Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Note from Janet: This topic was originally posted by Geraldine on September 29, 2014. I have elected to post it under the same forum section that Geraldine chose. 


Note from Geraldine: I had my Team POF session today, and, while I didn't have anything personal that seemed pressing, I did want to continue with some of my "Timeline Project" work, too. Warfare and Warriors isn't exactly that, but it does fill in a couple of blanks as it opens up some new Questions.



I'd like more context for the constant warfare that I've been aware of that goes back to recorded history and that has become progressively more genocidal -- just kill the others rather than conquer.


I'm grappling with the concept of Warriors and warfare. In cultures that do not have organized warfare, i.e., standing armies, what role does the "role of Warrior" play? I would like a brief overview of the expansion of warfare in human history. Expansion from inter-tribal conflicts or refugee movements due to crop failures or climate changes, etc., to outright "empire-building," such as was exhibited by Alexander "the Great."


(i do realize that session is not long enough for a full elaborate discussion, but should give some groundwork for future Qs.)



First, our choice of the term "Warrior" was chosen from how we learned the term, rather than how the term has come to be fractured. Much like "Slave," the "Warrior" is often mistaken for its cultural and historic stereotype, which is a fraction of the range that is the Role. This is true of all of the Roles, of course, to some extent. Warrior, in our system, refers to those who, at their core, can rally for a cause, bring energy to a direction, encourage loyalty and compassion, invoke courage as a platform for change, etc. All of this can be used in war, but that is not the goal of the Warrior. It just happens that war requires this same kind of energy and loyalty to a cause.


So in a culture where there is no war or standing armies, there are always causes, loyalties, need for protection, encouragement of courage, strength, anchoring, grounding, etc, that are needed and provided.


GeraldineB: thank you for the clarification



Warriors, ironically, are often of the most passive and peaceful of Roles, but will burst forth without question or concern if there is necessity for protection, loyalty to an accepted cause, or defense of an underdog.


In earlier Soul Ages, the Warrior is much easier to provoke in this regard, and therefore has come to be synonymous with fighting and warring, but it is the Priests who often exploited this in the Warriors.


Most wars are are generated by the invocations of Priests.


GeraldineB: ISIS . . .shit, I hadn't thought of that



In earlier Soul Ages, the Priest Roles are regarded as rather superior in access to vision and long-term causes, so the younger Soul Ages will leave the instruction up to the Priests to give.


This is one of the reasons there is an inherent distrust between many Warriors and Priests as the Mature Soul Age comes around for them, and these Roles will often keep each other at a distance.


Though that distance is kept in place as often as possible, the Karma generated between these Roles compels them to find one another and burn the Ribbons.


Warfare has really not expanded much over the course of history. It fluctuates in its horrors, but it is still the same in terms of conflict. All of this warfare is based on the fulfillment of the Nine Needs. In most cases when there is war, there is a Need being fulfilled to some early degree. This is a learning process for Humans, and we realize the process is slow. In most cases, the more obvious of the warfare includes the lower ends of POWER, EXPANSION, and SECURITY, but war is by no means limited to these Needs. Other Needs help to exacerbate the scenarios, such as the lower ends of Expression as a means of propaganda, for example.


If you look at the first 3 degrees of each of the Nine Needs, you will find the clue to all wars. Only when the Needs find a way to be fulfilled from the 4th degree or higher does war begin to fade.


We think this would have to be our most succinct response in light of the current format of exchange.



thank you -- the "reasons" were other than I expected


also, I can better visualize Warriors in some of the Grand Cycles where war didn't seem to be an issue


MEntity: We can address those expectations in further exchanges. Your expectations should not be discounted. Sharing them may bring more expanded and in depth understanding.



I'm not discounting them -- just always trying to find the "truth" that underlies seemingly incredibly counterproductive behavior


Do Priests also earn ribbons for the wars they incite but may not participate in?



Many actions are counterproductive relative to the intention, but they are always productive relative to the learning.


Yes, they do. Not necessarily to all individuals involved, but to those with whom they have the closer bonds that were exploited. There are many instances of "collective Karma" in that a fragment who was the source of inspiration for great waves of Ribbons to be generated will then find a way to balance this through great waves of benefit. For example, Steve Jobs was balancing a collective Karma for a lifetime when his position of creativity only served to invent greater forms of torture. This lifetime was a means of helping to balance his life during the Inquisition.


These Ribbons behave differently, but similarly, and they are as compelling.


We must conclude here for today.


GeraldineB: Interesting :) -- Not exactly philanthropic, such as doctors w/o borders . . .but, still of great benefit



The balance here was in uniting people through technology, rather than dividing them through technology, as was the case in the past. The irony here is that inherent in his creativity is still the suspicion that this technology still acts as a means of dividing.


But it is a start to the balancing of those Ribbons. "He" will be back to do more.


GeraldineB: LOL -- there will always be Luddites

  • LIKE/LOVE 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe said:


Isn't Obama a Priest role and Michelle Obama a Warrior role? I suppose opposite's attract.


Joe, I believe Michelle is a scholar. Hilary Clinton is the warrior.


Thank you, Janet, for reposting this. This is a very special script for me as my personal experience resonates very well with it. It helped explain a great deal my dynamic with a warrior fragment I shared many lives with.


It is, actually the very first post I ever read on the Ning site - I googled "Michael Teaching Priest and Warrior" and this is what's showing up. I vividly remember there were quite a few discussions regarding the post, and everybody sided with the warrior and hated the priest ? . Maybe the "preaching" finally gets old as soul matures. Maybe that's also a reason why a lot of priests chose to work with a smaller, more intimate circle when they entered old soul age - they've seen how their "charm" can become manipulative and used in harmful way, such as to start a war. 





Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...