And another!
If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that the end-point of a sentience determines its polarity. For instance, in the scientism universe, starting at +y, results in a sentience working to overcome nature which reaches its apex at +x. Likewise a sentience starting in the "group universe" (at -x), where the only thing that's insurmountable is all things at peace, reaches its peak at +y.
These two philosophical schools represent positive polarity.
A universe where all things are naturally self ordering, and thus these sentience's start with "plenty," (at -y) ends in an attempt to overcome this reality of creationism with randomness and disorder (at -x). Similarly sentience's that start in a world of pure aesthetic, born knowing only self and possessing complete power to affect any change they want (beginning at +x), end their existence in an attempt to attain complete self-empowerment and "voluptuous pleasure" (at -y). These underlying principles clearly represent negative polarity as the end-point.
While these ideas may seem easy to grasp, it's not so simple, and amazingly Ra picks up on this a few lines down,
When I was first trying to express this idea I didn't want to condemn the self-ordering creationist reality and self-universe as inherently "evil" because it's easy to conflate negative polarity as implying a "bad" thing.
To understand this imagine "complete self-empowerment" as "complete self-empowerment of all other-selves." Viewed in this manner it's easy to see an extremely positive conclusion for the end of the self universe. Likewise if overcoming all choice at the end of the creationism universe is for the purpose of giving all creatures an opportunity to feel real accomplishment, in the sense that achieving things is inherently hard, then similarly this isn't negative because it's for the purpose of empowering the individual.
To further illustrate this point we can also imagine the positive polarity in a negative manner. Consider, for instance, a world where all people strive for unity, but where they go about accomplishing this in a manner similar to the Borg. Such a society would thrive on stripping the free-will from others, forcibly adding them to the collective; thus perverting an otherwise peaceful and altruistic goal.
To try to account for this variability of positive and negative results, which is different from polarity, I added the Z-axis to Fig. 1 representing consequence.
I should note, however, it's very likely rare for polarity to not match consequence because the cards are stacked a particular way based on the starting point of the given reality. It's really only the central universe that has the capability of overcoming all things in a balanced-fashion because it has no predisposition towards negative or positive results.
Quote:Questioner: Then did this particular Logos that we experience plan for this polarity and know all about it prior to its plan? I suspect that this is what happened.
Ra: I am Ra. This is quite correct.
Questioner: In that case, as a Logos, you would have an advantage of selecting the form of acceleration, you might say, of spiritual evolution by planning what we call the major archetypical philosophical foundations and planning these as a function of the polarity that would be gained in third density. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is exquisitely correct.
(Book 4, pg 19)
If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that the end-point of a sentience determines its polarity. For instance, in the scientism universe, starting at +y, results in a sentience working to overcome nature which reaches its apex at +x. Likewise a sentience starting in the "group universe" (at -x), where the only thing that's insurmountable is all things at peace, reaches its peak at +y.
These two philosophical schools represent positive polarity.
A universe where all things are naturally self ordering, and thus these sentience's start with "plenty," (at -y) ends in an attempt to overcome this reality of creationism with randomness and disorder (at -x). Similarly sentience's that start in a world of pure aesthetic, born knowing only self and possessing complete power to affect any change they want (beginning at +x), end their existence in an attempt to attain complete self-empowerment and "voluptuous pleasure" (at -y). These underlying principles clearly represent negative polarity as the end-point.
While these ideas may seem easy to grasp, it's not so simple, and amazingly Ra picks up on this a few lines down,
Quote:Questioner: In that case, it seems that a thorough knowledge of the precise nature of these philosophical foundations would be of primary importance to the study of evolution of mind, body, and spirit, and I would like to carefully go through each, starting with the mind. Is this agreeable with Ra?
Ra: I am Ra. This is agreeable with two requests which must be made. Firstly, that an attempt be made to state the student’s grasp of each archetype. We may then comment. We cannot teach/learn to the extent of learn/teaching. Secondly, we request that it be constantly kept before the mind, as the candle before the eye, that each mind/body/spirit complex shall and should and, indeed, must perceive each archetype, if you use this convenient term, in its own way. Therefore, you may see that precision is not the goal; rather the quality of general concept complex perception is the goal.
When I was first trying to express this idea I didn't want to condemn the self-ordering creationist reality and self-universe as inherently "evil" because it's easy to conflate negative polarity as implying a "bad" thing.
To understand this imagine "complete self-empowerment" as "complete self-empowerment of all other-selves." Viewed in this manner it's easy to see an extremely positive conclusion for the end of the self universe. Likewise if overcoming all choice at the end of the creationism universe is for the purpose of giving all creatures an opportunity to feel real accomplishment, in the sense that achieving things is inherently hard, then similarly this isn't negative because it's for the purpose of empowering the individual.
To further illustrate this point we can also imagine the positive polarity in a negative manner. Consider, for instance, a world where all people strive for unity, but where they go about accomplishing this in a manner similar to the Borg. Such a society would thrive on stripping the free-will from others, forcibly adding them to the collective; thus perverting an otherwise peaceful and altruistic goal.
To try to account for this variability of positive and negative results, which is different from polarity, I added the Z-axis to Fig. 1 representing consequence.
I should note, however, it's very likely rare for polarity to not match consequence because the cards are stacked a particular way based on the starting point of the given reality. It's really only the central universe that has the capability of overcoming all things in a balanced-fashion because it has no predisposition towards negative or positive results.