How Do STS's View Other Selves?

[anagogy]

From your logic I should perhaps channel 6D members of the Orion Group to extend my knowledge of the positive path. Asking only those who never dwelled in it and only have seen it from afar.

In regards to the negative path, yes I believe my soul does have much more knowledge and experience of it than those of Ra, just as an understanding and love for those who are currently within it.

Are you saying you are negatively polarized?

[Minyatur]

From your logic I should perhaps channel 6D members of the Orion Group to extend my knowledge of the positive path. Asking only those who never dwelled in it and only have seen it from afar.

In regards to the negative path, yes I believe my soul does have much more knowledge and experience of it than those of Ra, just as an understanding and love for those who are currently within it.

Are you saying you are negatively polarized?

Not as of now and I found no desire to move toward the negative path within myself either but it seems like quite a major aspect of my background which makes up what I am now.

[anagogy]

Not as of now and I found no desire to move toward the negative path within myself either but it seems like quite a major aspect of my background which makes up what I am now.

Ah, I see. Just curious.

[Night Owl]

I agree there is a distinction to be made when Ra speaks of the Law of One and when Ra speaks out of experience. His descriptions of STS while they may be correct show some kind of distance. It feels as detachment or seperation. His description do feel like a description from afar instead of from within. I guess Ra will not harvest as long as the STS polarity is not seen from within which means any wanderer coming from a long bag of STS experience may be aware of perspectives that either Ra knows not or does not speak of in the sessions. I believe this depends heavily on the questionner though as Ra only answers questions and some questions concerning STS surely have not been asked. An other possibility is that a third party entity may have altered the contact when describing this path which in the end is just hard to know really.

[GentleWanderer]

_______

[Jade]

Hey GW, I'm not 100% I agree with Scott's interpretation, there. I feel like Don asked quite a bit about the negative polarity without Ra taking issue (I remember making mental notes to check what Ra said about the "tuning" of each session this last read through, and it didn't seem that they would get detuned just discussing the negative polarity). It's really more the transient, specific information that depolarized the contact. Now if Don had specifically been asking questions with the intent to evolve on the negative path, another entity would have likely replaced Ra. But I think Ra was plenty happy to delineate the polarities, especially in context, to further the growth of spiritual seeking.

[Night Owl]

I think that is because if the question requires an answer from experience and Ra doesn't include such an experience, Ra cannot lie since he's STO and would lose in polarity in doing so, which would lead in an entity resonating with the question answering instead. That doesn't mean Ra doesn't know the answer, it means Ra cannot distort or lie about it. Answering without the proper experience would definitely end up distorted.

[anagogy]

Hey GW, I'm not 100% I agree with Scott's interpretation, there. I feel like Don asked quite a bit about the negative polarity without Ra taking issue (I remember making mental notes to check what Ra said about the "tuning" of each session this last read through, and it didn't seem that they would get detuned just discussing the negative polarity). It's really more the transient, specific information that depolarized the contact. Now if Don had specifically been asking questions with the intent to evolve on the negative path, another entity would have likely replaced Ra. But I think Ra was plenty happy to delineate the polarities, especially in context, to further the growth of spiritual seeking.

I think it was basically that the purity of the contact was dependent upon the level and purity of information sought. As long as the questions about negative polarity were legitimately attempts to illuminate the laws of oneness, there was no detuning. It was only, as you said, when they asked questions about transient material which did not especially help to elucidate the Law of One that detuning gradually occurred.

[Minyatur]

I think the fact that negative entities always come to repolarize implies more that the negative path is a facet of the positive one and as such ever is a part of it.

[Nicholas]

  Do they have a perverted or reverse view of human development and see destruction as the more expedient way to return to the Creator?  Are they so absorbed in their self to the point where they see others as their play things to get more for their self?  Is it simply a feeling of insecurity? In the words of Seinfeld, "What is the deal?"  What are your thoughts?

Essentially, STS folks view others as pawns or competitors in a game. Ra used the word "chattel" and is a similar reference to how they view other selves in my opinion...

32.2 - ...Can you tell me the difference between orange- and yellow-ray activation? I am going to work up from red ray right on through the violet, and we covered red ray, so what’s the difference between orange- and yellow-ray activation?

Ra: I am Ra. The orange ray is that influence or vibratory pattern wherein the mind/body/spirit expresses its power on an individual basis. Thus power over individuals may be seen to be orange ray. This ray has been quite intense among your peoples on an individual basis. You may see in this ray the treating of other-selves as non-entities, slaves, or chattel, thus giving other-selves no status whatever.

The yellow ray is a focal and very powerful ray and concerns the entity in relation to, shall we say, groups, societies, or large numbers of mind/body/spirit complexes. This orange — we correct ourselves — this yellow-ray vibration is at the heart of bellicose actions in which one group of entities feel the necessity and right of dominating other groups of entities and bending their wills to the wills of the masters. The negative path, as you would call it, uses a combination of the yellow ray and the orange ray in its polarization patterns.

Insecurity plays a role I believe, but I think insecurity in general just manifests as egocentric patterns of behaviour. I think security on the negative path is gained from the success of fooling and manipulating others. Its a feeling of insecurity that drives them on. 

As for destruction, well it is a valuable scenario for STS choosers to offer some alleviation from chaotic environments. On the one hand they would encourage acts of destruction, while on the other they would offer solutions  that can bring comfort, order and the sensation of peace to the chaos. Hence the "hidden hand" metaphor. Both hands are not being shown, palms up. I would imagine that they are attempting a risky game of promoting enough destruction without it becoming too chaotic. A rogue cancer cell eventually destroys itself by destroying its host, so planetary destruction is not on the agenda. Life is a game of chess to them. That's how I see it.

[im_not_me]

STS usually are very critical of each other. They have no hesitation removing one another from their path, even if it is by means of death. In fact, they prefer to kill each other, this is why it is important for them to maintain a structured order of command. Usually they impose slavery on lesser of their social memory complexes so that they can continue to polarize even if they have no direct opponents or adversaries to make suffer. They are tenacious don't let anything get in the way of their ambitions. When they work together they don't have any difficulty with pointing out each-others flaws, even if it is going to offend or humiliate the other self. They are very articulate in their plans and sure do exploit and/or manipulate others as much as they can, which in turn stifles them from being as creative as some STO complexes are when they target each other with the exploitation and manipulation. It is very laborious and arduous to escape the STS polarity due to most feeling that once they've come 'this far' there is 'no turning back' which only attributes to "gravity well" point Ra has made -  however some STS entities do decide to end their STS cycle to re-polarize occasionally. Jades analogy of STO being like a Star is excellent I would just add a STS entity would be more like a black hole than tree.

[Nía]

Just an example I came across...

The CEO of a major agri-business corporation said the following to author Andrew Harvey in the early 1990s at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. You will find the full quote in Harvey’s book The Hope which is on Google books (beginning of the quote highlighted).

Rio will accomplish absolutely nothing because you do-gooders are so naive about the real world. Most of you that I have met truly believe that if the CEOs – like me for instance – really knew what harm their corporate policies were doing, they would rend their Armani suits, fling out their Rolex-wreathed arms, burst into tears and change. This is madness, it shows how little you dare to know about what is really going on. And how can you even begin to be effective until you understand what you’re up against?

Let me tell you what you’re up against. You’re up against people like me. I know exactly what my company is doing, and what devastation it is causing to thousands of lives. I should know, I’m running it. I know and I do not care. I’ve decided I want a grand, gold-plated lifestyle and the perks and jets and houses that go with it, and I will do anything – bend the law, have people 'removed', bribe local government officials, you name it, to get what I want. I know, too, that none of my shareholders care a rat’s ass what I do or how I do it, providing I keep them swimming in cash.

[…]

The seekers that I meet are, frankly, 'bliss bunnies', about as useful in the real world as a rubber ball would be in a war.

[…]

This bliss-bunnyhood of seekers and the offensive self-righteousness of activists make it very easy for people like me to control the world. I know too, by the way, that the dark forces I play with are also playing with me. […] I’m willing to pay that price in return for the pleasure of being able to afford this restaurant. In return for being able to ring up the President of the United States on my personal phone in front of houseguests just to impress them. Am I getting through to you?

Quote via Basebenzi.

-`ღ´-

[unir 1]

As one who chooses to identify as STO, I can see other entities as sparks of the One Infinite Creator, as other versions of myself, as souls at various states of consciousness all seeking to reconnect with that creative infinity, etc.

I believe a fundamental, perhaps the most fundamental, chasm between STO and STS is the way in which others are viewed and their relationship to self.  When I try to fathom what STS sees when they view others, I have a difficult time - especially with the 4D and 5D.  Do they come completely from a place of fear where they see every other entity as a threat?  Do they have a destructive view towards creation and therefore try to get others to self-destruct?  Do they have a perverted or reverse view of human development and see destruction as the more expedient way to return to the Creator?  Are they so absorbed in their self to the point where they see others as their play things to get more for their self?  Is it simply a feeling of insecurity? In the words of Seinfeld, "What is the deal?"  What are your thoughts?

When you are in Service-To-Self, others are not considered - at least not beyond how they will be used for one's own power. Yes, others are seen as threats. Others are seen as all sorts of distorted images of the Creator. Others are not loved, they are disregarded for reasons...which justify the separation.
You want to know where they come from? From their own circumstances. Their own circumstances, which separates them from others. They are alone, in a sense, but they have ways of seeing the world, modes of thinking and ways of behaving, which support them through their orientation, strengthen their will, and keep them distant from the energy of the heart-chakra. It's not until something comes along that shatters their power source and scatters it, leaves them defenseless, and then a gentle hand is offered, that they might begin to walk the good path. Everything else keeps them where they are, in the negative orientation, including the way that they live their lives.
--
"It's not until something comes along and shatters their power source and scatters it, leaves them defenseless, and then a gentle hand is offered, that they might begin to walk the good path."
What I described there - I doubt that it's the only way to turn an individual from the negative path to the positive path. Maybe all it takes, at the essence of switching from negative to positive, is to learn to favor love.

[Infinite Unity]

Sts entities will have a myriad of different thoughts of other-selves. That is the genius of the creator, the pure unending creative power. There is no end to the s*** we can think up!

[Infinite Unity]

However I would agree that to the negative adept, at a certain point in evolving, the mindset in general is pawns. I think a more advanced, refined view point of the sts is that other selves or actually just mere expressions or extensions of themselves, and in general have no problem in willing them about. You are them and they are the highest one. So it is just so. Kind of like a mandate of heaven, just in the conscience form. Good point you should understand. None of us are evil. The negative adept believes he/she is doing what is right. walking the good path. Protecting you or bringing whoever they see as the highest, higher. No negative adept makes it to far just on the evil cartoons you draw them to be. They are made out of real tough stuff, just like you. There polarity/power is built on real experiences. In third density I think Negativity is going wild under the veil. I personally believe the veil here is to thick. The magic is to far out of sight. This is my personal opinion. Reminds of a game, we got it real good, however we are always changing and remodeling things.

[Nía]

Just an example I came across...

After seeing the pages aren't available at Google Books anymore, I just OCR'ed the story from the book, so here you can read it in full:

In the early '90s I was at a meeting in New York with several of the leading organizers of what was to be the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. A quiet, handsome, well-dressed man in his 40s took me aside afterward and introduced himself as the head of a major agribusiness corporation. He said, "I have something very important to tell you, and I will pay for the joy of telling it to you by offering you lunch."

At lunch the next day, he cut to the chase: "Rio will accomplish absolutely nothing because you do-gooders are so naive about the real world. Most of you that I have met truly believe that if the CEOs—like me, for instance—really knew what harm their corporate policies were doing, they would rend their Armani suits, fling out their Rolex-wreathed arms, burst into tears, and change. This is madness and shows how little you dare to know about what is really going on. And how can you even begin to be effective until you understand what you are up against?

"Let me tell you what you are up against. You are up against people like me. I know exactly what my company is doing and what devastation it is causing to thousands of lives. I should know; I am running it. I know and I do not care. I have decided I want a grand gold-plated lifestyle and the perks and jets and houses that go with it and I will do anything—bend the law, have people 'removed,' bribe local governmental officials, you name it—to get what I want. I know, too, that none of my shareholders care a rat's ass what I do or how I do it, providing I keep them swimming in cash.

"I said that you were up against people like me. That is true in one sense, but not in another. Because the truth is that I am in you too. A part of you is like me, just as ruthless and dedicated to your own selfish agenda. But you can dress up this ruthlessness as your 'mission' and never unmask the lust for power that might be lurking behind your righteous facade.

"What limits all so-called seekers and activists that I meet is that they both shy away from the full realization of the powers of the dark. The seekers I meet are, frankly, 'bliss bunnies,' about as useful in the real world as a rubber ball would be in a war. The activists I know enjoy denouncing others but aren't at all in the business of unmasking their own destructiveness, or the self-destructiveness of their dreary and banal self-righteousness.

"The bliss-bunnyhood of seekers and the offensive self-righteousness of activists make it very easy for people like me to control the world. I know too, by the way, that the dark forces I play with are playing with me. I am under no illusion that I will not someday have to pay the price. Don't the French say, 'The devil has no friends'? I'm willing to pay that price in return for the pleasure of being able to afford this restaurant, in return for being able to ring up the president of the United States in front of house-guests to impress them. Am I getting through to you?"

-`ღ´-

[Alex Zachary]

STS - The Xbox One kids that keep giving orgasms to your mom to your surprise.
STO - The Ps4 awesome dudes who wear sunglasses and steal your mothers hats as a silly cute thing to do.

The thing is, everybody is getting some kind of pleasure.

[GentleReckoning]

Just ignore the concept of STS or STO. Aim straight for 7th density. Give no fucks.

[Brian_Sanchez]

Well, I would say STS people look at another and this is what they think, " What can I gain from this person? " and they go on to think of ways to manipulate others if there is gain to be had from then. If they see it as worth the effort in the first place. Thus, STS may know other STS if they are both subjugating others, which they would think below them.

Then STO would think, " What can I help this person with?" Now, they may have this thought AND then go further and consider what the other individual thinks. Do they want help? What do they want to do? How can we work together? Thus, more expansive. I'll leave it there.

[Jade]

Here is, what I believe to be, a good article about how an STS-philosophized organization views and treats its employees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/techno....html?_r=2

[Zach]

The Negative Entity is not considerate of others. It is considerate of itself....this is a core configuration. This is different from an entity that is overall (incarnatively) seeking positively or is unpolarized who is confused/broken/angry/chaotic. I would describe polarized STS traits inhumane, "devilish", sociopathic yet intelligent and intellectual (as wisdom gains). I'll use the example of a polarized STS entity incarnate on Earth, say, in the form of a serial killer. Killing to this entity is a 'meditation', its enjoyable, exciting, arousing, energizing. This entity enjoys, very much, Power; the complete domination of other self is exciting and vivid - there are no feelings of guilt present. It would perceive its victims terror, despair, pain and truly enjoy it. A complete disconnect from empathy of any kind. This entity would have no moral compass telling it this is not "the right thing to do". It wants, it does; yet often in a calculated, intelligent way which may require great discipline and self restraint over a great period of time (polarizing). The only concern would be the concern for self...in this case lets say - not going to prison, making sure it executes properly, etc.

The true essence of the STS entity is, I feel, (naturally) shocking to most positive entitys in this density. Polarities are opposites, there are vast differences in the inner functions of the two polarities.
_____
As I see it, it is not necessary to kill/physically enslave in this density to polarize negatively but It seems violence is inevitable on this path.
_____
The negative entity has friends not to join hearts with, but to use and manipulate for whatever goal it has in mind. It can enjoy itself among other people, deceiving, manipulating and seeking self power in whatever form. The negative entity can also enjoy itself very much with other negative entities using their combined power to seek greater results and gain wisdom & power for Self and in the meantime attempting to deceive and manipulate each other in subtle ways along the way.

The STS entity truly believes in itself and what it does.

[upensmoke]

to my understanding Ra mentioned something like the STS views other selfs in two ways. There is the Elite, and the enslaved.

I believe the elite group is what ever the entity decides to be elite for example skin color, social-economic status, blood relations, physical characteristics and so on. after deciding what is considered elite, the sts entity then throws any otherself who doesn't fit its idea of elite, into the category of "to be enslaved"

I believe the STS enties see's all the otherselfs in the enslaved category as tools to be used to make the sts desires come true. be it money, fame, sex, drugs, death, or destruction, even world peace

[Minyatur]

I don't resonate at all with linking sadicism to the negative path. The idea of killing is only useful to the negative adept if it remains a challenge and will serve the purpose of further closing the heart until the adept is not bound by any hardships in doing the deed.

Had missed some replies and I think Infinite Unity completely nailed it. I'd add that as the negative adept is itself before being others (which are seen as portions of the self external to the individualizion that is incarnated), it sees no value in martyrizing itself to fit within worlds it won't be well within for the sake of others whom it knows to be itself. It won't deny the self for what also is the self and negative polarity is a tool for freedom.

The negative path is recognized by Intelligent Infinity because there are no distinctions between others and self, and the choice to not forsake the self because others number more ever is valid.

Infinite Unity's point that none of us are evil is crucial to anyone seeking to truthfully understand those on the negative path. It is never unlike yourself, it is a different state of balance of yourself.

[Immortalis Vigil]

As one who chooses to identify as STO, I can see other entities as sparks of the One Infinite Creator, as other versions of myself, as souls at various states of consciousness all seeking to reconnect with that creative infinity, etc.

I believe a fundamental, perhaps the most fundamental, chasm between STO and STS is the way in which others are viewed and their relationship to self.  When I try to fathom what STS sees when they view others, I have a difficult time - especially with the 4D and 5D.  Do they come completely from a place of fear where they see every other entity as a threat?  Do they have a destructive view towards creation and therefore try to get others to self-destruct?  Do they have a perverted or reverse view of human development and see destruction as the more expedient way to return to the Creator?  Are they so absorbed in their self to the point where they see others as their play things to get more for their self?  Is it simply a feeling of insecurity? In the words of Seinfeld, "What is the deal?"  What are your thoughts?

I walked the STS path for a time, so perhaps I can be of assistance in answering this question. I have not read the other responses, so I apologize if my response is redundant. STS requires the aggrandizement and service to the individual ego that makes up ones identity/perspective. Other-selves are loved and valued to the extent they serve the ego, but generally not valued for their own sake. Genuine love of other-self may arise, but such relationships are fraught with difficulty, as the STS paradigm is incompatible with genuine unconditional selfless love. 

One must remember that the individual who treads the STS path takes the path that is not. The ego that makes up the sense of self is an illusion enabled by our finite sensory perceptions. This puts the STS individual forever at odds with the creation and his fellow beings. Walls must be built between self and other-self to reinforce and strengthen the individual ego. The inevitable moments of empathy and love that arise between beings as a reminder that all is one, are an assault on the ego derived sense of self. Therefore, these moments are avoided, and the STS entity instead creates moments and relationships that highlight their differences. Preferably in a manner that flatters and reinforces the individual ego identity.

For the STS entity other-selves are a threat, because their mere existence challenges the concept of self as a separate atomized aspect of creation. But ironically, the other-self is also needed as a means of comparison, competition, and manipulation, to prove the self as separate and superior. It is a path founded in illusion and maintained with great irony. 

[anagogy]

What would it mean for something to be "evil"?

Or "good" for that matter?

I have mixed feelings about it.

It has become very popular in new age circles to say "there is no evil", but if there is no evil, there is no good either. But I can't really get on board with that, because there are certainly actions that I feel are more good, harmonious, and virtuous than other actions. Generally, those things I interpret as "good" are selfless in nature. And the same goes in reverse for things that I consider to be "evil", they are generally extremely selfish actions in nature. To speak in a simultaneously more specific and also more broad context, there are definitely actions which are more consonant with wholeness than other actions. Truly democratic actions, done for the greatest amount of people, are more in alignment with wholeness than those actions that cater to less (in a deliberate sense, I'm not talking about random occurrences or unforeseen consequences here).

So I guess, at the end of the day, while it may sound very zen to say there is no evil, and/or that no one is evil, I feel like it ultimately boils down to just a meaningless game of word substitution. To be negatively polarized is to be extremely selfish, to be positively polarized is to be extremely unselfish (in terms of intent/desire -- outcomes ultimately cannot be known and could be for better or for worse).

So I think the issue is more that people have emotionally charged feelings about the words "good" and "evil".

The problem, as I see it, is not that some people are good or evil, it is the notion that the creator frowns upon the choice of evil, or selfishness. It is perfectly valid choice of evolution in its nonjudgmental eyes. Evil and good is just a dichotomy of oppositely charged behaviors with regard to other selves, just as the words "negative polarity" and "positive polarity" are. And just like talking about polarity, they have no definition except in comparison to another relative action. So you can't look at any behavior and say that it is pure evil or pure good. You can only say, "it is more (or less) evil (or good) than another specified deliberate action."  There has to be a comparison to measure the charge of the act.

It could be argued that the words good and evil are imprecise. I'll grant you that. But really, so are "negatively polarized" and "positively polarized". But even so, I can't deny the obvious correlation.

So is there good and evil? In my opinion, there most certainly is.

[Minyatur]

What would it mean for something to be "evil"?

Or "good" for that matter?

I have mixed feelings about it.

It has become very popular in new age circles to say "there is no evil", but if there is no evil, there is no good either. But I can't really get on board with that, because there are certainly actions that I feel are more good, harmonious, and virtuous than other actions. Generally, those things I interpret as "good" are selfless in nature. And the same goes in reverse for things that I consider to be "evil", they are generally extremely selfish actions in nature. To speak in a simultaneously more specific and also more broad context, there are definitely actions which are more consonant with wholeness than other actions. Truly democratic actions, done for the greatest amount of people, are more in alignment with wholeness than those actions that cater to less (in a deliberate sense, I'm not talking about random occurrences or unforeseen consequences here).

So I guess, at the end of the day, while it may sound very zen to say there is no evil, and/or that no one is evil, I feel like it ultimately boils down to just a meaningless game of word substitution. To be negatively polarized is to be extremely selfish, to be positively polarized is to be extremely unselfish (in terms of intent/desire -- outcomes ultimately cannot be known and could be for better or for worse).

So I think the issue is more that people have emotionally charged feelings about the words "good" and "evil".

The problem, as I see it, is not that some people are good or evil, it is the notion that the creator frowns upon the choice of evil, or selfishness. It is perfectly valid choice of evolution in its nonjudgmental eyes. Evil and good is just a dichotomy of oppositely charged behaviors with regard to other selves, just as the words "negative polarity" and "positive polarity" are. And just like talking about polarity, they have no definition except in comparison to another relative action. So you can't look at any behavior and say that it is pure evil or pure good. You can only say, "it is more (or less) evil (or good) than another specified deliberate action."  There has to be a comparison to measure the charge of the act.

It could be argued that the words good and evil are imprecise. I'll grant you that. But really, so are "negatively polarized" and "positively polarized". But even so, I can't deny the obvious correlation.

So is there good and evil? In my opinion, there most certainly is.

Good and evil falls when you understand that the energy behind what you can consider the greatest good is the same energy that is behind what you would consider the greatest evil. The same will is focused unto different states of balance with different surrounding parameters, yet never is unlike any of the two poles.

The negative polarity is not extreme selfishness, it seems that way to the external eyes that understand not it's cause and effect, that perceives not that it contains the exact same seflessness that the positive polarity sheds light upon. In the same manner, the positive polarity contains the same selfishness that the negative polarity sheds light upon, except that it is expressed positively within paramaters that allow this expression.

Polarity already fufills the role of measure fo comparison of the charge of the act, good and evil are something other born from a non-understanding of these charges.

[Minyatur]

More than defining good and evil, polarity simply teaches that Love is both selfish and selfless in it's essence, it is both positive and negative in it's truthful expression.

The Mirror of illusions through which it is focused will define a definitive polarity, but Love is never any other thing than itself, it is neither good nor bad, it is what it is. In the same manner that others are never better or lesser than yourself, they ever are what you are in the truthful expression of yourself.

[Ashim]

What would it mean for something to be "evil"?



I think it may be the 'deathwish' that creates the bias. EVIL=LIVE.
Those who seek to forget and those who strive for total recall.
The ultimate complete destruction of the self being the goal of the negative. The rejection of the oversoul. The opportunity to harvest is recognised. 
This, I sense, is the source of the bias.
The only way to avoid going to hell would be to create a new universe. Destroy the self and you destroy all. All are one.
The incarnation in the following universe will take the form of an elemental. A single atom starting the journey again. 

The negative are the takers. The positives are givers.

The bias would seem to be expressed at some point in 2nd density as gender or male/female. Word root, MAL.

The genders become 'confused' along the way.

[anagogy]

Good and evil falls when you understand that the energy behind what you can consider the greatest good is the same energy that is behind what you would consider the greatest evil. The same will is focused unto different states of balance with different surrounding parameters, yet never is unlike any of the two poles.

I've never stated that good and evil don't come from the same place, but you can't say that a proton and an electron are precisely the same thing just because they can both be derived from a photon. In some abstract sense yes, practically speaking, no. I'm not saying one is more important, they are both parts of the photon.

The negative polarity is not extreme selfishness, it seems that way to the external eyes that understand not it's cause and effect, that perceives not that it contains the exact same seflessness that the positive polarity sheds light upon. In the same manner, the positive polarity contains the same selfishness that the negative polarity sheds light upon, except that it is expressed positively within paramaters that allow this expression.

Negative polarity actually does precisely mean extreme selfishness. That is exactly why it is called service to self rather than "that nebulously defined behavior I'm alluding to". Defining two polarities as service to self, and service to others as Ra did is literally labeling these polarities by their signature and chief defining characteristic itself. I'm honestly baffled that you don't accept this most basic of all premises.

Polarity already fufills the role of measure fo comparison of the charge of the act, good and evil are something other born from a non-understanding of these charges.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but like most I see you are just taking one word for a dichotomy of human behavior and replacing it with another word for a dichotomy of human behavior. So how is calling a behavior negatively polarized different from calling it evil?  At the end of the day, it is just meaningless word substitution because somebody doesn't like the word "evil". Good and evil *ARE* polarity, and always have been, since the dawn of mankind. I'm not saying one is more powerful than the other, but this constant repackaging I see of ancient spiritual concepts into quasi new age language designed to sound more enlightened than the status quo when in reality it is just the same old concept in new clothing is just plain tiresome in my opinion.

Hell, I could take a random survey of people on the street, put a list of some general STO actions, and some general STS actions on a white board and ask them to label them with their own subjective cultural understanding of what they believe "good" and "evil" mean, and I'm positive that in 90% of the examples they would equate them precisely as I have equated them. They would describe all the STS actions as stereotypically evil, and the STO actions as stereotypically good.

I have yet to hear how they are different. I personally think in most cases it is just an equal commingling of wishful thinking and special snowflake syndrome.

[ricdaw]

When I try to fathom what STS sees when they view others, I have a difficult time - especially with the 4D and 5D.  Do they come completely from a place of fear where they see every other entity as a threat?  Do they have a destructive view towards creation and therefore try to get others to self-destruct?  Do they have a perverted or reverse view of human development and see destruction as the more expedient way to return to the Creator?  Are they so absorbed in their self to the point where they see others as their play things to get more for their self?  Is it simply a feeling of insecurity? In the words of Seinfeld, "What is the deal?"  What are your thoughts?

The STO-biased person sees others as people like themselves, with hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions.  The STO-biased person values other people and respects their hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions.

The STS-biased person sees others as means to an end.  The STS-biased person does not respect the hopes, dreams, emotions and opinions of other persons.  The STS-biased person only values other people to the extent that other people are useful to the STS person.

STO vs STS plays out in our everyday interactions and lives all the time. 

I don't think it is useful to label STS people as "evil" or sociopaths, or conquerors, etc.  Because STS-bias is demonstrated daily in all its banality.

Drivers who cut off other drivers, curse other drivers, won't let people merge ahead of them?  STS-bias.  All those other drivers' wants, desires, motivations and personhoods are denied.  It's all about the STS driver and his/her desire to get somewhere.

The fiancé who marries for money, status, the good life.  STS-bias.

The person who seeks celebrity and attention for the sake of celebrity, attention and fame.  STS-bias.

Ra picked the obvious and extreme examples of the STS path when such a path was chosen consciously, but the overwhelming vast majority of the STS actions are evident to all of us daily in a thousand different selfish ways, all unconsciously made.

The STS-biased person does not see other people as equals to themselves.  That's all.  This simple dehumanizing assumption is all it takes.  We meet these people everyday.  They are just like us.   Sometimes, it even is us.