STS and STO

[sitting]

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.

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.

That sounds about right, I think.

A seemingly "good" deed--stemming from a negative intent, equates with bad action. STS.
An act driven by good intent--but yielding a poor result, still equates with good action. STO.

I believe this value judgment begins--and ends--with intention. Irrespective of outcome.

It's a Buddhist belief, a Taoist belief, and maybe, just maybe, consistent with the overall C's formulation as well. But I'm not sure.

Hard as I try, I cannot shake off the feeling that it's more subjective than objective. And hence perhaps no hard, ultimate formula for determination. There seems to be a gray area, maybe a big one. And I wonder who the judges are. And what kind of grading manual they follow.

In one session, the C's have characterized it as energy flowing outward rather than inward. That's seemingly objective. But it's possible this directional flow itself is a manifestation of an underlying subjective criteria from which it sprang. As intention is inherently a subjective quality. FWIW.

 

[Mr. Premise]

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.

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.

That sounds about right, I think.

A seemingly "good" deed--stemming from a negative intent, equates with bad action. STS.
An act driven by good intent--but yielding a poor result, still equates with good action. STO.

I believe this value judgment begins--and ends--with intention. Irrespective of outcome.

It's a Buddhist belief, a Taoist belief, and maybe, just maybe, consistent with the overall C's formulation as well. But I'm not sure.

Hard as I try, I cannot shake off the feeling that it's more subjective than objective. And hence perhaps no hard, ultimate formula for determination. There seems to be a gray area, maybe a big one. And I wonder who the judges are. And what kind of grading manual they follow.

In one session, the C's have characterized it as energy flowing outward rather than inward. That's seemingly objective. But it's possible this directional flow itself is a manifestation of an underlying subjective criteria from which it sprang. As intention is inherently a subjective quality. FWIW.

I don't think that's true. That's the reason for the saying, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions are often narratives we tell to ourselves, and "ourselves" should be understood in the plural in the sense of multiple "I"s. Until we forge a real "I" our intentions are pretty much meaningless. I think STS vs STO is an objective, not subjective thing.

 

[Keyhole]

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.

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.

That sounds about right, I think.

A seemingly "good" deed--stemming from a negative intent, equates with bad action. STS.
An act driven by good intent--but yielding a poor result, still equates with good action. STO.

Have you ever questioned whether the poor result may actually be because of the fact that the act itself was not coming from an objective place?

Intentions can be deceptive and as Mr. Premise said, we need to always acknowledge our many different I's when thinking about this.

I believe this value judgment begins--and ends--with intention. Irrespective of outcome.

I would tend to disagree with this. The outcome is essentially the outward manifestation, the actual act, the DOing. The ability to DO is what is so difficult for us but for anything to change it is most important. We may believe that we have good intentions to begin with, however actually putting that into ACTION is something completely different and takes will.

I think even if our intentions are pure, we should also take into consideration the law of octaves. Without conscious work, at some point in the octave the Aim is diverted and the original intention is not put into action. It becomes mechanical and the momentum is lost, which may manifest as a "failed outcome" OSIT

 

[rs]

Thanks, Sitting, Mr. Premise and Keyhole for your thoughts. I agree that intention can be misguided, which is why the intention must be pure. You must intend without expectation or anticipation. I find this incredibly difficult (which is why I'm here on Earth...) When that road to hell is travelled, it is because you followed the signs for expectation and anticipation. I still think intention is more important than strictly following rules of behavior, but eliminating expectation and anticipation both improves outcomes and also makes it more difficult to even define "failure". To see an outcome as a failure, you have to have defined the outcome against an expected and/or anticipated outcome. If you have no expectations, the outcome in some sense is neither good or bad, it just is.

 

[Miss.K]

I don't think that's true. That's the reason for the saying, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions are often narratives we tell to ourselves, and "ourselves" should be understood in the plural in the sense of multiple "I"s. Until we forge a real "I" our intentions are pretty much meaningless. I think STS vs STO is an objective, not subjective thing.

Yes, I agree that it is objective not subjective. For example a lot of people in the new age industry has really good intentions, but still end up having relabeled their ego with some spiritual sounding names, while truly believing they are STO when in fact they are STS, and so the intention don't change the result.

I guess one as well can forge a real I while being STS? (if all the I's agree to serve one self, and to aim to be a lizzie) So it would mean that we can't be really one or the other until we have all the I's agreeing which we are, no?
Or is it not a real I that is forged when STS, because STS requires that one lies to one self? (though if one is OK with being really evil, lying may not be required....)

 

[sitting]

I don't think that's true. That's the reason for the saying, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions are often narratives we tell to ourselves, and "ourselves" should be understood in the plural in the sense of multiple "I"s. Until we forge a real "I" our intentions are pretty much meaningless. I think STS vs STO is an objective, not subjective thing.

Hi Mr. Premise,

Thank you for your reply.

Per your own description, those were not true intentions, but mental narratives. The two are not the same.

And I would submit the path to the real "I" is perhaps paved with the refinement of intention--step by painful step by painful step. Although these may be misguided, unfocused, or simply impure ... they are NEVER meaningless, in my opinion.

On the question of subjective versus objective, can you give a better explanation as to why you think it must be the latter? With examples of deeds if possible? And the impetus (intention?) for those deeds? And how they then signify STO--in strictly objective terms?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Keyhole]

I guess one as well can forge a real I while being STS? (if all the I's agree to serve one self, and to aim to be a lizzie) So it would mean that we can't be really one or the other until we have all the I's agreeing which we are, no?
Or is it not a real I that is forged when STS, because STS requires that one lies to one self? (though if one is OK with being really evil, lying may not be required....)

Really good question Miss.K!

Well, the C's have indicated that for a soul to graduate to 4th density, it would essentially need choose polarity and maintain the correct frequency resonance vibration for that polarity. So souls which are naturally STS but have a FRV that is not completely polarized enough to graduate to 4D keep coming back until they do make the choice.

If lies to oneself are of the STS frequency then we could possibly assume that, for a soul that chooses STS and is preparing to graduate, maintaining the correct FRV would constitute lying to oneself to the ultimate degree - the highest manifestation of wishful thinking in this reality. I am not sure if work on oneself and the different I's even takes place, because the main goal of the Work is to see things more objectively - which apparently does not fit in with the STS orientation.

However... There are stories of those "Black Magicians" who DO work on themselves, but merely to serve themselves and gain power and control over others, so I am slightly confused about this one. I think the level one must be at to graduate as STS is where there is no internal conflict/hesitation when making choices, no pang of conscience, just complete determination to control others in whichever way possible. Perhaps the STS consortium have done the Work on themselves and are not plagued with lying to oneself, and this would make sense because that is the only way that was can truly CHOOSE. To consciously choose STS, rather than succumbing to outside influences, would mean to have the ability to consciously choose. The ability to DO. This may be what is meant by the term "conscious evil".

Although I can only speculate atm as I don't think I can really grok the concept just yet.

 

[sitting]

Intentions can be deceptive and as Mr. Premise said, we need to always acknowledge our many different I's when thinking about this.

Hi Keyhole,

So call "intentions" can absolutely be deceptive. And that's why we need extra care in using the term properly.

In my nearly 67 years of existence, I've found the only true intention I can trust without reservation--is the concern a mother has for the well being of her child. And even that sometimes is in doubt these days.

True intention is not a label one tosses around lightly. And certainly not something to discard.

The reason outcome by itself cannot be a final measure, is because of the multiplicity of influences.
All free will have equal say, not yours alone. It's more than just you and your recipient.
One thing we've learned from C's is the inter-connectedness of all things. The butterfly in the next town may alter the course of your intended acts, however pure. It simply meant its free will trumped yours that day. You may even be unaware of its flapping.

But the purity of your intent remains intact regardless. This point is important--and it is this point the universe acknowledges, when it hands out the grades ... I think.

To make results the sole criteria for STS versus STO is to make the determination random. And that position is not a good one, I don't think. FWIW.

 

[Keyhole]

Intentions can be deceptive and as Mr. Premise said, we need to always acknowledge our many different I's when thinking about this.

Hi Keyhole,

So call "intentions" can absolutely be deceptive. And that's why we need extra care in using the term properly.

In my nearly 67 years of existence, I've found the only true intention I can trust without reservation--is the concern a mother has for the well being of her child. And even that sometimes is in doubt these days.

True intention is not a label one tosses around lightly. And certainly not something to discard.

Well, the perceived intentions of the current "I" can be deceptive. When you say "true intention" are referring to the intention of the true/real "I"?

Under what circumstances are we able to discern whether our perceived intentions are coming from the real "I" or if they are coming from false personality?

But the purity of your intent remains intact regardless. This point is important--and it is this point the universe acknowledges, when it hands out the grades ... I think.

To make results the sole criteria for STS versus STO is to make the determination random. And that position is not a good one, I don't think. FWIW.

Apologies if I was not clear in the last post sitting. I was not necessarily saying that results should be the only criteria.

I think the goal is to align your intent with your will in the form of a conscious act. To be able to DO what you INTEND to do, without being diverted off track.

If your intent is genuine, yet you have not developed the will to act on it and actually do something, it loses much of its value IMO.

One can say "I intend to do this", and then end up doing the opposite - because they have not developed their will.

Lets say someone calls "I intend not to kill this man" and then two minutes later they go ahead and kill the man because they could not control them self. Does the original intention not to kill the man have any value, at all? The man is dead, what is done is done. Right?

 

[rs]

In my nearly 67 years of existence, I've found the only true intention I can trust without reservation--is the concern a mother has for the well being of her child. And even that sometimes is in doubt these days.

I'm not sure why you make this as an exception. The concern a mother has for the "well being" of her child can easily be entirely selfish. If the mother behaves in order to look good to other mothers or to their child, this is an intent that does not serve the child in a STO fashion. Admittedly the mother child relationship is complicated, but suppose the mother is responding to the child's needs solely from the Darwinian chemical basis? This is not STO. (Its not necessarily STS either, its just a programmed response).

I don't think any action can be given "special status".

 

[Keyhole]

Admittedly the mother child relationship is complicated, but suppose the mother is responding to the child's needs solely from the Darwinian chemical basis? This is not STO. (Its not necessarily STS either, its just a programmed response).

Yeah, that's a good point. There isn't any conscious intention involved in this kind of dynamic. Its a mixture of primal genetic influences which in turn trigger chemical reactions in the brain, mostly reliant on oxytocin. I wouldn't say it's a choice made by the mother to worry about the child, its about ensuring survival of the young offspring. Added to this are societal factors etc. However I don't think it relates to real conscious intention.

 

[sitting]

You must intend without expectation or anticipation. I find this incredibly difficult (which is why I'm here on Earth...)

To see an outcome as a failure, you have to have defined the outcome against an expected and/or anticipated outcome. If you have no expectations, the outcome in some sense is neither good or bad, it just is.

Hi rs,

Very well put. In fact, extremely well put!

Good results and bad results are subjective interpretations--nothing more. Coming from a self centered and often selfish mind. An undisciplined mind, an untrained mind--which means most of us.

The sequence of events flow constantly, and the good & bad of a particular moment changes with this flow. It's apparently subject to our control (both past & future), via the power of thought--through the moment point. (But I will leave that to another thread and another time.)

For now, A Zen story illustration:

Farmer has a son and one horse. One morning, horse runs away -- Bad.
Next day, horse returns to farm, with 10 wild horses following -- Good.
Son trains wild horse, falls and breaks hip -- Terrible.
Then troops came, rounding up all fit males to war. Skipped son (bad hip) -- Fantastic!

This story, much like life itself, goes on and on.

PS
My reference to a mother's intent towards child was a general observation. I know there're moms that kill. But almost all the moms I know, will give up their own lives to save their child--if needed. There can be no greater service to another than that.

 

[Miss.K]

For now, A Zen story illustration:

Farmer has a son and one horse. One morning, horse runs away -- Bad.
Next day, horse returns to farm, with 10 wild horses following -- Good.
Son trains wild horse, falls and breaks hip -- Terrible.
Then troops came, rounding up all fit males to war. Skipped son (bad hip) -- Fantastic!

I always liked that story, (I heard it as his neighbours come and say either "that's terrible" or "that's amazing" to which the old man replies "Is it?" each time)

It does describe the yin yang of good and bad pretty well (and perhaps also why the universe is perfect as it is)

I guess STS and ST0 can similarily influence each other?
-like when psychopaths go amok and people do heroic things like not giving up their friends under torture and such, that is very STO, and might not have come to expression if the STS evil forces didn't push so hard.....??

though I don't know if it's the same that STO can push people to become more STS...I guess not, as STO isn't pushy....so then it is only by allowing STS to go so far before saying stop?.....time for bed for me I think

 

[sitting]

I agree that intention can be misguided, which is why the intention must be pure. You must intend without expectation or anticipation. I find this incredibly difficult (which is why I'm here on Earth...)

Hi rs,

That word was troubling to me for a long time.

The C's once gave the following sequence: Intention leading to realization. But realization gives rise to anticipation (for the untrained, un-tuned mind). This anticipation then leads to negation--cancelling the original intent. Hence their advice to avoid anticipation at all cost ... through "mental exercises of denial."

I eventually came upon what I thought was a better understanding a few months back. There was a missing step--sort of.

Upon realization, there is indeed anticipation (for those insufficiently trained). This anticipation then leads to fear--fear that the anticipated event may not materialize. (A lack of faith if you will). It's really FEAR that causes the negation. It's the potent emotional & psychic power that fear generates--that leads to cancellation ... not anticipation. Maybe.

But since the C's have never mentioned this step, the above is pure speculation on my part. But I did come across it elsewhere. And that gave me the suggested insight. FWIW.

PS

Below is a better phrasing for my thought in the previous post.

"I'm aware there're moms that kill. But most of the moms I know, will risk their own lives to save their child--if needed."

 

[SeekinTruth]

The thing to keep in mind is that mechanical man - man #1, #2, and #3, - isn't a unity. So, one part may have good intentions, another, bad, a third indifferent, and so on. Only a single Real I that follows the intentions of the Higher Self can be seen as having any single, stable intention from an objective point of view. Those who have the higher centers, i.e. "souled" individuals, will not be able to receive anything useful from them (which are fully formed and functioning) because the lower centers have not been fused into a harmoniously working whole.

It may also be that actions for those who can actually DO, will always be in the same direction (e.g. STO) rather than one moment doing one thing, and then a bit later doing another that cancels out the first thing. In that situation, the evidence points to not having any unified intention, but as G said, everything just happens.