Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Steppingfeet]

Yes. Third density is the density where we polarize. Of course this experience of polarity is crucial. I just question how much of that polarization within the system of spiritual evolution is consciously recognized. Therefore, I question people who claim to "be STO" or "be STS". I think those statements are practically meaningless.

My central point was to see polarity as being intrinsic and, for the most part, inseparable from our identity down to, not the deepest, but very deep levels. (I back off of the notion of inseparability when viewing identity from the ultimate, unified perspective.) My fundamental contention is that polarity and identity are linked very closely. Asking, “To what extent is the entity consciously aware of its polarity within third density?”, is a secondary or tertiary question asked as a consequence of the more basic understanding that identity and polarity are knit seamlessly together.

Moving onto the thrust of your statement above: Ra's maxim is to know yourself, accept yourself, and become the Creator, right? How could one acquire self-knowledge without concomitantly gaining some understanding of ones polarity?

Of course I don't mean that self-knowledge necessarily results in knowledge of spiritual evolution, of polarity as a dynamic force which yields evolution, or of anything in particular beyond: "I care for the well being of others." "I desire strongly to help others in accordance with their needs as they make the request." "I see beauty and light in everything I see." "I am pained by the darkness in the world, the suffering, the confusion, and the barbarity - yet I seek to open my heart and love all that comes within my purview.” Or, conversely, “I live to increase my own personal power.” “I deserve to be in charge, to rule others, to put order to this chaos.” “I as a separate, self-contained individual need no one except those who benefit me in some way.” “I seek to gain advantage or edge over others.”

Entities may not consciously know of polarity, but they can have and know such polarized understandings of the self as I've listed above, and consciously point their energies towards the increase of either.

In Session 35, Ra says: “To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.”

While I couldn’t agree more with the statement that this density is not a density of understanding, Ra nevertheless posits self-knowledge as a possibility and a prerequisite of spiritual evolution. It makes no sense to me that one could have knowledge of self and yet have no meaningful knowledge of their polarity.

I don't think it's a matter of semantics; I simply think we disagree. For me, morality is an arbitrary human construct based on the nature of third density society.

I totally agree. Morality *is* an arbitrary human construct based on the nature of third density society.

My contention is that morality is, if not necessary, then an inevitable stage experienced on the path of the upward spiraling light.

I would posit that morality is a cultural construct that appears on most if not all third density planets in one form or another. Conjecture, of course, because I have no knowledge of other third density planets. But it seems that no culture in the history of this planet, regardless of spatial or temporal location, has evolved free of a system of morality and it’s catalytic paybacks. Perhaps too large a theoretical leap, but I think it a safe bet to presume the same on other worlds.

Thus, moving forward from that premise, I think think valid the terms "amoral" and "trans-moral".

Is it useful? Yes. But it's not "real". I don't think there's anything in the Law of One that implies there's such a thing as "morality" except in the sense that humans have behavioral conventions they've learned as an adaptive response to primal dangers in the world.

I would agree, it is not “real” in that it has no absolute reality. Neither are our bodies, or the empire state building, or the moon and the sun, or, thank God, teletubbies. Nothing manifest is, in the ultimate sense of the word, “real”, but all things have a relative reality, all things are real taken on their own level.

I cannot claim to have made a detailed study of what gives rise to morality, but I would take a stab at it and say that, while it may have biological beginnings, other sources of morality include fear itself and the misunderstanding of the nature of reality. I would agree entirely that it is a learned system of thought which varies widely from culture to culture but, I would add, is universal in its emergence.

So what would it mean to "emphasize" polarity?

To emphasize polarity, in my understanding, would mean to continue in the myriad daily activities which are pointed towards those ideals associated with the positive polarity, avoiding for the moment the argument as to how truly any ideal reflects a given polarity.

Personally, when I see another in need, I tend to reach out my hand to offer what assistance I can. Is this not emphasizing my polarity?

I don’t have to consciously don my blue, red, and yellow costume with “STO” stitched to the front chest plate as I undertake the act, but in making the choice to help another with no expectation of return, am I not emphasizing my polarity?

Subsequent of the act, when I reflect upon the experience and realize that, (even if I had no conscious knowledge of polarity), such a service gives me a buzz and compels me to consciously seek new opportunities to repeat the ideal of service, am I not emphasizing my polarity?

Polarity is a way of thinking about our daily, incarnate experiences in a larger, cosmic context.

I think this is at the crux of our divergent perspectives. If I read you correctly, you see polarity largely as an abstraction with no bearing upon or application to the reality of incarnate existence. Whereas I see polarity as inextricably wrapped up in our daily life and the evolution therein. Though it lends itself quite easily to abstraction.

Polarity is not an identity until (A) you've actually polarized beyond the criteria,

I think that, as a generalization, this statement may be true as it seems in accord with Ra’s statement in Session 19:

QUESTIONER: Then, through free will, some time within the third density experience, the path splits and the entity consciously chooses—or he probably doesn’t consciously choose. Does the entity consciously choose this path of the initial splitting point?

RA: I am Ra. We speak in generalities which is dangerous for always inaccurate. However, we realize you look for the overview; so we will eliminate anomalies and speak of majorities.

The majority of third density beings is far along the chosen path before realization of that path is conscious.

Hoewver, it is important to keep in mind that this is a generality only. There are instances, I believe it safe to say, where the entity is aware of the potential of polarity and his movement in one direction or the other prior to crossing over the threshold.

and (B) you have a conscious understanding of your polarization, which I doubt any of us have since we're still incarnate.

This statement can be approached from several different angles, but I’ll take the personal as I can speak with greatest authority on my own experience.

I am certainly and without question an entity of the positive polarity. I have no means of measuring my “vibratory rate”, or ascertaining to what extent I am STO and to what extent I am STS. But I know the majority of my energy movements are engaged with the seeking of that which is associated with the positive polarity. Taking it out of the realm of ethics and morality and gazing upon polarity from a more technical standpoint, as Ra did in a previous excerpt I used, my energies incline in the direction of energetic radiation, not absorption.

Do you honestly wonder, “Am I polarizing negative or positive?”

I don’t think it’s pretentious or ignorant or naive to know your own polarity. I think it reflects genuine, authentic, irreducible, foundational, unshakable self-knowledge.

Session 19
QUESTIONER: I assume that an entity on either path can decide to change paths at any time and possibly retrace steps, the path changing being more difficult the farther along the path the change is made. 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.

Thanks for the, as your peoples say, “run for the money” that you gave me, Jeremy. : )