More Positive but Less Harvestable

[Tenet Nosce]

Couldn't a being be incredibly positively polarized, but not harvestable if they "sat on" their potential, not doing anything with the increased ability that a high positive polarization brings? It would be in that way that they don't follow the Law of Responsibility. They wouldn't be harvestable because although they had the being side down, they didn't DO much of anything positive, giving to the people around them.

That's an interesting view. I have always taken the concepts of polarization and harvestability to be related to one's level of being, rather than doing.

Personally, I have found the idea that one needs to go out and "save the world" to be a red herring. The world does not need to be saved. And past a certain point, dedicating one's life to this or that cause can actually hold one back once their level of consciousness expands beyond the form of service that is chosen.

I think this is what happened with Patton. His consciousness grew, but he refused to step aside from the role in which he had cast himself. I mean... the man planned the deaths of others for a living. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

My read is that Patton was a man who developed enough to have some opening on the green and blue rays, but failed to translate those vibrations into his everyday life. Other than perhaps to his immediate family. I understand his daughter was quite fond of him.

In my mind, the reason that Patton was not "harvestable" had to do more with the immense counterweight on his soul from making war and not taking personal responsibility for all the death and destruction he created. This is a far cry from somebody living a peaceful, secluded life, and failing to "live up to their potential" for whatever that means. Can anybody really live up to their full potential? My understanding is that, no matter what level of consciousness is attained, there is always something greater.

I guess I'm a bit confused about the confusion. It's not like we are talking about Mother Teresa here. The man came from a military family going back all the way to the Revolutionary War. The only reason he is cast as a hero is because he ended up on the "right" side of history.

It's interesting to me how easily we set aside the mass killing of people simply because we "believe in something" and they are on the "other side". This persistent idea that war is a "necessary evil" and that killing each other is justified for the "greater good" is nonsense to me. We've got the people at the top saying, "Well I just give the orders, I don't pull the trigger." and the people on the front lines saying "Well I just pull the trigger, I don't give the orders." How convenient.

As if a Declaration of War suddenly absolves everybody of the responsibility for taking another person's life. This is what I think is meant by the reference to the Law of Responsibility. I don't believe there is a place in 4D/positive for those who believe that killing and war-making is the best course of action in any situation, despite how "noble" the cause may be.

Think about it... if there is anything at all to this idea of a 4D world that is orders of magnitude more harmonious than this one then how in the world can war help us get there? Sorry, but the "One War to End All Wars" idea was a massive failure. All it did was divide the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" with everybody disagreeing about who is who. So I guess we can thank Patton for showing us very clearly that war is not the answer. I will honor him for that, but sincerely hope that his soul has found a more peaceful approach to standing up for freedom by now.