This is a possibility. He always sent these typical Catholic "Heiligenbildchen" (little pictures of the saints) with the archangel Michael. Perhaps he thought that the master of our universe has also the potential and power to appear as an angel. The UB says nothing about that, but that doesn't mean anything because Stockhausen - as already said in the context of reincarnation and astrology (both rejected by the UB) - was not a UB fundamentalist. It's such a pity that we cannot ask him anymore... but I'm sure we'll have the possibility to do so... somewhere, somewhen...
I think this same conflation of "archangel" and "creator" (and also "creator-angel") occurs in the interview with Michael Kurtz published in TEXTE VI (I think under the title "Licht-Blicke", but I do not have the volume at hand just now).
Yes, I was right. It is in "LICHT-Blicke" (24 January 1981) in TEXTE VI. On p. 203: "Michael ist der Creator-Engel, der jetzt unser Universum lenkt. Creator-Engel können selbst ein Universum erschaffen nach eigenem Bild, mit allem, was darinnen ist. … Michael ist der Meister unseres Universums. Er manifestiert sich in verschiedensten Formen, so, wie ein Mensch sich in seinen Werken und Kindern manifestiert."
In another interview from two days earlier, "Weder Anfang noch Ende", with Robert HP Platz, Stockhausen says (pp. 172–73): "Dieser MICHAEL wird sehr bald erkannt als Emanation des seit Urzeiten bekannten MICHAEL, der in den germanischen Sprachen Donar oder Thor heißt, Thoth bei den Ägyptern, Hermes Trismegistos bei den Griechen oder Jupiter bei den Römern. … In den ältesten Tradition, die aufs Indische zurückgeht, ist MICHAEL Mithra, und bei den Hebräern ist MICHAEL der Schutzgeist des ganzen Volkes [so, wie er der Volksheilige der Deutschen ist]. … Es geht darum, daß MICHAEL, ein zeitloser, ewiger und immanenter, immer präsenter Geist (der das Geschick auch dieses Planete lenkt), sich als eine Emanation in einen Menschen inkarniert." A similar passage occurs on p. 153, in a third interview ("Die sieben Tage der Woche", with Rudolf Werner) from 19 December 1980.
Maybe that is the basic difference to the Urantia Book: Michael, and all the other protagonists of LICHT, are general "energies" (how could one name that more precisely?), that manifest or incorporate themselves in very different ways - Michael in Christ, Jovis, Donar etc, Eve in Mary ... And therefore by the very programme it has to lack precision, is not unequivocal. But I think that is very much rooted in Stockhausen's thinking, ultimately in his serial thinking, the alchemistic spirit, that can transform everything in everything. That is quite nother way of thinking than the Urantia Book!
You could call that a kind of eclecticistic syncretism. I wonder from where he had the idea that Michael also appears in all the other emanations. I guess that has a theosophic background. That he was not so conform with the UB in his description of Michael may also have another reason: As Stockhausen told me at the end of the 90s, he hadn't read the whole book. I guess in the LICHT era he knew the paper about prayer (important for INORI), the papers about the Lucifer rebellion and Adam and Eve (important for DONNERSTAG and FREITAG) but perhaps not much more. More detailed UB stuff (mansion worlds, Norlatiadek, Jerusem, Orvonton etc.) doesn't appear in his work before 2006 (KLANG hours 14-21), that means before he got the German UB (by me ;-)...). So I could imagine that there was a kind of relecture and now he also read parts he hadn't read before and which inspired him for the KLANG hours 14-21.
To add my own fifty cents to the discussion about Michael:
I'm currently working on an essay which, amongst other things, raises the issue of angels in Stockhausen's work, but in the context of a general discussion about what he would probably have called supranational communication, including in dreams and visions. My understanding of the development of the central protagonists of LICHT, and I freely admit my understanding is limited, is that rather than deriving from any one source, what truly interested Stockhausen on this and other issues – such as the significance of the names of the days of the week – was the commonalities that can be traced across different religions and belief systems.
In this regard, and on the subject of angels, perhaps we need to broaden out the discussion and remember that "angels" is one particular type of rendering of what we may more generally call celestial beings. What might be interesting and relevant with regard to the UB and the figure Christ-Michael is that in some traditions, Michael's position as supreme angel is such that he almost has the characteristics of a deity. I also wonder whether the key to the attraction of Christ-Michael for Stockhausen may relate to the issue of incarnation. What I'm finding time and time again - and this includes in the descriptions of the structure of certain pieces, to counter that accusation before it's raised again – is this issue of the movement between domains, e.g. between "this side", with time and place, and the "other side". Stockhausen felt that not least through musical activity, we humans could develop into angels; but one of the most moving things about Michael is that in Stockhausen's rendering, he goes through the stages of human development as well (and falls in love with humanity, indeed).
So perhaps rather than "this Michael" or "that Michael" it is better to say: Stockhausen's version of an age-old archetype that takes different forms in different traditions. In actual fact, what I find more interesting is why of all the possible fallen angels Stockhausen chose to focus on Lucifer. It is appropriate, given that the cycle is after all called LIGHT, to feature the fallen angel of light, but perhaps even more interesting for that reason as well. But I would need to do a lot more reading and listening before I'd be willing to share my half-baked thoughts on that online!!
Dear Morag, I am very interested on what you will discover in your essay, for in my studies on LICHT I am again and again confronted with these questions. I now tend to think that it is not the commonalities in worldwide traditions that interested Stockhausen - but that his starting point was what he had learned and practised for a long time in his early years, and what he, as he wrote again and again, had never forgotten: and that is the kernel of Christian belief: that God (or a messenger of God) came to us (incarnated), to teach us and to draw us to the heavenly realms. Maybe the reason of my understanding is, that I myself feel very much rooted in Christian tradition and therefore look at him from this point of view. But in spite of this I think there are strong traces to support my view in the TEXTE. For sure there are influences from other cultures, especially from eastern religions, but all this goes into that original pattern. For sure not everything is Christian in an orthodox way; especially the basic item of guilt and salvation is missing as we see in the really odd rendering of CRUCIFICATION in MICHAELs REISE - but today many Christians have problems with that teaching. And as to Lucifer: Isn't that very obvious that he uses this figure? In the tradition this fight between Christ and Lucifer, Good versus Evil, is very predominant. What should he use instead of that?
I always thought that the incarnation of the archangel Michael who comes down to earth as a man "to bring celestial music to humans, and human music to celestial beings. So man may listen to God, and God may hear his children" .. was also meant to be Stockhausen himself.
When DONNERSTAG appeared, sometimes Stockhausen was accused suffering on megalomania, identifying with Michael or with Christ, because in that opera Michael's incarnation takes place in the family of the composer. But Stockhausen said: That is the reality I know best, and therefore I use it in the opera. I would say (hopefully in Stockhausen's sense): Michael is acting, when there unfolds musical (or other) creativity; in this way this Michael-energy is nothing exclusive. In this way Stockhausen sometimes said that he feels to be God's assistent, his cooperator; that man has the task to cooperate with God is an old traditional motive of religion and Christianity. But in that time the media especially in Germany loved to put Stockhausen down and so they refused to consider it in this way.
Ulrich, I think that one can see it that way and it seems to fit into the scheme of LICHT dramaturgy. But it is, of course, an excuse from Stockhausen’s side. It’s that what he told the public in those days. When reading the libretto of DONNERSTAG, one can see that it is not an assistance or cooperation but identity. As we all know Stockhausen was convinced that his music was the only music worthwhile. Today, we can say the truth that he saw himself as Michael in DONNERSTAG. By stating this, one can nevertheless say that, following the logic of incarnation in LICHT, everybody who is creative can be Michael.
I feel that it could be useful to have a discussion-forum on the music of Stockhausen. There are so many people from all over the world, young and old, learned and eager to get into contact with this musical world: musicologists, composers, musicians, music lovers; people who plan concerts - who write books or have to give lectures and so on. So there should be much stuff, many ideas that we can share. And when we have open questions, there may be people who studied just that and could give a hint or a stimulus.
A problem might be the English language, but i feel that is the only possibility that many people who are interested can participate. And we can exercise tolerance to mistakes!