Non-binary and Genderfluidity a Sign of Rising Consiousness?

[Aion]

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). 

So would you say "no labels" would be an inner or an outer phenomenon?

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.

So how do you honour an individual in their choices and what they identify with if you have no words to apply? I feel like you are proposing a heavy heart based approach which eschews the mental component of interaction. That's perfectly valid but I'm not sure it really works for all beings per se.

What if an individual strongly feels identified with aspects of those categories, would you just tell them to put it aside cause it's just them trying to separate from others? That doesn't seem like honouring individuality to me...

I absolutely agree with the heart of what you are saying, I'm just not sure I follow your method.

[Minyatur]

Everyone needs to give everyone a bit of a break, imo.

Amen. Unless the person doesn't want to be given a break I guess.

[Diana]

So would you say "no labels" would be an inner or an outer phenomenon?

Both, if I understand your question.  

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:

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.

[Minyatur]

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:

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.

I can be wrong but I think he meant the need to identify as part of something may relate to this individuality to be honored.

It's kinda like becoming one with part of your other-selves to accentuate your distortions into realizing identification to be one with all things. You see the struggle does not matter, the point is that there is struggle experienced and it spreads from one into the others and heals from one into the others, ever intertwined.

[Diana]

"They" is not only plural, "they" can also be used in the singular and be grammatically proper.

No, that's not true unless grammar has changed. We all default to that sometimes, and I do as well for ease of writing and not sounding too didactic or cumbersome in conversation (but I would not use "they" as singular in any formal writing). The mixing of plural and singular can create confusion. Example: Should you say...

1. We all have challenges in our life.

2. We all have challenges in our lives.

#1 sounds like we all have the same life; and #2 sounds like each person may have more than one life. So you may see how confusion can arise, especially with less obvious examples. We make assumptions based on what is most likely or sensible, so using "they" as singular will usually be fine, and it is less cumbersome than "his or her," and less sexist than resorting to one gender such as the generally accepted masculine (what I do when stuck is use the feminine, because I won't resort to the confusing plural in a singular context). Another device for nonfiction writers is to speak to the reader, so "you" instead of he or she, and "your" instead of hers or his. Wayne Dyer is an example of that.

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.

Absolutely. I'm not attached to any of it so whatever a person wants is fine by me.

I just won't professionally write mixing plural with singular.

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.

Is it ever difficult to remember who wants what? I'm terrible at remembering names (great at faces and voices though). I would oblige of course, but I'd probably mess up.

But maybe the idea is to simply allow that safe space, and so just honoring the preference is the main point.  

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.

It is also the responsibility of the person who reacts. I don't mean to sound cold. We can't always know what would hurt another being. Being respectful, kind, and compassionate for everyone is as much as one can do. Beyond that, we are not our "brother's keepers." We can't control their lives or take away their wounds. They have their free will and we cannot steer that boat for someone else, or even know where it is going or why. Kindness, and detached, compassionate support is, in my mind, the best way to deal with our fellow humans, who are are here making choices and finding out what that means.

[rva_jeremy]

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.

For what it's worth, and I don't like to emphasize it, I think there are certain sectors of society, such as academia, where oversized bureaucratic apparatuses make enforcing something like a so-called "PC" agenda easier. I'm conflicted; in most cases, I share the broad values and progressive vision of those on the PC side, but I think changes have to come from the bottom up, and using power to force it from the top down inevitably degrades the cause. The most materially important aspect to changing our culture is person-to-person, vulnerable, searching interactions between individuals that bring out the best in people. That kind of work can never be part of a HR initiative; hierarchical institutions instead try to simulate it and end up creating a monster of totalitarian humanism. If you're interested, I wrote an essay about my views on this, mostly criticizing "political correctness" from the left.

[Aion]

So would you say "no labels" would be an inner or an outer phenomenon?

Both, if I understand your question.  

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:

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.

Elros expressed nicely what I was getting at. I'm sorry you feel I'm not getting you at all although I don't think that's really true. I agree largely with what you are saying, it is just in the nuance that we differ.

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?

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?

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. 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.

[Diana]

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?

I would agree with that to an extent. I can honor an individual's difference, and with that comes some form of identification; but I do not have to attach to it—there is no emotional content for me regarding what another desires.

I'm thinking out loud here (which of course is silly to say since you can't hear me ). I do make a correlation in my mind with what someone's preferred ID is, but it's not my label, it's only an agreement to use their label they chose. Perhaps I'm using semantics only but I'm not sure. 

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?

Well, not really. It's more like it all stems from my own reaction to it all, how I interact with labeling and identification. I let others be who they are in the way they choose, and if that includes identifying with a group, that's their thing and I honor that—as far as I am capable at the time; I admittedly struggle a bit with sports hunters and other cruelty; but I still try to honor their choices and not enmesh with it emotionally.

And it has less to do with "true identity" and more to do with the freedom to explore it. I feel labels, like opinions and beliefs, block further information from being perceived, especially information outside the box. 

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.

I welcome your intelligent and well-thought-out comments.

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.

I very much agree.

[Aion]

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.

[Philalethist]

What keeps you going? The very few threads I've read in depth here make me want to meditate (I guess I should read more of them?), in a bad way though; haha, if that's even possible. It's like I get a glimpse into the endless mentations and intellectual acrobatics of the ego and I'm just like, "Jesus fucking Christ, this is fucking ridiculous; I'm just gonna go meditate forever." Do I? f*** no! That would be too productive! Instead, I've got to find more ways to waste time and write this stupid fucking post and be like, "Why is everyone fucking nuts?" and I'm like "You know why you stupid sonnuvabitch! It's to show you how fucking crazy you are!" and then I pat myself on the back at how above it all I am and with 'firm resolve' decide not to read this stupid s*** anymore and meditate more frequently and prepare for my fast and bullshit like that. Then I put my hand on my mouse, and move my little cursor on over to the "Post reply" button and I'm like, "Oh yeah, people are going to love this post, I'm gonna get so many likes."

[Aion]

A+ post.

Oh, if that question was directed at me, I guess I enjoy the challenge. I 'keep' very little so a lot of things just wash over and pass by. Maybe I'm a little used to chaos.

[xise]

Here's are the Ra quotes that were mentioned earlier (which I've said in the past may be inaccurate or mischanneled, but who knows, maybe there is something I don't understand):

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.

[Diana]

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.

I think you're a martial artist. Here is an explanation from that point of view:

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.

[Diana]

@ Philalethist, your post above made me laugh out loud. 

[Aion]

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?

[Diana]

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?

I would agree with your bolded words above. I'm going to think about your question.

[Diana]

I have not had time to really consider carefully your question, Aion, as I'm in the middle of some pressing business concerns, but I didn't want to just let it fade away. Some thoughts:

I always talk about a couple of things: detachment and unplugging from the media. This is where I would start. I saw a movie once, long ago, and I have no recollection of what the movie was as it wasn't something of relevance. What I do remember is that in one scene, maybe in Africa, a man was driving a station wagon, painted by hand with flower curtains in the windows. I thought it was awesome, and I felt a sense of loss because the world is so caught up in peer pressures and societal standards of what's acceptable, that individual expression gets squashed even if only subconsciously. A person in the U.S. would be extremely unlikely to drive a vehicle like that. But it is interesting, that in the cultural revolution of the late 60's "hippies" were doing just that. It was a time of breaking societal patterns of all kinds, and I think we can honor that time and not denigrate it as the media (and other controlling factions) have done, trivializing that time when it was a massive attempt at creative evolution.

I have been an artist, a writer, and expressed myself creatively in many ways. In order to really create, I must not copy what is, or what someone has done. I must not be influenced by what is popular or any other criteria that would define my creative expression. It isn't easy. But if you look at some of the most successful artists, they have unique styles.

I would not personally let society define me. And yet, I can use the definitions of society when needed, much in the same way Echart Tolle says to stay in the moment and use time when needed, such as when one needs to get to an appointment, then go back to being in the now.

It cannot be dismissed that labels serve the purpose of communication. When I say I have been an artist, how else to convey in words on a screen what I may have done with paint and brushes? But I don't identify with it. I don't have to be an artist though I may still pick up paint and brushes when I feel like it. I like the idea that creativity may flow through me in any way at all. This would be different than focusing creative energy as is done in magick, where labeling may help to direct and define intention.