Acceptance and Will

[Monica]

Also, I suppose what I was getting at is that it seems absolute acceptance is indeed the highest route, because at maximal service to others you would even allow yourself to be murdered and still love the assailant.

It might not be that simple. A person allowing themselves to be murdered might be serving the murderer, but is she serving her children whom she left behind, motherless?

[Unbound]

Yes, that can serve to be a catalyst for learning for the children.

---

Since we choose whom we incarnate to and are informed of particular life implications prior to incarnation, it would most likely be part of the dance.

[3DMonkey]

Also, I suppose what I was getting at is that it seems absolute acceptance is indeed the highest route, because at maximal service to others you would even allow yourself to be murdered and still love the assailant.

It might not be that simple. A person allowing themselves to be murdered might be serving the murderer, but is she serving her children whom she left behind, motherless?

It is possible that the children chose to be incarnated into a family whose mother would die this way.

Either way, the children must learn the lesson of accepting all that has happened to create who they are today. This is what all of us learn on our spiritual journey.

[Ens Entium]

Yes, that can serve to be a catalyst for learning for the children.

---

Since we choose whom we incarnate to and are informed of particular life implications prior to incarnation, it would most likely be part of the dance.

So lets say i decided, right now, spur of the moment, to, indiscriminately, kill 50 people. Don't you think that represents an unforeseen loss for the children- considered preincarnatively even? And since it seems you imply provision of catalyst is sto, i must then be doing a really good job at being of sto since i'm providing great catalyst in terms of then forcing the children left behind to learn to accept their lot and deal with the loss of the parent who could be a bread winner.

Important to remember is the word service. This means we act in support of the survival, values and intentions held. With the provision, for service to others that your actions not detract from the primary objective of helping others.. i.e. serving the values and intentions of an sts individual is not sto, or at least mixed polarity.

In response to the original question. I think we accept those agents which can act as cause by virtue of their being, to do otherwise would invalidate them as such, and so fragment the principle of free will. We do not.. need to accept the effects that issue from them. Carried to it's fullest extent this acceptance renders our intentions moot. This is the principle i see here. So i would stop the murder. Just my thoughts, they're not new on this thread, just repackaged, which is hopefully of some help.

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Monica]

Yes, that can serve to be a catalyst for learning for the children.

---

Since we choose whom we incarnate to and are informed of particular life implications prior to incarnation, it would most likely be part of the dance.

Undoubtedly. But irrelevant to the point.

---

It is possible that the children chose to be incarnated into a family whose mother would die this way.

Either way, the children must learn the lesson of accepting all that has happened to create who they are today. This is what all of us learn on our spiritual journey.

But irrelevant to my point, which is that a mother who stops the aggressor for the sake of her children, is serving her children (STO), and that trumps serving the aggressor.

This was in response to 3DM saying that a mother allowing someone to kill her, would be serving the killer. I contend that the mother stopping the killer, for the sake of her children, is an STO act.

All of this is purely academic, of course, since no one would meekly allow themselves to be murdered, unless it was because of some fanatical belief of some sort.

But normal, sane people won't just let themselves be killed because they 'love' the murderer. The instinct to preserve one's life is very strong - why? And the instinct to protect one's children is equally strong.

Whatever catalyst is generated for the children, or what they do when they grow up, is all irrelevant to the point, which is about the mother's motivation.

---

IF a murder happens it must be accepted, it does not do well to brood or hate, however of course if a murder can be prevented it is entirely a different thing because the acceptance is in potentiation until the event.

Agreed

Say you save a potential murder victim, you must still accept the implications of the continuance of the life. What if that person goes on to be angry and ultimately then murders someone one day?

There is no way any of us could know whether that person will one day be a Hitler or a Mother Theresa. Therefore we could not be responsible for what the person does later.

If we know the person is a serial killer, that is a different question altogether. But for a random woman in an alley about to get murdered, what she does later is irrelevant to the question, at this point.

Personally I don't think acceptance is so much about one's preferences but rather to do with the fluidity with which one flows through life. If you are not accepting of the Now you will continue to build negative distortions with denial and guilt, or the like. Accept yourself, accept your experiences and accept the lessons you have. None of us are here to tell anyone what lessons to learn, only to share in experience.

Agreed.

---

serving the values and intentions of an sts individual is not sto

Very astute point! We are not required to serve the values and intentions of an STS entity, in order to love and accept them.

If we do, then we are essentially choosing those values and intentions.

Thank you, Ens, for joining the conversation! You have just offered a valuable gem.

Just my thoughts, they're not new on this thread, just repackaged, which is hopefully of some help.

Definitely!

[3DMonkey]

This was in response to 3DM saying that a mother allowing someone to kill her, would be serving the killer. I contend that the mother stopping the killer, for the sake of her children, is an STO act.

I continue to maintain that this is not STO because it is not seeing the killer (other) as self. "for the sake of" is a distortion of the mother that she is holding onto a part of the illusion, and she does not want to let go, therefore she is serving her self interest.

It may very well turn out to be a positive vibration after the event, but there is no way we could know that because it could go either way. The choice is in the now. "stopping the killer", in the now, is a polarization toward the negative.

[Confused]

I suggest we leave examples or analogies involving family/blood relations outside the ambit of tough topics. It can needlessly provoke the intended reader, and taint the river of harmony that we want to see here flow.

[3DMonkey]

I suggest we leave examples or analogies involving family/blood relations outside the ambit of tough topics. It can needlessly provoke the intended reader, and taint the river of harmony that we want to see here flow.

I will take your suggestion. But I gotta say, your suggestion brought to mind a really good one that would demonstrate how an improper distortion could cause one to see their sts action as sto.
You are right. I will follow your lead.

[Ens Entium]

Perhaps we made an agreement that I would influence you to kill 50 people? This is not a question of the intention of the cause of death but the degree to which acceptance is a part of the STO path.

This means we act in support of the survival, values and intentions held. With the provision, for service to others that your actions not detract from the primary objective of helping others.. i.e. serving the values and intentions of an sts individual is not sto, or at least mixed polarity.

That's as far as acceptance goes, for me at least. Do you think i'm genuinely missing the point of acceptance within sto principles. I may be, you know. It's important that i mention i'm speaking of acceptance in the sense allowance. If you mean it in the sense of acknowledgment, then sure, there shouldn't be anything that you don't acknowledge without resistance etc. And so you see i think the question me how far 'acceptance' goes in sto is very much linked to what the intentions in the situation are. As for what you said about making an agreement to kill 50 people. We might agree and so according to that narrow consideration of only considering the intent of us two, you would be right as i'd be serving you then- catering to your values and intentions. But, that's why i added the provision that it must not detract from your overall objective of being of service to others.

It would not be a service to be vengeful or vindictive concerning a 'murder', the distraction with the images of the suffering children is quite besides the point.

Actually, given the implication you made about harsh catalyst being of service, it is quite central to the point of what one accepts (allows) to occur, given that capability creates an opportunity to accept responsibility. And, lol, i don't think anyone here really advocates vengence or vindictiveness.

IF a murder happens it must be accepted, it does not do well to brood or hate, however of course if a murder can be prevented it is entirely a different thing because the acceptance is in potentiation until the event. Say you save a potential murder victim, you must still accept the implications of the continuance of the life.

Lol, i realise how i must've sounded silly there. Certainly, what is done is done.. and you are right it does do well to respond unhealthily. I meant it more to mean that we should act in response and according to our intentions and values, not accepting (allowing) the negative service (effects). As is pointed out with the mention of psychic greeting.

What if that person goes on to be angry and ultimately then murders someone one day? The web of experience is incredibly complicated on this point I feel.

Indeed it is! If the person i save goes on to become a murderer, then by virtue of teleology of ethics, i must accept responsibility for that. As spero pointed out.

Personally I don't think acceptance is so much about one's preferences but rather to do with the fluidity with which one flows through life.

Apologies for not being clear that i was thinking of acceptance more in terms of allowance rather than acknowledgment. I agree when we think of it as an acknowledgment.

If you are not accepting of the Now you will continue to build negative distortions with denial and guilt, or the like.

Yes, if we think of acceptance in the sense of acknowledgment. Although being of service to others would seem to ameliorate that build up.

Accept yourself, accept your experiences and accept the lessons you have. None of us are here to tell anyone what lessons to learn, only to share in experience.

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not saying we should directly dictate another's lessons in that way. However, if giving service modifies the set of catalyst that way another receives, there is then responsibility that can be accepted or denied.

And in light of what you bring up here, i must add, it's better the closer to just offering service we keep.

Would this be any different than a psychic attack? http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=67

---

"You have here a balanced and polarized view of the Creator; two services offered, mutually rejected, and in a state of equilibrium in which free will is preserved and each allowed to go upon its own path of experiencing the One Infinite Creator."

Good point, what we're considering here is quite like that situation. They acknowledged the 'service' of the orion entity without resistance but did not accept it. Here acceptance was very much about the preference away from martyrdom and we can see how full acceptance would help with fluidity of experience.

---

By the way, thank you Azrael for mentioning what you did. It helped me get a bit clearer on the following concept.

We can think of acceptance and will (your intentions) as being on two ends of a line, with a slider in between them, setting how much acceptance in relation to will and vice versa. I think one's determination of ethics determines where the slider will lie.

---

And thanks Monica

[unity100]

Perhaps we made an agreement that I would influence you to kill 50 people?

that wouldnt matter - in your current situation, you dont know whether you have made an arrangement as such or not, and you need to act on the best principles as possible in compliance with your path. blind flight, during which you only have your high principles to guide you.

[Confused]

I will follow your lead.

No, 3, we will together follow the lead of the LOO.

The principles of understanding support and wisdom filled love for each other.

[Monica]

I continue to maintain that this is not STO because it is not seeing the killer (other) as self. "for the sake of" is a distortion of the mother that she is holding onto a part of the illusion, and she does not want to let go, therefore she is serving her self interest.

You don't know that she isn't seeing the killer as self.

You don't know whether she is saving the children out of self-interest or out of love for the children.

Neither of these can be known, based on her outward actions.

However, I think I stated, when I offered the fictitious example, that for the purpose of illustration, we could assume that she was seeing the killer as self, and she was acting out of love, not self-interest.

In this hypothetical scenario:

The mother chooses, in that split second, to recognize the killer as self, and even has compassion for the killer. However, her love for her children prevails. Focused on that love, she chooses to act according to STO principles, which are to serve her children, rather than contributing to STS principles, and she stops the killer.

I invite you to let go of presuppositions and re-read what I just wrote, with an open mind.

It may very well turn out to be a positive vibration after the event, but there is no way we could know that because it could go either way.

The examples Ra gave of polarization were based on intention, not on outcome.

The choice is in the now. "stopping the killer", in the now, is a polarization toward the negative.

There is simply no way any of us can make such a blanket statement. Actions alone don't determine polarization.

---

I suggest we leave examples or analogies involving family/blood relations outside the ambit of tough topics. It can needlessly provoke the intended reader, and taint the river of harmony that we want to see here flow.

How else can we dig deeply into these difficult questions, if not with fictitious illustrations? Examples make the intangible concepts tangible.

---

They acknowledged the 'service' of the orion entity without resistance but did not accept it.

There it is right there. Why are we still discussing this? Either we choose to accept Ra's guidance on this or we don't. This isn't one of those ambiguous cases subject to myriad interpretations; Ra's choice and explanation of that choice were very clear.

We can think of acceptance and will (your intentions) as being on two ends of a line, with a slider in between them, setting how much acceptance in relation to will and vice versa. I think one's determination of ethics determines where the slider will lie.

Excellent illustration! This is what I was trying to convey when I said both free will and acceptance must be taken into consideration.

And thanks Monica

Thank you!

---

that wouldnt matter - in your current situation, you dont know whether you have made an arrangement as such or not, and you need to act on the best principles as possible in compliance with your path. blind flight, during which you only have your high principles to guide you.

Exactly! Nor do we know what the killer will do in the future, or what the children will do in the future. The killer might repent and turn into a saint, or he might kill more people. The children might facilitate world peace or end starvation, or they might grow up to be killers. We have no way of knowing any of that at this point; therefore, we are not responsible for those eventualities.

We are only responsible for acting on our highest principles.

[kycahi]

Wow, thanks to spero, Az and Ens for joining the thread. I was getting frustrated at the verbal rock throwing (I meant that in a good way ) that two terrific people were engaged in. There's nothing wrong with having passion in point making, by the way.

It's morning in CA, I took my anti-deps and a mug of Kona coffee and I feel ready to chime in (or it's just a dopamine high ).

I have posted often that 3D is full of bumblers feeling their/our way toward making the Choice while accruing truckloads of experience. I think that murder is an extreme example of bumbling and experiencing. Mass murders, such as the industrialized version of Nazi-ism or the horrific goings on in Cambodia and Stalinist era USSR, were probably carried out mostly by loyal, deluded and dedicated followers rather than STS choosers. Some inner circle henchmen of those leaders may have chosen STS, but most of the carriers out of the murderous policies were enslaved more than intending toward STS, IMO.

I don't think that a 3Der who chooses STS will start packing a gun and look for targets. That's bumbling. The job of an STSer is to follow the orders of his/her recruiter and start recruiting his/her own followers with promises of power or secret knowledge or just, initially, a better life. I submit that murder is a product of our 3D physical, mental and spiritual noise most of the time.

So, what's a STOer to do? I think that I can accept and love a murderer even as I deplore that behavior. If one of them points a gun at a loved one, I hope that I would try to intervene by pleading with that person to think it through. I also hope that I would stand in the way of the bullet as I do this. This would be service to the loved one AND to the bumbler by my informed accepting of a possible outcome.

I hope I'm never tested, though. I might just cowardly turn tail and run away.

[Monica]

Wow, thanks to spero, Az and Ens for joining the thread. I was getting frustrated at the verbal rock throwing (I meant that in a good way ) that two terrific people were engaged in. There's nothing wrong with having passion in point making, by the way.

I too am glad that others have joined in. Of course I never intended my own words to be construed as 'verbal rock throwing' but I can see how they seem that way, when a topic is hotly debated. This has been very frustrating and exhausting for me.

...murder is an extreme example of bumbling and experiencing. Mass murders, such as the industrialized version of Nazi-ism or the horrific goings on in Cambodia and Stalinist era USSR, were probably carried out mostly by loyal, deluded and dedicated followers rather than STS choosers. Some inner circle henchmen of those leaders may have chosen STS, but most of the carriers out of the murderous policies were enslaved more than intending toward STS, IMO.

Very true.

I don't think that a 3Der who chooses STS will start packing a gun and look for targets. That's bumbling. The job of an STSer is to follow the orders of his/her recruiter and start recruiting his/her own followers with promises of power or secret knowledge or just, initially, a better life. I submit that murder is a product of our 3D physical, mental and spiritual noise most of the time.

Probably true in most cases. However, many of these bumblers are on the path towards STS polarization, if they don't find healing along the way.

I think that I can accept and love a murderer even as I deplore that behavior.

Absolutely agreed! This is where choice comes in.

If one of them points a gun at a loved one, I hope that I would try to intervene by pleading with that person to think it through. I also hope that I would stand in the way of the bullet as I do this. This would be service to the loved one AND to the bumbler by my informed accepting of a possible outcome.

It has been a given to me that STO entities would attempt to reason with the aggressor, or use some way of neutralizing the aggression in a non-violent way, before resorting to physical force. Thank you for stating what to me was obvious. It needed to be spelled out.

---

We've been discussing the scenario of a murder. It has been stated (which I disagree with) that stopping the STS-oriented action is, itself, an STS action, and that the only way to respond in an STO way is to surrender to the STS action.

So let's take this a step further. What is murder, but a form of abuse?

By the above logic, does this mean that other forms of abuse should be treated the same way? For a principle to be sound, it must be applicable in similar situations. Surely, abuse is similar to murder. They're the same, basically - just further gradations of dominating an other-self. So if the principle works for a murder scenario, it should also work for an abuse scenario. Let's test it out.

Does this mean that the wife of an alcoholic, physically abusive husband should submit to the physical beatings he imposes on her?

After all, it is the husband's free will to beat his wife! By refusing to let him beat her, she is controlling and manipulating him, which are STS actions, according to the logic that has been offered.

So, following the logic, she should accept the beatings, even to the point of her children watching and growing up believing that this is how men are supposed to treat their wives: like property, things to do with as they wish.

Those male children, in turn, grow up to be abusive, and the cycle continues...Or maybe they even grow up to be...murderers, because they took the cycle of abuse to a higher level. They watched their father repeatedly beat their mother, and learned how to control, manipulate, and harm those who are weaker than they. And the girl child learned to submit to those who are stronger, and she in turn marries an abusive man....and the cycle continues.

What it really boils down to is this: Just what is the highest principle here?

[native]

"for the sake of" is a distortion of the mother that she is holding onto a part of the illusion, and she does not want to let go, therefore she is serving her self interest.

"stopping the killer", in the now, is a polarization toward the negative.

I disagree.

Protection is an act of green ray love even if yellow ray will is involved. And we certainly can't spin off into crazy hypotheticals of "well maybe the person wants to be murdered or it's supposed to happen." You don't have that knowledge available to you, so you can only act in accordance with the thought that someone obviously doesn't want to be murdered and the resulting polarity will be based on that no matter what else is at play. This protective act is sto.

Also, as a mother she has assumed responsibility for the child. This is her duty, her service to another. To not protect the child is to break this service. In this way her will is not yellow ray..it is the green ray will of serving another. Will does not explicitly equate to self-interest. Everything could be said to have will (a preference).

Let's not confuse the will of yellow ray self-interest with the will to serve others as the same thing. They are two different energies.

[Monica]

I would add also that, a mother's love for her child is one of the most beautiful examples of STO love we have here in 3D. To reduce the powerful love of a mother for her children to mere 'self interest' is, in my opinion, a disservice.

[3DMonkey]

Monica. It was my suggestion to begin with that STO reason with the aggressor. To which you retort "split second" or not enough time.

I feel like I'm being made out as though I'm suggesting what someone should do. I really don't think that you have stopped to actually read my words. By all means, you should follow your heart, your distortions, in all that you do.

I'm only saying that controlling an action of another is STS, and not to fool yourself.

It really is a moot point. None of will know what we have achieved in polarity until we enter time/space at death.

---

I would add also that, a mother's love for her child is one of the most beautiful examples of STO love we have here in 3D. To reduce the powerful love of a mother for her children to mere 'self interest' is, in my opinion, a disservice.

Omg mOnica! One moment in time does not make an entity. Omg

[Monica]

Monica. It was my suggestion to begin with that STO reason with the aggressor. To which you retort "split second" or not enough time.

You suggested reasoning with the aggressor instead of directly stopping him. I didn't 'retort' but simply offered an example of a case in which there might not be any time for reasoning. Certainly, if there's time, that's a viable option. The entire discussion was about those cases in which there isn't time for that, or it doesn't work. That's why I said "reasoning with him" if there's time, is a given.

I feel like I'm being made out as though I'm suggesting what someone should do.

No, you've made it clear that you can't know exactly what to do in any given situation, until one is in that situation.

You have, however, been very unshakable in some views that I would consider rigid and absolutist. It's rigid and absolutist to state that xyz action is "always" STS, without taking into consideration what Ra has told us regarding intentions, the gradations of polarity, free will, etc. These are all factors that come into play, that you seem to be ignoring.

I really don't think that you have stopped to actually read my words.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they haven't considered your viewpoints. If anything, it is you who seems to not be reading the words of others (not just me). I cannot be accused of not reading your words, when I have actually responded to nearly every point you've made.

Which you haven't done with my points, leading me to conclude that you aren't reading or considering my words.

That's ok. That is your prerogative. But please don't assume that someone hasn't considered your points, when they have spent a lot of time actually answering your points, when you haven't done the same.

By all means, you should follow your heart, your distortions, in all that you do.

Yippee! Something we can agree on!

I'm only saying that controlling an action of another is STS, and not to fool yourself.

You have repeated that numerous times. I understand that is your view. And, in a simplistic situation, of course that is correct. But, respectfully 3DM, you seem to be ignoring the complexities.

I would add also that, a mother's love for her child is one of the most beautiful examples of STO love we have here in 3D. To reduce the powerful love of a mother for her children to mere 'self interest' is, in my opinion, a disservice.

Omg mOnica! One moment in time does not make an entity. Omg

I said nothing about "making an entity." You did. You made a judgment about the intentions of a mother, which you cannot possibly know.

As a mother, I find it distasteful, even offensive, to be told that when I take any action on behalf of my child, it is out of self-interest. You made that blanket statement. You aren't a mother so you cannot know.

[3DMonkey]

You are now hurting me. I will not continue. Don't apologize. I doubt your sincereity.

My final word- every situation contains love, and if one chooses love it is their own resposibility to distill the situation down to love.

[native]

Omg mOnica! One moment in time does not make an entity. Omg

This isn't about moments though. We're talking about fundamental distortions of the Law of One if we don't sort this stuff out. I think it's fundamentally wrong to think stopping an action in the name of protection is somehow a sts act in of itself.

As Unity said, we operate on higher principles. If we stop an act of separation, this could only mean that it is viewed as a positive act no matter whatever else is at play. You aren't controlling the aggressor, you are preventing a negative polarization from happening.

In the name of positive polarity, acting against doesn't equate to controlling. If this were the case, any positive act conflicting a negative agenda would be considered sts. This isn't possible. You are only moving on a sliding scale.

You are trying to bind polarized actions to definitions of the English language that carry a negative connotation. I wouldn't view stopping an act of separation as "controlling". I think this is the misunderstanding. You are serving the Creator in a positive fashion.

---

I would add also that, a mother's love for her child is one of the most beautiful examples of STO love we have here in 3D. To reduce the powerful love of a mother for her children to mere 'self interest' is, in my opinion, a disservice.

I think we are getting caught up in limitations of our language and the distortions that definitions carry with them.

You would be hard pressed to argue that in the moment, protecting a child is self-interest. Even if this were true..out of self-interest..why is that the case?

Because you love them. So then, at the very base level, you aren't doing it out of self-interest..you are doing it in the name of love which is sto.

[Monica]

You are now hurting me. I will not continue. Don't apologize. I doubt your sincereity.

My final word- every situation contains love, and if one chooses love it is their own resposibility to distill the situation down to love.

I marvel at how, when we discuss these important concepts, conflicts often come up between members of our community which illustrate the archetypes at work. The very concepts we are discussing, manifest right in front of our noses!

I now find myself in a dilemma. What to do? I know in my heart that I never intended any offense or hurt towards 3DMonkey. And, although I felt momentarily offended by some of his comments towards me, which I perceived as confrontational, I know with absolute certainty that he never intended to hurt me either.

This is simply what happens when people discuss volatile topics. Buttons get pushed, and people perceive academic points as personal, when they were never intended to be personally directed. In most cases, both parties are simply expressing their opinions. It's nice when people can work together, and learn from each other, and expand their understanding of such deep concepts, but often that doesn't happen because of an inability to perceive the other point of view. Or, if the other person does understand it but simply disagrees, that disagreement is often misinterpreted as disrespect of lack of understanding.

Here we have an illustration of the very concept we've been discussing. I know my intentions are sincere, and my natural inclination is to reach out to 3DM, put my own hurt feelings aside, and apologize for anything I said which may have inadvertently hurt him.

BUT, he has just told me not to!

So, if I do it anyway, am I 'controlling' and 'manipulating' him?

Do I honor his wishes, and allow the misinterpretation of my words to stand? If I reach out with sincerity, knowing that my sincerity will be rejected, am I acting in an STS manner?

I know, and I hope 3DM knows, that we both have the same intention: To love and accept the other-self in accordance with Law of One principles.

How can we now put these principles into practice? Right now, after this heated discussion, in the midst of disagreement, how do we love an accept each other?

I will leave these thoughts out on the table. We don't need fictitious scenarios when we have a real, live scenario right here.

[native]

Inevitably, heated debates start to pull in emotion. I wish they wouldn't! We should be able to be stern in our positions and not offend one another.

[hogey11]

To be honest, I haven't followed the minutia of this thread and the arguments that have occurred, so I am sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but this is what comes to mind:

No matter what, acceptance is the only course of action that bears fruit. The best analogy I have heard in regards to this is to think about the last time you were in a big fight with someone, and you had that clarion moment of "oh s***. i'm wrong.... what do I do now?!?"

There are two ways we can react, and in many ways, these two paths can be extrapolated to many other situations. First, we can continue to argue. We can hold onto the small points that are still true, and reason with ourselves as to all the things that had convinced us otherwise. We find ways to shift the blame. The second way is to check yourself and accept it. Handle the situation gracefully, and be thankful for the deliverance of truth.

I feel what Monica has been trying to say is that to do this is tough! and I think she is right; acceptance of that which we stand against feeds our confusion, not our love. Through the acceptance that 3DM speaks of, we put ourselves at risk, and I think this is ultimately the difference between the two of your opinions: Monica seeks to refine her experience and become as efficient in her use of catalyst as possible. 3DM come from a different angle, seeking out ALL catalyst and integrating it all equally through his unique mindset.

The point is that neither of you are wrong, IMO. Each of you are shooting out from the Creator at different tangents, and it is confusion at work that we see things so differently.

Ultimately, like Monica has said, the situation that is being discussed has reared its ugly head.... and look what happened: Things start to become resolved. Love is given and clarity is found. We are able to stop fighting and move on. This is how we move forward; by opening our hearts and sharing our differences, for the greater good of all.

[3DMonkey]

"As a mother, I find it distasteful, even offensive, to be told that when I take any action on behalf of my child, it is out of self-interest. You made that blanket statement. You aren't a mother so you cannot know."

This hurts my character. It suggests I have acted to offend you. It suggests I have labeled you. It suggests that my love cannot equal yours.

-----
if this is the scenario, then the actual polarization that has occurred is STS. Arguing our own perspectives is self serving and we are both guilty of acting in STS fashion and it matters not what our intentions were, STS is the result.
We must now, in contemplation, reach a polarization of acceptance to balance our unacceptance of the other's point of view up to this point.

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Monica]

We are speaking of acceptance, and yet here we are in 3D, veiled, with emotions running wild, faulty communication, misunderstanding upon misunderstanding.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

We are discussing how and if one can totally accept an entity acting in a violent, STS manner, in the face of death to self or a loved one, yet we have difficulty accepting the well-intentioned, but misunderstood words of someone we know shares the same spiritual ideals?

We know from Ra that emotions are very powerful tools. So, when we feel emotions triggered by the words or actions of other selves, is it important to acknowledge and heal those emotions, in order to accept the person who inadvertently hurt or offended us?

Or, does acceptance mean we must suppress those emotions?

These are just musings, in light of what just went down. Apparently, my efforts to communicate academic points were construed as hurtful. I could cite examples of words directed at me that I perceived as very confrontational and accusational, but I see no need to do that. I'm not angry or upset. Just weary of miscommunication.

"As a mother, I find it distasteful, even offensive, to be told that when I take any action on behalf of my child, it is out of self-interest. You made that blanket statement. You aren't a mother so you cannot know."

This hurts my character. It suggests I have acted to offend you. It suggests I have labeled you. It suggests that my love cannot equal yours.

Thank you for expressing your feelings, 3DM! I won't apologize again since you asked me not to. All I can do is offer my own perspective:

My husband loves our son as much as I do. But he is the first to admit that he cannot comprehend the nature of a mother's love for her child, who came forth out of her own body.

It's interesting that you mention feeling that your 'character' was being questioned and accused of 'labeling' me. Yes, I did feel labeled, and I too felt my character had been questioned, when you told me that I would let the murderer rot in prison, might not be sincere, etc. Isn't it amazing how we are mirroring to each other?

if this is the scenario, then the actual polarization that has occurred is STS. Arguing our own perspectives is self serving and we are both guilty of acting in STS fashion and it matters not what our intentions were, STS is the result.

Well, apparently no matter what I say, I will be perceived as acting STS. So I will say this, not as an argument, but as an invitation for you to consider, should you ever decide to consider another viewpoint (or for anyone else who might be reading).

It's the same pattern as the previous examples. The term arguing is subjective. When does an in-depth discussion become arguing?

Many people enjoy deep discussions (as we discussed on the Cognitive Distortions thread) while others don't. Or, some consider it a 'discussion' when it's in their favor, but an 'argument' when it's not.

You just expressed your own perspective, just now, when you said you felt 'labeled' and 'hurt' by me. Is that self-serving? Or were you just expressing your feelings, in the hopes of bridging the chasm of misunderstanding?

If the latter, then I'd say that was an STO action, not STS.

I think it becomes STS only when views are imposed on the other-self against their will.

How is that even possible, on an internet discussion forum? No one is being forced to participate. All comments, and all reading of comments, are voluntary.

[3DMonkey]

How do you love cancer when it takes a child?

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Ankh]

It's nice when people can work together, and learn from each other, and expand their understanding of such deep concepts, but often that doesn't happen because of an inability to perceive the other point of view.

What is there that one has to learn to turn that inability into an ability? In my humble opinion it is a compassion for the other self, which is what has been missing in this thread, and several others, and in this whole density. Wisdom is (if you are walking the STO path) learnt after the compassion density. There must be some point to why these lessons are learnt in exactly that order? Nevertheless, we are in 3rd density, where we can activate and deactivate these rays. Therefore, there is no need to feel bad about the misstakes we all make. But I wanted to point out, that since 4th density which is the next density is learnt before 5th density, it must mean something to why love while walking the STO path is learnt before one learns how to express itself?