This is just a hypothesis, but I feel that things like sexuality and gender are evolving in a sense. Hear me out...
I'm a young person, and I'm also in college. I've noticed over the couple years an increase in people who, instead of identifying as male or female (in regards to gender, not sex), they identify as non-binary, genderfluid, trans, agender, and others of the sort. And this isn't with young people only, like grown adults and people in their 60s and 70s having these feelings. Saw a documentary about an old man who knew he wanted to be a woman since he was kid. When it comes to sexuality, more people are being open about their desires, and some even say that their sexuality changes over time, or has changed during their lifetime.
There's also a National Geographic documentary on gender (forgot its title...I'll find it), and despite everyone saying that this is just a trend, there are actually lots of cultures that believe in the concept of multiple genders, not to mention the countless religions with sexless and genderless idols. There's a culture in India that acknowledges the existence of 5 genders, and that's been going on for like 400 years if I'm not mistaken.
I personally have no problem with any of this, as one's gender is irrelevant to their actions and/or character. One could identify as a triple decker waffle with cheese and I'll still accept them.
Anyway the question is... as there has been an increase in positivity and awakening in the consciousness as time goes on closer to Ascension, could breakage from peoples human identities be a sign of the shift in consciousness?
Like individuals are becoming more..."into themselves", and therefore perhaps mentally are steering away from human gender? I haven't read the Law of One yet (actually just bought the first book!), though I am very familiar with it and have read excerpts. Is this mentioned anywhere?
Breakage from identities is a sign of maturing consciousness, IMO. But that’s not what I am seeing with the consensus of people. Instead I see that people are embracing identities and labels and judging others according to those identities. People are not being seen as unique individuals, they’re seen as “this” identity or “that” identity.
This is an indication of orange ray drop down and yellow ray blockage. Orange Ray is self in relation to self. The yellow ray deals with self in relation to groups.
With those who’re embracing identities and ideology, they’re getting stuck in a tribalistic attitude. My group vs. your group. “We’re the good guys, you’re the bad guys. Therefore I am justified in doing or saying whatever I want because I am a victim.” This kind of attitude only keeps the wheel of karma turning.
In fourth density, all things are revealed. The self faces the self. With 4D light shining ever more brightly, the 3D population is facing itself for the first time. The shadows are coming out within ourselves and the world at large. There is much projection going on as well. When one refuses to see the shadows in himself he sees them in everyone else.
Anyway, I don’t see “non binary” or “gender fluidity” as a sign of rising consciousness. To have an open heart towards all others and accepting them for who they are, without condition, is a sign of rising consciousness. Identities and labels are false. It limits the self and others. We are far greater than any identity.
The Law of One says that there is ONLY identity. That identity is the One Infinite Creator. We can contemplate and meditate on that.
Life by many is still seen as a competition. many play dirty to win. make others look bad to look better themselves.
Harvest has begun. I expect a lot more. When everyone's a brother to one another that I would say is a sign of rising consciousness.
My theory on this is that, to the extent gender is a social construct, the society is becoming able to accommodate broader roles as we drive towards social memory. IMHO, one can view the conservative rejection of more fluid roles as a yellow ray impulse to maintain discipline and legibility of the society. By discipline, I mean the benefits (from the conservative point of view) of using gender conformity as an element of more general social conformity and obedience to constituted authority. By legibility, I mean to point out that a society composed of entirely unique expressions of gender--for example, the profusion of pronouns we're seeing--is more complex to reason about and understand at a glance.
The tricky thing about this is the yellow ray aspects of the gender revolution--by that I mean the extent to which people's journey of identity becomes aggregated into a yellow ray political bloc, which then becomes simply a reciprocal attempt to discipline society e.g. through some rather hostile forms of so-called "political correctness" culture.
(11-14-2017, 12:01 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]My theory on this is that, to the extent gender is a social construct, the society is becoming able to accommodate broader roles as we drive towards social memory. IMHO, one can view the conservative rejection of more fluid roles as a yellow ray impulse to maintain discipline and legibility of the society. By discipline, I mean the benefits (from the conservative point of view) of using gender conformity as an element of more general social conformity and obedience to constituted authority. By legibility, I mean to point out that a society composed of entirely unique expressions of gender--for example, the profusion of pronouns we're seeing--is more complex to reason about and understand at a glance.
The tricky thing about this is the yellow ray aspects of the gender revolution--by that I mean the extent to which people's journey of identity becomes aggregated into a yellow ray political bloc, which then becomes simply a reciprocal attempt to discipline society e.g. through some rather hostile forms of political correctness culture.
That was a very complex response...what were you trying to say exactly? I don't understand.
(11-14-2017, 02:12 PM)blackwanderer Wrote: [ -> ]That was a very complex response...what were you trying to say exactly? I don't understand.
I thought I was pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure how I can reword this for you. Would you consider asking some specific questions about what you didn't understand? I'm happy to take the time to break this down, but I don't know how to just retype my entire response in a way that I feel would be more comprehensible without some guidance from you. Thanks!
(11-14-2017, 02:33 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote: [ -> ] (11-14-2017, 02:12 PM)blackwanderer Wrote: [ -> ]That was a very complex response...what were you trying to say exactly? I don't understand.
I thought I was pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure how I can reword this for you. Would you consider asking some specific questions about what you didn't understand? I'm happy to take the time to break this down, but I don't know how to just retype my entire response in a way that I feel would be more comprehensible without some guidance from you. Thanks!
No it's fine, you don't have to. I got a general idea of what you were saying. It's just that I'm new, so I'm trying to get use to the way people post here. It's kind of difficult to comprehend sometimes.
I think it can be a sign of thinking and acting outside the box, based on one's own decsions and not on society's. However, I would say that it is, in part, trendy, and trendy is definitely "in the box" thinking.
The blending of aspects of human society—sexuality, race, culture, etc.—I think is a sign of rising consciousness in general. But I don't think any particular thing is a signpost of of individual higher consciousness. It's more a step toward freedom and acceptance.
On the other hand, I've long thought that the sexual confusion and expansion of thinking in this area is a clue to where we might be heading as a species—toward relationships and procreation not based on physical anatomy and a result of energy (wave function), not physiology (particle function). It's a rather complicated subject. The problem is that people seek validation, therefore bypassing explanations that seem mundane—and this indicates a lack of acceptance.
I advocate no labels at all. Therein, I think, lies the key to freedom of expression, which leads to acceptance and transformation of both individual and mass consciousness.
I have encountered a number of individuals who actually prefer labels because it helps them to organize their thoughts and because they feel it helps to give them context and validation in their lives. I used to be 'against' labels but if people are applying them to themselves and they feel comfortable and free doing that then I see no reason view them as 'less free' just because they like something concrete to go on. It seems to me freedom is often correlated with "no definition" but I really understand it that the exploration of identity means being 'self-defined' rather than being without definition at all. To each their own, just my two cents.
I also know people who see 'no definition' as a prison with no direction, so it really varies.
(11-15-2017, 12:01 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]I have encountered a number of individuals who actually prefer labels because it helps them to organize their thoughts and because they feel it helps to give them context and validation in their lives. I used to be 'against' labels but if people are applying them to themselves and they feel comfortable and free doing that then I see no reason view them as 'less free' just because they like something concrete to go on. It seems to me freedom is often correlated with "no definition" but I really understand it that the exploration of identity means being 'self-defined' rather than being without definition at all. To each their own, just my two cents.
I also know people who see 'no definition' as a prison with no direction, so it really varies.
I am not saying that people shouldn't do what works for them.
If a person needs to identify with a label in order to have the courage to be who they want to be, or give them direction, that's fine.
But a label is an attachment to something. In my mind, true freedom, with all possibilities, would have no attachments. A label is something you are defined by. I personally don't want to be defined by anyone because I am female, or heterosexual, or white. This thinking in some energetic way limits me. At least that's how I see it. I like all doors open, all possibilities open so evolution of consciousness is unfettered by attachments. This is the ideal of course, and it is something I strive for and not necessarily sustain.
To say that no definitions is a prison makes no sense to me in the context of evolution of consciousness, once one moves past animal behaviors. I like order and organization, and the human drive to recognize patterns is part of my brain and I feel good when I exercise this. This is related to the desire to label. But I think this is because of a primal instinct for survival. Pattern recognition was and is crucial to animal survival.
It's great to categorize species, and learn about the environment. This furthers understanding of this world to a certain extent. But it's mind. When one looks at a flower, and connects with its very being energetically, no labels are needed, no genus and species classification.
I think you're just describing your own idea of freedom and your preferential thinking, thats totally cool. However I believe that freedom is an "open" concept and it is procedurally explored by each consciousness so I wouldn't agree to apply your own definitions to all individuals.
What you seem to suggest is that mind is less meaningful than "energy" but the mind is energy too so I don't really follow you there. A word is just another layer of an experience. Sure, you don't need any mental knowledge to interact with anything but I don't believe mental knowledge to be an attachment.
I really think its a matter of one's own sense of self compared to labels. You dont like labels because your sense of self does not line up with any of the labels. Labels CAN define things but they dont have to. I use labels all the time without really identifying them. They are a tool.
So what you are saying is totally valid for sure, and I know there are plenty others with similar thoughts, but I dont quite believe in the universality of the perspective and principle.
I think all the planes - mental, physical, emotional, spiritual - are equally important for the grasping of nature in its totality for all things are part of the One. They are just different ways of navigating the same archetypes. At least, thats how I see it.
(11-15-2017, 12:43 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're just describing your own idea of freedom and your preferential thinking, thats totally cool.
I get what you're saying. And I agree that all is energy at some level. But there is the wave function and the particle function. If you don't resonate with that, and I would understand it because it's just really where science has gotten to recently, then we part ways here. The particle function is the collapsed outcome—the label. The wave function would include all outcomes—no collapsed outcome, no label. Where is more freedom—wave or particle?
(11-15-2017, 12:43 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]However I believe that freedom is an "open" concept and it is procedurally explored by each consciousness so I wouldn't agree to apply your own definitions to all individuals.
But I'm not defining anything. The labels define.
I do however agree that freedom is an open concept, and that freedom to you may be quite different than freedom to me.
I don't really agree with your analogy there. I am well aware of the wave-particle duality but it seems you are using the concept to poetically describe your concept of labels. I see what you're saying but I don't really think its actually representative of what 'labels' are. It is an interesting analogy though that is certain valid as an analogy, but it is only that. It works for that function and I do see what you're trying to express.
The labels do not define, imo, people have to define labels and then those definitions through labels are applied by the person. All the defining is still done by the individual. For example, many words mean different things to different people so one word label doesnt necessarily mean the same thing to one person as another. Such in the case with my fiance's younger sister apparently it was popular to use the word "trash" to describe what is cool. So call in yourself or someone else trash would be a compliment. Thus, I don't think 'labels' are nearly as concrete as they are made out to be even if some people treat them that way.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of identity and from misunderstanding through misnomer and I empower you to discover that through whatever conceptualization works for you. I am just always eager to point out that whatever is true for one, the opposite is probably true for another. Not intending to challenge your way of thinking or anything. I personally see myself as "silence", without words, so I do understand what you are trying to get at. I am just trying to clarify my own perspective.
(11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]The labels do not define, imo, people have to define labels and then those definitions through labels are applied by the person. All the defining is still done by the individual. For example, many words mean different things to different people so one word label doesnt necessarily mean the same thing to one person as another. Such in the case with my fiance's younger sister apparently it was popular to use the word "trash" to describe what is cool. So call in yourself or someone else trash would be a compliment. Thus, I don't think 'labels' are nearly as concrete as they are made out to be even if some people treat them that way.
I don't see slang (trash) as being comparable to labeling someone's sexuality. As far as labels not being as concrete as they are made out to be—then why seek them or use them? I can see wanting to discover an identity or tendency and utilizing a category to become clear about something; but why then use the label for yourself if you don't subscribe to the general meaning? What purpose does it serve? To tell someone, I am pansexual or asexual or gay or heterosexual, must bring with this declaration an agreement to what that means via using the label. Otherwise, why not use your own words if needed?
(11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of identity and from misunderstanding through misnomer and I empower you to discover that through whatever conceptualization works for you. I am just always eager to point out that whatever is true for one, the opposite is probably true for another. Not intending to challenge your way of thinking or anything. I personally see myself as "silence", without words, so I do understand what you are trying to get at. I am just trying to clarify my own perspective.
You mean truth is relative to the person? Well, that depends on what you think of as truth. I would say perspective and perception are relative to the person, but I suspect there are universal truths, or one might say universal laws, like the Law of One. I'm open to new input though, and what I might suspect is a universal truth at this point will most probably change or even cease to exist as a supposition.
What do you mean by seeing yourself as "silence," without words? I'd like you to expound on that.
Just to remind people that you can address all complaints about the gender system to the Council of Saturn, can be done in meditation without faith even.
My feeling is that it will be considered in guiding you toward your next space-time of experience. A space-time where you may find a place to experience identifying the Creator you feel within to a more resonant mind-construct of identity in relation to its other-selves. It is the belief of the Council that all space has its purpose and that you find yourself of your own free will in the space you stand in this moment, all because it offers something you seek on some level of yourself. Have no doubt that there are many stars with fancier systems of identity of the Creator in the experience of the Creator and we encourage that you go about this experience without worry that there is a time you are all that you can desire to be.
Be in peace ever growing with all things.
(11-15-2017, 06:44 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]The labels do not define, imo, people have to define labels and then those definitions through labels are applied by the person. All the defining is still done by the individual. For example, many words mean different things to different people so one word label doesnt necessarily mean the same thing to one person as another. Such in the case with my fiance's younger sister apparently it was popular to use the word "trash" to describe what is cool. So call in yourself or someone else trash would be a compliment. Thus, I don't think 'labels' are nearly as concrete as they are made out to be even if some people treat them that way.
I don't see slang (trash) as being comparable to labeling someone's sexuality. As far as labels not being as concrete as they are made out to be—then why seek them or use them? I can see wanting to discover an identity or tendency and utilizing a category to become clear about something; but why then use the label for yourself if you don't subscribe to the general meaning? What purpose does it serve? To tell someone, I am pansexual or asexual or gay or heterosexual, must bring with this declaration an agreement to what that means via using the label. Otherwise, why not use your own words if needed?
(11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of identity and from misunderstanding through misnomer and I empower you to discover that through whatever conceptualization works for you. I am just always eager to point out that whatever is true for one, the opposite is probably true for another. Not intending to challenge your way of thinking or anything. I personally see myself as "silence", without words, so I do understand what you are trying to get at. I am just trying to clarify my own perspective.
You mean truth is relative to the person? Well, that depends on what you think of as truth. I would say perspective and perception are relative to the person, but I suspect there are universal truths, or one might say universal laws, like the Law of One. I'm open to new input though, and what I might suspect is a universal truth at this point will most probably change or even cease to exist as a supposition.
What do you mean by seeing yourself as "silence," without words? I'd like you to expound on that.
I think you're asking the wrong person. I don't adhere to 'labels' in the sense you are suggesting but I appreciate the purpose they serve for some and that is more my point. I think that some people place a lot of weight on words and other people do not. So maybe for some people such a thing is a strong declaration of identity, but for others they may not look so deep in to it. It's a different journey of discovery for everyone. Not everyone finds their groove right away, so they may go through a few different identities which may be totally opposite to eachother before settling on a sense of self. Some use labels to navigate this sense of self. Others seek to shed it away. It is just a different method.
I actually think there is a lot of Eastern influence in the idea of dissolution, whereas in the Western there is more building up. The two types of system are complimentary but you only sometimes see them portrayed together.
As for seeing myself as silence, that is the core identity which I know myself as, it is perfect, absolute equilibrium, unmoving, eternal, untouched. Nothing disturbs it, nor is it ever disturbed. It is absolute, infinite potential and thus completely Unmanifest. Thus, I am Silence. I am the void before the breath before the word. Yet, all these are just words which points away from that which I am, which is only properly expressed as utter silence.
I rather enjoyed Diana's analogy. It's how I sometimes think sexuality is evolving. I have noted many people who no longer feel like labels adequately fit them, yet with these labels they at least get a starting point at finding the right words to express themselves.
That expression often leaves me with the sensation that things like sexuality and romance are evolving into many variations, the spectrum widens in 4D, we're seeing that on a red ray level now as more and more people say that they don't identify with the typical choices anymore.
Some people like the dark love of vampires and demons, others like the soft love of cuddles and hugs, some like only people they form a close relationship with, others can only be sexually attracted to someone they've made a close relationship with. Some just need to find that right person. Others need to just be alone.
I think most transgender people will provide one way good or bad a valuable lesson to society. As I do of asexual and such people, they'll lead to an opening of the collective mind in time as they become more presently known.
I mean we're at 8 billion people, i think its fair that many of them no longer wish to participate in procreation, while others feel no desire to regardless.
Now that we've got the people, further exploration of humanity is possible now.
Yeah man, everybody has to find what floats their own boat.
I've met a lot of genderfluid/nonbinary people lately, actually. The primary point is to reject traditional gender roles, and also gender based language. One small thing being combated is the fact that we default to "he" instead of a gender neutral pronoun like "they". Being around these new friends has really affected my conscious use of language, which I find extremely valuable. A lot of people who consider themselves nonbinary do it as a support for those who legitimately have gender identity issues -often their partner(s), because a lot of nonbinary and genderfluid and transgender people that I know are in polyamorous relationships. But the fact is, it's about not identifying with either gender construct, really, and I think that's an important step that society needs to take and moved past. There are very few things within traditional gender roles that are actually positive manifestations of human experience, because it's about elevating one's gender above the other in a see-saw - men are good at this, women are good at this. It's extremely limiting. I think Jeremy is right that the backlash is about trying to maintain social order through traditional roles and constructs, and why it's perceived as something potentially dangerous like "hostile PC culture" when people are deliberately thwarting it. I've yet to see nonbinary/transgender people rallying in the streets with tiki torches and running cis-gendered people down with their cars, or shooting up Wal-Marts, so I find calling it a hostile culture to be a little bit of an hyperbole at this point in our society.
Ra also says that the fact that we live in such close, overpopulated cities that a lot of confusion occurs in the aura regarding sexuality. Those of us who see themselves clearly as one gender, and clearly are only attracted to one gender, have no idea the kind of confusion and shame that those who struggle with these ideas experience every single day, often starting as children. I have a basic understanding because I definitely never identified with being a "girl" from a very young age, and was often punished by my father for not filling traditional gender roles well into adulthood. I like what Aion said about it being about each spark of the Creator finding their own unique identity. It's a ripe paradox between unity with creation and establishment of our own individual spark - but this is why we are in third density, to play with all the paradoxes and learn about the subtle shades between the lines.
(11-16-2017, 10:43 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Ra also says that the fact that we live in such close, overpopulated cities that a lot of confusion occurs in the aura regarding sexuality. Those of us who see themselves clearly as one gender, and clearly are only attracted to one gender, have no idea the kind of confusion and shame that those who struggle with these ideas experience every single day, often starting as children.
Unity100 canvasses this idea well here:
https://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthre...?tid=14997 (Also referenced above in a post.)
There was an experiment with rats back in the 70's (I think). It was an experiment regarding overpopulation. They correlated degrees of overpopulation in the rat environment with the rise of human societal behavioral anomalies such as violence, stealing, and homosexuality. I am not saying that homosexuality is an anomaly, only that what Ra says about overpopulated cities, and what Unity100 canvasses in the above thread, make sense—that confusion would arise from close proximities to each other's energy fields, and therefore make it difficult to access clear feedback from one's own energy field.
And referencing Unity100's suppositions, this would present a particular challenge for anyone who might be very empathic.
(11-16-2017, 10:43 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]One small thing being combated is the fact that we default to "he" instead of a gender neutral pronoun like "they".
That's because "they" is plural and "he or she" is singular. I've seen a chart of pronouns proposed for universities. It's just too complicated. Perhaps someone will come up with a simple, elegant way to evolve our use of language when referring to gender. This will probably happen at the same time we become telepathic. I find that we often get what we want when we don't need it anymore.
Master Ching Hai, an awesome (so-called) living master, (who makes her own money and started vegetarian restaurants back in the 90'd now called The Loving Hut), for a long time has been using pronouns that eliminate gender. She's Asian, and if I recall, she used "herm" instead of her/him; but I don't recall what she used for he/she.
So she was way ahead of her time and helped open the doors for gender evolution.
Regarding language, Futurama made an attempt with the word Shklee (sp?).
I too would not mind masculine usage of gender neutral terminology being made obsolete a thing.
It just doesn't feel right referring to a group of girls as 'hey you guys'.
I am gonna play devil's advocate a bit and while I do agree we have to look past the ultimate duality-based sense of gender, I would also contend that there are still lots of people who also prefer to be simply referred to as 'he" or "she". So, what it seems the argument comes down to a lot of the time is the 'virtue of support', in that it's often considered 'morally better' to put aside your own preferences in order to stand behind a group or individual who has been or is being victimized. This is all well and good as a noble action but I ponder on at what point it becomes social judgement.
Basically, my thought is, why should anyone have to change for the comfort of others? I'm sure some will say they don't, but that they will be left behind by those they alienate. Keep in mind I'm addressing this as a devil's advocate. What it usually comes to is the subject of 'systematic discrimination', in otherwords when peoples' natural (such as skin colour) or chosen (such as gender) becomes a basis upon which they are denied regular access to the same parts of society as everybody else. (Society is full of pockets of exclusivity and cliques, but that's a whole other topic.) However, I question whether or not the misuse of pronouns actually falls under such an umbrella. It seems to be more about prejudice, fear, hate and emotional states.
What does fall under that umbrella is stuff like bathroom discrimination, employment discrimination, bully culture, etc, and these are all very real issues. Perhaps the misuse of pronouns can be placed under the bully culture at times, that is true.
What I am getting at here is that it all comes back to normalization and that what is being strived for is a 'new normal' as it were. Those who wish for this new normal may have as much of a hard time understanding those who want to stay in the current normal as vice versa. "Out with the old, in with the new" is certainly uplifting for the new, but can be pretty terrifying for the old. So what I want to express is really a need for compassion on all sides. People who are struggling to enter in to the new, who are non-binary, genderfluid or whatever they may be need a lot of compassion and support, but I also think that those struggling with the constant pressure to change and evolve deserve some good compassion too. It's not an easy thing for the whole world to flip on its head over a few decades and expand at such a rapid rate.
Everyone needs to give everyone a bit of a break, imo. (I don't mean you guys specifically.) I think that as was mentioned our close proximity and lack of auric, emotional and mental space contributes immensely to these conflicts.
Personally, I am fine calling people whatever they want and go to a gender neutral 'this one' or 'they' when referring to people I am uncertain of.
I imagine the Nazi's were changed for the comfort of others. We don't have rampant nudity and orgies happening in public for the comfort of others.
As goes with smoking laws in the US, for the comfort of others. We have names like groom and bride, it doesn't seem such a huge task to devise new terminology, even etymologically, to produce gender neutral words for those people who desire them. Just because a language of a species might lack, say, the word Jolly, that doesn't mean it can't be made.
Our species' language is partly archaic, we have not evolved it to match our evolution. Hell, lol is an actual word now.
I'm sure we can find a decent word that'll emerge from slang one day.
I don't see how that is catering to people's comforts rather than an inevitable evolution.
I've personally not subscribed in Ra's explanation of homosexuality, its cause is more than just why they gave. Further it would seem this is one instance where Ra's words don't echo as truth across the spectrum.
Otherwise animals wouldn't be homosexual, they're not close enough in large enough clumps to infringe the way humans are setup.
And what's more we know so little about higher dimensional sexuality, for all we know, male and female pairing is only required in the physical chemical bodies for means of species procreation or self sustained collectively. What if in 4D a man and woman aren't needed to produce offspring? What does that allow to be expressed in sexuality besides a will to survive?
I say let emerging cultures have their freedom of expression.
This is not an instance overstated in my opinion. Worldwide this is occurring, people are beginning to realize they are unhappy with their sexual identities.
I do think on the transgender front a correlation of porn consumption in men point out the larger group of MtF transgendered people, and the smaller FtM group in contrast.
On the naming front everything from demi to pan to asexual exist now, the precursor to exploration, naming out that which is to be discovered.
It seems like asking others to 'take a break' from that is hypocritical in that it sounds like you are the one who wants a break for your own comfort at the cost of the comfort being sought out by those exploring the out of the box boundaries of sexuality.
I don't see these people doing anything criminal, malicious, or cruel to others (like some religious groups), why must they sit by and wait so that others can be comfortable? Does their comfort not matter too?
I can't say there's much more of a response from me other than to let people explore their humanity.
What we call the result of aura infringement, Christians used to call blasphemy and a terrible sin.
We should be careful not to cross that thin line of judgment to condemnation or censorship.
We should let people freely and safely explore themselves, regardless of whether we are comfortable with it or not. Some exceptions apply, we don't want people hurting themselves or others (beyond the typical catalyst) to discover such things.
But we also shouldn't make it that much harder for them to explore.
Know thyself. What if you're just a gay spirit? Did you get aura infringed so hard the afterlife you changed as well?
Is it really so hard to accept something like homosexuality, transgenderism, and asexuality as intentional parts of evolution just because Godly Alien Ra's divine teachings don't add up to that conclusion?
Somebody's comfort is always going to be rocked by change, it's just a matter of whos. The question always comes down to a personal choice of value, whos comfort is worth the most to you?
I'm not sure if you're asking me with those questions or what, but I don't have any issues with acceptance. I do accept also however that some people do.
If everybody eased off of everybody then there would be more room for acceptance. I don't get why people get so caught up in other peoples' sexual/gender business in the first place. I could care less how people want to identify and I don't mean in a dismissive way, but that's it doesn't really have anything to do with me. Whatever you wanna be, all the power to ya.
(11-16-2017, 01:44 PM)Coordinate_Apotheosis Wrote: [ -> ]I imagine the Nazi's were changed for the comfort of others. We don't have rampant nudity and orgies happening in public for the comfort of others.
As goes with smoking laws in the US, for the comfort of others. We have names like groom and bride, it doesn't seem such a huge task to devise new terminology, even etymologically, to produce gender neutral words for those people who desire them. Just because a language of a species might lack, say, the word Jolly, that doesn't mean it can't be made.
Our species' language is partly archaic, we have not evolved it to match our evolution. Hell, lol is an actual word now.
I'm sure we can find a decent word that'll emerge from slang one day.
I don't see how that is catering to people's comforts rather than an inevitable evolution.
I've personally not subscribed in Ra's explanation of homosexuality, its cause is more than just why they gave. Further it would seem this is one instance where Ra's words don't echo as truth across the spectrum.
Otherwise animals wouldn't be homosexual, they're not close enough in large enough clumps to infringe the way humans are setup.
And what's more we know so little about higher dimensional sexuality, for all we know, male and female pairing is only required in the physical chemical bodies for means of species procreation or self sustained collectively. What if in 4D a man and woman aren't needed to produce offspring? What does that allow to be expressed in sexuality besides a will to survive?
I say let emerging cultures have their freedom of expression.
This is not an instance overstated in my opinion. Worldwide this is occurring, people are beginning to realize they are unhappy with their sexual identities.
I do think on the transgender front a correlation of porn consumption in men point out the larger group of MtF transgendered people, and the smaller FtM group in contrast.
On the naming front everything from demi to pan to asexual exist now, the precursor to exploration, naming out that which is to be discovered.
It seems like asking others to 'take a break' from that is hypocritical in that it sounds like you are the one who wants a break for your own comfort at the cost of the comfort being sought out by those exploring the out of the box boundaries of sexuality.
I don't see these people doing anything criminal, malicious, or cruel to others (like some religious groups), why must they sit by and wait so that others can be comfortable? Does their comfort not matter too?
I can't say there's much more of a response from me other than to let people explore their humanity.
What we call the result of aura infringement, Christians used to call blasphemy and a terrible sin.
We should be careful not to cross that thin line of judgment to condemnation or censorship.
We should let people freely and safely explore themselves, regardless of whether we are comfortable with it or not. Some exceptions apply, we don't want people hurting themselves or others (beyond the typical catalyst) to discover such things.
But we also shouldn't make it that much harder for them to explore.
Know thyself. What if you're just a gay spirit? Did you get aura infringed so hard the afterlife you changed as well?
Is it really so hard to accept something like homosexuality, transgenderism, and asexuality as intentional parts of evolution just because Godly Alien Ra's divine teachings don't add up to that conclusion?
While I don't think there are gay spirits, just spirits living out a storey, the rest resonates.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the change in sexual focus and gender is just now we are freeing ourselves to explore this part of creation. We have been programmed for innies to be one way outies another for a long time and well now we can explore contrast to those firm roles and then hopefully freedom from any of that stuff mattering.
Also I don't think Ra's explanation is necessarily wrong but I doubt he expanded on all the reasons for this shift happening. At the time it was class-able as a dysfunction but all "mutations" from the norm are basically dysfunctions. That doesn't preclude them from leading down a path purposefully chosen by the creator, nor them being a strength or improvement.
(11-16-2017, 04:38 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]If everybody eased off of everybody then there would be more room for acceptance. I don't get why people get so caught up in other peoples' sexual/gender business in the first place. I could care less how people want to identify and I don't mean in a dismissive way, but that's it doesn't really have anything to do with me. Whatever you wanna be, all the power to ya.
Okay, so I'm going to harp a bit more about labels…
If there were no labels, everyone could just follow their hearts without reference to some description of what they might be doing or desire to do. With labels, people have something to attach to—whether that's validation or justification in judging and separation.
This is not to say that I think there is something wrong with relying on a label to identify a tendency or desire, and not feel isolated. Or even in the 3D world where calculations, identifications or whatever must still be made to quantify data. But if we can move past being influenced by what others think (others who are all also in their own pain and scared and struggling to deal with life), we can empower ourselves to become anything we want to be.
Regarding everyone easing off everybody—that is complicated. People strike out at others for a plethora of reasons. The evolution (to me) must be within self—how the self reacts; acceptance of self; empowerment of self; responsibility of self. With that in place, it doesn't matter what anyone else does or thinks. Not that it's easy however, in any case.
For example, how do you eradicate racial prejudice? You can't change others. But you can change yourself. Clinging to labels that reinforce differences in race (though it may increase cultural pride and empower disenfranchised peoples, and there is some truth in that) serves also to separate, not integrate—it's exclusive, not inclusive. We can't all be one if we keep defining ourselves as different from each other. The idea would be to honor individuality—the individual spark as you put it—without separating into different categories (tribes, genders, species, races, ages, and so on).
I think Ra's description of what can cause homosexuality is deeply biased by the preconceived notions of a 60-something year old retired military pilot who was living in Kentucky in the 1980s.
Diana Wrote:That's because "they" is plural and "he or she" is singular. I've seen a chart of pronouns proposed for universities. It's just too complicated. Perhaps someone will come up with a simple, elegant way to evolve our use of language when referring to gender. This will probably happen at the same time we become telepathic. I find that we often get what we want when we don't need it anymore.
"They" is not only plural, "they" can also be used in the singular and be grammatically proper. I have absolutely no problem using it this way and find myself referring to people as "they" in the third person singular more often. I know there are people who do prefer he/she, but I don't think they would be hurt or offended by being referred to as "they" in third person - and if I found out they were, I would gladly oblige. Something that the activist groups I've participated in do often is have people introduce themselves and share their preferred pronouns, since it's pretty common to be ambiguous. It's a way to be intentionally inclusive, which I find helps create what I suppose is considered a "safe space", which is often used derisively but I think it is an important thing to have. As we develop a social memory complex, we have to learn how to create "safe spaces" - when we all have access to each other's thoughts, we'll learn very quickly which things hurt and are best left unthought/unsaid and how people prefer to be approached and treated, etc. And when there is no barrier between us, the pain of another belongs to us as well. It's definitely a balance between self expression and taking responsibility with our words and not hurting others.
Aion Wrote:Basically, my thought is, why should anyone have to change for the comfort of others?
Nobody
has to change for the comfort of others. I think a lot of things that we find is distasteful about certain groups actually come from a reaction to feeling as if they do have to change for others - and doing precisely the opposite to spite the obligation. So it's a delicate balance with not being judgemental but still bringing awareness to how to be more compassionate. I can tell you that I'm not aware of any of my friends who do it in a judgy way at all - or who would ever correct someone for using the incorrect pronoun in the moment. It's more of a longterm awareness campaign. I don't know, I'm cool with learning how to be more intentional with my language - like not using "it" to refer to animals, or other speciesist language that objectifies them. I've really found a it to be a pretty profound shift - it's even more difficult to say swear words. It's like they hit a wall coming out and instead I say some weird Ned Flandersism. "Guys" is the bane of my vernacular, however, from being a waitress for 12 years. It's gonna take a minute to get rid of that one.
(11-16-2017, 06:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]I think Ra's description of what can cause homosexuality is deeply biased by the preconceived notions of a 60-something year old retired military pilot who was living in Kentucky in the 1980s.
It almost would have been infringement 40 years ago to point out the big picture of this path in creation considering the limited view/biases the majority of people held. Its taken us 40 years of exploring to reach where we are now. Im sure the creator gleaned many great and not so great experiences in those 40 years. Lessons thoroughly learned.
(11-16-2017, 04:39 PM)Glow Wrote: [ -> ]While I don't think there are gay spirits, just spirits living out a storey, the rest resonates.
Exactly, the entire energetic impact that were discussed pretty much only related to the body and its interactions with other bodies. The "worst" that was said is that certain basic functions of lower-centers energy transfers are not doable from outside the bodily template design, the most basic one being the red ray energy transfer which allows to procreate. I don't get what's bad about that it is said that the body cannot be used against its natural functions as it's what a two-male couple would get told by a doctor if they went to ask about how they can get one of the two pregnant mixing their semen. The doctor will just go like;
well the natural biological functions of your bodies don't quite work that way mkay ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Plus, it even says that a heart-to-heart connection would not be hindered so having a problem with this here is really about getting to enjoy bodily functions outside the body's design while not opening your heart to a reality with more potentials beyond low energy. Which is what the sexual drive seeks anyway, to reach heart-to-heart mirroring where it blocks.
(11-16-2017, 04:39 PM)Glow Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty obvious to me that the change in sexual focus and gender is just now we are freeing ourselves to explore this part of creation. We have been programmed for innies to be one way outies another for a long time and well now we can explore contrast to those firm roles and then hopefully freedom from any of that stuff mattering.
I personally think it's a lot like Nau7ik described into his post, and I'd add that there is unconscious resistance to 4D transformation because there is a strong sense of identifying to lower-ray distortions rather than seeking to move upward while it is of the nature of 4D to elevate these things. I agree fully with you that there has a been a form of slingshot effect that was built over time.
(11-16-2017, 04:39 PM)Glow Wrote: [ -> ]Also I don't think Ra's explanation is necessarily wrong but I doubt he expanded on all the reasons for this shift happening. At the time it was class-able as a dysfunction but all "mutations" from the norm are basically dysfunctions. That doesn't preclude them from leading down a path purposefully chosen by the creator, nor them being a strength or improvement.
They definitely just gave general ideas which connect most to people here and gave an impartial observation of phenomenons and their energetic implications probably in awareness of both the usefulness of what they offer and the rejection it would meet within many people's emotional fields.