01-17-2016, 04:49 PM
4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com
If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP/AOP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
A Person's Ethical Focus, Range and Volatility
Note: This is a very deep and complex subject with much to question and to research, and my ideas are speculative at best -- but they provide a start for discussion.
1. One motivation for this topic is that in AstroPsychology there is a need for archetypal factors to describe ethical values and ethical polarity and their affect on a person's psyche and life. It may lead to a system similar to the MBS model of the Tarot Archetypes.
2. Another motivation is that the qualitative and quantitative nature of STO and STS needs more research and more fleshing out as a comprehensive ethical theory that integrates ethical polarity with psychology.
Since Service to Self/Other applies well intentions to gain polarity, it seems natural to consider that Disservice to Self/Other applies ill intentions to lose polarity. These complementary opposites can be abbreviated as DTS and DTO.
There are people who are STO/DTS and STS/DTO while there are people who are STO/STS and STS/STO.
STO/DTS care about others but have persecution complexes and self-loathe.
STS/DTO care about self but are sadistic and cruel towards others
STO/STS are more caring toward others but still care about self
STS/STO are more caring toward self but still care about others
3. The final motivation is indicated by the excerpt below where the Ra group say that between 51% STO and 95% STS is "the sinkhole of indifference" plus a surprising remark about "effort to attain" 51% STO vs 95% STS.
session 17
I want to first address the "sinkhole of indifference" that should motivate Metaphysical Psychologists who are interested in how the ethical focus, range and volatility of polarity affects the psychological stability and integrity of 3D/4D people and Wanderers.
There's a lot of psychological distortion, volatility and imbalance taking place among both groups that leads to some of the clinical conditions ie bipolar, borderline personality, manic depressive, schizoid, etc. So what role does ethical polarity play towards psychological health?
That's a big unknown which the Metaphysical Psychologist will try to address. And later in the post the Metaphysical Philosopher will try to address the "sinkhole of indifference" and "equal difficulty to attain" in terms of LOO and AOP.
So first, what is the psychological meaning of a person's ethical focus, range and volatility of polarity?
It's about the focus, range and volatility of a person's ethical intention and motivation which, in turn, affects one's willingness and capacity to express sincere care and concern for oneself and for others, and the opposite -- of sincere antipathy and coldheartedness for oneself and for others. So this has obvious STS/STO and DTS/DTO implications.
One approach to describing the ethical nature of a person is the probability/possibility vortex or cyclonic model.
For example, an "ethically stable and grounded" person is like a well formed and tight spinning vortex or cyclone with a small central core that indicates the "central" polarity of said person at say, for instance, 60% STS.
So therefore this person is 60/40 STS/STO who experiences relative inner stability and low volatility as she works on becoming more self-empowered and self-developed towards 95% STS.
What about DTO and DTS? To reach 95% STS she may begin to consciously assert DTO while consciously correcting and eliminating DTS. This inner and outer work process is done on a totality self level to address the many incarnations of karmic choices, lessons and programming.
Just for illustration, let's say for this incarnation she's an attractive and wealthy Yoga instructor who has Hollywood elites as clients. She's learning to use personal and esoteric power to manipulate others and is becoming open to consciously hurting others to gain more power. She has some self-doubts and vacillation but it's within her control.
So is she in a so-called "sinkhole of indifference" if she is motivated towards 95% STS?
Getting back to the vortex model and its features. The smaller the core the greater the focus. The tighter and smaller the diameter of the vortex the smaller the range. And the more well formed and symmetric the vortex the less volatility within this range.
Now, the vortex model is a nice visual and can be further developed into something multidimensional, but another common mathematical model is the probability distribution graph which makes the shape of a bumpy hill or mountain to indicate ethical focus, range and volatility.
This is an easier model to work with since we can use probability terms ie mean (average), median (middle), mode (most frequent) -- which determines focus -- and interval range and variance to determine range and volatility.
Using the above example, the Yoga instructor has her focus at 60% STS and a range of
[57 - 63] with low volatility or variability of polarity. So she is focused, balanced and stable and doesn't have wild swings of feelings related to variable ethical polarity -- no crisis of conscience or guilt trips. She's aware that she wants to polarize towards 95% STS.
Her graph looks like a steep, narrow and symmetrical mountain with the peak centered over 60% STS and a base or interval range of [57 - 63]. It's analogous to the tightly spinning and symmetrical vortex model.
As another example, for an unstable and vacillating Wanderer with guilt issues, his graph may look like an irregular, asymmetrical and broad hill with a loosely focused peak centered over 54% STO with an interval range of [40 - 60].
So he has wild swings into STS territory with over-corrections swinging back to STO.
Given this ethical volatility he is more prone to DTO and DTS activity and psychological issues ie bipolar and manic depression with homicidal and suicidal thoughts.
So using this Ethical Polarity evaluation to better understand AstroPsychology dynamics and archetypes leads to potential new discoveries in Depth Psychology or what can be called Metaphysical Psychology. This may prove to be useful in early 4D.
We can end this part with some questions.
How does one's ethical focus correlate to ethic intention and motivation, and, in turn, affect one's psychological states?
How does ethical range and volatility correlate with inner and outer tensions and conflicts, and, in turn, guilt and crisis of conscience?
The Ra group describe STO as strength of willingness and dedication to the welfare of Other over Self, and therefore describe STS as strength of willingness and dedication to the welfare of Self over Other. These determine ethical polarity.
So, if "welfare" is replaced with "deprivation and dysfunction" does DTO and DTS then have valid metaphysical and psychological meaning and application in 3D and 4D?
What about the "sinkhole of indifference" entailing indifference or neutrality of feeling?
So therefore apathy and Non-service to Self/Other or NTS/NTO may also have validity and application?
That's a lot of food for thought and may be worth further research for the 4D Metaphysical Psychologist.
------------------------------------------
But going back to the Ra group excerpt and the Metaphysical Philosopher's research:
The Ra group say that between 51% STO and 95% STS is "the sinkhole of indifference" plus a surprising remark about "effort to attain" 51% STO vs 95% STS.
session 17
So, the surprise is that it's NOT easier to attain 51% STO than to attain 95% STS. They have the same difficulty.
This then means that it is just as easy, or just as difficult, to be a Genghis Khan as to be a "caring and good" person.
So therefore, the effort and dedication it takes to consistently rape, slaughter and pillage is equivalent to the effort and dedication it takes to consistently give (just barely) a little more of one's self to helping others.
If this is the case, then Don's question of "why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestablity than the positive?" should have the answer that "It actually is NOT more difficult to attain 95% STS than 51% STO" -- given what the Ra group just said.
Re-read the above excerpt carefully and, given the context, try to justify why that answer is not a valid answer.
So reading this excerpt caught me off guard b/c I always thought that it was easier to attain 51% STO given the 10:1 ratio of STO to STS in terms of mixed harvest populations and of SMC's. This was supported by the LOO claiming a slight bias to STO due to the natural harmony of unity.
But if the LOO is slightly biased towards STO then shouldn't it be easier to attain 51% STO than 95% STS? It appears not to be, and that the reason for the 10:1 ratio has to do with the slight bias causing much larger numbers of 3D seekers to be attracted to the love and harmony of STO than to the riskier type of love and harmony of STS.
So that attraction doesn't mean that it is any easier to attain which is puzzling b/c I would think being drawn or attracted towards something would make it easier. So the equal difficulty to attain STO or STS is still puzzling.
The AOP approach is this:
In terms of the Tao principle and symbol, positive and negative are equivalent polarities of Yang and Yin. It's a beautifully balanced duality, but symbolically it's a duality within a circle that is an inclusive whole. This is the variation of "two within one" as a Dialectical Monism where, in a symmetrically complete form is AOP = AO + OA = OA + AO = OAP and where AO or All is One is Yin, and OA or One is All is Yang.
Given the equal and dynamic balance of complementary opposites, this translates to "equal difficulty to attain" whereas the slight bias to STO or OA relates to the inclusive wholeness of the circle b/c the Yang nature of OA or "infinified unity" strives to "posit or affirm" AO or "unified infinity" as shown in the 2nd part (OA + AO = OAP) of the above formula. This is the "return to source" process or so-called Original Thought.
"Infinified unity" is intelligent unity which emerges from the Cardinal Octave to form our Fixed Octave, while "unified infinity" is intelligent infinity which emerges within our Fixed Octave to form the next Mutable Octave and for which we are drawn to access and evolve toward.
See What is Ra's Monism?
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10926
Ra's Fundamental Postulates
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871
To sum things up, AOP = AO + OA corresponds to the Original Impulse of the Creator to Know Self through experiencing form and function in the Fixed Octave, while OA + AO = OAP corresponds to the Original Thought of the Creator to Return to Self via the experience in the Fixed Octave to reach the Mutable Octave. This return to source has STO or OA intention and so is biased to create the 10:1 ratio.
This is far from a complete and accurate account but attempts to make some sense of the ethical polarity dynamics. It opens up the topic for more discussion.
If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP/AOP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
A Person's Ethical Focus, Range and Volatility
Note: This is a very deep and complex subject with much to question and to research, and my ideas are speculative at best -- but they provide a start for discussion.
1. One motivation for this topic is that in AstroPsychology there is a need for archetypal factors to describe ethical values and ethical polarity and their affect on a person's psyche and life. It may lead to a system similar to the MBS model of the Tarot Archetypes.
2. Another motivation is that the qualitative and quantitative nature of STO and STS needs more research and more fleshing out as a comprehensive ethical theory that integrates ethical polarity with psychology.
Since Service to Self/Other applies well intentions to gain polarity, it seems natural to consider that Disservice to Self/Other applies ill intentions to lose polarity. These complementary opposites can be abbreviated as DTS and DTO.
There are people who are STO/DTS and STS/DTO while there are people who are STO/STS and STS/STO.
STO/DTS care about others but have persecution complexes and self-loathe.
STS/DTO care about self but are sadistic and cruel towards others
STO/STS are more caring toward others but still care about self
STS/STO are more caring toward self but still care about others
3. The final motivation is indicated by the excerpt below where the Ra group say that between 51% STO and 95% STS is "the sinkhole of indifference" plus a surprising remark about "effort to attain" 51% STO vs 95% STS.
session 17
Quote:Don: Why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestability upon than the
positive?
Ra: This is due to a distortion of the Law of One which indicates that the gateway to intelligent infinity be a gateway at the end of a straight and narrow path as you may call it.
To attain 51% dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of 5% dedication to otherselves. [51% STO and 95% STS are the SAME in difficulty to attain] The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.
I want to first address the "sinkhole of indifference" that should motivate Metaphysical Psychologists who are interested in how the ethical focus, range and volatility of polarity affects the psychological stability and integrity of 3D/4D people and Wanderers.
There's a lot of psychological distortion, volatility and imbalance taking place among both groups that leads to some of the clinical conditions ie bipolar, borderline personality, manic depressive, schizoid, etc. So what role does ethical polarity play towards psychological health?
That's a big unknown which the Metaphysical Psychologist will try to address. And later in the post the Metaphysical Philosopher will try to address the "sinkhole of indifference" and "equal difficulty to attain" in terms of LOO and AOP.
So first, what is the psychological meaning of a person's ethical focus, range and volatility of polarity?
It's about the focus, range and volatility of a person's ethical intention and motivation which, in turn, affects one's willingness and capacity to express sincere care and concern for oneself and for others, and the opposite -- of sincere antipathy and coldheartedness for oneself and for others. So this has obvious STS/STO and DTS/DTO implications.
One approach to describing the ethical nature of a person is the probability/possibility vortex or cyclonic model.
For example, an "ethically stable and grounded" person is like a well formed and tight spinning vortex or cyclone with a small central core that indicates the "central" polarity of said person at say, for instance, 60% STS.
So therefore this person is 60/40 STS/STO who experiences relative inner stability and low volatility as she works on becoming more self-empowered and self-developed towards 95% STS.
What about DTO and DTS? To reach 95% STS she may begin to consciously assert DTO while consciously correcting and eliminating DTS. This inner and outer work process is done on a totality self level to address the many incarnations of karmic choices, lessons and programming.
Just for illustration, let's say for this incarnation she's an attractive and wealthy Yoga instructor who has Hollywood elites as clients. She's learning to use personal and esoteric power to manipulate others and is becoming open to consciously hurting others to gain more power. She has some self-doubts and vacillation but it's within her control.
So is she in a so-called "sinkhole of indifference" if she is motivated towards 95% STS?
Getting back to the vortex model and its features. The smaller the core the greater the focus. The tighter and smaller the diameter of the vortex the smaller the range. And the more well formed and symmetric the vortex the less volatility within this range.
Now, the vortex model is a nice visual and can be further developed into something multidimensional, but another common mathematical model is the probability distribution graph which makes the shape of a bumpy hill or mountain to indicate ethical focus, range and volatility.
This is an easier model to work with since we can use probability terms ie mean (average), median (middle), mode (most frequent) -- which determines focus -- and interval range and variance to determine range and volatility.
Using the above example, the Yoga instructor has her focus at 60% STS and a range of
[57 - 63] with low volatility or variability of polarity. So she is focused, balanced and stable and doesn't have wild swings of feelings related to variable ethical polarity -- no crisis of conscience or guilt trips. She's aware that she wants to polarize towards 95% STS.
Her graph looks like a steep, narrow and symmetrical mountain with the peak centered over 60% STS and a base or interval range of [57 - 63]. It's analogous to the tightly spinning and symmetrical vortex model.
As another example, for an unstable and vacillating Wanderer with guilt issues, his graph may look like an irregular, asymmetrical and broad hill with a loosely focused peak centered over 54% STO with an interval range of [40 - 60].
So he has wild swings into STS territory with over-corrections swinging back to STO.
Given this ethical volatility he is more prone to DTO and DTS activity and psychological issues ie bipolar and manic depression with homicidal and suicidal thoughts.
So using this Ethical Polarity evaluation to better understand AstroPsychology dynamics and archetypes leads to potential new discoveries in Depth Psychology or what can be called Metaphysical Psychology. This may prove to be useful in early 4D.
We can end this part with some questions.
How does one's ethical focus correlate to ethic intention and motivation, and, in turn, affect one's psychological states?
How does ethical range and volatility correlate with inner and outer tensions and conflicts, and, in turn, guilt and crisis of conscience?
The Ra group describe STO as strength of willingness and dedication to the welfare of Other over Self, and therefore describe STS as strength of willingness and dedication to the welfare of Self over Other. These determine ethical polarity.
So, if "welfare" is replaced with "deprivation and dysfunction" does DTO and DTS then have valid metaphysical and psychological meaning and application in 3D and 4D?
What about the "sinkhole of indifference" entailing indifference or neutrality of feeling?
So therefore apathy and Non-service to Self/Other or NTS/NTO may also have validity and application?
That's a lot of food for thought and may be worth further research for the 4D Metaphysical Psychologist.
------------------------------------------
But going back to the Ra group excerpt and the Metaphysical Philosopher's research:
The Ra group say that between 51% STO and 95% STS is "the sinkhole of indifference" plus a surprising remark about "effort to attain" 51% STO vs 95% STS.
session 17
Quote:Don: Why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestability upon than the positive?
Ra: This is due to a distortion of the Law of One which indicates that the gateway to intelligent infinity be a gateway at the end of a straight and narrow path as you may call it.
To attain 51% dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of 5% dedication to otherselves. [51% STO = 95% STS in difficulty] The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.
So, the surprise is that it's NOT easier to attain 51% STO than to attain 95% STS. They have the same difficulty.
This then means that it is just as easy, or just as difficult, to be a Genghis Khan as to be a "caring and good" person.
So therefore, the effort and dedication it takes to consistently rape, slaughter and pillage is equivalent to the effort and dedication it takes to consistently give (just barely) a little more of one's self to helping others.
If this is the case, then Don's question of "why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestablity than the positive?" should have the answer that "It actually is NOT more difficult to attain 95% STS than 51% STO" -- given what the Ra group just said.
Re-read the above excerpt carefully and, given the context, try to justify why that answer is not a valid answer.
So reading this excerpt caught me off guard b/c I always thought that it was easier to attain 51% STO given the 10:1 ratio of STO to STS in terms of mixed harvest populations and of SMC's. This was supported by the LOO claiming a slight bias to STO due to the natural harmony of unity.
But if the LOO is slightly biased towards STO then shouldn't it be easier to attain 51% STO than 95% STS? It appears not to be, and that the reason for the 10:1 ratio has to do with the slight bias causing much larger numbers of 3D seekers to be attracted to the love and harmony of STO than to the riskier type of love and harmony of STS.
So that attraction doesn't mean that it is any easier to attain which is puzzling b/c I would think being drawn or attracted towards something would make it easier. So the equal difficulty to attain STO or STS is still puzzling.
The AOP approach is this:
In terms of the Tao principle and symbol, positive and negative are equivalent polarities of Yang and Yin. It's a beautifully balanced duality, but symbolically it's a duality within a circle that is an inclusive whole. This is the variation of "two within one" as a Dialectical Monism where, in a symmetrically complete form is AOP = AO + OA = OA + AO = OAP and where AO or All is One is Yin, and OA or One is All is Yang.
Given the equal and dynamic balance of complementary opposites, this translates to "equal difficulty to attain" whereas the slight bias to STO or OA relates to the inclusive wholeness of the circle b/c the Yang nature of OA or "infinified unity" strives to "posit or affirm" AO or "unified infinity" as shown in the 2nd part (OA + AO = OAP) of the above formula. This is the "return to source" process or so-called Original Thought.
"Infinified unity" is intelligent unity which emerges from the Cardinal Octave to form our Fixed Octave, while "unified infinity" is intelligent infinity which emerges within our Fixed Octave to form the next Mutable Octave and for which we are drawn to access and evolve toward.
See What is Ra's Monism?
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10926
Ra's Fundamental Postulates
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871
To sum things up, AOP = AO + OA corresponds to the Original Impulse of the Creator to Know Self through experiencing form and function in the Fixed Octave, while OA + AO = OAP corresponds to the Original Thought of the Creator to Return to Self via the experience in the Fixed Octave to reach the Mutable Octave. This return to source has STO or OA intention and so is biased to create the 10:1 ratio.
This is far from a complete and accurate account but attempts to make some sense of the ethical polarity dynamics. It opens up the topic for more discussion.