Attitude
From New Age Village
By Shepherd Hoodwin
Our attitude is our primary “slant” on life. Of all the overleaves, attitudes are the most flexible. Although our originally chosen attitude is our most natural way of seeing the world, we usually use other attitudes fairly often. We can all be realistic, for example. However, unless we have the attitude of realist, or are using the sliding mechanism to reach it from cynic or pragmatist, we are not experiencing that energy purely; we are superimposing the realist attitude over our own. For example, my realism as an idealist is not the same as the realism of someone who actually has the attitude of realist.
I know a cynic, normally “the devil’s advocate,” who uses the negative pole of spiritualist, faith, when he doesn’t want to see something “negative.” He is not truly using the spiritualist attitude, with its panorama of possibilities. He isn’t purely using cynic either; he is mixing the two energies.
A friend who is a pragmatist sliding to spiritualist is one of the best examples of spiritualist I have met. He uses pragmatist at his job, but most often, he slides to spiritualist and stays there. His conversation is a never-ending stream of possible things he or others could do. I suppose that his being an artisan, with so much creativity and five inputs, also contributes to this.
I find spiritualist to be one of the most softening overleaves. Someone with an otherwise strong chart, such as a warrior in dominance and power, is a significantly more gentle person as a spiritualist. If he were a skeptic or cynic, two difficult attitudes, he could tend to be prickly or harsh in his negative poles. As a spiritualist, his negative poles tend to come on less strong.
Stoic is the other inspirational attitude. Whereas spiritualist, being cardinal, is expansive (“anything is possible” might be its motto), stoic, being ordinal, is contracted. Stoics stay within, feeling that whatever is going on out there isn’t that important (their motto regarding outer possibilities might be “whatever—it *doesn’t matter that much”). In the negative pole, serenity gives way to resignation, not attempting to impact the world because “what’s the use?”
Both realists and pragmatists have a “sensible,” relatively unweighted view of things, but they are different and look different. Realist is on the action axis, so realists tend to focus on external, objective realities: “that’s the way things are.” Realists are realistic in the ordinary sense of the word. In the negative pole, realists suppose what reality is rather than truly perceiving it; they can also see the wide range of factual elements of a situation without recognizing which are most significant, and can have trouble making up their minds. Pragmatist is on the assimilation axis, which is neutral. In the absence of a point of view weighted in one direction or another—such as that things could be improved (idealist) or that it doesn’t really matter (stoic)—pragmatists see things, almost by default, in terms of what works best. They like to be efficient and practical. However, what looks practical to one person may not look that way to someone else. In the negative pole, pragmatists dogmatically stick to a rule book—what was established as being the most “appropriate” in the past—and therefore lack spontaneity; they also don’t “take time to smell the roses,” since that isn’t “practical.”
Both realists and cynics tend to see things in black-and-white terms: it either is, or it isn’t. Realists emphasize what is, and cynics, what isn’t. I’m not suggesting that they can’t appreciate the shades of gray in an argument; instead, I’m referring to a matter-of-fact quality in their view of life that is, in general, typical of the action axis.
The cynic attitude exerts an influence on its environment not unlike that of an acid; it cuts through. In the positive pole, it cuts through the tarnish to get to the metal. In the negative pole, it cuts through the metal, too—it destroys.
Cynics have the advantage of not being very easy to disappoint, because they tend not to have a lot of positive expectations. In the negative pole, particularly, they tend to have negative expectations, but in the positive pole, they tend not to have many expectations at all. The cynic simply does not see the world as a place where dreams can come true, as the idealist might, but that doesn’t mean that the positive-pole cynic is unhappy about that: he can have pleasure in reality as it is, not unlike the realist.
More than realists, positive-pole cynics play the role of protectors (like warriors), making certain that the false does not destroy or prevail—that the tarnish does not destroy the metal—but without necessarily providing polish for the metal, the wherewithal to make it shine beautifully. In other words, cynics can cut away the tarnish, but without bringing forth an inspirational vision of the possibility of something more or higher; that is for the spiritualist or idealist to do.
In the negative pole, cynics tend to believe that the tarnish will prevail anyway, and what difference does it make if their acid therefore eats away at some of the metal itself? It is an exceedingly harsh view.
In the positive pole, the cynic attitude can provide a sharp-edged tool for the use of a person’s curiosity. Cynic can also be useful when someone wants to feel that he has full permission to explore the hidden side of life, what other people do not acknowledge or talk about. Many comedians are cynics because humor can unearth hidden areas and bring them to light; it can release tension through showing what people want to acknowledge but don’t feel that they can.
Cynic is not a particularly easy overleaf to use, but the soul does not always like to do what is easiest.
In fact, cynic is the most difficult attitude to do well, and is perhaps the most difficult of all overleaves. In the negative pole, denigration, it can make a person “prickly.” I have sometimes found cynics (and, to a lesser degree, skeptics) difficult to channel for, since the channeling process requires a certain level of trust and willingness to participate, which may not come easily for them. Some cynics and skeptics, on the other hand, use their attitude to help them validate the information they receive without letting it get in the way of their receiving it in the first place. The positive pole, contradiction, might express itself as making sure something is really worthy by challenging its performance—for example, kicking the tires when checking out a used car, or pulling on a chain to find its weak link. Cynic is known as the warrior attitude, since both are on the ordinal side of the action axis, and challenge is a key word for both.
Although most cynics have an acidic quality, in the positive pole, contradiction, it can be appealing (as with all positive poles). Someone might choose to be a cynic for that acidic quality, since it facilitates cutting through b.s. The cynic’s world view emphasizes what isn’t working or what won’t work, which can be useful in business, for example.
One client I channeled to be a cynic seemed to be handling it appropriately. He didn’t have a particularly negative attitude (to which cynics are especially prone). At a workshop, he said that he was certain I had gotten it wrong, that he is a realist, that he objectively focuses on how things are. As I discussed it with him, he contradicted everything I said, again, doing so pretty appropriately. Others in the group agreed that they were getting a good demonstration of the positive pole of cynic. It is true that cynics can slide to realist, although Michael didn’t pick up any significant sliding with him when I checked with them. Cynic and the goal of discrimination have some commonalities. However, discriminators tend to focus more on what isn’t of high quality aesthetically (being on the expression axis), whereas cynics, as mentioned, tend to focus more on what doesn’t work well (being on the action axis). These are the two overleaves most prone to becoming bogged down in negativity (cynics perhaps slightly more than discriminators, although it depends on the degree they are in their negative poles), and are not chosen often. Although cynic can be a little more harsh than discrimination, negative-pole discriminators are more prone to be self-critical and hard on themselves, expressing their discrimination both inwardly and outwardly (the expression axis bridges the inspiration and action axes), whereas negative-pole cynics, being on the action axis, tend more to act harshly on just the outside world. The negative pole of discrimination is usually a little easier to handle than the negative pole of cynic. Yet, in some cases, discrimination’s negative pole can leave him feeling even more miserable than cynic’s, because in discrimination, there still are, or can be, high expectations. There is the ambition to find the sublime, the perfect, the exactly right, the highest—yet everything around (and within, too) may seem to disappoint. Therefore, the discriminator can give up on ever finding that beauty, that sublime thing. There may be the prejudice—the pre-decided idea—that something is trash anyway, so why not just classify it as trash, and save the trouble of actually discriminating? The hope for the beauty is still there, but a certain laziness kicks in. Also, the discriminator can be overly confident in his ability to make those judgments that separate the wheat from the chaff. Often, particularly in younger souls, there is less capability to truly do this than the person thinks. This goal works better when there is at least some humility. The older soul discriminator who is fairly honest with himself acknowledges his limitations, knowing that he is not always able to discriminate because he has not had the requisite experiences. He sees himself as a student for a while when he is learning to discriminate in a new area. The cynic does not need training in the same way because the testing is done then and there, on the spot, although past experience may cause the cynic to be especially susceptible to the negative pole. Again, there can be laziness, not going through the testing and just saying that such and such is always a particular way. However, in prejudice, the negative pole of discrimination, habitual criticism is directed toward something specific, whereas denigration, the negative pole of cynic, is broader, as with the curmudgeon who denigrates everything. If there is something the cynic has previously tested and found wanting, he can be quite opinionated—not unlike the discriminator—but there is not a strong sense with the negative-pole cynic that he is attacking that one particular thing as much as he is using his negative opinion of it to “prove” how terrible everything is—his opinion is part of his overall outlook at that moment. His tendency, then, is to have ill will toward all, whereas the negative pole discriminator may, on the one hand, be very negative about one thing, and be quite opinionated that something else is the absolute best, because discriminators have a need to find the best, and they need to express whatever they have found to be the best as being the best, since discrimination is an expression-axis goal. The attitude of skeptic has some similarities to that of cynic. The perceptions of both cynics and skeptics tend to be negative, not necessarily in the sense of destructive, but in the sense that they emphasize what isn’t or what might not be. However, skeptics don’t have the same acidic quality that cynics do—their skepticism feels more intellectual (skeptic is on the ordinal expression axis, as is the intellectual center). Skeptics often enjoy debating, and make excellent interviewers and scientists. They seem to want to be convinced, and are convinced if the opposing arguments satisfy them. If you win over a skeptic, he can be the greatest champion of your ideas. It’s more difficult to convince cynics—they tend to just keep on contradicting. Comedians tend to be either cynics or skeptics (and, as mentioned, sages). They can use their negative perceptions for a positive (constructive) purpose, helping us see and laugh at things we might otherwise ignore. Since I am an idealist, I can best discuss the influence of attitude and how it interacts with our other overleaves and role by exploring idealism.
"IDEALISM"
When I first learned about the Michael teachings from a friend, she told me about the seven attitudes. We both knew without question that I am an idealist. It is natural for me to see things in terms of how they can be improved or “should be.” For instance, one of my ideals is aesthetic beauty. Unless I deliberately use another attitude, such as stoic or realist, I can’t help but notice how much better something would look if it were cleaned, painted, repaired, and so on. I can feel uncomfortable if I am not in a position to do something about it. Here’s another example of that: I feel that people “should” return phone calls. (Being a sage factors into this: communication is very important to me.) The fact is that many people do not return calls, for whatever reasons, and that is their choice. Although that is sometimes surprising and disappointing, I am learning to be realistic and work sensibly with things as they are, rather than railing against what I cannot change. This also relates to my goal of acceptance. Also, I write songs, and think that lyrics should rhyme accurately and consistently. I notice it when they don’t. However, I remind myself that others may not feel that that’s important, and that they are not “wrong” for having a different ideal, or none at all, regarding the craft of lyric writing. In the positive pole, coalescence, the idealist energetically and optimistically takes whatever action he can to make a difference in the world. Idealism is on the expression axis, and especially since I am a sage, I tend to express my views as a way of bringing change. For example, there is a lot of criticism about the power of the New York Times theater critic. I wrote the Times a letter with several potential solutions. (It wasn’t printed.) Also, I make suggestions to businesses when I encounter what appear to be unnecessary problems in their operation. However, it is important for an idealist to choose carefully what projects he takes on, because there are so many worthwhile possibilities—almost everything looks like it could be improved. In the negative pole, abstraction or naiveté, I sometimes assume that because things “should” be a certain way, they are, and I don’t recognize how they actually are. Other ways that I’ve done the negative pole include unrealistically getting my hopes up, counting my chickens before they’re hatched, idealizing people, not seeing the writing on the wall, being oblivious to what’s really going on, and so on. I do the negative pole less and less as I get older. Simplicity is an ideal of mine. For example, I have given much thought to how tax laws could be made simple and more fair. However, that is abstraction, since I have no influence over the tax laws, and my ideas would not be politically popular anyway. If this issue were a high priority to me, I could devote a lot of energy to campaigning for my ideas, and maybe create some momentum around them, but I have many other such ideas as well. If I don’t have time to pursue them, it is a waste of time to think endlessly about them. Coalescence is grounded in what I have the power to change. A negative-pole idealist can spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. Perhaps there is a place for tilting at windmills—it may inspire people or plant a seed for the future—but the best of ideas “on paper” are worth little if they aren’t practical. Sliding to the positive pole of skeptic, investigation, can help expose the limitations of situations or of those involved, resulting in more workable ideas and less naiveté.
I am intellectually centered, and I often slide to skeptic (as well as discrimination in intellectual pursuits. I examine ideas closely for inconsistencies, discrepancies, and so on. I can be a persistent questioner and a relentless investigator. I am skeptical of my own channeling at times. Such skepticism is not for its own sake, but in service to ideals such as truth, accuracy, and clarity (the positive pole of my mode, observation). My goal, acceptance, motivates me to attempt to love things exactly as they are. Since idealism sees how things can be improved, this can create conflict, but it doesn’t have to. Substituting the word and for or is useful in this situation: “I fully accept this situation and I see how it can be improved. I do whatever I can to change things and I don’t worry about what I can’t.” Acceptance can balance idealism and keep it from robbing joy from life, since the world seldom lives up to high ideals. Idealism, sage, and acceptance are all on the cardinal side of the expression axis, and share certain attributes. Sages are already attracted to insights and ideas. Idealism focuses those ideas on how things could be improved and finding creative solutions to problems. This is particularly useful in counseling and brainstorming. Acceptance is warm and inclusive of others, which helps them feel comfortable receiving an idealistic sage’s suggestions. Idealists tend to be harder on themselves than those with other attitudes, because they can see how they “should” be; their idealistic quest to improve things can include themselves. When I was younger, I tended to focus on my flaws and be self-conscious about them. This fed my self-deprecation and arrogance, my chief features at the time. Now, although I am still never fully satisfied with my life skills, I am more accepting of myself and more neutral about my imperfections. I see them as things I’m working on but not as measures of my worth. At the same time, idealism has assisted my growth. For example, I often ask myself how I could have handled a situation better, especially if it was uncomfortable. I constantly learn from this. My current chief feature is impatience. I am continually working to improve my use of time, planning better so that I don’t feel that I have to rush. This helps me reduce my belief that there isn’t enough of it. I chose idealism so I could help bring change. Learning to stay in the positive pole allows me to do that more effectively.
Back to Michael Teachings
