(11-16-2017, 06:00 PM)Diana Wrote:

(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). 

(11-16-2017, 12:59 PM)Aion Wrote: Everyone needs to give everyone a bit of a break, imo.

(11-16-2017, 07:09 PM)Aion Wrote: So would you say "no labels" would be an inner or an outer phenomenon?

(11-16-2017, 07:09 PM)Aion Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with your proposal that difference equates separation or that there must be no difference in definition in order to 'be one'. I really believe in 'unity through diversity' so I admit I see it that definition of individuality to be essential to our unity.

Quote: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).

(11-16-2017, 09:39 PM)Diana Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 07:09 PM)Aion Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with your proposal that difference equates separation or that there must be no difference in definition in order to 'be one'. I really believe in 'unity through diversity' so I admit I see it that definition of individuality to be essential to our unity.

Difference does not equal separation; identifying and attaching to differences creates separation. I did say this:

Quote: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 guess I'm not being clear because you don't seem to get me at all. But that's fine. And I like hearing thinking that varies from my own mindset.

(11-16-2017, 06:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: "They" is not only plural, "they" can also be used in the singular and be grammatically proper.

(11-16-2017, 06:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: 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.

(11-16-2017, 06:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: 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.

(11-16-2017, 06:10 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: 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.

(11-16-2017, 10:43 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: 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.

(11-16-2017, 09:39 PM)Diana Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 07:09 PM)Aion Wrote: So would you say "no labels" would be an inner or an outer phenomenon?

Both, if I understand your question.  

(11-16-2017, 07:09 PM)Aion Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with your proposal that difference equates separation or that there must be no difference in definition in order to 'be one'. I really believe in 'unity through diversity' so I admit I see it that definition of individuality to be essential to our unity.

Difference does not equal separation; identifying and attaching to differences creates separation. I did say this:

Quote: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 guess I'm not being clear because you don't seem to get me at all. But that's fine. And I like hearing thinking that varies from my own mindset.

(11-17-2017, 01:14 AM)Aion Wrote: How do you honour an individual's differences without either identifying or attaching to them? Even observation or acknowledgment is a form of identifying, no?

(11-17-2017, 01:14 AM)Aion Wrote: It seems to me you are trying to make a distinction between 'identity' and 'identifying', in that the 'true identity' is beyond all 'identifying', is that what you mean?

(11-17-2017, 01:14 AM)Aion Wrote: Don't take my questioning or disagreement as an unwillingness to understand your point, I can only digest it through my own apparatus and so I tend to turn things over many times to gain a proper perspective.

(11-17-2017, 01:14 AM)Aion Wrote: People sometimes forget that agreement and disagreement are really of the moment. Disagreement just means I still have many questions and the idea has not taken any solid form in my mind. Through conversation an idea formulates and eventually I may agree... or I may not, that's the beauty of the discussion. However undoubtedly in all cases I come closer to understanding another perspective.

Quote:31.8 Questioner: We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities incarnate here now who have what is called a homosexual orientation in this respect. Could you explain and expand upon that concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities of this condition experience a great deal of distortion due to the fact that they have experienced many incarnations as biological male and as biological female. This would not suggest what you call homosexuality in an active phase were it not for the difficult vibratory condition of your planetary sphere. There is what you may call great aura infringement among your crowded urban areas in your more populous countries, as you call portions of your planetary surface. Under these conditions the confusions will occur.

31.9 Questioner: Why does density of population create these confusions?

Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under a constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to other-selves. This also would increase the probability of a lack of desire or a blockage of the red-ray reproductive energy.

In an uncrowded atmosphere this same entity would, through the stimulus of feeling the solitude about it, then have much more desire to seek out someone to whom it may be of service thus regularizing the sexual reproductive function.

31.10 Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations, shall we say, would a male entity in this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation? Just roughly.

Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body complex, this entity is vulnerable to the aura infringement of your urban areas and may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.

It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green-ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.

(11-17-2017, 07:17 PM)Aion Wrote: Could you describe your idea of the "mechanic" in regards to attachment and information outside the box being blocked? I am curious how you conceptualize this interaction.

Quote:Quantum Physics and the Warrior Spirit

What does quantum physics have to do with the warrior spirit?

Let’s take a look at what we know about our world and the universe it exists in—not much! All we really have are working theories. Why? Because perceptions change as a result of an ever-expanding knowledge base. History bears this out as new information rendered current beliefs unviable. For example:

• The world is flat, and if you travel far enough to its edge, you will fall off.

• The Earth is the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolve around it.

And, so on. Thus, to “know” is to close the door to new information. To “know,” is to limit potential. Clues to potential are seen in the subatomic realm.

Quantum physics has revealed to us a number of enigmatic observations, one of which is the wave-particle duality. In the subatomic realm, matter and energy can behave as particles (one possible outcome), but can also act as waves (containing all possible outcomes—in “superposition”). This is demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment.

The human body is comprised of cells; cells are comprised of molecules; molecules are comprised of atoms, and atoms are comprised of subatomic particles (which also exist as waves). It must follow that subatomic wave potential is inherent in human potential.

Therefore, all things are possible.

When a wave of potential (with all possible outcomes) is collapsed into a particle (one possible outcome) the (particle, system, event, creation) is specifically defined (as beliefs are), allowing for the limited expression of what is “known.” The master of technique functions well in this collapsed particle system, responding to known stimuli with learned responses (related to hard style in martial arts which applies force with specific movements). The warrior however, who is also a master of technique, remains fluid in the wave function where all possibilities exist (related to soft style in martial arts which yields to and uses the force of the opponent, and is everywhere and nowhere like “water”).

The warrior masters and uses technique as a tool, but does not believe in it. The warrior wastes no time anchoring to belief systems which will inexorably change and evolve. The warrior exists in a state of readiness within a field of potential.

The warrior knows that all things are possible, and that her potential knows no limits. She flows like water with the ever-changing universe in which she lives.

(11-17-2017, 11:48 PM)Aion Wrote: I think I've seen you post that before and it's great, good words of wisdom. I agree with it and I understood that as what you meant from the start. However I would like to bring attention to the subject of technique and relate it to the idea of the 'disciplines of the personality'. As you say, the 'unknown' can be equated with unlimited potential and so to remain unattached to any 'set' idea enables a freedom of reality. In regards to the personality and thus the identity, would you agree then that the 'technique' of the matter as it develops becomes less and less a matter of 'choosing' and more a matter of 'being'?

And with that understanding, what 'disciplines' can one exercise in order to move closer to a state of pure being?