Hello,
I guess I just don't really agree with all of the conclusions and assumptions you make regarding the quotes you chose, ScioAgapeOmnis. We do agree on some points tho.
Now, granted, I think a lot of the times when they (re: the first two quotes on your message) mention that these are differences between 3rd and 4th density, they seem to be talking more about STS vs. STO ways of approaching situations. But I think the lists of characteristics and adjectives describing two different ways of doing things are much more open in interpretation and application then you are giving credit for. For example,
Scio said:
Secrecy is necessary for STS and STO at all levels, osit. STS uses it to control. STO uses it to prevent others from causing harm to themselves and to others. In other words, do not share knowledge with "the enemy", otherwise it compromises your side.
This article is describing the different ways of viewing relationships in your life. IMO, If you and and another being are engaged in a relationship whose primary motivation is to serve self, then secrecy is going to be key in withholding information from one another to better exert control or manipulate each other into further STS mindset. If you engaged in a relationship whose primary polarity was STO in nature, you would need to be completely honest with each other. I don't believe secrecy is a necessary component of a true STO relationship, and based on a lot of what I've read and feel to be true, there simply are fewer secrets in a 4th density state of awareness. I think everybody is transmitting all the time, thoughts are real, and the more awareness you attain of larger groups of consciousness, the easier it will be to simply know what another's intentions are. Just as the 6th density being(s) being channelled in the Cass experiment seem to have that uncanny ability to know what someone is thinking/feeling/what is happening almost anywhere any time, I can only imagine that 4th density would be a leap from where we are at now. I try to remember that my current faculties/methods of perception are so limited right now, that I probably can't truly imagine what the next density really means in terms of how I will perceive events and interactions differently. But it doesn't seem too farfetched to me that this may contains characteristics we currently find beyond our ability, seeing in 360 degrees, knowing what other people are feeling, even thinking, better understanding the interconnectednes of all beings, seeing auras around all physical objects, travelling in ways barely imaginable to us now, variability in physicality -- these possible ways of being may lead to a completely different set of "rules" if you will, and while secrecy will certainly continue to exist, I think that it will be most concentrated on the STS clan trying to manipulate others, and that the STO clan (having no such motivation to manipulate or attempt infringement upon others) will simply be honest in all their interactions, especially when in the company of or relationship to another STO-based individual.
When mixing STS and STO interactions occur, with one side being polarized one way, and so on, STO can still act honestly without compromising a position. Honesty does not mean total divergence of information. Honesty does not mean complying with every request put before you. Honesty simply means being and acting in a way that is true to yourself, and what you are feeling, and being very clear about your intentions and choices made along the way to yourself, and then others as necessary on a choice by choice case by case analysis.
Moving on...
I do agree with you that not all monogamy is fear-based. The article makes no such claim anyhow. And yes, certainly polygamy can also exhibit this characteristic. But I think a large percentage of STS relationships that we are currently experiencing ourselves here on the planet ARE fear based relationships. And conditional love...well I think love is just a type of energetic expression, focussed by thought and intent towards another being or all beings. I don't think unconditional love is equal to unconditionally doing whatever the person tells you to do like you suggest. Some times acts of love involve one being unable to fulfill the request of another, but this varies from situation to situation. As far as I can tell, the article does not support the equation of love=act of assistance, but if you can show me differently, I am open to it.
And again, I do agree that this (very basic) list of adjectives is tending more towards a description of STS/STO than 3rd vs. 4th density, so we do agree there.
Scio said:
Honesty? Even when that honesty endangers you and others and the person you give dangerous info to? That would imply that at 4D no one takes any responsibility for their words and actions, they just reveal everything to everyone, to hell with consequences. Somehow I doubt that. I think STO would be honest as much as possible, and if they cannot say they simply will not say anything instead of actually lying.
I don't think that being honest implies not being responsible or taking responsibility for one's actions. I also don't think it means revealing everything to everyone either. Honesty is not such a closed or limited topic, IMO.
Scio said:
Absolute trust? Give me a break! That requires the assumption and absolute certainty that another being will NEVER deceive you or EVER do anything not in your best interest.
It requires your assumption in order to be true? I'm not sure how to respond...My opinion is that absolute trust refers more towards a universal way of looking at things. One can have absolute trust, for example, in the concept that beings will do what they will do. One can have absolute trust that we will within a framework of free will within this portion of creation, and trust this to be true at all times, absolutely. Or even that "Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers" There are many ways to look at this concept, that do not require an "assumption and absolute certainty that another being will never deceive you." In fact, I would say it is much safer to have absolute trust in the concept that other beings WILL try and deceive you.
Scio said:
Just like absolute trust never ensures your security.
Nowhere in either article does it say anything about absolute trust ensuring anyone's security.
Scio said:
It placates you into thinking that the other being WILL do exactly what you expect them to and never ever choose otherwise.
It does no such thing! Unless of course, you have absolute trust that the other being will do what you want them to do, but this would seem very foolish to me, as we can both agree that we do live in a free will universe. Again, it's about where and when and in which concepts/constructs we place that absolute trust in that determine the role or polarity this belief can hold. I think if used properly, honestly and with a goal of acting in as STO manner as possible, absolute trust in what is actually true as far as one can tell can be a very strong and helpful trait in one's quest. Absolute trust may be related to the concept of faith as well based on my limited understanding.
Scio said:
they say "absolute trust" is a property of 4D existance which assumes absolute expectation of the choices of another being!
they say nothing about absolute expectation of the choices of another being. I simply do not understand where you keep coming up with this idea. Do you understand my confusion about your declarations? Can you back up these claims based on what was actually written/channelled in the links I provided? It would help me to understand your point of view better.
Scio said:
I agree that most people are under a serious illusion about how much of their existance is really a choice as opposed to programming. But the keyword here is "believe". It's misreading objective reality, because some things CAN be controlled objectively.
I think even programming is a choice. What is an example of something that can be controlled objectively? Who or what is doing the controlling?
Scio said:
Like when we can't see the difference between things that we DO and things that simply "happen".
What is the difference really? My belief (and by the word belief, I simply mean something I personally accept as truth right now) is that everything we do affects everything that happens. And I believe that on many different levels. The more I try to view the bigger picture of everything that happens around me, the more I begin to take responsibility for every event in my life, removing the word accident from my vocabulary as much as possible, seeing what my role is in everything that happens and all that I do...the more difficult it becomes for me to see the difference. This is just what I'm working on right now though, and I would appreciate to hear yours and anybody else's input on the matter.
Scio said:
Actually I think the opposite is true. Most people do not control their consciousness, their thinking, their values, beliefs, judgements, and desires. They probably have more success in controlling the material world around themselves than their own consciousness.
How is the material world controlled? Is it not controlled in part by peoples' consciousness, the thoughts they have (which lead directly to the action they take), their values, beliefs, judgments, and desire -- all these things are used to control the material world as far as I can see in day to day life! The original statement you responded to here was "Because there is nothing that you control except that which is inside your consciousness; i.e. the choice of your thinking to create manifestations of values, manifestations of beliefs, manifestations of judgment, manifestations of desire." And you think the opposite is true?
We've already agreed that we have no control over another being due to free will, and we agree that we can never expect another person to do what we want them to do, and that these are foolish ways of thinking. So what is left to control? That which is inside our consciousness gives birth to the thoughts that give birth to the actions in a continually unfolding process...the only thing left to control, since we've ruled out all other beings, is the structure of our own consciousness. Which then leads to thought, action, and manifestation of these components realized in the work performed by any being in question. I think that makes sense, but I am open to any other points of view as well! :)
Sorry for the length, but I like to be as clear as possible since we're not in person talking.
Take care,
Jason