Polarization and Polarity

[Tenet Nosce]

I can agree with this.

If you can agree with this, then I think you would be able to agree with pretty much everything else I have been saying about polarization and The Choice. The rest of the seeming incongruence is probably resulting from the usual difficulties with attempting to convey these types of concepts in written language- and on a web forum!

There is no separation. The moment we believe in separation is the moment we have stopped polarizing.

This both true and false. It is true in an absolute sense that there is no separation. It is false in a relative sense insofar as we have chosen to experience separation. The illusion will continue as long as you live. Hence, there is separation.

There is separation in the same way that there are two football teams playing a game. If we are watching the game, realizing that the whole concept of two teams duking out on a playing field is an illusion- something that is there for our entertainment- then the game is being used for its proper function.

If we watch the game on the television set, thinking that it has a fundamental basis in reality, then problems ensue. We might start attempting to draw too many analogies from the game of football into real life, for example. Or we might start to think that our well-being is dependent upon which team "wins" the game. We might become emotionally invested in the game and attempt to control it through "magical" means, like yelling commands at the players through our television screen.

Similarly, the function of this illusory realm of separation is to make a contrast with the reality of unity. If we fail to recognize it as an illusion, then all manner of problems ensue. I have the feeling that when I say things like this, you are left with the impression that I think the illusion isn't useful, or that I am trying to somehow set myself apart from it. That is not the case at all. It's just a matter of perspective.

In unity, there is neither harmony nor disharmony.

I would challenge this notion. Unity does not necessarily equate to sameness. Consider an orchestra. Yes, we could say the individual players, and their instruments are separate. But when the orchestra plays, the music which issues forth is a harmonic unity. When the orchestra plays, where does the clarinet end and the flute begin? It is impossible to say, and therefore meaningless to ask.

What is more- when listening to a symphony it is actually the discordant notes which make the music interesting.

It is natural to revolt against the idea of unity when it is equated to sameness, or conformity. Indeed- if we take a close look at the "negative" path we will see that sameness is the flavor of unity it appears to be striving for. But sameness is just one subset of unity, which has many faces. In actuality, unity and individuality can coexist. That's what harmony is all about. It is also why the negative path eventually implodes upon itself.

In the absolute sense, I literally am the entire Universe.

Again, this is the "negative" perspective. So it makes sense that you would push back against it when you think I am forwarding it. However, that isn't the case.

Within this illusion, there appear to be upwards of 7 billion people. We need to step outside of our own "personal reality" if we want to progress past a certain point on the positive path. That means- when we look out into the world and see those faces of the Creator which are, for example, violent, we say to ourselves: I AM THAT. In some mysterious, unfathomable way... those people are us.

G.W. Bush is YOU. Does your ego revolt against that statement? If so, that tells you exactly where you need to be working.

It's the whole point of the illusion. The illusion of there being "other people out there" is what affords us the opportunity to grow spiritually without "us" having to become like "them." Thankfully, I don't need to become violent in order to balance myself, because there are plenty of other-selves in the world who are already having that experience.

If I look upon violence in the greater illusion- beyond my personal sphere- and say: I AM THAT, then I have "saved myself" from having to accept violence in my own "personal reality." Conversely, if I look upon a violent person and say: I AM -NOT- THAT, then I have moved one step closer to attracting violence into my personal reality.

On the other hand, if I look upon violence that is occurring within my personal sphere- to myself or to a nearby other-self- that is the appropriate time to say, "NO."

It's a difficult maneuver, no doubt. I struggle with this very issue myself. I'm still working on it. Luckily, we are afforded an entire incarnation to get it right. It's a "baby step" sort of thing.

your claim is that STO must identify with literally everything in an absolute (rather than relative) sense

No, that is not my claim. You keep trying to make this out to be my claim, and then argue against it. Really, it is a form of strawman argumentation. It is a projection- and you keep making it over and over again no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.

Here is what I think has actually happened: At some point in the past I wrote some words which triggered a negative emotional response inside of you. This was a programmed response based upon a relationship you have with somebody else within your own personal sphere of influence. Therefore you keep projecting this other person onto me, and responding to my posts as if I am actually that person. The projection is so strong that, you will even go so far as to tell me who I am and what I believe in order to justify it in your own mind.

That which you attract to yourself is that which shows you what you already are; hence, like attracts like.

The whole thing shows us who we are. Past a certain point, we need to take the entire illusion in its totality. Attempting to carve out a portion of it and saying "this is me" and disavowing another portion of it saying "that is NOT me" is exactly what Ra advised against.

It is not for a being of polarity in the physical consciousness to pick and choose among attributes, thus building the roles that cause blockages and confusions in the already-distorted mind complex.

Thus, those who polarize positively can expect to meet with fewer and fewer polarizing STS entities.

What is "meeting"? Do only face-to-face encounters count? I don't think so. We are all here in this experience together.

So tell me, have you ever met someone you genuinely thought was consciously polarizing STS? If so, how many?

I don't attempt to make those types of determinations on an individual basis. But a quick glance out into the world reveals that the influence is still present. Again, it is a matter of perspective. Of context. We need to get outside of ourselves in order to see it.

Again, that's the whole point of the illusion. If we stay barricaded up in the ramparts of ego, looking out through little slits in the walls we will stagnate. But also again, it is a "baby step" thing. We remove the bricks one by one. Each one removed widens our perspective.

The accuracy of this statement depends entirely on whether or not you consider conscious mental events to be activities. I consider them activities; hence, polarization has everything to do with activity. I can agree with you that polarization has nothing to do with physical activity. The physical activities are only symptoms, as I have said before.

Then, this is one of the areas where discussion becomes difficult due to limitations of words. It sounds like we have the same idea. I am talking about running around "doing stuff" and believing that the action is what is polarizing. The action is merely a symbol. It may or not be present, and ultimately does not matter. This type of polarization is of the mind, and the appropriate analogy is that of magnetic polarization.

Polarization of the body is something different. And indeed, this is where the analogy of ionic polarization applies. And indeed, this is why pyramids, polarized crystals (including water), and healers who have "crystallized" their own body complex, actually DO heal other-selves whom they come in physical contact with.

I'm concerned you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

Yes, I understand that is your concern. But here I am looking from this perspective, and I am telling you- no baby has been thrown away. What you are perceiving as "concern" for me is a projection of ego. The ego is concerned that it is going to get tossed aside because it has usurped the role of conscience... telling us what is "right" and "wrong".. telling us who we are and who we are NOT.

I don't know how better to explain it to you. When the ego gets put in its right place and sees that it is not going to be destroyed, it will start to calm down. But until then it will fight "tooth and nail" for its existence. One of the ways it does this is by projecting its fears onto others.

But beyond this- I don't know how to better explain it to you. If you still don't understand, it would be best to quit wasting time arguing with me and go find somebody who you feel you can actually trust to have this discussion with.

DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW..

This sentence may be familiar to many of you. It is the only coherent ethical system. All others lead to internal incoherence of some kind.

Exactly. Therefore, an ethical system which is based on "service-to-others" and "service-to-self" will eventually lead to internal incoherence. That means- depolarizing.

The idea may work for a little while. Like training wheels on a bike. But training wheels are meant to be outgrown.

The question then becomes quite simple: do I want to serve others or do I want to serve myself? These are mutually exclusive attitudes, despite the fact that each results in the accomplishment of the other.

No, not at all. I am -telling- you that I cannot serve another without automatically seeing that I have served myself. If you can't accept that, then it is up to you to either trust me, or to disengage from the conversation and come back at a later time.

If you are the homeless man on the street, and I give you a sandwich, then I have experienced myself as kind, loving, generous, etc. That IS the service. That IS the polarization. And that is also why it doesn't matter one lick whether the homeless man eats the sandwich, or whether he throws it back in my face.

---

The "negative" perspective is that which attempts to make the relative realm into the absolute. It EITHER tries to forcefully, through the sheer act of will, draw the absolute down into the relative realm OR to impose conformity on other-selves, and through them to the external world.

Yes, this is certainly the case. Which is why it is understandable that people get edgy in philosophical discussions when they bump up against this, and why it is easy to project negative views onto others when they speak of the absolute.

The "positive" perspective is that which looks at the relative realm with the two physical eyes, while simultaneously looking at the absolute realm with the third eye. It then attempts to forge its very consciousness into a bridge linking these into a unified harmonic perspective that is greater than EITHER the absolute OR the relative taken by themselves.

The "sinkhole of indifference" is that which EITHER recognizes only the relative realm, by denying the absolute completely, OR relegates the absolute to something that cannot be put to practical use, and therefore is of no value to contemplate, or discuss.