• From: Montreal
  • Registered: 2006-10-16

Topic: Distinction between STS and STO, and between Self and Other: relative?

OK, I would not help this article because I do not agree with all of it; I have made a separate thread because my reply went rather long. There is actually much in the Ra and Cassiopean materials that I feel is exactly at the root of the conspiracy, like for the other team. It figures that the most sinister aspects of the conspiracy seem like just the opposite, the most secret and precious truths to be used against it; and they are half-truths, hence blurring the lines. It is high time that I make a thread here about these materials, but I am not very familiar with them, except for things like what the poster of that thread, altamash, has come to believe.. sometimes it's the wisest ones who are tricked the most easily, the system is tricky like that, clever.. sometimes I wonder if my case wasn't just dumb luck.. but that's negative thinking, because if I can't find a stone cold infallible chain of logic somewhere in the length of my route towards Truth, then I cannot hope to help others realize what I now realize.. that is good advice if one seeks to write about these kinds of things, to consider *how* you came about to believe what you believe, and to consider this as it would apply to others, as the starting point where you measure the feasibility and efficiency of your message.. it is not easy to find just the right way..

Hmmmm you see it's all this dualization of things that's the matter with the materials mentionned (above).. let me just touch on STS/STO briefly to give an example of where I stand. STS and STO are only qualifications applicable more or less, respectively, in a dynamic sort of way. They always overlap at least somewhat, because the distinction between Self and Other is not ultimately absolute. Universal oneness is only a reality in the most non-real and simultaneously real sort of way, and it is here that the duality of either/or-ism rather applies. The proverbial "whole" of reality never exists beyond a label, nor does anything infinite exist apart from the finite. The "whole" is what is supremely real and Nothing at all, as the debate in Buddhism continues as to whether or not it is "something" or "no-thing"; I call it Nothing, basically like the Tao. This Nothing is the only thing that is ultimately absolutely permanent in a fundamental and essential way, and conversely everything else is impermanent and conventional to varying degrees, Maya. However whereas initially the human is impermanent in the sense of mortality coupled with ignorance, through the process of self-realization can one realize immortality and then their impermanence only remains as a product of change, for one can never stay the same as change is the only constant (and if one believes to be staying the same then they are in ignorance and actually stagnating and devolving).

It is cessation to combat change, and to rather go with the flow. So one is only ever always a pattern, a dynamic fractal pattern of modality of change, and this pattern is interwoven with the greater reality or "whole" (mutually contingent, as the terminology goes), because ultimately everything comes down to the same fractal pattern. That's the beauty of the maths side of the equation, it helps me put everything into perspective. But anyways there is no "one", no "I", only personal evolution towards differentiation/change that (considering the path of self-realization) is, in simultaneous synthesis, both increasingly complex as well as increasingly subtly harmoniously balanced in equilibrium. It is always a flow and never a static "thing" or "I" suspended in animation, because "time", change, never ceases. To the extent that this means that the distinction between Self and Other is relative, this relativity translates in applicable relation to the human condition from the illusion of our permanence (the ego, the "I") to the reality of our impermanence. This impermanence as mentioned above manifests first through human mortality and forgetfulness between lifetimes in the cycle of Samsara, but can later evolve into sustained immortal individuality of (and continuity of) identity through self-realization where the only constant is realized to be change. So "impermanence" is recognized only to mean "change" or more accurately "evolution", and "illusion" means "life" whereas ("ultimate", if you will) "reality" means "death"(emptiness, Tao, Nothing).

Maybe this sounds sort of complicated to grasp, but I tell ya, I sure can't wrap me noggin over the concept of STS and STO being mutually exclusive! What do you think?

nothing is sacred, the deconstructing and letting-be of all things, clarity of sight, the realization of no-thing(s), Nothing

Transcix's Website

  • Registered: 2006-06-22

Re: Distinction between STS and STO, and between Self and Other: relative?

Different aspects of the same picture.  Understanding the aspects leads to understanding the picture.

Love is Knowledge is Light
  • Registered: 2005-12-20

Re: Distinction between STS and STO, and between Self and Other: relative?

Transcix,

As a student of the Law of One/Ra material (read it 3 times now) I may be able to help clarify some things for you. 

Transcix wrote:

STS and STO are only qualifications applicable more or less, respectively, in a dynamic sort of way. They always overlap at least somewhat, because the distinction between Self and Other is not ultimately absolute. Universal oneness is only a reality in the most non-real and simultaneously real sort of way, and it is here that the duality of either/or-ism rather applies.

I think that's pretty bang on.  Ra made a point to mention that the terms "service to others" and "service to self" are only half-assed (my words, not Ra's) descriptors used to describe a unknowable (at this level) dynamic that is the polarization of entities which takes place on the finite path back to infinite unity.  This isn't the level of understanding or wisdom and as such we can only rely on clues dropped from "above" to figure out the processes which govern what is "below".  Many concepts that Ra promulgated were described in a dual nature, such as teach/learning or learn/teaching, and the same applies to STO/STS.

I have come to realize that everything in the Creation exhibits a polar nature.  The roles of the central archetypes of Mother and Father show this quite well:

The Mother exists primarily in a ratio of -/+ while the Father is +/-.  Their primary or dominant attribute is the first part of the ratio (before the slash), and their secondary attribute is the second part of the ratio (after the slash).  When these archetypes meet their secondary attribute is "activated" and their roles are reversed.  The Mother who once "pulled" in the Father after birth then "pushes" out the combined Creation of both.  The Father who once pushed his seed then pulls the Child towards adulthood through real-world guidance.  This works on the micro and macro levels, and all in between.

One trait is always dominant over the other but ultimately both factors are consistently present in a ratio.  For example, Ra said that the ratio of STS:STO or STO:STS determines graduation of the entity.  Supposedly the STO candidate must reach and maintain a ratio of at least 51% STO : 49% STS, whereas the STS candidate must attain a level of 95% STS : 5%STO.  While initially this may seem way off, they reasoned that achieveing 51% STO is as difficult as reaching 95% STS.  This makes sense when we view the role of networks (STO) and hierarchies (STS) in the development of entities.  The network ensures that support is lended where it's needed, on all fronts, whereas the STS entity makes use of the hierarchical structure to move up the ranks.  STO is an inclusive philosophy of spiritual development whereas STS is exclusive. STO attempt to help each other out (over self) thus only requiring a 51% grade to graduate. STS attempts to only help self (over others) and so requires much more discipline to ascend up the negative path.

So yes, there are no absolutes besides the Absolute, so all things in the finite realms exist in some kind of balance with their opposite.  It's all relative.

Interestingly, Ra explained that the "newer" Logoi, because of their making use of "previous" Logoi, discerned that putting a veil between the material and spiritual densities would allow for a much greater use of catalyst and an increase in evolution of souls because it set in motion this play of spiritual polarity.  Before the veil the only possible path was STO because there was a direct connection to the truth of the spiritual densities and STS would naturally be seen as folly.  When the veil was used this created a new dynamic with the necessity for the STS path coming into play.  So, the two paths are ultimately illusory for they describe the processes of spiritual evolution from finiteness (illusion) to unity (truth).  But, at the 3rd density level, these two complimentary concepts offer the seeker catalyst on their path for deciding how they choose to interact with their Creation as its Creator, to evolve back to unity and reclaiming their re-birth right.  The veil provides us with a choice for our way "out" of the material illusion.  It sure does make Creation more interesting doesn't it?