Recently, I heard a claim that there were only two authentic expressions of sex, i.e., the natural binary of male and female. The speaker argued that this binary and only this binary is natural and therefore authentic. As I considered this claim, my thoughts went back to the early history of life on this planet when sex evolved as a reproductive strategy. Biological evolution, as a process, produced two reproductively distinct sexes. The strategy has endured because it improved the odds of successful reproduction of any species using it. Sexes exist for a biologically functional purpose and only for that reason. Remove the biological advantages from sexual reproduction and sexes never would have evolved. This means in its most fundamental sense male and female reflect reproductive sexes. The majority of individuals are male or female in the reproductive meaning of the two categories. Any fundamental differences between the two reproductive sexes, whether in anatomy, physiology, affect, cognition or behavior appear of necessity to be tied to reproductive functions. This seems to be what the speaker mentioned above had in mind. In another piece on this site, I have argued that male and female represent a complimentary pair that anchor the points at either end of a spectrum lying between the pair. The speaker denied as authentic the spectrum and thus anyone representing it.
Evolution is not an invariant process and a minority of births result in atypical outcomes related to sex, as well as other characteristics. Some atypical sex related outcomes are more easily identified than others. There are variations in anatomical outcomes such as in the structure of the genitalia. There are also physiological variations such as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which result in a genetically XY individual who appears female but has no internal female reproductive organs. There also appear to be a range of atypical sex related outcomes, possibly related to physiological processes, that aren’t well understood. For example, there are likely atypical outcomes due to hormone exposure during development that is hypothesized to occur at the wrong time or persist for too long or too brief of a period or to involve the wrong hormone altogether. These are usually only identifiable through overt behavior and/or reports of covert psychological states such as thoughts, feelings and behavioral impulses arising in awareness and becoming objects of consciousness, which may or may not be overtly acted upon. Thus, in addition to anatomical variations, there can be outcomes resulting in variations in sexual orientation, sense of sexuality and gender identity. These atypical variations can be manifest in various combinations and to varying degrees and will be stronger and more intense in some individuals than in others. I would say that any variation that is a product of nature is natural and any claim that it is unnatural is a false claim.
If you take the variations above, which arguably have a basis in biology and then insert them into the psycho-social context represented by culture, a whole new layer of considerations emerge. Culture represents a range of narratives about human nature and the role of people in the institutions and practices of society. These include such things as religion, politics, medicine and psychology among others. During development, we all begin to build up a narrative about how we fit into this many-faceted cultural matrix. For example, many would call this personal narrative ego or self. How we define our fit into this matrix or allow it to be defined for us can have far ranging implications. It is my assertion that it is a human right for each individual to define for themselves their relationship to the cultural matrix in which they live. That said, understand that there are components within the matrix that resist such a right in many of the variations within a population. Deniers of human rights tend to have rigid personalities and a need for certainty even if they are certainly wrong. Such people could be said to be lost in their mind.
What I mean by the mind is that scaffold of mental constructs that go by names such as ideas, concepts, beliefs and facts that are usually revealed in our use of language. Our experiences are encoded through images and words and are therefore linked to the scaffold. The development of the cultural mind is supported by the experiences of the body in the physical world. Experience is a critical contributor to the development of the cultural mind. Complimentary pairs, like male and female or good and evil, exist because they make experience possible through the tensions produced by the contrast between the end points – if no contrasts, then no experience. You can’t have the experience of temperature without the binary of hot and cold.
The cultural mind, in my view, might be thought of as a cognitive structure existing within awareness. By way of illustration, imagine a large grassy field (awareness) with a complex set of “monkey bars” (cultural mind) set up on part of it. Most of us spend most of our time “playing” on the monkey bars and are largely oblivious to the field (awareness). When an experience occurs, we usually interpret it through the structures comprising the cultural mind. This is what is known as top-down perception. Looking at an experience from the perspective of the field and excluding the monkey bars is called bottom up perception and is typical of young children and awakened adults. This is the perspective of the natural mind.
I would suggest that the self that resides in the cultural mind is a personal myth and is a story woven from memories, which are selective and ever changing. This self can never be authentic in any foundational sense. Authenticity in a person is, in my view, to be found only in the beingness from which the field of awareness arises, not in the cultural mind. Thus, to legitimately characterize someone as authentic is to speak of them as an expression of that underlying beingness, a state that precedes mind and body. A state that resides in the source field of awareness, which is the ground of all being. The authentic Self shines through some individuals’ way of being in the world and is hidden by others’ way of being in the world. It is not that one has it and another lacks it, for both have it. It is just evident in one and not the other. Let us seek communion with our authentic Self and then let it shine into the world to be seen by all who have eyes with which to see it.
For me, I AM emerged into this “reality” frame on April 15, 1942.
Me is the “fictive-self” created by the ego that evolved within I AM. Ego helps guide this body/mind (i.e., avatar) through the web of the world (i.e., collective stories) into which I AM emerged. I AM is a “wave” of individuated consciousness and sense of beingness transmitted from a larger field of consciousness (i.e., a seed consciousness) and received by a biological device tuned to it (i.e., a brain). It is also responsible for what we call awareness. For I AM to emerge, its biological vehicle (i.e., avatar) must be born. A reality frame (i.e., the material universe) can be thought of as a complex and dynamic context created within Source Consciousness. A reality frame has both shared aspects (i.e., the generic template), which include “rules of engagement,” so to speak, and individuated aspects that serve to maintain a degree of separation between the avatars (i.e. body/minds) of individuated consciousnesses.
A seed consciousness is a finite field of consciousness capable of generating individuated consciousnesses. By way of analogy, think of planting a seed that generates a plant that creates leaves (think individuated consciousnesses). A seed consciousness exists within and was manifested by the infinite and eternal field of Source Consciousness. Source Consciousness created seed consciousnesses in its own “image,” which means there is an essential identity between the two. In the same sense, a cup of coffee drawn from an urn of coffee retains identity with the coffee in the urn.
A seed consciousness is too extensive to be “fed” by a single biological vehicle (i.e., a body/mind) in a reality frame. “To be fed” refers to the feedback function between individuated consciousness and seed consciousness. In the plant analogy, this would be the energy for the plant created by each leaf through photosynthesis. Thus, an individuated consciousness is an avatar for a seed consciousness that gains experience in a reality frame, which then contributes to the maturation of the seed consciousness. All consciousnesses that have ever existed arose from and within Source Consciousness. Seed consciousnesses lie outside of a reality frame, which exists within Source Consciousness, but the rules governing the reality frame restrict though don’t completely prevent interaction of consciousnesses within it with consciousnesses outside of the reality frame.
A generic template is the common or shared aspects of a reality frame that are the same for all consciousnesses within the reality frame. For example, all living organisms share the requirement for nutrients, all organisms experience granite as having a hard surface, all organisms experience the effects of gravity and so on. The rules of engagement are the principles that govern the relational aspects of the reality frame. These rules define what the nature of the relationship is between one aspect and another within the reality frame. For example, two combustible materials related by friction produce fire. In terms of ordinary daily experience, these rules can be thought of as very similar to the principles of classical physics.
Individuated aspects are aspects that are relatively unique to each individuated consciousness within the reality frame. On the one hand, you might think of these as variations in physical characteristics that make one vehicle distinguishable from another. On the other hand, you can think of these as variations in psychological characteristics that give rise to differences in perceptions that influence the relationships between vehicles. Individuated aspects are necessary for experience within the reality frame. They give rise to the perceptual duality of me and not me. It is the perceived differences arising from perceptual duality that make experience possible. If no differences were perceived, there would be no experiences, as we ordinarily understand experience.
For “psychological characteristics,” it is necessary to consider the notion of “mind” (see “What is Mind?” a sub-section in Part I). Mind is an evolved psychological construct within awareness that comes to consist of an amalgamation of concepts, beliefs, attitudes and interpretations through which sensations are filtered and become perceptions. Perceptions in turn provide a method by which one creates meaning from the sensations that arise in one’s awareness. When one emerges into the reality frame, perception is what is called “bottom-up.” This is probably what the ancient Indian sage Patanjali meant by “naked awareness.” To infants and young children all events are neutral; that is, no interpretation or meaning is imposed upon them. In short, there is no prejudgment.
As a child begins to acquire experience, ideas, especially about repetitive events, begin to form. This process is greatly accelerated by the acquisition of language. Language becomes an efficient way to acquire, second hand, the knowledge, concepts, beliefs, attitudes and interpretations of those one has relationship with such as parents, relatives, peers and cultural structures such as educational, religious, commercial and political institutions. As this process gains momentum, perception becomes what is called “top-down.” In short, few, if any, events are experienced as neutral. Events are interpreted through the filters represented in mind. Top-down perception is necessary for the emergence of the “world.” To the extent that one shares the top–down perceptional scheme of another, then to some degree, “one lives in the same world” as the other.
This interpretive structure* can be thought of as a major activities of mind along with memory and ego . Most events are now filtered through and prejudged against the interpretive structure embedded in memory. This mental structure lies mostly outside of awareness and usually operates outside of awareness (for more on this topic see “Automatic Programs” a sub-section in Part I). It is accessed by conscious awareness and becomes active in mind only when conscious attention is required, which is mediated by ego . Some aspects of the mental structure are so deeply embedded that they are not easily accessed and therefore not easily modified. Since most of the interpretive process is outside of conscious awareness, many of the decisions we make happen automatically and without our being aware of the process. The actions we take resulting from these decisions would often appear mysterious to us except that ego creates explanations for them. Some of the more elaborate explanations are what is sometimes referred to as the myths we live by. Ego also is responsible for creating a sense of “self” (I, me) to explain who is performing these actions. Thus, ego serves as an interface between events requiring conscious attention and our interpretive structure and memories. The concept of “self” (a.k.a. fictive-self) created by ego is often referred to as our story or narrative and includes the explanations for or myths about why we do what otherwise might be inexplicable (see also “Pathway Four into the Inner Ego” a sub-section in Part I).
A key concept that is usually a part of the interpretative structure is that of linear time. Time is largely the product of memory. If you did not have a hierarchy of memories from previous events to place current events into a linear context, you would have little or no sense of linear time. Once a timeline between previous events and current events comes into existence, an imaginative extrapolation becomes possible that we call the future. The future is conceived of as potential time in which events not yet experienced might occur. Our concept of linear time is also largely responsible for our concept of linear causation (i.e., A causes B causes C, etc.). We often engage in the practice of trying to cause or at least to imagine and predict what those future events might be.
Many people, past and present, have talked and written about higher states of consciousness such as “Self-realization,” “Christ Consciousness,” “God Consciousness” and “Unity Consciousness.” The occurrence of such a shift in being appears to be outside of one’s ability to deliberately produce (see also “Taken”). Establishing the ability to move between top–down and bottom–up perception may be a useful precondition for being “taken.” Even if one is never “taken,” being able to move between these two perceptual modalities is a less contracted way of living. Many years ago I read a comment by a Yaqui medicine man, Don Juan Matus, to his apprentice, Carlos Castaneda, to the effect that if he wanted to be a “sorcerer,” he had to “stop the world.” For a long time I was somewhat puzzled by this comment because I confused “world” with “planet.” I now understand it to refer to stepping outside of our interpretive structure (world) or to stop engaging in top-down perception. To stop doing top-down perception, for most people, requires disentangling oneself from the world.
The process of disentanglement from the world begins with being present in each moment. To be present simply means that you are consciously aware of what is here, now, and nothing else. If you are having thoughts, associations, judgments or whatever related to what is here, now, or having memories of the past, extrapolations about the future, thoughts about your story or someone else’s story, you are not present. There are certainly times when it is necessary to enter the web of the world but the critical skill is to avoid becoming trapped in the web.
Presence requires no effort. One simply relaxes into the moment and if you observe that you’ve left presence then effortlessly nudge yourself back. As you do this, hold the intention that you want, as an adult, to approximate the mind you had as a young child. Done regularly enough, presence progressively expands until established as your default state. Once you can be present with regularity, you have reached a point that I’ve discussed as the “Natural Mind.”
When you are not present, you are entangled in the web of the world. A twentieth century American mystic, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, described his attitude toward the world as one of “high indifference.” This attitude allows you be in the world but not of the world. This does not mean you don’t care about things in the world or don’t engage the world. It does mean that you don’t act from top-down perceptions or become emotionally entangled in the world.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to presence is a function neurology calls the “default mode network.” This neural network seems to be largely responsible for maintaining our fictive-self and narratives about the world. It does this by becoming active whenever we are not specifically engaged in something that requires focused attention. When this function becomes active it acts a lot like a movie-selection algorithm that throws up titles of movie suggestions based on your viewing history. So, thoughts, images and memories related to your ongoing narrative events interpreted as important pop into consciousness until you engage one of them and start “unpacking” it. This process maintains and reinforces the narratives and interpretative perceptions that keep you entangled in the web of the world. Extricating yourself from this web sets you free from the mental construct that you think of as the world. Learning to be present in the moment (i.e., keeping your attention focused in the moment) dampens and eventually makes the default network become virtually silent. It is now natural for you to just be or relax into I AM. This then may set the stage for relaxing deeper into the mystery of being.
* For anyone interested in a model of the interpretive structure as it might occur within an individual, consider the psychology of personal constructs theory of George Kelly. This is briefly described here (see Foundations sub-section). This is described in more detail here. For an For a complete description see Kelly’s two volume work: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955.