01-06-2016, 10:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2016, 10:41 AM by rva_jeremy.)
In my ever so humble opinion, gender as a cultural construct simply is; in other words, it has no inherent moral significance at all. I cannot imagine those of Ra saying anything else. How you charge that construct with significance, invoke it in practice, think about it, feel it--these are all choices that you as a co-creator are fully and completely entitled to make.
It's kind of like the law, in a way (although please read my comparison carefully, and keep in mind that I'm an anarchist
): the law is a social/cultural construct that doesn't really have any ultimate truth in and of itself. You can charge the construct by rigidly observing it. But it's just as potent to charge it by rejecting it and being an "outlaw". It can be potent by accepting some parts and rejecting others. It can be potent by living completely outside of it and running up into the social/cultural resistances directly. It can be potent by rewriting it and working directly with the underlying dynamics. It can be potent by fighting it directly and tearing it down.
The point here is not that it's ok (or bad) to break laws: it's that the construct of law or gender (or anything) imbues the activity around it with a web of relevance creating an environment capable of discrete choices relative to it. It's only the setting for our evolution. Just because these constructs are the significant subjects of important choices--ultimately about polarity--doesn't mean the constructs have any additional inherent value. The gym equipment doesn't have value in and of itself; it's only value is how we use it to experience the Creator. All of these constructs are just objects to bounce off of so that we can charge our experience with the subjects that transmit spiritual significance.
This is how I understand the power of asking "where is the love?" in any situation. Look beyond the surface judgments that are simply the setting of the love. Strip away the cultural, normative, social, historical trappings and see what charge is being carried by the situation under the surface. What is the X factor there? That is the subject of your journey.
It's kind of like the law, in a way (although please read my comparison carefully, and keep in mind that I'm an anarchist
): the law is a social/cultural construct that doesn't really have any ultimate truth in and of itself. You can charge the construct by rigidly observing it. But it's just as potent to charge it by rejecting it and being an "outlaw". It can be potent by accepting some parts and rejecting others. It can be potent by living completely outside of it and running up into the social/cultural resistances directly. It can be potent by rewriting it and working directly with the underlying dynamics. It can be potent by fighting it directly and tearing it down.The point here is not that it's ok (or bad) to break laws: it's that the construct of law or gender (or anything) imbues the activity around it with a web of relevance creating an environment capable of discrete choices relative to it. It's only the setting for our evolution. Just because these constructs are the significant subjects of important choices--ultimately about polarity--doesn't mean the constructs have any additional inherent value. The gym equipment doesn't have value in and of itself; it's only value is how we use it to experience the Creator. All of these constructs are just objects to bounce off of so that we can charge our experience with the subjects that transmit spiritual significance.
This is how I understand the power of asking "where is the love?" in any situation. Look beyond the surface judgments that are simply the setting of the love. Strip away the cultural, normative, social, historical trappings and see what charge is being carried by the situation under the surface. What is the X factor there? That is the subject of your journey.