Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Quantum]

Quantum wrote:
Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may.

....you need not, unless you truly enjoy doing so, invoke historical figures of eminence in order to pave your way for disagreeing with the prevailing thought. The merit of your own thought is sufficient for disagreeing.

The merit of my thought? I am using the Ra material in invoking the historical figures we are referring to of which represent only three to my knowledge and moreover which specifically graduated to STS 4D? What other figures are we speaking of? Do we not use the Ra material as a primary study for agreement and disagreement to posts in general? Allow me to invite you to re-phrase or rethink what you surely are not implying here as I'm equally as sure you are not suggesting one not use the Ra passages as merit for a position?

If I may, I disagree whole-heartedly with your implication here - that being that talk is cheap and the net result of that which occurs on these forums is null and void in the face of "real" life.

Your response of my intended message suggesting that I feel "talk as cheap" equaling "the net result" of making "these forums null and void" is wholly your interpretation, but not at all my thought or feeling. It is certainly not what I said, nor is it even close to my sentiments, and certainly as far removed from my feelings. This misunderstanding of my intended point seems to be the major thrust of most of your response as is seen by how many times you reiterate it? Allow me to clarify with great conviction that there is absolutely everything right with philosophy, as well as with discussion, as well as with intellectualism in all manner. Goodness. My message is quite the contrary. How you could interpret this is baffling? The entire study of the LOO is philosophy, as it is intellectualism, as is this forum of discussion? None of it is cheap, null, or void? Why else would we engage here if it were? I would invite you GLB to again re-read my posts on this thread? I salute this forum strongly.

I do admit that I am attempting to draw a metaphorical line in the sand by making a distinction between "armchair philosophy" verses pragmatic philosophy. I don't know how I could have been any more clear between the two? I wrote to this at length? (see previous posts) . I will offer to re-read them if you too also promise (but perhaps this time with a more intended heart for seeing it?). I assure you that you will see I address discussion, philosophy,and intellectualism all as distinct between armchair and pragmatic. There is huge difference between the two (armchair and pragmatic). I suggest one works, while the other does not. One is pragmatic, the other is neutral. Please re-read my intended message again. If you can not see it, I assure you all is well nonetheless.

Here is my real and intended point and issue: I feel if we veer off the path of the Ra messages, or the information too far, that we run the risk of creating an almost subset understanding of what was in fact stated, if not careful. This is as true for those of us who have read and studied the material for years, as much or more true for the newcomers who have not. I feel we owe the Material a service to remain true to it, as much for the newcomers as to our own further understanding of it. I am more than sure if there were a way to run a poll that we would find that many many of the newcomers may be receiving much of their information from many many of these posts, as much or sadly more their own studies. I would caution us to be cognizant of this. Do we not owe them this service as much as we do to ourselves?

To that end, may I give several innocent examples to illustrate where intellectualism and opinion may innocently blur a point? This may result in becoming something akin to a false philosophy, resulting in potentially a host of false discussions, perhaps resulting in false conclusions, all if not challenged or dissented with? This is also close to my definition of a neutral, banal, uncharged, armchair type of philosophy. I realize I enter into delicate ground here, and further realize how this may read on a two dimensional screen. Please allow me the apology if once again misconstrued. I am trying. The greater intent is that if we may all remain humble in the attempt to be challenged (myself included), we then allow ourselves the opportunity of examining ourselves openly by all, as might be the case in the beginning stages of an SMC where all are gazing at all and there are no untruths that will not be revealed. We may all then grow as a group as a result. I'm very OK with this.

Here are some examples then:

The vast majority of people on Earth are more STS than STO. The norm is biased toward STS. What is at issue is someone who's highly polarized STS.

Brother Thorne, this is contrary to Ra's message. May I with love use this as an example? The majority are STO.
We need as serious students make every effort for all, not only one, to catch these mistakes, less they create banal conversations that lead to many posts in an unintended manner contrary to the intended truth. Unless we are here to challenge the LOO, let us be vigilant. Challenging the LOO for me becomes idle talk, armchair philosophy, neutral, and uncharged towards the further effort of understanding more the Ra message. Perhaps this serves to clarify my position more.

Those peoples you often see as having STS activities, who are dominating, controlling, lying, manipulating, etc etc are simply ants .
They are Perverted by the path, they are not in a spiritual quest.
Have a look to those pathetic satanist for example, evil maybe, STS surely not.

Controlling, dominating, manipulating etc etc are ants? If allowed to remain unchecked, one might forget that this is antithesis to the Ra message entirely in as much as these are the very words used as definition of STS by Ra (see previous posts of Ra above by 3D and myself). I therefore challenge this openly as opinion only, armchair philosophy wholly and specifically (separate and apart from philosophy in generally), and contrary to Ra's message.
I am quite OK that one may have a different opinion to Ra. I stated so openly on my last post. But if an LOO student is not allowed to challenge a statement contrary to Ra without evoking seemingly a challenging sentiment for doing so, much less using historical figures in context to same that Ra specifically offered as guideposts, then I begin to miss the point of our presence here?
I might further challenge Chaotikmind's descriptor of Satanists as being pathetic. I have no way of measuring so, but I dare say there might be a few satanists quite proficient on the STS path, and as such are hardly pathetic?

Can't an STS being be something like an (h)ermit also? completely separated from society to the last degree?
If the answer is yes, how that being could be evil with others if he's not interacting at all ?
I don't remember the passage , but i think i remember something like Ra speaking about higher density STS which were complety separated from everything.

1.A sociopathic murderer in confined isolation is still a sociopath.
2. Being totally separated in 3D overshoots the mark as comparative analysis of one separated in 5D. We are here to interact as mirrors one for the other so that we may indeed polarize.

Just a few passing thoughts. First recall, that anyone that is not harvestable STO is, by definition primarily STS (i.e., <51% STO means =>50% STS), with the majority of the world's population probably in the range 60 - 70% STS (which, ironically is almost harvestable STO)! This also means that even those minimally harvestable STO are still 49% STS.

Less than 51% = Greater than 50%? To be more specific to this point:Less than 51% STO = Greater than 50% STS? A substance or property that is less than 51% is simply less than 51%. That's all. But it may not be implied as a result to be greater than 50% for being so? 50% Calcium mixed with 10% Phosphate does not equal 51% phosphate any more than does a 49% tomato mixed with a 5% potato make it a potato?
The supposition above holds that if one is not 51% positive in STO that one then is ipso facto STS as a result? An entity not being 51% STO means simply he is not 51% STO. Nothing more. God literally help us were this not true. By this logic all one's 49% - 50.999% efforts would be for naught? Although clearly this entity is not harvestable, it certainly does not in any manner mean to construe that this same entity is in any way STS? To be a harvestable STS also holds one must be 51% STS.
By the same logic and definition above, if an STS entity is not 51% negative, and therefor fails to graduate to harvest to 4D STS, he must therefore then be STO? Neither statement is true. Both statements of logic are false.
Allow me with total sincerity, and with great respect and humility intended, to use this statement made above as an example of what I have been suggesting may lead to the danger of misunderstanding through innocently offered blurred intellectualism. If we begin with a premise, assumed as a truth, and allow it to stand as such, we then run the same risk as the driver embarking off in the wrong direction unchecked, potentially with passengers on board.
I recognize the obvious limits of the intellect in the face of spiritual reality. The intellect is a tool, not the way. The intellect certainly has a vital role to play in our evolution and the living of our daily lives, from the decisions we make to the interactions we have with others, this from the integrity of our thought processes to the quality of our lives; to the bathroom, to the bedroom, to the book - the intellect clearly plays a role. But if unchecked, it may also disservice us. To be more clear, this is my definition of armchair philosophy.
I humbly then submit again that suggesting that STS is something other than has been defended herein is the attempt to dress it up, if not dress it down (resulting even in the possible blur of a clear STO understanding/definition in the process - to those less aware?). I submit it (STS) is simply what it is, this by any name or descriptor one might choose to define it by, one of which without question as a descriptor may well be evil

If, as you say, "armchair philosophy" is moot and of no value in the face of the real catalyst of the moment, why then participate in so futile an exercise yourself?

Same answer as above. I didn't say this. Armchair philosophy is moot, not true pragmatic philosophy offered in depth of heart and thought process.

I don't think that anyone said that the service to self polarity is "devoid" of evil, just that the service to self polarity represents a path of the Creator that does not, key word, necessarily conform to popular notions of "evil".

Again, this is simply and entirely not so. As a matter of fact the very first lines of "Biased View of STS" that chaotikmind open with on his very fisrt post to this subject begins the digression, if not deconstruction, of the Ra message which then leads to the many many conversations as consequence based on an entirely false premise.

it seems that STS is always linked to something evil, which is obviously false

See the example of my intended point more so now? How many posts to this false premise have been written? How many other posts to how many other false premises might have been written? If this is not one definition to an armchair philosophy or a moot philosophy verses a true and enlightening philosophy then what is or what else may this manner of philosophy be called? Would the word subversive philosophy strike a harder cord? Let us run a thought experiment for even one moment. Let us hypothetically assume a participant here on bring4th were indeed a true STS of high standing. Lets love him. Lets love and shower him as much as we would anyone. But let us also be cognitive of the fact that any subversive statement to a Ra message might be intended as a ruse or a mistake whereby it may either be coming from him or through him as an emissary. Either we believe what Ra says, or we question its authenticity? Do not the higher realms of negative density not employ the lower realms of negative density to do their bidding? Would it be wild conjecture on my part to assume that this wee bit of the Ra message were not simply an armchair statement, but potentially very true and thus able to manifest even here? Is this not allowed as conjecture to raise all's attention to this? Do we take the messages seriously, or do we question them? This in no way implies we not love our STS brethren.

You (GLB) then quote me with: The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies?

An odd statement to purport that increased understanding will not change the "real" underlying truth, which is not, as you see it, simply your truth, but the truth which, it seems, must be made apparent to the members of this forum.

Again, a misinterpretation on your part. IMHO increased understanding may change everything as regards a man's mind about it. No amount of understanding will change the truth of what it is, either to diminish it as a truth or to increase it. I reiterate and maintain pragmatically and philosophically "that it is what it is" no matter how much "one dresses it up or dresses it down". STS is STS. The more I understand it does not change its nature. Only one's nature and one's mind may be changed, both of which may or may not be based on falsehoods. Therefore I submit, that even though I take no credit for stating that "increased understanding will not change the real underlying truth", I agree with it nonetheless. One must be vigilant to what one believes is true. It will change him, not the truth. Understanding may be changed. But Truth can not be changed. The truth needs no help. It pragmatically simply is. If understanding increases a truth, then logic dictates that misunderstanding a truth would conversely hold the same power to change the truth as well. This example serves well again, as one for misinterpretation to a statement that if made and believed might create a less than true philosophy, an armchair philosophy, a moot philosophy.

Did Ra ever say that any of the examples you referenced were "evil"?

No, he did not. But we mince words. What shall we call STS? Just STS?
As I stated earlier, one may discharge a word as much as one wishes of any one of it's definitions. It is IMHO that it still is what it is. Allow me the example: I may call STO goodness. I dare say I would not receive this response from you were I to do so. But if I call STS by one of it's definitions, i.e. evil, it causes something akin to a political correctness of the word? What should we then call STO if not goodness, or purity of heart, or kindness? Simply a neutral word "only" such as "Service to Others" only? It would restrict conversation immensely.
Its quite OK to call STO goodness, and caring, and giving, and loving (and by loving I mean in a way that is universally understood as STO). Then it must pragmatically also be in keeping to call STS by its converse, and by one of its definitions (evil) should one choose? It becomes trite to argue definitions, or worse to restrict them by only a one-way standard?

In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding.

I may be in error but I think that the work each participant on this forum is doing is within their own heart. I don't recall any mention of a desire for the sharing of brunch with the autocrat or the mass-murderer.

This is being pedantic GLB, and seemingly with the entire and whole intent of missing my meaning? It becomes difficult to discuss if we engage one another personally? I chose to remain engaged to the philosophical points of this or any discussion only. Even if I utilize the seeming misstatements of others above, I hope I do so correctly with their permission, given they stated it, and only to serve as a mirror to my point, and not in any manner to be construed as personal. To clarify, I stated that either of these three characters were by any definition evil, and that as such even if we attempt to neutralize their character through armchair philosophy, we still pragmatically, even in theory, would not lightly invite them into their lives.

You quote me: Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not.

Firstly, throughout the Ra contact, Ra emphasized repeatedly what the most helpful response was to the "advanced negative greeting" which you refer to, both in terms of protection and polarization, that being to respond with unconditional love while rejecting the service of the negative greeter. Each on this forum, as far as I can tell by their expressed thoughts, is attempting to move closer to that position of loving the negative entities as described by Ra, not in having them over for Parcheesi.

I agree with the L/L's response entirely. Love indeed is the only response. It is not the response that was my point. It was the STS intent that was my point. The intent of attempting to rob Carla of her life as an act of STS illustrates very powerfully and very clearly what STS is, whether in this 3D existence, or in 4D and 5D above that. As for Parcheessi, you once again seem to intentionally be missing my intended message.

Secondly, while entitled to your own perspective, I disagree with the intellectual argument that minimizes and finds no value in intellectual arguments.

I am reiterating your quotes the many times you make them as a mirror to demonstrate how many times you have erroneously interpreted my meaning. As I suggested, it seems to be largely the thrust of your response. It does serve however as a perfect example of how a misinterpretation may go on and on, whether it be this, or the Ra message, if not corrected. May I correct it in humility again?

We all live, to one degree or another, an intellectual life. Our thinking - especially thinking that is informed, educated (in one fashion or another), and refined by exposure to others' thinking - plays an important role in our lives. The thinking of Don, Carla, and Jim had direct bearing on and application to the situation which you reference. Their philosophy and their ideas as to, as you said, "what STS is and is not" played a vital role in determining their response to the situation.

I agree GLB. Same point again.To this completely I agree, as is self evident and seen by my willingness to be involved.

If you see civility and kindness in operation here, this is something to be celebrated. These qualities are not indicators of understanding being watered down.

The civility and kindness is wonderful. I respect it immensely. It demonstrates the echo of the STO path we seek. But again dear GLB, you misinterpret. The Kindness and civility expressed is indeed not an indicator of an understanding being watered down. Misconstruing the Ra message, or challenging it in some cases is my point, and as such unquestionably may water it down. This is what I in service wish to challenge, highlight, and attempt to correct when seen. May I continue to do so? Is it not a service to point these examples out? There are many many many more such examples. It is in the either innocent statements of some for example, or perhaps the purposeful misstatements of others of the LOO and the intended Ra message that I have concentrated my efforts, not in the arguing against intellectualism or philosophy as seemingly stated throughout your post. On the contrary, I have engaged in intellectualism and the philosophy of the LOO to do so. Should we all not attempt to do so for one another, rather than risk loosing the purity of the study group, or worse the intended meaning of even one single message for even one single of our brothers(?) for the intended and stated purpose for furthering his and our own understanding of the LOO ? If we do not challenge one another to higher ground, or worse yet are chastised for doing so, then where is the academia for learning? This is how one learns in any true setting of an academic nature with the intent to advance the cause for understanding. In this light GLB, I welcome your responses, as much as I question them.

Thank you, truly, for sharing your thoughts, Quantum. Though I am often challenging your thoughts in this post, please know that I have the utmost respect for your thought process and gratitude for the privilege of being able to freely discuss these topics from adjacent corners of this room.

I waited a full 2,000 plus views before deciding to participate on the thread of Biased Views of STS. I followed it with reservation for some time thinking it might not gather as much momentum before deciding to jump in. I have seen many posts that seem to innocently misconstrue what has been given. Thank you in kind for allowing me to express my challenges and responses in kind. I would close GLB by suggesting that if we do not engage in just exactly such an exercise as we have, and were all in complete political correctness or total agreement, there would be little gained in attempting to advance through spiritual, intellectual, or philosophical exercise.

Thank you as much,

Q