Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Quantum]

Quantum: I highly appreciate your wordings and reasoning. I believe you have contributed to many people's growth both as individuals and group mentality.

In truth, I have done much "armchair philosophy", even here. But in many ways and even though it can be labeled as 'wasted time', it has been vital to my spiritual development. If there were no mistakes, there would be no room for growth. (Or as Ra words it "were there no potential for misunderstanding there would be no experience".)
This 'misunderstanding' is also relevant in self to self conversation, ie silent reasoning in your own mind. By experiencing many different possibilities you have higher probability of reaching things that resonate and is meaningful for your individual development.
So one can conclude that there are no mistakes, or that the concept of mistakes has little meaning, and that there is no optimal path.

In my subjective experience, not many of the intellectual concepts of Law of One has been useful for my spiritual development (though I must admit that I like to ponder these as food for thought). The only practical, useful effect I've experienced is an increase in openness of myself to possibilities, this includes love and harmony.

Hello ayadew. Many thanks for your contributions as well my friend. I delight in the many postings you too have had to share. Please allow me to clarify a sentiment if I may. I in no way believe that general philosophizing is a waste of time, as much as I do that armchair philosophizing is. Yes, it can be intellectually interesting, as in intellectually entertaining, but hardly may be viewed as pragmatic, or with purpose if simply banal and containing no charge or catalyst for simply having gone through the exercise. The same may be said of of an armchair philosophy wherein one has no stake in the outcome. The understanding between the two forms of philosophy of a pragmatic philosophy vs an armchair philosophy are therefore extremely distinct, one from the other. Philosophy in general, or to be more precise, specifically, that has at it's core as principle the stated intent to improve the condition of man on the whole, or the condition of a man's life in particular, is a philosophy worth the pragmatic endeavor of putting to practice. In this respect I believe in fact we may be very much on the same page in your sentiment above that generally philosophy is vital to one's growth "by experiencing many possibilities" and as such in this context is not one that is armchair philosophizing at all.

At it's most innocent, armchair philosophizing may be viewed as nothing more than the stagnant neutrality of engaging in banal conversations that have no real relevance or catalyst to anything, much less the empowerment to change the lot of man vs one's condition. To the other extreme, armchair philosophizing at it's worst may lend itself to the blurring or subverting, either innocently or with purpose, an intended message, this by nothing more than engaging in the many "what if's" which in fact become self contradictory to the message intended.

Let us now be directly pragmatic and to the point by way of example as much as opinion, this to the very thread to which we speak: Biased View of STS. Ra has stated that the STS path delights in the willful causation of pain and suffering to others. We may bandy many definitions about as to what word or words may best describe this intent, but can we not simply be in agreement that one such word as a descriptor might in fact be the word Evil? The legalistic determinant in a court of law in any land has it that evil is in a very real and strong sense one that involves a premeditated act. Willful is synonymous to premeditated, not by inference, but by definition. The willful causation of pain and suffering to others by any definition, being a premeditated one, then is evil. Would anyone truly dispute this sound closed logic?

Now, if we can, perhaps you see my point? It becomes then armchair philosophy to attempt to deconstruct the Ra message by suggesting that the STS path is one that is 'largely misunderstood' by suggesting that STS is not part and parcel to the word evil, or as such not part of this definition as given, intended, or understood. Let us not be offended by words or their definition as if though they may cause us embarrassment or offend our sensibilities. Words may have power. We live in our words, in as much as without them we have no thought (for the moment). But a word has no more power than we give it. Perhaps because we as STO may in fact be so sensitive, we instead meander about without conviction too oft and thereby allow ourselves to be distracted, or blurred, or led down garden paths which end in a pit verses a view. This indeed may be one of the dangers of the STO path, as much as in intellectualism for the sake of intellectualism itself, either on the one hand of being either so sensitive, or on the other of being so heady, that both at their worst may allow one to conjecture and speculate that it might just be worth the effort of venturing down such a path for no other reason than from the STO perspective that it was lovingly put out out there by a brother, albeit one on a self professed STS path, or one so heady intellectual that the intellectual may be nothing more than sterile curious regardless of outcome or consequence just for the sake of detached study. Such a thread as Biased View of STS may innocuously then as a result morph into an understanding that STS is somehow misunderstood to be something else than it is, evil, and as such that we mustn't call it evil, or worse that the willful causation of pain and suffering to others isn't evil at all. It's just largely misunderstood and therefore there exists a biased view towards it. OK, if even but for a moment, let us entertain it with one simple child like question. What then is it if it is not evil to willfully cause pain and suffering to others, this totally irrespective to the point that it may be a viable path?

Let us speak plainly then to the elephant directly under the carpet if we may, i.e. "Evil is a viable path".

There. It is said. Now the truth is out there and not obscured, such that it is "not not" what it is (forgive the double negative..but it makes a point). This is pragmatism. This is unblurred, simple, unconfused, and to the point, such that we may now engage in a much more constructive conversation should we chose, and as a consequence explore the many possibilities intellectually such that a true understanding and perhaps even catalyst may be gained as a result. Now it is no longer banal or in the domain of neutral armchair philosophizing by attempting to clean it up so much that it does not offend our sensibilities resulting in as consequence in the hope of removing it from what it in fact is. Evil.

Suggesting that Satanists are less than true STS, or that they are puny, or that so too are sociopaths, this as exactly posted earlier, due to in fact both of them being "out there in the world" as opposed to remaining detached in an inner world "not acting out" is perhaps not as much STS as it may be any number of things ranging from reclusive to antisocial. But it is not the definition of STS. STS, as given by Ra, causes harm, pain, and suffering in the world and as much to their brothers for it, as opposed to remaining in their inner sanctums, not creating karma, but believing instead they are accumulating power for it. Now, far be it for me to say. Perhaps they are? But this is not what Ra says. Suggesting that this is a higher path of STS negates the fact that few graduates of STS harvest such as Genghis Khan or Rasputin did so by choosing to remain at home in sterile isolation in their caves, but in fact did so by getting out there and mixing it up, much to the pain and detriment of others, their given point and purpose.

What then is karma to the negative entity? And if the negative entity accumulates such a thing as karma, how does the negative entity alleviate karma?

Answer: We are those of Q’uo, my brother. To answer that query we must put you into the negative mindset. To the negative mindset, karma is delicious. The building up of it is delicious. There is joy in creating more karma because this is the by-product of control over others and manipulation of others. Consequently, there is no attempt to alleviate karma in the service-to-self path, but only to hone the edge of rage and anger until it is ever more penetrating and ever more effective.

And so, to close, it becomes armchair philosophy and banal intellectualism to engage in an antithesis of definition just for the sake of doing so by denying what is altogether otherwise all too obvious. The real question becomes not "do we wish to redefine the definition of evil aka STS" as much as "do we wish to engage in deconstructing the message of Ra". I am not at all a fundamentalist to any though construct, belief, religion, or philosophy in any manner, and am even quite willing to question the Ra message, if this is what we chose to do. But to what end given our stated purpose is to understand more the teachings as opposed to deconstructing them? Should we engage in this exercise I would no doubt assume the position of arguing for the Ra teachings as opposed to against. But lets be cognizant of the fact that this is what we are venturing into, verses being so distracted that we engage in it unawares.

I offer these considerations as my humble contribution in the hope it may be perceived as adding to an honesty to this thread which IMHO may otherwise continue remaining blurred, or grow to become more so.

Quantum, thank you for speaking up! You have made many important points that I agree wholeheartedly with.
....I think many of us are so concerned with being loving that we might sometimes get wishy-washy.... perhaps we have indeed gone too far in the other direction, and have lost conviction about those things that are truly heinous and clearly of the STS path.....I think it's important to remember that, even though, ultimately, we ARE all ONE, at this juncture our task is to define our path...to clearly state "I am this, not that." Even Q'uo has stated "We are not those...we are of the radiant path."...Did anyone notice that? Here is Q'UO saying "We are not those."... Isn't this a contradiction? .....If we are all One, then we are ALL 'those,' right?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the true sense.


But NO, in terms of the purpose of this incarnation: The Choice.

Ditto Ditto Ditto Dear Monica. Scripture put it as well as any source wherein it is stated, and I paraphrase, "The choice between good and evil is put before thee. Choose thou."

Q