If someone beat you up, and it took you a month to forgive them, would you be gaining less polarity than if you forgave them right away?
Of if someone killed your dog, about forgiving them. I have a friend who would never forgive this action. While thoughts about this don't seem to bother me.
How close does forgiveness tie in with polarity?
If you never forgive, do you lose positive polarity?
Frankly, a lack of forgiveness in any case is indefinitely depolarizing. The longer the lack of forgiveness, the stronger the depolarization, the greater the bitterness and weariness the more you are exposed to the person, to the point of the possibility of anger.
Are we not all things? The positively polarized entity will accept any act without conditions or a need to forgive as forgiveness would be inherent. Everything would be seen as well and acceptable.
I wouldn't say it "de-polarizes" you, but more that you do not gain the possible polarity from the processing of the catalyst. Complete forgiveness and release through acceptance is a catalyst totally processed, so until this is done the full polarity of the catalyst cannot be used/gained.
What else is depolarization but not accepting a person as they have acted and desiring them to change against their will in the past, present or future? Would there not be emotional resistance within such?
I don't believe not accepting or integrating a catalyst is the same as polarizing negatively but is more related to indifference. You can not accept a catalyst without necessarily wanting to control the other person or attempting to do so. Depolarization would be a conscious, intentional act in order to gain control and infringe upon free will, thereby polarizing negatively. Simply not making use of a catalyst results in no polarity gained either way. Catalyst has to be used positively or negatively for it to be useful towards polarization, otherwise it becomes trapped as a blockage.
Note, any "non-use" of catalyst results in resistance and blockage.
I think this intellectualises the subject too much.
I have had situations where it is never quite clear if anyone even did anything wrong, but that there is a lot of emotional charge. I think there are other lessons to be learned from life and to view things through this lens can be unhealthy. There is more than this lesson. It comes from somewhat of a fearful attitude towards karma. Which causes as much problems as it solves. (In my opinion.)
Yeah I don't think polarity is so binary, but is really very dynamic.
But there is no right or wrong in terms of polarity?
In terms of what?? That question has no context. As in is there a right or wrong polarity to pursue? Of course not. That doesn't mean some do not prefer to pursue one over the other and indeed Ra seems to imply a choice of one or the other has to be made to graduate beyond third-density, the later densities being the refinement of this choice. In the context of Ra, the "third density choice" is that of which polarity to work towards.
Does "right or wrong" ethics serve a function within polarity? If so, what?
As far as I'm concerned, it means nothing. All that matters is if one accepts or rejects something, with rejection being some form of control, small or large.
Self-direction. There is no "correct" polarity to choose, that is the whole point of the choice of free will. This here shows why Ra uses those terms:
Quote: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.
You didn't answer my question.
Do ethics of some things being "right or wrong" serve a function within polarity?
Let's get to the core here: How can polarity be more than acceptance and rejection?
In the context of Ra, "rejection" is not considered to be the opposite polarity to acceptance, but "control" is what is cited. I know you correlate those with being the same thing, but that is purely your own inference. I use this quote to demonstrate this that the positive polarity can reject while still maintaining polarity.
Quote: (67.11) In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do for your portion of the Creator is as it is and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are. Could you, then, serve a negative entity by offering the instrument’s life? It is unlikely that you would find this a true service. Thus you may see in many cases the loving balance being achieved, the love being offered, light being sent, and the service of the service-to-self oriented entity gratefully acknowledged while being rejected as not being useful in your journey at this time. Thus you serve One Creator without paradox.
And again here:
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. There is great humor in your attempt to be of polarized service to the opposite polarity. There is a natural difficulty in doing so since what you consider service is considered by this entity non-service. As you send this entity love and light and wish it well it loses its polarity and needs to regroup.
Thus it would not consider your service as such. On the other hand, if you allowed it to be of service by removing this instrument from your midst you might perhaps perceive this as not being of service. You have here a balanced and polarized view of the Creator; two services offered, mutually rejected, and in a state of equilibrium in which free will is preserved and each allowed to go upon its own path of experiencing the One Infinite Creator.
How am I not controlling somebody in the case that I tell my wife we are not getting Starbucks, then driving the car to McDonalds while she wants Starbucks? Rejecting her emotions and feelings? How is control not synonymous with rejection in this case?
In the case of your quote, there is still acknowledgement, acceptance of the entity. It is not a full rejection. I do not think my definition of rejection applies in this case.
I would consider your quotes a true, semantic rejection if they were trying to totally expel the entity by very angered means, unable to tolerate the entity.
Well, I cannot discuss with you in terms of "your" definitions, as I do not make use of your definitions.
Sure, in that example you could say control and rejection are synonymous, but that is an example built to be like that. However, the control isn't the rejection of Starbucks or rejection of going to Starbucks, it is okay to say no, but the control would be forcing her to go with you to McDonalds.
Plus, if your desire is to not go to Starbucks, then why wouldn't that be considered a rejection on her part? Are you both controlling eachother then any single time you have different desires?
Yes, humans often do control each other when they have differing desires when they refuse to acknowledge the other and refuse to attempt to reach a consensus. The positive polarizing entity, in my view, will treat every person's desires as their own and avoid contradiction as much as possible. That's my point.
When you see the creator in everything, in my view, it is inherently depolarizing to act against somebody even if you are just trying to accept yourself.
It is not about intentional or unintentional force when you take somebody somewhere they don't want to go: You are still acting against them and responsibility is required if the person is to be considered and loved
When you do something that acts against somebody and harms them, it doesn't matter if it was for yourself: You're still harming a part of your macrocosmic self. This is a lesson of the Law of Responsibility.
Also, the direct definition of rejection doesn't in any way con-notate anger or intolerance.
re·jec·tion
riˈjekSHən/Submit
noun
the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc.
"the union decided last night to recommend rejection of the offer"
synonyms: refusal, declining, turning down, dismissal, spurning More
repudiation, rebuff, spurning, abandonment, desertion;
It does when the rejected proposal and idea keeps coming up for you to tolerate, especially if it's a person's desire that they are insisting on. When one truly rejects something permanently, the will will become angered when its desire is not met.
This is no longer the realm of semantics. This is ethics.
(07-31-2014, 04:48 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, humans often do control each other when they have differing desires when they refuse to acknowledge the other and refuse to attempt to reach a consensus. The positive polarizing entity, in my view, will treat every person's desires as their own and avoid contradiction as much as possible. That's my point.
When you see the creator in everything, in my view, it is inherently depolarizing to act against somebody even if you are just trying to accept yourself.
It is not about intentional or unintentional force when you take somebody somewhere they don't want to go: You are still acting against them and responsibility is required if the person is to be considered and loved.
Well then every action ever is depolarizing because there are inevitably others who will be perpendicular in desire to yourself. Does this apply in just a local context? When you say "every person", I presume you do not mean every person literally but every person relevant to whatever situation is occurring.
Does that then suggest that people always know what's best for themselves and that you should never in any way try to help people as anything that is offered but is not asked for is controlling?
Sup rugged individualism. Everyone for themselves!
I get what you are implying philosophically, I get the idea, but I don't see the practical use or application of the idea. I understand seeking balance and fulfillment of all desires but I don't understand the sense that you tie that to polarity. With your description I don't know how anybody could ever polarize ever because it's a zero-sum game, a complete loss of activity.
(07-31-2014, 04:09 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does "right or wrong" ethics serve a function within polarity? If so, what?
As far as I'm concerned, it means nothing. All that matters is if one accepts or rejects something, with rejection being some form of control, small or large.
Does one "accept" a punch in the face?
I don't. I return the punch and later forgive the person after a period of grumbling. That way, they have karma returned to them appropriately and I right myself with the oneness of the creation again.
If one prefers to be a punching bag and accept all things, I respect your decision though I may walk away shaking my head for a minute or so..
(07-31-2014, 04:51 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]It does when the rejected proposal and idea keeps coming up for you to tolerate, especially if it's a person's desire that they are insisting on. When one truly rejects something permanently, the will will become angered when its desire is not met.
This is no longer the realm of semantics. This is ethics.
Once again, your own inferences you have constructed and are applying. I am not disagreeing, but your words are always loaded with more ideas than the words contain.
Every action is, indeed, depolarizing. That is why higher-density entities will often refuse to act within the third-density respecting The Law of Responsibility. This is why the entity becoming the creator enters timelessness, awaiting the desires of the previous octave to inherently and automatically manifest as a new universe, not acting except through creations it endows with free will.
Food for thought: Desire is suffering. Action is a result of desire.
Wat, all sense lost on me in your first sentence.
The goal of polarization is to try to remain who we are while still not being overtly willful and infringing: Being considerate of all and minimizing the disregard for the desires of others.
Inevitably, we leave everything alone, as it is, as the creator, accepting what has previously existed forming what will exist.
My only question is, can I love the murderer? I can't speak of this to my friend, for he would not understand, and that would violate his free will with my teaching.
Are you not all things? Are not all things one? Are you not the murderer? Can you not love yourself as all things, even the murderer?
(07-31-2014, 05:02 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]The goal of polarization is to try to remain who we are while still not being overtly willful and infringing: Being considerate of all and minimizing the disregard for the desires of others.
Inevitably, we leave everything alone, as it is, as the creator, accepting what has previously existed forming what will exist.
There is such a mix of convoluted ideas in this I don't even want to touch it. Needless to say, your understanding of polarity is considerably different from my own.
(07-31-2014, 05:04 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Are you not all things? Are not all things one? Are you not the murderer? Can you not love yourself as all things, even the murderer?
This is awesome to remember, but so easy to forget.
I can begin, and I stress begin to learn to love myself as all things. For I don't have the perspective of all things in 3D.