+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: How Do STS's View Other Selves? (/showthread.php?tid=12578)
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 08-10-2016
(08-10-2016, 06:38 PM)ricdaw Wrote: I don't think it is useful to label STS people as "evil" or sociopaths, or conquerors, etc. Because STS-bias is demonstrated daily in all its banality.
Just as an addendum to my previous post (and I know your post wasn't necessarily directed at mine, but this statement gives me an opportunity to clarify something that people might mistakenly assume about what I wrote), I'm not advocating labeling anyone as evil or good even though I am equating STS with evil and STO with good. It is impossible to know the polarity of an act, whether it is good or evil, STO or STS, without knowing the intent of the person offering said behavior. Thus, as always, nonjudgment is the best route to take when encountering any particular behavior, no matter what the actual spiritual charge may be at the level of consciousness.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-10-2016
(08-10-2016, 05:29 PM)anagogy Wrote:(08-10-2016, 03:17 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Good and evil falls when you understand that the energy behind what you can consider the greatest good is the same energy that is behind what you would consider the greatest evil. The same will is focused unto different states of balance with different surrounding parameters, yet never is unlike any of the two poles.
I've never stated that good and evil don't come from the same place, but you can't say that a proton and an electron are precisely the same thing just because they can both be derived from a photon. In some abstract sense yes, practically speaking, no. I'm not saying one is more important, they are both parts of the photon.
They are the same thing expressed within a different system of parameters. I did not deny that the system of parameters that expresses one pole over an another is different in it's configuration. It is more like a case that an expression of positive polarity is an expression of manifested selflessness and unmanifested selfishness within the conditions of it's expressions. If this very same system of expression was tweaked by an outside force to shift it's balance, then it would become an expression of negative polarity and of manifested selfishness and unmanifested selflessness.
You can't separate them, you can only experience conditions that manifest a certain side of their spectrum. A positive entity is selfless because it exists within conditions of itself that do not manifest it's inherent selfishness and the same is true for the negative entity containing the unmanifested selflessness.
(08-10-2016, 05:29 PM)anagogy Wrote:(08-10-2016, 03:17 PM)Minyatur Wrote: The negative polarity is not extreme selfishness, it seems that way to the external eyes that understand not it's cause and effect, that perceives not that it contains the exact same seflessness that the positive polarity sheds light upon. In the same manner, the positive polarity contains the same selfishness that the negative polarity sheds light upon, except that it is expressed positively within paramaters that allow this expression.
Negative polarity actually does precisely mean extreme selfishness. That is exactly why it is called service to self rather than "that nebulously defined behavior I'm alluding to". Defining two polarities as service to self, and service to others as Ra did is literally labeling these polarities by their signature and chief defining characteristic itself. I'm honestly baffled that you don't accept this most basic of all premises.
I do accept their difference in expression, but also do acknowledge that there is no separation between them and that their role is to shed light upon one unified principle.
A positive being does not hold the power the make different choices than the ones a negative being has made, it can only witness the different expression of itself within a different set of experiences of itself and internalize the underlying love not yet distilled by the negative being to find a greater positive polarity to radiate from within itself. It will seek to perceive the selflessness behind the illusionary/misunderstood selfishness.
(08-10-2016, 05:29 PM)anagogy Wrote:(08-10-2016, 03:17 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Polarity already fufills the role of measure fo comparison of the charge of the act, good and evil are something other born from a non-understanding of these charges.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but like most I see you are just taking one word for a dichotomy of human behavior and replacing it with another word for a dichotomy of human behavior. So how is calling a behavior negatively polarized different from calling it evil? At the end of the day, it is just meaningless word substitution because somebody doesn't like the word "evil". Good and evil *ARE* polarity, and always have been, since the dawn of mankind. I'm not saying one is more powerful than the other, but this constant repackaging I see of ancient spiritual concepts into quasi new age language designed to sound more enlightened than the status quo when in reality it is just the same old concept in new clothing is just plain tiresome in my opinion.
Positively/negatively polarized as terms do work if understood through a similar principle as that the pole of a magnet. The good/evil lense is how these terms could be misunderstood from their true nature through confusion.
(08-10-2016, 05:29 PM)anagogy Wrote: Hell, I could take a random survey of people on the street, put a list of some general STO actions, and some general STS actions on a white board and ask them to label them with their own subjective cultural understanding of what they believe "good" and "evil" mean, and I'm positive that in 90% of the examples they would equate them precisely as I have equated them. They would describe all the STS actions as stereotypically evil, and the STO actions as stereotypically good.
While you would find yourself to be right, you might find a need to let go of your ideas that All is One and that there is Source and Unity. This world is more of a mirror upon confusion than negative polarity.
If you step back a bit from the lense of separation, you could ponder to perceive both polarities as an expression of a relationship of self with self. This would probably be the most efficient mean to understand other-selves.
(08-10-2016, 05:29 PM)anagogy Wrote: I have yet to hear how they are different. I personally think in most cases it is just an equal commingling of wishful thinking and special snowflake syndrome.
I think those who have a hard time letting go of the notion of good and evil are often those who lose their direction outside a desire of wanting to be better than what they perceive as lesser.
This Creation is to explore Love in all of it's intensity and complexity, not to find/differentiate good and evil, better and lesser. Both polarities open the same door to contact Intelligent Infinity which perceives both as without separation. The only reason one cannot move into the gateway in negative polarity is because the self rejects the self.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-10-2016
To harvest from this Octave negatively, much like Ashim implied, means to terminate this Creation. This is probably the honor/duty/service of one entity but will still be done through transcending polarity and through acumulating the will of others through one self.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-10-2016
Another way to word things, you don't seek the positive polarity as a mean to be good, you seek it as your desired/resonant mean to explore what love truly is.
The negative polarity is not "intense selfishness that makes everything so great for the self", it is a state of disalignment, it is a path in which the greatest service to self is to let go of it and give yourself the right to be positive.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 08-10-2016
(08-10-2016, 06:59 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Positively/negatively polarized as terms do work if understood through a similar principle as that the pole of a magnet. The good/evil lense is how these terms could be misunderstood from their true nature through confusion.
Do you see what you did here? You essentially said: "good and evil are different from positive and negative polarity" but then you don't explain how. At all.
I explained how and why they are the same thing in my previous post, and now you are saying they are different, but once again, there is no explanation whatsoever.
I agree completely that polarity is just like a magnet. Negative is the south pole, and positive is the north pole. And guess what? Same goes for good and evil because the poles of the spiritual magnet are selfishness, and selflessness, which is precisely what good and evil *ARE* based on the consensus opinions of the human race as a whole (as seen in virtually every single religious doctrine on the face of the earth). People have an innate sense of this good and evil concept. That's why most normal humans don't murder their parents in their sleep, or take whatever they want, or lie about everything. Because there is a perception of wrongness to it that is intrinsic.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all STS people do is psychotically perform wrong doing. That would be a rather extreme and dramatic example of evil. A properly polarized STS being is going to be a whole lot sneakier and more subtly evil than that. It wouldn't be obvious about it.
But pure selfishness, at the expense of others, is no different whatsoever than the concept of evil. They are one and the same.
(08-10-2016, 06:59 PM)Minyatur Wrote: While you would find yourself to be right, you might find a need to let go of your ideas that All is One and that there is Source and Unity. This world is more of a mirror upon confusion than negative polarity.
If you step back a bit from the lense of separation, you could ponder to perceive both polarities as an expression of a relationship of self with self. This would probably be one of the most efficient mean to understand other-selves.
Believe it or not, you can recognize differences and still see the unity between them. The tail of a snake is different from the head, but they are still one snake. I have no problem with the head or the tail, or the unity or the separation -- only the mistaken notion I see promulgated often, and not just by you by the way, that good and evil are different somehow from negative and positive polarity because people like to repackage old spiritual concepts into new clothing. It is natural to do so, but while the new clothes might be nice, the old ones are still use-able.
(08-10-2016, 06:59 PM)Minyatur Wrote: I think those who have a hard time letting go of the notion of good and evil are often those who lose their direction outside a desire of wanting to be better than what they perceive as lesser.
This Creation is to explore Love in all of it's intensity and complexity, not to find/differentiate good and evil, better and lesser. Both polarities open the same door to contact Intelligent Infinity which perceives both as without separation. The only reason one cannot move into the gateway in negative polarity is because the self rejects the self.
If you go back and read my previous post, I never once said that evil was lesser than good. In fact, I repeatedly said neither was lesser or greater. All I'm doing is drawing a simple (and correct in my opinion) correlation between the spiritual concept of good/evil and the spiritual concept of positive/negative polarity. They are exactly the same. One isn't lesser, it is simply that thousands of years of religious bias which makes people unconsciously see it that way.
Religion pounded into peoples' minds that evil wasn't an option for evolution. But the creator actually doesn't mind. That is where it got warped, not that the idea of evil, in and of itself, was incorrect.
Good and evil exist, and are both valid paths of spiritual evolution (at least until the spiritual entropy becomes too great).
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-10-2016
To me evil, at least within the way it is commonly understood, is a term that contains confusion more than adepthood. Evil seems to be what negative beings want to be perceived as, and this as a mean to not receive love and compassion from others. It is a mask that hides scars, vulnerability and broken innocence. It is a shell put upon the true self to lose sight of it, because that becomes the way of least resistance.
Not too long ago I pondered with a friend how STS came to be, and we both seemed to feel deeply within ourselves that it was the result of martyrhood. That some did not fit within systems they were a part of, and that they denied themselves for others, that they repressed themselves without acceptance of how they were, valorizing how others were before themselves, that this created great distortions over time and built up ressentment for all that is and shifted selflessness into it's opposite.
I cannot look at another's selfishness without thinking that there is a greater underlying selflessness. You can try to convince me to perceive otherwise, but I am quite sure that this will fail.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 08-10-2016
(08-10-2016, 07:56 PM)Minyatur Wrote: To me evil, at least within the way it is commonly understood, is a term that contains confusion more than adepthood. Evil seems to be what negative beings want to be perceived as, and this as a mean to not receive love and compassion from others. It is a mask that hides scars, vulnerability and broken innocence. It is a shell put upon the true self to lose sight of it, because that becomes the way of least resistance.
In some ways I would agree. But to me, evil is just a word, just like negative polarity is just words. Both mean, at least to me, a kind of exaltation of the negative pole -- the pole of the egoic and carnal self. And the same goes for the opposite polarity of good/STO: they exalt the northern pole, which is selflessness.
(08-10-2016, 07:56 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Not too long ago I pondered with a friend how STS came to be, and we both seemed to feel deeply within ourselves that it was the result of martyrhood. That some did not fit within systems they were a part of, and that they denied themselves for others, that they repressed themselves without acceptance of how they were, valorizing how others were before themselves, that this created great distortions over time and built up ressentment for all that is and shifted selflessness into it's opposite.
I'm sure that is how some people turn to STS, but I doubt it is by any means representative of the negative polarity as a whole. But i'm sure that resentment certainly plays a strong role in polarizing towards the southern pole, as well as anger, frustration and a whole host of other negative mental/emotive expressions.
To quote Ra, "Some love light, and some love darkness."
(08-10-2016, 07:56 PM)Minyatur Wrote: I cannot look at another's selfishness without thinking that there is a greater underlying selflessness. You can try to convince me to perceive otherwise, but I am quite sure that this will fail.
I think what you said here is interesting because I think a lot of people who think they idolize negative polarization fall into this trap of mistakenly confusing their truly desired polarity with its complete opposite. I think this is exactly why so many teens and young adults are so enamored with being a "bad ass" and keeping up their "street cred" and basically putting on a quasi STS image, smoking cigs, doing drugs, stealing, and basically flirting with the more shallow aspects or fringes of the negative polarity because they "think its cool" or they think that is what they want (in reality they are just seeking group approval). The fact is, most of those people eventually get burned by an actual somewhat darkly polarized STS being (who really does enjoy the horrors of negativity) which scares them into seeking what they were truly desiring but looking for in all the wrong places: STO love.
In otherwords, the ones that are seeking negative polarity because they are hurt and confused are not truly STS, they are just lost and looking to get their sense of power back. I think that is what you imagine when you think of STS folks. But basically, I think if you had a multitude of real interactions with really polarized STS types you would see my point very clearly (I know you probably believe you already have, but I guess we are both entitled to our differing opinions). You are free to perceive as you like, I have little desire to change you. I just like to speak my mind every now and then.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-11-2016
(08-10-2016, 08:26 PM)anagogy Wrote:(08-10-2016, 07:56 PM)Minyatur Wrote: To me evil, at least within the way it is commonly understood, is a term that contains confusion more than adepthood. Evil seems to be what negative beings want to be perceived as, and this as a mean to not receive love and compassion from others. It is a mask that hides scars, vulnerability and broken innocence. It is a shell put upon the true self to lose sight of it, because that becomes the way of least resistance.
In some ways I would agree. But to me, evil is just a word, just like negative polarity is just words. Both mean, at least to me, a kind of exaltation of the negative pole -- the pole of the egoic and carnal self. And the same goes for the opposite polarity of good/STO: they exalt the northern pole, which is selflessness.
Well I don't really negate the word altogether, and would even add that it hints toward an archetype of the negative pole. What I consider false is that evil is reresentative of the negative path as a whole.
If you look at the Ra material, evil is only used within 3 questions which 2 relates to the Matrix of the Spirit and where the word is mainly used as a word of misconception, whereas the other is about Lucifier bringing this form of knowledge within the Logos as the true bringer of light, which allowed us to move, work and learn, which broke a path of pre-destination of fate. On the other hand negative is used quite frequently and is said to be literally comparable to the poles of a magnet.
(08-10-2016, 08:26 PM)anagogy Wrote: I'm sure that is how some people turn to STS, but I doubt it is by any means representative of the negative polarity as a whole. But i'm sure that resentment certainly plays a strong role in polarizing towards the southern pole, as well as anger, frustration and a whole host of other negative mental/emotive expressions.
To quote Ra, "Some love light, and some love darkness."
To paraphrase Ra; There is no some, All is One, You are every being.
So you do love light and you do love darkness, and you are left to understand how you can come to love both. As you are told that there is no polarity and that they are a paradox, the key to internalizing both is to remove separation of them from your understanding of them.
(08-10-2016, 08:26 PM)anagogy Wrote:(08-10-2016, 07:56 PM)Minyatur Wrote: I cannot look at another's selfishness without thinking that there is a greater underlying selflessness. You can try to convince me to perceive otherwise, but I am quite sure that this will fail.
I think what you said here is interesting because I think a lot of people who think they idolize negative polarization fall into this trap of mistakenly confusing their truly desired polarity with its complete opposite. I think this is exactly why so many teens and young adults are so enamored with being a "bad ass" and keeping up their "street cred" and basically putting on a quasi STS image, smoking cigs, doing drugs, stealing, and basically flirting with the more shallow aspects or fringes of the negative polarity because they "think its cool" or they think that is what they want (in reality they are just seeking group approval). The fact is, most of those people eventually get burned by an actual somewhat darkly polarized STS being (who really does enjoy the horrors of negativity) which scares them into seeking what they were truly desiring but looking for in all the wrong places: STO love.
In otherwords, the ones that are seeking negative polarity because they are hurt and confused are not truly STS, they are just lost and looking to get their sense of power back. I think that is what you imagine when you think of STS folks. But basically, I think if you had a multitude of real interactions with really polarized STS types you would see my point very clearly (I know you probably believe you already have, but I guess we are both entitled to our differing opinions). You are free to perceive as you like, I have little desire to change you. I just like to speak my mind every now and then.
Well there are many cases and I do not interact with negative beings outside some disincarnated greetings over the years that never last quite long, especially since last year.
You look at people as if they were just people, they also are a harvest of past experiences and this plays a huge role in one that will seek the negative polarity. The Creator/You, does not close up it's heart to hurt itself over and over again just like that, it requires quite the right cause and effect to lead there. Just like you won't tomorrow decide that you want to be evil, yet maybe if I take you from your earliest years within a future lifetime and make you live a life of sequestration and pain, then perhaps this will imprint within your soul a seed of darkness that will make you seek the negative path in yet another lifetime. If your soul has distilled love deeply enough, this would not necessarily be the case.
Truly you become "evil" through infinite ways, all within the cause and effect of yourself. Yet so long as you seek to perceive evil from an external standpoint, you energize a negative thought form of love not being perceived, once you seek to perceive this same evil as goodness, you are transmuting darkness into it's true form, light.
To see evil is to see illusion, to see the underlying goodness is to see truth. The choice is your own. The perception is of yourself.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-11-2016
With how much the earth is a place that offers traumas, it really does not suprise me that so many feel appealed by darkness in the way you described, while never shaking free from their more truthful desire of light which is inherent to all.
I do wonder where those who think that what is badass to be ponys and horses come from. Always seemed alien to me.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 08-11-2016
(08-11-2016, 08:39 AM)Minyatur Wrote: With how much the earth is a place that offers traumas, it really does not suprise me that so many feel appealed by darkness in the way you described, while never shaking free from their more truthful desire of light which is inherent to all.
I do wonder where those who think that what is badass to be ponys and horses come from. Always seemed alien to me.
Yeah, that's a whole other psychological puzzle. I assume you are referring to "bronies"?
That is a mystery to me as well.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Nía - 08-16-2016
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 08-18-2016
I think an important aspect to understand those of the STS path, is that they do not truly have a choice but to work with others to advance. This Octave is designed that you move forward through others, and this can be done in a positive or negative fashion, but remains that you use others to increase your own polarity.
If you desire to not impact others, then you get stuck.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - GentleReckoning - 08-18-2016
How do STS individuals view other selves? With Judgement.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - ada - 08-18-2016
In 3rd density I'd assume, yeah.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Nía - 08-30-2016
Slightly off-topic (because still far from consciously polarized towards STS), but still interesting in this context:
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Nía - 09-18-2016
Seems also relevant, if slightly off-topic:
New Study Says 1 Out of Every 5 Corporate Bosses Is a Psychopath
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Infinite Unity - 09-26-2016
(08-10-2016, 06:38 PM)ricdaw Wrote:(02-28-2016, 11:46 AM)neutral333 Wrote: When I try to fathom what STS sees when they view others, I have a difficult time - especially with the 4D and 5D. Do they come completely from a place of fear where they see every other entity as a threat? Do they have a destructive view towards creation and therefore try to get others to self-destruct? Do they have a perverted or reverse view of human development and see destruction as the more expedient way to return to the Creator? Are they so absorbed in their self to the point where they see others as their play things to get more for their self? Is it simply a feeling of insecurity? In the words of Seinfeld, "What is the deal?" What are your thoughts?
The STO-biased person sees others as people like themselves, with hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions. The STO-biased person values other people and respects their hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions.
The STS-biased person sees others as means to an end. The STS-biased person does not respect the hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions of other persons. The STS-biased person only values other people to the extent that other people are useful to the STS person.
STO vs STS plays out in our everyday interactions and lives all the time.
I don't think it is useful to label STS people as "evil" or sociopaths, or conquerors, etc. Because STS-bias is demonstrated daily in all its banality.
Drivers who cut off other drivers, curse other drivers, won't let people merge ahead of them? STS-bias. All those other drivers' wants, desires, motivations and personhoods are denied. It's all about the STS driver and his/her desire to get somewhere.
The fiancé who marries for money, status, the good life. STS-bias.
The person who seeks celebrity and attention for the sake of celebrity, attention and fame. STS-bias.
Ra picked the obvious and extreme examples of the STS path when such a path was chosen consciously, but the overwhelming vast majority of the STS actions are evident to all of us daily in a thousand different selfish ways, all unconsciously made.
The STS-biased person does not see other people as equals to themselves. That's all. This simple dehumanizing assumption is all it takes. We meet these people everyday. They are just like us. Sometimes, it even is us.
The hallmark of the Infinite Creator, is variety. Every single moment, is entangled in the preceeding moments, as far as the mind has focus on any given aspect of the current moment. That occured in said previous moment/moments. I see them as movements. Or rather the movement. What I am getting at is this. The driver you see not letting people in at that moment, could be late for work, late dropping the kids off for school, all because the alarm clock malfunctioned=) That is why Ra says its impossible to see what individual is sts sto from were we are sitting. It has nothing to with how you are perceiving the entity. It is how the entity is interacting in there mental/emotional being, how there interacting on the other-side.
Good and evil do not exist due to the fact that all forces eminate from the one. I would agree that the creator, created the upward spiraling light. out of light for a reason. I do not measure the polarities in the way you speak, to me it is not one end selfishness and the other giving. I see one end choas/movement or separation and the other singularity/crystalisation. This is due to distortions keeping us all from living in the true creation of the creator. Or why it is called that path that is not.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Infinite Unity - 09-26-2016
When I say separation, I aim unto imaging/imagining, to be like the nuetrons and electrons you speak of, and how hot and cold retract, and expand. The energy that suppousedly an sts energy. Existed/created the universe long before the thought form of what we think an sts is. I see it as Infinities within infinities, within infinite unity, sustained//energized? by infinite energy. Designed and focused from infinite intelligence. However I believe the whole process of spiritual evolution, is to deduct that you are, your own form of infinite intelligence. Your own unique beautiful infinite intelligence. Yes you return to the creator, and regal the great tales to your creator, and you love and rejoice, and then you return to the octaves and are still your own unique infinite intelligence. That is where I currently am, and I love you.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - OpalE - 09-27-2016
First off, i love this thread. Lots of fun concepts bubbling up here. i especially loved several of the exchanges between anagogy & Minyatur (hope you two enjoyed having them as much as i enjoyed reading them), but to participants all 'round: good game!
Hitting on everything i found interesting would take too long, so i'll just pick one from the hat.
My problem with 'good' and 'evil' is that the terms are steeped in judgment. It's difficult to even think of them without associations to "right and wrong."
Draw a circle in the sand. Call its insides "What Is." Draw a line compartmentalizing it. Brand one of those sections as lesser / wrong / cosmically accidental ... or even worse (using whatever criteria you please), judge it as having no right to exist. Congratulations, you've just created your own opposition. Having fun meeting it continually as it tries to weasel its way back into its rightful place (or exact vengeance on you-who-have-wronged it).
My baptists parents did this with "God's creation." There were parts of my being that, without question, did not fall into their ideas of what God approved of. I was a child. They convinced me.
It's actually amazing how far reality will bend in the name of love in order to conform to our judgements, almost as if it wants to please us. I embodied this for them. Unable to deny what i knew of my nature, and still accepting my parents' conceptual division of creation ... i assumed they must be right: I was inherently flawed ('evil'). For years i did my best to comply.
I loved them. I believed them. I identified with my own conception of evil ... which was their conception of evil. So ... i hated them (and tormented them to the best of my ability) BECAUSE i loved them. I completely denied that i loved them, because that is how their cartoons of evil were drawn, but Love was still the root. Love is still what creates it ... ALL.
Be careful with judgement.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 04:30 PM)OpalE Wrote: First off, i love this thread. Lots of fun concepts bubbling up here. i especially loved several of the exchanges between anagogy & Minyatur (hope you two enjoyed having them as much as i enjoyed reading them), but to participants all 'round: good game!
Hitting on everything i found interesting would take too long, so i'll just pick one from the hat.
My problem with 'good' and 'evil' is that the terms are steeped in judgment. It's difficult to even think of them without associations to "right and wrong."
I always have a good time discussing these concepts (especially when I feel people often confuse the terms). Having said that, I have some objections to some of what you've said here.
On Good and Evil
Are the labels of good and evil any more "judgmental" than calling someone "negatively polarized" or "positively polarized"? In my honest opinion, the answer to that is an emphatic and resounding: *NO*. It is just label substitution. Now, I *completely* agree that it is difficult to think about good and evil without associations to the ideas of "right" and "wrong".
And guess what? That's the whole point. There *IS* right and wrong! And I'll go one further and say that everybody is born with the ability to tell the difference between them (though, bear in mind, that if an action isn't strongly polarized, it will be similarly nebulously right or wrong). But let me be expressly clear: there is no right or wrong, good or evil, positive or negative in UNITY itself, but there *ARE* these things within the illusion of manyness, just like there is a clear and discernible difference between happiness and sadness, heat and cold, pleasure and pain, and white and black. And these things are very very REAL to us.
Previously in this thread I said something to the effect that there was good and evil, but no right and wrong, however, I was being somewhat poetic and frankly, verbally imprecise in the ultimate execution of my explanation. So having apologized for my verbal creative transgressions, let me say for the record that is very definitely right and wrong within our world.
Right and wrong are relative however, just like virtually every continuum is. All polarity and all dualities can only ever be measured against the relative strength of their opposing charge. So am I saying that anybody should be judged for what I would call evil, wrongdoing, or "negativity"? No, of course not. But then, we can't judge the judgers either if we are really following that to any degree of purity.
But can anyone look at say, something like child murder and honestly not see that something like that is obviously wrong? I mean, lets get very very blunt here. If someone murdered a child in cold blood, could someone honestly look at that and say, "Nothing wrong here, just an innocent exploration of experience. Well, I guess I'll just go do my taxes now."
Nobody in their right mind would say that! Most people have an intrinsic sense of the moral wrongness of such an act.
There are most certainly actions that are more consonant with unity than other actions. And in that comparison, there most definitely is right and wrong. But that doesn't mean we should judge others for their actions. We all have our distortions.
So I've said it many times in this thread, and I will say again, good/evil, right/wrong, positive/negative. They are absolutely no different. It is just word substitution. If you think they are different, please explain how they are different. I haven't seen one logical argument for it as of yet.
Having said all that, I will also repeat one other salient observation that bears constant repeating, since it is the core of peoples emotional kneejerk avoidance of talk of "wrong doing" and "evil". That point is this: the creator does not judge us if we choose evil. The creator simply said: go forth and play, whatever that looks like to you. And it learns through our experiences whether they be good, or evil, or some unpolarized mess in-between. You can revel in the darkness, or the light, and they are both very very different until we are one with the creator consciously again.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Patrick - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: ...But can anyone look at say, something like child murder and honestly not see that something like that is obviously wrong? I mean, lets get very very blunt here. If someone murdered a child in cold blood, could someone honestly look at that and say, "Nothing wrong here, just an innocent exploration of experience. Well, I guess I'll just go do my taxes now."
...
Honestly... when something like that does happen, I stay angry for just a tiny moment and then I'm just really sad. I am sad because I do not understand the choice that was made. I am sad because I am still unable to see the love in that particular moment. The simple fact that the one playing the role of the victim chose this just as much as the one playing the role of the perpetrator did, does not change my feelings.
It must be quite rare that someone may look unto such an act and keep smiling in love without loosing a beat. To that someone, 3d catalysts are no longer useful, that person is perfectly balanced and is able to see love in all moments. That person might well be able to say: "Nothing wrong here, just an innocent exploration of experience..."
I know it was chosen for a good reason on both sides, but it still makes me sad. I take this sadness to mean that I am acknowledging the choice without understanding it. Maybe not being able to properly accept it still, but at least having the intent to do so. My forgiveness in such cases is nearly automatic. If I were balanced, forgiveness would not even be required on my part.
I have faith that there is love in such a moment even if I cannot see it. This faith is what transmutes my sadness back into joy in due time. This kind of thinking is judged to be crazy by many, but I believe it to be our salvation (the salvation of third density or how we win this game).
I'm ending this post with a quote I find à propos.
http://www.eliasweb.org/transcripts/t_session.php?session_nr=201607171 Elias Wrote:...if you are engaging other individuals in other countries that are frightened and that are angry and that are distressed and anxious in relation to a physical situation that they are experiencing, and you are reinforcing that by echoing them, that is not helpful. It is also not helpful to be expressing in manners of non-acknowledgement of what they are experiencing. Therefore, if you are engaging one of these individuals and you are expressing in poetic love and light, those are lovely expressions but they are not necessarily helpful.
And I am not discounting the value of love and lightness, but when an individual is experiencing tremendous trauma and turmoil and fear, that is not necessarily helpful, for they can’t receive it. Not that they don’t want to receive it - they can’t receive it, for they are occupied with what they are experiencing.
Therefore, it is a matter of recognizing HOW you engage other individuals is equally as important as what you do in interacting with them. Therefore, in that, yes, sympathizing, empathizing is, in a manner of speaking, acknowledging what the other individuals are experiencing. And it is also expressing your feeling in relation to the situation, and that you are acknowledging that regardless that you are far away it impacts you also and that you are participating also, merely in a different capacity. In this, you are acknowledging.
In addition to that, it is a matter of not reinforcing anger. Anger is the expression of no choices. That is not an expression that you want to reinforce. You want to reinforce that there are choices, even if you don’t know what they are yet, and even if they don’t know what they are yet in the grander picture. You can move those choices into a position that is more manageable, in a manner of speaking...
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - OpalE - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: So I've said it many times in this thread, and I will say again, good/evil, right/wrong, positive/negative. They are absolutely no different. It is just word substitution. If you think they are different, please explain how they are different. I haven't seen one logical argument for it as of yet.
All right. I'll bite
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: Are the labels of good and evil any more "judgmental" than calling someone "negatively polarized" or "positively polarized"?
I think so. The positive and negative poles, to me, appear to be decriptions for an ?energetic observation: Positive polarity resembles an infinite source radiating raw creative ... stuff, while negative polarity resembles a never-ending toilet flush for that same ... stuff. The two lay out the founding illusion of the playing field on which all of our other illusions are built.
Good and evil, on the other hand, are entirely subjective terms that apply only within that playing field. They may be roughly related to the more objective idea of polarity (or maybe even highly confused attempts to explain it), but they depend very largely on where / when / how an individual undergoes its experiences and the resulting conclusions and judgements that individual forms. They change depending on personal bias, social indoctrination, and conceptual exposure. You may find a broad agreement within a ?culture, but the specifics of these terms aren't universal -- or even global -- by a long shot. I don't even think they're all that similar among members of any given neighborhood.
I'd go as far to say that the concepts of good and evil are completely irrelevant in the further reaches of either polarity. Extremely positively oriented beings wouldn't perceive a division of good and evil at all. Extremely negatively oriented beings wouldn't care how such a division was defined or where the line was drawn at any given time or place, so long as such distinctions and separations were being made.
Personally, i believe "good" is a misnomer for all that is, while "evil" is an attempt to divide good from itself. Evil exists, but only as a result of judgements which attempt to separate.
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: And guess what? That's the whole point. There *IS* right and wrong! And I'll go one further and say that everybody is born with the ability to tell the difference between them (though, bear in mind, that if an action isn't strongly polarized, it will be similarly nebulously right or wrong).
Looking into myself, the closest resemblance that i see to this is empathy, and the two don't appear to be identical. Empathy, for me, acts similarly to a mirror. I don't cause pain or suffering; not because i believe it to be wrong, but because i intuitively (and experientially) know that i'm causing that same pain and suffering to myself in some way, and somehow hampering my own development. Whether empathy operates in the same way for everyone ... i don't know. Maybe there exist highly empathic people who, for some reason or another, NEED to hurt externally for their own development.
"Right and wrong" on the other hand, appear to be a collection of individual judgements based in how I believe others (and, sometimes, I) should behave. Those, i consider largely a product of my own arrogance and projection, and investigate until i feel that i understand why they exist in the first place (they don't all seem to have the same root).
Everyone is born with this? I doubt that. I'm sure there exist conditions and circumstances that can prevent a recognizable sense of empathy even before birth.
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: Right and wrong are relative however, just like virtually every continuum is. All polarity and all dualities can only ever be measured against the relative strength of their opposing charge.
I agree with the second sentence here, but i don't believe right / wrong or good / evil are actual dualities. The terms are too soft and confused to be stable. Many people use them, but not many bother clearly defining them to themselves. As a result, two people saying them don't mean the same thing in the same way that two people saying "hot / cold" or "day / night" do. "Right / wrong" usually end up being labels for two mind-sacks that people stuff lots of individual judgements in ... various opinions they've picked up mostly from sources they love or respect (or fear).
(09-27-2016, 05:53 PM)anagogy Wrote: But can anyone look at say, something like child murder and honestly not see that something like that is obviously wrong? I mean, lets get very very blunt here. If someone murdered a child in cold blood, could someone honestly look at that and say, "Nothing wrong here, just an innocent exploration of experience. Well, I guess I'll just go do my taxes now."
Yes. Anyone who lacks (or rejects the validity of) love and empathy.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - OpalE - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 09:26 PM)Patrick Wrote: Honestly... when something like that does happen, I stay angry for just a tiny moment and then I'm just really sad. I am sad because I do not understand the choice that was made. I am sad because I am still unable to see the love in that particular moment. The simple fact that the one playing the role of the victim chose this just as much as the one playing the role of the perpetrator did, does not change my feelings.
maybe this doesn't go away?
The Law of One, Book I, Session 10 Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The number is approximately meaningless in the finite sense as there are many, many digits. It, however, constitutes a great calling which we of all creation feel and hear as if our own entities were distorted towards a great and overwhelming sorrow. It demands our service.
maybe it's more a matter of developing enough power to do something about it.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - tamaryn - 09-28-2016
As Creators they do not Let Be?
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 09-28-2016
(09-27-2016, 09:26 PM)Patrick Wrote: I know it was chosen for a good reason on both sides, but it still makes me sad. I take this sadness to mean that I am acknowledging the choice without understanding it. Maybe not being able to properly accept it still, but at least having the intent to do so. My forgiveness in such cases is nearly automatic. If I were balanced, forgiveness would not even be required on my part.
But here's the thing, Patrick. The reason such an event makes you sad is precisely *because* it is a grave injustice and you are perceiving the visceral wrongness, and perversity, of such an act. That is your emotional translation of that knowingness -- the awareness of the resistance felt when you perceive the extreme vibrational variance between your deep and primal awareness of unity and the offered behavior in relation to that unity.
People are often reluctant to call something 'evil' because they don't want to appear judgmental, but for some reason, we are not shy about identifying something as cold or hot, yet these are equally subjective references. It's almost like you're saying, "Someday I will see the warmth in cold......some day!" There is actually no such thing as cold, or warm for that matter. Those are relative measurements. There is just kinetic energy, and the interpretation and comparison of that kinetic action to a greater or lesser state of kinetic action.
But pretending that the observation, or recognition, of the very real subjective contrast between cold and hot is somehow wrong, or less spiritual (or somehow judgmental), is absurd, and that is the point I'm trying to get across to other people (disclaimer: i'm not saying this is what you, personally, are doing). The very attempt to see judgment as wrong is yet another example of judgment itself! It's actually kind of funny when you think about it.
(09-27-2016, 10:01 PM)OpalE Wrote: I think so. The positive and negative poles, to me, appear to be decriptions for an ?energetic observation: Positive polarity resembles an infinite source radiating raw creative ... stuff, while negative polarity resembles a never-ending toilet flush for that same ... stuff. The two lay out the founding illusion of the playing field on which all of our other illusions are built.
Good and evil, on the other hand, are entirely subjective terms that apply only within that playing field. They may be roughly related to the more objective idea of polarity (or maybe even highly confused attempts to explain it), but they depend very largely on where / when / how an individual undergoes its experiences and the resulting conclusions and judgements that individual forms. They change depending on personal bias, social indoctrination, and conceptual exposure. You may find a broad agreement within a ?culture, but the specifics of these terms aren't universal -- or even global -- by a long shot. I don't even think they're all that similar among members of any given neighborhood.
I'd go as far to say that the concepts of good and evil are completely irrelevant in the further reaches of either polarity. Extremely positively oriented beings wouldn't perceive a division of good and evil at all. Extremely negatively oriented beings wouldn't care how such a division was defined or where the line was drawn at any given time or place, so long as such distinctions and separations were being made.
Personally, i believe "good" is a misnomer for all that is, while "evil" is an attempt to divide good from itself. Evil exists, but only as a result of judgements which attempt to separate.
If polarity is objective, please tell me how you objectively measure the strength of it? Because you can't measure the strength of either charge, except relative to its opposite polarity which is just like.....................................................good and evil. The relative is always relative to something else. I agree with your last statement here, except that it equally applies to negative polarity since, you know, they are exactly the same concept in different words (in my opinion in any-case).
(09-27-2016, 10:01 PM)OpalE Wrote: Looking into myself, the closest resemblance that i see to this is empathy, and the two don't appear to be identical. Empathy, for me, acts similarly to a mirror. I don't cause pain or suffering; not because i believe it to be wrong, but because i intuitively (and experientially) know that i'm causing that same pain and suffering to myself in some way, and somehow hampering my own development. Whether empathy operates in the same way for everyone ... i don't know. Maybe there exist highly empathic people who, for some reason or another, NEED to hurt externally for their own development.
"Right and wrong" on the other hand, appear to be a collection of individual judgements based in how I believe others (and, sometimes, I) should behave. Those, i consider largely a product of my own arrogance and projection, and investigate until i feel that i understand why they exist in the first place (they don't all seem to have the same root).
Everyone is born with this? I doubt that. I'm sure there exist conditions and circumstances that can prevent a recognizable sense of empathy even before birth.
Everybody, except for the most dull and unpolarized individuals (polarity = awareness), knows when they are stepping on, or infringing, upon the well being of another soul. And yes, that is part and parcel of empathy, which is a natural extension of awareness of the interrelated unity of the cosmos, which could be identified as a degree of conscious awareness of green ray. There may be some rare, animalian, psychopaths born, who are like 2.5 density, who have no empathy, or at least, little awareness of empathy. Some people call them "pre-adamic humans".
Just as there are transitional forms between 3D and 4D, I have no doubt their are transitional forms between 2D and 3D. If they are in human bodies, they look like psychopaths. If they are in animal bodies, they seem like really smart animals. Case in point: my cat is an uncompassionate serial killer, but I love her nonetheless (and I have no doubt she is 3rd density harvestable).
(09-27-2016, 10:01 PM)OpalE Wrote: I agree with the second sentence here, but i don't believe right / wrong or good / evil are actual dualities. The terms are too soft and confused to be stable. Many people use them, but not many bother clearly defining them to themselves. As a result, two people saying them don't mean the same thing in the same way that two people saying "hot / cold" or "day / night" do. "Right / wrong" usually end up being labels for two mind-sacks that people stuff lots of individual judgements in ... various opinions they've picked up mostly from sources they love or respect (or fear).
I agree that they are imprecise. But that is only because the majority of the public don't understand why they even have a primitive conception of right and wrong in the first place (hint: UNITY). Religion (and the puppet masters behind it) are largely to blame for that ethical conceptual misprision, because it mixed a bunch of arbitrary rules into the mix. These rules attempted to mimic behaviors that supported consonance with unity, while retaining negative separating characteristics, in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the obviousness of good and evil to the same degree of clarity that we perceive other clear and obvious dichotomies like hot and cold, or pleasure and pain.
Well, by my estimation it looks like their handy work has payed off. Mission accomplished!
(09-27-2016, 10:01 PM)OpalE Wrote:Quote:But can anyone look at say, something like child murder and honestly not see that something like that is obviously wrong? I mean, lets get very very blunt here. If someone murdered a child in cold blood, could someone honestly look at that and say, "Nothing wrong here, just an innocent exploration of experience. Well, I guess I'll just go do my taxes now."
Yes. Anyone who lacks (or rejects the validity of) love and empathy.
But you see, there is a fundamental difference in a negatively polarized being. They are fully aware that they just infringed upon another conscious entity. This conscious awareness of that infringement on other self is the very definition of evil (self serving in the extreme). In otherwords, they know its wrong, and they: Just. Don't. Care.
Simple as that.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - OpalE - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 01:20 AM)anagogy Wrote: The very attempt to see judgment as wrong is yet another example of judgment itself! It's actually kind of funny when you think about it.
I don't judge judgement as "wrong." That would require a belief that such a thing exists. I acknowledge judgement as an underestimated divisive act capable of crafting illusions via separation (?casting shadows). Not that it shouldn't be done, just that one should be very aware of how it is done and what will be created / conjured as a result ... if one desires to have a conscious hand in one's own experience.
(09-28-2016, 01:20 AM)anagogy Wrote: People are often reluctant to call something 'evil' because they don't want to appear judgmental, but for some reason, we are not shy about identifying something as cold or hot, yet these are equally subjective references.
Not wanting to appear judgmental has nothing to do with my reluctance / refusal to call something evil. I believe the term itself is flawed. It lacks consensus and houses a splintered and patchwork concept; it rarely means what it is meant to mean. To use it in communication with others at large and expect that it will conjure up your personal definition and associations is naive ... unless you intend to force or place your meaning directly into your listener (and if you are capable of that, then why use or defend the validity of terms at all).
The word creates confusion by its very nature. I think this may be the point of its existence ... that the confusion it creates may be the most accurate expression of what it is.
(09-28-2016, 01:20 AM)anagogy Wrote: If polarity is objective, please tell me how you objectively measure the strength of it? Because you can't measure the strength of either charge, except relative to its opposite polarity which is just like.....................................................good and evil.
more objective. as in less dependent on personal attributions. we at least have a text we can point at and discuss / agree upon the meaning of these terms.
"good and evil" are not the same. They aren't a true dichotomy. They aren't equal and opposite expressions. The latter is a theft and perversion of the former merely posing as an opposite. The former could easily exist without the latter, were it not divided against itself via judgement.
OpalE Wrote:Personally, i believe "good" is a misnomer for all that is, while "evil" is an attempt to divide good from itself. Evil exists, but only as a result of judgements which attempt to separate.
(09-28-2016, 01:20 AM)anagogy Wrote: I agree with your last statement here, except that it equally applies to negative polarity since, you know, they are exactly the same concept in different words (in my opinion in any-case).
Ouch. "Good shot, Green! ... Very good."
Am I actually describing negative polarity with my definition of evil?
Ok. I think you may have me, here ... but i still hold that the terms "good and evil" are much more susceptible to misinterpretation, thus poor choices for communicating these ideas.
Well, damn. Looks like you went on to cover that, too:
(09-28-2016, 01:20 AM)anagogy Wrote: I agree that they are imprecise. But that is only because the majority of the public don't understand why they even have a primitive conception of right and wrong in the first place (hint: UNITY). Religion (and the puppet masters behind it) are largely to blame for that ethical conceptual misprision, because it mixed a bunch of arbitrary rules into the mix. These rules attempted to mimic behaviors that supported consonance with unity, while retaining negative separating characteristics, in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the obviousness of good and evil to the same degree of clarity that we perceive other clear and obvious dichotomies like hot and cold, or pleasure and pain.
All right, then. I'd believed that you were splitting hairs over terminology. It appears that I may have been projecting.
Time to bow out and re-examine the seemings of duality.
Thank you.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Infinite Unity - 09-28-2016
You associate good and evil with understanding and misunderstanding? Sounds mentally racial.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 09-28-2016
Evil is the illusion, good is the underlying truth. Love is that which is non-dualizable.
I think you can cling to wanting to perceive evil in others and yourself, but that will be let go of as one's understanding reaches closer to unity and sees that there was no evil. To take back the example of a child murderer, if you look at a child murderer without feeling love, then you are simply expressing your own blockages and misunderstandings of facets of yourself which this other-self triggered. There is no separation, who the aggressor kills is it's inner-child and the outer victim is an outer-projection of this inner-child through united inter-connection.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - anagogy - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 08:38 AM)Minyatur Wrote: Evil is the illusion, good is the underlying truth. Love is that which is non-dualizable.
I would word it slightly differently. I would say good is the reflection of light/love or love/light off the world of form (duality), and evil was the darkness and shadows cast by love/light or light/love when it attempted to do that, because not everything in the realm of duality will reflect light (some will absorb it or block it). Love/light or light/love, in its unmanifest state doesn't reflect off any surfaces, and by extension, doesn't cast any shadows either (since shadows are a product of a centralized light source, and something blocking the reach of that light). But I essentially agree with you.
(09-28-2016, 08:38 AM)Minyatur Wrote: I think you can cling to wanting to perceive evil in others and yourself, but that will be let go of as one's understanding reaches closer to unity and sees that there was no evil. To take back the example of a child murderer, if you look at a child murderer without feeling love, then you are simply expressing your own blockages and misunderstandings of facets of yourself which this other-self triggered. There is no separation, who the aggressor kills is it's inner-child and the outer victim is an outer-projection of this inner-child through united inter-connection.
I think one can recognize the evil of something, without it necessarily being a blockage. Seeing evil in an act, versus not seeing evil in an act, does not contain the blockage in my opinion, rather, it is the pretending to not see the evil, that I see many 'spiritual people' do, that is the blockage, which is generally a blue ray blockage of not being honest with themselves. It is not about the objective truth of the event, because that is not something we, as 3rd density beings, can know anyway. It's about self recognition and self understanding and self acceptance. Also, please understand I'm not advocating to look at a someone, such as this example of a murderer, and not feel love for them. You can feel love for someone, and yet still recognize an action, as presented, as being of an evil (or predominantly selfish nature) insofar as you know their true thoughts and intent, which is difficult to say the least. This is partially why I brought up the example of my serial killer cat, who has zero compassion, yet I still love her.
I really like the cold/warm analogy because it really illustrates how emotionally charged concepts have warped the issue so completely. So I would say, it is not a blockage that one recognizes something as being warm or cold, but rather it is a blockage to pretend one sees or feels metaphorical warmth when one doesn't (again, I see people do this all the time in the name of spirituality). It is a failure to recognize 'what is', because subjective though our 3rd density perceptions may be, it is still a perfect part of 'what is', so it is a blockage to repress that. One can acknowledge a feeling of warmth or coldness, and yet still understand that at a deeper level it is just a subjective interpretation of the kinetic energy involved. Just don't deny the subjective reality, because it is part of the greater reality.
So in a cosmic sense, I completely agree there is no evil, or good for that matter, because both are subjective interpretations (like warm and cold) of nondual love/light or light/love. But to deny the illusion of evil and good is as silly, from my vantage point, as going about pretending that cold and warm don't exist, or pain and pleasure, or the rainbow spectrum of colors. The concept has useful and practical manifestation within the context of our illusion. Is seeing color a blockage? I wouldn't say so. And similarly, recognizing evil (and good) isn't a blockage either. It is a comparison between our conception of wholeness to the action offered in relation to that. The conception of wholeness is part of the duality, but actual oneness is not. The spectrum of behavior between the light and the dark is as important to the nature of our illusion as all these other dichotomies are. I can appreciate and recognize color, and still understand it all comes from the same white light. It's just a mistake, in my opinion, to pretend that color doesn't exist within the context of the illusion.
RE: How Do STS's View Other Selves? - Minyatur - 09-28-2016
Someone can perceive itself as evil and can be considered evil by others, in this I think evil is an actual thing because it is a construct through which the creator misperceive itself. But to see evil is still just inability to see good. There is no evil in that in full awareness of other-self you would see no evil but instead good, always. Evil basicly is good that has been twisted and is made hard to recognize as good.
I don't deny that evil can be a useful term for growth, but still, so long you seek to see evil you seek to look at the illusion and not what is underneath. You make your idea about the surface but don't look beneath it, because evil ever is a mask that hides what's underneath. I can recognize the archetype of evil but that does not mean I need to distill it as evil within myself. If I see the creator hurthing others, then I see the creator hurting itself, separating from itself, burying it's light self deeper and deeper within until it is lost sight of.