Polarizing to values?

[Keith]

I understand the premise behind polarisation - that you can be much more focussed if you're not oscillating between different goals.

But I've always been fairly paranoid about either/or options. And it was Steve who told us to look for that alternative third option.

So are there really only these two options 'self' and 'other' to polarise to? Or are those just the ones that resonated strongly with Steve?

Since 'self-interest' and 'serving others' are values, can you polarise to other values? eg. if justice (universal fairness) is the most important thing to you, couldn't you polarise towards that? This would create an 'Order/Chaos' polarity axis (with universal fairness and equality at one extreme and complete individual freedom at the other) - to which 'self vs other' is meaningless.

Presumably this could be done for other values too.

If polarising is 'just' a mental tool (as it appears to be), is there any particular reason to polarise along a 'self/other' axis that may have nothing to do with your core values, rather than along an axis that does?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Keith

I understand the premise behind polarisation - that you can be much more focussed if you're not oscillating between different goals.

But I've always been fairly paranoid about either/or options. And it was Steve who told us to look for that alternative third option.

So are there really only these two options 'self' and 'other' to polarise to?

Since self-interest and serving others are values, can you polarise to other values? eg. if you highly value affection (human emotional connection), couldn't you polarise towards creating affection? This creates a n 'affection' polarity axis - generating affection vs reducing affection - to which 'self vs other' is meaningless.

Presumably this could be done for most other values too.

If polarising is 'just' a mental tool (as it appears to be), is there any particular reason to polarise along a 'self/other' axis that may have nothing to do with your core values, rather than along an axis that does?

You can help yourself and the world at the same time while being polarized in the direction of love.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by Keith

I understand the premise behind polarisation - that you can be much more focussed if you're not oscillating between different goals.

But I've always been fairly paranoid about either/or options. And it was Steve who told us to look for that alternative third option.

So are there really only these two options 'self' and 'other' to polarise to?

Since self-interest and serving others are values, can you polarise to other values? eg. if you highly value affection (human emotional connection), couldn't you polarise towards creating affection? This creates a n 'affection' polarity axis - generating affection vs reducing affection - to which 'self vs other' is meaningless.

Presumably this could be done for most other values too.

If polarising is 'just' a mental tool (as it appears to be), is there any particular reason to polarise along a 'self/other' axis that may have nothing to do with your core values, rather than along an axis that does?

You didnt fully understand the concept here. You cant polarize to affection, what you can do is create an intention towards affection. And it leaves us with the question of why do you want to manifest affection into your life?

Is it because you primarily want others to feel well and happy or you are more concerned about making yourself happy? If you are more headed into making others feel happy then this is a Lightworker Intention. If you want to fill your need for affection and dont care as much for other's need then you have here a Darkworker Intention.

First you must know if your Intentions are primarily to make you happy or if your concern is with primarily making others happy, once you know what you are more drawn into, then polarize and create intentions that are congruent with your polarization.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Sam988

You didnt fully understand the concept here.

That's possible. OTOH, it's also possible that you didn't fully understand my concept. That's partly my fault, since I'm still working it out as I go along.

Affection is a bad example. Justice or fairness is a better one.

Originally Posted by Sam988

You cant polarize to affection, what you can do is create an intention towards affection. And it leaves us with the question of why do you want to manifest affection into your life?

Because I view affection as important in and of itself. Going with the clearer example of Justice/Fairness, I believe life should be fair because it's right that it be that way.

The value supercedes self vs other. I can't have more equality than someone else - that's a nonsense. Nor can they have more equality than me.

It's an axis that's completely independent to Self/Worldworker. You can polarise towards (to use the traditional names) Order. Or you can polarise the opposite way towards Chaos.

And I doubt these are the only two possible axes.

Underlying our polarisations rest our internal images of how we see the world, and how we think it should be. If we view it as "us or them" then the Self/Worldworkers polarity emerges. Similarly other polarities emerge from other percieved dichotomies.

Originally Posted by impaul99

You can help yourself and the world at the same time while being polarized in the direction of love.

Exactly. Some values just transcend the (apparent) 'self/other' dichotomy. They're 'alternative third options' to that dichotomy.

Steve has polarised to Worldworker along the Worldworker vs Self-worker axis. This flows naturally from his history, beliefs and experiences.

It's a huge leap to assume that Selfworker/Worldworker is the sole universal axis rather than just the one that resonates strongly with Steve.

[Keith]

I have (AFAICT) a whole new way of looking at this polarisation issue. Is this really all the interest there is in exploring the idea?

P.S. I am reluctant to *bump* my own thread but I'm making an exception this once because of the thread's potential importance.

[Sam988]

Try for 30 days "polarizing to affection" and you will get my point.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Try for 30 days "polarizing to affection" and you will get my point.

I did state in every single post that that was a poorly chosen example.

Consider polarising to something like 'Fairness' instead. 'Compassion' would probably work too.

IMO the key is that it has to be something that can consume all your energies. That can be an unending focus to your life.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Keith

I did state in every single post that that was a poorly chosen example.

Consider polarising to something like 'Fairness' instead. 'Compassion' would probably work too.

IMO the key is that it has to be something that can consume all your energies. That can be an unending focus to your life.

Compassion sounds like an awesome goal!

Now, are you saying let's consider compassion as having polarization?
So what are the two ends of the compassion polarization?
Does polarized compassion have a target?

Compassion for who or what? or where? Self or others? Both? Where do you draw the line to define where this compassion reaches?

Do you give compassion to yourself more than "others"? Or, like I strive or think it must be to operate at all, first compassion to self which naturally allows or affords you the chance to extend compassion outwordly as seen from the individual.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Compassion sounds like an awesome goal!

Now, are you saying let's consider compassion as having polarization?
So what are the two ends of the compassion polarization?
Does polarized compassion have a target?

Compassion for who or what? or where? Self or others? Both? Where do you draw the line to define where this compassion reaches?

Do you give compassion to yourself more than "others"? Or, like I strive or think it must be to operate at all, first compassion to self which naturally allows or affords you the chance to extend compassion outwordly as seen from the individual.

Wolfgang you stated it in a way i wanted to, but couldn't figure how.
Thanks. Maybe it gets clearer to others now.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Wolfgang you stated it in a way i wanted to, but couldn't figure how.
Thanks. Maybe it gets clearer to others now.

Thanks. Maybe listening to some Buddhist speakers helped.

There is actually a particular meditation that does encourage a certain kind of self absorbtion - there was a name for this mediation but I have to listen again and write it down. Maybe I'll remeber to post this info later this week.

But the kind of self absorbtion the Buddhist was talking about was the kind that doesn't exclude others. It seemed to align with what Steve wrote. The self absorbtion was of being compassionate. Tried to google some info on it but I don't remember the key words right now.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Compassion sounds like an awesome goal!
Now, are you saying let's consider compassion as having polarization?

Yes.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

So what are the two ends of the compassion polarization?

The two ends of the spectrum are absolute Compassion and complete detachment. Taoists and Zen Buddhists would polarise to complete detachment, for example.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Does polarized compassion have a target?
Compassion for who or what? or where? Self or others? Both? Where do you draw the line to define where this compassion reaches?

There is no line. Polarising to compassion means that you feel compassion for everyone (which you are a subset of), and that you focus on creating a more compassionate world, too.

ie. Compassion is a polarity that encompasses everyone (and perhaps all forms of life?). It's like the atmosphere - it has no target.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Do you give compassion to yourself more than "others"?

Like the selfworker/worldworker polarity it's a spectrum. You would be polarising towards compassion for all. In practice, just like selfworkers/worldworkers it would probably take you a while to reach that point.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Or, like I strive or think it must be to operate at all, first compassion to self which naturally allows or affords you the chance to extend compassion outwordly as seen from the individual.

You can generally do both as part of the same focus, but if that isn't possible in a given case, that's still a step up the spectrum towards complete polarity.

To clarify here, this isn't just being compassionate to yourself and compassionate to others in parallel. When you polarise to compassion, the behavours of compassion to both yourself and others emerges naturally from that.

It's (very) rougly analogous to getting healthy. When you first start getting healthy you have trouble figuring out how to balance diet and exercise and sleep and what exercises to do and what food to have - there's a conflict. But once you're a bit more experienced you just "do what's healthy" from moment to moment by feel.

Similarly, when you're polarised to compassion you don't decide "me or him" on a case by case basis - you just be compassionate.