"Helping:" STS or STO?

[Ruth]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

...that it is not up to us to determine whether someone who genuinely asks for help is "worthy" or "qualified" -- only that their request is genuine.

Point taken, and I agree now that I think about it more.

I think we also need to exclude helping people who's actions or agenda harm others, ourselves included, as harm to another is an entropic type of thing...

But the notion of 'harm' is a difficult one to define, as we only have a 3rd density STS view of what it is!

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thanks for the input Ruth.
After submitting my previous post, I had a nagging feeling that I was still missing something.
I had a strong feeling that there needed to be a place to plug in some personal responsibility of the giver. After all, it seems important for one to have SOME responsibility to protect oneself and personal resources so that neither the giver nor his/her family or group has to suffer potentially devastating consequences, needlessly, due to careless or reckless actions that stem from a misunderstanding or misapplication of STO giving.
Going back over Pepperfritz's observations and considering your comment: "...exclude helping people who's actions or agenda harm others, ourselves included...", I think I found the problem.
The appearance of a contradiction was just that: an appearance.
I realized PepperFritz's comments were correct because they were context-specific. They directly addressed the model as constructed.
It seems the example I offered for consideration might have been a bit too simplistic for the elements I wanted to connect.
After all, would giving a few dollars to a needy stranger REALLY be such a threat to me? No. I would tend do what I've always done. I would give if I could afford to and politely decline if I could not.
A better example might have included a different situation, a much more significant chunk -o- change, or perhaps a significant investment of time.
I think, in a situation such as that, it WOULD be more prudent to make a considered choice based on some investigation of some sort - not for the purpose of judging another's lessons or determining their actual needs, as such, - but to try and ensure that you won't be supporting an action or agenda such as an attempt at fraud, overt manipulation or overt harm to another or oneself, family or group - that kind of thing.
Thanks again.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I think, in a situation such as that, it WOULD be more prudent to make a considered choice based on some investigation of some sort - not for the purpose of judging another's lessons or determining their actual needs, as such, - but to try and ensure that you won't be supporting an action or agenda such as an attempt at fraud, overt manipulation or overt harm to another or oneself, family or group - that kind of thing.

Again, the All to Those Who Ask entry from the Cassiopaea Glossary, helps to clarify these issues:

...The crux of the matter is the difference between asking and manipulation. Manipulation seeks to control the manipulated and thus by definition limit the other's free will. Asking is an open-ended request which leaves the response up to the other party. Manipulation generally implies covert intent whereas asking generally does not. Distinguishing the two is difficult and not always clear-cut. Furthermore, humans generally neither ask nor manipulate as a single, unified being. More often than not, people are amalgams of contradicting programs and impulses, some of them tending towards STS, some maybe towards STO.

Acceding to manipulation generally amplifies the STS-ness of the manipulator. Thus for STO to be expressed, manipulation should be refused. Asking by people can be highly ambiguous and contradictory. For example, some people may actually ask to be refused when they make excessive demands. With proper discernment, one can give to the STO-tending parts of another and deny from the STS-tending parts of the same person. Denying manipulation may be seen to be doing a favor to the part which does not wish to take unfair advantage, should there be such a part.

We may consider for example lies to be an indirect request for truth. Thus giving all could be said to be giving all things their due, in accordance with upholding the principle of service to others. Discerning the true nature of the asking/request/manipulation is key here.

As with any general principle, this cannot be applied mechanically, without awareness of context. While our first connotation for giving is an exchange between persons, the idea is not limited to this. We can speak of giving all to a principle, as in dedicating one's life to a cause. We could say that making service to others oriented esoteric information available is a giving to the principle of free will. This is on one hand a response to a spirit of spiritual questing that exists among people often disillusioned with standard religion or the New Age, on the other hand a response to the lies and half truths promoted by the control system under the guise of these same movements.

In this world of mixed contents, the motives of giving, whether for personal satisfaction or as an expression of alignment with an impersonal principle cannot always be distinguished nor do they occur separately. Pure expressions of STO or STS are rare....

 

[Cyre2067]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Well here's an example from my own life that's been nagging me lately. Was going to post separately about it but it's relevant to this thread so:

Recently, a close female friend of mine has begun to date a co worker. He seems like a genuinely nice person, he's young - 19, and has his share of emotional programs and baggage from growing up in our world. He's also signed up to join the army, and ships out for Iraq at the end of this year. I was a bit shocked when I found out, but wouldn't bring it up in conversation. The few times it has came up, I've mentioned the horrible treatment of injured vets, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and the whole death/murder gambit that comes with being a soldier. It rolls off his back. He thinks he's invincible thanks to his testosterone, and when I asked him why he joined he said he thought it would be 'fun'.

Now my response to this situation is to drop any further discussion of the matter. It's obvious he's not asking. It's a real inner struggle for me because he's a young guy, really nice person, and he appears quite innocent and naive. I just have a bad feeling about it. I've read accounts of vets, I know the odds are he'll come back with PTSD or worse, if at all, and this nice guy will be destroyed by trauma. It's like seeing a blind/deaf man walking down a railroad track, completely blind to the oncoming train, and having the urge to run up and push him out of the way.

It's not cool at all, and it's a really tough lesson for me to learn. Maybe someone sees something I'm missing, hell - I hope I'm wrong.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Now my response to this situation is to drop any further discussion of the matter. It's obvious he's not asking....

The section of the Cassiopaea Glossary I quoted above states:

We may consider for example lies to be an indirect request for truth.

Does that sentence mean that STO has an obligation to expose lies and uncover truth -- whether "asked" or not? If so, would it not be STO to reveal to the young man the lies that have and are being told by the government (and others) about the Iraq War? Not as an attempt to influence his actions against his will, but to ensure that he has all of information he needs in order to make an informed choice?

Perhaps the author(s) of that section can clarify whether I'm interpreting that correctly, because I'm not sure.

 

[Mr. Premise]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

A couple of things. First he's already signed up, so it is too late. If he were about to sign up and still had time to change his mind, I would mention the things you did once, just so he has input to make his decision. Many people don't know the info you told him. But after that, you have to let him go. Your right, he wasn't asking. OSIT.

Now, what if it's your son?

Well here's an example from my own life that's been nagging me lately. Was going to post separately about it but it's relevant to this thread so:

...

Now my response to this situation is to drop any further discussion of the matter. It's obvious he's not asking. It's a real inner struggle for me because he's a young guy, really nice person, and he appears quite innocent and naive. I just have a bad feeling about it. I've read accounts of vets, I know the odds are he'll come back with PTSD or worse, if at all, and this nice guy will be destroyed by trauma. It's like seeing a blind/deaf man walking down a railroad track, completely blind to the oncoming train, and having the urge to run up and push him out of the way.

It's not cool at all, and it's a really tough lesson for me to learn. Maybe someone sees something I'm missing, hell - I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thus giving all could be said to be giving all things their due, in accordance with upholding the principle of service to others.

PepperFritz, I'm beginning to appreciate your insight more and more.
Specifically, the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of your response to my last post, which I see summarized as...

Thus giving all could be said to be giving all things their due, in accordance with upholding the principle of service to others.

I see that I was viewing the asking and giving dynamic in terms of "a single response to a single request" instead of in more multidimensional terms.
I think the above quote sums it up quite well.
After all, how would I be able to add more awareness (or levels of awareness) to my perceptions if I couldn't "get" this? This appears to be the key to my understanding of discernment.
Thanks a bunch.

 

[rise]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Now, what if it's your son?

I would think the son would probably be old enough to make the decision himself if he was considering, but at the same time does he really have the backing knowledge to make a sound choice? I think if someone is considering that path they probably don't have all the facts about the situation... Thats such a tough question because if you are not going to violate his free will then what can you honestly do? Perhaps say the information once and hope he reacts in a positive way? I think the question might be a little too theoretical, and in no means is it clear cut :/

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

my response to this situation is to drop any further discussion of the matter.

I agree with this also. It looks to me that you showed compassion towards someone who made a decision that you perceived to be potentially destructive (my perception also). When I say compassion, I mean something like a form of sympathy that actually does something to try to help.
I think you stopped at the right place. After all, what would have happened if you continued to push the issue when it became evident that he was not open for input? I don't know, of course, but if I had been you in that situation, I don't feel I could have done anymore without entering the domain of coercion.

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Now, what if it's your son?

I think the difference will probably lie in the depth of our emotional investment in what we feel is the best decision and the extent to which we try to influence it.

Thats such a tough question because if you are not going to violate his free will then what can you honestly do? Perhaps say the information once and hope he reacts in a positive way? I think the question might be a little too theoretical, and in no means is it clear cut.

Sadly enough, I think it IS clear cut and that you already answered it. It's just that as parents we're not going to want to deal with it because we sense the pain and heartache that may be involved.
For instance, I have a 22 year old son who is married and has two daughters, all of whom I love very much and would do anything in the world for. Should he decide to join the military, I would jump on the internet and gather all the information I can find to build a case against it.
Everything from the stories of recruiters who have been caught in lies in their efforts to bolster declining enlistment rates, to the kind of government support they can expect (not) to receive should they make it out and need help coping with their experiences.
Before presenting my case, I would ask him for an open talk to find out why he wants to join. If he's feeling compelled by economic or other situations - anything I could help with to relieve the pressure on him, then I would offer to do so.
Otherwise, I would present my case to him. If the facts didn't persuade him not to join, then I would probably wind up standing in front of him with tears in my eyes begging him to reconsider.
As alluded to in my last post, I realize that I would have to stop short of emotional coercion if I didn't want to violate his freewill, but it sure would be hard.
At any rate, I would make sure he knew that whatever he decided, I would support HIM regardless of what I thought about the decision. I would always be there for him no matter what.
Now, what if he caved in and chose not to join? Would he carry resentment toward me into the future? Would he feel burdened with a sense of loss related to ideas of "what can now never be"? Would I be directly or indirectly responsible for inducing within him, an emotional state that the C's refer to when they say "emotions that limit are an impediment to progress"?
I also have to consider that when the future literally has limitless possibilities, there is a chance, albeit small, that he would make it through ok, realize his mistake, get out at the earliest opportunity and maybe even persuade his peers to think much more carefully before they made such a decision.
I hope the situation never comes up, but it wouldn't do anyone any good if I weren't prepared for it.

 

[nicklebleu]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thanks all for this thread - i just asked a similar question in a post "Reiki and consent":
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9302.msg66819#msg66819.

The question is really what is true asking for help - and I can't really get my head around it. How do you find out if the other truly asks: For intance an iv-drug user asks you for money - he really asks you, because he is desperate for a shot. Conventionally we can say, that we do not want to contribute to his self-harming habit. But then, we may interfere with his lessons. And is he truly able to ask without expectation - he desperately needs his next shot?

But I think, that the above explanation is not sufficient. I still wouldn't want to give him money, but don't really know why ... the devil is in the detail, but not sure where ...

 

[Ruth]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

But I think, that the above explanation is not sufficient. I still wouldn't want to give him money, but don't really know why ... the devil is in the detail, but not sure where ...

Where's the 'up side' to this scenario? Or.... where's the benefit.... call it the 'service to others', if you like?

In your scenario the drug user wants to disadvantage you by taking away something that you own (money) so that he can physically and psychically harm himself possibly even ending his life in the process. His death may leave a lot of people behind (friends and family) who grieve. And he would not have had much of a chance to contribute to the overall well being of he community either, in his short life. Although, really, that is a hard task for anyone in this reality.

There doesn't seem to be much of an 'up side' to giving him the money, as it won't be benefiting anyone and may be 'costing' a lot of people, plenty.

 

[nicklebleu]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thanks Ruth, but ... wouldn't you think that he hasn't learned his lessons yet, that he hasn't experienced his misery enough to wake him up, to create a situation for himself to change? Maybe this is the "up-side" that he seeks therapy out of his own volition. As opposed to be "coerced" to go clean: by police, the judicial system, parents etc...

I don't really believe that this is the case myself - I am playing the devil's advocate - but I am not at all sure why...

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

The question is really what is true asking for help - and I can't really get my head around it. How do you find out if the other truly asks: For intance an iv-drug user asks you for money - he really asks you, because he is desperate for a shot. Conventionally we can say, that we do not want to contribute to his self-harming habit. But then, we may interfere with his lessons. And is he truly able to ask without expectation - he desperately needs his next shot?...

When the C's say that "STO gives to all who ask", it is understood they mean "all who ask for HELP", not "all who ask for ANYTHING". In your hypothetical scenario it would be pretty clear cut that giving the addict money for his next fix would not be "helping" him in any way. The easiest way to test his desire for "help" would be to offer to take him to and pay for a treatment program -- then see how fast he rejects your assistance.

However, there are situations where discerning what would truly "help" another, and whether that person is truly asking for such "help", is much more difficult. Again, there are no quick and simple solutions. The first step in "giving" in those situations is to "give" our time, energy, and thought to learning as much as we can about the individual involved, in order to make the best decision we can.

I think it is very important that we not let our fear of making mistakes stop us from getting involved. Inevitably, as we strive to learn what STO giving really is, we WILL make mistakes, but that is part of learning what STO giving really is -- discovering what it is NOT.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thanks all for this thread - i just asked a similar question in a post "Reiki and consent":
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9302.msg66819#msg66819.

I just wanted to address a question you asked you the "Reiki and consent" thread:

But what if Reiki was not "invasive" - would it be for instance ok, if the patient wanted to have a massage, and the massage therapist administered Reiki at the same time?

Why would the therapist need to "deceive" the client by "sneaking" the Reiki in? Why not simply ask him/her for their consent outright? That suggests to me a scenario where the therapist would be bringing their own needs ahead of the client's. The therapist really wants to "practice" the Reiki on the client, but fears the client may refuse consent if asked directly; therefore, he/she decides to do it covertly. The issue is not whether any "harm" would be involved; it is an issue of respecting another's free will.