People who accept roles in societies must make sure they are qualified for those roles. They must study what are the qualifications, according to their society, for the role that they are playing.

How do you determine these qualifications?

First, you study the best players of those roles in your society. What makes them the best? Do you meet these qualifications? What are they? What are the specifics? What are you required to do and to know if you play that role in your society? Should you transform the qualifications? Should you introduce different qualifications? You must be the best of the best as your society interprets the best? You also must have your input into the best of the best? Are you truly qualified for that role?

Not just that you want the role. People want all kinds of roles. Many want to be president, but what are the qualifications for being president? Do you meet those qualifications? And, for a role, such as president, even if you meet the qualifications, you must be approved by the people of your society. That is also an aspect of the qualifications. Many people are qualified to be president of many civilizations, but are you available to win the approval of others? If not, it’s best to try to find some career in presidential politics or the administration but you don’t necessarily have to be president. You might become an advisor or consultant in presidential politics. You might become a presidential historian. You would have to seek a presidential political career that doesn’t involve elections to office. You can also become an expert on the presidency, writing books on the subject. You might even become a friend of presidents, writing books on them. To become president yourself means the approval of the people, through elections. Some people are quite qualified to be president in theory, but not for an elected office.

You can also become a non-elected polical person, in various non-elected political office, and you can work on the staffs of political people. Many of these people also write speeches for presidents, and have a great influence in public policy just as (lowly) speech writers. It’s good if these people are known, and given credit for the great speeches that they write, nevertheless, as with playwrights, they need the great president to deliver the speech. Nevertheless, with many of the great presidents it’s excellent when they can also write their own speeches, and have literary abilities as with an Abraham Lincoln or a Thomas Jefferson. Certainly it would be good if they are co-authors and contribute lines to some of the great speeches. But no wonder actors now become presidents, and mayors and governors. This is the media age. Many of the non-charismatic (in the media’s understanding of charisma, as some people are charismatic off-camera but not on-camera; there’s a different type of charisma) people who used to become the presidents and mayors and governors now are relegated to lesser roles.

Many of the greats of previous generations, before the media age as we know it, we assume would be the greats of our generation, but many of these people would probably not even be known, as with the radio age or any new age. Mostly when these people are portrayed in the movies also, we generally get people to play the roles who are meaningful for our age and generation. Usually these are people who are attractive and charismatic for the screen. Sometimes the people they play are also this, sometimes they are not, sometimes they are attractive and charismatic in a different manner.

But as for roles and role-playing? Suppose you want to be a teacher in a little African village? Just because you’re a teacher and have that role in European or Asian society, for example, and you’re qualified to be a teacher, doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re qualified to be a teacher in that little African village. You might go to that little African village and find that the people reject you in the role of a teacher but accept you in the role of a student and scholar.

And vice versa. An African who gets qualified to teach in a little African village might not necessarily be qualified to teach in an Asian University. That African has to determine are they qualified to teach at that Asian University also. That Asian University also has to determine that. Maybe that Asian University says to that African we’ll accept you as a student and scholar at our Asian University–you must learn from us–but we don’t accept you as a teacher. In our society, they might say, you’re not qualified. Or that African might be qualified only to teach their own African language or a course in African anthropology, as many Chinese in America are hired in Universities to teach the Chinese language, while others are considered equally qualified to teach any subject.

This is role-playing as a concept and as it involves civilizations, societies, including the types and stereotypes of those roles.

Some people who want to be teachers are not qualified to be teachers at all, in any society, nor do they have the personality for that type of work. They are not “teachers.” (And think metaphysically.)

Let’s say the person is a teacher of science, or rather, is hired by a community college to teach science because they have scientific credentials and a resume. That person might be qualified to be a research scientist but they might not be qualified to be a teacher of science. Their personality and their interests qualify them to be a research scientist, so when people ask them to teach science, they must decline, saying they are qualified to be research scientists, but not teacher of science. They have all the scientific information to be great science teachers, but they don’t have the talent, the interest, the enthusiasm, nor do the student like them at all. Perhaps the students reject them in the role of teacher. They can’t even learn from them or don’t want to. They can’t get the students to learn from them. Maybe the students even claim they don’t understand this teacher, who might even be a “genius.” So therefore this teacher disqualify himself or herself from teaching, and from the role of teacher. Other scientists are more effective teachers than themselves. They might be able to teach several students who can relate to their personality type, but not a general student community. These scientists are qualified for the role.

So that type of person as a teacher role is better to be a research scientist and being the mentor of several research scientists who can relate to their type rather than trying to be a teacher for many people. That’s not their role.

Let’s just use teacher as an example.

Also, if that person becomes a teacher they have to be qualified to be a teacher. Also, if a person wants to connect to that person who is playing that role, that person should be qualified to connect to a person who is playing the role of a teacher. For example, let’s say the teacher connects to a person who doesn’t especially like teachers and/or is destructive towards teachers, and/or is just not qualified to be connected to a person who has that role and/or the responsibilities that come with that role. This is something that people have to decide upon also.

Many people don’t know how to relate to teachers. They and the teacher must make an assessment of whether or not they are the right person to connect to that person in the role of teacher. Perhaps in another role they’d be right for each other. Perhaps in no role.

For example, there’s a certain politician who had a wife who was available to be his wife and qualified when he was a lowly political figure. When he become more ambitious as a political figure to become governor and then potential president, this woman understood that she’s qualified to be the wife of a lowly politico, but not a person with these greater political ambitions. She understood that. She understood that for this greater role he had to have a wife that could be qualified for this greater role. She understood, to the best of her understanding, that she possibly could never become qualified to be the wife of a governor or even president. She knew he would need another woman for that ambition. Perhaps these two people are perfectly right for each other, but the new role-playing makes it, at least from the point of view of that woman, impossible.

For John Kennedy for example Jackie Kennedy appears to be the right woman for the right role at the right time and vice-versa. We learn now, and maybe always knew, the exploits of John Kennedy with many women, including Marilyn Monroe, but none of these women could have been the right woman for that role. Imagine Marilyn Monroe as first lady?

Or imagine as Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt as first lady of that era? The role person at the right time with the right role. Or so it appears.

Maybe people don’t like to hear this about roles and role-playing, but it’s often true. However, this is something that people have to decide upon.

And in this, we’re talking role-playing on the level of the material world, not necessarily the intellectual or the metaphysical world. Sometimes roles transcend the material world, othertimes they are just roles for the material world.

Example: Let’s say you have several actor friends. George Clooney gets to play the leading role on the material level. Let’s say there’s another actor friend intellectually superior to George Clooney. Then he gets the role on the intellectual level, the leading person. Let’s say the third friends has greater metaphysically authority, then that friend gets to play the metaphysical leading role. Sometimes these can be the same people, sometimes they are different people.

This is a type of Trinity–for those religionists who often don’t understand that concept.

It’s possible of the three acting friends that George Clooney could have all three leading roles, the leading role on the material level, the intellectual leading role, and the metaphysical leading role. It’s quite possible.

People in careers must determine if they are qualified for that career–as a role–and also if the people connected to them are qualified to be connected to a person who has that career–as a role. (It should be noted that sometimes roles are not careers they are just roles, as a person who has the role of a Patriarch or Matriarch of a group–which is not a career. Or a person who has the highest standing in a community, but it is not a career. For example, you might have a community that has a mayor, as a role, but the person that everybody looks towards for advice is not the mayor but another person who has a higher standing in the community than the mayor and therefore the higher role. This is true of many communities. Also, the same person who can have a high standing with some has a low standing with others, for whatever reason, including they just don’t like the person. However, other people are able to make an assessment of people independent of their personal likes and dislikes. For example, someone can have a political rival, even enemy, nevertheless admit that that person is better than them at various political talents and abilities. Their personal likability or even friendship has nothing to do with it. We need these types of people in every society.)

You witness some people reject people to continue the role; others reject the role to continue with certain people. For example, Paul McCartney decided that the media interfered with his relationship with his wife. So they divorce. You have other public figures who rather than divorce a wife would withdraw from the career and the media. That is a different type of commitment. Usually women are more likely to do this than men, and this is even stereotypical. However, sometimes men do this also. Every now and then you have people in public office talking of withdrawing because of their commitment to others. Sometimes other must just contend with the fact these are public figures. However, this is generally a private and personal matter. It would be good if Paul McCartney and his wife could continue as friends. We don’t like to witness the media interfering with commitments and relationships on this level. It’s corrupt. But nevertheless people who go into the public world are going to have to become more savvy so that media doesn’t corrupt relationships that might otherwise continue creatively.

If people know how to relate constructively to people in roles, then often they continue the role. If people only know how to relate destructively to people in certain roles, it’s often difficult and/or impossible for them to effectively play that role. They either withdraw from the role and/or forced by the people from the role. Also, it’s possible when there are these types of conflicts in role-playing to talk to experts. Many therapists and psychologists are experts at role-playing as a study, that’s why they often make use of role-playing techniques, including having people reverse roles so that they understand their behavior and can if possible correct themselves. This helps them to understand the other person.

People who put on dark-skinned make-up or light-skinned make-up to reverse black and white roles often learn a great deal in this type of racial role-playing. Michael Richards could learn a great deal being required to put on dark-skinned make-up as his “assignment” and being placed in certain communities in this country. Then he might learn more about his behavior than all the talk from the blacks. Let him play that role for a while.

Everybody knows the British king who gave up his kingdom to continue to an American divorcee. Everybody knows that love story.

This is understanding roles and role playing.

In a modern-day England, of course, the king can have the divorcee.

There are secular and spiritual roles. Anybody who plays a role needs to study the role, study the players, study the history of that role, whether a secular or spiritual role, whether a public and/or a private role.

Let’s give Jesse Jackson as an example of a role-player. Everybody knows Jesse Jackson. (Almost.) We assume there are remote parts of the planet where people have never heard of Jesse Jackson. Once Jesse Jackson goes into the role of the great African American leader he is not just Jesse Jackson a person, an individual, he is a role player on the highest political level. And especially if Americans assign him the role of the leading black leader, then he goes into the leading role. Does he accept himself as the leading black leader, since many people go towards Jesse Jackson whenever they have a race problem. Why not Farrakhan? Or some other leader? This means that many people recognize him as the leader. Otherwise, why go to Jesse Jackson? Or Al Sharpton?

He is playing a role that many before him have played. What is Jesse Jackson going to do with that role. How is he going to define the role? How are people connected to him going to define the role?

When Jesse Jackson gets into the role of the leading African American leader, then Jesse Jackson defines that role. Of course others who have dreams, needs, and desires and who look towards African leadership are going to have some influence on Jesse Jackson, nevertheless Jesse Jackson defines the role and people who study roles are going to study Jesse Jackson politics, and how Jesse Jackson politics is different from other black leaders of other generations. So Jesse Jackson has a political role and he has a historical role. We are Jesse Jackson’s contemporaries and so many of us are not aware, even his friends that Jesse Jackson has a historical role and many of those connected to him have historical roles, whether leading or supporting. A meeting between Jesse Jackson and anybody, whether they are a greater or lesser figure, according to people’s understanding of this idea, this is a historical meeting–whether you like it or not.

If anybody sets up Jesse Jackson like they’ve set up other African leaders then they are messing with history. Blacks by now, however, should be savvy enough not to mess with Jesse Jackson. If they are not, then by now, it’s there problem. Even if they don’t like Jesse Jackson, they should know enough about role-playing that we’d suggest they don’t go near Jesse Jackson, even if they don’t like the man. Unless they want to be involved in another corrupt history. Nevertheless, Jesse Jackson must decide when it’s time for him to retire as a great leader and help put forth new leadership. Or, he can continue the role. Certainly, he must have advisers. This is not a call for him to retire however, as many people continue to look towards him for leadership and continue to be supportive of him. Even there are some who know that if America were a different country, or another country, to quote a great African American writer, Jesse Jackson might have become president. However, he can have greater influence in role-playing not being president.

Let’s continue with Jesse Jackson becomes he’s such an excellent role-player. Because of certain personal and political mistakes he’s made he cannot truly be the moral conscience of America except by proxxy. He and other Jackson Jackson fans might not like to hear that, but let’s be truthful to our best understanding or moral conscience and moral responsibility. Many African leaders are leaders by proxxy, because many great Africans who challenge their civilizations on the level that it should be challenged are destroyed, as Native American leadership has been destroyed and destroyed and destroyed, and many of the current Native Americans leaders are also leaders by proxxy.

Many people have stereotypes of African American leaders. Some people that meet Jesse Jackson personally or via media, web content, print or film are truly meeting Jesse Jackson, others are just meeting some stereotype they have of African American leaders and are assigning him all those stereotypes which he has to continuously do battle with to make it clear he’s Jesse Jackson, not just some stereotype of an African leader. Many of the stereotypes of African leadership are no different from the Reconstuction stereotypes, especially as portrayed in film such as the infamous The Birth of a Nation. Some of the stereotypes of black leaders might be true, possibly are greatly true, some of the stereotypes might have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Jackson but with other African leaders.

Some people approaching Mr. Jackon, no matter what their ethnic group, are assigning him their idea or ideal of a black leader. Many of them are coming to him telling him how he has to play that role–their idea or ideal of a black leader. He has to play the role their way or he’s not playing the role correctly. Whenever anybody gets into any role, others who have ideas and ideals of those roles, whether those ideas originate with themselves personally and/or with their civilization, society and/or the media as in ideas and ideals that many people have of love and romance roles in different civilizations. Many of the people looking for love are looking for some ideal that they have and/or that their society portrays to them in novels, films, TV, other people’s stories, and no wonder so many people are having problems finding perfection in love. And, it should be noted, the ideal for one person is not the ideal for another. Sometimes people can be the ideal for many, sometimes they find only one who recognizes the ideal within that person. Of course, it’s easier for the lovers who connect to people that other people champion. It’s far easier. The young woman who “won” Tom Cruise, who many people praise and celebrate finds it far easier to explain her love than the person who connected to a rejected and denied “Tom Cruise,” some honorable young man that nobody but that young woman knows. There are many of these throughout civilizations.

But let’s return to the African American role-player Jesse Jackson, who appears continuously in American newstories, with his own show and with the American race question. Certainly there should be standards for African American leadership. There should be qualifications and Mr. Jackson should be able to meet those qualifications. What are those qualifications? They cannot just be charisma, who’s the most charismatic leader? And Jesse Jackson is certainly a charimatic person. Except of course for those who don’t like Jesse Jackson or Jesse Jackson politics, or just reject African leadership no matter who’s the so-called leader. These qualifications cannot just be the qualifications given to Mr. Jackson by a naive people, but they have to become specific professional qualifications a minimum of which Mr. Jackson and other African leaders must meet.

And African Americans on the highest level of their civilization are going to have to be those who define these standards of African leadership, not any other ethnics. They must decide. And also they must learn the strategies that others make use of to disrupt and corrupt their leaders, as well as the disruptions and corruptions of the leaders themselves.

Americans in general decide upon their leaders. Other people don’t. Sometimes they don’t like the leaders they elect, nevertheless they elect them. And their leaders can help define an era. Some people in the world make a distinction between American people and American political leadership and/or media leaders, others do not. For them, these represent American people. And those who consider America a decadent country can only be reinforce in this belief certainly by the public antics of the celebrity class. Or we should say certain of the celebrity class.

African leadership must move from the naive charismatic level to the professional level–possibly. But again, this is something for Africans to decide upon. What are the qualifications for African leadership? Qualifications cannot just be liking a person. Everybody can like Jesse Jackson and he still has to meet minimum standards of leadership.

Similarly with President George W. Bush. Everybody can like Mr. Bush and he can be a likable guy. Nevertheless in his role as president what are the minimum standards that you have to meet. People can decide they don’t like George W. Bush. What’s the reasons for this dislike? Personal? Political? Can he be a good guy and not a good president? Or does his presidential tarnish the “good guy.” There are many corruptions that are built into the role of president that makes the presidency problematic for many good people. There are many roles like that. In fact, there are corruptions which are a part of almost every career choice. How does a person do the career and avoid the corruptions that are built into career roles? Many people dismiss these corruptions by saying they are “just doing their job.” However, this phrase admits that many aspects of their job are corrupt. In fact, some people withdraw from roles because of the corruptions built into those roles and those role-playing. Jimmy Carter is able to manifest himself as the “good guy” more effective outside of the role of president and into the role of former president.

President Richard Nixon, certainly among the least charismatic of American presidents, and the least likable–which become a problem for Mr. Nixon–understood that when he didn’t meet the mimimum standards of his role–had to resign. Had Richard Nixon been a “charmer” like a Bill Clinton, another presidential role-player, he might have even gotten away with Watergate. Many more charming presidents have had their versions of Watergate. There are American presidential corruptions perhaps greater than Watergate and yet these presidents are not forced to resign.

Role-players have to know when to play a role and when to resign from that role.

And those connected to role-players must determine if they are the appropriate person for that role-player.

Oprah Winfrey in playing her role appears to be a savvy role-player, knowing the role she wants to play and knowing the people that she wants to play that role along with her.

These are questions that role-players must discuss and those connected to role-players. Of course, the more people learn about role playing the less the spontaneity of many of these people, and that’s why a lot of people don’t like professional types, just pure, sheer professionals and many of the naive players of roles are more interesting people and interesting types and things are not so easily choreographed. Nevertheless, you need the pure, sheer professionals along with the more naive, and perhaps more spontaneous role-players. Certainly there are women who have worked with Bill Clinton, pure, sheer, professional woman not available to play with Bill Clinton or any of these other politicos. Surely there are not as interesting as his conquests maybe, but nevertheless they’re professionals. They are not available to play with him or anybody else in the political world while playing their roles. These are the types that helps to maintain a certain consistency in the government. And they are not the colorful types either. They are the political people that possibly nobody notices, like the professional role-players at the Vatican. People don’t notice these types and they don’t necessarily want to be noticed; they just do their work.

Role-players also have to decide or the so-called people decide when it’s time for a new generation of role-player to come forth. For example, you might have an actor the leading actor of his generation, then a new generation leading actor comes forth. Sometimes the actors decide upon this, sometimes the people decide upon this. And people should not try to “stay in power,” it’s good when new generations of leadership come forward. The role for the older generation should be a mentor or apprenticeship role. They play the role of their generation, then they become mentors or apprenticeships for the new generation. Even though Third World types like staying in power, like with Fidel Castro, and many times nobody can compete with these leaders, nevertheless it’s better for them to retire like others do, and then become mentors for new leadership. However, the Third World is very different from the First World. But the Third World should probably learn how to have elder statespeople, as with Nelson Mandela. Revolutionaries do not always make the best bureaucrats, the day to day details of running and managing governments, although they must have a leading role in the directions of their countries. This is yet a problem of third-world role-playing.

Madonna is a role-player, for example, in the American entertainment industry and also considered a world-class entertainer. Colorful, charismatic. She plays an iconic leading role in the American entertainment industry. Most people connected to Madonna are playing a role. Most are supporting roles to the great Madonna. Is she the right person to be playing a leading role? Are they the right people to be playing a supporting role to Madonna?

Some great country singers, unlike Madonna, retire from their careers, from their roles. Barbara Mandrell, a great country singer, among the greatest decided to retire from her role as a great country entertainer. Very good that this great country singer understood that you can retire from role-playing. No doubt Barbara Mandrell has a private role and continues her private as a retired great country singer.

Again, when playing roles learn everything about that role, the history, the players, and how do you define and redefine that role. People connecting to role-player must learn the roles they are playing and are they the appropriate role-players to connect to these role-players. The more you learn and the more people connected to you learn–especially if you want to play a role on the world stage–there’s a lot to learn.

Even role-players in the private world of many societies find it problematic to play roles. At some point when we do more study on role-playing and the problems of roles, when people get into these roles, whether a president, an entertainer, a teacher, an artist, and they have problems in these roles, as society defines these roles, then they will have experts to consult with.

So when Jesse Jackson goes into his role as the great African leader he has experts to consult with him on this role. If he has any questions or problems at all, then he has experts that understand the problem and can work with him on the solution to that problem. There are no doubt experts that have been studying his role and the role-players for a long time.

Jesse Jackson is defining his role like Madonna and many of these role-players but people are studying them and their roles while they are also playing their roles.

If you’re having problems playing your role, whatever that role in your society, then you should read and learn what the experts have to say about that role, because people have played these many roles in many different societies for so long that people are studying these roles, studying the players, and becoming experts.

Especially public figures who play roles and those who connect to them in role-playing should have experts in those roles and that society connected to them so that if they and/or those who connect to them have any problems at all that go along with that role, then they can discuss problems with these experts. Those who play roles in societies have many problems and those who connect to them also. There are many pop psychology books on these subjects and many self-help books, and certainly these experts are needed. Many celebrities for example find themselves requiring therapists. Why do think? However, these people don’t necessarily need therapists. There are professional people that understand the problems of all of these roles that they can also discuss the matter with and not just therapists, although therapists appear for now to be the most qualified in understand the role-playing problems of public figures. However, the problem with going to therapists is that it’s easy to claim these people are “insane.” These people are not necessarily crazy and there need to be experts who are not “therapists” who can help them to deal with the problems and pressures of public and private role-playing that help them to understand they are not necessarily insane. Many have advisors and counsellors who are therapists and certainly these are necessarily include media experts who they are not media savvy. Many public role-players also need to know the difference between public protocol and private protocol. Let’s use Michael Jackson for this role. Let’s say you’re a private person in a private community, a man who teaches youngsters and helps young children. Most people in that private community are not necessarily going to accuse that man of having romantic interest in children. He might even be an honorable member of the society. Everybody likes the man. Let’s say he becomes a public figure and he has an interest in helping children and the next thing he knows he’s accused of helping them for romantic reasons.

Professional people have similar problems, the difference between professional protocol and private protocol. For example, we witness Emmitt Smith on dancing with the stars. His wife accepts the fact that “her man” is a professional and public figures. She’s not like many private women out of control with some notion that her man is having some romantic interlude with Cheryl Burke. Perhaps privately she’s as insecure as many women in many communities. Publically she understands protocol. She understands that Emmitt is a public figure and he’s going to be working with many different people, including professional women like Ms. Burke. She behaves herself. He behaves himself. And Ms. Burke behaves herself. They understand public protocol.

However, if Emmitt were a private man and his wife very insecure she probably certainly would not allow him to dance with this beautiful young woman. This is how many private people behave and many public people who have not yet learned public protocol or how to behave themselves.

The wives of University professors witness their men have many students and colleagues and they have to learn how to behave according to public protocol as the University understands it. They also have to deal with the stereotype of professors dating their students and many others. Sometimes these professors are the stereotypes, sometimes they are perfectly honorable people. But in this role-playing, a professor, whether a man or woman, must have a person qualified to play the role along with them and who understands the protocol of that role-playing. These spouses cannot be as “insecure” as ordinary people. Perhaps they are, but it’s problematically to be insecure and play such roles. Professional class people also find it problematically connecting to working class role-players because of the different customs and folkways as it involve romantic role-playing. A typical working class role-player is not necessarily going to allow her professor husband to be so friendly with so many co-eds without commentary. Very different than professional commentary. We are talking typical.

When the great Jim Brown had a problem with his wife thinking he’s running around on her. This is a problem for many public professional role-players who have many public obligations that require them to meet with many people, and so there must be a level of security and trust that typical community people don’t necessarily have to have. This is a question of protocol and Jim Brown and his wife must work on protocol because Jim Brown is a public figure who has obligations in the public world different from some private man in a private community. What’s the protocol?

Many men and women who have professional and public roles must learn a different protocol than the private world. Suppose Americans have the first female or Lady President and she has to meet publically and privately with many world leaders? Suppose we start accusing her of romantic interludes with all of the world leaders? What’s the protocol? Or suppose her husband starts accusing her of this type of misbehavior? What’s the protocol for this role-playing?

Because America has had many men presidents most American women know the protocol for accompanying a man playing the role of president, even the womanizing types. What’s the protocol for accompanying a Madame President? Women have a problem with protocol when men play roles and they must accompany the men in those roles. Men can also have a problem with protocol with women when they play roles and men must accompany them in those roles.

Oprah Winfrey has to meet with all kinds of people in her public roles. Nevertheless we don’t witness Stedman publically accusing her of any misbehavior with any of these people. Unless it’s in the tabloids, which we don’t necessarily read. Nor does she publically accuse him of much–for now. They appear to understand public protocol. Other celebrity couples must decide upon the difference between public protocol, private protocol, and public and private behavior. Many public role-players think all of their business should be played out in public. This is something for public figures to decide upon. Certainly the press makes it problematic for people to have any privacy. Nevertheless, this is something for pubic role-players to study and learn and develop strategies for.

The more sophisticated societies become the less naive and more self-conscious, then not only do you have players of roles–not on the naive level, but people who study roles, and not on the naive level.

Most civilizations continue to have naive players of roles, but they also are gaining expert role-players and expert students of those roles. Certainly the naive role-players can be very interesting and even endearing, but nevertheless they need to study and learn about the roles and especially how to transcend the problems of those roles. Indeed, there are many roles that are very destructive to people, and certainly we witness people being destroyed by roles that they do not fully understand, as a Marilyn Monroe or an Elvis Prestley. Or, maybe they do understand. Nevertheless, who likes to witness the great talents, public or private, being destroyed because nobody has any great expertise in role-playing. And when people get into role societies can be very cruel. That’s why many public and private role-players find themselves in therapy.

Many people get into roles without fully understanding the nature of those roles and the qualifications for those roles. This is on the public and the private level. Those who do understand often seek counsellors or advisors. This is also the reason why so many self-help and how-to books are popular with role-players.

If Madonna, for example, has any problems in the role that she is playing, no doubt there are experts who study Madonna, experts who study how she plays her role, experts who study the role of others who have played that same role before Madonna, and continue to study how she plays her role. And many of these experts want Madonna to be successful in her role. Of course, people like spontaneity, but on certain levels you need expertise along with the spontaneous, as in the jazz players–highly trained musicians who combine spontaneity of improvised with great skill. We learn this with many of the best actor-role players, highly skilled professionals that make acting appear deceptively simple and even spontaneous. But they know their work and they know their role.

Many of these modern-day role players have learned from many role-players before them.

Many of the Marilyn Monroe generation wanted Marilyn to be successful in her role. However, Marilyn Monroe in playing her role helped others to learn how to play that role and how not to play the role. She continues to be an icon and a teacher for her society and for the many starlets that go into that role. Of course, they are “no Marilyn Monroe,” nevertheless these icons become the standard for that role, whether they are an exemplary standard or a flawed and foibled standard.

Madonna in playing her role is teaching many of this role, as Jesse Jackson or George W. Bush or Richard Nixon or the various popes. These are public role players that we study and learn from.

However, we all have private role-players in our communities, whether they are naive role-players and/or self-conscious role players that we can study and learn from.

Before people go into any role in any society they should learn the minimum qualifications for those roles as that society determines these qualifications. Nevertheless, when they get into the role, they are the people defining that role, not another.

For many blacks of the twentieth century, Malcolm X came to define the highest role, greater certainly than Mr. Jackson. And for that, there are still those continuing to gnaw at the legacy of the great Malcolm–by any means. Yet the role is the role. Understand the metaphysics of manly independent African leadership and the role is still the role. Certainly enemies of African people or any peoples who have ongoing independence struggles, including Native Americans–are going to continue to discredit the independent leadership for the more agreeable types. That’s “human nature,” nevertheless the role is the role. Geronimo is Geronimo. Moses is Moses. The role is the role. Understand the metaphysics of role-playing.

We should speak of Moses here, because he represents for many of the faithful of many faiths an icon of independence struggles. Nevertheless, Moses played his role and then understood when to stop playing that role. He understood how far he was allowed to go with the Jewish people. At some point the Jewish people had to continue with “the spirit of Moses,” the metaphysics of Moses. Most Jewish metaphysical teachers understand Moses as Abraham as a metaphysical role. Moses (we assume) is celebrated as Moses but also as a corporeal manifestation of the metaphysical. Most peoples with a spiritual foundation understand this.

Most peoples with a spiritual foundation continue their spiritual roles even in a secular society. Many understand this. Others do not. Spiritual peoples continue their spiritual roles even in modern secular society.

Many role-players seek spiritual guidance when playing their roles. Many public leaders speak of seeking such guidance, because the decisions they make affect many people and the roles they play. And this is true even in private role-playing as some parents seek spiritual guidance in how best to raise their children.

For example, once Muhammad Ali, who considers himself also a spiritual person and not just some boxer, set the highest standard for African American boxers Almost every other boxer is told, You are not Muhammad Ali. Of course, they are not. Nevertheless, when they get into that role, boxers define and redefine that role.

Since Muhammad Ali no boxer has gotten into that role who can compete with that icon.

Metaphysically the role is still the role. Your role can be a purely secular role and/or if you are a spiritual type–and by this we don’t mean the crude fundamentalists–then your role is both a secular and a spiritual role.

Boxing is no longer considered by many the great sport because most of the people getting into the role cannot compete yet with the icons. But the role is still the role. And it can be a spiritual and/or a secular role and/or both.

Muhammad Ali is the exemplary modern-day gladiator. And almost every society has its equivalent of this as a role.

Understand the roles and qualifications for playing roles.

And furthermore, understand the metaphysics of role-playing.