Polarization and Polarity

[JustLikeYou]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.