I see another commenter here is confused, as am I. Conscious politics advocates for, among other things, a very simple idea: include everyone. Everyone. Make room. Nobody has to give anything up. Our declaration of independence said we're all created equal but we've never treated everyone equally. Conscious politics says enough already. It's time. It's the only way. You're going to have to work a little harder to help me understand here: Who are the 50% who are alienated? And in what way(s)?
Love this. Especially "if cultivating compassion is equal to cultivating the new consciousness — and it is, if somehow it is harder for us to make room for trans and gender non-conforming people than it is to make room for other people, then there it is. The practice isn’t to be compassionate when it’s easy and fun; the practice is to be compassionate period. The degree to which it may be hard to do is the degree to which it is soul-level work, said every conscious politics practitioner ever. We are here for a reason (and the reason is often stuff that’s hard)."
Thanks Steven. Great article. Love the emphasis on compassion and inclusion and the ways you tied this topic to paradigm shift and “gifts.”
Two thoughts: one kind of intellectual; the other, spurred by thinking about the gift of unity.
In terms of paradigm change, I don’t think it is a matter of objective reality necessarily not being real, rather it has shifted to a contextual reality. In other words it may be “real” but only within a particular context. So the paradigm becomes more of what I call a radical contextualism, which draws us to that sense of mindful presence and conscious awareness as we become part of every context.
The second point is that somehow the pronoun “they” feels off. While I respect its usage the use of a plural verb form afterwards still denotes separation. I think that perhaps a pronoun like “both” suggests the unifying traits you describe better. And singular verb forms work better following it. But then who am I to create a designator for someone else. (he/him)
I'd have given this more than one heart if Substack allowed it just because you're bringing the intellectual!!! I really resonate with the idea of becoming "part of every context." That'll keep me thinking for a while. The "no objective reality" were comments I've seen and heard, specifically, from others on the subject -- and now I will have more ways to respond to that. :)
The writer in me struggles mightily wtih some of the terms, as I did while writing this particular piece. I get where you're coming from, I think, and feel sure I don't have a vote in any of the languaging. I'm just doing my best to write and speak in ways that others ask of me, so long as I don't have to compromise who I am. So far, that hasn't been the case. "Both?" I like that a lot. And I appreciate your far-deeper-than-my thinking about this. More to play with. :) Thank you, Sam.
With full support and deep love of all humans, I, a cisgendered womyn who prefers she/her/hers pronouns, lovingly signs this love letter to humanity with a little extra love to those who feel marginalized or unseen in their non-bianary, trans, or other gendered lives. I'd also encourage anyone interested to stop gendering themselves on job applications, forms, or any document. Why is this box necessary to tick? Aren't we all a little masculine and feminine? Who cares anyway? I'd like to tick boxes titled conscious, homosapien, spiritual, kind as I find these boxes more clearly identify myself to a stranger. Thank you, as ever, Steven!
Steven,
Why do you alienate 50% of the population for 2% of the people.
"Radical Right " people have lots of COMPASSION for many great causes.
By linking your Conscious Politics ideas to a small fringe, but important groups,
you will never grow to where you need to be .... Especially while insulting us constantly.
My humble Opinion.
Choice? Are you choosing to be insulted or alienated? Wasn’t the message “everybody gets to be included?” I’m confused.
I am too. :)
I see another commenter here is confused, as am I. Conscious politics advocates for, among other things, a very simple idea: include everyone. Everyone. Make room. Nobody has to give anything up. Our declaration of independence said we're all created equal but we've never treated everyone equally. Conscious politics says enough already. It's time. It's the only way. You're going to have to work a little harder to help me understand here: Who are the 50% who are alienated? And in what way(s)?
Love this. Especially "if cultivating compassion is equal to cultivating the new consciousness — and it is, if somehow it is harder for us to make room for trans and gender non-conforming people than it is to make room for other people, then there it is. The practice isn’t to be compassionate when it’s easy and fun; the practice is to be compassionate period. The degree to which it may be hard to do is the degree to which it is soul-level work, said every conscious politics practitioner ever. We are here for a reason (and the reason is often stuff that’s hard)."
Thank you.
Great article! So helpful! Consider me a co-signer please! My pronouns are she her hers.
We've got a co-signer! :)
Thanks Steven. Great article. Love the emphasis on compassion and inclusion and the ways you tied this topic to paradigm shift and “gifts.”
Two thoughts: one kind of intellectual; the other, spurred by thinking about the gift of unity.
In terms of paradigm change, I don’t think it is a matter of objective reality necessarily not being real, rather it has shifted to a contextual reality. In other words it may be “real” but only within a particular context. So the paradigm becomes more of what I call a radical contextualism, which draws us to that sense of mindful presence and conscious awareness as we become part of every context.
The second point is that somehow the pronoun “they” feels off. While I respect its usage the use of a plural verb form afterwards still denotes separation. I think that perhaps a pronoun like “both” suggests the unifying traits you describe better. And singular verb forms work better following it. But then who am I to create a designator for someone else. (he/him)
I'd have given this more than one heart if Substack allowed it just because you're bringing the intellectual!!! I really resonate with the idea of becoming "part of every context." That'll keep me thinking for a while. The "no objective reality" were comments I've seen and heard, specifically, from others on the subject -- and now I will have more ways to respond to that. :)
The writer in me struggles mightily wtih some of the terms, as I did while writing this particular piece. I get where you're coming from, I think, and feel sure I don't have a vote in any of the languaging. I'm just doing my best to write and speak in ways that others ask of me, so long as I don't have to compromise who I am. So far, that hasn't been the case. "Both?" I like that a lot. And I appreciate your far-deeper-than-my thinking about this. More to play with. :) Thank you, Sam.
With full support and deep love of all humans, I, a cisgendered womyn who prefers she/her/hers pronouns, lovingly signs this love letter to humanity with a little extra love to those who feel marginalized or unseen in their non-bianary, trans, or other gendered lives. I'd also encourage anyone interested to stop gendering themselves on job applications, forms, or any document. Why is this box necessary to tick? Aren't we all a little masculine and feminine? Who cares anyway? I'd like to tick boxes titled conscious, homosapien, spiritual, kind as I find these boxes more clearly identify myself to a stranger. Thank you, as ever, Steven!