For me ‘positivity’ is to subscribe to less lies, approach more truth. It isn’t sweet oblivion. I don’t see how that can be achieved through intolerance of what is ‘negative’ (lies).
If there is something ‘negative’ (I’m not implying there has to be), it should be thoroughly known, for the sake of true positivity, if that’s what is wanted.
But ‘knowing’ here means direct, clear perception; not assumptions, theories, analysis, subscription to even more lies. The focusing on something negative gives the impression of perpetuation of negativity, as one doesn’t manage to resolve it, and adds more negativity, instead. But it isn’t true. It simply means that ‘knowing it’ is not occurring.
That’s why I write to perceive from source point, from true self, and I pound it over and over, again –and not out of caprice. It’s just the solution I have to negativity, to problems. Other routes can be taken, as well. And what I write in here in not meant to make those seem wrong.
I think an even better route would be to not put the negative there, in the first place, assuming you want truth. So then, that whole sequence described above, wouldn’t need to exist.
I just want to make clear that to not put it there, and to put it there and not directly perceive it, are two very different things. Sometimes, I read those corny mottos, about being positive and free, and I find them intentionally misleading. So my comment goes to them. People get asked to make negativity and call it positivity and feel good about it, as a way of solving it. If they were more honest they would ask people to be oblivious, so they wont get discovered. Personally, I don’t want to be used, and feel good about it. There is a reason why feeling good or bad exist. I just want to not be used.