A & B Influences and the Law of 3 (Page 2 of 3)

I am bored, therefore I post at NR.

...This has been in the back of my mind for days now.  I'm only superficially satisfied with what I came up with. 

So I went back to the drawing board.

It's obvious that a "herald" (anything assiting you in waking up) is an arm of "B"-type influence.  Grace, too. 

Looking up definitions always helps me...And the definiton of an influence is: "a power affecting a person, thing, or course of events."

...A more fundamental influence, more fundamental than a direct calling (a herald), is the influence that is consciousness-expanding.

The "consciousness-expanding influence" seems very fundamental to me.  If it (a thought, idea, opinion or energy) expands your perspective, it's probably a "B" influence; if a thought, idea or opinion constricts your perspective, it's probably an "A" influence.

If you ponder this, you might see right away that ideas with labels are almost always constricting.  This is because once an idea takes on a label the idea must be at least roughly defined.  And once a narrowly defined idea is accepted by a person, what tends to happen is that their thought processes do not stray outside of the limits set by their ideology in respect to things related to their ideology.

For instance, if a person identifies with being the dictionary definition of "atheist," they're very unlikely to pay any attention to spiritual information coming their way (because, hey, "I'm an athesist").  Therefore their consciousness restricts.

So, in this, there may be a crude way of determining whether or not information comes from the Matrix (trying to keep you down), or from Source (trying to free you)...Information coming from Source will always add to, or enlarge, your mental categories rather than shrink them.  The energy of the Source is "Yes, and..."  It is inclusive. 

This train of thought quickly reveals the concept of "Evil" to be a consciousness-shrinking concept.  The concept creates a boundary and (may) excuse you from learning more about yourself in your interaction with what you call evil by allowing you to substitute a label in place of organic thought or feeling about them and your relationship to them.

Edit:
Evil is an "evil" concept.

On a literal, metaphysical level, I think ideas-with-labels are very machine-like thoughtforms.  ...Once they're triggered, they crank out nearly the same chain of thoughts every time.  I think, as thoughtforms, they may literally beam the same chain of thoughts into a person's head and cause them to speak the same words almost every time.

Dreamosis your post always open my mind up just a bit more.

Lately I've pondered this idea of everything being just lessons contracted into matter.
In the third destiny that is how we learn and are influenced is thru matter.
I see the world as learning and not learning. In my mind anything that is naturally made (like a plant) would have a soul and therefore contains a lesson.
Anything that is man made would be empty, souless, and not containing a lesson.
But the consciousness can't, for the most part, see their difference all we see is matter.

So we try to learn from that which can't teach our higherselves anything.

Here I read this post and apllied this with that, and thought would matter without a soul be A and with a soul B?
Ex.
A car - We can learn alot from studying a car but is our higherself learning, I presume not.
Any animal - We can observe our own lives through an animal it's habits, it's freedom, or lack of it. So that would be food for the soul right?
Or an lifeline like a poem or song , that is an extension of the soul.

You lost me on C I haven't the slightest clue of that.

I would have to ponder this a bit longer to really explain it more, some of my best ideas fly away as I write.

That's an intriguing thought--I think it depends upon what specifically a soul is to you.  Also, the bringers of "B" influences may not have a body! (or matter, as it's normally understood) at all. 

"A" influences could be interpreted as being "soulless" in that they offer no growth opportunities for beings with souls.  But that may not be fully accurate--a person can learn through negative-example, and may use the "gravity" of "A" influences to develop spiritualistic, "B" muscles.    "Resistance-training."

But (I think) I know what you're saying about, Postitivone, about being better able to learn from soul as opposed to non-soul.  I might put it like this: it's easier for us to learn from the real rather than the fake.  "Fake" to me is anything which requires us to lie or dissimulate.  Example: as long as two people continue to hold fake conversations--lying about how they really feel right then, being superficial, talking about things inconsequential to either of them--then there's little chance that those two people will learn or grow together.  Growth requires authenticity, risk..."soul."   

I think it's true, though, that our higher selves gain no knowledge from technologies or from "A" influences.  The higher self has already transcended the Matrix Control System and knows how to discern "A" from "B."  It's comforting to think that.  Some part of you knows the way out...You just have to get out.

I certainly agree that assuming Grays are evil, by labeling them that way, may block a learning of lessons by enabiling somebody to blame Grays for their personal problems.  And, evil is disempowering to the being who is labeled evil because implicit in the evil-label is the feeling that that being is invalid.

Yet, the idea that "There is no evil" is mind-shrinking, too.  Labels, however clumsy they may be, are based upon experiences.  If it were somehow possible to recall the label of evil from the world overnight, there would still be experiences of manipulation, violence, and exploitation. 

If a person dedicates him or herself mentally and emotionally to the idea of "Evil doesn't exist," they're opening themselves up to exploitation in the later likely refusal to comtemplate their experiences of exploitation because it might lead them to the conclusion that the exploitation was done deliberately or semi-deliberately. 

In all of this, though, I'm not arguing for evil.  The trick is to honestly face your experiences without the need for invalidating yourself or others...You simply remove yourself from a situation "that isn't your thing."       

Also, I favor the OP theory.  According to the theory of OPs, OPs aren't soulless.  As the theory goes, organic portals' bodies are inhabited by a group soul instead of a fully individualized soul.  I've seen OPs referred to as "non-soulled," and I might have done it myself.  But that's technically out of sync with the theory, unless you understand "soulled" as meaning possessing an automonous, individual soul.  And, then again, OPs I would say, have individuality, too.  There is the individual filter of their body and mind.  It's their soul aspect that is shared, collective.  Of course, that impacts their body and mind.

I also wouldn't say that an OP has no capacity for good.  But "good" is another can of worms.    According to the OP idea, they're more enmeshed in the top-down system of hyperdimensional control.  Being more enmeshed, there's a greater likelihood they'll produce frustrating experiences with those who are less-enmeshed and want to get free of the control system. 

"OP" is also a label, suggested by the Cassiopaeans, and whose definition has grown out of interpretations of experiences.  As a label it is potentially mind-shrinking, consciousness-constricting. 

...While I won't argue that labels are wholly neutral, and can be used in any way, I will say that what I think is important is whether or not the mind is expanding.  ...If the idea of OPs facilitates adaptation, growth, and a smoother, more peaceful interaction between the world and one's mind--and all that comes without the cost of condemning anyone (constriction)--then the idea is expansive.  If a person has a sufficient level of self-awareness, and is in tune with their feelings, the label is unnecessary.  You know what you feel and don't need to name it.

The fact that ideas, or labels, can be either constrictive or mind-expanding for different people begs a big question...Why?

I think it's possible that some ideas are inherently constrictive...And some inherently mind-expanding.  I can't think of any now.

Well put...The trick is then being aware of being distracted.