+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Contentions about 'Polarity' (/showthread.php?tid=12453)
Contentions about 'Polarity' - Plenum - 02-01-2016
I think one of the biggest topics to come out of the Law of One is the notion of 'Polarity'. Everyone has a different opinion on what polarity is - what is positive? what is negative? - and even if one themselves is subject to the notion of polarity - the opinion that - I'm beyond polarity - it no longer applies to me.
My own view is that it doesn't matter what we think about Polarity at the end of the day. Not a scrap. Not a bit. That's because I think it automatically is in operation - energetically and metaphysically - and it just is.
In that way, it's like a physical law - like gravity or electrodynamics - but it plays out metaphysically. But it's just as ironclad and as inevitable as dropping a bowling ball from a height, and then hearing it clatter on the wooden floor.
So it's in operation, Polarity that is.
/ /
on Maldek, they were convinced they were a positively-oriented society. Turns out they were wrong. It doesn't matter if you 'think' you are positive, it's what happens energetically that tells the truth of the matter.
There are also people, I believe, who think they are 'negative', and yet, the energy patterns would tell a different story.
Bottom line, the conscious mind can twist, self-deceive, convolute, and self-destruct in so many ways. And none more so evident than when it comes to contentious notions of good/evil, service-to-others, service-to-self. Who can really say that they don't bring their own subjective baggage to the table when they try to explain their understanding about positivity and about negativity? I certainly don't claim absolute objectivity. But my view is that it's a fact, energetically, that polarity is expressed as movements and patterns. Irrespective of what the mind labels it as. There are actions of 'taking', 'plundering', 'commandeering', and 'disrespect'. And then there are actions of co-operation, co-llaboration, respect, and honoring. Those actions are the best way that I can map what happens on an energetic level, when it comes to notions of polarity.
/ /
but I also get that everyone has a different opinion on the matter. And puts different labels on the same thing. And categorizes differently, in their own mind.
But I posit that energetically, polarity is a real and inevitable thing. And for those that can see and read energy, it's so much more obvious what a positive action is, and what a negative action is. The energy tells the story.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Adonai One - 02-01-2016
There are things that do not exist - the male copes with this by struggling to bring things into consciousness.
There are things that exist - the female copes with this by struggling to appreciate what the man produces with due consideration of the unconscious.
I will continue to play both of these roles and exempt myself from the struggle of being deprived of either one, as you call being without polarity.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - The_Tired_Philosopher - 02-01-2016
^not just that...
But Plenum... So using basic observation skills, why hasn't anyone who can see it relayed the information as to what is and isn't typically a positive occurrence and a negative?
If you can see it, would you be willing to observe specific actions and offer as to what they occur as?
Or at the very least view more, as some are calling it, 'confused' occurrences as to see how they ultimately turn out to be since you posit there is positive and negative as if assuredly only one way or the other?
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Plenum - 02-01-2016
(02-01-2016, 05:01 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: But Plenum... So using basic observation skills, why hasn't anyone who can see it relayed the information as to what is and isn't typically a positive occurrence and a negative?
because it's not a 'checklist' to tick off. The endgame of polarity is not the 'right answer' - it's how you choose to arrive at that answer. The answers are already 'known' in infinity. It may be a trope - but it's the journey and the process which defines who you are.
(02-01-2016, 05:01 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: If you can see it, would you be willing to observe specific actions and offer as to what they occur as?
I make no such claims as to my own infallability when it comes to 'observation'. All I know is that I can witness the patterns in myself, and have keen awareness of their nature.
(02-01-2016, 05:01 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: Or at the very least view more, as some are calling it, 'confused' occurrences as to see how they ultimately turn out to be since you posit there is positive and negative as if assuredly only one way or the other?
I know you ask this sincerely, and are struggling with the either/or state. I commiserate with your struggle, and I think I understand why it's such a big deal for you.
All I can say is that you've presented this catalyst to others as if it's not your own. Quite often, when we can't integrate something, we turn to others and present them with the scenario we can't fathom. But doing this only goes so far; because the other person is not seeing your problem, from your perspective. So you're asking for an answer that is from a different perspective.
People who can't accept the notion of polarity - in my view - are schismed in the orange ray centre, and have been deprived/deprived-themself of their own personal power and autonomy. They are unwilling to commit to an outcome, because when they have in the past, punishment has been the result. And so better to not commit, and rationalise it by saying no decision needs to be made. It's like reframing the whole context to support an emotionally deprived context. I've seen this in many cases. That's just my fallible opinion, but it's a consistent presentation of symptoms over many years of observation.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Adonai One - 02-01-2016
The Law of One is wrong and we should cling to one thing above another to learn the ways of polarity?
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Minyatur - 02-01-2016
If our Creation was mainly polarized in a negative sense, would what is now considered positive become negative?
Since it would seek a way of existence that would not be wished to be sought by most and radiate it outwardly?
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Plenum - 02-01-2016
I'm not sure Min.
All I could say is that our Logos is biased towards kindness, so that suggests that it leans towards setting up situations which promote a 'positive interpretation' of things - in terms of polarity.
I could imagine that there could be other Logos (Logoi), that have a bias that leans the other way, and so it sets up a system which promotes the other possible interpretation.
For those 'unkind' Logoi, I guess the situation you describe could become the outcome.
I think the essence of positivity, though, is not to contest situations (all things, in their right time), and so such beings would actually conform to their environment, and indeed turn negative. (polarity wise).
I don't think that changes the labelling though. Or rather, the energy mechanics.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - AnthroHeart - 02-01-2016
I'm not sure if a person can choose which Logos they wish to incarnate under. I believe those that would want the negative Logos would choose to incarnate under it.
Either way, I'm glad and thankful that our Logos is positive. Even better than a neutral one.
Come to think of it, I don't think there are negative Logoi. There are no negative higher selves according to Ra.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-01-2016
(02-01-2016, 05:01 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: So using basic observation skills, why hasn't anyone who can see it relayed the information as to what is and isn't typically a positive occurrence and a negative?
They have, in fact, people do it ad nauseum. Plenum did it just now with his description in his post when he described "There are actions of 'taking', 'plundering', 'commandeering', and 'disrespect'. And then there are actions of co-operation, co-llaboration, respect, and honoring."
But you can only do it "typically" or "generally" because ultimately you cannot judge the polarity of the act by its outer appearance. The charge can only be truly be known by the consciousness observing the action from the inside out.
(02-01-2016, 05:22 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The Law of One is wrong and we should cling to one thing above another to learn the ways of polarity?
What is wrong about it?
(02-01-2016, 07:31 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: If our Creation was mainly polarized in a negative sense, would what is now considered positive become negative?
Perhaps subjectively in the sense of what is preferred or not preferred, but energetically it would be exactly, and objectively, the same as it always has been. There would be radiation of energy and absorption of energy, which are what they are, no matter how much word play we engage in.
Since everything is one, when something radiates its energy outwards, inwardly it absorbs energy from the cosmos (or inner creator if you please). When someone absorbs outwardly, then inwardly they will radiate their energy (the universe eats or absorbs from them). Subjectively, this energy balance we have given the label of "karma" appears as: the more you take from the world, the more is taken from you, thus further necessitating an even greater degree of absorption or taking from the outward universe (a person might subjectively experience this as ever increasing 'hunger' for more of whatever: power, sex, money etc). So you become like a black hole, taking as much as you possibly can from any and all you interact with.
And from a positive framework, the more you give or radiate outwards, the more you absorb from the universe inwardly (which an STO would probably interpret subjectively as "blessings" or something similar) thus providing them with even more to give as they are filled with energy inwardly by the universe, which they relieve this feeling of abundance by distributing as much as possible. So, you become like a radiating star in this case, giving away what the universe gives you constantly.
Each behavioral charge creates a certain type of "vacuum" that the universe must fill.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - The_Tired_Philosopher - 02-01-2016
Heh.
I see a keen misunderstanding. I don't deny that polarity is as is in description. I just don't think its always only one polarity or the other. I believe in a middle ground not just underlying both ends, but of which is actually what is sought after loooongterm.
You could...in a very improper but possibly helpful manner, view it as a mix between balancing love and wisdom with themselves through polarity being utilized as not a judgment system of how to be, but a mannerism of how one desires to be.
Instead of left and right, which leaves room for a wrong way in the short term (aka winding path, road seldom taken, or viceversa, shortcut, quick way through; Depends from each entity) whereas I believe in BOTH as its own valid middle path outside of indifference. As if to say, black magic can be used for good, white magic can be used for bad.
Erase the lines, what is left, and are all the tools still valid?
I'm just saddened that people who can see a clearcut personal example of what is positive/negative don't share such examples.
Even though we are differentiated/'separate' Plenum, I think its good to remember what Ra said about most incarnations having similar lessons. From high figures like presidental candidates like Lincoln to modern every day people like you or me.
Anything shared with the amendment of being a personal identification (and thus some level of personal discernment being required) is EXACTLY what Ra, Quo, Latwii, Hatonn, and every single contact has made clear.
Why can't thee, who CAN see, not do the same?
Give us an amorphous mental idea of how some view, how others view. Share the view, We're all One here.
Anagogy, I haven't seen an objective attempt to do so, ad nauseum isn't what I want. I want to know. Does holding a door open for a person because they're attractive (as in you wouldn't if they weren't) a positive move on our 3D gameboard, or a negative move?
Is this scenario changed entirely if the person isn't attractive and you just do it out of habit?
I'm not asking for a scientific method... Just ideas to ponder upon.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-01-2016
(02-01-2016, 11:26 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: Heh.
I see a keen misunderstanding. I don't deny that polarity is as is in description. I just don't think its always only one polarity or the other. I believe in a middle ground not just underlying both ends, but of which is actually what is sought after loooongterm.
And see, I see this as a misconception, that there is some sort of "balance" found between positive and negative. There isn't, because that is actually an unbalanced state. At least, it is in 3rd density. You see 3rd density isn't "neutral ground". Neutral ground was 1st density but as you went into 2nd density you were service to self (innocently), and as we progress into 3rd we are "residually service to self". But if we weren't, we'd probably die pretty fast in this physical world. Anyway, the point is, 3rd density doesn't exist in a polarity-less spectrum. You can't achieve zero polarity in 3rd density because the very nature of the density precludes that possibility. You can't have an organized self or ego, and be polarity less, because in such a scenario there is ALWAYS a relationship between self and others. And that is all polarity is: a relationship between the self and others. The only way to do away with the relationship is to do away with the self. So your options are: expand your concept of self. That is polarization. Either cooperatively merge yourself with others, or do it by subjugating others (who become subordinate aspects of self).
I think that people want there to be a middle ground so they don't have to do anything. The balance is found in POLARIZING. We are imbalanced in our present state, hence the limitations we experience. The more you lean in either direction, the more balanced you are, and you are able to draw on more of the creator's consciousness. The absolute point of both polarities are the same only because the sense of a separate self is done away with. But the absolute point doesn't occur anywhere near 3rd density, so human standards don't even apply. You can only approach the absolute point of polarity by polarizing.
(02-01-2016, 11:26 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: I'm just saddened that people who can see a clearcut personal example of what is positive/negative don't share such examples.
"Ra: One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their 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."
This is why you can't have a clear cut personal example. For example, you give someone some money. Was this positive or negative? Depends WHY you did it doesn't it? Did you do it because you wanted them to be happy, or did you do it because you wanted them to do something for you?
You can't know that information from just watching the act in and of itself. Only the person who performs the action knows his own thoughts and intent.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
(02-01-2016, 11:26 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: Does holding a door open for a person because they're attractive (as in you wouldn't if they weren't) a positive move on our 3D gameboard, or a negative move?
Depends, do you have something to gain or lose by the action? Is that what you are focused on, or are you simply focused on appreciation of her beauty and a desire to assist her like you might assist a beautiful flower you came across, or protect a beautiful painting you came across, not because you want to "own" it. When self motivation enters the picture is when the act becomes slightly negative. Keep in mind though, no one is expected to be a perfect saint in this density.
(02-01-2016, 11:26 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: Is this scenario changed entirely if the person isn't attractive and you just do it out of habit?
Doing it out of habit isn't polarized, unless you are habitually desirous of helping others.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - APeacefulWarrior - 02-02-2016
(02-01-2016, 11:56 PM)anagogy Wrote: I think that people want there to be a middle ground so they don't have to do anything. The balance is found in POLARIZING. We are imbalanced in our present state, hence the limitations we experience. The more you lean in either direction, the more balanced you are, and you are able to draw on more of the creator's consciousness. The absolute point of both polarities are the same only because the sense of a separate self is done away with. But the absolute point doesn't occur anywhere near 3rd density, so human standards don't even apply. You can only approach the absolute point of polarity by polarizing.
This may be true in the 3rd and possibly 4th densities, but don't forget that polarity becomes of increasingly less importance past that point. Graduation into higher densities has much less to do with polarity and, of course, at 6D one of the goals is abandoning deliberate polarization. And the higher-density an entity becomes, the easier it becomes for them to deliberately switch between polarities at will.
Personally, I see polarization as largely being a tool more than anything else, it's just a very useful tool for helping 3D and 4D entities learn to focus their willpower and gain greater understanding of how their actions affect others. It gives them a goal to shoot for, more or less. Like, as much emphasis as some people place on the 50%/95% levels of polarity needed for 4D graduation, I tend to see polarization as being more akin to external sexual development in adolescents. After all, it's highly old-fashioned to say a boy has become a man because his balls dropped. Rather, we recognize that adolescence is an incredibly complicated process that's mostly internal, and the external physical changes are merely the most easily-seen indicator that the process is going on.
I tend to think the same is true for the initial polarization. Internal mental and spiritual changes lead an entity to begin acting in a willfully directed matter as they approach self-actualization, and then this manifests as a polarization in one direction or the other. Plus, consciously choosing a polarity and deliberately working towards it can also sometimes 'bootstrap' the process, if the entity is already near to actualizing.
(Accordingly, I tend to think Ra's emphasis on polarity is because one of his main "target audiences" is comprised of those who are teetering on the edge of 3D-->4D graduation and could be aided by a little push in that direction by saying "Yes, you CAN take control of this process.")
But after that point? Polarity really doesn't matter so much. Learning to direct one's will and take direct responsibility for one's own actions/development are the lessons being taught. Once those are learned, polarity is simply an attribute of existence which one can experiment with fairly freely as their needs and preferences dictate. Then, eventually, the "balance" found is the abandonment of polarity and acceptance of all activities as being equally divine/perfect/One/etc, but presumably not until the entity has fully exhausted their own desire to explore and experiment and learn for themselves.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Adonai One - 02-02-2016
(02-01-2016, 10:46 PM)anagogy Wrote:(02-01-2016, 05:22 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The Law of One is wrong and we should cling to one thing above another to learn the ways of polarity?
What is wrong about it?
Balancing of honor/duty & duty/honor is of no concern? Only polarity, eh? One can just polarize themselves all the way to the top without a steady foundation, eh? Grounding has no place only an expediency towards endless compassion without wisdom?
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - The_Tired_Philosopher - 02-02-2016
I Honestly find the closedmindedness of INFINITY deplorable...
I'm sorry Anagogy but just as I told Min. There is more to Life than Your and Ra's reality.
There is my own and many others. That you can't see that, is not shared with I.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - The_Tired_Philosopher - 02-02-2016
So in the future, I ask you consider this.
Your negation of my reality is cruel and dogmatic. Please, think about it...
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 01:09 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: This may be true in the 3rd and possibly 4th densities, but don't forget that polarity becomes of increasingly less importance past that point. Graduation into higher densities has much less to do with polarity and, of course, at 6D one of the goals is abandoning deliberate polarization. And the higher-density an entity becomes, the easier it becomes for them to deliberately switch between polarities at will.
The way I understand polarity is that it is simply a certain degree of unity. You can seek that unity through absorption or radiation. The only reason polarity is "done away with" in sixth density is because separation is done away with. Negative polarity switches to positive, and in the absence of a separation between selves, polarity disappears. Of course, in that process of unification there are many subtleties to becoming consciously one, and it is more than just "how one relates to others". But I see polarity as more than just how one overtly relates to others. If you see polarization in the light of a kind of literal spiritual magnetism, any barrier to the free flow of that energy (whatever the pole) is an impediment to oneness and in a higher density that takes many subtle forms, such as "ignorance of metaphysical processes" and things of that nature. So from a certain vantage point, all those things are part of polarity too. Also, keep in mind Ra said one of the motivations for sixth density wanderers to incarnate in 3rd density was "faster polarization", so it still has relevance even up to that density.
(02-02-2016, 01:49 AM)Adonai One Wrote: Balancing of honor/duty & duty/honor is of no concern? Only polarity, eh? One can just polarize themselves all the way to the top without a steady foundation, eh? Grounding has no place only an expediency towards endless compassion without wisdom?
I think you might be entertaining an overly narrow view of polarity. To polarize is the exact same thing as becoming more consciously one with one another. Whether joined together in service to self, or joined together is service to others. The wisdom of understanding comes from merging with the greater perspective. The merging with a greater perspective is another way of describing what we are calling "polarization". To understand the macrocosm you have to become the macrocosm, and that is all polarity is about. The foundation is already laid, because before separation gives way to unity, many clarifying experiences about the unsavory nature of separation will inevitably be had.
(02-02-2016, 02:21 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: I Honestly find the closedmindedness of INFINITY deplorable...
I'm sorry Anagogy but just as I told Min. There is more to Life than Your and Ra's reality.
There is my own and many others. That you can't see that, is not shared with I.
(02-02-2016, 02:23 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: So in the future, I ask you consider this.
Your negation of my reality is cruel and dogmatic. Please, think about it...
I really don't understand what you see as cruel. You think the requirement to polarize is cruel? All polarity is is seeking conscious realization with oneness. I fail to see how that is remotely cruel.
It is sort of like saying: seeking harmony is cruel, or "being nice to other people" is cruel. It doesn't really make sense. Even negative polarization is seeking a degree of oneness, they just approach it from a "force the pieces to fit together" mindset. One seeks harmony, the other seeks order. Cooperation, no matter the polarity is the beginning of oneness and power and wisdom of a greater caliber.
Again, what is cruel about that? What have you been deprived of by this world view? You can still do whatever you want.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
I think people make too much of this polarity business.
Really, the lesson of the universe is simply: everything is one, so how you treat others, you treat yourself.
It is just an exploration of possibilities. Will you wallow in the illusion of others being separate from you, and treat them as mere chattel? Or will you recognize the truth of existence and treat others as sovereign selves in their own right or how you yourself would want to be treated in their position?
There is no right or wrong here, no judgment on your form of pleasure, on your world view. Just love of illusion, or love of truth. Where will your love take you? Into the heart of the ego, or the heart of your true self.
And that is polarity, except that nobody wants to see polarity so simply. It's not complicated.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - rva_jeremy - 02-02-2016
I like this description of the paradox of "finding balance within polarity" from Stephen Tyman in A Fool's Phenomenology:
Quote:To internalize strength of consciousness one must gather differentially the potentiated charge. That is the psychophysical effect of choice with regard to the capacity for work in consciousness which it empowers. Choice polarizes consciousness. When we advertize the importance of balance, therefore, it must be understood that this qualifies consciousness which is already polarized. The paradox of this configuration is therefore that one must effectively seek balance within an apparent imbalance.
Anagogy, I think this is a complementary take, perhaps, on what you were describing: that we are not seeking the stasis of ultimate balance, but more like the balance of surfer riding a wave, balancing the other forces that compete with the main wave's vector. But I like your description of 3rd density as inherently spiritually imbalanced, as if the search for balance is one of polarizing against the inertia of the material illusion.
In a way, the balance-within-polarity paradox is perhaps a matter of perspective. If you value the manifest illusion of separation, your version of "balance" will be necessarily be judged by its ability to effect comfort and happiness in this worldly life. Part of the power of the choice is the miracle of even conceiving of another kind of "balance" that could effect not a standstill but the forward (upward spiraling) motion of evolution.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - rva_jeremy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 02:58 AM)anagogy Wrote: But I see polarity as more than just how one overtly relates to others. If you see polarization in the light of a kind of literal spiritual magnetism, any barrier to the free flow of that energy (whatever the pole) is an impediment to oneness and in a higher density that takes many subtle forms, such as "ignorance of metaphysical processes" and things of that nature. So from a certain vantage point, all those things are part of polarity too.
Personally, I've always tried to see polarity as a chiefly energetic phenomenon, i.e. radiative or absorbent. It's too easy to craft morality tales about the normative implications of the right and left hand path. They are well to ponder, they certainly have merit, but let's keep in mind that simplistic concepts of good and evil from human society (with its formulaic rules and bias towards continuity and banking off past experience) may not be of great help here.
It's a shame that polarity--a term introduced, I presume, as a less judgy, less Manichean, more philosophical kind of good-and-evil duality--still can't shake the tincture of moral valuation and the culture connotations that evoke such toxicity.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Adonai One - 02-02-2016
Since the foundation of this discussion is a material, I thought I should prescribe a balance to the concept of polarity it offers:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160202074953/http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=no+polarity&st=phrase&qo=&lh=a&qc=0&s=&c=&fp=0&l=30&o=r
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 03:39 AM)jeremy6d Wrote: Personally, I've always tried to see polarity as a chiefly energetic phenomenon, i.e. radiative or absorbent. It's too easy to craft morality tales about the normative implications of the right and left hand path. They are well to ponder, they certainly have merit, but let's keep in mind that simplistic concepts of good and evil from human society (with its formulaic rules and bias towards continuity and banking off past experience) may not be of great help here.
It's a shame that polarity--a term introduced, I presume, as a less judgy, less Manichean, more philosophical kind of good-and-evil duality--still can't shake the tincture of moral valuation and the culture connotations that evoke such toxicity.
You're right, it is a shame, but it is hardly surprising when the chief manifestation of strongly polarized negative absorption is a sort of power ego, that sees itself as master of everything and all in its domain. I can't even myself, pretend objectivity in the face of an individual who is strongly self serving. If you are of a positive grade whatsoever, their actions and energy are highly repugnant and off putting.
To be honest I have to look at them as predatory animals just following their natural behavior patterns to feel peace about their existence. Like a praying mantis or something. Sure, it's a kind've a monster, but it is pretty interesting from a certain standpoint, as long as it doesn't bite me (I used to keep praying mantises as pets
) .
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - rva_jeremy - 02-02-2016
(02-01-2016, 11:26 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: I see a keen misunderstanding. I don't deny that polarity is as is in description. I just don't think its always only one polarity or the other. I believe in a middle ground not just underlying both ends, but of which is actually what is sought after loooongterm.
You could...in a very improper but possibly helpful manner, view it as a mix between balancing love and wisdom with themselves through polarity being utilized as not a judgment system of how to be, but a mannerism of how one desires to be.
If I may, TTP, it sounds like you're describing the archetype of Transformation of Mind, where one wobbles back and forth between the two options of the choice. It is all about desire, isn't it?
I think the question, the main point of difference at play here, is what the point of all this is from the spiritual perspective. Yes, we can peer into the mindset of both polarities to an extent and "try them on", but until we walk out of the store wearing black or white, the color we don isn't going to make a difference in our evolutionary path. After all, aren't we manifested here as sub-sub-Logoi to do exactly what you're suggesting, but on the sub-Logoi's behalf? At some point, somebody has to put on the different outfits and play out their roles or the message of the play is never conveyed!
That said: I respect the intent behind your thinking. I agree with you that the charge of moral approbation or veneration clouds a lot of our talk about polarity. I've seen conversations devolve into mere assertions of "two legs STS, four legs STO". One of the chief fascinations of the Confederation philosophy for me is the added dimensions of meaning that the context of spiritual evolution imbues the polarities with. It's a relief to be able to place <airquotes>evil</airquotes> in a loving, unified Creation with minimum cognitive dissonance.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 03:50 AM)Adonai One Wrote: Since the foundation of this discussion is a material, I thought I should prescribe a balance to the concept of polarity it offers:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160202074953/http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=no+polarity&st=phrase&qo=&lh=a&qc=0&s=&c=&fp=0&l=30&o=r
Absolute service to self, absolute service to others, and no polarity, are all the exact same thing. Oneness. It is in between the poles where differences "appear" to be. But recognizing that intellectually doesn't mean anyone can just drop the illusion like a hot potato. It is like a knot you have to untie, a hierarchy of illusions to transcend. Untying that knot is polarization.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - rva_jeremy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 03:51 AM)anagogy Wrote: You're right, it is a shame, but it is hardly surprising when the chief manifestation of strongly polarized negative absorption is a sort of power ego, that sees itself as master of everything and all in its domain. I can't even myself, pretend objectivity in the face of an individual who is strongly self serving. If you are of a positive grade whatsoever, their actions and energy are highly repugnant and off putting.
Sigh. As somebody who is dealing with catalyst of very harsh feelings towards those who seek to dominate, control, and manipulate, I can only hope to find a configuration of thought and affect that will allow me to love these people in spite of your quite accurate description. I say this because I feel the same as you, down to the bone. But when this feeling calcifies, one realizes it isn't holding them back…
(02-02-2016, 03:51 AM)anagogy Wrote: To be honest I have to look at them as predatory animals just following their natural behavior patterns to feel peace about their existence. Like a praying mantis or something. Sure, it's a kind've a monster, but it is pretty interesting from a certain standpoint, as long as it doesn't bite me (I used to keep praying mantises as pets
That's interesting, it took me a few reads to get what you were saying. A love for something monstrous… well, that's a great subject for me to ponder. Thanks for the suggestion. It is perhaps a clue in the mystery of how to love those who wish me ill.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - APeacefulWarrior - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 02:58 AM)anagogy Wrote: The way I understand polarity is that it is simply a certain degree of unity. You can seek that unity through absorption or radiation. The only reason polarity is "done away with" in sixth density is because separation is done away with. Negative polarity switches to positive, and in the absence of a separation between selves, polarity disappears. Of course, in that process of unification there are many subtleties to becoming consciously one, and it is more than just "how one relates to others". But I see polarity as more than just how one overtly relates to others. If you see polarization in the light of a kind of literal spiritual magnetism, any barrier to the free flow of that energy (whatever the pole) is an impediment to oneness and in a higher density that takes many subtle forms, such as "ignorance of metaphysical processes" and things of that nature. So from a certain vantage point, all those things are part of polarity too. Also, keep in mind Ra said one of the motivations for sixth density wanderers to incarnate in 3rd density was "faster polarization", so it still has relevance even up to that density.
Well, the issue is that OR up there: Absorption OR radiation. In unity, there would necessarily be both. Service to others is service to self, and service to self is service to others. Dedicated negative polarization is abandoned since it does ultimately become a barrier to unity, but negative-style energies (for lack of a better term) don't actually go away. They become understood as one-in-the-same with positive energies as the entity moves closer to unity. (I even seem to recall Ra mentioning that a 6D neg who does a face turn often can progress swiftly towards unity, which I'd say is presumably because it understands this interplay well, whereas a dedicated positive 6D may struggle to overcome their "distaste" for negative activities.)
The entire idea of polarization is ultimately a distortion which is done away with once it's no longer needed. It's just a highly useful distortion\tool which is held onto for a very long time for purposes of learning, teaching, and growing.
And I think the Ra quote you're thinking of is this one (36.17):
Quote:I am Ra. The Wanderer has the potential of greatly accelerating the density whence it comes in its progress in evolution. This is due to the intensive life experiences and opportunities of the third density. Thusly the positively oriented Wanderer chooses to hazard the danger of the forgetting in order to be of service to others by radiating love of others. If the forgetting is penetrated the amount of catalyst in third density will polarize the Wanderer with much greater efficiency than shall be expected in the higher and more harmonious densities.
Similarly, the negatively oriented Wanderer dares to hazard the forgetting in order that it might accelerate its progress in evolution in its own density by serving itself in third density by offering to other-selves the opportunity to hear the information having to do with negative polarization.
What I find interesting here is that he refers to the polarity of the Wanderer, but NOT of the originating 6D S-M-C. And they aren't necessarily the same thing (relatively speaking) since we know 6Ds can create many simultaneous Wanderers.
Reading between the lines, I tend to suspect that 6D entities moving towards unity may spawn Wanderers of BOTH polarities, specifically to aid in their own exploration and understanding of unity from both sides of the equation. Or at least Wanderers who are basically free to choose their path without too much pushing in either direction. No matter what exactly happens to the Wanderer during incarnation, the larger S-M-C still benefits in knowledge and wisdom from their activities.
It might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that one role a negative entity plays in the big picture is providing reasons for positives to provide service. Ra even mentions at one point that conventional warfare actually provides huge opportunities for positively-oriented service. So while we know, for example, that Hitler was a negative attempting to become more negative, he still ended up providing more opportunity for positive service with huge amounts of catalyst -and therefore faster positive polarization- than nearly any other entity we know of.
One might even look at it in the same way as how some actors who are perfectly good people enjoy\prefer playing bad guys specifically so they can be the foil for the heroes, which is largely a selfless act since bad guys in movies rarely win and generally end up humiliated. Like Robert Englund (the original Freddy Kreuger) is reputed to be one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet IRL. Or Alice Cooper is actually a devout Christian who plays demonic figures specifically because he sees playing a flawed villain as emphasizing God's greater glory by comparison. So is it absurd to suggest that some higher-density Wanderers might choose to "play" a negative for basically the same reason? I don't think so.
Either way, I DO absolutely agree with your assessment that many folks probably place too much emphasis on polarity overall. This is all largely academic.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - anagogy - 02-02-2016
(02-02-2016, 04:09 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Well, the issue is that OR up there: Absorption OR radiation. In unity, there would necessarily be both.
I agree and I believe I've said elsewhere in this thread that absolute STS or absolute STO is the same as no polarity whatsoever.
(02-02-2016, 04:09 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: What I find interesting here is that he refers to the polarity of the Wanderer, but NOT of the originating 6D S-M-C. And they aren't necessarily the same thing (relatively speaking) since we know 6Ds can create many simultaneous Wanderers.
To be honest, it doesn't seem that strange to me. At sixth density the individual being is completely identified with the social memory complex. So the wanderer and social memory complex are the same. I always took it to mean that the wanderers spiritual energy gains polarity and then aids the social memory complex when it returns and adds that polarity to the collective mind.
(02-02-2016, 04:09 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Reading between the lines, I tend to suspect that 6D entities moving towards unity may spawn Wanderers of BOTH polarities, specifically to aid in their own exploration and understanding of unity from both sides of the equation. Or at least Wanderers who are basically free to choose their path without too much pushing in either direction. No matter what exactly happens to the Wanderer during incarnation, the larger S-M-C still benefits in knowledge and wisdom from their activities.
To me, it seems like this would be counterproductive to deliberately send a negatively polarized wanderer. Afterall, usually the intent of wanderers is to lighten the consciousness of the planetary sphere and that is their main motivations seeing as they are sixth density entities and well past the saga of negative and positive 3rd density drama. So rather, I think they see the increase in polarity as a boon or just a nice side effect. So this is not a concept I subscribe to, but each to their own.
(02-02-2016, 04:09 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: It might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that one role a negative entity plays in the big picture is providing reasons for positives to provide service. Ra even mentions at one point that conventional warfare actually provides huge opportunities for positively-oriented service. So while we know, for example, that Hitler was a negative attempting to become more negative, he still ended up providing more opportunity for positive service with huge amounts of catalyst -and therefore faster positive polarization- than nearly any other entity we know of.
One might even look at it in the same way as how some actors who are perfectly good people enjoy\prefer playing bad guys specifically so they can be the foil for the heroes, which is largely a selfless act since bad guys in movies rarely win and generally end up humiliated. Like Robert Englund (the original Freddy Kreuger) is reputed to be one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet IRL. Or Alice Cooper is actually a devout Christian who plays demonic figures specifically because he sees playing a flawed villain as emphasizing God's greater glory by comparison. So is it absurd to suggest that some higher-density Wanderers might choose to "play" a negative for basically the same reason? I don't think so.
Either way, I DO absolutely agree with your assessment that many folks probably place too much emphasis on polarity overall. This is all largely academic.
I agree with the actor concept, in the sense that, in reality, the negatively polarized beings reeking havoc on the weak and vulnerable are just playing a role. And that in the end, they are as much myself as I am. In the end it is all a game we're playing.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - rva_jeremy - 02-02-2016
anagogy Wrote:I agree with the actor concept, in the sense that, in reality, the negatively polarized beings reeking havoc on the weak and vulnerable are just playing a role. And that in the end, they are as much myself as I am. In the end it is all a game we're playing.
It's funny how it seems like the only way to mentally conceive of this process is to see it as a game, or rather as Newtonian objects with force bouncing off each other. It's all so sanitized and lacking in emotional charge! In other words: it's a model.
I try to keep in mind the importance of balancing the intellectual articulation with some emotional work, because otherwise relying on the mental model can strand one in a spiritual corner.
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - APeacefulWarrior - 02-02-2016
"It's only a model!"
"Shhhhh!"
RE: Contentions about 'Polarity' - Jade - 02-02-2016
Quote:Does holding a door open for a person because they're attractive (as in you wouldn't if they weren't) a positive move on our 3D gameboard, or a negative move?
I would say it learns more toward the negative, because you are using behaviors that you don't usually use to manipulate someone (ie a pretty women into engaging you when she might not otherwise). Positive action would be to open the door for anyone when you had the opportunity, which would be a more genuine act and often a "pretty lady" can tell the difference. If someone runs to the door ahead of me to open it, it's naseating. If someone happens to be going in ahead of me, and they hold the door and allow me to go first, it's very touching. But, only you can know which energy you are attempting to send out (and even then, how it's interpreted by the other is still up for grabs)
This is a common thing in our society that is rooted in sexism. Are you opening the door because you see her as needing your chivalry? My husband has one of these habits - he doesn't like me carrying anything if his arms are empty. So he practically grabs grocery bags out of my hands to carry them for me. It's a bit more nuanced than pure sexism, though, because in his way it's him "contributing energy" in a system where I'm the primary contributor and he's more limited in the ways that he can. But, at the same time, it's still tempered with self-service for him, to alleviate his guilt.
Again, these are my interpretations of the event. Your own personal interpretations are yours, and where you gain your polarity.
Quote:This may be true in the 3rd and possibly 4th densities, but don't forget that polarity becomes of increasingly less importance past that point. Graduation into higher densities has much less to do with polarity and, of course, at 6D one of the goals is abandoning deliberate polarization. And the higher-density an entity becomes, the easier it becomes for them to deliberately switch between polarities at will.
I think THIS is the common misunderstanding. Polarity isn't "deliberately abandoned" in mid-6D, it's reconciled. There is a big difference. All of the densities leading up to mid-6th are REFINEMENT of polarity, so that in mid-6th D we CAN 'abandon' it once we truly understand its folly. However, that kind of abandonment of polarity is NOT what 3D is about. 3D is about making the choice over and over and over again, because that is how we act as Creators in this density.
Quote:76.16 Questioner: Third density, then, it appears, is, compared to the rest of the densities, all of them, nothing but a uniquely short period of what we consider to be time and is then for the purpose of this choice.
Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct. The prelude to choice must encompass the laying of the foundation, the establishment of the illusion and the viability of that which can be made spiritually viable. The remainder of the densities is continuous refining of the choice. This also is greatly lengthened, as you would use the term. The choice is, as you put it, the work of a moment but is the axis upon which the creation turns.