Extreme negative bias in intro sociology

[zenmaster]

........

i dont think your analysis on this subject is correct. your approach, basically assumes that yellow ray development, ie 3rd density, is a negative one.

A negative one? Not really. I was commenting on others assumptions at to what constitutes 'negative' development (in the historical/sociological context). Disharmony and power structures are not necessarily 'negative' if they are not truly suppressive. For example, adolescents require certain constraints 'for their own good' in order to mature properly.

I would question anyone's discernment here when faced with an evaluation of 'negativity', or even 'love' since everyone's understanding on the subject is so incredibly limited. People still tend to evaluate at a level where superficial emotional impressions predominate. For example, if they've recently managed to open the heart center - it magically becomes the new 'standard' for judgment - and the associated feelings invoked almost inevitably will be emphasized until the energy finds a place from the perspective yet another higher, more consciously aware context. There is a necessary pattern and staging to evolution where one must face oneself in a new light, in the mirror provided by the logos and other sub-logoi. Battleground or playground, strife and struggle or fun and games.

In some manner, the subdensities, like the chakras, must be known for what they offer. One can't balance at all if their expectations are clouded by hope or fear. But the initial response to new catalyst seems to be one or the other.

it seems to basically take the development in this planet, as the natural development in yellow ray density.

Again, not really. Whenever there is the will of a logos involved, it begs the question of what is 'natural' vs 'unnatural'.

and actually, we are not in a higher state of freedom than the earlier empires. the control now is much more widespread, participation is much more voluntary (and mandatory), and belief in the system (at least in surface) is much more firm. and, all of the systems of society are totally shaped to support each other. it is a system that enslaves willingly. and the process is made known to entities as something that is just, right, and fruitful. back in ancient empires' days, this was not too different, but, at least there was the notion of elite/slavery in their pure understandable form.

I'm not sure about that. Social structure, opportunities, and worldviews today are not comparable to those times. The individual and collective core valuing systems were immature. Meritocracy, for example, didn't even emerge anywhere in the world until late 1700's (200 years ago!). Did it not emerge before then because of 'negativity' or because people did not realize it as a possibility to give to themselves?

Seriously...In the broader scope, is there anyone here capable of constructing a workable system of third-density evolution - a lesson-plan - through each of the subdensities, that is what they consider 'positive''? The answer is, of course, 'no'. Yet, incapable of offering a possible alternative, we armchair-judge, from the standpoint of what we better know now and more-ethically appreciate, prior and extant systems of belief that are plainly serving evolutionary ends.

We still throw around service-orientation labels as they conveniently suit our projections.