STO vs STS contradiction?

[Ben]

Flinny, you might - no WILL - find it useful to search some of the links on the Cassiopaea site map ( www.cassiopaea.org ) as well as the C's transcripts themselves. This one springs to mind:

http://www.quantumfuture.net/qfs/qfs_jonah3.htm Definitions of STS and STO

 

[Windmill knight]

A thought you may want to consider: When I give my credit card number to a psychopath, I am not serving him; rather, I am violating my own free will. We could even say that I am being abusive towards myself by putting myself in danger. I am also being a victim by behaving as such, and since it takes two to tango, the tyrant and the victim are both dancing to the tune of STS at some level (and here I mean having the attitude of a victim, as opposed to any other attitude towards psychopathic tyrants. For example, I could try to be a 'warrior' when confronted with a tyrant, even if I lose something: money, energy, my life or whatever).

Or so I think.

Castaneda's chapter on Petty Tyrants, in 'The Fire from Within', sparks some interesting reflections about STS-STO.

Also, Laura once mentioned that STO could be understood as respecting the Free will of everyone, including ONE'S OWN! If I fail to respect and defend my own free will, in a sense I am complicit with STS.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Also, Laura once mentioned that STO could be understood as respecting the Free will of everyone, including ONE'S OWN! If I fail to respect and defend my own free will, in a sense I am complicit with STS.

But also, if you have no free will, you can't consciously choose to serve anyone. So what you do will now be dictated by whomever you gave your free will to. So the question then I'd ask is, can you be STO without having free will? I mean, what if that other person uses YOU to serve others?

I think there's 2 problems with that. First, STO cannot accept free will from someone else and control them, so it is already impossible that the other person is using you for STO ends - just the fact that they are controlling you makes them STS (For example, there is no "good abduction" and so calling those who abduct you "good" and that their intentions are good is stockholm syndrome at best). Second problem I see is that if you cannot consciously choose to act STO, then whatever you do will not be your choice but someone else's, which means also not your intent but theirs. And as I understand it, intent has a LOT to do with whether someone's action is STO or STS, neither of which can be defined purely by a physical action because the context (which includes intent) is the 3rd and necessary element to tell STO apart from STS, osit. In other words, law of 3 applies - there is good, and there is evil, and then the context which decides which is which.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Flinny]

ScioAgapeOmnis: "And as I understand it, intent has a LOT to do with whether someone's action is STO or STS"

But it is not enough by itself, I would think. It has to be a reasoned intent (likely the wrong way to phrase it).

I went to the "eyes wide open" (anti-war "exhibit") recently. Most of the ceremony concerned laying out the shoes of people who had died in Iraq (from all sides, all ages, etc), and then reading those peoples names & ages. A visual & verbal que that these were real people, real lives lost.

We all took a turn reading. Within that list, were parents or spouses of the dead... who had requested that their lost one's name not be read. The letters from these people indicated that their son/daughter/loved one gave their lives in SERVICE (to others) and it was a sin/blasphamy/distrespectful to have their names part of our little demonstation.

The point being, many of the dead "warriors" had the Intent to provide service. Yet what did they contribute in reality?

So, it seems to me, intent is not enough (not that you indicate that).

Best,
Flinny

 

[ark]

Where, in God's system, the Amish asks, is entropy?

The answer is simple: in ignorance.

So, it seems to me, intent is not enough (not that you indicate that).

Of course intent is not enough. It is not even needed. What counts are the results. What is necessary is knowing which is the truth and which are the lies. Knowledge is needed and action based on this knowledge.

 

[Guest]

The concept of the "doubting Thomas" works best for me in this context. If I am presented with one or myriad options regarding thoughts, acts, behaviour, call it what you will, I think that these impulses should be subjected to a form of testing. It is oh so easy to presume that a person or an idea is expressing a selfless (STO) perspective, but it is only through exploring the connotations of that which is expressed that allows for an objective analysis of the said perspective. That is the beauty of the "fruits" theory/agenda. So much in our world is outright barbarism disguised by fine eloquent wording. Blair is an exemplar of this. If you take him on his words, he can seem a decent and honorable man. But his acts do not illustrate this. His acts do not demonstrate this; in fact, they demonstrate the opposite. See the new testament and Gurdjieff for this.

This is an invitation to analyse every aspect of human existence /interaction, which I have endeavoured to do in recent years, after a lifetime of conflict between good intentions and rank outcomes. Study your own motivations and you reveal the very fruits of your own agenda. With this awareness, you can better view the words and actions of others, hence cognitively understand the (STS) motivation behind such action.

Everything in our world appears to me to be a combination of karmic/intelligence tests. An understanding of one without the other leaves the person bereft of a crucial link to what could be objective truth. For example, raw cunning could well be the modus operandi of countless deceivers/spies/agents provocateurs, which could impress those who are too intrigued by the intellect. Moreover, an over emphasis on karmic values could allow one to be overwhelmed by the possibility of "God's" judgement holding sway over the whole of human behaviour(s). I hope that you see what I mean by this. This for me is irrecovocably connected to the concept of the 3-5 code, and is akin to skating along a shining wire, with a sheer drop on both sides.

I cannot overstate the importance of inner knowledge regarding the understanding these issues, and I state this as a novice with some degree of intuition.

 

[Ryan]

I think it is worth keeping in mind the full definition of the terms "STO" and "STS" according to the C's: Service to self through Others (STO), and Service to others through Self (STS).

For example, standing up for one's own free will against the predations of psychopaths is STO, although the primary recipient of benefit would appear to be the self upon superficial examination. In the less tangible idea of karma or "what goes around comes around", we also see how serving others benefits the self in the long run.

On the other hand, psychopaths and entropic types serve us (others) by serving themselves, because they teach us about the way ands means of defending against them. They show us our naivety and demonstrate where we have gaps in our awareness. It is up to us whether we want to learn the lessons the easy way or the hard way. ;)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Of course intent is not enough. It is not even needed. What counts are the results. What is necessary is knowing which is the truth and which are the lies. Knowledge is needed and action based on this knowledge.

Well, I think that can be true in many cases like when you intend to help but only end up harming due to ignorance. In which case, it doesn't matter what your intent, your ignorance and acting from ignorance makes you STS, osit.

I think you can easily be STS without consciously intending to be STS. But my question would be, could you ever be STO without consciously intending to be STO? I mean, can you "accidentally" do something that is STO? You could accidentally help people, but if that was never the person's intention, I don't understand how he could be called "STO".

Like when you help people because you wanna go to heaven. Isn't that doing what on the surface looks like STO but underneath your intent is STS, so what would that make a person?

But let me just maybe rephrase, I think results always matter because in the end that's what has any effect on objective reality, but my impression was that for STO you need both, results and intent. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[Ryan]

I think you can easily be STS without consciously intending to be STS. But my question would be, could you ever be STO without consciously intending to be STO? I mean, can you "accidentally" do something that is STO? You could accidentally help people, but if that was never the person's intention, I don't understand how he could be called "STO".

Why not consult your own experience? Have you ever seen an example of such a thing? It is something that is relevant to this common reality we exist in? Have you ever acted in such a way? Have others? Or is it just a hypothetical situation? If so, of what purpose is there to imagine such a hypothetical thing?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Why not consult your own experience? Have you ever seen an example of such a thing? It is something that is relevant to this common reality we exist in? Have you ever acted in such a way? Have others? Or is it just a hypothetical situation? If so, of what purpose is there to imagine such a hypothetical thing?

For some reason it's a fuzzy area in my head. I keep going back and forth between this idea of how important intent is and where it may be important, and I acn't seem to really come to a conclusion in my mind. If STO is "service to self through others" then the intent is STS or so it seems, because in the end, you still follow an inner drive, so you still choose this STO path because it is what makes you happy. So it seems that it's really impossible to utterly escale this STS element, you always have to have/know something in order to give anything, you still have to grow/advance your self in order to help anyone else grow and advance.

As Laura says, you do what you do because it's in you to do. But I guess if the intent is ultimately for self (because ultimately you do this because it makes you happy), then it seems like intent really doesn't matter but the details of what you do and how you do it, otherwise if intent was what mattered then everyone and everything would be STS. Maybe "by their fruits" applies. That does make sense, I guess maybe I'm just not yet so clear about the nature of intent itself, considering for example that one can have many different intents on many levels simultaneously, and so how can someone decide what is the REAL intent? I guess maybe you can't, they're all real, so the polarity of STS/STO *has* to be made from DOing and results..

 

[Cyre2067]

Scio, your conjecture reminded me of my superficial playing with karma. A few years ago i noticed that i tend to have insta-karma. What i mean by this is my karma comes round awful fast. The universe was training me in a manner similiar to how i train my dog (i've totally played the mindgame where my higher self was me, and I'm my dog). And like my dog, i tend to learn quick.

As such, i've always tended to do the small nice things for people, when asked i'll lend a hand, i tend to be brutally honest although that bit is tricky, and generally have a positive outlook and usually good things happen to me. Not that this is a 100% kinda deal, nor that bad things don't happen to me, but generally this holds true.

What i've wondered is am i doing these things because i get good karma in return or am i doing them because i am actually a "good" person. I can't tell, more importantly does it matter? I do them, period. The results speak for themselves. Again the fruits bit.

 

[Ryan]

As Laura says, you do what you do because it's in you to do. But I guess if the intent is ultimately for self (because ultimately you do this because it makes you happy), then it seems like intent really doesn't matter but the details of what you do and how you do it, otherwise if intent was what mattered then everyone and everything would be STS. Maybe "by their fruits" applies. That does make sense, I guess maybe I'm just not yet so clear about the nature of intent itself, considering for example that one can have many different intents on many levels simultaneously, and so how can someone decide what is the REAL intent? I guess maybe you can't, they're all real, so the polarity of STS/STO *has* to be made from DOing and results..

It seems to me that everything at this level of reality is "mixed" in a way, and this includes our inner natures. As G. and M. state, man lies to himself all the time. So we cannot have a pure intent until we separate the real and unreal within ourselves. Otherwise we can "sincerely" intend something with one "i", and another "i" does something completely opposed to the other "i"'s intent. In a sense, this makes intent irrelevant, except perhaps as an alarm clock for our own inconsistencies.

And if we cannot have a pure intent which is matched by DOing, how can we possibly begin to evaluate the intent of others? Thus, it is better to form ideas and hypotheses' based on actions, which are at least concrete. OSIT.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Also one thing to note maybe the C's sense of humor, and their general enjoyment of what they do. They do it, they like it, they do it more and they stress the fun aspect of it. They have fun along the way, they do not focus all of their energies purely on STO in every possible moment as far as I can tell, they are not against taking a break and just doing something silly for no reason at all whatsoever but just cuz it's silly and might be fun to do.

Or rather, those little quirks are still part of their overall STO-ishness, so they don't suddenly become STS entities by taking a break and enjoying the sunset or something along those lines, osit.

 

[Ryan]

Well, who and whatever the C's are, I'm not going to judge myself by any "standards" that might be a default or natural aspect of the realms they reside in. That doesn't seem very practical to me. Otherwise I'd probably be agonising every time I sat down for a meal! Better to observe, learn, and share, and let it unfold naturally I reckon.

 

[Flinny]

Flinny wrote: Where, in God's system, the Amish asks, is entropy?

Ark: The answer is simple: in ignorance.

Not sure how you meant this, Ark.
if ignorance correlates to "less knowledge", which correlates to less order, which correlates to less complexity... then I agree.

However, it could be taken another way. I posted the story as a bit of humor & thought I had indicated such. I thought it was a fun story (I've noticed there is little mirth in these environs... perhaps I should not have). I must assure you, however, that the Amish are very far from ignorant. They have correctly identified the dangers of verticle technology, and the threat posed those with the urge to power (what you here refer to as Psychopaths). They have managed to create some space to live... right within the belly of the beast which has consumed the rest of us (at great sacrifice & effort I would add). AND they have succeeded in designing a culture that is immune (from within) to the threat of Pathocracy (something I have looked into a great deal, despite the very private nature of these folks). No group of people I know of, are as misunderstood as the Amish.

In other words, they have done something US Founding Fathers tried, but failed to do.

The Amish are not perfect, by any means (which they readily admit). They are a varied group, as is any group... but I would never refer to them ignorant.

Flinny wrote:
So, it seems to me, intent is not enough (not that you indicate that).

Ark: "Of course intent is not enough. It is not even needed. What counts are the results."

I would only point out that results are hard to come by, without intent. Intent preceeds effort..

High Regards,
Flinny