Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Chaotikmind]

And following this path unsuccessfully could very well result in psychic pathology, and perhaps some would call STS beings "sociopathic."

My intuition says me that's one of the very first trap of the STS path.
After that one come the desires to have power over otherselves, that one is harder to overcome since it can bring a lot of energy, you start to discover that one on the sts path act as a sink oppositely to radiating.(providing you're consciously on a path), that can be of a great help to eventually access greater awareness and/or psychic power, and possibly an explanation why some entity graduate from that way of behaving.

If you go deep in the first part and get out of it, (i speak regardly of my personal experience here) deep quietness follow, the mind leaved most fears and rare are the things that can be disturbing.

That is, mental weakness is simply not compatible with that path as i see it.

[Steppingfeet]

I read the entirety of this thread a few weeks ago and set aside some excerpts I wanted to comment upon or offer an excerpt from TLoO books.

Chaotikmind wrote:

The interresting thing here is the text written on that card which roughly says : You are far on the path and thus you feel separated from the others, but this is an illusion because all is one.

RESPONSE:Session #80

QUESTIONER: Could I say, then, that implicit in the process of becoming adept is the seeming polarization towards service to self because the adept becomes disassociated with many of his kind?

RA: I am Ra. This is likely to occur. The apparent happening is disassociation whether the truth is service to self and thus true disassociation from other-selves or service-to-others and thus true association with the heart of all other-selves and disassociation only from the illusory husks which prevent the adept from correctly perceiving the self and other-self as one.

Chaotikmind wrote:

We could say the same for someone who is more STO , who is nice with ppl etc etc, maybe he is a nice person , but maybe he is still not on a spiritual path.

RESPONSE:Session #82

Prior to the veiling process the measurement would be that of an entity walking up a set of your stairs, each of which was imbued with a certain quality of light. The stair upon which an entity stopped would be either third-density light or fourth-density light. Between the two stairs lies the threshold. To cross that threshold is difficult. There is resistance at the edge, shall we say, of each density. The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density. Those entities which do not do their homework, be they ever so amiable, shall not cross. It was this situation which faced the Logoi prior to the veiling process being introduced into the experiential continuum of third density.

3D sunset wrote:

In summary, I think that those things we do not understand, we are more likely to fear. I also believe that many quotes from Q'uo and Ra have resulted in some amount of fear of STS on the part of STO entities. I felt it myself, for example, when reading about the possibility of Carla being trapped in STS time/space and needing to incarnate and advance in STS space/time due to the trickery of an STS entity. Although Ra is clear that "all would have worked out well in the end", did it not create in you the slightest feelings of fear or anger for their wanting to be so deceptive? It did with me, and thus began my quest to better understand STS, and lose my fear and anger.

My response: any reaction of fear when reading of the activities of service to self entities, I would offer, is a creation of the reader's, not the material's. In other words, I would not assign responsibility to the material itself for producing any fear in your heart. Which is not to say that fear is not a legitimate and understandable reaction, because being misplaced in negative time/space, from my standpoint as a positive entity, is just about the worse possible scenario I could imagine.

In my own limited studies, Ra, and to a lesser but not less profound extent, Q’uo, speaks rather objectively about the service to self path. Ra especially chooses very precise words so as to be as objective, technical, and emotionally neutral as possible, eliminating to the fullest possible extent of our language as much distortion as can be eliminated. (Except in the often overlooked excerpt when Ra says, "Entities of the service to self polarity? What mind/body/spirit complex invited these buttwads to the party?")

[Monica]

In my own limited studies, Ra, and to a lesser but not less profound extent, Q’uo, speaks rather objectively about the service to self path. Ra especially chooses very precise words so as to be as objective, technical, and emotionally neutral as possible, eliminating to the fullest possible extent of our language as much distortion as can be eliminated. (Except in the often overlooked excerpt when Ra says, "Entities of the service to self polarity? What mind/body/spirit complex invited these buttwads to the party?")

HUH??? When did Ra say THAT? :-/

[ayadew]

As I've understood it, if the questioner asked a STS question the answer would also be from the negative side from Ra, thus deceptive etc. But I've never heard that excerpt GLB speaks of, unless he is joking lol.

[3D Sunset]

My response: any reaction of fear when reading of the activities of service to self entities, I would offer, is a creation of the reader's, not the material's. In other words, I would not assign responsibility to the material itself for producing any fear in your heart. Which is not to say that fear is not a legitimate and understandable reaction, because being misplaced in negative time/space, from my standpoint as a positive entity, is just about the worse possible scenario I could imagine.

Hi Gary, yes that was actually my point. I had thought that I had sufficient love and light for the STS philosophy, but when I read this passage in TLOO I realized that the thought of being tricked into becoming trapped and forced to learn the ways of my polar opposite stirred in me a set of feelings and responses that I had not expected, and did not appreciate from myself.

Upon further contemplation of this, I realized that the STS greeter was simply following his own path with the same vim and vigor that I (at least in my distorted 3D mind) am following STO. But more than anything I realized that I did not sufficiently understand this path to properly balance the feelings of fear, anger and betrayal that the passage evoked with the appropriate weight of love, compassion and acceptance.

Thus, as I said, began my quest to better understand and accept the other path as a fully legitimate path to unity. I believe that this thread has provided me excellent mental fodder to advance this understanding, and also to better understand some of the distortions inherent in STO. As with all things in life I've found that through better understanding another entity's position, I can more fully accept their differences as well as better clarifying my own position. Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.

Finally, I'd like to thank you, Carla and the other moderators for your thoughtful investigation and consideration of how to address the concerns about this thread, rather than following the reflex reaction of simply expunging it.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Monica]

As I've understood it, if the questioner asked a STS question the answer would also be from the negative side from Ra, thus deceptive etc. But I've never heard that excerpt GLB speaks of, unless he is joking lol.

I'm pretty sure he was joking...as was I.

[Phoenix]

I just want to add my two cents saying that I think we are all getting a little bit bent out of shape over someone who may or may not be STS orientated.

Firstly, the STS path involves grounding. The root chakra being the same in both polarities entities.

Secondly, the STS path is one that involves complete lack of green or blue ray, meaning that they genuinly don't realize that they are not doing a great deal of good. For instance, Al Capone, seeing himself as a public benefactor etc. etc. Most criminals, even the worst, had some reason to believe they were actually good people.

Thirdly, STS entities, like Genghis Khan who was well known for being a viruous and honourable leader, sociopaths don't talk about STS, they come across, like the sociopath, as the most nice and honourable STO entites.

In answer to the original question. I can't agree that STS is not synonomous with evil. Evil is the world Live in reverse and death is clearly a staple of the STS diet. Plus Ra stating the STS picnic being darkness and the misery of other selves etc.

[Steppingfeet]

Hi 3D Sunset, sorry if I had misunderstood the thrust of your post! I shall be more careful in this response.

Hi Gary, yes that was actually my point. I had thought that I had sufficient love and light for the STS philosophy...

By "sufficient love and light for the STS philosphy", do you mean the philosophy in the abstract, i.e.: absorbing the Creator's energy, linking red/orange/yellow and blue for contact with intelligent infinity, creating the potential for metaphysical work, etc., or do you mean sufficient love and light for the practitioners and advocates of service to self philosophy?

I ask because, as I ponder STS philosophy on a philosophical level, relaxed and curled up in a chair with a LOO book in hand, I can appreciate service to self in the abstract.

On the level of practical experience, however, when I encounter (what I consider to be) a service to self entity in the flesh, or service to self action, or learn of yet another service to self CEO or lawyer or corporation or politician, I find striking shortcomings in my love for the service to self path. (Which is, yes, a mirror showing to me reflections of myself which I have yet to accept and embrace.)

Upon further contemplation of this, I realized that the STS greeter was simply following his own path with the same vim and vigor that I (at least in my distorted 3D mind) am following STO.

I believe that what you describe of your thought process is indeed a genuine movement in the direction of compassion. To place oneself in the shoes of another and find a corresponding likeness between self and other is to begin to open the heart to a viewpoint which transcends the personal self. That is, to begin to find compassion.

But more than anything I realized that I did not sufficiently understand this path to properly balance the feelings of fear, anger and betrayal that the passage evoked with the appropriate weight of love, compassion and acceptance.

Though I believe reactions like fear, anger, and betrayal have their place and time, I agree with you in theory (now experiential practice is a whole other matter!) concerning the ascendancy of ideals such as love, compassion, and acceptance.

Some years back I was mired in my own interpersonal drama with an individual who I considered to be of mixed polarity. I had an "aha" moment when I realized that to become angry and defensive in response to this individual's actions was to play into this individual's hands. Though I had difficulty putting the "aha" into practice, because I still continued to become upset, I began to conceive of the possibility of rising above the drama by being non-reactive and giving only love in response.

On the metaphysical level, as we deal with discarnate negative entities, I believe that reactions such as you had - fear, anger, betrayal - serve to deliver us into the hands of the "loyal opposition". Now, to simply experience these energies of fear and anger that spontaneously arise within us with a view towards compassion, balance, and transcendence, is helpful, I believe. To, on the other hand, actively engage and indulge in heart-absent energies is to play the game of the negative entity, one which we, as positive entities, cannot win.

The "winning", so to speak, is done in moving in the direction which you describe, towards love, compassion, and acceptance. In terms of the metaphysical realm, this at once is our protection and means for own spiritual evolution.

As with all things in life I've found that through better understanding another entity's position, I can more fully accept their differences as well as better clarifying my own position. Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.

Right on. This is why I believe that the word "understanding" is associated with the word "love" in the LOO books when Ra refers to the fourth density as the density of love or understanding. (I think Ra says "or" between love and understanding. Perhaps they use the word "and".)

The more deeply we can understand another entity on their own terms - i.e., what forces made them who they are, the pain and the suffering experienced during their journey - the more effortlessly we will be able to open our hearts to them, which is the beginning of the movement towards becoming one with that which was formerly misunderstood and perceived as separate.

Finally, I'd like to thank you, Carla and the other moderators for your thoughtful investigation and consideration of how to address the concerns about this thread, rather than following the reflex reaction of simply expunging it.

Thank you for your kind thought! Steve, Monica, Carla, and I had some material to chew over, but in the process we had a wonderful opportunity to work together in harmony in order to preserve the awesomeness that is this forum. : )

Love and Light,
Gary

PS: Ayadew, Monica and I were indeed both joking. I can assure you that Ra never, ever used the term "butwad" in reference to service to self entities... or in any other form.

[ayadew]

This is a very interesting and controversial thread. I am grateful that it has not been removed. Thank you all for your contributions.

3D Sunset: Walking the STS path was very important for me to gain understanding of it's side, I do not recommend you to do it, but it's a valid path nonetheless.

Bring4th_GLB: I was quite perplexed, perhaps my respect of Ra is too great to be able to joke about them (understanding a joke included)!

Peace and harmony, my dear friends

[3D Sunset]

3D Sunset: Walking the STS path was very important for me to gain understanding of it's side, I do not recommend you to do it, but it's a valid path nonetheless.

Thanks for the suggestion, my friend, but rest assured that I have no intention of walking the path. I am, however, grateful for the opportunity this thread has given me to vacariously experience some of the thoughts, feelings and motivations experienced by others that have/do, or perhaps just think they have/do (to Phoenix's point, I believe that it all comes from the same place either way).

My goal is to better understand STS entitiies through study and contemplation, not to become one. I believe that through this study, I can become (indeed am becoming) more accepting of the unique Love of the One Creator that they bring to the world.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[AppleSeed]

As with all things in life I've found that through better understanding another entity's position, I can more fully accept their differences as well as better clarifying my own position. Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.

Right on. This is why I believe that the word "understanding" is associated with the word "love" in the LOO books when Ra refers to the fourth density as the density of love or understanding. (I think Ra says "or" between love and understanding. Perhaps they use the word "and".)

The more deeply we can understand another entity on their own terms - i.e., what forces made them who they are, the pain and the suffering experienced during their journey - the more effortlessly we will be able to open our hearts to them, which is the beginning of the movement towards becoming one with that which was formerly misunderstood and perceived as separate.

Hmmm.. Trying to understand this! Unfortunately I think the meaning of the word "understanding" will depend on, er, the level of understanding of the individual. And merriam-webster is no help there... Even less with "butwad", btw ;-)

Nevertheless, I don't think understanding is a prerequisite for compassion. It's good to try to understand, and to push the limits of understanding, but the understanding will come within the self, with the "other" as mirror. Understanding the "other" is more the work of the "other", until reaching a point of unity. Regardless of path. Unconditional love needs no understanding, as far as I, um, understand it.

But hey, open communication is a great thing, and this thread has definitely helped me towards some better understanding, and acceptance of the things that I still don't get.

[Quantum]

I have been following this thread, on and off, with mixed feeling. I would offer that it would seem that many on the intended STO path have difficulty with certain attitudes as regards what we define love to be, most particularly as regards the courage to simply and graciously muster the courage to be in dissent. I conjecture that in some manner dissent seems as though viewed as being discordant, which in turn is perceived to be less than the love that STO is intended or viewed as. I respectfully disagree. Jesus was discordant and was a dissenter and yet represented an embodiment of love. So too did Mahatma Gandhi. So too did Martin Luther King. There are many other examples. May one love enough to be in dissonance to a popular theme being played?

Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may. It seems to serve no practical ground for a philosophy spoken to or agreed to if it can not be applied directly into one's life pragmatically. To what purpose, and for what? Certainly not to catalyze. We are speaking then in the academic only and for no other purpose. In other words, it serves no purpose. It is merely for academic and/or intellectual entertainment. For example, speaking at length to the STS path as an armchair philosophy, as though a viable path is an easy task for a perceived STO oriented individual academically. But in practice, well, with certainty that would be an altogether different matter if faced with it directly. Were indeed one faced with the irrational madman, or worse, the composed STS'er in full blooming power of himself, either of who may hold a loved one at bay, or worse at personal risk at the threat of death, would be no time for armchair philosophizing. It would require an extreme time for action. As such, all armchair philosophizing on the viability of the STS path would flee as quickly out the window as would the wind in a maelstrom of chaos, pandemonium and fear that it would create. To the converse, such a case could never be made by an opposite example of anything truly loving by an act of STO love, this by either an STO'er or indeed even an STS'er, either acting as participant or observer.

"Do you love fully", asked the Master. "Yes", replied the student enthusiastically. "Do you love with all of your heart", asked the Master once more, but more fervently and with greater passion. "Yes, yes, yes", replied the student with even more fervor and even more passion. "Do you love so much young student, that you would kill a victimizer if absolutely need be to defend an innocent child as victim?"

Defending the STS path through arm chair philosophy by suggesting that it is largely misunderstood, and therefore devoid of evil, bends the truth as though patently preposterous to what it in fact is. The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies? Did the Ra teachings ever speak to the STS path by example as one that was largely misunderstood or one that was devoid of evil? In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding. I dare say that the Ra readings were self evident, even as sterile of an approach as might have been intended by Ra. These three gentleman were successful in STS. Can we argue they were not evil? Is it not sociopathic to be evil as has been repeatedly argued against on this thread? Well, I suppose from one sociopath's definition to another the answer might be no. But I dare say that from total honesty, and a well grounded STO individual's perspective, the answer in response would be a self evident resounding yes. Anything less than this response would be irrational or disingenuous.

Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not. Does this sound like STS is not clearly understood to be exactly what we feel it is? And if this is so in the higher realms, and with greater intensity, what would lead us to believe that it is not exactly so in 3D? Is there a confusion here that is missed? A child would see it for what it is and simply speak the truth. Why should we not be as open and as innocently honest? We know what we know, but seemingly allow ourselves to be distracted, perhaps solely out of what may be civility and kindness and the willingness to engage as a result.

Let us turn not to those on the self proclaimed STS path for definition, or even to those that were but now have found their way back. Let us instead simply keep our eye focused on the reason we are here, to study what the LOO and Ra teaches. Need we have opinion verses source light our way?

Very plainly Ra states what STS is:

Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is the free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

Now, this is source. Is there a dispute? Intended pain, willed difficulty, purposefully caused suffering of others. As a student of the LOO, I am quite happy to "open" myself, as it were, to the lovingness that Ra and Quo offer. I am however neither discordant, nor am I in dissonance should I choose to "not to open myself" to the self professed students on the STS path attempting either innocently or purposefully to subvert what is otherwise obvious in definition by Ra, as much as in example, as much as I "am not open" to be dissuaded by admittedly self professed recently converted students to the STO path who used to be STS, although I do applaud them whole heartily. I am being honest, as much as I am being humble, as much as I am being discerning, as much as I am offering my love to both through these simple truths shined into the dark that even a child would offer had he the words or thought processes to express it so.

Agreement is not a prerequisite for understanding.

Agreed. To the converse however, understanding is an absolute prerequisite to be in full grounded and empowered disagreement. Beware of the man in full knowledge and in full power who is capable of being in disagreement, for he has the power to either change the world for the better...or the worse.

This is why I believe that the word "understanding" is associated with the word "love" in the LOO books when Ra refers to the fourth density as the density of love or understanding.

I would once again, with great respect, disagree. Let us remember that understanding and love are entirely mutually exclusive as seemingly intended by the STO definition as given above, and as such are not synonymous, this as evidenced by the fact that the Density of Understanding is every bit the domain of 4D negative STS as well. Thus is understanding not reserved exclusively as the domain of love "by way of the STO definition" as is seemingly indicated. As stated above, beware of the man in full understanding and knowledge and as such operating in full power, for such a man may be a man to be reckoned with, as history and the nightly news demonstrate each eveining.

Unconditional love needs no understanding, as far as I, um, understand it.

Here is a quote that may be truer than all, dear Appleseed. Unconditional love may simply accept in and through all that it is, and as such may resolve, unify, and dissolve all in its wake. In this one sentiment expressed by you am I reminded of the Christian adage that in order to love the sinner, one needn't love the sin.

Let us keep our eye on the ball, and stay forever focused on what our knower already knows.

Q

[Monica]

Quantum, thank you for speaking up! You have made many important points that I agree wholeheartedly with.

I think many of us are so concerned with being loving that we might sometimes get wishy-washy.

Religious people often tend to believe in absolute truth and some even take it to the degree of shunning what we call political correctness. In our efforts to distance ourselves from such rigid and judgmental thinking, perhaps we have indeed gone too far in the other direction, and have lost conviction about those things that are truly heinous and clearly of the STS path.

I am reminded of the high school students who were discussing Hitler and said "Well I personally don't agree with what he did, but who am I to say he was wrong?" or, to put it more bluntly "Maybe killing others is right for some people."

Say, what?

I think it's important to remember that, even though, ultimately, we ARE all ONE, at this juncture our task is to define our path...to clearly state "I am this, not that." Even Q'uo has stated "We are not those...we are of the radiant path."

Did anyone notice that? Here is Q'UO saying "We are not those." How can this be, when Q'uo IS those? Isn't this a contradiction? (Ah, but the Law of One is all about the resolution of paradox, eh?) If we are all One, then we are ALL 'those,' right?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the true sense.

Yes, in the sense of recognizing how we all mirror to one another.

Yes, in terms of loving other-selves, even those of the dark and bloody path.

But NO, in terms of the purpose of this incarnation: The Choice.

For while in 3-D, our task is to choose.

In order to choose, we must be 'not that'...at least temporarily.

Why try to gloss over the obvious?

Why try so hard to be ONE that we forget about THE CHOICE?

And yet, here is the paradox:

The very act of choosing the STO path, which entails being 'NOT' STS, stipulates that we see STS as ourselves, as catalyst. And love them. Thus, recognize our Oneness.

But...not identify with them in the sense of our choice of path.

Because, for the time being anyway, we are 'not that.' In order to choose something, there must be something else that we are not choosing, and therefore are rejecting. That is inherent to choice.

So no, it's not ok to be a mass murderer. Not for those on the STO path, anyway. I think it's not only ok, but important to look at that mass murderer, and unabashedly affirm that no, I am not that...while simultaneously and paradoxically realizing that the darkness in that entity mirrors a darkness in ourselves, even if it's only a tiny sliver...and love and embrace that tiny sliver until it is transformed into glorious LIGHT...this is the paradox...we must love that darkness, for that is the only way to shine light into it and thus dispel the darkness...for isn't that the whole point? Isn't that how the darkness serves the Creator, by giving us an opportunity to love? What a gift! And yet, we must do this, while remaining firm in our conviction that, though we are One with that and mirrored by that, we do not choose that.. we are 'not that.' We are not of that bloody path but of the radiant path.

Please forgive the rambling. I'm not sure if I've managed to convey what I'm trying to say here.

[ayadew]

Quantum: I highly appreciate your wordings and reasoning. I believe you have contributed to many people's growth both as individuals and group mentality.

In truth, I have done much "armchair philosophy", even here. But in many ways and even though it can be labeled as 'wasted time', it has been vital to my spiritual development. If there were no mistakes, there would be no room for growth. (Or as Ra words it "were there no potential for misunderstanding there would be no experience".)
This 'misunderstanding' is also relevant in self to self conversation, ie silent reasoning in your own mind. By experiencing many different possibilities you have higher probability of reaching things that resonate and is meaningful for your individual development.
So one can conclude that there are no mistakes, or that the concept of mistakes has little meaning, and that there is no optimal path.

In my subjective experience, not many of the intellectual concepts of Law of One has been useful for my spiritual development (though I must admit that I like to ponder these as food for thought). The only practical, useful effect I've experienced is an increase in openness of myself to possibilities, this includes love and harmony.

[Quantum]

Quantum: I highly appreciate your wordings and reasoning. I believe you have contributed to many people's growth both as individuals and group mentality.

In truth, I have done much "armchair philosophy", even here. But in many ways and even though it can be labeled as 'wasted time', it has been vital to my spiritual development. If there were no mistakes, there would be no room for growth. (Or as Ra words it "were there no potential for misunderstanding there would be no experience".)
This 'misunderstanding' is also relevant in self to self conversation, ie silent reasoning in your own mind. By experiencing many different possibilities you have higher probability of reaching things that resonate and is meaningful for your individual development.
So one can conclude that there are no mistakes, or that the concept of mistakes has little meaning, and that there is no optimal path.

In my subjective experience, not many of the intellectual concepts of Law of One has been useful for my spiritual development (though I must admit that I like to ponder these as food for thought). The only practical, useful effect I've experienced is an increase in openness of myself to possibilities, this includes love and harmony.

Hello ayadew. Many thanks for your contributions as well my friend. I delight in the many postings you too have had to share. Please allow me to clarify a sentiment if I may. I in no way believe that general philosophizing is a waste of time, as much as I do that armchair philosophizing is. Yes, it can be intellectually interesting, as in intellectually entertaining, but hardly may be viewed as pragmatic, or with purpose if simply banal and containing no charge or catalyst for simply having gone through the exercise. The same may be said of of an armchair philosophy wherein one has no stake in the outcome. The understanding between the two forms of philosophy of a pragmatic philosophy vs an armchair philosophy are therefore extremely distinct, one from the other. Philosophy in general, or to be more precise, specifically, that has at it's core as principle the stated intent to improve the condition of man on the whole, or the condition of a man's life in particular, is a philosophy worth the pragmatic endeavor of putting to practice. In this respect I believe in fact we may be very much on the same page in your sentiment above that generally philosophy is vital to one's growth "by experiencing many possibilities" and as such in this context is not one that is armchair philosophizing at all.

At it's most innocent, armchair philosophizing may be viewed as nothing more than the stagnant neutrality of engaging in banal conversations that have no real relevance or catalyst to anything, much less the empowerment to change the lot of man vs one's condition. To the other extreme, armchair philosophizing at it's worst may lend itself to the blurring or subverting, either innocently or with purpose, an intended message, this by nothing more than engaging in the many "what if's" which in fact become self contradictory to the message intended.

Let us now be directly pragmatic and to the point by way of example as much as opinion, this to the very thread to which we speak: Biased View of STS. Ra has stated that the STS path delights in the willful causation of pain and suffering to others. We may bandy many definitions about as to what word or words may best describe this intent, but can we not simply be in agreement that one such word as a descriptor might in fact be the word Evil? The legalistic determinant in a court of law in any land has it that evil is in a very real and strong sense one that involves a premeditated act. Willful is synonymous to premeditated, not by inference, but by definition. The willful causation of pain and suffering to others by any definition, being a premeditated one, then is evil. Would anyone truly dispute this sound closed logic?

Now, if we can, perhaps you see my point? It becomes then armchair philosophy to attempt to deconstruct the Ra message by suggesting that the STS path is one that is 'largely misunderstood' by suggesting that STS is not part and parcel to the word evil, or as such not part of this definition as given, intended, or understood. Let us not be offended by words or their definition as if though they may cause us embarrassment or offend our sensibilities. Words may have power. We live in our words, in as much as without them we have no thought (for the moment). But a word has no more power than we give it. Perhaps because we as STO may in fact be so sensitive, we instead meander about without conviction too oft and thereby allow ourselves to be distracted, or blurred, or led down garden paths which end in a pit verses a view. This indeed may be one of the dangers of the STO path, as much as in intellectualism for the sake of intellectualism itself, either on the one hand of being either so sensitive, or on the other of being so heady, that both at their worst may allow one to conjecture and speculate that it might just be worth the effort of venturing down such a path for no other reason than from the STO perspective that it was lovingly put out out there by a brother, albeit one on a self professed STS path, or one so heady intellectual that the intellectual may be nothing more than sterile curious regardless of outcome or consequence just for the sake of detached study. Such a thread as Biased View of STS may innocuously then as a result morph into an understanding that STS is somehow misunderstood to be something else than it is, evil, and as such that we mustn't call it evil, or worse that the willful causation of pain and suffering to others isn't evil at all. It's just largely misunderstood and therefore there exists a biased view towards it. OK, if even but for a moment, let us entertain it with one simple child like question. What then is it if it is not evil to willfully cause pain and suffering to others, this totally irrespective to the point that it may be a viable path?

Let us speak plainly then to the elephant directly under the carpet if we may, i.e. "Evil is a viable path".

There. It is said. Now the truth is out there and not obscured, such that it is "not not" what it is (forgive the double negative..but it makes a point). This is pragmatism. This is unblurred, simple, unconfused, and to the point, such that we may now engage in a much more constructive conversation should we chose, and as a consequence explore the many possibilities intellectually such that a true understanding and perhaps even catalyst may be gained as a result. Now it is no longer banal or in the domain of neutral armchair philosophizing by attempting to clean it up so much that it does not offend our sensibilities resulting in as consequence in the hope of removing it from what it in fact is. Evil.

Suggesting that Satanists are less than true STS, or that they are puny, or that so too are sociopaths, this as exactly posted earlier, due to in fact both of them being "out there in the world" as opposed to remaining detached in an inner world "not acting out" is perhaps not as much STS as it may be any number of things ranging from reclusive to antisocial. But it is not the definition of STS. STS, as given by Ra, causes harm, pain, and suffering in the world and as much to their brothers for it, as opposed to remaining in their inner sanctums, not creating karma, but believing instead they are accumulating power for it. Now, far be it for me to say. Perhaps they are? But this is not what Ra says. Suggesting that this is a higher path of STS negates the fact that few graduates of STS harvest such as Genghis Khan or Rasputin did so by choosing to remain at home in sterile isolation in their caves, but in fact did so by getting out there and mixing it up, much to the pain and detriment of others, their given point and purpose.

What then is karma to the negative entity? And if the negative entity accumulates such a thing as karma, how does the negative entity alleviate karma?

Answer: We are those of Q’uo, my brother. To answer that query we must put you into the negative mindset. To the negative mindset, karma is delicious. The building up of it is delicious. There is joy in creating more karma because this is the by-product of control over others and manipulation of others. Consequently, there is no attempt to alleviate karma in the service-to-self path, but only to hone the edge of rage and anger until it is ever more penetrating and ever more effective.

And so, to close, it becomes armchair philosophy and banal intellectualism to engage in an antithesis of definition just for the sake of doing so by denying what is altogether otherwise all too obvious. The real question becomes not "do we wish to redefine the definition of evil aka STS" as much as "do we wish to engage in deconstructing the message of Ra". I am not at all a fundamentalist to any though construct, belief, religion, or philosophy in any manner, and am even quite willing to question the Ra message, if this is what we chose to do. But to what end given our stated purpose is to understand more the teachings as opposed to deconstructing them? Should we engage in this exercise I would no doubt assume the position of arguing for the Ra teachings as opposed to against. But lets be cognizant of the fact that this is what we are venturing into, verses being so distracted that we engage in it unawares.

I offer these considerations as my humble contribution in the hope it may be perceived as adding to an honesty to this thread which IMHO may otherwise continue remaining blurred, or grow to become more so.

Quantum, thank you for speaking up! You have made many important points that I agree wholeheartedly with.
....I think many of us are so concerned with being loving that we might sometimes get wishy-washy.... perhaps we have indeed gone too far in the other direction, and have lost conviction about those things that are truly heinous and clearly of the STS path.....I think it's important to remember that, even though, ultimately, we ARE all ONE, at this juncture our task is to define our path...to clearly state "I am this, not that." Even Q'uo has stated "We are not those...we are of the radiant path."...Did anyone notice that? Here is Q'UO saying "We are not those."... Isn't this a contradiction? .....If we are all One, then we are ALL 'those,' right?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the true sense.


But NO, in terms of the purpose of this incarnation: The Choice.

Ditto Ditto Ditto Dear Monica. Scripture put it as well as any source wherein it is stated, and I paraphrase, "The choice between good and evil is put before thee. Choose thou."

Q

[3D Sunset]

Let me briefly state the purpose I have pursued in my postings on this thread. First, please consider the following quote or Ra:

Questioner: If an entity wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there “best ways” of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Note, my friends, that Ra does not state "the ability to open the self to other STO entities", or "to unpolarized entities", but "to the other-self without hesitation". I have pondered this quote many times, and as I noted earlier, I found that I was not able to do this consistently, especially when it came to those other-selves that exhibited behaviors which I found distasteful, disagreeable or outright repugnant. Please be clear that it is not the other-selves that I find disagreeable, for all are the One Infinite Creator. It is rather their actions, which I do not condone.

Through my own inner process (i.e. the self knowledge), which was supported by discussions on this thread, I have observed a marked progress in this ability in myself. Personally, I have found that avoiding emotionally charged and socially judgmental words such as evil, have made it much easier for me to make progress on these lines. I still have far to go, and much, I'm sure, to learn.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my quest to improve this ability of opening of self without hesitation, but it is one I have chosen of free will, and is agreeable to me.

Ra has stated that the STS path delights in the willful causation of pain and suffering to others.

I suggest, that the basis of your statement above is the full quote of Ra that follows. Please note, that even in the metaphor that follows, certain of your assertions are missing, most notably the "willful causation" of the pain, difficulty and sufferings. Just as we do not "wish to engage in deconstructing the message of Ra", so too, do we not wish to biasedly embellish upon it.

Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

Using this metaphor as our foundation of Ra's perspective on STS, is, I suggest, equivalent to saying that "Ra states that STO love to make food and play games." Neither of which is entirely true, but both of which are metaphorically implied, and both of which miss the real point about what STO is.

Let me suggest that the following are, I think more accurate quotes of Ra regarding the nature of Service to Self, and but two of which I can find numerous, similar assessments:

The philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self.

I for one, am willing to concede, that I still have a biased view of STS, as witnessed by my continued, albeit attenuated, difficulty to "open the self to the other-self without hesitation", for what else could be the cause of such hesitation, than a bias? I leave it to each to examine within themselves if they harbor a similarly biased view of STS. For this was, I believe ChaoticMind's original point in starting the thread. Not that LOO had a biased view of STS, but rather that many on the forum did.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

Let me briefly state the purpose I have pursued in my postings on this thread. First, please consider the following quote or Ra:
[quote='Ra, Book I, Session 17']
Questioner: If an entity wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there “best ways” of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Note, my friends, that Ra does not state "the ability to open the self to other STO entities", or "to unpolarized entities", but "to the other-self without hesitation".

Hello again dear friend 3D. It is always enjoyable to exchange and play in thought with you. To that end, in reference to your Ra quote above I would offer that just as the sun shines on all man, I would agree that love is love is love, and as result and consequence radiated to all. No one is suggesting in any form that we not love our STS brother? This would be contrary and antithesis to the STO path. I am therefor missing your point? If I may, as previously offered by a Christian adage, I offer again, "I may love the sinner, but I certainly needn't in any manner love the sin." There is no fine distinction between the two?

Please be clear that it is not the other-selves that I find disagreeable, for all are the One Infinite Creator. It is rather their actions, which I do not condone.

As you can see here by your statement, as much as my intent, we are in more agreement than not? We both still love them (STS) irrespective. Agreed?

Personally, I have found that avoiding emotionally charged and socially judgmental words such as evil, have made it much easier for me to make progress on these lines. I still have far to go, and much, I'm sure, to learn.

Avoiding the term is one thing, as you have suggested above, and for yourself rightly so perhaps. Given you choose to avoid the term, it is fair to say that it is not you that suggested that STS is not evil. It was however previously stated nonetheless and as such makes it fair fodder to respond to. For myself, words have no power other than the choice we make to give them such. I am therefor quite OK with the word evil, as it in fact and indeed does carry an emotional charge to it. I am as a result in humble disagreement that STS is not synonymous to evil.

I have offered as evidential proof the challenge to anyone that may name an STS graduate into 4D that would not in fact be defined as evil, such as is the case in the examples offered by Ra of Genghis Khan or Rasputin? Herein lies my previous point to pragmatism. It is what it is irrespective of how we wish to dress it up or dress it down.

[quote='Quantum'] Ra has stated that the STS path delights in the willful causation of pain and suffering to others.

I suggest, that the basis of your statement above is the full quote of Ra that follows. Please note, that even in the metaphor that follows, certain of your assertions are missing, most notably the "willful causation" of the pain, difficulty and sufferings. Just as we do not "wish to engage in deconstructing the message of Ra", so too, do we not wish to biasedly embellish upon it.
[quote='Ra, Book I, Session 19']
Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

I respectfully and humbly disagree. I see no embellishment nor deconstruction to the intended meaning in my message, nor a bias implied. Their (STS) picnic being "suffering of others" seems clear enough. I admit I was indeed paraphrasing. But we would quibble over the minutia of commas or words were we not to agree that the delicious picnic of the night being the "suffering of others" were neither willful nor premeditated. May we then not agree that in delighting "in the suffering of others" lies therein also the delight in their pain and difficulty as consequence? What else would be the point?

You continue your point with:

The philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self.

I would suggest that this quote only strengthens my point, not one that lessens it? White Magic is the assistance to and for others, whereas Black Magic is the manipulation of others. Both forms of magic I would offer extend not only to high magic of the mystical nature, but to as simply the simple man next door giving (STO) or taking (STS). Using my analogy of the two, what else is Black Magic if not the manipulation of another self, whether it be deep magic, or simply the simple act of a simple minded and hearted STO or STS? Now, it may be said that we all practice both in greater or lesser varying degrees given we are of mixed polarity and not yet pure. We would however enter into the same territory and same conversation were we to suggest that the willful manipulation of others as being a more refined or cleaned up version of the very same energy we are addressing. As the Bard wrote:"What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." What then is in the name evil verses manipulation as both may be viewed as the same? Nothing by this Ra quote is argumentative ground to change the point, but in fact makes my earlier point that there is cautionary evidence to be made that by attempting to soften it up or sterilize it from the word evil to manipulation we run the risk of attempting to make it more digestible as consequence, thus dressing it down, thus making it more blurred, thus potentially dangerous for having done so. I submit that manipulation is evil.

I for one, am willing to concede, that I still have a biased view of STS, as witnessed by my continued, albeit attenuated, difficulty to "open the self to the other-self without hesitation", for what else could be the cause of such hesitation, than a bias? I leave it to each to examine within themselves if they harbor a similarly biased view of STS. For this was, I believe ChaoticMind's original point in starting the thread. Not that LOO had a biased view of STS, but rather that many on the forum did.

Once again, with great respect I disagree. I suggest that indeed the LOO is biased. How could it not be? Ra is biased. But the whole point in being here engaged in the game dear friend, as much as in 3D, is to chose your bias? This is not supposition on my part, nor is it interpretation. It is the Ra message, eloquently, beautifully, and academically put forth. I make no qualms with this fact, nor with the fact that I am clearly openly unabashedly biased. Ra is biased. Quo, as Monica pointed out in her quote by Quo in her previous post is admittedly and unabashedly biased. I ultimately suggest that Our Logos that created this great game is admittedly biased, this as stated by Ra. If we begin to move away from being biased, we then begin to move away from choice, which leads ultimately away from polarization to the one path or the other, which leads ultimately in restricting oneself from the Harvest? Indeed, to be unbiased would be demonstrative of the fact that one has yet to make a choice.

"Be Ye then ever more biased" sayeth Ra unto the students. This is the choice, not to be analyzed to the point of being paralyzed, studied, or moved away from in the intellectual pursuit alone thereof, but rather to revel in emotionally. This is the classic argument that Bones and Spock engaged in constantly. I am arguing for the Bones position.

Here dear 3D is where I attempt to humbly if not admittedly feebly make my greater point in my argument of the danger of intellectualism verses armchair philosophizing as regards the deconstruction of an intended message. We run the risk of loosing the intended message if not careful as a result of the unintended intellectual blur, if not blunder, that ironically intellectualism in fact often makes. Indeed, intellectualism is not the path as much as is the heart and the emotion involved therein, both requiring full-on biased choice.

I therefore make my choice, this day and every other day, this from the point forward that I came into the Ra realization that I am indeed biased to be STO, and this with full willed intent and conviction, and not apologetic or in defense for it. Quite the contrary. I seek ever greater bias towards the effort of polarizing so that I may unify, perhaps in hypothesis that polarization may no longer be the lesson in the next Octave, but that another no doubt awaits us.

If I may lovingly offer you this message in closing, this with the true intent of the Easter Holiday upon us, and as one stranger in the flesh to another, but more importantly as one brother in the spirit to another: to attempt to seek being unbiased through intellectualism at this early stage of present 3rd density, and even 4th beyond that, is overshooting the mark, if not the intended lesson of being in 3D to choose polarization. It is an easy point to make, but just as easily overlooked.

Thank you as always for your willingness to engage in further conversation.

Happy Easter to you Brother, and to all,

Q

[Steppingfeet]

Quantum wrote:

I would offer that it would seem that many on the intended STO path have difficulty with certain attitudes as regards what we define love to be, most particularly as regards the courage to simply and graciously muster the courage to be in dissent. I conjecture that in some manner dissent seems as though viewed as being discordant, which in turn is perceived to be less than the love that STO is intended or viewed as. I respectfully disagree. Jesus was discordant and was a dissenter and yet represented an embodiment of love. So too did Mahatma Gandhi. So too did Martin Luther King. There are many other examples. May one love enough to be in dissonance to a popular theme being played?

Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may.

Greetings fellow seeker,

About "dissenting" or not agreeing with what you perceive to be the collective thinking of the moment, it is entirely acceptable, appropriate, and conducive to the dialectic of critical thought to offer a counter-position, or to disagree. Further, you need not, unless you truly enjoy doing so, invoke historical figures of eminence in order to pave your way for disagreeing with the prevailing thought. The merit of your own thought is sufficient for disagreeing. It's quite okay to disagree. : )

It seems to serve no practical ground for a philosophy spoken to or agreed to if it can not be applied directly into one's life pragmatically. To what purpose, and for what? Certainly not to catalyze. We are speaking then in the academic only and for no other purpose. In other words, it serves no purpose. It is merely for academic and/or intellectual entertainment. For example, speaking at length to the STS path as an armchair philosophy, as though a viable path is an easy task for a perceived STO oriented individual academically. But in practice, well, with certainty that would be an altogether different matter if faced with it directly.

If I may, I disagree whole-heartedly with your implication here - that being that talk is cheap and the net result of that which occurs on these forums is null and void in the face of "real" life.

Though I recognize the obvious limits of the intellect in the face of spiritual reality, the intellect nonetheless does have an important role to play in our evolution and the living of our daily lives, from the decisions we make to the interactions we have with others; from the integrity of our thought processes to the quality of our lives; from the bathroom, to the bedroom, to the book - the intellect plays a role.

Increasing intellectual understanding through honest and open discussion, refining our ideas as they are subjected to the critical thought of others, and being exposed to a diversity of angles regarding the spiritual path can and does have direct bearing on the daily life.

My contention being: what happens here *is* helpful - to relegate it to "armchair philosophy" diminishes and attempts to render ineffectual the real work being undertaken on this forum. The work of contributing ones thoughts in a way respectful and harmonious with others, the work of attempting to understand a perspective other than our own, and the work of taking that which we perceive to be helpful and applying it to the various situations encountered in our respective lives.

Were indeed one faced with the irrational madman, or worse, the composed STS'er in full blooming power of himself, either of who may hold a loved one at bay, or worse at personal risk at the threat of death, would be no time for armchair philosophizing. It would require an extreme time for action.

Agreed. Our responses to situations are often automatic and are the cumulative expressions of a great deal of interior work done up to that point. By studying our spontaneous reactions to the moment, we are afforded a glimpse into where our blockages and imbalances lie.

In the heat of the moment, as the catalyst requires a speedy and immediate response, we won't be aided by referring to the philosophical dimension of life. However, no one on this forum is claiming such significance and purpose for the thinking contained within their post.

As such, all armchair philosophizing on the viability of the STS path would flee as quickly out the window as would the wind in a maelstrom of chaos, pandemonium and fear that it would create.

If, as you say, "armchair philosophy" is moot and of no value in the face of the real catalyst of the moment, why then participate in so futile an exercise yourself?

Defending the STS path through arm chair philosophy by suggesting that it is largely misunderstood, and therefore devoid of evil, bends the truth as though patently preposterous to what it in fact is.

I don't think that anyone said that the service to self polarity is "devoid" of evil, just that the service to self polarity represents a path of the Creator that does not, key word, necessarily conform to popular notions of "evil".

Though I personally and unconsciously use the term "evil" when referring to those I consider to be service to self, I see the wisdom in Ra's complete abstention from the use of this term in reference to service to self entities. "Evil" is an emotionally loaded term which, though in some ways describes the abhorrence felt in the heart of the "good" person in relation to the "evil" person or act, nevertheless fails to capture what is fundamentally an energetic orientation, not a moral orientation.

The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies?

An odd statement to purport that increased understanding will not change the "real" underlying truth, which is not, as you see it, simply your truth, but the truth which, it seems, must be made apparent to the members of this forum.

Did the Ra teachings ever speak to the STS path by example as one that was largely misunderstood or one that was devoid of evil?

I may be wrong but I believe that Ra implied that everything is misunderstood by the third density entity, as "understanding" is not of this density.

Did Ra ever say that any of the examples you referenced were "evil"?

There were only a few instances in which Ra used the term "evil", one of which was this paragraph from Session #77:

Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment and also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

In this instance, Ra communicates the *value* of the negative polarity,(in Christian theology, "the knowledge of good and evil"), in terms of catalyzing movement, work, and the desire to learn.

In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding.

I may be in error but I think that the work each participant on this forum is doing is within their own heart. I don't recall any mention of a desire for the sharing of brunch with the autocrat or the mass-murderer.

I dare say that the Ra readings were self evident, even as sterile of an approach as might have been intended by Ra. These three gentleman were successful in STS. Can we argue they were not evil?

Again, I would refer to these three as evil... at the same time I would recognize the limitations of the word and, being inspired by the Confederation material, would seek to reach for a perspective which transcends the limited notion of "evil" *in order to*, as Monica was suggesting, shine a light into the darkness. (GREAT post btw, Monica!)

Words like "separation", "darkness", and "the path of that which is not" are more technically accurate and evocative of that which the service to self polarity is, in my opinion.

Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not.

Firstly, throughout the Ra contact, Ra emphasized repeatedly what the most helpful response was to the "advanced negative greeting" which you refer to, both in terms of protection and polarization, that being to respond with unconditional love while rejecting the service of the negative greeter. Each on this forum, as far as I can tell by their expressed thought, is attempting to move closer to that position of loving the negative entities as described by Ra, not in having them over for Parcheesi.

Secondly, while entitled to your own perspective, I disagree with the intellectual argument that minimizes and finds no value in intellectual arguments.

We all live, to one degree or another, an intellectual life. Our thinking - especially thinking that is informed, educated (in one fashion or another), and refined by exposure to others' thinking - plays an important role in our lives. The thinking of Don, Carla, and Jim had direct bearing on and application to the situation which you reference. Their philosophy and their ideas as to, as you said, "what STS is and is not" played a vital role in determining their response to the situation.

The wedge you drive between philosophy and "real life" is exactly what you are railing against: an intellectual position with no experiential analog.

A child would see it for what it is and simply speak the truth. Why should we not be as open and as innocently honest? We know what we know, but seemingly allow ourselves to be distracted, perhaps solely out of what may be civility and kindness and the willingness to engage as a result.

Children and Gandhi notwithstanding, because something is clear and obvious to you does not necessarily mean that you have encountered objective truth which others of this forum would do well to see as you see.

Also, if you sense civility and kindness in operation here, this is something to be celebrated. These qualities are not indicators of understanding being watered down.

I am however neither discordant, nor am I in dissonance should I choose to "not to open myself" to the self professed students on the STS path attempting either innocently or purposefully to subvert what is otherwise obvious in definition by Ra, as much as in example, as much as I "am not open" to be dissuaded by admittedly self professed recently converted students to the STO path who used to be STS, although I do applaud them whole heartily.

3D Sunset addressed this in a later post better than I could by discussing in depth what he means by "opening up".

I would only add here that the STS entities you mentioned, those who reached such a degree of purity on the service to self path that they harvested themselves, i.e., Rasputin and the Kahns, are not represented on these forums.

Were any member actively engaging in the ugliness of service to self on these forums, they would politely be asked to continue their activities elsewhere. Those on this forum creating an emotional rejection within yourself have been playing with the others in this sandbox with extreme courtesy and respect in a spirit of cooperative discussion.

I am being honest, as much as I am being humble, as much as I am being discerning, as much as I am offering my love to both through these simple truths shined into the dark that even a child would offer had he the words or thought processes to express it so.

Thank you, truly, for sharing your thoughts, Quantum. Though I have challenged your thoughts in this post, please know that I have the utmost respect for your thought process and gratitude for the privilege of being able to freely discuss these topics from our opposite corners of this room.

[Quantum]

Quantum wrote:
Allow me then, in love, and with great respect, to be in dissent and disagreement for a moment then, if I may.

....you need not, unless you truly enjoy doing so, invoke historical figures of eminence in order to pave your way for disagreeing with the prevailing thought. The merit of your own thought is sufficient for disagreeing.

The merit of my thought? I am using the Ra material in invoking the historical figures we are referring to of which represent only three to my knowledge and moreover which specifically graduated to STS 4D? What other figures are we speaking of? Do we not use the Ra material as a primary study for agreement and disagreement to posts in general? Allow me to invite you to re-phrase or rethink what you surely are not implying here as I'm equally as sure you are not suggesting one not use the Ra passages as merit for a position?

If I may, I disagree whole-heartedly with your implication here - that being that talk is cheap and the net result of that which occurs on these forums is null and void in the face of "real" life.

Your response of my intended message suggesting that I feel "talk as cheap" equaling "the net result" of making "these forums null and void" is wholly your interpretation, but not at all my thought or feeling. It is certainly not what I said, nor is it even close to my sentiments, and certainly as far removed from my feelings. This misunderstanding of my intended point seems to be the major thrust of most of your response as is seen by how many times you reiterate it? Allow me to clarify with great conviction that there is absolutely everything right with philosophy, as well as with discussion, as well as with intellectualism in all manner. Goodness. My message is quite the contrary. How you could interpret this is baffling? The entire study of the LOO is philosophy, as it is intellectualism, as is this forum of discussion? None of it is cheap, null, or void? Why else would we engage here if it were? I would invite you GLB to again re-read my posts on this thread? I salute this forum strongly.

I do admit that I am attempting to draw a metaphorical line in the sand by making a distinction between "armchair philosophy" verses pragmatic philosophy. I don't know how I could have been any more clear between the two? I wrote to this at length? (see previous posts) . I will offer to re-read them if you too also promise (but perhaps this time with a more intended heart for seeing it?). I assure you that you will see I address discussion, philosophy,and intellectualism all as distinct between armchair and pragmatic. There is huge difference between the two (armchair and pragmatic). I suggest one works, while the other does not. One is pragmatic, the other is neutral. Please re-read my intended message again. If you can not see it, I assure you all is well nonetheless.

Here is my real and intended point and issue: I feel if we veer off the path of the Ra messages, or the information too far, that we run the risk of creating an almost subset understanding of what was in fact stated, if not careful. This is as true for those of us who have read and studied the material for years, as much or more true for the newcomers who have not. I feel we owe the Material a service to remain true to it, as much for the newcomers as to our own further understanding of it. I am more than sure if there were a way to run a poll that we would find that many many of the newcomers may be receiving much of their information from many many of these posts, as much or sadly more their own studies. I would caution us to be cognizant of this. Do we not owe them this service as much as we do to ourselves?

To that end, may I give several innocent examples to illustrate where intellectualism and opinion may innocently blur a point? This may result in becoming something akin to a false philosophy, resulting in potentially a host of false discussions, perhaps resulting in false conclusions, all if not challenged or dissented with? This is also close to my definition of a neutral, banal, uncharged, armchair type of philosophy. I realize I enter into delicate ground here, and further realize how this may read on a two dimensional screen. Please allow me the apology if once again misconstrued. I am trying. The greater intent is that if we may all remain humble in the attempt to be challenged (myself included), we then allow ourselves the opportunity of examining ourselves openly by all, as might be the case in the beginning stages of an SMC where all are gazing at all and there are no untruths that will not be revealed. We may all then grow as a group as a result. I'm very OK with this.

Here are some examples then:

The vast majority of people on Earth are more STS than STO. The norm is biased toward STS. What is at issue is someone who's highly polarized STS.

Brother Thorne, this is contrary to Ra's message. May I with love use this as an example? The majority are STO.
We need as serious students make every effort for all, not only one, to catch these mistakes, less they create banal conversations that lead to many posts in an unintended manner contrary to the intended truth. Unless we are here to challenge the LOO, let us be vigilant. Challenging the LOO for me becomes idle talk, armchair philosophy, neutral, and uncharged towards the further effort of understanding more the Ra message. Perhaps this serves to clarify my position more.

Those peoples you often see as having STS activities, who are dominating, controlling, lying, manipulating, etc etc are simply ants .
They are Perverted by the path, they are not in a spiritual quest.
Have a look to those pathetic satanist for example, evil maybe, STS surely not.

Controlling, dominating, manipulating etc etc are ants? If allowed to remain unchecked, one might forget that this is antithesis to the Ra message entirely in as much as these are the very words used as definition of STS by Ra (see previous posts of Ra above by 3D and myself). I therefore challenge this openly as opinion only, armchair philosophy wholly and specifically (separate and apart from philosophy in generally), and contrary to Ra's message.
I am quite OK that one may have a different opinion to Ra. I stated so openly on my last post. But if an LOO student is not allowed to challenge a statement contrary to Ra without evoking seemingly a challenging sentiment for doing so, much less using historical figures in context to same that Ra specifically offered as guideposts, then I begin to miss the point of our presence here?
I might further challenge Chaotikmind's descriptor of Satanists as being pathetic. I have no way of measuring so, but I dare say there might be a few satanists quite proficient on the STS path, and as such are hardly pathetic?

Can't an STS being be something like an (h)ermit also? completely separated from society to the last degree?
If the answer is yes, how that being could be evil with others if he's not interacting at all ?
I don't remember the passage , but i think i remember something like Ra speaking about higher density STS which were complety separated from everything.

1.A sociopathic murderer in confined isolation is still a sociopath.
2. Being totally separated in 3D overshoots the mark as comparative analysis of one separated in 5D. We are here to interact as mirrors one for the other so that we may indeed polarize.

Just a few passing thoughts. First recall, that anyone that is not harvestable STO is, by definition primarily STS (i.e., <51% STO means =>50% STS), with the majority of the world's population probably in the range 60 - 70% STS (which, ironically is almost harvestable STO)! This also means that even those minimally harvestable STO are still 49% STS.

Less than 51% = Greater than 50%? To be more specific to this point:Less than 51% STO = Greater than 50% STS? A substance or property that is less than 51% is simply less than 51%. That's all. But it may not be implied as a result to be greater than 50% for being so? 50% Calcium mixed with 10% Phosphate does not equal 51% phosphate any more than does a 49% tomato mixed with a 5% potato make it a potato?
The supposition above holds that if one is not 51% positive in STO that one then is ipso facto STS as a result? An entity not being 51% STO means simply he is not 51% STO. Nothing more. God literally help us were this not true. By this logic all one's 49% - 50.999% efforts would be for naught? Although clearly this entity is not harvestable, it certainly does not in any manner mean to construe that this same entity is in any way STS? To be a harvestable STS also holds one must be 51% STS.
By the same logic and definition above, if an STS entity is not 51% negative, and therefor fails to graduate to harvest to 4D STS, he must therefore then be STO? Neither statement is true. Both statements of logic are false.
Allow me with total sincerity, and with great respect and humility intended, to use this statement made above as an example of what I have been suggesting may lead to the danger of misunderstanding through innocently offered blurred intellectualism. If we begin with a premise, assumed as a truth, and allow it to stand as such, we then run the same risk as the driver embarking off in the wrong direction unchecked, potentially with passengers on board.
I recognize the obvious limits of the intellect in the face of spiritual reality. The intellect is a tool, not the way. The intellect certainly has a vital role to play in our evolution and the living of our daily lives, from the decisions we make to the interactions we have with others, this from the integrity of our thought processes to the quality of our lives; to the bathroom, to the bedroom, to the book - the intellect clearly plays a role. But if unchecked, it may also disservice us. To be more clear, this is my definition of armchair philosophy.
I humbly then submit again that suggesting that STS is something other than has been defended herein is the attempt to dress it up, if not dress it down (resulting even in the possible blur of a clear STO understanding/definition in the process - to those less aware?). I submit it (STS) is simply what it is, this by any name or descriptor one might choose to define it by, one of which without question as a descriptor may well be evil

If, as you say, "armchair philosophy" is moot and of no value in the face of the real catalyst of the moment, why then participate in so futile an exercise yourself?

Same answer as above. I didn't say this. Armchair philosophy is moot, not true pragmatic philosophy offered in depth of heart and thought process.

I don't think that anyone said that the service to self polarity is "devoid" of evil, just that the service to self polarity represents a path of the Creator that does not, key word, necessarily conform to popular notions of "evil".

Again, this is simply and entirely not so. As a matter of fact the very first lines of "Biased View of STS" that chaotikmind open with on his very fisrt post to this subject begins the digression, if not deconstruction, of the Ra message which then leads to the many many conversations as consequence based on an entirely false premise.

it seems that STS is always linked to something evil, which is obviously false

See the example of my intended point more so now? How many posts to this false premise have been written? How many other posts to how many other false premises might have been written? If this is not one definition to an armchair philosophy or a moot philosophy verses a true and enlightening philosophy then what is or what else may this manner of philosophy be called? Would the word subversive philosophy strike a harder cord? Let us run a thought experiment for even one moment. Let us hypothetically assume a participant here on bring4th were indeed a true STS of high standing. Lets love him. Lets love and shower him as much as we would anyone. But let us also be cognitive of the fact that any subversive statement to a Ra message might be intended as a ruse or a mistake whereby it may either be coming from him or through him as an emissary. Either we believe what Ra says, or we question its authenticity? Do not the higher realms of negative density not employ the lower realms of negative density to do their bidding? Would it be wild conjecture on my part to assume that this wee bit of the Ra message were not simply an armchair statement, but potentially very true and thus able to manifest even here? Is this not allowed as conjecture to raise all's attention to this? Do we take the messages seriously, or do we question them? This in no way implies we not love our STS brethren.

You (GLB) then quote me with: The examples of the cast of characters that abound in history that may be utilized as the definition of STS are simply ghastly as such. No amount of understanding may change this. May we not simply speak to the truth of our studies?

An odd statement to purport that increased understanding will not change the "real" underlying truth, which is not, as you see it, simply your truth, but the truth which, it seems, must be made apparent to the members of this forum.

Again, a misinterpretation on your part. IMHO increased understanding may change everything as regards a man's mind about it. No amount of understanding will change the truth of what it is, either to diminish it as a truth or to increase it. I reiterate and maintain pragmatically and philosophically "that it is what it is" no matter how much "one dresses it up or dresses it down". STS is STS. The more I understand it does not change its nature. Only one's nature and one's mind may be changed, both of which may or may not be based on falsehoods. Therefore I submit, that even though I take no credit for stating that "increased understanding will not change the real underlying truth", I agree with it nonetheless. One must be vigilant to what one believes is true. It will change him, not the truth. Understanding may be changed. But Truth can not be changed. The truth needs no help. It pragmatically simply is. If understanding increases a truth, then logic dictates that misunderstanding a truth would conversely hold the same power to change the truth as well. This example serves well again, as one for misinterpretation to a statement that if made and believed might create a less than true philosophy, an armchair philosophy, a moot philosophy.

Did Ra ever say that any of the examples you referenced were "evil"?

No, he did not. But we mince words. What shall we call STS? Just STS?
As I stated earlier, one may discharge a word as much as one wishes of any one of it's definitions. It is IMHO that it still is what it is. Allow me the example: I may call STO goodness. I dare say I would not receive this response from you were I to do so. But if I call STS by one of it's definitions, i.e. evil, it causes something akin to a political correctness of the word? What should we then call STO if not goodness, or purity of heart, or kindness? Simply a neutral word "only" such as "Service to Others" only? It would restrict conversation immensely.
Its quite OK to call STO goodness, and caring, and giving, and loving (and by loving I mean in a way that is universally understood as STO). Then it must pragmatically also be in keeping to call STS by its converse, and by one of its definitions (evil) should one choose? It becomes trite to argue definitions, or worse to restrict them by only a one-way standard?

In fact the examples that Ra gave were Genghis Khan, Taras Bulba, and Rasputin. Neither of these three gentlemen were candidates to be invited lightly for tea and crumpets to either a garden party or a wedding.

I may be in error but I think that the work each participant on this forum is doing is within their own heart. I don't recall any mention of a desire for the sharing of brunch with the autocrat or the mass-murderer.

This is being pedantic GLB, and seemingly with the entire and whole intent of missing my meaning? It becomes difficult to discuss if we engage one another personally? I chose to remain engaged to the philosophical points of this or any discussion only. Even if I utilize the seeming misstatements of others above, I hope I do so correctly with their permission, given they stated it, and only to serve as a mirror to my point, and not in any manner to be construed as personal. To clarify, I stated that either of these three characters were by any definition evil, and that as such even if we attempt to neutralize their character through armchair philosophy, we still pragmatically, even in theory, would not lightly invite them into their lives.

You quote me: Was Carla's life itself not at dire risk more than once during her sessions, this by the direct and willed attempt of a negative greeting that if successful would have terminated not only the Ra message, which was the point, but her life as well? Lets us remember that this was an advanced negative greeting, and from higher realms at that, not to be confused with the smaller details of academic debate in 3D as to what STS is and is not.

Firstly, throughout the Ra contact, Ra emphasized repeatedly what the most helpful response was to the "advanced negative greeting" which you refer to, both in terms of protection and polarization, that being to respond with unconditional love while rejecting the service of the negative greeter. Each on this forum, as far as I can tell by their expressed thoughts, is attempting to move closer to that position of loving the negative entities as described by Ra, not in having them over for Parcheesi.

I agree with the L/L's response entirely. Love indeed is the only response. It is not the response that was my point. It was the STS intent that was my point. The intent of attempting to rob Carla of her life as an act of STS illustrates very powerfully and very clearly what STS is, whether in this 3D existence, or in 4D and 5D above that. As for Parcheessi, you once again seem to intentionally be missing my intended message.

Secondly, while entitled to your own perspective, I disagree with the intellectual argument that minimizes and finds no value in intellectual arguments.

I am reiterating your quotes the many times you make them as a mirror to demonstrate how many times you have erroneously interpreted my meaning. As I suggested, it seems to be largely the thrust of your response. It does serve however as a perfect example of how a misinterpretation may go on and on, whether it be this, or the Ra message, if not corrected. May I correct it in humility again?

We all live, to one degree or another, an intellectual life. Our thinking - especially thinking that is informed, educated (in one fashion or another), and refined by exposure to others' thinking - plays an important role in our lives. The thinking of Don, Carla, and Jim had direct bearing on and application to the situation which you reference. Their philosophy and their ideas as to, as you said, "what STS is and is not" played a vital role in determining their response to the situation.

I agree GLB. Same point again.To this completely I agree, as is self evident and seen by my willingness to be involved.

If you see civility and kindness in operation here, this is something to be celebrated. These qualities are not indicators of understanding being watered down.

The civility and kindness is wonderful. I respect it immensely. It demonstrates the echo of the STO path we seek. But again dear GLB, you misinterpret. The Kindness and civility expressed is indeed not an indicator of an understanding being watered down. Misconstruing the Ra message, or challenging it in some cases is my point, and as such unquestionably may water it down. This is what I in service wish to challenge, highlight, and attempt to correct when seen. May I continue to do so? Is it not a service to point these examples out? There are many many many more such examples. It is in the either innocent statements of some for example, or perhaps the purposeful misstatements of others of the LOO and the intended Ra message that I have concentrated my efforts, not in the arguing against intellectualism or philosophy as seemingly stated throughout your post. On the contrary, I have engaged in intellectualism and the philosophy of the LOO to do so. Should we all not attempt to do so for one another, rather than risk loosing the purity of the study group, or worse the intended meaning of even one single message for even one single of our brothers(?) for the intended and stated purpose for furthering his and our own understanding of the LOO ? If we do not challenge one another to higher ground, or worse yet are chastised for doing so, then where is the academia for learning? This is how one learns in any true setting of an academic nature with the intent to advance the cause for understanding. In this light GLB, I welcome your responses, as much as I question them.

Thank you, truly, for sharing your thoughts, Quantum. Though I am often challenging your thoughts in this post, please know that I have the utmost respect for your thought process and gratitude for the privilege of being able to freely discuss these topics from adjacent corners of this room.

I waited a full 2,000 plus views before deciding to participate on the thread of Biased Views of STS. I followed it with reservation for some time thinking it might not gather as much momentum before deciding to jump in. I have seen many posts that seem to innocently misconstrue what has been given. Thank you in kind for allowing me to express my challenges and responses in kind. I would close GLB by suggesting that if we do not engage in just exactly such an exercise as we have, and were all in complete political correctness or total agreement, there would be little gained in attempting to advance through spiritual, intellectual, or philosophical exercise.

Thank you as much,

Q

[3D Sunset]

The supposition above holds that if one is not 51% positive in STO that one then is ipso facto STS as a result?

Hi Q. I was actually wondering when someone would comment on my statement. In point of fact, the way I read the LOO, all human motivations and associated actions can be categorized as either STS or STO. This is not to say that all people that are not yet harvestable STO are polarized STS. Rather, that each person's "grade" if you will, can be expressed in terms of either their orientation toward service to others or service to self, and the other "grade" is simply the difference between 100% and the orientation expressed. Note the following exchange between dona Don Ra:

Questioner:In the book Oahspe it states that if an entity goes over fifty one percent service to others and is less than fifty percent service to self, then that entity is harvestable. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct if the harvesting is to be for the positive fourth dimensional level.

Questioner: What is to be the entity’s percentage if he is to be harvested for the negative?

Ra: I am Ra. The entity who wishes to pursue the path of service to self must attain a grade of five, that is five percent service to others, ninety-five percent service to self. It must approach totality. The negative path is quite difficult to attain harvestability upon and requires great dedication.

Questioner: Why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestability upon than the positive?

Ra: I am 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 fifty-one percent dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of five percent dedication to otherselves. The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.

Questioner: Then if an entity is harvested into the fourth density with a grade of fifty-one percent for others and forty-nine percent for self, what level of the fourth density would he go into? I am assuming that there are different levels of the fourth density.

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Each enters that sub-density which vibrates in accordance with the entity’s understanding.

I will grant you that I extrapolated from these statements to the conclusion that there are only two motivations for every action/thought/etc, but I profess that this concept is very aesthetic to me: If an action that you take is not motivated toward serving others, then it is oriented toward serving yourself (and vice versa).

Is it possible that there is a third category of motivation and thought or action? One of neutrality? Service to no one, so to speak? Perhaps, but that seems to me as more a convenience to allow one to fool oneself about their underlying motivations.

Do note, however, that I never said that people that are less than 51% STO are following the STS path. Here I make the distinction between STO/STS actions/motivations and the underlying STO/STS polarization. Clearly, many are polarized toward STO and are working hard to achieve the 51% grade, but are not there yet. Others are polarized STS and working to achieve their 95% grade. Somewhere in between 49% and 5% STO lies the "sinkhole of indifference" that Ra refers to. Is the indifference between 40% and 15% for example, or is it 35% and 20%, who knows, but wherever it is, that is the realm of unpolarized people still waiting to "choose".

My real point, though was that given that all motivations are either STO or STS (and clearly this is the case if we were to exclude any "neutral" motivations that may exist), then even almost harvestable STO entities still exhibit a greater number of STS actions and motivations than they do STO actions and motivations. So bear in mind that service to self is a vital part (as much as 49%) of those harvestable STO, just as service to others is a vital part (as mush as 5%) of those harvestable service to self. Indeed, I feel comfortable saying that one exhibiting 40% STO are probably polarized STO and may yet achieve a harvestable grade (given a few well placed catalysts, as it were). But note, that if they exhibit 40% STO motivations, then by definition, they also exhibit 60% STS motivations.

That said, I will now bow out of this discussion and leave it everyone to explore for themselves whether or not it's worth achieving a better understanding of STS. As I've said before, it works for me.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

...That said, I will now bow out of this discussion and leave it everyone to explore for themselves whether or not it's worth achieving a better understanding of STS. As I've said before, it works for me.

I feel I too have expressed what I felt needed expression and as such have perhaps exhausted the impetus of my involvement in this conversation. I then too express and concur my sentiments to yours in kind to also leave it to everyone to decide for themselves as well whether it is worth exploring a better understanding of STS, but caution all to do so with the guideposts of the Ra Messages verses the conjecture and opinion of others, or more importantly those on the self professed STS path (as implied in my last post). I take it in faith that Ra has gone to great efforts to become involved in our welfare, and this for many thousands of our years. I further take in faith that Ra has a restitution or desire to make a correction of sorts, and therefore has more at stake in the outcome for the STO path than does an individual in 3D on the STS path. This is not a great leap of logic and seems self-evident.

To your second and more interesting point (in reverse order):

[quote='Quantum']
The supposition above holds that if one is not 51% positive in STO that one then is ipso facto STS as a result?

Hi Q. I was actually wondering when someone would comment on my statement.

Questioner:In the book Oahspe it states that if an entity goes over fifty one percent service to others and is less than fifty percent service to self, then that entity is harvestable. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct if the harvesting is to be for the positive fourth dimensional level.

Questioner: What is to be the entity’s percentage if he is to be harvested for the negative?

Ra: I am Ra. The entity who wishes to pursue the path of service to self must attain a grade of five, that is five percent service to others, ninety-five percent service to self. It must approach totality. The negative path is quite difficult to attain harvestability upon and requires great dedication.

Questioner: Why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestability upon than the positive?

Ra: I am 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 fifty-one percent dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of five percent dedication to otherselves. The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.

Questioner: Then if an entity is harvested into the fourth density with a grade of fifty-one percent for others and forty-nine percent for self, what level of the fourth density would he go into? I am assuming that there are different levels of the fourth density.

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Each enters that sub-density which vibrates in accordance with the entity’s understanding.

I will grant you that I extrapolated from these statements to the conclusion that there are only two motivations for every action/thought/etc, but I profess that this concept is very aesthetic to me: If an action that you take is not motivated toward serving others, then it is oriented toward serving yourself (and vice versa).

Is it possible that there is a third category of motivation and thought or action? One of neutrality? Service to no one, so to speak? Perhaps, but that seems to me as more a convenience to allow one to fool oneself about their underlying motivations.

Hello back to you my friend. It is always most interesting to read your well thought out suppositions and responses. I commend you also on the ability to remain academic as well as perhaps neutral, this by remaining focused to the thrust of the argument/debate verses the author. It demonstrates an ability to remain scholarly if not altogether academic.

To your question and supposition as to there being a neutral ground or a third category: Interesting. I might offer that true neutrality is perhaps only a relative term academically in as much as one is either moving forward or moving backward, but hardly possibly remaining still in neutrality at all times. This might only exist in true time/space verses our present space/time. The total lack of neutrality is the primary objective, prize, and reason for our choosing to be here, i.e. to gain in polarization. I do however acknowledge the question irrespectively as a most interesting one. I suspect and conjecture (based on the Ra quote) that much like the graduate into 4D positive harvest of only a mere 51% vs his brother at 60% that he would achieve a 4D positive degree but at a lower sub-density than his brethren in 4D positive having achieved 60% (again as given by Ra) and that moreover this is in fact what takes place at all times in all dimensions and densities as I conjectured in my thread of The Harvest/ "What is everyone's gut feeling on 2012", beginning with post #176, and to a lessor extent in my thread of Earth in 3D - 7th Octave/ "Strictly Law of One", i.e. other levels of consciousness resulting in other sub-densities of existence. Now to your question as regards my previous post it begs that might this mean that "right here right now in 3D" we coexist in the same third density but do not co-exist in the same sub-octave/sub-density? Thus we are in the same world, but not of the same world?

Is it any wonder then that we are continually speaking Greek to one another almost always as though through a veil of intended distortion?

Should you, or any choose to respond, would you care to do so on another thread, or continue here?

All is well,

Q

[ubergud]

First let me say Thank You to all for stimulating my thoughts in this discussion of polarization.

I find this whole business, right/wrong/indifferent of judging ourselves as 'good' or 'evil' or STO/STS for our thoughts/actions very troubling. Picking over the minutiae of being by converting every thought or moment into a judgement of I like to / desire to help myself, or I like to / desire to help others. IMHO we are not perceiving this correctly if this is what we distill the message of the Ra material down to ...

I enjoy eating, bicycling, beer, philosophical discussion, new things, fictional books, etc. ...
I see others enjoying the same ...

I also see others not able to enjoy the same...
I have found out why they are not, it took a great deal of seeking and a lot of research to fully comprehend the magnitude ...
I discuss this with those who do not want to hear or discuss these things ...

I go back to eating, bicycling, beer and philosophical discussion.

I *really* *really* want to help make the world a better place ... am ready, willing and able. I only need food/water/shelter/love. It is frustrating to be %90 STO in one's heart, but find intellectually no easy way to 'solve the worlds problems' with so much of that 'sinkhole of indifference' being propagated and accepted (even by myself). I'm tired of judging myself and others in this fashion.

The percentage of 51% is important I think because you should not think the 49% you spend on yourself is not valuable, or was wasted on STS ['evil']. If enjoying something in life (i.e. a bicycle ride, beer, or philosophical discussion) is STS and is 'evil', then may we all be 51% STO and 49% STS. I enjoy being around people who are both compassionate and light-hearted, and not weighed down by taking on the entire weight of the worlds problems -- and if we all cared 51% we no one would have to feel that way (at least here) ... maybe after enough of that we all become so much more STO until we become so happy that we want to share with other struggling 3D worlds and realize we're in 4D STO. That said, I believe the systems we have in place are STS systems (i.e. governments/laws/lobbyists; money holds too much sway over laws rather than compassion and honesty), I think that 'evil' comes about as a result of a degree of STS in entities that is so high, that one loses touch with compassion and empathy for others due to a degree of self-focus that ignores other entities, and the resulting associated behaviors are disharmonious. That is, I do not think that STS is evil itself, but leads to actions we would call evil for the aforementioned reasons. I do not think that enjoying the fruits of being i.e. the simple pleasures whose intent is not aimed at gaining or exerting control over others, but rather sharing the joy of being, are to be considered or thought of as STS 'evil'. I do see that allowing money to be the arbiter of right and wrong (as our systems currently do) is probably not spiritually wise, but also do not see an easy way to change this, because with awareness it would change itself. Awareness comes from seeking, not from broadcasting.

Personally, I seek joy. Joy for me comes from being around those who are joyous. This is a difficult world to be in for that reason, as not everyone is joyous. Attempting to lift the veil for others around me has not changed that ... usually those discussions end in less joy. So I cannot be happy as an ostrich (with my head in the sand), but neither can I be happy spreading fear ... so I sought a greater truth to allow me to find a modicum of peace where I seek joy. So I continue to seek solace in a greater perspective, and hoping that peace will support hope ... hope for the joy I truly seek.

This site is an appreciated ripple in the still pond of indifference (which I know is an illusion, 'cause I think we have a great many who care, and that is the reason for the crazy catalyst we are seeing).

Jason

[3D Sunset]

Hello Jason, and thank you for joining in. Yours was an excellent post and stated eloquently a few points that we had danced around without directly addressing before. Please allow me to comment on some of your insights.

The percentage of 51% is important I think because you should not think the 49% you spend on yourself is not valuable, or was wasted on STS ['evil']. If enjoying something in life (i.e. a bicycle ride, beer, or philosophical discussion) is STS and is 'evil', then may we all be 51% STO and 49% STS.

This is really a critical point to bear in mind. Yes, it is vitally important that we perform actions that are self-serving. Many of the things we do every day must be done for ourselves, if for no other reason than to allow us to continue to live and thrive in this 3D world. For if we are not here, then we cannot directly influence what transpires here.

This is one reason why I avoid the term 'evil' associated with STS behavior. It is not evil to care for yourself, and can even be considered quite positive from the perspective that those self-serving actions which allow you to more fruitfully exist on this plane are like an investment of your time that will yield additional STO actions in the future.

That said, I believe the systems we have in place are STS systems (i.e. governments/laws/lobbyists; money holds too much sway over laws rather than compassion and honesty), I think that 'evil' comes about as a result of a degree of STS in entities that is so high, that one loses touch with compassion and empathy for others due to a degree of self-focus that ignores other entities, and the resulting associated behaviors are disharmonious. That is, I do not think that STS is evil itself, but leads to actions we would call evil for the aforementioned reasons.

Here, here! I agree entirely. I have found that by recognizing and embracing the STS tendencies in myself, I can better accept the magnified equivalent of them in STS polarized individuals. Thus, it is easier for me to "open myself without hesitation" to them.

You also touch here, on a significant point about 'the choice'. I've come to think of those who are asleep as circling around two vortexes, one of STS motivations and one of STO motivations. Prior to their choice, they spend much more time circling the STS vortex, but still on its periphery, such that the STO vortex influences them and pulls at them, keeping them from passing too deep into STS's gravitational pull. As time passes they eventually become caught in one vortex's pull or the other, like a satellite that will eventually fall to Earth (its fate is determined, but it may take a long time to reach the inescapable destination). At this point, their bias is established and their polarization is set (i.e., their 'choice' is made). From this point on they are merely gaining sufficient polarization to allow them to contact intelligent energy through their chosen path. This ultimate degree of polarization in 3D represents harvestability for the given choice (conveniently expressed as 51% STO or 95% STS respectively).

As the individual falls farther toward their chosen vortex, they are less and less influenced by the other vortex (but never break entirely free of it, at least in 3D). When following the STS path, greater and greater concentration on the self results in the "loss of compassion and empathy" that you refer to, and can easily result in the entity choosing actions that our societies would deem "evil". By the same token, progressing farther and farther into the STO vortex will, at extreme levels result in actions our society would deem ascetic to the point of self destructive. This, I think is one reason why we find the mix of 51% STO, for clearly we are here to live and experience the joys you describe, and are not all on a path to asceticism.

Personally, I seek joy. Joy for me comes from being around those who are joyous. This is a difficult world to be in for that reason, as not everyone is joyous. Attempting to lift the veil for others around me has not changed that ... usually those discussions end in less joy. So I cannot be happy as an ostrich (with my head in the sand), but neither can I be happy spreading fear ... so I sought a greater truth to allow me to find a modicum of peace where I seek joy. So I continue to seek solace in a greater perspective, and hoping that peace will support hope ... hope for the joy I truly seek.

Well said, good friend. I wish you godspeed in, and send your joy on, your quest!

3D Sunset

[AppleSeed]

I think it's vital to keep the labels as neutral as possible, as we are using labels here. "Trying to understand evil" is different from "trying to understand STS", or even "trying to understand the STS-polarized entity". All we need to do to understand STS is look inside of ourselves, as has already been pointed out.
Another reason to keep evil out of it is that evil is not necessarily motivated by STS. Just look at the classic "I was just following orders", or STB (service to Boss). It could be purely STS (I follow orders because I want to advance and become the Boss), or STwhat? (I do this because I love the Boss and believe in his vision of a brave new world), or STfear (if I don't do this the Boss will kill me, and I'm not prepared to die for my beliefs). Nor is STO necessarily "good" (kill a chicken to feed the child... kill a ... to protect it).

I have spent a good deal of time trying to understand "evil", and I think I've reached my limits for now. I'm kinda happy to have those limits. I have found that I don't really need to understand in order to accept, release, and love. Maybe understanding will follow.

Onwards with STJ (service to joy)

[Chaotikmind]

Quantum, i just started a talk, and expressed my opinion,
fell free to disagree.
If you think my point was to pervert Ra's message you misunderstood my presence here,
as i stated earlier i think it's a valuable source of information, as this forum can be, but that don't prevent me to use my free will to rethink, remove, and synthetize tought to make the message fit my persona.

That said,
i'm still reading, and there was some quite interresting post.

[Quantum]

Quantum, i just started a talk, and expressed my opinion,
fell free to disagree. If you think my point was to pervert Ra's message you misunderstood my presence here, as i stated earlier i think it's a valuable source of information, as this forum can be, but that don't prevent me to use my free will to rethink, remove, and synthetize tought to make the message fit my persona.

Hello dear Chaotikmind. I am pleased that you responded to me personally. Thank you deeply fellow seeker. I am honored. It offers me likewise the personal opportunity to send you all the light, love, answers, and goodness that your search may uncover for you. It further allows me the opportunity to express that it is always my intent to address "the message" of an author, not the author. The only personal address I make is in my greeting. Beyond that, I attempt to make a great and pained distinction to discuss one's post and/or position, verses "addressing the person and/or one's personality". I have humbly attempted to make this distinction clear by memorializing it in writing, as I do so here again.

To that end, allow me for the first time to address the author as much as the message. I do not disagree with "you" dear friend. I take only a position. That position is more intended that we remain true to our reference point, i.e. "The Law of One". Otherwise we relegate this forum to any other LOO forum, or political forum, both filled with non-focused discussion stemming more, or as much, from opinion than source. "Perverting a message", whether intended or not, is not so much the issue. It happens under the best of circumstances irrespectively, both by good innocent people and student alike. As such, we need remain vigilant, thus dispensing with the fact of whether it is intended or not. It shakes out the same in this manner. This is simple and clean logic.You as much as any, given that you appreciate the Ra Material as much, also then feel it paramount that we remain focused and true to the message and material, verses allowing ourselves to argue or debate over fake diamonds, these tantamount to a misrepresented truth of "a something" which Ra did not say, and which is simply not there, and more particularly if it was in fact said with an altogether different intent, as I pointed out in my previous post. Unless I am misguided, we are here to discuss perspectives from "The Law of One", not other sources, and primarily to this point not other sources that are in variance to the Law of One, be they other sources, or be they our personal opinion.

As I've also suggested before, I have no issue with the word evil. It is just a word. I find it interesting that we devote so much time to a mere word. It is a nothing, and it exists only between the ears. If it truly has power, it is only illusory power. "There is no spoon" (ala the 'Matrix'). If we wish to defuse it's power dear friends, we needn't go through the illusory efforts to re-name it, or avoid it's name, much less attempt to dress it up or dress it down. This surrenders to it's power as much. Simply defuse it of it's power. That's power! Calling the elephant under the rug between one's ears a cat is still an elephant. Simply release it from it's stricture as Ra would say. That's power. There is no elephant. There is no cat. There is no spoon. Therefore the elephant is the cat is the spoon is nothing, as much as a simple word of dressing down the word evil to manipulation in the attempt to discharge it of it's power that isn't there...unless of course you say it is?

You clearly chaoticmind have evoked and engendered a great deal of good and valuable discussion. As such you further actively provide the opportunity for growth to those of us committed to the path of 'Service To Others', this directly and strongly so through your participation. To that we must thank you. You provide much towards the growth of many seeking the right hand path. You serve us. As such this can not in any manner be a bad thing. To the contrary, you provide a very very good thing.

We will meet at the merger of 6th density in any event my friend.

In sixth density, the density of unity, the positive and negative paths must needs take in each other for all now must be seen as love/light and light/love. This is not difficult for the positive polarity which sends love and light to all other-selves. It is difficult enough for service-to-self polarized entities that at some point the negative polarity is abandoned.

Thank you again, be always well, and this most particularly on your chosen and difficult path.

Q

[Chaotikmind]

To that end, allow me for the first time to address the author as much as the message. I do not disagree with "you" dear friend. I take only a position. That position is more intended that we remain true to our reference point, i.e. "The Law of One".

I got your point, i just tend to rely more on experience than any external source, it's easier to use texts to put words on experience than trying to use the texts to get that experience IMO.

Therefore the elephant is the cat is the spoon is nothing, as much as a simple word of dressing down the word evil to manipulation in the attempt to discharge it of it's power that isn't there...unless of course you say it is?

I'm reallly unsure that STS must be coined evil, rather in my understanding it's a consequence of being in third density that make STS people follow the path that way.
Anyway face to infinity , all these things are just a way for "one" to know thyself by experience, so i guess yes it's mere illusion and it don't really matter in the end.


You were previously talking about armchair philosophy, i guess talking is itself "armchair philosophy" compared to experience, and seeing how the world accelerate now (hard not to see it , feel it) it's probably not anymore the time to talk, hehe.

[Quantum]

To that end, allow me for the first time to address the author as much as the message. I do not disagree with "you" dear friend. I take only a position. That position is more intended that we remain true to our reference point, i.e. "The Law of One".

I got your point, i just tend to rely more on experience than any external source, it's easier to use texts to put words on experience than trying to use the texts to get that experience IMO.

Although I had thought to bow out of this thread, I feel honor bound to continue, this based on you willingness to engage. Thank you once more Chaotikmind. I am happy to continue with you. I was sure you, perhaps more than most, would in fact get my point, as you seem straight, able to divorce yourself form yourself, and able as a result to remain on point, verses viewing anything as personal. I commend you for this. In fact, having read all of your posts, as well as your challenges, I surmise you might feel deceptive to yourself were you to feel personal. I perceive you moreover as honest, particularly given your willingness to put yourself out there, and in as much as you state that you feel lying is a waste of energy. To that end Chaotikmind, may I again diverge from my norm by attempting to ask several questions, this as a means of perhaps illuminating positions in as much as you "tend to rely more on experience than any external source."
1. Have you read all of The Law of One books in their entirety?
2. If not, how many of them have you completed to date?
3. If not, do you intend to finish them?
4. If so, do you feel you resonate with the information contained within The Law of One as given by Ra
a) either in it's entirety?
b) to a larger part?
c) or to a lessor part?

You were previously talking about armchair philosophy, i guess talking is itself "armchair philosophy" compared to experience, and seeing how the world accelerate now (hard not to see it , feel it) it's probably not anymore the time to talk, hehe.

I wish once again to point out what I feel the distinction is between what I term armchair philosophy verses true philosophy. In response to ayadew Post #105 I open in my 5th sentence with: "I in no way believe that general philosophizing is a waste of time, as much as I do that armchair philosophizing is". After my #105 response to ayadew, I then needed again to reiterate, but at greater length to GLB's Post #108, wherein he too seemed to misinterpret, albeit with far more thrust, the same. I did so with my response to him in Post #109. You are exactly on target my friend where you state that experience, in this instance, serves better than 'armchair philosophizing'. Philosophy however at it's highest order and intent is not to be misconstrued with the armchair order. To your point of talking as a waste of time: Talking is communication. Communication has great power, whether it be self-talk or otherselves-talk. Both in a sense (self-talk vs other-selves talk) may be viewed as the same. Philosophy to it's highest order is not arm chair philosophy, just as talking as communication at it's deepest intent is not dribble or babble. Talking as communication at it's deepest order then is not a waste of time in any manner my friend. It may be argued then that communication empowered through a philosophy has the highest effect upon the planet, and man upon it.

I look forward to your answers. Thank you again Chaotikmind,

Q

[Chaotikmind]

1. Have you read all of The Law of One books in their entirety?
2. If not, how many of them have you completed to date?
3. If not, do you intend to finish them?
4. If so, do you feel you resonate with the information contained within The Law of One as given by Ra
a) either in it's entirety?
b) to a larger part?
c) or to a lessor part?

Yes i read all the books , but it's not very fresh in my memory,
i probably read those too quickly anyway.
I was thinking about re-reading the books not so long ago, but i'm fucking busy, coding all day long.
As i said earlier i think it's a good source of information,
so , yes some parts resonate within me,
i like the fact that some part are abstract and are kinda explaining the big picture and the structure of what surround us, let's say it allowed me to resolve parts of the puzzle i had in my mind and subsequently to clarify things.

To your point of talking as a waste of time: Talking is communication. Communication has great power, whether it be self-talk or otherselves-talk. Both in a sense (self-talk vs other-selves talk) may be viewed as the same. Philosophy to it's highest order is not arm chair philosophy, just as talking as communication at it's deepest intent is not dribble or babble. Talking as communication at it's deepest order then is not a waste of time in any manner my friend. It may be argued then that communication empowered through a philosophy has the highest effect upon the planet, and man upon it.

Anyway it's not really easy to fight the human nature which push us to talk(whatever the purpose), isn't it?
Still better to philosophize (even lightly)than speaking about the weather.

Being very busy i'll probably not have much time to make detailed posts.
But i'm still around.

[Phoenix]

On the subject of STS. And just pulling off from these detailed definitions for a second, I had an experience the other day that proved to me the usefulness of an understanding of the STS path when polarising STO.

I was going to the allotment, with two other people, and was not in a good mood. I was quite irritated for a while, and the allotment was very pleasant. Sun, kids laughing etc. I kept getting a feeling in my left ear, like the ringing I get which sometimes means look closely at your thoughts.

Two things I learn't. Firstly; being in a bad mood, just slightly irritated for a while is enough to affect polarity. Secondly; the thing that was actually annoying me was the kids laughing. They were just annoying me. I kept thinking how I prefer silence.

But, I had seen recently a very well played service to self fictional character that expressed the same views. 'I hate this time, it's so noisy.' That was what helped me understand my thoughts at the time. So understanding polarisation and opposites can be very helpful.