12-19-2017, 02:38 PM
Wow, that was a really cool reply, Diana. Thanks for piquing my curiosity even further.
That is very insightful: at its best, the social justice phenomenon is not about eliminating separation as much as reducing the normative stratification. This is the core of the "diversity" impulse: that the particulars of how we manifest in yellow ray ought not confer upon us a corresponding rank within the system.
Yeah, as I read your response, I kept hitting up against an idea that I'm not sure has any merit: all language is is predicated on the subject/object dichotomy and is therefore designed to distinguish, categorize, separate. If all is one, then there's no way to describe, characterize, or differentiate any thing from any other thing, and so no word or combination of words would have any linguistic value.
Perhaps this is why, in third density, we need to focus more on equity and less on mere unification, so that distinctions between other-selves are not so much eliminated as disempowered. What we're looking for is not for everything to literally be unified so much as for everything to be respected for what it is on its own terms. In our present world, I think that means using the concepts we've inherited, the words that help us make sense of things--like them or not--to ensure that respect and value are afforded to all despite the label applied.
This is a far trickier project than simply lumping everybody into one deracinated group or (not that anybody here is suggesting it) banning labels. It's about emphasizing the relations between people and groups over the organizational or structural forms those people take. After all, individual behavior and discretion has the most impact on those relations (which, for what it's worth, is precisely why I think elites try to channel shifts in social norms into policy--to maintain the social relevance of their power).
Side note: I think any structural unification in the political sphere is dangerous until power has been more widely distributed. A lot of spiritual folks think a one-world government where there are no national distinctions is where we're headed, and they may be right. But if that super-state has a rigid hierarchy of elites running things, we the people don't really gain much. A unified planetary group identity is only valuable if, as you say, it helps us advance towards social memory. Service-to-others social memory will be exemplified, I believe, by a wide distribution of meaningful power and transparency, and frankly I think historical inequities are most easily addressed from the bottom up.
So while it kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies to talk about "natural" and "artificial" groupings of people, you may be right that there's an innocuous, latent structure to the yellow ray matrix that can help us role play our way into social memory. I think we'll recognize that structure by realizing that it won't take inputs of effort and energy to maintain those groupings. The key will be to ensure the distribution of power across the entire matrix, so that groups are not valued for their exclusivity or access so much as their descriptiveness, their relative location in the holograph.
Diana Wrote:We may refine our labels to be less strata-based, and that's where PC has made a stand. But in the end, the result is "artificial" (more on that below) division.
That is very insightful: at its best, the social justice phenomenon is not about eliminating separation as much as reducing the normative stratification. This is the core of the "diversity" impulse: that the particulars of how we manifest in yellow ray ought not confer upon us a corresponding rank within the system.
Diana Wrote:So yes, our patterns of behavior are being reinforced by labeling, and yet at the same time giving those behaviors a less "ignorant" channel. But even ostensibly innocuous labeling remains as a controlling force until evolution takes us beyond separating mindsets.
Yeah, as I read your response, I kept hitting up against an idea that I'm not sure has any merit: all language is is predicated on the subject/object dichotomy and is therefore designed to distinguish, categorize, separate. If all is one, then there's no way to describe, characterize, or differentiate any thing from any other thing, and so no word or combination of words would have any linguistic value.
Perhaps this is why, in third density, we need to focus more on equity and less on mere unification, so that distinctions between other-selves are not so much eliminated as disempowered. What we're looking for is not for everything to literally be unified so much as for everything to be respected for what it is on its own terms. In our present world, I think that means using the concepts we've inherited, the words that help us make sense of things--like them or not--to ensure that respect and value are afforded to all despite the label applied.
This is a far trickier project than simply lumping everybody into one deracinated group or (not that anybody here is suggesting it) banning labels. It's about emphasizing the relations between people and groups over the organizational or structural forms those people take. After all, individual behavior and discretion has the most impact on those relations (which, for what it's worth, is precisely why I think elites try to channel shifts in social norms into policy--to maintain the social relevance of their power).
Side note: I think any structural unification in the political sphere is dangerous until power has been more widely distributed. A lot of spiritual folks think a one-world government where there are no national distinctions is where we're headed, and they may be right. But if that super-state has a rigid hierarchy of elites running things, we the people don't really gain much. A unified planetary group identity is only valuable if, as you say, it helps us advance towards social memory. Service-to-others social memory will be exemplified, I believe, by a wide distribution of meaningful power and transparency, and frankly I think historical inequities are most easily addressed from the bottom up.
So while it kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies to talk about "natural" and "artificial" groupings of people, you may be right that there's an innocuous, latent structure to the yellow ray matrix that can help us role play our way into social memory. I think we'll recognize that structure by realizing that it won't take inputs of effort and energy to maintain those groupings. The key will be to ensure the distribution of power across the entire matrix, so that groups are not valued for their exclusivity or access so much as their descriptiveness, their relative location in the holograph.