Following the 4th Density Harvest, what will we perceive?

[JustLikeYou]

there are mistakes where you learn things.

Then our disagreement is in vocabulary alone.

your assumptions are incorrect, and seem to be gathered from perceptions in popular culture : just checking out a negativel harvested entity, rasputin's live, will tell you a lot about 'cold and calculating', 'not have bad habits'. a look at genghis khan's life, another negatively harvested entity, will tell you all about 'no desire for malice'.

These are not assumptions in the sense you suggest. I am describing the negative polarity the best I understand it. A description of the life of either of these figures will bring you no information about what was actually going on in the minds of such figures who were unlikely to have been understood in their times. I'm not saying they didn't have their own imbalances, but I do know that imbalances in the lower chakras are specifically what cause malicious behavior and "bad habits" (by which I mean uncontrollable ego compulsions). Because so much balance of lower chakras is necessary, attributing harvestable STS entities imbalances of the lower chakras is absurd. These beings have contacted intelligent infinity and they are enlightened. Their path is different which means that their emotional experience is different, but they have to sort out lower chakra imbalances just like you do. I have no idea what it would be like to feel pleasure in a human sacrifice, but I'm sure an STS entity would and I'm sure that to describe this feeling as "malice" is to severely underestimate your fellow human being.

If someone wanted to teach others about something, it would be unethical to manufacture a story unless that purpose was disclosed. I could care less how self-consistent it was. We are plagued with stories of this type due to unethical attitudes of the utilitarian mindset.

We can make up anything we desire, and always have someone resonate with it as 'truth', while what they are resonating with is a shadow or a manipulation.

Are you suggesting that a novelist must explain the hows, whys and wherefores in order to ethically write a novel? Or that the novelist cannot write the novel without disclosing whether it is fact or fiction? This is a very small ethical box.

If it resonates, zenmaster, it is truth. The source is of no consequence. A zen master should know that.