Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'natural disaster'.
Found 1 result
DanielaS posted a topic in 2016 Michael SpeaksNew York City Michael Speaks—Election 2016 2016-03-05 Channeled by Troy Tolley TRANSCRIBED FROM AUDIO RECORDING by Daniela NOTE: this will read a bit differently from most transcripts because it is delivered orally. NOTE: some editing for clarification 11:00 Hello to each of you. Bear with us as we continue to adjust to coming through. The music is nice. [referring to a passing vehicle blasting music] OK. We will try to make sense of what Troy’s presented to us as a direction of discussion on your upcoming election and its symbolism and its potential outcomes, as well as make sense of [all of what is going on] in itself, as we know it is quite a mess. Or at least it appears to be so. The first thing that we will say is that it is valid if it has crossed your mind that all of this in the arena or the context of the election is quite symbolic, is quite representative of what is happening collectively not only locally, geographically, but also on the planet. We mentioned recently in our delivery of what you call the Energy Report that humanity is “sick,” humanity is “ill.” We were not exaggerating. We were not being sensational. We were being quite literal. The bodies that make up sentience, your intellectual, your emotional, your physical bodies have reached a critical point collectively, where you can no longer sustain the momentum that you have been on through these [recent] cycles of incarnation. Most of our students suspect this in some way: that there has been a critical turning point reached that must be addressed in some way. This has been symbolically played with as a concept for many years, with the threat of “Y2K,” the Mayan calendar ending, and many references such as this that indicate a shift, or a collapse, or a turning point of some sort happening for humanity. And these were all valid representations of that cumulative reality of progression toward the breaking point or turning point. But now you have reached it. Now in this year something has got to change. And we do not say this because we have an investment in which direction you go. We know all of you will be fine. You will be incarnating again and in the worst of scenarios you will find a new species, a new planet to continue your incarnations. So we have “been there, done that.” And so we are not invested in this turning point in the sense that you MUST “save” yourselves. But we are sharing this perspective because you care. You care which direction you go. You care which direction your fellow humans go. 16:20 You are done with the risks of experimentation in directions that lead to “collapse and rebuilding.” At some point in a sentient species’ arc of evolution there comes a point when you are done with that [concept]. Rather than collapse and rebuild, which humanity has experienced numerous times, you would rather build. You would rather rearrange. You would rather move to another higher turn in the spiral rather than replace it. And what is happening right now is that battle between those who prefer the familiar “collapse and rebuild” to those who prefer the new concept, or the new effort toward building upon a rearranged or renovated foundation. There is no need for a full collapse for you to continue forward in your direction of preference. Yes, you may have to dismantle, you may have to do serious rearranging and altering and replacing but everything does not have to crumble in order to be built anew. From what we can see of each of the candidates that are representing your potential forward, each of them represent some potential in both directions [of either collapse or renovation]. None of the candidates that we can see are exempt from representing some form of collapse or some potential for building upon what is. Which brings us to the point that “building upon what is” can be terrifying if what is chosen to be built upon harms a great number of those of you who will be sharing space and time with those who have no consideration for how it affects you. So while, for instance, Donald Trump would like to “build upon what is” in terms of xenophobic, fearful foundations, it is not necessarily a “good” thing that you would move forward upon “what is.” 19:08 Our point being that both directions have potential for both a restricted, painful direction or a positive, loving, inclusive direction. So we do not want to give the impression that “collapse and rebuild” is the “bad” direction and “building upon what is” is the “good” direction. “Collapse and rebuild” have worked very well for a long time. So it is a combination of building upon what is considered good, building upon what is beneficial to all, building upon what is inclusive of everyone, that we think most of our students are concerned with in terms of “building upon what is.” Because the risk of building upon what is may include building upon what is restrictive, painful, and harmful, many do prefer the collapse again. Because at least when there is a collapse, everybody goes down. It is new for human sentience to try to find a way to “build upon what is” in a way that builds away from the painful and constricted and oppressed directions. This is new. This is scary. But you have to do it at some point, not because we say you have to but because it is part of growing up. It is part of evolving. When there is not a global awareness of a shared collective progress, then this effort to build upon what is happens on smaller scales in villages and tribes and towns and so forth, so it is not a new concept. We had our share of that experience as well. We did not miss out. But this is probably the largest scale that we have seen the effort necessary. And this is because not only is there a “smaller” world, so to speak, in terms of awareness of everyone else on the planet with you, but also because of the shift toward the Mature Soul paradigm. Everyone will be affected, not just those in the village. Now before we continue on in a direction that may or may not be of interest, we will open to your questions to help shape the direction of our discussion with you. 24:16 [Question] I have a question. In terms of the candidates: which one has got the highest probability of building upon in a positive fashion? Before we respond to the questions of probabilities for the various candidates we will make it clear that we do not align ourselves with a party. We know the channel is very passionate about aligning himself with certain values, and we will say that as Causal Plane consciousness it is not difficult for us to find ourselves in alignment with those same values since we have also had to learn the hard lessons of inclusiveness and love and embrace and progress without harm. That being said, it is clear to us, not only when we look at probabilities, but when we look at all of the candidates, that your greatest potential for “building upon” are in your Democratic candidates - - both of them. Both of these candidates have the potential to build upon what is in a way that would move toward progressive inclusion and benefit. However, between the two of them we cannot see how well either would be able to do this without falling into collapse. Both candidates, however much effort one may be preferring a “revolution,” so to speak, and the other towards “familiarity and building upon what is,” both risk collapse. Both risk moving in a direction that simply requires collapse. They are not immune to this possibility. And regardless of the differences between the two in terms of interest for how to move forward, one towards “building upon what is” and the other “revolutionizing,” both may HAVE to build upon what is as a means to move forward. But both of these are your greatest potential for moving forward in a way that is the least harmful to the most amount of people. [Question] You know I was hoping for a one person answer, right? We think narrowing it to two is fairly helpful. [Laughter and background chatter.] [Question] When you say “collapse” do you mean economic collapse, social collapse, or like a natural disaster? All three. 28:19 [Question] How would what’s happening socially and economically cause a natural disaster? It would not cause a natural disaster. It could, however, be reflected in the weather, in the climate changes. The weather, the planet, the geological face of the planet... all of these are tied into the consciousness of the dominant sentience on the planet. And depending on what is happening collectively it has an effect in the weather systems, in the climate, in the shifting of the Earth’s surface and beneath the surface. We are not saying that the consciousness of humans control this, but that part of the point of incarnating on a planet is to build a bond with that planet. To build a bond with the collective consciousness that makes up the ecosystem, shall we say, the spiritual ecosystem, the metaphysical ecosystem of a world. And so the social or economic collapse would not necessarily cause the natural disasters but they would coincide; they would parallel each other in a way that could be quite difficult to navigate through. Did this answer your question? [Question] Sort of. I’m having trouble articulating what I want to say. [Question] So would an example of natural disaster that can be directly or indirectly connected to this election or some of the candidates over others would be if there are candidates who are strong advocates for continuing to drill in the Arctic or fracking across our country, across the world, or putting more carbon in the atmosphere, contributing to the destruction of the Ozone layer. All of those things have an effect on Mother Nature. So they themselves may not have created the natural disaster, but their ideologies or their policies might, in addition to whatever economic or social collapses which they may more directly control as President or as a person of power. Their indirect decision-making can also bring about these natural disasters. Yes, there is that direct dynamic. There is the cause and effect in those ways that bring about natural disasters from cumulative effects. But we also speak in terms of massive hurricanes or massive heat waves or massive earthquakes that are not necessarily related to these irresponsible exploitations of the planet but are reflective of broader disconnect and disregard for the planet in general and the necessity for healing of the planet. And when there is a necessity for healing, not only in humanity but in the planet, and especially when both are in need of that, there will often come waves of natural disasters that reset civilizations in a way that allows for healing to occur in both humanity and the planet. [Question] Like Pompeii level? Yes. Or bigger, of course. 32:48 [Question] Aside from people’s actions, irresponsible actions, we’re also affecting the weather with our emotions and our thoughts? Yes, you add to it. Yes. We cannot describe or explain exactly how this works because we do not have a language that would help make . . . [Question] So does the level or strength of the bond proportionally affect the amount of healing? Because it seems like humans and Earth are kind of divorced (?) of a strong bond and so I don’t think that if there were some kind of natural disaster that that would necessarily result in some sort of healing on the economic and social level because I don’t think there is that recognition of the bond. What happens in scenarios such as this, or at least the potential in such scenarios, is similar to what was experienced in New York City during “9/11” when there was a shock to the social ecosystem where individuals who would normally have not felt any kind of awareness or compassion or sense of others around them, pulled together, came together, felt for each other, and with each other, and so on. This is a minor example of what we are speaking of, but our point being that when there is an external threat or shock to the system then the potential for generating a common ground among those who must contend with that shared threat sometimes has the effect generating waves of healing. So even if this natural disaster were to hit, and it would hit a group of people who have no sense of connection to the planet, their being forced to build or rebuild together, to take care of each other, to reach out in a way that they normally would not, has the potential to then help bring that connection and healing that goes well beyond the participants. Do you understand? [Response] Yes [Question] Natural disasters can shift our perspective. Or make us realize maybe how small we were thinking. Yes. All of you build these intellectual constructs that divide you from other people, and emotional constructs that divide you from other people, and these are comfortable and interesting and help you to know yourself or to distance yourself from knowing yourself. But when there is a threat then, say, three separate people standing next to each other who would otherwise have had nothing in common suddenly find something in common very quickly. And they find a way to bridge their differences very quickly. 36:55 What tends to happen, or what has happened, is that even though there is a short term effect that allows for that healing to happen, it quickly fades. We are saying that over the course of this year if the direction heads towards such collapse in so many different contexts, it will be very difficult to avoid the impact because of the long term effect of it. And so there will have to be a reaching across boundaries and divisions and constructs in order to build together. This is healing. This year as a turning point may sound ominous, but it is not. It is just growing pains. And these growing pains... in particular if there is collapse in all three areas... would be because of the resistance to growing together. It is not imposed. [Question] So, I don’t know if this is a continuation, it kind of seems like we are getting off the main topic. So what accounts for, because what often happens when we experience disasters is not a unification on a grand scale but more of a suppression and limiting of freedoms and thoughts rather than expanding. What accounts for that? Two things: The small scale of it, which tends to be relative to those who experience the impact more directly. And then there are those who exploit the scenarios from outside of the effects of the disaster. They swoop in, so to speak, and exploit the situation, dismantling or diminishing the efforts toward healing. This exploitation and diminishing is much more difficult to do if you are included in the effects of the collapse. If you are in your figurative high tower when there comes a collapse so that you are suddenly in the street with those who are also affected, you very quickly find a way to relate and how to work together or you do not survive. If we understood your question correctly, then our answer stands that the reason why you may not see natural disasters as good examples of bonding is because of their smaller scale and because of those who are not affected by it then taking advantage of those disasters. But a disaster on a larger scale that affects many from different levels of society then has more people in a position to make the choice to participate towards healing. They do not have to, but they are much more inclined to work with those they would not normally work with if it means survival. [Response] OK that makes more sense Yes, the motivations for the common ground will not necessarily be so noble across the board. Some are more inclined to do so in the first place, without a disaster. Some must find themselves in positions of survival in order to find a reason to work together. But there is still learning in that. 41:30 [Question] So is there a greater lesson for younger soul ages to have to go through a collapse. And could we assume we’ve been through that enough that we just don’t want to do it again but we can’t get in the way of others’ lessons so they can get to the same point? To some extent that is true. But as the collective paradigm of a sentience becomes more evolved and collectively shared then the less likely the younger paradigms are to take down those who are older. For example, yes, you may have already “been there, done that.” And, yes, there are souls on the planet who have “not been there, done that” and need to have their own experiences of this, but because they need to have those experiences or are curious about them and would create scenarios that would cause those circumstances does not mean everybody else who has already experienced it then must go through it again. So what tends to happen as the collective soul age evolves is that the older soul ages must then learn to step in and help to direct the growth of the species and the direction of the species and become, however exhausted and challenging it may be, the “adults,” so to speak, for the rest of the soul ages. The younger souls will still get to have their collapses. They will still get to have their collective collapses but on smaller scales and confined to their networks. The older souls can step in and help create the context for which the younger souls can still have their experiences without interfering with them but in a way that not everybody has to go down with them. [Question] So would Bernie Sanders be a direct manifestation of that symbol of an older soul perhaps stepping in? Yes. Yes, very much so. The fragment who is Bernie Sanders represents the highest ideals of the oldest souls who are among you. And we say that in a broad sense. We do not say that in a practical sense. The practical application of these ideals is a different story and would still need to be figured out, but that is exactly what he represents and why many of the older souls are drawn to what he represents. 45:20 [Question] I have another question. So would you say there were… I’m going to bring my conspiracy theories in… broader oligarchic forces on this planet that control the money, control, you know, corporate greed and the 1% that basically controls our government. Are there forces there that will do anything to stop him from getting into, to push his ideals forward? Yes, there are these forces. That is not quite that secretive or a conspiracy. There are these forces that are working very hard to steer benefits towards a very select group in power. That is not a secret conspiracy. That is simply how some fragments behave and they move into positions of power that then work hard to sustain that momentum. But they are not a force that is outside of the system of collective consciousness. They are not somehow stronger, more powerful, more magical. They can only have so much affect up to a certain point. Especially in the system that you recognize as your United States. But we will say, without this being a prediction or as ominous as it sounds, that there is a high likelihood that there will be attempted assassinations of any candidate who turns out to represent either side. There is quite likely to be, at least, an attempt. This is a self-destructive year. We see many fragments already “fired up” in that direction and feel empowered to do harm. The likelihood of the attempt is there, but from what we can see, it would not come from the forces you describe. It would come from those who were manipulated below, from outside. [Question] When you say potential for assassination on either side are you saying those who hold extreme views aka the Trump supporters and those who hold extreme views aka the Bernie Sanders supporters? Either side being one of those two factions having just as much potential to want to assassinate an opposing party representative? [Question] It’s not just Trump’s people or the truly conservative people? The potential is there from and against both sides. The difference in motivations would be clear but the end results are the aim for assassination. Both sides would be interested in stopping what they feel is a threat. And if Donald Trump were to move into a position of power, there are many from “both sides” who would find themselves in a position that feels noble and sacrificial to somehow to take him out of that position. 49:40 [Question] So you mention that there are going to be assassination attempts. Is there any probability that somebody would actually be assassinated? If there are attempts there are probabilities that it could happen. That is how that works. [Question] Probabilities are not only cross party. Could they also be interparty? Yes. Yes. [Question] So what are the probabilities for everyone involved in the election for becoming President at this point in time? We have been looking at this since Troy posed it to us and the fluctuations are so great that it is difficult for us to land upon a number that would be in any way useful to you. Not only because of the fluctuations in the factors that you are aware of, but there are a couple of… what we will consider or say are wild card factors... that still have not come up yet that must be factored in that will throw off everything you have been expecting as a momentum for this election cycle. One of those wild card factors, of course, is the potential for violence in a way that is quite startling. The other is a shift in parties or an additional party thrown into the mix. But, based on what we can see at this moment (and this must be accepted with a grain of salt, so to speak) is a showdown between Trump and Hilary. That is as of this very moment. This is not something we may say is true in an hour. We cannot say who would come out on top of that at this point. There are too many variables. *** This may seem like an ominous pattern that is unfolding but it is actually quite exciting. And we know we have the luxury of sitting here with no bodies that are under threat to be able to say this. But there is that part of you, however fired up or passionate or invested you may be… there is a part of you that knows this is exciting. There is something changing. Something is going to be different next year. What that is is yet to be determined and we know it will come as no comfort to you but there will be variations and parallels that cover all the different options because this is of such a wide scale interest with a lot of different ideas about what is the best direction. Some of the parallels will head toward the collapse and literally a cascading, shocking effect of civilization being dismantled as you know it from the turning point of this year. Some of the parallels will move in a direction that will transform how the world works together in a way that is far more inclusive, helpful, healing, and beneficial for even the most difficult of people for hundreds and hundreds of years because of this year’s turning point. So you have the whole spectrum to choose from, and part of you (and we say this literally) will probably go in each direction to some extent. Some of your parallels may die off after seeing the ugliness that some of them may bring but that is how parallels work. [Response] Pick your parallels wisely, people. 55:41 [Question] But why are so many people willing to follow a demagogue? We would say that the simple answer is fear. It is that simple. It may look like confidence, it may look like superiority, it may look like any number of empowered positions. But it is fear. When a population is fired up through fear it tends to be because somebody is promising something in exchange for that fear, in exchange for your confidence in a solution to that fear. And as you can see that is exactly the equation occurring. There are also factors that we will not get into tonight, but we can suggest for follow up. For example, there are also a great number of monads being played out in these scenarios where there is a corrupt master faithfully followed by servants. This kind of monad can happen on large scales such as this. And that is what is happening with the King and many who are hooking into a monad with that fragment. [Question] Who’s the King? [Response] Trump. [Question] Well, how do you ever do the other side of that monad if there are hundreds of people? When it happens on that scale the *experience* tends to be the point, not necessarily with whom it is experienced. When it is on a smaller scale, such as a husband/wife monad, it is quite easy to switch sides with that actual individual. But when it is a population focused on an individual who is playing the counterpart to that monad, then in order to flip that, the masses of individuals that make up that mass will do it on a smaller scale with, say, their child, and become the abusive parent to a child or the dictating partner in a relationship. [Question] So speaking of Trump, being that he embodies the young soul ideals as opposed to the other two [Republican] candidates who are leaning more to the Baby/Early Young, how much of his rhetoric and all the stuff he’s proposing just to win, he’s into the art of winning, and not really his own personal values that he keeps, you know, changing over the years and just speaking to the crowds, give them what they want to hear as opposed to, you know, what he believes just so he can win? 59:54 At least half of what is claimed as a passionate stance for him does not exist as a personal position. It is a marketing position. And this individual has grown to find false marketing to be a useful way to get people into positions to serve him against even their own best interests. Regardless of whether this individual upholds these values personally, it will not matter since they are upheld publically. So, while it may be true that on a personal level he does not have such a stance of division, he will continue to play that role as long as he needs to in order to keep up the effects and desires that he would like to have. Our point being that, in this case, the difference between private values and public values is moot. [Question] I was assuming, should he be elected, he can then do whatever he wants. He won. So, he could change positions and do what he wants. And not do everything he said he would do. That is correct. Without our diving too deeply into his privacy, for we can only access what is allowed by the individual to be accessed, we can see that the intent would be to uphold the ideas as long as possible even if no implementation were to ever be possible. Because it is the ideas that are powerful, even more so than the implementation. *** On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being “fully confident in a desired and beneficial outcome” and 5 being “terrified of the worst-case scenario,” we would pose to each of you the question of where you feel you are in looking at the probabilities, and feeling out the probabilities, yourself, for this year that is a turning point, a collective turning point. [Responses] I am sure it’s not normally popular, but I feel pretty confident that it’s going to go in a positive way because I feel like I am making some decisions in my own head that I’m choosing to be in a parallel that’s like that and I would prefer that. And also I generally like a nice easy path. As we all know. I’m the Reader’s Digest version of everything. So that’s what I pick and I’m going to feel confident in it. So I’ll say 1 then. 3 3 2 2 3 I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt they are not all assholes. Johnny’s not committing. Oh, eh, um, probably 2 and a half? But I have a question about the fear thing. If I can go back to the fear thing. Yes. 1:04:46 [Question] So, what are the advantages or who benefits from assimilating into a manufactured fear that’s not real? That is the nature of fear. Most of what is feared, even among our students in your personal lives, is “made up,” manufactured, or it is speculative, or it is taught to you, it is indoctrinated into you, it is imprinted in you. Very little of what you fear is actually something you have experienced to the point that it is a useful navigational tool. This is worked. This is something that our students work on regularly to be aware of in the process of making choices and perceiving and so on and fear still has its effect in your life. And this is for those who are awake. So for those who are not awake, not making any effort, then that fear is as real as anything else that may have been experienced, and in many cases because of the lack of experience and because of repetitive experience then these fears take on a life of their own because it is so outside of anything familiar to the individual and is seen as a threat to everything known and familiar. So it is not so much that it SERVES them but that they THINK it serves them well to stand in a position that reflects their fears, and behaviors reflect the fight against those fears. Each of you are guilty of this as well. And we say the term “guilty” playfully, but you have behaved in ways that were based in fear, that were not based in reality or based in simple navigation, but based in speculation, unformed ideas, imprinting, and so on. Fears that you are not good enough, fears that you are not pretty enough, fears that you are not loved enough, fears that you will fail, and so on. Does this help you understand how if you, with such inclination toward being aware of your fears, are still struggling with this degree of differentiation between navigational fear and speculative fear, then those who are not as conscious would have even more difficulty differentiating? [Response] Yeah, I understand. It does not make sense when you are on the outside of it. When you can see the absurdity of the fears, it does not make sense. We have had to learn to understand this because once you are out of the body and moving forward to higher planes, looking back at our students and their fears could easily bring sudden chuckles and dismissal of your fears as entirely unwarranted. But we must treat them as seriously as you do in order bring understanding, discernment, and empowerment to you. And this is also true of you among your fellow humans. Sometimes it is not pleasant, but if the possibility is there to understand the fears, and there is an opportunity to speak through those fears, then great differences can be made. However, we do understand that often this is simply not possible. Many must simply learn on their own. The same way that all of us must. We can tell you all day long how much you are loved and worthy, and you will still have to struggle to truly grasp this on your own. Next question? 1:10:44 [Question] I have a question about empathy. And it might actually need to be reserved for a full discussion on its own. But I know the idea of, like, Republican and Democrat is a modern construct that’s only a few hundred years old, but the idea of conservatism and progressivism or liberal thought, those go back I’m sure, even though what define them might have changed over centuries, eras, millennia or whatever, that that goes back. The idea of, I’m just, I only like people like me, or I only like things that are like me or make me feel good about myself versus I have this natural inclination or desire to help and embrace those around me, Human or otherwise. Is it, to me it seems like, it’s very clear that people who are progressive, Liberal, Democrat, Blue seem to be the people that have that innate ability of empathy or is that just a superficial projection that I’m placing on them? Because there are, like, die-hard, conservative, Catholic nuns who obviously have some sort of empathy if they’re out there helping, you know, the sick or, you know, children in need or whatever. Is it really that clear cut? Are progressive or liberal-minded people much more empathetic or not? It is all relative on an individual basis, but collectively as an idea your assessment is actually accurate. And while it could be said that a “strict nun” is of empathy, we would say that the difference between it being as a practice in ritual as an obligation, however much it may be chosen as an obligation, is very different from it being a part of your life on a daily basis in a way that is not based on obligation or ritual. So, while empathy may exist across the spectrum in varying degrees of concentric effect from an individual, the ideas represented by the progressive, liberal construct is representative of the older soul mentality. It is not a superficial obligation. The differences, of course, are that these constructs represent the differences in the soul ages and how the soul ages perceive the world around them. Older souls are going to be attracted towards a more inclusive, progressive perspective and Baby, Young, and Infant souls are going to be inclined towards those that protect them from threats or bring them desired results even at the expense of others. So your perception is valid. Did that address your question? [Response] Yes. We are stumbling through some of our delivery today because Troy keeps trying to listen in and it interferes with our delivery tonight. So we know that some of our sentences have rambled in directions where we lost control. We trust that each of you can make sense of our delivery. Are there further questions? 1:14:04 [Question] One last question from me. How can empathy be taught? Only through experience. Empathy is very much like Love in the sense that you can “give it” to someone, but you cannot hand it to someone. You can share it with someone, but you cannot hand it to someone. That individual must develop this from within themselves. In all cases empathy emerges from the effort to find common ground, to recognize common ground, and from the capacity to feel, to resonate emotionally with another being or person, even if from very different perspectives or positions. Life circumstances can be very different, but if two people are in pain it is the pain that can be the common ground of empathy, for example. Most individuals require a familiar face in a familiar experience to be able to spark that growth of empathy. Recognizing that others are also struggling and in pain but are distanced from them will not necessarily trigger empathy. But once there is a face that looks like your own face going through something very similar then the spark of empathy begins, and that spark of empathy does not end with a lifetime. It gets fed into the Essence in a way that Essence then builds it into the next lifetime, builds it into the next Personality. That Personality can reject it, of course, but more often than not it is difficult to do so and the Personality builds upon that empathy carried forward. Empathy takes lifetimes, in many cases, and is relative to soul age. [Response] And then I’m assuming then it grows from the face that looks like me to extend past things that don’t look like you, to other species and . . . Yes. It starts with, “you look like me and you experienced something similar to me” to “you don’t look like me but you experienced something similar to me” to “you do not look like me at all and you experienced something very different from me but we can relate” and so on from there. [Question] Is empathy then a moving-centered concept? We will say that the moving center is vital to the progression . . . but it is ultimately an emotional reality, it is an emotionally-fueled energy. [Response] It seems like all the centers would be involved. Yes. But all of your centers are involved in everything. Our response to the question was more to point out that the emotional center in its positive pole is Perception. And Perception is the capacity to bypass logic, to bypass reason, to bypass conditions, for you to be able to see another person, to be able to see another being. That is the nature of Perception: bypassing all of the obstacles that would otherwise keep you from seeing another individual. 1:20:08 [Question] But if someone has to experience empathy wouldn’t that involve experiencing it through the moving center before you can process it as an emotional experience? Each person may process it differently, but what we think you are asking is: if you have to experience it, then the physical plane and bodies must be involved, and in that regard… yes, the moving center is INVOLVED, but the gravity of empathy and its growth is in the emotional center. Because even though it starts with an experience in the physical plane and a familiar face, it still requires Perception in order to build that spark of empathy and then build upon that spark of empathy. It still requires bypassing the obstacles of logic and the obstacles of physical division. There are many who share in similar physical plane experiences and yet feel no empathy for anyone else involved. The Emotional Center and Perception is required. [Question] You said, so if empathy most often starts out with you first identifying someone or something that you’re already familiar with does that mean you have to love yourself first before you can have empathy for something or someone else? That equation is not a requirement, but it certainly helps. And it is not always the way the equation works. Sometimes the reflection that you see in another struggling is how you come back to yourself and learn to love yourself because you realize that if you can love this individual who is going through something similar to you then the empathy can build toward yourself. This may be something that some individuals do not realize but empathy is not just something that is developed toward others. It is also developed toward yourself. There are many who live without empathy for themselves. They will drag their bodies through an entire life and never feel the compassion necessary for them to feel loved and accepted and so forth. And so if this is done by understanding themselves through another, or seeing themselves reflected in another, then that is as valid a path as loving yourself, first. [private rounds of questions omitted] And with that we will head out and say good evening to each of you and good-bye.