Organic Portals: Human variation

[Ruth]

I think all of the above criteria in what you're referring to as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs are concerned with a man of contemporary life whether an OP or not, that is a man who is still caught in the illusive cycles of everyday life and unconcerned and unaware of the "third man" behind the 'curtain', and hence, a man who acts predominately in regards to the concerns and needs of their 'inner dog', so to speak.

On the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper. For example, how does each 'type' 'act' within any framework given. I think there are differences, but they're very subtle and more to do with energy and a person's ability to 'see' as well as their 'appreciation' of things non-mechanical.

OPs don't have the ability to go as far as non-OPs in this respect and indeed, their response to a person who does have this ability may be, "but why do I have to do that?", or "what is the purpose for that?".

Non-OPs have the ability to go further, but many don't because it is made very hard for them, or maybe they just don't know the option exists. I tend to think that anyone who has any 'ability' in this direction will be 'attacked' by 4D STS, via 3D STS if necessary. If, they do start to see the 'man behind the curtain' or the split in reality, they will start asking questions and then that's when the 'attacks' begin.

Therefore, your presumption that OP's need to have only the three needs of this Maslow's Hierarchy fulfilled is open to interpretation of the meaning of some of those terms in regards to one's "inner content", that is, one's specific contextual understanding in relation to these terms such as love, peace, acceptance, self actualization, etc.

Everything is open to interpretation based on its contextual meaning as well as things understood and things not understood at any one time. I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way. From a certain point of view, they do, but only on the surface. Underneath, many things are a whole different story.

Furthermore, in regards to number four on this Maslow's list above that you have stated to be the concerns of individuals who are not organic portals, that is, esteem which is being related to recognition of strength, intelligence, prestige and status, for an STS oriented soul, these things are important and a priority due to "internal consideration".

What I was saying is that for an OP, having steps 4 & 5 being met means the same as having steps 1-3 being met. After that happens, OPs will automatically consider steps 4 & 5 as having already been met. In other words, they're not going looking for anything else above and after steps 1-3 are met.

For a non-OP, steps 4 & 5 are considered separately and will necessitate some sort of seeking or questing behaviour, because a non-OP would not consider these met with the meeting of steps 1-3.

For a STO oriented soul, such things are of no concern within. Only Giving when asked is of essential importance to an STO oriented soul, and not the 'inner dog's' needs of having a prestigious self image projected to others in regards of being a intelligent, strengthful , "good", or "giving" person.

The fact we are not STO makes giving only when asked hard. How do we know when we are asked? Some kind of discernment is needed and I don't think we will fully 'be there' until we are STO. The difference I'm trying to point out is the type of giving as the concerns of the non-OP and the OP would different. If they ask and if anyone actually hears, they will most likely be asking for different things...

So, I think a "potentially fully souled" Being who is also a "seed" for an STO oriented soul rather then a STS oriented soul, would be concerned with learning how to 'gently' 'tame' one's 'inner dog' in order reclaim 'sovereignty' of one's own 'consciousness container', or say, "machine" from the 'third man' behind the 'curtain', who is, through chemical emotional manipulations, always dancing a 'carrot' on a 'stick' for one's 'inner dog' to play with through the influences of "A influences"; hence, one needs to learn how to 'tame' the 'inner dog' through "C influences" 'aimed' at collecting further "B influences" in order to 'tune' one's 'consciousness container' to greater "receivership capability" by polarizing one's "receiver", that is, the "mind through central nervous system connection to higher levels", towards the STO Thought Center and polarity

.

Yes I guess that's what we're trying to do here. Working to become STO.

STS oriented souls would not be concerned with collecting "B influences" and would not even be in sync with such energies, but would rather through a choice of doing "conscious evil" collect more and more "A influences" and thus strive to rise further to the top of the STS pyramidal food chain.

Yes. STS tends to be parasitic and entropic. Hence of greater difficulty to people trying to become STO.

I just thought to share these thoughts since it appeared to me that that your reasoning was too general in regards to theses criterias and the concept of OPs, and thus faulty. So, what you think of these proposed thoughts?

General does not mean faulty or wrong, it may mean unknown or undefined. And it could be wrong. If people expect all the answers to lifes biggest mysteries to be explained in either specific or even complex terms just to be correct - then they're dreamin! And probably wasting their time.... Correct concepts can be general as well as simple, in fact they may be many things.

 

[Saman]

I think all of the above criteria in what you're referring to as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs are concerned with a man of contemporary life whether an OP or not, that is a man who is still caught in the illusive cycles of everyday life and unconcerned and unaware of the "third man" behind the 'curtain', and hence, a man who acts predominately in regards to the concerns and needs of their 'inner dog', so to speak.

On the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper. For example, how does each 'type' 'act' within any framework given. I think there are differences, but they're very subtle and more to do with energy and a person's ability to 'see' as well as their 'appreciation' of things non-mechanical.

OPs don't have the ability to go as far as non-OPs in this respect and indeed, their response to a person who does have this ability may be, "but why do I have to do that?", or "what is the purpose for that?".

Non-OPs have the ability to go further, but many don't because it is made very hard for them, or maybe they just don't know the option exists. I tend to think that anyone who has any 'ability' in this direction will be 'attacked' by 4D STS, via 3D STS if necessary. If, they do start to see the 'man behind the curtain' or the split in reality, they will start asking questions and then that's when the 'attacks' begin.

First you state Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and then go on to propose that OPs are only concerned with items one to three on this list of needs, but now you're contradicting yourself by stating that "on the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper." So if the latter is truly your 'point' of view, then why state in your original post that you think in your opinion that on the surface OPS are only concerned with items one to three on this list?

Therefore, your presumption that OP's need to have only the three needs of this Maslow's Hierarchy fulfilled is open to interpretation of the meaning of some of those terms in regards to one's "inner content", that is, one's specific contextual understanding in relation to these terms such as love, peace, acceptance, self actualization, etc.

Everything is open to interpretation based on its contextual meaning as well as things understood and things not understood at any one time. I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way. From a certain point of view, they do, but only on the surface. Underneath, many things are a whole different story.

If you're stating yourself that Maslow was not aware of this concept of different types of human beings, then why are you then using this list of criteria to superficially base your opinion upon what differentiates an OP from a non OP?

Furthermore, in regards to number four on this Maslow's list above that you have stated to be the concerns of individuals who are not organic portals, that is, esteem which is being related to recognition of strength, intelligence, prestige and status, for an STS oriented soul, these things are important and a priority due to "internal consideration".

What I was saying is that for an OP, having steps 4 & 5 being met means the same as having steps 1-3 being met. After that happens, OPs will automatically consider steps 4 & 5 as having already been met. In other words, they're not going looking for anything else above and after steps 1-3 are met.

For a non-OP, steps 4 & 5 are considered separately and will necessitate some sort of seeking or questing behaviour, because a non-OP would not consider these met with the meeting of steps 1-3.

See above. If you're stating yourself that Maslow was not aware of this concept of different types of human beings, then why are you then using this list of criteria of needs to superficially base your opinion upon what differentiates an OP from a non OP?

For a STO oriented soul, such things are of no concern within. Only Giving when asked is of essential importance to an STO oriented soul, and not the 'inner dog's' needs of having a prestigious self image projected to others in regards of being a intelligent, strengthful , "good", or "giving" person.

The fact we are not STO makes giving only when asked hard. How do we know when we are asked? Some kind of discernment is needed and I don't think we will fully 'be there' until we are STO. The difference I'm trying to point out is the type of giving as the concerns of the non-OP and the OP would different. If they ask and if anyone actually hears, they will most likely be asking for different things...

If OPs are purely mechanical due to only having the three lower centers, and they are in their own separate cycle of lessons in regards to being a bridge between 2nd and 3rd Density, which involves lessons that are not related to the matters of a "potentially fully souled" Being who has the two higher centers, then based on what data are you suggesting that they will ever be concerned with learning to Ask and Give rather then simply aping what contemporary man understand to be asking and giving, and thus behaving the same as the latter?

So, I think a "potentially fully souled" Being who is also a "seed" for an STO oriented soul rather then a STS oriented soul, would be concerned with learning how to 'gently' 'tame' one's 'inner dog' in order reclaim 'sovereignty' of one's own 'consciousness container', or say, "machine" from the 'third man' behind the 'curtain', who is, through chemical emotional manipulations, always dancing a 'carrot' on a 'stick' for one's 'inner dog' to play with through the influences of "A influences"; hence, one needs to learn how to 'tame' the 'inner dog' through "C influences" 'aimed' at collecting further "B influences" in order to 'tune' one's 'consciousness container' to greater "receivership capability" by polarizing one's "receiver", that is, the "mind through central nervous system connection to higher levels", towards the STO Thought Center and polarity

.

Yes I guess that's what we're trying to do here. Working to become STO.

STS oriented souls would not be concerned with collecting "B influences" and would not even be in sync with such energies, but would rather through a choice of doing "conscious evil" collect more and more "A influences" and thus strive to rise further to the top of the STS pyramidal food chain.

Yes. STS tends to be parasitic and entropic. Hence of greater difficulty to people trying to become STO.

As usual, as was the case when you were active in CassChat in the 'past', you are putting all STS Beings in the same boat. There is an essential difference between an STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STO soul and a STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STS soul, and this essential difference is their "emotional pathway" or FRV.

I just thought to share these thoughts since it appeared to me that that your reasoning was too general in regards to theses criterias and the concept of OPs, and thus faulty. So, what you think of these proposed thoughts?

General does not mean faulty or wrong, it may mean unknown or undefined. And it could be wrong. If people expect all the answers to lifes biggest mysteries to be explained in either specific or even complex terms just to be correct - then they're dreamin! And probably wasting their time.... Correct concepts can be general as well as simple, in fact they may be many things.

Yes, you are correct that general does not mean faulty or wrong. What I said was that your reasoning was too general by using these criterias of Maslow in regards to the concept of OPs, and thus your reasoning is faulty due to using these criterias in this general manner. If one assumes that their general opinion derived from their general manner of reasoning is in accord to what is highly possibly or probably the objective reality, especially if they themselves point out that being general "may mean unknown or undefined. And it could be wrong", then being too general in regards to a complicated concept such as OPs leads to no fruitful discussions, and hence, the potentially undiscovered and unconsidered details cause one to mechanically have a belief based on probably faulty assumptions due to not considering the details: i.e. you stating that your opinion is that OPs are the only ones concerned with items one to three on Maslow's list and not four and five, and that only non OPs are concerened with all items on this list, when you yourself have stated that "I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way." So if he was not aware of this, then he only made a list according to observations in regards to contemporary man, who can either be an OP or a non OP.

Do you understand?

 

[Ruth]

First you state Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and then go on to propose that OPs are only concerned with items one to three on this list of needs, but now you're contradicting yourself by stating

"that on the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper."

So if the latter is truly your 'point' of view, then why state in your original post that you think in your opinion that on the surface OPS are only concerned with items one to three on this list?

OPs are a new concept, they won't be found in literature anywere - accept maybe Mouravieff's stuff which is when they first came up - introduced by the Cs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that we need to look at what sociologists have been saying about human beings and see how we think this new idea applies to what has been said previously. It should be an ongoing process.

Gurdjieff didn't know about OPs either. Perhaps this is where the idea that we are all OPs comes from. He thought we are all mechanical.... So, we must be OPs, right?

Therefore, your presumption that OP's need to have only the three needs of this Maslow's Hierarchy fulfilled is open to interpretation of the meaning of some of those terms in regards to one's "inner content", that is, one's specific contextual understanding in relation to these terms such as love, peace, acceptance, self actualization, etc.

Everything is open to interpretation based on its contextual meaning as well as things understood and things not understood at any one time. I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way. From a certain point of view, they do, but only on the surface. Underneath, many things are a whole different story.
If you're stating yourself that Maslow was not aware of this concept of different types of human beings, then why are you then using this list of criteria to superficially base your opinion upon what differentiates an OP from a non OP?

See above. Not all answers are available or verifiable by writings in the past. Some new ideas build on old ones.

Furthermore, in regards to number four on this Maslow's list above that you have stated to be the concerns of individuals who are not organic portals, that is, esteem which is being related to recognition of strength, intelligence, prestige and status, for an STS oriented soul, these things are important and a priority due to "internal consideration".

What I was saying is that for an OP, having steps 4 & 5 being met means the same as having steps 1-3 being met. After that happens, OPs will automatically consider steps 4 & 5 as having already been met. In other words, they're not going looking for anything else above and after steps 1-3 are met.

If OPs are purely mechanical due to only having the three lower centers, and they are in their own separate cycle of lessons in regards to being a bridge between 2nd and 3rd Density, which involves lessons that are not related to the matters of a "potentially fully souled" Being who has the two higher centers, then based on what data are you suggesting that they will ever be concerned with learning to Ask and Give rather then simply aping what contemporary man understand to be asking and giving, and thus behaving the same as the latter?

Sure, their 'aping' non-OP individuals in terms of reflecting their higher centers back at them is probably true. Just their concerns may be different because they are 'stunted' in a way that a non-OP is not. Of course, this doesn't mean that non-OP use these these extra dimensions or are even aware of them, though. Besides, if there really are two types of people, why shouldn't there be two types of 'understanding' of what Maslows hierachy is all about?

As usual, as was the case when you were active in CassChat in the 'past', you are putting all STS Beings in the same boat.

My goodness! How awful of me! Where would you like them all to be - perhaps all on the same planet? Besides, not everyone on this planet will fit onto the same boat.

There is an essential difference between an STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STO soul and a STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STS soul, and this essential difference is their "emotional pathway" or FRV.

Yep, there's also a difference between an OP and a non-OP, what you've written above (in my current thinking) only applies to non-OPs. I do not include OPs as able to 'take the next step' towards being either of STO orientation or STS orientation. They are too busy being mechanical and copying non-OPs to actively engage in that process. I don't think the fact that this entire planet is STS makes one bean of difference. And I certainly don't associate OPs with entropy or STS just because they happen to live here (they could live anywhere). Its probably their bad luck anyway (that is, if they wanted to develop higher centers quicker in order to 'make the choice' between entropy and expansion). But that's just my thinking at the moment.

Yes, you are correct that general does not mean faulty or wrong. What I said was that your reasoning was too general by using these criterias of Maslow in regards to the concept of OPs, and thus your reasoning is faulty due to using these criterias in this general manner. If one assumes that their general opinion derived from their general manner of reasoning is in accord to what is highly possibly or probably the objective reality, especially if they themselves point out that being general "may mean unknown or undefined. And it could be wrong", then being too general in regards to a complicated concept such as OPs leads to no fruitful discussions, and hence, the potentially undiscovered and unconsidered details cause one to mechanically have a belief based on probably faulty assumptions due to not considering the details: i.e. you stating that your opinion is that OPs are the only ones concerned with items one to three on Maslow's list and not four and five, and that only non OPs are concerened with all items on this list, when you yourself have stated that "I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way." So if he was not aware of this, then he only made a list according to observations in regards to contemporary man, who can either be an OP or a non OP.

Do you understand?

Yes, most certainly. You are saying that because Maslow wasn't aware of OPs existence, then I (and presumably everyone else... although, God forbid) am not allowed to apply new concepts to old ideas (which didn't or don't recognise OPs). Doesn't sound too fruitful to me. Nor am I allowed to come up with any new ideas of my own and try to 'connect' them to something else that someone else has already done. I understand completely.... I just don't think it's particularly fruitful. To my way of thinking, its not at all like thinking outside the box. Of course, that box can get too comfortable, as you know.

 

[Nathan]

OPs are a new concept, they won't be found in literature anywere - accept maybe Mouravieff's stuff which is when they first came up - introduced by the Cs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that we need to look at what sociologists have been saying about human beings and see how we think this new idea applies to what has been said previously. It should be an ongoing process.

Awareness of Organic Portals, although probably given a variety of labels and names, would have undoubtedly been known throughout history by small groups (before they were crushed). Although it might make some of us feel special to be "on the cutting edge" of discoveries, I think it's na

 

[Guest]

The fact we are not STO makes giving only when asked hard. How do we know when we are asked? Some kind of discernment is needed and I don't think we will fully 'be there' until we are STO. The difference I'm trying to point out is the type of giving as the concerns of the non-OP and the OP would different. If they ask and if anyone actually hears, they will most likely be asking for different things...

I don't think "being fully STO" is something that happens after we cross some kind of finish line. As long as we are consciously evolving some part is always STO. And that part knows when it is asked. I believe, however, that it is safe to confine ourselves to literal asking, before we try to divine people's intentions through some more mysterious means.

We all know when someone is confused and needs help. That may not be asking, but we can still strive to understand what they want, and if what they want does not undermine the one who gives (intentionally or not) then help can be given.

And what better way to "get there" than to apply the prinicples of being there, even if we have to make some mistakes along the way?

Regarding the needs of OP's we do know that they resist any kind of esoteric knowledge if they cannot categorize it. If they ask for it, give it to them. If they then resist, get to know through discussion just how they see things, and modify what you have to give accordingly.

Having arguments with those who cannot grok you is pointless.

So we ARE STO even if in part. This is what I think Saman meant by urging you not to put all STS in the same point. You seem to ignore the STO variable, and to not give it credence unless it is 100%.

This is basically seeing the glass not only as half empty, but always empty unless it is totally full all the time. This perspective, however, inhibits progress. You will not become magically STO unless you address what STO there is and apply it. That is how it grows.

You do not become STO by supressing being STS. You become STO by being more of STO. If you are even 1% STO you already have a starting point. Instead of seeing this as a choice against being STS change your perspective into affirming STO.

Knowledge is not enough. It must be applied, and the best application is praciticing its giving where it is needed. If you don't know what asking means, just look for the question mark at the end of the sentence. ;)

 

[Guest]

Regarding Maslow's work, when in doubt check Wikipedia.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Being needs

Though the deficiency needs may be seen as "basic", and can be met and neutralized (i.e. they stop being motivators in one's life), self-actualization and transcendence are "being" or "growth needs" (also termed "B-needs"), i.e. they are enduring motivations or drivers of behaviour.


Self-actualization

Self-actualization (a term originated by Kurt Goldstein) is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their unique abilities and to strive to be the best they can be. Maslow described it as follows:

Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is. (Psychological Review, 1949)

Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:

They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.

Self-transcendence

At the top of the triangle, self-trancendence is also sometimes referred to as spiritual needs.

Viktor Frankl expresses the relationship between self-actualization and self-transcendence in Man's Search for Meaning. He writes:

The true meaning of life is to be found in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system....Human experience is essentially self-transcendence rather than self-actualization. Self-actualization is not a possible aim at all, for the simple reason that the more a man would strive for it, the more he would miss it.... In other words, self-actualization cannot be attained if it is made an end in itself, but only as a side effect of self-transcendence. (p.175)

Maslow believes that we should study and cultivate peak experiences as a way of providing a route to achieve personal growth, integration, and fulfillment. Peak experiences are unifying, and ego-transcending, bringing a sense of purpose to the individual and a sense of integration. Individuals most likely to have peak experiences are self-actualized, mature, healthy, and self-fulfilled. All individuals are capable of peak experiences. Those who do not have them somehow depress or deny them.

Maslow originally found the occurrence of peak experiences in individuals who were self-actualized, but later found that peak experiences happened to non-actualizers as well but not as often. In his The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (New York, 1971) he writes:

I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds of self-actualizing people, those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experiencing was important and even central ... It is unfortunate that I can no longer be theoretically neat at this level. I find not only self-actualizing persons who transcend, but also nonhealthy people, non-self-actualizers who have important transcendent experiences. It seems to me that I have found some degree of transcendence in many people other than self-actualizing ones as I have defined this term ...
Ken Wilber, a theorist and integral psychologist who was highly influenced by Maslow, later clarified a peak experience as being a state that could occur at any stage of development and that "the way in which those states or realms are experienced and interpreted depends to some degree on the stage of development of the person having the peak experience." Wilber was in agreement with Maslow about the positive values of peak experiences saying, "In order for higher development to occur, those temporary states must become permanent traits." Wilber was, in his early career, a leader in Transpersonal psychology, a distinct school of psychology that is interested in studying human experiences which transcend the traditional boundaries of the ego.

In 1969, Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich were the initiators behind the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology

Counterpositions

While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it has its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wabha and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.

The concept of self-actualization is considered vague and psychobabble by some behaviourist psychologists. The concept is based on an aristotelian notion of human nature that assumes we have an optimum role or purpose. Self actualization is a difficult construct for researchers to operationalize, and this in turn makes it difficult to test Maslow's theory. Even if self-actualization is a useful concept, there is no proof that every individual has this capacity or even the goal to achieve it.

Other counterpositions suggest that not everyone ultimately seeks the self-actualization that a strict (and possibly naive) reading of Maslow's hierarchy of needs appears to imply:

Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning describes his psychotherapeutic method (logotherapy) of finding purpose in life.

Albert Einstein was actually drawn toward the sense of mystery in life. See Abraham Pais' Subtle is the Lord.

Others seek to perform good works.

Others are drawn toward the dark side of the human condition.

One could counter this argument by citing these as examples of ways people self-actualize. Hence, the ambiguity of the term.

Transcendence has been discounted by secular psychologists because they feel it belongs to the domain of religious belief. But Maslow himself believed that science and religion were both too narrowly conceived, too dichotomized, and too separated from each other. Non-peakers, as he would call them, characteristically think in logical, rational terms and look down on extreme spirituality as "insanity" (p. 22) because it entails a loss of control and deviation from what is socially acceptable.

They may even try to avoid such experiences because they are not materially productive-they "earn no money, bake no bread, and chop no wood" (p. 23). Other non-peakers have the problem of immaturity in spiritual matters, and hence tend to view holy rituals and events in their most crude, external form, not appreciating them for any underlying spiritual implications. Maslow despised such people because they form a sort of idolatry that hinders religions (p. 24). This creates a divide in every religion and social institution. (Maslow. "The 'Core-Religious' or 'Transcendent,' Experience.")

As you can see, forming a one to one correspondence between Maslow's heirarchy (and especially the "top" of the pyramid) and the OP/Individuation distinction, is not easy.

In my view, genetically determined OP's CAN become self-actualized according to Maslow's criteria: objective thought, spontanaety, creativity, love of life and others and self-generated morality.

And it would be safe to say that this is the top of the OP pyramid, meaning there are not many of these types of OP's in the world. Thus, it can be easy to come to the conclusion that OP's are incapable of this level.

The quality of self-transcendence, however, seems to go beyond OP capacity, because an OP views the world as an extention of their own ideals regarding themselves, while the self-transcendent individual goes beyond even actualization of self (to the full extent that this is possibile in each person), and is essentially STO. In what you might call STS Individuation, there is no transcendence of self but an actualization regarding how the world can be manipulated.

Victor Frankl says, self-transcendence views self-actualization as a step to a greater goal, while OP's can view self-actualization as the end of the line. An OP does not have a fully individualized soul and hence cannot understand wholeness, but can only (and often very closely) approximate. To transcend self, however, you must understand wholeness, otherwise you are only transcending a portion.

The OP in the most evolved case views the world as a part of self, the part that is not included in individuality. The Individual views the world as another whole and the sum of self and world become something greater than the sum of parts. Both these percpetions (OP and Individual) can be termed peak experiences, but they are different kinds of peak experiences.

And it seemed that Maslow did realize he was limiting his terminology here. And this limitation is not just a problem from Maslow, but for many of those trying to understand his pyramid regarding its peak. I am sure many people have deemed themselves "self-actualized", who may only have been in a strictly relative sense.

Understanding the differences between OP's and those who are Individualizing is not difficult when we compare the base OP with already evolving Individuals. There are stark differences, that one can see even in terms of Maslow's pyramid.

The difficulty arises at the top of the pyramid which is attained at some point by all those who move earnestly to individuation, and very few of the OP's. And the latter stop at the top, while Individuals transcend it.

Maslow limits the model further by imposing arbitrary linearity on it. Individuating people can progress while undergoing constant crisis of identity and be completely confused, unable to socialize, unhealthy and depressed for the duration. Peaks can be followed by lows, and progress can be a series of lows, while transcendence itself can be abrupt or gradual.

Maslow, like any scientist, was concerned with maps of reality. And as we know it is usually the case that the map is not the territory.

 

[Adaryn]

Nathan : " I even recall something Jesus said in the Bible about turning brothers against sisters and husbands against wives or something to that effect, which reminded me a great deal of Organic Portals. So even Jesus may have been aware of this. No wonder his teachings were labelled a "vile superstition".
I am curious, were there any other references to this in the Bible or was this the only clue?"

There is another, I think :

Luke 9:57-62

57 As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, "I will follow You wherever You go."

58 And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."

59 And He said to another, " Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father."

60 But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God."

 

[anart]

I don't think "being fully STO" is something that happens after we cross some kind of finish line. As long as we are consciously evolving some part is always STO. And that part knows when it is asked. I believe, however, that it is safe to confine ourselves to literal asking, before we try to divine people's intentions through some more mysterious means.

I think this might be a bit of a slippery slope - In my understanding, we really have to remember that as long as we are 3d human beings, we are STS. It is an STS realm and we are STS beings. We can learn about being STO, and we can work on our own internal processes and reduce, one by one, our obvious STS processes, but ultimately, until we escape this realm, we will be STS. Even our most giving moments are usually brought about by the way this giving makes us feel - it is a positive feeling for us, we are making ourselves feel good by giving to someone else - that is STS - if it made us feel 'bad' to give to someone else, we wouldn't do it. (or so it seems, and I could always be mistaken)
I realize that this is an enormously complex topic, and that most of us here are working day by day to at least align ourselves with an STO dynamic, but because, right now, we are who we are, none of is STO - and speaking of the idea that 'some part' of ourselves is STO might (and I stress might) be a bit misleading. Parts of us may be more or less aligned with an STO dynamic, but, unless my understanding of the material is a bit lacking, none of us is STO at this point, and aligning with STO, or working to become an STO candidate, is not the same as being STO.

Also, as far as this is concerned...

We all know when someone is confused and needs help. That may not be asking, but we can still strive to understand what they want, and if what they want does not undermine the one who gives (intentionally or not) then help can be given.

I am reminded of the C's quote that, "One cannot become an STO candidate by determining the needs of others".

So, again, it is a slippery slope - and one that I certainly have not learned to navigate flawlessly by any means, but I just thought I'd point out these ideas since they each raised their little hands incessantly until I gave them a voice. ;)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think this might be a bit of a slippery slope - In my understanding, we really have to remember that as long as we are 3d human beings, we are STS. It is an STS realm and we are STS beings. We can learn about being STO, and we can work on our own internal processes and reduce, one by one, our obvious STS processes, but ultimately, until we escape this realm, we will be STS. Even our most giving moments are usually brought about by the way this giving makes us feel - it is a positive feeling for us, we are making ourselves feel good by giving to someone else - that is STS - if it made us feel 'bad' to give to someone else, we wouldn't do it. (or so it seems, and I could always be mistaken)
I realize that this is an enormously complex topic, and that most of us here are working day by day to at least align ourselves with an STO dynamic, but because, right now, we are who we are, none of is STO - and speaking of the idea that 'some part' of ourselves is STO might (and I stress might) be a bit misleading. Parts of us may be more or less aligned with an STO dynamic, but, unless my understanding of the material is a bit lacking, none of us is STO at this point, and aligning with STO, or working to become an STO candidate, is not the same as being STO.

I think you're right by saying it is a very complex topic. That said, from what you wrote, it seems you're looking at the issue strictly from an either/or perspective (I put the parts in which I saw this in italics). In a sense I agree with everything you wrote, but I don't think it accounts for all the data. It's like the OP/non-OP distinction: in a sense we're all OPs, but there is something different about some humans that makes them more than just an OP (the higher centers in potential). So while we are all STS, I think that there is something about some people's nature (destiny?) that is STO. I guess what I'm saying could be shown in this distinction: STS-STS and STS-STO, with the STO only in potential, perhaps, and is what distinguishes those further along the path of entropy or creation (i.e. STS or STO candidates).

The quote from Ra about needing to be 50% STO to progress to 4D STO, and 95% STS to progress to 4D STS seems to demonstrate this. We are all STS (i.e. between 51% and 94% STS), but depending on our nature (Thought Center Alignment?), we can be on either side of the STS spectrum.

All of that having been said, I guess all I'm really saying is that some of us are more STS than others! ;)

 

[Nathan]

Progressing towards STO and STS appears to be a long, gradual process. As has been established in this discussion, it is not as simple as flicking a switch or changing from black to white. There is quite a grey area here, and I think most of us are swimming in it!

A: [...] Now, as you advance to the fourth level of density which is coming up for you, you must now make a choice as to whether to progress to service to others or to remain at the level of service to self. This will be the decision which will take quite some time for you to adjust to. This is what is referred to as the "thousand year period." This is the period as measured in your calendar terms that will determine whether or not you will advance to service to others or remain at the level of service to self.

 

[Ruth]

In my understanding, we really have to remember that as long as we are 3d human beings, we are STS. It is an STS realm and we are STS beings. We can learn about being STO, and we can work on our own internal processes and reduce, one by one, our obvious STS processes, but ultimately, until we escape this realm, we will be STS. Even our most giving moments are usually brought about by the way this giving makes us feel - it is a positive feeling for us, we are making ourselves feel good by giving to someone else - that is STS - if it made us feel 'bad' to give to someone else, we wouldn't do it. (or so it seems, and I could always be mistaken)

I guess I have the image of people being just like compasses. The needle can orientate itself either towards an STS or an STO destination... Its only the direction of the needle that changes. I suppose most of us are somewhere in the middle with it fluctuating as we try and work steadily to get out orientation pointing more towards STO. It may be just possible that we can be neither be completely one extreme or the other, as perhaps both of these extreemes are reserved for other densities. I'm thinking the ultimate STS is probably a black hole and the ultimate STO is probably along the lines of the universe or 6th density.

The most amazing thing about this analogy is that the person's orientation will not change their outward appearance, or the environment which they live in. Its has to be an inner thing. And its almost as if we live in an environment where there is this magnet (STS) constantly interfereing with our orientations.

If a large number of people were to change their orientation more directly into line with STO, then, I think the whole planet would change its orientation too. But nothing else would change. The Lizards wouldn't disappear or dematerialise, they just wouldn't be able to SEE anything STO. In other words, they would be able to see our physical selves, just not our orientations. This may mean that there could be quite some leeway for STO mischief making umongst the Lizzies. They can't 'fix' what they can't 'see'. That is a true weakness and one that may be able to be exploited.

 

[Saman]

First you state Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and then go on to propose that OPs are only concerned with items one to three on this list of needs, but now you're contradicting yourself by stating "that on the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper."

So if the latter is truly your 'point' of view, then why state in your original post that you think in your opinion that on the surface OPS are only concerned with items one to three on this list?

OPs are a new concept, they won't be found in literature anywere - accept maybe Mouravieff's stuff which is when they first came up - introduced by the Cs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that we need to look at what sociologists have been saying about human beings and see how we think this new idea applies to what has been said previously. It should be an ongoing process.

Okay. Now, can you please consider clarification on how you think that the above thoughts relate to the specific question I asked you? I don't see how.

Gurdjieff didn't know about OPs either. Perhaps this is where the idea that we are all OPs comes from. He thought we are all mechanical.... So, we must be OPs, right?

Have you read all of G's works in order to make such a certain statement such as "Gurdjieff didn't know about OPs either"? If not, then isn't this prejudice in regards to G's works without due investigation?

Therefore, your presumption that OP's need to have only the three needs of this Maslow's Hierarchy fulfilled is open to interpretation of the meaning of some of those terms in regards to one's "inner content", that is, one's specific contextual understanding in relation to these terms such as love, peace, acceptance, self actualization, etc.

Everything is open to interpretation based on its contextual meaning as well as things understood and things not understood at any one time. I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way. From a certain point of view, they do, but only on the surface. Underneath, many things are a whole different story.

If you're stating yourself that Maslow was not aware of this concept of different types of human beings, then why are you then using this list of criteria to superficially base your opinion upon what differentiates an OP from a non OP?

See above. Not all answers are available or verifiable by writings in the past. Some new ideas build on old ones.

Okay, yes. This is why I have asked you these aforementioned questions, in order to have the opportunity for reflection rather then deflection, and not only you, but myself and other members in this discussion as well.

Furthermore, in regards to number four on this Maslow's list above that you have stated to be the concerns of individuals who are not organic portals, that is, esteem which is being related to recognition of strength, intelligence, prestige and status, for an STS oriented soul, these things are important and a priority due to "internal consideration".

What I was saying is that for an OP, having steps 4 & 5 being met means the same as having steps 1-3 being met. After that happens, OPs will automatically consider steps 4 & 5 as having already been met. In other words, they're not going looking for anything else above and after steps 1-3 are met.

If OPs are purely mechanical due to only having the three lower centers, and they are in their own separate cycle of lessons in regards to being a bridge between 2nd and 3rd Density, which involves lessons that are not related to the matters of a "potentially fully souled" Being who has the two higher centers, then based on what data are you suggesting that they will ever be concerned with learning to Ask and Give rather then simply aping what contemporary man understand to be asking and giving, and thus behaving the same as the latter?

Sure, their 'aping' non-OP individuals in terms of reflecting their higher centers back at them is probably true. Just their concerns may be different because they are 'stunted' in a way that a non-OP is not. Of course, this doesn't mean that non-OP use these these extra dimensions or are even aware of them, though. Besides, if there really are two types of people, why shouldn't there be two types of 'understanding' of what Maslows hierachy is all about?

Okay. I am still wondering what data you are basing your opinion upon when I asked you "based on what data are you suggesting that they will ever be concerned with learning to Ask and Give rather then simply aping what contemporary man understand to be asking and giving, and thus behaving the same as the latter?" Moreover, are we looking for relative 'understanding' or REAL Understanding? Why are you now asking the following question above: "why shouldn't there be two types of 'understanding' of what Maslows hierarchy is all about?"

As usual, as was the case when you were active in CassChat in the 'past', you are putting all STS Beings in the same boat.

My goodness! How awful of me! Where would you like them all to be - perhaps all on the same planet? Besides, not everyone on this planet will fit onto the same boat.

You have misunderstood me. This is perhaps my fault for not being specific enough on what I meant by boat, or say 'boat'. What I meant was that all STS Beings are not at the same essential degree of STSness, that is, we don't all have the same low or high degree of FRV. Also, we don't all have the same actualized "intellectual capacity" due to the our specific genes in tandem to circumstancail parental and societal programmings through our "blossoming" phase, which makes understanding one another even more difficult.

There is an essential difference between an STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STO soul and a STS Being that has a "seed" oriented for a "potentially fully souled" STS soul, and this essential difference is their "emotional pathway" or FRV.

Yep, there's also a difference between an OP and a non-OP, what you've written above (in my current thinking) only applies to non-OPs.

Yes, I also think that it only applies to non-OPs, and the reason I wrote the above was due to this following statement, which you have snipped out of the context in your most recent response: "Yes. STS tends to be parasitic and entropic. Hence of greater difficulty to people trying to become STO."

Yes, you are correct that general does not mean faulty or wrong. What I said was that your reasoning was too general by using these criterias of Maslow in regards to the concept of OPs, and thus your reasoning is faulty due to using these criterias in this general manner. If one assumes that their general opinion derived from their general manner of reasoning is in accord to what is highly possibly or probably the objective reality, especially if they themselves point out that being general "may mean unknown or undefined. And it could be wrong", then being too general in regards to a complicated concept such as OPs leads to no fruitful discussions, and hence, the potentially undiscovered and unconsidered details cause one to mechanically have a belief based on probably faulty assumptions due to not considering the details: i.e. you stating that your opinion is that OPs are the only ones concerned with items one to three on Maslow's list and not four and five, and that only non OPs are concerened with all items on this list, when you yourself have stated that "I don't believe Maslow was aware of the idea of two different types of human being and he probably thought that all people would respond and 'fit in' to his model in the same way." So if he was not aware of this, then he only made a list according to observations in regards to contemporary man, who can either be an OP or a non OP.

Do you understand?

Yes, most certainly. You are saying that because Maslow wasn't aware of OPs existence, then I (and presumably everyone else... although, God forbid) am not allowed to apply new concepts to old ideas (which didn't or don't recognise OPs). Doesn't sound too fruitful to me. Nor am I allowed to come up with any new ideas of my own and try to 'connect' them to something else that someone else has already done. I understand completely.... I just don't think it's particularly fruitful. To my way of thinking, its not at all like thinking outside the box. Of course, that box can get too comfortable, as you know.

This something that you have projected and not what I have stated. I summarized in the above that "so if he was not aware of this, then he only made a list according to observations in regards to contemporary man, who can either be an OP or a non OP." Does the latter mean that what I am stating is that you are not allowed to apply new concepts to old ideas? If you are trying to 'connect' the "new" to the "old" and the "old" to the "new", wouldn't it reasonable to look closer at the details during your research? This is why I am even asking you these questions, since you have stated that in your opinion, you think that OPs are only concerned with the list of items of needs going from "physical survival", to "safety", and finally to what is commonly associated to as "love", but excluding "esteem" and what is commonly associated to as "self-actualization", and I that I think all these needs are of the concern of a contemporary man who can be either an OP or not.

Anyways Ruth, now I think Esoquest has shared some very helpful data and thoughts in regards to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, don't you think? So now with these new considerations, what do you think?

 

[Saman]

In my understanding, we really have to remember that as long as we are 3d human beings, we are STS. It is an STS realm and we are STS beings. We can learn about being STO, and we can work on our own internal processes and reduce, one by one, our obvious STS processes, but ultimately, until we escape this realm, we will be STS. Even our most giving moments are usually brought about by the way this giving makes us feel - it is a positive feeling for us, we are making ourselves feel good by giving to someone else - that is STS - if it made us feel 'bad' to give to someone else, we wouldn't do it. (or so it seems, and I could always be mistaken)

I guess I have the image of people being just like compasses. The needle can orientate itself either towards an STS or an STO destination... Its only the direction of the needle that changes. I suppose most of us are somewhere in the middle with it fluctuating as we try and work steadily to get out orientation pointing more towards STO. It may be just possible that we can be neither be completely one extreme or the other, as perhaps both of these extreemes are reserved for other densities. I'm thinking the ultimate STS is probably a black hole and the ultimate STO is probably along the lines of the universe or 6th density.

The most amazing thing about this analogy is that the person's orientation will not change their outward appearance, or the environment which they live in. Its has to be an inner thing. And its almost as if we live in an environment where there is this magnet (STS) constantly interfereing with our orientations.

What do you think of the following data in regards to your thoughts of "the person's orientation will not change their outward appearance":

November 26, 1994 F*** and Laura, T*** and
J***
[...]
Q: (L) Was this story of Cain and Abel part of
that takeover?
A: Symbolism of story.
Q: (L) This was symbolic of the Lizzie
takeover, the advent of jealousy, and the
attitude of brother against brother, is that
correct?
A: Partly. The mark of Cain means the
"jealousy factor" of change facilitated by
Lizard takeover of earth's vibrational
frequency. Knot on spine is physical residue
of DNA restriction deliberately added by
Lizards. See?
Q: (L) Okay, J** is going to move her hand up
my back and you tell her when to stop at the
"knot".
A: Okay.
Q: (L) You mean the occipital ridge?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was the configuration of the spine
and skull prior to this addition?
A: Spine had no ridge there. Jealousy
emanates from there, you can even feel it.
[...]

If a large number of people were to change their orientation more directly into line with STO, then, I think the whole planet would change its orientation too. But nothing else would change.

What is the reason for you to currently presuppose this?

The Lizards wouldn't disappear or dematerialise, they just wouldn't be able to SEE anything STO. In other words, they would be able to see our physical selves, just not our orientations. This may mean that there could be quite some leeway for STO mischief making umongst the Lizzies. They can't 'fix' what they can't 'see'. That is a true weakness and one that may be able to be exploited.

My my, you wish to "fight fire with fire". Anyways, moreover, I think it will become clear to you, or not, that this is faulty reasoning in regards to "they just wouldn't be able to SEE anything STO" if you consider the following data regarding the "sales job" below by 4D STS when we 'used' to be semi 3D-4D STO:

August 28, 1999
[...]
A: More like the former. After all, that is what
got you guys in this mess in the first place! Just
imagine the sales job if you can: "Look how
much fun this is! Want to try it?!? Oops, sorry,
we forgot to tell you, you cannot go back!"
Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is
a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded
to, and outright claims have been made
regarding sex in all religions and mythologies
- but I fail to understand the mechanics of how
this can be the engineering of a 'fall.' What,
precisely, are the mechanics of it? What
energy is generated? How is it generated?
What is the conceptualization of the misuse of
this energy, or the use of the energy?
A: It is simply the introduction of the concept
of self-gratification of a physical sort.
Q: On many occasions you have said that the
ideal thing is to have perfect balance of
physicality and ethereality. This has been said
on a number of occasions. Now, I don't
understand how it can be that gratification of a
physical body can be the mechanics by which
one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at
something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a
form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear
something beautiful such as music, or to touch
something that is sensually delightful such as a
piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These
various things that the human being derives
pleasure from very often elevate them to a
spiritual state.
A: Possession is the key.
Q: What do you mean?
A: In STS, you possess.
Q: That's what I am saying here...
A: If you move through the beautiful flowers,
the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to
possess...
Q: It seems to me that it is possible to
experience all of these things, including sex,
without the need or desire to possess; only to
give. In which case, I still don't understand
how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'
A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to
give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake
because it is good to give to the stomach?
Q: Well, you could!
A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not
forget, one gives because of the pleasant
sensation which results.
Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that
exists is part of God, including the flesh, that
if one gives to the flesh, without being
attached to the giving, that it could be
considered a giving to the 'All?'
A: Explain the process.
Q: For example: there are some people who
like to suffer, because they believe that the
flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the
Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have
wanted people to suffer, and they have made
this big deal about sex and anything that might
be considered pleasant or desirable should be
denied, and that a person should suffer, and
revel in their suffering. And, actually, making
a person...
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in
expectation of future reward. They desire to
possess something in the end.
Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply
BE, in the doing and being of who and what
they are, in simplicity; to become involved in
doing everything as a meditation, or as a
consecration, whether they are walking down
the street and being at one with the air, the
sunshine, the birds and trees and other people;
in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute
a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as
a channel for the universe to experience all
these things?
A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."
Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature.
Progression is progression. And if people
would just relax and be who and what they are
in honesty, and do what is according to their
nature without violating the Free Will of
others, that this is a more pure form of being
than doing things out of any feeling of
expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want...
just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if
there STS around us, we cannot just...
A: You are all STS. If you were not, you
would not be where you are.
Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the
STS mode; and there are those who are trying
to get out of the STS mode...
A: STO candidate.
Q: (A) These STO candidates cannot just
simply BE, even theoretically, because then,
STS would eat them.
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: STS does not eat according to protocol.
Q: What does that mean?
A: What do you suppose?
Q: I have no idea!
A: STS "eats" whatever it wants to, if it is
able.
Q: That's what we said. If you are STO in an
STS world, you are basically defenseless and
they eat you.
A: No.
Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or
'inedible?'
A: Frequency resonance not in sync.
Q: (A) But then, that would mean that all these
people who are saying that we need just to
love everything and everybody, are right. They
just be, and love, don't do anything, just give
everything to the Lizzies... they are right!
A: No, because motivation is STS.
Q: How is the motivation to love everything
and everybody, and to just give, STS?
A: Feels good.
Q: So, they want to do it because it feels
good?
A: Want is an STS concept.
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real
trick is to just become non-attached to
anything and anybody, do nothing, and just
dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no
do, no be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you
did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an
STO realm, where such energy does fit.
Q: But, if you have become nothing, how do
you reincarnate? And, when you say
'reincarnate,' that implies being in a body!
A: You do not become nothingness.
Q: But, being incarnated means being in a
body?
A: No.
Q: You mean moving into a realm that does
not necessarily mean being in a body?
A: Close. But 4th density is partially physical.
Does not consume nor possess.
Q: (A) This is contradictory to what we are
doing. (L) Why write a book or do anything?
There is no point. We should just sit around,
do nothing but contemplate our navels and do
nothing. (F) Why do you say that? (L) Because
doing anything at all constitutes wanting,
needing, possessing, having, and so on. (F) Of
course, because this is an STS realm. (L) So,
therefore, we should do nothing. We should
contemplate our navels and try to get out of it
and to heck with everybody else! (F) I
disagree. (L) Otherwise, it is contradictory. If
you try to help anyone else, or do for anyone
else, you are desiring to help them. Therefore,
you are desiring to change something... (F)
Well, sure, but this is an STS realm. (L)
Anyway, I would like to know who and what
this Marcia Schafer is channelling. She seems
to be channelling several sources, or claims to
be. Could you tell me who and what?
A: Not yet, because this issue is not yet
resolved. You are confused because you seem
to think you must be STO to be an STO
candidate. You are STS, and you simply
cannot be otherwise, until you either
reincarnate or transform at realm border
crossing.
Q: Alright, I got that.
A: But, did Ark?
Q: We are here, we are what we are, and until
the realm border comes, we can't be anything
else. (F) So, don't worry about being STS.
That is what we all are. As long as we eat
food, that's what we are. It's that simple. You
can be moving toward STO, but you aren't
there yet, and there is nothing wrong with that.
(A) We ask a question, and you answer this
question, and this answer can be interpreted in
different ways. I am not sure which way this
answer was meant. The answer was: if you
are STS, the answer does not fit. I mean,
sitting and doing nothing. If you are STS that
does not fit. But, if you do exactly that, you
will reincarnate in an STO realm where such
an energy does fit. There are several
interpretations. One is that, if we do exactly
that, we reincarnate in an STO realm where
the energy does fit, and it would be just the
right thing to do, because we WANT to be in
an STO realm. So, one sure way to go to an
STO realm is to sit under the tree and do
nothing and contemplate your navel, but not
having too much fun... eat nothing, desire
nothing... typical Zen. There is another
possible interpretation: if you would do
exactly that, then you would reincarnate in an
STO realm where such energy does fit, but
there may be other STO realms that do NOT
consist of such energies. So, maybe there is a
way to another way to another STO realm, to
which this energy does NOT go, but other
ways would go. (L) And, there is another
problem here: the very fact that one would do
this is DESIRING to go to an STO realm!
Which precludes the going. If you desire to be
STO, you are screwed! (A) Not being, that is
what some teachers teach. Nirvana. Is this
something that is supposed to be the only way,
and is it something that we are being
encouraged to follow because it is no desire,
no anything. Or, are there different STO
realms?
A: Not different realms, as such, but different
ways of getting there. Your respective
developments have led you to where you are.
[...]

And the following about the "opened" 'door', and see how this 'door' relates to "sales job" by 4D STS:

March 11, 1995 F****, Laura, TR, JR, SV
[...]
A: "When" you went for the gold, you said
"Hello" to the Lizards and all that that implies.
Q: (T) Okay that was what I was trying to get
at. You said that the Lizards or the forces of
STS opened the door.
A: No. Shouldn't say opened. We said
"opened" only to introduce you to the concept,
so that you would understand.
Q: (L) So, let's let go of the part that
somebody "opened" the door. (T) The door
was always there and always open. I was just
trying to work with the analogy. So, the
concept is that, as STO beings we had the
choice of either going for the gold or not. By
going for the gold, we became STS beings
because going for the gold was STS.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And, in doing so, we ended up aligning
ourselves with the 4th density Lizard Beings...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Because they are 4th density beings and
they have a lot more abilities than we at 3rd
density...
A: You used to be aligned with 4th density
STO.
Q: (T) And we were 3rd density STO. But, by
going for the gold we aligned ourselves with
4th density STS.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And by doing so we gave 4th density
STS permission to do whatever they wish
with us?
A: Close.
Q: (T) So, when they tell us that we gave them
permission to abduct us, it is this they are
referring to?
A: Close.
Q: (J) Go back to what they said before: "Free
will could not be abridged if you had not
obliged." (T) We, as the human race, used our
free will to switch from STO to STS. (L) So,
at some level we have chosen the mess we are
in and that is the Super Ancient Legend of the
Fallen Angel, Lucifer. That is us. We fell by
falling into that door, so to speak, going after
the pot of gold, and when we fell through the
door, the serpent bit us!
A: But this is a repeating syndrome.
Q: (L) Is it a repeating syndrome just for the
human race or is it a repeating syndrome
throughout all of creation?
A: It is the latter.
Q: (L) Is this a repeating syndrome throughout
all of creation simply because it is the cyclic
nature of things? Or is it as the Indians call it,
Maya?
[...]

 

[Guest]

I don't think "being fully STO" is something that happens after we cross some kind of finish line. As long as we are consciously evolving some part is always STO. And that part knows when it is asked. I believe, however, that it is safe to confine ourselves to literal asking, before we try to divine people's intentions through some more mysterious means.

I think this might be a bit of a slippery slope - In my understanding, we really have to remember that as long as we are 3d human beings, we are STS. It is an STS realm and we are STS beings. We can learn about being STO, and we can work on our own internal processes and reduce, one by one, our obvious STS processes, but ultimately, until we escape this realm, we will be STS. Even our most giving moments are usually brought about by the way this giving makes us feel - it is a positive feeling for us, we are making ourselves feel good by giving to someone else - that is STS - if it made us feel 'bad' to give to someone else, we wouldn't do it.

It truly is a slippery slope, and the issue is very complex. I would like to add to Harrison's comment, regarding this. Let's take issues of becoming STO and set them aside for now. Let's simply look at what we are at this moment. Two people are STS. One is "satisfied" with it, and the other is drawn to "something more".

The first we can agree is STS making the choice to stay that way. The second is STS making a different choice. From this difference, I gather there is something more to the second person than being STS. What motivates that person's choices to learn?

Ruth mentioned a compass analogy. Well, what is the motivation that moves the person to one compass direction as opposed to the other? Is it because STS does not "satisfy" us, or is not "pleasing"? That would mean that we choose to move toward STO because of STS motivations. That does not sound logical to me, but I guess one could develope arguments in that direction.

In any case, the C's do mention the factor of being moved by the predicaments of others, of empathizing. This is obviously not and STS dynamic. To put it another way, we may be technically STS, but there are STO tendencies that need to be developed to become full STO. The analogy of "graduating" into STO brings in concepts of diplomas when all is said and done, but IMO those are just indicators that the lessons are complete.

It is learning and applying the lessons, while one is technically STS, that moves us to STO. And when I go to "class", I learn something every day, and get closer to my diploma every day. But my diploma is not the goal, it is the learning. So the graduation analogy brings that "digital" either/or idea regarding STS/STO, while I see it more as an analogue progression of learning and application of learning.

So when I said to focus on the STO part, I meant to focus on what is being learned and the changes in us caused by that learning (the changes toward STO), instead of our lack of having an STO diploma, which I consider to be a potential distraction, and maybe a shade of an STS tendency in itself. And with the latter observation, I simply want to note that focusing on the end result (which is an abstraction) detracts from focusing on how much we have learned (translating to how much STO we are) at any given moment.

I also believe that our learning builds on previous learning, all choices based on previous choices. And I think this also translates to how much STO potential we have gained, because learning represents the positive effects of former choices. I mean this in the sense of self-knowledge rather than feeling good about progress. By identifying our positive choices, and by recognizing our negative ones, we can build upon the first and move away from the second.

Until we have accumulated a sufficient number of lessons, I gather trial and error must be how progress works. This is painful, and I think experience gives us a different context so we can grow beyond trial and error. I think it is more useful to focus on what we are doing right rather than what we are doing wrong, without of course ignoring the latter. I believe this because, in my opinion, it is easier and more constructive to do the positive rather than do by avoiding the negative.

So when we are asked for assistence, provide it and observe benefits in others, there is an STS part of us that feels good. Fine. I say let it feel what it wants, and put it in the perspective of a conditioned reflex, because objectively it has no basis. On the other hand, when our assistence results in benefits in others we feel something else that can be confused with feeling good, but is much different.

This is feeling right, which is nothing but a sense of positive confirmation that the assistence we provided has contributed to a raising of awareness, a dissolution of confusion, an enhancement of opportunity in general. Because of our actions the world has become a tad bit more right and we naturally sense this, and feel that something positive has occured.

The difference between one and the other "feeling" is that in the STS mode we seek to capitalize on our assistence to enhance our self-image, while in the STO-potential mode we are sensing a change in the world and in ourselves, an increase in organization and decrease in chaos, if you will.

If we consider this wrong, than we have to conclude that we shouldn't feel anything, and simply be robots in our assistence. Yet empathy entails both feeling suffering in others and feeling joy and accomplishment in others. Without this feeling, we would be devoid of the feedback that plays an irreplaceable role in the learning process.

So if what I said regarding being "part" STO (which was encouraged by what others, including the Ra material have said), can be taken in the wrong way, I hope I have clarified the situation. As such, thank's for pointing it out.

 

[anart]

I think you're right by saying it is a very complex topic. That said, from what you wrote, it seems you're looking at the issue strictly from an either/or perspective (I put the parts in which I saw this in italics). In a sense I agree with everything you wrote, but I don't think it accounts for all the data. It's like the OP/non-OP distinction: in a sense we're all OPs, but there is something different about some humans that makes them more than just an OP (the higher centers in potential). So while we are all STS, I think that there is something about some people's nature (destiny?) that is STO. I guess what I'm saying could be shown in this distinction: STS-STS and STS-STO, with the STO only in potential, perhaps, and is what distinguishes those further along the path of entropy or creation (i.e. STS or STO candidates).

The quote from Ra about needing to be 50% STO to progress to 4D STO, and 95% STS to progress to 4D STS seems to demonstrate this. We are all STS (i.e. between 51% and 94% STS), but depending on our nature (Thought Center Alignment?), we can be on either side of the STS spectrum.

All of that having been said, I guess all I'm really saying is that some of us are more STS than others! ;)

Thanks all for the responses, I see where you're coming from now - that since it is a gradual process, there is necessarily an increasing degree of STO dynamic involved, and with this I agree, to some extent. I really wasn't coming from a viewpoint of either/or as Harrison pointed out, although I totally understand why it came across that way, since I'm saying that even though, as we approach the end of the third grade, we are, in some ways, closer to the fourth grade than the third, we still will not be in the fourth grade until we get there - and the fourth grade is really where we will be able to more completely choose an STO dynamic. Saman kindly pointed out the transcripts that came to mind when I put this idea forward, so thanks for that.

With that said, I do grok the idea that one can, to increasing degrees, become an STO candidate as we travel through this 3d life - and I also tie in empathy with that idea - I suppose on some level that I perceive an STO existence to be so utterly different from the life of consumption of others for food that we, by physical necessity, live, that I find it very hard to conceive of the fact that we are actually 'part STO' - it is something I just have a hard time accepting - but I can accept that we are becoming "part STO candidate' - if that makes any sense at all - and maybe, this is the same thing?