![[Image: jbkGxyBlRjqZ2Y.png]](http://i.minus.com/jbkGxyBlRjqZ2Y.png)
I have found polarity not to just be a two-way, black-white morality system but something much more. When we fully flesh out polarity into not only the analysis of the acceptace/rejection of the freewill of others but also as the acceptance/rejection of catalyst, we begin to see a compass that defines the entire personality of an individual in their various shades of choices as they deal about the catalyst of their lives.
We have four general polarities and two middle pathes:
(Northeast) Upright Right-hand:
Accepts free will of others, accepts and unites with life's challenges to varying degrees. Accepts reality unilaterally.
(Southeast) Averse Right-hand:
Rejects free will of others yet accepts challenge and obstacles with little inner-resistance. Accepts authority and power over others unilaterally.
(Northwest) Upright Left-hand:
Accepts free will of others, resists challenge and obstacles. Believes in power over the self and/or comfort of the self.
(Southwest) Averse Left-hand:
Rejects free will of others, avoids challenge as well. Also believes in power over the self.
Upright Middle:
Neither accepts nor rejects life's catalyst. Very monastic. Avoids desire. Non-incarnative entities and monks usually take this role.
Averse Middle:
Like above except such an entity rejects and disintegrates the self. Found in the inner plane's "hells." A complacent slave can take such a role.
The above are all generalities. People on this planet will tend to fall in between these polarities and much more towards unpolarized states:
(North) Absolute Upright: United with all. Accepts all, only observes.
(South) Absolute Averse: Dissolution into all. Rejects all, seeks death. (Illusionary)
(Origin) Center: Birth of awareness. Unpolarized in all directions. Consists of animals and similar beings.
(East) Unpolarized Right-hand: Seeks approval and accomplishment with no regard to others.
(West) Unpolarized Left-hand: Seeks comfort and luxury with no regard to others.
Just an idea I wanted to jot down.
Why bother dwelling on multiple facets when you can be in one facet. I understand it is a tool of thought but what is the goal of that tool ?
One reason: Because generalizing a path of rejecting catalyst as one of only controlling and hurting others is extremely inaccurate and potentially cohersive to such people.
Well of course the notion that there is only controlling/hurting is inaccurate but what is defining anything if not controlling/hurting. What about when the notions of controlling/hurting disperse entirely.
No one rejects catalyst, rejecting catalyst is catalyst. What allows for the infinite characteristics we enjoy in relation to "progress". Time. So if you categorize people into those facets then you see them as those facets, why not see everyone as the one facet ?
And then realize that you can apply all of that to any specific aspect of a person's life.
If you're going to categorize people, know that they can be categorized indefinitely. It becomes a tiring task.
(11-05-2013, 12:18 AM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ]No one rejects catalyst, rejecting catalyst is catalyst. What allows for the infinite characteristics we enjoy in relation to "progress". Time. So if you categorize people into those facets then you see them as those facets, why not see everyone as the one facet ?
Yes but it is different way to go about treating catalyst. A hermit actively seeks out the avoidance of catalyst, an adventurer actively pursues it.
These facets could help one know themselves and their path thus enabling more concious living.
(11-05-2013, 01:30 AM)Brittany Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to categorize people, know that they can be categorized indefinitely. It becomes a tiring task.
This isn't mere aesthetic labeling.
(11-05-2013, 01:43 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2013, 12:18 AM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ]No one rejects catalyst, rejecting catalyst is catalyst. What allows for the infinite characteristics we enjoy in relation to "progress". Time. So if you categorize people into those facets then you see them as those facets, why not see everyone as the one facet ?
Yes but it is different way to go about treating catalyst. A hermit actively seeks out the avoidance of catalyst, an adventurer actively pursues it.
These facets could help one know themselves and their path thus enabling more concious living.
(11-05-2013, 01:30 AM)Brittany Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to categorize people, know that they can be categorized indefinitely. It becomes a tiring task.
This isn't mere aesthetic labeling.
Why can't you be a hermit and an adventurer, is the journey to "avoid" catalyst not an adventure hehe.
No doubt there useful to gain understanding of the facets which may be required to connect them all into the one facet, time will tell my friend
. From experience I can just say the classification fell away.
(11-05-2013, 01:30 AM)Brittany Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to categorize people, know that they can be categorized indefinitely. It becomes a tiring task.
Isn't that what the archetypes of the tarot do?
Adventurer in the sense of pursuing dangerous settings, jungles, cliffs.
I suggest you ponder the path taken from the center straight upward.
http://i.imgur.com/CkUhxFa.jpg
Are we not always pursuing dangerous settings though, is that not the catalyst for growth. Space/time and time/space is only a dangerous setting. We wade through jungles of space/time and time/space always poised at the edge of the cliffs.
How can we move up-would if movement is an illusion ? Wouldn't unity signify one does not move from the center ? Finding the center requires movement though yes otherwise we wouldn't have any reference to a center, hence the spiral.
In the case of this graph, not moving from center would be choosing not to live, not to accept nor reject catalyst. In reality, that's the same as uniting with source except in the case of already being in the middle of your soul's journey.
The center is absolute unpolarization which is the status of most new-born souls.
Well in the case of that graph I guess it's good to move up then lol.
In order to be successful on the left-hand and averse pathes, you have to be near the outer edges else you will suffer through the pain of the resistance. Only on the edges does the tolerance build to where the pain becomes bliss, where you have full control and discipline over yourself and/or others.
It seems my attempts at going towards the left is what has caused me a lot of my personal trouble.
haven't we all figured out that choice is part of illusory experience?
We are all It.
This is drama.
It says 'let it be' and so it is.
One understands It only by means of It.
I am thankful for having chosen the all-encompassing positive path.
Namaste.
The left-hand path while being service-to-other is potentially very powerful and world-shattering. It's a path I still contemplate after making this chart. When you want certainty of your endeavours, you pick high self-discipline and control over the self.
When you choose the right, you have no attachments and no lust for power.
By Vervex. Released under the public domain.
I think it's important to consider acceptance versus control of catalyst. This theme came up repeatedly in discussion of how much one should act in relation to bringing about a better world in other threads.
I myself tend to accept most catalyst, but there are definite instances where I learn from catalyst by increasing my power over it; in fact self-empowerment I believe was one of the key lessons for me. While it may seem paradoxical, I do not believe that it is inconsistent to accept the present and present catalyst, while seeking to have the power to control the future and future catalyst. I believe only when the power to control is exercised over other selves in contradiction to their unencumbered free will does the yellow run contrary to the green. I believe power and control, in some sense, can be characterized as the "love of future possibilities" (I believe all rays are a form of love).
Fascinating subject. Thank you for raising this topic! Kudos to vervex for a sexy diagram
Updated the post with some recent findings.
To sum things up:
Top-right is generally an all-accepting path.
Bottom-right is about accepting authority and finding virtue through said authority and doctrine.
Top-left is about having power over the self, treating the self well and uniting with creation through that.
Bottom-left is about having absolute power over the self and others.
I am confused, as what you are referring to sounds like the stations on the Kabbalic Tree of Life, yet you are calling them paths in and of themselves which I understand that to dwell in a station is a path, but my understanding is that the paths are the relationships between the stations and that the stations in themselves are archetypal of positions within relativity corresponding to the aspects of reality as perceived in the spectrum of personality.
What confuses me is the way you seem to correlate activity of thought (beliefs) with the actions that people take according to those beliefs. It is not confusing that you make this correlation but how it appears you are compartmentalizing the personalities of different individuals according to the relationships they most frequently engage in between themselves and others. My understanding is that there is no one single place or path that any individual is on, per se, but through the energization or significant potentiation of different archetypal facets there is a matrix of relationships formed by the circulations of consciousness between the mind and body using the shuttle known as spirit.
So, I have the same question as some others and that is, what is the purpose of this system? Is it an attempt to understand human or otherwise creative nature or do you consider it a key to power, wisdom or understanding, or something completely different?
Oh, also, since consciousness has a dynamic aspect, how would you describe the geometry of movement as per the spectrum of personality? Would you consider this a tool meant to aid in the discipline of the personality through the awareness of possible spectrums of force through choice?
My point being that if a choice is to be made it must entail a movement towards that choice, but there are other things besides conscious choice which determine the direction of seeking are there not?
What I am trying to get at is, why is anyone drawn away from the center? What is 'interest'?
I first want to thank you for this response. Vervex has made a similar point and you seem to confirm it well. I find you guys telling me the same things a lot and it's quite conducive to learning. Thank you, genuinely.
The purpose is both. I think human-nature can be studied through this and I think the adept can be empowered by studying this as well. I think one could very create a very objective personality test through this.
You're correct people shift in their polarity and path. But is there not a mean average for a path one will take in a incarnation? Could this not be calculated to a certain extent?
As a 4th-density negative society has certain structures, could you not correlate these structures to polarity to some degree?
Quote:Oh, also, since consciousness has a dynamic aspect, how would you describe the geometry of movement as per the spectrum of personality? Would you consider this a tool meant to aid in the discipline of the personality through the awareness of possible spectrums of force through choice?
Yes.
Quote:My point being that if a choice is to be made it must entail a movement towards that choice, but there are other things besides conscious choice which determine the direction of seeking are there not?
Choices of others.
Quote:What I am trying to get at is, why is anyone drawn away from the center? What is 'interest'?
General desires brought on by catalyst. In unveiled planets and in the inner planes, this process is very slow as you know because there is little mystery to spark the curiosity to go on forward towards uniting more with creation. When we can't have something, we naturally desire it.
Think we categorize people based on 'personality' or 'archetypes' but what we need to understand is that personality is a whole to begin with until we begin to fragment. So depsite seeming to be a certain way or having certain characteristics or experiencing certain archetypes or whatnot, the heart of the matter is we're whole… just putting the pieces back together… or even sculpting, as Tanner once described. We need to categorize and make sense of things bc we have this thing called, 'the brain' which needs that type of organization and cognitive activity so that we don't become confused. That's the mind/body trap that we have to work thru.
(11-05-2013, 01:30 AM)Brittany Wrote: [ -> ]If you're going to categorize people, know that they can be categorized indefinitely. It becomes a tiring task.
Just bumping this I really feel uncomfortable with things being placed into boxes or being categorized.
Where were you guys in the discussions about general polarity? Are we going to throw away the concept of polarity altogether?
What's any worse than a black-white, STS-STO paradigm? If anything, this is more condusive.
I think there is some confusion about what is a "thing" and what is an "object". I take this from Descarte in that he described objects as being mental, objectivity as the mental construction of experiences based on the interaction with "things", the literal external energies which interact to give rise to our perceptions.
As Rie has said, the mind requires objectification, in degrees of abstractness and concreteness, in order to apprehend the perceptions it is creating for itself, that it may share its communications with the body through spirit. Categorization is a way of organizing raw energies in to usuable, modifiable qualitative quantities. This is like slicing up food prior to its cooking. This is not to diminish the entirety of the ingredient but to make it digestable to the process of cooking and eating.
I wished to clarify the purpose you had in sight when creating this mental model to be used with the morphing and training of the conscious personality, and you have. Now, may I ask how one might go about using this model in a practice method?
When I initially read the opening post in its original form, I thought "hmm, I agree, but there is something unclear, I need to sit down and sketch this out visually for myself", and so I did. Then, a graph was born. As Tanner deduced, and in my opinion, this graphic that was born from Adonai's musings is an mental tool which serves to understand actions according to the intent, in relation to unity/disunity with others as well as with the self. It is one (arguably effective) way to understand intent, and I believe it strives to be as objective as possible, within the confines of this very subjective reality
Every action is fuelled by an intent, a desire, and so it would be erroneous to suggest using this graph in order to classify actions and people without taking a closer look at their core. After contemplating this method, I would also recommend against attempting to place whole civilizations or professions into this graph, as it would require a level of generalisation so grand it would certainly not be representative of its parts. Take for instance the example of a murderer; one could be tempted to look at the result, the action alone, and classify it in the lower left quadrant. This classification would only be truthful if said killer disliked others and was at war with himself, and if he considered the practice of killing defined him as an individual. Although there are such people, the classification, being a generalization, does not consider an individual who might have killed to save another's life, their own life, killed accidentally, or any other reason for that matter.
Drawing this graph and contemplating it for a bit personally helped me better visualize relations between action, intent, unity and the dynamic nature of the universe. It's a tool for intellectual gymnastics. It's as good as any other tool of the kind, I suppose, so long one can make sense of it
Would you say we could replace "Acceptance" and "Rejection" with "Unity with Self" and "Disunity with Self"? Considering the vertical pole appears to be in reference to others.
(11-06-2013, 07:46 PM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Would you say we could replace "Acceptance" and "Rejection" with "Unity with Self" and "Disunity with Self"? Considering the vertical pole appears to be in reference to others.
I cannot speak for Adonai, but I would definitely say yes, as it is exactly that, just worded differently.