Harvest: Do The Math

[Bring4th_Austin]

Good points, a! You and unity100 have brought out some very nuanced points well. They are difficult to accept; but if one views this in a disinterested mode, it does appear there is strong backing for this from the LOO -

71.14 Questioner: You have made the statement that pure negativity acts as a gravity well pulling all into it. I was wondering first if pure positivity has precisely the same effect? Could you answer that please?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. Positivity has a much weaker effect due to the strong element of recognition of free will in any positivity approaching purity. Thus although the negatively oriented entity may find it difficult to polarize negatively in the midst of such resounding harmony it will not find it impossible.

Upon the other hand, the negative polarization is one which does not accept the concept of the free will of other-selves. Thusly in a social complex whose negativity approaches purity the pull upon other-selves is constant. A positively oriented entity in such a situation would desire for other-selves to have their free will and thusly would find itself removed from its ability to exercise its own free will, for the free will of negatively oriented entities is bent upon conquest.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that bolded section. Even if someone were not of "positive purity," and did not wish for the STS entity to have their free will, the STS entity could enforce their own free will upon the other entity.

Even removing STS from the equation completely leaves me with some gaps. Let's take the bull example Don used in the material:

42.2 Questioner: I will attempt to make an analogy. If an animal, shall I say, a bull, in a pen attacks you because you have wandered into his pen, you get out of his way rapidly but you do not blame him. You do not have much of an emotional response other than the response that he might damage you. However, if you encounter another self in his territory and he attacks you, your response may be more of an emotional nature creating physical bodily responses. Am I correct in assuming that when your response to the animal and to the other-self is that of seeing both as Creator and loving both and understanding their action in attacking you is the action of their free will then you have balanced yourself correctly in this area? Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.

As stated, the balanced entity would not react in any way except to protect the free will of the other first, and their own body complex second. Let's say there is no escape, and the only options are to harm the other entity or to let it harm you (completely possible situation). Why is a choice like this necessary? The preferred choice, allowing the other-self to do as it pleases, would end in the cessation of incarnation. Can we really call it freewill when the preferred choice kills us? In my opinion, if we experienced true freewill, death would not be the only option for an entity wishing to preserve the freewill of an other-self.