Biased view of STS...and INFINITY
02-18-2009, 05:49 AM,
#31
RE: Biased view of STS
STO/STS, Good/Evil, just another duality with subjective interpretation.
Does not a devil believe he does 'good' in his own world? Is it not 'good' for him to give him meaning in life?

The only thing that matters outside these subjective things is that we all wish to fill the black hole that the veil has put on us, and we seek something, and this is love and acceptance...
May we all spread love to the best of our ability, and in our own way that is freely chosen.
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 06:30 AM,
#32
RE: Biased view of STS
Sure. But there are guidelines available that can be useful. Ra frequently referred to guidelines for their behavior and even refrained from answering certain questions out of respect for the Law of Confusion. And Ra gave many tips on what increases or decreases polarity. For those who may have a goal of increasing polarity, choosing to aspire to those guidelines is certainly a reasonable choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 06:48 AM,
#33
RE: Biased view of STS
My friend, I see it as much simpler than that. The intention is the thing matters, as there's a final intention behind all our actions.
This final intention can be very diffuse and it takes a long time to understand what it is. Granted, I've found mine in practice to be more of those that is defined as STO than STS but I have never really paid much heed on following any tips.
Follow your heart, extract and give love in every moment and do not chain yourself with principles, do what your intuition wishes you.
This is my intention for myself, at least.
Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes ayadew's post:
turtledude23
02-18-2009, 12:42 PM,
#34
RE: Question for ChaotikMind
(02-18-2009, 04:46 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  I find this a rather curious perspective...I think this is the first time I've heard Ra being described as lacking understanding. I admit that I'm having a bit of a difficult time wrapping my mind around that one!

I'd always thought Ra and indeed Q'uo were tolerant, understanding, and even rather nice towards STS...certainly more so than any religion I can think of!

I suspected that I'd touch a nerve or two with that statement. And on further reflection, I should not have implied that Ra lacked understanding, but rather that, IMHO, he doesn't present the whole picture.

Here's my real point. Many of the descriptions or explanations that Q'uo and Ra give for STS actions and behavior tend to produce judgmental responses in those that read them. As a recent example from another thread, let's consider:

Quote:Q'uo October 11, 2008
Ra says of karma that an entity that acts in a consciously unloving manner in action with other beings can become karmically involved. They also say that the stoppage of the inertia of action may be called forgiveness. This raises an interesting question considering that in order to polarize, the negative entity is consciously attempting to exclude the energies of the heart chakra from all of its interactions with other selves.

What then is karma to the negative entity? And if the negative entity accumulates such a thing as karma, how does the negative entity alleviate karma?

We are those of Q’uo, my brother. To answer that query we must put you into the negative mindset. To the negative mindset, karma is delicious. The building up of it is delicious. There is joy in creating more karma because this is the by-product of control over others and manipulation of others. Consequently, there is no attempt to alleviate karma in the service-to-self path, but only to hone the edge of rage and anger until it is ever more penetrating and ever more effective.

Time and again we hear that the nature of STS is control, manipulation, and disregard for other's free will and rights. Although I concede that this may be (but, IMHO, needn't always be) a characteristic of STS, what I hear ChaotikMind saying is that it misrepresents the true nature of STS which is simply concerned with itself primarily - but does not inherently wish to dominate and manipulate others.

I also think that there is an elitism, of sorts, in many STO individuals because they feel that theirs is the "right" ultimate path, and smile when they think that in mid sixth density the STS entities must transition to STO in order to proceed.

Is it not just as likely that early 6th Density STS teachers, inform their students that STO must convert to STS in order to continue? Consider this: Isn't the act of turning ones back on those lower density STO souls in need of service, in order to allow one to "turn inward toward the source" the ultimate self serving act? I suggest that STS entities do not have to become STO to proceed, and STO entities do not need to become STS to proceed. What must happen is that all polarity must be abandoned and a true balance achieved. For those watching this balance from an STS perspective, the STO becomes more like them, and vice versa. Ultimately, they all meet in the middle.

This is why I like this thread. It gives me an opportunity to explore this STS aspect of creation and consider more fully the possible distortions inherent, yes, even in Ra's communications.

In summary, I think that those things we do not understand, we are more likely to fear. I also believe that many quotes from Q'uo and Ra have resulted in some amount of fear of STS on the part of STO entities. I felt it myself, for example, when reading about the possibility of Carla being trapped in STS time/space and needing to incarnate and advance in STS space/time due to the trickery of an STS entity. Although Ra is clear that "all would have worked out well in the end", did it not create in you the slightest feelings of fear or anger for their wanting to be so deceptive? It did with me, and thus began my quest to better understand STS, and lose my fear and anger.

All paths are one, and all lead to same beautiful conclusion.

3D Sunset
Ra Book III Session 65.
Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong, moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes 3D Sunset's post:
turtledude23
02-18-2009, 02:32 PM,
#35
RE: Biased view of STS
I believe many can learn from walking the path of STS to truly see what it is, if they feel they do not know -for themselves- and only what others have said.
It is as much part of the infinite love of the creator as any STO action, there is no danger in it.
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 02:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 01:05 PM by Monica.)
#36
RE: Question for ChaotikMind
(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  I suspected that I'd touch a nerve or two with that statement. And on further reflection, I should not have implied that Ra lacked understanding, but rather that, IMHO, he doesn't present the whole picture.

Ok, fair enough! I wouldn't quite say that a nerve was touched, though. That sounds stronger than what I felt. I just felt surprise and curiosity.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Here's my real point. Many of the descriptions or explanations that Q'uo and Ra give for STS actions and behavior tend to produce judgmental responses in those that read them. As a recent example from another thread, let's consider...

Hmmm...interesting how we perceive it differently. That just never entered my mind.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Time and again we hear that the nature of STS is control, manipulation, and disregard for other's free will and rights. Although I concede that this may be (but, IMHO, needn't always be) a characteristic of STS, what I hear ChaotikMind saying is that it misrepresents the true nature of STS which is simply concerned with itself primarily - but does not inherently wish to dominate and manipulate others.

The point I was trying to make was that to assume that any one individual, be it ChaotikMind or anyone else, is speaking of the same thing Ra/Q'uo are speaking of, might not be accurate. Any of us can share our own perspective, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is describing what Ra/Q'uo are describing. In other words, it is a presupposition that ChaotikMind is an STS entity and therefore able to represent that polarity. I could tell you that I am a 5D STO entity, and I could be totally wrong. What I think consciously about my polarity/density might not even be accurate.

Rather than assuming that Ra/Q'uo are wrong in their description of STS characteristics, I would be more inclined to think that they are accurate, and if someone does not have all those characteristics, then they are probably of mixed polarity.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  I also think that there is an elitism, of sorts, in many STO individuals because they feel that theirs is the "right" ultimate path, and smile when they think that in mid sixth density the STS entities must transition to STO in order to proceed.

Undoubtedly some of us may have issues that need to be balanced. Certainly we are not all above feelings of judgment or elitism.

However, to think in terms of transitioning to STO in 6D is thinking in terms of duality. Duality is no longer a dynamic in late 6D. I don't think it's a matter of the STS entities switching polarity at that point, though that would be true in the earlier densities. I think more in terms of everything merging into Oneness in 6D...and that being the same outcome of both paths...the same mountain peak if you will, that is reached by different paths.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Is it not just as likely that early 6th Density STS teachers, inform their students that STO must convert to STS in order to continue? Consider this: Isn't the act of turning ones back on those lower density STO souls in need of service, in order to allow one to "turn inward toward the source" the ultimate self serving act? I suggest that STS entities do not have to become STO to proceed, and STO entities do not need to become STS to proceed. What must happen is that all polarity must be abandoned and a true balance achieved. For those watching this balance from an STS perspective, the STO becomes more like them, and vice versa. Ultimately, they all meet in the middle.

I understand your point but would respectfully disagree. I think by the time any of us get to 6D, all of this becomes merely academic. In other words we don't really understand what 6D is like. Undoubtedly there is much understanding yet ahead of us.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I love this too, because we can all learn from one another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 03:24 PM,
#37
RE: Question for ChaotikMind
(02-18-2009, 02:45 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  
(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Is it not just as likely that early 6th Density STS teachers, inform their students that STO must convert to STS in order to continue? Consider this: Isn't the act of turning ones back on those lower density STO souls in need of service, in order to allow one to "turn inward toward the source" the ultimate self serving act? I suggest that STS entities do not have to become STO to proceed, and STO entities do not need to become STS to proceed. What must happen is that all polarity must be abandoned and a true balance achieved. For those watching this balance from an STS perspective, the STO becomes more like them, and vice versa. Ultimately, they all meet in the middle.

I understand your point but would respectfully disagree. I think by the time any of us get to 6D, all of this becomes merely academic. Undoubtedly there is much understanding yet ahead of us.

As I read the LOO, polarities may exist until mid sixth density. I do not find it a coincidence that the mid point of sixth density is also the point at which the Higher Self, or Oversoul is given to the entity.

Quote:Ra, Book II, Session 36

Questioner: Let me take as an example the one that you said was called Himmler. We are assuming from this that his higher self was of the sixth density and it was stated that Himmler had selected the negative path. Would his higher self then dwell in a sixth-density negative type of situation? Can you expand on this concept?

Ra: I am Ra. There are no negative beings which have attained the Oversoul manifestation, which is the honor/duty of the mind/body/spirit complex totality, of late sixth-density as you would term it in your time measurements. These negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complexes have a difficulty which to our knowledge has never been overcome, for after fifth density graduation wisdom is available but must be matched with an equal amount of love. This love/light is very, very difficult to achieve in unity when following the negative path and during the earlier part of the sixth density, society complexes of the negative orientation will choose to release the potential and leap into the sixth-density positive.

Therefore, the Oversoul which makes its understanding available to all who are ready for such aid is towards the positive. However, the free will of the individual is paramount, and any guidance given by the higher self may be seen in either the positive or negative polarity depending upon the choice of a mind/body/spirit complex.

Ra, Book III, Session 69

Questioner: Can you tell me the situation that the Wanderer finds himself in and the path back, why that path could not be the simple moving back into positive time/space?

Ra: I am Ra. The path back revolves, firstly, about the higher self’s reluctance to enter negative space/time. This may be a significant part of the length of that path. Secondly, when a positively oriented entity incarnates in a thoroughly negative environment it must needs learn/teach the lessons of the love of self thus becoming one with its other-selves.
When this has been accomplished the entity may then choose to release the potential difference and change polarities.

However, the process of learning the accumulated lessons of love of self may be quite lengthy. Also the entity, in learning these lessons, may lose much positive orientation during the process and the choice of reversing polarities may be delayed until the mid-sixth-density. All of this is, in your way of measurement, time-consuming although the end result is well.

This is also consistent with the numerous references to "positive sixth density wanderers" throughout the Ra material.

3D Sunset
Ra Book III Session 65.
Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong, moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 03:32 PM,
#38
RE: Question for ChaotikMind
I just edited my post for clarification on that point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 03:47 PM,
#39
RE: Biased view of STS
As a sidenote on the idea that Ra is not perfect. If I understand correctly he did report himself that some of their earlier interventions on earth did not always pan out as perfectly as hoped.

In his defense, I believe the problem is that earth is unique in many ways. It's the zone where normal things don't happen very often... Smile We have free will. We are not totally predictable. And we have this tendency to take good words and interpret them according to our negative expectations.

And really. There has to be some reason to evolve to 7th density right? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Ali Quadir's post:
turtledude23
02-18-2009, 05:31 PM,
#40
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-18-2009, 06:48 AM)ayadew Wrote:  ...I have never really paid much heed on following any tips.
Follow your heart, extract and give love in every moment and do not chain yourself with principles, do what your intuition wishes you.

Hmmm...sounds like you just gave us a tip! Wink

We might be saying the same thing but just have a difference in terminology. I think there's a key difference between doctrine/rigid dogma/rules which chain, and principles/tips/ideas which inspire and guide. I see rules as binding but principles as liberating. What you just said...to follow your heart and give love in every moment...I would say that is a principle offered as a tip!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2009, 05:49 PM,
#41
RE: Biased view of STS
I begin to think so too Monica, looks like I have a thing here to learn too. To realise that I'm just repeating what others say sometimes =)
I'm not sure if that's a tip though, it's more of a "default" mode we all seem to wish to do, when all rules we've created for ourselves are forgotten or ignored
Quote this message in a reply
02-20-2009, 11:53 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-20-2009, 12:47 PM by Monica.)
#42
RE: Biased view of STS
(01-09-2009, 06:07 AM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  I strongly feel there is a misunderstanding of STS here, it seems that STS is always linked to something evil, which is obviously false :
The link between good/evil and positive/negative is pure human biasing, servicing the self don't necessarily make you a killer or something like that, (well, i have to admit the path is pretty dark and can easily lead to it)

Keep in mind that the entire reason for using a term like STS is expressly to remove the judgement from the choice of path. Even "negative" has connotations that LoO adherents attempt to avoid except as a carefully chosen synonym. I think it's hard for people to live a life that realizes LoO philosophy consciously if they're still falling into the "good/evil" paradigm (I could be wrong, just my opinion). If there is an equivalence between "evil" and STS in people's minds, it is probably just an unavoidable shorthand we use to try to make sense of our world projected onto the model Ra provides - by shorthand, I mean "distortion". Perhaps ultimately an unavoidable distortion in a human world, but one we should at least recognize.

My view is that STS represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the self as creator, and STO represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the creator as self, if that makes sense. The third density payoff on using the terms comes when you can identify trends of behavior and priorities that come from emphasizing one polarity over the other. Do you consider your personality as an individual the dominant partner in the self/otherself relationship, or do you consider the self and the otherself as a co-equal relationship? What are the behavioral implications of that, since in third density it is through behavior (incarnate action and conscious thought processes) that we learn lessons that can be grounded in the roots of mind?

Even that is a clunky distillation of the essence of the Choice. Perhaps the healthiest view of the STS/STO duality is to see it as a tool for development rather than an identity. You aren't STO or STS; you are simply emphasizing STO or STS within a unified creation at any given time. But I appreciate it immensely anytime somebody tries to introduce some nuance into this concept. Chaotikmind, thank you.

One more thing: consider that your defense of STS is *itself* a judgment that may be as unnecessary as the judgement that STS is evil. Just a thought. Since all of us are both, the judgement is, as we all know, wholly unnecessary - and yet, in the judging we may learn things about ourself and the Creator.
(02-18-2009, 04:46 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  I find this a rather curious perspective...I think this is the first time I've heard Ra being described as lacking understanding.

This concept of the amorality of STS - isn't that really what we're talking about? - was a stumbling block for me as well. In my first attempts to grapple with the LoO, I even came out of it initially thinking that Ra themselves did not favor STO over STS - especially since at 6th density they were past polarity.

I think a better perspective is to understand that the Ra contact is probably only useful to people who people who are on the STO path generally. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, in the vast majority of cases, I don't see the Ra material as being helpful to anybody save people who have already made the Choice. I don't think an intellectual appreciation of these concepts is possible without motivation from a deeper level of self, a deeper resonance that motivates the intellectual framework and investment.

Also, please remember that much of what is involved in the STS path is illusion; more specifically, the potentiation of falsehood. I've often held that the reason STS is not as efficient a path is because it denies the essential unity of creation in a fundamental manner. STS is defined by this denial (at the risk of putting too fine a point on it). So it's clear that an entity already at unity, expressing the message of unity, will be more consonant with people who choose to live more in a unified manner and less in a separated manner. There's no judgment in choosing STS; it's merely that STS is an express exercise in illusion - much in the same way that the entire Creation is an experiment in what separation would be like if it were possible, right?

If my theses above are true, then one can equally say that (A) Ra holds no judgment towards STO or STS, (B) Ra favors STO merely by the nature of their contact, and furthermore © people on the STO path will naturally find Ra's message more useful than STS types.

(02-18-2009, 04:46 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  I'd always thought Ra and indeed Q'uo were tolerant, understanding, and even rather nice towards STS...certainly more so than any religion I can think of!

I always thought so, too, and it confused me a bit at first.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Here's my real point. Many of the descriptions or explanations that Q'uo and Ra give for STS actions and behavior tend to produce judgmental responses in those that read them.

Yes, undoubtedly. This is compounded by our need to see evil as "outside" ourselves, so we can effectively judge it. This is a poor way to experience the dynamics Ra is trying to illuminate in the Creation (read: in ourselves).

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Time and again we hear that the nature of STS is control, manipulation, and disregard for other's free will and rights. Although I concede that this may be (but, IMHO, needn't always be) a characteristic of STS, what I hear ChaotikMind saying is that it misrepresents the true nature of STS which is simply concerned with itself primarily - but does not inherently wish to dominate and manipulate others.

Well, I think it represents accurately what the philosophy of STS as a fundamental choice can lead to in terms of third density behavior, at least. But it's a very general dynamic and specific examples must be carefully considered. It's important to understand not merely that STS = bad stuff, but WHY it is associated with these behaviors. In other words, it requires reflection beyond merely "memorizing the formula", if you will. "STS = bad" is not good enough.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  I also think that there is an elitism, of sorts, in many STO individuals because they feel that theirs is the "right" ultimate path, and smile when they think that in mid sixth density the STS entities must transition to STO in order to proceed.

This is a common distortion. It can be acknowledged without being overstated. In other words, I can say you're right on that specific point without needing to concur with a more general, sweeping statement about STO people. No judgement needed on either side - when we find it, we forgive it and move on.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  Is it not just as likely that early 6th Density STS teachers, inform their students that STO must convert to STS in order to continue?

Well, setting aside the speculative nature of this statement, then I suppose it's possible. But the most intense experience of the STS path would not see 6th density as the goal, in my view. STS celebrates separation on a fundamental level, while STO seems to want to realize unity in the context of an illusion of separation. In fact, I'd argue the most intense experience of STO doesn't see reunification as the goal, either. Rather, in 3rd, 4th, and 5th densities, the goal is to experience the creator at that particular band and learn those particular lessons. The larger goal of reunification is one that is probably a bit sublimated - in service of the lessons. A thirst for oneness is more of a undercurrent than something up front, again, in order that the Creator might know itself.

(02-18-2009, 12:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  I suggest that STS entities do not have to become STO to proceed, and STO entities do not need to become STS to proceed. What must happen is that all polarity must be abandoned and a true balance achieved. For those watching this balance from an STS perspective, the STO becomes more like them, and vice versa. Ultimately, they all meet in the middle.

This is an interesting philosophical speculation. I want to encourage you to continue it. No reason whatsoever we should just swallow whatever Ra dishes out.

My contribution would consist of asking what unity actually means vis a vis STO and STS. To me, it's not two halves of a whole so much as two responses to truth, namely the truth of ultimate unity - creator as self. Do you accept unity transcending your own, individual identity, or do you reject it and embrace a limited, separated identity? But it's difficult to parse these matters in a forum, so you get kudos from me for the attempt. Smile

GREAT CONVERSATION - keep it up, this is so awesome. I only wish I had more time to participate. And this is all my personal opinions, I'm not "right".

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes rva_jeremy's post:
turtledude23
02-20-2009, 02:03 PM,
#43
RE: Biased view of STS
Good post jeremy6d, and also welcome to bring4th.

jeremy6d Wrote:You aren't STO or STS; you are simply emphasizing STO or STS within a unified creation at any given time.

This is a sentence by truly refined understanding of LOO, I am grateful to you for sharing it.
I do believe understanding STS is vital to understanding STO and vice versa. Since they are a polarity, you learn from both by studying one.
Currently, I try to live by STO while comparing it to a STS perspective, my past perspective, which has been very constructive for me. There is nothing in this existence that is not worthwhile meditating upon. Everything is vital and equally important.

You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
Quote this message in a reply
02-21-2009, 09:33 PM,
#44
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-20-2009, 02:03 PM)ayadew Wrote:  Good post jeremy6d, and also welcome to bring4th.

Thanks! Hopefully I'll be participating more.

(02-20-2009, 02:03 PM)ayadew Wrote:  
jeremy6d Wrote:You aren't STO or STS; you are simply emphasizing STO or STS within a unified creation at any given time.

This is a sentence by truly refined understanding of LOO, I am grateful to you for sharing it.
I do believe understanding STS is vital to understanding STO and vice versa. Since they are a polarity, you learn from both by studying one.

Thanks for the compliment. I agree with what you said about understanding with the caveat that (A) it won't be perfect; "understanding is not of this density", and (B) I'm not sure we ever understand these matters on a level we have conscious access to. Are STO and STS coherent philosophies on the order of something we can be said to "study"?

Since from the viewpoint of polarization they are the two choices available to us, and since Ra says that this choice usually happens outside conscious experience, it seems like the study of STO and STS is itself the very work to be done in third density. All of us are doing it; it's what we're here for.

I'm a little concerned at how much defensiveness is being exercised on behalf of people sympathetic to STS. Where is the perceived outside threat that is justifying such a mood? It seems silly... we're all both polarities, so it might be more useful to study *ourselves* than abstractions like STO and STS. Or at least to use ourselves - our individual acts of balancing distortions and catalyst - as the context for such a study.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 01:34 PM,
#45
RE: Biased view of STS
(01-09-2009, 09:47 PM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  Whatever the path intelligence is a prerequisite,i was quite obsessed by control before , and realized it was more interresting to turn that into something more constructive for the mind, like understanding the inner self, control is a efficient way to learn , and the best thing about it is it ultimately learn you to control/stop control (on ourselves i mean) which by the way is a prerequisite to any good meditation/magical activity.
My point here is i clearly think most people that exert control to others, do it in a meaningless/useless way.

I think that's an interesting insight. The thing with control is that it implies an identity. In other words, what you think you are determines what you think is doing the "controlling" and what is being "controlled". This, I believe, is why the STO path de-emphasizes the utility of controlling others: in a unified creation, there is nothing else to be controlled, since all is self. But if you embrace separation, then you see the assertion of your particular, limited identity over otherselves and the rest of Creation as a meaningful concept.

The drama of self and otherself is a crucial element in the Creator's experience of self in this octave. From what Ra has said about the Logos, it is clear to me that the STS configuration offers the Creator a profoundly deep well of self-understanding that was heretofore impossible. In any creation of discrete, separate identities, something will be controlled and something will be doing the controlling (the Creation is hierarchical). Don't we control our pets and our children? Don't we submit to control by our rulers? Doesn't our brain control our other organs?

The key is not to "be good" and not control people - and believe me, as an anarchist, I struggle with this all the time - but rather to learn and ground within ourselves the lessons of that experience. We're going to do what we're going to do, but we can at least be mindful of it. In the mindfulness, we significate catalyst and better understand ourselves and our bias so that we can make the Choice.

It is difficult to remember sometimes, but one concept that helps ground me is that this incarnate experience is not an end in itself. Our lives in third density are means to a greater end. The payoff for what we do here will be largely realized outside the context of our incarnation. In other words, to understand that mistakes and triumphs have equal utility to our higher self is to understand that we really are here to experience all, with judgement being just another experience.

Quote:I suspect that some entities who consciously think they are on an STO path might actually be on an STS path, and vice versa. So, to an observer, it can be difficult or impossible to tell, and even to the person as well
Very interresting thought, i can guess it was a kind of "pointer" sent to me, but i'm clearly self dedicated , i have really no doubt about that. [/quote]

We must always remember that the Choice happens on a deeper level than our day-to-day, conscious identities. As I said before, I wonder whether expressly identifying as STS or STO is useful. What would it mean to "be" STO or STS in the context of the human experience, given that the lessons of these experiences have utility beyond our incarnation?

The only conclusion I can come to is that STO and STS have meaning only in particular contexts. It might be more helpful to think of *actions* (including thoughts) as STO / STS rather than entire entities - and by "more helpful", I mean "better distilled into to roots of mind" so that the lessons are grounded and can provide benefit to the higher self. Everything else is largely a means to that end, no?

Quote: I think it is important to acknowledge that the LOO itself, as well as the subsequent channelings of the Q'uo material, and really anything coming out of L/L Research, is indeed biased to STO

Yes, absolutely. But in my view (brace yourselves) reality is biased towards STO in a fundamental manner, because STO recognizes the truth of unity whereas STS embraces the fecund but ultimately fictitious idea that we can be separate. Free will does not mean you get to change the reality of unity - it only means you choose when to recognize it (to paraphrase a Course in Miracles).

The negative path chooses to ignore unity as long as possible - this is its distinguishing philosophical feature - but ultimately it arrives at a unity where control and separation become useless in further evolution. The reason why STO is an easier path is that it doesn't try to fight reality. The reason why STS is harder is that it is constantly fighting against reality

Quote:The saddest part to me are the majority of souls that will be sent back to 3D school when this life is done.

I understand why this seems sad. But it's very important to understand that the harvest will provide each and every single entity the opportunity to choose for themselves which move is the best: forward or backward. Remember: staying in 3rd density is not really sad if it's what an entity needs / chooses.

After all, what is being lost? The Creator has infinite time. Our dramas through our evolution are not ends in themselves. Nothing is lost.

Again, I would be *very, very* careful in pigeonholing oneself into a polarized identity. In doing so, you pile constructs (if not judgments) on yourself that can only color your exploration of yourself. Why not just look at yourself without the lens of STO/STS? Instead of understanding where you are in the game, why not understand yourself on your own terms?

We are all dark. We are all light. Why not get on with understanding *what that means*, instead of putting ourselves into boxes? My only interest here is that we understand the distortions in which we engage, knowing that there will be distortion.[/i]

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 04:26 PM,
#46
RE: Biased view of STS
I won't quote anything and i won't say much right now,
but i like your insight.

There is just one point i don't agree, i'll speak about it later when i'll find some time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 06:22 PM,
#47
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-22-2009, 01:34 PM)jeremy6d Wrote:  The only conclusion I can come to is that STO and STS have meaning only in particular contexts. It might be more helpful to think of *actions* (including thoughts) as STO / STS rather than entire entities - and by "more helpful", I mean "better distilled into to roots of mind" so that the lessons are grounded and can provide benefit to the higher self. Everything else is largely a means to that end, no?

There is always the paradox in this density, the duality.
The ultimate intention of STO action is STS because you are the Creator and you do it for yourself only, for you are all that is.
The ultimate intention of STS action is STO because you separate yourself for others sake, for them to progress, although often not with a conscious intent.
And so the paradoxes overlap and create oneness.

I don't know if I'm STS or STO, really. I may be seen as genuinely kind of others as I wish them to progress, but I do it for myself in the end, do I not? All can be denied, nothing can be fully understood. Many has gone insane in vain trying to find the absolute in this density, which does not and cannot exist.

I believe reality is made towards STO too, since this is the natural path. Also the reason why it is many times harder to go the STS path. In our society, it might not be so, but we are a very destructive and "miserable" race, as Hatonn worded it.
Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 07:54 PM,
#48
RE: Biased view of STS
jeremy6d Wrote:My view is that STS represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the self as creator, and STO represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the creator as self, if that makes sense.

"Energetic" and "philosophic" are, I agree, two helpful lenses for understanding polarity in that they help to filter from their view the judgment inherent in the dynamics of morality and ethics. Ra says:

Quote:Session 93
QUESTIONER: You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

RA: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

Jeremy, I see as one of the primary thrusts of your argument the benefit of lifting the perspective to gaze upon polarity from a broader, non-judgmental perspective. I agree essentially with almost everything you've written in your three previous posts. However, I have a finer point to make. I believe that - in opposition to your concurrent point which reduces polarity to a label that is best unpeeled from the self - it is necessary and helpful to retain polarity as a portion of the manifest identity. I'll attempt to make that argument as I go.

jeremy6d Wrote:Perhaps the healthiest view of the STS/STO duality is to see it as a tool for development rather than an identity. You aren't STO or STS; you are simply emphasizing STO or STS within a unified creation at any given time.

Awesome thought. I would concur that the entity is ultimately a unity which chooses and emphasizes a focus, but the entity, in order to be "an entity" at all, must need move through and identify with an experience of polarity.

jeremy6d Wrote:This concept of the amorality of STS - isn't that really what we're talking about? - was a stumbling block for me as well. In my first attempts to grapple with the LOO, I even came out of it initially thinking that Ra themselves did not favor STO over STS - especially since at 6th density they were past polarity.

Perhaps simply a matter of semantics, or perhaps something which shines a greater light on the matter, I would make a modification to your statement, substituting "trans-moral" for "amoral".

A shark swimming in the ocean is amoral. Morality plays no part in its decision-making process as to what organic creature will become its next meal. It is not within the realm of possibility that morality could factor into the shark's thinking, at least as far as I'm aware! On an evolutionary timeline, amorality comes *before* the advent of morality.

What you suggest is not entirely the absence of morality as exhibited in a previous state of evolution but rather a transcendence of morality in an advanced evolutionary state of being. To be *amoral* would be a movement of regression, as far as I see it.

It is said of the mystic that he or she does not adhere to the local code of morality. This is not because the mystic is amoral. The mystic follows a higher, more exacting code, which is best understood by me as the Tao: to be in harmony with the divine will, to see and be the Creator in all. (Incidentally, I vaguely recall something in the Tao te Ching about the rise of morality precipitating the loss of the Way.)

jeremy6d Wrote:My contribution would consist of asking what unity actually means vis a vis STO and STS. To me, it's not two halves of a whole so much as two responses to truth, namely the truth of ultimate unity - creator as self.

Rock on! I think it's a fundamentally sound practice to begin with the premise of a pre-existent background (and totality) of reality to which the 3rd density entity responds to in its various modes and dances, including polarity.

jeremy6d] Yes, absolutely. But in my view (brace yourselves) reality is biased towards STO in a fundamental manner, because STO recognizes the truth of unity whereas STS embraces the fecund but ultimately fictitious idea that we can be separate. Free will does not mean you get to change the reality of unity - it only means you choose when to recognize it (to paraphrase a Course in Miracles).[/quote]

To elucidate further your eloquent and worthy statement, I submit this excerpt from Book I.

<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>Session 10
The Law of One has as one of its primal distortions the free will distortion, thus each entity is free to accept, reject, or ignore the mind/body/spirit complexes about it and ignore the creation itself.</blockquote>

I lack the vocabulary to communicate this properly but I wish to emphasize and draw out your notion of *recognizing* reality, recognizing what is already there, rather than changing reality.

The living truth, albeit clad in mystery, is singular, is unitary, is one. We, however, as manifest entities, in the process of becoming the truth, look upon the truth from a slightly removed vantage point. We view it and come to it and realize it and respond to it from an infinitely diverse number of starting points. Thus does the creator learn of itself. Truth IS and depends not upon our consent or rejection.

Though it, infinity, is somehow enriched by our experience, it seems nonetheless relatively unaffected by what we do or dont do because it, on its macrocosmic all-self level, is unmanifest and therefore untouched by our human hands and our human energies - untouched by the manifest. As such, we as entities can give our assent to truth, to what is already there, realizing it on progressively deeper levels, or we can use our free will to ignore or actively deny truth, choosing instead to indulge in falsity and potentiate the shadow to its furthest extent. Truth, i.e., the Law of One, (not the books, the actual Law of One) is *available* for both paths. As Ra says, "The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness...".

Tangentially, this is why I believe Ra calls the Law of Free Will the Law of Confusion. Intrinsic to the nature of the faculty of free will is confusion - to utilize free will implies (and inevitably produces) confusion about the nature of the ground of being, about infinity and the nature of the all self.

[quote='jeremy6d Wrote:
Again, I would be *very, very* careful in pigeonholing oneself into a polarized identity. In doing so, you pile constructs (if not judgments) on yourself that can only color your exploration of yourself. Why not just look at yourself without the lens of STO/STS? Instead of understanding where you are in the game, why not understand yourself on your own terms?

I may be wrong, but I think you place cart before horse here, Jeremy.

As I situated morality on an evolutionary scale, I would do the same with polarity. The entities of first and second density are without polarity. This is not however a result of having evolved beyond polarity, but rather because these entities exist pre-polarity.

This point is worth repeating because it brings to focus where in this evolutionary journey we as third density entities are positioned. We are in a polarized reality whose polarized nature will continue for quite some time. Polarity, predicated upon the veil, makes evolution move, and is, as Ra says, the "crux" upon which turns the creation. This should not, imho, be de-emphasized as one would de-emphasize their racial identity or career-identity or any of those more gross and limited, transient, and temporal identities.

Quote:Session 67
Glory in the strength of your polarization and allow others of opposite polarity to similarly do so, seeing the great humor of this polarity and its complications in view of the unification in sixth-density of these two paths.

Polarity, though apparently humorous from Ra's standpoint, is key to all that we will do now and billions of years to come. All that we will do is a direct outgrowth of who we believe ourselves to be. Eventually, according to Ra's cosmology, yes, we will transcend polarity altogether, but that is a long way in coming. Until that time, I believe polarity should necessarily be factored into our understanding of ourselves even as we reach towards a non-polarized reality.

Huston Smith wrote one of my favorite book's entitled, "The World's Religions". In the Introduction, he says:

Quote:It is a book which seeks to embrace the world. In one sense, of course, that wish must fail. Even when stretched to the maximum, a single pair of arms falls short, and feet must be planted somewhere. To begin with the obvious, the book is written in English, which to some extent anchors it from the start. Next come cross-references, introduced to ease entry into foreign turf. There are proverbs from China, tales from India, paradoxes from Japan, but most of the [word missing] are Western: a line from Shakespeare, a verse from the Bible, a suggestion from psychoanalysis - Eliot and Toynbee have already been quoted. Beyond idiom, however, the book is incorrigibly Western in being targeted for the contemporary Western mind. That being the author's mind, he had no choice in the matter; but it must be accepted with the recognition that the book would have been different had it been written by a Zen Buddhist, a Muslim Sufi, or a Polish Jew.

This book then has a home - a home whose doors swing freely in an out, a base from which to journey forth and return, only to hit the road again in study and imaginings when not in actual travel.


Even in contacting that essential all self within, the macrocosmic mystery-clad being, we must necessarily, in my opinion, move through our own nature, we must move through our polarity.

I can see the utility of the exercise which seeks to free the self from any notion of polarity, but to arrive at a point truly free of polarity, one most begin from their starting point in and as a being of polarity, and then one must experience polarity by choosing it, even if on a subconscious level, and then consciously potentiating it. The material for study is the self.

In other words, in order to move beyond polarity, we do not erase it, we instead move through it. To move through something, as far as I'm aware, is to experience it, to love and accept it, to balance it within the self, and to then use the higher energy available to us in order to contact intelligent infinity through the gateway. Thus is balanced the understanding of the apparently distorted self within the illusion with the all-self which is totally and forever perfect. The human is a bridge with anchors on two shores, both of which need honored.

In fact, the very act of "accepting and loving" self, other-self, and experience itself is a polarized act. Whether we abstract upon polarity with intellectual formulae or not makes no difference, to accept and to love is to move in accordance with the polarized creation. This is not escaped, as far as I'm aware. Then again, I can only write from the perspective of a polarized entity. Wink

I welcome any thoughts from anyone with a spare machete who can shop this post down to size!

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 09:26 PM,
#49
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-22-2009, 07:54 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  I would concur that the entity is ultimately a unity which chooses and emphasizes a focus, but the entity, in order to be "an entity" at all, must need move through and identify with an experience of polarity.

Yes. Third density is the density where we polarize. Of course this experience of polarity is crucial. I just question how much of that polarization within the system of spiritual evolution is consciously recognized. Therefore, I question people who claim to "be STO" or "be STS". I think those statements are practically meaningless.

(02-22-2009, 07:54 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  What you suggest is not entirely the absence of morality as exhibited in a previous state of evolution but rather a transcendence of morality in an advanced evolutionary state of being. To be *amoral* would be a movement of regression, as far as I see it.

I don't think it's a matter of semantics; I simply think we disagree. For me, morality is an arbitrary human construct based on the nature of third density society. Is it useful? Yes. But it's not "real". I don't think there's anything in the Law of One that implies there's such a thing as "morality" except in the sense that humans have behavioral conventions they've learned as an adaptive response to primal dangers in the world.

In other words, morality is one more form of catalyst. From the precepts of morality (which, it must be stressed, we were taught) we enter into judgements that have catalytic payoff in our lives.

(02-22-2009, 07:54 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  Tangentially, this is why I believe Ra calls the Law of Free Will the Law of Confusion. Intrinsic to the nature of the faculty of free will is confusion - to utilize free will implies (and inevitably produces) confusion about the nature of the ground of being, about infinity and the nature of the all self.

I agree. On a fundamental level, we cannot have the experience of being separate from the Creator without this causing a great deal of confusion. That's because our separation from the Creator is not in any sense real - or, at least, there is a perspective available to us that is much less complex, complicated, and confusing.

jeremy6d Wrote:Again, I would be *very, very* careful in pigeonholing oneself into a polarized identity. In doing so, you pile constructs (if not judgments) on yourself that can only color your exploration of yourself. Why not just look at yourself without the lens of STO/STS? Instead of understanding where you are in the game, why not understand yourself on your own terms?

(02-22-2009, 07:54 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  We are in a polarized reality whose polarized nature will continue for quite some time. Polarity, predicated upon the veil, makes evolution move, and is, as Ra says, the "crux" upon which turns the creation. This should not, imho, be de-emphasized as one would de-emphasize their racial identity or career-identity or any of those more gross and limited, transient, and temporal identities.

So what would it mean to "emphasize" polarity?

Polarity is a way of thinking about our daily, incarnate experiences in a larger, cosmic context. Polarity is not an identity until (A) you've actually polarized beyond the criteria, and (B) you have a conscious understanding of your polarization, which I doubt any of us have since we're still incarnate.

My point is, since you don't make the Choice consciously, none of us *really* knows whether we're polarizing STO or STS. And it makes even *less* sense to say that you "are STO" or "are STS". The upside of that is you don't have to worry about it - just be.

Good thoughts, Gary. Let me know if I've neglected a point you thought was crucial.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 10:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-23-2009, 12:09 AM by axinar.)
#50
RE: Biased view of STS
Quote: ayadew:
The ultimate intention of STO action is STS because you are the Creator and you do it for yourself only, for you are all that is.
The ultimate intention of STS action is STO because you separate yourself for others sake, for them to progress, although often not with a conscious intent.

Quote:jeremy6d Wrote:
Again, I would be *very, very* careful in pigeonholing oneself into a polarized identity. In doing so, you pile constructs (if not judgments) on yourself that can only color your exploration of yourself. Why not just look at yourself without the lens of STO/STS? Instead of understanding where you are in the game, why not understand yourself on your own terms?

i like both your input ayadew & jeremy, i totaly agree with your thought. i would like to add we often as beings tend to compartmentalize our thoughts leaving little room for other expressions of the soul. for example sts or sto ,good and evil ... what about other realms? is there something more...
not long ago i came across a wonderful work of love (i like to think thats the intent ) by the findinds of DR. Michael Newton, with "Destiny of the souls" and "Journey of the souls" which have expanded for me the ideas but only as another concept of the realm in the spirit world.
i like to bring the light of those books here and suggest it to every soul who is searching for more material in the works of the soul.

to me every soul has its own development and it learns on its own terms, their free will shall not be infringed unless it infringes upon yours then your conscious actions will determine the outcome. forgive yourself if error comes to your path.
help to those should be given if asked for or sometimes given out of your free will.


.txt   Journey & Destiny of Souls.txt (Size: 75 bytes / Downloads: 6) (consider attachment)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2009, 10:53 PM,
#51
RE: Biased view of STS
Interesting conversation so far. But I think a point needs to made regarding the degree of STS as it applies to current cultural standards. Its one thing for us to apply and discuss the teachings of the LOO as it applies to STO or STS, it is another thing to totally accept the worst that STS has to offer our world. There are plenty of historical STS figures whose actions in this density cannot be condoned within any culture on this planet. It is disingenuous to think that you can sever your participation in the culture of wherever you originate from simply by saying that you embrace the teachings of the LOO.

All of us know un-awakened souls living their lives firmly in the grip of STS. But most of these people are unaware of a choice and will repeat third density elsewhere until they finally understand. If someone chooses STS, so be it. But when that choice begins to affect the lives of those around them, that choice becomes a social issue to be faced. Either by the STS entity or his/her cultural mores. In third density, there are consequences of any action and none of us can divorce ourselves from the consequences of our choices forever.

From a philosophical standpoint, I can understand and discuss the multitude of distortions that make everything equal in the long run. But until you reach the 6th Density of Unity, STO and STS are going to be at odds with each other.

Questioner: Would an entity of this density be more effective for this work than an entity of density five or six?

Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density is the only density besides your own which, lacking the wisdom to refrain from battle, sees the necessity of the battle. Thus it is necessary that fourth-density social memory complexes be used.

Questioner: Am I correct in assuming that both the Confederation and the Orion group utilize only their fourth densities in this battle, and that the fifth and sixth densities of the Orion group do not engage in this?

Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full question as this entity’s energies are low.

It is partially correct. Fifth- and sixth-density entities positive would not take part in this battle. Fifth-density negative would not take part in this battle. Thus, the fourth density of both orientations join in this conflict.
The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers. ~ Brian Greene

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2009, 01:03 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-23-2009, 01:42 AM by Steppingfeet.)
#52
RE: Biased view of STS
jeremy6d Wrote:Yes. Third density is the density where we polarize. Of course this experience of polarity is crucial. I just question how much of that polarization within the system of spiritual evolution is consciously recognized. Therefore, I question people who claim to "be STO" or "be STS". I think those statements are practically meaningless.

My central point was to see polarity as being intrinsic and, for the most part, inseparable from our identity down to, not the deepest, but very deep levels. (I back off of the notion of inseparability when viewing identity from the ultimate, unified perspective.) My fundamental contention is that polarity and identity are linked very closely. Asking, “To what extent is the entity consciously aware of its polarity within third density?”, is a secondary or tertiary question asked as a consequence of the more basic understanding that identity and polarity are knit seamlessly together.

Moving onto the thrust of your statement above: Ra's maxim is to know yourself, accept yourself, and become the Creator, right? How could one acquire self-knowledge without concomitantly gaining some understanding of ones polarity?

Of course I don't mean that self-knowledge necessarily results in knowledge of spiritual evolution, of polarity as a dynamic force which yields evolution, or of anything in particular beyond: "I care for the well being of others." "I desire strongly to help others in accordance with their needs as they make the request." "I see beauty and light in everything I see." "I am pained by the darkness in the world, the suffering, the confusion, and the barbarity - yet I seek to open my heart and love all that comes within my purview.” Or, conversely, “I live to increase my own personal power.” “I deserve to be in charge, to rule others, to put order to this chaos.” “I as a separate, self-contained individual need no one except those who benefit me in some way.” “I seek to gain advantage or edge over others.”

Entities may not consciously know of polarity, but they can have and know such polarized understandings of the self as I've listed above, and consciously point their energies towards the increase of either.

In Session 35, Ra says: “To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.”

While I couldn’t agree more with the statement that this density is not a density of understanding, Ra nevertheless posits self-knowledge as a possibility and a prerequisite of spiritual evolution. It makes no sense to me that one could have knowledge of self and yet have no meaningful knowledge of their polarity.

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:I don't think it's a matter of semantics; I simply think we disagree. For me, morality is an arbitrary human construct based on the nature of third density society.

I totally agree. Morality *is* an arbitrary human construct based on the nature of third density society.

My contention is that morality is, if not necessary, then an inevitable stage experienced on the path of the upward spiraling light.

I would posit that morality is a cultural construct that appears on most if not all third density planets in one form or another. Conjecture, of course, because I have no knowledge of other third density planets. But it seems that no culture in the history of this planet, regardless of spatial or temporal location, has evolved free of a system of morality and it’s catalytic paybacks. Perhaps too large a theoretical leap, but I think it a safe bet to presume the same on other worlds.

Thus, moving forward from that premise, I think think valid the terms "amoral" and "trans-moral".

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:Is it useful? Yes. But it's not "real". I don't think there's anything in the Law of One that implies there's such a thing as "morality" except in the sense that humans have behavioral conventions they've learned as an adaptive response to primal dangers in the world.

I would agree, it is not “real” in that it has no absolute reality. Neither are our bodies, or the empire state building, or the moon and the sun, or, thank God, teletubbies. Nothing manifest is, in the ultimate sense of the word, “real”, but all things have a relative reality, all things are real taken on their own level.

I cannot claim to have made a detailed study of what gives rise to morality, but I would take a stab at it and say that, while it may have biological beginnings, other sources of morality include fear itself and the misunderstanding of the nature of reality. I would agree entirely that it is a learned system of thought which varies widely from culture to culture but, I would add, is universal in its emergence.

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:So what would it mean to "emphasize" polarity?

To emphasize polarity, in my understanding, would mean to continue in the myriad daily activities which are pointed towards those ideals associated with the positive polarity, avoiding for the moment the argument as to how truly any ideal reflects a given polarity.

Personally, when I see another in need, I tend to reach out my hand to offer what assistance I can. Is this not emphasizing my polarity?

I don’t have to consciously don my blue, red, and yellow costume with “STO” stitched to the front chest plate as I undertake the act, but in making the choice to help another with no expectation of return, am I not emphasizing my polarity?

Subsequent of the act, when I reflect upon the experience and realize that, (even if I had no conscious knowledge of polarity), such a service gives me a buzz and compels me to consciously seek new opportunities to repeat the ideal of service, am I not emphasizing my polarity?

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:Polarity is a way of thinking about our daily, incarnate experiences in a larger, cosmic context.

I think this is at the crux of our divergent perspectives. If I read you correctly, you see polarity largely as an abstraction with no bearing upon or application to the reality of incarnate existence. Whereas I see polarity as inextricably wrapped up in our daily life and the evolution therein. Though it lends itself quite easily to abstraction.

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:Polarity is not an identity until (A) you've actually polarized beyond the criteria,

I think that, as a generalization, this statement may be true as it seems in accord with Ra’s statement in Session 19:

Quote:QUESTIONER: Then, through free will, some time within the third density experience, the path splits and the entity consciously chooses—or he probably doesn’t consciously choose. Does the entity consciously choose this path of the initial splitting point?

RA: I am Ra. We speak in generalities which is dangerous for always inaccurate. However, we realize you look for the overview; so we will eliminate anomalies and speak of majorities.

The majority of third density beings is far along the chosen path before realization of that path is conscious.

Hoewver, it is important to keep in mind that this is a generality only. There are instances, I believe it safe to say, where the entity is aware of the potential of polarity and his movement in one direction or the other prior to crossing over the threshold.

’jeremy6d’ Wrote:and (B) you have a conscious understanding of your polarization, which I doubt any of us have since we're still incarnate.

This statement can be approached from several different angles, but I’ll take the personal as I can speak with greatest authority on my own experience.

I am certainly and without question an entity of the positive polarity. I have no means of measuring my “vibratory rate”, or ascertaining to what extent I am STO and to what extent I am STS. But I know the majority of my energy movements are engaged with the seeking of that which is associated with the positive polarity. Taking it out of the realm of ethics and morality and gazing upon polarity from a more technical standpoint, as Ra did in a previous excerpt I used, my energies incline in the direction of energetic radiation, not absorption.

Do you honestly wonder, “Am I polarizing negative or positive?”

I don’t think it’s pretentious or ignorant or naive to know your own polarity. I think it reflects genuine, authentic, irreducible, foundational, unshakable self-knowledge.

Quote:Session 19
QUESTIONER: I assume that an entity on either path can decide to change paths at any time and possibly retrace steps, the path changing being more difficult the farther along the path the change is made. Is this correct?

RA: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The further an entity has, what you would call, polarized, the more easily this entity may change polarity, for the more power and awareness the entity will have.

Thanks for the, as your peoples say, “run for the money” that you gave me, Jeremy. : )

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2009, 08:45 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-23-2009, 09:07 AM by rva_jeremy.)
#53
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  My fundamental contention is that polarity and identity are linked very closely. Asking, “To what extent is the entity consciously aware of its polarity within third density?”, is a secondary or tertiary question asked as a consequence of the more basic understanding that identity and polarity are knit seamlessly together.

Well, but remember: this whole conversation started with a guy who claims to "be STS" complaining that that polarity gets a bad rap. That's the context here. I think identifying with a polarity on that level - where you see it as a club - is a little silly (sorry, I do).

That's totally different than self-knowledge. I didn't mean to imply one can have no idea about one's polarity. The two main objections I have, in the context mentioned above, are (A) looking at polarity as being on a team, where you identify with your side and see the other side as "the other", (B) even more fundamentally, the sense in which you're using an abstract construct to limit your own exploration of self.

B is gonna hurt, but... I think we have to be very honest with ourselves when applying Ra's insights to our lives. The concepts Ra suggest are a starting point. The concepts themselves are not "the truth". Our concepts of polarity in our third density conscious minds are at best rough, approximate models of the actual phenomenon. If an identification is made too strongly with the construct as described by Ra, it's possible that the construct will impede the discovery of the genuine article within the self, rather than aid in this discovery.

It's the same problem with any thought system. To what extent do the laws of science help us understand the phenomena of the universe? To what extent do the laws constrain our imagination and discovery by limiting what we think is possible?

In my opinion, it's impossible to have a deep, personal, and relevant experience with the Law of One as specified by Ra without vetting their concepts within oneself. Otherwise, you're just going through the motions so to speak. I'm in favor of people always starting with themselves as is, and then experimenting with the concepts of the Law of One. This, to me, promises the least amount of distortion.

To put it another way, I'm in favor of people approaching the Law of One material and its application to oneself in the same experimental, scientific manner that Don approached the Ra contact. This is not dogma; take what works and discard the rest. But before you know whether it works or not you have to test it, and I'm afraid that somebody who sees polarity as an outward third density identity group isn't being rigorous about how their use the concept of polarization.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  How could one acquire self-knowledge without concomitantly gaining some understanding of ones polarity?

*shrug* I can see it happening.

Of course, I know what you mean. From my point of view, a person looking within for understanding is already utilizing an intensity of love/light that implies at least some polarization.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  It makes no sense to me that one could have knowledge of self and yet have no meaningful knowledge of their polarity.

I agree with that; however, as I said above, my beef has always been with the degree to which this polarity is something one identifies with in an outward manner.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  My contention is that morality is, if not necessary, then an inevitable stage experienced on the path of the upward spiraling light.

Morality probably represents a common class of catalyst in third density experiences.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  To emphasize polarity, in my understanding, would mean to continue in the myriad daily activities which are pointed towards those ideals associated with the positive polarity, avoiding for the moment the argument as to how truly any ideal reflects a given polarity.

Personally, when I see another in need, I tend to reach out my hand to offer what assistance I can. Is this not emphasizing my polarity?

Well, shucks, Gary. How can I say, "no"?

I kind of feel like if you find the concept of polarization to be a useful one in processing catalyst, go for it. As long as it augments and does not stand in for an exploration of oneself.

Ra has a great term for a lot of what I'm alluding to: the unmanifested self. The self without the constructs, the well into which we plumb. I'm not saying don't use a rope or a light when going down there, but be conscious of where you are and open to the nature of this well. Be mindful of the self as is (acceptance helps) and use polarity as one tool among many to see the self from different perspectives, always desiring to learn.

My personal experience, Gary, is that when I see somebody in need, I try to understand what I'm feeling. There is a sense in which that understanding can map to the constructs of STS and STO. There's also a sense in which it is more than that. I just want the whole experience, not simply the experience through the lens of Ra's constructs.

Does that make sense?

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  If I read you correctly, you see polarity largely as an abstraction with no bearing upon or application to the reality of incarnate existence.

LOL! No, not really. It's useful, but it's not primary. No outwardly learned construct is. Start with the self. The self is the measure of all spiritual disciplines and systems. That's all I'm saying - you can't *know* whether the construct of polarity works until you know the self. It's not the other way around.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  Whereas I see polarity as inextricably wrapped up in our daily life and the evolution therein. Though it lends itself quite easily to abstraction.

Well, you've always been a much more dedicated and conscious student of the Law of One than I. I sort of try to understand it, but I'm totally OK with deemphasizing parts I don't find useful in my day-to-day life (or at least not consciously acting on them). I tend to use the Law of One reflectively as you do, but only after I've grounded myself in the experience without filtering. For my personality I need a concrete experience of spirit from which to draw from - otherwise, I intellectualize the concepts so thoroughly that I forget why I'm working with them in first place.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  Do you honestly wonder, “Am I polarizing negative or positive?”

No, not anymore. What's the worst that can happen? I repeat third density. To dread that is like dreading surgery you need. I trust that whatever I need, I'll get. Seriously, it's not something I think about. To me, it's like consciously thinking about gravity. Perhaps I've internalized the system to an extent that doesn't *require* me to think consciously about it; I dunno, that might be true, might not.

(02-23-2009, 01:03 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  I don’t think it’s pretentious or ignorant or naive to know your own polarity. I think it reflects genuine, authentic, irreducible, foundational, unshakable self-knowledge.

Well, I think this attitude of "Us STS folk are underappreciated, you STO types should show more respect" has something wrong with it (in the sense that I think it is a bit of the above, with all due respect to people participating in the earlier conversation - seriously, we all have our own distortions). How about you?
(02-22-2009, 10:53 PM)Richard Wrote:  It is disingenuous to think that you can sever your participation in the culture of wherever you originate from simply by saying that you embrace the teachings of the LOO.

Just for the record, is anybody saying that? I haven't seen anything like that so far.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2009, 01:05 PM,
#54
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-22-2009, 10:53 PM)Richard Wrote:  It is disingenuous to think that you can sever your participation in the culture of wherever you originate from simply by saying that you embrace the teachings of the LOO.

To do such would mean that you do not serve most people in the way they wish, it would be separation in my eyes. If you wish to inspire people positively, it's best to do such in a way they can relate to.
Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2009, 01:34 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-23-2009, 03:33 PM by axinar.)
#55
RE: Biased view of STS
perhaps there are other realms we are not aware of as i posted in number#50. to me the path of the soul is full of choices within the law of confusion, to those souls with their unshakeable essence there is nothing but "consious" choices awaiting as your desitions lead the life you have "chosen" to live. i point the light of those wonderful works because it has expanded my perception regarding another concepts for the work of the soul. weather you comply better with sto or sts at this point in your life there will always be love and light for what is and perhaps a little more. the Law of One brings wonderful notions and for me so do other works.

i have been amazed by the harmony of it all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2009, 07:13 PM,
#56
RE: Biased view of STS
Quote:That's the context here. I think identifying with a polarity on that level - where you see it as a club - is a little silly (sorry, I do).

Quote:Well, I think this attitude of "Us STS folk are underappreciated, you STO types should show more respect" has something wrong with it

Pure interpretation,
but if it makes you feel better thinking i see or live things that way , it's ok for me, i just don't mind.




Quote:
Quote:’jeremy6d’ Wrote:
and (B) you have a conscious understanding of your polarization, which I doubt any of us have since we're still incarnate.

This statement can be approached from several different angles, but I’ll take the personal as I can speak with greatest authority on my own experience.

I am certainly and without question an entity of the positive polarity. I have no means of measuring my “vibratory rate”, or ascertaining to what extent I am STO and to what extent I am STS. But I know the majority of my energy movements are engaged with the seeking of that which is associated with the positive polarity. Taking it out of the realm of ethics and morality and gazing upon polarity from a more technical standpoint, as Ra did in a previous excerpt I used, my energies incline in the direction of energetic radiation, not absorption.

Do you honestly wonder, “Am I polarizing negative or positive?”

I don’t think it’s pretentious or ignorant or naive to know your own polarity. I think it reflects genuine, authentic, irreducible, foundational, unshakable self-knowledge.

It sounds to me the same that saying it's non-sense to know our inner qualities or defects.

I clearly agree with Bring4th_GLB on that subject, and i would add :
If you're on a spiritual journey you necessarily work on yourself thus knowing (even roughly) the kind of person you are, and subsequently your polarity .

If i say i that 'm not inclined to help people, i like to follow a lonely path, and that occasionally i like to play with people, i guess it dont make me STO obviously. so ...



The two last pages reminds me a little story about monks(not very precisely):
There is two young monks learning some martial arts in a monastery,
and that day their master learn them a new technic and ask them to practice it until they masterize it.
The two monks speak and one say something like:
"That new technique is really hard, i'll need at least 6 month to masterize it"
The other one answer:
"Are you joking, it's simple i'm sure i'll do it in 2 weeks"

Finally after two weeks the monk masterize the technic, and the other one effectively need 6 months to make the same thing.

So , roughly the morality is that was simply harder for the second monk because he was thinking it was.

you're building your reality, if you convince yourself you cannot have a clear insight about your polarity, it's becoming true, "the matrix" as the clear ability to bend under your thought unconsciously or not, we are divine after all, and that allow us to use a myriad of stupid powers in 3rd density.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2009, 11:09 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-24-2009, 11:11 AM by rva_jeremy.)
#57
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-23-2009, 07:13 PM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  Pure interpretation, but if it makes you feel better thinking i see or live things that way , it's ok for me, i just don't mind.

It doesn't make me feel better. I was just explaining (A) how I saw / interpreted it, (B) what I was responding to in my comments.

I understand that that may not be how you meant it. Sorry for any offense. I think you've been much clearer in this post about what you were trying to say, and I'm not trying to just put words in your mouth.

My point, and maybe it's larger than or inconsistent with what you were saying (if so, my apologies), is that I think it's difficult to have a direct personal experience of polarity as something that would inform one's sense of self. This is because the utility of polarity is something that transcends our third density identities. Also, what would you be measuring your own polarization relative to? At most you're measuring it relative to other personal episodic experiences of polarity. That's useful - but that's not the sense in which Ra talks about 51% STO or 95% STS.

In my opinion, I see it as even more distorted to introduce this questionable aspect of identity into a third density conversation. Now you're piling distortion on distortion. What is the purpose of establishing one's polarity to fellow forum participants?

"I'm STS."

"Well I'm STO"

"That's nice."

I think the premises behind the above (hugely simplified to the point of parody) conversation are completely flawed. If those aren't the premises you were setting out on, Chaotikmind, then please disregard my critique.

Honestly, I think what weirded me out the most was that idea of somebody expressly identifying as polarizing STS participating on this board. That right there sets off alarm bells in my head - not that the participant is evil, but rather that the participant misunderstands the dynamics of polarization.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2009, 09:01 AM,
#58
RE: Biased view of STS
I'm really short of time, so i'll be brief

Quote: is that I think it's difficult to have a direct personal experience of polarity as something that would inform one's sense of self.

Yeah you spoke about that, and i thank about it a lot, and suddenly something struck me:
Isn't polarity determined by the violet ray ?
i remember of that passage saying that violet ray was carefuly examined for harvestability.

Violet ray is also the ease with which we tap into intelligent energy.

So i can say : the most psychic(in a very broad sense) you become,
the more polarized you are .
Nearly direct feedback indeed.

If there is something wrong with my logic here i would want to know what !


Quote:Honestly, I think what weirded me out the most was that idea of somebody expressly identifying as polarizing STS participating on this board. That right there sets off alarm bells in my head - not that the participant is evil, but rather that the participant misunderstands the dynamics of polarization.

I can't be STO, i'm too much separated from everything, i keep my contact with people at a strict minimum, for the simple reason i feel like talking to a rock when i make contact with a normal simple minded person, and it's quite boring, nothing to get from nearly all conversation, and i don't even talk of the average QI which rarely goes above the number of the rectal temperature (quoted from a great french humorist)
So i mostly stay in the mountains , medidating, gathering knowledge like a sponge, and experimenting some magics.
And it's really cool that way !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2009, 10:58 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-25-2009, 11:05 AM by Steppingfeet.)
#59
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-25-2009, 09:01 AM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  I can't be STO, i'm too much separated from everything, i keep my contact with people at a strict minimum, for the simple reason i feel like talking to a rock when i make contact with a normal simple minded person, and it's quite boring, nothing to get from nearly all conversation, and i don't even talk of the average QI which rarely goes above the number of the rectal temperature (quoted from a great french humorist)
So i mostly stay in the mountains , medidating, gathering knowledge like a sponge, and experimenting some magics.
And it's really cool that way !

Dear Chaotikmind,

I can now see what Jeremy was referring to. While neither he nor I can know your polarity, one gets the impression while reading your posts that there is perhaps a superficial connection drawn between your identity and those definitions which are associated with the *concepts* of service to others and service to self.

I am not claiming final knowledge of such, I confess that what I write is composed in shining ignorance, but there seems to be a lack of genuine understanding on your part regarding the heart of self. It seems that you *may* look at your outward behavior, and, in assessing it, compare your behavior to loose definitions of polarity and say to yourself, "This one seems to fit me", or, "This one doesn't fit me". And thus does there seem a shallow and tenuous relationship between behavior and concept.

I hope not to put words into Jeremy's mouth but I believe this what he was referring to when speaking of the unexamined attachment that people develop to labels, which leads people to work from the outside in rather than the inside out. Beginning first with the label to understand the self rather than beginning from the heart of self and using the label as a helpful tool or means to an end.

This does not mean that a concept, especially one as central as polarity, has no meaning and no bearing upon self-understanding. On the contrary, an exploration of the meaning and intricacies of concept can be a great boon to spiritual evolution - insofar as concept remains transparent to that which it represents in its limited fashion.

As to living a life of seclusion in the mountains, there may be many reasons for this, none of which necessarily mean that you are a negative or service to self entity.

Perhaps you are from a wisdom density, having recently spent millions of years evolving without interaction with other selves. Perhaps you are a contemplative who desires to remove from his environment the so-called distractions of this busy world in order to focus more single-mindedly upon the Creator. Or perhaps you are simply socially maladjusted, as so many of us are, feeling acutely the alienation that is so common to wanderers, (presuming for the moment that you are a wanderer). This maladjustment, being a painful state of affairs, could be rationalized by the self in a way which results in a superiority complex: "Others cannot relate to me and I cannot relate to them because I am on a higher level. Thus they do not interest me."

Quote:Session 12
Ra: Due to the extreme variance between the vibratory distortions of third density and those of the more dense densities, if you will, Wanderers have as a general rule some form of handicap, difficulty, or feeling of alienation which is severe. The most common of these difficulties are alienation, the reaction against the planetary vibration by personality disorders, as you would call them, and body complex ailments indicating difficulty in adjustment to the planetary vibrations such as allergies, as you would call them.

I believe that polarization is a frame of reference, a bias in the consciousness of the self that is available to both polarities in a solitary configuration. I don't believe it absolutely necessary to interact with other-selves, or to even have the desire to interact with other-selves, to polarize positively. Though... going it alone, while it may be suited to you at this particular nexus in your evolution because it is the most comfortable arrangement, is ultimately a more difficult path than exchanging energy with other selves.

Quote:Session 19
Ra: The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves. This is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. Dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. Thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its being-ness. Thus, each may aid each by reflection. This is also a primary reason for the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call the physical complex.

So, Chaotikmind, a question for you: what takes place in your prayers? What are the objects and intentions of your prayers? If other selves factor into your praying, what do you pray for them?

On a final note, while extricating oneself from the societal milieu, especially a society so far from the ways of love, does have its benefits, the greatest catalyst for spiritual development, according to my understanding and the Law of One's, is generated in the interaction with other selves.

Quote:Session 50
Ra: Those aware of evolution and desirous in the very extreme of attaining the heart of love and the radiance which gives understanding no matter what the lessons programmed: they have to do with other-selves, not with events: they have to do with giving, not receiving, for the lessons of love are of this nature both for positive and negative. Those negatively harvestable will be found at this time endeavoring to share their love of self.

Love and Light!
GLB

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2009, 11:58 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-25-2009, 12:02 PM by rva_jeremy.)
#60
RE: Biased view of STS
(02-25-2009, 09:01 AM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  If there is something wrong with my logic here i would want to know what !

I think I now understand where we're missing each other.

A. There is "polarity the concept" as a balance of energy configurations. It's definitely possible to be aware of this in 3rd density. But what I'm saying is that you would be aware of this polarity only in comparsion with other past experiences of polarity. It's a relative, personal experience of polarity. In other words, you have no way to, say, compare your polarity to another person's. There's no frame of reference other than self, which makes an absolute evaluation damn near impossible.

B. Then there is "absolute polarity" in the sense Ra talks about havestability: 51%/49% or 95%/5%. A third density entity would have a very hard time experiencing their polarity in this absolute context (it might be possible in some extraordinary transcendental episode). Remember also that a 3d entity has nothing to compare their polarity to other than the self.

So to the extent that you're talking about A, I agree with you - it's part of the identity. To the extent you're talking about B, I disagree with you - I think it's unlikely that you know you're exact position on the game board, in other words, because that position is relative to landmarks you cannot have direct experience of. You would need a frame of reference only available to higher density entities such as your higher self - and, indeed, it is the higher self that determines graduation and harvestability, according to Ra. That makes sense to me because part of the utility of third density is in having this veil between our absolute nature and our subjective incarnation.

(02-25-2009, 09:01 AM)Chaotikmind Wrote:  I can't be STO, i'm too much separated from everything, i keep my contact with people at a strict minimum, for the simple reason i feel like talking to a rock when i make contact with a normal simple minded person, and it's quite boring, nothing to get from nearly all conversation, and i don't even talk of the average QI which rarely goes above the number of the rectal temperature (quoted from a great french humorist)
So i mostly stay in the mountains , medidating, gathering knowledge like a sponge, and experimenting some magics.
And it's really cool that way !

At the risk of coming off as a complete ass, I'd suggest that these behaviors you're describing are *not* STS behaviors. Remember: service can be rendered on a spiritual and energetic level as well. Taking time to understand and work on yourself is a service to the planet. Eschewing social interactions means you're introverted, not self-absorbed!

As a counterexample, an STS person would be engaged with others almost certainly. Since they see the body of humanity as something in need of ordering into the configuration they feel best, they would excel at manipulation. This is because, seeing the self alone as Creator, they see it as their service to bring the rest of the creation into order.

Thanks also for your understanding of my past arguments and not taking it personally.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)