Lifor

Weres and TheriansRecently I got into a conversation and an interesting topic came up- Is there aRead more

TerminologyMost people use “up” for the same general concept, except for particle physicistsRead more

Coming out of the WardrobeHow do I tell someone that I’m Otherkin? First of all, I’m not one that goes forRead more

Soul Loss“Soul retrieval” is a concept brought by Sandra Ingerman to Core Shamanism as taughtRead more

SoulbondsThese days, you see a lot of people looking for someone who is ‘everything theyRead more

What is Real — The Symbol and the ThingEverything is real.. but people mistake their illusions for reality. When you askRead more

Shadows: A GuideIntroduction One thing clear from the start. “Shadow” is a broad term. An almostRead more

The Shadow of HonorI was talking with Ashran the other night about something that is an extension of the “women are evil, men are stupid” philosophy that Graves came up with a while ago. It’s led to the realization that some people are living in the shadow of honor (which led to an interesting side discussion of the shadow of awareness). Ashran was commenting to me that, in his experience, there’s a difference in how women and men view their own reasoning in handling decision-making. I personally am not sure that it’s a hard-and-fast line drawn between the genders, but I think that for the majority of my experience, this generalization works. The theory is that when making a decision that puts the self before others, however right wrong or sideways, women tend to realize they are making a “selfish” decision and go with that. Men, on the other hand, avoid letting themselves realize when they are doing something for themselves, painting the action as really being for someone else, or being because of . Now, of course, not all people do this intentionally or maliciously, but it does lead to a big difference in handling making a “selfish” decision. For instance, say that a person has borrowed a book from a friend and that friend wants the book back. Say that person doesn’t want to give the book back because they aren’t done with it. Going with this theory, a woman in that situation might think that simply she was not ready to give the book back (for whatever reason, maybe she’s not done with it yet). A man in that situation might make it out (to himself) to be a matter of selflessness (maybe he can’t give the book back yet because he’s not done helping someone else). Here’s some other practical examples: If someone wants to hold onto a relationship: Woman: It would hurt me too much to leave Man: It would hurt her too much if I left her If someone wants to help someone out: Woman: I want to help this person Man: This person needs my help (subtle, but different) If someone loses their temper: Woman: I yelled at him because I was pissed off Man: I wouldn’t have yelled if she didn’t piss me off The point of the story here is that whenever we place “responsibility” or the reason for an action on someone else, we’re not taking personal responsibility for that action. Other people may factor into the decision, but ultimately that decision is made by the person making it. By saying you’re doing something for someone else, when the reason deep down inside is because of our own wants, we potentially create the facade of nobility which overlays selfishness (again, “selfish” is not necessarily bad, just not the same as “altruistic”). This can lead to differences in how we’re viewed when making a “selfish” decision. A person who is honest about why they are making the decision might have a better chance of being viewed as “selfish”, whereas a person who makes the decision out to be for the benefit of others might have a better chance of being viewed as “a nice, giving person” or “victim” (depending on the situation). It is pretty simple to do something for one’s own benefit and make it seem like it was for someone else’s benefit. Again, most peope don’t do this intentionally. What determines the difference between selfishness and altruism is both intention and how much that decision affects one personally. The difference between someone who is selfish or altruistic by nature is how much they are willing to give of what they have on a regular basis even if it affects them or inconveniences them. For instance, supposing I go out to dinner with someone and I can’t finish my food. Offering that food to my friend isn’t really altruistic, I wasn’t going to eat it anyway. It’s something that benefits my friend but doesn’t really inconvenience me. On the other hand, supposing that this same friend wants to go out to dinner with me but doesn’t have the money. If I pay for hir, that’s money out of my pocket, and an inconvenience. (It gets more complicated if I do it for other reasons that are more self-serving, but I think the point is made.) If I regularly do things for others that don’t inconvenience myself, I can present the front of of altruism, however true or false. However, if I am not willing to do things for others that inconvenience myself, I’m not really altruistic. Similarly, if I am honorable only when it’s in my best interest, that’s not real honor; that is the shadow of honor. It is a facade with no substance behind it. So, to wrap this ramble up, it’s possible to present the front of something, yet live in it’s shadow and not actually live that thing. It’s the difference between superficially doing something or paying lip service to it and really living it, really making it a part of one’s self. And it gets back to personal responsibility. If I’m honest with myself about what I’m doing and why, then I can consciously make the choice of when to be selfish, when to be selfless, whether I’m going to be honorable or not, etc. If I never examine my motives and actions, it’s much easier to fool myself and others into believing something is “me” when it’s only on the surface, and much easier to think of myself as a more selfless/honorable/whatever person than my actions would attest to. To tie this back into the original point, it’s real easy to kid yourself and say you’re doing something for somone else’s benefit, even if you are the one that wants that thing. This isn’t really selflessness; this isn’t really honor. It’s living in the shadow of honor. I think that if one wants to live honorably and intentionally, it’s critical to know one’s motives. It’s critical to understand and accept how one’s self as well as others are affected by each action one takes, and take responsibility for the action and the intentionsRead more

SensingEvery so often, conversations drift to the topic of people’s energetics. SometimesRead more

Experimental Role Playing as a Means of Self DiscoveryI got into a discussion a while back with someone who was wondering about ways toRead more

The Perils of RememberingFirst, you will know sorrow. And not just any sorrow, but the longing sorrow thatRead more

Remembering – When Waking up hurts(For Rialian, who always was a godsblasted catalyst) I suppose I should startRead more

How Much is Too Much?: Tolerance, Relativism, and the Slippery SlopeThe Buddhist ideal is the Middle Path. Although I am not a Buddhist myself, IRead more

Reflections on WakingAt about 1:30 am on the morning of April 18th, 2002, I discovered the OtherkinRead more

Questioning SanityI think there’s been some reluctance in the online Sayuneldi (Otherkin) community to point fingers at anyone for being self-deluded, because a) we’re all considered deluded by the average person on the street; b) we’re afraid of scaring off the newer folks on the lists or the ones just Awakening to something real in themselves; and/or c) in times past there had been cases of back-lash when someone dared mention someone might need to do some further self- exploration or seek help. I’m not excusing the reluctance, just trying to give some background. I am all for questioning one’s self; questioning one’s sanity can be fun :). I just think there needs to be a balance between acceptance and well-intentioned, mature questioning. Sometimes someone says something that sounds utterly ridiculous to me. I’m opinionated enough that sometimes I’ll say something about it. That’s OK. If I say it’s absurd or someone else says it’s gospel, it’s just an opinion. No one is required to believe everything that gets written or said. It’s OK to agree to disagree. Question everything. I’ve wondered internally about the people who say they are angels. What service are you performing for what god/dess? That is part of my definition of angel. Sometimes it’s seemed that angelics were the next “Otherkin fad”. We’ve had others in the past; elves, weres, vampires, hosts and unicorns have all had turns at being the hot new race of Otherkin, where a bunch of people were discovering they were that race and talking about it all at once. I don’t know that all the angelics are or are not what they think they are, but that’s for them to figure out as individuals. I’m saying it’s OK for me to question, because it doesn’t affect them being what they really are inside, and they are free to disagree with me. We are free to disagree with each other. Someone had once asked “How can you claim to be ‘X’ and ‘Y’ if both ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are in opposition to each other?” Now, people have mentioned having past lives as opposing things, but that’s different than claiming to be two things that are in opposition. I’ve also been things in past lives that conflict with who I am now, and been a vampire I’m not real proud of in my current incarnation. I don’t call myself an elf-vampire because the two were and are in conflict for me. When I was a vampire it resulted in the elf being completely forgotten. After I died, and my soul had the blinders taken off (as happens sometimes after death), the dissonance between who I had been as a vampire and who I had been as an elf caused so much internal conflict that it caused my soul to split. The personality bits that had been associated with the vampire were flung far and wide. A variation along those lines: I think there’s a difference between saying I was something in a past life and that I am something. For instance, suppose someone once was a unicorn. How much applicability does that have in the here and now? To my mind, a unicorn is a being that represents Truth, unyielding fierce aggressive Truth. It’s near impossible to be pure anything, much less pure Truth, in this physical realm. It’s the nature of the realm. So while I could see someone saying they had been a unicorn and had some aspects influenced by it, I’ve had a hard time swallowing someone being a unicorn in this life (and that’s a topic that’s near and dear to my heart). Similarly, if I was a rock, a frog, or a stellar dust bunny in a past life, how much of that applies here in this world, in this form, with this mortal consciousness? An excellent set of questions for anyone is “Are you better off now that you know about your other identity? Has it helped or hindered your life, balance, health and well-being?” For myself, I can say that it’s been a great thing for health, balance, and self-confidence. And ultimately it’s a question we only answer to our own satisfaction. It can be fun to question your sanity, to explore yourself, your entire world, to experiment and grow. I speak from experience. Having the carpet of my reality yanked from under my feet got much more fun after I realized that I didn’t have to fall and flail – I couldRead more

The Otherkin ProblemWhat’s wrong with the otherkin community? Its not about discovery anymore.Read more

A Prepaved Path?As the community for those who feel they are not entirely human by nature grows, weRead more