12-14-2017, 01:35 PM
(12-13-2017, 08:58 PM)Glow Wrote: I think much like certain races/species/the earth the female sex has had LESS opportunity to put the power over others distortion into use which is why I phrased it as I did. I wasn’t trying to imply it was a male vs female thing but more a opportunity vs less opportunity issue. One with little access to power cannot wield power to the same degree.
Well I think it is mostly the notion of what power is that changes. Every archetype will somewhat have a male/female version as they reflect a dualization of energetical focus. The male version of power is conscious, physical and straightforward, like a warlock that explodes things on its path. The female version of power is more unconscious, subtle and astral and indirect, like a witch that ensnares and bewilder.
Also since gender is merely like an incarnative option for souls, this is even more true, as the male/female as genders ultimately reflect souls which are neither genders but instead see themselves through gender. So you can talk to someone associating them with males across history, but that person can very well have had more lifetimes as a woman than you did. I think in the nature of the feminine, its control over power is by default something more hidden.
Focusing on gender focuses on separation as genders is an illusionary abstraction between souls to create a sense of separation where there is none.
(12-13-2017, 08:58 PM)Glow Wrote: This may be my own perception issue. Im trying to listen to the light as closely as I can but perception is always coloured by ego so not infallible in 3D.I’m always trying.
Your phrasing is equally valid and not in conflict with my own but that’s what I was trying to say obviously still in 3D ..
Edited to add both of my rays other current incarnations are male and they certainly are powerless in many ways due to being male so I can see why you’d comment what you did about power enslaving in a way.
I’m starting to see an imbalance as balance right now so the whole idea of there being 1 perfect balance is only good in a 2D theory. Balance is imperfect and always changing with as many parameters as we have.
Infinite I guess.
Good idea about imbalances, very right imo. If we term imbalances as distortions then they are pretty much required for there to be anything at all.
I’m always trying.