The Michael Teachings [dot] NET Learning How To Choose, and Choosing How To Learn

1. 

   Janno
   June 28th, 2009 - 17:51

   Thanks for this cool info, Troy! Love learning new things about the celebs. Nice to be able to discuss their Essence dynamics. We discussed the MJ-Mozart connection with SH and concluded that there MAY be a connection, but there is also strong evidence that there isn’t a connection. Although both of them give a strong feeling of Entity 4 (Cadre 1). Sage cast Artisan is probably right, but the King ET comes as a bit of a surprise!? Keep up the good work! Love, J

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     cocteauboy
     June 28th, 2009 - 20:13

     @Janno, Glad you can get something out this. And I’m VERY glad you are cross-referencing it with other sources.

     For me, I highly doubt the Cadre 1/Entity 4 connection, mostly because I have such a fascination with those who come from that entity, like Bjork, Elizabeth Fraser, Jane Roberts. Then again, Shepherd has his own personal Cadre/Entity system, so maybe he’s talking about something completely different.

     I can’t really speak to the MJ/Mozart connection, because I just don’t know. I don’t get from Michael that they are the same Essence, but that doesn’t mean I’m accurate. I do tend toward skepticism when the connections are so pat and stereotypical, but who knows.

     Nice to see you here, Janno!

     ( REPLY )
2. 

   jonathan green
   June 29th, 2009 - 21:09

   I agree w/most things said above about MJ. I still am curious about the Mozart connection, however. I was listening to an interview he did on the Thriller set and he said he sleeps to classical music and that it’s about all the music he listens to (which he said people might find surprising). It’s as if he were MJ in public and by day, and perhaps Mozart in private by night. Just a thought…
   PS I don’t think I know you guys but I know Shepherd from a while back…

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     CocteauBoy
     June 30th, 2009 - 02:44

     Hey Jonathan! I know so many Jons and Jonathans that I lose track, but I don’t think we’ve met, either.

     That’s very interesting about MJ. There may be a connection; who knows. I couldn’t get Michael (the entity) to corroberate that, but that could be a bias on my part. I have from Michael that Mozart was a Sage-cast Sage and Michael is a Sage-cast Artisan. The biggest differences between these would be the Cardinality and Ordinality. The Sage-Cast Sage would revel in being “on” and obnoxious and eager to perform and receive applause, kind of like the Expression and the Expresser completely on board with each other. The Sage-Cast Artisan would do fine in the public eye, but almost have a split-identity with the Art being for the world, but the Artist needing to stay hidden and protected away from too much spotlight. I’m generalizing, but it does seem to fit the two and describe vast differences between them.

     Still,… who knows.

     troy
     CocteauBoy chose to share this personal blog entry :: Explaining What I Do For A (meager) Living is… Complicated

     ( REPLY )
3. 

   K
   July 6th, 2009 - 13:49

   I believe Jose Stevens channeled MJ as 5th Mature Sage, which I tend to agree with. Having given the whole Artisan vs. Sage thing a lot of thought because of this very reason, I have a different point of view on what actually distinguishes the two.

   But first the casting thing. My personal definition, which I find works more consistently across the board, looks a lot like the birth order personality typing of psychology. In other words, because I’m a first born child, I’m always going to have a bit of King flavor (this lifetime). I think casting works like that. So it’s not so much that you’ll see the casting more, necessarily, it really just depends on what your true role and your casting are, and which is stronger, and whether you’ve developed sufficiently to manifest it fully. And of course, having strong overleaves in other trees can also throw off how you’re perceived, vs. who you truly are.

   I also don’t think it’s necessarily accurate to say that someone can’t be a role if they don’t manifest the negative poles – first because we don’t ever really know if they do or not, dealing with celebrities, but also because then you’re penalizing them for having grown.

   And my last point, which want to submit for discussion is that both roles are expression. They BOTH need to express. NEED to. The main difference is that one is ordinal and the other cardinal. Which is sort of a fancy way of saying one is introverted, the other extroverted. Sort of. But the point is that I find that Artisans express FROM themselves, but Sages express THROUGH themselves. By which I mean that there is something generated in the Artisan which he must express, and he is very adamant about expressing himself and only himself. Very unique to him in other words. Whereas the Sage cares more about the audience. It’s not so much about WHAT they express at all. They couldn’t care less. What they care about is connecting with the audience. So they express whatever helps them to do that. Which means they usually give expression to the dominant themes in the world at large.

   When I put it that way, Artisan vs. Sage isn’t confusing at all, and it is immediately apparent to me that MJ was very much a Sage. In fact, in private people would say he was rather a nonentity really. It was only on stage that he would light up and the magic would happen. As a child he barely talked at all, but on a stage he would sing his heart out.

   And as for his lack of grandiose personality… Seriously, did you miss the tour from the HIStory album where 50 foot statues of him were placed all over Europe, and people flocked to pay homage to them? So he wasn’t very verbose, but he was VERY expressive. It was just more in his music (which he largely wrote) and in his dancing. Very movement oriented, expressing through his body, which I’m told is also very Sage.

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     CocteauBoy
     July 6th, 2009 - 16:28

     @K, Hey, thanks K! This was a great response.

     I have to say, you have a completely different take on the Roles and Casting than I have ever read or got from Michael. Very interesting. I’ll try to respond a few of your points, and please take these in the spirit of playful discussion, even if I disagree with some parts:

     Casting: I think it’s important to be careful not to mix typologies and systems. Birth Order (which is known to be a fairly flimsy psychological hypothesis in the first place) isn’t really anything like Casting, though I can see why you drew parallels. Also, a First-Cast fragment would be Server, not King, based on the Michael Teachings I’ve always known.

     Manifesting: I agree with you that it’s not really a cut/dried process for observing Casting vs Role, but on the whole, I’ve always seen the Role show up more obviously when that person really shines vs the Casting which seems to show up on a day-to-day basis. For me it’s kind of the difference between the WHO and the HOW. The WHO is your Role and the HOW is your Casting. The Role is WHO you are in your life, and Casting is HOW you live that life.

     Negative Poles: I don’t think I said a person has to manifest the negative poles of a Role to validate that Role. I think I was just pointing out that the negative poles of Artisan and Sage were evident in MJ’s life in difference contexts. If there are negative poles manifesting, it can help in determining a Role, but I don’t think the negative poles have to be manifested (though it would be extremely rare for them not to be).

     Artisan Vs Sage: Oh, now this one I have to say is way off. How you describe a Sage is absolutely diametrically opposed to my experience as a Sage, and of all of the Sages I’ve known. Now that isn’t to say there aren’t Sages like you described, but what you described is the most superficial, comical stereotype of a Sage that is perpetuated by the horoscope-like descriptions in some of the books. I liked your description, though, of the “expression from” vs “expressing through,” but for me and for my fellow Sages, it’s never been just about the attention of the audience and what’s popular. It’s about integrity, accuracy, sincerity, awareness, teaching, disseminating, and communication. For you to say “they couldn’t care less” is far off I can only encourage to get to know the Roles a little better because your description is a caricature of a Sage. Sages, and The Michael Teachings, are far more complex than that.

     MJ as Sage vs Artisan: I can’t prove one way or the other what Role/Casting he really is, but what everyone has been describing in the memoirs about MJ has him being nothing but a child, a big kid, a person who’s only intention was to play and be with children when he was off stage. The “non-entity” part was his delusions taking over. If anything contradicted his Artisan-generated sense of reality, he would coil up and hide. So I still see him as a fragile Artisan who learned very early on to use the stage as a canvas, but off-stage (and on, really) all he wanted to do was play in a fantasy reality. Whatever he really was, I think it’s safe to say he was a combination of those two Roles, at the very least.

     Grandiose Personality: Actually, having a good set designer team and good PR isn’t the same thing as one’s personality. He hid behind all of that “grandiosity” that was generated by those around him. In public, he was not expressive unless he was inside the safe bubble of his canvas (the stage and music). His speeches were barely audible and he hid behind anything he could, most of the time. This is more of an indication of his Artisan as Role because a Sage (more than likely) would not completely destroy and reinvent his whole body like it was a personal sculpture, and hide behind gear and bandannas and whispers. The only time it seems he felt safe to be the Sage was in the privacy of his fantasy land created by the Artisan, whether on stage or in Wonderland.

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       K
       July 7th, 2009 - 09:49

       This is interesting. I like interesting

       I will try to keep to the outline you’ve started. Let me start by saying though, that while I definitely do not believe in mixing systems, I am familiar with a wide range of them and use them for coaching purposes. I find the comparison of systems to be very useful for understanding the individual system. One of the things I have come to believe is that you have to take motivation into account. Whether or not a person manages to pull it off is irrelevant to what they were trying to do. I guess I’m saying that your role, or your personality type, is really about your worldview more than anything else. It’s about how you see the world, and therefore how you think you should go about interacting with it. This is similar to Michael saying that false personality or imprinting can make a King believe he is a Server, and try very hard to pull that off – right up until some sort of breakdown forces another look within. And how can you know your role, or your type, before you are forced to reconsider that way? Mainly because the King I mentioned above is never going to be happy in the service the way a Server would. If you’re not happy, if you don’t feel fulfilled, then you’re not where you’re supposed to be.

       Casting: I would be very interested to know how you think of casting. While I agree with your assessment of the birth order system, it is still a very valid metaphor for my purposes. I was not being literal in the numbers I chose, so I wasn’t actually saying that it would mathematically correllate to anything Michael has said. What I meant was, I’m a first born child this lifetime, which is known at the very least to give me some sense of noblesse oblige. My role (which has been channeled alternately as Warrior with Scholar and also as Server with Scholar – neither of which I agree with now) is who I am, how I go through life, how I see the world. But because I’m a first born, depending on the situation, you may see a bit of King leak from time to time – but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m not really a King at all, and am therefore not going to pull off the whole mastery thing with any sort of consistency. That is how I see casting. I would imagine the middle child would always take on a bit of Scholar flavor, always playing the middle road, the mediator. I’m really not sure of what birth orders would give the other role flavors, and I’m really not certain that it even can be translated, but I think my point still stands.

       Manifesting: I actually agree completely with this assessment of WHO/HOW for roles and casting. So I think that maybe the way it was applied to MJ is where I start to disagree.

       Negative Poles:I also agree with this point – although again, I am not sure I agree with how it was applied to MJ.

       Artisan vs. Sage:I would be very interested to hear more of your experience as Sage, and how it ties to what I’ve said. You do agree with the THROUGH/FROM idea, so I’m not sure what you’re not agreeing with, exactly. What I think you’re saying is that you disagree with the portrayal of a Sage as an extroverted people pleaser. Please allow me to elaborate and perhaps make it clearer.

       What I meant by doing it for the audience was putting it in comparison to the artisan NOT doing it for the audience. I do not mean to imply that the Sage does not care about truth or education (at least working in the positive). What I mean is that they do this in a way that works for the audience. Sort of the way the really profound stand-up comics can say some VERY powerful things, but they couch it in humor. A little sugar with the medicine. And they are not going to be talking about things that don’t apply to a large number of people. It’s not a one-on-one sort of role, its about dissemination, in the most efficient and effective way possible, which usually means the more people you can talk to at once the better.

       In this sense I see the Sage as a sort of crystal of human energetic currents, focusing the relevant bits through his mind and out his mouth. The Artisan is expressing something that is WITHIN, the Sage expresses from WITHOUT. By which I mean that the Artisan is generating his topics from what is going on inside him (or his reaction to the world, however you prefer to say it), but the Sage is gathering his from OTHER people’s reactions. And when I say they don’t care what they express about, I mean that they are not picky about the topics, because they see their role as getting whatever the audience needs to them. So while it is about the audience, it’s NOT about pandering to them – and quite often its the opposite.

       I apologize for not being clearer before, but it is a comment section, and not a forum, so I didn’t wish to be too verbose.

       MJ as Sage vs Artisan: Honestly there’s no way really to know, at the end of the day. But as I said, I found the recent debate about it to be a good time to really distinguish between Artisan and Sage once and for all. It seems to me that too often the roles are confused and people tend to guesstimate the role from the negative poles. However, I think if they were that blendable, there would have been no need to make two separate roles at all. So they ARE distinct roles, and while I do agree it is technically possible to be one and have the other as casting, I think that casting is too often used as a sort of secondary role, making it far too easy to just stop instead of really thinking it through. And then by the time you add in your entity and cadre etc. – well then you have an excuse not to do the hard work of asking who you really are, because apparently you’re everything.

       I even heard that one popular channel, when told that someone they’d just channeled Artisan was channeled Sage by another channel, their response was “well if you’re artisan, you’re sage, and if you’re sage, you’re artisan”. Which sounds like a cop-out if ever I heard one.

       As far as MJ goes, I have to say that while I see what you’re saying, he was in a family FULL of Artisan types, as well as being subjected to the well known abuse. So I tend to see a Sage who only found his voice on stage. Heavy imprinting could account for so much of what we saw from him, and I think that it did. And while it’s impossible now to really prove what his motivations were – I think the 5th level eccentric really explains all of what you’re explaining through the negative pole of Artisan. People just didn’t get him, period. He wasn’t delusional, just different.

       Grandiose Personality: It’s actually well documented that MJ was the one who planned and staged all those things. He was the mastermind behind his videos and the marketing of his materials. It was all one huge set to him, and he excelled at using it to best advantage. It was all very cohesive in feel, because it all originated with the same person.

       And my point about grandiosity, as far as the Sage goes, is that it really isn’t the personality at all, but something they do to capture and retain attention. At home they’re not like that. So in MJ I see not a non-functional artisan, but a highly functional Sage, albeit a very eccentric one. He did very well at communicating what he wanted to the audience.

       The only cosmetic surgery he had done was his nose. I mean the only surgery for purely cosmetic reasons. Everything else was the result of medical conditions.

       ( REPLY )
4. 

   K
   July 6th, 2009 - 14:25

   Also I don’t see his altering himself as an Artisan altering reality at all. What I see is the Sage very much in control of their image. He was becoming more and more “white bread” and less ethnic, less anything that could even possibly be objectionable to someone at some point. He was making himself more and more accessible to more and more people.

   I don’t think he had a lack of ability to differentiate between children and himself. I think he chose not to, which is a very valid choice and none of anyone else’s business really. As a wounded child, one who had no childhood to speak of really, he had a soft spot for other children who didn’t get to have one for less favorable reasons. His children’s godfather was a child actor from England. And by all accounts he was an excellent father who provided his children with the best in education and role modeling. They were (are!) excellently adjusted children, which isn’t possible if even a fraction of what the media told us was true.

   So people didn’t get him or his quirky ways. So what. Their problem, not his. He wasn’t a 6th Mature with tumultuous emotional issues. He was a 5th Mature eccentric that just wasn’t going to be gotten by the greater majority of people – except for the parts he successfully expressed on stage. And I think being misunderstood made him that much more determined to be understood through his work, and he excelled at that.

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     CocteauBoy
     July 6th, 2009 - 16:41

     @K, LOL! You really do see things very differently! I’m so intrigued by this!

     You see MJ as being completely in control of his image and becoming more and more accessible to the public, but that’s not what happened at all over time. He became more and more a freakish version of an internal fantasy that ended up making him more and more INaccessible and drove him further and further into hiding where he could feel comfortable with that fantasy version of himself. He became a modern day sideshow recluse after the 80s.

     The Jackson kids, themselves, spoke out about their painful, disciplined, childhoods that drove a few of them to suffer greatly. Many abused children grow up to be well-adjusted. I agree about his relating to children for the reasons you stated, but it was clear that he lacked the ability to differentiate himself from children. Whoopi Goldberg just spoke about that today in defense of the allegations against for sexual molestation of children. She was close friends with him and she said that he was a particularly non-sexual Being who behaved with the children as if he were one of them, which is why it never occurred to him at over 40 years old that people would think it odd for him to think it okay to have sleep overs with young boys in his bed.

     And as for the emotional issues… You’ve been missing all of the memorial reflections from family members and close friends who have talked about him consistently as a “tormented soul who suffered greatly.”

     Your take on this so different from the reality that everyone is describing. Do you happen to be an Artisan? lol (said in playful jest!)

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       K
       July 7th, 2009 - 10:07

       So just so we’re clear, I’m not saying MJ was in control of his image, only that he was trying to be. That’s what the cosmetic surgery on his nose was about, as well as the progression of hair and wardrobe changes. Because he was an eccentric though, people didn’t get him, and his only defense really (in terms of still trying to be in control of his image) was to be even MORE eccentric. Those who knew him best say he wasn’t THAT bizarre at all. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em – so he just doubled the eccentricity factor as far as the outside world was concerned. Which says to me that he was always trying to stay in control of his image. Being an eccentric so much in the public eye, it was a losing battle – but he did try.

       My point about him as a father was meant to show that I disagree with your assessment of him as unable to differentiate himself from children. According to all accounts, he was very able to see them as his responsibility and to do everything he needed to do to attend to their needs. People are quick to judge his choices (because I still see his behavior with children as a choice and not a fundamental emotional issue) – but then they cannot explain how his children ended up so well-adjusted. The mother took herself out of the picture because of how well she perceived him to be doing without her.

       When you say it didn’t occur to him that people would think it was strange all I see is the eccentric. Just because everyone doesn’t understand doesn’t make it wrong or delusional. Just different.

       And why wouldn’t a misunderstood eccentric Sage suffer? You can feel badly about how you are perceived without really taking that on in any substantial way or feeling that it’s really your problem at all. I know that many old souls feel that way, some far more than others, depending a great deal upon the environments they lived through before coming to understand themselves.

       I don’t think I’m an Artisan, but then again, in a channeled system who can say for certain?

       ( REPLY )
       • 

         Nick
         July 7th, 2009 - 22:26

         Wow! This is quite a discussion. Since I am a sage and I know quite a few sages and artisans, I thought I’d jump in and give my two cents-worth.
         It makes more sense to me that Michael Jackson was an Artisan. I’m not going to disagree with K’s point about Artisans=from/Sages=through. That seems to ring true to me.
         I don’t believe that Michael created music and performed for the attention he got from his audience. When an artist is as successful as he was, the business people around them try to profit as much as possible. Part of that process involves marketing. His marketing was extreme (such as those statues you mentioned). Those that were in charge of his publicity and marketing are the ones who generated the “grandiose” personality you mentioned. Not Michael. All of that didn’t come from him. The music came from him. (Music and lyrics). The dance moves came from him. He was very involved with the direction/art direction of his videos (which, as his career went on, turned into mini-movies – they really were works of art rather than a simple music videos). Rather than grab on to whatever was popular in music at the time, Michael would create something unique time and again (rather than be a puppet with a big voice and big moves, as many singing celebrities are). This screams “artisan” to me.
         Further, I saw his behavior, in interviews, as someone who was very much in his own world. He didn’t have a big personality – except when he was in the process of creating (and I include live performance in the realm of “creating”). His demeanor was rather shy and to-himself. This fits the artisan description, based on artisans I know. I’d also like to mention that your quote (“…in private people would say he was rather a nonentity really. It was only on stage that he would light up and the magic would happen. As a child he barely talked at all, but on a stage he would sing his heart out.”) really describes some typical artisan behavior. You see, in my experience, it’s the Sage – not the Artisan – who performs himself on a regular basis in daily life among family & friends; the artisan is more reserved and in his own world… and then, once in a while, bursts forth with the latest creation.
         Michael made drastic changes to his appearance through the years. Classic Artisan, from what I understand. They manipulate their outer self to match their thoughts & inner vision of themselves. (Cyndi Lauper would be an example of this Artisan trait. Constant changing hair style and hair color, clothing style, and even music style).
         Michael would go off on tangents when asked a straight question – very artisan (I would say EVERY artisan I know fits that description). This shows a lack of attention to the listener/audience. I believe Michael showed a lack of attention to the audience (meaning the world) in that he did so many things that brought VERY negative attention to himself. How could someone who’s concentrating on the “audience” do so many stupid things (dangling the baby out the window, being childish in public, etc., having sleepover parties with pre-pubescent boys)? I think a Sage would be more aware of how he’d be seen and judged, and would tread more carefully. Also, a sage would be more of a “big” personality when NOT performing the music. Don’t you agree?
         On a personal note, since I am a sage, I’d like to say that it DOES matter to me what I express and communicate, and it matters more to have integrity in my expression than it does to just get attention. I’m sure some sages are just the big entertainer looking for a reaction every day. However, others are more refined and thoughtful and wait for a moment that matters to them. Sages do like to express and do like positive feedback, though. Artisans are on another planet!

         ( REPLY )
         • 

           K
           July 8th, 2009 - 07:34

           This indeed quite the discussion, and is adding depth to my understanding of both roles. I really would love to hear from more sages and artisans, with various casting, because I think it helps to make it more “real” and therefore more easily understood.

           Okay so just so we’re clear – I keep saying the attention thing, but I think sages hear that as a stereotype, as though the attention is purely for attention’s sake. While I think a sage in negative pole probably fits that – well so does any person with a need to express who feels the communication is not being received. They’re just going to get louder and louder until someone pays attention. A sage in negative pole probably shows that best, but I believe this is the exception and not the rule. Mostly because what sage doesn’t have a few tricks up their sleeve for being heard long before reaching that point?

           So that being said, when I said I could see MJ more as sage, I wasn’t saying that he was doing it for the attention of the audience . I meant that I saw him trying to make the world a better place, trying to enlighten people even, in his own eccentric way. So yes, he had to get their attention to give his message – but what sage doesn’t? Now that I say that, it sounds a lot like when they say artisans want to make the world over in their own image, and I think that’s what lots of other people see when they look at MJ’s legacy. But I don’t see him as oblivious to the realities of the world, or trying to impose his vision at the expense of everyone else’s. I see him as trying to inspire people even – which I know sounds like now I’m saying he was a priest or a server, but I’m not. It was far less concrete than that. I see him as trying to bridge the gaps, trying to say, can’t we all just get along? No more fighting! Let’s dance! It’s very much a feeling to me, an impression, and I’m fairly certain I’m not communicating it distinctly enough, but hopefully you catch my drift.

           I can see this description of Michael. While I think that anybody at that level who manages to maintain it that long is definitely a lot more marketing-savvy than people usually give them credit for, I agree that it took an entire team of people to make it happen. And I also agree that he was never content being a marketed puppet. The question remains, was he trying to maintain control of his art, or his image and his message?

           Madonna is another icon of similar fame and fortune. She was also channeled as a sage, though a young one. I see a theme here of icons who understood this to be a young soul era and played the game and won, hands down. I also see them both as playing the success game so well because they needed to express their message. I think their message was about not having to be a robot to play the game.

           I see them as bridging the young/mature gap for people and the planet. Doing what they loved AND getting paid for it, while getting to make a positive impact in the world. I see this as a very sage sort of thing to do. Becoming bigger than life, making the world their stage and their lives their message. Maintaining that bigger than life status, so that people don’t forget. I think of someone like Michael Jordan, who had NO talent to speak of, but decided to make the basketball court his stage. And then worked his ass off so as to maintain that status. The silhouette of him flying toward the basket is a symbol of the times no less recognizable than the McDonald’s arches or the Coca-Cola wave.

           You know I think I just stumbled onto something that is perhaps a key here. NONE of these people had any “talent” to speak of. Michael and Madonna for instance – they sing, they dance, but then they leave you baffled as to why people pay them (and pay them so well!) to do this. And you can’t put your finger on it, but you know its something about paying for the package deal. No they won’t be in an opera anytime soon, or even on broadway really – but you’re not paying for the voice. You’re paying for the package, for The Material Girl. For The One Gloved Wonder. For His Airness.

           For the sage, it’s SO much bigger than the art. For the artisan, I think the world begins and ends at the art.

           And while I agree that Michael Jackson had a lot of behaviors that are very artisan like, I still tend to think that they were just far too weird to just be an artisan thing. I think it was more of a 5th level Mature eccentric thing. He wasn’t the moody temperamental artist. He was BIZARRE. Seriously. Even people who loved him all said the same. He was really really REALLY out there. Not just in a world of his own creation.

           The wardrobe changes. I have to state again, that it all comes down to motivation. I don’t know enough about Cyndi Lauper to really use her as an example, so I return to my earlier example of Madonna. She also is guilty of the every album is brand new, here’s a new Madonna for you. Every album she reinvents herself. BUT – and it is a VERY big but – what I see is a woman who is a marketing GENIUS. She wasn’t overly attached to any of those images of herself. They weren’t “her”. They were just part of the package, what people paid to see. And it suited her to fill that need for people.

           The artisan type I see as someone very wrapped in his art, in his creations. And he does change a bit. But it has a different feel to me. It is their way of communicating who they are to the world, because they can’t do it the way other people would. Mostly because its far too complex in their minds to be communicated so simply. But also because it suits their nature to FORCE people to communicate with them that way. ‘This is who I am, take it or leave it!’ And I honestly feel sometimes that for a lot of them (most of them?), they prefer that you leave it – because if you understand them, if you get it, then how unique are they? How successful have they been at communicating who THEY really are? They’re really quite serious about it.

           Whereas Michael Jackson? That was what the whole dangling the baby thing was about. How so much the opposite he was. He even said himself it was a very badly done joke. His way of telling people to lighten up. Like why were they all under his balcony to start with? Because he’s Hannibal Lector and any minute now they’ll get to see something truly macabre and bizarre! Right. O_o

           Whereas Janet Jackson – his sister? She is an artisan to me. A smaller picture artisan who just didn’t get what he was really doing, even with him to show her the way. And she took the route of the artisan, reinventing herself through some sort of faust like journey through her personal underworld. What was her music like? Telling people who she was and what she did and did not stand for. Very small picture. Very artisan. Occasionally Michael would burst out of pure frustration at the way the world portrayed him, the way they persisted in believing him to be. But for the most part, he was fairly even keel about it, given the overwhelming amount of bad press he generated. I don’t see him as running from it or using his art to hide from it. I see him as baffled by it. He was an eccentric who didn’t get the world any more than they got him.

           I agree that the sage should have more of an inborn radar about public perception. But as the eccentric, I think his radar was a bit off and he could only tune in when it came to his expression, to his art, his music. Like I said, I see sheer bafflement a lot from him.

           As to being a bigger personality off the stage – I think this is a bit of a overgeneralization. For Madonna, I can see this. But Madonna is a YOUNG sage. That’s what she cares about. Success, power, winning that game. Michael is a MATURE whatever he is. So he cares about relationships. And would care very deeply about not feeling that he had access to that part of the American dream, to a family and the people he cared about around him. And he would also care very much about using his power for good. And that sort of message means that you come down OFF the stage, you become human and approachable. And basically, it was only America that never really accepted that part of him. They ate it up on the international scene.

           And just so we’re REALLY clear – I NEVER intended to insinuate that sages lack integrity. OR that they do what they do because they need attention like a neglected child. My point was that they are very cardinal, very big picture, they channel a LOT of energy, and that gets attention – whether they want to or not. So they learn to control that flow of energy and the attention they get AS their expression. Artisans can afford to be more picky about what they express. They’re not fielding this huge energy field of the human condition. They can focus within, and as has been pointed out, they often do, to the exclusion of everything else.

           I know that usually it is said that both expression roles are about bringing the inner into the outer, but as a rule, that sounds more artisan to me. I see them both as focusing the collective unconscious through their own psyches, but I see the artisan as leaving it very narrowly focused with their own personal stamp on it. The sage I see as making it clearer, sharper, and focusing it broadly again. So like a prism, the artisan takes a rainbow and turns it into his own personal beam of white light. The sage I see as a crystal, taking in light and clarifying it, purifying it. And he can very selectively choose which facet he turns to which audience, depending on what would be most fitting for them. You could even say that he shows them back to themselves, but clearer and more focused.

           Thanks for all the response, as this has been most enlightening for me and very helpful in getting the roles straight in my head.

           ( REPLY )
           • 

             CocteauBoy
             July 8th, 2009 - 08:30

             @K, I’m just going to have to kind of fade out of the conversation on this one. I think we are talking from two completely different teachings. I’m not sure from where you are getting your channeling, or these angles on the teaching, but the references here are so completely off from what I’ve known and received in my 20+ years of channeling and study. From the nature of the Sage and Artisan, to the Role for Madonna, which is King, not Sage, and even further into just your personal interpretation of Michael Jackson who was clearly (to me) more concerned with his art and creativity than with his public image, which became so bizarre and out of touch with reality that it completely undermined his sales and marketability.

             But I would like to invite you over to TruthLoveEnergy where I will be starting a few forum threads to encourage students to share just exactly how they have come to validate their Role or the Role of someone else. I think that process is worth exploring in-depth!

             Thanks for your commentary, and I hope you see my bowing out as a respect for your take on things. I just don’t think it’s going to be very fruitful (at least in this format) to debate terminology when we already started off with completely different definitions.

             Troy

             ( REPLY )
             • 

               K
               July 10th, 2009 - 04:05

               Hopefully you understand that my intention was not to debate terminology, but to clarify it. I just find it so personally interesting that the expression roles have so much overlap when the inspiration and action roles do not. I don’t see this confusion around warriors and kings, for example. Clearly there is a misunderstanding somewhere, because if they were not distinct roles, they wouldn’t have been channeled as such.

               So – no worries! This was fun, and I just may have to wander over to the forums sometime soon

               ( REPLY )
5. 

   Sandy
   July 9th, 2009 - 07:06

   Wow, I have to wonder as well about where K is getting channelling done. What I am seeing here, not only does not fit what I personally know of Sages, (and I am a Sage), but it also does not match anything I have read in the books by Yarbro, Jose Stevens or the other traditional Michael channels.
   Nothing I can think of off hand is more important to me than “what I express”. I find it hard to believe that there are many Sages, even when in the negative poles, who are disinterested in the quality and clarity of what they express. In fact it pretty much contradicts what it means to be a Sage.
   Please cite your sources to further this discussion.

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     K
     July 10th, 2009 - 04:34

     I got the information on Madonna from the Celebrity Overleaves page, which compiles various channels. It lists a Michael Channel (name unknown apparently) as channeling MJ as 5th Mature Sage (reincarnation of Mozart). That same channel channeled Madonna as a young sage. Shepherd Hoodwin apparently thinks he’s an artisan. And Jose did an entire article saying he was a 5th mature artisan.

     http://www.michaelteachings.com/celebrities.html
     http://www.josestevens.com/inside4.php

     That being said, I’m really very confused as to how I gave the impression that I feel sages to be “disinterested in the quality and clarity of what they express”. I would say that it is very much about the quality and clarity. My point was that I was coming to understand sages as unattached to the subject matter, in direct opposition to what I perceive the artisan stance to be.

     I guess another way to say it would be that I see artisans as being very self-expression oriented, but sages to be just generally expressive. I see the artisan as being very attached to the ideal of the faithful representation of their inner visions, and sages as being more motivated by the ideal of expression which clearly communicates some idea which may or may not have originated with them at all.

     Also please understand that all these ideas are works in progress and are not going to be immediately aligned with any printed information that I have had access to. My way of grasping the concepts is to turn them upside down and inside out, so as to view them from uncustomary angles. Then I describe it from that new angle, so as to know whether I really understand the concepts involved. I want to get it in 3D, in other words. And for me, the usual descriptions of the expression roles are just not very distinct at all, so I’m extrapolating a lot based on the parts which were distinct. I bring them up here for discussion so as to make the ideas even more solid, distinct, and therefore useful for me.

     I don’t want to ask the usual questions. I want to ask the questions which challenge me to prove that I really grasp the concepts involved and have integrated them on an essence level. So maybe I am an artisan, because if I can take it apart and put it back together, maybe even better than it was when I started – well then my work here is done.

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       cocteauboy
       July 12th, 2009 - 10:54

       @K, you wrote: That being said, I’m really very confused as to how I gave the impression that I feel sages to be “disinterested in the quality and clarity of what they express”.

       I think that was implicit in your earlier statement when you wrote: “….I mean that there is something generated in the Artisan which he must express, and he is very adamant about expressing himself and only himself. Very unique to him in other words. Whereas the Sage cares more about the audience. It’s not so much about WHAT they express at all. They couldn’t care less. What they care about is connecting with the audience. So they express whatever helps them to do that. Which means they usually give expression to the dominant themes in the world at large.“

       That clearly describes one who does not really care about what is expressed, as long as it is popular and/or gets a rise of attention from an audience. I think younger Sages may very well be like that, and those who are Sage-Cast can tend to be like that, but to reduce the Role of Sage to that description as a defining factor is just not accurate.

       And thanks for providing those links! It helps explain why some of the information is not in keeping with the crux of the Michael Teachings. Stay on your toes and cross-reference and discern. You’ll find the information that makes sense and feels accurate.

       I also want you to know that your discussion here is wonderful! I don’t find it frustrating or offensive at all, in case you were worried about that. I only bowed out when I realized that we were discussing details from completely different definitions of the basic terminology. We’d have to work through those differences in a larger forum, I think.

       But I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your posts! Oh, and your posts went to SPAM, which is why they seemed to have disappeared. I have no idea why that happens, so if you have another post disappear, I’ll see it in the spam catcher and release it ASAP!

       ( REPLY )
6. 

   CocteauBoy
   July 10th, 2009 - 09:38

   @K WROTE: Hopefully you understand that my intention was not to debate terminology, but to clarify it. I just find it so personally interesting that the expression roles have so much overlap when the inspiration and action roles do not. I don’t see this confusion around warriors and kings, for example. Clearly there is a misunderstanding somewhere, because if they were not distinct roles, they wouldn’t have been channeled as such.

   Oh, I didn’t think you were debating, and even if you were, I enjoy a healthy debate, but the problem was just not having a shared starting point. When the terminology and foundations were so completely different, a debate or even a simple discussion, is crippled. I think the blur you see between Artisans and Sages could be cleared up with a good resource that defines these Roles more accurately than whatever sources you’ve been using. Though I have channeled and taught The Michael Teachings for over 20 years, I’m not claiming authority in any way, but my work at TruthLoveEnergy might be able to help, if you are open to redefining what you may have come to presume. I do hope to see you there! The only reason I’m bowing out here, is because, as you can see, a comment thread is difficult to use for lengthy discussions. Maybe I should set up a forum here!
   CocteauBoy chose to share this personal blog entry courtesy of CommentLuv ::: Introducing: TruthLoveEnergyTV

   ( REPLY )

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

( Cancel )

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree