STS and STO

[rs]

I know a lot has been discussed in the forum about STS and STO and what the different orientations mean. I am thinking about a different perspective in my quest to figure this out.

It seems to me that a simplistic explanation of the difference between STO and STS is woefully insufficient. For example, is going to the gym STS or STO? It probably depends; are you going there to show off your toned physique or to exercise the vessel? Is refusing to help someone at work who is psychopathic STS or STO? Again it depends. Are you refusing to help so that this person will fail and you can come out on top or are you refusing to get "sucked in" to the games?

I think that happiness can be a useful way to analyze this dynamic. People often say of another "you make me happy" or "you make me sad". I am wondering if one's state of happiness can be a useful differentiator between STO and STS behaviors. Fundamentally to say "you make me happy" or "you make me sad" is in some sense wrong because nobody can make you happy or sad, it is a choice only you can make.

It seems to me like the difference has to do with energy. If you are internally happy, and you export this happiness to the universe and those around you, you are behaving in a STO manner. You are a source of energy. If your happiness is defined by externals (wealth, personal relations, environment) then you import your happiness from the universe and are an energy drain to those around you. It seems like this is STS behavior; one is serving oneself by draining energy into oneself.

In other words, the difference between STS and STO is in the direction of energy flow. If you provide energy it can be STS if you consume energy it can be STO. Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

Before I always have thought that the difference between STO and STS was more related to the intent of your behavior, and not the behavior per se. Perhaps looking it as an energy flow direction is saying the same thing in a different way.

I would like to ask members of the forum to cogitate on this a bit and if you could provide feedback on the idea or any discussion, I would appreciate it.

Thanks

 

[Miss.K]

I think that it is as Gurdieff says, there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines what is what (I don't remember exact quote)

So for me it is not about figuring out a list of what is STS and what is STO. It is not something that one can memorize and follow, but about true understanding, that changes ones way of being, more than rules to follow, and even if it was possible to make such a list, it wouldn't teach one the understanding that comes with figuring it out when in a situation where one has to determine what is what....OSIT

 

[rs]

I think that it is as Gurdieff says, there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines what is what (I don't remember exact quote)

So for me it is not about figuring out a list of what is STS and what is STO. It is not something that one can memorize and follow, but about true understanding, that changes ones way of being, more than rules to follow, and even if it was possible to make such a list, it wouldn't teach one the understanding that comes with figuring it out when in a situation where one has to determine what is what....OSIT

"Right and wrong" is not necessarily a simple choice OSIT. Is it right or wrong to steal food from a family owned grocer when your children are starving and you have exhausted your other choices? I am not so naive to think that there is a simple "algorithm" (i.e. set of rules) to follow - mostly because it seems to me that context is everything. Still there has to be some kind of way to articulate the difference.

I do know that the Cs have been somewhat reluctant to have much to say about this; I suspect because they know that if they lay out the differences, many will latch onto the explanation as a shortcut or belief system or something. I know that there is no substitute for simply "doing the work", but I am trying to develop some kind of internal idea of what this means.

 

[Xico]

I think that it is as Gurdieff says, there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines what is what (I don't remember exact quote)

So for me it is not about figuring out a list of what is STS and what is STO. It is not something that one can memorize and follow, but about true understanding, that changes ones way of being, more than rules to follow, and even if it was possible to make such a list, it wouldn't teach one the understanding that comes with figuring it out when in a situation where one has to determine what is what....OSIT

"Right and wrong" is not necessarily a simple choice OSIT. Is it right or wrong to steal food from a family owned grocer when your children are starving and you have exhausted your other choices? I am not so naive to think that there is a simple "algorithm" (i.e. set of rules) to follow - mostly because it seems to me that context is everything. Still there has to be some kind of way to articulate the difference.

I do know that the Cs have been somewhat reluctant to have much to say about this; I suspect because they know that if they lay out the differences, many will latch onto the explanation as a shortcut or belief system or something. I know that there is no substitute for simply "doing the work", but I am trying to develop some kind of internal idea of what this means.

well, the only thing that the C's have stated is that we all are STS, and it is up to us the determent weather we want to work towards STO path or remained as an STS candidate.

 

[Richs]

"Right and wrong" is not necessarily a simple choice OSIT. Is it right or wrong to steal food from a family owned grocer when your children are starving and you have exhausted your other choices?

From what I understand about STO in a 4D world, there would be no need to steal anything if your kids were hungry. All you would need to do is 'ask', as STO "gives all to those who ask". Of course, here in 3D STS land this is not the way it is. Things work in a different way here and we can NOT be STO while we are still here in this world.

I do know that the Cs have been somewhat reluctant to have much to say about this; I suspect because they know that if they lay out the differences, many will latch onto the explanation as a shortcut or belief system or something.

Or, maybe they know that we will not be able to grasp the concepts until we are in 4D and acquire the capability to be STO if we choose that path.

I know that there is no substitute for simply "doing the work", but I am trying to develop some kind of internal idea of what this means.

Aside from the general idea of STO most of us here can not determine what it exactly means to truly be STO. Since that is so, most of us are doing our best to become "4D STO Candidates", so that, if and when we get to a 4D STO world we would be ready to learn what is the real difference between STS and STO and decide which way we want to go.

 

[Jenn]

I think that it is as Gurdieff says, there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines what is what (I don't remember exact quote)

So for me it is not about figuring out a list of what is STS and what is STO. It is not something that one can memorize and follow, but about true understanding, that changes ones way of being, more than rules to follow, and even if it was possible to make such a list, it wouldn't teach one the understanding that comes with figuring it out when in a situation where one has to determine what is what....OSIT

is going to the gym STS or STO? It probably depends; are you going there to show off your toned physique or to exercise the vessel? Is refusing to help someone at work who is psychopathic STS or STO? Again it depends. Are you refusing to help so that this person will fail and you can come out on top or are you refusing to get "sucked in" to the games?

I agree with Miss.K, I think it is all relative, and up to us to try and find out what our motives our and act accordingly

It seems to me like the difference has to do with energy. If you are internally happy, and you export this happiness to the universe and those around you, you are behaving in a STO manner. You are a source of energy. If your happiness is defined by externals (wealth, personal relations, environment) then you import your happiness from the universe and are an energy drain to those around you. It seems like this is STS behavior; one is serving oneself by draining energy into oneself.

I'm not too sure about the exporting happiness bit, How would you define internally happy? I don't really know if it has implications on behaving STO or STS?

I have just come across this in the Wave book one :

Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

IMO if you were knowingly feeding a psychopath (STS) regardless of good intentions, you're giving energy to STS polarity, so the action of providing energy to them would be STS (I may be wrong though)

 

[Miss.K]

Aside from the general idea of STO most of us here can not determine what it exactly means to truly be STO. Since that is so, most of us are doing our best to become "4D STO Candidates", so that, if and when we get to a 4D STO world we would be ready to learn what is the real difference between STS and STO and decide which way we want to go.

Though at one hand I think you are right that most of us here can not determine what it exactly means to truly be STO. I don't think either that it is something we don't understand at all. As far as I remember we have to be 50% STO to get to 4th grade STO, so it is not a concept that one cannot understand at all while in 3rd grade, I don't think it is that difficult to grasp, it is more that one has to be pretty good at being honest with one self to see when one is not STO (like if one gives, but really hope to get praise in return, or such)

Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

IMO if you were knowingly feeding a psychopath (STS) regardless of good intentions, you're giving energy to STS polarity, so the action of providing energy to them would be STS (I may be wrong though)

I agree, though it might not serve your self, it definitely is giving energy STS forces, which wouldn't be desirable if one wants to be STO.

 

[Keyhole]

It seems to me that a simplistic explanation of the difference between STO and STS is woefully insufficient. For example, is going to the gym STS or STO? It probably depends; are you going there to show off your toned physique or to exercise the vessel? Is refusing to help someone at work who is psychopathic STS or STO? Again it depends. Are you refusing to help so that this person will fail and you can come out on top or are you refusing to get "sucked in" to the games?

There isn't one single answer that can be applied to every situation and this is where the Law of Three comes in. As you say, it is entirely dependent on the circumstances and IMO it is useful not to fall into the rigid black and white mode of thinking about this.

I think that happiness can be a useful way to analyze this dynamic. People often say of another "you make me happy" or "you make me sad". I am wondering if one's state of happiness can be a useful differentiator between STO and STS behaviors. Fundamentally to say "you make me happy" or "you make me sad" is in some sense wrong because nobody can make you happy or sad, it is a choice only you can make.

It seems to me like the difference has to do with energy. If you are internally happy, and you export this happiness to the universe and those around you, you are behaving in a STO manner. You are a source of energy. If your happiness is defined by externals (wealth, personal relations, environment) then you import your happiness from the universe and are an energy drain to those around you. It seems like this is STS behavior; one is serving oneself by draining energy into oneself.

I am not sure that I agree with this. The feeling of "happyness" is exactly just that : A feeling - of emotion.

An emotional state can fluctuate back and forth and is generally unstable. Sometimes we feel "good" and other times we feel "bad" about the same thing. We are unable to trust our emotional states because they are often so unstable and are powerful enough to override our logical thinking capacity.

For instance, if one has acquired certain narcissistic traits or is psychologically/emotionally deficient in some way, the feeling of "internal happiness" may actually occur at another person's detriment and subsequently drain energy in the process. IMO this is an important thing to consider. Therefore, I don't think it is wise to use this feeling function to differentiate between STO and STS.

In other words, the difference between STS and STO is in the direction of energy flow. If you provide energy it can be STS if you consume energy it can be STO. Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

Before I always have thought that the difference between STO and STS was more related to the intent of your behavior, and not the behavior per se. Perhaps looking it as an energy flow direction is saying the same thing in a different way.

Providing energy to a psychopath (or anyone for that matter) equates to supporting or reinforcing their own STS behaviour - which essentially feeds the STS polarity.

One may have "good intentions", however if those intentions are not based in objective reality, and are in fact based on lies - any form of manipulation or deviation from the truth - the energy one provides still supports that polarity: STS

 

[riclapaz]

Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

IMO if you were knowingly feeding a psychopath (STS) regardless of good intentions, you're giving energy to STS polarity, so the action of providing energy to them would be STS (I may be wrong though)

I was watching from another perspective, if you decide to give energy to a psychopath, I think here would enter the third force in this case is what is motivating to that energy, and my idea is that what might be behind this is to feel good about yourself, being a good person, patient, generous, giving, etc., which would STS.

 

[Jenn]

Alternatively if you provide energy to a psychopath who is using you, this is clearly not STO, but then what is it?

IMO if you were knowingly feeding a psychopath (STS) regardless of good intentions, you're giving energy to STS polarity, so the action of providing energy to them would be STS (I may be wrong though)

I was watching from another perspective, if you decide to give energy to a psychopath, I think here would enter the third force in this case is what is motivating to that energy, and my idea is that what might be behind this is to feel good about yourself, being a good person, patient, generous, giving, etc., which would STS.

Yeah actually I agree, because those "good intentions" are most likely ignorance, or stories we tell ourselves...

 

[Alada]

Before I always have thought that the difference between STO and STS was more related to the intent of your behavior, and not the behavior per se. Perhaps looking it as an energy flow direction is saying the same thing in a different way.

I think energy flow is a good way to picture it, outward flow STO / inward flow STS. Brings the below quote to mind.

There's a Casswiki page on the subject here too: http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Service_to_others_and_service_to_self

December 10, 1994

Q: (T) You talk about both STO and STS. Yet you tell us that we need to learn to be STO. Why is there a difference between what we have to do and what you are doing?

A: STO is balance because you serve self through others.

Q: (T) You have said a couple of times that you are STS by being STO. Is this not true?

A: Yes. Already answered.

Q: (T) Kind of like: what goes around, comes around?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Is STO a means to an end for STS?

A: No. STO is balance. STS is imbalance.

Q: (T) How can you be STS through STO if STS is imbalance?

A: STO flows outward and touches all including point of origin, STS flows inward and touches only origin point.

Q: (T) Well, they refer in the material that I am reading through, that they are STS through STO. (L) They serve self BY serving others. (T) Is that what they mean? (L) Yeah. (T) Is that what we're supposed to do, serve ourselves by serving others? (T) Yeah! Because what goes around, comes around. If you serve others then you get things back. (F) Because when you serve yourself, all there is is an infinite number of individuals serving self. (T) There is no energy exchange, no synergy within the group; there is no exchange. (F) Everything moves inward. (T) There is no sharing, no growth, there is no nothing. (F) No interconnecting. (T) Right! There is no learning. (L) In terms of major STS, this may or may not be related, could you tell us the nature of a Black Hole?]

A: Grand Scale STS.

Q: (L) Is it like a being that has achieved such a level of STS that it has literally imploded in on itself in some way?

A: Close analogy.

Q: (T) Possibly an entire civilization of STS?

A: No.

Q: (L) Well, maybe a civilization can't do it because that implies working together. It must need to be an individual being.

A: Black Holes are a natural force reflection of Free Will consciousness pattern of STS. Notice that Black Holes are located at center of spiral energy forces, all else radiates outward.

Q: (L) Now, you say "spiral" energy forces, and you also have said that this wave is a spiral. Is the central point of this wave that is spiraling, a black hole?

A: No.

Q: (L) Is it a radiating wave?

A: All in creation is just that: a radiating wave.

Q: (L) Where does the energy go that gets sucked into a black hole?

A: Inward to total nonexistence.

Q: (L) Well, if a black hole continues to suck stuff in, is it possible that it would eventually suck in the entire creation?

A: No.

Q: (L) Why is that?

A: Universe is all encompassing. Black holes are final destination of all STS energy.

Q: (F) So, does this mean that we, or anyone else who is classified as STS, remains on said path, that we will eventually end up in a Black Hole?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Well, that is pleasant. And what happens to energy that is "total non-existence"?

A: Total non-existence balances total existence. Guess what is total existence?

Q: (L) Well, is it kind of like a balancing force?

A: "God."

 

[rs]

Thanks for the quote Alada.

The discussion about black holes reminded me of a dream I had some years ago. I was floating in space and came upon a black hole. As I approached it's "surface", I saw I huge number of naked people stuck there huddling as if they were cold. They all had a look of almost infinite terror on their faces. It was quite the image and I didn't quite know what to make of the dream. It reminded me of Rodin's "The Gates of Hell".

 

[lilyalic]

I think this is quite complicated to distinguish sometimes, the whole STO vs STS concept. I thought of "listening for yourself and speaking for others" as an act of STO. But then again, you have to be "consciously egotistic" as G. said, so you sort of have to be internally considerate to sort out your issues, and eventually or maybe even at the same time you can be applying these things you're learning about yourself externally.

More understanding of yourself, gives us more understanding of the world.

There isn't one single answer that can be applied to every situation and this is where the Law of Three comes in. As you say, it is entirely dependent on the circumstances and IMO it is useful not to fall into the rigid black and white mode of thinking about this.

I think that happiness can be a useful way to analyze this dynamic. People often say of another "you make me happy" or "you make me sad". I am wondering if one's state of happiness can be a useful differentiator between STO and STS behaviors. Fundamentally to say "you make me happy" or "you make me sad" is in some sense wrong because nobody can make you happy or sad, it is a choice only you can make.

It seems to me like the difference has to do with energy. If you are internally happy, and you export this happiness to the universe and those around you, you are behaving in a STO manner. You are a source of energy. If your happiness is defined by externals (wealth, personal relations, environment) then you import your happiness from the universe and are an energy drain to those around you. It seems like this is STS behavior; one is serving oneself by draining energy into oneself.

I am not sure that I agree with this. The feeling of "happyness" is exactly just that : A feeling - of emotion.

An emotional state can fluctuate back and forth and is generally unstable. Sometimes we feel "good" and other times we feel "bad" about the same thing. We are unable to trust our emotional states because they are often so unstable and are powerful enough to override our logical thinking capacity.

[...]

For instance, if one has acquired certain narcissistic traits or is psychologically/emotionally deficient in some way, the feeling of "internal happiness" may actually occur at another person's detriment and subsequently drain energy in the process. IMO this is an important thing to consider. Therefore, I don't think it is wise to use this feeling function to differentiate between STO and STS.

I agree with the "black and white" concept of this, I don't believe it's healthy to try to put everything you do in an STS or STO category. Although I completely understand as I fall into this all of the time, especially with the STO & STS a while back. It's a struggle, trying to become STO - it will be for a long time for many.

Btw, I like what you said here Keyhole - it is true that those with narcissistic traits and personality disorders are unaware of the energy drainage from others. I sometimes over analyze my actions, seeing if they were truly for someone else or myself. But, even so, it's hard to trust my actions and thoughts because, personally I have no idea.

 

[Alada]

I think this is quite complicated to distinguish sometimes, the whole STO vs STS concept. I thought of "listening for yourself and speaking for others" as an act of STO. But then again, you have to be "consciously egotistic" as G. said, so you sort of have to be internally considerate to sort out your issues, and eventually or maybe even at the same time you can be applying these things you're learning about yourself externally.

Gurdjieff talks of being a ‘conscious egoist’, only as a means to eventually learn how to be a ‘conscious altruist’. So again, certain things might seem STS taken one way, yet their motive might be otherwise, a lot depends in intent / context as others have mentioned.

Maybe it would help to remember that we are all STS, can only aspire or begin to align our aim with STO. One expression of that is in our participation in proper networking here on the forum, and again that’s an expression of flow. Some folk only take, suck information in to themselves for their own gain, others see it as a reciprocal exchange a flowing to and flow.

The more we give of ourselves into the network, the more the network is able to feed back to us, the more we receive (and are able to receive) in return. Everyone benefits by the process. One to think about for those that sit on the sidelines, especially in terms of the subject of this thread.

 

[Sol Logos]

I guess most of the time we are STS as most of the time we run off programs that seek to feed on something and generally someone at any one point in time.

So those brief moments of self reflection of just how that is playing out specifically in us as individuals is when STS is put on hold and becomes STO. I'm thinking that as that's the time when its actually serving to all.

It feels bad as no emotional addiction, no feeding is being met and we get a glimpse of ourselves more clearly than ever, the reflection looks ugly, feels wrong in us, but its real and that serves others because for a moment we stop trying to take or steal from others to get our needy emotions met like approval or validation etc etc.

That's the moment we aren't reaching outwards to get something or aren't closing in on ourselves frustrated with not getting it but just seeing, and cracking the shell open for the possibility to sincerely give. That state, has to be where the cracks start appearing and real STO can shine through.

As Mr Cohen says more eloquently:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

Or equally that's how the light gets out!

Just my two cents as we say :)