action, they can’t actually define a world where that’s true. Instead, they tend to oppose climate policy for ideological reasons—including an ideological commitment to exploiting fossil fuels—but they choose to fight policy in bad faith on scientific grounds. Similarly, many anti-climate action groups have evolved from outright climate denial to acknowledging that climate change is real and a problem but say they’re against “climate alarmism” and don’t believe in “catastrophic global warming.” But what do these terms mean? Again, they never say. If I think business as usual means the Earth is going to warm 4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, am I an alarmist? How about 10 degrees? Don’t waste time responding to these arguments on their own merits — they have none. Their actual operating definition is that “catastrophic global warming” is the precise amount needed to justify policy action, and, by definition, we will always fall short of it. An alarmist, meanwhile, is anyone who says we need to act on climate change. There’s an important distinction between types of bad faith arguments worth making here: Not all anti-climate action advocates are making these arguments intentionally. They’re not consciously thinking, “I’m going to pretend to say one thing but really mean another.” Indeed, many sincerely believe that climate alarmism is terrible and must be combatted even though they have not bothered to form a coherent definition of what the term means. In this case, these bad faith arguments are often best described as a form of “agnotology,” a term historian Robert Proctor has popularized to describe the cultivation of ignorance. Proctor studied how tobacco companies spread doubt about the link between smoking and cancer. Rather than directly criticizing the science, they spread messages about uncertainty and doubt to cloud policymakers’ judgment. They say maybe something else was causing the cancer… or maybe the scientific links were there but weren’t, uh, direct enough… or maybe people who are more likely to get cancer are actually more likely to smoke. Agnotology—and the popularization of political ignorance—cuts across a variety of issues, not just scientific ones. Indeed, I’ve come to see it as the most common form of bad faith argument in political debates. For instance, why are NFL players taking a knee? To protest police violence. They’ve been absolutely clear about this for years. But Fox News tells its millions of viewers that no one knows why they’re protesting. With that in mind, here are some other types of bad faith arguments we run into every day online and in public policy debates. Don’t waste time responding to these arguments on their own merits — they have none. They exist to distract from core policy issues and the actual effect they have on our lives, our rights, and our planet. THE CARTOON STRAWMANNER The cartoon strawmanner has no need to ask you what you believe; he already knows. How does he know? Because he already has a number of counterarguments to your position. Not your actual position, of course, but the one that his favorite propaganda outlets have told him you have. For instance, many scholars have pointed out that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, which is optimized to push people to more and more intensive information about consumer products, has the unintended effect of pushing a minority of conservative viewers further and further down the rabbit hole to white nationalism. This is a problem because it seems to be playing a key role in helping a small but committed number of young white men to become violent reactionaries. But conservative YouTubers and their defenders will often make two arguments in response to this: Not everyone who watches these videos becomes a Nazi. (No one is claiming that they are.) You can’t just call everyone a Nazi. (No one is doing this.) These bad-faith arguments mean to distract from the core point, which is that bad actors are abusing YouTube’s platform to promote racist ideologies and encourage political violence. We can have a debate about how these new platforms and the people who use them respond. Are companies like YouTube more like utilities or television stations in what they owe to their audiences? If there’s no such thing as a politically neutral algorithm, how should companies consider the political consequences of altering recommendation algorithms? What, if any, role should the government play in regulating social media platforms? Do conservatives whose videos get remixed by people even further to their right have a responsibility to take them down? Is debating a fascist ever useful, or does it merely mainstream their ideas? But bad faith responses avoid these points entirely by cartoon strawmanning the people bringing them up instead. The best way to respond to these strawman arguments is simply to inform someone that no one is making that argument and point them to a book or long report to read (they will never read it). Eventually, the cartoon strawmanner evolves, like a shitty, annoying Pokémon, to become the lie detector. THE LIE DETECTOR The lie detector knows what you really mean. After all, they already know what your position is. But when you say your actual beliefs are something else entirely, they have a choice — except that they have not accounted for the full spectrum of human belief about a topic or accuse you of lying. The lie detector knows The Truth. Do not challenge the lie detector on any of these points: They know more about your beliefs, your life, and your work history than you ever will. You should ask the lie detector what you’re having for dinner this evening. THE FREEZE PEACH ADVOCATE The “freeze peach” advocate is a fake free speech advocate. They confuse disagreement with silencing, delegitimization, and censorship. While they believe in “free speech,” it turns out what that really means in practice is promoting their speech and the speech of people they agree with. Jordan Peterson, who came to fame for picking an imaginary free speech fight over transgender pronouns in Canada, for instance, recently sued two professors for criticizing him and his views and even sued another university to boot. Additionally, climate deniers might say they’re shut out of the debate because scientists won’t sit around discussing their ideas with them for hours and hours. But flat-Earthers are shut out of debates with geologists, too. The truth is that you don’t have to meet someone in an online or IRL structured debate to grapple with their arguments. Indeed, scientists have cataloged and numbered bad climate denial arguments for easy reference. Further, free speech and platforming arguments are often used as proxies for actual arguments. “These cowards won’t debate me!” is an easier sell than “Let me tell you about why I think 200 years of science is wrong even though I can’t get my ideas published in a scientific journal.” Freeze peach advocates think that they and their peers deserve a platform, but they never recognize that platform space is actually limited and contested. In fighting for airtime or seats at congressional hearings, they shut out other voices just as their voices can get shut out, too. The truth is that no one is entitled to a stage, a TV spot, or a book deal. Or as Alex Pareene hilariously said in response to the New York Times covering another stop on the freeze peach college campus moral panic tour: “If You Truly Care About Speech, You Will Invite Me to Your Office to Personally Call You a Dipshit.” Even when supposed free speech and civil debate advocates go on to run their own platforms, they rarely talk to people to their left. Instead, free speech and fears of suppression are used as marketing tactics, not core moral values. That’s why you never hear them advocate for lefty protestors who are unjustly jailed, students who face expulsion penalties for their free speech, or government scientists who face routine censorship of their research. PICTURED: 200 activists and several journalists were unfairly arrested as part of protests against Trump’s inauguration in 2017. A judge finally dropped charges in July of 2018. Not pictured: free speech defenders defending them. (As an aside, there are plenty of civil libertarian groups that do a ton of great work on actual free speech and academic freedom issues. When fake free speech advocates don’t show up to these fights, they show that they’re in it for their speech, not anyone else’s.) The freeze peach advocate should be reminded that no one is entitled to a platform and no one is actually preventing them from speaking. More importantly, their attention should be refocused to the actual policy debates at hand. THE PURITY TESTER The purity tester would like you to know that Al Gore uses airplanes (so troubling for an environmentalist!) and that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wore a nice outfit for a photo shoot once (what kind of socialism is that?!). The purity tester isn’t here to tell you a policy agenda is wrong; they’re here to tell you those are bad spokespeople for their cause. If Gore swore off flying, would the Koch brothers suddenly come to Jesus on climate policy? Nope. And if Ocasio Cortez pledged to only wear thrift store chic on the House floor, would people like Charlie Kirk finally accept the need for universal health care? No way. These are goofy bad faith arguments that attempt to take the focus off policy and put it on advocates instead. They’re a form of concern-trolling that should be dismissed out of hand, although asking the purity tester to name an advocate whose arguments they’d be willing to listen to can be amusing. It’s rare that they’ve ever considered the idea of a good advocate before, which demonstrates that it’s just agnotology at work. THE LOGIC NERD The logic nerd has a very clear argument. The argument has multiple parts, each of which is impeccable and internally consistent. The logic nerd has his facts straight, too, and has a number of counterarguments ready to deploy should you try to poke holes. In fact, the logic nerd has three rhetorical questions ready to go to expose your fallacious reasoning and will ask them, in turn, regardless of what you say or do. I have some love for the logic nerd. If I had less empathy and less of a sense of just how much damage shitty public policy does to people, I too could have grown up to be a logic nerd, dear reader. But I came to realize that politics isn’t a dispute over which facts are true or whether your logic is valid. It’s a dispute over which facts are the most relevant to a debate and what logic we should follow when setting and enforcing laws. For instance, a logic nerd would love to debate you about the pay gap: Are women really paid less than men? If so, by how much, and in which industries? But what about this industry where some women are paid more? Should we not examine the data? Okay, look at my data! Do you deny my data, sir? It is the best and only data! Sir, by your own logic… What the logic nerd fails to realize is that equal pay laws give people the right to sue individual companies and institutions for pay discrimination. You can make all the societal-level arguments about the pay gap you want, but the actual law (and lawsuits) exist alongside that discussion, which is much closer to the reality that people live with every day when fighting discrimination. Responding to the logic nerd is a joy because if you fail to play along with their game, they will ad hominem the shit out of you. Failure to answer rhetorical questions, even by pointing out why the questions are not relevant, will result in persistent sea-lioning. There’s only one way to truly defeat the logic nerd. You must introduce him to the Fallacy Man. (Read the whole thing, please.) THE TONE POLICE AND PERSUASION PUNDITS When people have truly bad positions to defend, they often attempt to make a meta-argument about tone and persuasive power instead. This is endemic in Washington. For instance, a Daily Caller editor went to a progressive rally and was shocked — shocked — to find that people there were angry about politics. Well, yeah, a lot of people who show up to political events are upset about something and want to change and fix it. But instead of responding to what they were upset about (sinking wages and crappy health care), the editor focused on their tone. Not surprisingly, the same publication would never be shocked at right-wing anger, such as Tea Party rallies condemning Obama. That’s because their anger is always justified, but yours never is. Similarly, conservatives will routinely criticize NFL players for how they’re protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. But they’ll never suggest an alternative means of protesting. No tone is the only tone they want to hear. Meanwhile, many #NeverTrump conservatives are often trapped in persuasion punditry when they argue with liberals. “Medicare for all? Don’t you know Midwesterners are skeptical of big government? That’s not gonna play well in Trump country,” they say. Well, that’s certainly an easier argument to make than saying millions of people should suffer from a lack of health care and that you’re fundamentally okay with that. But in removing themselves one layer from actual policy, pundits can appear savvy without actually committing themselves to a real position, even as they justify the status quo. Bret Stephens, a conservative New York Times writer, wrote a column about how climate advocates should be more persuasive to him and other conservatives by not being so strident and certain about climate change being bad. But when another writer asked him which climate policies he might ever support, he couldn’t say. When people are really making an argument about persuading someone, they actually try to persuade them. If not, it’s just more bad faith. The solution to tone policing and bad punditry is just focusing on the issues. If someone wants to keep distracting from that with what’s fundamentally a political tactics discussion, ask them to help get your preferred policy passed. If they say no, congrats: You’ve found their real position. THE "BOTH-SIDERIST" The both siderist is very reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that people who care about politics actually look very unreasonable by comparison: Did you hear about the bad thing Republicans did? Well, Democrats did a bad thing too once, and it’s all quite unfortunate that everyone can’t be as reasonable as me. Has "the both siderist" ever taken any actions to try to improve the political system? Well, it’s funny that you ask; no, they haven’t. What they have done is ask everyone, very nicely, to be civil and take it easy and not get too political with all that politics. But in insisting on being the most reasonable person in the room, the both siderist has failed to read the room. Their postured reasonableness obscures the political realities we’re dealing with: rampant Republican gerrymandering, voter suppression, human rights abuses, and anti-democratic power grabs from people like McConnell and Trump. Nearly all the Republican moderates have been voted out of office. Redefining “moderate” doesn’t make them more moderate, it just drags the debate to the right. The both siderist has a lot of political opinions, but their most important opinion is that both sides are bad — even if one side is doing objectively terrible shit to millions of people. It’s because the both siderist desperately wants to be off the hook for having to actually do anything to improve our political system. As the Republican Party has gone off the rails in the Obama era, this has led to a deeper and deeper stretch of both siderism logic. For instance, Amy Chua, writing in The Atlantic about the decline of democracy, equates Trump threatening to revoke people’s citizenship and strip them of their voting rights with college students asking a university to stop venerating a slave-owning Founding Father. But one of these fundamentally alters the realities of American political life for decades; the other is a campus debate over a statue. The committed both siderist must never admit that one party or one side in a debate is worse than the other. If they did, they might have to do something about it. DEBATING IN GOOD FAITH It’s worth remembering that the people who respond to you online are usually less than 1 percent of 1 percent, and the reason they’re writing is that they virulently disagree. In the broader public sphere, it would be good to see fact-checkers, pundits, magazine editors, and TV hosts actually try to pin people down on real positions. As Matt Bruenig has noted, political debates often function in two different universes. There’s a “take universe” with columns, opinion pieces, and think tank reports. Some of them are hot takes. Others are lukewarm, and if you dig into them, they’re just the same circle of people citing themselves as the source of The Truth on a given topic. Then there’s the real universe of actual data, actual outcomes for people and actual structures of power in society. In Bruenig’s case, he introduces hard data about public ownership of industries and worker control over businesses into fuzzy ideologically rigid “take universe” debates about capital, labor, and socialism. I’ve loved working with scientists because reality is real and scientists are responsive to it. The political class should be too. We’re drifting further from that precisely because conservative authoritarians attack sources of information that help us see reality: an independent press, science and academia, and public employees who work for all of us. They cultivate ignorance as surely as the tobacco companies did. It’s the only way they can hold onto power. They exploit the proliferation of online media to make the world too hard to understand. They make agnotology a certainty to obscure obvious realities like the fact that countries with universal health care have better health outcomes and the obvious ethical argument that no one has to die from lack of medical care in the richest country on Earth. Some of the best writing on arguments deals with the overwhelming amount of bullshit and uninformative information available in the modern media system. Neil Postman, the author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, argued in his later books that we must become “loving resistance fighters” who focus on our lived reality and core humanist values rather than media representations that can never truly stand in for our world. Even though I work in communications and media, I’ve tried to live up to that. I go to organizing meetings. I canvass and knock on doors. I show up for protests and direct actions. I’m a member of two unions. This stuff matters; real people matter. The real consequences of policy are life and death for millions of us. So we should focus on that relentlessly and never get distracted by bullshit, bad faith arguments.
  28. 1 point
    The former Governor of Puerto Rico (Riccardo Rosselló) resigned because Puerto Ricans took to the streets en masse and demanded his resignation. It worked! It's easier to coordinate mass movements in smaller areas like Dayton, or Puerto Rico, but imagine what would happen if the populations of, for instance, California and/or New York struck, demonstrated, or walked out en masse? They, (we!) are the Blue States! @Maureen, you are so right, this seems like it is tied in with this year's Moving center!
  29. 1 point
    “Being heroic is the ability to conjure hope where there is none. To strike a match to light up the void. To show us a possibility for a better world—not a better world we want to exist, but a better world we didn’t know could exist. To take a situation where everything seems to be absolutely fucked and still somehow make it good.” “Our crises of hope often start with a basic sense that we do not have control over ourselves or our destiny.” Excerpt From: Manson, Mark. “Everything Is F*cked
  30. 1 point
    Nope, we're at least two now The idea of the IS is really attractive and moving for most and it makes complete sense why it would be... but if we can get shit done there won't be a need for IS. I'd rather not be told the dishes are dirty because I can do them myself but If I leave them undone for too long my mom decides to do them herself clean dishes, and all is well, but I really could have done them myself (maybe a little simple, but does it make sense ?) We can do it
  31. 1 point
    This thread has been dormant for a while, but I feel it's important to add a couple things. First, the global average temperature has been on the increase for the last 140 years. Second, the atmospheric CO2 ppm values have increased in a fashion that correlates directly with the rise in temperature. CO2 is in fact a potent greenhouse gas. Sure, it's plant food too, but that means precisely nothing in the face of increasing wildfires and deforestation on a global scale. Just as CO2 is plant food, water is also the stuff of life as we know it, but too much of a good thing can have grave consequences. When researching a topic like global climate change, where literally trillions of dollars are at stake, it's important that you check your sources. The above referenced NIPCC is HIGHLY questionable in its ability to be objective. Funding comes from the right-wing think tank Heartland Institute; these are lobbyists who engage in intellectual fraud. In the 1990s they worked with Philip-Morris to discredit public health concerns over second hand smoke. The foreword to Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming was written by Marita Noon, a lobbyist for the coal and oil industries. Further, and this is just my speculation here, the name "Nongovernmental International Panel On Climate Change" or NIPCC bares some striking similarities to "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" or IPCC. NIPCC is funded by the energy industry, IPCC is a UN organization. Take that for what it's worth, but it adds another layer that makes it just smack of gaslighting to me. Follow the money. Here are a couple pages from NASA with some pretty sweet graphs: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ Admittedly, mainstream media reporting is pretty deficient in scientific literacy, as is the general population. But the issue of anthropogenic climate change does in fact have an overwhelming consensus among publishing climate scientists--around 97%, which is impressive. Attempts have been made to undermine the legitimacy of this consensus by including the opinions of non-experts. Here is a paper supporting this: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf We can kick the can down the road all day about solar minimums and things of that nature. But that's only a distraction from the issue that's right in front of our faces and is threatening our planet.
  32. 1 point
    Elizabeth isn't as strong on Medicare for All as I would like but she's def my second choice. Kamala has so many ugly things in her past as the top cop in the bay area that I legit do not want her to win. She has super problematic ideas about policing and the role of the law in our lives, and some of her truancy policies resulted in poor black families suffering the most. She's a tough bitch though, which I like but not enough for her to be president.
  33. 1 point
    I think the agreements of necessity are easy to overlook and take for granted. I am starting to add these experiences into my journal as I recognize and remember these exchanges with others across my days. I think it is beneficial to show more gratitude for these agreements as well.
  34. 1 point
    Ditto guys! I feel I'm already whole. I'm Love Michael said 'Priests manifesting essence navigate life intuitively'. Yes. I feel this undercurrent of trust and enthusiasm even amidst difficulties. Life just flows ... Like when you speak things into existence, Universe hears you and bam!! they happen Living as/ Manifesting Essence = manifesting experiences, opportunities, synchronicities... For example, lately I wanted to apply to an art therapy center. Today I went with my mother to eat lunch at a restaurant 30 min from home. Two women sat at the next table and started chatting. I overhear stuff about art..and then the name of that center! They worked there! LOL.
  35. 1 point
    Pete Shelley, lead singer and guitarist of Buzzcocks, died a couple of days ago. I can't overstate my love for that band, nor their importance in the punk and postpunk canon, such as it is (there is no canon but if there were one, Buzzcocks would be mandatory). I've loved them deeply since I was 16 and I really can't choose just one song that I love best, but here's the one I'm trying to convince my bandmates to cover. Man do I ever relate to these sentiments. Shelley was, by all accounts, a gracious and kind person, and he consciously worked to write songs that were, in his words, "ambisexual", so as not to exclude anyone. In his words, "The only people they exclude are people who don't know anything about love." He was a queer punk pioneer and one of the best songwriters out there. I am so sad.
  36. 1 point
    I came by this while reading into ailments, illnesses and wounding today, and it's a good reminder about hurt and harm. I had to add some space in the quote, for easier reading. And I especially enjoy the last sentence from Michael, it's uplifting.
  37. 1 point
    [Excerpt from Michael Speaks: Soul Age Levels] [GeraldineB] As Sage-casted Sage in the 4th Old Soul Level, I can't distinguish which plays a bigger role in my near obsession with truth. In fact, I can see this as a problem with all Old Sages. How do Sages validate being Old Soul vs other Soul Ages? MEntity: Sages tend to always be focused on some exploration and play with the "truth," but it is in the Old Soul Age that INTEGRITY and truth become synonymous. Another way to put this is that honesty becomes priority. By the time one is an Old Soul, or an Old Sage, the spectrum of definition for "the truth" is well-known and understood, so it becomes far more important to the Sage that there is integrity and honesty in one's truth, whatever that truth may be. This sense of honesty and integrity becomes extremely nuanced and sensitive to the Old Sage. More accurate meaning can often be found between the words and behaviors of others than the Sage often cares to deal with, but it grows like a "sixth sense." ... That is one way for how the Old Sage can validate his Old Soulness: the sense of priority for Integrity and Honesty. [GeraldineB] When that is all one has, it's all one knows. So, it's not really a validation MEntity: To match that internal validation, it can also be of help to observe or be open to the feedback from others about one's own integrity and honesty. These may tend to be prominent areas of discussion, challenges, or sensitivity from others for the Sage, as well. For many Old Sages, this is a familiar area of defense because others may bring it up about the Sage, as well, in some way.
  38. 1 point
    This material was originally posted by Martha following a POF on October 5, 2011. Question: Can I get an update on current active Agreements? It feels like a lot is going on “behind the scenes”. MEntity: Since you have more than 35 currently-active Agreements, we think it would be easier to describe to you how to go about identifying those with whom you share Agreements, rather than to list each of them and their details. It is not a difficult Task for an individual to identify these, and we think our students are quite capable of doing so on their own. We think this may help: Agreements come in 3 forms: Essence, Personality, and Spontaneous. There may be better words to describe these, but these will do for now. Essence Agreements are those that are made prior to birth by the Essences involved, or during Astral exchanges during the lifetime. Essence manages these, but Personality can always trump them. Personality Agreements are those made between two people who have met, and discover that they would like to make plans. It is that simple. These count as Agreements and are no different from those on an Essence Level, except in context of origin. Personal Agreements always trump Essence Agreements. Spontaneous/Pivotal Agreements are those that happen "on the spot," between two Personalities, not because they have grown to know one another, but because of immediate need or desire. Spontaneous/Pivotal Agreements trump all other Agreements. The trumping of Agreements come from the fact of impact, not because one is more important than another. For instance, Essence One made Agreements to Mate with Essence Two. The Personality of Essence One has found herself attracted to the Personality of Essence Three because of proximity within the workplace. Personality One and Personality Three start dating exclusively. Essence Two now shows up as planned. Personality One is now torn [between] Two and Three. Instead of communicating and maturely handling the process of choice around such a situation, she "cheats" with Personality Two, which is discovered by Three. And now all Agreements are off among all involved. All choices of Essence take the "back seat," if you will, to all choices made by Personality, because Personality only gets that one life, and it is yours to do with as you please, which means completely revamping all Agreements carefully set up by Essence prior to the life, if you choose to so. Essence, Personality, or Pivotal Agreements have no tier of priority for Essence, but the more one begins to make choices consciously, the more one tends to align with Essence Agreements. But because the Personality knows the terrain of the physical life much better than Essence does, it will always have the advantage in sustaining, rejecting, or creating Agreements. The way you can tell with whom you share Agreements is if THAT PERSON MATTERS IN SOME WAY. It is that simple. This may not be the person from whom you borrow a stapler, but it can be a person whom you see every day who serves your coffee, or drives your bus, or services your car, or changes or impacts your life. We can go into greater detail as to the different depths and circles of Agreements at another time, but our point in this exchange is to say that you are surrounded by Agreements. For us to list them in any given day is no different from your looking at your day in retrospect and listing every single person who crossed paths with you that day, internally or externally, who MATTERED to you in some way. And people matter far more to each other than they ever give each other credit for. Rather than taking on the daunting task of listing everyone who mattered to you in the day, it may be helpful to start with two groups: those that obviously mattered, and those whom you think mattered. Listing 3 from each group every day can add to one's level of gratitude and consciousness in ways that may be surprising. The level of consciousness involved in terms of who matters to whom is unnecessary, or no progress would be made. In the case of our Older Soul students, consciousness cannot be undone, so you may be achingly aware of when others are not reciprocating consciously, or conscious at all, but it should have no impact on whether that person mattered to you, or whether you know that you mattered to him or her.
  39. 1 point
    [Extracted from: Energy Report: 2010 Overview] MEntity: The Positive Pole of Sage is DISSEMINATION. This is the process of sharing information in a way that can be heard and comprehended. If the move is more toward the Positive Pole, ... The Negative Pole of Sage is ORATION. This is the process of dumping information upon those who have no interest, communicating with presumptions about the listeners, and speaking in ways that have no value beyond filling space and time.
  40. 1 point
    [Excerpted from Michael Speaks: Living as Essence.] MEntity: Today we will speak to you about "living as Essence," or "manifesting Essence," which essentially translates into living from the Positive Poles of your Overleaves. What we will share today is relative to the Essence Roles, so your particular dynamic of Overleaves is not relevant to how one's Essence Manifests, as there are consistencies to the core qualities of each Role. However, because of your own Overleaves' dynamics, you may find variations on what we share. ... If one thinks of each life being a story, then what we can do to help each of you understand how you live as Essence is to put this in light of the story of your life. ... For the KING, the question is: IS THIS THE STORY I WANTED TO LIVE? Or put another way, "AM I ALIVE IN THIS STORY?" Kings, more than most other Roles, will endure the stories of their lives to such an extent that they no longer feel alive. They will continue down a trajectory for decades before hitting a wall that forces them to wake up from their stupor and BE ALIVE. So for the Kings who seek to live as Essence, the vibrancy of living must be considered as a parameter for staying on track and in the positive poles. If the King does not feel alive, he is likely not living the story he meant to live, and is likely not living as Essence. Kings, more than other Roles, often feel that enduring boredom and tedium are honorable and noble, so there is some sense of great pride in enduring this. And they can and will do so for years. However, there are few things as emotionally moving and inspiring than to see a King wake up. To see and hear a King laughing and giddy with excitement is profoundly touching. We dare say that our King students may actually cringe at the association of "giddy" with King, but it happens. And so the King who seeks to live as Essence must regularly ask, "AM I ALIVE IN THIS STORY?" "IS THIS THE STORY I MEANT TO LIVE?" and in asking these questions, she will be able to help herself navigate her choices, actions, and paths to higher ground.
  41. 1 point
    Yes, that’s the one @Uma. I included it in my blog Compassionate Act & Dreams of Convergence. I’ve felt the darkness and the weight since August 2014 and it hasn’t let up since then it’s just intensified. I suspect it going to get weightier and darker until we get relief through the Infinite Soul manifestation in 2020. Interesting times, indeed. ?
  42. 1 point
    This sounds like you're suggesting that the priorities are negative and NEED to be resolved. That's not necessarily the case, and probably isn't usually the case. My priority may be Death (see My Priority: Death), but rather than thinking this needs to be resolved so that I can get into something else, figuring this out really explained a lot about my life. It's not the morbid Priority that I initially envisioned when Michael discussed it in the session, but a driving force that has been active or in the background for more than 45 years of my life. I fully expect the ultimate resolution to be my own death, at which point all my questions about death will be answered. Right? In the meantime, the Priority for me is a central organizing component behind my spiritual research and experience, and I'm not at all upset by it being my Priority, nor do I feel another Priority would be 'better'. Even someone with a Priority of Addiction may not need resolution, but may drive toward life experiences that focus on managing/healing/avoiding Addiction, not necessarily being Addicted. To me, knowing about the 9 Priorities helps explain an internal drive that might otherwise be unexplained -- or unnoticed -- had these not been presented to me. And I think that's the reason Michael wanted to present the topic. All the questions raised during the session about how to switch Priorities probably arise from an incomplete understanding of the topic, which still needs to be fleshed out, as well as knee-jerk reaction to the terms given. (Aaaack! I CAN'T have a Priority of Sex!) As far as cells having consciousness, I believe Michael has mentioned this previously, and Seth also discusses this concept quite often. All matter has consciousness; only the degree differs. One of my favorite OMW sessions ever was Tending to Your 7 Basic Rights, which discusses how even a rock has consciousness. The degree to which our body cells collaborate to create and support a human body is just another example of how awesome our universe is.
  43. 1 point
    Okay, light bulbs, ahas and eurekas are starting again, and I am just a few lines into this session. Thanks, @Janet! Your links and threads are almost like firecrackers for me, exploding all over the place and connecting dots in so many profound and meaningful ways that I have to stop, take a moment to comprehend what I am reading/experiencing, and tell you how much I appreciate your guidance here on TLE with all the material that you curate so well.
  44. 1 point
    [Excerpted from: OMW: Loving and Being Loved] MEntity: Before we go into the dynamics of the Personality and how Loving and Being Loved works within each Lifetime, we will point out the general themes for each Role and how that pursuit of Loving and Being Loved shows up over lifetimes. Every Role has its blind spot to love, and when that blind spot finds light, that Role usually experiences a profound exposure to Love. … KINGS, more than any other Role, tend to require you to LET THEM LOVE YOU FIRST before he or she can let you love him or her. Of course, this does not mean you cannot Love the King, but it does mean that he may not experience it until he has decided he can Love you. "Letting the King Love You First" would simply mean that you go about your business of being yourself, with no airs, no pretence, no agenda, and this gives the King time to Love you. WARRIORS - need to be Won Over - defaulting to Reciprocal Love KINGS - need you to Let Them Love - defaulting to Agape Love These needs are correlated to MARTYRDOM and IMPATIENCE, which are about Losing Control of Space, and Losing Control of Time. In other words, the Warrior needs shared "territory" to Love, and The King needs shared "time" to Love.
  45. 1 point
    [Excerpt from Michael Speaks: July 2008] [H2OSprtlvr] I am drawn to an individual that I have done business with. While in his shop, he opened up and told me about a whole host of problems he is dealing with. He seems to be nothing but trouble. Why do I feel attached to helping him to see another way of things? I don’t understand why I am drawn to someone with problems I know I can’t help with. [Michael Entity] It is part of some of your self-karma: the dance between speculation and truth, and the dance between saving a life and simply giving what you can. It would do you well to allow the speculation that you may not be able to help save this person, but it would also do you well to keep in perspective what you CAN give as help, without condition, as the ultimate impact will be up to the receiver, not the giver. In other words, give the support and caring that you can, but allow for the reality that you cannot save his life for him.
  46. 1 point
    [Excerpt from NWM: Blind Spots of Attitude ] MEntity: Today we will speak to the "blind spots" of your Attitude. Though we have clear delineation of each Overleaf in terms of polarities, there can come a time in the evolution of an Essence when all of the "tricks" of fear, Chief Features, and Negative Poles are exhausted as methods defense, division, and isolation. This can take many lifetimes to exhaust because every lifetime brings with it a new Personality, so all of these methods are still "new" every single time. Fearful choices and reactions can be used over and over and then overcome, only to be found anew in the next life. However, the older the soul, the thinner that "veil" is between the Personality and Essence, and you begin to live AS Essence. And Essence knows all of the tricks of fear. We speak in convenient terms here that may seem to personify fear as something independent from you, but that is not the case. We know you know this. As the Personality evolves in a lifetime, and particularly when studying and applying a teaching such as this, it can become quite obvious and clear when one is in the Negative Pole by definition, and choices can be made to remedy this. These means of navigation, choice, and self-observation are quite beneficial to reducing unwarranted fear. And while this can reduce the hold of Chief Features by up to 90% and beyond, it will not address the blind spots that each of you develop. These blind spots are your downfall. They are your bad days. They are your "people suck" scenarios. They are your "I suck" scenarios. They are your haunting undercurrents of pointlessness, or your ominous dread that you keep in check. In short, they are your means of evading responsibility for your fear. The fear we speak of will be relative to your Chief Feature, but we likely not speak to those today. We speak of the means by which that fear gets a hold and becomes acceptable to you in ways that perpetuate the hold of Chief Feature so that it is comforting, addictive, and "sensible."
  47. 1 point
    [Excerpt from Michael Speaks: August 1999] [M6] could we have an update on the manifestation of the Infinite soul? [Michael_Entity] We do not see full manifestation of the Infinite Soul anywhere on the planet currently, though there are 2 fragments that are “ready”, and 3 more will follow when the first two have begun. At least 5 manifestations will show that we have heard. These manifestations will include a young child apparently. The United States will most likely take the Teachings of either the child, a Priest son of a single parent female Server, or the Teachings of a female Sage. [bn] So the IS intends to manifest in more than one individual at the same time? Has this been done before? [Michael_Entity] We believe Buddha and Christ overlapped in impact, though not so closely. This is part of why you have “east” and “west”. We doubt the latest manifestations will be so easily used to segregate the world. [bn] Is the IS manifesting in 5 individuals due to the population or is this tied more to the lessons to bring? [Michael_Entity] Both.
  • Create New...