Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Monica]

An entity who is less than 51% but making progress towards the 51% is polarizing towards positive, but not yet at the point of conclusively positive.

then that would mean that there can be NO positive 3d entity.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's not an instantaneous occurrence, but a progression. 51% is just the minimum requirement. Many entities surpass that minimum, and may even have surpassed the minimum lifetimes ago, but chose to reincarnate in 3D again to help increase the harvest.

or, NO entity that is in early 3d, can be positively oriented.

It's possible that an entity could progress very quickly to positive in early 3D. Probably not likely, but always possible.

as i said, your effort to carry over 4d properties into 3d

Entities don't go poof and suddenly manifest 4D properties. It's a progression, begun in 3D. When an entity manifests enough (at least 51%) of the 4D properties, he is harvestable to 4D.

We discussed this previously on the Strictly Law of One > Advanced Studies > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D thread (with which I will probably merge portions of this thread).

has basically redefined what positive means,

No, I haven't redefined anything. I simply have a different understanding of it than you do.

and totally delegated entire creation below end 3d into being non-positive/negative. congratulations. you had had basically removed the reality of positively inclined 3d societies, and even negatively oriented 3d societies that are present in orion confederation, from existence.

No, not at all. Those societies were inclined towards positive or negative, but still in the process of evolving and polarizing. Had they already completely polarized, they would have been classified as 4D, not 3D.

That's true. An entity who hasn't yet learned compassion might 'act like a jerk' unintentionally.

However, if the entity is aware of the feelings of others and still disregards them, then that is STS or polarizing in the direction of STS.

no it isnt. there are endless cases in which the entity may act like that, and if none of these involve desire for manipulation and exploitation of the entity for its own benefit, then it cannot be dubbed as a sts act.

Friend, I think you are very mistaken here. Again, those are indeed attributes of STS, but not the only attributes.

An absence of one or more attributes, does not negate STS orientation, if other STS attributes are present.

the reasons range from honesty

Looking at this alone, it's still STS. If Person A knows that his 'brutal honesty' will hurt Person B, but doesn't care, because he thinks honesty is necessary for his own development, then that is still STS, because he is putting his own development above the welfare of the other-self. It's still self-serving and shows a lack of green ray.

to dysfunctional behavior patterns.

I already addressed that. That falls in the category of not yet being evolved enough to care about others, despite any emotional or psychological deficiencies. Many people who were severely abused still end up being kind, loving, caring people.

being aware of the other entity's feelings does not mean that the entity will not act in any of these.

It's not enough to just be aware of the other-self's feelings. The STO-aspiring entity must also care about the other-self's feelings and well-being.

Certainly, at this late stage of the game, with harvest nigh, and knowing that all the souls presently incarnate are here because of seniority, it's reasonable to expect that any souls senior enough to be potentially harvestable, aren't in the category of 'not yet knowing'; thus if they behave in a cold, calloused way, it's because they are polarizing STS, not because they're ignorant.

Thousands of years ago, we might have given them the benefit of the doubt, but not now, so close to harvest.

precariously wrong.

entity may have problems in 4th suboctave of 3rd density. that does not make her a negative entity or negatively polarizing entity.

At this late stage, are you seriously suggesting that there are still entities who haven't even begun polarizing in either direction?

Obviously, there are still plenty of entities on the fence, who haven't polarized sufficiently in either direction to be harvestable. But even they have at least made some progress in 75,000 years. Maybe they are only 45% STO, or 85% STS. They aren't harvestable yet, but they have certainly polarized to some degree, to the point that they understand, at least subconsciously, the nature of their choice when they choose to be kind or cruel to an other-self.

you are exaggerating. or, the entity may have many other concerns in all other suboctaves than the 4th suboctave. that doesnt make the entity negative either,

I didn't say the entity was negative. I said it was leaning negative, polarizing negative.

you are carrying over properties of 4th DENSITY to 3rd density. this is another density.

I think you have segregated the densities too much. All attributes exist in all densities, but in potentiation. They don't just manifest all suddenly, as in poof. They manifest as the entity evolves. Different attributes are manifest more, and emphasized more, according to the density.

Again, this was discussed in the Strictly Law of One > Advanced Studies > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D thread.

Any souls presently incarnate, aren't ignorant like a cat.

actually they are. the society is regressive towards orange, which was apparently a planet wide issue as Ra had dubbed the entire society as being in orange consciousness. when you are under the influence of a ray, you exhibit its properties.

You don't seem to allow for any progression. Also, we don't just magically go poof when we get to another density. It's an evolution and we go to the density we already resonate with. This is evidenced by what Ra tells us of the walking of the Steps of Light. The soul is already suitable for this or that density, and is placed accordingly. This means the soul has already developed those traits! In contrast to what you seem to be saying, which is that they obtain those traits when they are placed in that density. You have it backwards.

what is dubbed as kindness and compassion, however, differ in all cultures.

You are confusing expressions of kindness and compassion, with the actual kindness and compassion.

and the ways to exhibit those too. you people find telling someone directly that they are wrong, as something incompassionate in america. we dont think like that here. i didnt see any other culture so far among the ones i interacted on internet or in my life, with the same bias either. it is apparently an anglo-american cultural perspective.

You have said that 100 times and I have agreed, in matters of syntax. However, I emphatically disagree, in matters of caring about others.

No matter how you slice it, a mother saying something ugly to her child, and seeing the light go out of the child's eyes, is acting in a cold, calloused, uncaring way. Regardless of the reason, that is simply not acceptable for an entity aspiring to polarize STO.

Let's isolate the point here: The way she says it, her exact words, tone of voice, etc. might vary from one culture to another. Quit being hung up on that. The end result is, if the mother is uncaring, and knowingly hurts the child, that action, regardless of the words used, is incompatible with polarizing STO.

yes. but i have reconsidered, reassessed, examined my explanations and rationalizations, and saw that i was not wrong.

That's all fine and dandy. But, despite your best efforts, you might still be wrong.

you, on the other hand, have yet not provided any other explanation or reasoning, or mechanic or anything, other than 'maybe's.

That doesn't prove that you're right and I'm wrong at all. It simply shows that we have 2 different approaches.

Your approach is very similar to the Bible-thumper, who analyzes the book and decides what he considers the 'truth' then forms a rigid doctrine. Anyone deviating from that doctrine is considered a heretic. There is no room for disagreement or opposing interpretations. Yes, your approach is very similar to this.

My approach is different. I don't consider the Law of One a text for a religion, as the Christians consider their Bible. I don't consider it infallible, even though I personally resonate with it about 99%. But, most importantly, I don't consider it an authority. My own personal guidance is my only authority. The Law of One, however, is a blueprint for me, a guidelines, a wayshower. I am grateful for it and to those who made it possible. But my deep, inner knowing will not likely be changed because you 'prove' something in the text. In some cases, about certain details, sure, but not about important concepts like the nature of STS and STO. That understanding is stamped in my consciousness. I don't need Ra to explain that to me. I already understood it before I ever read the Law of One. The Law of One didn't introduce me to STS and STO; it just explained why we have STS and STO.

whereas i have assessed and considered all of your maybes.

I believe you have...with your intellect. But have tried considering them with your heart?

and you are now wanting me to consider that i was wrong.

Yes, I do, because I sincerely do believe you're wrong. Maybe not about that one word green or blue - I readily admitted I could be wrong on that - but about the concepts in general. I think you've missed the essence of what the polarities are all about.

But the reason I am inviting you to consider that you're wrong, is that I believe you are a sincere seeker, and I care about you. I really do.

However, if you choose to reject my suggestion, and remain rigid in your beliefs, then I accept that and honor and respect your choice.

However, I do ask that you do the same for others whom you think are wrong. Please grant them the same courtesy!

no - you WANT me to be wrong.

Nope. You are 100% absolutely WRONG on that. I don't 'want' you to be wrong! That is actually an offensive thing to say, unity. Why on Earth would I want you to be wrong? That would imply that I derive some joy from proving others wrong, as though an STS entity on a power trip!

No, I don't want you to be wrong. Neither do I 'want' you to be right. It is what it is. I have stated my views. It's up to you what you choose to do with what I've shared.

however, i have reconsidered, and in this situation, what i have had brought is much more clear than what you have brought.

In your mind. Not in mine.

And you still might be... wrong.

Notice I used the word might. That's because the Law of One isn't a religion and I refuse to make it such. I think you are doing it a disservice to keep trying to turn it into a dogma.

at this point you are even claiming wrongness on some quote that is found in the material you are relying in, without bringing any justification for its wrongness. despite, as i have explained, it complements much more deeper and advanced spiritual information in regard to creation.

I already provided my reasons for my speculations. The bottom line is, I really don't care whether the word was supposed to be green or blue. It really doesn't change my understanding of the polarities. But it sure seems to matter to you, because you seem to be relying solely on the books, rather than also incorporating your own personal guidance, resonance, and, there it is again - heart.

It seems almost as if you hadn't had 75,000 years of evolving here in 3D, never mind before that. Maybe you're new to this planet? But your conclusions seem very foreign to me, and I know they do to many others here also.

so, excuse me, but i cannot be wrong because you want me to be.

That's moot because I have no interest in whether you are right or wrong.

Nevertheless, you still could be wrong!

ok then interpret it differently, and make it one that doesnt revolve cultural traits that are found in america or britain.

I've already been doing that, throughout this entire discussion, and every other discussion I've ever participated in here at B4. Together, all of us have woven a tapestry that beautifully illustrates the Law of One, including any imperfections that each of us add to that tapestry.

Then why did Ra ask Don to be vigilant in detecting errors?

totally leaving aside whatever kind of aim don's social memory complex/totality and don, subconsciously may have arranged to be learned in this work for don's person, totally leaving out the fact that more alert and conscious participants would have more magical faculties manifesting, aiding with endless things ranging from intuition to psychic defense, being alert would provide the means for the questioner to feel more appreciated. an alert student/teacher is much more effective than one that has put his head on the desk.

That's mere speculation.

It seems much more logical to me that Ra asked Don to scan for errors, because Ra knew there might be errors.

You argue for the infallibility of Ra's words. Well, why aren't you taking this statement ("scan for errors") literally? Ra said, "scan for errors". Taken literally, Ra wanted us to scan for errors because there might be errors.

You argue for perfection of the source, but then you come up with a roundabout explanation about what Ra really meant in that very, very clear statement.

You can't have it both ways.

You have taken this discussion into a different direction. Initially, you stated that my mother did the right thing, implying, the right thing for an STO entity. I countered that by saying what she did was STS, not STO.

Now you are saying, no it wasn't STS.

However, that does not prove your original argument that what she did was actually 'the right thing' for an STO.

Please return to your original statement and explain how blatant disregard for a child's feelings can possibly be 'the right thing' for an entity attempting to polarize STO.

im not saying something as such. i expressed my opinion about your mother at that point. you have identified the behavior in particular as something sts. from that point on, i am discussing about that particular behavior, and telling you that it is not a sts behavior.

You are evading the question. You explicitly said, not once but at least twice, that my mother 'did the right thing.' Presuming that my mother was aspiring to polarize STO, that is an entirely different issue from whether it's STS or not. I would really like to know how you can justify hurting another entity as being 'the right thing' for an STO person.

sufficiently evolved, not sufficiently evolved ... a mother's instinct about its child, is not something that can be matched.

A healthy mother, sure. Unfortunately, not all mothers have a healthy, instinctual concern for their children. Thus, my mother's actions are subject to discussion about STS/STO, being that their presumed benevolence wasn't a given.

thats why she probably did a very big favor to you.

No, she didn't. She deprived me of one of the very few moments of joy in an otherwise horrible, miserable, traumatic childhood. That was despicable to do that, knowing how unhappy I was. One of the very few times I actually felt happy, she took it away!

Tell me again she "did the right thing."

apparently, she did not do the same about your acting didnt she.

That's different because I was older by then and no longer cared what she thought.

But actually, yes she did do the same thing; she told me I could never be an actress because I was too short.

The short part was ok, because it's true short women aren't wanted in the entertainment industry.

But, again, that's not the point. Kids dream. Dreams fuel their endeavors and that's how they learn and grow. The dreams of kids should not be squashed...and certainly not their joy or laughter.

Now, tactfully telling an 18-year-old woman who is under 5 feet tall that she won't likely succeed as a fashion model, is fine. Telling a 10-year-old child playing dress-up that she can never be a fashion model, isn't fine.

Tactfully telling an 18-year-old woman with a raspy voice that she might have trouble being an opera singer is fine. Telling a 10-year-old child whose voice hasn't even matured yet, and who is singing for fun, that her voice sounds terrible, isn't fine.

i wonder why.

Only because she didn't have to watch my acting, since it was done at school. She never went to any of my plays, so it didn't concern her.

a negative sts entity - per your definition - would do the same to you for your acting too.

Are you reading my comments? I have explained several times that you have it backwards - her cold, calloused remarks would have been appropriate for an STS entity, but not for an STO entity.

yet apparently you even entertained becoming an actress.

Only because I was older.

since it rather nullifies your arguments.

No, it doesn't. My mother wasn't an evil person. She wasn't blatantly STS. She meant well. She was just really messed up. That's all irrelevant. To anyone reading this: This isn't about my childhood or my mother. That's all past history and long ago healed and forgiven. I am simply using this scenario to illustrate what I believe to be a very important point:

Unless the person is polarizing STS, being cruel is never "the right thing" to do.