In February 2011, I began an educational journey to overcome a
crippling death anxiety and resultant depression. With the help of my
wife, it was decided that my limited grasp of life and the universe
needed to be dealt with as the core problem, rather than sequestering
the resultant effects (anxiety and depression) and simply treating them
with therapy and pharmaceuticals. It was the most important decision of
my life, surpassing even my decision to begin the slow and expensive
process of gender reassignment. I have not regretted a moment of this
eye-opening journey. For the sake of this writing, I will loosely refer
to this as a journey toward enlightenment.
This piece is not entirely about my experiences, however—though
discussing them to at least some extent is inevitable, as certain
understandings are required before progressing to resultant
observations. Rather, this piece focuses primarily on what I perceive as
a problem—largely temporary—with the state of this eternal voyage
toward an ever-broadening understanding of the universe and what it
means to Be. It is my hope that sharing these observations with others
may do for them what noticing them in the first place has done for me.
I have learned a great deal about others who are also moving in this
direction (and I have learned that even those who stick stubbornly to
their narrow worldview are also unwittingly participating.) In paying attention to others, I learn and understand things about myself.
I would like to elaborate a little on this rather common revelation.
While I often agree with the paraphrase “what you dislike in someone is
really something you dislike in yourself,” I would like to add to this
idea: I needn't actively exhibit a behavior in order to know I would not
like that behavior in myself. Though often entirely correct, people
sometimes take the “you're just hating a part of yourself” statement
very literally and therefore can write off someone's criticisms as “a
personal problem, bro,” rather than taking a moment to consider that the
criticisms may well hold some weight and be worth some introspection. I
ask that readers avoid leaping to that dismissive conclusion, here.
* * * * * * * * *
PART 1
In the development of “everything,”—from potential, to
impetus/activity, to photons and what we perceive as material, to
subatomic and atomic particles, all the way through to single celled and
eventually into multicellular organisms—the evolution of consciousness
to become aware of and look back on itself has provided it (us,
everything) with the ability to ask “why” and “how.” Over time, we have
developed numerous modalities to answer these questions with varying
levels of complication and accuracy (between which there does not
necessarily always exist a correlation.) Now we stand in an extremely
exciting point of this developmental process, where we can better judge
the worth of these modalities and come to understand the ways in which
so many of them express many of the same universal truths.
While the purpose of this writing is not to compare dogmatic scientific
materialism with dogmatic and self-restricting religions, it must be
said that they do share some problems and limitations. In fact, more
important are the insights these two modalities share. But again,
comparisons are not my goal. I merely wish to point out that entirely
relying on one “system” for all of the answers can often lead to grave
mistakes and massive assumptions. It's easy to draw up examples of
religions behaving this way or encouraging this willfully ignorant
behavior. It is harder to describe examples of this in science. However,
science often falls victim to the preferred drives and limitations of
the society in which it exists. A prevailing paradigm is very difficult
to shift when it becomes the primary (or worse, the only) frame of
reference for a culture's understanding of the world. When we define our
sciences as limited to the material while simultaneously claiming that
only the material exists and only the material is real, we are making
massive assumptions and benefiting from how simple and confined that
makes our realm of study. (These terms are of course relative, as the
universe is unimaginably massive and complicated.) From here we can
behave like children and roll our eyes at all other modalities, while
making amazing discoveries about the universe around us and therefore
“proving ourselves right once again.” It is incredibly difficult to open
ourselves to other systems of thought, from this standpoint. This, of
course, is an extreme—though it is a very real and pervasive extreme.
Let us direct our attention to another problem with limiting one's
understanding to one or two schools of thought.
Currently, there is great upheaval in systems of government and culture
all over the world. This in large part stems from two clashing
extremes: a dangerous overflow of greed, fear, inequality, and apathy,
with an incredible growth of introspection, realization of the worth of
life, and empathy. In the middle of a terrifying Dark Age, our species
is blossoming. Right on cue, our knowledge of the universe and reality
is expanding, and that information is readily available all over the
internet in the form of lectures, books, documentaries, blogs, and
impassioned discussions. Change in our minds—individually and as a
whole—is happening more and more rapidly. Gradually, people are
awakening to the truth: each of us is tied to everyone else, and we are
more than just a small part of the universe. We are the universe, within itself, experiencing itself. There is no room for hate when everything is One.
So what's the problem?
This avalanche of information comes during a period of severe
oversimplification (or complication?) and misunderstanding of the
self—that is, inflation of the ego. It also comes during a period of
very limited (read: discouraged and expensive) education and narrow
worldviews. People fail to realize that even a limited vocabulary
greatly limits the way in which a person can absorb and understand these
concepts--concepts which otherwise are really rather simple. In these
times, it is common for people to take this information and repackage it
for maximum profit, seemingly missing the message entirely.
At
the same time, the kindest and most deserving of people, empowered with
all the best intentions, are presented with the end result of these
profound truths before having the opportunity to actually discover it
themselves--or at least think
about it a while. Just as with many religions and with materialism,
people are presented with a single perspective without a full
background, and begin to draw massive assumptions with it. They take
this two-dimensional, barely understood perspective and run with it,
presenting these assumptions as facts. Unfortunately, so long as
someone’s heart is in the right place, they assume they can do no wrong.
The falsehood of that statement should be obvious after even a
precursory glance. Because these “nouveau gurus” feel they have the
“absolute truth” in their hands, all critics are clearly unenlightened
fools. An education of this sort, as all-encompassing as it is, cannot
leave out chapters and skip to the answers. I feel there must be a
personal learning process, and it must involve more than simply
obsessing with one modality. After all, we cannot skip the root chakra
and skyrocket straight to the crown.
A
common result of “skipped steps” and retaining a diehard dedication to
one modality while remaining purposefully ignorant of other
layers/levels/modalities of truth is a dramatization of someone's
limitedly perceived reality. Currently, massive numbers of people are so
desperate for a better understanding of the universe and for a better
way of life that they consume these incomplete, melodramatic teachings
like gospel. In their own ignorance and zeal, they are often incapable
of arguing against or even properly digesting a well-developed,
well-presented thesis. That kind of thoughtless consumption can be
dangerous. Luckily, the subject matter is generally so positive and
well-meaning that it's often not worth pointing out a person's
uneducated statements.
Now let us be clear: a sweeping change in understanding and involvement
with the self is inevitable, regardless of the many paths these changes
can take or the potholes we might hit along the way. That inevitability
does not make discussion of the matters at hand superfluous, however.
The idea that addressing a visible shortcoming is unnecessary because
“the universe is perfect” is as flawed as the claim “I don't have to try
to better myself because God loves me just the way I am,” and “you're a
hater.” It's often a lazy excuse used to avoid reflection. In these
instances, people recycle words they have heard elsewhere while
understanding very little of the meaning (or lack of meaning) behind
them. Just because we think something does not make that thought
absolute truth. I'd also like to point out that one needn't have a
solution in order to remonstrate a problem, and one needn't be perfect
to notice imperfections.
* * * * * * * * *
PART 2
At last we arrive at the driving motivation for this piece: the
archetypes which appear most obvious to me on my journey toward
enlightenment. The problems described in Part One have of course
affected the ways in which people move along their path toward
enlightenment, and I felt it was prudent to describe what I’ve noticed
during my own journey. I certainly don't think these are the only kinds
of people which exist around me in this process, let alone all over the
world. I would also like to preface this list with this: I do not for a
moment think that any of these people are “bad people.” While I know
that true objectivity is impossible, I stress that these are
observations (perhaps occasionally peppered with hints of joy or
disappointment. I am, after all, a human being.) Following this list
will be a meticulous explanation of each archetype. (I wish I could have
made it an even ten-item list, but after working away at it I wound up
settling with eleven.)
I. Unshakable zealots/skeptics
II. Flexible skeptics/agnostics
III. Disinterested/distracted
IV. Curious but incapable
V. Curious but unable to relate/trust
VI. Awakening but uncertain of the future
VII. Awakening but “skipping steps” to turn a profit, missing the point
VIII. Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps
IX. Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities
X. Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments
XI. Awake? Finished? Difficult to define. Discussion almost unnecessary.
* * * * * * * * *
I. Unshakable zealots/skeptics
While I had originally listed religious zealots and atheistic skeptics
separately, I realized that it was fitting to group them together for
the sake of this list. I know that very sentence
sounds dangerous and dismissive, but for reasons explained earlier in
this writing, they are analogous enough in relation to this subject
matter (and perhaps only in
reference to this subject matter.) I can easily draw similarities
between judgmental Southern Baptists and famed scientists such as
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, when I focus on their dogmatic
loyalty to only one modality for understanding the universe
(Christianity and Materialism, respectively.) A vast majority of people
appear to think that the truth is up for grabs between religion and
science, that one must be entirely correct and the other entirely false,
and that they cannot coexist in any form. And so, the battle for
“proper education” is waged between these two groups (which also break
down into numerous subgroups.)
I understand these individuals quite well, considering I grew up in the
religious south and spent most of my life seeking answers only through
materialist science. I not only turned my nose up at alternative
explanations but actually refused to so much as look at them or listen
to them. I would literally forget the details of experiences which I
could not readily explain. My ego is a very fine-tuned
filter. “Don't talk to me about non-local communication, near-death
experiences, or the documented feats of enlightened gurus; there is a
scientific explanation for each of those.” (As if a systematic
explanation makes those things any less amazing or real!) Just as the
church found no need to look into Galileo's telescope because the
appearance of something unconfirmed by the bible quite simply could not
be real and therefore need not be “discovered,” so too do many people of
science assume that no good will ever come from broadening the scope of
what is considered “worthy of scientific inquiry.” After all, we
clearly have all of the answers! I think it's important to realize that
anything can exist within the realm of science. Just because it does not
fit within the current paradigm does not mean it isn't real. If we
expanded the paradigm (or altered it entirely, as we have done
throughout history), we would find that the mainstream view of reality
is very different from the truth. I recently watched a video which
addresses this hesitancy in the scientific community. Peter Russel
presented a fine lecture which spends some time on this and more. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-primacy-of-consciousness/
But enough of my thoughts on stubborn skeptics.
* * * * * * * * *
II. Flexible skeptics/agnostics
These individuals, in my opinion most flatteringly represented by men
like Neil deGrasse Tyson, feel that they have found the best modality,
but do not necessarily scoff at other systems so long as said systems
utilize a relatable sort of reasoning and do not attempt to negate the
Flexible Skeptic's model of the universe. They may even attempt to
bridge certain modalities with their own. I have witnessed this as an
attempt to spread “truth” to more people, and also because the Flexible
Skeptic is aware that they literally cannot 100% definitively disprove
all over modalities, and that therefore there is the possibility that
there may be something more to the universe beyond their own
understanding. Still, their universe is the “most complete” universe.
* * * * * * * * *
III. Disinterested/distracted
An alarming number of people have no interest in asking questions about
who they are or why they do the things they do or feel the things they
feel. They have absolutely no interest in the nature of life and the
universe—or worse, they are afraid of thinking that much or in that
direction because it would require a kind of deep introspection which
they may never before have attempted, and it may bring about a painful
realization that their life choices up to that point have done nothing
but waste their time and efforts. They are far too distracted by the
desires of their egos to take a moment to sit in silence or discuss
something more meaningful than their own daily distractions. None of
this makes them bad people, of course. Sometimes these types are just
very busy (or manic) or highly driven toward the kind of success that
they were raised to seek out. Perhaps they are focused on constantly
serving others. Unfortunately, a majority of the
Disinterested/Distracted that I see around me are too busy seeking
simple pleasures and failing to think of anyone but themselves to ever
dare consider what the discovery of Multiple Universes could ever
possibly “mean” to them. My wife and I came across a depressing example
of this very recently. We passed a young man living in stereotypical
financial and moral straits for undereducated inner-city youths, walking
down the road in a T-shirt which read the following:
MONEY
OVER
EVERYTHING
This
young man is a product of his environment, and this environment makes
it very difficult to talk to the average person about the reality which
quantum physics is opening up to us. If it's not on television or does
not directly relate to their daily lives, it may as well not exist.
* * * * * * * * *
IV. Curious but incapable
I am close with several kind, intelligent people who know that the
world around them is not quite right and who know that modern science is
on to some amazing things in its description of the universe. But these
curious people of which I speak simply are not in a place in which they
can even begin to dedicate any part of their day to furthering their
understanding of the Self and the universe. After all, people often
exist in whatever reality their immediate society has presented to them;
this reality is difficult and stressful and full of terrifying risks.
If people are too wrapped up in this to see the “machinery” which makes
that reality at all possible in the first place, I can only wish them
the very best in that reality and be glad that they know, deep down,
that there may be “something more.” What's more, if they are finally
reaching a point in their lives in which they can slow down and enjoy
the fruits of their labors, they have every right to want to stop their
thought processes right there and simply bask. In another time under
different circumstances, these folks would be eager to explore what it
means to Be. For the time being, seeking happiness is their priority,
and I certainly cannot fault them for that!
Note: there is a lot of “grey area” in this archetype, and many people
here may actually fit more accurately into a combination of this and
Archetype #9. Being truly happy and grounded in one's relationship with
the earth and with one's own place in life is a surprising rarity, and I
would venture to say it is closer to “true living” than many others may
ever experience.
* * * * * * * * *
V. Curious but unable to relate/trust
This is a frame of mind with which I am deeply familiar, and at times
still find myself falling into. I find there are generally four things
which keep the Curious But Unable from readily relating-to or
trusting-in the arising perspectives regarding the truth of the
universe. For one, despite being constantly presented with information
which should regularly turn my world upside down, the stark contrast
from the “truth” that I grew up with makes it very difficult to swallow
sometimes. A second factor is the sources from which this information
often comes. When a person doubts the sanity, sincerity, intelligence,
objectivity, or logical reasoning of his/her instructor (be the
instructor an actual teacher, a guru, the written word, a series of
videos, or whatever else), he/she will struggle to swallow what's being
fed to them. A third factor affecting the ready absorption and
consideration of new truths is the sometimes irritating New Age
subculture which often surrounds it (with the fourth factor being the
backlash of the mainstream culture, and how easy it can be to fall back
in line with the mainstream.) I elaborate further on parts of the
aforementioned subculture in upcoming archetypes.
* * * * * * * * *
VI. Awakening but uncertain of the future/the self
Recently I find myself relating most with this archetype. I can readily
share a broadening understanding of the universe with my peers, but
struggle to live these truths regularly and am unsure of what to strive
for. I met many people in a similar situation at the “local branch” of
Occupy Wall Street. We saw the truth of the world around us, we knew
that equality and freedom were more important than “playing it safe,” we
knew that we were drawn to this event and to each other for a reason,
and we knew then that the world was changing—both because it is an
inevitable part of nature, and because we are the part of the universe
that is driving this change. At the same time, despite knowing just how
at-home and right it all was, many of us were extremely uncertain of
exactly what to do or precisely where to place our confidence. I feel
that far more often than not, now, merely about how I should be living
and what I should be doing. I am struggling to balance what I know with
living normally in the world around me, while simultaneously being faced
with my own human limitations. I am unhappy with the world, but I also
know that everything is technically alright and always will be. I am
always seeking more information but often don't know who to trust or
what conclusions to draw. While I know it is entirely untrue, I also
sometimes feel like I am the only person I know who feels this way!
* * * * * * * * *
VII. Awakening but “skipping steps,” missing the point, trapped in the ego
This and the next archetype are the two which frustrate me the most,
particularly because they make it harder for a blend of modalities to be
accepted by the majority. I also feel that these two archetypes blend
together for many people, particularly those of the “New Age”
subculture. My best example for those who are aware of some truth but
not enough of it, and who utilize this narrow frame of reference for
personal attention, are a great number of “self-help” authors/lecturers,
such as David Icke (www.davidicke.com) and Rhonda Byrne (author of The Secret, www.thesecret.tv.)
Icke, in particular, often uses fear and insult (and a touch of Crazy)
to spread his message. His ego-involvement is clear from the beginning.
Byrne has a slightly different subject matter and utilizes a more
positive message. They both are helpful and damaging in different ways.
I'm not speaking of all self-help
authors, of course. For many people seeking to help the general public
with matters of their own psychology, marketing this information as
“self-help” may be the best (if not the only) method of reaching those
who do in fact need that assistance.
A
problem arises when folks like Ms. Byrne repackage already widely
available information and sell it as a rare and special product which
will help its readers manifest things like wealth. The authors seek and
teach ego validation. It is damaging, but the readers feel (and are
told) that they are one step closer to Enlightenment. Following is a
list of steps to produce one of these self-help personae:
- You
know enough about this already and you know that others should know
these truths, too. You see no problem with making money for providing a
useful product, so why not make a huge profit for huge information? Unfortunately, you don’t know enough to provide “hude information,” so you you’ll have to make it look huge. First, research other authors/yogis/scientists/philosophers to beef up your repertoire.
- Strip
the information down to the barest essentials. This way you won't have
to understand the incredible connections with all levels of modern
science—especially quantum physics (considering the fact that science is
a method for Man to describe things in his reality, be those things
chemistry or consciousness.) It's better that your audience not be too
well informed anyway, otherwise they'll clearly see through your ruse. A
full-circle understanding isn't necessary to turn a profit. Let's not
forget, if you go too far, you may start to question your own
motivations, and as we are functioning from a place of ego, we can't go
questioning that ego!
- Present
the information as a means to manifest their desires, rather than as a
way of understanding and truly interacting with their own lives and the
universe around and within them. Make wealth and material possession a
key focus. If you can, mention the version of Buddhism (or was it
Hinduism? Who cares!) which became popular with American celebrities for
manifesting money and cars. Describe the Law of Attraction as a mystical force
which will give them wealth if they meditate on that desire and
sincerely believe it is theirs. Money is your goal; why can't it also be
theirs? It's the one thing that's sure to hook a potential buyer.
- Tell
your audience that this information is very special. Meanwhile, also
tell them that everyone is capable of doing this. It's true, after all,
and that way they'll feel a sort of guarantee for having purchased your
product/service.
- Surround
the information with lots of drama and intrigue. Throw in some
references to angels, if you can, to grab the attention of Christians
who might be interested in the product.
- Repackage
all of this simple information into your “special product.” Make a
movie out of it if you can. Go on a lecture tour (for a hefty fee).
Provide counseling (for a hefty fee.) When people accuse you of selling
snake oil, swear up and down that you are only trying to help people.
Remind everyone that you are merely being a source of positive thinking,
that you are not a doctor (unless you are), and that you make no
guarantees.
- Upon success, bask in the glory of your bloated ego and feel good about it.
I have a feeling that many of these people are not acting maliciously.
They think they “get it,” and so they deserve to have what they want
since they are capable of controlling their lives, regardless of the
risk it may pose to others. (After all, you create your own reality!)
They want to manifest wealth by selling the idea of manifesting to
others. It's helpful, right?
For the record, I do not think it's wrong to charge money for teaching
the nature of reality. In this society, we need money to survive. If you
are actually helping people and spreading the truth, you certainly
deserve to be able to survive with that teaching/counseling profession.
Money, after all, is not evil. Online researcher David Wilcock (www.divinecosmos.com) is a fine example of someone who does not
fit this ego-driven archetype, in my opinion. Yes, he is a little
strange and dramatic as a person, but he keeps nothing hidden and is
very down to earth and uplifting in the way he delivers his information.
He has a book for sale and delivers paid lectures all over the world.
Everything in his printed book and in-person lectures is available for
free on his website in the form of videos, articles, and e-books.
Sharing the information is his goal. He charges money for some things so
that he can survive.
* * * * * * * * *
VIII. Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps
This archetype sounds very similar to the one described previously, but
there are a few key differences. This person is generally more
“correct” and complete in their understanding of the universe than
Archetype 7. They often seek to help others and can be extremely
positive, loving people. They also tend to cling to a select few
modalities in their understanding of the universe. Granted, there is not
necessarily anything wrong with utilizing just a few methods. The
problem arises when one tries to utilize this limited understanding to
describe things beyond the realm of those modalities—especially if they
try to teach others in that way. Just as I cannot use biology to account
for physics, I also cannot use a book on the Law of Attraction to
account for the development of consciousness. However, if I bring
together an understanding of biology, physics, and introspection
(meditation) on the nature of Being, I can see the ways in which these
things come together to paint a broader image of the universe and how I
fit into it (and I can therefore explain it to many different kinds of
people because I can relate to their familiar modalities)
I want to stress that I do not dislike those of this archetype. Far
from it. As I said before, these folks are incredibly positive and
pleasant and often work very hard to help make the world a better place.
We literally need
Archetype 8’s (although arguably, we need all kinds of people,
equally.) I would say that I am just frustrated because of how dramatic
they make the universe out to be. Given their limited understanding (and
sometimes this is simply the result of a limited education and/or
limited vocabulary), things
which should otherwise be simple and obvious are disproportionately
heralded as flabbergasting examples of magnificent divinity. Yes,
everything is beautiful. Yes, everything is just as important as
anything else. But because of that, we should be able to appreciate
something without becoming ungrounded.
You
know what makes taking up meditation so hard for people? Authors on the
subject claim it will be an amazing, life-changing experience, and that
the peace you’ll feel will keep you eagerly coming back to your
meditation pillow. This is true, over time and in varying degrees, but
for the most part I experienced none of that. This dramatic flair can
make people skeptical, or worse, can make them feel lied to.
From
a personal perspective, because I don't tend to enjoy this kind of
scattered mindset, I am viewed as “less in-touch” or “speaking from the
ego” when I try to distance myself or encourage more mindful
consideration and less ignorant wonderment (keyword “ignorant,” as there
is certainly nothing wrong with wonderment.)
This
archetype also tends to cram whole concepts for the human
condition/human potential into single phrases. For example, “be the
change you wish to see in the world” has become one of the most overused
and therefore useless phrases on the internet, bumper stickers, and
motivational posters. The phrase is beautifully true, of course, but it
literally cannot be applied to every situation. Sometimes a person is
not in a place in which he/she can utilize the core message of such
phrases. In fact, sometimes it's a lazy response.
Rather than trying to “blow my mind” with something that is actually
painfully obvious, consider going through the effort of understanding me
and having a discussion with me. Anything less risks being insulting.
We still live human lives in this human world, and we still must go
through a process before we can handle all of our problems so easily. If
we could all snap our fingers and be gurus... (well, I wouldn’t be sharing this essay with you.)
Of
course, I pick my confrontations carefully and really am not too
bothered by all this. These folks are my friends and my family. I know
tons of them, and am so grateful. I love them, regardless of their abuse
of hackneyed “positive phrases.”
* * * * * * * * *
IX. Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities
I find this archetype to be truly inspiring. I think of earth-conscious
Native Americans, Mayans, and Druids, who while only being privy to a
limited understanding of the universe, understood well their place
within it and the nature of reality. I also think of people that I know
personally, today. These are people who are generally aware of the
nature of things to some extent and know there are higher states of
consciousness which they are not necessarily actively seeking at the
moment. They know that technically they no longer have
to focus on their worldly lives quite so fervently, as they could be
focusing on inner peace instead. But they are also happy with their
lives and with living somewhat normally in society. They have not turned
their backs on the struggles and frustrations of everyday living.
Perhaps they want to be teachers or counselors or artists or assist the
homeless or participate in any number of positive occupations. They are
aware of their limitations in this life, and rather than constantly
seeking to surpass them, they seek to be the best they can be as they
are now, while helping others do the same. (This certainly does not mean
this archetype doesn't seek self-improvement, however.)
* * * * * * * * *
X. Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments
I am lucky enough to be very close with someone of this archetype. My
wife studies several schools of thought in regards to the nature of the
universe. She is a huge proponent of using science to describe things
which others might consider indescribable in scientific terms—not
specifically to falsify them, but to understand them within the
scientific context. At the same time, she can appreciate and utilize
other modalities to interact with the universe, including yoga, tarot
cards, pendulums, meditation, dreams, entheogens, homeopathy, and
positive reinforcement/manifestation. She understands how each of these
methods work “scientifically” (or, objectively.) She is not an
enlightened guru, and she's certainly comfortable with that.
Having studied and considered how these modalities work and fit
together, my wife also knows when a modality is being forced to fit into
reality and is failing to succeed. For example, the author and New Age
marketer Doreen Virtue (www.angeltherapy.com)
sells a plethora of goods with fabricated methodologies, mixing
astrology, angels, unicorns, mermaids, etc, for maximum profit. For as
much as Doreen's audience would love to believe Ms. Virtue is Archetype
10, she appears to be floundering between Archetypes 7 and 8. Rather,
for a real combination of modalities and selfless presentation thereof,
check out Wilcock's book The Source Field Investigations.
* * * * * * * * *
XI. Awake? Finished? Difficult to define.
There is little I can say in regards to this archetype, because I don't
think it is something easily described. I may well know someone like
this, or I may not. Someone who lives and breathes and thinks the
totality of the truth of the universe may no longer be of this earthly
plane, for all I know! I think my point in including this was admitting
that I can't possibly assume to know much about anyone, especially in
terms of universal understanding. Everything I have written here has
been my response to what I observe in the world around me as I learn and
grow (particularly after long discussions with others who have
expressed themselves similarly.)
Admittedly,
I nearly had to finish this essay in order to understand just why I had
written it in the first place (and so I had to revise the
introduction.) In looking back over the people I’ve met or simply become
aware of during my personal journey toward a better understanding of
myself and reality, it's helpful for me to “lay it all out on the table”
in order to see how temporary our struggles are on our way to what many
call Ascension. It can be helpful to see how it plays out in the lives
of those around us. We learn a great deal about ourselves when we look
at human beings in general. I hope that doing so helps any readers learn
a little about themselves and the people around them, either for self
improvement or simple understanding.
Finally,
I should add that I don’t dislike any of the archetypes I described
above. On the contrary, I have learned that everyone “serves their
purpose,” so the speak, and that I should love all of them
unconditionally. If you feel you fit into one of the aforementioned
archetypes, please remember that I made these up. Also remember that I
did not include all of the archetypes I’ve ever thought of, nor all of
the kinds of people in my life. Most importantly, I certainly did not
attempt to fit everyone I know into an archetype. I may not have ever
attempted to “understand” you in this way. That having been said, if
you think you are described by one of these archetypes, what does that
mean to you?
Note: Please forgive all of the personal pronouns in this piece. It is, after all, all about my observations.
