04-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Polarization is a result of relationship. I think it is false to assume that I am polarizing positive on behalf of the "victim". If I am engaging with the aggressor, I am solely polarizing via this relationship, and at this point there is no relationship between "victim" and I, which is needed to activate toward polarization. Therefore, it is my approach toward the active relationship that has any bearring, or work, toward polarization.
I haven't turned to the topic of polarizing by way of the "victim", yet.
. Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.
So far, we have ignored the "victim" in the scenario.
Upon engaging the aggressor... Do I see him as myself or do I proceed with my own interests?
I say that the interests of the third party hold no bearring on my polarization. I say it is based solely on my interaction with whomever I am interacting with.
It is not my duty to defend an other. It is my free will to engage an other, and it is a choice to see them as Self or to see them as a tool to satisfy my Self. Sometimes my self gratification can be to "save" or "protect" something I value or hold on to. This does not serve the other I am engaged with, necessarily, and is a way to satisfy my ego.
I haven't turned to the topic of polarizing by way of the "victim", yet.
. Polarizing isn't occurring during observation.
So far, we have ignored the "victim" in the scenario.
Upon engaging the aggressor... Do I see him as myself or do I proceed with my own interests?
I say that the interests of the third party hold no bearring on my polarization. I say it is based solely on my interaction with whomever I am interacting with.
It is not my duty to defend an other. It is my free will to engage an other, and it is a choice to see them as Self or to see them as a tool to satisfy my Self. Sometimes my self gratification can be to "save" or "protect" something I value or hold on to. This does not serve the other I am engaged with, necessarily, and is a way to satisfy my ego.