Bring4th

The souls of Maldek, had a similar civilization to Atlantis which technically is like the time we are in now, and I quote,

"it gained much technological information and used it without care for the preservation of their sphere; which you may associate with the negative polarity or the service to self"
Furthermore,
"This was, however, for the most part, couched in a sincere belief/thought structure which seemed to the perception of the mind/body complexes of this sphere to be positive and of service to others."
What this states is these people, did not care enough about preserving their biosphere to do anything about it, though while continuing to act impasse, to do their own thing in their self interest they perceived it to be all good.
They say in history that those who fail history are doomed to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.
Perhaps most people are working with a conception of history that is primarily so limited, so distorted in it's being retold, resold, approved stories, they have no foundation or basis to understand anything greater than their own lives much less the true horror of history. Well it has to do with polarizing service to others at least 51 percent or above to meet the requirements of graduation, that in it of it self is something that most people do not achieve.
What is it about service to others, it can be many things it can take many forms of service, all of it has to come from the heart, it has to come from care, from genuine interest in the well being of others. We have all these emotions, and emotions need to be felt, and understood, not controlled, not repressed, but understood, and then action taken after balance has been reached.



-Felix


What are some ways activism may of helped you to polarize positive?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=10
The Law of One Session 10 Question 1
January 27, 1981

10.1 Questioner: I think it would clarify things for us to go back to the time just before the transfer of souls from Maldek; see how the Law of One operated with respect to this transfer and why this was necessary. What happened to Maldek— or the people on Maldek to cause them to lose their planet? How long ago did this occur?
Ra: I am Ra. The peoples of Maldek had a civilization somewhat similar to that of the societal complex known to you as Atlantis in that it gained much technological information and used it without care for the preservation of their sphere following to a majority extent the complex of thought, ideas, and actions which you may associate with your so-called negative polarity or the service to self. This was, however, for the most part, couched in a sincere belief/thought structure which seemed to the perception of the mind/body complexes of this sphere to be positive and of service to others. The devastation that wracked their biosphere and caused its disintegration resulted from what you call war.
The escalation went to the furthest extent of the technology this social complex had at its disposal in the space/time present of the then time. This time was approximately seven oh five, oh oh oh, seven hundred and five thousand [705,000] of your years ago. The cycles had begun much, much earlier upon this sphere due to its relative ability to support the first-dimensional life forms at an earlier point in the space/time continuum of your solar system. These entities were so traumatized by this occurrence that they were in what you may call a social complex knot or tangle of fear. Some of your time passed. No one could reach them. No beings could aid them.
Approximately six hundred thousand [600,000] of your years ago the then-existing members of the Confederation were able to deploy a social memory complex and untie the knot of fear. The entities were then able to recall that they were conscious. This awareness brought them to the point upon what you would call the lower astral planes where they could be nurtured until each mind/body/spirit complex was able finally to be healed of this trauma to the extent that each entity was able to examine the distortions it had experienced in the previous life/illusion complex.
After this experience of learn/teaching, the group decision was to place upon itself a type of what you may call karma alleviation. For this purpose they came into incarnation within your planetary sphere in what were not acceptable human forms. This then they have been experiencing until the distortions of destruction are replaced by distortions towards the desire for a less distorted vision of service to others. Since this was the conscious decision of the great majority of those beings in the Maldek experience, the transition to this planet began approximately five hundred thousand [500,000] of your years ago and the type of body complex available at that time was used..

Your post coincides with the 10 year anniversary of Wikileaks!

(10-04-2016, 02:02 PM)YinYang Wrote: [ -> ]Your post coincides with the 10 year anniversary of Wikileaks!

<3

Not really disagreeing, but I'd suggest being wary of thinking in absolutes like "All (X) is necessarily positive." Things are very rarely so clear-cut in 3D. There's no doubt that MANY forms of activism are likely to be positive, but there are still going to be exceptions.

Also, ultimately, intentions matter more than results when it comes to polarization. A person can support the most noble of causes, but if they're doing so specifically because they think they can gain money or power from it, that's still ultimately a service-to-self impulse. Not to mention the possibility of activism in favor of causes which are explicitly about harming or controlling others, such as those fighting against gay rights or women's rights.

I wouldn't say any act of activism is polarizing positive. Like APeacefulWarrior said above, intention is key. I respect purity such as Peace Corps. But then we have very negative activism such as Westbrook Baptist Church here in the US. These people sew seeds of hatred and condemnation. Whereas those in the Peace Corp give themselves to service, such as an understanding that making a difference for one is for all.

That's just my take. I'm not an activist, I am more called to the service of being.

I would agree there are organizations really trying to help, and others not so much.... to me even if you are apart of westbrook babtist church etc.. that you could still do positive work. However entities configurations/views can have an effect on you. So if you are surrounded by individuals constantly polarizing negatively, it can cause you to act this way. Monkey see monkey do.
peer pressure etc..

I to feel like my service is in being. I feel no motivation, to do activism. However I am glad that some do have this calling. For surely we need doers.

Activism can be thought to be positive.


The difference between (a)thinking something you're doing is positive and (b) it being positive, is in doing that which places you in harmony with others. Ask what exactly is the activist doing, and ask if in doing so it makes the activist a bit more inclined to keep harmony, to desire harmony and seek it, between the activist and other-selves.
So if you wish to know what action is positive orientation, you may try to examine whether the person intends to establish or find harmony between his/her self and others.

As an activist, you may get opportunities which put you in a position to harmonize^ with others, to love them, to serve them, to give them all as they ask for it. The more you are inclined to seek that, the more indicative it is of positive polarization.

Being part of a group and just committing to a cause, *familiarizing or acquainting yourself with what must be done by you, as a member of the group*, is simply orange-ray.
Knowing your place in the group *as an individual who is part of his or her preferred cause/group* is the basis of *yellow-ray activities* which would occur between you and other members.
There are more than these two basic, almost involuntary actions which occur while being in a group.

There are also lone activists, those who do not group with others.

Polarizing either negative or positive through activism is depends on what opportunities you intend to take, and what you intend to achieve overall.
...
What circumstances you're favoring.
...
And most importantly, whether you consider others or whether you don't.

Consideration for others undoubtedly shows an inclination toward service-to-others (but an inclination isn't the end-all for polarizing)(*).

We'll take "you" for example. Whoever "you" the reader are.
You're doing some activist thing and, generally, you believe your cause is good and that you're "doing good". In the course of your activism, some minor or major events may lead to a simple possibility in the future...

A possibility that you open yourself up a bit to others or show others compassion.


However, it turns out that when the opportunity arises for you to do that, the opportunity is ignored--you discard this chance; "opening yourself up to others or showing compassion" wasn't even registered by yourself as a choice, you simply gravitated toward something rather the opposite.
Something like showing no mercy to others, ignoring what would've been their own interests or wishes, disregarding them, while you held steadfast to your activist-cause. Whatever, you've done something and neglected or rejected others' wishes.

So "you" having neglected others in this example, could not be said to have been positive in orientation or polarity. (This example does not envelope the decision to disregard those persons who's wishes would be of immediate, service-to-self consequence or which would compromise your ability to serve-others, or anything of this sort of moral dilemma).
It is not service-to-others to immediately neglect others without taking them once into account. So, one opportunity to polarize towards the positive, or to be of service-to-others, was rejected.

And yet, the overall adherence to your cause which you truly believe is positive and which may end up being very helpful, can polarize you slightly to the positive. This might exemplify the saying which goes "the end justifies the means".

In the end, as your experience continues along the lines of this example, if you still don't really care about others on a personal level (so, in effect, having little to no consideration for others), then it is something you may have to work with (if you choose to) because it is a vital part of service-to-others.

In the end of your activism, what you have accomplished may have been good and very much to the benefit of others.
But in the same case, you are where you've always been in regards to an understanding and love of others.

Example over.

You know how sometimes kids will tease each other, or have banter with each other--one of them trying to say something really effective, mean, outstanding and damaging?
The inclination to do that, to use one's mental faculties to come up with something such as that, is the exploration of of the feelings of power or being right (which is orange-ray) but in this small context it would be appear to be the use of mental faculties to achieve power over others. It is consequently service-to-self.

Sometimes people get "stepped on", to whatever intensity, in order to achieve a victory.

Now, look at activist groups which proclaim goodness or benevolence, if you will put them under scrutiny with me in these next few sentences.

There will be groups not only doing what they think/know is right for the cause that they fight for, and spreading their cause; but they'll also be doing it aggressively, in a way that persuades others to accept their cause...or, rather, bend to it.


Form a group, use the right words, the right methods, the right touch of force in your persuasion, and maybe utilize the stealth to avoid being definitively labeled as bad or malicious, and use cunning to carry the guise of positivity...
and you have a service-to-self group which will inevitably have recruits. It isn't absolute what the recruits will be like in the end. And it isn't true that those are the sole ingredients to a negatively-oriented group.
--

In contrast, be a part of a group which is considerate toward others and you'll be with others who are (to whatever extent) service-to-others.

In that instance, consideration would be the threshold of the group's positivity. It can always grow to be more loving. Sometimes not everyone is on the same page, so there may have to be an attempt to harmonize the group's....[...]....or it might disband altogether, lose members, or branch out.

---

(*)Indicators are simply indicators... Intention matters more. The nature of most questions usually ask for indicators, though, despite everything basically qualifying as an indicator.
Looking for what indicates so and so, is likely a part of the search for polarity. But clear and decisive discernment is more valuable. I speculate that clear judgement comes with you knowing what you want (there is a prerequisite clarity about your self and your life), meditating, and/or being there for yourself in introspective experiences.

---

I don't think I've supported a cause to the extent that I could've been called an activist. But from what cause I've supported, the experience has gone like this:

recruited from ignorance>listening only to the group's cause>empowering myself and other members to do what our cause was concerned with doing>small conflicts within the group sometimes>group (including myself) changing its cause (it was malleable from the outset)>interacting a little bit more with its members, myself barely beginning to consider the purpose of groups at all>myself increasingly having different service-to-self interests (not a typo)>more conflicts, more experiences>leaving the group over sympathy towards others.

To be more specific the group was mainly just me and a family member, and the cause was a way of life that others like us followed. We encountered others of like-mind, expanding our group a few times, and the two of us pursued the most shared interests as a duo. We accumulated new interests over time, life also changed who was where. Me and the other main component eventually hit a challenge that caused us to disband.


And as far as polarization goes, I wouldn't count most of it as positive polarization. Only until I had certain experiences which made me question things more profoundly than usual, would I say I polarized to the positive--and this seems to have happened very rarely throughout my "adherence" to my cause. Again, until certain experiences occurred.

Finally: I may have made mistaken statements here and there in this post. Please challenge the statements and/or clarify as you will.

This thread seems an academic exercise so I'll just add 2 cents worth. Intention is a factor, but say I start out in service to others and at some point early on a lot of people like what I'm doing and start saying, "You should get organized! We'll help get it going and then you just tell us what to do and we'll do it." I might get sorely tempted from that and my latent STS self comes out of the closet and seizes the opportunity.

IMO STSers love to shout love and service, then take charge and give orders.

(10-09-2016, 06:00 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]This thread seems an academic exercise so I'll just add 2 cents worth. Intention is a factor, but say I start out in service to others and at some point early on a lot of people like what I'm doing and start saying, "You should get organized! We'll help get it going and then you just tell us what to do and we'll do it." I might get sorely tempted from that and my latent STS self comes out of the closet and seizes the opportunity.

IMO STSers love to shout love and service, then take charge and give orders.

The classic movie "Network" is a perfect illustration of this. The "I'm as mad as hell" speech is the bit which became famous, yet the entire film is ultimately about how easily such appeals to emotion can be subverted and taken over by those who crave control.

an active yellow-ray is quite an important consideration.

But I guess it all depends on how you use it

In case anyone has missed it, the Saturday Meditation session with Q'uo of November 19, 2016 was predominantly about activism.

Anita Moorjani on activism.

I have found that many attempts at activism against police brutality spawns violence.

Not all activism is positive. If a large enough group of people decide to forcefully change the legal system in this country versus through changing the legal system internally, it has the potential to incite civil war.

I'm pretty sure creating war isn't the goal of activism, so I have to say not all forms of activism are positive polarizations. Some of them very much fall into the [sometimes dangerous] pit of indifference.