MICHAEL, WHAT COLOR IS MY UNDERWEAR?

My previous blog entry, "Is Michael Real?" certainly turned into a wonderful and lively discussion! It started out as more of a philosophical pondering on my part and moved into some difficult and personal terrain of what exactly each of us would constitute as proof that Michael exists.

Forgive this massive entry, and please read through it patiently, as this has been one of my favorite discussions to-date! I love that we can do this together, and that it's seen as an important and beautiful and necessary process for those of us working with such extraordinary claims and contexts. As you'll see below, I've learned a LOT from this continued discussion, and I want to share some new ideas about this subject.

Out of support for one student's (Betty's) exploration into this, I offered a free session for her to ask of Michael the question that would bring proof to her that Michael exists. Her request was for Michael to tell her exactly what her pet names were for her children. Despite the fact that Michael has made it clear for 30 years that names are superficial and rarely on record, and that nick names are even more inaccessible, Betty stuck with her question. And, as expected, Michael said, simply, they did not know. They elaborated upon why, and suggested a different path toward validation, but they just did not know her children's nicknames.

This response was devastating to Betty. Expression of total disillusionment and accusations of Michael's (or my) response being a "crappy answer" and a "cop out." Her interest in learning and using the teaching seemed to hinge entirely on that single question (though she later clarified that it did not, so that's good). But in all fairness, “Why would Michael not be willing to answer a simple question with a specific and definitive answer so that I can move on in my learning?"

In an effort to be supportive and to point out that this may not have been the most definitive or helpful of ways to determine something as vast as someone's existence, and in an effort to help bring back some footing back from the brink of total disillusionment, this line of questioning was quickly (playfully) equated to using something as trivial as "what color is my underwear?"

Could such a question, if answered accurately, be definitive proof of Michael's existence and, therefore, a kind of permission to get on with our studies. Should our entire path of self-development and use of the teachings hinge on such proof? This was meant as no offense to the line of questioning, but an exaggeration to bring to light whether such a simple question could prove, and by extension, permit so much?

Before moving on, here's what Michael had to say about how they answer questions we pose to them:

"We do not have control over what is on record for an individual; we only have access to what is on record. A fragment's records are dependent upon two things: the importance of anything to that fragment, and whether that person has updated records. The degree of importance is determined by both the Personality and the Essence, so that nothing deemed important is lost. If records are not actively updated within the lifetime, then that fragments records are entirely dependent upon updates during Instinctive Reviews.

"Major Instinctive Reviews occur every 28 years, and Minor Instinctive Reviews occur every 7 years. Every fragment goes through Instinctive Reviews within the lifetime so that Essence has access to the Instinctive Center, even if the Personality is completely rejecting of Essence.

"Instinctive Review is not the same thing as active updating. Instinctive Reviews give access to the Instinctive Center by Essence, and Essence can extract what it feels is important and meaningful for the life, but that may or may not be the same as what the Personality deems important. Full Review for a Personality that is not consciously connected to Essence would come after death, and then, much of what the Personality had deemed so important, turns out not to have been as important in that light.

"Active updating of records comes only from those who are Manifesting Essence, or True Personality, to some extent that allows for that updating. Otherwise, what we can find on record for a Personality is entirely dependent upon what that Essence has been able to extract during Instinctive Reviews. And that rarely includes what the False Personality has deemed important, as what tends to be important to the False Personality are temporary things, structures, and symbols that support fears and defenses that are unnecessary for the life.

"But when a fragment manifests Essence, then even a favorite color is an extension of Essence; even a behavior pattern, hair color, or meaningful story or influence, all go on record as part of the fulfillment of that Personality and Essence, if those things have been deemed important. And we can often see those details, even if not always."

READING MINDS = PROOF OF EXISTENCE?

But could it be that easy? Could Michael prove their existence by simply reading your mind and telling you what you want to know? Could Michael get us past our doubt by guessing our Sun Sign as part of our Essence and Personality Profile, as suggested by Geraldine? Could we prove their existence if they told us secrets about ourselves, only we know? Could we get on with our studies if Michael would just tell us the off-handed names used in our childhood as nick names? If not those questions, then what?

The thing is, Michael does do those things; just not on demand. They tend to come about organically, and in contexts of relevancy, not as a parlor trick performed on demand. Sure, it's not a constant experience, and even some of the long-term and in-depth students, such as Geraldine, have never experienced anything definitive, but it has happened. Often. And in over 20 years of channeling Michael, I have regularly seen Michael reference details about a person's life that were completely unknown to me.

And I still question their existence.

PROOF OF YOUR EXISTENCE

When I find myself stuck in a conundrum of thinking, I start doing all kinds of extrapolations and substitutions so I can see if a truth, fairness, or questioning can hold up in extreme situations, or with different scenarios. For instance, if it is true that we always have a choice, even when we think we don't have a choice, then what about the person in total confinement or being tortured? Well, the parameters of choice have narrowed drastically, and not to diminish the horrors of torture and confinement, but he will still have a choice in how he thinks, interprets, and experiences that confinement or torture. It's a sickening exploration, but choice would still, technically, be included, especially since Reaction is included in the spectrum of Choice, though it is more anatomic. 

So now, if we are looking for proof of Michael's existence, wouldn't it be fair to turn that question back upon ourselves? How could we prove our own existence? Can you prove to me that you exist? Can you prove to me that you exist outside of my imagination, or dream, or that anything is "real," for that matter? Can you prove to me that I exist outside of your imagination, your dream, your illusions or delusions?

No. Apparently, you can't. Existence is an axiom.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths." [via Axiom]

"One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)

"Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable." [via can we prove that we actually exist?]

So, we can show each other symptoms, reflections, and effects of our existence, and you can round up a whole lot of those, and those symptoms, reflections, and effects might even be far more definitive than the "what color is my underwear?" litmus test, but none of these can ever, truly, prove whether I, you, or Michael exists. 

MICHAEL, ARE YOU THERE?

So what if Michael is my imagination? Or the product of collective imagination? What if Michael is an illusion? Or for that matter, what if you are an illusion, or I am an illusion?

"I may be an illusion?" Sure, but "what I am" is not what you were asking. Even if I am an illusion, then the illusion exists since you are asking it a question. As long as you are addressing "something" then this "something" is relevant to you in some way and therefore this "something" exists (because what doesn't exist is irrelevant). [via physics forum]

RELEVANCY = VALUE & MEANING = VALIDITY OF EXISTENCE

Michael has addressed this subject of relevancy in the past. The Relevance of anything to you is definitive of the degree of value and meaning, whether "good or bad," and vice versa. From the question of Michael's existence, to the words said from a passing stranger, the degree of relevancy to you defines the value, meaning, and validity, and therefore its validity of existence.

So the question of "Is Michael Real?" comes down to the question of their relevancy to you? Do you find the existence of Michael to be of value and meaning and validity in their relevancy to you? For that matter, what is your relevance to me? What is my relevance to you? Am I real? Can you validate my existence? Can you validate your own? How do we validate each other's existence? Can we?

Apparently... yes, we can. Because we matter. We are relevant. We have value and meaning. I have relevancy to you, and you have relevancy to me. We, each, have value and meaning, and therefore, validity of existence for each other.

So if the validity of existence is dependent upon relevancy, and relevancy is derived from value and meaning, then the existence of anything comes down to that equation.

GOD AS CO-PILOT

That means that even those people who claim to have a direct relationship to "God" may, indeed, have that relationship to some personified aspect of existence that is irrelevant to us, but wholly relevant to them. We may never understand, or care to relate to, their God, or that person's Guides, or the entity they claim to channel, unless the existence of that is somehow relevant to us, somehow meaningful and valuable, and therefore valid. This same "God" might be "Nature," "The Universe," "Love," "Satan," or Self to someone else, but its existence is relative.

This extends into relationships of all kinds. We fall in love with someone we know, without a shadow of doubt, is existing as the most amazing person on the planet, while he or she is completely pointless to someone else. Sure, we can tell everyone just how amazing that person is, but until there is relevancy, that person as you describe him or her is just another person. 

I can share with you all about the proof of Michael's existence because of the amazing experiences I've had, and all of you can step up and share your own experiences that prove Michael's existence, but until there are relevant experiences, Michael may or may not exist beyond what IS relevant to a person.

MICHAEL AS ME (and maybe you)

So if a person has found relevancy (value and meaning) in creative imagination, or in distrust based on past disappointments, or in healthy doubt, or in futile demands of proof, because of his or her own experiences, then the validity of Michael's existence may have to be confined to what is relevant to that person. If it makes more sense to someone that Michael is just an extension of my imagination, then Michael's existence IS my imagination. If it makes sense to someone that Michael's existence is dependent upon whether they can read minds, share a private detail, or answer a definitive question, then those things are what have more value and meaning (relevancy) than the relevancy of Michael right now. The existence of Michael, then, is constrained to whatever has the most relevance. Michael is just Me.

But then, what is my relevancy to you?

THE FINAL TRUTH OF MICHAEL, OUR EXISTENCE, and VALIDITY

What if Michael IS only Me? What if Michael IS only my imagination? And then, what if you aren't who you say you are? What if you show me all of your credentials, proof of identity, and all of those things have been forged, and I go my entire life knowing you as someone you are not. And what does that mean in the end, if that is the only you I'll ever know? What if you were to reveal to me one day that you aren't who I thought you were, but explained yourself as a whole new identity? Does that mean who you were to me is no longer valid, or that you are actually a different person?

It all goes back to Relevancy.

If I am relevant, then my claim to be channeling Michael is relevant. If Michael is my imagination, and you find relevancy in what you receive from Michael, then my imagination in the guise of Michael is still relevant, meaningful, and valuable, and valid. If it were proven one day that Michael is an entity of 1050 fragments, or just a wonderful and creative part of my brain, would it change the relevance of what was learned along the way? 

If I find out you are not who you said you were, but only the identity and details change, your relevancy, value, meaning, and validity should not change. Only if intentional harm has been done should anything change.

Finding out that your best friend is gay, after years of his being in the closet and hiding his sexuality, should not change the relevancy of that person to you, unless the relevancy of sexuality is far more of value and meaning to you than the actual person. Finding out that you are adopted, after years of knowing yourself as biologically tied to your family, should not change your relevancy, your meaning and value, unless the value and meaning of biological identity is far more relevant to you than who you've become from the love and support you've had all of your life.

Finding out that your best friend, after years of close friendship, is a serial killer and torturous rapist, would probably drastically change the relevancy of that person, because the issues of murder and rape have a lot more relevance to you than the person who would commit them. Finding out that your spouse has been cheating on you while lying to your face is going to be a lot harder to rise above to maintain the relevancy of that person over the relevancy of honesty and commitment. But we all know that there are people who can retain the relevancy of the person who reveals himself to be a serial killer or a cheater, without skipping a beat.

Because it all goes back to Relevancy.

RELEVANCY DEFINES WHAT IS TRUE

Eventually finalizing the truth of Michael as being my imagination, your wishful thinking, or an entity of 1050 fragments should have no bearing on the relevancy of their meaning and value to us as we understand them to be for now, especially if what we are gaining is of such meaning and value.

And that's why I keep doing what I do: because it matters. To me. And to at least a few of you.

I'll be just as thrilled to conclude that Michael is my delusional imagination, your wishful thinking, or an entity of 1050 fragments, but it won't change the value and meaning that has been so relevant to me over the years.

All of this talk of Relevancy falls directly in line with Michael's response to the "what color is my underwear" form of validating their existence.

FROM MICHAEL: "We are here to teach, not to impress, but if there is a question of our validity, we encourage whatever is necessary for you to prove that validity to yourself. We encourage the validation of our realness to come over time, through relating, rather than through a “blind test.” It is not that the blind testing is discouraged, but that it simply does not work in this case."

ARE WE CHASING SHADOWS ON A WALL

In the end, it seems we are trying to understand the shadows on the wall of the cave of the Physical Plane, as described by Plato and Socrates, and only from outside of this can we come to truly comprehend the whole picture. Michael may be one of the many who have left the cave, and they are sharing what they know now, but we keep trying to force it into our presumptions about those shadows. If that is the case, thank you, Michael, for what seems to be an infinite patience and compassion for our position. 

The following video helps put all of this into perspective: [link - http://youtu.be/d2afuTvUzBQ ]

UP FOR DISCUSSION:  

This entry isn't meant to end the question of Michael's identity as an entity of 1050 Essences, but to keep the focus on what matters along the way, and to help us navigate this terrain of questioning without losing out on what IS relevant to us.

What is Relevant to you? If Michael turned out to be my imagination, your wishful thinking, or exactly what they claim to be, would that change the relevancy of the teaching and their value and meaning to you? Have you had your own experiences to validate Michael as something beyond the capacity of my imagination, or your wishful thinking? Do you mind that I (we) question the validity of Michael, even as I continue to work with them as if they are "real?"

Since we cannot truly validate existence beyond relevancy, does this change how you might think of the validation process for Michael?