Soul names

[Lavazza]

Hello friends,

I recently finished a book by Michael Newton in which he explores the so called in-between life state via Hyno-regression. In between incarnations that is, where we regroup with our higher selves or soul mentors, meet up with other members of our soul groups, review our past life experiences, etc. (it's a great read by the way, "Journey of Souls", perhaps some here have already read it?)

One of the first things Dr. Newton would do in his sessions is ask his patient what their true names are. That is to say, what their "soul name" is. Everyone of his patients would offer a name to him and he would use that instead of their earthly names. I'm intrigued by this... I've never felt much affinity or identity with my earth-bound name in this lifetime. I would like to know what my real name is.

Alas, I have no desire to see a hypnotherapist at this point in my life, but I feel that something so personal should be available to us in some fashion. I thought perhaps through deep meditation one might be able to get it. I'm inexperienced with automatic writing or other forms of channeling though, I'm not certain I would know I was receiving my true name or suggesting a made up one to myself subconsciously.

Anyone have thoughts, tips, experiences to share? Anyone care to volunteer their soul name in the thread?

cheers everyone,
L.

[Ali Quadir]

I would concur with Taha it's not names as we would normally use them.. Esoterically speaking the true name of an object or entity is it's vibration. The name is equal to the entity. By speaking the name you're literally invoking the entity. Spiritually, speaking a name is the same as manifesting it's reality by vibrating its identity. In effect drawing it into your reality. The Jews do not speak Gods name because of this reason. Occult traditions also place much importance in the correct pronunciation of names.

You probably know the stereo type of the demonologist who is breaking his tongue to pronounce the impossible demonic names. Knowing full well that if he pronounces it wrong the demon might come and express his disappointment in creative and painful manners.

[BrownEye]

I thought during channeling the entity would identify itself with a name whether it be an individual or group consiousness? Would that not be the same idea as a soul name?

[ayadew]

I would concur with Taha it's not names as we would normally use them.. Esoterically speaking the true name of an object or entity is it's vibration. The name is equal to the entity. By speaking the name you're literally invoking the entity. Spiritually, speaking a name is the same as manifesting it's reality by vibrating its identity. In effect drawing it into your reality. The Jews do not speak Gods name because of this reason. Occult traditions also place much importance in the correct pronunciation of names.

You probably know the stereo type of the demonologist who is breaking his tongue to pronounce the impossible demonic names. Knowing full well that if he pronounces it wrong the demon might come and express his disappointment in creative and painful manners.

Never understood why, thank you for clarifying
The sounds which can be produced by humans are very limited, I'd doubt any kind of name would be truly representative of a vibratory complex, because that's what they are... complex
But you can invoke them in your mind. All humans has a certain 'feeling', and if it's subjective or objective I do not know. If I was without distortions I'm sure I'd see the 'feeling' objectively

[Ali Quadir]

The sounds which can be produced by humans are very limited, I'd doubt any kind of name would be truly representative of a vibratory complex, because that's what they are... complex

Well, the human voice is extremely flexible compared to most animals on our planet. Most, just not all. We can actually make a lot more sounds than we usually imagine. Human language knows somewhere around 50 sounds. Each human language uses at most only half of these. And it's not likely that this 50 is the limit. Throat singers go beyond and are actually able to make 2 or 3 sounds at the same time. As if they have two mouths. (I hope it sounds better on your side. My speakers are crappy)

Still your argument stands because on my own I can't even imitate, say: the sound of a dying giraffe with any accuracy... It's just an approximation.

But you can invoke them in your mind. All humans has a certain 'feeling', and if it's subjective or objective I do not know. If I was without distortions I'm sure I'd see the 'feeling' objectively

Sound in the world is only a reflection of sound in the mind. You surely know the question. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound? The answer being no, sound isn't sound until the brain interprets it. Before that it is vibration, just like images are vibration just like taste smell and sensation are vibratory effects.

Anyway. In sufism they have this dzikr thing going on. It's like buddhist mantra's. But the Muslim variant of it. Performed here by a few women. I don't know their song I think they're singing "God is God" but that's just guessing really. It's a potent method to get yourself into a trance. There are different dzikrs or songs for different purposes. Some for healing some to open up the heart to love and good things. Some to seek protection.

The biggest difference with buddhist mantras is that it's much more active. You're not sitting still. You're supposed to dance and move.. If you've never tried it it'll be worth it. The point is that if you cycle the sound continuously it becomes one sound. All the complexity that is in the sound the different rhythms become one. And like mantra's these can be complicated. When you feel inside that they are combined to one complex you're doing it right. It's as if you start to hear a sound within the sound.

Anyway, it's of course only an approximation of the true spiritual sounds that would be soul names. But still I consider them related.

[Sirius]

sound and colours can be easily represented through waveform. Thoughts are also wave forms, so talking about the 'recognizable feeling/emotion' when you meet somebody I feel that it would be a uniqe wavelegth thoughtform. But as it is that thought which is then 'filtered' through our senseces/perception we add names and meaning to the recognisable 'waves' in whatever shape or form they are taking.

Soul names, can play a huge significance. In throwing you off. This is my experience. I feel that Maybe the feelings of 'that's not my name?' would be something to do with a past life or such.

I have been flicking through a book by 'Solara Antarii Ama-Ra' She considers this her Star name. She beleives in something such as star lineages. with a bit or terminology switching... We all started in Oneness, is this agreed? So in a respect we would have had to 'fall from heaven' ie work our way DOWN the densities. starting at 7 ending at 3. It would be the defining splits in the Oneness conciousness that are given thier names. and through adding up the splits, tracing back the path to oneness, you could find out a star name.

I dont like most of what I have read, but her thoughts on separation are fairly uniqe, and I feel help me understand TLOO, or vice versa..

This would make a soul name in this respect, almost directions back home, not an actual name tag. A soul name is what you are. If your a looking for a name of who you are, your in the wrong ball park. A tag of who would serve only to distract you.

Love and Light

[Sirius]

Quantum physics prooves that if there is no 'listener' (observer) then there is no action to interperate.
Until, sombody comes into sensical contact with the tree, it is falling/fallen/standing at the same time.
Asking the question does work to make you pause, but finding out the answer is also a scientific fact of oneness.
This would be one of the rare occasions science and 'religion' to put it loosely match up and agree

To take it a step further, again until there is an observer, the tree would exist as wavelegnth. Meaning there is no tree at all.

If the tree talk is confusing, just swap 'tree' for 'soul name' I feel they are to the same effect.

Just to add to my previous post, and only cos I'm actually watching Stargate atm, the star lineage I ws referring I feel would be shockingly similar to the stargate addresses, with oneness as the point of origin... anyway, back to it

[Sirius]

It's theory which works better than modern concented science. I bet you could find the kitchen experment in some crazy black ops base. But that's another haystack.

[Ali Quadir]

Quantum physics is a model. It is as much a model as the vibratory model is to new age thinking.

And it actually seems to confirm much of it. If there is no time then vibration is waveform. And according to quantum mechanics, in provable connection from observation through math wave form is all there is. Every object is a wave form in a larger wave. Viewable in isolation and in the greater scheme. And it very much needs an observer just like new age thought included a soul.

So the falling tree is an event in the harmonic song that the soul resonates to. Without the soul moving through time space and possibility there is no meaning to it. Sound is only a waveform then. The sound part is the qualia that the soul experiences when you experience a falling tree. You cannot just reason it away it boils down to the hard problem of consciousness. Which is why the zen koan is so relevant. Even if the original buddhists could not conceive of a quantum mechanical reality they saw their own reality which happens to be the reality that quantum physics models.

[fairyfarmgirl]

Love is all there is and the rest we just make up.

fairyfarmgirl

[Ali Quadir]

Then what would you suggest Taha?
Is there ever an alternative to Models?

A baby has very few models. It experiences the world much more directly than we do. But does not understand it and is incapable of navigating it.

An adult has many models. It experiences the world through it's models. And through this is able to navigate the world. However what does not fit the model becomes filtered out.

What's the third option?

[pluralone]

I can't even imitate, say: the sound of a dying giraffe with any accuracy... It's just an approximation.

Oh I would love to hear you do that!

I agree with Taha, that the question of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound when no one's there to hear it was not designed with the intent to provoke logical discussion toward a literal answer. I hope I'm not being too tedious or foolish in adding my own thought, however, that the question - if approached from a literal point of view - does not take into account that the tree is alive within a forest of living creatures who are quite capable of hearing its fall. That a human isn't there to hear it does not mean no one can.


In regards to "soul names", when I first became aware of my spiritual connections I did ask for (and receive) the names of some members of my spirit community before I realized I didn't really need that information. Since then I've encountered beings who are so different (from me) in form that it's not possible to connect or communicate with them verbally. A name exchange with such beings would not be practical even if it was possible.
plur

[Ali Quadir]

I'm sorry guys, you're mixing up quantum concepts. The observer isn't necisarily human. If a tree fell in a forest without anything with ears around. Then it would not produce a sound. Only waveform potentiality. The waveform concerning the sound would not collapse, sound would only potentially be there, but not actualized without the presence of someone to witness the sound. If there was a bunny there which has ears. Then to the bunny there would be sound. The wave form would collapse to it. And from all potential sounds only one is picked. The tree at that same time still experiences no sound. To the tree there would be no sound.. To an insect there would be an entirely different sound.

This isn't trivial matter. You cannot just start thinking on quantum physics, come to a point that you don't understand and then conclude the whole system must be bonkers. The assumption being that if you do not understand it it must be nonsensical. You literally compare it to medieval thinking Taha. How about a little bit of the benefit of the doubt for these poor eggheads? These guys aren't idiots and this is a difficult concept.

The step from a classical world view to a quantum mechanical universe is enormous. You won't be able to take this step simply by projecting quantum mechanical objects into a classical universe what happened when you did that is that you conclude they don't fit. This is correct. They don't fit in the way you tried to fit them into your world view.

Give up the theories and the models, and actually experience what the theories and models suggest. It's very simple; look at what you theorise and think about so deeply, and ask yourself how much of it do you actually experience?

I'd hope my models are based on experience my friend not the other way around.

As you've learned to 'navigate the world' you can do so without needing to think about it much. Going beyond consensus reality cannot be done by thinking about it more, or by creating more theories and models. What that does is cause us to busy ourselves with constant theories and argument, all of which keeps us from realising our true nature. See the toys for what they are and let go of them. It's not only possible, it's actually very easy.

It's possible for man to live without eyes. This does not make him less. It just makes it virtually impossible to watch television. It's possible for man to live without legs. This also does not make him less of a man. But it makes it difficult to run a marathon.

If you claim that you navigate life without using your mind. What I hear you saying is similar to the claim that you see without using your eyes.

You are correct in stating that mind is not all there is. Falling for the trap of mind is an essential mistake many humans make. However, there is also the trap of disregarding aspects of ourselves as somehow less or inferior to other aspects of self. For example the belief you seem to follow that mind is inferior to some imagined or real higher function that would somehow kick in as soon as we've reached a certain stage of enlightenment overriding all previous functions. That will never happen. And if it seems to happen you're not fully integrated yet. There are "higher" functions to be found. But they will never exclude current functions unless you lobotomize yourself.

You also made the assumption earlier that it's everyone's goal to go beyond consensus reality. I personally didn't have a lot of problems to stand outside of reality. I've been speaking to aliens for as long as I can remember. I had big problems coming into consensus reality. I am an alien. I came to this planet to connect one place to the other. If I were to achieve enlightenment I would effectively connect my origin to my origin not achieving much. I came here to be human. I came here to be exactly what I am today. At first I was ascended above society. I was not from this place. Like the lotus flower I grew above the mud. The things in this world had little to do with me I just wanted to get out of there. It took me the longest time to not be an ascetic and instead be connected.

Today I'm a peanut. Up to my neck in the dirt and loving every second of it. If my goal was to become an enlightened master I'd have stayed at home. There's actually quite a bunch of them there. What I found however is that in spite of the dirt we remain free. We are not defined by the dirt. We are the principle that defines the dirt. The IAM that creates.

[Sirius]

Well said Ali

[Lavazza]

This isn't trivial matter. You cannot just start thinking on quantum physics, come to a point that you don't understand and then conclude the whole system must be bonkers. The assumption being that if you do not understand it it must be nonsensical. You literally compare it to medieval thinking Taha. How about a little bit of the benefit of the doubt for these poor eggheads? These guys aren't idiots and this is a difficult concept.

I just wanted to chime in and say that I fully agree with your thoughts on the importance of Quantum mechanics. In fact, because the Quantum world exists we have free will. Without that seemingly random and potential construct we may as well be robots. I find it so fascinating that after all these years, the tree in the forest thought experiment is as important as ever. The brightest and most cutting edge scientists are finding that reality is more "new age" than most would be comfortable with.

But back on the lines of the thread's topic, I was thinking recently about Soul names and our discussion here. I feel the general idea of using our individual and unique vibration as our identity is correct. I think that's how it is when we're in higher densities or the astral planes. Maybe the idea of a soul name that you can spell out with our physical mouths and tongues is sort of like a 'step down' from a higher dimension. Similar to how a drawing of a 3D cube on paper is actually a projection (or translation) of a 3D object in to 2D. Do you follow my meaning? So the name 'Hatton' for example, is just what Hatton's vibration roughly boils down to when converted/translated in to soundwaves?

I guess this gets back to the idea of words having vibrational power. When I say "Love", "Flower" or "Baby" I am communicating a certain vibration than when I say "Loath", "Curse", etc. Yet those words are only translations of what I mean in a vibrational sense. (I believe..?)

This is indeed an interesting thread.

[ayadew]

Lavazza: I don't think words are vibrations of 'power' in their purest form, for they are data which can only be translated by those who recognise and understand the code that is the word.
What you then mean in a 'vibrational sense' is intention and thought, which is either infinitely more complex or simpler than the vibratory composition of the word.
Is "love" the single, periodically longest and first vibration? Is it the white color of the spectrum, the vibration which unifies all vibrations, a vibration which oscillation does not end until the Creator is whole again? Could be

[pluralone]

The step from a classical world view to a quantum mechanical universe is enormous. You won't be able to take this step simply by projecting quantum mechanical objects into a classical universe what happened when you did that is that you conclude they don't fit. This is correct. They don't fit in the way you tried to fit them into your world view.

A quantum mechanical perspective is only one of many - equally valid - perspectives from which to view the physical universe. It provides a set of definitions that are formed within a specific framework. I wouldn't presume to say it is either more or less valid than any other perspective, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss it wholesale just because I don't understand its ins and outs. Wouldn't want anyone dismissing other (equally valid) perspectives on that basis, either.

From the QM perspective, which (if I'm understanding correctly) defines 'sound' as specifically an interaction between waveforms and hearing receptors, I wonder: Does this exclude the way other trees will perceive the waveforms emitted by the falling of one of their neighbors? In other words, according to QM, is sound only sound when it's perceived by ears, as opposed to when the vibration is perceived through some other perceptive function? I'm not asking for the purpose of argument; I really don't know, and I'd like to understand.

Regarding the 'power' of words: I don't think a single definition that can be applied to all words can be given for that concept. The energetic power of a word is relative to its meaning as well as to the intent with which it was spoken. Using the example of the word 'love', for instance, the energy of this word varies with its use: In the phrase "I love coffee", love carries a much different meaning/energy/'power' than when it's said in the context of "I love you", and the energy of this word is stronger, under any circumstances, than words such as "and" or "the". Some folks practice energy work that involves utterance of certain words or names for the purpose of control over energy or other beings; the power of those words, still, is relative to who is doing the speaking, the speaker's intent, as well as the target toward which the words are aimed.

At any rate, I do believe there is a great deal of potential power in words - but how much power they have is relative to the situational context in which they are said.
plur

[Ali Quadir]

One of the obvious problems, Ali, is that ego - mine, yours, or anyone else's - sees what it wants to see and reacts in order to prove its point. While a mind thinks its clever at picking things apart, it can't experience what it talks about; the all that is. It's too busy experiencing the all that I think I am.

I am aware Taha. And if anyone has an ego it's me. I'm not trying to rise above it. It should be logical I'm the peanut between us considering my views in this matter. But I kinda like my ego. It responds well to suggestions for change.

The ego is like this 4 year old focused on survival in the most rudimentary sense of the word. Physical mental or self image. Unguided it can cause disasters because it lacks a greater understanding. But guided by a loving parent (higher self) it can be a wonderful beautiful thing. It has a purpose. If you try to stop it from fulfilling this purpose it will cause great anxiety and inner pressures. Which will come out as the sages warn us in terrible ways. But with tutoring. It can come to understand that true survival is found in building bridges between people. Creating unity in difference. Not in creating divides. It can actually be taught to identify with the higher self. This is not subdueing or worshipping the ego it is pragmatically calling it to perform the role it was created for. And as we become spiritual masters it will mature with us. I think part of being whole and human is having a healthy ego. One that sees the unknown as a place where the lover resides. Or at the very least not as a place to be feared.

What I was getting at is that it's all well and good to play games with the mind, but that's what 99% of the population do 99% of the time. By Medieval thinking I meant not Medieval concepts, but the same mind-set that keeps following the same grooves, arguing the toss right now as 500 years ago, as 5,000 years ago, etc. Nothing much apart from culture and technology has changed.

I would not know. I wasn't there that I am consciously aware of. I imagine there are subtle structural changes. After all man kind evolves and our understanding of ethics has increased a great deal since those times. Technology pretty much turned us all into children with the knowledge of sages. Even if this is no guarantee for success as is evident it is a good position to work from.

Being an alien has no bearing upon what I suggested. Anyone from any race or level of being can remain constantly cut off from oneness, thinking that some higher state of mental functioning is the way to discover everything.

Actually... None of us can ever be cut off from oneness. You'll always be part of this universe. You can't get away from it in any way no matter where you go you will recreate it along with what you're running from. The mental state itself is a similar reflection of the whole. Even if it excludes all symbols of the whole it still is part of it. The possibility of being cut off is illusory. They'd be non events and clearly if they exist they're not. However you do not require to be cut off to be fearful of it. You just require to believe you could be cut off.

What spiritual teachers have been saying for eons is that the way to truth is by letting go of the mental toys and seeing what's already there.

True... However, I have met around a hand full of people in spiritually very high places. There was a millionaire, a great musician, a paranormal healer and a Buddhist lama. None of these are as you describe they should be. But I have accepted them to be the real deal. Yet I've met hundreds who pretend to be just that. I've seen this real deal fellows take of the public masks. There is a tremendous amount of unrealistic expectation. People still seek savior figures and ascribe all kinds of wonderful qualities to them. A good example would use peoples worship to refer people to their own power.

That certainly is not belief, as you say, "that mind is inferior to some imagined or real higher function that would somehow kick in as soon as we've reached a certain stage of enlightenment overriding all previous functions". Not at all. It has nothing to do with mind being "inferior", and only the limited mind could assume such a thing. Thus showing the truth that ego/mind and all of its cleverness is separation, even whilst it shouts about 'integration', and some other mind 'not connecting' or 'not grasping the point'. Grasping is a constant condition of the ego, clutching at some system of beliefs it holds about how everything is, a neatly constructed set of models. A neat and tidy prison.

Do you understand why I put the two statements in bold? Both of them express the belief that the mind or at least part of it could be inferior. And that we need to stop using this to attain a higher level of functioning.

I would suggest transmutation over renunciation though.

Actually, it would be wonderful if by being better informed, knowing more, and increasing our capacity for rational thought and ability to prove points brought true happiness and awareness of who and what we really are. Sadly, as every spiritual teacher worth listening to has ever said, it doesn't. I guess my point is simply that the only way to discover true nature is to go beyond our thinking, our imagining, and our constant need to recreate our universe based upon what we perceive as our safety zone. If that can be done by logical thought and rational argument, then it looks as though we're already on our way to the perfect world.

You are correct. We must go beyond. But not by abandoning the here. We must include beyond in the now. Ego will be ego and mind will be mind even if they are guided by ideals dictated by the higher self. They are the methods we use for humble tasks. Many humble tasks though often work towards higher ideals.

Upon consideration, it seems I've made an error in offering something which wasn't asked for. My apologies. I shall try not to do it again.

I won't accept them. I value your opinions, every single one of them, asked for or not asked for. To make matters worse if you'd hold them back I'd have to come drag them out of you... In this case our disagreeing may be based on our egos and choices. However both of us are guided by our higher sense of justice and compassion. Even though my ego tells me I am right I know that you are not wrong.

From the QM perspective, which (if I'm understanding correctly) defines 'sound' as specifically an interaction between waveforms and hearing receptors, I wonder: Does this exclude the way other trees will perceive the waveforms emitted by the falling of one of their neighbors? In other words, according to QM, is sound only sound when it's perceived by ears, as opposed to when the vibration is perceived through some other perceptive function? I'm not asking for the purpose of argument; I really don't know, and I'd like to understand.

I usually imagine it like this. When you become aware of something then it's real. It may not be what you think it is but it is real. If you tie a string to it and then connect that to the cause, and back to the cause of the cause, and back to the cause of the cause of the cause. And so on. Then anything that can be reached by following the string has had it's wave function collapsed.

The tree makes a sound if you can connect your awareness to the wave form so that it becomes defined so that you know about it....

So this means that there does not need to be anyone in the woods for the tree to make a noise. You could have a tape recorder running while the event takes place. Wrap the tape in an envelope and put it in safe storage for 100 years. Then after 100 years have your grandson open the envelope and play the tape. He will be the first person hearing the sound, and his consciousness will collapse the wave function and in effect create the sound from possibility even if we're talking about an event that is supossedly 100 years old. Time is a property of quantum events. It is not a medium in which quantum events take place.

Basically this means that if you're able to change events with the power of your mind. You can change events that have occurred in the past. Providing that you do not know their outcomes before you try to change them. As soon as you know them, they're fixed.

It's really really weird. And it gets much weirder than that.

There's a many worlds interpretation that I usually refer to as possibility. It means that every time you make a choice you become two realities one where you chose one option and another where you chose the other. Your awareness follows only one of the options. While the other state exists in possibility and some of their effects bleed through it is just not real to us. We usually perceive it as randomness. Btw, in the matrix, when Neo chooses his pill you can see in the reflection of the sunglasses two Neos each taking a different pill and going their own way. That's a reference in popular culture to the many worlds theory.

[pluralone]

Thanks, Ali Q -- That was a most generous effort, and although the concept remains a bit unclear, I'll blame my having had no previous exposure to the organized presentation of QM rather than any lack in your explanation. That was really good.

So. Is there a "short bus" version of a more in-depth explanation of QM that you could point me toward? Something like "QM for Idiots", perhaps? I think I'd like to read up a bit more on it, but I don't want to delve too deeply. For me, it would only be a distraction if I were to get very caught up in the details.

Really. Idiot version would be great.

Again, thanks so much for putting the time and effort into what was a very decent answer. You rock.
plur

[Lavazza]

So. Is there a "short bus" version of a more in-depth explanation of QM that you could point me toward? Something like "QM for Idiots", perhaps?

I can! Last year I bought and read this: http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Quantum-Lea...0060963107 - Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists, by Fred Alan Wolf.

It's everything you are asking for... and it was perfect for me too, as I am not well versed in math or the sciences. It was written in the mid-eighties but still functions as a great resource. Maybe there's something better out now, I'm not sure? It doesn't touch on String theory or anything, just the core QM concepts. First half of the book is a good look at the evolution of science starting with the Greek philosophers up to the 'discovery' of QM in the early 1900's. Then he explains more about QM itself and some of it's more bizarre concepts.

It was a great read- I would recommend it for anyone who has the slightest interest.

[Ali Quadir]

Mr Wolf certainly knows what he's talking about.

If you haven't seen it already look for "dr quantum" on google vids, it's a good introduction, a bit simple though.

I was looking for this awesome site where some physics student drew brilliant cartoon figures and represented much of the material in a cartoonish form. That was actually my introduction years ago. But I cannot find it now Other than that I'm empty. Try google vids, the documentaries are a good introduction.

[Lavazza]

On a quasi-related note, anyone see this?

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/lang/...thing.html

A man named Garrett Lisi may have come up with the theory of everything, based on elegant numbers and beautiful geometry. It accounts for all known particles and predicts particles that we haven't discovered, including the Higgs. (The video is really very good, see above). The interesting thing to me is that Garrett, in addition to being a scientist is also an avid surfer who lives out of a van with his wife. Not exactly the type of person who we usually see come up with amazing theories.

[pluralone]

If you haven't seen it already look for "dr quantum" on google vids, it's a good introduction, a bit simple though.

Simple, in terms of an intro to QM, is exactly my cup of tea! Thanks for the pointers, Ali Q, I will be a-searchin'.

And thanks, too, to Lavazza -- That's a wonderful video. That this man doesn't fit a stereotype brings to mind the adage, 'That which sets you apart is also that which makes you extraordinary."
plur