Are slaves the most harvestable STO entities?

[neutral333]

While taking a shower (a place where I have great thoughts), it came to me that Serving one/some could be a disservice to others and even yourself.

Some examples come to mind:

-Someone who works to the point of physical detriment out of service for their family (just as Carla has).

-Helping one's business and co-workers to grow and succeed only to find that it resulted in the collapse of several other businesses and people losing their jobs.

-Caring for an ill parent while neglecting your spouse.

I always believe that I am overwhelmingly STO, at the same time I came to the realization a while back that I had to take care of (serve) my self to a certain point before I could serve others. When I lacked in helping myself, it forced others who care about me to expend their hard won energies and resources on me and I lacked the confidence that I could truly serve others.

Is it possible to set off a chain reaction of complete service to others?

Are people who are serving themselves actually serving others by showing us that as individual portions of the One Infinite Creator we are important and need to treat ourselves well?

Are slaves the most harvestable entities as their service to another or others is surely over 51%?

Lastly, it is common sense that in order to live in a world where you rely at least minutely on others, you must serve others in order that they might better serve you (for STS's out there). Why is there such a dialectic here?

Somebody straighten out my thoughts...please.

---

Also. I use the symbol of Yin Yang, or as in chinese the Taijitu (yin and yang are characteristics represented by a symbol of a different name), to make sense of opposing ideas. My questioning follows this symbol's suggestion that each opposing force necessarily includes its opposite within.

[GentleReckoning]

Ok, contrast slave with free will.

If STO is not your choice, do you really get a chance to polarize at all?

Perhaps you were looking for the term 'servant'?

[Spaced]

Being a slave isn't really service to others, it's service to other, singular, and it's not something that you do by choice. The ultimate goal of a STS entity is to impose their will onto others, which is what they do when they take slaves.

[neutral333]

Ok, contrast slave with free will.

If STO is not your choice, do you really get a chance to polarize at all?

Perhaps you were looking for the term 'servant'?

Does serving others against your will still not count as service to others?

[Spaced]

Everything in this octave is about free will. Polarization starts with making the Choice

[Tenet Nosce]

Polarization starts with making the Choice

IMO- Polarization ends with making The Choice. That's why Ra put the card at the end of the deck.

See discussion here.

neutral333- I think what you are talking about here is sacrificing the self in order to serve others. This is an illusion. You and the other are one. Thus- in the situations of which you speak, there is no true service being done. Just martyrdom. Which at the core, is highly selfish behavior.

If you ponder upon it deeply, you may see that in these situations where one has deprecated the self in order to "serve" others, it is not actually the other which is the object of the service. Rather these acts are done in order to manage the ego's image, and to project a false sense of compassion toward other-selves, so that the ego may acquire attention and praise. Or at the least, avoid criticism. Thus, it is service-to-self behavior. Granted, not as negatively polarizing as amassing minions and seeking world domination, but STS nonetheless.

[Cyan]

STS far as I can tell is "I want to make that there like me here"

and

STO far as i can tell is "I want to make this here like that there"

closest analogue i can think of, those generally work quite well.

[Confused]

Does serving others against your will still not count as service to others?

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.

---

Lastly, it is common sense that in order to live in a world where you rely at least minutely on others, you must serve others in order that they might better serve you (for STS's out there). Why is there such a dialectic here?

You know, I just read your post again after having supplied the LOO quote. Actually, this is quite an interesting topic, in terms of some of the points that you have raised. I have picked out one such point, which I think merits a closer look. It is a very good commonsensical observation. Lately, I have come to realize that spirituality is closely linked with commonsense.

[reeay]

I understand it as making a choice and dedicating oneself fully to STO or STS. In the larger, broader perspective from the eyes of One we are all serving others.

Slaves who seemingly had no freedom of external choices still have the freedom of internal choices and to be STO. I was thinking about Manly P. Hall's telling of Boethius' story (the philosopher) who was imprisoned for his beliefs and work in a dungeon. He seemingly had no "freedom." Yet, for his lifetime of service to the Truth, he was gifted with wisdom from a radiant being of light called Truth. I took this to mean that true Freedom of choice and living is an internal process - to be able to open a gateway to one's spirit and to live our purpose fully.
http://youtu.be/9u0jlBCte-c

[Aureus]

Your interpretation of Service is of quite a physical and literal nature. I think instead of service as something inevitable. Something occuring naturally when you start the path of compassion and honesty toward yourself and so others.
The slave has as much of a choice as others, the hands and the heart are different things.

[anagogy]

While taking a shower (a place where I have great thoughts), it came to me that Serving one/some could be a disservice to others and even yourself.

Some examples come to mind:

-Someone who works to the point of physical detriment out of service for their family (just as Carla has).

-Helping one's business and co-workers to grow and succeed only to find that it resulted in the collapse of several other businesses and people losing their jobs.

-Caring for an ill parent while neglecting your spouse.

I always believe that I am overwhelmingly STO, at the same time I came to the realization a while back that I had to take care of (serve) my self to a certain point before I could serve others. When I lacked in helping myself, it forced others who care about me to expend their hard won energies and resources on me and I lacked the confidence that I could truly serve others.

Is it possible to set off a chain reaction of complete service to others?

Are people who are serving themselves actually serving others by showing us that as individual portions of the One Infinite Creator we are important and need to treat ourselves well?

Taking care of oneself, in order to more effectively serve others is STO behavior. This is compassion tempered by wisdom. The wisdom is that you will be more effective in helping others if you maintain your viability to do so. Compassion without wisdom results in a kind of martyrdom, where service is given without regard for personal reserves, thus eventually resulting in the cessation of such helpful service.

Both STO and STS take care of themselves. STS just doesn't care about others, except to the extent that they can help them serve themselves better. The same could be true of STO, however, that they may not care about serving self, except to the extent that it helps them to more effectively serve others. Nothing is hard and fast here, though. There are exceptions to every rule.

Are slaves the most harvestable entities as their service to another or others is surely over 51%?

No. Because they aren't, by free will, making any sort of choice. They are forced to serve. This is just going through the motions, and not developing any sort of real polarity.

Lastly, it is common sense that in order to live in a world where you rely at least minutely on others, you must serve others in order that they might better serve you (for STS's out there). Why is there such a dialectic here?

The Law of One sees those who purely serve self as exactly the same as those who serve others.

Behold the wisdom of our friend Ra:

7.17 Ra: You will recall that we went into some detail as to how those not oriented towards seeking service for others yet, nevertheless, found and could use the gateway to intelligent infinity. This is true at all densities in our octave. We cannot speak for those above us, as you would say, in the next quantum or octave of beingness. This is, however, true of this octave of densities. The beings are harvested because they can see and enjoy the light/love of the appropriate density. Those who have found this light/love, love/light without benefit of a desire for service nevertheless, by the Law of Free Will, have the right to the use of that light/love for whatever purpose. Also, it may be inserted that there are systems of study which enable the seeker of separation to gain these gateways.

This study is as difficult as the one which we have described to you, but there are those with the perseverance to pursue the study just as you desire to pursue the difficult path of seeking to know in order to serve. The distortion lies in the fact that those who seek to serve the self are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek to serve others, for are all not one? To serve yourself and to serve other is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One.

To absolutely serve self is to absolutely serve all, because all are one. To absolutely serve others is to absolutely serve self, since all are one. This is the essence of the Law of One.

The only reason there is a seeming difference in the polarities at the lower densities is because the polarization is not completely pure. For if it were, all would be seen as one. In oneness, there is no distinction between service to self, or service to others. There is no positive or negative. These are distinctions only apparent in the illusory separation. Though, most would consider the absence of separation to be QUITE positive indeed, even though, that is not necessarily accurate due to the absence of relativity.

[neutral333]

Very Dao Anagogy (and helpful).

I'm still a bit curious as to why Ra (with the understanding that the OIC sees no difference between polarities) would then favor positive polarity so much. Is it like being on a team?

[xise]

You are thinking of the literal interpretation of "service to others" rather than the philosophical/spiritual definition of service to others.

A useful way to start thinking of sto and sts is out of the energy centers they focus on. When you read the Ra material, note how they talk of STO entities crystal the green ray center or the heart chakra, the seat of unconditional love. Whereas STS do not. A STO individual's acts of service are the acts coming from the open heart and unconditional love. That includes treating yourself with unconditional love. Also note the importance of free will. Thus, I can't see how a perfectly balanced STO individual would ever be a slave, because you must show yourself unconditional love as well. However, I do think that part of the balancing process of love and wisdom is knowing when you have to take care of yourself in order to more fully give to others. It is the current struggle I have with my very draining job.

I believe Ra is STO oriented becaused they evolved through the third fourth and fifth as STO and because they observed that it is easier to reconcile paradoxes of polarity from the STO perspective. Which makes a lot of sense because since unconditional love is a very inclusive concept. Gotta show offer even STS the unconditional love, but decline their offers of service to them .

[anagogy]

Very Dao Anagogy (and helpful).

I'm still a bit curious as to why Ra (with the understanding that the OIC sees no difference between polarities) would then favor positive polarity so much. Is it like being on a team?

Ra is a sixth density social memory complex. Sixth density is the density of unity, where polarity is essentially done away with. Beings who evolve on the negative path realize at this level that they cannot continue to evolve as purely service to self at this level. They are faced with the realization that others are part of self as well. You could think of this dilemma as them not willing to give up their egos. For negative polarization to continue there has to be a self manipulating others.

Positive polarity has not had this problem, and do not experience the same spiritual entropy which is inherent in the negative concept of separation. Service to others also results in service to self, making it a more balanced path, in an energetically distributive sense. This separation involved in negative polarity involves a gap between the controlled and the controller. Being extremely wise at sixth density, they choose an instantaneous polarity reorientation and essentially become positive, so they can continue their evolution towards the creator.

So the reason Ra is such a fan of positive polarization is due to the fact that it is not only an efficient means of evolution, but that it is also rooted in their understanding that because unity contains all, it cannot abhor any. This is the heart of love, which is the cornerstone of positive polarity. It is an easier path for most.

Negative polarization is dependent on separation, which is illusion. Eventually all illusion must be done away with, to rejoin the creator. So you could say that unity, in and of itself, is essentially positive in nature. Well, that is to say, if you consider positivity to be love of all then unity is that. Technically, you couldn't call it positive, without the negative to define it, but who would not consider that to be a "positive" state? Negative polarity, on the other hand, is called the path of separation, because those who serve self limit their love only to their egos -- to their self.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

[neutral333]

Very Dao Anagogy (and helpful).

I'm still a bit curious as to why Ra (with the understanding that the OIC sees no difference between polarities) would then favor positive polarity so much. Is it like being on a team?

Ra is a sixth density social memory complex. Sixth density is the density of unity, where polarity is essentially done away with. Beings who evolve on the negative path realize at this level that they cannot continue to evolve as purely service to self at this level. They are faced with the realization that others are part of self as well. You could think of this dilemma as them not willing to give up their egos. For negative polarization to continue there has to be a self manipulating others.

Positive polarity has not had this problem, and do not experience the same spiritual entropy which is inherent in the negative concept of separation. Service to others also results in service to self, making it a more balanced path, in an energetically distributive sense. This separation involved in negative polarity involves a gap between the controlled and the controller. Being extremely wise at sixth density, they choose an instantaneous polarity reorientation and essentially become positive, so they can continue their evolution towards the creator.

So the reason Ra is such a fan of positive polarization is due to the fact that it is not only an efficient means of evolution, but that it is also rooted in their understanding that because unity contains all, it cannot abhor any. This is the heart of love, which is the cornerstone of positive polarity. It is an easier path for most.

Negative polarization is dependent on separation, which is illusion. Eventually all illusion must be done away with, to rejoin the creator. So you could say that unity, in and of itself, is essentially positive in nature. Well, that is to say, if you consider positivity to be love of all then unity is that. Technically, you couldn't call it positive, without the negative to define it, but who would not consider that to be a "positive" state? Negative polarity, on the other hand, is called the path of separation, because those who serve self limit their love only to their egos -- to their self.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

Nuff said

[MissMiko]

While taking a shower (a place where I have great thoughts), it came to me that Serving one/some could be a disservice to others and even yourself.

Some examples come to mind:

-Someone who works to the point of physical detriment out of service for their family (just as Carla has).

-Helping one's business and co-workers to grow and succeed only to find that it resulted in the collapse of several other businesses and people losing their jobs.

-Caring for an ill parent while neglecting your spouse.

I always believe that I am overwhelmingly STO, at the same time I came to the realization a while back that I had to take care of (serve) my self to a certain point before I could serve others. When I lacked in helping myself, it forced others who care about me to expend their hard won energies and resources on me and I lacked the confidence that I could truly serve others.

Is it possible to set off a chain reaction of complete service to others?

Are people who are serving themselves actually serving others by showing us that as individual portions of the One Infinite Creator we are important and need to treat ourselves well?

Are slaves the most harvestable entities as their service to another or others is surely over 51%?

Lastly, it is common sense that in order to live in a world where you rely at least minutely on others, you must serve others in order that they might better serve you (for STS's out there). Why is there such a dialectic here?

Somebody straighten out my thoughts...please.

---

Also. I use the symbol of Yin Yang, or as in chinese the Taijitu (yin and yang are characteristics represented by a symbol of a different name), to make sense of opposing ideas. My questioning follows this symbol's suggestion that each opposing force necessarily includes its opposite within.

Nice post!
I like to think about how babies (humans), toddlers, you know the young ones---come onto the planet and experience so much joy and happiness for themselves, yet at the same time, when they identify that someone else is crying, or hurting....there is an instinctive reaction that's not even contemplated to help one another.

So I believe that the whole idea is to fill yourself up
with unconditional love, and as you become unconditional
love you can't help but to radiate this light to others.

Which does do great service to others

[MichaelD]

Interesting post. If I had a gun pointed at Hitlers head and commanded him to free the Jews and provide for all, would Hitler be performing a STO act? Or would he simply be acting to preserve his own life, because his love for self is greater then his love for others? I would put my bet on the latter, but it would be impossible for anyone (in this density) to know but him. Both possibilities are there, but the focusing of the WILL on the reason for the action (freeing the Jews/slaves to save himself, or because he loves them) is what determines the polarization (STO or STS) I believe.

Any action is just that, an action with (likely) a corresponding reaction. No action is inherently polarizing, not a single one. Filling your house with the homeless and feeding them all? Selling every possession you have and providing for those less fortunate? Working every waking hour of your life to provide for others? None of these are polarizing actions in and of themselves, and in fact no action is.

Maybe you did those things because of the social status it brings, or because you want something in return, or because you were commanded to otherwise you would die. Those reasons would make the actions STS polarizing.

However, if you did the actions because you simply love others unconditionally, or it makes you happy to see others happy, etc., then that would make the actions STO polarizing.

So I believe it all comes down to the focusing of the WILL. WHY are you doing what you are doing? Without this, the action is meaningless. Therefore, the WILL is paramount, which Ra reinforces.

Now, on to slaves. If you are in fact serving others simply to sustain your pain-free life, then you are not performing STO polarizing actions and in fact may be acting in accordance with STS. If, however, you are serving others because you love them, then you are acting in a STO polarizing way. As you might interpret, it would nigh impossible for a STO entity to perform STO polarizing acts in a slavery environment, because most people treated like s*** don't innately love those who treat them like s***. Not to mention, that slaves rarely had the time to sit and contemplate about life and read inspiring stories (LOO?) and meet new people with new world perspectives. Also, the few slaves who understood the difference and acted in accordance to STO, were usually killed or made examples of (any kind slave, any wise slave, Nikola Tesla, Martin Luther, the list goes on).

Now, on to modern slaves. Extrapolating the above to, for instance, life in America, presents some interesting conundrums. For instance, jobs. What if you have a job you only do for $$ (most jobs)? You are serving others simply to sustain the life of yourself and/or your family. Sounds like STS to me. It doesn't matter how you coat it or explain it, the act of simply having a job JUST for the $$, makes it a STS act because you are doing it for yourself (family being an extension of self), not for the love of others.

Ok MichaelD, but I give to charity!! Assuming you don't do it for the tax exemptions or the happy feelings or social status, but for the love of others, then great STO actions!! However, I might add that perpetuating the current economy through use of $$ hurts FAR more people then your charity donation helps. But, thats a whole other can of worms for a whole other thread.

As you might see, the WILL is absolutely paramount. WHY you do what you do is more important then what you do. This is why I don't care for people liking me just because of what I have done for others. Unless they know WHY I have done anything, then it none of it matters. If you are gonna like me, like me because I am a human being, and for no other reason. (Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

I would love to even see how "true" ignorance factors in to all this, as opposed to "fake" ignorance (you know it but put it out of your mind). For instance, you give all your money to a charity, not knowing the CEO is squandering it all. Polarizing? Or, you eat a conventionally raised burger, knowing the conditions the animal lived through, but not thinking about it. Polarizing? Or more complex, you participate (i.e. perpetuated) in the simple act of using money, either: A) knowing that the system takes from billions and gives to thousands, leaving billions starving and suffering, but you put it out of your mind at the gas pump or supermarket; or B) knowing nothing about how the economy of the world functions and unknowingly participate in this overall STS economy.

Anywho, just some thoughts on it all. It really is a huge topic. Ra wasn't joking when he spoke of the WILL with such importance. Thanks for the thought provoking thread! Please accept my apologies if it got a little ranty You know I love you

One love

PS: Check out the Tony Robbins: Why we do what we do TED talk. It really addresses this topic very well. My fav TED talk so far!

[Cyan]

(Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

This is a serious question, but, does it really?

[MichaelD]

(Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

This is a serious question, but, does it really?

Yes. If I heal someone's blindness because I want the social status that comes with that, then I am doing it for myself, not for others. Hence, STS polarizing. Extrapolate that to everything else in the hypothetical. There are many people today who do similar things, performing apparently good acts only to be highly regarded in society. Then it always comes out they have been touching kids the whole time and pissing away charity money. A certain church comes to mind

[Cyan]

(Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

This is a serious question, but, does it really?

Yes. If I heal someone's blindness because I want the social status that comes with that, then I am doing it for myself, not for others. Hence, STS polarizing. Extrapolate that to everything else in the hypothetical. There are many people today who do similar things, performing apparently good acts only to be highly regarded in society. Then it always comes out they have been touching kids the whole time and pissing away charity money. A certain church comes to mind

What about this.

You polarize 100 points worth, 95% of it STo and 5% sts if you heal the blind for personal reasons what so ever other than hurting other people directly?

Then we can both be right, how does that sound?

[MichaelD]

(Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

This is a serious question, but, does it really?

Yes. If I heal someone's blindness because I want the social status that comes with that, then I am doing it for myself, not for others. Hence, STS polarizing. Extrapolate that to everything else in the hypothetical. There are many people today who do similar things, performing apparently good acts only to be highly regarded in society. Then it always comes out they have been touching kids the whole time and pissing away charity money. A certain church comes to mind

What about this.

You polarize 100 points worth, 95% of it STo and 5% sts if you heal the blind for personal reasons what so ever other than hurting other people directly?

Then we can both be right, how does that sound?

I don't care about being right, I'm just voicing my beliefs on the topic. I would agree to disagree. Healing a blind person is not innately STO, as you suggest. It might appear so in the blind mans view, but his view doesn't matter. Only what goes on in our own self matters, as we are the only ones who can affect our own polarization.

Maybe you healed the blind mans sight so he will sing your praise, or so he can better serve you personally, or so you can just take it away again. The act of healing then becomes an act of control instead. I think we can agree that in these situations, it ceases to be a STO act and instead is a STS act. Therefore, if that is the case, no single act can have an innate polarization attached to it.

This even makes sense intuitively. If an act WAS innately polarizing, one could simply repeat said act mindlessly to polarize, even if they hated the act and disagreed with it. This doesn't sound very polarizing to me, but by your logic would be possible. If one only knew how to heal blindness, you could repeat it 10,000 times mindlessly, hating everyday of your life, until your graduation as STO. Doesn't gel with me. To each their own though.

Everything has to do with the will. A good deed means absolutely nothing without the belief to back it up. One love, friend.

[Confused]

I don't care about being right, I'm just voicing my beliefs on the topic. I would agree to disagree. Healing a blind person is not innately STO, as you suggest. It might appear so in the blind mans view, but his view doesn't matter. Only what goes on in our own self matters, as we are the only ones who can affect our own polarization.

Maybe you healed the blind mans sight so he will sing your praise, or so he can better serve you personally, or so you can just take it away again. The act of healing then becomes an act of control instead. I think we can agree that in these situations, it ceases to be a STO act and instead is a STS act. Therefore, if that is the case, no single act can have an innate polarization attached to it.

This even makes sense intuitively. If an act WAS innately polarizing, one could simply repeat said act mindlessly to polarize, even if they hated the act and disagreed with it. This doesn't sound very polarizing to me, but by your logic would be possible. If one only knew how to heal blindness, you could repeat it 10,000 times mindlessly, hating everyday of your life, until your graduation as STO. Doesn't gel with me. To each their own though.

Everything has to do with the will. A good deed means absolutely nothing without the belief to back it up. One love, friend.

Absolutely terrific post. Highly educational. Thank you, MichaelD.

[Patrick]

And a "bad" deed does not mean anything either without the negative intent being it.

[xise]

I also think its useful to think of intents in three.broad categories: intent stemming from distortions, intent stemming sto/open heart, and intent stemming from sts/self-servingness.

Therefore, if you intend well but suffer from severe and significant distortions, you will probably not polarize as much as if you do not suffer.from those distortions .

[GentleReckoning]

(Hypothetical) If it came out that Jesus only did what he did because he liked to be loved and regarded as perfect, kind of changes the polarization on all of his actions, doesn't it?

This is a serious question, but, does it really?

Yes. If I heal someone's blindness because I want the social status that comes with that, then I am doing it for myself, not for others. Hence, STS polarizing. Extrapolate that to everything else in the hypothetical. There are many people today who do similar things, performing apparently good acts only to be highly regarded in society. Then it always comes out they have been touching kids the whole time and pissing away charity money. A certain church comes to mind

What about this.

You polarize 100 points worth, 95% of it STo and 5% sts if you heal the blind for personal reasons what so ever other than hurting other people directly?

Then we can both be right, how does that sound?

I don't care about being right, I'm just voicing my beliefs on the topic. I would agree to disagree. Healing a blind person is not innately STO, as you suggest. It might appear so in the blind mans view, but his view doesn't matter. Only what goes on in our own self matters, as we are the only ones who can affect our own polarization.

Maybe you healed the blind mans sight so he will sing your praise, or so he can better serve you personally, or so you can just take it away again. The act of healing then becomes an act of control instead. I think we can agree that in these situations, it ceases to be a STO act and instead is a STS act. Therefore, if that is the case, no single act can have an innate polarization attached to it.

This even makes sense intuitively. If an act WAS innately polarizing, one could simply repeat said act mindlessly to polarize, even if they hated the act and disagreed with it. This doesn't sound very polarizing to me, but by your logic would be possible. If one only knew how to heal blindness, you could repeat it 10,000 times mindlessly, hating everyday of your life, until your graduation as STO. Doesn't gel with me. To each their own though.

Everything has to do with the will. A good deed means absolutely nothing without the belief to back it up. One love, friend.

I'm pretty sure that you in your understanding are putting the cart before the horse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but actions do not directly polarize us. As one 'awakens' you (regardless of your past actions) will end up polarizing on one side or the other. From that point on, our actions will serve as signals for everyone else as to our polarization.

This is similar to what Ra says when he mentions that one should not focus on directly serving others, but awakening the self. Service without wisdom can lead to martyrdom which can be, as you seem to be inferring, a serving of the ego.

[neutral333]

And a "bad" deed does not mean anything either without the negative intent being it.

Exactly. What about those who believe they're doing a service for the "greater good" (others) but most of us would think that they were doing something "bad".

An example would be Eugenicists that believe by killing the bad portion of the world's population (about 10+%) that they will be helping/serving the majority.

If you [b]believe you are serving others (a majority) by hurting a select few, and you do indeed serve a large amount of others through love, how does your polarity sway???

[GentleReckoning]

And a "bad" deed does not mean anything either without the negative intent being it.

Exactly. What about those who believe they're doing a service for the "greater good" (others) but most of us would think that they were doing something "bad".

An example would be Eugenicists that believe by killing the bad portion of the world's population (about 10+%) that they will be helping/serving the majority.

If you [b]believe you are serving others (a majority) by hurting a select few, and you do indeed serve a large amount of others through love, how does your polarity sway???

I would assume that how closely it resonated with the law of free will would determine ultimately if it was an action of STS or STO. In your example, since you are removing free will in a very permanent fashion from you 'undesirables' it would be a very STS action. As karma does exist, I am of the opinion that while intent always matters, outcome matters just as much. Otherwise, we would receive much less catalyst from our time in this 3rd density. For what good is a veil if actions were judged forgiving mistakes due to the veil.

[Cyan]

And a "bad" deed does not mean anything either without the negative intent being it.

Exactly. What about those who believe they're doing a service for the "greater good" (others) but most of us would think that they were doing something "bad".

An example would be Eugenicists that believe by killing the bad portion of the world's population (about 10+%) that they will be helping/serving the majority.

If you [b]believe you are serving others (a majority) by hurting a select few, and you do indeed serve a large amount of others through love, how does your polarity sway???

I would assume that how closely it resonated with the law of free will would determine ultimately if it was an action of STS or STO. In your example, since you are removing free will in a very permanent fashion from you 'undesirables' it would be a very STS action. As karma does exist, I am of the opinion that while intent always matters, outcome matters just as much. Otherwise, we would receive much less catalyst from our time in this 3rd density. For what good is a veil if actions were judged forgiving mistakes due to the veil.

NEither bad nor good but say you kill 50 million people each having 30 years of life on average left

To balance that karma out (spend same amount without free will) without forgivness would make you spend 1.5 billion years balancing it out without free will in slavery to their desires (you removed their free will, it is logical that your free will be removed, its not punishment but if you hit your head on the wall the wall hits you on the head)

Dunno, i feel 1.5 billion years in slavery and torture constitutes "not a good future"

[Patrick]

...
An example would be Eugenicists that believe by killing the bad portion of the world's population (about 10+%) that they will be helping/serving the majority.
...

No one can help others in this way. It is only possible to serve/help when requested by each individual one by one. The only exception being forgiveness. Forgive all of which you believe to be "bad" and forgive Self. This will indeed help millions. You can drop "1.5 billion years balancing" of karma in one single swoop.

[Cyan]

...
An example would be Eugenicists that believe by killing the bad portion of the world's population (about 10+%) that they will be helping/serving the majority.
...

No one can help others in this way. It is only possible to serve/help when requested by each individual one by one. The only exception being forgiveness. Forgive all of which you believe to be "bad" and forgive Self. This will indeed help millions. You can drop "1.5 billion years balancing" of karma in one single swoop.

STS entities in general dont see that "you can drop it in one swoop". To STO its self evident because its easy to believe that "hey, maaan, i was fooled, its actually a reality TV show where i'm the star and its made so that others enjoy and have something fun to do, and me not knowing was fun for them, oh how cool is that"

Its a matter of how willing you are to believe that you were "had" and that "had" is a good thing.

Forgiveness + ability to accept being "a big dummy" goes a long way.