Bring4th

Full Version: Hierarchical Structures without Superiority
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
one thing I have been struggling to terms with is the notion of 'hierarchical structures without superiority".

I think this was first triggered by the question that was posed at Homecoming 2015 - which had to do with how we envisioned 4th density (4d positive of course BigSmile).

The thing that caught my mind, and that I couldn't get away from, was the question of governance.  All societies require some form of structure and organization, some way to allocate functions, expertise, and distribution of resources.  Most of the models that we have from Planet Earth are rooted in some kind of siphoning, or pyramid process, where those at the top of the structure benefit unduly from the efforts of those at the bottom of the structure.  This is best represented by money, and how it's paid out.  Those at the top are more 'worthy' and their decisions count for more in terms of how things play out for the structure/organization, and so they are more duly compensated.

However - there is a small sideways mental step from feeling that one has expertise/governance over a group, and then assuming superiority because of that expertise.  Ra referenced this here:

Quote:Specifically those who are strong, intelligent, etc., have a temptation to feel different from those who are less intelligent and less strong. This is a distorted perception of oneness with other-selves.

It allowed the Orion group to form the concept of the holy war, as you may call it. This is a seriously distorted perception. There were many of these wars of a destructive nature.

So I'm struggling with the notion of 3d societal organizations (which include money), where superiority is not present.  

* charitable groups - where they are ostensibly there to serve others.

* volunteer groups - who give their time and efforts, not seeking a material return for themselves

* companies/corporations with strong ethical considerations encoded into their operating/decision making process.

/ /

this is somewhat difficult for me to grok, because I don't really have a firm grasp of what I'm trying to understand.  This seeking/question is of a diffuse nature.  

Ra also brought up questions of bartership vs money, and non-ownership vs the concept of individual/group ownership.  We could only go back to more simpler social structures like the aborigines in Australia, and indigenous groupings in America and other parts of the world as models.  But most socialogical examinations would probably find that these tribal groupings had their own issues, and are in no ways idealic.  War and violence, and male domination were still present in such social groupings.

Quote:Thus, entities had discovered many ways to indicate a bellicose nature, not only as tribes or what you call nations but in personal relationships, each with the other, the concept of barter having given way in many cases to the concept of money; also, the concept of ownership having won ascendancy over the concept of non-ownership on an individual or group basis.

It's hard to even imagine the concept of 'non-ownership' after having been implanted into a culture based on property rights that extend down to every last square foot/metre.

Once there is 'ownership', it creates a disparity between the person who owns it (has access to it, and defends those access rights - ie 'enforcement' of a physical/legal nature) and those who can't access it.  

I'm not trying to throw our economic system out the window; I'm not fighting against it as such.  I'm just trying to grok or conceptualise a way of doing things (hierarchical structure) that assumes a greater amount of positivity.  And, of course, you can't have such a structure, unless the individuals within it are choosing, voluntarily of their own will, to align with those values and decision-making process.  So it's almost like a chicken-egg scenario.  Positive individuals, if grouped together, will form structures based on positive values.  They will just do it of a natural accord.
In my various meditations and exercises with my higher-selves, I've been granted a bit of insight into how higher-density positive S-M-Cs work.  Perhaps describing what I've been shown will help you imagine structures that might exist on Earth.  



Those in an S-M-C are never only "just themselves."  They are simultaneously themselves and the higher group mind, and being the higher mind, they are also joined to all other parts of that mind/group.  They can switch between these forms of perception, these different points-of-view, more or less at will.  When one is more-connected with the higher-mind, they become aware of the S-M-C as a whole and all its inner workings.  When one is less-connected, the closest they get to being "alone," they are a singular entity working on whatever project or learning is of interest to them, while the rest of the S-M-C simply happens around them.

And each individual (as such) brings certain specialties, talents, attitudes, archetypes, etc to the table.  Everyone has a role in the S-M-C, although without the rigorousness of the sort of delineation most modern corporations engage in.  Broadly speaking, whatever project is of interest to the individual is also of interest to the whole, although not necessarily for the same reasons.  A 4D entity working to better understand and embrace universal Love might also be providing learning opportunities for a "nearby" 5D who finds Wisdom through observing their successes and failures, for example.

At any point, a specific entity may be called upon to aid one or more others, by contributing their specific talents.  Because Time/Space is infinite and time as we know it doesn't exist, whatever work they're doing can simply be put to one side, "on pause" more or less.  They go join into the group effort, then afterwards pick up what they were previously doing exactly where they left off.  So there's no sense of interruption or of "having something better to do" because they truly don't.  All activities are equally valid, and necessity in-the-moment is the main governor of what services they're providing at any given point.

Further, since all are linked to the "ruling" (for lack of a better term) highest-density over-mind, any one of them can "take over" and merge with the over-mind for a short time.  The personality of the over-mind shifts and distorts drastically towards the attitudes of the one who is leading, but that leading is always with a specific purpose.  Whoever is best-suited for a particular exercise becomes the dominant or pre-eminent mind for that exercise.  This is a form of service and not a gathering of power, because that elevated level of control is voluntarily relinquished once the exercise is complete.  Then the entity simply reverts back to its lower self and resumes its previous work.  (This is, as I gather it, one of the main differences between pos and neg S-M-Cs.  Negs hold jealously to that power and every relinquishment is a battle.)

There is no competition or jockeying for power\position, because the skills and attitudes of all are universally known within the S-M-C.  If an operation requires intense Love, for example, there's no doubt who the most-positively-polarized entity is, and they simply take over naturally and organically, becoming the focal point of the entire S-M-C.  

And, of course, there is a persistence of consciousness/perception for the over-mind itself, but it must accept that it is one built from many and thus accept any of those many-selfs becoming briefly dominant while learning from that experience.  I've come to believe that this is actually what pushes 5Ds into 6D territory, learning how to stabilize their "higher" emergent personality while accommodating the constant shifting of influences within itself.   (But I'm very fuzzy on the mechanics of this.)



So how does this relate to 3D life?   Well, there are a couple companies I can think of offhand that operate according to similar principles.  The software developer Valve -as in Steam and Half-Life- is famously decentralized, with very little traditional leadership.  Employees of Valve are basically free to work on whatever projects within the company they want, and it's just sort of assumed this will eventually add up to a successful endeavor.  And since Steam is basically synonymous with PC gaming now, it seems to have worked. They actually put their entire New Employee Handbook online awhile back, if you're curious.

Another less-well-known example is that of Semco, a Brazilian manufacturing company which was/is one of the pioneers of "democratic industrialization."  Throughout the 80s-2000s, they continually experimented with giving their employees more power and control over their working environment, to great success.  While their majority-stockholder, Ricardo Semler, is still nominally in charge, collective decision-making is what dictates most of the company's movements.  He wrote a pair of books you might be interested in looking for, called "Maverick" and "The Seven Day Weekend," which detail his efforts and Semco's successes with decentralization.

I suppose if one wanted a checklist for a decentralized heirarchy, it would look something like this:

* A unified vision for the future of the company which is shared by most/all employees.
* A willingness among all employees to work towards a greater good for the company ahead of individual distinguishment.
* An empowerment system that encourages learning opportunities and experimentation in different roles.
* Freedom to move between jobs without becoming a set single-purpose cog in the machine.
* A decentralized decision-making approach which prioritizes group consensus over singular views.
* Tolerance for failure (within reason) and an eye towards turning lemons into lemonade if a particular experiment is unsuccessful.
* An egalitarian view which emphasizes the overall need\equality of all roles and skills within the group.
* A meritocratic approach of recognizing specific talents and utilizing them in leadership positions as necessary.

Wow, this was a long post.  Sorry about that!  BigSmile  Maybe this helps you visualize the structures a bit better?  I hope so anyway.
wow - that was an awesome post.  Thank you Smile

I am groking/vibe-ing to what you are communicating.  
(01-20-2016, 10:40 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]one thing I have been struggling to terms with is the notion of 'hierarchical structures without superiority".

It's something I've thought about a lot too, especially in my attempts to reconcile radical anarchism with Ra's message.  One of the most troublesome parts of the Ra material for me for many years was the  repeated descriptions of reality, entities, etc as inherently hierarchical.  As an anarchist, I have a very negative view of hierarchy, or rather, the motivations one would have in advocating for a hierarchical political system.

Hierarchical power structures concentrate control and power towards the top of the hierarchy. They are almost a structure functioning like a crystal that lets power and influence flow upwards from the bottom to the top.  This isn't dangerous merely because it hands enormous destructive power to fallible, flawed individuals.  It's also problematic because, in addition to concentrating power, it fails to concentrate other qualities of the collective, such as empathy, compassion, love, and especially wisdom.  In other words, it doesn't hand Obama 330 million times the wisdom or love he'd otherwise have.  It doesn't make him 330 million times better a person.  It only gives him enormous power, without the means to honestly and effectively exercise it on everybody's behalf.

If a structure could magnify the wisdom and compassion of those at the top--if it could somehow magnify not just their authority but their "total humanity" 330 million times--it would be the greatest invention in human history.  This describes, to my mind, the social memory complex: a builded structure of interpersonal relations that magnifies the totality of the individuals, not by concentrating power but by diffusing identitarian distinctions between members.

Hierarchy isn't even a problem per se.  It's clear that there are many things that benefit for hierarchical organization.  It's a kind of formalization of the "categorical mode" we already engage in when we perceive reality. You can have hierarchy without power (think about the organization schemes for biology or how a computer file system is arranged), so the fact that reality has a hierarchical structure to it isn't itself problematic when it describes an existing reality.  It is problematic when it prescribes a reality.  When entities with agency are the subjects of this organizational agenda, hierarchy doesn't describe a reality usually--it creates one, and becomes a legitimating principle for exacting compliance by progressively limiting the agency of each lower level.

To address your point directly then, Plenum: to have a hierarchy without superiority defeats the purpose.  Hierarchies shift intelligibility/agency towards the top, the more general, and away from the bottom, or more specific.  But this only has moral implications if the things being organized hierarchically have free will.  The superiority you decry would actually be welcome if there were a way we could transfer not just power but the full scope of agency and desire of all constituents to the top position.

(01-20-2016, 10:40 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm struggling with the notion of 3d societal organizations (which include money), where superiority is not present.  

* charitable groups - where they are ostensibly there to serve others.

* volunteer groups - who give their time and efforts, not seeking a material return for themselves

* companies/corporations with strong ethical considerations encoded into their operating/decision making process.

I get where you're coming from. The issue is whether there are ways of concentrating human endeavor and power without creating elitism. I'm not convinced there is in 3D. Note that there is no example you pointed out where, regardless of good intentions, the politics inherent in hierarchy cannot make each of those organizations toxic.

As an anarchist I've often preferred to give up on large scale organization altogether, to describe it as itself an undesirable mode. Better to not accomplish great things than to yield to an authority who could just as easily use us to accomplish horrendous things. But I wonder if that's not simply some misanthropy and pessimism shining through. My kind of anti-institutionalism also lends itself to a kind of primitivist temperament in me, when maybe I throw out the baby with the bathwater out of conceptual streamlinedness.

(01-20-2016, 10:40 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to even imagine the concept of 'non-ownership' after having been implanted into a culture based on property rights that extend down to every last square foot/metre.

Once there is 'ownership', it creates a disparity between the person who owns it (has access to it, and defends those access rights - ie 'enforcement' of a physical/legal nature) and those who can't access it.  

Well, that's certainly how we define property. It's important to keep in mind that the characteristics of property are a kind of grab-bag of norms that aren't necessarily bundled together permanently. So, for example, there's the principle of exclusion: ownership of X means the ability to prevent anybody else from benefiting from X without your consent. There's also the concept of title: that my ownership of X is a condition others must respect. But you could have the former without the latter (who is excluded and included gets renegotiated or is apportioned out) or the latter without the former (I have title to X but you have some use right I can't vacate). So there's lots of different "kinds" of property possible, and property is just a set of arbitrary norms we all agree to.

If you think this way, it becomes a bit easier to envision alternatives that could be different and useful.

(01-20-2016, 10:40 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not trying to throw our economic system out the window; I'm not fighting against it as such.  I'm just trying to grok or conceptualise a way of doing things (hierarchical structure) that assumes a greater amount of positivity.  And, of course, you can't have such a structure, unless the individuals within it are choosing, voluntarily of their own will, to align with those values and decision-making process.  So it's almost like a chicken-egg scenario.  Positive individuals, if grouped together, will form structures based on positive values.  They will just do it of a natural accord.

As somebody who's quite willing to throw our economic system out the window Smile I think you might do better to look at non-hierarchical systems. There are consensus based models that, instead of concentrating power and authority, try to diffuse power and authority to ensure decisions meet the needs of the entire group. This is similar to what we used in Occupy. I highly recommend David Graber's "The Democracy Project" on this account, as he's very good at looking at non-western forms of democracy that stray from the formal procedural model we recognize.
Thanks for the thoughts Jeremy.  There's probably a lot I could respond to, but I'll just offer some thoughts on one line of thinking:

(01-20-2016, 02:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]I get where you're coming from.  The issue is whether there are ways of concentrating human endeavor and power without creating elitism.  I'm not convinced there is in 3D.  Note that there is no example you pointed out where, regardless of good intentions, the politics inherent in hierarchy cannot make each of those organizations toxic.

(01-20-2016, 02:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]As somebody who's quite willing to throw our economic system out the window Smile I think you might do better to look at non-hierarchical systems.  There are consensus based models that, instead of concentrating power and authority, try to diffuse power and authority to ensure decisions meet the needs of the entire group.  This is similar to what we used in Occupy.  I highly recommend David Graber's "The Democracy Project" on this account, as he's very good at looking at non-western forms of democracy that stray from the formal procedural model we recognize.

just like to bring in a Ra quote on the nature of Harvests for 3d planets.  There are mixed harvests (like our planet, where there will be 4d positive graduates, and 4d negatives), and then there are planets where the Harvest is either entirely positive or entirely negative.

The situation where there are planets of entire positives (and no negatives which attained the requisite degree) are of some fascination.  You would think that 3d with the Veil and the confusion would tilt more towards situations where mixed harvests would be by far the most common outcome.  But, if Ra's numbers are to be believed, not only are all-positive Harvests possible, but they are actually quite commonplace.  To the tune of 60% of all 3d Harvests.  

This is probably inconceivable to someone who is on a mixed Harvest planet (like Earth) and has personally witnessed (or read about, or have confirmed) the extent of negative deeds that are precursors to 95% negativity.  Such things can't happen in a vaccuum without supportive conditions.  Genghis Khan and Stalin don't exert their influence on a small scale, in their living room.  They don't do it alone.  They enlist vast amounts of the population to their banner and their philosophy.

And so, what I'm trying to say is to try to imagine a 3d planet, with Veil, where positivity is the only Harvest.  That is not to say every single entity grauates.  But the harvestable quantities are only positive in nature.  I'm sure, even in such places, some beings explore and make headway towards negativity.  But I also think on such worlds, the conditions would not be supportive of negative learning, and so potential negative entities would not choose to incarnate there.  There are places better situated to support their life trajectories.

So let's say there are such planets, with such positive conditions.  What would their governance systems look like?  Would they be distributed, like you sort of suggest, and more similiar to an anarchic model?  On Earth, it's harder to imagine shifting to such a system, because one immediately thinks of the opportunists and the naysayers who would hijack, derail, oppose, and neutralise any such movement that way.  Vested interests.  That's because the negativity has gravitated to positions of power and influence in our world.  That's where they want to be.

But on a planet where positivity was almost everywhere present, could your model flourish and be embraced?  Is that how they would do it on their 3d world?   Or would they have systemized governments like ours, but there were few (or almost none) bad apples to corrupt the process.  No self-interested lobbyists to derail compassionate and considerate federalised systems?

Anyway, that's me going on a thought ramble.  Here's the Ra quote I had in mind:

Quote:65.13 Questioner: How common in the universe is a mixed harvest for a planet of both positively and negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complexes?

Ra: I am Ra. Among planetary harvests which yield an harvest of mind/body/spirit complexes approximately 10% are negative; approximately 60% are positive; and approximately 30% are mixed with nearly all harvest being positive. In the event of mixed harvest it is almost unknown for the majority of the harvest to be negative. When a planet moves strongly towards the negative there is almost no opportunity for harvestable positive polarization.
Sorry if I derailed the conversation, Plenum. I'll try to speak more directly to your point.

(01-20-2016, 04:59 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]So let's say there are such planets, with such positive conditions.  What would their governance systems look like?  Would they be distributed, like you sort of suggest, and more similiar to an anarchic model?  On Earth, it's harder to imagine shifting to such a system, because one immediately thinks of the opportunists and the naysayers who would hijack, derail, oppose, and neutralise any such movement that way.  Vested interests.  That's because the negativity has gravitated to positions of power and influence in our world.  That's where they want to be.

But on a planet where positivity was almost everywhere present, could your model flourish and be embraced?  Is that how they would do it on their 3d world?   Or would they have systemized governments like ours, but there were few (or almost none) bad apples to corrupt the process.  No self-interested lobbyists to derail compassionate and considerate federalised systems?

Here's my thinking: on a planet where positivity prevails, trust is a given. One may not be able to see all the intentions and thoughts of the other, but if one can simply trust -- in other words, if one does not have to consider the possibility of defense against this other -- then there's a few implications I'd think. For one, hierarchies can function as temporary constructs rather than permanent institutions. If the person at the top isn't seeking power over others, then it's much more likely he or she can exercise that outsized power in something closer to the interests of the collective. And if that position at the top is only a position and doesn't confer some sort of honor, authority, or sovereignty to the position holder, then when the person at the top isn't right he or she could easily step down and let somebody else take over.

A lot of what makes hierarchical power structures dysfunctional is the social need to maintain one's high position. If we are not using the hierarchy as a way of keeping score of who's more important and who's less important, and instead simply use it as a crystal for concentrating human action, then a lot of its negativity goes away. And if it's a crystal that is seen to be used for a particular purpose rather than existing for its own sake, then that's even better: the people and their needs are that much more involved.

But then what we're talking about really isn't a hierarchical power structure as it is normally understood; it is more an ad-hoc tool for getting something done rather than a permanent organizing structure that exists on its own terms. For permanent systems and organizations, I think something more participatory would be better, like consensus-based procedures where the goal is less about getting things done in spite of the membership and more about discovering what can be done in a way that works for the entire membership. The kinds of things that are seen as blockers in, say, parliamentary procedure (filibusters, etc) are in a consensus-based procedure seen as matters of course, because the goal isn't so much to make a decision as it is to solve a problem, and the latter is much more about getting everybody's eyes on it than simply 51% overwhelming 49%. Does that make sense?

So I think on a positive planet, you'd see less emphasis on doing material, economic things collectively. Since economics as we now understand it emphasizes constant competition over scarce resources, it strikes me that positive folks would simply not compete and find communal ways to allocate. The goal would be to make sure there's enough food for all, not simply that there is a way for each person to get food, for example.

Hierarchies would probably exist only for temporary needs, and decisions would be made in a way that enlists every individual through the discovery of consensus rather than in a way that tries to wrest control of the organization from one party. Majority rule is a very, very interesting concept. What makes 51% "right"? Graeber goes into this in Democracy Project, but he theorizes that this western, majority rule concept arose in popularly armed societies as an analog to civil war. Think about it: if everybody is battle ready in your society, all other things being equal, the side with more people will win the war. So majority rule voting is a decent analog to this. But also note: it simulates the utter defeat of one side by the other, not the discovery of a path that can serve both sides.

I think you'd see a positive planet be very unorganized, with an emphasis on making time for contemplation and social intercourse rather than maximizing the production and accumulation of wealth. Anarchy does not mean disorder; it means no rulers. Not having a ruler means decisions don't come as readily, but when they do, they reflect a reality instead of simply a wish: the reality of a mass of people following a course of action.

I hope this contributes to your thinking!
(01-21-2016, 11:46 AM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry if I derailed the conversation, Plenum.  I'll try to speak more directly to your point.

ah no, everything you offered was on point.  I just didn't have much to reply to, except that one line of thinking. Smile

Thanks again for this latest reply.  I grok it well.

As you say; positivity is less about the results and the decisions; but the actual means by which you arrive at such a conclusion.  It's the process, and not the result in other words which defines a positive, collaborative approach.

Positives are interested in others' opinions; negatives, less so BigSmile
How about a sports team? Every team member is responsible for particular tasks with none being seen as superior to the others, all are part of the team. Those who are made captains aren't necessarily superior but have a good capacity to lead and know the game well.
Or like, a team of firefighters?
that's for the thoughts there Aion.  Teamwork is definitely collaborative.  

I think it's a good model for possible memory complexes being able to work on common goals, with a common ground.

In 3d, though, how to do that with a larger collection or grouping of individuals is the question for me.

Jeremy brought up the Occupy movement.  And APeacefulWarrior suggested a couple of corporate models, most notably Valve, with a flat management structure.

/ /

but because hierarchies have been abused in the past, there seems to be a distinct aversion to them.
figured this adds to the discussion. even when there is no veil and all is seen as one there will still be differences of opinion and experiments in social or governing structures. probably closely resembles early 4d in post-veil creations.

Quote:83.10 Questioner: Was there any uniformity or like functions of societies or social organizations prior to the veil?

Ra: I am Ra. The third density is, by its very fiber, a societal one. There are societies wherever there are entities conscious of the self and conscious of other-selves and possessed with intelligence adequate to process information indicating the benefits of communal blending of energies. The structures of society before as after veiling were various. However, the societies before veiling did not depend in any case upon the intentional enslavement of some for the benefit of others, this not being seen to be a possibility when all are seen as one. There was, however, the requisite amount of disharmony to produce various experiments in what you may call governmental or societal structures.

while we're on the subject of hierarchical governing bodies, you would imagine the council of saturn is an interesting template to be used as a model

Quote:Questioner: I have a question here, I believe, about that Council from Jim. Who are the members, and how does the Council function?

Ra: I am Ra. The members of the Council are representatives from the Confederation and from those vibratory levels of your inner planes bearing responsibility for your third density. The names are not important because there are no names. Your mind/body/spirit complexes request names and so, in many cases, the vibratory sound complexes which are consonant with the vibratory distortions of each entity are used. However, the name concept is not part of the Council. If names are requested, we will attempt them. However, not all have chosen names.

In number, the Council that sits in constant session, though varying in its members by means of balancing, which takes place, what you would call irregularly, is nine. That is the Session Council. To back up this Council, there are twenty-four entities which offer their services as requested. These entities faithfully watch and have been called the Guardians.

The Council operates by means of, what you would call, telepathic contact with the oneness or unity of the nine, the distortions blending harmoniously so that the Law of One prevails with ease. When a need for thought is present, the Council retains the distortion-complex of this need, balancing it as described, and then recommends what it considers as appropriate action. This includes: One, the duty of admitting social memory complexes to the Confederation; Two, offering aid to those who are unsure how to aid the social memory complex requesting aid in a way consonant with both the call, the Law, and the number of those calling (that is to say, sometimes the resistance of the call); Three, internal questions in the Council are determined.

These are the prominent duties of the Council. They are, if in any doubt, able to contact the twenty-four who then offer consensus/judgment/thinking to the Council. The Council then may reconsider any question.
(01-23-2016, 07:03 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]but because hierarchies have been abused in the past, there seems to be a distinct aversion to them.

That's pretty much the sentiment I'm confessing to, and that gets expressed ideologically as anarchist by me.  But I'm also mindful that third density is not supposed to be a walk in the park, and it's likely that within hierarchies of power there are many lessons and opportunities for polarization.  In fact it's been a subject of much contemplation for me lately: that the kind of society I'd like to live in, and would politically advocate for, wouldn't be a very catalyzing place.  It leads one to wonder what the point of engaging in politics should be!
All things are one.

I do not know how one can come to understand this as one being more one than the other.
APeacefulWarrior, I don't think I gave your post enough credit.  Everything you describe about SMCs maps almost exactly to the conclusions I reached in my research into anarchism, decentralization, organizational behavior, etc.  I especially resonate with this:

(01-20-2016, 12:58 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]Further, since all are linked to the "ruling" (for lack of a better term) highest-density over-mind, any one of them can "take over" and merge with the over-mind for a short time.  The personality of the over-mind shifts and distorts drastically towards the attitudes of the one who is leading, but that leading is always with a specific purpose.  Whoever is best-suited for a particular exercise becomes the dominant or pre-eminent mind for that exercise.  This is a form of service and not a gathering of power, because that elevated level of control is voluntarily relinquished once the exercise is complete.  Then the entity simply reverts back to its lower self and resumes its previous work.  (This is, as I gather it, one of the main differences between pos and neg S-M-Cs.  Negs hold jealously to that power and every relinquishment is a battle.)

This is what I was getting at when I wrote about the hierarchical pattern being a crystal: it's a pattern that serves to focus energies and faculties of the whole.  But I tend to focus on how it's used negatively because that's so often the story in third density -- that's the bias I was confessing to in my last post.  As anarchists, folks like me tend to emphasize the primacy of third density stability without regard for the broader spiritual evolutionary telos involved.  That's the frustrating thing about politics! Smile

Hierarchy is like a crystal because it consists of regularized relations between component individuals. The question seems to be how it's viewed.

Service-to-self uses hierarchy as an identity by rigidly maintaining certain individuals at certain nodes.  Since power is the end, the position within the hierarchy is the game.  It takes endless expenditure of effort to maintain oneself at the top and others in place -- in fact, I'd guess the guy at the top is responsible for holding in place the entire structure through sheer will against the forces of entropy.

Service-to-others uses hierarchy as a tool, so individuals can be swapped in and out of position in the structure.  Since harmony is the end, the hierarchical crystalline structure is reinforced by each member's willing participation, and it's therefore much stronger and more resilient without needing exertion against entropy to maintain it.  Furthermore, position on the hierarchy is meaningless precisely because the crystal has formed out of equal, regularized appreciation of all component individuals.  I almost get the feeling that the STO social memory complex is a kind of discovery made by the constituent individuals of how to relate, rather than the will-fashioned artifice of the negative path, and this relating strengthens over the eons. 

This is similar to what you were saying about flat organizations like Valve and Semco (I'd add Github too): that people occupy and vacate roles in the organization as needed, rather than specializing in a particular role in the organization that confers "status".  It's like the crystal can shift position at will and use all its facets, whereas the negative side keeps the crystal always pointing one way.  Another model like this is the holocracy model used at Zappos, which explicitly separates roles and people to keep them fluid and focuses on feedback rather than top-down direction.

Thanks so much for your thoughts, APW!  I really enjoyed them.
(01-23-2016, 09:34 AM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]while we're on the subject of hierarchical governing bodies, you would imagine the council of saturn is an interesting template to be used as a model
Absolutely!  Note that they don't have to collaborate through the coarse medium of language, though.  That's gotta be politically useful for reaching consensus.
Also, the executive committee / larger college of advisors model is used a lot in our politics as well.  Consider, for example, the way appellate courts work or the grand jury process works, where there is a consultation on contentious matters of a broader group.
(01-26-2016, 01:06 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]Service-to-self uses hierarchy as an identity by rigidly maintaining certain individuals at certain nodes.  Since power is the end, the position within the hierarchy is the game.  It takes endless expenditure of effort to maintain oneself at the top and others in place -- in fact, I'd guess the guy at the top is responsible for holding in place the entire structure through sheer will against the forces of entropy.

Service-to-others uses hierarchy as a tool, so individuals can be swapped in and out of position in the structure.  Since harmony is the end, the hierarchical crystalline structure is reinforced by each member's willing participation, and it's therefore much stronger and more resilient without needing exertion against entropy to maintain it.  Furthermore, position on the hierarchy is meaningless precisely because the crystal has formed out of equal, regularized appreciation of all component individuals.  I almost get the feeling that the STO social memory complex is a kind of discovery made by the constituent individuals of how to relate, rather than the will-fashioned artifice of the negative path, and this relating strengthens over the eons. 

Very well put! I also seem to remember Ra saying somewhere that it's very hard for negative S-M-Cs to work together towards a singular goal for very long, because the internal factions end up becoming quarrelsome and interfere with the overall goal. I think he referred to this as "spiritual entropy."

(I'm reminded of campy sci-fi like "The Chronicles of Riddick" where the bad guys ALL have individual agendas and are often too busy backstabbing each other to bother with the hero.)

And I like your comments about the crystalline structure! I was deliberately trying to avoid much discussion about higher-D energy flow because, well, it hurts my brain conceptualizing it and trying to come up with good 3D/verbal analogies. Noneuclidean topographies just don't lend themselves to casual discussion, haha.

But yes, when I talked about one entity or another in a positive S-M-C "focusing" through one of their members, that was pretty much what I was talking about. Whoever becomes the focal point within the structure for the wills\energies of the S-M-C as a whole becomes king-for-a-day and channels that willpower towards the group's chosen goal.

(In my learnings, my higher selves generally encourage me to conceptualize these things in terms of the energy flow, rather than in terms of spacial relations, since to them a concept such as "proximity" is based on vibrational harmonies rather than distance. One entity is "closer" to another entity when they're vibrating on similar frequencies, and "further away" when they're vibrating with less harmony.)
(01-27-2016, 08:45 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ](In my learnings, my higher selves generally encourage me to conceptualize these things in terms of the energy flow, rather than in terms of spacial relations, since to them a concept such as "proximity" is based on vibrational harmonies rather than distance.  One entity is "closer" to another entity when they're vibrating on similar frequencies, and "further away" when they're vibrating with less harmony.)

That is absolutely fascinating.  Yes, in a crystalline structure, resonance would be a lot more powerful than proximity in some cartesian matrix-oriented sense.  But to take the crystal metaphor way too far, resonance of the whole structure is likely a result of the highly regularized (read: equal) relations between "nodes" in the structure.  Because the negative structure forces nodes into position, I wonder if there's any resonance inherent in that structure.  Perhaps it's the vibration of the dominant position flooding the structure forcibly, not the resonance of sympathetic vibration.

I hope you'll continue to post insights like this, extrapolating and extending on what we know from the Ra material.  The sessions are only the beginning, folks! Smile
(01-27-2016, 11:42 AM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ]That is absolutely fascinating.  Yes, in a crystalline structure, resonance would be a lot more powerful than proximity in some cartesian matrix-oriented sense.  But to take the crystal metaphor way too far, resonance of the whole structure is likely a result of the highly regularized (read: equal) relations between "nodes" in the structure.  Because the negative structure forces nodes into position, I wonder if there's any resonance inherent in that structure.  Perhaps it's the vibration of the dominant position flooding the structure forcibly, not the resonance of sympathetic vibration.

I don't get the crystalline vibe so much, but I can see how it could be a useful metaphor for conceptualizing some of these things. The issue, of course, is once one gets into non-linearity and simultaneous action, any sort of physical-based metaphor starts becoming limiting. Especially if we're talking about totally backwards\retrograde actions, like Ra saying an entity's 6D higher self is a "gift" from its 7D form just before it merges with the Creator. I can't even BEGIN to conceptualize a structure where that makes sense, haha!

(But then, it does make a certain amount of sense that as an entity gains dimensional knowledge, even ideas we see as concrete, such as causality, may become mere tools for a nonlinear entity to eventually embrace, toy with, and utilize.)

Either way, I am very curious about what exactly holds an S-M-C together. It's not a topic I've gotten much insight into. But since many of my insights are being funneled to me via a 4D higher self I'm very closely connected to, based on knowledge from the S-M-C as a whole, it could also be that such things are so far above her head (metaphorically speaking) that they simply don't translate across.

I have a strong impression that the so-called "psychic" or simultaneous communications deployed in S-M-Cs are, themselves, based in density or layers of information. Information which is too dense/layered for a given entity to comprehend is basically bypassed entirely, or just has a vague sense of the information being incomplete. Sort of like how a radio broadcast can also include sub-frequencies holding separate coded data transmissions parallel to the main broadcast. Ie, many radio stations broadcast a text string with the title\artist\duration of each music track playing. Any radio can play the music, but only certain "advanced" models can read and display the text as well, giving them an extra layer of data which other radios are simply unaware of.

I'll occasionally query my higher selves for information and get a "null" response that feels like there was a response there, but it just didn't come through. Of course, the veil further mucks this up. Ah, the joys of 3D existence... BigSmile
Yeah, it's always prudent to not over-intellectualize this stuff. I like your point on how the mechanics of our illusion, like causality, could simply be instrumental constructs for some other end that you cannot possibly fathom. Recognizing the limits of the ratiocinative mind to parse all of this is vital and helps one appreciate the faculty of faith.
I wonder if once you know something for sure if faith is no longer a factor.
(01-28-2016, 06:43 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if once you know something for sure if faith is no longer a factor.

The veil makes absolute certainty on our plane more or less impossible. From everything I've seen, unveiled entities have access to information with a level of assuredness that simply has no parallel here on Earth. I'm not going to say it's 100% totally impossible or that the most advanced of adepts in history, like Siddhartha the Buddha, couldn't have done it... But probably not. After all, by all accounts, even Jesus had moments of doubt and uncertainty.

An element of faith is pretty much always needed on our side of the veil, for any kind of knowledge.