Bring4th

This is a thread spawned from plenum's thread helping dig up Ra passages. Here is the passage being discussed:

Quote:93.3
Questioner: Thank you. You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?
Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

And the discussion so far:

(03-02-2012, 09:27 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]What was that Ra quote that says its useless to try to determine what is STO or STS?

--

(03-02-2012, 09:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean this? "93.3 ...It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet."

--

(03-02-2012, 10:02 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-02-2012, 09:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean this? "93.3 ...It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet."

Ra was referring to the context of "physical polarity of the magnet", not of STS or STO in general. i.e. polarized to do work (in consciousness).

--

(03-02-2012, 10:12 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]It's true that the quote doesn't say that "it's useless to try to determine what is STO or STS," (but rather that it's useless to try to judge the relative goodness of them), but it might be the one 3DMonkey was thinking of.

Re: your comments -- what difference do you see between STO/STS and polarization to do work in consciousness? (The answer was given in response to a question about how to define STO vs STS.)

--

(03-02-2012, 10:25 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:19.18 Questioner: I believe we have a very important point here. It then seems that there is an extreme potential in this polarization the same as there is in electricity. We have a positive and negative pole. The more you build the charge on either of these, the more the potential difference and the greater the ability to do work, as we call it in the physical.

This would seem to me to be the same analogy that we have in consciousness. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct.

Quote:62.15 Questioner: I’ll make this statement and you correct it. The Orion group has an objective of the bringing of the service-to-self polarized entities to harvest, as great a harvest as possible. This harvest will build their potential or their ability to do work in consciousness as given by the distortion of the Law of One called the Law of Squares or Doubling. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Quote:Re: your comments -- what difference do you see between STO/STS and polarization to do work in consciousness? (The answer was given in response to a question about how to define STO vs STS.)

Don was talking about the polarity with respect to STO or STS (service orientation).

--

(03-02-2012, 10:28 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you're distinguishing between.

--

(03-02-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Polarity and service orientation are two different things. Without polarity, service orientation doesn't really matter - hence the conflation of concepts.

---

One way to look at it: service orientation enters into the level of mind as memory and experience. Polarity is what that mind has provided for spiritual actualization.

--

(03-03-2012, 12:11 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think it's possible to polarize without a service orientation?

--

Apologies for the incomprehension zen, I'm also curious about this. I believe what you are essentially saying is that it isn't necessarily impossible to discern the orientation of an action but rather the magnitude of the polarity of an action?

(03-03-2012, 12:45 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I think polarization only has meaning with respect to service orientation. That is, the natural or ethical foundation provided by the logos has two paths only. As Ra said, it's not possible to not serve the creator. That service, as the greater view is discovered (i.e. ethical principles) naturally results in some general attitude of what constitutes appropriate action or fulfillment. To 'absorb' or to 'radiate'.

Then I'm still confused about the point you're making. It would seem that it's not possible, in this density at least, to serve self or others without polarizing or to polarize without choosing to serve in one way or the other.

Or do you mean that it's possible to stay at a certain comfortable level of service without polarizing further?

(03-02-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Polarity and service orientation are two different things. Without polarity, service orientation doesn't really matter - hence the conflation of concepts.

---

One way to look at it: service orientation enters into the level of mind as memory and experience. Polarity is what that mind has provided for spiritual actualization.

I don't think so. The service is the polarity. The service is not personal judgement of self based on self's concept of self. .... The mental reflection on memory and experience is new potentiated activity to lead to catalyst. ... Polarity being the significant direction applied from experience.

I don't mean to speak definitively. Perhaps I'm not clearly seeing what it is you are explaining. I have more to internally work out with this as you will see. Thanks.

(03-03-2012, 12:37 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: [ -> ]Apologies for the incomprehension zen, I'm also curious about this. I believe what you are essentially saying is that it isn't necessarily impossible to discern the orientation of an action but rather the magnitude of the polarity of an action?

Was just saying that it's possible to determine service orientation because that is the personality (rays and all that).

Determining a negative or positive act as far as polarity (use of) is not possible because inward and outward are indistinguishable (as far as resulting work accomplished). And that is not 'negative' or 'positive' with respect to ethical principles, which would be service orientation. Nothing to do with magnitudes.

---

(03-03-2012, 12:55 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 12:45 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I think polarization only has meaning with respect to service orientation. That is, the natural or ethical foundation provided by the logos has two paths only. As Ra said, it's not possible to not serve the creator. That service, as the greater view is discovered (i.e. ethical principles) naturally results in some general attitude of what constitutes appropriate action or fulfillment. To 'absorb' or to 'radiate'.

Then I'm still confused about the point you're making. It would seem that it's not possible, in this density at least, to serve self or others without polarizing or to polarize without choosing to serve in one way or the other.

Or do you mean that it's possible to stay at a certain comfortable level of service without polarizing further?

My answer to your question was 'no' - it's not possible, and I was attempting to explain why. It's definitely possible to not polarize or to depolarize.

Are you making a distinction between the natural law of polarity and tKhe mind's perceptible ability to describe that law? If so, we do realize we are only allowed the playing field of perceptibility?

(03-03-2012, 01:17 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]Are you making a distinction between the natural law of polarity and tKhe mind's perceptible ability to describe that law? If so, we do realize we are only allowed the playing field of perceptibility?

Yes, a distinction between the natural law of polarity and an entity's ability to engage with that law.

I ask myself "what is the natural law of polarity within my mind? How do I define it? What is the role my definition takes within my mental construct? Is there a natural law that exists outside my conscious ability to perceive?". I personally don't think it exists outside human perception. Therefore, I try to see how my perception of there being a natural law affects my perception.

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

Well, if the laws are defined by perception, because perception is all we have, then yes. Can we define anything without perception? Better yet, can we define anything without defining it?

(03-03-2012, 01:42 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

Well, if the laws are defined by perception, because perception is all we have, then yes. Can we define anything without perception? Better yet, can we define anything without defining it?

So you are saying that if you are limited in perception now, you have the same limitations later?

(03-03-2012, 01:50 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:42 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

Well, if the laws are defined by perception, because perception is all we have, then yes. Can we define anything without perception? Better yet, can we define anything without defining it?

So you are saying that if you are limited in perception now, you have the same limitations later?

Yes. As a collective (people who have read the Ra material), we have labeled this as Third Density life on a Yellow Ray planet.

---

I just call it humanity.

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]Is there a natural law that exists outside my conscious ability to perceive?".

(03-03-2012, 01:07 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Was just saying that it's possible to determine service orientation because that is the personality (rays and all that).

Determining a negative or positive act as far as polarity (use of) is not possible because inward and outward are indistinguishable (as far as resulting work accomplished). And that is not 'negative' or 'positive' with respect to ethical principles, which would be service orientation. Nothing to do with magnitudes.

So you're saying that it's impossible to tell if any given highly polarized action was positive or negative? Are you maybe talking about the unmanifested self? Because it would seem that any polarized action that involves otherselves would be relatively easy to determine. If you're saying not, could you give an example?

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2012, 01:07 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Was just saying that it's possible to determine service orientation because that is the personality (rays and all that).

Determining a negative or positive act as far as polarity (use of) is not possible because inward and outward are indistinguishable (as far as resulting work accomplished). And that is not 'negative' or 'positive' with respect to ethical principles, which would be service orientation. Nothing to do with magnitudes.

So you're saying that it's impossible to tell if any given highly polarized action was positive or negative?

Yes, because the direction that polarized acts take has nothing to do with polarity. This is just like the sign of a photon's linear vibration has nothing to do with its manifest direction.

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Are you maybe talking about the unmanifested self? Because it would seem that any polarized action that involves otherselves would be relatively easy to determine.

What you are determining with the ethical consideration is the direction to which the will is applied. If you look at how the ancient Greeks philosophized about the situation, it seems to be in advance of what we tend to appreciate today.

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]If you're saying not, could you give an example?

I'm saying not (just as Ra said not), because the framework from which we view imbalanced working (ethical/natural/logos/love view) and what we draw upon to accomplish the work (polarity) are separate. The former is of the mind, the latter is more primary and of the spirit.

Let's take a specific example. Would you say that it's not possible to determine the polarity of the service that Carla, Jim, and Don rendered in channeling Ra?

(03-03-2012, 05:36 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Let's take a specific example. Would you say that it's not possible to determine the polarity of the service that Carla, Jim, and Don rendered in channeling Ra?

I'm not sure how else to explain this. Once you couple polarity to service, you have no choice but to consider the system according to ethical perspective. So it's not just polarity at that point. In an abstract sense, in analog, it's like determining inherent scalar direction of a photon vs 'extension-space' direction with respect to a gravitating system of (convenient) measurement. Once you put a container around or apply a reference system on something, that something is now a necessary part of a system which can no longer be considered separately.

(03-03-2012, 05:13 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]the direction that polarized acts take has nothing to do with polarity.

Would this be an accurate representation of the concept? We have no idea if this is attack or defense.
The act is just an act, and we then add frames of reference to it as a way to classify it.

(03-03-2012, 05:47 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]The act is just an act, and we then add frames of reference to it as a way to classify it.

Service orientation is based on ethical principles. That's ethical (from gr. ethos) (an ongoing observation on the way nature, as the logos or love, may behave) not morality (man's codification of just behavior). Polarity is simply the ability to do work within that distorted, unbalanced 'frame of reference', regardless of application.

Service orientation is 'of the mind' and it's an application of the will which necessarily provides yet another framework for mind to be led by, and to evolve within. It is with the service orientation that you recognize what is possible and desirable and whatever actions make sense to enable progress. The more polarity, the more awareness available to determine action and appropriate service orientation. 20% (1 out of 5) of the highly polarized, late 4D STS entities graduate to 5D STO.

(03-03-2012, 05:43 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure how else to explain this. Once you couple polarity to service, you have no choice but to consider the system according to ethical perspective. So it's not just polarity at that point. In an abstract sense, in analog, it's like determining inherent scalar direction of a photon vs 'extension-space' direction with respect to a gravitating system of (convenient) measurement. Once you put a container around or apply a reference system on something, that something is now a necessary part of a system which can no longer be considered separately.

How useful is it, though, to consider polarity in the abstract? Once you couple it to action aren't you introducing it into a system of reference? Polarity unmanifest = pure being = impossible to judge, but polarity manifest has a directional component.

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]How useful is it, though, to consider polarity in the abstract?

I don't think it's useful with respect to aiding judgment, but may be useful with respect to seeing that evolution does exist according to some universal principle and one has a choice of relationship to that principle.

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Once you couple it to action aren't you introducing it into a system of reference?

What system of reference would that be? What belief structure? No, because action does not equal experience or intention, just as action does not equal awareness. It is the action that is coupled to the system of reference through one's awareness and belief. This system of reference, which is the manifest personality, may be examined to determine orientation.

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Polarity unmanifest = pure being = impossible to judge, but polarity manifest has a directional component.

Yes but polarization is all conscious so when there is polarization unmanifest there is no polarity available (it does not exist).
What is impossible to judge is that interface which awareness provides to do work in consciousness (what is being drawn from), that's because polarity stands outside of the necessary distortion with which it's used.

I may still be missing the heart of your argument re: action without polarity, but if I understand what you're saying it seems like it might be correct without being true. Action may not equal intention, but it does result from it, in the case of polarized entities at least.

(03-03-2012, 08:49 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I may still be missing the heart of your argument re: action without polarity, but if I understand what you're saying it seems like it might be correct without being true.

Tried to explain it as best I could, given that there can be no examples. The correct without being true is a good Ra-ism.

Let me put it like this: in what way is your argument other than academically interesting?

Or another angle: you say Ra agrees with you, and you provided some quotes. However, I don't see how those quotes support what I understand you to be saying. Could you elaborate on why you say Ra agrees with your position?

That one can't judge the polarity, in its more essential - yet abstracted form (magnet analogy), of an act or of an entity. I was trying to explain why this was the case.

In that quote I understand judge in the sense of a value judgment. It seems like you're saying that Ra said it's not possible to determine polarity. I think they're saying it's impossible to say which is the better polarity. ("[J]ust as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.")

I'm trying to make both views work at the same time.

Here we have the idea that bad and good are the same.

Quote:7.14 Questioner: I’ll just ask about Orion. You said that Orion was the source of some of these contacts with UFOs. Can you tell me something of that contact, its purpose?
Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, a simple example of intentions which are bad/good. This example is Adolf....

Here we have reinforcement that both are the same.

Quote:7.17 Questioner: I’m trying to understand how a group such as the Orion group would progress. How it would be possible, if you were in the Orion group, and pointed toward self-service, to progress from our third density to the fourth. What learning would be necessary for that?
Ra: ...
This study is as difficult as the one which we have described to you, but there are those with the perseverance to pursue the study just as you desire to pursue the difficult path of seeking to know in order to serve. The distortion lies in the effect that those who seek to serve the self are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek to serve others, for are all not one? To serve yourself and to serve others is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One.

Here we have 1 of 15 uses of the word "impossible" in the material.

Quote:93.3 ...
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Here is a few examples of many where it would seem that it is quite possible to judge the polarity of an entity.

Quote:50.6 ...

The negatively oriented being will be one who feels that it has found power that gives meaning to its existence precisely as the positive polarization does feel. This negative entity will strive to offer these understandings to other-selves, most usually by the process of forming the elite, the disciples, and teaching the need and rightness of the enslavement of other-selves for their own good. These other-selves are conceived to be dependent upon the self and in need of the guidance and the wisdom of the self.

...

Quote:34.10 ... Let us take two such positively oriented active souls no longer in your physical time/space. The one known as Albert went into a strange and, to it, a barbaric society in order that it might heal. This entity was able to mobilize great amounts of energy and what you call money. This entity spent much green ray energy both as a healer and as a lover of your instrument known as the organ. This entity’s yellow ray was bright and crystallized by the efforts needed to procure the funds to promulgate its efforts. However, the green and blue rays were of a toweringly brilliant nature as well. The higher levels, as you may call them, being activated, the lower, as you may call them, energy points remaining in a balance, being quite, quite bright.

The other example is the entity, Martin. This entity dealt in a great degree with rather negative orange ray and yellow ray vibratory patterns. However, this entity was able to keep open the green ray energy and due to the severity of its testing, if anything, this entity may be seen to have polarized more towards the positive due to its fidelity to service to others in the face of great catalyst.

...

Quote:18.11 ...This entity was positive. However, its journey was difficult due to the inability to use, synthesize, and harmonize the understandings of the desires of the self so that it might have shared, in full compassion, with other-selves. This entity thus became very unhealthy, as you may call it, in a spiritual complex manner, and it is necessary for those with this type of distortion towards inner pain to be nurtured in the inner planes until such an entity is capable of viewing the experiences again with the lack of distortion towards pain.

...

Quote:84.7 ... We may confirm the good intention of the source of this entity’s puzzles and suggest that it is a grand choice that each may make to, by desire, collect the details of the day or, by desire, seek the keys to unknowing.

...

Quote:35.1 ... Thus at the outset of a bellicose action this entity had lost some positive polarity due to excessive use of the orange and yellow ray energies at the expense of green and blue ray energies, then had regained the polarity due to the catalytic effects of a painful limitation upon the physical complex.

This entity was not of a bellicose nature but rather during the conflict continued to vibrate in green ray working with the blue ray energies. The entity who was the one known as Franklin’s teacher also functioned greatly during this period as blue ray activator, not only for its mate but also in a more universal expression. This entity polarized continuously in a positive fashion in the universal sense while, in a less universal sense, developing a pattern of what may be called karma; this karma having to do with inharmonious relationship distortions with the mate/teacher.

...
I'm thinking on one hand, we have the impossibility as a fact. On the other hand, we have an active catalyst working that involves judgement of polarity. Reconciling the two, I'd say that it is impossible to judge polarity, but it is a welcome catalyst to attempt to. Since we can't judge the good/bad nature of anything, then judging the good/bad nature of something is neither/both good/bad.

To reiterate, we can't but we should, and if we think it bad to do, we can't know that, but we already tried to know it by thinking it bad which we can't do, so it isn't bad to do and it isn't good to do, we can't know either way, but passing the judgement does something, it is just that something is impossible to determine.

Basically, we all do it but we are all wrong in doing it which makes us all the same.

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]In that quote I understand judge in the sense of a value judgment.

All judgment to me is value judgment.

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you're saying that Ra said it's not possible to determine polarity. I think they're saying it's impossible to say which is the better polarity. ("[J]ust as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.")

If you think that Ra was saying that it's not possible to determine the better polarity, then so be it.

(03-04-2012, 04:03 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]All judgment to me is value judgment.

So you don't distinguish between identifying that something has a certain quality and assigning a value/worth to that quality? For instance, a student scores 70% on a test. I don't see identifying the fact that the student scored 70% as judging. I see judgment coming in when we say that's a good score or a bad score, which, in the case of this example, is impossible to do without context. How hard a test was it? Is a higher score better or is it worse?

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]If you think that Ra was saying that it's not possible to determine the better polarity, then so be it.

It's always interesting and surprising to me when I learn that a quote whose meaning I think is clear has quite different meanings to others. I had that experience a lot with unity100.

Two men are walking down a path and come upon a large block of ice and a large campfire. One sits on the block of ice and falls asleep. The other steps into the fire and is consumed by the flames. One is killed instanly while the other dies in his sleep. Hot or cold, do we judge them by their affect on human life or by their polarity?

Two men are walking down a path and come upon the same ice and fire. One man wants to take the sleeping man and toss him into the fire to provide warmth for himself. The other man takes the sleeping man and lays him near the fire to attempt to revive him despite his own being cold because the fire is dying down.

Do we judge the two by their intentions, or by their free will to experience different polarities?

Polarity is nothing more than opposites. There is nothing to judge between hot and cold other than their properties. However, human interaction and intention is very different than the impartiality of material property and polarity.

It is my understanding that the Ra material clearly points out that the Orion type is not in service to the welfare of the evolution and transcendense of the human being.