Made a lot of posts today. Kind of bed ridden is why while I wait for medication to improve which takes a while. More than a day at least.
This is where I am at at the moment in some of my personal realisations. I am quite pleased to be able to make a simple post which comes at the end of several years of realisations.
There is research and all that, a deep analysis of existing methodology and mythology I could bring to bear here. But suffice to say this is not the place for that level of seriousness. I assure you my sources are good though and I hope my other posts here show my reasoning in general to also be good.
My understanding is that the caricatured “psychopath” that we see from the mainstream media, hollywood and sources like Robert Hare. Is largely fictitious. Secondly, I want to put forward the potential insight that belief in this paradigm can BLOCK the awareness of a lot of very relevant aspects of psychology as I will explain. It essentially confuses understanding of the ‘negative polarity’ so to speak.
So, if someone gets diagnosed as a psychopath in real life via brain scans. One of the first things the doctors say to them is that you don’t need to pay attention to the youtube channels and whatnot on this they are completely off the wall. Psychopaths in their general life, lack a sense of fear, do have impulsivity and such, do not have any emotional empathy at all and put their lives together with cognitive empathy. But, by virtue of this condition they are not automatically serial killers.
To look at where this has gone so wrong we would have to look at the grifter, Robert Hare.
But due to the current beliefs on it. Psychopathy is often studied in extremely bad studies. It is often not determined the people studied are psychopaths. Often it is just who the researchers determine this is. It is almost never done with brain scans. It is also, deliberately, almost exclusively, studied in the prison population.
What other conditions if studied exclusively in prisons (where there are brain injury’s and drug use etc.) would suddenly seem far more dangerous? Borderline personality disorder? Autism?
Most of the famous psychopaths were decided on a similar basis. Such as Ted Bundy who seems more Bipolar than psychopathic to some.
The reason for it is that if a “myth” can be set up over psychopathy. Then it stops questions. I had a conversation recently. Someone said that their boss was doing xyz and it was obvious to me… well, they’re a sadist then! That behaviour achieves x goal and that could only be done by a sadist. The person wanted to mythologise their boss as a “sociopath”.
Sociopaths have no actual academic basis. They are literally just something tagged on to the mythology of psychopaths. Psychopaths don’t experience a lot of sadism, because they can’t connect to other people. If you see other people like a table then you don’t get pleasure sawing up a table. Because it is a table!
This further means that if people are to mythologise like this, then they don’t make basic intelligent insights. If sadism is called out in the person, then it is more likely to be confronted. It’s also recogniseable. We are them, they are us. Law of One etc. If it is mythologised as a ‘sociopath’, it is mythologised and beyond real scrutiny. It is other. It’s also someone you don’t want to confront because they are capable of anything.
The sociopath mythology also lionises emotional empathy which is unbelievably easy to manipulate; and condescends to cognitive empathy which is really very effective in this complicated world we live.
Society, in my understanding, runs with the express purpose of NEVER confronting negative people. Never calling them out. It is an implicit contract. This is how the negative facilitates their harvest. It facilitates the most normal and pathetic human beings to be cruel to others to feel power behind closed doors and the most obvious place where this happens is child abuse in general. People are trained from a young age. They are given two choices and punished if they do either one. You tell the truth about something you did and you are punished. You lie about it and you are punished later. You are not reasoned with you are hit.
This leads to people doing the only thing they can to escape punishment and that is to be as vague as possible. If you are as vague as possible, you never confront anything. Thus the negative is free to do what it likes. The term “sociopath/ psychopath” as it is most often used just facilitates that vagueness and escapes the scrutiny that comes with clear speaking.
Borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder are both on the psychopathy spectrum. Along with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, they make up the family of Cluster B personality disorders.
While there is a definite genetic component concerning the programming of the Cluster Bs, trauma triggers the programming.
Usually, severe childhood trauma.
As a member of the Cluster Bs myself, I struggle with being in a world not designed for me.
I recognize though that I made an agreement with my higher self to be born into a family where the potential for this was great.
Without it though, I would not be able to see what I see, and know what I know.
Yeah, psychopathy is not a spectrum and it is not comorbid with any of these other issues. I.e. if a person has narcissism as an example, they cannot also have psychopathy because narcissists are all about status, and psychopaths are not able to perceive other people are living thinking beings so having status in said peoples eyes would not be an issue.
And Psychopathy, is definitely, definitely, definitely not comorbid with borderline. Or Histrionic. That shoudn’t need to be said. Incredible emotion and no emotion don’t exist in the same person.
Psychopaths are also not likely to be suicidal either.
When you say you are a member of the cluster B’s yourself, and you have psychopathy. Was this diagnosed by someone qualified or over the internet? Did you get a brain scan?
I listened a lecture of Pavel Usanov (rus), he was analysing worldview of Hitler and criticising look on Hitler as a madman; saying if he was so gonzo why so many people followed him. Lecture is based upon book “Hitler - Selbstverständnis eines Revolutionärs” of Rainer Zitelmann.
Well, regardless of the specifics of Hitler, the Milgram experiment proved that 80% of people will kill another individual if directed by an authority to do so.
Also, isn’t Stalin also a better example for a Russian? Far worse than Hitler. Killed far more.
The Milgram experiment to me shows why Hollywood and the mainstream in general dislike the psychopath enough to scapegoat them. The psychopath doesn’t have emotional empathy which is the thing that binds people together into doing stupid things. Groupthink and whatnot. It was not studied, but I suspect psychopaths would be the ones that disproportionately refused the Milgram experiment. Obedience to authority is about fear, which psychopaths don’t have. Psychopaths will literally carefully watch people be afraid of something like heights, and then try and artificially replicate facial expressions when standing on the same heights etc. to attempt to appear normal.
I have had reason to suspect in my personal life that my father might have been a psychopath. A real one though, not a Hollywood one. There is no way to know. But - I have reason to ask. He was a very solitary person that simply had no connection to people in general. He had disagreements with many bosses over the years and would simply not do something that he did not think was right (by right I don’t mean moral, I mean technically right!) He was precisely the kind of person that would have walked out the Milgram experiment.
Psychopaths are incredibly impulsive precisely because they are not afraid of authority.
When you see a group of neurotypicals spit with irrational anger at someone that has done nothing wrong but just doesn’t seem to agree with their crazy points of view, doesn’t want to go out drinking with them or whatever. I tend to think that tendency to pathologise the ‘other’ is where you get all this scapegoating of the psychopath. On a grand level it becomes a tribal “We have to scapegoat the person that is not like us.”
I would like to share my opinion, touching on this topic in general, which may be an important perspective for those who potentially resonate with me.
I used to study personality disorders and mental illnesses. And in the end, I found that all these things are a ‘stretch’, and I retreat about certain my conclusions that I made. Generally, the first problem is that normalcy is subjectively defined, mental health is subjectively defined, and personality disorders also. Someone mentally ill or disturbed is different now; someone else was 2000 years ago; someone else was 500 years ago. There will also be different criteria for mental and personality disorders 200 or 300 years from now.
Also, I noticed something disturbing. People tend to call others out. Those with well-established religious, philosophical, or worldview beliefs call mentally ill those who have had experiences showing that reality is quite different. For example, someone who is academically and religiously indoctrinated will proclaim that someone who, for example, has experienced an encounter with aliens is mentally ill.
In turn, someone who leads a sect will consider himself an expert on psychopathy. To isolate his sheep from the outside world, he/she will preach that the world is made of psychopaths, including anyone who criticizes that sect’s guru, who is also obviously a psychopath. In the world of politics, opponents accuse each other of having various antisocial personality types to discourage undecided voters.
The whole public debate is one big dump and totally pointless. People who don’t like or fear someone treating them as an opponent look for something in them and want to associate them with something devaluing his/her personality. And then it turns out to be a great way to portray a person in such a way as to link him to a mental illness or personality disorder, especially psychopathy and narcissism.
In my opinion, only a few people who have some knowledge and positive intentions, they actually warn against dangerous people. On the other hand, to a much greater extent, those who are negatively oriented try to associate others with some kind of mental or personality disorder; there are many more such people who do this.
I, personally, try to look at others and myself through the prism of STO and STS. If I’m already going to judge someone, I prefer to do it through the prism of polarity rather than through the criteria of mental and personality disorders. That’s how I finally decided, and I’m sticking to it for now. And if I evaluate other people, I mostly leave it exclusively to myself and don’t share such opinions with others because it’s easy to get confused when judging other people.
Does this whole psychology and psychiatry make no sense, then? Yes, and no. On the one hand, it is an inaccurate and subjective categorization of people, susceptible to the shortcomings of the people who create these criteria and those who diagnose according to these criteria.
On the other hand, it is a very intriguing task for those who are in this highly educated and are looking for some attempt to objectify it, to specify it, and to communicate clearly with others. As a result, it will affect a more profound understanding of oneself and the development of knowledge about the human being.
The assessment of another person, whether they are mentally ill or personality disordered. It should be an individual matter. And the highest criterion for whether someone is healthy or normal should be the opinion of this individual about self. With emphasis on the fact that this person should freely assess who they are, how they feel, whether they are emotionally healthy, or whether they are mentally healthy.
Sure, there are exceptions to this, because what to do with a person who thinks they are a superhero, and who wants to jump out of a window to fly over skyscrapers? Or what to do with a knife man who is saving humanity by killing another zombie, who is simply an innocent person who was at the wrong time and place.
I won’t make it so complicated; it doesn’t make sense now. My message in general is not to diagnose and pigeonhole people. Furthermore, don’t learn too passionately about different ways of categorizing people; treat it simply as someone’s opinion or curiosity, even if you read so-called “serious” scientific research. And treat it simply as expanding your knowledge of man and not reading an indisputable Holy Book.
It is best to leave the study of mental and personality disorders to people who know about them and have devoted their lives to it. Let them create a certain, objective, and accurate consensus. Then other people who come to them asking for help may be able to get a lot from it for themselves. It will explain a lot to them and allow them to take care of their health. In fact, maybe explain or possibly help because the issue of whether someone is healthy or disturbed is something you do not definitely know.
Consensus about mental health has changed over time over the centuries and will change many more times over the centuries. Let us only hope that it will do as little harm as possible, and that it will ultimately indirectly improve people’s health and facilitate their development towards positive polarity if this is their choice. Even if it is not fully conscious to them, it can be an active desire at the soul level.
If someone’s life is very seriously disrupted, they stop going to work, school, or have no friends at all. If they lose interpersonal skills, is very aggresive or logical thinking at a very low level, then diagnosis will probably not be a problem. However, if you want to diagnose more complex disorders such as psychopathy or generally want to get to know and properly assess another person, then, in my opinion, these are years of detailed observation of that person or yourself. You still have to maintain a great deal of objectivity for it to make sense, toward yourself or someone else, depending on who you are observing.
Well, to an extent I agree. After a lot of confusion and bullying for a long time I believed strongly in ‘narcissism’ going on Dr Ramani, Richard Grannon, Dr Les Carter and Sam Vaknin among others.
However, later on I realised that I was being influenced by my own physical issues and getting paranoid about people. I have a more balanced view now. Later, when watching manosphere content I heard that in those spheres, as far as they are concerned. EVERY womans ex was a “narcissist”, it’s just how they avoid accountability. Which makes sense to me due partly to the fact that even when I believed other people were sinister I did not use the term ‘narcissist’. I explained specific behaviours with specific notes. The only reason that term is precisely used is to immediately demonise the other person to immediately frame the conversation in a way that there is no accountability. That there was a narcissistic abuser and victim, that there was not two people that might both have things wrong with them (Like calling other people narcissists for instance!)
Saw a youtube video from someone called MIchael Sartain on that that really made me think.
It is best to leave the study of mental and personality disorders to people who know about them and have devoted their lives to it. Let them create a certain, objective, and accurate consensus.
OK, so let me give you two names of people that have devoted their lives to psychopathy. Both diagnosed psychopaths via brainscans. James Fallon and Athena Walker. Athena writes a blog and speaks endlessly on psychopathy and is whom I have drawn most of this information from. She is the one who says, for instance, that narcissism and psychopathy cannot be comorbid. How psychopathy is exclusively studied in prisons etc.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to talk about things I have learned from these two individuals especially as it brings up relevant sociological points.
However, if you want to diagnose more complex disorders such as psychopathy or generally want to get to know and properly assess another person, then, in my opinion, these are years of detailed observation of that person or yourself.
So would I be correct in translating this line as ‘Please do not discuss the entire subject in general’! That is what it appears to be saying to me.
Too much of that attitude and we simply wouldn’t discuss anything ever. There could be no forum.
I wonder what you think about brainscans as a method of diagnosis?
I am not surprised by this. I wrote in an earlier post:
To this, I would add that a psychopath will understand psychopathy best. It is most accurate to judge for oneself. Creating almost automatic evaluations and projections.
I was more concerned not to judge. The Confederation strongly cautions against that. The point is not to draw hasty conclusions toward others, which could possibly be detrimental to them. As well as for us.
Discuss whatever you want, as long as it brings us closer to the truth and is in accordance with the forum rules.
This puzzles me, because the real game is at the spiritual level. Nevertheless, souls choose a certain physical vehicle to play a certain role. Brain scans may yet be the most important form of knowing oneself, and in this situation, being more specific, of one’s 2nd density body. In this case, we can talk about two: either someone wants a high bar to be exercised towards a positive polarity, or he or she simply came to succeed on a negative path — the second makes more sense.
Ah, I deleted that last post, re wrote it, then realised I had been right the first time so here it is:
Discuss whatever you want, as long as it brings us closer to the truth and is in accordance with the forum rules.
Would you say truth is positively or negatively influenced by the subject not being discussed at all?
I was more concerned not to judge. The Confederation strongly cautions against that. The point is not to draw hasty conclusions toward others, which could possibly be detrimental to them. As well as for us.
Can you point me to the Law of One quote where this is stated?
For instance, in this Law of One quote here judgement is said to be encouraged. Since they preferred the descriptive forms of service to others and service to self because it allowed us to judge others:
Questioner: Thank you. The foundation of our present illusion we have stated previously to be the concept of polarity. I would ask that since we have defined the two polarities as service to others and service to self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition or any more information that we don’t have at this time on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?
Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.
Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.
So to be clear, because it wasn’t initially clear to me. Ra is not saying that we are not ever able to judge the act of an entity it’s that under the second term they use (poles of a magnet) we are not able to judge. Then they use a third term, radiance and absorption, to further make it confusing.
Also, are we to consider the bible a confederation teaching? I am not sure:
This puzzles me, because the real game is at the spiritual level
This line reminds me of a discussion that often happens amongst ‘tradcons’. Traditional Conservatives. Pharisees really. Who use the Bible as a cover for the seeking of power.
One of the things in the bible under discussion is that women are meant to ‘obey’ their husbands and so what the women do is that they interpret ‘obey your husband’ but only if he is following God and then they uniquely interpret when he is and is not following the will of God. As though they are the actual God.
Doesn’t ‘this puzzle me, because the real game is at the spiritual level’. Indicate that you have a superior knowledge of such things? That you alone are able to determine what is or is not important on a spiritual level? Is it not in fact a judgement as you were saying was not good only two paragraphs ago of what is and isn’t “spiritual”?
Firstly, we have a third density body not second density. Our bodies are more complex than second density. Why would you think our bodies are second density when they do third density things?
My understanding from your statements here, if you were being direct, is that you reject the diagnosis of psychopathy based on brainscans because you have judged it to not be spiritual enough? Is this a fair assessment?
If we discuss psychological and psychopathological knowledge in general with a critical eye toward its accuracy, while viewing it from the perspective of spiritual work and avoiding labeling others as psychopaths or not, then that approach would be appropriate.
Q’uo often reminds us that the third density is not the density of knowledge, and we are prone to making mistakes when evaluating others and the world around us. What they recommend is the practice of acceptance, compassion, and unconditional love. Accepting others as they are, without judgment, is an essential part of spiritual growth that aids in integrating the lessons of unity and love.
However, Q’uo emphasizes that equally important is the need for discernment in every situation. This discernment should be entirely personal, coming from the individual and remaining within the individual. Expressing judgments externally can violate the free will of others, especially when they hold certain beliefs about themselves or various issues.
Additionally, if we publicly misjudge or diagnose someone, we risk constructing a false image of that person, potentially triggering a cascade of chaotic thoughts and actions that only generate more disorder.
K
Yes, let’s talk about the white light. If I judge myself because I have failed in something, and if I judge my fellow man, I understand that I diminish the white light about me and I am somehow of a negative influence as I move about people. Do I understand that pretty well?
Latwii
I am Latwii. My sister, we may say that in general your grasp of this concept is correct, and we may comment further by suggesting that the activity that you may call judgment does provide a barrier through which efforts to proceed in the evolutionary process are halted for as long as that barrier restrains them by its existence. By this we mean to say when an entity judges the self or any other entity, the entity, then, is affirming the illusion of separation in that the entity is saying one person or activity is less than another and is to be shunned, when in truth all beings and activities are one. To accept the self, no matter what the activity or behavior or thought, is to accept the self or another entity as part of the one Creator.
This is not to say that certain behaviors or thoughts cannot be improved upon to reflect, ever more closer, the unity with all beings, but is to say whatever the experience an entity encounters, whether within the self or within an other self, the entity is seeing the Creator experiencing Itself. The entity is seeing the opportunity for growth into further realization of that unity presented. To fully utilize that opportunity for growth one must, if one travels the positive path, accept the activity, the self, and any other self involved, for this acceptance then reaffirms the unity of all creation. April 25, 1982 - Sunday meditation - L/L Research
Ra does not explicitly speak about judging oneself or others in the excerpt you cited. Instead, they discuss how one might think about the concept of polarization. One way to understand polarization is by comparing it to how polarization is viewed in our physics. While this analogy provides a basic framework, as it illustrates the flow of electric energy in a way similar to metaphysical energy, it has its limitations. The terms ‘positivity’ and ‘negativity’ don’t fully convey the deeper, more philosophical meaning of polarization as it is portrayed throughout the Law of One material.
Ra then provides an example using radiation and absorption, which enhances our understanding. We can synthesize these concepts by creating a visualization. Imagine a light bulb. The bulb requires electricity to function, with the current flowing toward it. This can be compared to receiving love/light, as in the case of a human being—represented here as the light bulb.
Two scenarios can occur: First, the current could be artificially blocked, which would symbolize the stopping of the flow of love/light, corresponding to negative polarity (service-to-self or STS) and the concept of absorption. Alternatively, the current can flow freely through the bulb, representing the free and balanced flow of love/light, which is then emitted as light/love to the outside world. This radiation corresponds to a positive polarity (service-to-others or STO).
According to the Confederation every human on this planet is a third-density mind/body/spirit complex. This complex is built thanks to the second-density body complex, which refers to the physical body and mind (nervous system, brain), and the spirit complex, which refers to the soul and consciousness. The spirit complex contains the aspects of the mind and spirit. The mind complex in the mind/body/spirit complex is like the bridge between the body and the spirit. Some of its parts die with the death of the physical second-density body, and some parts live along the mind/spirit complex, where individuals keep fuller and greater awareness and being in the spiritual form.
The importance of the body does not disappear completely because in the metaphysical world the mind and spirit occupy a certain container/vehicle for their mind/spirit complex. However, the mechanics of this are entirely different, and these bodies do not manifest themselves in the same form as second-density physical bodies in the physical world.
Additionally, if we publicly misjudge or diagnose someone, we risk constructing a false image of that person, potentially triggering a cascade of chaotic thoughts and actions that only generate more disorder.
Don’t we stand an equal possibility assuming we are not stupid of highlighting some relevant aspect of the entire situation?
Secondly, if we are to rely exclusively on peoples self diagnosis, does that not give them power that may be abused? Say you know someone that is very narcissistic. You have a few of their behaviours down and are messing up your life. But they would PREFER to be diagnosed autistic because being diagnosed autistic means that they have no moral accountability.
I would say when a diagnostic label has some sort of power that is a very real risk indeed. What about if someone is displaying Manchausens like behaviour?
Let’s go to the quote.
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.
If a drawback of their second analogy on polarity is that a person is not able to judge others. That their chosen explanation is service to self and service to others, which does judge others. Then they are discussing judgement in this sentence. They are also stating that judgement is positive.
Also the conscious channeling is not the same as the Law of One material. There is so much of it it could probably be used to quote from any side of a lot of arguments. So I will requote my question:
Can you point me to the Law of One quote where this is stated?
In reference to the third density bodies. Well we have huge hyper complex brains that are capable of abstract thinking, self reflection etc. which separates us from say… Dogs. That have tiny brains and don’t. So the part of the body being scanned is the third density part of the body.
I notice I asked you a direct question which you haven’t addressed. I will requote it:
My understanding from your statements here, if you were being direct, is that you reject the diagnosis of psychopathy based on brainscans because you have judged it to not be spiritual enough? Is this a fair assessment?
Diagnosing oneself according to certain limiting criteria can be just as unnecessary and lead to nothing positive as diagnosing others. I may not have written this directly, but judging as such whether of others or of oneself can be simply a blind alley. Diagnosing according to certain criteria to determine that someone is sick or abnormal is judgmental.
This is a serious misuse and over-intepretation of Ra’s words. What they are saying in the passage you quoted in this thread is that someone is unable to judge whether an action or behavior is STO or STS, in the context they cited, which is understandable to me, since simply referring to polarity as an analogy to the polarity known in physics is not enough.
They suggest that judgment is something that can be applied to the issue of polarization. Other points in the L/L Research paper actually mention judging one’s behavior through the lens of polarization, such as noticing behaviors in oneself that lead to taking care of oneself, where intentions are selfish, where decisions are made out of fear, etc. And replacing with behaviors toward others where the foundation is the recognition that we are all one, that we can do something selflessly for someone, where we can be guided to support others while taking care of ourselves without harming others in the process.
However, all this judgment is understood as an analysis of one’s own behavior, and it is left to one’s own individuality, there is no question there of judging others in a way that would show their lack of ability, or their mistaken choice of STO or STS or something similar. Or would aim to “diagnose” someone as an STS or STO.
This entire forum and all the channelings are about the Law of One. The Law of One is about the fact that everything comes from the One Infinite Creator. This is the Law of the One. This has been rolled out since the beginning, even the first channelings from Hatonn.
It was publicized, or rather, it was accepted by the people, the moment they invoked it Ra emphasized it, emphasized the Oneness of things. But the principle itself has the same one wording that everything is One, what, in other words, means that everything is One Infinite Creator. In the early stages, it was spoken of the Infinite Creator. However, this is relevant the same as relevant is One Infinite Creator because the Creator who embraces the Infinite embraces Everything, and therefore is One, unites with everything into One.
Within the Law of One/Confederation material, the 3rd density body, which is the yellow ray body, has never referred directly to the physical body, but to the energetic or spiritual aspect of existence in the context of consciousness evolution. The “yellow ray” symbolizes a state where beings begin to discover their individual selves in relation to others.
The physical body is a 2nd density body originally created from 1st density components. This body is the body of an “animal” that has been “raised” by the presence of the soul within it.
Y
I have a follow-up question please. Would Q’uo speak on the history of the origin of Ra oversoul in a sense of where there is time/space throughout their journey, before they became six- density beings?
Q’uo
I am Q’uo, and am aware of your query, my sister. You asked about those entities that are known to this group as those of Ra. These entities were able to find their beginnings upon the planet within this solar system which you know as Venus. This solar system is governed, shall we say, by a sub-Logos, a creative entity of love that you would see as your sun body. This sub-Logos has utilized the second density form that you would call the “ape body” to invest with consciousness of the self—that is, with self-awareness—so that all entities within this solar system that have been able to move from the second to the third density have utilized this body of the erect ape form that walks upon two legs, and has two hands, with the opposable thumb, which is the salient feature of this particular form of life; for the grasping thumb then, is able to cause the entity to use tools, and this use of tools further aids the entity in being able to speak the language, rather than intuit the concepts as in the telepathic type of contact. Thus, this allows such entities to move through the third density experience in a much more rapid progression, so that the means of discovering the other self nature of all entities surrounding such entities is enhanced. Thus, those of Ra, as with those of planet Earth, the planet previously known as Maldek, the planet Saturn, and the planet of Mars, have all hosted third-density beings which have been able to utilize the veil of forgetting that exists between the conscious and subconscious mind to enhance the spiritual seeking. May 20, 2017 - Saturday meditation - L/L Research
Even if someone is a Wanderer, while on Earth they are using a 2nd density “ape body”. The only difference is spirituality and mind. Being something outside the body, independent of it, but using the body.
I thought I answered that:
To be more precise: There is no way in my personal “dictionary” to “diagnose someone as a psychopath”. Because who am I supposed to call that? The cover? The physical costume? Or the consciousness or soul that is inside? Everything is the Creator who experiences itself in its own specific way. And how people categorize it is their business.
I don’t believe it is Let’s look at the quote again. I also consider that a personal comment that you have made that I have misused the Law of One material quotes. Also, I want to note that my understanding of this statement is that you consider yourself an authority in this matter. You didn’t even analyse or explain the quote, you simply stated what you believe it means as though that shouldn’t be questioned.
Questioner: Thank you. The foundation of our present illusion we have stated previously to be the concept of polarity. I would ask that since we have defined the two polarities as service to others and service to self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition or any more information that we don’t have at this time on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?
Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.
Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.
So this bit again:
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.
So ‘in this context’ refers to 'in relation to this specific analogy. So, the point of what was said is that when we are using a term such as ‘service to others’. We can see when one is in fact serving others, to some extent at least. As another example relevant to the specific material. We know that Genghis Khan was behaving badly because he was butchering his way over the planet.
But if we were to NOT use the term service to others, or service to self; and we WERE to use the poles of the magnet analogy. We would not be able to determine if people were behaving in a service to others or service to self way. Because “north and South pole” are not particularly explanatory.
Then obviously, the desireability of the term service to others over the term North and South pole, are that the term service to others CAN be used in judgement. Which is obviously very important. We don’t want to walk around not being able to judge who is service to others and service to self.
Within the Law of One/Confederation material, the 3rd density body, which is the yellow ray body, has never referred directly to the physical body, but to the energetic or spiritual aspect of existence in the context of consciousness evolution. The “yellow ray” symbolizes a state where beings begin to discover their individual selves in relation to others.
The physical body is a 2nd density body originally created from 1st density components. This body is the body of an “animal” that has been “raised” by the presence of the soul within it.
You certainly don’t like nuanced argument. Like, the idea that the brain is capable of abstract moral thinking (i.e. the choice) which is relevant to third density and second density life forms don’t have that was not one that you acknowledged or obviously accept. It seems that maybe you will accept a direct statement by the Law of One that we are in third density bodies? Or will you try and misunderstand this quote too?:
Questioner: Then the yellow-ray body in potentiation is used to create the chemical arrangement that I have as a physical body now. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect only in that in your present incarnation the yellow-ray body is not in potentiation but in activation, it being that body which is manifest.
This one states that second density entities harvested into third density (so us!) So we would have to be now third density:
Questioner: When the first second-density entities became third on this planet, was this with the help of the transfer of beings from Mars, or were there second-density entities that evolved into third density with no outside influence?
Ra: I am Ra. There were some second-density entities which made the graduation into third density with no outside stimulus but only the efficient use of experience.
Others of your planetary second density joined the third-density cycle due to harvesting efforts by the same sort of sending of vibratory aid as those of the Confederation send you now. This communication was, however, telepathic rather than telepathic/vocal or telepathic/written due to the nature of second-density beings.
There are a few more on the second to third density harvest. It is an unbelievably basic point. It’s strange that it has even come up. Why would we be second density it makes no sense?
Diagnosing oneself according to certain limiting criteria can be just as unnecessary and lead to nothing positive as diagnosing others. I may not have written this directly, but judging as such whether of others or of oneself can be simply a blind alley. Diagnosing according to certain criteria to determine that someone is sick or abnormal is judgmental.
OK, so according to you then, all the millions of people involved in this field and every mental health diagnosis from autism, to borderline, to schizophrenia, to psychopathy (aided by brain scans) is “nothing positive” because you. The god of all knowing, decide that it isn’t?
Dr Ramani, who uses the term narcissism to talk to people who have and/ or believe they have been abused. Elinor Greenberg, who wrote a book that talked about Schizoid, Borderline and Narcissism. Marsha Lineham, who interviewed a lot of people to come up with the diagnosis term of borderline and, either her or someone else created therapeutic interventions specifically in relation to this.
ALL these people are less knowledgeable than K.K on the Law of One forum because she deigns herself more knowledgeable than all of them?
So on our two earlier questions. You have answered in the affirmative, as a rule that you believe should apply to all others. That brain scans are not useful in diagnosing psychopathy. Or that this science and label should have no legitimacy because it’s not “spiritual” enough.
And my second question here has still not been answered so I would like to requote:
Can you point me to the Law of One quote where this [non judgement] is stated?
I am simply giving my perspective on Ra. Everyone has their own mind to evaluate whether my words are correct or not.
I take it as an example to influence the minds of the recipients so that they would have a better understanding of how STO differs from STS, in Ra’s opinion. However, there was still no judgement in it to regard the person directly, in some other categories that would present them in a certain way, as simply a kind of service to the Creator.
These are the nuances that I wanted to draw attention to from the very beginning, so as not to judge in a way that would categorize someone into any “bag”. What I mean is that it was never done in the spirit of insulting someone, or taking something from someone and presenting them as “sick”, “disturbed”, “underdeveloped”, mentally ill, or personality disordered.
This sentence paragraph, in my opinion, contain false theses and, in my opinion, an attempt at manipulation, which is why I will not respond to it.
Yes, you’re right, it’s about the arrangement of this body. Which can be interpreted as the influence of the soul on the body.
Tell me how this differs from what I wrote?
Note that Ra also do not refer super-precisely and do not create in this case some extensive descriptions, and because of that “body” can be interpreted differently. I will agree that a person if you look at him as a being that is a mind/body/spirit complex, then you can say that it is a “body” of the third density. However, if we would separate “mind” from “body” and from “spirit”. All this would give a different picture and we would come out that the body itself as such in this complex of complexes is the body of the second density. For there can be no strictly 3rd density body, it is our 3rd density consciousness the yellow ray energetic body, and for literal physical manifestation we have a “monkey” body, a 2nd density body. From which we have quite a large legacy that shapes our basic needs and behaviors.
I wrote nothing of the sort. It all makes sense, being considered within a given framework, within certain structures that define objectivity, and according to these structures people get along with each other and are able to form a consensus. On the other hand, beyond that, there is the entire universe and the Creator, “who has the right to give a damn” ;-), so to speak colloquially, without going into too much detail.
And we still have to be open to everything, and not close ourselves off to something. That’s what I want to say. Sure… as such, in itself, it has some value. Of course. Earlier in my posts, I mentioned that it is worth learning this in spite of everything, to broaden our understanding of human nature, but we have to have a certain distance from all this and not treat it like the Bible.
At one point I wrote that if anything, it makes the most sense to read specialists who create a certain subculture and reach objective conclusions within their work. So it’s not that they are worthless to me, quite the opposite. What I mean is that it is still, as I suggest, a small island in a huge ocean.
Yes, that is close enough to the truth. Because if I call someone a psychopath, I call them “all of her/him.” What if physically they are one thing and spiritually something else? I don’t think it’s completely wrong to diagnose someone in this way. But it’s just physicality, which doesn’t exhaust the issue of humanity and human essence. I would gladly submit to such tests if I could for free.
If I wanted to know something about someone in terms of their material manifestation, I would most like to simply ask them for a brain scan. That would certainly be appropriate. But it is like reading someone’s shoe size. You have specific information, but all you know is how to relate to them physically… It is so important and so irrelevant at the same time…
I think I’ve answered that question. If you want a quote from Ra, there isn’t one, but the Law of One is something that goes beyond the contact with Ra. At the time of Ra there was a close-up on it, there it was named. Ra specifically indicated its position on it. Which is particularly true for their role in the cosmic drama, where they balanced all of these things related to development into one. But the Law of One has a very broad meaning and all the work here goes into it.
Austin
Thank you so much, Q’uo. We just have one short one from Juan, who writes: “Are Q’uo, Ra or Hatonn presently transmitting and teaching The Law of One in other places on Planet Earth’s surface other than the L/L Research Group?
Q’uo
I am Q’uo and am aware of your query, my brother. There are various ways of teaching that go beyond what may be seen as teaching by many entities. Teaching in regards to channeling, as is now occurring, is mostly restricted to L/L Research by those of Q’uo, Hatonn and Ra. However, each of these group consciousnesses have other talents that are offered more widely to the entire population of the planet. These talents include the sending of love and light by those of Hatonn to entities that are requesting such, perhaps within their daily round of activities, within their meditations, or within their sleep. They ask for the love and the light of the Creator to be shined upon them, that they may be enhanced in some fashion whether it be of mind, of body, or of spirit. There are entities within those of Q’uo, Latwii and Ra, which are able to send a combination of love and light that enhances entities in a similar fashion, yet at a, shall we say, stepped up vibrational level. Those of Ra, especially, are able to contact entities within the sleep state and the dream state so that those entities you may call wanderers are oftentimes given images within the dream state that present a puzzle or an awakening so that there may be a revelation of the self to the self that awakens the self to the purpose of the incarnation.
(…) December 14, 2019 - Saturday meditation - L/L Research
Gary
Ra says: “Firstly the mind must be known to itself. This is perhaps the most demanding part of healing work. If the mind knows itself then the most important aspect of healing has occurred, for consciousness is the microcosm of the Law of One.” 2 Can you elaborate on how consciousness is the microcosm of the Law of One?
Q’uo
I am Q’uo and am aware of your query, my brother. The Law of One says simply that all things, all beings, all is One, One Infinite Creator, Intelligent Infinity, that which is all that is. Consciousness is a portion of the One Infinite Creator that becomes enabled, or created, when the universes begins to take shape as the One Infinite Creator and through free will creates the Logos or Love, which creates Light, which then condenses into the creation that is made of consciousness. November 9, 2019 - Saturday meditation - L/L Research
As for the parts about not judging yourself and others in Q’uo’s words, I’m sure I can find them… But not today. Sorry and best regards.
The non efficacy of judgement on an individual level is Law of One session 95.9 (Edit, 23rd of September: 94.9. 6th down the list on Lawofone.info if ‘efficacy’ is searched)
I think I see where this has gone off the rails. I am going to address your first comment not the ones that went after that because that is the root of what you were saying. Perhaps I went over that too quickly. Might be long especially if I was to quote every part. I hope I don’t have to. I do believe what I was trying to say about psychopathy and the way it is talked about and understood in relation to society is important. So it is worth the time:
I used to study personality disorders and mental illnesses. And in the end, I found that all these things are a ‘stretch’, and I retreat about certain my conclusions that I made. Generally, the first problem is that normalcy is subjectively defined, mental health is subjectively defined, and personality disorders also. Someone mentally ill or disturbed is different now; someone else was 2000 years ago; someone else was 500 years ago. There will also be different criteria for mental and personality disorders 200 or 300 years from now.
I do not disagree with this perspective and I kind of went on a similar one myself in a sense. In that I found out about narcissism and later realised it was not a useful distinction for me.
The reason it is not a useful distinction to me is that, while it was once while I was in a fight or flight state. There are a lot of things including a general understanding of the world as a mystery and the Human Design Chart that I have referenced elsewhere.
For instance, I can take apart James Fallons chart easily. I can show where he gets his busy-ness from, where that insensitivity is shown etc. I can do it so well that it makes one wonder what the need for the word “psychopath” is.
But that is not to say I don’t believe that a lot of the people talking about it. Like Dr Ramani, are not doing what they should be doing. Labels like that aren’t ultimately useful to me with the human design chart. Because I live and breathe this kind of information. But Dr Ramani has chosen a service where the term “narcissist” is useful, for some to understand and process the world they live in. That’s all language is really for and here I think the tool of labels is being used in a service to others fashion.
But this is not what this thread is about. This thread, if you fully read the first post, is about the idea that the mythology of the psychopath as expressed by Hollywood. Is deleterious, not only to our understanding of mental illness, but to our understanding of polarity as a whole. it creates an innaccurate mythological negative being.
Part of this understanding, this “battle” in a sense. Is to explain what a real psychopath is because it takes aside the mythologised innaccurate and poisonous portrayal.
The assessment of another person, whether they are mentally ill or personality disordered. It should be an individual matter. And the highest criterion for whether someone is healthy or normal should be the opinion of this individual about self. With emphasis on the fact that this person should freely assess who they are, how they feel, whether they are emotionally healthy, or whether they are mentally healthy.
Sure, there are exceptions to this, because what to do with a person who thinks they are a superhero, and who wants to jump out of a window to fly over skyscrapers? Or what to do with a knife man who is saving humanity by killing another zombie, who is simply an innocent person who was at the wrong time and place.
Yes, there are exceptions to this. In my opinion the exceptions can be pretty glaring having some experience with this myself. Perhaps this is a personal point. Perhaps I can’t fully accept the service to others interpretation here because i have been burnt.
I have two convenient cases for this example actually. One was a guy who was a close friend for decades who just got progressively weirder and madder. I thought they were a narcissist but was always cautious in explaining this and he had told me that women desired him a lot, I had to listen to speeches on this and that he was a literal god.
Turns out he has autism. Which is what he said about five years ago, and I was unable to hear this, I have told him that. He met my mother recently and was unable to make eye contact.
I also have the polar opposite example. Family member who is very much the “victim” all the time but on the quiet is extremely abusive towards women. The toxicity around this I won’t describe because it is unpleasant. But this persons self diagnosis is… I can tell you… ONLY A TOOL TO MANIPULATE. It can be used in service to self.
So it is hard to really say.
The detailed reason of why I suspect, and I only said suspect, I also said I would never know for sure, my father of psychopathy, is also not something I would confide details in relation to. Athena appears to agree it is a possibility.
Okay, I understand that the garlic is to be used at the bar area and in the bedroom that is close to the kitchen and has an exit onto the carport. If I am correct, then, those are the only two places to use the garlic: the bar and that room with the exit to the carport. That’s correct, isn’t it?
Well, I don’t want to get further involved in the discussion.
I think you and others can draw something interesting for themselves from my words. Already from what has been written. And there is no need for me to drag this further on my part, where my main goal was to point out that it is important to have a distance from all this psychology, and especially in all of this, to be careful not to judge people too quickly.
I noted it has become in the present time a great tool for those with STS orientation and those neutralized who cannot discipline themselves in favor of STO. People just most often reframe the behavior of others they don’t approve of by portraying them as psychopaths or narcissists, for example.
BTW, I, too, have learned some things from you, and you have given me food for thought. Forgive me for cutting off the discussion like this, but I also just don’t have much time to write. I have to take care of other things as well.
So thanks and best regards. All the best to you as well.
OK, I had thought during that discussion that if I were to highlight that I perceived our points were largely similar it would be the end of said discussion. But I kept arguing anyway without highlighting that, for the hell of it. Once I did finally say that it didn’t seem to create massive agreement.
I went back and edited the Law of One to the correctly numbered quote.
I have a thought here that is remaining with me. I sometimes put off my communion after Sunday while I go around trying to complete nebulous, indeterminate tasks, that it feels I need to do before the communion. I’m in one of those phases now.
Philosophy
I think the issue could go into way more depth in exploration terms and that this would be useful in the determination of positive and negative polarity. One of the things that Law of One mentions sparingly, but I think is very significant, is philosophy in general. If you think about it, philosophy is one of the ways that you get down to the minutea of service to others and service to self.
One of the drawbacks of the channeling in general, is that the channeling in some cases cannot be challenged. If I don’t agree with something Q’uo says I can’t say ‘Hey, that’s not right’ but when people have studied philosophy, they have to explain the concepts. Not just the what but the why. The Law of One itself is, to my mind, so highly correct that this is not an issue. But the unconscious channeling went through Carla, Carla who decided simply because it was her own personal preference to disregard the Law of One statements on homosexuality. So someone that, we might say in some cases, will choose agreeableness over truth. The Q’uo cannot go much higher than the channel has discerned through their own work. A little higher perhaps but not a lot.
But back to philosophy, the Law of One mentions it a few times. It is also a very strong influence in our society that is not noticed commonly I don’t think. They classify their own teachings as philosophy. Mention positively a lot of philosophers (25.4) and notably, they mention a few times that the service to self teachings are classified as philosophy as well.
Sometimes when I look into philosophy I get really strong feelings of “Power”. Or something like that.
Apparently a lot of the heads of business in these corporate companies have qualifications in philosophy. Not coding, engineering or even business, but philosophy.
So it is the board on which the game is played and it is where, perhaps, a big part of the pushback against the negative happens. You can imagine the negative getting weird mysterious texts to justify their crazy ideas. Like the fictional genocidal weirdos in “Fringe”. But all the bizarre real world political tracts that caused real world harm came from philosophy. Like, the Bolshevist revolution and Marx as an example.
Conclusion.
So the reason for mentioning that is that that’s where I would go in relation to these queries. I don’t think service to others and service to self as an idea, is sufficient to discuss them. I think it needs to be discussed in relation to how does power work in society and such like that? Philosophy allows us to really grip in quite a close way how the negative operates and how to work around them.
From which we have quite a large legacy that shapes our basic needs and behaviors.