Ariana Grande and the question of appropriate expression of sexuality

[BHelmet]

Going to try to shift gears a bit. The thread title does say "the question of appropriate expression of sexuality". It is easy to look at Ariana Grande and pass judgment/discernment on her behavior, since she is "out there" on display for all to see, no holds barred. But what of my own expression of sexuality?

For me, sexuality was always a private matter. When I was 35, I finally was overwhelmed by the chemicals AND managed to make a conscious choice about whether to 'go for it' or not. At first I was sure I had found 'the one' and was not shy about expressing the joy I felt about this. I am thinking of standing in line in the supermarket and making no uncertain displays of public affection with my soon-to-be wife. Now, I am not an exhibitionist and didn't do this in a "hey look at us" manner (spontaneous? mechanical? does it matter?), although I did rationalize that the world needed more of an expression of love in it as a demonstration that true love was possible. (idealistic me)

In the long run, I am still in the cycle of the son with my wife in this less-than-perfect world and hardly in the cycle of the holy spirit (that more perfect androgynous polar being type of thing). But we still go arm in arm, hand in hand as a sort of sign to others and ourselves that an old married couple can still maintain a caring tender relationship after long years of marriage. (and it is not just a superficial show) Somehow we also manage to laugh and have fun in public together.

I do tell myself that this is an appropriate expression of sexuality.

 

[Yas]

Also, one of the other points I was trying to make is that this "gender identity" thing is not occurring in a vacuum. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, it sure seems like something is going on, and it's not for the benefit of humanity - quite the opposite.

I think this whole drive for "equality" is being corrupted by certain elements which turns the whole thing into something far more sexual and base in nature. That's devolution, not progress. And that ties directly into this whole "liberal progressives" thing, which we now see is just as bad as the "right-wing loonies". Same song, different verse.

Not sure if this is where you're going Scottie, but this reminds me of my difficulty reconciling the 'Arab Spring' as both revolution (in the genuine sense: mass popular expression/uprising) and 'color revolution' (as in: regime change imposed from abroad).

I'm satisfied now that both things were at work: revolution 'coming up from below', and pseudo-revolution, or corruption of that revolution 'imposed from above', although the interplay of each is obviously complex and difficult at times to discern.

I wonder if the 'whole corrupted drive for equality', as you put it, is corrupting or staving off an 'impetus coming from below' (or within, rather) for humanity (or a portion of humanity) to 'become as little children'? So it's emerging in the form of, or finding expression in, Speshul Snowflake Syndrome and hypersexuality, but 'the real thing' or 'the other force' is obscured and deviated by all the ideological identity nonsense.

It's also like the false 'man-made global warming' construct, which was laid down in advance of these times when the climate has gone wonky. By design, (most, I think, of) those who see that that is happening see it in the frame or narrative dictated by the Powers That Be.

I'm also not sure if I understand this correctly, but I was thinking something along these lines as well.

I was thinking about this whole idea of "emacipation" that these "progressive liberals" have, and thinking that the ideas of "emacipation", "equality", "tolerance", and all that..., aren't bad per se... the thing is that they are focusing on the wrong ways of walking towards that. I mean, they become like little children, yes, but little children in the bad way; brats governed by their impulses who are probably less free.

So thinking about this reminded me of what Laura said in The Wave, about being like little children:

The admonition to “become as little children” only points to the need for purity of the centers, and not the idea of keeping them in a primitive state. Paul wrote: “Brothers, be not children in that which concerns judgment, be children in what concerns malice, but as to judgment, be fully grown men.”

- from The Wave Chapter 28: Technicians of Ecstasy: The Shamanic Initiation Of The Knighted Ones Part 1

And if we connect this to what the Cassiopaeans said about men loosing their sexual drive, it would seem that (maybe) there is some sort of influence "in the air" so to say, and that that influence could perhaps be diverted to make people focus on some aspects (maybe the material/physical manifestations or in more divisions) instead of in other aspects of what it means to "be like children" in a place of "equality", "tolerance" and "freedom".

Thinking about this too:

- Every sexual conduct has elements of conflict and can generate guilt. Therefore, for any group that holds sexuality as a dominant factor, the inner conflict will also be intense, which will increase the tendency to neurosis and the repression of moral conscience.

- Psychopathic leaders will provide all the possible means to extinguish the moral conscience and they will try to appear as the solution to moral conflicts – in order to suppress them.

- The suppression of moral conscience is converted into ideology by the psychopathic leaders and it emerges as a solution to their problems (referring to the people with this intense moral conflicts mentioned above – i.e. activists for homosexual identity.)

- As Lobaczewski points out, the psychopathic leadership generates neurosis in order to strengthen the suppression of moral conscience.

I'm thinking that maybe this "influence going on in the background" brings some sort of moral conflict which is necessary to grow, and the psychopaths accomplish the divertion by alleviating that moral conflict. They suppress it and become controllers of these ideas by turning them into something completely different that offers relief from the pain that comes with moral conscience. And this extends their grip on people.

Well, something like that. I don't know if I'm making any sense here because these are just some thoughts I'm still trying to organize in my head.

 

[Joe]

A: True love conquers all. But chemicals usually only feed the dragon; at least as long as the dragon is master.

I was under the impression that the idea of the emotional center having to work before chemicals was expanded more by the Cs - perhaps that was in another session, but I haven't been able to find it. What I thought I remembered was the suggestion that in a genuine romantic relationship, there would be first an intellectual connection between two people, which would then trigger the emotions and finally it would activate chemicals (including sexual attraction, etc, as I understood it). But in 'normal' mechanical life it tends to go the other way around: people are attracted first and then they get emotionally involved with someone who lacked any intellectual connection with them (no common worldview or sense of purpose, etc).

Ironically I was just reading Mouravieff book II last night (page 220 or so) and read this very idea of the aim to reverse the order of the interaction of the centers. This may be what you are referring to. Normally the body dominates the personality and the personality dominates the real I, but the aim of esoteric development is to, more or less, reverse this interaction.

And what is the real I for an "sto candidate"? Probably something along the lines of empathy, compassion, seeing other people as human beings first, most of them with issues, and being able to understand those issues and give when asked (which requires a lot of knowledge about oneself and human beings in general, which is why gathering as much knowledge as possible is essential) to leave the considerations for the self behind.

So how does anyone expect to reverse that order that you mentioned if, for most people, the first thing that happens when they see a cute guy or girl is to immediately think of getting something for the self? If it starts with that premise it will go nowhere, or will not go to the "ideal romantic relationship" that most people dream of. There's nothing wrong with dreaming of that, but if you have completely the wrong idea of how to go about, then you'll simply get a series of bad relationships.

In the final analysis though, you could say it's "all good" because through those bad relationships people have the opportunity to get to the point of having suffered enough, or got the opposite of what they wanted enough, to get to a 'bankruptcy' so to speak, and only THEN start asking the right questions and pursuing the right path. Of course, it would be nice if people didn't have to suffering so much to get to that point, and that's one of the main reasons for this forum, for people to share their experiences and the knowledge gained in the hope that others can learn, at least a little, from it and thereby not have to make so many mistakes.

 

[mkrnhr]

I was thinking about this whole idea of "emacipation" that these "progressive liberals" have, and thinking that the ideas of "emacipation", "equality", "tolerance", and all that..., aren't bad per se... the thing is that they are focusing on the wrong ways of walking towards that. I mean, they become like little children, yes, but little children in the bad way; brats governed by their impulses who are probably less free.

I think that the problem with such words as freedom, equality, etc. is that when presented as vague concepts, people tend to project onto them all sort of personal visions, which makes it easy to corrupt and deviate. For example, is freedom good or bad? Most people would automatically think that it's good. However, freedom from slavery is different from the freedom to having slaves and yet they are both freedoms. Whenever presented with a word as a representation of a concept, one should dig as deep as possible for the meaning, manifestation, and consequences of the said concept. For the freedom example, one can ask: freedom of what? freedom from what? For whom? What's the domain of applicability? What are the eventual consequences for this or that application? Why? When? etc. For too much of even a good thing can become a bad thing (like eating three tons of bacon at once). For that reason one has to keep the law of three in mind. Nothing is as simple as it seems. Most of those who pass for "intellectuals" in the public eye do not ask questions, and yet they come with all sort of uninformed answers, with the consequences we see today, and we'll probably see even more.

 

[Neil]

I wonder if the 'whole corrupted drive for equality', as you put it, is corrupting or staving off an 'impetus coming from below' (or within, rather) for humanity (or a portion of humanity) to 'become as little children'? So it's emerging in the form of, or finding expression in, Speshul Snowflake Syndrome and hypersexuality, but 'the real thing' or 'the other force' is obscured and deviated by all the ideological identity nonsense.

And if we connect this to what the Cassiopaeans said about men loosing their sexual drive, it would seem that (maybe) there is some sort of influence "in the air" so to say, and that that influence could perhaps be diverted to make people focus on some aspects (maybe the material/physical manifestations or in more divisions) instead of in other aspects of what it means to "be like children" in a place of "equality", "tolerance" and "freedom".

I think these are interesting points. I keep thinking about this little sippet.

(L) No, they said they are going in to fourth density! But they're not "going" anywhere (J) There will be no traveling involved. (T) We're not "going" anywhere, we're shifting our frequencies up
to the next density, not moving from where we are.
A: Picture driving down a highway, suddenly you notice auras surrounding everything.... Being able to see around corners, going inside little cottages which become mansions, when viewed
from inside... Going inside a building in Albuquerque and going out the back door into Las Vegas, going to sleep as a female, and waking up male... Flying in a plane for half an hour and landing
at the same place 5 weeks later...

The Cassiopaeans exist in the realm of information and on a couple of occasions described themselves as both male and female. After descending from the absolute divine unity of 7D, the divine will enters the realm of perfectly balanced dualities, referred to as the Absolute II by Mouravieff. Male/Female would seem to one of the archetypal information fields which exists on 6D. These archetypes are then projected into matter when extruded into the physical universe giving rise to material forms. I have speculated that one's degree of physical variability is contingent on the ability to access and channel these information fields. In 3D the level of access is low and the ability to have a direct impact on one's physical manifestation is very limited. In 4D the connection is more succinct, and one is actually able to interact with and express the archetypes in a more direct and practical way. Thus, if one desired to get in touch with one's "feminine side" the physical biology in 4D might literally morph to reflect the information being transduced. Fulcanelli was reputedly able to change his gender and gender fluidity would seem to be part and parcel of the greater 4D experience of variability of forms.

Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the 'gold,' so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the 'female energy' consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain...
A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you're gonna get dirty.
Q: What was the motivating factor for playing in the dirt? What essential thing occurred? You said once that it was 'desire based imbalance.' What was it a desire for?
A: Increased physicality.

Mouravieff goes on about the importance of polar couples in restoring the divine androgyne, who is supposed to reign over the period that leads to the final sorting of the wheat from the tares. I'm not convinced that polar couples are as centrally important as he suggests, it might be a bit of skewing on his part, however the principle is still valid. The reintegration of the two hemispheres of the brain, the rebalancing of the masculine and feminine archetypes, and the "becoming like little children" is an effort in undoing the effects of the fall; symptomatic of which is the sexual redirection the Cassiopaeans predicted.

So what the "sexual liberals" crowd does is trap one in the physical by focusing on the physical manifestation (hypersexuality) while encouraging a bunch of subjective emotional beliefs around gender identity. The spiritual meanings behind masculinity/femininity are stripped away and one is placed on a materialist Mobius strip which focuses on one's genitalia at the expense of all else, or pretends that biology doesn't really exist at the expense of all else. Such a denial of the broader reality keeps the consciousness enslaved and lost in illusion, which is the point.

Q: (L) It does seem that the Grays and Lizzies are abnormally interested in sexual activities of human beings, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Why are they so inordinately interested in this and why do they practice sex, sexual aberrations, or do they have a tremendous sex drive even though they are fourth density beings?
A: Too many questions; one at a time.
Q: (L) Do they have tremendous sex drives even though they are in fourth density?
A: No.
Q: (L) Are they interested in sexual energy simply because it is life force?
A: Partly and also desperately to stave off change in order to retain control.
Q: (L) What changes are they desperate to stave off?
A: To 4th level.
Q: (L) They are trying to stave off the 4th level change. Can they do that?
A: No. Also hoping to retain control even if change occurs.

So it seems this is a major plank in the 4D control matrix and why they have to keep things as debased as possible to prevent people from awakening to their spiritual potentials and escaping from the illusion. Understanding the esoteric underpinnings of the sexual energy is a part of developing the awareness which may open the door to 4D understanding. In that context, I believe the appropriate expression of sexuality comes from the understanding that it is a manifestation of how the universe creates itself. These different energies are given freely by the divine cosmic mind and the two of you are experiencing the creation as one being, with different energies, somewhat similar to how the DCM learns by experiencing itself. There is a transcendent element to it if there is a genuine bond and the proper technique is employed, which is described here.

Q: On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don't understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state.
A: Possession is the key.
Q: What do you mean?
A: In STS, you possess.
Q: That's what I am saying here...
A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess...
Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don't understand how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'
A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach?
Q: Well, you could!
A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.
Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that exists is part of God, including the flesh, that if one gives to the flesh, without being attached to the giving, that it could be considered a giving to the 'All?'
A: Explain the process.
Q: For example: there are some people who like to suffer, because they believe that the flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have wanted people to
suffer, and they have made this big deal about sex and anything that might be considered pleasant or desirable should be denied, and that a person should suffer, and revel in their suffering. And,
actually, making a person...
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.
Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration,
whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute a giving to the universe as
giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things?
A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."
Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without
violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.

In practice, it seems to me to be pretty lofty goal; good luck making it work in 3D. The potentials exist, but without some rather dramatic changes, it seems like something intended for another world.

 

[BHelmet]

And what is the real I for an "sto candidate"? Probably something along the lines of empathy, compassion, seeing other people as human beings first, most of them with issues, and being able to understand those issues and give when asked (which requires a lot of knowledge about oneself and human beings in general, which is why gathering as much knowledge as possible is essential) to leave the considerations for the self behind.

The real I for an STO candidate is the real I. Perhaps STO candidate is a hallmark of the real I. Perhaps not. I think they may or may not be related. But sure - all the things you state sound good.

So how does anyone expect to reverse that order that you mentioned if, for most people, the first thing that happens when they see a cute guy or girl is to immediately think of getting something for the self?

To step outside the machine - to observe the machine as it activates. To make a conscious choice to reject the idea of taking. To choose what expression or place of being we will assume. Hm - and the possibility to establish boundaries and limitations! Which is where it gets back to "appropriate expression of sexuality". To have an aim outside of the realm of mechanicalness; an aim that stems from knowledge gained and utilized.

What you say is true, most (all?) people can't help their automatic reactions. But at that moment of automaticity kicking in, there is the possibility of choosing. Choosing to detach from the machine - or, choosing some action consciously with conscience. Of course, like Senor Wences used to say: Easy to say, deeficult to do. Certainly, with awareness, there is the possibility to choose just how to relate to the other being: what sort of relationship to create. To try to create an opening for the real I to have some space to become present. And there is the possibility to utterly fail at all of this. Certainly I ran scared many times and places in my life for fear of failing with all the accompanying rationalizations.

If it starts with that premise it will go nowhere, or will not go to the "ideal romantic relationship" that most people dream of. There's nothing wrong with dreaming of that, but if you have completely the wrong idea of how to go about, then you'll simply get a series of bad relationships.

Bad is subjective, yes? And where is nowhere? Does not all go nowhere? (in a physical sense) Is not all vanity? Does being in a relationship with the opposite sex necessarily preclude the evolution of the soul? Even 'bad' relationships can teach many lessons, as you say, and be a part of the process of the formation of a true individuality. It's a long road. Some (all?) relationships are useful for lessons - Relationship 101 and so on. Perhaps some are to fulfill some karma. Perhaps some are related to destiny. Perhaps some are for a 'future' purpose. Some relationships may even involve the fulfillment of an esoteric aim.

If a person has learned all the relationship lessons, I suppose there is no need to engage in a relationship. But for some, perhaps they are missing some crucial lesson by running from relationships that potentially involve sexuality out of many different very valid fears. Fear of an erroneous karmic entanglement. Fear of domination. Fear of being hurt/betrayed. Fear of temptation. Fear of commitment/responsibility/duty. Fear of bad judgement and on and on.

In the final analysis though, you could say it's "all good" because through those bad relationships people have the opportunity to get to the point of having suffered enough, or got the opposite of what they wanted enough, to get to a 'bankruptcy' so to speak, and only THEN start asking the right questions and pursuing the right path. Of course, it would be nice if people didn't have to suffering so much to get to that point, and that's one of the main reasons for this forum, for people to share their experiences and the knowledge gained in the hope that others can learn, at least a little, from it and thereby not have to make so many mistakes.

Bankruptcy can take many forms from many sources. It can be said that relationships are suffering but then it can be said all life is suffering, so what's the difference? To suffer in a relationship for oh so many different reasons or to suffer for lack of intimacy and being known by another; to suffer aloneness and isolation. Ha ha! Pick your poison! It's an unweighted choice! Such is this life. It isn't called a veil of tears for nothing. Perhaps if we avoid choosing, we may be missing some key lessons and we risk not graduating. More tears.

We can only do our best and then pray for the grace that it was enough to move on out of 3D STS purgatory.

Yes, it would be nice to alleviate suffering and avoid mistakes. My experience in this life is that there is a distinct possibility that this might be wishful thinking. If there is a mistake I need to make to learn a lesson, I am pretty sure I am going to make it. The Great Cosmic Zen Master wields a mighty 2 x 4 in my life.

If I am going to enter the kingdom as a little child, I need to take heart and not let these bothersome details weigh too heavily on my emotional centers.

 

[Yas]

I was thinking about this whole idea of "emacipation" that these "progressive liberals" have, and thinking that the ideas of "emacipation", "equality", "tolerance", and all that..., aren't bad per se... the thing is that they are focusing on the wrong ways of walking towards that. I mean, they become like little children, yes, but little children in the bad way; brats governed by their impulses who are probably less free.

I think that the problem with such words as freedom, equality, etc. is that when presented as vague concepts, people tend to project onto them all sort of personal visions, which makes it easy to corrupt and deviate. For example, is freedom good or bad? Most people would automatically think that it's good. However, freedom from slavery is different from the freedom to having slaves and yet they are both freedoms. Whenever presented with a word as a representation of a concept, one should dig as deep as possible for the meaning, manifestation, and consequences of the said concept. For the freedom example, one can ask: freedom of what? freedom from what? For whom? What's the domain of applicability? What are the eventual consequences for this or that application? Why? When? etc. For too much of even a good thing can become a bad thing (like eating three tons of bacon at once). For that reason one has to keep the law of three in mind. Nothing is as simple as it seems. Most of those who pass for "intellectuals" in the public eye do not ask questions, and yet they come with all sort of uninformed answers, with the consequences we see today, and we'll probably see even more.

Yes, I agree. And that's why it is important to not only think about it but also discuss it with other people who are trying to understand these concepts sincerely; i.e. in this forum. Our own views can be easily deviated by our own bias and by sharing and discussing we can have a better understanding, maybe look at those concepts more objectively.

In the final analysis though, you could say it's "all good" because through those bad relationships people have the opportunity to get to the point of having suffered enough, or got the opposite of what they wanted enough, to get to a 'bankruptcy' so to speak, and only THEN start asking the right questions and pursuing the right path. Of course, it would be nice if people didn't have to suffering so much to get to that point, and that's one of the main reasons for this forum, for people to share their experiences and the knowledge gained in the hope that others can learn, at least a little, from it and thereby not have to make so many mistakes.

Bankruptcy can take many forms from many sources. It can be said that relationships are suffering but then it can be said all life is suffering, so what's the difference? To suffer in a relationship for oh so many different reasons or to suffer for lack of intimacy and being known by another; to suffer aloneness and isolation. Ha ha! Pick your poison! It's an unweighted choice! Such is this life. It isn't called a veil of tears for nothing. Perhaps if we avoid choosing, we may be missing some key lessons and we risk not graduating. More tears.

We can only do our best and then pray for the grace that it was enough to move on out of 3D STS purgatory.

Yes, it would be nice to alleviate suffering and avoid mistakes. My experience in this life is that there is a distinct possibility that this might be wishful thinking. If there is a mistake I need to make to learn a lesson, I am pretty sure I am going to make it. The Great Cosmic Zen Master wields a mighty 2 x 4 in my life.

If I am going to enter the kingdom as a little child, I need to take heart and not let these bothersome details weigh too heavily on my emotional centers.

I think that you make important points in your post. It's true, if you need to learn the lessons you will have chances to learn them in the experience of living. Yet, I also think that this isn't so black and white. I mean, we can say that we all just have to learn the lessons so we keep on repeating the same mistakes again again too. This "i'm just learning my lessons" can also be an excuse to continue doing something that isn't necessarily right... and by those actions you can also hurt other people, and yourself, you can put a big obstacle in your potential to grow. Of course, in the end, if someone is doing this, then it means that he or she might need to go through that in order to learn.

Yet, if we are talking about consciously choosing to learn without making too many mistakes, it might be important to have some discipline and restrain from the drive of being in a relationship. For example, if you come to realize that most of the time your ideas of what a romantic relationship is are filled with delusions and what you're striking for is the pleasure of being with someone, and how easily we can rationalize this neediness and imagine that we are truly building a true, positive relationship; it will be normal that you feel a bit discouraged to go about engaging in any romantic relationship just for the sake of experience, OSIT. Maybe discipline in not being driven by the neediness is a lesson too, one that is important if we want to master our machines. But I agree that this shouldn't come from fear but from understanding what is at stake.

So, if we are here in this group and we are trying to learn to not be driven by our impulses but, at the same time, we don't want to just repress them because that doesn't bring the best results, I think that what Chu and Laura said is very important. We need to talk, to network. It can be difficult because these are subjects that can bring shame and all that, but by talking about them, we can keep ourselves in check and learn how to do this. What Laura said about women to women talk is very important I think. Older women have more knowledge and can teach young women. And the same might apply regarding men.

 

[T.C.]

So how does anyone expect to reverse that order that you mentioned...

I think it's definitely possible. I'm sure it's happened to a lesser or greater extent with members here just through their years of being involved in the Work.

I had a real-time example of how the "stimulus -> thought/feeling" type of situation has changed in me and I'm sure with others, when I went to the supermarket this morning with this thread fresh in my mind.

Remember before we got into diet and health in a serious way? Remember walking around a supermarket, seeing all the cookies and desserts and cereals and chips and sodas and milkshakes? Those things to be 'gotten' and 'had' for your 'pleasure'. Do peeps here look at them the same way any more? How do those of you who take their health seriously feel now when going out to buy groceries? We don't even walk down most of the aisles. If we walk past a stand with candy on it, I'm sure for a lot of us it would have about the same effect as walking past a stand with magazines, or electrical equipment or toilet paper.

How did we do it? We learned about it, thought about it, stopped doing it. We changed our fundamental attitude towards food.

I'm kinda riffing here, but I think there's something in this.

 

[Windmill knight]

Q: On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don't understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state.
A: Possession is the key.
Q: What do you mean?
A: In STS, you possess.
Q: That's what I am saying here...
A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess...
Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don't understand how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'
A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach?
Q: Well, you could!
A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.
Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that exists is part of God, including the flesh, that if one gives to the flesh, without being attached to the giving, that it could be considered a giving to the 'All?'
A: Explain the process.
Q: For example: there are some people who like to suffer, because they believe that the flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have wanted people to
suffer, and they have made this big deal about sex and anything that might be considered pleasant or desirable should be denied, and that a person should suffer, and revel in their suffering. And,
actually, making a person...
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.
Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration,
whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute a giving to the universe as
giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things?
A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."
Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without
violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.

In practice, it seems to me to be pretty lofty goal; good luck making it work in 3D. The potentials exist, but without some rather dramatic changes, it seems like something intended for another world.

It seems so to me too, especially after reading how the Cs put it: that genuine, pure (perfect?) love can only take place in an STO environment, of which we are not part. While we remain 3D STS, there will be to some extent desire, wanting, wishes, all which imply possession. Can we even picture being in a relationship with someone you don't 'want' or 'enjoy' being with? Even if you don't want to violate their free will, and you respect and love them as human beings, and you care for them and wish them the best, and would be ready to sacrifice those wants for them; I can't see how anyone on this planet could be with anyone else without at least some degree of attachment to their company. Can anyone be 100% indifferent to whether their couple is with them or not?

However, we are trying to become STO candidates, and even if we don't 'get it' before graduating to STO, we can at least start making some big changes that put the cart behind the horse where it should be. That is, to always have our wishes, desires and chemicals subordinate to the well being, free will and what is best for the other. That's the only solution I can think of for us in this lifetime: to put the physical, sts, objectifying aspect of romance and sex underneath the spiritual, intellectual, conscious, loving and caring.

The problem is that it's incredibly easy to be driven by our own sexual or emotional needs and rationalize them away with a narrative about how our love for the other is the priority and not the other way around. It's a total minefield, because we are programmed for needing. The matter is further complicated by something the Cs explained above: that in STS, we give because it feels good. I don't know if this is a definite rule; I think it might be possible on occasions for STO candidates to give because it's good for the other and not because of how that makes us feel, provided we are first aware of this. That is, self-sacrifice to the point that we don't expect any future rewards for it - not even a feel-good pat on the back from our own consciences.

 

[Timótheos]

Rebel TV's Lauren Southern gives her take on the hypocrisy of Arianna Grande...

http://<iframe width="560" height="...F8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[luc]

It seems so to me too, especially after reading how the Cs put it: that genuine, pure (perfect?) love can only take place in an STO environment, of which we are not part. While we remain 3D STS, there will be to some extent desire, wanting, wishes, all which imply possession. Can we even picture being in a relationship with someone you don't 'want' or 'enjoy' being with? Even if you don't want to violate their free will, and you respect and love them as human beings, and you care for them and wish them the best, and would be ready to sacrifice those wants for them; I can't see how anyone on this planet could be with anyone else without at least some degree of attachment to their company. Can anyone be 100% indifferent to whether their couple is with them or not?

Well, if you put it this way (100%), I agree. However, to offer a perspective from a married man, I think being in a serious relationship can be quite the boot-camp for learning about ourselves, our quirks, and how to overcome them to an extent to act in ways that are beneficial for our partner. I know that I wouldn't even notice many detrimental behaviors on my part if it wasn't for my wife - a partner who knows you well can easily spot many things and provide a corrective, which then leads to changing our behavior and thinking patterns for the better, especially if we are engaged in the Work and as such always try to do better and not reject any such observations out of hand to maintain our 'peace', i.e. buffers.

Concerning this whole discussion about sexual programming and so on, for us who are in serious relationships there is another angle - if we care for our partners, this is the best motivation there is to always watch out for inappropriate behavior and mechanical reactions when it comes to the other sex. For example, we need to learn how to spot flirting behavior from others and our own reactions to it, in the knowledge that no matter how 'innocent' such things seem on the surface, this will deeply hurt our partners (and vice-versa, of course). I think I developed a good radar when it comes to subtle advances/attention from other women because of this, and always try hard not to fall for it, even if it's just exchanging smiles and such things.

The matter is further complicated by something the Cs explained above: that in STS, we give because it feels good. I don't know if this is a definite rule; I think it might be possible on occasions for STO candidates to give because it's good for the other and not because of how that makes us feel, provided we are first aware of this. That is, self-sacrifice to the point that we don't expect any future rewards for it - not even a feel-good pat on the back from our own consciences.

I think it is possible. I know I did many things that went totally against my mechanical inclinations/'wants' simply because I knew it is better for my wife, and ultimately for myself. Of course, I screw up as well - a lot. But as I said, I think caring for your partner can be a very strong motivation to change for the better and do what 'it' doesn't like - not because we expect anything in return, but simply because it's the right thing. Interestingly, in my experience, this often leads to very good feelings after the fact and in the long run - even though I didn't expect it at all!

 

[Joe]

It seems so to me too, especially after reading how the Cs put it: that genuine, pure (perfect?) love can only take place in an STO environment, of which we are not part. While we remain 3D STS, there will be to some extent desire, wanting, wishes, all which imply possession. Can we even picture being in a relationship with someone you don't 'want' or 'enjoy' being with? Even if you don't want to violate their free will, and you respect and love them as human beings, and you care for them and wish them the best, and would be ready to sacrifice those wants for them; I can't see how anyone on this planet could be with anyone else without at least some degree of attachment to their company. Can anyone be 100% indifferent to whether their couple is with them or not?

I don't think the point is to be 100% indifferent to whether or not their couple is with them. There is a very large gulf between that and how most people approach relationships. So the point is not to go to the opposite extreme of where most people are today, but rather to work on getting there, step by step. The first one being, when you see a woman that you find attractive, are you able to go through the process of making all efforts to sideline that biological 'attraction' in the interest of finding out who the woman is as a human being, first and foremost, and not the object of your desires for something for yourself?

 

[Windmill knight]

It seems so to me too, especially after reading how the Cs put it: that genuine, pure (perfect?) love can only take place in an STO environment, of which we are not part. While we remain 3D STS, there will be to some extent desire, wanting, wishes, all which imply possession. Can we even picture being in a relationship with someone you don't 'want' or 'enjoy' being with? Even if you don't want to violate their free will, and you respect and love them as human beings, and you care for them and wish them the best, and would be ready to sacrifice those wants for them; I can't see how anyone on this planet could be with anyone else without at least some degree of attachment to their company. Can anyone be 100% indifferent to whether their couple is with them or not?

I don't think the point is to be 100% indifferent to whether or not their couple is with them. There is a very large gulf between that and how most people approach relationships. So the point is not to go to the opposite extreme of where most people are today, but rather to work on getting there, step by step. The first one being, when you see a woman that you find attractive, are you able to go through the process of making all efforts to sideline that biological 'attraction' in the interest of finding out who the woman is as a human being, first and foremost, and not the object of your desires for something for yourself?

I agree. In the paragraph above I was just making the point that a pure STO love is not possible for us. But we can have an 'STO candidate' type of love that prioritizes the spiritual over the physical, which is what I undersand you are saying with your question.

I think it is possible. I know I did many things that went totally against my mechanical inclinations/'wants' simply because I knew it is better for my wife, and ultimately for myself. Of course, I screw up as well - a lot. But as I said, I think caring for your partner can be a very strong motivation to change for the better and do what 'it' doesn't like - not because we expect anything in return, but simply because it's the right thing. Interestingly, in my experience, this often leads to very good feelings after the fact and in the long run - even though I didn't expect it at all!

Absolutely. I think being in a relationship is a great opportunity for creativity and learning certain lessons that we would otherwise not have, which is one reason why I think it's so important to figure out what's the best, most genuine type of relationship available to us. Another reason is that if we get it wrong, a relationship can also turn out to be very destructive - although we'll still get a lesson, for sure, just a different one.

 

[Mikey]

So how does anyone expect to reverse that order that you mentioned...

How did we do it? We learned about it, thought about it, stopped doing it. We changed our fundamental attitude towards food.

I'm kinda riffing here, but I think there's something in this.

I agree with your analogy to food consumption. From our experiments with diet, changing to something better is simply a matter of "just do it". Kinda like Glenda to Dorothy: "You always had the power to go back home. The magic slippers will take you home in two seconds". But then, it's all a big school, and progress needs will and strength. Those who have learned lessons can move on. Those who keep playing in the dirt get dirty.

 

[Mikey]

Sex and Unweighted Choice on CassWiki

It is safe to link to Casswiki :) Here are the links:

https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Sex

https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Unweighted_choice