Bring4th

(01-08-2013, 04:13 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]"More enlightened" is a judgment imposed by you upon the material. "Less distorted" cannot even be assumed based on context. "Alternate" would be more accurate. Concepts of ethics are not less enlightened than concepts of existence. They are simply differently oriented.

No. More enlightened means... having more knowledge than before. It is not a judgement between two things. What you have spoken of here is your own judgement that you have projected into my words. If we had started with knowledge about magnetic polarization, and then secondarily moved to the ethical angle.. that would also be "more enlightened."

In the future, I recommend that our discussions would go easier if you refrained from telling me what I think about something, and instead asked me for clarification if it appears to you that I am making some kind of wildly judgmental and/or inaccurate statement.

Quote:Magnetic polarization is an excellent metaphor for this concept. Let us explore it further.

Hallelujah! Praise Jesus and the Saints! Somebody actually wants to explore the concept!

Quote:Assume that the m/b/s complex is composed of a clustering of particles, each of which has a spin, each a polarity.

Yes. And each "particle" is a quantum of identity.

Quote:When the m/b/s complex as a whole is unpolarized, these particles have an apparently random orientation, giving no particularly strong overall polarization. In terms of existence, this generates a weak magnetic field.

Exactly.

Quote:In terms of ethics, this produces alternately motivated actions: Sometimes you are generous, sometimes stingy. Sometimes you are selfless, sometimes selfish. Sometimes you accept, sometimes you control.

Yes. But it also extends beyond the ethical realm. If we limit our discussion to only the ethical realm, we will miss out on other valuable angles.

Quote:In other words, the more powerful magnetic source which can cause further polarization is the inner choice which occurs on a metaphysical level. This is why Christians place such importance upon being "saved." They're talking about this inner change, which cannot be accurately judged by anyone except the m/b/s complex herself.

Yes. But it could be anything. It doesn't matter what the choice is. In the case of Christians, that source might be Jesus. In order to create alignment, that might mean taking the phrase "What would Jesus do?" to heart. Alternatively, a LOO student might align according to "Where is the love in this moment?" Another person might experience alignment around a certain mantra, or meditative focus. And yet another person might experience alignment for what we would consider totally "selfish" or "evil" reasons.

The goal is the alignment of consciousness. That's what causes the polarization.

On the other hand, somebody could be a "good, kind, helpful" person and have little polarization, because they are still not aligned. Perhaps they are kind on the surface, but underneath they are a jealous person. This is why it is fruitful to consider polarization outside of "ethics and activity". Otherwise, we might become confused and think that taking ethical actions will, in and of itself, produce polarization. Otherwise, we could spend our lives "outwardly serving" and then be quite surprised when we croak to find that we have hardly done any work toward spiritual growth. Do you see?

Let's go back to our Christian friends... they could spend their entire lives taking the "right actions" from the standpoint of their religion... they go to Church on Sundays... they give alms to the poor... etc... but it all amounts to nothing if they are just empty actions, and are not aligned with Christ Consciousness.

Quote:But, each particle within the self is unique. Hence, each particle within the self has free will. Thus, even though it is a matter of choice to place oneself in the stronger field of the committed (or "initiated," to use a more specific term) time/space self, there are still further choices to be made. Namely, a choice must be made for every single new particle which comes into alignment with the greater field.

Yes.

Quote:Even though you are "saved," you still have many, many lessons before you, each one involving a microcosmic experience of the original choice that "saved" you. Furthermore, if you repeatedly choose against the original choice (this becomes especially possible in the case of a person who has only just made the commitment to a path of coherence), you will begin to create a secondary polarity within you which can counteract the effect of the original choice.

Yes, I agree with the principle behind your words here. But I think you are still placing too much emphasis on the "original choice." The idea is that we can only make a "choice" to the degree that we are already polarized.

The more "particles" that are aligned with each other- the more we have access to "free will" and can make a true choice. Fragmented beings don't really have that much free will. One particle is pointed in one direction, and a second particle is pointed in a different direction. As you say, each of the particles has "free will" but the integrated total of all these particles pointing in different directions amounts to nil.

Quote:Our ex-junkie swears she will never let that happen again. She remembers how she used to manipulate people into giving her money when she was a junkie constantly looking for a fix, so she decides she will just import that skill into the workplace. Now she is equipped to avoid the humiliation of being fired. She gets another job and quickly schemes to get dirt on everyone, throw her weight around, and use all her other manipulative tactics in an effort to secure her work life.

Right, exactly. And on and on and on and on. Forever- or until the junkie realizes that, as long as they are framing their recovery in terms of "ethics and activity" they will never acquire enough willpower to actually make a choice that lasts for a meaningful length of time.

If the junkie already had will... if they already had the full power of choice... then they could simply put the heroin down and that would be that. The fact that the junkie is a junkie means they don't have Will (with a capital "W") and Choice (with a capital "C"). If they did, they wouldn't be a junkie. So therefore, our continuing to reinforce the notion that they have "free will" to make the "right choices" is actually working against them.

That's exactly why the first step in the 12 Step Program is to acknowledge that one does not have the will to choose to stop using drugs and alcohol. That what the other 11 steps are designed to do... to empower the junkie/alcoholic to make a choice. As it stands on Step 1... the only "choice" they can make is to abuse substances. That is not a real choice, but rather fate- and a sad one at that.

Quote:Ionic polarization, or separation of the positive from the negative, also occurs within the self. I described two opposed aspects of the self in the example of the junkie earlier. This kind of example illustrates the dynamic movements of the positive and negative within the self. When there is a smooth mixture of positive and negative within the self, there is no coherence whatsoever, no consistency, and nothing indicating a direction to move.

The junkie lacks coherency and consistency because they are attempting to apply the wrong polarization principle to the situation at hand. They are attempting to separate the positive from the negative within their own consciousness, when instead (as you yourself pointed out) they should begin by accepting the totality of the self.

5.2 Wrote:It is not for a being of polarity in the physical consciousness to pick and choose among attributes, thus building the roles that cause blockages and confusions in the already-distorted mind complex.

Do you see? Polarization means a move toward unity, not separation. If we notice that our consciousness is fragmented, and then attempt to separate the "good" from the "bad", we will end up worse than we were before. If we continue this long enough, we might actually crystallize our consciousness in this way... and at that point no further work will be possible in this incarnation.

Quote:Their separation creates the potential for an enormous amount of work, visible in the actions that result from inner conflict, energy poured into rationalizations which are designed to maintain the contradiction, and the ultimate drama which will result when the contradiction is faced head-on. Once this contradiction is resolved, the ex-junkie will be extraordinarily empowered in whichever direction she ultimately chooses, for this experience will inevitably give her an abundance of direct experience in terms of polarizing further.

Yes, the separation creates the potential for work. But it is not the work itself. Rather, the work is to integrate and align these different aspects of themselves, so that they are all moving together in a coordinated fashion.

This will never occur so long as the junkie is judging "this part over here" to be "good" and "that part over there" to be "bad." No. What the junkie must do is find a common aim for all of these parts. Or at least, more of the parts then they did before.

Quote:As always, the Choice happens at every moment, through each individual aspect of your self, each having free will, choosing for itself. When the macrocosmic Choice is made (when you are "saved"), this Choice influences the moment-to-moment choices, but it does not determine them, for free will is always and everywhere preserved.

This is circular reasoning. You have assumed that The Choice is made in the past, and then use that to explain why it cannot be in the future.

A magnet cannot do work until it has become polarized. And the more polarized it becomes, the more work it can do. Would you agree with this statement?

Quote:This is why two 5-D positive wanderers can incarnate on Venus in an effort to increase the harvest and be surprised (and dismayed) to find out that they had polarized negative in that incarnation.

Yes, and for exactly the same reason, a person could dedicate their life to outward service of others... volunteering, working for causes, being a nice and kind person... and then be surprised (and dismayed) to find out that they have hardly polarized at all!

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Do you see? Polarization means a move toward unity, not separation.

Agreed. This is necessarily true in a concept of magnetic polarization. The polarized self is internally unified in its will to either radiate or absorb. However, polarization is also a step toward separation from those who polarize oppositely.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Yes, and for exactly the same reason, a person could dedicate their life to outward service of others... volunteering, working for causes, being a nice and kind person... and then be surprised (and dismayed) to find out that they have hardly polarized at all!

This could only be because other facets of life were ignored. Suppose, for example, that our volunteer had a manipulative home life. The polarized beingness always exhibits symptoms in practice. The actions you describe are symptoms. A person will never have the energy to commit her resources to a constant act of service unless the internal resources were not also coherently organized into a will to serve.


Non-sequitur:
Why do you import the good/bad concepts into STO/STS?

(01-08-2013, 05:15 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]However, polarization is also a step toward separation from those who polarize oppositely.

This where we disagree.

7.15 Wrote:The Law of One blinks neither at the light or the darkness, but is available for service to others and service to self. However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.

Positive polarization is a result of application of the formula "I AM THAT". I AM.. love. I AM wisdom. I AM... you. I AM... that tree. Each I AM... that we make is taking another one of those "identity particles" and bringing it into alignment with our higher consciousness... that already knows that it is one with all things. It also means accepting those I AM's that make us uncomfortable, or that we would perceive as "negative".

There is no separation. The moment we believe in separation is the moment we have stopped polarizing.

The moment we say I AM NOT... we depolarize ourselves. And we set in motion a chain of events that will inevitably make us out to be hypocrites. The inevitability of this is the actual proof that we do not have as much Free Will and Choice as we would like to believe.

If we say I AM NOT STS- we are lying to ourselves. We are further fragmenting ourselves. We are separating ourselves. This cannot result in spiritual growth, but rather stagnation and confusion- if we are on the positive path. And even if we are on the negative path, these separative ideas will only take us so far and eventually we will need to abandon them if we want to progress any further.

Which is why... if we insist on using the STO/STS meme... we need to accept that serving others amounts to serving the self. All that has changed is that we have enlarged our concept of what constitutes the self.

Thus:

Quote:A person will never have the energy to commit her resources to a constant act of service unless the internal resources were not also coherently organized into a will to serve.

Exactly. But what you are referring to as a lack of "energy" is actually a lack of will, and therefore a lack in the ability to choose. The energy is there- it is always there. Rather it is being expended in too many directions simultaneously and the net result is nothing.

The coherent organization of internal resources is the polarization. That's exactly why it has very little to do with activity. In order to take meaningful action, we must first become polarized... otherwise we might as well be chickens clucking and flapping our wings in a cage thinking that we are "free" to cluck and flap as we please. All of the clucking/flapping in the world will never amount to anything if we do not first set our aim to be free from our cage.

Time and again- when confronted with spiritual concepts people assume that it comes down to taking ethical actions. We must eat like this. Or walk like that. Or dress this way. Or speak that way. Or attend these meetings. Or say these mantras. Or put our bodies into these positions.

Or even worse... we must NOT eat this way, and NOT dress that way, and NOT speak as such...

And yet- nobody can seem to agree upon what the "right" actions are supposed to be. And yet- even though we are eating the "right" way, walking the "right" way, dressing the "right" way, etc., we somehow fail to notice that this is NOT creating the desired result.

Months, years, and decades go by- entire civilizations rise and fall over the course of millenia- and we are hardly better off than we began. Yet, rather than question the premise that spiritual growth results from what we are doing, we simply try harder, or perhaps find a new guru in order to tell us what to do next. We just think to ourselves... oh I must have had the "wrong" ethical system, and now I need to find the "right" one.

Quote:Non-sequitur:
Why do you import the good/bad concepts into STO/STS?

Because that is how they are used in the context of discussion. Nearly everybody when they first come to the material projects good/bad into STO/STS which is precisely why I think it is a counterproductive tool.

Elsewhere, I have given my personal interpretation of the two paths of polarization, which has little to do with ethics or activity.

The positive path is taken by application of the formula: I AM THAT.

The negative path is taken by application of the formula: THAT I AM.

Now- I don't mean to say that you have to accept my interpretation. However, I am highly confident that if you pondered upon this, you would see how application of these formulas results in what we normally think of as STO/STS behavior. Only without all the unnecessary entanglements and confusions that we have been discussing above, and all around this forum again and again ad nauseum.

---

A magnet cannot do work until it has become polarized. And the more polarized it becomes, the more work it can do. Would you agree with this statement?

(11-07-2012, 09:50 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]For example, if we speak of polarization in terms of alignment (as in a magnet) the conversation will tend to go a certain way, and lead toward greater understanding. On the other hand, if we speak of polarization in terms of separation (as in a crystal) the conversation will go another way, and lead toward greater confusion.

This topic seems to drive you backwards.

Quote:No. More enlightened means... having more knowledge than before.

Knowledge without awareness is used for what? Oh yeah, imitation. This is what school is good for.

Quote:Do you see? Polarization means a move toward unity, not separation. If we notice that our consciousness is fragmented, and then attempt to separate the "good" from the "bad", we will end up worse than we were before. If we continue this long enough, we might actually crystallize our consciousness in this way... and at that point no further work will be possible in this incarnation.

Polarization comes before unity. Think about the Eden failure.

On top of that, many common problems in society are because people do not know how to separate or purify. Harvest can be seen as separating and purifying. Who woulda thought. Don't forget what "distillation" means.

Even the start of 3D an individual is not yet truly an individual.

Quote:Yes, the separation creates the potential for work. But it is not the work itself. Rather, the work is to integrate and align these different aspects of themselves, so that they are all moving together in a coordinated fashion.

The work itself is understanding, which then brings integration. We have problems with this because we do not understand others, and we function on belief and surface perception. Anger and judgement from misunderstandings.

Quote:There is no separation. The moment we believe in separation is the moment we have stopped polarizing.

LoL! I guess you have already decided that the current experiment is a failure. Might want to call up the Logos.

Quote:Exactly. But what you are referring to as a lack of "energy" is actually a lack of will, and therefore a lack in the ability to choose.

LoL! Nobody lacks energy for choice. The only thing that stops someone from "choosing" is fear or apathy. Even an animal can "choose", and many times they do a better job choosing than we do. In fact there are animals that polarize easier than some of us do. Might want to consider just how they do that.

I mean c'mon, is it that hard? Do they really put a lot of effort into "conscious integration"?

Quote:A magnet cannot do work until it has become polarized. And the more polarized it becomes, the more work it can do. Would you agree with this statement?

Ha, you might want to put up a bulletin and alert all healers and energy workers that they need to dump their crystals and get magnets.

The more an individual understands and accepts "work" (polarizes), the more energy they receive for "work". I wonder why a crystal is used to focus the energies of a crystallized individual? Perhaps there is a parallel?

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

19.18 Questioner: I assume that an entity on either path can decide to choose paths at any time and possibly retrace steps, the path-changing being more difficult the farther along is gone. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The further an entity has, what you would call, polarized, the more easily this entity may change polarity, for the more power and awareness the entity will have.

Those truly helpless are those who have not consciously chosen but who repeat patterns without knowledge of the repetition or the meaning of the pattern.

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

52.7 Questioner: Am I correct, then, in assuming that discipline of the personality, knowledge of self, and control in strengthening of the will would be what any fifth-density entity would see as those things of importance?

Ra: I am Ra. In actuality these things are of importance in third through early seventh densities. The only correction in nuance that we would make is your use of the word, control. It is paramount that it be understood that it is not desirable or helpful to the growth of the understanding, may we say, of an entity by itself to control thought processes or impulses except where they may result in actions not consonant with the Law of One. Control may seem to be a short-cut to discipline, peace, and illumination. However, this very control potentiates and necessitates the further incarnative experience in order to balance this control or repression of that self which is perfect.

Instead, we appreciate and recommend the use of your second verb in regard to the use of the will. Acceptance of self, forgiveness of self, and the direction of the will; this is the path towards the disciplined personality. Your faculty of will is that which is powerful within you as co-Creator. You cannot ascribe to this faculty too much importance. Thus it must be carefully used and directed in service to others for those upon the positively oriented path.

There is great danger in the use of the will as the personality becomes stronger, for it may be used even subconsciously in ways reducing the polarity of the entity.

(01-08-2013, 11:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Knowledge without awareness is used for what? Oh yeah, imitation. This is what school is good for.

LOL- Yes you are right... we need both knowledge and awareness. All I meant was by using the term "more enlightened" I didn't mean "better" or picking one over the other, but rather adding to what was already known.

Quote:Polarization comes before unity.

Yup... that's what I said polarization means a move toward unity... not unity itself. It is the "laying of the foundation" which is the "prelude to choice." (76.16)

Quote:On top of that, many common problems in society are because people do not know how to separate or purify. Harvest can be seen as separating and purifying. Who woulda thought. Don't forget what "distillation" means.

Sure. This is all true... but it pertains to other aspects of spiritual growth than what I was discussing.

Yes- life is like a big alchemical lab. But just like in alchemy, if we confuse one process for another- if we are trying to distill when we need to calcify- or coagulate when we need to dissolve- we will get wrong results.

Quote:Even the start of 3D an individual is not yet truly an individual.

Well, exactly. So then- what makes an individual an individual?

Quote:The work itself is understanding, which then brings integration. We have problems with this because we do not understand others, and we function on belief and surface perception. Anger and judgement from misunderstandings.

Yup.

Quote:LoL! Nobody lacks energy for choice. The only thing that stops someone from "choosing" is fear or apathy. Even an animal can "choose", and many times they do a better job choosing than we do. In fact there are animals that polarize easier than some of us do. Might want to consider just how they do that.

Animals do that by expressing themselves... by being who they are. A cow does not say... maybe I would be better off if I acted more like a chicken.. or perhaps a grasshopper. A lion does not spare the gazelle because that would be the "compassionate" thing for it to do. It just does what it does, and that is that.

Similarly, you and I polarize by expressing ourselves with progressively less distortion. If I tried to be you, or you tried to be me, that probably wouldn't work out so well! Don'tcha think?

Quote:I mean c'mon, is it that hard? Do they really put a lot of effort into "conscious integration"?

I dunno. Maybe animals have an easier time than we do. Look- take a common example. In January, a person swears up and down that this year is going to be the year they commit to exercise, eating healthy, and losing weight. By the time December rolls around, they are fatter, lazier, and sicker than ever before.

If it were so easy to make a choice... then why are people so contradictory to themselves?

Quote:Ha, you might want to put up a bulletin and alert all healers and energy workers that they need to dump their crystals and get magnets.

LOL.. no. Crystals do what they do and magnets do what they do. If your point is that it would be silly to try to use a magnet to do the job of a crystal, then I fully agree. Neither should we use crystals to do the work of magnets. Both literally and metaphorically speaking.

Quote:Those truly helpless are those who have not consciously chosen but who repeat patterns without knowledge of the repetition or the meaning of the pattern.

YES! So... if we are unconsciously repeating patterns over and over again... where is the will in that? Where is the choice in that?

Quote:52.7 Questioner: Am I correct, then, in assuming that discipline of the personality, knowledge of self, and control in strengthening of the will would be what any fifth-density entity would see as those things of importance?

Ra: I am Ra. In actuality these things are of importance in third through early seventh densities.

Again, yes exactly. If we already have full use of the will, then why would we need to strengthen it in third through early seventh?

Quote:The only correction in nuance that we would make is your use of the word, control. It is paramount that it be understood that it is not desirable or helpful to the growth of the understanding, may we say, of an entity by itself to control thought processes or impulses except where they may result in actions not consonant with the Law of One.

What sort of actions would you suppose are "not consonant" with the Law of One?

---

Or let's put it all this way... if what we are here to do is accept and understand each other... then why all the effort to argue with me or shut me down for expressing my opinion of the STS/STO meme? Or looking at polarization from a different angle? Shouldn't others be trying to accept and understand my view, rather than arguing against it? Doesn't my perspective deserve as much consideration as anybody else's?

Heck- it wasn't even my idea to consider polarization of consciousness in terms of magnets. It was Ra's idea! I'm just taking their advice... and suggesting that maybe others take it as well since I personally found value in it. Don asked Ra if there were another way to look at polarization rather than STO/STS, and they said yes... consider magnetic polarization and radiation/absorption. Yet whenever and wherever I bring this up, people swoop in out of the ethers to argue against it.

What's with the stonewalling, anyway? And how does this actually serve anybody?

(01-08-2013, 11:36 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Heck- it wasn't even my idea to consider polarization of consciousness in terms of magnets. It was Ra's idea! I'm just taking their advice... and suggesting that maybe others take it as well since I personally found value in it. Don asked Ra if there were another way to look at polarization rather than STO/STS, and they said yes... consider magnetic polarization and radiation/absorption. Yet whenever and wherever I bring this up, people swoop in out of the ethers to argue against it.

What's with the stonewalling, anyway? And how does this actually serve anybody?

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 their 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.

93.4 Questioner: Now, if I understand correctly, prior to the veiling process the electrical polarities, the polarities of radiation and absorption, all existed in some part of the creation, but the service-to-others/service-to-self polarity with which we are familiar had not evolved and only showed up after the veiling process as an addition to the list of possible polarities in the creation. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. No.

93.5 Questioner: Would you correct me on that?

Ra: I am Ra. The description of polarity as service to self and service to others, from the beginning of our creation, dwelt within the architecture of the primal Logos. Before the veiling process the impact of actions taken by mind/body/spirits upon their consciousnesses was not palpable to a significant enough degree to allow the expression of this polarity to be significantly useful. Over the period of what you would call time this expression of polarity did indeed work to alter the biases of mind/body/spirits so that they might eventually be harvested. The veiling process made the polarity far more effective.

93.6 Questioner: I might make the analogy, then, in that when a polarization in the atmosphere occurs to create thunderstorms, lightning, and much activity, this more vivid experience could be likened to the polarization in consciousness which creates the more vivid experience. Would this be appropriate as an analogy?

Ra: I am Ra. There is a shallowness to this analogy in that one entity’s attention might be focused upon a storm for the duration of the storm. However, the storm producing conditions are not constant whereas the polarizing conditions are constant. Given this disclaimer, we may agree with your analogy.

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

57.6 Questioner: Would you tell me how to use that crystal for this purpose?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a large question.

You first, as a mind/body/spirit complex, balance and polarize the self, connecting the inner light with the upward spiraling in-pourings of the universal light. You have done exercises to regularize the processes involved. Look to them for the preparation of the crystallized being.

Take, then, the crystal and feel your polarized and potentiated balanced energy channeled in green-ray healing through your being, going into and activating the crystalline regularity of frozen light which is the crystal. The crystal will resound with the charged light of incarnative love and light energy, and will begin to radiate in specified fashion, beaming, in required light vibrations, healing energy, focused and intensified towards the magnetic field of the mind/body/spirit complex which is to be healed. This entity requesting such healing will then open the armor of the overall violet/red-ray protective vibratory shield. Thus the inner vibratory fields, from center to center in mind, body, and spirit, may be interrupted and adjusted momentarily, thus offering the one to be healed the opportunity to choose a less distorted inner complex of energy fields and vibratory relationships.

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

47.7 Questioner: Can you define what you mean by a “crystallized entity?”

Ra: I am Ra. We have used this particular term because it has a fairly precise meaning in your language. When a crystalline structure is formed of your physical material the elements present in each molecule are bonded in a regularized fashion with the elements in each other molecule. Thus the structure is regular and, when fully and perfectly crystallized, has certain properties. It will not splinter or break; it is very strong without effort; and it is radiant, traducing light into a beautiful refraction giving pleasure of the eye to many.


You took a quote out of context and ignore all of the other quotes. This is why people argue with you. You are a nutritional doctor telling healers and magicians that they are wrong. You are telling those that can see through the veil to an extent that they are wrong about what they see and do. Does that really make sense?

If I create a static charge which acts like a magnet, did I just create a magnet? If so, what is it that created that magnet? Alignment of electrical energies? That would suck to be highly polarized and have everything sticking to you.

An adept works with the darkness, which has been the analogy of my learning for the last couple of years. This is like feeling around in the dark, the unknown, to bring some of this knowledge to light. This is how we become aware of the beings around us. This is how we become aware of the connections we can use. This is how we become aware of the help that is available. This is how we become aware of the dangers. This work with the unseen forces is what some call evil or imagination.

80.8 Questioner: I am sorry for my lack of penetration of these mechanisms and I apologize for some rather stupid questions, but I think we have here a point that is somewhat central to what we are presently attempting to understand. Some of my next questions may be almost unacceptably stupid, but I will attempt to try to understand what this power that our visitor seeks is and how he uses it. It seems to me that this is central to the mind and its evolution.

As our visitor increases his power through these works, what is the power that he increases? Can you describe it?

Ra: I am Ra. The power of which you speak is a spiritual power. The powers of the mind, as such, do not encompass such works as these. You may, with some fruitfulness, consider the possibilities of moonlight. You are aware that we have described the Matrix of the Spirit as a night. The moonlight, then, offers either a true picture seen in shadow or chimera and falsity. The power of falsity is deep as is the power to discern truth from shadow. The shadow of hidden things is an infinite depth in which is stored the power of the One Infinite Creator.

The adept, then, is working with the power of hidden things illuminated by that which can be false or true. To embrace falsity, to know it, to seek it, and to use it gives a power that is most great. This is the nature of the power of your visitor and may shed some light upon the power of one who seeks in order to serve others as well, for the missteps in the night are oh! so easy.


Do I understand you? Of course I do. This is simply trance, and I accept that. But acceptance does not mean I need remain silent about the proliferation of confusion.

(01-08-2013, 11:36 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]If it were so easy to make a choice... then why are people so contradictory to themselves?

Lack or avoidance of responsibility/self-sovereignty. I have witnessed, by everyday observation and passive interaction, that the great majority of the people prefer other individuals to choose for them. It's simple, really. They like to follow orders. They like to be told what to do. They are dependent on the rules and commandments of others; whether that is coming from organized religion, fashion magazines or materialistic science. This is why they externalize authority and put gurus and presidents on pedestals: because they ("the people") do not really want to take authorship/responsibility for their own lives. It's that simple. If you consider 3rd-density a kindergarten (which it is, spiritually-speaking), then we might say the children do not want to grow up. It's the old "perpetual child syndrome." People want to perpetuate/prolong their stay in a 3rd-density environment/experience. It's not a question of inability to graduate to 4th-density; it's a matter of lack of desire/impetus/interest, as indicated by the perpetual avoidance of responsibility/self-sovereignty and the self-induced amnesia and delusion that so "plagues" them. Hence, the grade-repeating.

These are not words of gloom! If anything, it is an attempt to empower those who read the forums in stealth, incognito, lurk mode ^_~

ALL IS WELL <3

***

Now, to contribute to the topic at hand (if I may), I find myself in congruence with Tenet Nosce for the most part. Although... I honestly do not find the magnet analogy that much better than the StO/StS meme, as Tenet put it. Consider the Logos, my friends; consider this great Original Thought. Is the Logos not electromagnetic in nature? Does it not radiate outwards as much as it absorbs inwards? The Creator is not just electric or just magnetic. It is both—electromagnetic: like a cosmic heart it beats both outwards and inwards; it flows and ebbs like the rhythms of an endless ocean, it exhales all of Creation and subsequently inhales everything back. So... would you say the Logos is service-to-others or service-to-self? If negative entities are absorbent, then please do tell me: why is the ultimate spiritual gravity-well a black hole instead of a refulgent sun? Simple: because the Logos has turned inwards to magnetically absorb all into Itself once again. So! Why is everything absorbed back into the One Creator if the Creator is not service-to-self?

Conversely, how can mind/body/spirit complexes be so carelessly labeled as either "service-to-self" or "service-to-other;" or alternatively, electric or magnetic, radiant or absorbent?

All entities are electromagnetic in nature because this is the nature of Thought and this is the nature of a co-Creator: being radiant and absorptive; therefore electric and magnetic are inherent properties of each mind/body/spirit complex. The positive/negative potential exists in all entities. The choice of polarization is just that, a choice. The possibility to choose such a choice, to polarize either way, was the result of an experiment in consciousness: the veil of forgetting in 3rd-density. And although it has been said that prior to the veil there only was positive polarity in regards to service, I must humbly disagree. There couldn't be any such polarity because a positive charge requires an equal and opposite negative charge; and prior to the veil there was no negative service-to-self choice. Therefore, the only possible service prior to the veil was the service itself, with no preference or distinction between self or other-self. Although pre-veiled 3rd-density entities were individuated, they were aware, in a 3rd-density sense, of the underlying unity between themselves and the rest of Creation; therefore: the only possible service was to serve each other. This was more akin to the unity of 6th-density in the awareness of a 3rd-density entity within a 3rd-density environment with the lessons, opportunities, catalysts, challenges and experiences characteristic of 3rd-density. The reason why there is a positive polarity now in regards to service is because there is a negative one. Therefore the positive service-to-others entity balances actions, thoughts and emotions of the negative service-to-self one; and vice versa. Neither is there to overpower or vanquish the other. It is impossible. Eventually, the two must converge and totally become one and thus balance each other into unity: the positive embracing the other-Self that which is negative, and the negative accepting into it-Self that which is positive.

Therefore: I (personally) see service-to-self entities as negative/positive, and service-to-others as positive/negative; and 6th-density as beyond polarity—negative and positive losing their meaning at this point as they have been so completely integrated into unity that the only possible service is: service to One/Self/All There Is, pure, in perfect balance, and without distinction or preference.

***
Consider the Creator and Its Creation an apple. Is it one apple or is it two halves of one apple? And even if divided in half, is not the two halves of an apple still one apple? This then begs the question: can the apple truly be divided in half? Nay. Then why, O Brethren, do ye seek to divide the apple in twain? =O

---

EDIT: Do not mistake the term "polarity" strictly in the sense of service (i.e. the choice of a preferred method/way of serving the Creator). Polarity will always exist in the terms of radiation/absorption or electromagnetism just as the Grand Cycle of Creation has a beginning and has an end. Polarity of service, upon the other hand, is the novel experiment of this particular Octave of experience. It should not be confused with other forms of creative polarity.

deleted......

(01-08-2013, 02:57 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Ankh- All I can say is, first: go and educate yourself about magnetic polarization and apply what you have learned by analogy to the idea of polarization of consciousness. Then- and only then- let me know what you have found. If you indeed find that the whole exercise was a waste of time, or that you ended up just being confused even more, then let me know and I will kindly stop flapping my jaws at you. You can even bill me for the hours you wasted in your study, and I will send you the funds.

What's your address? I wanna send a bill! Totally kidding.

Honestly speaking I read about magnetic polarization before my previous reply and didn't find it as helpful as you have. I understand from what you have written that you found an illumination of polarity concept by studying magnetic polarization, but for me personally it has not been so. But I'm not arguing against you, my brother. Please take my word on it. I'm just seeking for answers like everyone else, by among other things having this discussion with you. In fact, I agree with what you are saying more often than not, but it hasn't been a "bull's eye" for me yet so to speak.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:But it would help with discussions, and explaining things to others. For example- many people have questions about, "Am I STS? Or STO?" or "Am I polarized enough?"... these questions arise out of a confusion about what kind of polarization Ra is referring to. If we had a correct understanding of the analogy, then these question would more often answer themselves, and we would also have an easier time answering them when they do arise.

I completely agree with you. The polarization that we speak of is the polarization of consciousness. Now, what the heck is that? I think perhaps that the correct word for it is what we here looking for, not the definition of the polarity itself? Am I correct? Because we don't need to define the polarity as it has already been defined by Ra in the material. There are two paths. Both are equally difficult. One is more efficient. We are here to choose one of these paths, and if possible, polarize (progress) more towards one path, in order to move closer to One Infinite Creator. One path is path of acceptance, love and unity. It is also called positive path. And the other path is path of separation, which is also called negative.

But the reason to why people speak more of STS/STO terms is because it is spoken more in these terms in the material itself instead of terms of magnetic polarization, in my understanding.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:For example, if we speak of polarization in terms of alignment (as in a magnet) the conversation will tend to go a certain way, and lead toward greater understanding. On the other hand, if we speak of polarization in terms of separation (as in a crystal) the conversation will go another way, and lead toward greater confusion.

Many may not resonate with magnetic polarization that you found helpful on the path of your seeking, but there will be some who will. And that is enough. That is all service that is needed, in my opinion. Don't let those who are still confused or don't resonate with this concept discourage you from sharing what you found helpful! What you provide is service (or should I say alignment? ).

Tenet Nosce Wrote:In the meantime, let us take one more close look at this sentence:

Quote: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.

A simple rearrangement of the sentence will give us the correct read:

Quote:Due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity, 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.

Do you see? All I did was change the order of the two sentence fragments, and suddenly it is clear. Due to the... distortions... of ethics and activity... it is unlikely that there is a more pity or eloquent description.

Good catch, brother. Thanks.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:What that means is... if we are willing to momentarily set aside our distortions to think of everything in terms of "ethics and activity" we might arrive at a more enlightened understanding of polarity. It doesn't mean to abandon ethics completely. What is means is that there might be some value to looking at the concept of polarization of consciousness outside of "ethics and activity".

I have found this value, and am trying to share it with you, my sister. Will you not accept this service?

Of course. I am trying to learn here, not argue. I just haven't received the same value as you have perhaps yet? But looking into magnetic polarization did add to a wider understanding of the concept of the polarity itself. Then I pondered radiation/absorption concept, which seemed to add more. Then negative/positive, and unity/separation. And finally I came to a personal conclusion that perhaps there is no good word to name these two paths. It's just two paths, and they are both described in the material.

I do agree with you though in regards to confusion of applying only STS/STO terms. For me personally STO has not resonated immediately and brought a non-understanding. Because there are times when we think that we are of service to others, when we in case are not. There are examples of this in the material itself. For instance, priests in both Egypt and Atlantis are described to have been thinking that they were in service to others, when in fact they were not. Another example is an evangelist. S/he might think that s/he helps others, when in fact s/he doesn't, and also infringe upon free will of others. Another aspect of using term: service to others, is that in our culture/society a servant is perhaps seen as someone who serves a master, and that is not a positive concept: servant-master. So I had to untangle all these knots of confusion inside of me first before accepting STS/STO name of polarities. So since I didn't find these namings helpful, it has brought me into further seeking which resulted in realizing that the name is not important, but what it defines and stands for.

(01-09-2013, 11:55 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Lack or avoidance of responsibility/self-sovereignty. I have witnessed, by everyday observation and passive interaction, that the great majority of the people prefer other individuals to choose for them.

I was turned on to this guy today while making attempts to understand the changes I am going through.

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ~Soren Kierkegaard

(01-09-2013, 04:27 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2013, 11:55 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Lack or avoidance of responsibility/self-sovereignty. I have witnessed, by everyday observation and passive interaction, that the great majority of the people prefer other individuals to choose for them.

I was turned on to this guy today while making attempts to understand the changes I am going through.

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ~Soren Kierkegaard

Oh, so true.
Here from Noam Chomsky:

You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies."

service to self is part of service to others.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Positive polarization is a result of application of the formula "I AM THAT". I AM.. love. I AM wisdom. I AM... you. I AM... that tree. Each I AM... that we make is taking another one of those "identity particles" and bringing it into alignment with our higher consciousness... that already knows that it is one with all things. It also means accepting those I AM's that make us uncomfortable, or that we would perceive as "negative".

I can agree with this.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:There is no separation. The moment we believe in separation is the moment we have stopped polarizing.

This both true and false. It is true in an absolute sense that there is no separation. It is false in a relative sense insofar as we have chosen to experience separation. The illusion will continue as long as you live. Hence, there is separation.

The benefit of the concept that there is no separation is that it realigns our perspectives toward harmony. However, harmony is still only possible within a context of separation. In order for there to be different parts which are harmonious with each other, there must also be separation. In unity, there is neither harmony nor disharmony.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:The moment we say I AM NOT... we depolarize ourselves. And we set in motion a chain of events that will inevitably make us out to be hypocrites. The inevitability of this is the actual proof that we do not have as much Free Will and Choice as we would like to believe.

This is, again, halfway true. My experience is a macrocosm of my Self. Therefore, if I find it in my experience, then it exists within me. In this sense, the entire Universe is not exactly relevant to me. What is relevant is the portion which I experience. The rest of it does not find its way into my consciousness and is therefore not represented within my self. In the absolute sense, I literally am the entire Universe. But within the illusion, I can only claim identity with that which I experience in some way. Thus, I can claim identity with Ra, with Egypt, with China, with Hitler, with dubstep music, etc. But I can claim very little identity with the Crab Nebula, apart from my experience of it as a beautiful celestial formation. Within the illusion, the relative experience is what is relevant for evolution. The only relevance of the absolute self is a to achieve a coherent philosophy (the philosophy of the Law of One). When we are back in 6D, I imagine the absolute self will be far more relevant than in 3D.

Thus, we can say what we are not, but only to the degree that this kind of thing does not reveal itself in our experience. I can say I am not a violent person. I can say this because I almost never meet with violence whether directly or indirectly. I can't even remember an instance.

I can also say that I am not a seeker of the path of manipulation and control.

Try this one on for size: Are you a seeker of separation? Since you admit the existence of STS, and your claim is that STO must identify with literally everything in an absolute (rather than relative) sense, how can you possibly avoid this paradox?

Tenet Nosce Wrote:

JustLikeYou Wrote:However, polarization is also a step toward separation from those who polarize oppositely.

This where we disagree.

Again, consider the relative experience. As a magnetic entity, your experience consists of that which you attract to yourself. That which you attract to yourself is that which shows you what you already are; hence, like attracts like. Thus, those who polarize positively can expect to meet with fewer and fewer polarizing STS entities. In fact, I haven't met a person I felt was polarizing STS in years, possibly ever. Furthermore, STS entities avoid contact with polarizing STO entities because they cannot control them. So tell me, have you ever met someone you genuinely thought was consciously polarizing STS? If so, how many?

Sure sounds like ionic polarization to me...

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Exactly. But what you are referring to as a lack of "energy" is actually a lack of will, and therefore a lack in the ability to choose. The energy is there- it is always there. Rather it is being expended in too many directions simultaneously and the net result is nothing.

I can agree with this.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:The coherent organization of internal resources is the polarization.

The ongoing process of polarization can be measured by the coherent organization of internal resources. But this says nothing about the actual processes which cause polarization.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:That's exactly why it has very little to do with activity.

The accuracy of this statement depends entirely on whether or not you consider conscious mental events to be activities. I consider them activities; hence, polarization has everything to do with activity. I can agree with you that polarization has nothing to do with physical activity. The physical activities are only symptoms, as I have said before.

Tenet Nosce[/quote Wrote:In order to take meaningful action, we must first become polarized

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you agree that polarization happens through conscious mental events (otherwise known as mental activities), but if not, then I'd ask you just how exactly does one become polarized?

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Time and again- when confronted with spiritual concepts people assume that it comes down to taking ethical actions. We must eat like this. Or walk like that. Or dress this way. Or speak that way. Or attend these meetings. Or say these mantras. Or put our bodies into these positions.

Or even worse... we must NOT eat this way, and NOT dress that way, and NOT speak as such...

And yet- nobody can seem to agree upon what the "right" actions are supposed to be. And yet- even though we are eating the "right" way, walking the "right" way, dressing the "right" way, etc., we somehow fail to notice that this is NOT creating the desired result.

Months, years, and decades go by- entire civilizations rise and fall over the course of millenia- and we are hardly better off than we began. Yet, rather than question the premise that spiritual growth results from what we are doing, we simply try harder, or perhaps find a new guru in order to tell us what to do next.

I couldn't agree with you more. I understand how important this concept is to you, but I'm concerned you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:We just think to ourselves... oh I must have had the "wrong" ethical system, and now I need to find the "right" one.

Ethics is still very much crucial to this conversation. And an ethical system which promotes conscious polarization unobstructed by the concepts of “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “bad,” “should” and “shouldn't” is precisely what we need. It's just that not many have the balls to endorse it.

All me to do so:

DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.

This sentence may be familiar to many of you. It is the only coherent ethical system. All others lead to internal incoherence of some kind.

The question then becomes quite simple: do I want to serve others or do I want to serve myself? These are mutually exclusive attitudes, despite the fact that each results in the accomplishment of the other. If I serve others, I hold little to nothing back for myself. If I serve myself, I make no effort to give to others. It is not the activities which are important; rather, it is the attitude which generates activities as symptoms. The attitude of STO is the diametric opposite of STS. There is no avoiding this fact, a fact which separates the two paths for a very, very long time. One can coherently either radiate or absorb. One cannot do both unless one occupies the “sinkhole of indifference.” This separates the paths in the fashion of ionic polarization. This polarization is also what allows for the great release of potential that occurs at every interaction between the two in the higher densities, culminating in the negative to positive switch in 6D.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Because that is how they are used in the context of discussion. Nearly everybody when they first come to the material projects good/bad into STO/STS which is precisely why I think it is a counterproductive tool.

But there is still virtue in ethics, which is why Ra used the terminology so frequently. It is not ethics which is to be abandoned. Rather, it is the concept that ethics is about what you do, rather than why you do it. This is no more enlightened than the description of radiating versus absorbing.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Elsewhere, I have given my personal interpretation of the two paths of polarization, which has little to do with ethics or activity.

The positive path is taken by application of the formula: I AM THAT.

The negative path is taken by application of the formula: THAT I AM.

Now- I don't mean to say that you have to accept my interpretation. However, I am highly confident that if you pondered upon this, you would see how application of these formulas results in what we normally think of as STO/STS behavior. Only without all the unnecessary entanglements and confusions that we have been discussing above, and all around this forum again and again ad nauseum.

I've seen this formula and I like it. I feel I grasp it fairly well, and I agree that it is a good depiction of the STO and STS. But I do not see it to resolve any of the objects I have raised.

(01-13-2013, 08:45 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]I can agree with this.

If you can agree with this, then I think you would be able to agree with pretty much everything else I have been saying about polarization and The Choice. The rest of the seeming incongruence is probably resulting from the usual difficulties with attempting to convey these types of concepts in written language- and on a web forum!

Quote:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:There is no separation. The moment we believe in separation is the moment we have stopped polarizing.

Quote:This both true and false. It is true in an absolute sense that there is no separation. It is false in a relative sense insofar as we have chosen to experience separation. The illusion will continue as long as you live. Hence, there is separation.

There is separation in the same way that there are two football teams playing a game. If we are watching the game, realizing that the whole concept of two teams duking out on a playing field is an illusion- something that is there for our entertainment- then the game is being used for its proper function.

If we watch the game on the television set, thinking that it has a fundamental basis in reality, then problems ensue. We might start attempting to draw too many analogies from the game of football into real life, for example. Or we might start to think that our well-being is dependent upon which team "wins" the game. We might become emotionally invested in the game and attempt to control it through "magical" means, like yelling commands at the players through our television screen.

Similarly, the function of this illusory realm of separation is to make a contrast with the reality of unity. If we fail to recognize it as an illusion, then all manner of problems ensue. I have the feeling that when I say things like this, you are left with the impression that I think the illusion isn't useful, or that I am trying to somehow set myself apart from it. That is not the case at all. It's just a matter of perspective.

Quote:In unity, there is neither harmony nor disharmony.

I would challenge this notion. Unity does not necessarily equate to sameness. Consider an orchestra. Yes, we could say the individual players, and their instruments are separate. But when the orchestra plays, the music which issues forth is a harmonic unity. When the orchestra plays, where does the clarinet end and the flute begin? It is impossible to say, and therefore meaningless to ask.

What is more- when listening to a symphony it is actually the discordant notes which make the music interesting.

It is natural to revolt against the idea of unity when it is equated to sameness, or conformity. Indeed- if we take a close look at the "negative" path we will see that sameness is the flavor of unity it appears to be striving for. But sameness is just one subset of unity, which has many faces. In actuality, unity and individuality can coexist. That's what harmony is all about. It is also why the negative path eventually implodes upon itself.

Quote:In the absolute sense, I literally am the entire Universe.

Again, this is the "negative" perspective. So it makes sense that you would push back against it when you think I am forwarding it. However, that isn't the case.

Within this illusion, there appear to be upwards of 7 billion people. We need to step outside of our own "personal reality" if we want to progress past a certain point on the positive path. That means- when we look out into the world and see those faces of the Creator which are, for example, violent, we say to ourselves: I AM THAT. In some mysterious, unfathomable way... those people are us.

G.W. Bush is YOU. Does your ego revolt against that statement? If so, that tells you exactly where you need to be working.

It's the whole point of the illusion. The illusion of there being "other people out there" is what affords us the opportunity to grow spiritually without "us" having to become like "them." Thankfully, I don't need to become violent in order to balance myself, because there are plenty of other-selves in the world who are already having that experience.

If I look upon violence in the greater illusion- beyond my personal sphere- and say: I AM THAT, then I have "saved myself" from having to accept violence in my own "personal reality." Conversely, if I look upon a violent person and say: I AM -NOT- THAT, then I have moved one step closer to attracting violence into my personal reality.

On the other hand, if I look upon violence that is occurring within my personal sphere- to myself or to a nearby other-self- that is the appropriate time to say, "NO."

It's a difficult maneuver, no doubt. I struggle with this very issue myself. I'm still working on it. Luckily, we are afforded an entire incarnation to get it right. It's a "baby step" sort of thing.

Quote:your claim is that STO must identify with literally everything in an absolute (rather than relative) sense

No, that is not my claim. You keep trying to make this out to be my claim, and then argue against it. Really, it is a form of strawman argumentation. It is a projection- and you keep making it over and over again no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.

Here is what I think has actually happened: At some point in the past I wrote some words which triggered a negative emotional response inside of you. This was a programmed response based upon a relationship you have with somebody else within your own personal sphere of influence. Therefore you keep projecting this other person onto me, and responding to my posts as if I am actually that person. The projection is so strong that, you will even go so far as to tell me who I am and what I believe in order to justify it in your own mind.

Quote:That which you attract to yourself is that which shows you what you already are; hence, like attracts like.

The whole thing shows us who we are. Past a certain point, we need to take the entire illusion in its totality. Attempting to carve out a portion of it and saying "this is me" and disavowing another portion of it saying "that is NOT me" is exactly what Ra advised against.

5.2 Wrote:It is not for a being of polarity in the physical consciousness to pick and choose among attributes, thus building the roles that cause blockages and confusions in the already-distorted mind complex.

Quote:Thus, those who polarize positively can expect to meet with fewer and fewer polarizing STS entities.

What is "meeting"? Do only face-to-face encounters count? I don't think so. We are all here in this experience together.

Quote:So tell me, have you ever met someone you genuinely thought was consciously polarizing STS? If so, how many?

I don't attempt to make those types of determinations on an individual basis. But a quick glance out into the world reveals that the influence is still present. Again, it is a matter of perspective. Of context. We need to get outside of ourselves in order to see it.

Again, that's the whole point of the illusion. If we stay barricaded up in the ramparts of ego, looking out through little slits in the walls we will stagnate. But also again, it is a "baby step" thing. We remove the bricks one by one. Each one removed widens our perspective.

Quote:The accuracy of this statement depends entirely on whether or not you consider conscious mental events to be activities. I consider them activities; hence, polarization has everything to do with activity. I can agree with you that polarization has nothing to do with physical activity. The physical activities are only symptoms, as I have said before.

Then, this is one of the areas where discussion becomes difficult due to limitations of words. It sounds like we have the same idea. I am talking about running around "doing stuff" and believing that the action is what is polarizing. The action is merely a symbol. It may or not be present, and ultimately does not matter. This type of polarization is of the mind, and the appropriate analogy is that of magnetic polarization.

Polarization of the body is something different. And indeed, this is where the analogy of ionic polarization applies. And indeed, this is why pyramids, polarized crystals (including water), and healers who have "crystallized" their own body complex, actually DO heal other-selves whom they come in physical contact with.

Quote:I'm concerned you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

Yes, I understand that is your concern. But here I am looking from this perspective, and I am telling you- no baby has been thrown away. What you are perceiving as "concern" for me is a projection of ego. The ego is concerned that it is going to get tossed aside because it has usurped the role of conscience... telling us what is "right" and "wrong".. telling us who we are and who we are NOT.

I don't know how better to explain it to you. When the ego gets put in its right place and sees that it is not going to be destroyed, it will start to calm down. But until then it will fight "tooth and nail" for its existence. One of the ways it does this is by projecting its fears onto others.

But beyond this- I don't know how to better explain it to you. If you still don't understand, it would be best to quit wasting time arguing with me and go find somebody who you feel you can actually trust to have this discussion with.

Quote:DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW..

This sentence may be familiar to many of you. It is the only coherent ethical system. All others lead to internal incoherence of some kind.

Exactly. Therefore, an ethical system which is based on "service-to-others" and "service-to-self" will eventually lead to internal incoherence. That means- depolarizing.

The idea may work for a little while. Like training wheels on a bike. But training wheels are meant to be outgrown.

Quote:The question then becomes quite simple: do I want to serve others or do I want to serve myself? These are mutually exclusive attitudes, despite the fact that each results in the accomplishment of the other.

No, not at all. I am -telling- you that I cannot serve another without automatically seeing that I have served myself. If you can't accept that, then it is up to you to either trust me, or to disengage from the conversation and come back at a later time.

If you are the homeless man on the street, and I give you a sandwich, then I have experienced myself as kind, loving, generous, etc. That IS the service. That IS the polarization. And that is also why it doesn't matter one lick whether the homeless man eats the sandwich, or whether he throws it back in my face.

---

The "negative" perspective is that which attempts to make the relative realm into the absolute. It EITHER tries to forcefully, through the sheer act of will, draw the absolute down into the relative realm OR to impose conformity on other-selves, and through them to the external world.

Yes, this is certainly the case. Which is why it is understandable that people get edgy in philosophical discussions when they bump up against this, and why it is easy to project negative views onto others when they speak of the absolute.

The "positive" perspective is that which looks at the relative realm with the two physical eyes, while simultaneously looking at the absolute realm with the third eye. It then attempts to forge its very consciousness into a bridge linking these into a unified harmonic perspective that is greater than EITHER the absolute OR the relative taken by themselves.

The "sinkhole of indifference" is that which EITHER recognizes only the relative realm, by denying the absolute completely, OR relegates the absolute to something that cannot be put to practical use, and therefore is of no value to contemplate, or discuss.

Interestingly, 12 steps has one of the worst recovery rates of almost any "aid" organization on the planet. And the best recovery rate is in swiss systems where you're simply given the heroin you need in a clinic in the amounts you need every day for the rest of your life. Removes all fear and most people get out of the heroin deal entirely.

You dont have free Will or the Choice to say that you will stop breathing long enough for you to die.

Does that mean you have no free will? Or that you have the free will to jump into water and get aid from the water to not breath.

The whole "junkies have no free will" is such a gross oversimplification that its like saying women, children or blacks dont have free will.

Its all the same crapo.

Tenet Nosce, in all honesty, I think you are a very intelligent and sincere person, and I am interested in conversing with you. For some time, now, I've noticed that there is something about your approach to the concept of The Choice and polarization which seems to be either internally inconsistent or inconsistent with experience. It is this fundamental difference which I am attempting to get to the heart of. I am aware that my discussion style irritates you, just as you are aware that your style irritates me.

I am not interested in being right. I am interested in a consistent worldview. You seem to think yours is maximally consistent. I am attempting to find out whether that is the case. Whether or not it is, it is in disagreement with the worldview that I have taken as maximally consistent. If it turns out that yours is more consistent, I will abandon my differences from your worldview.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Similarly, the function of this illusory realm of separation is to make a contrast with the reality of unity. If we fail to recognize it as an illusion, then all manner of problems ensue. I have the feeling that when I say things like this, you are left with the impression that I think the illusion isn't useful, or that I am trying to somehow set myself apart from it. That is not the case at all. It's just a matter of perspective.

I agree that the problem is recognition of the illusion as an illusion. The problem that I see so often in spiritual circles is that the pendulum swings so far in this direction that the usefulness of the illusion is denied and so everything wants to "ascend," i.e. escape.

If you grasp the usefulness of the illusion, then that is one more point on which we agree.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:I would challenge this notion. Unity does not necessarily equate to sameness. Consider an orchestra. Yes, we could say the individual players, and their instruments are separate. But when the orchestra plays, the music which issues forth is a harmonic unity. When the orchestra plays, where does the clarinet end and the flute begin? It is impossible to say, and therefore meaningless to ask.

I do not mean to say that unity is sameness. Rather, unity is the absence of multiplicity. In the absence of multiplicity, there is no manyness. There is no number. There is no distinction between anything, because there is no between, nor is there anything between which to be. There is nothing against which to project anything. Hence, the orchestra can only be an adequate depiction of unity if that orchestra is so indistinct as to be perceived as a kind of white noise. This is why I say harmony and dischordance are not applicable in unity. These two experiences cannot resolve until there is multiplicity against which to distinguish harmony and dischord.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:What is more- when listening to a symphony it is actually the discordant notes which make the music interesting.

Agreed. But a symphony is still not a good analogy for unity. It is a good analogy for harmony, which is unity within multiplicity. This is only a microcosmic unity, not a macrocosmic one.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:It is natural to revolt against the idea of unity when it is equated to sameness, or conformity.

I am not revolting against the idea of unity in any sense. Rather, I am emphasizing that our experience is not an experience of unity, nor can it be. The importance of this is that the Law of One cannot be directly experienced. We can only experience it in its distortion as harmony which is, again, unity within multiplicity, but not pure unity itself.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Indeed- if we take a close look at the "negative" path we will see that sameness is the flavor of unity it appears to be striving for. But sameness is just one subset of unity, which has many faces. In actuality, unity and individuality can coexist. That's what harmony is all about. It is also why the negative path eventually implodes upon itself.

I do not contest the possibility of harmony and individuality coexisting. I do contest the possibility of unity and individuality coexisting. This same concept is found in the Ra Material. It is only after the First Primal Distortion is discovered that individuation begins to occur.

Does the negative path implode upon itself? Consider an alternate perspective. Perhaps, in 6D, it is discovered that in order for any further progress to be made, the 6D negative entity must expand its empire to the entirety of the One Creator. In doing so, it is found that there is no longer any difference between STO and STS, because there is no longer and difference between other and self.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:

JustLikeyou Wrote:In the absolute sense, I literally am the entire Universe.

Again, this is the "negative" perspective. So it makes sense that you would push back against it when you think I am forwarding it. However, that isn't the case.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:The "negative" perspective is that which attempts to make the relative realm into the absolute. It EITHER tries to forcefully, through the sheer act of will, draw the absolute down into the relative realm OR to impose conformity on other-selves, and through them to the external world.

I don't see how this is the negative perspective. The Law of One, which is simply that All is One, is true in an absolute sense, but it is not directly true in a relative sense, because we experience multiplicity (the opposite of unity). Hence, the relevance of the Law of One is philosophical. When we know that the underlying truth is unity, we can see that the entire experience in all its multiplicity is a reflection of the whole. Hence, everything I experience is a mirror image of myself.

If I say that I literally am the Universe in a relative sense, this would be an attempt to make an absolute truth into a relative truth, which disregards the entire illusion.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:G.W. Bush is YOU. Does your ego revolt against that statement? If so, that tells you exactly where you need to be working.

I agree. I have no issue with GWB, even though I think he is STS (although, I did intend GHWB when I mentioned George Bush earlier. It is possible, in my mind, that GWB is a puppet, but I don't think GHWB is).

Tenet Nosce Wrote:If I look upon violence in the greater illusion- beyond my personal sphere- and say: I AM THAT, then I have "saved myself" from having to accept violence in my own "personal reality." Conversely, if I look upon a violent person and say: I AM -NOT- THAT, then I have moved one step closer to attracting violence into my personal reality.

I think I understand what you are asserting, and, again, I agree.

However, there is a distinction I am attempting to draw, which is a distinction of perspective -- which I take to be the root of our disagreement. Forgive me that I seem to be experiencing some false-starts in expressing this disagreement.

What separates me from STS is not a matter of acceptance of beingness. What separates me from STS is what I desire. This is also what separates me from every other entity. This is what marks each of us as unique. You express this very concept in your very next sentence:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:if I look upon violence that is occurring within my personal sphere- to myself or to a nearby other-self- that is the appropriate time to say, "NO."

This is the separation I am speaking about. There are those who would say "YES." This is what distinguishes STO from STS and what ultimately forces them into separate paths. It is not that I reject some aspect of my experience as being a reflection of myself; rather, it is that I recognize within my experience something that I do not desire to experience any longer.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:No, that is not my claim. You keep trying to make this out to be my claim, and then argue against it. Really, it is a form of strawman argumentation. It is a projection- and you keep making it over and over again no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.

How strange that you are now doing exactly what you accuse me of doing within the very same sentence that you make the accusation. I believe you even mentioned that hypocrisy that always results in these kinds of situations.

On my end, I can take responsibility for misapprehending what you are saying and I can also take responsibility for miscommunicating myself. On your end, you can take responsibility for miscommunicating yourself and misapprehanding what I am saying.

I am not attempting to reduce your argumentation to a strawman. I am simply misunderstanding. I'd appreciate if you would respond to the misunderstandings rather than claim that I am projecting. It is true that I perceive in your words something that seems amiss, but I don't know exactly what it is and I'm attempting to find out. As I have said, I am willing for our disagreement to be a matter of vocabulary, but I do not yet perceive that to be the case.

I understand that you are quickly becoming a pariah on this forum. This is your own catalyst and I hope you discover its meaning. You may irritate me, but I do not have it out for you.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:And history proves that if I stick around much longer, chances are that a few members will decide that it is time to "oust me from atop my high horse" and band together like a pack of wolves in order to "take me down off my throne" all the while beating a drum about liberation and "freedom of expression."

It does not have to end this way. You are the master of your own reality. This catalyst is telling you something, and if you find out what it is, you can find a peaceful resolution.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Here is what has actually happened: At some point in the past I wrote some words which triggered a negative emotional response inside of you. This was a programmed response based upon a relationship you have with somebody else within your own personal sphere of influence. Therefore you keep projecting this other person onto me, and responding to my posts as if I am actually that person. The projection is so strong that, you will even go so far as to tell me who I am and what I believe in order to justify it in your own mind.

I know it's not easy to keep from pointing out the projection habits of others, but it's really not that useful. Most people don't discover their acts of projection by being told that they are projecting. I have found it much more useful to simply take responsibility for my involvement in the experience. In this case, your description is crude and inaccurate, though I will not deny that there are not many people who irritate me anymore, so you have the somewhat unique distinction of showing me a little piece of my shadow self.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:The whole thing shows us who we are. Past a certain point, we need to take the entire illusion in its totality. Attempting to carve out a portion of it and saying "this is me" and disavowing another portion of it saying "that is NOT me" is exactly what Ra advised against.

What I'm trying to say is that the totality of the illusion is relative to you. This is why I mentioned the Crab Nebula. This relative totality is how unity and separation exist within the same illusion. This is how another person can have a totality which is very, very different from yours, even though you both live in the same Universe.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:What is "meeting"? Do only face-to-face encounters count? I don't think so. We are all here in this experience together.

I didn't mean to say that only face-to-face encounters count. This is why I mentioned China. I've never been there, but I am aware of it in some way, so it impacts my experience. The point I'm making is that there is a very large chunk of information concerning China which does not impact my experience. And it is this very large chunk which is not a part of my own relative totality.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:

JustLikeYou Wrote:So tell me, have you ever met someone you genuinely thought was consciously polarizing STS? If so, how many?

I don't attempt to make those types of determinations on an individual basis. But a quick glance out into the world reveals that the influence is still present. Again, it is a matter of perspective. Of context. We need to get outside of ourselves in order to see it.

I'll concede your qualification. The point I'm trying to make is that ionic polarization is part of the experience of polarization. It is a consequence of magnetic polarization and it is what causes the divergence of the two paths. The means of making this point is to draw your attention to the presence that those of the STS path have in your life. Those who polarize STO will consistently find less and less experience in their lives with those who lean toward STS.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:

JustLikeYou Wrote:DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.

This sentence may be familiar to many of you. It is the only coherent ethical system. All others lead to internal incoherence of some kind.

Exactly. Therefore, an ethical system which is based on "service-to-others" and "service-to-self" will eventually lead to internal incoherence. That means- depolarizing.

The idea may work for a little while. Like training wheels on a bike. But training wheels are meant to be outgrown.

Alright, you accept that Will is the root of a coherent ethical system. Now let's take it a step further. When I engage my will, I will repeatedly find that my experience is one of incoherence and constantly repeating cycles unless my will is refined, polarized, into either a positive or a negative orientation.

The positive orientation is one in which my deepest will is -- drumroll! -- to serve others without consideration for myself.

The negative orientation is one in which my deepest will is to serve myself without consideration for others.

So, while the will of the individual is the only coherent ethical system, STO or STS is the only coherent path of evolution. To put this another way, as you grow and evolve, you will find that what you truly and genuinely one is one or the other, each being mutually exclusive.

11.13

Ra Wrote:To serve the self is to serve all.

Again:

Following the STO path results in service to the self.
Following the STS path results in service to others.

It does not matter that the opposite result is achieved. What matters is the intention. On the STO path, the intention is to serve others. On the STS path, the intention is to serve the self. That the opposite service is a by-product of this act makes no difference to your intention.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:If you are the homeless man on the street, and I give you a sandwich, then I have experienced myself as kind, loving, generous, etc. That IS the service. That IS the polarization. And that is also why it doesn't matter one lick whether the homeless man eats the sandwich, or whether he throws it back in my face.

If there is a thought to serving yourself as part of your intention, then polarization will not happen. My experience has shown me that the only actions which result in polarization are the ones I have undertaken entirely for the sake of another -- regardless of how much I may benefit from it.

Again, there is a crucial difference here between intention and by-product. The same applies to STS.

This is precisely why your diagram does not work: STS and STO are symmetric in this respect. One does not lie within the other because both have the effect of serving All, whether self or other-self.

What is unavoidable is choosing between the kinds of intentions which are aligned with your inner will. As you come to discover your will, you will learn more and more that you cannot move forward until your will is aligned consistently with one or the other intention. The pockets of positivity and negativity will have to be reoriented until they all point the same direction. In this sense, there is feedback between the conscious will and the unconscious will. It is not enough to simply say "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." While this is the whole of the ethical law, it will not produce anything useful unless it is recognized that there are only two coherent pathways available. In other words, the answer to the question "What do I will?" -- which is an answer that must be found if one is to follow this one ethical principle -- cannot be found until it is recognized that there are, at the very root of your being, only two possible answers. Shall I serve the incarnate sub-Logos (the ego self)? Or shall I serve the purpose of the Higher Self (the true self)?

Polarization involves literally making this choice over and over. Every single day there are myriad opportunities to either manipulate or accept. The macrocosmic Choice may have been made prior to incarnation, but the bombardment of microcosmic choices can still overturn this Choice.

I am emphasizing this because you seem to assert that one can somehow rise above the need to choose between one or the other. I think you misunderstand the very meaning of the terms STO and STS. You seem to interpret them according to their effects. The only coherent interpretation I can find, based on my readings of the Ra Material, is that they are to be understood in terms of intention. In this interpretation, there is no synthesis, no resolution of the two into one within 3D. The two attitudes, specifically acceptance or manipulation, radiation or absorption, are mutually exclusive. This will never cease to be the case in any 3D illusion, because it is the essence of the 3D experience.

As Ra said, the paradoxes are not resolved in this illusion.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:I cannot serve another without automatically seeing that I have served myself.

The converse is also true of the STS perspective. STS entities perceive themselves as serving others through serving themselves: "they need to be enslaved for their own good." And this is actually true of those who choose enslavement -- whether consciously or not. Ra even says at one point that STS entities perceive themselves as serving others in this way, but I can't find the quotation. Maybe someone else knows where it is.

The point is not whom you serve, but whom you intend to serve, where your heart lies. In order to be STO, you have to intend to serve others without thinking of yourself. It does not matter that the two are so aligned that you no longer think about the difference between serving the self or the other. What matters is that in the moment all you think about is the other-self.

The distinction here is that if I give a sandwich to a homeless person in an effort -- even if only a partial effort -- to increase my "good karma," I have had a thought of service to myself. It is only when I want nothing more than the good of the other that my intention is pure and that I polarize.

57.33

Ra Wrote:The purpose of clearing each energy center is to allow that meeting place to occur at the indigo-ray vibration, thus making contact with intelligent infinity and dissolving all illusions. Service-to-others is automatic at the released energy generated by this state of consciousness.

This seems to be the state of being which you are describing in your example of giving a sandwich to a homeless person. This is a more "enlightened" perspective of STO, but it cannot be understood unless one is already so enlightened, that is, it cannot be grasped until the meeting place of the two energy streams is already at the indigo center.

At this level of enlightenment, acting on compassion is so habitual that it is simply not thought about. But what is thought about is this: anytime I do anything, I think about how it will affect other-selves. Here, I'm sure you would object that in this state of enlightenment, I will also be aware that they are me and so I am only thinking about how my actions will affect myself.

This same argument can be applied to the STS path. STS entities are aware of the Law of One. They're not stupid. They know that the self is ultimately equal to the other-self. They choose to explore separation regardless of the fact that they are aware that service to self is also service to All.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:If you can't accept that, then it is up to you to either trust me, or to disengage from the conversation and come back at a later time.

This attitude may have something to do with your current catalyst on this forum.

(01-15-2013, 05:43 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that the problem is recognition of the illusion as an illusion. The problem that I see so often in spiritual circles is that the pendulum swings so far in this direction that the usefulness of the illusion is denied and so everything wants to "ascend," i.e. escape.

If you grasp the usefulness of the illusion, then that is one more point on which we agree.

Then, we agree. The million dollar question is: Wherever did you get the notion that I didn't think the illusion was useful? Or that "grasping" its usefulness might possibly be below my level of understanding?

Quote:Rather, unity is the absence of multiplicity. In the absence of multiplicity, there is no manyness.

If that were the case, then why would Ra speak so much of of unity? I see there are 52 occurrences in the material. I just calculated that, in no less than 35% of the sessions, Ra talked about unity. Maybe they think it is an important concept for us 3D bipedal types to understand...?

Ra is a social memory complex and inherent in that concept is the notion of multiplicity. Notice how Ra uses "I" and "we" interchangeably. Why do you think that is?

Furthermore, why would they speak of unity, if there were no practical application of it here in this realm? Or for themselves? Were they trying to confuse us?

52.11 Wrote:Let us remember that we are all one. This is the great learning/teaching. In this unity lies love. This is a great learn/teaching. In this unity lies light. This is the fundamental teaching of all planes of existence in materialization. Unity, love, light, and joy; this is the heart of evolution of the spirit.

If this is the fundamental teaching of all planes of existence... then how does it not apply here/now?

Quote:Rather, I am emphasizing that our experience is not an experience of unity, nor can it be. The importance of this is that the Law of One cannot be directly experienced. We can only experience it in its distortion as harmony which is, again, unity within multiplicity, but not pure unity itself.

Well yes, of course. That's exactly what makes the illusion useful. It is the differential between our subjective experience and objective reality that creates the potential for work.

Quote:I do contest the possibility of unity and individuality coexisting.

Then, here is a "simplistic example" from Session One:

1.6 Wrote:That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

One light, multiple colors. Unity.

Quote:The Law of One, which is simply that All is One, is true in an absolute sense, but it is not directly true in a relative sense, because we experience multiplicity (the opposite of unity).

If you keep defining them as "opposites" then it is a circular argument, and pointless to discuss. Go back to the above 1.6 and read it again. Your statement that unity and multiplicity are opposites directly contradicts this quote.

Moreover, taking a flippant and dismissive attitude towards the Law of One is what is causing people to miss the deep profundity of it being true across "all planes of existence in materialization." It's a common error: People go, Oh yeah, all is one, and all that fluffy mumbo-jumbo. Blah blah blah I already know about all that. Now let's skip ahead to the "good stuff" like UFOs, pyramids, crystals, or tarot cards.

I should know... because that is exactly what I did myself. It took me about a decade to go back to Session One and deeply ponder upon it rather than skimming quickly assuming I already understood everything that was there.

Quote:81.19 Questioner: We presently find ourselves in the Milky Way Galaxy of some 200 or so billion stars and there are millions and millions of these large galaxies spread out through what we call space. To Ra’s knowledge, can I assume that the number of these galaxies is infinite? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct and is a significant point.

81.20 Questioner: The point being that we have unity. Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. You are perceptive.

I mean... I could keep throwing quotes up where Ra is talking about unity... but then people become irritated at the quantity of quotes in a post.

Quote:I think I understand what you are asserting, and, again, I agree.

Then, what I am trying to say is that we agree in full. The only apparent difference is in terminologies and subtle nuances that cannot be avoided in this type of discussing.

What you have agreed with constitutes the whole of my understanding of the situation. Nothing I am saying is contradictory to this- at least in my own mind. Which is why I am suggesting that there might not be any point in further discussing this. It's not because I am being a pompous ass about it, but rather because I appear to have reached the limitation of my ability to explain it with words.

Quote:What separates me from STS is not a matter of acceptance of beingness. What separates me from STS is what I desire. This is also what separates me from every other entity. This is what marks each of us as unique. You express this very concept in your very next sentence:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:if I look upon violence that is occurring within my personal sphere- to myself or to a nearby other-self- that is the appropriate time to say, "NO."

This is the separation I am speaking about. There are those who would say "YES." This is what distinguishes STO from STS and what ultimately forces them into separate paths. It is not that I reject some aspect of my experience as being a reflection of myself; rather, it is that I recognize within my experience something that I do not desire to experience any longer.

Then again, we agree. What are we even arguing about then?

This is why I keep suggesting that you are projecting something into my belief system that isn't there.

I understand the distinction you are drawing here between the two paths. And I agree with it. What I don't agree with is the notion that the STO/STS meme is the most appropriate, or useful, representation of the two paths.

Quote:How strange that you are now doing exactly what you accuse me of doing within the very same sentence that you make the accusation. I believe you even mentioned that hypocrisy that always results in these kinds of situations.

But it's not strange. It's completely normal and to be expected. There isn't any way around it. It's an artifact of written/verbal communication, and more so than this- actually illustrates the overarching thrust of my point.

There is nothing I can say about "you" that doesn't also apply to "me". Unless of course it is a projection. Taking a comment I make about you and flipping it around, and pointing it back at me doesn't make it any less true... to the contrary it proves the truthfulness of the comment.

Quote:It is true that I perceive in your words something that seems amiss, but I don't know exactly what it is and I'm attempting to find out.

But that is what projection is. You are perceiving something "amiss" but you can't quite place your finger on it, because it isn't actually "out there" but within you. But rather than doubt the veracity your own negative feelings toward me, you keep seeking a justification for it. And so it appears that you keep thinking I am writing from some place of "Better Than You" when I am just trying to have a conversation. Why is this?

The only explanation that I am aware of for this type of scenario is that what you are feeling towards my words is rooted in a relationship you have with somebody else. Again, I'm not trying to be an ass about it. I'm just trying to tell you what I know from my own experience.

Quote:As I have said, I am willing for our disagreement to be a matter of vocabulary, but I do not yet perceive that to be the case.

Then, what would it take for you to perceive it that way?

Or try this: Given what you feel is the difference between our positions on this subject, can you give a concrete example of how that difference would play out in our day-to-day lives?

Quote:I understand that you are quickly becoming a pariah on this forum.

And how would you know this?

Quote:This is your own catalyst and I hope you discover its meaning.

Well, for what it is worth, this is not the only forum I have ever discussed the Ra Material on. And in those other forums, nobody was characterizing me the way that some do here. Nobody was bitching about my excessive use of quotes, or my text walls. Nobody was calling me arrogant or a fundamentalist. Nobody was accusing me of having a lack of compassion. Nobody was accusing me of having only "textbook knowledge" and no real experience to back it up. Neither in my day-to-day life, do the people I know characterize me in these ways.

Those things only happen here, at Bring4th forums.

What is more- those members who appear to be making me out to be a pariah don't just do this with me, but with many other members. They go around from one person to the next, like some kind of "spiritual" posse comitatus. Like a hungry wolf pack out for blood.

Now- if the situation were different. If indeed I were also being cast in the same light in other forums, or by people who actually know me, then I would be forced to conclude that these characterizations really hold water, since I would be the common denominator in all of those situations.

But that isn't actually the case. What is the case is that the common denominators between myself, and every other person who has been negatively characterized around this forum are those members who are making the negative characterizations of others.

Quote:This catalyst is telling you something, and if you find out what it is, you can find a peaceful resolution.

The only peaceful resolution I have perceived is to stop participating in the forum. Because no matter where I go, no matter what I say, no matter how carefully I choose my words- the same people pop up again and again with their feigned offense, snarky comments, and passive-aggressive behaviors.

Even if I left, these behaviors would continue. And I know this is true because, I actually have left on more than one occasion, and came back to find that the witch-hunting and pariah-making was still alive and well. I came back to find the same people making the same accusations about other people as they were making about me.

It is clearly a forum issue, and the lesson to be learned has to do with tolerating behaviors in this forum that wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere.

Quote:a little piece of my shadow self.

So then, what is that "little" piece? Can you define it?

Quote:This relative totality is how unity and separation exist within the same illusion. This is how another person can have a totality which is very, very different from yours, even though you both live in the same Universe.

Yes. And so, you have just described exactly why they are not mutually exclusive.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:What is "meeting"? Do only face-to-face encounters count? I don't think so. We are all here in this experience together.

Quote:I'll concede your qualification. The point I'm trying to make is that ionic polarization is part of the experience of polarization. It is a consequence of magnetic polarization and it is what causes the divergence of the two paths.

Yes, exactly. I actually stated myself that ionic polarization is made possible by magnetic polarization way back in the beginning of the thread, in response to Pickle's kneejerk contradiction of my post.

Quote:

(11-07-2012, 10:09 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Without ionic there is no magnetic.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:No, it is the opposite of that. It is because the electron is, itself, a magnet, that ionization can occur.

Quote:The means of making this point is to draw your attention to the presence that those of the STS path have in your life. Those who polarize STO will consistently find less and less experience in their lives with those who lean toward STS.

But you are "crossing streams" here. We were talking about the internal polarization of consciousness. Yes, the evidence of that polarization appears as a separation, as a sifting, on the outside. But the actual reason that those external "STS" are no longer in the experience, is because we have accepted it on the inside. Therefore, it is no longer denied, and no longer projected outwards.

Quote:The positive orientation is one in which my deepest will is -- drumroll! -- to serve others without consideration for myself.

A deeper will is to perceive self as other. That's what compassion is... seeing oneself in others.

An even deeper will is to perceive other as the Creator.

Quote:So, while the will of the individual is the only coherent ethical system, STO or STS is the only coherent path of evolution. To put this another way, as you grow and evolve, you will find that what you truly and genuinely one is one or the other, each being mutually exclusive.

Your circular definition has come back around yet again. You start by defining them as opposites, and then conclude they are mutually exclusive. Do you not see how this is circular reasoning?

Quote:On the STO path, the intention is to serve others.

Yes, the intention is to serve others. Then, as one continues to grow and polarize, there comes a point where the concept of "self" is expanded to include others. That's when the training wheels come off.

Quote:If there is a thought to serving yourself as part of your intention, then polarization will not happen. My experience has shown me that the only actions which result in polarization are the ones I have undertaken entirely for the sake of another -- regardless of how much I may benefit from it.

Are you not aware that serving others benefits your own spiritual growth?

Quote:Shall I serve the incarnate sub-Logos (the ego self)? Or shall I serve the purpose of the Higher Self (the true self)?

If you keep framing the question as EITHER/OR you will invariably end up only two options. If you were to frame the question differently, you may see additional options.

Quote:I am emphasizing this because you seem to assert that one can somehow rise above the need to choose between one or the other.

That I seem to you to be asserting this is why I keep coming back to the idea of projection. I am not asserting this. How many times do I have to repeat it until you believe me? If I really thought that... don't you think I would have come out with it by now? Or do you think I am playing some kind of silly mind game with you?

Quote:I think you misunderstand the very meaning of the terms STO and STS.

No, I get it. There are two paths of polarization. The issue I have with the STO/STS meme is that:

1. The term service has multiple connotations, which people repeatedly confuse, and therefore end up confused about what the two paths mean.

2. The terms "self" and "other" are problematic because the whole point of the illusion is to see oneself in others, and others in oneself.

Therefore- all I have ever been talking about is dispensing with the terms and attempting to find another way to express two paths that is more "pithy or eloquent" than that offered by L/L.

For some reason, this appears to offend people. Which is funny, because I am quite positive that such an attempt doesn't- not one iota- offend L/L.

Quote:What matters is that in the moment all you think about is the other-self.

If a child were pinned under a car, no doubt I would be only thinking of the child while I attempted to rescue them. But that is merely on the surface, conscious level. Underneath that, I am well aware that rescuing the child benefits me as well. To attempt to deny this is.. well it's denial.

And please note, by benefit I am NOT talking about becoming a "hero" in the external world. The benefit of which I am speaking is an internal benefit. Maybe this is where we are talking past each other.

Quote:The distinction here is that if I give a sandwich to a homeless person in an effort -- even if only a partial effort -- to increase my "good karma," I have had a thought of service to myself. It is only when I want nothing more than the good of the other that my intention is pure and that I polarize.

Now who is the one speaking in absolute terms? Then let me ask you this: Have you ever accomplished this feat of superhuman "selflessness" of which you speak?

Quote:This seems to be the state of being which you are describing in your example of giving a sandwich to a homeless person. This is a more "enlightened" perspective of STO, but it cannot be understood unless one is already so enlightened, that is, it cannot be grasped until the meeting place of the two energy streams is already at the indigo center.

LOL. Yes, exactly. Until then, there are training wheels.

I mean- pardon me- but I was under the impression that the Archetype Forum (where our tiff over STO/STS originated) was for advanced discussion of these concepts?

Quote:At this level of enlightenment, acting on compassion is so habitual that it is simply not thought about. But what is thought about is this: anytime I do anything, I think about how it will affect other-selves. Here, I'm sure you would object that in this state of enlightenment, I will also be aware that they are me and so I am only thinking about how my actions will affect myself.

Exactly. They are you, and so you are still serving self. The only difference is- you now have an expanded awareness of self such that your selfhood no longer terminates at the boundary of the skin around your body complex.

Quote:This same argument can be applied to the STS path. STS entities are aware of the Law of One. They're not stupid. They know that the self is ultimately equal to the other-self.

Well no, not necessarily. In the beginning they probably don't realize this. Then later on, when the training wheels come off, they do.

Quote:They choose to explore separation regardless of the fact that they are aware that service to self is also service to All.

They are choosing to explore unity just like those on the positive path. Apparent separation is the illusion which affords them this opportunity. Again, just like those on the positive path.

Tenet Nosce Wrote:One light, multiple colors. Unity.

The unity in 1.6 is the white light. The multiplicity is the spectral expansion. This is the identity of the One and the Many. When you look at white light, though, you do not see colors. You see only one thing. This is how there is no multiplicity in unity.

So much is stated even in answer 1.6: "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity."

As I have said, unity means no multiplicity. There is not sameness, because there are not two things to be the same. There is only one. There is the white light and nothing else. Ra's example of the prism is designed to show us how unity is the underlying reality behind multiplicity. If Ra meant that there were multiplicity in unity, Ra would not have said "that which is infinite cannot be many" followed by "you must define that infinity as unity."

Tenet Nosce Wrote:Now who is the one speaking in absolute terms? Then let me ask you this: Have you ever accomplished this feat of superhuman "selflessness" of which you speak?

This is hardly a superhuman selflessness. It is not a vibration I occupy every moment of the day, but it is not foreign to me. I know very well what it feels like to be moved to action by compassion without consideration for myself. This is what it feels like when all you want to do is help. I also know what it feels like to have to restrain that compassion through the wisdom that giving of myself without consideration for the circumstances of the situation may not result in much service. This is what it feels like when you want so badly to help, but know you can't.

These are not superhuman experiences. They are very common. The name for these experiences is "sincerity." And, quite frankly, I have found that making use of a philosophy which does not distinguish service to self from service to others muddies these feelings. It is not useful for me to have conscious thoughts about serving myself as I serve another, because this often leads to insincere service, such as intentionally trying to build up "good karma." As I have said, a philosophy is only worth the paper it is written on if it can be put to practical use. What seems amiss to me in your philosophy is that it does not seem particularly practical. You can accuse me of projection all you like, but there is a difference between distinguishing a real disagreement and inventing one. This disagreement is real. I grasp the disagreement now, and I will press you no further.

deleted...