Balancers

[Seraphyna]

From that I would ask what causes Balancers' personalities to develop differently from one another, and why you think "forms" were used, instead of a formless collective consciousness.

The best answer to this that I can give is that we weren't created as a collective but as individuals. We do share a collective consciousness that keeps us all linked together and shutting each other out was a difficult task that couldn't be maintained for any real length of time. I use time in a human sense as the concept of time is a thread unto itself. Forms were used when dealing with non-balancers. A form that would ellicit the response we were looking for. Basically to get an individual to listen. We weren't limited to our "preferred forms," they're just the ones we developed the most connection with and found the most helpful to us across the board.

The concept of Elements and elemental affinity has always seemed earth-centric and Archaic to me - Sure the elements in different states exist on Earth, but not on all other worlds (and on those worlds, they may have their own version of "elements").

Yeah, that's why I say it makes sense in my mind that that's the deal, not that it actually was. Could be a coincidence.

This concept seems counter-intuitive to me, in that not only are the beings created to fulfill the role of keeping balance unable to perform (despite the immense power they wield), but that also need to require "many" other beings to train in the abilities to keep balance within the "multiverse" - which seems to leave the potential for; abuse of power, faster burn out (as they were not created for the role, as Balancers would be), and potentially a waste of resources/time (eg. a Balancer takes an amount of time to train a Human in keeping Balance, and then the human dies 20 years later and another one needs to be trained, where creating another Balancer would become a better investment).

It isn't that we are unable, it is that our job is easier to perform and maintain if we enlist other beings. They don't require training. We would select individuals headed down a path in their existance who we felt would be helpful to our aims and would nudge them to continue down said path. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We did not train other beings to act as we did (meaning going around and performing our function). We wouldn't be very effective without them, though. By that I mean that we could/can cause X result, but if others aren't there to maintain said result, we'd end up wasting time over and over again. I hope that clears it up a bit, if not completely.

I think the part that's getting cumbersome for us, is that we're using two different definitions of chaos (and perhaps order). But I would point out again, that this seems to imply Chaos - bad, Order - good. I don't see how spirituality is linked with order, is this something you could get into and explain? I would view myself as an ordered person, but I have very little interest in matters of spirituality (in fact, I find the lack of evidence to progress to a rational answer infuriating).

I view them as energies, and thus link them to the spiritual. Too much of either is bad, while both in proportion are good. I don't mean to say chaos-bad, order-good. A balance of them is good, one taking front seat over the other is bad. I see chaos as randomness, disorder and order as having a pattern and near predictability to it.

This is where it becomes clear to me that we are using different definitions of chaos, to me there's order in wars and in crises. When we look back on wars - or even examine current ones, we are able to determine factors that played a part in escalating tensions to the point of causing the conflict. To me this is a clear example of order in the Cause and Effect route. Needless to say that even during war there is the expression of order in tactics and battle planning. When a gun is fired, a bullet follows along the trajectory it was pointed in. As for crises, are usually caused by the risk being present, but not prepared for - which seems ordered to me as well.

Yes, there is order in there somewhere. However, they are not predictable and involve a good deal of randomness. Overall I consider the actual war (meaning fighting) itself to be a more chaotic affair (not a purely chaotic one mind you).

The latter point is especially evident in the minds of many beings. Too much of order leads to some kind of internal break.

Explain.

Example: Bob works in a cubicle repeating the same task over and over each day, he is criticised each day, deals with a tedious commute each day. He lives an ordered and patterned life. However, said life is so monotonous and tedious that one day he just can't take it anymore and quits/kills someone out of road rage/yells at his boss or a coworker. Out of too much order, comes a chaotic event.

If not natural, why would it occur if the sans-Balancers?

This question doesn't make much sense to me. I think you mean if too much of one is not natural why would one taking over happen without us. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Honestly, I don't have an answer for this one. As I've already said, I don't understand the universe in full. The human mind has limitations and understanding the complete nature of the universe falls into those limitations. My knowledge as a balancer is not completely accessible to me as a human.

Or several reasons, but I think this is something I would disagree with on as well.

Well, if you think about who's doing the describing, it makes a ton of sense. As Archer said, humans (and other beings in general) are great at viewing things as relates best to them.

To me, such beings (that do not shy away from direct contact, and are even actively enlisting people for their cause, and are primordial entities), would come up in some sort of myth or mythology at some point - if only conceptually.

And we may have. I'm not as well versed in human mythologies as I'd like to be.

Doesn't really answer my queries...and if my usual crassness point out that I imagine that "when creation began" would be hard for anything/anyone to observe to make such a blanket and definite statement as "There was..." and I would give a skeptic eye towards anyone (esp. otherkin) claiming to have existed at the beginning.

That's fine. Given our function it makes sense to me that we would've existed once there was existance to "protect".

Killing and possessing individuals seems to me a little more than "nudging" to me. Just the threat of it seems like it would limit the "free will" (as undefined as that statement is) of another entities within the universe. ("Now Billy, don't get too ordered, or else the Balancers will come and take you away.")

It isn't our aim to keep every individual in balance. Killing and possessing people are extreme cases and avoided if possible. There are cases where they are the only option left. They don't happen often.

I almost passed this over, but the implications of this struck out at me rather hard - if we look upwards in the post (in which ordered people are mentioned to be spiritual leaders, and chaotic people mentioned to be insane) it seems to imply that potentially, any person in the history of the universe that has become "Enlightened" or "Insane" could be attributed to a Balancer (I say potentially), which is a lot of power to give to Balancer-kin, and we can both infer the dangers that may cause. ("Yeah, remember Jesus? I totally got him to do that, awesome amirite?")

I don't mean to imply that. Many people are headed down whatever path and stay on it of their own volition. Some people are on the fence and if we see potential in them we influence them one way or another. I also am not saying that all spiritual leaders and ordered and all chaotic people are insane, it's just the first example that popped into my head. There have been insane people who are very ordered and spiritual leaders who were definitely not. In general, however, insanity produces chaos and the spiritual produces order. Again, that's not to say they don't go both ways.

The difference between "I stack a line of dominos, knock the first one over, causing the second to fall, causing the third to fall, ..." And "I stack of line of dominos, I knock the first one over, the third one flies straight upwards, the tenth one becomes a chicken, a plane crashes, the last domino explodes, the second domino grows legs and runs away."

I just had to say that the dominos example amuses me greatly. Hehe, great imagery there.

I know they are your beliefs (what else could they possibly be?) - but as you say, you consider your beliefs to apply to everyone on this board, which gives everyone on this board the right to very firmly disagree with them if they choose to.

And while I second that I understand that these are your beliefs and how you personally have experienced them, anyone that takes a stance of "This is how the universe is.." makes me feel uneasy as a person - the same feeling I get when people talk about having a personal one-on-one connection with a god/goddess from mythology or religion ("Yeah, Hel totally has blue hair, cool huh?")

I said I do view my beliefs as encompassing all planes of existance. I do not presume to tell people on this board that they apply to them. They don't have to accept them. If they don't accept them, that's fine. If they do, that's fine too. My stance has been "this is how the universe is to me/in my belief system/in my personal opinion." As that apparently wasn't clear I added the little EDIT thinger.

Personally? No. But I have been told by one person that we remind them of a Boddhisatva (I probably spelled that wrong).

The various divisions of Buddhism understand the word bodhisattva in different ways, but especially in Mahayana Buddhism, it mainly refers to a being that compassionately refrains from entering nirvana in order to save others.

i.e. an enlightened person/being that decides to continue to incarnate so he/she/it can help others become enlightened. Like the Buddhas. Not a being that'll nudge you towards "balance" but towards giving up the desire/liking/impression of chaos, order and balance. There is no balance sorta thing.

I'm not saying we remind me of bodhisattvas, that's just what I was told...apparently by someone who had no idea what they were talking about. Thank you for the clarification.

If in the beginning there was "only" chaos, then who the devil "created" order? Where does "creation" even come in?

Order was not created as you cannot create energy, only change it. The Source/All/Creator/whatever you call it is "who" translated it and condensed energy into creation. Again, if I haven't said this enough, in my belief system.

I also resent the suggestion that order is stagnation as there is overwhelming evidence countering the statement.

I'm not saying that order is stagnation, but that too much of it is (because of the nature of order as being patterned and predictable, in my definition).

I think that the "primordial chaos" is a side effect of our human perceptions being completely unable to grasp the opposite of existence, rather than an "actual" thing.

Very possible. As I've already said this is all being written by a human being who believes she is a balancer at her core.

Then, if you’re forbidden to love, why be betrothed to other beings? Sure, they were lesser beings, not your kind, so less likely to be worthy of falling in love with, but none the less, betrothal while not being allowed to love, makes no sense. What were you betrothed for? If it’s not for love, what, genetics? Passing on only the most balanced DNA to the next generation? What was the purpose of your betrothals?

Companionship, a being to be around who is not related to our purpose. Basically to prevent a need for incarnation, incarnation being a "vacation" from out duties. We're energetic beings, we have no DNA.

Okay, my main question is, what makes you think this belief is any more valid than, any of the other high-powered, Angel/Celestial, Demons, God-Kin, Colour-out-of-Space? I’m always curious how the people at the top view others at the top.

There are other beings out there who have considerable power as well. Some take more than one of us to get under control if they're a problem. Being a problem meaning threatening balance, etc. Some 'kin are just loonies on power trips, others are sincere and have thought it out, come to the conclusion that they were quite powerful before and have accepted it no matter how fluffy it might sound to others.

Other than the fact that this is totally against neutrality, as an aside, if you experience any sort of blackouts on occasion, you should really seek medical and/or psychological help for it.

Yeah...this is in reference to me...now...as a human being. By rage blackout, I mean that once pushed over "the edge," all rational thought goes out the window and I say whatever I can come up with that will inflict the most emotional damage. Not that I actually "black out" and lose spaces of time. Many celestials/angels have described their "true selves" as having tempers. I have a temper as a human being. Yes, if pushed too far I recall having a temper as a balancer. Having a temper and acting on it are different.

I have so much energy at my disposal that I have never been bothered by anyone.

What does this mean? Anyone, in any way? Or what?

I mean I have never been energetically attacked by another person or astral entity.

So someone trying to keep a balance of Order/Chaos in a pocket reality…more believable and plausible than those for all of Reality.

I understand where you're coming from. I don't believe we exist in a pocket reality. Could it be that we truly do exist in a pocket reality with a crap ton of planes of existance? I won't rule it out. However, given the number of planes we "work" in, it's either a very extensive pocket reality (another multiverse with near infinite planes) or it's THE multiverse.

So why Chaos and Order? Not Good and Evil? Light and Dark? Ham and Mayo?

Good and evil is hairy. They're very human concepts with even more contested definitions than chaos and order. Light and dark, they imply a lightsource more than an energy and are too close to implying good and evil for comfort. Ham and mayo are physical objects . I use chaos and order because they fit best given my definitions.

Sidenote, your steamrolling over everyone’s view of reality, a bit of a lack of respect.

I'm providing my beliefs and my views. I'm far from imposing them on the forum, definitely not telling people that this is the right way to see things and they need to believe what I believe. Sharing personal beliefs and conclusions is far from "steamrolling everyone else's views".

Actually many otherkin, and authors have been able to write/describe/create things that don’t sound remotely human, in appearance, psychology, nature or existence.

Good for them.

The system of the Greek elements is fairly human-centric (imagine that, Greeks making something human), and not even universal on Earth, or even on Europe, so why do you feel that it applies beyond us, to your reality?

I'm not saying it does, and have answered this above.

Usually people re-ask a question, because it wasn’t sufficiently answered.

Or they're just beating a dead horse. I can only answer the same question in so many ways before it just becomes clear that people either aren't reading what I've typed or are just ignoring what I've typed. So that being said, repeat questions will henceforth be ignored if they were already answered. Really, people, I can only answer the same question in so many ways. I think I've been pretty patient and have tried to answer your questions to the best of my abilities. If you still want to nitpick stuff, that's your decision and it's my decision to ignore you nitpicking stuff. (You meaning the all inclusive version.)

[Motley]

I find it ironic that you have appointed yourself as an official fluff weeder when you bring this to the table. Something about glass houses and rocks....

They are merely treating you to the same level of questioning and skepticism that you have used on others. What is it that makes your claim better than those others? I expect you to say something about self-examination and thought. If so, then why assume that others have not done the same in their own personal ways? Afterall, we only have your word about the level of questioning or belief that you possess.

[Seraphyna]

They are merely treating you to the same level of questioning and skepticism that you have used on others.

And that's fine. However, asking the same questions 10 times is not something I do to people. Asking for clarification is one thing, repeating the same question ad nauseum is another.

What is it that makes your claim better than those others? I expect you to say something about self-examination and thought. If so, then why assume that others have not done the same in their own personal ways? Afterall, we only have your word about the level of questioning or belief that you possess.

I'm not saying my "claim" is somehow "better". I'm also not saying "omgz don't question me!". I'm just saying that when people ask the same exact thing over and over they can either read what I've already said, ask a specific follow up or clarification question, or deal with not getting a response. Yes, I have put a good 9+ years of self examination and thought into this. I don't assume no one else has, I ask basic questions, and ask said question(s) once because a lot of people don't put thought into themselves. If not answered at all or I still have questions I ask for clarification.

Now can we please stay on topic.

[Iro]

We got off on the wrong foot and I'm sorry that this happened (my fault entirely). I stand behind what I've said, as do you. Peace offering: here's some elfnips. It's quite tasties.

As for patience and questions and so on, yes, you've been fairly patient. I have an example, though, that might be helpful. This past summer, I studied abroad in Italy (and disliked almost every moment of it, but that's a story for another time). I ended up talking at great length to one of the two American professors (the one I didn't have as a teacher) and we came onto the subject of tests and assignments. She told me that she just had an assignment returned in which none of the students did what she had wanted. As with many other teachers I've met, she was of the opinion that if a good portion of the class does not understand an instruction, then she hasn't explained it well. On the other hand, if a good portion of the class understands but there is one student who still doesn't quite get it, that student can be taken aside for more instruction.

Most of the repeat questions, as far as I've noticed, have been from many people between your posts - that is, we're essentially asking the same questions at the same times. A few, such as the question about energy in relation to order/chaos, have been asked a few times. In this case, there's still something we don't quite understand.

To put it another way, I don't believe you. So what? The fact that I'm still asking you questions about your belief is, from my point of view, the most respectful thing I could do. Then again, I'm really enthused by Socrates and one of my majors is in Philosophy. If I come upon something "new" and I don't have a question, it either means that I'm uninterested (which is disrespectful) or I've grasped it entirely, meaning it really wasn't all that new. In general, I have a few ways of tackling arguments: the glowing approach of enlightening joy on one end of the spectrum, the anger at someone misusing logic to make an affront against some value on the other, a middle ground of stern faced "please try again" in the middle when encountering someone's argument that isn't up to snuff but could be with prodding, and to outright ignore it because it's not worth my time/energy. I've gone across the spectrum in this, but as it's progressed it's drawn closer to the bright and shiny end. I can't say that I'm going to be overjoyed at discussing this topic, but I am sincerely interested in hearing (at great detail, with metaphysical [philosophical sense] and physical [scientific sense] theory) what you have to say. A good number of arguments (jargon; layman's term would be discussions) I've had and have observed (in print and in voice) have been mainly "nitpicking." Generally, if everyone understands all terms in exactly the same way, logic prevails fairly quickly. Few do.

Point being, yes, we might be asking the same questions and "nitpicking" on those, but we'd expect the same from others (especially if we thought they cared) and in asking the same questions we're wanting more details (as much as you can provide). It can be frustrating, but I find the best things in life require effort and thus a modicum of frustration. I agree with the Greeks: pain and suffering is also experience (the word "paschw," from which we get our word "paschal," means both "I suffer" and "I experience).

[Seraphyna]

We got off on the wrong foot and I'm sorry that this happened (my fault entirely). I stand behind what I've said, as do you. Peace offering: here's some elfnips. It's quite tasties.

So does that mean they're made from elves? Peace offering accepted.

To put it another way, I don't believe you. So what? The fact that I'm still asking you questions about your belief is, from my point of view, the most respectful thing I could do.

If you'd just said it that way the first time, we would've gotten off on the right foot instead of the left

Point being, yes, we might be asking the same questions and "nitpicking" on those, but we'd expect the same from others (especially if we thought they cared) and in asking the same questions we're wanting more details (as much as you can provide). It can be frustrating, but I find the best things in life require effort and thus a modicum of frustration. I agree with the Greeks: pain and suffering is also experience (the word "paschw," from which we get our word "paschal," means both "I suffer" and "I experience).

...and it is frustrating. Really, I'm trying to avoid *me* losing any semblance of diplomacy here...frustration can definitely lead to me just throwing up my hands and screaming "screw it!" so I'm trying to avoid that.

[Archer]

. . . and I for one still have absolutely no conception of what "order" and "chaos" mean to you. You might as well be calling them giblbe and rudark.

I also still have absolutely no conception whatsoever as to why you believe any of this to be true.

You said you've spent 9 years plus working it out; but that doesn't actually explain anything. I could spend 9 years thinking about Star Trek, but that wouldn't mean I was the captain of the Enterprise in another life.

Without dialogue, without an examination of the reasons behind beliefs, without a willingness to beat out *why* you (or I, or Iro, or Ges, or anyone else) thinks something is true . . . then at the absolute best it's a guess that might be right. This is a forum on which the motto is "Per Sermo, Adveho Vernum". I don't get the point of posting assertions and guesses as to what might be right, or what "feels" right, or what is "remembered" to be right, unless there is also the serious discussion of the evidence.

[Ges]

Yes, there is order in there somewhere. However, they are not predictable and involve a good deal of randomness. Overall I consider the actual war (meaning fighting) itself to be a more chaotic affair (not a purely chaotic one mind you).

Perhaps it’s because you still haven’t said what Order and Chaos mean to you (other than they are two fundamental types of energy), but without that, and going by more standard definitions, I don’t see why war in and of itself is more Chaotic than Ordered. Wars are waged in the interest (though sometimes false) of self-preservation, or preservation of a way of life, a logical (ordered?) concept. Wars involve weapons, quite ordered creations, troop formations and strategies. It’s not like you pick up a dart and throw it to decide where to place troops.

But again, this could easily be a part of not knowing what Order and Chaos mean to you.

Companionship, a being to be around who is not related to our purpose. Basically to prevent a need for incarnation, incarnation being a "vacation" from out duties. We're energetic beings, we have no DNA.

A bit clearer, but I’m still a bit confuddled on it. So your betrothals (platonic relationships really) is basically around as a friend to keep you from getting “stressed out”? (To humanize the concept) They served no purpose outside of how they related to you, not to belittle them, but they were companions to keep you able to function emotionally? Or am I still missing part of that?

Okay, my main question is, what makes you think this belief is any more valid than, any of the other high-powered, Angel/Celestial, Demons, God-Kin, Colour-out-of-Space? I’m always curious how the people at the top view others at the top.

There are other beings out there who have considerable power as well. Some take more than one of us to get under control if they're a problem. Being a problem meaning threatening balance, etc. Some 'kin are just loonies on power trips, others are sincere and have thought it out, come to the conclusion that they were quite powerful before and have accepted it no matter how fluffy it might sound to others.

Okay, that answered half. You explained some of how you view others, that was part of it. Though on that (before moving on) does this mean you inherently distrust/disbelieve others who are “on your level” because they just don’t fit your paradigm?

I more meant what is your reasoning for believing your belief is more valid than theirs? You slip in about sincerity, and thinking stuff through, I’m asking more about how you did this. Some examples of how and why you came to these conclusions, not so much a reiteration of what they are.

Yeah...this is in reference to me...now...as a human being. By rage blackout, I mean that once pushed over "the edge," all rational thought goes out the window and I say whatever I can come up with that will inflict the most emotional damage. Not that I actually "black out" and lose spaces of time.

Ahh, okay, I misunderstood, the social worker in me sees keywords, and pounces.

Having a temper and acting on it are different.

Again, it might be how I parse what you’ve said, but while I completely agree that having a temper, and acting on it are different, is not the same true for love and “loving”. You can be pissed, and not act. You can love, and not act. You can be pissed, and act. You can love, and act. I got the impression that it was the emotion of love that was detrimental to your neutrality, not so much any “action” based upon it, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t the same be true for anger?

I mean I have never been energetically attacked by another person or astral entity.

I mean this in general, not because you’re you, but why does it make a difference? Many people, high and low energy don’t get energetically attacked, it doesn’t mean they are special, it just means they haven’t attracted the wrong attention of the wrong people to a point where they consider them worth the effort of attacking.

Good and evil is hairy. They're very human concepts with even more contested definitions than chaos and order.

I might argue on this point. But again, I think it stems back to a lack of a definition of Order/Chaos in your paradigm asides from being an Energy type. Order and Chaos, depending on how they are defined, can be just as contested, if not moreso than Good/Evil, unless you want to apply Physics definitions, which opens another depth to this conversation.

I use chaos and order because they fit best given my definitions.

Dead horse, but just one last, because it’s completely on its own. Can you please give more of your definition? Order/Chaos, a dozen thing to a dozen people, and while I know they are difficult to explain, if you try it will help others understand the mythos you are coming from. Perhaps examples? Physical examples of Chaos and Order, social examples, religious, or explain more on why in your view War is Chaotic, not Ordered. The more you explain the lexicon you’re using, the more we’ll be able to understand what you mean by it. (For example, with one of the definition sets, I could use, much of what you said could make sense, but nothing you have said has made me think you’re working with a definition remotely like that)

Usually people re-ask a question, because it wasn’t sufficiently answered.

Or they're just beating a dead horse. I can only answer the same question in so many ways before it just becomes clear that people either aren't reading what I've typed or are just ignoring what I've typed. So that being said, repeat questions will henceforth be ignored if they were already answered.

Actually, because we’re responding to what you typed, with examples, quotes and such, I’m assuming we’re reading it. Perhaps it’s not that we aren’t reading what you typed, but you’re not reading what we ask, or just not answering. Though I think Iro phrases it with a better example than I feel compelled to seek for, regarding if the majority misunderstand something as opposed to the minority.

For example, that’s specifically regarding your idea that not having the ability to love is a strike against free will. Yet as put forth, limitations don’t equal a limitation on free will, just the fact that not everything has to be the same as humans. People were looking for feedback on that.

If something can’t love, it doesn’t mean it’s a restriction on Free Will, it means they can’t love. Some types of autistic people are severely limited in what emotions they experience, even so far as being incapable of getting angry (for example). Now an autistic person who can’t get angry isn’t having their free will taken away, it’s just something they aren’t designed to experience. Now if they could experience anger and someone told them it wasn’t allowed, that would be imposing on their free will.

Your response has always been the same on this point “We can love, because if we couldn’t it would mean our free will was imposed upon” but here is an idea on why it isn’t so. Proper form isn’t to just repeat what you’ve said, but to please explain why it doesn’t apply in your situation, or what your reaction is to seeing it in another way.

Going with that, there were questions (off the top of my head) why love trumps other emotions which can endanger neutrality just as well. Or what exactly is one side taking over consist of? I mean, if the balance shifts, it’s not a little to the side, so is there any way to illustrate what you mean about one side of Chaos or Order being dominant?

If you can honestly point up and say “I answered it here”, by all means go for it, but from what I’ve seen, I felt most people were reasking questions, as clarifications, but were getting back cookie cut answers. (Also, some of us repeated questions, independently, which is another issue all together)

So I’d suggest not just skipping questions you think you’ve answered, but read them, and see if it’s actually been answered (as opposed to seeing keywords and answering a general version, not a specific one, as I feel most of them aside independent have been shades of the same concept, but not the same), otherwise people might assume you just don’t have the answers (which is perfectly okay and natural, but it’s good to know what you can and can’t explain about your identity). If you can’t answer, or won’t answer, that’s fine, but it’s better to let people know that.

Yes, I have put a good 9+ years of self examination and thought into this.

Now, perhaps some more of the story of this nine years? I mean, those of us who have been in the community for a while have seen you describe yourself as an Angel/Phoenix, and Angel/Hawk, and an Angel/Tiger, a Polymorphic Angel that helps balance all dualities and now you’re a Polymorphic Angel thing, who protects the universe from imploding due to too much Chaos or Order (and some of those changes have been in the last year). Now I’m not saying that identities and understandings can’t and don’t change. Many people in the Otherkin community have had some shift in their identity, be it a total overhaul, or a “narrowing down” of specifics, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re actually working toward a self-understanding. In fact, I personally respect people who take a step back when something doesn’t match up, rather than jumps around, or stays static despite what comes their way.

Imagine someone who has been religious for nine years, and spent a lot of time in examination and thought. Now nine years ago, they were Christian, somewhere along the line they were Wiccan, then Buddhist, last year they were a Yezidi (in their heart, because you can’t really convert to Yezidi), but now they are Jewish. Sure, they’ve been at it nine years, but what they are now, and what they were a year ago are totally different (though born of the same generic model), so should we accept that Judaism is right (or just right for them), because it’s the most current belief they have in a history of shifting beliefs?

It’s hard to say this and not make it seem personal, but do you see what I’m getting at? Just saying you’ve been at it nine years, and that’s why people should respect your current system and as evidence as it’s been thought through, when we’ve seen it shift even in the last year, it doesn’t seem like a sound basis. It’s not to say you aren’t a Balancer, but a year ago it’s not what you thought, and you haven’t given us much insight into what this introspection is, and why it makes the current incarnation of your identity more valid than the last.

I’m not asking for a collection of your journals for nine years, and all the major events, but more, a reason or two why you think you’re right. What in your examination makes you think you’re on remotely the right path this time?

To put it another way, I don't believe you. So what? The fact that I'm still asking you questions about your belief is, from my point of view, the most respectful thing I could do. Then again, I'm really enthused by Socrates and one of my majors is in Philosophy. If I come upon something "new" and I don't have a question, it either means that I'm uninterested (which is disrespectful) or I've grasped it entirely, meaning it really wasn't all that new.

I was about to say something very similar. Yay for the Socratic method! (Though my lovers hate me for it at times, “Ges…just for tonight, no questions?”)

This is also why we’ve gotten along on other boards, you’ve been willing to ask the right questions, if not faults in my logic, at least something I had yet to think over, and in my point of view, anyone who actually makes me think gets cookies.

[Miniar]

I for one would like to state that I have never been energetically attacked nor fed upon (against my will) in any shape way and/or form and I do not consider myself "strong" in any metaphysical sense of the word and do not think that any lack of attacks/confrontations on the energetic level is any indicator of strength what so ever. It only means you haven't been attacked.

[Meirya]

I for one would like to state that I have never been energetically attacked nor fed upon (against my will) in any shape way and/or form and I do not consider myself "strong" in any metaphysical sense of the word and do not think that any lack of attacks/confrontations on the energetic level is any indicator of strength what so ever. It only means you haven't been attacked.

*nod* You can avoid energetic attack quite simply by, you know, being polite and not seeking out fights. And having basic shields/filters up so that you're not vulnerable to every bit of psychic debris and mosquito-spirit (or whatever) that brushes past you; I've known a lot of people, usually newly awakened, who mistake psychic debris for "attacks". (Basic shields/filters, which a lot of people have naturally, will also keep out most casual psychic feeders; they'll usually go for the easiest feed. Less effort and energy expenditure that way. Works especially for unawakened vampiric types who are feeding subconsciously.)

I would not say I'm "strong" or "powerful". I have some personal beliefs and experiences about having diplomatic immunity, which could have something to do with it--or it could be as simple as I don't seek confrontation and work to be diplomatic and polite. (Most of the time, anyway. I don't try nearly as hard on some online areas anymore.)

[Seraphyna]

. . . and I for one still have absolutely no conception of what "order" and "chaos" mean to you. You might as well be calling them giblbe and rudark.

*points to post at the top of the page*

I don't get the point of posting assertions and guesses as to what might be right, or what "feels" right, or what is "remembered" to be right, unless there is also the serious discussion of the evidence.

Then you must not get why we talk about our personal beliefs as to what "we are" at all. All many people go on is what "feels right," and is "remembered".

A bit clearer, but I’m still a bit confuddled on it. So your betrothals (platonic relationships really) is basically around as a friend to keep you from getting “stressed out”? (To humanize the concept) They served no purpose outside of how they related to you, not to belittle them, but they were companions to keep you able to function emotionally? Or am I still missing part of that?

Your assessment is correct. They're basically like living stress balls (to humanize the concept once more).

[
Okay, that answered half. You explained some of how you view others, that was part of it. Though on that (before moving on) does this mean you inherently distrust/disbelieve others who are “on your level” because they just don’t fit your paradigm?

You mean otherkin I assume. No I don't inherently distrust or disbelieve anyone on any principle. If people have reasons for why they believe what they do (even if that reason is "I'm working on it") that's fine by me. If those reasons are lacking...say, they believe they are X because they like chocolate then I don't believe them. But no, I don't disbelieve someone simply because they don't share my beliefs.

I more meant what is your reasoning for believing your belief is more valid than theirs? You slip in about sincerity, and thinking stuff through, I’m asking more about how you did this. Some examples of how and why you came to these conclusions, not so much a reiteration of what they are.

I don't believe that anything I believe is more valid than anything another individual believes. Beliefs are valid to the believer.

I got the impression that it was the emotion of love that was detrimental to your neutrality, not so much any “action” based upon it, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t the same be true for anger?

It is the actions that stem from emotions that are the issue. The kind of love I reference is the kind that translates into action. It is nigh impossible to feel for someone so deeply and yet ignore them entirely.

[
I mean this in general, not because you’re you, but why does it make a difference? Many people, high and low energy don’t get energetically attacked, it doesn’t mean they are special, it just means they haven’t attracted the wrong attention of the wrong people to a point where they consider them worth the effort of attacking.

It doesn't. Somewhere (with version 1 or 2 of this article) someone asked for "evidence" or "theories" explaining how I "know" I have a crap ton of energy at my disposal.

Your response has always been the same on this point “We can love, because if we couldn’t it would mean our free will was imposed upon” but here is an idea on why it isn’t so. Proper form isn’t to just repeat what you’ve said, but to please explain why it doesn’t apply in your situation, or what your reaction is to seeing it in another way.

We were created as complete beings, with the complete ability to "feel" because our judgements cannot be black or white, they are shades of grey. If you excise certain emotions, then that ability to judge "fairly" becomes rather compromised. We aren't just programmed to do X, we are told what needs doing and the method is up to us.

Going with that, there were questions (off the top of my head) why love trumps other emotions which can endanger neutrality just as well. Or what exactly is one side taking over consist of? I mean, if the balance shifts, it’s not a little to the side, so is there any way to illustrate what you mean about one side of Chaos or Order being dominant?

Love is the trump card because it is most likely to elicit action. What I mean by one side taking over can be illustrated by that game "Don't beak the ice" you know where everyone adds blocks until they all fall through. If a certain number is maintained then the sheet holds and the blocks stay where they are placed. You can add and subtract them to a certain point, but once you add too many the sheet breaks.

I mean, those of us who have been in the community for a while have seen you describe yourself as an Angel/Phoenix, and Angel/Hawk, and an Angel/Tiger, a Polymorphic Angel that helps balance all dualities and now you’re a Polymorphic Angel thing, who protects the universe from imploding due to too much Chaos or Order (and some of those changes have been in the last year).

Well you haven't seen me describe myself as an angel/hawk (ever, I never considered myself avian...that's Motley), or an angel/phoenix. Phoenix I did consider briefly briefly, but not a combination of the two. I considered phoenix because of my memory of how my previous existance "ended," and it was pretty quickly discarded. Angel/tiger was a theory because of my shifts, but for the most part I thought they were cameo for a long time and was hesitant to call tiger a kintype. The latter two are essentially the same, just labelled differently. All dualities was narrowed down to chaos vs. order.

I’m not asking for a collection of your journals for nine years, and all the major events, but more, a reason or two why you think you’re right. What in your examination makes you think you’re on remotely the right path this time?

If you'll notice, angel has always been something I felt was "right". I prefer the term celestial because it does not come with the religious connotations of "angel". Anyway, since I was little I've known that I wasn't like everyone else. I knew that deep down some part of me was not human, the question was "well what is it". I have always had phantom wings and, looking back, mental and phantom shifts to tiger, mermaid, and gargoyle from an early age. Though, at the time, it was just me being a kid...maybe that's all it was, but I find it interesting. Anyway, a few years ago, a vivid memory of my previous "life" surfaced. That's the reason I thought I had some relation to phoenix. Because it ended with me being consumed by white hot energy (what I took to be fire at the time) and here I am, reborn so to speak. However, that's all that matched the concept of phoenix, so that idea was discarded pretty quickly. In meditating on said memory my appearance (winged humanoid) became clear. It also became clear that I did not have a set body form, but could shape it at will as it was made entirely of energy. After further self exploration, mainly meditation on other snippets of memory, an inner duality made itself known to me. For a while I thought I was some kind of angel-demon hybrid. Two beings who are usually labelled ordered and chaotic (albeit, not always correctly).

From that idea, the concept of being neutral emerged. I didn't feel that I was demon in the slightest. I had no phantom sensations that matched and no memories that fit. So neutral celestial is what I landed on, and it was just "right". It fit with my phantom sensations and mental shifts as well as with my memories. Soon after I began experiencing shifts to tiger. I had considered tiger a totem for some time, so I thought they were cameo in nature. However, the intensity and frequency of them was more than cameo and tiger had left as a totem. So at that point I wondered if I had a connection to tiger as a celestial or had lived a life as one. A while later, I started having shifts to a dragonish type of being. However, glimpses of myself as said dragonish being showed me that it was what I call gargoyle. A cross between a lioness and a dragon. Well now I was just confused. On top of that I had no memories of a previous incarnation and did not feel that I had ever been physical before.

While I was on vacation in the Caribbean mermaid surfaced. Now, I was extremely hesitant to claim mermaid as any part of me. I have long been rather obsessed with them (since the age of 5 or so) and thought it was more likely that my connection with mermaids was an affinity and nothing more. Once again shifts and memories (again snippets) came and again I saw myself as the mermaid.

Putting all of this together I came to the polymorph conclusion. I did not feel that gargoyle, tiger, and mermaid were separate from each other (meaning separate lives), but part of me. I had had no previous incarnations. I knew that, at my core, I was energetic...I was a celestial with forms I felt most connected to that were now manifesting.

So how did my "purpose" come to me. As I've said already, neutral celestial fit for me. I had memories (the only detailed ones being of how I came to be incarnated) of appearing on different "planes" in various forms to converse with a number of individuals, not all of whom were human or even humanoid. I remembered a strong connection to a higher power and that I was something of an emissary for said higher power, travelling about to get things done for It; though the methods were my own, the task in general was given to me...meaning I was told that X was off, how I went about fixing X was up to me. I remember just knowing that balance was the most important thing in my existance. That it was sacred to myself and others of my "kind" and that preserving it was what we existed for.

My most vivid memory, as I think I have said, is the events that led to my incarnation here and now. Said events were caused by love. That is why I say that love was off limits. I know what it did to me, and thus understand why we were betrothed, so to speak, and why we did everything in our power to avoid it. I have also met two people who share many of my memories. One is the being I was betrothed to, the other a were-cat (as I remember him something of an anthropomorphic leopard...yes I mean in my previous "life"...now he's obviously human). I have also been told that we (by that I mean everyone involved in the events that led to my incarnation) are now all incarnated as humans to "fix" what went wrong the last time around (Yeah, I think the guy who said that is full of shit, but there you have it).

So why I think that I've finally figured it out is a combination of memories, meditation, introspection, and corroborated memories. No, I have no blindly accepted any of this. For quite a while I denied being otherkin at all. It wasn't until highschool that I really accepted it and started exploring it full time. I have taken part in past life regression meditations, as well as daily meditation. What has not "fit" and "felt right" has been discarded. What has, has been scrutinized until I was confident enough that I could accept it.

Wow...that turned into a book.