Reciprocal System Research Society

we all know the 51/95 percentage numbers, so here's a semantic question:

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

or

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

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

-a

Let's first look at where those numbers came from:

Ra in Session 17 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been digging thru Oahspe, but have not yet been able to find the original reference spoken of here. If anyone knows where it is, please post.

WarmSylph wrote:

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

The service-to-self path is a conscious, yang approach to 3rd density choice. Being a local manifestation of space/time, the question "how do I do right towards myself" works in this case, as it is a matter of the head, and must be followed ruthlessly, if one is to succeed in their 95% dedication.

The service-to-other path is a conscious, yin approach to 3rd density choice. Being a non-local manifestation of time/space, you can't ask a question with your head--it must be asked by the heart, in words of feeling. Does compassion dictate your life choices, or are they blocked by the mind? That is why Ra says it is just as difficult for an STO person to get that 51%, as it is for an STS to get their 95%.

WarmSylph wrote:

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

There is an old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." 3rd density is about making choices, not "intending" to make a choice, so I think you can omit this option.

WarmSylph wrote:

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

People often think that who they are, and what they do, are two different things.

Perhaps Ivory, or should I say, Tulan, can explain that in more detail, as he recently figured it out for himself. WHAP--BlueEagle... pay attention!

ok, taking in your answer:

lets consider a whole day, as 100 percent.

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

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

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

-a

WarmSylph wrote:

ok, taking in your answer:

lets consider a whole day, as 100 percent.

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

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

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

Remember that the psyche is an aggregate of many hundreds or even thousands of complexes. The percentage doesn't really correlate to either actions or experiences, but to how much of your psyche has CHOSEN a specific path--this IS the "density of choice", so each valuing system in your psyche must make a choice. If they don't, then those votes don't get counted in the tally for Harvest.

When the vote is called, then the contents of the psyche--which determine your "vibrational level"--determine which path, and how far along you can go. If 51% of the complexes have made a choice to STO, or 95% to STS, then when you climb that staircase of ascension, you won't reach your level of discomfort until you are a couple of steps into the 4th density. Otherwise, the conflicting vibrations will keep you from stepping up many steps, and you will repeat 3rd density--again, to get the opportunity to MAKE the choices.

How do you get your complexes to make the service choice? Catalyst... you put yourself into situations where a particular complex is brought to the front of the consciousness for it's turn "at bat". The situation pitches the ball, and it takes a swing at it. Sometimes, you hit the ball and it makes its choice. Sometimes it strikes out, and will have to wait until another opportunity comes along to give it another try.

I have noticed that most of the people who have reached 4th density, have done so because they are not couch potatoes. They get out and do things in the world, and hence, the complexes in the psyche all get many turns at bat, and make their selection.

And here's a little "statistical" advantage:

To be STS, 19 out of 20 complexes must vote STS.

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

bperet wrote:

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

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

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

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

Actually, I beleive you should not become 'higher' then the complexes in your psyche (the complexes ARE your psyche) it should be a goal to respect each one, and to acknowledge each one.

*I* IS all of your complexes working together. To do that, you have to meet each one and understand it.

LB meant that you only need 2 complexes out of 3 in order to qualify as STO.

lvx08 wrote:

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

51% = Simple majority, yin approach, STO.

95% = Two standard deviations, yang approach, STS.

Just different perspectives on grouping data.

lvx08 wrote:

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

That is why it is not 100% for the choices.

lvx08 wrote:

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

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

bperet wrote:

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

A permanent I forms through the process of self-remembering which occurs when one observes oneself. This allows all 3 centres- the feeling, thinking, and instinctive centres - to operate correctly; and for the essence and personality to develop together rather than the personality dominating essence which is what usuallly happens. G. talks about vanity, self love, self-delusion, inner considering (being preoccupied with how others see oneself) and lying - all of which can be seen to be STS qualities and are results from a now now non existent organ in the human being called the kundabuffer - these qualities tend to abate the more one develops a permanent I. Also one is able to perceive man's true relationship to the cosmos - knowledge that we have now lost.

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

lvx08 wrote:

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

Interesting relationship: feeling (mind,anima), thinking (spirit,animus), instinctive (body,ego).

lvx08 wrote:

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

The observation is a good one, though I do not discount the importance of the STS system, particularly in youth. It is how one concentrates enough content and energy on the "I" to force it to gestalt into permanence. If we did not experience the self-centered attitudes, then the personality (and identity) would dissolve as a drop of water in the ocean.

lvx08 wrote:

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

Sometimes, things appear "lost", but in actuality, it is the perception of them that has changed, making them unidentifiable until a new paradigm comes along to point it out.

lvx08 wrote:

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

In my opinion, the complexes grow as the permanent "I" develops. In the Larsonian physics that we study here, the way a "sub-atomic particle" is distinguished from an "atom" is due to the fact that the particle does not have sufficient "motion" -- energy, if you will -- to reach outside it's unit boundary (kind of like an "I"). Once it interacts with other particles, the internal motion increases, and then it reaches past it's own boundaries and into the outside world, becoming "atomic", where it can then form more complex structures, such as molecules.

I think you are describing a similar pattern here, where the transition to the permanent "I" is like crossing the unit boundary into another realm, and is dependent upon the growth of what is inside.