Biased view of STS...and INFINITY

[Steppingfeet]

My view is that STS represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the self as creator, and STO represents the energetic and philosophic emphasis on the creator as self, if that makes sense.

"Energetic" and "philosophic" are, I agree, two helpful lenses for understanding polarity in that they help to filter from their view the judgment inherent in the dynamics of morality and ethics. Ra says:

Session 93
QUESTIONER: You have stated previously that the foundation of our present illusion is the concept of polarity. I would like to ask, since we have defined the two polarities as service-to-others and service-to-self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition of these polarities or any more information that we don’t have at this time that you could give on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?

RA: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service-to-others and service-to-self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

Jeremy, I see as one of the primary thrusts of your argument the benefit of lifting the perspective to gaze upon polarity from a broader, non-judgmental perspective. I agree essentially with almost everything you've written in your three previous posts. However, I have a finer point to make. I believe that - in opposition to your concurrent point which reduces polarity to a label that is best unpeeled from the self - it is necessary and helpful to retain polarity as a portion of the manifest identity. I'll attempt to make that argument as I go.

Perhaps the healthiest view of the STS/STO duality is to see it as a tool for development rather than an identity. You aren't STO or STS; you are simply emphasizing STO or STS within a unified creation at any given time.

Awesome thought. I would concur that the entity is ultimately a unity which chooses and emphasizes a focus, but the entity, in order to be "an entity" at all, must need move through and identify with an experience of polarity.

This concept of the amorality of STS - isn't that really what we're talking about? - was a stumbling block for me as well. In my first attempts to grapple with the LOO, I even came out of it initially thinking that Ra themselves did not favor STO over STS - especially since at 6th density they were past polarity.

Perhaps simply a matter of semantics, or perhaps something which shines a greater light on the matter, I would make a modification to your statement, substituting "trans-moral" for "amoral".

A shark swimming in the ocean is amoral. Morality plays no part in its decision-making process as to what organic creature will become its next meal. It is not within the realm of possibility that morality could factor into the shark's thinking, at least as far as I'm aware! On an evolutionary timeline, amorality comes *before* the advent of morality.

What you suggest is not entirely the absence of morality as exhibited in a previous state of evolution but rather a transcendence of morality in an advanced evolutionary state of being. To be *amoral* would be a movement of regression, as far as I see it.

It is said of the mystic that he or she does not adhere to the local code of morality. This is not because the mystic is amoral. The mystic follows a higher, more exacting code, which is best understood by me as the Tao: to be in harmony with the divine will, to see and be the Creator in all. (Incidentally, I vaguely recall something in the Tao te Ching about the rise of morality precipitating the loss of the Way.)

My contribution would consist of asking what unity actually means vis a vis STO and STS. To me, it's not two halves of a whole so much as two responses to truth, namely the truth of ultimate unity - creator as self.

Rock on! I think it's a fundamentally sound practice to begin with the premise of a pre-existent background (and totality) of reality to which the 3rd density entity responds to in its various modes and dances, including polarity.

Again, I would be *very, very* careful in pigeonholing oneself into a polarized identity. In doing so, you pile constructs (if not judgments) on yourself that can only color your exploration of yourself. Why not just look at yourself without the lens of STO/STS? Instead of understanding where you are in the game, why not understand yourself on your own terms?

I may be wrong, but I think you place cart before horse here, Jeremy.

As I situated morality on an evolutionary scale, I would do the same with polarity. The entities of first and second density are without polarity. This is not however a result of having evolved beyond polarity, but rather because these entities exist pre-polarity.

This point is worth repeating because it brings to focus where in this evolutionary journey we as third density entities are positioned. We are in a polarized reality whose polarized nature will continue for quite some time. Polarity, predicated upon the veil, makes evolution move, and is, as Ra says, the "crux" upon which turns the creation. This should not, imho, be de-emphasized as one would de-emphasize their racial identity or career-identity or any of those more gross and limited, transient, and temporal identities.

Session 67
Glory in the strength of your polarization and allow others of opposite polarity to similarly do so, seeing the great humor of this polarity and its complications in view of the unification in sixth-density of these two paths.

Polarity, though apparently humorous from Ra's standpoint, is key to all that we will do now and billions of years to come. All that we will do is a direct outgrowth of who we believe ourselves to be. Eventually, according to Ra's cosmology, yes, we will transcend polarity altogether, but that is a long way in coming. Until that time, I believe polarity should necessarily be factored into our understanding of ourselves even as we reach towards a non-polarized reality.

Huston Smith wrote one of my favorite book's entitled, "The World's Religions". In the Introduction, he says:

It is a book which seeks to embrace the world. In one sense, of course, that wish must fail. Even when stretched to the maximum, a single pair of arms falls short, and feet must be planted somewhere. To begin with the obvious, the book is written in English, which to some extent anchors it from the start. Next come cross-references, introduced to ease entry into foreign turf. There are proverbs from China, tales from India, paradoxes from Japan, but most of the [word missing] are Western: a line from Shakespeare, a verse from the Bible, a suggestion from psychoanalysis - Eliot and Toynbee have already been quoted. Beyond idiom, however, the book is incorrigibly Western in being targeted for the contemporary Western mind. That being the author's mind, he had no choice in the matter; but it must be accepted with the recognition that the book would have been different had it been written by a Zen Buddhist, a Muslim Sufi, or a Polish Jew.

This book then has a home - a home whose doors swing freely in an out, a base from which to journey forth and return, only to hit the road again in study and imaginings when not in actual travel.

Even in contacting that essential all self within, the macrocosmic mystery-clad being, we must necessarily, in my opinion, move through our own nature, we must move through our polarity.

I can see the utility of the exercise which seeks to free the self from any notion of polarity, but to arrive at a point truly free of polarity, one most begin from their starting point in and as a being of polarity, and then one must experience polarity by choosing it, even if on a subconscious level, and then consciously potentiating it. The material for study is the self.

In other words, in order to move beyond polarity, we do not erase it, we instead move through it. To move through something, as far as I'm aware, is to experience it, to love and accept it, to balance it within the self, and to then use the higher energy available to us in order to contact intelligent infinity through the gateway. Thus is balanced the understanding of the apparently distorted self within the illusion with the all-self which is totally and forever perfect. The human is a bridge with anchors on two shores, both of which need honored.

In fact, the very act of "accepting and loving" self, other-self, and experience itself is a polarized act. Whether we abstract upon polarity with intellectual formulae or not makes no difference, to accept and to love is to move in accordance with the polarized creation. This is not escaped, as far as I'm aware. Then again, I can only write from the perspective of a polarized entity.

I welcome any thoughts from anyone with a spare machete who can shop this post down to size!