Session 010

[Plenum]

the complex of thought, ideas, and actions which you may associate with your so-called negative polarity or the service to self. This was, however, for the most part, couched in a sincere belief/thought structure which seemed to the perception of the mind/body complexes of this sphere to be positive and of service to others.

Does this imply that intention does not determine the polarity of an action? Maldek entities believed they were acting in a positive sense but ended up destroying their planet, and thus have a karmic knot to untangle.

I think they had a false sense of what 'positive' meant.

I just finished watching the Marvel series 'Daredevil' on Netflix recently, and the protagonist in that show is called Kingpin.  He sincerely believes that remaking a run-down slum block in New York City would be of benefit to all citizens.  However, the issue is not with the intent as such (wanting a safe, harmonious environment), but rather with the means by which he approaches it.  That is, he self-confesses that he abhors the use of violence, and yet it is a 'necessary evil' to get to his end game.  And similiarly, his partnering with elements of organised crime to help finance his vision, manipulation of the media etc etc.

Through flashbacks, you can see that this individual had a rough childhood, and wanted a better outcome for the place he grew up in.  Like the people on Maldek, I'm sure he felt like he was serving others in his own way, and that he was a 'good person', not a bad one.  He respected women, and he wanted to love sincerely.  He wanted a society where there would be no slums, and no poverty.  But his vision was one where such a standard of living was 'legislated' and enforced, rather than a free will choice of a group to co-exist that way.

It would be a 'perfect society' because all the non desirable elements would be eliminated (or actively suppressed).

I think this is another 'vision' of what a so-called sts society would be like.  It's not necessarily all about cruelty and random acts of violence.  It's more about enforcing others to be and live in a tightly defined spectrum of what is 'acceptable'.  It can actually be quite a good (ie prosperous and comfortable, predictable and safe) existence, but it comes at the expense of nullifying the extremes of unpredictable emotions, and forcing people into certain 'roles'; ie a caste system so that the society can reliably continue to output productivity for the group.  The caste system is not anathema because it matches peoples to their true talents; it is anathema (to a true positive entity) because it doesn't allow individuals to freely choose what they want to experience (and also screw up their lives).  The kind of true caste system is not hereditary; but it acknowledges individual talents, and shunts people into those social tasks at a coming of age event.  I believe this was really well shown in the movie The Giver.

- -

but back to your original question  Just because we believe we have positive intentions, doesn't mean that the intention is positive.  And likewise, there may be times when a positive entity is being overcritical and overanalytical on their own actions, but what they did in terms of action, was a positive act in both intent and result.

so how can one tell, or self-assess?

after all, there are times when we self-delude into thinking ourselves acting in a positive manner; we feel energised, we feel a fire, and everything just flows out.  How can that be a bad thing?

at the end of the day, it comes back to how we relate to Free Will.  A positive entity prioritizes preserving the Free Will of all entities, even if that confusion possibly leads to continuance of personal, individual suffering.  When there is no calling, one cannot intervene.

A negative entity totally disrepects the principle of Free Will, and is quite happy to intervene themselves when there is an opportunity or distortion that can be exploited for their own goals - and one of those goals might be for the happiness of other-selves ("I know what's best for you").

Going back to Ra's quote - those of Maldek had a negative philosophy, but framed in a positive fashion.  It's almost as though their citizens could get on board with what their society/government was doing, because it sounded positive.  Think of our own 'war on terror' and 'war on drugs'.  And yet the ultimate intent and result was one of control and suppression.

They were like Atlantis in that they gained much technological information, which I am sure is considered a societal achievement, and then used and abused their environment (not acknowledging the sanctity and worth of the 1d and 2d expressions of the Creator).

"The peoples of Maldek had a civilization somewhat similar to that of the societal complex known to you as Atlantis in that it gained much technological information and used it without care for the preservation of their sphere"

- -

there are many ways to describe the Two Paths.  One can reference it in terms of the actions taken in relation to other-selves (STO, service-to-others, or STS, service-to-self), how we utilize the intelligence granted via the spirit complex (radiance, or positive emanations, or absorption, increasing one's personal power), or one can see it in terms of how we relate to catalyst (using the tools of acceptance, or the tools of control and suppression), or there is viewing it through the lens of Free Will, and how we either choose to honor that, or disrepect it.

Ultimately, the Law of Free Will is the First Distortion, and so how a positive or negative entity relates to this first principle can be quite elucidating.