by Frai Jonah
The more I consider the matter, the more
it seems that all must be redefined.
One of the challenges is to trace the universal notion of balance
through all its aspects, and somewhere there the defining principles
of contraction and expansion intersect the plane of human behavior
and choice. This is a tall order but then we have eternity to chart
The question of ethics is like a sponge - the deeper you go, the
subtler the dual aspects of choices become, the more tenuous the
dividing line of STS (Service to Self) and STO
(Service to Others). In a manner of speaking,
it's like a fractal, the closer you look the more the same pattern
and variations repeat. One lesson of third density thus seems to be
that the line is not drawn between large groups but between
individuals and principally inside or through these individuals as
has so frequently reiterated, and we have witnessed in the
Theological battle with Vincent Bridges and his gang of
Philosophers tried establishing a general basis for ethics. Kant
proposed to 'act in ways such that you could wish that their
underlying principle were universally followed.' It so happens this
golden rule can fully well be observed in the STS mode. Simply,
setting up ruling elites and control and such is good for the
controlled because this provides incentive for STS polarization for
those individuals who are 'deserving of advance' in the STS world.
So the golden rule will not do as a basis for our working
I think the game is so designed, in teleological terms, that we
can't give a single sentence definition of applied STO or STS
ethics. Besides it's rather seldom that we see completely polarized
forms of either.
Let's try something else: If an exchange has some characteristic of
symmetry it could be an STO exchange. Such can of course occur
between beings of vastly different level and capacity, as
exemplified by the C's and 3D humans, but still it is done without
an overwhelming show of force or asserting dominance.
Then we get to talk about love.
Quite briefly, in the words of
the ever eloquent Ra, what passes
for 3D sexual love is orange ray, with aspects of exclusivity,
dominance, control and such. The higher notion of love is green ray,
which is also an exchange, but does not involve polarity in the
sense of dominate/submit, give/take, etc. Thus green ray exchanges
could be more symmetrical or STO. Some have written of conscious
love, where this was to unconditionally support the fullest
realization of the beloved. Maybe this is a green/blue ray concept
(love + true communication).
From symmetry we could expand to a concept of mutual expansion.
Interactions which are somehow co-creative, or have a complementary
flow could be in the service to others mode. But we have to expand
the definition away from a contract of exchange between two entities
into an outward flowing motion that is not limited to some specific
What I mean is for example the fact that probably from the C's
(Cassiopaeans) perspective we don't have a whole lot to give in exchange to them,
thus a trade type of relationship does not really apply. Of course
we can say that this is a feedback loop where they guide their own
past to reinforce their future place. This may even be a somewhat
universal pattern, but may not be the only possible configuration of
such exchanges. Thus propagating a received impulse, as Ark
and Laura seek to do, can be a way
of maintaining the flow. To pass on and apply what is received, if
it is received in an STO mode is an act in the same mode. This is
broadly speaking, thus is not limited to channeled information or
Then we have free will - Generally we could say that respecting
others' free will is STO, but since free wills can be in direct
opposition we have a lot of added complexity here.
In the world of battles, we could say that STO forces may defend
that which naturally seeks to explore the other aspects of service
to others. This includes self-defense individually and as groups.
Generally offering a choice for the light in proportion to the
forced darkness would be an act of service to others even if it
directly contradicts the free will of those who wish to maintain
said darkness. On the other hand, if a choice is not even
potentially wanted, offering it makes no sense either. Ra and others
discuss this further, caveats apply, as usual.
Anyway, the lines of confrontation in the metaphysical world are
quite distinct from those between the interests of separate
self-serving groups and the items hanging in the balance are more
OK, it looks like we can derive some general definitions and quote
various others' definitions. Can we act based on these?
I don't believe in the feasibility or desirability of a top-down
instruction manual for what is what. So each soul writes their
manual on the way, which is a creative process in itself, much more
so than acting according to external instructions. And so it is:
rituals restrict the progress of the soul; crushing creativity.
Of course, from our point of view we can be so eager to change the
world and have everybody join and so on, that there is some
frustration in that understanding can only be offered but not
forced. It seems that developing a sense of discernment concerning
this fundamental duality is the basic goal of 3D individuated state.
For this reason it is of necessity a somewhat individual process.
The immediate and ready recognition of polarities is a feature of 4D
and may indirectly follow from integrating the data in 3D.
A checklist is hard to formulate, we could still think of some
Is the action requested?
Does the action presuppose a
right to control?
Does the action open
possibilities or create connections, internal or external?
Is the action
Is the action covert and
Is the action open-ended?
Is there a possibility of a
positive reinforcement loop?
Of course, any of the above can be taken
to some ridiculous and self-defeating extreme, so we don't have a
manual, we just have thoughts to ponder.
As for logical progression as opposed to intuition, I'd say both can
serve either STO or STS, acts of either type can
either be spontaneous or coming from long reflection. The now time
as opposed to linear time has more to do with the mind's interface
to reality and its internal contradictions of self-restriction, and
overcoming linearity has applications in both polarities. So-called
intellect and emotion find uses on both sides. How these may work in
different styles, so to speak is a fascinating subject in its own
right and maybe we'll play with that at another time.
Do we get into a fully relative world of each making their
Not really, since there seem to be islands of self-consistent
definitions separated by areas of chaos, which do not form
sustainable guidelines of action. Thus the fullest expressions of
STO and STS have a sort of universal validity and thus are not
arbitrary. It could be likened to mathematical truths: There are
only 5 Platonic solids, and this is not a question of
interpretation. Likewise taking fully arbitrary sets of axioms does
not produce interesting systems.
In this sense, truth has substance
independent of an observer's interest or interpretation.