Jump to content
Christina Lily Pedersen

The Eyes of the Roles

Recommended Posts

Miizle
3 hours ago, AnnaD said:

Crazy eyes and nothing in particular eyes. My secondary casting isn't Scholar by the way.

 

Well there's something warrior-like about you, your eyes and your manner, but i don't know where that would come from (if it is true that is) And it's not just the crazy eyes  :)

Apparently i have crazy eyes in my selection too btw.... I have actually scared some people sometimes O_o. I guess it's part of the expressiveness.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen
13 hours ago, AnnaD said:

Christina maybe the Scholar has a real good Poker face.... but in Tim's photo, I don't sense any Action role thing. But impenetrable, inscrutable, and kind of an innocence/openness/receptiveness/openmindedness  (??) (apologies Tim for speculation) in Tim's photo. One photo is only one little part, eh....

Seeing the pictures here, I see that either I just suck or Troy is correct and there is not real connection between eyes and Role after all ..

Well, he should know, too, he's had so much experience and when Michael hasn't confirmed it, then *sigh* it's a stupid idea with the database. But there has been lots of fun here, so not wasted, I can tell :)

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen
2 hours ago, Miizle said:

Well there's something warrior-like about you, your eyes and your manner, but i don't know where that would come from (if it is true that is) And it's not just the crazy eyes  :)

Apparently i have crazy eyes in my selection too btw.... I have actually scared some people sometimes O_o. I guess it's part of the expressiveness.

I thought she might be Sage-cast, she's so funny to me! :D

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen
12 hours ago, MichaelS said:

This sounds like fun, though I'm mindful of Troy's caveat. Here's my peepers. @Timothy J SullivanI think I see Priest eyes in your photo. But then I may be influenced by your profile. IMG_0951.JPG

These to me are ALSO Scholar eyes, but then, you're Scholar-cast, so maybe! I also think that based on this, Anthony Hopkins should be a Scholar .. 

There is something about those eyes .. as I said, Scholar is the only Role I can (always?) tell from the eyes.  

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen

@Miizle: Those are intense eyes :o I should have thought those would belong to an Action Role! 

 

@AnnaD: When I saw your close-up, I thought for a second (a brief one) that my Scholar-husband had posted a photo!

 

@KurtisM: I find our eyes pretty similar, actually, but then, I might just think they should be, because we have Role and Casting in common .. I also see more Scholar than Artisan in both of us ..

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy

Circling back to my caveat, I'm reminded of the many years we have our annual gatherings, from Twin Oaks, to Claymont, to 7 Oaks, to TLEGG... we like to take these great group photos of us organized by Role, Entity, etc. At TLEGG we do it just for the fun of the photo, but at other gatherings it is usually taken seriously as a practice in being able to read someone's Role just by looking at them. I can't tell you how many times I watched people oooo and ahhhh about how one group had such distinct characteristics that connected all of them together as a Role... only to find out that 3 of them were in the wrong group. And then those three would move to another group and everyone would then rave all over again about ohhh nowwww they totally fit in, now they see it... LOL. It was so awkward. 

 

But I do think this exploration of the eyes is worth it because someone may stumble upon a pattern that could be used to discern Roles... you never know!

  • LIKE/LOVE 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen
9 minutes ago, Troy said:

Circling back to my caveat, I'm reminded of the many years we have our annual gatherings, from Twin Oaks, to Claymont, to 7 Oaks, to TLEGG... we like to take these great group photos of us organized by Role, Entity, etc. At TLEGG we do it just for the fun of the photo, but at other gatherings it is usually taken seriously as a practice in being able to read someone's Role just by looking at them. I can't tell you how many times I watched people oooo and ahhhh about how one group had such distinct characteristics that connected all of them together as a Role... only to find out that 3 of them were in the wrong group. And then those three would move to another group and everyone would then rave all over again about ohhh nowwww they totally fit in, now they see it... LOL. It was so awkward. 

 

But I do think this exploration of the eys is worth it because someone may stumble upon a pattern that could be used to discern Roles... you never know!

The mind (or, my mind) is such a trickster. Soon as we hear something, we make things fit that if we believe them to be true.

It's quite a ride, actually!

But I think you're very right, we won't find no pattern, 'cause there isn't one :)

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
1 hour ago, Christina Lily Pedersen said:

The mind (or, my mind) is such a trickster. Soon as we hear something, we make things fit that if we believe them to be true.

It's quite a ride, actually!

But I think you're very right, we won't find no pattern, 'cause there isn't one :)

 

Honestly, I don't know if there is one, or not, but it would be very cool if we found one! It's worth a shot, even if just for the fun of it.

  • LIKE/LOVE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy J Sullivan
15 hours ago, Miizle said:

 

Totally! I immediately thought of some Simon n Garfunkel covers, googled them, but actually Tim's photo is better and more album-coverish :D

I was thinking a Canadian wilderness version of Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid.

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christina Lily Pedersen

If everyone thinks it's fun, then let's go and see if we get the wiser :D

  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NicholasV

There's a site I found that describes the overall "look" of the 7 roles, including how the eyes appear. It's an informational site from a scholar on the Micheal Teachings:

http://personalityspirituality.net/2010/06/23/the-seven-soul-types-what-do-they-look-like/

 

Just my two cents but it seems that the eyes and facial features are altered by which chakra an individual frequently functions out of. If Kings are frequently using the sense of "relationality" or the energy of the 7th chakra this can 'decorate' the way they look to a noticeable degree. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miizle
3 hours ago, Christina Lily Pedersen said:

If everyone thinks it's fun, then let's go and see if we get the wiser :D

 

We never know, and fun is never wasted :D

If we find something, it might not be what was originally looked for, either.  And, you know, it really should rather be PRIC and ERIC results plus body types combined that are looked at, rather than role in essence and casting alone, but i'm sure everyone's got the complexity in the back of their mind.. and we can just do it simply here (?)

 

I wish more Sages would post, and kings, becaus ethose are the roles that i thought that i can recognise to a degree.

 

What i would be interested to examine, actually, is a good selection of soul age eyes.... from infant to old. Does that show through and how? Often you kind of recognise an older soul, is it in the eyes? Any soul age can manifest essence, so can that confuse too?

I have seen the bewildered look in the eyes of what i would assume were infant souls. It was weird and in fact kind of scary. Was it just those individuals or is that common? 

Edited by Miizle
  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miizle

We can use this same thread to see how different body types might affect the eyes.

*Anxiously awaiting further info from Michael* ?

  • LIKE/LOVE 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miizle
8 hours ago, Christina Lily Pedersen said:

@Miizle: Those are intense eyes :o I should have thought those would belong to an Action Role! 

 

 

Interesting how differently you and @AnnaD see it :D I have nothing on the action axis except for Entity casting! And, oh yeah, one of my chief features :D Hopefully not showing though quite that strongly haha

(I have role, casting, goal, attitude, center and main body type all on the expressive axis o_O)

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sam K

Keeping in mind that my stated Role is based only on my own intuition and hasn't been confirmed:

20161216_171709.jpg

  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

Miizle - I wrote a whole thing but then accidently deleted it, so I will try and remember my main points. Interesting that you get Warrior about me, my secondary casting isn't

Warrior, but I have been told by the Michaels that I am one of the one's in my entity and cadre who is more than forthcoming in clarifying boundaries for myself and others. I can validate this. I actually have no action overleaves, and have had no action lifetimes so far. I can be I guess quite cut and dried if I have explored to the limits of something, and when I notice that someone else hasn't quite got the final limit on something, (if it is a question of their own personal safety or mental health, or for logistical reasons), then I will be quite transparent about sharing that further information. So it can be applied safely.

 

Christina - I enjoy writing and communicate better in writing than in person. I love writing and reading, and the more human a person's writing is, the better. I am not Sage cast though. Nice compliment though!

 

Expression roles - this is a theory of mine. I reckon that the focus on expression that Artisans and Sages have, may have lots to do with their eyebrow and general eye zone communication and expressability. Honesty and vulnerability are kind of hand in hand, and communicating those to a safe audience is not necessarily always guaranteed. What I find frustrating and totally understandable, is that sometimes someone's truth varies if the audience varies. It is a rare person, and probably an Old Soul, who can deliver their same truth transparently, irrespective of the audience. Because you know, sometimes your audience is a Nazi, a Trump supporter, a churchgoer, a redmeateaterandhunter, a confirmed heterosexual with hatred of anything queer, etc etc and why would one endanger oneself?

I did have a point but it merged with other thoughts. I reckon that Artisans and Sages with their sensitivity to an audience and to recognition, have an astute gauge of how they are being received. I think that they have had to for survival reasons, learn how to reveal and conceal their expressability, and to choose their moment when they can be honest, and when an omission of a truth, or deception, is required. Maybe sooner than other roles, I don't know. I find that with expression roles, their eyebrow and general eye zone expressability is fairly fluent, to say the least. Unless there is other non expression overleaves featuring strongly. 

 

Kurtis - I get a very measured and level look from you, from your gaze. I get Scholar, discrimination, intellectually centred, and realism/pragmatism. I get a certain Not Fooled Easily thing happening. On a second look Kurtis, I get a dreamy look, coming through a specific measured filter. Contemplative, but not in a Churchy way. (And this is why Sages are great at communication, they would explain and Not in a Churchy way). Not in a suspend your judgement Im a believer way. In a lets see how that goes, give it a go, give it a try kind of possibility way. 

 

SamK- I get Artisan, or Priest cast. Or role. There is nothing in this picture for me (I am no channel as you know) that says Scholar. You look expressive and or inspirational. Maybe you have good Poker Eyes too :)

Edited by AnnaD
reasons
  • LIKE/LOVE 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sam K
5 minutes ago, AnnaD said:

SamK- I get Artisan. 

 

Hm, entirely possible.  I'm much more confident about what I'm not (King, Sage, Priest) than what I am.

  • LIKE/LOVE 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

NickG - Your first look is so Scholarly, kind of equanimity with no direction leading, and your second smiling eyes picture is Expressive eyebrows and excited happy eyes! which could be any role, but I do not get anything Actiony or Inspirational. And I feel like a crock because I know you are a Sage, and a Scholar cast Sage. Any animation in the face and I am going to be calling it Expression, aren't I? Your smiling picture, your eyes are popping out of their sockets with "more information to share, this is just the beginning" there is a direct audience connection here with you that has obviously made you smile, and I don't get the feeling that your message is "for my improvement, rather, it is for entertainment value". It is like a switch is turned on.

 

Hey, I have shared my two cents. Someone else put their two cents in. It sure is difficult guessing overleaves. 

 

 

Edited by AnnaD
second thoughts- still very hard to channel overleaves..
  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SharvariJ

I've always been a complete dud at recognising Roles from eyes, but I agree that Scholar eyes are the easiest to spot. (Or, you know, eyes of people with lots of Assimilation Overleaves.) Anyhow, here's my two bits.

 

ROLE: SAGE/CASTING: PRIEST

Not smiling:

IMG20151227122113 (1).jpg

 

Smiling:

IMG20160313144130 copy.jpg

 

 

Fair warning, I have a LOT of Inspiration Overleaves. 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

Sharvari - the not smiling picture is still inspiration, and expression. I don't get any Scholar from you. The smiling picture is expression and inspiration, and there is conversation going on with your eyes. Maybe Sages eyes are more "there is more to this story so let me talk" than Artisans. I do get a connection with an audience with you from looking at your eyes. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PPLD
On 15/12/2016 at 11:40 PM, Troy said:

I wouldn't put *too* much emphasis on the eyes revealing the Role, at least not in any consistent way. I've yet to find any consistency, and Michael has never validated it. They have said that the eyes are no more an indication of the Role than the Body, but it's hard not to consider the eyes as revealing some kind of depth that goes beyond the surface of a person.  I think I'll ask Michael to cover a topic about how our bodies might express or reveal our history or Role. Or maybe someone can just bring it up at an Ask Michael.

 

I'd agree. Regular feedback on my eyes/glance through out my life is that there's murder in them and not the famous Scholarly neutrality or curiosity. My family has even a special word for it (not translatable to English I'm afraid). ???

  • LIKE/LOVE 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnH
1 hour ago, PPLD said:

 

I'd agree. Regular feedback on my eyes/glance through out my life is that there's murder in them and not the famous Scholarly neutrality or curiosity. My family has even a special word for it (not translatable to English I'm afraid). 1f602.png1f602.png1f602.png

You don't have murder in your eyes! You have devilish fun.

But then, we were serial killers together ?

  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PPLD
Just now, AnnH said:

You don't have murder in your eyes! You have devilish fun.

But then, we were serial killers together 1f609.png

Ay... happy days.... ?

  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bogi
1 hour ago, PPLD said:

 

I'd agree. Regular feedback on my eyes/glance through out my life is that there's murder in them and not the famous Scholarly neutrality or curiosity. My family has even a special word for it (not translatable to English I'm afraid). 1f602.png1f602.png1f602.png

 

Haha, sometimes I get that I have "strong" eyes. But what they mean is something similar to your description, "murder eyes".

  • LIKE/LOVE 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PPLD
2 minutes ago, Bibi said:

 

Haha, sometimes I get that I have "strong" eyes. But what they mean is something similar to your description, "murder eyes".

 

Hm... And you too are a Scholar! Bibi, maybe it is on us to finally change the stereotypes of our Role? ? 

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...