What does polarization mean? Are there 3 polarities?

[rva_jeremy]

#1) What is it we mean by polarization? Can we have a positive & negative red,orange,yellow, etc chakras? Or is positive polarization a configuration of chakras that includes green ray where negative does not? My understanding is that polarization is the latter, but would like your take on it.

In my best understanding, "polarization" is a word used by the Confederation to refer to harnessing desire and will in order to direct energy in a concentrated fashion. This is what I believe those of Ra mean by the rather generic physics metaphor, "the ability to do work". It must be understood that the phenomenal manner in which this work manifests is a matter of the level at which one views its fruits. So directing energy could manifest as sending undifferentiated love and light to another, it could manifest as extending the hand to another in real life, it could manifest as both at the same time, etc. This is why I believe those of Ra use clinical terms like "polarization": for precisely the reason that it is a much more noumenal creature, and the way it filters into our experience is variable. But it is at that noumenal level that we have a much deeper existence, where our phenomenal experience provides a reflection or analog of the spiritual process.

I'm no authority, but I believe that the way energy channels through our chakras is itself another reflection of our mental configuration (I think they talk about this in session 51 or 52). Our mental configuration, of course, is the level at which our will most cleanly and directly manifests, since obviously thoughts can coalesce with much more ease and less consequence than in material reality. So it would make sense that as we filter down distillations of spirit into mind, the energy of Creation conforms and reflects this, providing a feedback mechanism for novel ways of performing the service of thought.

To answer you latter question more directly, yes: this is why there are patterns of chakra activation/blockage typified by the two poles. They are reflections of, or alternative ways of viewing, how we "distort" the undifferentiated energies of the Creator in order to have an experience that is ours, or an experience that is seemingly separate from the Creator's.

#2) Along with positive and negative polarities, is there a neutral polarity? When we say 51% positive polarization, does this mean 51% positive and 49% negative, or does this mean 51% positive and 49% neutral? Or is there some combination of 51% positive, 30% neutral, 19% negative?

I don't think it's useful to think of a neutral polarity, but I can see why one might be inclined to think that way (after all, even at the subatomic level we have "neutrons" distinguished from electrons and protons by their lack of charge). One of the key things to understand about polarity as a spiritual phenomenon is the way it reflects the will. To be unpolarized is to not have the will or desire to push forward into more refined experiences and energies. This is the unpolarized sector of experience where one is still attempting to discover the inner biases that, once accepted and potentiated through use of will, pushes one forward on the spiritual journey through experiences that explore the polarized view of a catalyst, experiences that are much richer and vivid and thus sink down into the roots of mind to offer the Creator the fruits with more fidelity, sureness, and gravity.

Perhaps it's useful instead to think of neutral polarity as "the entity at rest", where the entity is being worked on by the Creator, as opposed to the polarized entity doing work and creating a dynamic tension in the Creator that is informing it and exploring its nature. Of course, what the character or polarity of this work is is a separate question from whether there is the possibility to do work in the first place. So there are two dichotomies here: neutrality vs polarity, and negative vs. positive.

The former dichotomy might be explored by looking into those of Ra's observations of the previous octave, where polarity did not play a role. This dichotomy was described as "actor" vs. "acted upon," or "mover" vs. "moved." Is an entity being worked on and explored by the Creation in order to begin to awaken it's inherent identity as the Creator, or is the entity awakened and acting upon the Creation to explore it as a continually developing Creator? We see here the two essential "vantage points" that exemplify duality as a tool for, or process enabling, the Creator to understand itself.

The latter dichotomy is that of polarity, where there is discovered in the Creator's exploration of self-consciousness and self-directed evolution the utility of adding an additional "charge" to the nature of waking up and taking control of the soul's return to the Creator. Not only is the entity experiencing the process of waking up to its own power as in the first dichotomy, but it can also understand that power in two ways: doubling down on an identity that flows from acknowledging the unity of Creation, or doubling down on an identity that reinforces the illusion of separation. Because we are all the Creator, each of us has just as much potential to go in either direction, as both reflect capacities of creativity inherent in Creatorship.

To summarize, I would argue that the question of the direction in which the power is used is worth recognizing as fundamentally separate from the question of whether the power should be used at all. However, I'm open to any thoughts you or others might have in using a model of "trichotomy" here. Of course it's possible: the governing concern, in my mind, is whether it's useful or not.

I hope I've been able to help folks think through these things, it's certainly been helpful to me, and I look forward to criticisms.