How do humans change the cycle for 1D and 2D?

[axj]

Up to 7D, the more knowledge/awareness you have, the more service you can offer. What is it that you disagree with this obvious fact?

It is basically the question what 100% STO polarization means and if it is possible to be 100% STO below 7D. You have convinced yourself that it is impossible due to how you interpret what "100% STO" means.

You find no relation between "increasing service (to others)" and "increasing STO polarization", for God's dear sake???!!!!!

Sometimes, in some certain discussions, I doubt that I'm in the Cassiopaean forum.

It is actually reactions like this that do not really belong here. Why not meditate for a while and BE with the emotions and emotional charges that have come up for you?

Doing the necessary Work is infinitely more important than "winning an argument".

 

[bozadi]

Up to 7D, the more knowledge/awareness you have, the more service you can offer. What is it that you disagree with this obvious fact?

It is basically the question what 100% STO polarization means and if it is possible to be 100% STO below 7D. You have convinced yourself that it is impossible due to how you interpret what "100% STO" means.

And what is it that prevents you from answering the question?

You find no relation between "increasing service (to others)" and "increasing STO polarization", for God's dear sake???!!!!!

It is actually reactions like this that do not really belong here. Why not meditate for a while and BE with the emotions and emotional charges that have come up for you?

Doing the necessary Work is infinitely more important than "winning an argument".

And what is it that prevents you from answering the question?

You preferred to accuse me of things rather than offering your answers to the questions, which were "extremely to the point" of the discussion, because the questions and answers have "cornered" your wrong position in the discussion. That's why you've decided to change the subject by accusing me of things, rather than sticking to the discussion.

 

[Fluffy]

It always occurred to me that this is a very interesting exercise and it's useful for comprehending certain phenomena, chicken and egg. But at the same time, it's very left brained, because I was thinking... well the seed is the flower and viceversa, it just depends on when you look at it. there's really no breaking point that can be clearly demarcated, the seed is always the flower and vicecersa.

I see it like having memories. We can remember many of our experiences out of sequence and have multiple memories overlapping one another, relating to a seed and a flower, it’s both because we can remember when it was a seed and when it was a flower in exactly the same moment of our recollection. So in our mind the flower is a seed, a seedling, a flower, dead and decomposing all at the same time in that instant of memory.

 

[Fluffy]

Again, if your theory is correct, no Wave is required at all for graduation to 4D if the requirement is always 51% STO - with or without the Wave. In this case, the presence of the Wave would not matter at all.

I think it is more likely that without the Wave we need to be 100% STO to graduate and with the Wave "only" 51%. There seem to be many possible reasons why it may be easier to graduate with the Wave than without it.

Though who knows, that is just my theory and current understanding.

We are at the closing of a grand cycle, may there is no percentage requirement at all, as according to the C’s it’s the soul that counts, it’s not where you are but what you see.

 

[bozadi]

We are at the closing of a grand cycle, may there is no percentage requirement at all, as according to the C’s it’s the soul that counts, it’s not where you are but what you see.

Yeah, the C's say unusual opportunities arise at the closure of the grand cycle:

A: Pleiadians are communicating with many others; we are bursting upon the scene with you, but we are essentially the same, just at slightly different focus points on the realm border.

Q: (L) Well, why is all this activity happening now?

A: The grand cycle is about to close presenting a unique opportunity.

Q: (L) Does this mean that this is a unique opportunity to change the future?

A: Future, past and present.

But I don't think this applies to "the percentage" issue

As I see it, to graduate from 3D to 4D sort of main condition is to learn the lessons of 3D

Yes, and I believe somehow 51% STO means that the lessons of 3D have been completed. In other words, one can't raise one's STO polarization to 51% without completing one's 3D lessons, as I see it.

And that's also why "the Wave" can have nothing to do with offering a discount in the percentage of polarization required for graduation to 4D, because that would mean decreasing the amount or number of lessons that must be learned to complete 3D. Sounds absurd.

 

[bozadi]

And that's also why, I believe, 100% STO polarization is impossible in 4D because that would mean that ALL THE LESSONS OF EXISTENCE have been completed at the threshold between 3D and 4D.

 

[bozadi]

It is basically the question what 100% STO polarization means and if it is possible to be 100% STO below 7D. You have convinced yourself that it is impossible due to how you interpret what "100% STO" means.

You have a point there. And you're also right that I've convinced myself about what 100% STO or STS means. The former means being absolutely one with the entire existence (big-bang), while the latter means being "nothing" (in a black hole). This is just a claim on my part, and it's completely open and even willing for criticism. I believe my view has some certain basis in the Ra-Cassiopaean cosmology, as in the synonymity or correspondance between STO, positivity, being vs STS, negativity, non-being.

The clear correspondance between STO, positivity, and being implies that the STO polarization can't raise to 100% anywhere near 4D because that would mean positivity and being have also been raised to the absolute level, which is just impossible because the absolute level is at 7D or big-bang. STO is also so intimately correlated with awareness, consciousness, soul (being)! An STS being who polarizes 100% will just cease to be! An STO being who polarizes 100% will be all (absolute being).

100% STO at 4D would mean having absolute awareness, consciousness, soul, being just at the beginning of 4D, which we know isn't the case.

I must again remind, however, that as one gets closer to the absolute level, the terms STO and STS begin to lose their meaning. It becomes more valid to call it absolute positivity (absolute being) or absolute negativity (absolute non-being). Or so I think.

 

[Fluffy]

And that's also why, I believe, 100% STO polarization is impossible in 4D because that would mean that ALL THE LESSONS OF EXISTENCE have been completed at the threshold between 3D and 4D.

So each density has its own lesson profiles, we can all agree on that I think. To complete 3D one must learn 3D lessons, for an individual soul may be that lesson is to reach 100% polarity before they can move on to 4D and start a fresh with a whole new set of learning profiles which require losing some of their 100% polarity… and why would that not be a possibility in among infinite possibilities?

With nothing to back me up that I can find after an hour search, I’m going to have a guess that from 5th density onward, considering that there is no duality, that you are either STS or STO and percentages are irrelevant, I don’t think that 100% STO means that all possible lessons that are there to be learned are learned, just the lessons of the individual lesson profile ie; personal karmic and simple understandings, this is not going to be the same for everyone in densities 1 through 4.

 

[bozadi]

So each density has its own lesson profiles, we can all agree on that I think. To complete 3D one must learn 3D lessons, for an individual soul may be that lesson is to reach 100% polarity before they can move on to 4D and start a fresh with a whole new set of learning profiles which require losing some of their 100% polarity… and why would that not be a possibility in among infinite possibilities?

Why having a new (or, rather, "additional") set of learning objectives has to involve losing polarity rather than gaining? Have you lost previous lessons/knowledge? No. So, no loss of knowledge, no loss of polarity. Awareness will increase up to 7D, so will polarity.

For an alternative, I suggest this instead: Just like in the case of lessons/awareness, we can suppose that the polarity spectrum is also from 0 to 100% independently in each density. I mean you start from 0 or 1 percent and eventually reach 100% polarity in 4D, and you repeat the same (from 1 to 100%) in 5D, and so on. That wouldn't be a wrong view, I believe. It's only that, there's a continuity through densities. All is one. And the requirement of 51% STO for graduation to 4D STO, and 100% STO/positivity/being for achieving big-bang is a perspective that covers all densities, not of a specific one.

I don’t think that 100% STO means that all possible lessons that are there to be learned are learned

When I equate 100% STO to 100% positivity/being/awareness, it becomes obvious to me that it does mean the completion of all possible lessons. I'm surprised why you can't see or like this simple and most meaningful math.

 

[bozadi]

I think part of the confusion is about using the criteria of 3D only, or of all-densities. Let's take Putin as an example a good human being. Or Laura. Or let's take ourselves when we are in our best form in terms of STO. You know, you sometimes truly "radiate" love, goodness, even if this might be rare in the case of many of us, including me. But it occurs, must have occurred at least a few times (STO bleed-throughs?). Then one can wonder, how can that burst of love & light can be less than 51% STO? How can the incredibly valuable services offered almost completely free of charge by Laura and the crew can correspond to anything less than 51% STO?

So, I think, in that perspective, we're looking from the polarization (lesson) completion perspective of 3D, not from a holistic or universal (all-densities) perspective. As I said before, this is based on the consideration that there's an STO polarization spectrum of 1 to 100% in 3D (and also in each other density separately). So, I believe, the universal value of 51% STO would correspond to 100% STO for the 3D-only perspective.

(Ark) Is Erdogan a good guy?

A: About 53 percent.

So, I believe this answer is from the perspective of 3D. I mean, it's based on the scale in which the universal value of 51% STO would correspond to 100% STO for the 3D-only perspective.

 

[T.C.]

When I equate 100% STO to 100% positivity/being/awareness, it becomes obvious to me that it does mean the completion of all possible lessons. I'm surprised why you can't see or like this simple and most meaningful math.

Above the entrance to Plato’s school read the inscription: “Let no one enter who is ignorant of geometry”.

This was because it was understood that if people wanted to discuss ideas then, as in mathematics, first principles had to be agreed upon.

If I think 2 means 2, and you think 2 means 3, then I will always argue that 2+2=4, and you will always argue that 2+2=6.

You have constructed your own subjective encyclopaedia of definitions of words and concepts, bozadi. You walk into a geometry class armed with the belief that triangles have four sides, and then force your way into discussions that people are trying to have about squares and express astonishment that people can’t understand the “simple math” that proves that the internal angles of squares add up to 180 degrees.

As is said in computer programming: garbage in, garbage out.

You are alienating the other forum members who are taking part in this thread with your behaviour. When Wandering Star said that they would no longer engage with you, you actually ‘liked’ their post. I myself had resolved not to engage with you again in this thread, but since the thread was started by me, and I’m still valuing the opportunities it presents for exploring the topics with other members, I unfortunately feel like I have to yet again waste my time trying to explain simple things to you about how ideas should be tried and tested.

TLDR: If you have your own, unique definitions of things which are unknown to other people, don’t be surprised that they will be unable to reach the same conclusions as you.

 

[bozadi]

Above the entrance to Plato’s school read the inscription: “Let no one enter who is ignorant of geometry”.

This was because it was understood that if people wanted to discuss ideas then, as in mathematics, first principles had to be agreed upon.

If I think 2 means 2, and you think 2 means 3, then I will always argue that 2+2=4, and you will always argue that 2+2=6.

You have constructed your own subjective encyclopaedia of definitions of words and concepts, bozadi. You walk into a geometry class armed with the belief that triangles have four sides, and then force your way into discussions that people are trying to have about squares and express astonishment that people can’t understand the “simple math” that proves that the internal angles of squares add up to 180 degrees.

As is said in computer programming: garbage in, garbage out.

You are alienating the other forum members who are taking part in this thread with your behaviour. When Wandering Star said that they would no longer engage with you, you actually ‘liked’ their post. I myself had resolved not to engage with you again in this thread, but since the thread was started by me, and I’m still valuing the opportunities it presents for exploring the topics with other members, I unfortunately feel like I have to yet again waste my time trying to explain simple things to you about how ideas should be tried and tested.

TLDR: If you have your own, unique definitions of things which are unknown to other people, don’t be surprised that they will be unable to reach the same conclusions as you.

T.C., I became happy when I saw that you quoted one of my claims, which I believe has a basis in the Ra-Cassiopaean cosmology. But then I lost that positive sense when I saw that you dedicated your entire post to put blames on me instead of discussing the content of the quote, for example by sharing things from the Ra-Cassiopaean cosmology or other sources which contradict what I claim; wasn't this what you suggested for me? Why not do what you suggest? Supporting your claims with the sources we use the most?

 

[bozadi]

T.C. says to his friend: "Hold my beer".

By discussing and quoting the sources we both highly appreciate, instead of pursuing an endless trip of blaming, he's gonna show me how wrong I am.

Mirth!!! And I'm serious when I say "mirth". Stop blaming, please. Let's just discuss with good intentions. I can very well be wrong, even "very wrong". Just try to evidence it based on the sources we both cherish. I might appear that I'm never gonna admit I'm wrong, but this is not true. It's just that I'm yet to see things from our sources which obviously show that I'm wrong in my claim(s).

 

[T.C.]

You’re a troll, @bozadi. This thread has 14 pages and the majority of them are you just arguing with people, not listening to their feedback and not doing what is asked. At this point, I’m pretty sure you have some sort of character disorder.

I won’t be participating in this thread any more, or bringing any more metaphysical topics up as discussion threads. It’s like friends going to the park for a picnic and some psycho coming over and sitting next to us with a Bluetooth speaker playing death metal at full volume and refusing to turn it down.

 

[Mari]

You’re a troll, @bozadi. This thread has 14 pages and the majority of them are you just arguing with people, not listening to their feedback and not doing what is asked. At this point, I’m pretty sure you have some sort of character disorder.

I won’t be participating in this thread any more, or bringing any more metaphysical topics up as discussion threads. It’s like friends going to the park for a picnic and some psycho coming over and sitting next to us with a Bluetooth speaker playing death metal at full volume and refusing to turn it down.

Yes, he is attracted to topics like this, and he hasn´t learned much - this particular 51% STO was pointed out to him back in 2012 and he is still drumming the same.
I also decided yesterday not to engage in conversations with him. There´s no point.