polarity

Questioner: In the book Oahspe it states that if an entity goes over fifty percent service to others and is less than fifty percent service to self, then that entity is harvestable. Is this a correct statement?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct if the harvesting is to be for the positive fourth dimensional level.

Questioner: What must be the entity’s percentage, shall we say, if he is to be harvested for the negative?

Ra: I am Ra. The entity who wishes to pursue the path of service to self must attain a grade of five, that is five percent service to others, ninety-five percent service to self. It must approach totality. The negative path is quite difficult to attain harvestability upon and requires great dedication.

Questioner: Why is the negative path so much more difficult to attain harvestability upon than the positive?

Ra: I am Ra. This is due to a distortion of the Law of One which indicates that the gateway to intelligent infinity be a gateway at the end of a straight and narrow path as you may call it. To attain fifty-one percent dedication to the welfare of other-selves is as difficult as attaining a grade of five percent dedication to otherselves. The, shall we say, sinkhole of indifference is between those two.

Questioner: Well, then if an entity is harvested into the fourth density with a grade of fifty-one percent for others and forty-nine percent for self, what level of the fourth density would he go into? I surmise that there are different levels of the fourth density.

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Each enters that sub-density which vibrates in accordance with the entity’s understanding.

does it mean that, for example, 51 percent of our thoughts must occur along with the question of 'how do I do right by others?' or 95 percent of our thoughts must have layered with them 'how do I do right towards myself?"

is that 51 percent of our intentions, our seeking, our goals must be towards doing right by others, or that 95 percent of our intentions, seeking and goals must be towards doing right by the self?

is there much of a difference? the first example seems mainly about internal questioning and the second seems mainly about action. Thoughts?

ok, taking in your answer:

lets consider a whole day, as 100 percent.
during that day one has 100 percent of ones thoughts about one's actions, a polarized person conscioussly analyzes those actions to determine if they are going to done in a self serving or other-serving manner.

or is that, in that day, 51 percent of the experiences I have are pro-actively saught and engaged in service-to others mode, or that 95 percent of that days experiences are sought out and engaged as self-serving actvities?

i agree this is about knowing the path "vs" walking the path, and I appreciate the responses most definately.

To be STO, you only 2 out of 3 voter need to be counted--ego, anima and animus.

I dont think I quite understand this last bit. Can you explain a little more?

In regard to the complexes making a choice in polarity , I wonder if some complexes can only choose STO or STS. eg. a spoilt brat complex is only going to be STS in its orientation. It's not going to choose STO because then it would no longer be a spoilt brat complex.

In Gurdjieff's work he talks about the necessity of forming a stable and permanent I which over-rides the complexes and subpersonalities. Gurdjieff doesnt talk about polarity but I imagine that once a stable I is formed, it would be able to distance itself from the complex rather than being taken over by it when it arises. When that objectivity is maintained then a choice can be made. ie. the I sees the spoilt brat's demands, but also sees that it can also choose to behave differently.

What is his process of createing this permanent, "I"? That would tell you what the polarity system is doing. It has been many years since I've looked at Gurdjieff's work, but I would guess that the creation of this permanent "I" would require convincing the complexes of the psyche that the bias of the "I" is the correct choice for all the complexes to make, so you have consensus, and permanence.

A permanent I forms through the process of self-remembering which occurs when one observes oneself. This allows all 3 centres- the feeling, thinking, and instinctive centres - to operate correctly;

and for the essence and personality to develop together rather than the personality dominating essence which is what usuallly happens. G. talks about vanity, self love, self-delusion, inner considering (being preoccupied with how others see oneself) and lying - all of which can be seen to be STS qualities and are results from a now now non existent organ in the human being called the kundabuffer - these qualities tend to abate the more one develops a permanent I.

Also one is able to perceive man's true relationship to the cosmos - knowledge that we have now lost.

So I wonder if the complexes lose their power as a perrmanent I forms - G talks about rather than expressing negative emotion using that energy to develop more presence - but then this doesnt really seem to give the complexes much choice.