STS and STO

[Miss.K]

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.

Though we can't decide to be really STO before we have a permanent I to decide with, I was wondering about this:

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).

It does seem to me that in both humans and animals, the mother love hormones is some of the closest we get to unconditional love (STO) But at the same time it is obvious that it is instinct/hormone induced feelings.
But the act of giving ones life and strength to offspring is still STO, even if it is not an "educated decision" (if one can say that) So the mother can be an STS being, but once the hormones kick in, she will willingly give her life to save her offspring.

I don't know if it is possible in 3D to feel love that is not hormonal, or if the love "don't count" when hormone induced?

Do 4D have hormones? or is it an "educated decision" when one loves in 4D?

 

[Miss.K]

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.

Yes I guess that since STS ultimately lead to death, and I guess that one wants to preserve one self when STS, the only way to be very intelligent and choose STS would be by lying to one self (ultimate wishful thinking) So maybe "Black Magicians" work on everything except selfimportance and search for truth, and in that way forge a "false I"..

 

[rs]

Another thought that came to me was about the definition of intention.

[quote author=Merriam-Webster]
Full Definition of INTENTION

1
: a determination to act in a certain way : resolve
2
: import, significance
3
a : what one intends to do or bring about
b : the object for which a prayer, mass, or pious act is offered
4
: a process or manner of healing of incised wounds
5
: concept; especially : a concept considered as the product of attention directed to an object of knowledge
6
plural : purpose with respect to marriage
[/quote]
Now it occurs to me that you cannot have an intention without a desired outcome in some sense. The question becomes how does the desire for an outcome come without expectation or anticipation?

WOW. Now there is a fine line to walk...

The Cs have repeatedly said that "all are lessons". This to me implies that there is no "good" or "bad" in some sense, only the opportunity to learn. If you have an intention, you behave accordingly. Unintended consequences occur and they do so without your expectation or anticipation. Here is the opportunity for learning - cause => effect. If you have expectations or anticipations, you dilute the opportunity for learning because you either cannot see the lesson through the filter of your expectations and anticipations - or - your original intent is corrupted because as the situation unfolds you keep modifying your intentions and behavior according to your expectations and anticipations so that the original intention gets lost.

Now I am not suggesting that one should carry out every intention to its original conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence of a negative outcome. This is why I said it is a very fine line to walk. To truly learn, you have to allow the intention to unfold so that you may see the true outcome. Then you can have a new intention, perhaps based on the outcome of the first. I think this is the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

I'll give a contrived and probably trivial example. Suppose you intend to execute a slap shot towards the goal in hockey. You hit the puck but the angle is off - or so it seems. If you skate after the puck constantly updating the trajectory, you will never see that the puck would have bounced off the sideboards and ricocheted into the net. This is different if you intend to "dribble" the puck (yes, its a basketball term, not sure of the hockey term...) while skating towards the goal. In this case the intent comprehends intentional periodic course corrections. In some sense the overall goal is the same (puck => net) but the intention and learning of how to get there are different. In both cases if the intent is pure, maximum learning can occur for that situation. If the intent is corrupted by expectation and anticipation, the lesson may be squandered.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Miss K]
I don't know if it is possible in 3D to feel love that is not hormonal, or if the love "don't count" when hormone induced?
[/quote]

I think love at 3D level is accompanied by hormones. It is just how the emotion of love is experienced in the body. But the hormonal cascade can be triggered through a biologically conditioned instinct. In this case, the physical expression of love is there but without a conscious decision involving the cognitive centers of the brain. In other words, it happens because nature decreed it to be that way. Such love belongs to the collective instinct of the species. Love borne out of knowledge and conscious volition is relatively more individualized in origin though it is expressed in the body through similar neurochemicals.

As to whether this is STS or STO or both or something in between I do not know.

 

[sitting]

[quote author=Miss K]
I don't know if it is possible in 3D to feel love that is not hormonal, or if the love "don't count" when hormone induced?

I think love at 3D level is accompanied by hormones. It is just how the emotion of love is experienced in the body. But the hormonal cascade can be triggered through a biologically conditioned instinct. In this case, the physical expression of love is there but without a conscious decision involving the cognitive centers of the brain. In other words, it happens because nature decreed it to be that way. Such love belongs to the collective instinct of the species. Love borne out of knowledge and conscious volition is relatively more individualized in origin though it is expressed in the body through similar neurochemicals.

As to whether this is STS or STO or both or something in between I do not know.
[/quote]

Hi obyvatel,

I would say if a mother's love, intent for good, willingness to sacrifice for a child, is unclear in terms of STS or STO--then perhaps there is a large gray area that needs examination.

We seem to know what we want (STO) ... but not really clear as to what it is.
This statement is not intended as a critique--but rather an impetus to get to the bottom of it.
FWIW.

PS
I believe Laura's previous article is a great starting point. And the question becomes how do we translate those desired concepts into concrete deeds in everyday life.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=sitting]
I would say if a mother's love, intent for good, willingness to sacrifice for a child, is unclear in terms of STS or STO--then perhaps there is a large gray area that needs examination.
[/quote]

Or we can acknowledge that context is important. Life may not neatly separate out into two boxes - good or evil, STS or STO. Greyness may be an intrinsic part of reality - direct experience as well as science of matter (quantum mechanics) bear testimony to this uncertainty.

[quote author=sitting]
We seem to know what we want (STO) ... but not really clear as to what it is. This statement is not intended as a critique--but rather an impetus to get to the bottom of it.
[/quote]

I personally do not fall under the category of knowing what I want and labeling it STO. It is not something that bothers me either. I seek to understand reality to the extent possible and relate meaningfully according to the specific context. This includes being comfortable with uncertainty. I do not think that there is a "bottom" that we can get to regarding this - as in clearly defining what action is STS and what action is STO.

 

[sitting]

I personally do not fall under the category of knowing what I want and labeling it STO. It is not something that bothers me either. I seek to understand reality to the extent possible and relate meaningfully according to the specific context. This includes being comfortable with uncertainty. I do not think that there is a "bottom" that we can get to regarding this - as in clearly defining what action is STS and what action is STO.

Hi obyvatel,

I am not going to let you slip by so easily on this one. :)


In all seriousness, I am where you are.
I believe the determination is not as simple as black and white, but many shades of gray. I too am comfortable with that. In fact, strict definitions would alarm me. I believe the universe makes value judgments--in addition to its infinite digital computations. And that's the reason I said "subjective" and not "objective" in the first place.

As for the proper deeds (those that would fit into Laura's concepts), I think we can find many examples from the great religions.

Thank you for your remarks.

 

[Miss.K]

[quote author=Miss K]
I don't know if it is possible in 3D to feel love that is not hormonal, or if the love "don't count" when hormone induced?

I think love at 3D level is accompanied by hormones. It is just how the emotion of love is experienced in the body. But the hormonal cascade can be triggered through a biologically conditioned instinct. In this case, the physical expression of love is there but without a conscious decision involving the cognitive centers of the brain. In other words, it happens because nature decreed it to be that way. Such love belongs to the collective instinct of the species. Love borne out of knowledge and conscious volition is relatively more individualized in origin though it is expressed in the body through similar neurochemicals.

As to whether this is STS or STO or both or something in between I do not know.
[/quote]

Thank you, it makes sense :)

 

[LIV]

sts vs sto

Liv:Is service to self really service to others since your are giving your experience to the higher self (collective) for other selves to learn and grow from? how do you really become a sto personality type without gaining an incentive? most people do it for good karma or ascenion. how do you just be that especially in a world where you are condtioned to be selfish. I think i need a definition of service to others. usually we do nice things or help others because we were taught its just morally right to get into heaven or get good back. Would you still help others knowing you are still doomed to bad karma or "hell"? i need help understanding this concept. WHat if i agreed with another individual to kill them in this life so they could learn a lesson? is that service to others or service to self because i killed somebody?

 

[s-kur]

Re: sts vs sto

Hi LIV! STO & STS conceptions span a lot of principles that were discussed on the Forum. It might be useful for you to read recently discussed thread STS and STO and Service to Others and Service to Self in the Glossary.

 

[Nienna]

Re: sts vs sto

LIV, have you read the entire Wave Series yet? There are now 8 books and they could help you in your understanding.

 

[LIV]

Re: sts vs sto

i havent... i will look there ... thanks!

 

[davey72]

Re: sts vs sto

I second the reading of the wave. It will answer many of the questions you have as will a simple search of the forum. I have been thinking of reading it again. I get more out of it and different perspectives everytime i do. It seems i can only similate so much info at once and therefore process a little more each time. Osit

 

[Thebull]

Re: sts vs sto

I second the reading of the wave. It will answer many of the questions you have as will a simple search of the forum. I have been thinking of reading it again. I get more out of it and different perspectives everytime i do. It seems i can only simulate so much info at once and therefore process a little more each time. Osit

I'm on my second time through the wave series and couldn't agree more. I believe now I experienced cognitive dissonance during the first time I read the series of books. It was probably too much for me to take in. I felt in my mind I had accepted some of the concepts that Laura discusses. Now I feel that at a deeper level I was fearful of the information presented.

I'm only on the second book now on the reread and I'm definitely taken more in than reading the first 7 books. Also using the forum as a tool as been a saving grace. When I don't comprehend something I can search the forum to assist me gaining an understanding. i must say getting my head round me been an sts individual has been a real battle. Now though I can see with more clarity where I am. Lots more work to do.

 

[bozadi]

I was thinking about the STO-STS polarizations and percentages... I don't know if this was discussed previously but now it occurs to me that the percentage of one's STO polarization seems to be one's percentage of being. C's already said that STO is the thought center of being, and STS, non-being. So if I'm, say, 40% STO, then this might mean that I exist 40%.

But the issue of "utilization" also arises here I think. So even if I'm 40% STO and 60% STS, this doesn't say anything by itself about whether, at any point in time, I'm inclining more towards STO or STS. This must be free will. If I'm inclining more towards STS or not properly advancing towards any of the two, then I think it might not even be possible to say that I actually exist, or effectively manifest my being, at 40% .

Another thing that seems interesting to me in this regard is the 51% STO orientation stated to be the threshold for graduation to 4D STO. It appears that 50% is an important level of balance. If one is 50% STO and then adds another 1% of "being" to that, one transitions both from 3D to 4D, and also from STS to the STO realm, that is, the realm of Being.

And then, the 95% STS threshold for graduation to 4D STS realm is almost a graduation to non-being very closely to the level of total non-existence at 100% STS! What is maybe more interesting to me is that, then, a 95% STS being exists only at 5% in terms of being versus non-being polarity. And they have been controlling or effectively manipulating us for a long time! Maybe this is why the C's said the Lizzies have attained a success which normally they couldn't even see in their wildest dreams? Or let's think about the PTB, whose cosmic level of "being" must be lower than that of the general humanity. This must also be about the issue of utilization. Even if the general humanity's nominal level of being is higher than that of the PTB, the PTB's more active utilization of their lesser level of being creates a very big difference in actuality, although they must also face the disadvantages of their choice of non-being.