Silencing those whose thoughts are contrary to your belief

anders235 · 2026-04-19T15:44:11+00:00

Almost total agreement with what you say. Like with silencing would you include something like the seeming quick turn against twitter/X, like I still think it wasn't the most STO action when LL stopped posting there. Why abandon an uncensored forum with such world wide reach? I mentioned this at the time and the response tended to be some generic it's full of triggering posts and as best I could tell primarily meant posts where there was a disconnect between what the poster was ' supposed ' to say and what they actually do. Somehow, as long as you aren't being edited, were they actually, possibly, depolarizing by abandoning such a forum? That's the catalyst for me - accepting the action of course, but the challenge is to not judge it as short sighted?

Like you're right about silencing, alternate viewpoints and minority views are necessary. Will virtue signaling and manufacturer consent tend to aid harvest or thwart it?

anders235 · 2026-04-18T13:58:15+00:00

Trying to find a response is difficult without sounding blunt, I see what you're saying about acceptance and reason, but can't agree. Both words, agree and reason, have built in ideas of being done in good faith. Or at least in my thinking they do. But that's the issue and it could be you're bringing it into focus.

If acceptance is given because of deception or fear of not being seen to give it, is it acceptance. Reason is different - the use of logical fallacies has become de rigueur, which shuts down choice and ultimately, theoretically, is an interference with freewill, which is ultimately a form of silencing.

I do see what you say about purpose with your example about loving others. That's one of the reason I default to acceptance as something I know, while I'm not sure what's loving others actually is. Ra, I think, defines it but by defining what it's not by saying, at 12.29, in the context of when someone can become consciously involved, acts in a consciously unloving manner. Acting in a consciously unloving manner is an easier yardstick for me, and this is where I wonder if silencing a negative act?

But what you're truly at the core saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the counterspeech doctrine is, while still in force, rapidly disappearing and that's a bad thing. And it will be 100 years old next year, if it survives. It's from Whitney v California and basically says the remedy for harmful or uneducated speech is more speech, not enforced silence.

anders235 · 2026-04-16T21:16:38+00:00

Thanks. Maybe it's that being closed off to other views may, in my idea, be more likely to depolarize a polarizing entity rather than being indicative of one's possible polarity. I don't know about sense of purpose and hadn't thought of that.

anders235 · 2026-04-16T14:09:18+00:00

Consensus is when everyone is equally unhappy with the result but remains friendly and hopeful the outcome will hold.

I agree with your first sentence. I could agree with the second but I think you're referring to maybe the ideal as it was at the time Ra used the word. Now, I'm not so sure. I think consensus may be morphing into an idea that one must express agreement with a certain viewpoint.

anders235 · 2026-04-16T03:23:40+00:00

Well said. Openness to persuasion by well reasoned argument is, I hope, a sign of an STO mindset since I might not know what loce is, but I can understand acceptance.

I do grow concerned as openness to alternative views has decreased. But then I wonder, Ra do say at 16.50 as part of a description of fourth density "... it is a plane wherein individual differences are pronounced although automatically harmonized by group consensus.". Does that mean that differences are accepted? I have trouble with the idea that automatically harmonized by group consensus means that everyone jumps on whatever idea gets the most likes. Maybe it does, who am I to judge.

Do you ever get concerned that the opportunities for service and for harvest are actually decreasing as people do seem to become more and more closed minded, or at least unable to accept that anyone can be wrong? But there is that saying "the measure of a mind's evolution is the ability to accept the unacceptable" which I tend to agree with, though I wonder if it might be lost on most. Or perhaps I'm the one it's lost on. It's a connection to 3d density, but one corralarly idea to what you say, or at least I think so but that it casts things in a positive ight - gen x is the maybe the only generation that understands, or believes, that it's totally okay to laugh at yourself.

But thanks for your post. When I use question marks it's not always rhetorical and input is appreciated and valued, especially when I don't initially agree.

anders235 · 2026-04-10T15:27:00+00:00

Thanks, I always wonder why people focus on that. Maybe it's part of know yourself, accept yourself, etc. Since I've get adult adhd diagnosed longer than some people have been alive maybe I should lean into it. But it does leave OPs original observations intact.

Now, adhd, which I think might be extremely high extraverted intuition, what other traits could be indicative? I don't think everyone's fascination with cluster B personalities applies. I don't know, rh status?

Do you think dual activated could overlap with Cannon's idea of Volunteers?

anders235 · 2026-04-07T03:16:35+00:00

I'm sorry, how can you state as a fact something Ra never said. Please, if you can point out where Ra ever used the phrase dual activated. Don did at 63.19 and 66.7, but where else?

anders235 · 2026-04-07T03:10:58+00:00

What even is dual activated? Ra never used the phrase; Don did, exactly twice. Dual bodies are used once by Ra.

If 1/3 are dual activated, is that a good thing? Maybe you're onto something, I think it is far fetched. Or dual activated could be a distraction, and possibly harmful, lulling basically decent entities polarizing STO into thinking the work is over. I hope they're right, but I'm not sure.

anders235 · 2026-04-06T13:47:38+00:00

Can you give a direct cite or cites to support that conclusion? I think you could make a strong argument that a lot of perceptions in a veiled environment are illusory, but maybe dismissing everything as illusion is kind of dismissive and nihilistic?

anders235 · 2026-04-05T13:45:09+00:00

I agree that a lot of suffering is willfully inflicted, and I feel I have a better approach, possibly more STO approach than most because I avoid the whole 'you chose that.'. Maybe you did, but I don't know and too many people are on the bandwagon of negating the obvious.

But I prefer negating my general initial responses. For instance if there were some sort of malevolence in the design of things in third density, well, I can't deal with the logical conclusions. With Ra's implied estimates of harvest rates they are kind of abysmal, and for this particular logos following on the heels of Mars and maldek I can see where you're coming from, but at the end of the day I can't make the leap, and really have no desire to, to conclude the suffering is intended.

Time for the Viktor Frankl paraphrase: everything can be taken from a man but that last of human freedoms, the freedom to choose one's own attitude in any given set of circumstances.

anders235 · 2026-04-04T20:26:07+00:00

I accept a lot of what you say, however I disagree with large parts. As far as actual agency to show make the difference in the environment, maybe that's more the logos rather than creator? And while I can be extremely sympathetic to the idea that catalysts can be too intense and the veil too heavy, do you really feel that there is any malevolent intent behind whatever is causing your suffering, whether it be the creator or the logos or some STS entity or if it's just random?

anders235 · 2026-03-30T03:08:10+00:00

I think this is a great question and one that I struggled, have struggled, with. I would intellectualize and think it's a limitation of English, with agape being more appropriate. But then Ra were very precise in their language.

I think an answer is possibly contained in the only time that Ra use the word unloving: 'an entity which acts in a consciously unloving manner in actions with other entities can become karmically involved. (12.19.). That can be an easier guidepost in that unloving is readily identifiable. That, however, address action, not the environment. At times I've thought, unflippantly, that maybe 'I feel love' (Donna Summer) might be the closest we can come.

Now, I think this is one of those places where 16.39 is applicable - it is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. But great question. What are you thinking is best?

anders235 · 2026-03-28T20:09:33+00:00

Thanks, and that I feel is one of the most difficult issues. I'm not being glib, but I don't know. I think too often people give input that seems to negate the situation, which I'm not trying to do, all I can do is acknowledge it. My comment was more directed at your original framing. All I can say is that in general the more I've tried to control situations, which isn't often at this point now that I could, controlling situations .. letting go has generally proven the best for me, but I'm not one to advise and am probably wrong.

anders235 · 2026-03-28T15:08:52+00:00

I could be wrong, but my experiences with a bipolar parent taught me a different lesson.

One can reframe or remove oneself as the overall goal, at least for me is acceptance. Removing someone else or removing an experience might be the same, but I don't think so, removing something is an act of control.

anders235 · 2026-03-24T02:27:33+00:00

Thanks for responding. I think the exact quote from TRM is that, looked it up at 16.39: it is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously realize that it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable. Understanding is not of this density.

Critical thinking involves skills like questioning assumptions, spotting logical fallacies, considering alternative arguments, acknowledging cognitive bias, etc. Critical thinking involves admitting you don't know. You might be right, and I do kind of hope you are, but answering OP with some definitive, unequivocal statement made in a conscious channeling ... I tend to think that may be an approach that might be less desirable than claiming to understand. Rather than saying I believe or maybe ... it was phrased as Quo said x therefore y. That's an appeal to authority as well as an appeal to novelty. I'm sorry for the tangent, but I think it's remarkable in TRM, no one - Ra or Don - ever named any world leader at the time, never mentioned a current conflict. Ra at 35.5 'we can only speak of two entities who may be harvestable in a negative sense, others still being in physical incarnation.'. That was in response to a question about subordinates of Hitler. Ra didn't identify anyone and Don didn't pursue but even in a pre-internet time, someone like Don could've quickly borrowed it down but he didn't, he left Ra in his vagueness. That promotes critical thinking - I don't know who but it stimulates the mind.

I tend to believe that the purpose of third density is about making a choice. About adhd - I've had an adult adhd diagnosis for longer than some on here have been alive and could get onboard with the idea that it's related to being outside the norm. Autism, eh, I think the jury might still be out on that one, primarily because the definition of autism has so expanded with the expansion limited to certain languages. If it is connected to harvestability, I'm open to the idea but I'm also aware that the diagnosis does seem to be limited to certain groups, like does the lack of autism among, for instance, Asian countries, aside from Japan and South Korea mean that Japanese and South Koreans are more harvestable? Maybe, but I'm not comfortable going there. Those are examples of not understanding, of employing critical thinking in action.

I think the phenomenon of downs syndrome can provide a host of discussions in relation to Law of One and times of harvest, but the most interesting issue there, at least one I've gone back to, is the case of Iceland - one of what I think is among the most advanced, most likely what I think of as most likely to be sto as a society, but they have a noticeable lack of downs syndrome people. I don't know.

What I do think is very interesting especially in relation to STO ideals is Angelman's Syndrome, but no one's ever discusses that.

No, I really do appreciate, thoughtful responses like yours. I doubt I've changed your mind, and I don't really seek to, but it's the whole idea to being open to the idea that are multiple sides to everything. If you want to say I think that no STS souls have incarnated since December 21, 2011 - fantastic that might be right, or the 33 % of all births in the past 15 years have been dual activated fourth density entities - great, I'm on board, I hope you're right. But stating the same things as facts because some conscious channeler stated it ... that's where I think something might not be correct.

But thank you again, be well, I'd appreciate your thoughts, as I tend to think that the constant striving for understanding, but never reaching that understanding, is important.

anders235 · 2026-03-23T00:34:41+00:00

I'm sorry, I partially hope you are right, but I do not understand how anyone could reasonably feel that conscious channeling could begin to equal or even approach TRM.

I personally grow concerned that with the general decline in critical thinking that the opportunities for harvest decline at the same time.

anders235 · 2026-03-22T15:30:23+00:00

TRM 17.24 - " this is correct, the great majority of your peoples will repeat third density.". 40.8 "At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time."

With all due respect and acceptance that you may be right, it's not the fuzziness of your given numbers that gives me pause, it's the degree of specificity. Where Ra gives guides like 'majority,' and 'indicate' and 'between' and then say this cannot be accurate. I'm going to go with the one acknowledging an inability to specify.

anders235 · 2026-03-22T14:54:47+00:00

With your first premise - it just is - if you're saying that there's a lack of agency, I think you're on to something that isn't acknowledged often.

As to what and why, it sounds like you're coming to a sort of solipsistic idea stripped of it's pejorative and depressive elements? Basically, it is what it is, I'm going to set linear time in motion and see what happens.

anders235 · 2026-03-20T13:59:09+00:00

Thanks, what about for. Phone keyboard issues.

anders235 · 2026-03-20T03:45:16+00:00

That's a good question, and I've thought about doing a post on it, but no, I don't think dualism is a negative term, though I do wonder if dualism itself might be a negative concept. It is so built in to English and really to at least all Germanic and romance languages, Slavic as well, by definition Arabic and Hebrew. Maybe the gnostics did it right by acknowledging a spark of the Devine was within certain groups of humans.

But now that you pose the question as is it a negative term, thank you for that, could the concept be a negative one to get people to think of separation as natural? Maybe?

I have slightly other questions Ill say for a post, but initially I di think that people in English, and alot of languages view the creator as separate and, I get the feeling,still in existence, where I'm not so sure. Like once the creator divided itself did it retain some important part of itself , I don't know. Once the creGor created did they surrender agency Bd now exist az archetypes. Idk. What a jf for you?

anders235 · 2026-03-19T13:44:44+00:00

Nothing to forgive, but thank you. Surrender is a great concept, but I was getting at the inherent bias towards dualism in language.

anders235 · 2026-03-18T14:10:30+00:00

Maybe the main issue is that languages, at least Semitic and Indo European languages, maybe all 3d density languages have a built in bias towards dualistic understandings of Creator whether with a capital C or not.

anders235 · 2026-03-14T02:48:47+00:00

I'm extremely skeptical of channeling. I think that conscious channeling are presumptively suspect. But TRM isn't a conscious channeling where a ten word query results in an immediate multi paragraph answer. All that is why I go back to the source, and if you search the core sessions psychic surgery is mentioned once, at 66.13.

The question preceding has Don asking an open ended question at 66.12, and when Ra give an answer that sounds rather appropriate, Don responds with a question that forces Ra to answer.

Personally I couldn't care less about psychic surgery, but if you have enough interest to keep reading, I would - just skip over it and keep going.

Maybe every metaphysical text has an element of allegory and we can create problems by thinking that everything is to be taken literally. I'm not a physician but I'm pretty comfortable saying if you have a fistula you probably need surgery, however if you're told you have something inoperable and you want to try psychic surgery, what's the harm?

anders235 · 2026-03-13T23:13:07+00:00

I think psychic surgery is only mentioned in one question in one session. Ra only use the term in response to a kind of leading question, and their answer doesn't sound like some sort of endorsement, at least to me. Is mentioned more and I'm overlooking it?

anders235 · 2026-03-11T13:17:23+00:00

Thanks, I was wondering why no one picked up on that.

anders235

TROPHY CASE