Is all the talk of "activation" just bullshit to get you to look outside yourself?

[Ens Entium]

How do you personally reach the greater polarizations?

Same way as anyone, merely become conscious of the tremendous amount of catalyst available. At some level, you're already whole, so you find out where the current disparity exists between potential wholeness and catalyst and you just acknowledge it. A 'distortion' is thereby removed. You have just done 'balancing' work. You just put that 'tiny candle' on it. That's all it takes to 'polarize'. In other words, 'health' is that wholeness.

Am I misunderstanding you in thinking that you're implying here that balance and polarisation are the same? Do you have any examples to show increase in say sto through just acknowledging disparity between wholeness and state of being vulnerable to a certain catalyst?

Also, it seems that you would already have to have some idea of what 'wholeness' is with respect to some catalyst to distinguish a disparity between catalyst and it. But at that point just being in accord with your idea of wholness would cancel out any catalyst. ?

I ask because how I've worked with what I think of 'integration' is that I noticed variations in dispositions in others and from day to day, and more recently, in myself and through analysis only see what causes each disposition and synthesise a core of 'cause' that is drawn upon differently and accentuated differently because differences in interpretation of experience and desire and such. This enabling me to be accepting of those sometimes unpleasant 'distortions'. To be unswayed a little more. The only involvement of catalyst in the above is to show me where or in which ways I cannot as yet relate enough.

I don't see how catalyst gives one an idea of wholeness? Or futher how one could get that idea and still be susceptible to catalyst to see a disparity. Confused. Sorry if this is something minor I'm not seeing.

[zenmaster]

Am I misunderstanding you in thinking that you're implying here that balance and polarisation are the same?

They are the same to me.

Do you have any examples to show increase in say sto through just acknowledging disparity between wholeness and state of being vulnerable to a certain catalyst?

No.

Also, it seems that you would already have to have some idea of what 'wholeness' is with respect to some catalyst to distinguish a disparity between catalyst and it. But at that point just being in accord with your idea of wholness would cancel out any catalyst. ?

The disparity is there, obviously, due to the distortions. What may be felt with respect to this disparity is not being congruent - this feeling may be from vague to striking. The way catalyst is interpreted will suggest the source of this incongruency - or lack of acceptance or acknowledgement.

I don't see how catalyst gives one an idea of wholeness?

It is the only thing here that can introduce you those areas which have not been addressed.

Or futher how one could get that idea and still be susceptible to catalyst to see a disparity. Confused. Sorry if this is something minor I'm not seeing.

The connection is not entirely evident at first, it is a process of taking a look at the quality of emotional responses to some situation, for example. And when that has been done, to take a look at why and how that particular response was elicited. What was the core misunderstanding?

[Ens Entium]

I think my misunderstanding was with assuming that the idea of some stage of wholeness would have an according level of acceptance/acknowledgment of the wholeness and hence each distortion of that. I suppose then that the idea of it is just the framework and distortions are only removed when the idea is lived and that wholeness becomes real- in that you are now more truly accommodating of each of the possible distortion of that level.

If we take the example of loving without expectation of return under e cases maybe that will make things clearer.

Case 1:

Let's say that here you start with some idea of wholeness, specifically that you are self-subsistent emotionally and that you are able to give love freely.

Some situation occurs and you feel the other person didn't reciprocate your good will and are upset by it. Something like that. I think it's possible to have the idea and still have these emotions triggered in you. I thought that this was what you were saying earlier- that just idea (now making real in part your potential wholeness) would cancel out any catalyst. I guess then that as long the unpleasant feeling (catalyst) persists then you have to acknowledge that you missed some aspect of being whole and capture that in some (new or extended) idea of yourself. Is that more along the lines of what you were trying to say?

Case 2:

Same situation occurs and you interpret that feeling of unreciprocated offering that you have some need for something others have that you don't see that you have or can give yourself or just some recognition of yourself that you feel need validation by others. So then you see that you are less than whole in some way and try look for what is missing. When you find that antidote to the above needs (antidote I imagine will capture some form of wholeness) you accept that new found wholeness of yourself. Acknowledge that extension. And so.. balance yourself by balancing the catalyst. Is this case more what you were saying?

It could be both, hehe, in which I'll try and see how the division is artificial..

The challenge is see and experience is that I can see where I'm not able in certain ways resulting in failures of different kinds and so I know that I'm missing some piece of myself but it's very difficult to get to the idea that let's me get past the limited/partial character. The bridge between where I am and the more complete being eludes me. For instance the difference in disposition and productivity between an ENTJ and an ENTP, say. I don't yet have the 'tool' or whatever it is that will let me have some of the ENTJ characteristics. So while I see that there's some wholeness i don't have and have some idea of what that wholeness entails the catalyst doesn't help.

[Ens Entium]

The crystal skull thing and countless "DNA activation" and "crystal activation" and stuff like that.

I'm starting to think it's all there to screw with us.

When I was a kid, I was heavily interested so-called 'dna activation'. I had come across this website dnaperfection.com if you go there now, you'll see the claims made (he's added more claims now) and for a kid the imagination can go wild with all the cool powers and such. I even went so far as to ask my dad to buy me a session. He was gracious enough to let me down on that one softly.

It was good though because I learned to live within my abilities and saw that there was more than enough for me to deal with as it was. I see now that I was trying escape but that my limits allow me to relate more with others. There's a unique value in finding gold in the mud of our imperfections and the accompanying situation.

Now I'm not saying that that attitude is reflective of anyone here, but just mention it so that we remember that there's a more immediate value and soundness of resolution when we find value from within our limits and move past them that way. Of course, I don't doubt that the people here have covered what I've said and are 'ready' for 'more'.. but just not to forget our immediate heritage.

As for the dna activations themselves, can't really say much for them either way- for examples testimonials could be real or fake. I'm more on the side of doubt though- no independent verification.

[AnthroHeart]

Wow, when I was a kid we didn't have internet.
There were things called BBS's.
I wasn't really into spiritual stuff then.

[Ens Entium]

BBS's ?

I imagine though that I was a kid a bit more recently than you. I was fortunate in that regard though.

Here in South Africa there's only one company that handles all land-line communications, they used offer dial-up over the phone line between 7pm and 7am for a low fixed rate- those were the days . As you can imagine I was almost always on.

[3DMonkey]

Wow, when I was a kid we didn't have internet.
There were things called BBS's.
I wasn't really into spiritual stuff then.

I know! I'm so jealous. If we had wikipedia and the like back then.... man!

[Ruth]

When I was a kid we had face to face conversation and played outside from light till well past dark. We caught fireflies, and looked at the stars, and our dog (and several of the neighbor's dogs) followed us around wherever we went, and we rode bicycles, and roller skated in the street, and played in the nearby woods . . . . . I'm just sayin'

[3DMonkey]

We watched MTV. Stole pot from our parents closet, and had unprotected sex. ... I'm just sayin

[zenmaster]

I think my misunderstanding was with assuming that the idea of some stage of wholeness would have an according level of acceptance/acknowledgment of the wholeness and hence each distortion of that. I suppose then that the idea of it is just the framework and distortions are only removed when the idea is lived and that wholeness becomes real- in that you are now more truly accommodating of each of the possible distortion of that level.

Yes, the less distorted, the more accommodating or accepting.

If we take the example of loving without expectation of return under e cases maybe that will make things clearer.

Case 1:

Let's say that here you start with some idea of wholeness, specifically that you are self-subsistent emotionally and that you are able to give love freely.

Some situation occurs and you feel the other person didn't reciprocate your good will and are upset by it. Something like that. I think it's possible to have the idea and still have these emotions triggered in you. I thought that this was what you were saying earlier- that just idea (now making real in part your potential wholeness) would cancel out any catalyst. I guess then that as long the unpleasant feeling (catalyst) persists then you have to acknowledge that you missed some aspect of being whole and capture that in some (new or extended) idea of yourself. Is that more along the lines of what you were trying to say?

Instead of some idea of wholeness, I'd say some degree of distortion. There is no 'idea' neccessary. An idea is probably what caused the emotional reaction. The idea then needs to be examined.

Case 2:

Same situation occurs and you interpret that feeling of unreciprocated offering that you have some need for something others have that you don't see that you have or can give yourself or just some recognition of yourself that you feel need validation by others. So then you see that you are less than whole in some way and try look for what is missing. When you find that antidote to the above needs (antidote I imagine will capture some form of wholeness) you accept that new found wholeness of yourself. Acknowledge that extension. And so.. balance yourself by balancing the catalyst. Is this case more what you were saying?

Basically, the reason for the need for validation or regonition, in the first place, was due to lack of acknowledgement of some aspect of self ("self"="other self"="universe"). Whatever it is you can do to bring that mechanism of abandonment to your conscious awareness and then to acknowledge it, creates the conditions for acceptance. That acceptance is the removal of distortion. That's the 'balancing'. It takes an act of will and some degree of honesty, because you are forging a new way.

It could be both, hehe, in which I'll try and see how the division is artificial..

The challenge is see and experience is that I can see where I'm not able in certain ways resulting in failures of different kinds and so I know that I'm missing some piece of myself but it's very difficult to get to the idea that let's me get past the limited/partial character.

It's not a challenge, it's *the* challenge - that's whole purpose of "3D". A person can go through life ignoring the constant reminders of discomfort from their lack of acceptance, or attempt to do something about it. The more you attempt to do it, the easier it gets. Ra recommends understanding how the mind works, followed by the body.

The bridge between where I am and the more complete being eludes me. For instance the difference in disposition and productivity between an ENTJ and an ENTP, say. I don't yet have the 'tool' or whatever it is that will let me have some of the ENTJ characteristics. So while I see that there's some wholeness i don't have and have some idea of what that wholeness entails the catalyst doesn't help.

You can't have an idea of what the wholeness entails - that's a "beyond the veil" thing. And even then (say in time/space) is subject to the limitations of all prior experience up to that point.

You are already whole, right now, in potential - but that is your "built-in" guide. When circumstances have some catalyst hit you and you have a certain feeling or reaction, that quality of that reaction is 100% dependent upon the distortions between that fully actualized potential and where you are "at". It is a fool-proof system. What you are most attracted to or dissassified with or whatever, always holds the most pertinent or relevant learning and balancing potential to your "highest good". You can always trust that further balance will occur when addressing something you don't feel congruent with.

If you want to improve your evaluation tools, one of the best things you can do is work on developing your secondary function. When doing that you sort of have an extra discernment aid or BS detector. You will more readily recognize how and why things work the way they do (for you anyway).

[Oceania]

when i was a kid i climbed everything and watched a lot of TV. why are we talking about our childhoods?

[3DMonkey]

Cuz Gemini didn't grow up with internet

[Meerie]

What's BBS?
I was incredibly depressed as a kid. I even wrote suicide notes and imagined people grieving at my funeral.

[loop]

What's BBS?
I was incredibly depressed as a kid. I even wrote suicide notes and imagined people grieving at my funeral.

BBS was before the internet days. We used to dial directly to other computers and access the shared files from them. Like the P2P (torrents, etc), but much more primitive and single linked - modem<->modem. It was fun back then

and on the funeral thing - you're not alone

[3DMonkey]

Didn't everybody?

[Meerie]

No, you smoked pot and had unprotected sex. Just saying

[3DMonkey]

And the depressive death stuff

[Meerie]

Removed to treehuggers.
Reason: derailing