The Gateway of Polarity

[meadow-foreigner]

• When you co-create, having as a perceptual focus the similarities existing in other-Selves, this is called positivity.
  

• When you co-create, having as a perceptual focus the differences existing in other-Selves, this is called negativity.
  

Negativity is a fallacy, for All That Is comes from the same fundamental premises, existing in all of Creation: Free Will, Logos, and Light. It is only when the Self mentally tunes into the lacks of the self in relation to others that one acts negatively. 

This is why negativity (Service to Self) is a fallacy: the Infinitude that exists in the Self is dispensed with when one acts negatively, because one acts in terms of others, as a function of others, and as a distortion of the real value of the Self: Infinity, abundance.

[meadow-foreigner]

If I disagree with what you are saying and others agree with me then this is positive. If others disagree with my disagreement then this negative. So what if I have no clue what you are talking about to begin with and there are others who are equally perplexed.

Non-causal fallacious reasoning.

[Dtris]

• When you co-create, having as a perceptual focus the similarities existing in other-Selves, this is called positivity.
  

• When you co-create, having as a perceptual focus the differences existing in other-Selves, this is called negativity.
  

Negativity is a fallacy, for All That Is comes from the same fundamental premises, existing in all of Creation: Free Will, Logos, and Light. It is only when the Self mentally tunes into the lacks of the self in relation to others that one acts negatively. 

This is why negativity (Service to Self) is a fallacy: the Infinitude that exists in the Self is dispensed with when one acts negatively, because one acts in terms of others, as a function of others, and as a distortion of the real value of the Self: Infinity, abundance.

While I think this is a useful framework. If you intend for this to be a comprehensive definition of positivity and negativity, or STS and STO, it is lacking.

Similarities and differences in self and other self, and the perceptual focus thereof, does not automatically mean your actions, words, thoughts, energy, will be negative or positive. An easy example is that a teacher, seeing the lack of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge in a child, engages in teach/learning with that child to serve the child in their incarnation. Mental focus is on the lack or differences in people, but the actions are STO and positive.

The whole argument comes across as if you worked backwards under the assumption that STS/negativity is a fallacy and tried to justify that conclusion. Could be wrong, just my impression.

[LeiwoUnion]

In my view, a proper teacher does not perceive a lack to be patched up but rather potential for growth. This way a proper teaching may be offered at an improper time, if no potential for growth existed at that level. Discernment must be used by the proper teacher. An improper teacher follows his own, shall I say, curriculum without acknowledging the potential of learning of others. A negative teacher may impose strict rules about following his curriculum and strip power from others via authority etc. and having no regard for the real potential or true needs of others.

Only an improper teacher would focus a teaching on the basis of lack, for no true lack can be perceived. However, if a person itself feels a need for a teaching, and finds a teacher offering this, a proper teacher/student relationship has the potential to manifest. This is my understanding.

[IndigoSalvia]

I don't quite follow the OP. 

From session 7 (paraphrased):

• Those who seek STS are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek STO, for are all not one? 
  
• To serve yourself and to serve other is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One. 
  

STO = STS given that we -- Creator/Creation -- are One/Infinite. 

Are you saying: when one perceives a separation or distinction between self and others (like many of us do here in 3D), there is a negative polarity (and positive polarity for that matter); but when one perceives/is the One/Infinite being there is no negative polarity? In this case, wouldn't it also be true that there is only one service, so both polarities are fallacies? When there is only infinite unity, there is only service to the One/Infinite beingness? 

I wonder: why is there (perceived?) polarity through mid-6D? At 4D, we become aware of the one/infinite nature of beingness. 

If I have misunderstood, can you "dumb it down" for me? 

[aWanderer91]

While I like the original post and could sense an ounce of truth in it, I believe Ra mentions that some other logo's have a bias towards service to self, meaning the percentages for polarisation must be different to our 51% service to others and 95% service to self.

It's a hard one to bite, I must admit, that the service to self path is completely acceptable to the creator. And maybe your bias meadow-foreigner stems from the fact that you are a positive being and would like to see negativity as a fallacy.

I would like to believe that positivity was the only real thing in existence too, but this isn't so and we'd do well to contemplate this as positive beings

[meadow-foreigner]

I don't quite follow the OP. 

From session 7 (paraphrased):

• Those who seek STS are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek STO, for are all not one? 
  
• To serve yourself and to serve other is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One. 
  

STO = STS given that we -- Creator/Creation -- are One/Infinite. 

Are you saying: when one perceives a separation or distinction between self and others (like many of us do here in 3D), there is a negative polarity (and positive polarity for that matter); but when one perceives/is the One/Infinite being there is no negative polarity? In this case, wouldn't it also be true that there is only one service, so both polarities are fallacies? When there is only infinite unity, there is only service to the One/Infinite beingness? 

I wonder: why is there (perceived?) polarity through mid-6D? At 4D, we become aware of the one/infinite nature of beingness. 

If I have misunderstood, can you "dumb it down" for me? 

Yes.

[meadow-foreigner]

I don't quite follow the OP. 

From session 7 (paraphrased):

• Those who seek STS are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek STO, for are all not one? 
  
• To serve yourself and to serve other is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One. 
  

STO = STS given that we -- Creator/Creation -- are One/Infinite. 

Are you saying: when one perceives a separation or distinction between self and others (like many of us do here in 3D), there is a negative polarity (and positive polarity for that matter); but when one perceives/is the One/Infinite being there is no negative polarity? In this case, wouldn't it also be true that there is only one service, so both polarities are fallacies? When there is only infinite unity, there is only service to the One/Infinite beingness? 

Precisely.
Nonetheless, the so-called positive polarity is, by far, much more effective in co-creating with Intelligent Infinity, because it is based on the premise that, because All is One, when everyone thrives alongside others in harmony with the fundamental premises (Free Will, Logos, Light), All can benefit maximally.

Whereas, the so-called negative polarity is, by far, not only ineffective but also terribly inefficient in co-creating with Intelligent Infinity, because it is based on the premise that Free Will ought to be manipulated in order to attain system optimality.

The closer a system is to perfection, the less rules it has.

Furthermore, the mere perception of distinction in-between Self and other-Selves is a fallacy sustainable by the choice set of each individual throughout one's history, which heightens the chance of biased reasoning that leads to stipulation of false premises, which are then attempted to be justified by rationalizations and biased observations that tend to perpetrate the cognitive evolutionary loop in stagnation due to the denial of that which is. 

The aforementioned process is called wishful thinking bias.

Summarized:

• A false premise is considered in thinking, a fallacy.
  
• Rationalizations are made to justify the fallacious reasoning.
  
• Projects are then made so that the upcoming events accommodate themselves to the fallacious reasoning.
  
• Thus, in an infinite amount of time, there is no progress unless that which is not (e.g.: a lie) is abandoned for that which is (e.g.: Truth).
  

Both polarities have displayed resistance to the Whole Truth in their respective cognitive dissonances. This is the cause of misunderstanding.

I wonder: why is there (perceived?) polarity through mid-6D? At 4D, we become aware of the one/infinite nature of beingness. 

Because, according to Ra's terminology, there is the false belief of duality below mid-6D level. From such falsities, innumerable actions can spur.

One who is of negative polarity doesn't see it the same way.

Truth independs from observation.

[meadow-foreigner]

 
While I think this is a useful framework. If you intend for this to be a comprehensive definition of positivity and negativity, or STS and STO, it is lacking.

Similarities and differences in self and other self, and the perceptual focus thereof, does not automatically mean your actions, words, thoughts, energy, will be negative or positive. 

Such consequent has nothing to do with intentions or results. Perhaps you're kindled with Kantian philosophical reasoning, so as to postulate that perspective.

An easy example is that a teacher, seeing the lack of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge in a child, engages in teach/learning with that child to serve the child in their incarnation. Mental focus is on the lack or differences in people, but the actions are STO and positive.

The whole argument comes across as if you worked backwards under the assumption that STS/negativity is a fallacy and tried to justify that conclusion. Could be wrong, just my impression.

Think for yourself and do the math. Maybe you will find out different results.

If you do, consider sharing them so others have different perspectives to ponder about.