True Equality for Every Human Being

[rva_jeremy]

Yes, we must do whatever work we came here to do within certain appropriate constructs that exist, and that we chose to be a part of. But there are different ways to "do the work." I don't think it's imperative that I be an activist, for example, to "do the work." I think I can be a visionary, and hold and express the possibility that we are not labeled, not limited, not defined by societal constructs, while at the same time not denying any efficacy in labels for those individuals, societies, or cultures that still need them. I do not have to be part of a construct that includes labels to be of service in this place. And this is not denial, it's my way of being; and that is just who I am, but the result is an outpouring of energy from who I am which must have an effect on the whole of energy here, and adds to the scale of balance on the side of acceptance and inclusion, rather than adds to the scale of balance on the side of division (of gender, race, sexuality, etc.). 

Yeah, I think that's absolutely correct. In fact, I think those who make the best use of these constructs understand on some level that they are just constructs--that they have no inherent special meaning, that they are no more important (or unimportant) to executing on our task than the topology of the earth or gravity or vectored time. That makes them useable in the same way that understanding gravity turns it from a mechanism for grounding us on the surface of a planet into a force we can use to slingshot away from it. The constraints of our illusion do not just confine; they also give us something to "push off of", something against which to exert force and, by that very exertion, engender movement. (For what it's worth, it's the philosophical exploration of what the character of physical material manifestation offers the Creator that constitutes one of my deepest interests in the Law of One, so forgive me if I overemphasize this.)

These labels and constructs appear useful in focusing attention on what one might call "nodal points" in the yellow ray matrix, those concepts that give the social complex its character, define its scope, and confer a discreteness upon it that allows for veiled, illusory engagement. However, you're certainly right that the option is always there to dive right in on a personal level, and it is an option that anybody awakening must exercise at some point. Essentially, you're simply saying that you have six other rays available for dealing with these matters, as do we all. It's so very important that we be reminded of that!

No one, as far as I know, is talking about forcefully barring, or otherwise taking away labels, if they serve a purpose. What is being suggested, again, as far as I see, is the idea that labels, whether anyone likes it or not, may empower or equalize to an extent, but they also separate. In an evolved future, where all possibilities exist and are perceived as such by individuals, self expression may flower where it will, without the parameters set by human societies—which has changed like a fickle wind throughout history. And this, as I see it, must radiate from within the individual outward. Until then, we have laws, political correctness, advocacy, etc. to protect those who require it. But it is also my supposition that no matter how extreme circumstances are, I can choose to focus on some way to empower myself rather than be beaten by idiotic, fleeting, societal stupidity. 

The labels do separate; there's no question about that in my mind. There's something at the root of the material, manifest, third density illusion that relies upon this separation to teach, but of course they can be energized towards separation as an end.

I do think the OP spoke of how the use of these labels perpetuates the underlying dynamics; I'm not sure that's strictly true except in the a very superficial sense. Do the dynamics exist because of the labelling, or do the labels exist because of the dynamics they name? Certainly it's important for individuals to contemplate this, to look deep beneath the facade of the language's names for things and understand that, as magically and psychologically powerful as it is, there is more reinforcing our patterns of behavior than mere symbolic representation.

I feel a high service to the downtrodden is to not see them that way, to acknowledge the trial and tribulation but to honor them as worthy humans, able to do anything they desire no matter how difficult, with assistance and support, but not pity, not treating them like helpless victims.

I couldn't agree more--I think sympathizing with others in third density often leads us to unintentionally strip them of agency and create a power differential, however subtly, between them and us. It comes from a place where we have not balanced the power dynamic with us, and we see their misfortune or oppression as a problem to be solved rather than a lesson to be learned. There is definitely a way to take the often overly academic language of social justice and conclude that only activism is effective, only changing power structures are worthwhile, the only thing at issue are impersonal forces operating upon hapless victims. This is dangerous without a similar project within the individual that can balance the experience of victimhood and oppression, that can speak to the Creator instead of simply to a technical grid of intersecting societal constructs.

As somebody who identifies with the Left, I think this is our most urgent political project: to cultivate communications and advocacy that speaks to individuals and individual power as a means to mass politics rather than an impediment. There's a hefty amount of Hegelian/Marxist historical materialism that needs to be deemphasized and jettisoned. I think on a deep level this is what a lot of people are responding to when they reject political correctness: not the reality of social structures so much as this weird ideological impulse to reduce everything to the mere incidence of structure.