There's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on competing and dominating others because of the nature of our civilization and economies.
This can happen in everyday life and mundane occupations revolving around competition like pro athletes, business owners, salespeople, politicians, pro gamblers and pro gamers, even entertainers and artists, who compete for attention. The list goes on.
All of these people have to consistently out-compete and even dominate others in their field in order to maintain any type of longevity and keep putting food on the table. There's winners and losers in this equation, in a worldly sense. The losers may fall into financial ruin and have their dreams crushed as a side effect of the winners, even if the winners don't intend this.
If someone who was winning became more positive, would that jeopardize their continued success and material survival? When these people are competing against others in their field, is that hazardous to polarizing positively? Can somebody really reach the top of any competitive field without losing significant positive polarity?
It's interesting because I had a great relationship with a couple of higher density negative beings. It was intense love for all of us.
There was no bidding or real domination, although there was playful domination.
So even love can win out, it all depends.
I did outgrow them though because my vibration got too high for them.
There are plenty of people like authors and videogame programmers who become millionaires just by putting out their own creativity.
It often seems like shoving someone out of the way is the only way to success but that's just the way it looks on the surface.
It's difficult sometimes to accept that seeking peace is the better route when you see examples of military lords with tremendous wealthy and property for example who will never suffer through consequences of having signed up to kill their enemies while a lot of innocent minded people don't get the wealth, meaning they don't get the women, and as a result don't develop families but I remind myself that being violent usually at the end of the day is not something a good person signs up for. There are other ways to enrich yourself.
Sorry, it seems like people don't understand what I was originally asking. I removed the soldier example from the original post because it's an extreme and it seems like it might derail the conversation.
Not everyone can be a millionaire video game designer or author. What I want to ask about is situations where people may not be consciously trying to polarize negatively but end up in occupations that are competitive by nature. They might have reasons where they can't easily leave such an occupation, because they spent a large portion of their life developing that skill set and don't have other skills they can perform as well.
Take the athlete example. If someone wants to have a long and successful career in that field, they have to make sure they keep winning. Does that violate the free will of people they're competing against, who also want to win? If this individual wants to polarize positively, would their career as a competitive athlete be detrimental to their polarization in the long run?
Or a business owner taking customers from their competition to make ends meet, even if it's indirect?
And even with people in creative fields - is it depolarizing to want your creative product (video game, book, album, movie, youtube video) to do extremely well, knowing that it may take attention away from other creative products released around the same time?
Anyone competing in any kind of business/competition isn't having their free will violated because of course they accept that not everyone is going to be #1 from the start.
It's like going on to a casino. No one is forcing these people to be in those environments. Not a lot of people feel sorry for someone with a gambling problem because no one is forcing them to be there.
Violating free will isn't the same thing as having service-to-self orientation, and everyone involved in a competition does have that mentality to some degree. The people losing out aren't necessarily victims considering most people for example if they could claim land as their own wouldn't have any hangups about collecting rent from people even though they hate that they themselves are charged to live in nearly every city by a landlord. If they could easily kick back and collect money from people for doing next to nothing, I bet most people would.
I think it's interesting when these kinds of real world questions are asked because most people have to work, pay tax/rent, and oftentimes want a partner. Understanding and practicing the Law of One doesn't entirely guarantee you'll get any of those things. In the modern first world if you want an average life it oftentimes means you need to come up with the many thousands of dollars to live in an average house or raise a family. Family often means when you make all that money you spend it on people who you see yourself in. Is it wrong? Well if you think it is and are looking to set a better example, just open your door and let strangers live in the house you pay for--free of charge or in the living room or your car while you are with your wife.
A joke I make with people sometimes like I ask if they are so close to their neighborhood, does it mean that if they got kicked out of where they were living that their loving wonderful neighbors would adopt them? No, you'd find yourself on the sidewalk in most cases. That tells me no one in a neighborhood really cares about me at the end of the day so I don't feel too in touch with the community most of the time. People care about what they get from you most of the time. If you arrive in some town without any money don't expect to be welcome.
Being a millionaire is probably not likely from doing something creative but it isn't unimaginable that you could live comfortably if you took the time over decades so that your name was known as you developed a following as an author or in some other creative endeavor.
Edit: I think the part about how you likely wouldn't allow a random person to live in your home for free makes me think of what you're describing. Are you a service to self entity because you aren't enacting the infinite divine love of the creator by not adopting people to live in your house without charging them? That isn't 110% altruistic. Do you think it's immoral? Maybe you don't live alone but let's say you did. What do you think of that? It's not something to lose sleep over.
(06-22-2020, 11:00 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, it seems like people don't understand what I was originally asking. I removed the soldier example from the original post because it's an extreme and it seems like it might derail the conversation.
Not everyone can be a millionaire video game designer or author. What I want to ask about is situations where people may not be consciously trying to polarize negatively but end up in occupations that are competitive by nature. They might have reasons where they can't easily leave such an occupation, because they spent a large portion of their life developing that skill set and don't have other skills they can perform as well.
Take the athlete example. If someone wants to have a long and successful career in that field, they have to make sure they keep winning. Does that violate the free will of people they're competing against, who also want to win? If this individual wants to polarize positively, would their career as a competitive athlete be detrimental to their polarization in the long run?
Or a business owner taking customers from their competition to make ends meet, even if it's indirect?
And even with people in creative fields - is it depolarizing to want your creative product (video game, book, album, movie, youtube video) to do extremely well, knowing that it may take attention away from other creative products released around the same time?
im not sure if you have read my other post but this world is by default sts. everything we do here is sts. we are striving to be sto canditates for harvest. do your best and hope for the best. its not use thinking about the philosophy of it all. there is always some part of your actions that are going to be sts but at least try to limit the damage you are doing as much as you can without hurting yourself.
(06-22-2020, 08:09 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]If someone who was winning became more positive, would that jeopardize their continued success and material survival
Generally yes. A competitive environment is an environment set up for competition. A competitor who stops being competitive falls behind.
Quote: Can somebody really reach the top of any competitive field without losing significant positive polarity?
Because competitive setups are negative setups, thats highly unlikely. Like how those who stop profiting at any morals or principles in Wall Street would fall behind those who dont stop at anything.
Every type of competition is an orange / yellow ray pattern. Because it's the feeling of power over others. It's possible to be positively polarized if the activity performed is not focused on defeat others, but on helping the community. While attachment to money is also a blockage, I would say of the red ray pattern. Therefore, our society works to keep people trapped in the pattern of the 3 lower rays, either through blocking or disabling those rays.
Quote:34.12 QUESTIONER I thought that that was correct, but I wasn’t sure. Can you give me the same type of information that we have been getting here with respect to the unmanifested self interacting between self and gadgets, toys, etc. . . . inventions?
RA I am Ra. In this particular instance we again concentrate, for the most part, in the orange and in the yellow energy centers.
In a negative sense many of the gadgets among your peoples—that is, what you call your communication devices and other distractions, such as the less competitive games—may be seen to have the distortion of keeping the mind/body/spirit complex unactivated so that yellow- and orange-ray activity is much weakened, thus carefully decreasing the possibility of eventual green-ray activation.
Others of your gadgets may be seen to be tools whereby the entity explores the capabilities of its physical or mental complexes and, in some few cases, the spiritual complex, thus activating the orange ray in what you call your team sports and in other gadgets such as your modes of transport. These may be seen to be ways of investigating the feelings of power; more especially, power over others or a group power over another group of other-selves.
(06-22-2020, 10:30 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of people like authors and videogame programmers who become millionaires just by putting out their own creativity.
It often seems like shoving someone out of the way is the only way to success but that's just the way it looks on the surface.
I know authors, app game programmers, and app game business owners. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. The publishing industries have changed significantly in the last couple of decades. If you don't market your product—and you must compete with others who are spending big on marketing—it gets lost in a sea of many millions of self-published products, however good it might be. There are exceptions of course.
With online aggregate companies such as Fivver, the value of creative services had been driven way, way down.
I don't mean to be negative, just practical, and tell it the way it is. I get the idea about "creating your own reality." But I have been working for myself since the late 80s, and I have seen the way things have changed since self-publishing became available, and the Internet grew.
This is not to say one has to cave into STS practices in order to be successful. I am interested to hear from others how they surmount the current state of business affairs. I would like to hear from anyone in the trenches, making it on their own.
(06-22-2020, 10:30 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]It's difficult sometimes to accept that seeking peace is the better route when you see examples of military lords with tremendous wealthy and property for example who will never suffer through consequences of having signed up to kill their enemies while a lot of innocent minded people don't get the wealth, meaning they don't get the women, and as a result don't develop families but I remind myself that being violent usually at the end of the day is not something a good person signs up for. There are other ways to enrich yourself.
I would like to point out that the bolded above reflects very limited thinking. I am assuming it wasn't well thought out, because it sounds not only sexist, but archaic. While it appears that there are many women (the majority perhaps) in this world who are seeking rich men to support them, there are also women who have more awareness, integrity, and self-accountability than that. And wanting to be with a woman who is shallow and unevolved is something I really don't get, unless the man wanting such is as shallow and unevolved.
I do have a list of 1300+ book bloggers that I'm paying someone to reach out for me.
They are reading the book now, and will outreach in a bit.
I got an email from Amazon. They were recommending my own book to me, and that book is registered under a different email.
So it was a synchronicity. They may also be recommending it to others.
(06-23-2020, 10:52 AM)Great Central Sun Wrote: [ -> ]I do have a list of 1300+ book bloggers that I'm paying someone to reach out for me.
They are reading the book now, and will outreach in a bit.
I got an email from Amazon. They were recommending my own book to me, and that book is registered under a different email.
So it was a synchronicity. They may also be recommending it to others.
That must have been a nice surprise.
What do you attribute that to?
I do know that Amazon cycles what they present, aside from sponsored ads. So out of (arbitrary figure) one million books, they present 50 (again, arbitrary) each day, and cycle through. That's why you might see sales spiking at certain times, even without any advertising.
Could you give me more info? Do you advertise on Amazon, or anywhere else, such as Google?
Also, who is the person or company that finds the right bloggers? Could you tell me the fee they charge? You can PM me if you don't want to say publicly.
(06-23-2020, 08:00 AM)Infinite Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible to be positively polarized if the activity performed is not focused on defeat others, but on helping the community.
What if an individual loses a significant amount of functionality or efficiency by giving up the mindset of winning, and isn't able to perform their occupation, run their business, or sustain themselves anymore?
(06-23-2020, 11:44 AM)888 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2020, 08:00 AM)Infinite Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible to be positively polarized if the activity performed is not focused on defeat others, but on helping the community.
What if an individual loses a significant amount of functionality or efficiency by giving up the mindset of winning, and isn't able to perform their occupation, run their business, or sustain themselves anymore?
I believe you can find more fulfillment in both success and failure by going with the flow so to speak.
The greater you are in alignment with divine will, the more you will see your preferred reality manifest.
It can be heaven on earth, as it is becoming for me.
And I do not have this idea of winning at all costs.
I am in the moment, not focused on past or future.
As you grow, you begin to be held in magnetic alignment in thought and body to the flow of the Universe.
Decisions become easy. Life becomes easy and phenomenal.
But yes, you have to work at it at first. Work to better yourself. But there is a time when you need to let go of expectation.
I worked for years on getting my energy field very dense.
Now, if it's too hot I just say "make it cold" and temperature will lower 10 degrees in 5-10 minutes.
A dense energy field can alter reality. But it's an intense path, not for everyone. Some choose a path of silent listening to Creator.
(06-23-2020, 11:44 AM)888 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2020, 08:00 AM)Infinite Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible to be positively polarized if the activity performed is not focused on defeat others, but on helping the community.
What if an individual loses a significant amount of functionality or efficiency by giving up the mindset of winning, and isn't able to perform their occupation, run their business, or sustain themselves anymore?
Then that business wasn't for them, or at least isn't for them anymore after they awaken. A choice will have to be made(this is after all the density of choices). Everyone has to make hard, shitty choices and sacrifices sometime in this life, and it doesn't always mean that you "lose" in the long run. In fact, such a thing can be an opportunity for a new beginning. Maybe this theoretical person is sustaining a house that's overly big for their needs and a pain in the ass to clean anyway, and buying new cars all the time while their old ones would have served well for years longer...so maybe some of the material "fat" they will have to trim is just crap that was wasting their time and money anyway. Maybe a lot of what they are "losing" is unnecessary s*** and status symbols that are neither functional nor efficient in terms of a fulfilling life.
Maybe this person gets a new occupation that isn't perfect, but way less stress and guilt and doesn't revolve around screwing people over. They get a modest apartment, a reliable used car, and actually start making time for stuff in their lives that doesn't have to do with "keeping up with the Jones's". Maybe they start meeting people with more wholesome life priorities, make some friends that are actually friends, and possibly romantic opportunities with people who are also of more integrity.
It's really a choice to take a risk, take a leap, and to follow the heart and integrity regardless of what the "system" does. I've seen examples of how some people in other countries do a lot with very little. They have what we'd consider a piss poor living, but they are always travelling, seeing friends and family, having new experiences, pursuing hobbies, and generally living a well-rounded and fulfilling life. An attitude of abundance vs one of lack is a big factor.
When one breaks away from the yellow ray distortions of the "system", it can be scary, it can be a risk, but it can also be an adventure full of new opportunities, and time to examine what stuff in life is not worth clinging on to, whether it's material items or beliefs.
There's always at least a small element of competition when you are working within a flawed system and trying to make money, even of course, in things like art and writing. If you give it your best with no intention of screwing anyone and let the chips fall where they may, you are not failing to be STO.
(06-22-2020, 10:30 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of people like authors and videogame programmers who become millionaires just by putting out their own creativity.
It often seems like shoving someone out of the way is the only way to success but that's just the way it looks on the surface.
I think the situation in this example is more complicated than you think. For every millionaire game developer there are thousands of programmers, writers, QA technicians, game testers, marketing associates, community developers, etc. who may be just barely making ends meet. And then even further down the ladder there are the people working in the factories that produce the hardware components required to run the game and the mines / refineries that produce the material for those components (labor usually exported to the third world) making poverty wages.
Not to mention all the other game developers who don't hit the big times and are unable to support themselves through creative work in a competitive market.
(06-23-2020, 10:44 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2020, 10:30 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of people like authors and videogame programmers who become millionaires just by putting out their own creativity.
It often seems like shoving someone out of the way is the only way to success but that's just the way it looks on the surface.
I know authors, app game programmers, and app game business owners. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. The publishing industries have changed significantly in the last couple of decades. If you don't market your product—and you must compete with others who are spending big on marketing—it gets lost in a sea of many millions of self-published products, however good it might be. There are exceptions of course.
With online aggregate companies such as Fivver, the value of creative services had been driven way, way down.
I don't mean to be negative, just practical, and tell it the way it is. I get the idea about "creating your own reality." But I have been working for myself since the late 80s, and I have seen the way things have changed since self-publishing became available, and the Internet grew.
This is not to say one has to cave into STS practices in order to be successful. I am interested to hear from others how they surmount the current state of business affairs. I would like to hear from anyone in the trenches, making it on their own.
(06-22-2020, 10:30 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]It's difficult sometimes to accept that seeking peace is the better route when you see examples of military lords with tremendous wealthy and property for example who will never suffer through consequences of having signed up to kill their enemies while a lot of innocent minded people don't get the wealth, meaning they don't get the women, and as a result don't develop families but I remind myself that being violent usually at the end of the day is not something a good person signs up for. There are other ways to enrich yourself.
I would like to point out that the bolded above reflects very limited thinking. I am assuming it wasn't well thought out, because it sounds not only sexist, but archaic. While it appears that there are many women (the majority perhaps) in this world who are seeking rich men to support them, there are also women who have more awareness, integrity, and self-accountability than that. And wanting to be with a woman who is shallow and unevolved is something I really don't get, unless the man wanting such is as shallow and unevolved.
I'm not talking about women that are "hot" I'm just describing how a lot of guys join the military so they can get a down payment on a house in a major city because they see it as a necessity for a family. If there were other options I bet people would pursue them, but they're often times not as set in stone. Without it, it would be a lot more difficult in a lot of careers not knowing what level of success you'd achieve and how stable a job is guaranteed as to sustain a mortgage.
A lot of times guys figure out that it's unlikely they'll have a long term relationship with anyone if they are unable to provide a place for themselves and someone they like to live in. I don't think there is anything wrong with recognizing that. It's really rare you're going to find a woman who is going to stick around with a guy that lives in a dump or a van because he can't afford any better. That's just the way it is and most men when making the decisions to join something like the military completely recognize it as a guarantee that they'll qualify for a mortgage with military benefits. Having a family also means being able to pay to feed the family and not living in a small apartment or vehicle. I've witnessed it multiple times where this is a guys chief reasoning for signing away 4 years of his life via contract one of the primary motives being that it guarantees the financial basis for him to sustain a relationship. I didn't bother trying to talk them out of it, but they would hate the idea of being alone while they witness other guys getting married. It's not all about this narrow pathway but it's the way a lot of people will see it. "That guy has a wife, a nice house, and a sizable family while I'm just here working a job I might get laid off from? How about -I- go shove someone out of the way so -I- can have those things!" all frustrated with the idea of being alone, unsure of what kind of career they could pursue that they wouldn't get laid off from for whatever reason. I'm describing what motivates people to make these decisions not advocating it.
As for becoming wealthy as an author or video game developer I am not under the impression everyone is going to be tremendously wealthy, but it's the same way that not everyone is going to become a wealthy CEO in a dog-eat-dog business world the OP describes. I'm just pointing out it is possible to make big without directly shoving someone out of the way.
(06-23-2020, 11:48 AM)Great Central Sun Wrote: [ -> ]I believe you can find more fulfillment in both success and failure by going with the flow so to speak.
The greater you are in alignment with divine will, the more you will see your preferred reality manifest.
It can be heaven on earth, as it is becoming for me.
And I do not have this idea of winning at all costs.
I am in the moment, not focused on past or future.
As you grow, you begin to be held in magnetic alignment in thought and body to the flow of the Universe.
Decisions become easy. Life becomes easy and phenomenal.
But yes, you have to work at it at first. Work to better yourself. But there is a time when you need to let go of expectation.
I worked for years on getting my energy field very dense.
Now, if it's too hot I just say "make it cold" and temperature will lower 10 degrees in 5-10 minutes.
A dense energy field can alter reality. But it's an intense path, not for everyone. Some choose a path of silent listening to Creator.
(06-23-2020, 02:45 PM)Black Dragon Wrote: [ -> ]Then that business wasn't for them, or at least isn't for them anymore after they awaken. A choice will have to be made(this is after all the density of choices). Everyone has to make hard, shitty choices and sacrifices sometime in this life, and it doesn't always mean that you "lose" in the long run. In fact, such a thing can be an opportunity for a new beginning. Maybe this theoretical person is sustaining a house that's overly big for their needs and a pain in the ass to clean anyway, and buying new cars all the time while their old ones would have served well for years longer...so maybe some of the material "fat" they will have to trim is just crap that was wasting their time and money anyway. Maybe a lot of what they are "losing" is unnecessary s*** and status symbols that are neither functional nor efficient in terms of a fulfilling life.
Maybe this person gets a new occupation that isn't perfect, but way less stress and guilt and doesn't revolve around screwing people over. They get a modest apartment, a reliable used car, and actually start making time for stuff in their lives that doesn't have to do with "keeping up with the Jones's". Maybe they start meeting people with more wholesome life priorities, make some friends that are actually friends, and possibly romantic opportunities with people who are also of more integrity.
It's really a choice to take a risk, take a leap, and to follow the heart and integrity regardless of what the "system" does. I've seen examples of how some people in other countries do a lot with very little. They have what we'd consider a piss poor living, but they are always travelling, seeing friends and family, having new experiences, pursuing hobbies, and generally living a well-rounded and fulfilling life. An attitude of abundance vs one of lack is a big factor.
When one breaks away from the yellow ray distortions of the "system", it can be scary, it can be a risk, but it can also be an adventure full of new opportunities, and time to examine what stuff in life is not worth clinging on to, whether it's material items or beliefs.
There's always at least a small element of competition when you are working within a flawed system and trying to make money, even of course, in things like art and writing. If you give it your best with no intention of screwing anyone and let the chips fall where they may, you are not failing to be STO.
I could be wrong, but it seems like parts of these responses are directed towards me.
I'm going to be transparent and say that in my case, if I have to choose between complete acceptance of everything or admitting defeat to the world (including my parents, which I won't go into) after everything I've experienced, I will absolutely choose to control my situation regardless of the cost to positive polarity. My own situation and drives aren't motivated by shiny things. This issue may be temporal, a blip on a cosmic scale, but since we're all going to make it back at some point in eternity anyways, I'm setting my own terms for this lifetime. They're non-negotiable.
There may be a false equivalency with worldly failure and positive polarity, which is what I'm contemplating on a personal level. They don't have to go hand in hand.
I'm wrestling with the nuances of that and all the grey area in between, but nobody has to try to 'convert' me to anything. All paths lead back to the Creator, and all serve the Creator. Whatever I do personally is of my free will, and this is something I'm weighing heavily.
That said, this thread isn't about my personal issues. The topic is something I'm contemplating partially because that grey area does play into my own life, but I still want to discuss the mechanisms of competition and polarity in general... Whether somebody can truly live in a competitive state and polarize positively, how that could be managed, and whether or not it has to be difficult.
(06-22-2020, 08:09 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on competing and dominating others because of the nature of our civilization and economies.
This can happen in everyday life and mundane occupations revolving around competition like pro athletes, business owners, salespeople, politicians, pro gamblers and pro gamers, even entertainers and artists, who compete for attention. The list goes on.
All of these people have to consistently out-compete and even dominate others in their field in order to maintain any type of longevity and keep putting food on the table. There's winners and losers in this equation, in a worldly sense. The losers may fall into financial ruin and have their dreams crushed as a side effect of the winners, even if the winners don't intend this.
If someone who was winning became more positive, would that jeopardize their continued success and material survival? When these people are competing against others in their field, is that hazardous to polarizing positively? Can somebody really reach the top of any competitive field without losing significant positive polarity?
Lets look at a professional athlete. The athlete must compete individually or as a team against others, and only one can be the champion. The ultimate rewards goes to a select few and the others do not get that reward. This can be viewed as dominating others thru competition and is certainly an exercise in power. The dynamic requires a large pool of competitors who are relatively static. People retire, drop out, get injured, or get fired every year and new blood is added. On the whole the rosters turn over slowly and in some individual sports there are many pros who sit in the middle ranks with little hope of winning a big event, but also little chance of not making it the next year.
The competition itself provides valuable lessons which can help people in other areas of life and some pro athletes go on to be very great speakers. Like Herschel Walker who speaks about mental health and other things to overcome to achieve your dreams.
Then someone can be a dominant athlete in their sport, and also be highly compassionate, helping, and giving in their private and public life.
https://www.nba.com/article/2019/02/15/j...ilanthropy
So competition in itself is not service to self. Just like anything else it matters more how you approach it and what you try to do with it. There are many valuable lessons for those who need to learn them.
(06-23-2020, 03:43 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like some of these responses are in part directed towards me.
I'm going to be transparent and say that in my case, if I have to choose between complete acceptance of everything or admitting defeat to the world (including my parents, which I won't go into) after everything I've experienced, I will absolutely choose to control my situation regardless of the cost to positive polarity. My own situation and drives aren't motivated by shiny things. This issue may be temporal, a blip on a cosmic scale, but since we're all going to make it back at some point in eternity anyways, I'm setting my own terms for this lifetime. They're non-negotiable.
There may be a false equivalency with worldly failure and positive polarity, which is what I'm contemplating on a personal level. They don't have to go hand in hand.
I'm wrestling with the nuances of that and all the grey area in between, but nobody has to try to 'convert' me to anything. All paths lead back to the Creator, and all serve the Creator. Whatever I do personally is of my free will, and this is something I'm weighing heavily.
That said, this thread isn't about my personal issues. The topic is something I'm contemplating partially because that gray area does play into my own life, but I still want to discuss the mechanisms of competition and polarity in general... Whether somebody can truly live in a competitive state and polarize positively, how that could be managed, and whether or not it has to be difficult.
I think the best answer is there's no one-size-fits-all answer to this question and each individual situation will have to be discerned on an individual basis. Nobody is just going to find a perfect philosophy on life that makes every decision as easy as cutting out a cookie with a cutter. The definition of a "competitive state" is what's at play here mostly. Athletes for example can live in a competitive state and strive to win all the time, yet respect their opponents. There's somewhat of an agreement on all parties taking part in a competitive venture like a sport that there will be times when you win, and times when you lose. That's called good sportsmanship, and in a case like that, striving to win doesn't make you lose polarity.
To some extent when we do anything that makes money in a capitalist system, there's an element that's competitive by its very nature. Here again, we can have people striving to win and to flourish while being ethical. Like I said before, in most cases if one just does their best to get ahead and lets the chips fall without trying to(or knowingly) screwing somebody, there is no loss of polarity. Some institutions and companies have a willfully toxic and STS environment that disregards ethics and principles, and have no qualms about screwing people to meet their goals. This is where discernment comes in. Nobody's forcing anybody to stay in that sort of environment and knowingly participate.
As for choosing your own terms and setting your own boundaries in this life, even if sometimes it involves controlling circumstances rather than blind acceptance...I can't say I'm not guilty of the exact same thing, and to a large extent I agree with that premise. 4d positive beings engaging in combat is a good example that in some situations this is necessary. They lose polarity to an extent, but if nobody was doing this, STS would just completely dominate and extinguish all the positive potential from 3d reality. Likewise, there's individual situations in 3d life where things just can't be blindly accepted. "sometimes, when push comes to shove, shove must push back." This is something Q'uo themselves have said.
(06-23-2020, 03:51 PM)Dtris Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2020, 08:09 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on competing and dominating others because of the nature of our civilization and economies.
This can happen in everyday life and mundane occupations revolving around competition like pro athletes, business owners, salespeople, politicians, pro gamblers and pro gamers, even entertainers and artists, who compete for attention. The list goes on.
All of these people have to consistently out-compete and even dominate others in their field in order to maintain any type of longevity and keep putting food on the table. There's winners and losers in this equation, in a worldly sense. The losers may fall into financial ruin and have their dreams crushed as a side effect of the winners, even if the winners don't intend this.
If someone who was winning became more positive, would that jeopardize their continued success and material survival? When these people are competing against others in their field, is that hazardous to polarizing positively? Can somebody really reach the top of any competitive field without losing significant positive polarity?
Lets look at a professional athlete. The athlete must compete individually or as a team against others, and only one can be the champion. The ultimate rewards goes to a select few and the others do not get that reward. This can be viewed as dominating others thru competition and is certainly an exercise in power. The dynamic requires a large pool of competitors who are relatively static. People retire, drop out, get injured, or get fired every year and new blood is added. On the whole the rosters turn over slowly and in some individual sports there are many pros who sit in the middle ranks with little hope of winning a big event, but also little chance of not making it the next year.
The competition itself provides valuable lessons which can help people in other areas of life and some pro athletes go on to be very great speakers. Like Herschel Walker who speaks about mental health and other things to overcome to achieve your dreams.
Then someone can be a dominant athlete in their sport, and also be highly compassionate, helping, and giving in their private and public life.
https://www.nba.com/article/2019/02/15/j...ilanthropy
So competition in itself is not service to self. Just like anything else it matters more how you approach it and what you try to do with it. There are many valuable lessons for those who need to learn them.
Great analogy with the athlete. I used it myself in my response I must have been typing while you were posting this, but you beat me to it just a bit.
I still would like a response to what someone thinks of adopting a person to live in your house for free. I mean if you're going to say that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone, if you're accepting a lower level job to benefit someone else--even though you let someone have the higher rank/business--lets say even with having the lower-paying job you still afford your own place..well hey what if you're not using that place you live in to benefit someone else? if its only for you then :O! Service to self!
If you don't adopt someone even though you could then you're not a completely ideal service-to-others person, right? Those people that you're getting over on, or let have the CEO position of the company/leading ahead of you in business won't generally do it either unless they're in a relationship with the person they invite to live in their home with whether they're male or female.
This is assuming someone lives on their own so that's it's not an infringement on whoever you have to share your property with.
This tells me these things aren't as clear cut as they seem. There are different levels and many different situations determining how self-servicing other other-servicing everyone is.
(06-23-2020, 11:44 AM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]What if an individual loses a significant amount of functionality or efficiency by giving up the mindset of winning, and isn't able to perform their occupation, run their business, or sustain themselves anymore?
Then he will have to choose between acting as the matrix wants him to act or seeking what really matters: the green ray pattern of the free sharing. I don't say that it's wrong to make money, the problem is in the intention, in the thoughts and emotions having to do with defeating others. Life is a game you win when you love the other players.
(06-23-2020, 04:29 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]I still would like a response to what someone thinks of adopting a person to live in your house for free. I mean if you're going to say that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone, if you're accepting a lower level job to benefit someone else--even though you let someone have the higher rank/business--lets say even with having the lower-paying job you still afford your own place..well hey what if you're not using that place you live in to benefit someone else? if its only for you then :O! Service to self!
If you don't adopt someone even though you could then you're not a completely ideal service-to-others person, right? Those people that you're getting over on, or let have the CEO position of the company/leading ahead of you in business won't generally do it either unless they're in a relationship with the person they invite to live in their home with whether they're male or female.
This is assuming someone lives on their own so that's it's not an infringement on whoever you have to share your property with.
This tells me these things aren't as clear cut as they seem. There are different levels and many different situations determining how self-servicing other other-servicing everyone is.
Here's a response to your hypothetical thought experiment.
I don't think anyone is saying that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone. Taking in a homeless person is definitely a service-to-others polarizing action, but not doing so isn't depolarizing in most instances as you are not directly responsible for that person's situation (though in a sense we are all responsible for our fellow humans, more on that in a second).
There are, however, underlying socio-economic causes for homelessness that are a byproduct of how our society is organized. The fact that some people can amass billions (trillions soon for Mr. Bezos) while others live in abject poverty is a feature, not a bug. CEOs and the like get rich through the exploitation of labor and that requires them to have bargaining power over their employees so they can make them work long hours at low wages to maximize profits. To achieve this requires a reservoir of unemployed and desperate people so that the boss can say "shape up or we'll give your job to someone else. You should be grateful for your job so you can afford to keep food on the table," and so on. In a society that took care of it's own none of this would be an issue, the social group could provide housing to your hypothetical person rather than having the burden be on the individual, it would be a shared burden. Our society is not organized like that, however, and as members of society we all bear some responsibility for that,
Competition is not a bad thing in and of itself (I think in the example of sports, for instance, there is nothing wrong with honing your skills and achieving excellence), but in a game that is rigged so those who take advantage of others rise to the top are certainly on a path of self service. Since sports are organized as a business, they falls victim to this as well, but it's not so much the athletes who are to blame here as the sponsors, owners, governing bodies etc. I mean just look at all the scandals and controversies the International Olympic Committee get up to.
No one is perfectly service-to-others, and luckily no one needs to be. All you have to do is focus your own individual life and the things you can change and try to be as good of a person as you can. I'm not a fan of reducing it to numbers, but Ra states on 51% service-to-others orientation is required.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference."
And a little side note about free will, I don't think it's possible for anyone incarnated on Earth to infringe on the free will of others. We're all here by soul contract and we're all in it together. I think the talk of infringement in the Ra material pertains more to disincarnate entities, that's why there's a quarantine.
(06-22-2020, 11:00 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, it seems like people don't understand what I was originally asking. I removed the soldier example from the original post because it's an extreme and it seems like it might derail the conversation.
Not everyone can be a millionaire video game designer or author. What I want to ask about is situations where people may not be consciously trying to polarize negatively but end up in occupations that are competitive by nature. They might have reasons where they can't easily leave such an occupation, because they spent a large portion of their life developing that skill set and don't have other skills they can perform as well.
Take the athlete example. If someone wants to have a long and successful career in that field, they have to make sure they keep winning. Does that violate the free will of people they're competing against, who also want to win? If this individual wants to polarize positively, would their career as a competitive athlete be detrimental to their polarization in the long run?
Or a business owner taking customers from their competition to make ends meet, even if it's indirect?
And even with people in creative fields - is it depolarizing to want your creative product (video game, book, album, movie, youtube video) to do extremely well, knowing that it may take attention away from other creative products released around the same time?
Mostly, it's not what you do, it's how you do it - the attitude toward yourself and others. (There are exceptions, eg, combat or let's take it to the extreme - professional torturer). In most occupations, it is possible to be positively or negatively polarized, with the demands and pressures of the occupation serving as catalyst for that choice.
Athlete example: is your goal to defeat the competition? Negative. Is your goal to do your best, focusing on honing your own excellence while also wishing the others well in their efforts? Positive. The difference is in the antagonistic vs caring attitude to yourself and others.
If you're a business owner following ethical practices, and customers choose to come to you because you offer a superior product or service? Positive. Are you trying to manipulate the situation to intentionally drive customers away from your competitors to you? Negative.
Now, it is also true that in some fields, unless you play dirty, you will not be in the lead and might not even survive in that field. However, I've seen extremely positive people survive even at the highest level of corporate cutthroat culture by just being excellent at their jobs (though they don't enjoy being in that environment simply because there is so much STS gamesmanship going on).
(06-23-2020, 10:31 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2020, 04:29 PM)Navaratna Wrote: [ -> ]I still would like a response to what someone thinks of adopting a person to live in your house for free. I mean if you're going to say that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone, if you're accepting a lower level job to benefit someone else--even though you let someone have the higher rank/business--lets say even with having the lower-paying job you still afford your own place..well hey what if you're not using that place you live in to benefit someone else? if its only for you then :O! Service to self!
If you don't adopt someone even though you could then you're not a completely ideal service-to-others person, right? Those people that you're getting over on, or let have the CEO position of the company/leading ahead of you in business won't generally do it either unless they're in a relationship with the person they invite to live in their home with whether they're male or female.
This is assuming someone lives on their own so that's it's not an infringement on whoever you have to share your property with.
This tells me these things aren't as clear cut as they seem. There are different levels and many different situations determining how self-servicing other other-servicing everyone is.
Here's a response to your hypothetical thought experiment.
I don't think anyone is saying that having a job is selfish because you took it from someone. Taking in a homeless person is definitely a service-to-others polarizing action, but not doing so isn't depolarizing in most instances as you are not directly responsible for that person's situation (though in a sense we are all responsible for our fellow humans, more on that in a second).
There are, however, underlying socio-economic causes for homelessness that are a byproduct of how our society is organized. The fact that some people can amass billions (trillions soon for Mr. Bezos) while others live in abject poverty is a feature, not a bug. CEOs and the like get rich through the exploitation of labor and that requires them to have bargaining power over their employees so they can make them work long hours at low wages to maximize profits. To achieve this requires a reservoir of unemployed and desperate people so that the boss can say "shape up or we'll give your job to someone else. You should be grateful for your job so you can afford to keep food on the table," and so on. In a society that took care of it's own none of this would be an issue, the social group could provide housing to your hypothetical person rather than having the burden be on the individual, it would be a shared burden. Our society is not organized like that, however, and as members of society we all bear some responsibility for that,
Competition is not a bad thing in and of itself (I think in the example of sports, for instance, there is nothing wrong with honing your skills and achieving excellence), but in a game that is rigged so those who take advantage of others rise to the top are certainly on a path of self service. Since sports are organized as a business, they falls victim to this as well, but it's not so much the athletes who are to blame here as the sponsors, owners, governing bodies etc. I mean just look at all the scandals and controversies the International Olympic Committee get up to.
No one is perfectly service-to-others, and luckily no one needs to be. All you have to do is focus your own individual life and the things you can change and try to be as good of a person as you can. I'm not a fan of reducing it to numbers, but Ra states on 51% service-to-others orientation is required.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference."
And a little side note about free will, I don't think it's possible for anyone incarnated on Earth to infringe on the free will of others. We're all here by soul contract and we're all in it together. I think the talk of infringement in the Ra material pertains more to disincarnate entities, that's why there's a quarantine.
Fair enough. A thought I often have about people though is as sad as it is, if there are no standards to live in a certain region or attend an event you see how awkward things can get pretty quickly.
Rich people enjoy their rich neighborhoods being exclusive because they think it grants them safety. The enormous cost of living in a wealthy neighborhood often makes it so that people are too busy working or generally have a certain level of mental fitness to be organized enough to keep a job with a high salary to live in such a place, or at the very least if they were to do something like try and steal they'd have a lot of money they'd be losing if they were held accountable for theft. There are a lot of variables. Of course there's an offer chance someone has their crazy relative move in for a week for example but it's a buffer.
If we didn't have any rules on how people were organized you'd have the same groups of people like ratchet people who take advantage of section 8, or mentally ill people trying to set up permanent residence in places they otherwise wouldn't be able to live in--suddenly start trying to because theyd want to be around people they could steal from or beg from. People try to anyway like the people trying to live on the streets of Manhattan or claiming to be refugees so they can go to Europe for example. But it's a deterrent. You see a good example of how Europe walls off a lot of the people trying to escape Africa/Mideast regions. "Keep the poor people out so our society doesn't turn in to dirt" and there's a political divide in people's attitudes around that.
It'd be nice if no one had to pay to live on Earth...a really dumb policy most people have little choice but to follow considering living in a car or in the wilderness isn't really much easier than swallowing it and getting a job but you'd encounter a tremendous level of resistance from a vast number of people with the material means to fight against that. The term "the projects" came from public housing projects for poor people where they were allowed to live without paying anything and it turned in to a dump.
If we had some place set aside where you didn't have to pay to live in...well ha I can think of a few places sort of famous for that even though they're unofficial and they're really not healthy environments anyone in their right mind would want to live at. People could set up free public showers and pods like the size of tanning beds so you could sleep without taking up too much property space...but they on't because the rich just don't feel like it yet they're the ones with the resources to create those things.
I've been reading in the news some places are trying to fight for the right for people to not get evicted from their residences [lost their job due to covid] and are trying to say to greedy landlords that in many countries make so much money that they just pay someone to sit in a leasing office doing virtually nothing all day.. "They can pay you back a years worth of rent in the future though!
" like the tenants should grateful to have that option and I think oh...well maybe that's a good example of why humans actually do deserve the apocalypse right now. I'm just joking but wow..can we collectively drop this attitude that landowners are more important than everyone else in society for just a minute? I guess not.
(06-23-2020, 10:58 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Mostly, it's not what you do, it's how you do it - the attitude toward yourself and others. (There are exceptions, eg, combat or let's take it to the extreme - professional torturer). In most occupations, it is possible to be positively or negatively polarized, with the demands and pressures of the occupation serving as catalyst for that choice.
Athlete example: is your goal to defeat the competition? Negative. Is your goal to do your best, focusing on honing your own excellence while also wishing the others well in their efforts? Positive. The difference is in the antagonistic vs caring attitude to yourself and others.
If you're a business owner following ethical practices, and customers choose to come to you because you offer a superior product or service? Positive. Are you trying to manipulate the situation to intentionally drive customers away from your competitors to you? Negative.
Now, it is also true that in some fields, unless you play dirty, you will not be in the lead and might not even survive in that field. However, I've seen extremely positive people survive even at the highest level of corporate cutthroat culture by just being excellent at their jobs (though they don't enjoy being in that environment simply because there is so much STS gamesmanship going on).
I wanted to talk about gray area examples - say somebody isn't necessarily consciously looking to play dirty or polarize negatively, but they have a very hard time performing without very intensely visualizing themselves winning, and cultivating a very strong desire to win (which is synonymous with defeating the competition). Is having that strong of a desire depolarizing or even negative?
What if somebody is dependent on that desire for their career or other practical necessities because of the way manifestation works? There's a whole range of situations and emotions between loving everyone unconditionally and wanting to manipulate.
(06-23-2020, 11:43 PM)888 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-23-2020, 10:58 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Mostly, it's not what you do, it's how you do it - the attitude toward yourself and others. (There are exceptions, eg, combat or let's take it to the extreme - professional torturer). In most occupations, it is possible to be positively or negatively polarized, with the demands and pressures of the occupation serving as catalyst for that choice.
Athlete example: is your goal to defeat the competition? Negative. Is your goal to do your best, focusing on honing your own excellence while also wishing the others well in their efforts? Positive. The difference is in the antagonistic vs caring attitude to yourself and others.
If you're a business owner following ethical practices, and customers choose to come to you because you offer a superior product or service? Positive. Are you trying to manipulate the situation to intentionally drive customers away from your competitors to you? Negative.
Now, it is also true that in some fields, unless you play dirty, you will not be in the lead and might not even survive in that field. However, I've seen extremely positive people survive even at the highest level of corporate cutthroat culture by just being excellent at their jobs (though they don't enjoy being in that environment simply because there is so much STS gamesmanship going on).
I wanted to talk about gray area examples - say somebody isn't necessarily consciously looking to play dirty or polarize negatively, but they have a very hard time performing without very intensely visualizing themselves winning, and cultivating a very strong desire to win (which is synonymous with defeating the competition). Is having that strong of a desire depolarizing or even negative?
What if somebody is dependent on that desire for their career or other practical necessities because of the way manifestation works? There's a whole range of situations and emotions between loving everyone unconditionally and wanting to manipulate.
I don't believe having will is negatively polarizing. It is our personal power. If you don't push your will to dominate others, then it is most likely STO.
(06-23-2020, 11:47 PM)Great Central Sun Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe having will is negatively polarizing. It is our personal power. If you don't push your will to dominate others, then it is most likely STO.
The example I gave was about those who are really dependent on that competitive mindset and dominant drive to perform at full potential. They might not have anything personal against their competition, but what if their task is really difficult, and they have to say to themselves, "I will absolutely win this," to even get up and function? They might not be intentionally stepping on other people, but in practice, when they win, that's what happens.
There's a lot of people who really have to adopt that mindset to do what they do, and they might not be inherently negative people. Could opening up to universal love lead them to subconsciously sabotage themselves to let other people win? Can someone be positive while still working with very dominant energies?
(06-24-2020, 12:04 AM)888 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a lot of people who really have to adopt that mindset to do what they do, and they might not be inherently negative people. Could opening up to universal love lead them to subconsciously sabotage themselves to let other people win? Can someone be positive while still working with very dominant energies?
I think , as was very well said before, everything starts with the Self and the intent. I am not sure that someone highly skilled and competitive, in winning, would polarise as a service to self while pursuing this attempt to ‘win’ because all depends on what he will do with his ‘win’ and how he still respect what is the work of his competitors, so again it is the choice of behaviors by the self.
In fact behaving as above, with ‘right‘ Intent, might create more harmony and love between him and competitors if anything. Qualified sometimes as inspiration...
If you win a reward you are free to distribute your reward to people who lose to you. No one does that but if it bothers you so much, you are free to.
If it's all about ego winning a sports championship, well that's besides the point in Law of One. If it's not the reward like a cash prize as a result of winning, it's purely an identity and status thing which is ego. Meditation is a very important part of the Law of One according to the authors themselves. Minimizing the ego [mental projections] is important in meditation. Feelings of being famous or the best at something are completely unimportant in the context of what Law of One teaches. The goal isn't to destroy the ego but to silence it temporarily so that the minds energy is unblocked. Being famous means nothing in Law of One.