Nathan said:
Laura said, "VERY sympathetic to animals - sometimes moreso than to humans". This suggests to me that this is because they feel more of a kinship towards animals because they are indeed a bridge between 2nd and 3rd density. As ScioAgapeOmnis said, "a disproportionate preoccupation with a certain "group" over everyone else, or a certain species".
I disagree with this view, in terms of its generalization. I have known OP's who felt close to animals, but I have also known OP's who consider animals "servants of man", and not worth any more than what they can provide in terms of food, clothing and protection. I have known people I consider individualized to also love animals exceptionally, and even more than people, and I have known those ensouled who simply do not pay attention to animals, and are more focused on human beings.
In my opinion, to consider such behavioural traits as the preference or love of animals as symptoms of an OP or individualized nature can lead down a path where one indeed, as anart said, needs to tread very carefully. I also say this because I myself love and appreciate animals, plants and all of nature. I also feel of kinship with nature and all that exist therein. I do not consider this imaginative projection of myself onto animals, plants and the greater natural environment, but an appreciation of the life pulse itself, which I can often distinctly feel.
Healthy humans are, for the most part, social beings and their social bonding tendencies are often not limited to their own species. These social tendencies are hard-wired into our genes OP and individual alike. Any human, furthermore, who has for some reason lost faith in humanity, or simply appreciates the more genetically defined attributes of animals (i.e., with animals you know where you stand), will channel their social bonding tendencies in that direction. It is well known, for example, that having a dog and/or cat can improve your chances of healing from psychological and/or physical trauma.
Whether one is predisposed to liking animals also depends on upbringing. Here in Greece, for the most part, animals are considered inferior beings made to serve man. The very word for death is different for animals then it is for humans. The closest translation I can come up with is that humans "pass-on" and animals "fall down and rot".
When I visited Morocco a few years back, the streets of Tangiers and Rabat were filled with mangy dogs, kicked by every passer by, chased down by groups of children and treated in general horribly. The same cities were filled with fat well-fed cats that people treated like royalty. The love of cats and hatred of dogs (even the word "dog" is considered a grave insult) is indeed part of Muslim culture. It may even have its roots in ancient Egypt where dogs were assiciated with corpse-eating jackals and cats with Pharoah's.
"Tree huggers" and OP "environmentalists" are something else altogether, in my view. OP's do not lack intelligence, and many realize that a world without trees and animals is a dead world. If many animals could reason and debate, they too IMO would be environmentalists because they have a deep sense of nature as their home. In this sense the OP's might have an admirable natural instinct to preserve their environment that those with tendencies to individuation may not fully appreciate.
The OP soul-pool effect may put them in a deeper natural environmental relationship than an individual who, until they truly develop and mature that soul into healthy intensity and presence, may tend at least toward partial environmental alienation. The OP knows instinctively what is in their best interests as a living biological being, and their natural emotions are an outflow of that sense. It is not selfishness per se when self-interest is coherent with ecosystemic balance.
The individualized soul, on the other hand, at some point in their development can place too much emphasis in the abstract and lose touch with the concrete. They may see nature in abstract terms, and while focusing on "higher things" forget that empathy makes no such distinctions. The soul has been associated with the inner divine in many traditions. In its purity, whether grounding in one individual or spread through many, the soul has a holographic nature in that one soul is all souls regardless of form-expression. This is the reason for empathy, which is coherent where the soul is individually concentrated and diffuse and conditional where it is more spread out.
I agree that individualized beings have the potential to develop abstract conscience, because they have genetic potiential that acts as a parabolic lens to focus a coherent soul in the body/mind. When the soul dynamic tends to focus into such coherence the human involved tends to be moved to Know themselves. Knowledge protects because it is one and the same with soul emergence, activation and empowerment. The soul itself is referenced into one body and the soul/body matrix becomes a self-sufficient existential system, while the OP group soul is group-sufficient and references itself over a greater, less defined spectrum.
In my view, OP's are (in their healthy state) environmentally well-adapted, and so are not concerned with abstract questions of self and being in general. Living biologically fulfilled lives in the context of being human, is enough for them. The differentiating visible attribute distinguishing OP's from people with individual soul potential, as mentioned often here, is that individuals are not happy unless they understand the deeper mysteries, because the soul is at the source of those mysteries, and their very bodies are generating a high focus of those soul dynamics regardless of conditioning and acquired inhibitions.
It is like the individual (or potentially so) person senses they are as a universe unto themselves, or a microcosm of the whole, while the OP feels to be a part or extension of the whole. Both can have "mystical" experiences of unity and connection with the All, but the OP will feel as a part of a greater picture while the individuated person will feel microcosmically complete within the macrocosmic whole, because their soul is associated with their body, which has definite boundaries.
In addition, it has been stated that even ensouled individuals need to evolve that soul coherence to properly be indentified as such, meaning most if not all of us are individuals-in-becoming. We are probably not associated with soul pools as such (which may be why potential individuals may feel they do not "fit in"), but initially the soul presence is just as diffuse as it is in an OP.
The latter can then enjoy a kind of collective support the potential individual does not. We are on our way to greater focus, however, and hence vulnerable because it is not so difficult for ego patterning (a pseudo-soul) to attempt to compensate for the as yet dim or uncrystalized soul presence (without soul pool support). One can end up, in those terms, with a very coherent ego and a soul suppressed under it.
"Who am I ?" and "Why am I?" are questions that burn within the potentially individualized person. They are important to them, while OP's may consider such inquiries a waste of time and resources. I have observed OP's interested in these topics, but mainly for purposes of social bonding or to indicate some kind of "cultivation" on their part. The potential individual, however, usually is persistent in trying to understand the nature of their existence and all existence, for that matter, and what lies beyond the five senses, and that persistence is often irritating to the OP.
As the individuating soul matures and becomes even more coherent, they seek to affirm their relationship to the environment in terms of the mysteries that concern them. They seek to apply those mysteries in life. They come full circle from the abstract to the concrete, and then they may find more points of contact with the OP than they had otherwise thought possible.
---
Regarding the issue of 4D STS feeding on humanity, from what I understand here, they seem to want to convert humans into bio-factories that produce a certain type of "energy", for lack of a better word. If they wanted to feed on the heart or soul they could just assist in its development and benefit from its grace-output. STO is "service to others" and they could be those "others", and all would be happy.
Instead, as I see it, they want to generate trauma on the human body/mind so that what is generated is not the true essence potential, but the complete opposite. Personally, I do not see 4D STS "feeding" upon humans so much as attempting to convert them into "terraforming modules", to generate an environemnt in which they can thrive. Apparently, their environment is degrading and of course one feeds off of their environment. I sense, however, that the biological analogy of individual feeding or feeding on individuals like we feed on animals can be misleading in this case.
Judging from the correspondence between soul-pools of lower animal life forms and 4D STS, it may be that soul individuation may be the "disruptive" force here, from the point of view of 4D STS. It is certainly the new element in nature that seemed to bring adversity out of 4D STS right off the bat. In other words, the individual soul may be toxic to these beings, as may be even mammilian soul pools to a lesser extent.
4D STS may refuse or be unable to adapt to the greater manifestations of soul coherence in the lower densities. Associated with "lizards" they may be true dinosaurs (or the 4D version of such) that refuse to admit that they have gone extinct and its time to move on, and are trying to turn back the clock, as it were. They may want to recondition human genetic potential to a pre-soul state that suits their existence. Since, however, humans are designed for greater (and often much greater) soul coherence than reptilian forms, this seems to be like trying to pound the proverbial square peg into the round hole.
It has been said that the ancient reptoid called Velocaraptor (spelling?) seemed to have been evolving into an anthropoid version, and there have been models constructed as to what such a being would look like if the cosmos and planet had not "decided" that this was not in the best interest of reality at large. Can anyone imagine a Homo Raptorus civilization? Not only does this sound like the Lizzies (at least a 3D version of them), but the constructed models look like what some abducties and dreamers have seen.
So if Lizzies are Raptors in the future, how would they react when all of the sudden the cosmos throws a meteor on their past? I would think they would try to reclaim it somehow, and if they could not make things as they were, would try to hijack the offending life 3D life forms and mould them into something acceptable to bridge the temporal gap between past and future on their terms.
Anyway, in the context of this discussion, it is something to consider.
)
