True Equality for Every Human Being

[Jim Kent +]

Greetings, 

I was watching a stand-up comedian on TV the other night and his routine included his support for the feminist and LGBT causes, as well as others.

The following realization hit me strongly:

Using these artificial-concepts-of-separation probably just perpetuates the problems we face...

I believe that the answer to bigotry, racism, misogyny, homophobia and elitism / poverty / injustice is the collective pursuit of and commitment to the idea and goal of:

True equality for every human being...

I believe that it really is that simple!

The foundation of bigotry is defining others by their differences.
The foundation of racism is defining others by their supposed "race"
The foundation of misogyny is the idea that women are inferior to men because of their physical differnces
The foundation of homophobia is defining others by their sexuality
The foundation of elitism / poverty / injustice is the idea that some are superior to others and therefore deserve more

Isn't "Human Being" definition enough?

When it truly is enough for everyone then we will be well on our way to a better society. ( I believe and hope! ) 

L & L

Jim   


  

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I like how this thread has a bunch of likes and no replies while arguing continues on the other thread.

Would anyone care to expand with ideas of how we can make movements to achieve this equality?  Give this thread a chance to provide us a framework towards discovering a road of healing and transformation that all of us can share as equals?

I think education and teaching us how to be equal towards each other is a possible idea to consider, to provide basically a gender equality education and a cultural equality education, hopefully there's an emphasis on sociological placement, and an explanation of the equality of the sexes and cultures of the world rather than focusing on our differences.  In teaching us how to discern media portrayals subliminally of seperation, and how to deal with toxic messages that push for an unhealthy focus on differences.  Or at the least an awareness of pushes towards seperation to counter their influence on an individual level?

Another idea would be to have the healthy minds of the same sex, race, or culture help ease those suffering from such prejudice, so that in sexism issues for instance, men whom are aware of misogynistic men can help them heal, and women can help other women whom hurt men heal, at least starting off, with the different sexes meeting at a point to continue healing their views and actions towards each other.  A kind of counseling to heal sexist feelings.  This same concept can be applied in others areas like racism, or bigotry in general.

With the solution in the form of a focus, can we formulate ideas to manifest the solution of pursuing true equality for all humans?

This seems like a good time to pitch some ideas.

[Jim Kent +]

I like how this thread has a bunch of likes and no replies while arguing continues on the other thread.

Would anyone care to expand with ideas of how we can make movements to achieve this equality?  Give this thread a chance to provide us a framework towards discovering a road of healing and transformation that all of us can share as equals?

Hi C_A,

Thanks for the reply.

If the ideas in this thread are being discussed on another thread, could you please link to that discussion?

An immediate idea that springs to mind would be to petition our governments to include the option of "human-being" when asked to specify "gender" / "race" / "nationality" etc. on official forms.

This might seem like a pointless change, but how we define ourselves is, I believe, fundamental to our health and unity as a global-civilization. 

I'll give your question some more thought and get back with any more ideas.

L & L 

Jim.  

 

[Nau7ik]

I think it’s obvious that the solution to limiting ourselves through false identities and labels is to disengage the naming that we humans do. We want to label and classify everything. This hardens a sense of separation. To look at the self as being, for example, I am gay, I am a man, I am white, I am American, I am a christian. That’s who I am.

No that’s not who I am. We are more than our immutable characteristics. Our society judges peoples worth and value by their identity. Whereas the more accurate perception would be to judge by one’s character, not his immutable characteristics. Stop seeing others as their skin color or gender, and see them as the infinitely worthy unique being that they are. See the other self as the self. We are far more common than we are different. Our world focuses on the differences, thereby driving the sense of separation deeper into the mind.

These labels and their use fall under identity politics and political correctness. There’s a false sense of moral superiority ascribed to certain labels. Therefore, certain labels mean you’re a good person, other labels mean you’re a bad person. You are not seen a person. You are seen as a preconceived stereotype. It’s dehumanizing. These identity politic driven people don’t seem to understand that.

We are all here together. We are all human. We are all third density beings. We are all children of the infinite One and in truth, the One Creator. There is only one being here. How we are and what we do is far more important than some small facet of our personality or appearance, etc.

[Jade]

The problem becomes that when we begin to delegitimize labels, that those who still depend upon them for their yellow-ray identity can feel even more marginalized when we say things like "trans doesn't exist" or "race don't exist". I think we have to find a way of achieving equality BEFORE we just eliminate these words. I understand the ideology, but I don't think it's that easy for native third density beings, and those are the ones who need the most help at this transition. Sure, those of us who have harvested past this density see this as obvious, but it takes a bit more nuance to alleviate these issues. In fact, until we can even have these discussions without using words of separation, it comes from a place of hypocrisy - even in our best attempts, it's nigh impossible to not use terms that define us as separate. So why don't we just hear each other out and listen to people's pain, instead of contorting our language in different ways so that we can ignore those things that cause us discomfort?

I mean, third density requires labels, requires separation, requires us to "internalize the polarity of our dimension". I have one body, it is connected with all others, yes. But when I have a problem with my hand, I'm not going to call it my foot and expect it to receive the specific care that it needs to thrive. If I treat it like a foot, things aren't going to heal as well as if I were just willing to admit that it was a hand with fingers.  

Social identity comes from the yellow ray. Not understanding or rejecting the social identity of others constitutes as a yellow ray blockage within the self. Sure, it might be a reflection of their blockages that you pick up upon, but a healthy, crystallized yellow ray is often supported by "identity" words. I don't believe that removing all forms of identity is the proper way to balance the yellow ray. One must still understand/accept/integrate themselves into society. Please understand that by default, it is easier for a white, Christian, American male, than for a black, trans, Haitian women who wants to be recognized as equal.

There are so many people who are doing good, hard, legitimate work in the yellow-ray sphere. Eliminating the use of words that bother us is not aiding their efforts. We must recognize that we treat others different because of these labels, then we can address the use of language. Just eliminating the words doesn't mean that racism and sexism are going to go away. Plus, those who are the most racist and sexist will never stop using hateful terminology, so we're going to get halfway there and then create more separation. When I hear words like man, black, Muslim, I do not think of it as separation! I think what a beautiful and colorful planet we have with unique facets of the Creator! I also think about all the work we have yet before us to integrate our society into a social memory complex. I wish it were this easy, but this is just an attempt to put the responsibility of what everyone recognizes as a problem onto others. If a black person decides to stop seeing themselves as black, that doesn't stop random racists from calling them a racial slur.

As an aside, if people are sheltered from this still happening: My friend has three grandchildren who are of mixed race. Just two days ago, their neighbor called them "n-s" and "monkeys". Three children under the age of 7. This might have been the first time any of them even conceptualized what their race was, and it was external. Does this practical advice actually work in application - as in, those who are causing pain through separation, are they going to be adopters of this "we are all one" vision? Does telling the children that "race doesn't exist" eliminate the pain and trauma from this event? Do you think that if she came to me specifically and expressed her pain, and my response was, "Well, race doesn't exist so racism doesn't either because it is a human construct" - do you think that she would come back to me next time she was in pain? In direct application, is this the most empathetic way to heal?

Racism exists. Elitism exists. Bigotry exists. Eliminating them in oneself is step number one, of course. But we can't eliminate these things in others if we refuse to acknowledge that they are legitimate problems. If I break my finger, but refuse to acknowledge that it is broken, and insist that there is no such thing as a broken finger because creation is perfect, how could I ever expect my finger to heal? I must say, oh yes, look at you, poor broken finger! You are not a toe, you are a finger, and you require a splint that is 3 inches long and 3/4 inch wide. And then I must give you reprieve from use for a short while, so that the bones may set. If I forget that it is injured, and again, halfway through healing, say "Oh, there is no such thing as a broken finger!" then it is at risk of being weakened further, and upon the bone setting, it may not happen properly, and then the injury becomes permanent.

If all of your fingers are healed, then it should be easier to recognize when someone else's fingers are broken, and this should be the attempts that we make towards healing others and our planet. None of this, "My finger isn't broken, and because we are one, therefore your finger isn't broken, either!" It's actually the opposite, in a service to others creation - when someone else's finger is broken, then so too should your finger feel the pain of being immobile and useless. Anything less is the true genesis of separation.

14.18 Questioner: Then for the last 2,300 years you have been actively working to create as large a harvest as possible at the end of the total 75,000-year cycle. Can you state with respect to the Law of One why you do this, just as a statement of your reasons for this?

Ra: I am Ra. I speak for the social memory complex termed Ra. We came among you to aid you. Our efforts in service were perverted. Our desire then is to eliminate as far as possible the distortions caused by those misreading our information and guidance. The general cause of service such as the Confederation offers is that of the primal distortion of the Law of One, which is service. The One Being of the creation is like unto a body, if you will accept this third-density analogy. Would we ignore a pain in the leg? A bruise upon the skin? A cut which is festering? No. There is no ignoring a call. We, the entities of sorrow, choose as our service the attempt to heal the sorrow which we are calling analogous to the pains of a physical body complex distortion.

[Diana]

I am in agreement with Nau7ik. I will add:

While labels may empower some people by identifying with a group—and that's a valid choice—labels ultimately separate, and more than that, labels "imprison." By that I mean in labeling self, you have now imposed a belief, a set of identifiers that may have more to do with societal and cultural parameters than the core self. Labeling removes the idea of infinite possibilities and expression of self by attaching an ID and the belief system that accompanies it. Beliefs (labels) close doors, and bar the free flow of expression.

I like how this thread has a bunch of likes and no replies while arguing continues on the other thread.

I think this has to do with human drama. I can only speak for myself, but at some point I feel the black hole event horizon where the gravity of human drama is pulling me into nothingness. I am not immune, and I endeavor to stay vigilant about keeping my focus on the bigger picture—to stay detached as much as possible from human drama, which is about choice. The amount of human drama in this world today has gone off the charts for a variety of reasons, but it mostly boils down to our tech society and overwhelming media.

Would anyone care to expand with ideas of how we can make movements to achieve this equality?  Give this thread a chance to provide us a framework towards discovering a road of healing and transformation that all of us can share as equals?

The movement, for me, must be with self only. As Gandhi said, Be the change you want to see in the world. By this I don't mean to say we shouldn't talk about it here at B4. But I do think there are two different paths that might be explored (and I will make this extreme so as to be clear in communicating the difference): one is unearthing the problem, blaming, finding a guilty parties, and making the guilty parties acknowledge and apologize to bring about retribution and "balance"; and the other is to bypass all that and go straight to how to make this a better world. The latter is one of unconditional acceptance, and relieves the guilt of mistakes and lack of awareness. It bypasses the need for a defense, justification, and victim/perpetrators. It encourages teamwork, inclusion, and a common goal, whereas the victim/perpetrator scenario separates (like all labels do).

This path of bypassing the problem and going right to the solution (as I see it) is not for everyone. But I have found in my life the minute I let go of focusing on the problem and begin to focus on moving forward with a positive solution, one that does not include retribution, I can feel the tethers of my feelings of injustice—which had been holding me in place—loosen and fall away.

[Glow]

I think it would be pretty simple if people just healed themselves enough to embrace the one truth we are all here because of.
We are all one. We are the perpetrators of injustice, and the ones effected, we are all races, all sexes, all nationalities, the elite, the poor, the one who appears to be only light but contains shadow, and the one who appears to be all shadow but contains blinding light.

How can you be racist when NOW in this moment you are all races, how can you be sexist when you NOW in this moment are all sexes. How can you take these behaviors personally when it is you who perpetrates them in your own fear/pain, confusion.
Do you wish to teach yourself a lesson or instead have as many parts of self possible just be compassionate and forgiving, realize there is NOTHING to forgive because all was done under illusion at the hands of pain, fear, and confusion. Move forward, healed, leave less karma for there to be worked out by all parts of self.

Do on to others as you would have done one to you is all one needs to do because you are all others.

[Minyatur]

I'm with Diana that the change is internal, as to me change in the external is supposed to be a naturally occuring consequence of that. Otherwise, you pretty much just want to see society transform to how you desire to see it transform, which denies all accumulated energies that call still to be processed. Nothing is overcome, so it is not useful to think there's a magical solution that erases what one dislikes because that's not really how this Creation works in teach/learning realizing the One reflected in each thing.

I don't think the point is to drop labels as a society but as individuals and radiate outwardly feeling things this way. Dropping them isn't about convincing others that they need to drop them either, but having dropped them yourself in how you interact with others and feel about others. It's really having a transparent personality on the yellow-ray, you don't deny others their sense of identity and instead inspire that none need to limit themselves and their potential to any idea of a label.

[Jim Kent +]

But I do think there are two different paths that might be explored (and I will make this extreme so as to be clear in communicating the difference): one is unearthing the problem, blaming, finding a guilty parties, and making the guilty parties acknowledge and apologize to bring about retribution and "balance"; and the other is to bypass all that and go straight to how to make this a better world. The latter is one of unconditional acceptance, and relieves the guilt of mistakes and lack of awareness. It bypasses the need for a defense, justification, and victim/perpetrators. It encourages teamwork, inclusion, and a common goal, whereas the victim/perpetrator scenario separates (like all labels do).

This path of bypassing the problem and going right to the solution (as I see it) is not for everyone. But I have found in my life the minute I let go of focusing on the problem and begin to focus on moving forward with a positive solution, one that does not include retribution, I can feel the tethers of my feelings of injustice—which had been holding me in place—loosen and fall away.

Thank you Diana for pointing out that I was jumping straight to "a" solution and bypassing all of the "reasons". ( I wasn't consciously aware that I was doing that! )

I also agree that this suggested solution might not work for many, I just personally feel that if you concentrate on the former of the positions you posited, you ultimately end up going round in circles.  

We cannot legislate away bigotry etc. so I also agree that this change that we all are looking for, must come from "within".

I personally look forward to the time when being Human is the only label we need.
 

[Minyatur]

I personally look forward to the time when being Human is the only label we need.

I look forward to it becoming the Creator, although I am personally fond of reminding people they are an expression of life.

[Diana]

Social identity comes from the yellow ray. Not understanding or rejecting the social identity of others constitutes as a yellow ray blockage within the self. Sure, it might be a reflection of their blockages that you pick up upon, but a healthy, crystallized yellow ray is often supported by "identity" words. I don't believe that removing all forms of identity is the proper way to balance the yellow ray. One must still understand/accept/integrate themselves into society. Please understand that by default, it is easier for a white, Christian, American male, than for a black, trans, Haitian women who wants to be recognized as equal.

I want to be clear that while I promote the idea of not labeling, that does not mean I reject or misunderstand the social identity of others. And I do realize the above was not pointed at me, yet I wanted to address the idea.

We are all at different places in a path. If an individual is at the point where the best way to empower herself—being recognized as equal—is to identify with a a label, that is fine. It may give her the strength she needs, but it won't change anyone else's opinion—humans will still be racist.

Also, it is absolutely true that being a white, Christian, American male is "at the top of the food chain" and therefore certain aspects of life are easier. But it must be added here, that everyone has challenges. Those challenges are not always centered on race, religion, gender, or sexual preference. There are many types of pain.

There are so many people who are doing good, hard, legitimate work in the yellow-ray sphere. Eliminating the use of words that bother us is not aiding their efforts. We must recognize that we treat others different because of these labels, then we can address the use of language. Just eliminating the words doesn't mean that racism and sexism are going to go away. Plus, those who are the most racist and sexist will never stop using hateful terminology, so we're going to get halfway there and then create more separation. When I hear words like man, black, Muslim, I do not think of it as separation! I think what a beautiful and colorful planet we have with unique facets of the Creator! I also think about all the work we have yet before us to integrate our society into a social memory complex. I wish it were this easy, but this is just an attempt to put the responsibility of what everyone recognizes as a problem onto others. If a black person decides to stop seeing themselves as black, that doesn't stop random racists from calling them a racial slur.

The above is very practical. I feel, Jade, that you are a wanderer who is in the trenches, really dealing with where humanity is and working with it at the ground level. For humanity to evolve past separation, there are many steps that apparently need to taken, such as advocacy, laws to protect certain groups of people, etc. For these steps it seems labels are efficacious.

When I hear words like man, black, Muslim, I do feel something of what is described above about diversity, but I also feel the restriction of the identifiers. I don't shrug either responsibility or accountability, but my tendency is to be more visionary. I do struggle with how much to get involved. But I can say this: In any way I can I exemplify the idea of equality—not because I have to try but because of who I am—not only of humans but all species and life forms. And I have done this in my work as well as my life. I don't say any of this in defense of my way of living, rather I say this to present a different way of handling the issues.

As an aside, if people are sheltered from this still happening: My friend has three grandchildren who are of mixed race. Just two days ago, their neighbor called them "n-s" and "monkeys". Three children under the age of 7. This might have been the first time any of them even conceptualized what their race was, and it was external. Does this practical advice actually work in application - as in, those who are causing pain through separation, are they going to be adopters of this "we are all one" vision? Does telling the children that "race doesn't exist" eliminate the pain and trauma from this event? Do you think that if she came to me specifically and expressed her pain, and my response was, "Well, race doesn't exist so racism doesn't either because it is a human construct" - do you think that she would come back to me next time she was in pain? In direct application, is this the most empathetic way to heal?

I don't think anyone would suggest such a response to your friend. That is not, in my opinion, what getting rid of labels is about. What you describe is denial.

And, to address the idea of healing: None of us can take away someone else's pain or path to learning. In trying to do so, it dishonors another's choices—and this I find to be one of the most difficult things about being here. We can be supportive, a source of acceptance and comfort, but when it comes to humans who are making choices, they must heal themselves. I don't mean to sound dismissive or cold, but I just don't think it's possible to heal others without there first being the desire from them, and cooperation, to be healed. In unconditionally accepting the person in need of healing, what I think might happen is that they are then capable of accepting themselves without a defense of who they are and where they are at, and in this the possibility of healing is opened up, and that in my opinion is how we help others heal.

To step out of the human drama for a moment in part, you, Jade, have exemplified the above idea in spades, by singing to the lambs. The lambs don't have choice, so you support them in their pain and suffering in the very highest and loving way, without interfering with the human drama, and also by doing this I think you help create healing energy for the humans involved with the slaughter. I could not possibly express the extent of my admiration for this service.

As far as the children go, it's sad. But you can't shelter children from the hate and human mess in this world. If labels help to empower them, great. But if I were the grandmother or mother, I would model that empowerment by not being affected and brushing it off as stupidity, rather than making it into a huge drama. That is not to say I would dismiss the children's pain, I would validate that, but I wouldn't feel sorry for them as though they are victims. I would just try to put it into a perspective that does not include victimhood and make an identity out of it. The deeper the emotional content the deeper it gets embedded in the subconscious mind.

I am not talking out of ignorance, being that I am a white, American female. Looking back on my own life, which included an extremely challenging childhood, I can see how identifying with the problem and feeling like a victim can create separation and a lifelong belief system which is a role only, taken on and identified with. And even though consciously overridden, the underpinnings are difficult to change. The human brain is well equipped with a defense mechanism that encapsulates and deeply buries childhood traumas. That's why I suggest not making a big deal of painful childhood experiences such as your example with the children.

[Jim Kent +]

I personally look forward to the time when being Human is the only label we need.

I look forward to it becoming the Creator, although I am personally fond of reminding people they are an expression of life.

Hi Elros, 

I prefer that label also, although being a pedantic sod, isn't The Creator that which dwells "within" a genetically tweaked ape ( i..e a Human. )

I think that we can all agree that we are Human, but I think that we're going to have fun convincing those adherents of the Abrahamic religions to refer to each-other the The Creator. ( not that I've much interest in such an endeavour! ) 
  

[rva_jeremy]

Using these artificial-concepts-of-separation probably just perpetuates the problems we face...

I'm sympathetic to this, but I ultimately think it's barking up the wrong tree.  In my analysis, it seems to me that the problems we face in third density stem from the outstanding lessons we have to learn.  Learn the lesson, solve the problem.  

So the question is: what lesson are we working on in apprehending these issues of bigotry and separation?  Does using the labels help us or retard our progress?

As much as I consider myself a critic of so-called "political correctness", I don't think we can route around group identities and the separation they entail.  Do the labels create the divisions between people, or do the labels name the already-existing divisions so that they can then be worked with?  And what is the work to be done in learning the lessons: obliterating the labels that allow us to apprehend the underlying separation, or working with the separation through the countless labels?

I think Jade hit the nail on the head: we are here to be individuals and members of group dynamics that typify yellow ray.  None of the situation on this planet is something that we have a direct, individual role in originating.  We are here now with these things as they are.  

The challenge is not so much to rid our illusory experience of any constructs that allow us to conceive of separation.  The challenge is to channel our desire for love and light through the social complex as it is.  So long as these societal concepts are workable constructs, so long as they teach us what we came here to learn, we're simply doing the work within the game rules that exist.

This doesn't mean the rules, the concepts, the labels will never change, you understand.  It simply means that what we're here to do is far, far more flexible than the rules, and we can make those rigid social constructs more malleable and less constraining as a function of our love and behavior.  This is what it is to be awake: to be applying your energy to learning how to manifest your best in every situation, even ones that seem stacked against us from the beginning.  It is a creative task and not clear-cut, and it requires our attention and energy.

[unity100]

Mark and nature of the Green ray is not denying differences. Its accepting, despite differences.

[Minyatur]

I personally look forward to the time when being Human is the only label we need.

I look forward to it becoming the Creator, although I am personally fond of reminding people they are an expression of life.

Hi Elros, 

I prefer that label also, although being a pedantic sod, isn't The Creator that which dwells "within" a genetically tweaked ape ( i..e a Human. )

I think that we can all agree that we are Human, but I think that we're going to have fun convincing those adherents of the Abrahamic religions to refer to each-other the The Creator. ( not that I've much interest in such an endeavour! ) 
  

Well my idea with as the Creator is that Creatorhood is embraced.

Otherwise, human-being also contains traits of separation, is it not a way to see us as apart from nature and the animal kingdom?

[Diana]

None of the situation on this planet is something that we have a direct, individual role in originating.  We are here now with these things as they are.

 
Agreed.

The challenge is not so much to rid our illusory experience of any constructs that allow us to conceive of separation.  The challenge is to channel our desire for love and light through the social complex as it is.  So long as these societal concepts are workable constructs, so long as they teach us what we came here to learn, we're simply doing the work within the game rules that exist.

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.). 

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. 

As a female, there is just no way I would succumb to a male-dominated anything and feel I couldn't be part of it if it was something I was drawn to do. As an example, I have 2 advanced black belts and that was really difficult, especially since it is so male dominated in so many ways. But I would not let that stop me, nor did I whine about how much more difficult it was for me than the young, muscle-bound guys. With this example, I don't mean to trivialize the horrific plights of some people on this planet, which can't even be compared to something like sticking out martial arts in America where women for the most part are not barred from learning.

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.

Otherwise, human-being also contains traits of separation, is it not a way to see us as apart from nature and the animal kingdom?

It does separate, but I think it's more of a separation of density. Humans have choice, and animals and plants don't, at least not in the same way. If we evolved to the point of feeling at one with all, or at least respecting all life, the density separation probably wouldn't be so significant.  

Until then, many humans will play that superiority card until awareness expands.

[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.

[Diana]

Thank you Jeremy, for taking the care and time to consider my words, and further clarifying in your articulate way some of what I was trying to express.

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.

It's an interesting intellectual question. Likely the separation came first even before we had spoken language. (Animals will chase away members from a herd, such as the young males.) 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.

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.

The energy of labeling could possibly be exponentially separating as more people identify with a group and the energy of that identity multiplies. As a fun aside, it might be speculated that this tendency is like a child playing with a toy, practicing to be part of a SMC (a doll as practice for caring for an infant or a toy truck practicing to drive one). The true nature of a SMC would compel individuals to group naturally, not artificially. This is one reason why I encourage developing self, knowing self outside of societal and cultural influences; and may be part of the efficacy of meditation.

[rva_jeremy]

Wow, that was a really cool reply, Diana.  Thanks for piquing my curiosity even further.

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.

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.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

If I may add a little note to this part of your post, "all language is predicated on the subject/object dichotomy and is therefore designed to distinguish, categorize, separate."

The number One of our numbering system does this precisely.  In infinity, you can't have a finite structure without some-things defining portions into defineable parts from the undefineable whole.

The movie Lucy explained this rather poignantly in both instances of how time and space form and how intelligence formulates from those infinite instances through definitions, such as One, Two, Three, A, B, C, Do, Rey, Mi.

They even put a dodecahedron in view subliminally.

I found an article I wanted to share, I was waiting on some feedback though so I'm going to hold off a little bit longer on posting it.

In the mean time, I was wondering about something.  Would it be...(for lack of a better word--) Wise to consider pitching to a school district the idea of starting up classes on Human Equality?

Would offering such perspectives and ways to combat prejudice be a possibly decent thing to teach in public education?

[Sprout]

Side question though, why do they say "I am Ra"? There is a certain identity/separation. We are all one, but each is unique like no other and there is nothing wrong with that right?

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

In Ra's words: Your people have a fondness for the naming.

It's like how Ra isn't actually Ra to Ra, but identifies as Ra for 3D Entities to be able to identify what we would otherwise perceive to be Light, or a Spirit.

Each entity in creation is unique, but that uniqueness belongs to that which belongs to us all, The One Infinite Creator.  Of which probably isn't called such by all those aware of such an entity.

Names don't seem to be needed or even necessary in portions of creation.

[Sprout]

We use names due to our senses and illusion yes, but that does not mean Ra aren't an individuated social memory complex within an array of complexes in a confederation.
Polarity itself is an unfair labeling in my opinion, why would one be a defined STS and another STO? This is the basis of seperation which the creation took upon itself to experience all.

[rva_jeremy]

Polarity itself is an unfair labeling in my opinion, why would one be a defined STS and another STO?.

I agree; it is deceptive to assign that polarized identity to another self.  I've written about the before on my Bring4th blog in the very first post titled "The Amorality of Polarization".  Since the blog system doesn't allow me to directly link to my post, I'll excerpt some of it here.

Furthermore, STS and STO signify approaches to the Creation in my view.  Our choice isn't about whether we choose to join a team so much as how we choose to think of ourselves and the Creation.  STS promotes a mentality that sees the individual self as the dominant partner with the Creator, and because this is fundamentally untrue, this position must be constantly reasserted, usually through the abrogation of free will in others.  STO promotes a mentality that sees the individual self as a co-equal partner with the Creator, and that "all is well" so that it is about learning about oneself through otherselves and vice versa so that the whole Creator can better know itself.

The takeaway is that these are philosophical and energetic configurations, not identities.  Especially in third density, regardless of our Choice, we could be emphasizing either one on a moment by moment basis as we process our catalyst.  Sure, we will eventually choose to specialize in one configuration over the other, but choosing STO doesn't mean we will never serve ourselves.  It just means that, given two paths, the work we are willing to do conforms most to one or the other.

But it is still work that needs to be done: catalyst to process, emotions and thoughts to ground, service to be done according to our moment by moment choices.  It is not a static thing we sign up for, but a way of understanding our approach to the Creation in a fundamental manner.  Therefore, while I agree that the equivalence of STS with "evil" is not ideal, I see a deeper danger in seeing oneself as "STO" or "STS", since the identification is inconsistent with the authentic Choice that will be made, and it can be distracting from the real work we have to do.

To put it another way, it might be better to think of polarity as a more kinetic phenomenon.  STS and STO are verbs, not nouns.  What you do, how you think, how you use your love/light--these are the marks of polarity, not some label that serves as a shortcut glossing over what it means to be polarized.

[Diana]

Polarity itself is an unfair labeling in my opinion, why would one be a defined STS and another STO? This is the basis of seperation which the creation took upon itself to experience all.

Ra, in communicating the Law of One, had to use words. So on the one hand, labeling was a necessary learning tool, and from Ra's perspective, unconditional. 

But on the other hand, beyond the initial understanding of polarity, why focus on the difference at all? It's all love (ether of self only or all). Focusing on the difference, for one thing, sometimes incites judgment. It does separate. Which ironically is what an STS entity would desire. 

If one focuses on, refines, strengthens, and evolves self, then what does it matter how others are labeled or even what they are doing? The STS individuals will still be there doing their thing. And none of us is a pure, unconditional, STO being down here as far as I can tell. We do have to choose how to get involved here in this realm to be of service, and that has a wide array of applications. Some may choose to be activists, others may choose just to be a loving, kind person. But to focus on the difference, beyond the initial process of learning and understanding it, would seem to be adding to a divide. It is not inclusive. 

To make a really pathetic joke: STS psychopaths are people too.

It is like Eckhart Tolle's "in the now" advice: use time when it's needed (for an appointment or bill payment), then return to the now and "be" there. This could be an analogy to using labels when needed (as when one must communicate an idea such as the Law of One), then return to the unconditional state where all IS one.

Of course, this is an intellectual exercise on my part, and may not have a lot of practical application in the world here and now. We all have to deal with governments and other authoritarian entities which harbor STS practices and individuals. And yet, we may stay focused on helping only, in whatever ways we can, putting no energy into judgment.

[Sprout]

[Edited cause unrelated to the original topic]

[Quan]

Polarity itself is an unfair labeling in my opinion, why would one be a defined STS and another STO? This is the basis of seperation which the creation took upon itself to experience all.

Ra, in communicating the Law of One, had to use words. So on the one hand, labeling was a necessary learning tool, and from Ra's perspective, unconditional. 

But on the other hand, beyond the initial understanding of polarity, why focus on the difference at all? It's all love (ether of self only or all). Focusing on the difference, for one thing, sometimes incites judgment. It does separate. Which ironically is what an STS entity would desire. 

If one focuses on, refines, strengthens, and evolves self, then what does it matter how others are labeled or even what they are doing? The STS individuals will still be there doing their thing. And none of us is a pure, unconditional, STO being down here as far as I can tell. We do have to choose how to get involved here in this realm to be of service, and that has a wide array of applications. Some may choose to be activists, others may choose just to be a loving, kind person. But to focus on the difference, beyond the initial process of learning and understanding it, would seem to be adding to a divide. It is not inclusive. 

To make a really pathetic joke: STS psychopaths are people too.

It is like Eckhart Tolle's "in the now" advice: use time when it's needed (for an appointment or bill payment), then return to the now and "be" there. This could be an analogy to using labels when needed (as when one must communicate an idea such as the Law of One), then return to the unconditional state where all IS one.

Of course, this is an intellectual exercise on my part, and may not have a lot of practical application in the world here and now. We all have to deal with governments and other authoritarian entities which harbor STS practices and individuals. And yet, we may stay focused on helping only, in whatever ways we can, putting no energy into judgment.

Beautifully said Diana thank you

Sprout: with your question I would think maybe anythings possible in some shape or form.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Does anyone know if it'd be a bad idea to organize equality rallies?  Like on Facebook or Meetup?  To spread awareness towards True Equality?

What would make good posters or artwork to represent True Equality?

[ScottK]

This issue and many others would be why higher-level entities might call the people of Earth "confused". Their definition of "confused" would be when two people, who both are acting in a manner consistent with Service to Others, need to get into a fight with each other in order to be consistent with their individuated view of what Service to Others means.

The Orion Group has molded societal structures to foster and support this state of confusion quite effectively through (primarily) politics, it's group "leaders", and the MSM. When Humanity finally realizes how the Orion Group is playing them off each other will be the time when true equality comes, and not before.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Not just orion, but basically negative energies permeating the entire reality.

You can find them here on this forum too, still, as the now popular if not famous hashtag goes for women, we must continue to persist, or else change won't come as we had hoped.