An STO Society

Kheb is a monastery, remote but not secluded, where people can have an alternative to the mercantile system that is imposed upon society by our political and educational institutions. It is a physical PLACE, and this topic is to discuss the facilities, structures, accommodations, and other physical constructs needed to successfully implement the ideas behind the Sanctuary Project, as well as the "political" structures of a new type of monastic system.
Post Reply
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3690
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

An STO Society

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:42 pm

I'm on chat with Alluvion, and we we're talking about sts versus sto.

What would the characteristics of an STO society be? Here are some of the thoughts we were talking about:

1) No money... service to others would assure that everyone would have what they needed, without compensation.

2) No private ownership; understanding that the stuff "out here" belongs to the Creator, not to us.

3) No "governments"; the nature of sto would mean that people took care of other people, not one giant pseudo-parent handing out the dole.

4) Individual privacy; service to others includes respect for others.

5) A work ethic; people would work out of their desire to be of service, not for personal profit.

Any other thoughts?

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

STO

Post by Starlight* » Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:24 pm

Thought:

A list to start with. Applying it would be the next step.

What lead you to this discussion? A community......are you reconsidering?


*******
Starlight*

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Post by Gopi » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:51 am

6. No grading systems and hierarchies. None would strive for individual achievement, which lacks meaning as one is serving others, but not expecting in return.

7. Some difficulties in reaching to a decision in a crisis... Service to Others complicates decisions of this sort a lot.

8. Living in isolation would reduce, communities would increase. Same result as in an STS society but for the opposite reason.

The way I usually visualize the situation is the STO is like a positive electric charge, with field lines pointing outwards, while STS is negative charge, the field lines pointing inwards [an old textbook image].The path of Keb is like the photon... just charge.

Cheers,
Gopi
It is time.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:42 pm

hmm. if a society of self sufficient individuals came together it would happen only when they came together with similar desires, along the lines of a pursuit of some kind - even its as general as 'sharing'. I think one characteristic we are mixing is undeniable honesty, which means no guilt or illusions about the desires one has to participate , observe or ignore. One is free to do any. I think everyone would be striving for individual achievements, and depending upon the harmony of other personal vectors of accomplishment, could accomplish shared acheivements. With the doubt of individual validation gone (by the removal of forgetting) no approval or praise by others is needed - the only motivation to do anything is the degree to which personal sensibilities are activated by a catalyst. I agree about the no expectations condition as well but that means one cannot expect to be respected by another, or have their privacy by another if the situation is more 'keb' like - private(sto)and ownership(sts) are interchangeable. I also agree about no money, it would be to complicated - what is an easier measure of wealth is the character and ability of a person, that is a system of 'pay' in its own right. A work ethic would require redefining, or rather non-defining the term 'work' since no one could really impose a work ethic on another to get them to work. That is why the society would be consituted by self sufficient, actualized people who know they need nothing, at all, from another to survive, and so can freely share in the things they just want from another.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Post by zenmaster » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:17 pm

For what it's worth, rules tend to destroy the possibility of a sustaining society. No this, no that... Limitations such as these may seem righteous at face value, but tend to be seeds of fear and doubt. The key is simply a united ethic, an implicit "agreement" based on the desire to help all to experience and to promote "consciousness". Any exception for behavior would be a limitation.

In a "STO" society, agreements on behavior would be obvious and any formalization, that is "rules" would be self evident to the participant. What is done needs to be done. If this is not the case, then there is disagreement and disharmony. In "STO", presumably, consequences of actions would be intended for the benefit of all. "STO" is the conscious and continual consideration of other as self and self as other. Non-polarized "STO" would require a great deal of forgiveness in order to succeed. However, the intent of actually working together would naturally balance out the perceived lack that one might experience during some circumstantial injustice. That is, "faith", if you would excuse the term (I have no other word to describe "a pure expectation of harmony"), works for groups as well as individuals.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:19 pm

"a pure expectation of harmony"

expecting harmony would get in the way of a future which is not set and a present with obstacles that come and go - even 4d is not free of disharmony and challenge. The only thing a person has control over, and can expect anything from, is themselves - from within. In that sense, one cannot expect harmony, as if it will be presented or gift itself without any effort from individuals. My old roomate had this magnet on her refridge that said 'life is not about finding yourself, life is about creating yourself' - i think that is essentially true, harmony can and should not be expected. If your aim is harmony, be harmonious and there will be harmony.


If we are free from the need to fear and the need to love each other, then we can do so because we choose too - because we *like* it. For example, marriage might still exist - but instead of this fantasy dream that most people don't seem to really, mythological grasp - one could only offer themselves in marriage to another without receiving the promise back. I love you, and you don't have to love me or promise me anything. If you want to leave town, then do so. If I want to follow, I will. If you don't want me to follow, then I consider which is more important to me - giving you what I want, or giving you what you want. Both are acceptable to the great spirit.

perhaps sto path could be said to be generating/facilitating harmony outside the self, perhaps sts path could be said to be generating/facilitating harmony inside the self.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Post by zenmaster » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:33 am

"expecting harmony would get in the way of a future which is not set and a present with obstacles that come and "go"

Yep, we're most certainly talking about two different things. "Harmony" is not to be interpreted as "a particular harmony". Which is something that is "set". It is the "harmony of being", which is not set. The pure is not attainable, but it is the guide. So a haromizing intent "harmonizes". "Expectation" is a word I used to describe "faith". That is, there is a vacuum created whereby the universe is allowed to fill with opportunity according to need.

"If you don't want me to follow, then I consider which is more important to me - giving you what I want, or giving you what you want. Both are acceptable to the great spirit. "

That is true. Its a case-by-case thing. Each situation is asking its own questions of the soul.

"perhaps sto path could be said to be generating/facilitating harmony outside the self, perhaps sts path could be said to be generating/facilitating harmony inside the self."

What is interesting is that in excluding some aspects of its nature in its evolutionary process, STS necessarily seperates itself from the all which has the intrinsic fuller expression. Since STS is "missing" parts of itself, working with a partial spectrum. while STO works with the full spectrum, STS and STO are apparently asymmetrical paths. The two "polarities" are apparently not much of a duality. I wonder what this does psychologically, as far as shadow complex projection.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Post by Arcelius » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:00 am

zenmaster wrote:What is interesting is that in excluding some aspects of its nature in its evolutionary process, STS necessarily seperates itself from the all which has the intrinsic fuller expression. Since STS is "missing" parts of itself, working with a partial spectrum. while STO works with the full spectrum, STS and STO are apparently asymmetrical paths. The two "polarities" are apparently not much of a duality. I wonder what this does psychologically, as far as shadow complex projection.
I would think that the full spectrum would include both STO and STS paths, the 3rd density being the density of choice and the 6th density being the density of unity. From this I would conclude that both the STO and STS paths are missing pieces of the full spectrum (and from each other). I still see these (STO vs. STS) as A duality though not as a complete duality (i.e. there may be shared things between the paths). The strict duality being more of polarity rather than a complete archtypical one (perhaps that is what you are getting at and I have misunderstood).

I do agree that the STS tries to separate itself from the full spectrum as much as possible. I also agree that STO tries to work with and incorporate as much of the full spectrum as possible. However, I do not think that STO is able to fully work with the full spectrum since that full spectrum also includes the STO path. As well, I think that the reason that STS entities switch to STO in 6th density is that they figure out that they will not be able to progress further without working with the full spectrum instead of isolating themselves from it. When switching over, I expect that they would bring a fairly complete understanding of the STS path making the lessons of the 6th density a bit easier (even if the STS path itself may not be as enjoyable).

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Post by zenmaster » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:24 am

I would think that the full spectrum would include both STO and STS paths, the 3rd density being the density of choice and the 6th density being the density of unity. From this I would conclude that both the STO and STS paths are missing pieces of the full spectrum (and from each other).
Nature, or the full spectrum, is all inclusive, regardless of one's polarity. In otherwords, all inclusive in potential and actualized by the individual's will. However, the disposition to nature that an individual provides itself is necessarily exclusive until 6th density. STO attempts to work with full spectrum, while STS attempts to work with less than full spectrum.
I do agree that the STS tries to separate itself from the full spectrum as much as possible. I also agree that STO tries to work with and incorporate as much of the full spectrum as possible. However, I do not think that STO is able to fully work with the full spectrum since that full spectrum also includes the STO path.
You are saying the reason that STS is not able to fully work with the full spectrum is because that spectrum includes the STO path? Doesn't that beg the question of the meaning of polarity?

4th Density STO is also not able to work with STS because the green-ray entity is ineffectual in the face of blockage from other-selves. So apparently, it doesn't matter so much what one makes available to itself, but what one does with it.
I still see these (STO vs. STS) as A duality though not as a complete duality (i.e. there may be shared things between the paths). The strict duality being more of polarity rather than a complete archtypical one (perhaps that is what you are getting at and I have misunderstood)
Yes, the archetypal one is what I was referring to. So, if STO vs STS are two poles of one thing, what is that one thing? For example: Other = Self = creator, hence no duality possible. Full spectrum use vs partial spectrum use: no duality. More intense seeking (STS) vs less intense seeking (STO): no duality. Shared things between paths: no duality. In other words, taking the extreme case of STO and the extreme case (full polarization) of STS, how would their characteristics result in balance?

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Post by Arcelius » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:26 pm

zenmaster wrote:
I do agree that the STS tries to separate itself from the full spectrum as much as possible. I also agree that STO tries to work with and incorporate as much of the full spectrum as possible. However, I do not think that STO is able to fully work with the full spectrum since that full spectrum also includes the STO path.
You are saying the reason that STS is not able to fully work with the full spectrum is because that spectrum includes the STO path? Doesn't that beg the question of the meaning of polarity?
Pardon my mistakes in the above. I was actually saying that the reason STO is not able to fully work with the full spectrum is because that spectrum includes the STS path. Of course, the intent to work with the Full Spectrum or not is something itself and important. It could very well beg the question of the meaning of polarity. How do you see polarity itself?
zenmaster wrote:4th Density STO is also not able to work with STS because the green-ray entity is ineffectual in the face of blockage from other-selves. So apparently, it doesn't matter so much what one makes available to itself, but what one does with it.
Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. You have said a lot in a compact statement.
zenmaster wrote:
I still see these (STO vs. STS) as A duality though not as a complete duality (i.e. there may be shared things between the paths). The strict duality being more of polarity rather than a complete archtypical one (perhaps that is what you are getting at and I have misunderstood)
Yes, the archetypal one is what I was referring to. So, if STO vs STS are two poles of one thing, what is that one thing? For example: Other = Self = creator, hence no duality possible. Full spectrum use vs partial spectrum use: no duality. More intense seeking (STS) vs less intense seeking (STO): no duality. Shared things between paths: no duality. In other words, taking the extreme case of STO and the extreme case (full polarization) of STS, how would their characteristics result in balance?
Thank-you for clarifying for me. For myself, I think that a balance is possible though I don't think that the balance is 50/50. Different characteristics in different proportions may balance other characteristics in their proportions. I don't claim to have any idea of the proportions or of the exact list of characteristics though I will give a simple example to illustrate. On the extreme STO side, perhaps there is Full Spectrum use (90%) and intenseness of seeking (15%). This may balance on the extreme STS side with Full Spectrum use (25%) and intensiveness of seeking (90%). Please don't ask about the numbers themselves since I just made them up.

Perhaps the one archtypical thing is polarity. I could be incorrect of course. I think that this polarity is not the same thing as the unity in 6th density though. If this is what you are getting at though, I would find the question quite interesting and hope that someone else can contribute to an answer. The answer to this question may also help answer LoneBear's question at the beginning.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Post by zenmaster » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:43 pm

How do you see polarity itself?
One description might be a conscious attitude pertaining to the ontological status of self versus otherself in regards to the evolutionary process of attaining wholeness.

STO vs STS is not characteristic of the traditional use of the words "altruistic" vs "selfish" (as has been often implied). Those terms are used to describe a particular ethic of how needs are met in a survival situation such as we necessarily have in 3rd density. In other words, our survival needs creates conditions whereby we can plainly see that sacrificing self, as for a devotion to the welfare of others, is a postive intention as far as supporting other beings. However, as ethical as this type of sacrifice may be, the selfish and non-selfish act only have meaning in the context of lack. And that lack, as real as it seems, is part of an illusory playground intended to help motivate evolution.

However, polarization (both STO and STS) provides an entity with the resources that balance the conditions that create that perceived lack. And the polarized entity is aware of this. Therefore, there is no question of insurance (money, grades, etc), because there is no question of possible lack or failure. What's the point of creating rules that get rid of insurance, if the conditions that create lack are not present. It's guaranteed that restrictions themselves will never create an abdundant environment and will probably be a negative influence due to their reactionary nature. In other words, anything that attempts to offset an imbalance rather than reinforce a balance would itself be an imbalance, and therefore would be a drag on the society.

An example of STS path would be "using" another to satisfy a need with no regard for the means used. For polarized STS, this would be as if the other is a servant, or subordinate extension to the creator-self, rather than a co-creator. This actually works because if the other can truly be seen as, say, a needed faculty of mind, then, in the spirit of love, that other may be effectively used as such (we are all "one thing"). Whereas, non-polarized STS, being much less conscious of the dynamics involved, might project these same qualities of subordinance on another in its activities, which would require a reciprocating response in order to sustain.

An example of STO path with regards to a societal interaction would be that of participation in conscious co-creation. Taking advantage of someone is not part of the dynamic, and basically has not meaning, since the self, including one's intentionality, is not withdrawn or hidden, but instead naturally shared, in the STO-polarized environment.

Perhaps the one archtypical thing is polarity.
That's the idea behind dialectical monism, which is very prevelant in the Ra Material. Nature is symmetric. Every split aspect seeks to regain wholeness, and the whole seeks to differentiate itself by splitting. In 3rd density we can become conscious of this cycle.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:05 pm

An interesting comparison is drawn between opponent and competitor in 'medicine woman' by lynn andrews. A medicine woman is explaining how an opponent is someone you are essentialy playing game with - someone who is a matched warrior, so there is honor in the game of who trumps who since each respects the free will and individuality of the other. A competitor, however, does not seek honor and seeks only to win. I'd say the competitor system is 3rd density, while the opponent is 4th density since one can serve the self or serve another as equals - just with differing methods and aims, neither of which is to take 'first prize' but to take 'highest honor' - honoring the will of self regardless of others, or honoring the will of others and the will of self. Even the medicine woman, who is teaching Lynn about being a medicine woman, a person of power, is an opponent to lynn in an effort to awaken her will -to challenge her and disrupt the subconscious patterns that lynn is unwittingly a servant too.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by Alluvion » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 pm

I think an STO society would require that individuals have experience a vast and deep array of experiences so they can better understand about what serving means - light and fluffy won't get you there, light and fluffy won't keep you there. Perhaps sto begins with inner wisdom and outer love, and sts begins with inner love and outer wisdom. Another thought from the lynn andrews book - the question is not about whether or not you will feed 'appetites' - you have to to survive, that is becoming polarized. Polarity is then do you feed what you want, regardless of the need for others to feed (sts) or do you feed what you need, considering the 'limited resources' and the needs, but not wants, of others to "eat".

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3690
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: STO

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:41 am

Starlight* wrote:What lead you to this discussion? A community......are you reconsidering?
The "Island of Misfit Toys", and the song, "There's always, tomorrow, for dreams to come true..."

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3690
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:22 am

Gopi wrote:6. No grading systems and hierarchies. None would strive for individual achievement, which lacks meaning as one is serving others, but not expecting in return.

7. Some difficulties in reaching to a decision in a crisis... Service to Others complicates decisions of this sort a lot.

8. Living in isolation would reduce, communities would increase. Same result as in an STS society but for the opposite reason.
Good observation on the way STO is executed in 3rd density--basically a "no free will zone" based on group mind action.

How would you alter points 6-8 to incorporate Free Will expressed as individuality?

Q6: Can STO be graded and have heirarchies? (Recall Vuyiswa's post on the African Elders)

Q7: How should STO decisions be made?

Q8: Communities are like infections, they tend to spread and destroy everything around them. How can you have an STO society, but not have the 2nd density "commune" aspect?
Gopi wrote:The way I usually visualize the situation is the STO is like a positive electric charge, with field lines pointing outwards, while STS is negative charge, the field lines pointing inwards [an old textbook image].The path of Keb is like the photon... just charge.
I'll bet you get a charge out of this... the path to Keb is a bi-rotation... no charge. :)

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3690
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:50 am

Alluvion wrote:hmm. if a society of self sufficient individuals came together it would happen only when they came together with similar desires, along the lines of a pursuit of some kind - even its as general as 'sharing'.
What if the "pursuit" is "conscious evolution"?
Alluvion wrote:I think one characteristic we are mixing is undeniable honesty, which means no guilt or illusions about the desires one has to participate , observe or ignore. One is free to do any. I think everyone would be striving for individual achievements, and depending upon the harmony of other personal vectors of accomplishment, could accomplish shared acheivements.
Honesty is highly subjective, since it is based on "truths". I told BlueEagle of an experiment I conducted when I was teaching called "Truth Day", where everyone had to tell the truth in a discussion. It doesn't even take an hour to figure out that one person's truth is not anothers, and that since honesty is based on perceived "truth", no one is ever able to be "honest".

My beliefs, based on the ideals of chivalry, are "duty, HONOR, and responsibility." With Honor, you will respect the truth in whatever form it takes, even if it is not your personal truth.
Alluvion wrote:With the doubt of individual validation gone (by the removal of forgetting) no approval or praise by others is needed - the only motivation to do anything is the degree to which personal sensibilities are activated by a catalyst.
Curious that ALL the young people I chat with primarily seek two things: individual validation, and approval to be who they are. Zenmaster may recall that first question I asked him, 17 years ago, that really blew his mind...

All the familial, cultural and racial "validations" (rites of passage) are gone these days. And there are only 2 recognized social validations in the "civilized" countries: getting a drivers license, and legal age for drinking.

How can anyone be of service to other, with no gratitude, no recognition, not even acknowledgment of existence? No longer a man, but just a machine in the great wheel of life.
Alluvion wrote:I agree about the no expectations condition as well but that means one cannot expect to be respected by another, or have their privacy by another if the situation is more 'keb' like - private(sto)and ownership(sts) are interchangeable.
Take that up one level, where there is no dichotomy, and see where the STO concept goes.
Alluvion wrote:I also agree about no money, it would be to complicated - what is an easier measure of wealth is the character and ability of a person, that is a system of 'pay' in its own right. A work ethic would require redefining, or rather non-defining the term 'work' since no one could really impose a work ethic on another to get them to work. That is why the society would be consituted by self sufficient, actualized people who know they need nothing, at all, from another to survive, and so can freely share in the things they just want from another.
Is an STO person a "leader" or "follower"?

Leaders require no imposed "work ethic", since they are self-starters. STO tends to "wander" about...

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3690
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:38 am

zenmaster wrote:For what it's worth, rules tend to destroy the possibility of a sustaining society. No this, no that... Limitations such as these may seem righteous at face value, but tend to be seeds of fear and doubt. The key is simply a united ethic, an implicit "agreement" based on the desire to help all to experience and to promote "consciousness". Any exception for behavior would be a limitation.
IMHO, Zenmaster is right on the mark. We are raised in a prohibitive society, always being told what we can't do, and seldom being told what we CAN do. It is like trying to prove a negative hypothesis (can't be done). And the "can" part is a lot simpler than the "can't", being primarily:

1) Be kind
2) Be moderate
3) Be compassionate
zenmaster wrote:In a "STO" society, agreements on behavior would be obvious and any formalization, that is "rules" would be self evident to the participant. What is done needs to be done. If this is not the case, then there is disagreement and disharmony. In "STO", presumably, consequences of actions would be intended for the benefit of all. "STO" is the conscious and continual consideration of other as self and self as other. Non-polarized "STO" would require a great deal of forgiveness in order to succeed. However, the intent of actually working together would naturally balance out the perceived lack that one might experience during some circumstantial injustice.
In reference to Spiral Dynamics, this is basically a "Tier 2" system, where the larger picture can be seen by ALL, as well as the individual biases (valuing memes) within the structure.

It seems that there is a substantial distinction between Tier 1 STO and Tier 2 STO. Tier 1, the most common, is serving some-thing, like God, a corporation, a green movement... Tier 2, the rare form, is serving the process, itself.
zenmaster wrote:That is, "faith", if you would excuse the term (I have no other word to describe "a pure expectation of harmony"), works for groups as well as individuals.
As a wise man once said, "Faith Manages."

Starlight*
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Starlight* » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:32 am

LoneBear wrote:
Starlight* wrote: What lead you to this discussion? A community......are you reconsidering?
The "Island of Misfit Toys", and the song, "There's always, tomorrow, for dreams to come true..."
Misfit toys, eh, well, that depends on what room of the Sanctuary one’s in. You missed the one room; I'd say "Clarice" (clar-i-ce) fits in much better, inspiration comes to mind.


*******
Starlight*

Post Reply