(03-02-2012, 09:27 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: What was that Ra quote that says its useless to try to determine what is STO or STS?

(03-02-2012, 09:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Do you mean this? "93.3 ...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."

(03-02-2012, 10:02 PM)zenmaster Wrote:

(03-02-2012, 09:43 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Do you mean this? "93.3 ...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."

Ra was referring to the context of "physical polarity of the magnet", not of STS or STO in general. i.e. polarized to do work (in consciousness).

(03-02-2012, 10:12 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: It's true that the quote doesn't say that "it's useless to try to determine what is STO or STS," (but rather that it's useless to try to judge the relative goodness of them), but it might be the one 3DMonkey was thinking of.

Re: your comments -- what difference do you see between STO/STS and polarization to do work in consciousness? (The answer was given in response to a question about how to define STO vs STS.)

(03-02-2012, 10:25 PM)zenmaster Wrote:

Quote:19.18 Questioner: I believe we have a very important point here. It then seems that there is an extreme potential in this polarization the same as there is in electricity. We have a positive and negative pole. The more you build the charge on either of these, the more the potential difference and the greater the ability to do work, as we call it in the physical.

This would seem to me to be the same analogy that we have in consciousness. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is precisely correct.

Quote:62.15 Questioner: I’ll make this statement and you correct it. The Orion group has an objective of the bringing of the service-to-self polarized entities to harvest, as great a harvest as possible. This harvest will build their potential or their ability to do work in consciousness as given by the distortion of the Law of One called the Law of Squares or Doubling. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Quote:Re: your comments -- what difference do you see between STO/STS and polarization to do work in consciousness? (The answer was given in response to a question about how to define STO vs STS.)

Don was talking about the polarity with respect to STO or STS (service orientation).

(03-02-2012, 10:28 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I'm not sure what you're distinguishing between.

(03-02-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Polarity and service orientation are two different things. Without polarity, service orientation doesn't really matter - hence the conflation of concepts.

---

One way to look at it: service orientation enters into the level of mind as memory and experience. Polarity is what that mind has provided for spiritual actualization.

(03-03-2012, 12:11 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Do you think it's possible to polarize without a service orientation?

(03-03-2012, 12:45 AM)zenmaster Wrote: I think polarization only has meaning with respect to service orientation. That is, the natural or ethical foundation provided by the logos has two paths only. As Ra said, it's not possible to not serve the creator. That service, as the greater view is discovered (i.e. ethical principles) naturally results in some general attitude of what constitutes appropriate action or fulfillment. To 'absorb' or to 'radiate'.

(03-02-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Polarity and service orientation are two different things. Without polarity, service orientation doesn't really matter - hence the conflation of concepts.

---

One way to look at it: service orientation enters into the level of mind as memory and experience. Polarity is what that mind has provided for spiritual actualization.

(03-03-2012, 12:37 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Apologies for the incomprehension zen, I'm also curious about this. I believe what you are essentially saying is that it isn't necessarily impossible to discern the orientation of an action but rather the magnitude of the polarity of an action?

(03-03-2012, 12:55 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 12:45 AM)zenmaster Wrote: I think polarization only has meaning with respect to service orientation. That is, the natural or ethical foundation provided by the logos has two paths only. As Ra said, it's not possible to not serve the creator. That service, as the greater view is discovered (i.e. ethical principles) naturally results in some general attitude of what constitutes appropriate action or fulfillment. To 'absorb' or to 'radiate'.

Then I'm still confused about the point you're making. It would seem that it's not possible, in this density at least, to serve self or others without polarizing or to polarize without choosing to serve in one way or the other.

Or do you mean that it's possible to stay at a certain comfortable level of service without polarizing further?

(03-03-2012, 01:17 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Are you making a distinction between the natural law of polarity and tKhe mind's perceptible ability to describe that law? If so, we do realize we are only allowed the playing field of perceptibility?

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

(03-03-2012, 01:42 AM)3DMonkey Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

Well, if the laws are defined by perception, because perception is all we have, then yes. Can we define anything without perception? Better yet, can we define anything without defining it?

(03-03-2012, 01:50 AM)zenmaster Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:42 AM)3DMonkey Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:34 AM)zenmaster Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: I personally don't think it exists outside human perception.

So whatever perceptual limits you have define the laws of creation?

Well, if the laws are defined by perception, because perception is all we have, then yes. Can we define anything without perception? Better yet, can we define anything without defining it?

So you are saying that if you are limited in perception now, you have the same limitations later?

(03-03-2012, 01:30 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: Is there a natural law that exists outside my conscious ability to perceive?".

(03-03-2012, 01:07 AM)zenmaster Wrote: Was just saying that it's possible to determine service orientation because that is the personality (rays and all that).

Determining a negative or positive act as far as polarity (use of) is not possible because inward and outward are indistinguishable (as far as resulting work accomplished). And that is not 'negative' or 'positive' with respect to ethical principles, which would be service orientation. Nothing to do with magnitudes.

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(03-03-2012, 01:07 AM)zenmaster Wrote: Was just saying that it's possible to determine service orientation because that is the personality (rays and all that).

Determining a negative or positive act as far as polarity (use of) is not possible because inward and outward are indistinguishable (as far as resulting work accomplished). And that is not 'negative' or 'positive' with respect to ethical principles, which would be service orientation. Nothing to do with magnitudes.

So you're saying that it's impossible to tell if any given highly polarized action was positive or negative?

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Are you maybe talking about the unmanifested self? Because it would seem that any polarized action that involves otherselves would be relatively easy to determine.

(03-03-2012, 12:18 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: If you're saying not, could you give an example?

(03-03-2012, 05:36 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Let's take a specific example. Would you say that it's not possible to determine the polarity of the service that Carla, Jim, and Don rendered in channeling Ra?

(03-03-2012, 05:13 PM)zenmaster Wrote: the direction that polarized acts take has nothing to do with polarity.

(03-03-2012, 05:47 PM)Pickle Wrote: The act is just an act, and we then add frames of reference to it as a way to classify it.

(03-03-2012, 05:43 PM)zenmaster Wrote: I'm not sure how else to explain this. Once you couple polarity to service, you have no choice but to consider the system according to ethical perspective. So it's not just polarity at that point. In an abstract sense, in analog, it's like determining inherent scalar direction of a photon vs 'extension-space' direction with respect to a gravitating system of (convenient) measurement. Once you put a container around or apply a reference system on something, that something is now a necessary part of a system which can no longer be considered separately.

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: How useful is it, though, to consider polarity in the abstract?

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Once you couple it to action aren't you introducing it into a system of reference?

(03-03-2012, 06:21 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Polarity unmanifest = pure being = impossible to judge, but polarity manifest has a directional component.

(03-03-2012, 08:49 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I may still be missing the heart of your argument re: action without polarity, but if I understand what you're saying it seems like it might be correct without being true.

Quote:7.14 Questioner: I’ll just ask about Orion. You said that Orion was the source of some of these contacts with UFOs. Can you tell me something of that contact, its purpose?
Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, a simple example of intentions which are bad/good. This example is Adolf....

Quote:7.17 Questioner: I’m trying to understand how a group such as the Orion group would progress. How it would be possible, if you were in the Orion group, and pointed toward self-service, to progress from our third density to the fourth. What learning would be necessary for that?
Ra: ...
This study is as difficult as the one which we have described to you, but there are those with the perseverance to pursue the study just as you desire to pursue the difficult path of seeking to know in order to serve. The distortion lies in the effect that those who seek to serve the self are seen by the Law of One as precisely the same as those who seek to serve others, for are all not one? To serve yourself and to serve others is a dual method of saying the same thing, if you can understand the essence of the Law of One.

Quote:93.3 ...
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Quote:50.6 ...

The negatively oriented being will be one who feels that it has found power that gives meaning to its existence precisely as the positive polarization does feel. This negative entity will strive to offer these understandings to other-selves, most usually by the process of forming the elite, the disciples, and teaching the need and rightness of the enslavement of other-selves for their own good. These other-selves are conceived to be dependent upon the self and in need of the guidance and the wisdom of the self.

Quote:34.10 ... Let us take two such positively oriented active souls no longer in your physical time/space. The one known as Albert went into a strange and, to it, a barbaric society in order that it might heal. This entity was able to mobilize great amounts of energy and what you call money. This entity spent much green ray energy both as a healer and as a lover of your instrument known as the organ. This entity’s yellow ray was bright and crystallized by the efforts needed to procure the funds to promulgate its efforts. However, the green and blue rays were of a toweringly brilliant nature as well. The higher levels, as you may call them, being activated, the lower, as you may call them, energy points remaining in a balance, being quite, quite bright.

The other example is the entity, Martin. This entity dealt in a great degree with rather negative orange ray and yellow ray vibratory patterns. However, this entity was able to keep open the green ray energy and due to the severity of its testing, if anything, this entity may be seen to have polarized more towards the positive due to its fidelity to service to others in the face of great catalyst.

Quote:18.11 ...This entity was positive. However, its journey was difficult due to the inability to use, synthesize, and harmonize the understandings of the desires of the self so that it might have shared, in full compassion, with other-selves. This entity thus became very unhealthy, as you may call it, in a spiritual complex manner, and it is necessary for those with this type of distortion towards inner pain to be nurtured in the inner planes until such an entity is capable of viewing the experiences again with the lack of distortion towards pain.

Quote:84.7 ... We may confirm the good intention of the source of this entity’s puzzles and suggest that it is a grand choice that each may make to, by desire, collect the details of the day or, by desire, seek the keys to unknowing.

Quote:35.1 ... Thus at the outset of a bellicose action this entity had lost some positive polarity due to excessive use of the orange and yellow ray energies at the expense of green and blue ray energies, then had regained the polarity due to the catalytic effects of a painful limitation upon the physical complex.

This entity was not of a bellicose nature but rather during the conflict continued to vibrate in green ray working with the blue ray energies. The entity who was the one known as Franklin’s teacher also functioned greatly during this period as blue ray activator, not only for its mate but also in a more universal expression. This entity polarized continuously in a positive fashion in the universal sense while, in a less universal sense, developing a pattern of what may be called karma; this karma having to do with inharmonious relationship distortions with the mate/teacher.

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: In that quote I understand judge in the sense of a value judgment.

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: It seems like you're saying that Ra said it's not possible to determine polarity. I think they're saying it's impossible to say which is the better polarity. ("[J]ust as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.")

(03-04-2012, 04:03 AM)zenmaster Wrote: All judgment to me is value judgment.

(03-03-2012, 10:02 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: If you think that Ra was saying that it's not possible to determine the better polarity, then so be it.