Reciprocal System Research Society

Hi all,

part1:

polarity , the dark/bright portions of self and associations with good and evil and primarly the relationship of good VS evil.

so, and I feel like I say this to much, but 'ra says' - polarity, service to self or service to others, are benign and not to be judged. Ok, speaking from an enlightened perspective I imagine this makes sense but I am still holding onto some deep associations about good and evil here, mainly that I still beleive that good is the right and evil is the wrong - and this transfer over towards the polarities, whcih are without this illusion as is told. My question is how, i'd like to dissolve my illusion about good and evil and not lose what I consider my moral fiber. THis is definately caught up with the mythologies i've integrated from movies and books and history and what not, and I realize that in our current history we've not had any GREAT examples of STO communities or countries or instances where STO and STS exist without the associations oif good vs evil.

to break down good and evil:

evil is that which desires to control, harm and end the presence of the good (that which keeps me alive, happy and without suffering), and good is that which runs contrary to the tenets of evil(that which causes suffering to the evil by preventing its singular omnipotence). And in almost all mythologies the battle between good and evil is one of the conquering and vanquishing of evil, where good presides and evil is run off or defeated. What place do these things have if serving the self and serving others are both valid paths towards one-ness?

2. the dark and bright sides of self.

so furthering, my good/evil associations become associations with that which is dark and that which is bright - dark/evil/serving self, bright/good/serving others. So naturally I avoid going deep into the darker sides of myself, afraid that I will become some sort of malevolent and perverse 'harmer' - working to just cause people to suffer and feel terror. This is not something I want and so holding onto to this good/evil dichotomy is extremely narrowing. I find it difficult to dissolve my attachments to good and evil because its in every religious doctrine and so I am not sure how to redefine polarity and action.

SO how does one integrate the darker side of self without siding with it or succuming to it? Rereading that it says that I am afraid that in accepting and loving that which is dark about myself I will become that and become hated and hateful, or vengeful and ostracized - loosing my compassion and finding only pleasure in torture.

so what is the dark? what is the bright? how does one be Obi Wan AND Vader in pure equanimity? How can one 'side' with a polarity and not fall into the good vs evil illusion?

I think is is all I can ask for now. thank you all!

_Adam

ws wrote:

evil is that which desires to control, harm and end the presence of the good (that which keeps me alive, happy and without suffering), and good is that which runs contrary to the tenets of evil(that which causes suffering to the evil by preventing its singular omnipotence). And in almost all mythologies the battle between good and evil is one of the conquering and vanquishing of evil, where good presides and evil is run off or defeated. What place do these things have if serving the self and serving others are both valid paths towards one-ness?

The fact that they are valid paths towards one-ness is what gives them a place. But since in 1st tier consciousness, both evaluations of evil and good are tied to what's in the unconscousness, and thus evaluations not based on what is consciously understood. So there is a lot of confusion. But the confusion is not necessary. It is kept in place primarily due to things like fear. Wilber's characterization of the "mean green meme" is an example of where these evaluations of good and evil have led to quite unhealthy attitudes and prejudices in a large segment of our world population.
ws wrote:

So naturally I avoid going deep into the darker sides of myself, afraid that I will become some sort of malevolent and perverse 'harmer' - working to just cause people to suffer and feel terror.

But you've got to see what's there and come to terms with it.
ws wrote:

This is not something I want and so holding onto to this good/evil dichotomy is extremely narrowing. I find it difficult to dissolve my attachments to good and evil because its in every religious doctrine and so I am not sure how to redefine polarity and action.

So don't hold on to it. Attempt to understand your true valuing system and you will learn more about yourself and have a broader perspective of "good" and "evil" in the process.

ws wrote:

SO how does one integrate the darker side of self without siding with it or succuming to it?

Jung's concept of the shadow is a phenomenally effective model of this dark side or "personal unconscious".

Here's a very easy book on the subject for starters:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 0062507540
ws wrote:

Rereading that it says that I am afraid that in accepting and loving that which is dark about myself I will become that and become hated and hateful, or vengeful and ostracized - loosing my compassion and finding only pleasure in torture.

That same fear, in fact all irrational fear, is dissolved as you begin to understand what's in your shadow.
ws wrote:

so what is the dark?

Unconsciousness.
ws wrote:

what is the bright?

Consciousness.
ws wrote:

how does one be Obi Wan AND Vader in pure equanimity? How can one 'side' with a polarity and not fall into the good vs evil illusion?

Because dark does not equal evil, it's just the same as what's unknown. The negative polarity is associated with dark because of intention alone, not because dark is an aspect of one's beingness. It's what you *do* with what you have to work with, not *what* you have to work with.

I've been wondering about this vmeme thing. Instead of transcend and include, don't people usually transcend and suppress? Is that the source of the shadow? (Forgive me if I'm misusing that term, I'm not really well read on Jung.)

And after suppress don't we project on to others?

ld wrote:

Instead of transcend and include, don't people usually transcend and suppress?

What's transcended and included, with the vMemes, are core values that a level of consciousness is capable of using to cope in an unknown world. The values drive integration or the process of becoming whole. And this process of becoming whole simply involves accepting more and more of who you are.

What is not consciously accepted or integrated is going to be suppressed regardless of vMeme level. However, it seems that progressing through the memes involves integration of personal unconscious. Green vMeme seems to be where the most 3rd Density work occurs in integration of the shadow, and where some strong projection occurs.

ld wrote:

Is that the source of the shadow? (Forgive me if I'm misusing that term, I'm not really well read on Jung.)

The source of the shadow is oneself. It's an inherent part of an individuals "psyche". Take a look at Jung's model of the psyche (google).

ld wrote:

And after suppress don't we project on to others?

What is suppressed can be projected on others, and usually is in a variety of subtle or not so subtle ways. It is more likely to be projected when the suppressor is dealing with aspects of their own existence, such as a misunderstanding related to "who" they are, that require the use of something currently in their shadow. One such misunderstanding is known as the "romantic relationship", where mutual projection occurs. I personally think projection must be operating in some manner until 6th density (until there is no polarity).

Little Dragon wrote:

I've been wondering about this vmeme thing. Instead of transcend and include, don't people usually transcend and suppress?

Yes, they do. It happens because the achieve a balance, and then forget the components they balanced. This is why a "stream of consciousness" is important. One must remember the past, or be doomed to repeat it. (They "transcend", then go and make all the same mistakes again).

Little Dragon wrote:

Is that the source of the shadow? (Forgive me if I'm misusing that term, I'm not really well read on Jung.)

The mind complex, being a 2nd density function, integrates aspects of space/time and time/space. This means there are two different "perspectives" of the 2nd density "mind" complex, which we view as ego (space/time) and shadow (time/space). The ego and shadow are, for all practical purposes, opposite sides of the same coin.

Little Dragon wrote:

And after suppress don't we project on to others?

Yes; as soon as you push something into the unconscious, it pops back out through identification, projection than transferrence.

Little Dragon wrote:

And after suppress don't we project on to others?

bperet wrote:

Yes; as soon as you push something into the unconscious, it pops back out through identification, projection than transferrence.

The other thing that happens with suppressed material is the process of "dreaming up" (a concept developed by post Jungian Arnold Mindell in his process oriented psychology). For example a person who is not consciously identified with being angry will give out unconscious angry signals viz tapping fingers, tone of voice, etc. Someone who is near this person may find themselves unconsciously responding to these signals and become angry ; thereby the unconscioulsy angry person is made more aware of his anger.