Topic: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

(Here's another post I've been meaning to put together.  I apologize in advance if it doesn't flow too well.  The concepts are more of a 3d lattice in my mind which is difficult to put into linear format.  Also, the thougts expressed are coming from the teacher/student dialogue in my mind.  In other words, any use of "you, we, us, etc." are referring to myself unless otherwise stated.  In addition, some concepts and definitions may be inaccurate.  However, they are simply used to show the overall concepts I currently have specifically about the dynamics of STO and STS.  All in all, this is just what's currently rolling around in my head.  All comments are welcome.)


You are the Sun of your own Universe.  Or.  You are the Black Hole of your own Universe.  Choose your Destiny.

Expand ourward or contract inward.  Positive and Negative.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8995/positive2gc.gif  http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8789/negative3ja.gif

Definitions used:
Creator:  8d.  The ALL.  Creator of Universes.  The original vibration.  Infinite Creator.  I.C.
God:  7d - 1d.  The Source.  Our Universe.
(Please refer to http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=3296 for visual representations.)

Is the Creator STO or STS?  The Creator is both.  Since there is nothing but the Infinite Creator, the I.C. can only serve self.  However, the I.C. serves others by creating others and allowing free-will over the All (which the I.C. is).  So by any act of additional vibration creation, the I.C. is both serving Others and Self simultaneously since it is both Others and Self.

Is God STO or STS?  God is both.  God split itself into free-will fractal replications of self with the same capacity, in potential, as itself.  All acts of God serve both Others and Self.

So what's the difference here then?  The difference extents from the dynamics of expansion vs. contraction.  The Universes (Omniverse, All that Is) would not exist if the original vibration didn't seek to expand outside it's known self.  By creating other free-will selves it was able to expand self with much more speed and complexity than if it had simply sought to control all vibration.

Let's bring these dynamics down to the interactions within 4d and 3d.

4d is the realm of personal imbalance.  STO seeks the path of imbalance by the serving of only other-selves.  STS seeks the imbalance of serving only self by enslaving other selves.  To jump out of 3d inbetween cycles an STO entity would need to be 100% imbalanced towards service to others.  No thought or action could exist with concern to self.  An STS entity would also require 100% service to self with no thought or action with concern towards other-selves.  The balance is kept in the overall realm between the two polarities (not in the individual).

At the end of a cycle, an entity may advance from 3d to 4d by 51% STO or 98% STS.  This does make some sense.  Seeing that there is only one self and many other-selves, a slight percentage more of thinking about other-selves would account for what seems like an imbalanced equation.  Also, it would take quite a lot of serving self to learn the same lessons as an entity that serves 'self and others' due to the amount of interaction needed to learn these lessons.  It's the amount of focus on the dynamics of interactions between self and other-selves, and the lessons learned from them, that dictate when one is ready for graduation to the energy realm.  An STS entity sees the uniqueness and sameness in other selves just as much as an STO entity.  The difference is how each one would choose to use that information.  Neither decision, STO or STS, can be considered good or evil to God.  Free-will is free-will.  The issues with STS come into play personally when such an entity realizes the diminishing returns and the fact that it is killing itself.  This is just a lesson in the dynamics of how the omniverse works and is not nor will ever be a judgement on that entity.

By choosing STS the connection back to Source is slowly blocked.  As more blockage takes place the more that entity requires the energy of other-selves to maintain it's existence, so it must seek enslavement by deception (chaos).  An STO entity will give of self thus keeping the channel back to Source clear and gain unlimited energy.  The channel will widen as the entity increases it's giving to more other-selves.  A wider channel will allow for more giving which increases the channel, ad infinitum.  This is just a lesson in the dynamics of how the omniverse works and is not nor will ever be a judgement on that entity.

The STO entity will expand whereas the STS entity will contract.

In 5d, individual balance is learned through wisdom.  5d doesn't require any sort of realm balance.  Each individual returns to their own self sovereignty and can choose additional expansion or contraction as it sees fit.

STO and STS are only choices. These choices produce the lessons of the dynamics of living within the Omniverse.  Choosing expansion will ensure that an entity will one day be able to create it's own universe.  Choosing contraction will ensure that an entity will one day cease vibration entirely and experience true death.

2 (edited by heandras 2006-05-08 16:36:23)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Hi z3n3rg, your circular illustration reminded me of a drawing I once made to picture the relationship between the densities in regard to the spiritual polarities. I think it gives an additional graphical impression of some concepts you described verbally.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2470/stssto3on.jpg

EDIT: I just pondered my illustration once again. I don't think STS is necessarily progressing towards the lower densities naturally. It is more of an drag that pulls upon beings on this path because higher negative beings in the hierarchy try to lower their awareness and thereby their free will. So I would consider this part of the picture as vague.

A man is born gentle and weak. At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap. At their death they are withered and dry.
Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death. The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Thanks for sharing, heandras.  I like using the diagrams as it gives an extra dimension to the thoughts.  I wish I could make decent 3-dimensional diagrams but 2-dimensional works.

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Wow, that clears up a lot actually. Thanks!

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

You are welcome.  And whoever game me those words and prompted me to put them down, says "you're welcome" also.

I had forgotten about this thread.

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

I have always felt that many people mis-use / mis-understand the terms STS and STO.  Although saying that, I by no means feel I hold the definitive definitions.

I realise this is taking the concept down to the everyday level of humans, however I feel it is important to do so – as a “working concept"  of the terms is really needed.

Differences between STS and STO are merely a matter of focus; one focuses inward, whilst the other focuses outward.  Sounds obvious, but all too often STS is compared to selfishness, whilst STO is compared to an altruistic nature.  I don't see that as a correct interpretation.  Selfishness is caused from an imbalance in the emotional / ego bodies - and all that extends from that; greed, control, domination is rooted in that imbalance.

True STS and STO would only come about in the event of perfect harmony and balance with ones own nature.  STS cannot be selfish, because being so would bring corruption around oneself - and this ultimately does not serve self; unless the STS individuals’ ultimate aim was indeed personal destruction or death, but that would be overly grandiose as there are far easier ways of brining about ones own end.

STS would have to be harmonious in order to be truly self-serving, as it would have to create around it an environment that is utterly conducive to its living requirements.  I don't think therefore that a human can be truly STS.  Whilst they can indeed be selfish and imbalanced; this is not the same thing.

On the other hand can an individual be truly STO to the point of ignoring ones self?  If so, their own needs could no longer be a concern; but surely in such an event a STO human would need to focus on their self in order to maintain their STO existence.  Otherwise that person would starve, become poor or cease to exist - and how then would that be serving others?

I tend to feel that the labels STO and STS can only be reserved for entities other than human.  Those that have transcended beyond the needs of the physical reality; simply because the requirements of physical existence do not really allow one to choose / become purely STO or STS.

On a higher level I see STS and STO as a cyclic dynamic.  In order to create a full motion, one pushes 180 degrees, then the other pushes the final 180 degrees; an analogy would be cycling a bike, both legs are needed.

Another analogy would be breathing, one is expansion the other is contraction.  Neither is positive or negative as both are required for existence.

The same applies to the Universe.  Einstein felt there had to be some form of resistance against the Universes constant expansion, or else it would expand and such a rapid rate that eventually it would fly itself apart.  Therefore something pushes back causing resistance during the moments of expansion.  Yet again neither is positive or negative as they are both required for a balanced existence.

The same principle holds in nearly all forms of spirituality through out the ages.

It is very easy for humans to apply human emotions to concepts that are not really human in nature.  STO and STS at least on the human and physical levels are both natural and required expression in order to maintain balance.  In our density they cannot be applied to what would appear to be the obvious (but flawed) human emotions.

Maybe this would be different on higher densities.  And if that is indeed true it would give us some indication to how vastly different those densities / realities are to our own.

7 (edited by z3n3rg 2006-11-20 14:29:12)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Here's my current understanding.  Whether it's correct or not is open to interpretation.

Actions in and of themselves cannot be STO or STS.  What defines the orientation is the intent behind the actions.

Take eating for example.  Some eat things because they taste good.  Like ice cream or steak.  The body doesn't require these to maintain itself so the action can be defined as STS by the intent behind it (tastes good / feels good).

Eating in and of itself does not have to be an STS action.  I know the body is not me.  It's just out on loan.  So when it tells me it needs food then it is STO to provide it what it needs.  Fruits, vegatables, nuts, and berries have all the things the body requires.  So to make it an STO action I would provide the body with good things until it is satisfied.

An entity may make all kinds of order that takes some burden off other entities.  Current society is a prime example.  But is the intent of that order to suppress others and keep them under control?

Take the spiritual work.  Certainly it's a focus on self for much of the work given our current situation.  But the intent is usually to get self to the point of being able to help others.  If I gain understanding and don't give that understanding freely when asked then it's STS.  But if I make myself available and continue to refine myself with the intent to be of benefit to others, then it's STO.

I don't necessarily like the terms positive or negative because they come with prejudice and human derived connotations.  But I wouldn't be thinking about others if I didn't add words that were very commonly used.  Using things that will reach the widest possible audience.  You may not always be able to speak to others about aliens.  But if they understand the God/Satan concepts then you can give deeper understanding using those labels.

Aw, just some thoughts.

8 (edited by Gibbon 2007-12-02 14:52:47)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

z3n3rg wrote in 2006:

By choosing STS the connection back to Source is slowly blocked.  As more blockage takes place the more that entity requires the energy of other-selves to maintain it's existence, so it must seek enslavement by deception (chaos).  An STO entity will give of self thus keeping the channel back to Source clear and gain unlimited energy.  The channel will widen as the entity increases it's giving to more other-selves.  A wider channel will allow for more giving which increases the channel, ad infinitum.  This is just a lesson in the dynamics of how the omniverse works and is not nor will ever be a judgement on that entity.

Everybody is free to use the terminology that he/she finds useful. As I have said in http://home.tiscali.nl/gibbon/car/refle … to-sts.htm
and more recently at http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?pid=68803 I find the terms STO-STS adding more confusion to the whole than that it provides a clearer framework. I think that the terms 'harmful and harmless' could be used instead in quite a lot of cases. Let's paraphrase your words, z3n3rg,  and see if it still 'means' just about the same thing:

By choosing to become harmful the connection back to Source is slowly blocked. As more blockages takes place the more that entity requires the energy of other-selves to maintain its existence, so it must seek enslavement by deception (chaos). A harmless entity will not harm others and therefore it is keeping the channel back to Source clear, hold on to its own energy and gain unlimited energy. The channel will widen as the entity becomes more harmless.

Not that I agree with this paraphrasing using harmful and harmless instead of STS and STO, but it forces me to think in a way that I find comprehensible. The more harmful you are the less you would be connected to 'Source', the more harmless you become the better your connection with the whole would be. Service to others is not a key element as far as I see it, in a way it might come naturally when you don't harm others, but it is a by-product, not a prime focus in order to develop.

You can be harmless and yet be quite focused on serving your self and your own development and growth. As long as it doesn't harm others there is nothing distorted about it. Like I said back in 2004:

What I was trying to say is that by being STS, in the sense that you devote your energy and time to your ascension process and are very careful in giving energy away to others, you are likely to reach a point where you don't want to be harmful towards others anymore. This would be a natural step in the process. In other words: by being STS (in the positive sense of the word) you can become less destructive towards others (this damage is said to be caused without people being aware of it most of the time). This is a development that serves others.

Perhaps the dynamic is that by being in service to yourself, without harming yourself or others, you automatically become more harmless. An increasing sense of harmlessness would imply a decreasing tendency to manipulate, control others or yourself.

Well, I guess it all depends on what framework you like best. I like to think in terms of harmful-harmless whereas others prefer to think in terms of STS-STO. The confusion only arises when we try to communicate when both use their own preferred terminology.

Words don't mean a thing. Words make all the difference in the world.

9 (edited by z3n3rg 2007-12-02 15:18:22)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Yea, it depends on what terminology works best for you.  STO/STS work for me because it inherently shows expansion/contraction.

The other thing is that the terms don't mean too much until one decides on a path to follow.  As Jesus once said, "on earth, the good are not good and the evil are not evil".  Once one chooses to expand their viewpoint to include others, then I see the terms coming into play more.  Most people on earth are merely just reacting to the environment.  Most are STS because the environment is condusive to that but it's not a hardcore STS.  It's just programs running that work in the societal framework.

Being in service to self to become "less harmless" has the intention of serving others so I can't actually call it STS.  That's where I think it gets confusing for some and that's why I add in the "intention" element.  I intend to spend a good deal of my time alone working on self.  But my intention is not to do this so I can control others better.  It's so that I can help others better.  And thus it's not trully STS in my mind.

Anyway yea, whatever terminology works best for you.  My ideas (from your Divine Dillution thread) follow along with Spi's.  I just can't fathom limitation.  I can't imagine it.  For me, it makes more sense that the individual just cuts themselves off by clogging up the channel from the infinite Source.

But as I said, that's just my understanding.  I can't verify if it's correct or not.

10 (edited by Spi 2007-12-02 16:03:13)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Hey Gibbon, I can't agree on harmless or harmful for some reasons...

I hope not that you don't mean identifying a density to be harmless or harmful instead the STS/STO.

4d harmful (Reptilian)
4d harmless (Pleiadian)

...I don't think it would work out.

The thing is, is that you can have some STS instead of being "harmless" or "harmful".

Let's say...
A venus fly trap plant would be considered harmless to us but it is be harmful to a fly. It's all about perception on how it would treat us or the other.

In higher densities, you would be aware of yourself and others individually. Possibly be able to give service... Or not.
You become so reserved in giving yourself service, your perceptions change. You feel that you don't have enough, you need more. You become used to it. And then you become hungry. And that's where the violation of other's freewill comes into play. Trust me, it's all about perception.

Reptilians manipulate others for a reason, to gain what they want. They can't do everything! They want service to themselves. They don't share, they lack empathy. Poor social health to say.

Like how I'm an only child, I'm about to get a sibling. I'm not up to it, in fact, it became STS of me. I don't want a sibling. How I've been an only child for so long can not imagine whats having a sibling is like now! I would have to make sacrifices! NO!

And that's being STS. Not that I would harm my sibling, but I would harm myself and my sibling by disconnecting the connection.

11 (edited by Gibbon 2007-12-02 16:06:15)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Hi Spi and z3n3rg, I think the use of certain words express a perspective on the world. If you don't mind I would like to see where the sto-sts and harmless-harmful can be used to gain a better understanding, perhaps developing something that incorporates both in new terminology and therefore a 'new reality-perspective'.

I notice how hard it is to try to force my mind into thinking in sto-sts terms, but that might make it more useful to try to do it anyway. Let's combine it with a few other ideas you mentioned, starting with the idea of intention:

Zen3rg:
Being in service to self to become "less harmless" has the intention of serving others so I can't actually call it STS.

When I intend to become less harmless it doesn't imply that I intend to serve others. To serve others as an intention is a concept that I find hampering to my own process. The by-product of becoming more harmless might be that others are less harmed and perhaps they may even become stimulated to become more harmless themselves, thereby eventually creating more harmlessness worldwide, but that is certainly not my intention. My intention is to become harmless because it feels better for both my body and mind, and I link it with a certain vibratory level which might allow one to tune into less harmless 'realities'. My intention is to understand the world better and feel better while exploring it, without causing any harm to myself or others.

Spi:

A venus fly trap plant would be considered harmless to us but it is be harmful to a fly. It's all about perception on how it would treat us or the other.

Yes,  for the fly the venus fly trap plant is harmful. Seen from the perspective of the venus plant itself it acts harmfully as well. If we would look at the interaction between the fly and the plant we might be tempted to consider the plant to be harmful too, even if it is not harmful to us.

When you talk about the 4d harmful reptilians and the 4d harmless pleiadeans it does tell me something about them. When you talk about 4d sts reptilians this doesn't automatically imply that they plunder others in order to provide service for themselves. To talk about harmless pleiadeans is something different than talking about sto pleiadeans. The main motivation of the Pleiadeans would be to help others when you use that term.

So, perhaps it elucidates matters when you use both terms to describe groups:
4d harmful sts reptilians
4d harmless sto pleiadeans
4d harmless sts 'observers'
4d harmful sto: ? (perhaps when there are various others)

Words don't mean a thing. Words make all the difference in the world.

12 (edited by Spi 2007-12-02 17:21:34)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

What kind of observers you're talking about? If you're talking about the extraterrestrial are observing Earth doesn't mean they are STS. With their high awareness, for us to wake up, we need to be tricked by the STS forces. From Alex Collier videos, the observing extraterrestrials won't take responsibility for us because if they do, we won't wake up. We would blame them for any errors the STO beings would slip.

4d harmful STO.... It's about perception again. Have you checked out my density food/energy chain?

I'll put it here, the STO chart.

1st < 2nd < 3rd
1st < 4th
Kundalini < 5th
Kundalini < 6th
7th does not need energy.

In the physical realm, laws say that you have to consume (steal energy) lower vibration (awareness) densities for energy.
Luckily, once we would go in 4d, we'll eat less and less until we go to a point where we won't need our bodies.
We would be in an etheric body in 5d, flowing energy through our chakras, non-physical organs.

You give service to others yet harmful service? I don't know. It wouldn't be right, how can anyone call it service? Nope.. One might be: manipulation.

Yes,  for the fly the venus fly trap plant is harmful. Seen from the perspective of the venu plant itself it acts harmfully as well. If we would look at the interaction between the fly and the plant we might be tempted to consider the plant to be harmful too, even if it is not harmful to us.

Harmful/Harmless + STS/STO Perspective: That Pleiadian woman ate a pear! I'll say she's harmful. (????????????????)

STS/STO Perspective: I can't blame her, she's in the physical realm where laws are composed that to eat so to survive.


Yeah, I'm sorry.. I can't agree with the Harmful/Harmless + STS/STO Perspective either...

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

I really only wished to expand on the idea Spi presented about the need for fuel by some "creators" being because of a blockage caused by a focus of attention inwards instead of outwards.  Gibbon, whatever works best for you is great.  STO/STS works best for me as it explains every situation I can think of including the actual dynamics of existence itself.  I don't consider it a polarity nor do I consider one side 'good' and one 'evil'.  I see it as the expansion or contraction of creative expression by influence of others via self.

I can understand how you want to add in harmless and harmful.  I just see it as degrees of self/other-self focus.  And until I actually share of myself, the working on self is STS (unlike what I stated above).  So I can see how it would make sense to say that is harmless STS.  For me, as I said, I see it in degrees.  I try to balance the two foci.  The unfortunate thing on Earth is that there's not too many people seeking answers and I can't actually say that I have the answers anyway.

So all I can really do is work on self and give whatever understanding I have (whether correct or not) when it's asked for.

14 (edited by Spi 2007-12-02 17:02:44)

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Go ahead, z3n3rg, if you want to expand or change any of my idea that's kind of awkward or incorrect, go right ahead. I trust you.

Maybe I'll show you what I have right now and hope to expand more on how this fuel works.

Positive beings would have open chakras for their etheric bodies, so they would not require the process of consuming energy, rather receive it.
Most positive beings would rather live ethereality than physically.
Negative beings would have closed chakras, and would prefer physical realm because it is also composed of feeding off of energy for pleasure and service to self. They pay attention a lot to themselves so pleasure is what they want.


I have heard (Here I go again roll) that if you send a 'bucket of love' to the negative beings, it would be like sending a bucket of vomit to them. But if you send it in ignorance, with the lower awareness in the energy, they'll be happy to feed off of it. <--- I think those part needs some fixing, maybe?

Re: STO and STS: Practical Dynamics of the Omniverse

Spi, it appears we understand the concepts pretty much the same.  Too much inward focus of energy clogs the pipe (connection to infinite source).  Outward focus of energy keeps the pipe clear so there's a never ending supply.  The further along the sts path the more clogged you get and after awhile you have to depend entirely on the energy of others.

I think we are on the same page.