April 7, 2007
On the Twin Oaks list, there is some discussion about the various Cadre/Entity structure discrepancies offered from among the channels, so I thought this might be an interesting subject for discussion in a more appropriate space.
From what I’ve seen in regard to the entity and cadre structures is that there really isn’t that much discrepancy as much as there are various ways of describing the same thing… the greatest gap in understanding is in the various CONTEXTS that various channels seem to receive from Michael, and then there is some channeling that is just inaccurate.
Instead of trying to equate or mesh together the various systems, it might be worth exploring these contexts. For instance, the system for describing Human Sentience is a different system from describing the whole of Sentience for Earth, and changes then again on the level of Sentience in existence EVERYWHERE, and then again when including EveryWhen.
I believe that Sarah channeled the largest perspective from Michael, which was a system that included Gorilla and Cetacean Sentience along with Human, though I may have missed that she included non-Earth sentience, so if she did, then the system is even larger than what I understood.
The “classic” system is the most immediately applicable and personal system and means the most to the Personality as it is all relative to the context of Human Sentience.
J.P. introduces a system that elaborates on the “classic” in a way that seems to be tightly linked to the perfect (and common) entity structure (3 “sides” of 343 fragments), but this structure seems to be less-consistently relevant (RELATIVELY speaking) to those of us are Michael Students because the structures of our Entities and Cadres are so non-classical, from what I understand. That’s why I think there is trouble applying it in any consistently meaningful way across the board, because it works for perfect entities, or for those who happen to fall within the perfect system, but most of us loony entities who threw together an energy structure like a wild party of crazy old fools who have “been there, done that,” lol. J.P.’s system is mathematically genius (in my humble opinion) and there are levels to it that are just as immediately meaningful as in the classic system, but other levels that seem to be lost on us. I tend to think that this system is more complicated because it makes sense mathematically, but loses meaning when translated into words.
Keep in mind that my experience of the systems beyond the Classic is based purely on, and limited to, my studies having to come directly from the channel who introduced the system. I seem to be able to get Sarah systems pretty easily, but with JPs I can only get details from Michael as original information to a certain degree, and then I can push it to have Michael use the introduced system to translate their original information, and then there are levels that I can’t even touch with Michael because it’s either not original to them and/or I don’t understand the terminology enough to have Michael use it for me. And what I mean as “original to them” is just my way of describing my particular direct line of communication with Michael, understanding that JPs (and other channels’) may have different direct lines.
Any systems beyond these three I have either never heard of, or haven’t prompted any introductions from Michael through any questions, or they just don’t have any relevance to the teaching or Michael in any way that I can discern.
In the end I tend to go with the classic system because:
1. a multitude of channels were/are receiving the information independently and fairly consistently (even if the visualizations are conflicting).
2. the classic system is immediately applicable and meaningful for most
3. when a system is exclusive to one channel, it always raises a kind of red flag for me to handle it with more scrutiny than usual before adding it as practical part of the Michael Library, no matter how much sense it makes (and keep in mind that multiple channel’s “channeling” the same information can be based on propagation through the teaching of the new terminology, but not necessarily from comprehension or independent contact with Michael)
4. the classic system works across the board
5. as with all of Michael’s information, it is pretty uncomplicated, even while complex and awesome