(10-01-2016, 08:22 PM)peregrine Wrote: [/i]For instance, you say that will or desire create the pressure to drive the water, and its direction determines + or - polarity. I say that will or desire may give direction, and maybe some power, but most of the power is due to a polarized differential of energy that has little to do with will, directly. Example: I strongly desire to offer comfort and love through spirit out to people within my community in a powerful and effective way. I may use my will and desire all I like, but if I have weak polarity, it can have only a marginal effect. On the other hand, if my polarity is mighty, then my will may be only casual, yet much energy is delivered where it is accepted. I've seen examples of both and have experienced some degree of both.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts peregrine, I find them interesting, but have similar disagreements with them.
I guess I find this conceptualization a bit strange, because to me, the efficacy of a given act is not determined *BY* polarity, but rather, it *IS* an expression of the polarity. So if one is highly polarized, it simply means they are highly oriented towards radiating towards others, without expectation of return. So the polarity, in this context, would be the strength of ones dedication, or will, to serving others. That will, or strength of orientation, is what I would conceptualize as a kind of "momentum" in consciousness, and that is what I feel most accurately represents the metaphysical electricity that Ra refers to when they talk about polarity. It could also be thought of as an increased degree of "orientation towards oneness". Even in the case of negative polarity, I would describe it as an orientation towards oneness, because to purely control others, is to, in a manner of speaking, "collect their souls" into oneself. The difference with positive polarity is that the "coming together in oneness" is volitional, rather than dominative. Both result in a gathering of power, because unity *is* power, among other things.