Ra's Adventures in Wonderland

[GentleReckoning]

Ra may have said, "In truth, there is no right and wrong" but that is sort of a theoretical statement that applies to their density, but not ours. Here in third density there actually IS right and wrong. These are called "STO" and "STS". Even if they aren't absolute right and wrong, they are certainly relative right and wrong, depending on how we wish to polarize.

Similarly, though the Law of One might say there is no distinction between "self" and "other", this again is merely theoretical. Here in third density, there is a real difference between "self" and "other", and this difference is VERY IMPORTANT for us to understand here, or else we will never graduate.

This is because "The Choice" is given to us to decide BETWEEN "STO" and "STS". We make "The Choice" every time we decide to serve others, rather than serving ourselves. This is how we polarize and graduate from third density.

We cannot both serve others and serve the self simultaneously. That is impossible. Since there is a real distinction between "self" and "other", we must choose between them here in third density. What is more, don't be fooled by those who claim there really is no difference. They are in the "sinkhole of indifference" and if you believe them, you will not polarize and you will not graduate.

STO, or service-to-others, is kind of like being a goody-two-shoes. It is doing nice things for people, trying to placate them, and acquiescing to their incessant demands. In order to accomplish this, we must put others before ourselves, and subjugate our own heart's desire in order to be "of service" to others. Thus being "STO" boils down to being a servant to other people's egos, and projecting "love and light" at all times, even if this is not our experience in the moment.

STS, or service-to-self, means being selfish by attending to one's own needs and desires. If we put ourselves first in life, surely we are negatively polarizing. And moreover, this is wrong. If we keep doing this, we will eventually become "evil" beings. Like the "Illuminati" or the "Cabal". We must be ever vigilant about these "others" which we have termed the "Illuminati" and the "Cabal" because their primary goal in life is to trick us into becoming STS like them.

In fact, the primary way that they trick us is by getting us to believe that the Law of One applies here in third density. By causing us to believe that "in truth, there is no right and wrong" and that "there is no real distinction between self and other" we will fall into the trap of accepting these others as ourselves. And if we accept them, that means we approve of what they are doing, and are complicit in their actions.


Hurry! Time is running out!

Tenet, I think the confusion stems from that we are dealing with two different paradigms here, 3D and then the upper levels, that Ra speaks about from their point of view, where "in truth, there is no right or wrong".
I do however believe
1) that they do interlap here already and that we all had glimpses of that already

2) that it is possible to reach a state even in this 3D density where there in deed is no difference anymore.
Where the self and other selves are not viewed as separate anymore.
I think that is what buddhists and teachers like Alan Watts talk about, that happens when we reach what is commonly termed enlightenment.
And then the choice between STO and STS is obsolete because once you view there is no separation, how could you then possibly be harming anyone?
since all is one anyways...
imo

Which is why the STS path is so confused as far as I'm concerned. Throughout history, it's clearly evident that STO allows you development that is much more comprehensive here in 3d. If one were clearly self centered, and wise I would think you would seek the most rapid path to developing as quickly and completely as possible.

[Patrick]

<sigh> <deleted>

[Tenet Nosce]

Notice how the thread is now becoming a discussion about STS and STO, rather than Ra's nature and purpose, as stated in Session One.

[Patrick]

<sigh> <deleted>

[GentleReckoning]

Notice how the thread is now becoming a discussion about STS and STO, rather than Ra's nature and purpose, as stated in Session One.

What are some things about Ra's nature and purpose that through discussion you feel could bring clarity of the Law of One to the users of this forum?

[Tenet Nosce]

I said what I wanted to say about it in Post #1 of this thread.

I believe that I have accurately restated 1.1 and 1.6 in the paragraphs following them, and that any other conclusions I made in those paragraphs were sound deductions made from Ra's actual statements in those quotes.

For discussion:

Firstly, I would be interested to know if anybody thinks I made some faulty reasoning in my restatement of 1.1 and 1.6.

Secondly, I have proposed that, when an apparent discrepancy in the material or confusion arises, that 1.1 and 1.6 (NOT my restatements of them) be used to reconcile those differences. I would be interested to hear people's opinion on that proposition.

Thirdly, I would be interested to see alternative restatements of 1.1 and 1.6. To be clear about what constitutes a restatement, and not an interpretation or commentary, one would go through 1.1 and 1.6 sentence by sentence and think of other ways to say the same thing and/or draw conclusions that clearly and directly follow from what Ra actually said in those quotes. That means, no inferences or "reading into" what they said.

[βαθμιαίος]

In your first post you left out part of 1.1, including "However, we then felt the great responsibility of staying in the capacity of removing the distortions and powers that had been given to the Law of One. We will continue in this until your, shall we say, cycle is appropriately ended. If not this one, then the next. We are not a part of time and, thus, are able to be with you in any of your times."

That quote suggests that Ra themselves feel the necessity of outward service. I'm still not totally sure of what you're driving at, but this quote seems relevant if your argument is that we should focus only on unity rather than STO or STS. Also, the quote indicates that Ra is concerned with what their other-selves (us) are thinking, ie that we were misunderstanding the Law of One.

[GentleReckoning]

Rereading the original quotes of Ra, this stood out to me:

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

Just as reality is infinite, then so is the creators (our) journey of seeking to know itself. So that which we seemingly have started here in 3d shall continue infinitely.

Personally, I think it'd be rad to light/love to a whole galaxy of lesser dimension beings. And perhaps even in that observation I am being radically shortsighted in an infinite universe.

[Tenet Nosce]

removing the distortions and powers that had been given to the Law of One.

What do you suppose were those "distortions and powers"?

That quote suggests that Ra themselves feel the necessity of outward service.

Well sure! Outward service. Inward service. It is all service according to the Law of One. Right?

I'm still not totally sure of what you're driving at

It seems to me you might be thinking I am suggesting that we shouldn't outwardly serve. Not at all. If I thought that, I would be pretty much the biggest hypocrite of them all!

I'm trying to get at those "distortions and powers that had been given [are still being given] to the Law of One".

but this quote seems relevant if your argument is that we should focus only on unity rather than STO or STS.

Oh, it is most relevant! Just sort of a can of worms that I am a bit concerned about opening prematurely in this thread. I have discussed it elsewhere in the forum. I'm not trying to trick anybody into a hidden agenda, if that is your concern.

Also, the quote indicates that Ra is concerned with what their other-selves (us) are thinking, ie that we were misunderstanding the Law of One.

Most definitely. Which is why I would think that they would have been very careful about their word choice upon initiating contact with L/L.

[GentleReckoning]

Well, here in 3rd dimension, one of the illusions is that STO and STS are polar opposites. This is an illusion. They are both paths of serving the one creator. Personally, I feel that the STO path yields much faster fulfilling development. However, that doesn't stop me from loving those that choose the STS path. Now, it is unlikely that I will be able to serve them, because they generally do not desire service out of free will, but out of control. Since I only desire to serve out of free will, I don't foresee many situations where I have opportunity to serve STS entities without a depolarization occurring for one of the parties.

Regardless, seeing these entities polarization as negative will only hinder your own growth. Understand, love, and feel compassion for them. They have undoubtedly chosen the harder path and will provide infinitely valuable experience to all.

[βαθμιαίος]

I'm trying to get at those "distortions and powers that had been given [are still being given] to the Law of One".

So is your hunch that the distortions and powers have to do with, let's say, the "wickedness and righteousness" meme? Could be.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm trying to get at those "distortions and powers that had been given [are still being given] to the Law of One".

So is your hunch that the distortions and powers have to do with, let's say, the "wickedness and righteousness" meme? Could be.

This meme appears to have emerged right about the same time that they:

removed ourselves from the now hypocritical position which we had allowed ourselves to be placed in.

Thus, our visit was relatively short, for we found ourselves in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves.

We discovered that for each word we could utter, there were thirty impressions we gave by our very being, which confused those entities we had come to serve. After a short period we removed ourselves from these entities and spent much time attempting to understand how best to serve those to whom we had offered ourselves in love/light.

Do you think it would be fair to say that certain conceptions of "STS and STO" appear to be a reiteration of the "wicked and righteousness" meme?

[βαθμιαίος]

Here's the thing, though: if sixth-density teachings confuse third-density beings, what's wrong with people trying to understand and act on fourth- and fifth-density lessons?

[Tenet Nosce]

Here's the thing, though: if sixth-density teachings confuse third-density beings, what's wrong with people trying to understand and act on fourth- and fifth-density lessons?

The Law of One applies across all densities. Here in third-density it is true we do not have the benefit of unity consciousness. Still, the Law of One can be observed by following the Golden Rule. Treat others as yourself. This is the teaching for the multitudes.

The esoteric side of this teaching is the Law of One. Self and other are identical.

Plus, you didn't answer my question!

Do you think it would be fair to say that certain conceptions of "STS and STO" appear to be a reiteration of the "wicked and righteousness" meme?

[βαθμιαίος]

Plus, you didn't answer my question!

Do you think it would be fair to say that certain conceptions of "STS and STO" appear to be a reiteration of the "wicked and righteousness" meme?

I think you added it after my post. Probably, but I don't take from that that we shouldn't discuss what STO and STS actually are. "...it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful..."

[Tenet Nosce]

Plus, you didn't answer my question!

Do you think it would be fair to say that certain conceptions of "STS and STO" appear to be a reiteration of the "wicked and righteousness" meme?

I think you added it after my post. Probably, but I don't take from that that we shouldn't discuss what STO and STS actually are. "...it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful..."

What I am suggesting is that if/when we open a discussion about STO/STS without being firmly rooted in the Law of One and Ra's nature and purpose, we are likely going to become confused. And if we continue down that path, we are likely to cause even more confusion regarding the Law of One. It's like trying to teach/learn calculus before we have mastered arithmetic. In this case: 1 + 1 = 1

If we reiterate the same faulty meme that took hold 6000 years ago, we will have worked contrary to Ra's purpose, which would most likely be a disservice, to both ourselves and others. (Of course, there being no real distinction between the two.) Discussing STO/STS is fine so long as we are crystal clear that "self" and "other" are an illusion.

Thus, according to my estimation, we might as well drop the last two letters, and simply discuss: What is service?

[βαθμιαίος]

It's funny, the different things we notice. I guess I don't really pay attention to arguments like the one you spoofed/paraphrased earlier, but I do notice a lot of people seemingly tripping themselves up about what does it mean to be of service in the context of the Law of One with arguments like (paraphrased) "if we are all one, then serving others is the same as serving the self so it doesn't really matter if I try to serve others" and "if it makes me feel good to serve others then that must be service to self."

Kind of like Don's line of thinking that Ra corrected about the famines in Africa at that time:

42.7 ...a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth-density than it would be to minister to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

To me, serving others is arithmetic; trying to figure out how it works in the context of the Law of One is calculus.

[Tenet Nosce]

It's funny, the different things we notice.

Fascinating, isn't it?

I guess I don't really pay attention to arguments like the one you spoofed/paraphrased earlier, but I do notice a lot of people seemingly tripping themselves up about what does it mean to be of service in the context of the Law of One with arguments like (paraphrased) "if we are all one, then serving others is the same as serving the self so it doesn't really matter if I try to serve others" and "if it makes me feel good to serve others then that must be service to self."

Right. So maybe it would be more instructive to leave self/other out of the equation for the time being and focus on asking: What is service?

Otherwise, perhaps you and I would begin discussing the above paraphrases, but having a different concept of what constitutes service.

To me, serving others is arithmetic; trying to figure out how it works in the context of the Law of One is calculus.

I think I know what you mean. It has always come rather natural to me as well. However, in my experience I have encountered many difficulties in serving others. Quite often, I have found that the difficulty was sourced in my own distortion. Thus, when I attended to the lessening of my distortion (serving myself), I often found that I was more empowered to serve others. Occasionally, I have observed others having spontaneous breakthroughs in their own development, without me ever having to say a word, after doing some inner work.

[Patrick]

Secondly, I have proposed that, when an apparent discrepancy in the material or confusion arises, that 1.1 and 1.6 (NOT my restatements of them) be used to reconcile those differences. I would be interested to hear people's opinion on that proposition.

In the material in general ?

Thirdly, I would be interested to see alternative restatements of 1.1 and 1.6. To be clear about what constitutes a restatement, and not an interpretation or commentary, one would go through 1.1 and 1.6 sentence by sentence and think of other ways to say the same thing and/or draw conclusions that clearly and directly follow from what Ra actually said in those quotes. That means, no inferences or "reading into" what they said.

1.1

We are ready to exchange information now. Like you, we also have a density. We are not of the 4th density, the density of Love. We are not of the 5th density, the density of Light. We are of the 6th density, the density of Unity. In our density, duality is no more, everything is simple once again and we are aware of the illusion behind the seeming paradoxes. We are One. Our nature is Unity and our purpose is United.

We have been with you a long time and we have attempted many times to bring the message of Unity to humans with partial success. We have been with you in the flesh. We have seen your faces directly from within your illusion. As opposed to most other friendly alien races. We concluded from this experience that it was not a very effective way of helping humans. It remains our wish to help humanity by bringing the message of Unity in some form and by attempting to smooth out the misunderstandings that resulted from our previous efforts. Until all humans are finished with 3rd density lessons, not being a part of time ourselves, we will continue this service.

Did we share enough information with you to clarify who we are and why we are here ?

1.6

Imagine that the Universe has no beginning and no ending, we are unaware of any evidence to the contrary. But we do have evidence to the fact that you are infinite, as is your quest for Truth and your awareness of the Creation.

Infinity cannot be divided, in order to be meaningful infinity must be understood as unity. The Creator being Infinite has to be united. Using your currently chosen limitations of the viewpoint, you can only be aware of simple examples of unity. Like all colors being united in one white light.

In reality, nothing is right or wrong. Duality is not real and you will become aware of this once you come out of the game you are currently playing. Playing this game was never a requirement. You made the choice of playing this game, otherwise you would instantly be aware of absolutely All There Is. We do not mean to say that you would merely know everything. You would be aware that you are everything, everyone, every feelings and every happenings. Without currently being aware of it, you still ever remain unity. You are infinite. You are the force behind the Creation and the Creation itself. You simply are. That is the meaning behind the words "the Law of One".

Would you like us to share more information about unity ?

[Cyan]

1.1

A part of your subconscious speaks to you now.

We too, have our place.

We are not those whose place is love, or those whose place is light.

We are those whose place is in unity.

In our place, the opposites are evened out, the difficult is made simple, and the conflicting has peace.

We are the whole.

That is our being, and that is our goal.

---

We have been in this reality for a long time and with different levels of success we have served in transmitting to you the Law of One, of Whole, of communion to your peoples.

We have travelled in flesh.

We have seen what faces your dreams have.

For many in the community of thoughts aiming towards a whole being, this is not true.

Travelling amongst you in flesh, was not useful by our estimate.

Besides this, we felt a great necessity for service in the capacity of removing falsehoods and beliefs that have been built around the idea of having a whole being.

We will keep doing so until your chemical body expires. If at such a point our purpose is not yet fulfilled, we will return again. As we are not related to time, being subconscious thought forms communicating to you about the world you create, and will continue to create if this lesson is not learned, we are with you at all times. As we create the world based on what you ask us to create, we are able to be with you in any time or outside of time.

Does this help you sufficiently to understand who we are, my equal/co-creator?

[Tenet Nosce]

YESSSS! Love it! :idea:

---

Secondly, I have proposed that, when an apparent discrepancy in the material or confusion arises, that 1.1 and 1.6 (NOT my restatements of them) be used to reconcile those differences. I would be interested to hear people's opinion on that proposition.

In the material in general ?

Sure, wherever they are found. For example, we have noticed that a great many contentious points can be traced back to Session 17 and Session 63. I'm just suggesting it could be helpful to reconcile those kinds of points using the statement of Ra's nature and purpose in Session One.

[Patrick]

YESSSS! Love it! :idea:
...

Glad you like it. I liked doing this exercise. It was a very interesting experience indeed. Thank you for providing the opportunity to do so.

[βαθμιαίος]

Sure, wherever they are found. For example, we have noticed that a great many contentious points can be traced back to Session 17 and Session 63. I'm just suggesting it could be helpful to reconcile those kinds of points using the statement of Ra's nature and purpose in Session One.

I'm not really sure about valuing one session over another, and it seems odd to value the one non-trance session over the 105 trance sessions. Ra always tried to focus on timeless principles, no matter how transient the question.

What in particular troubles you about sessions 17 and 63?

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm not really sure about valuing one session over another, and it seems odd to value the one non-trance session over the 105 trance sessions. Ra always tried to focus on timeless principles, no matter how transient the question.

IMO- the Law of One is the most valuable part of the material, wherever and whenever it is found.

What in particular troubles you about sessions 17 and 63?

I'm not troubled by those sessions. I think they are in congruence with everything else in the material. To my perception, it is all in congruence when held in the proper context. Which would be the Law of One.

I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this, or why you are having a hard time understanding me.

What surprises me is how willing some students of the material are to basically push the Law of One aside, and creatively interpret passages in order to construct an entire philosophy based on separation, and then claim that was what Ra was "trying to say" all along.

It truly befuddles my mind that so many appear to believe that the whole "STS and STO" piece is the most valuable takeaway from the material. As if somehow, the Crown Jewel of the material is this STO/STS paradigm we have concocted from it.

So many threads go on and on about it. Oh, STS is "this". STO is "that". STS thinks they are STO and vice-versa. Maybe it should be STA.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, or to say that it is "wrong" to have these discussions about STO and STS. I am just saying that I am truly SURPRISED that so many people would take the Law of One, and derive an entire philosophy from it based on the apparent distinction between self and other.

There appears to be some great attachment to this notion of "self" and "other". As if we were to let go of this false dichotomy, the universe would unravel or descend into utter chaos. Or perhaps that everybody would suddenly become evil and uncaring toward their other-selves.

There is this strange propensity to inject the concept of "self" and "other" (by referring to STS and STO) into almost every discussion about the Law of One. In consideration of the fact that the Law of One clearly and unequivocally states that "self" and "other" are identical, I find this to be a particularly bizarre result.

Not wrong. Not bad. Just bizarre.

[Spaced]

Hehe, I do admit when I first started posting here I was a little confused that there were acronyms for service to self and service to others, meaning those terms were discussed here enough to warrant a shortening, but if you look at the Ra material much of Don's questioning probes that dichotomy. I agree that the focus of the Law of One is on Unity so the labelling and separation of things is, in any case, not necessary. I guess it's just the nature of third density life that we have to take the universe and chop it into bits small enough for our brains to understand when held up against other bits for reference.

[Tenet Nosce]

Hehe, I do admit when I first started posting here I was a little confused that there were acronyms for service to self and service to others,

Yes, exactly. I imagine it is confusing for anybody who wanders across this forum. And since there are so many people yammering on about "STS" and "STO" it is very easy to assume that philosophy is actually Ra's, and not something that we humans have made up about it.

And especially considering the propensity for people to jump right in without having given the material at least one careful read, and moreover, to then have the gumption to start "educating" other-selves about what the material says. Typically this summary is given as a lecture about STS and STO, and then passed off as some sort of consensus view on the material, rather than merely one person's opinion.

but if you look at the Ra material much of Don's questioning probes that dichotomy.

Yes, exactly. If one actually reads the material with the same kind of questioning mind that I am very sure Don would approve of, they will plainly see that Don is himself struggling to grasp this- truly revolutionary- concept that self and other are identical by the nature of his queries, which are often quite confused. He continually presupposes a dichotomy with the queries, and Ra continually corrects him.

Just like he presupposes the "coming earth changes" in Session One, and queries about them, rather than asking Ra to enunciate the Law of One in more detail.

This isn't a criticism of Don. Just an observation. Again I am surprised that so many people just toodle on by this and don't find it significant.

I agree that the focus of the Law of One is on Unity so the labelling and separation of things, in any case, not necessary.

Exactly. It is not at all necessary to invoke "STO and STS" in order to be a "good person" or to polarize or to graduate or to make "The Choice". In fact, I would go so far at this point as to suggest that "STO and STS" have become more of a hindrance than a help in that regard.

I guess it's just the nature of third density life that we have to take the universe and chop it into bits small enough for our brains to understand when held up against other bits for reference.

Exactly. It is difficult for us to ponder upon the Law of One here in our third-density earth suits with our dualistic monkey brains. Which is precisely why pondering upon it while we are here is such a fantastic tool for spiritual growth.

What is easy for us to do is to say, "Unity? Oh right, yup we're all one. Got it. Thanks Ra. Now to the "practical" stuff. Let us begin with a discussion about STS and STO..."

[Patrick]

...I am just saying that I am truly SURPRISED that so many people would take the Law of One, and derive an entire philosophy from it based on the apparent distinction between self and other...

I believe it is because of this here.

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.

78.21 Questioner: You stated previously that The Choice that is made in this density, third density, is the axis upon which the creation turns. Could you expand on your reason for making that statement?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement of the nature of creation as we speak to you.

78.22 Questioner: I did not understand that. Could you say that in a different way?

Ra: I am Ra. As you have noted, the creation of which your Logos is a part is a protean entity which grows and learns upon a macrocosmic scale. The Logos is not a part of time. All that is learned from experience in an octave is, therefore, the harvest of that Logos and is further the nature of that Logos.

The original Logos’s experience was, viewed in space/time, small; Its experience now, more. Therefore we say, as we now speak to you at this space/time, the nature of creation is as we have described. This does not deny the process by which this nature has been achieved but merely ratifies the product.

The choice is the axis upon which the creation turns at this space/time nexus.

So of course people here, while being in 3d, will be attracted to this concept, will want to know more about it and will want to exchange information on this subject.

[Tenet Nosce]

The choice is the axis upon which the creation turns at this space/time nexus.

Precisely my point. You have apparently assumed that "The Choice" is making a decision between "STS" and "STO". I understand that many people here believe this, but I don't. Nor do I believe that's what the material actually says anywhere. Yet, that apparently doesn't stop some people from reading that into it over and over again.

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.

The prelude to choice. What do you think they mean by this?

The Choice is the work of a moment. Not the work of a lifetime. The lifetime is the "laying of the foundation" and the "establishment of the illusion".

78.21 Questioner: You stated previously that The Choice that is made in this density, third density, is the axis upon which the creation turns. Could you expand on your reason for making that statement?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a statement of the nature of creation as we speak to you.

78.22 Questioner: I did not understand that. Could you say that in a different way?

Ra: I am Ra. As you have noted, the creation of which your Logos is a part is a protean entity which grows and learns upon a macrocosmic scale. The Logos is not a part of time. All that is learned from experience in an octave is, therefore, the harvest of that Logos and is further the nature of that Logos.

The original Logos’s experience was, viewed in space/time, small; Its experience now, more. Therefore we say, as we now speak to you at this space/time, the nature of creation is as we have described. This does not deny the process by which this nature has been achieved but merely ratifies the product.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, that none of the words...

1. Service
2. Self
3. Other

...appear in any of these quotes you have provided here to explain my surprise "that so many people would take the Law of One, and derive an entire philosophy from it based on the apparent distinction between self and other..."

[Cyan]

I have come to sense that choosing STO is the same as STS.

Choosing to do what you feel is best at any given moment without worrying about "me or that self" is STO

[Tenet Nosce]

I have come to sense that choosing STO is the same as STS.

I would take it a step further and ask: If there is no true difference between them, how is that a choice?

Choosing to do what you feel is best at any given moment without worrying about "me or that self" is STO

I think what you mean here, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that spiritual growth occurs from simply being oneself, and seeking deeper into the true nature of the self.

Thus, "service" does NOT mean being a servant to false identities. Whether they belong to the "self" or "other" is irrelevant. In the context of the Law of One, service does not mean taking orders from people's egos. Including your own.

Service refers to "what it is" that one is serving. This is not the recipient of the serving, but that which is being served. As in, what are you serving for dinner?

Who you are serving for dinner is irrelevant in the context of the Law of One, since there is only one of us here anyway.