On the path of Personal Evolution, as we continue to deepen—to evolve—our relationship to our sexuality deepens as well. It may be more accurate to say that our already existing depths are revealed to a greater and greater degree. What this means to you is that as a consciously evolving being, your experience of sexuality [both your own and that of your communion with another] will shift, change, and evolve as well.

As usual, this experience ranges from unconscious to conscious to super-conscious. From pre-rational, to rational, to trans-rational. From shallow to deep to deeply reflective and inspiring. From instinct to intellect to intuition. From body to mind to soul with each level transcending and including the former. From “getting laid” to “partnering” to having “spiritual communion” with each level solving the challenges of the level previously experienced while creating new, more complex challenges to be resolved by the next level.

And so on.

Jeff wanted to get laid. Often. He would go out to bars and “pick up on lovelies”. After years of “putting notches in his belt” Jeff finally felt unfulfilled, but he did not know why. Jeff had reached the limit of his capacities to behave unconsciously around his sexuality. His new depth now required more. He felt this in his bones, but could not name it other than to say he was “tired of the game”.

Sondra had a childhood fantasy of her Knight in Shining Armor. Since she was 5 she dreamed of her fantasy wedding. How her dress would be. How he would look—kissing her with his strong jaw line jutting forth like a marble statue of a god. And after her wedding–which looked just perfect—she was unhappy. When she made love to her husband—who was perfectly handsome—she did not feel connected to him. Not long after he did not seem to desire her as much. She had reached the limits of the gifts of her fantasy. It took a spiritual teacher to ask her if she had consciously chosen all the trappings of her fantasy. Did she? Or was she living off of the promises of that first bridal magazine she saw when she was five years old? She became more conscious. She began to consciously design her life. Communicating this to her husband lovingly and openly perhaps saved her marriage.

Steve was willing to wait for the right woman. He wanted a woman that demonstrated his values. A true partner who would make a good mother, provide him an oasis at home, yet was strong in herself and was her “own person” and was, well, gorgeous. Steve wanted a woman who did not “need” him, but who would lovingly “choose” him. He eventually found her in his mid-thirties. Their sexual relationship continued to deepen and enrich their lives and partnership, for the more he was around her, the more he loved her, the more he respected her, and the more she turned him on as a result.

Steve chose consciously and rationally and reaped the rewards a result.

Rachael was in love. However she was “in love” as a result of the continued deepening of the Self and the spiritual communion she experienced with her lover. He did not look the way she thought “her man” would look. He did not have the “right kind of job” her parents wanted her partner to have. However, he demonstrated openness and love and truly cherished her. And they had a mutually agreed upon approach to resolving conflict in their relationship; they took it on a as a spiritual practice. They viewed their sexual relations in the same manner—as a spiritual practice. As communion with God. Rachael and her lover were choosing trans-rationally. They evolved all the more rapidly as a result.

For someone at any of these levels of depth or evolution, the previous level no longer fulfills them. It will not support their happiness. While the level above provides opportunities for further stretching and evolution. Of course, if one is at a pre-rational level and meets someone at a trans-rational level, they will either be confused by their approach to the world, or be deeply hurt, or stretched beyond their capacities, and thereby in further danger of possible regression, rather than transcendence to the next level. One step at a time. Skipping the rational level will not help, it will hurt, as it is the rational that provides the foundational structures for a truly trans-rational game; a game of spirituality, intuition, openness and grace. And while this piece is intended to be focused on sex and sexual relations, there is a part of you even now beginning to generalize these concepts appropriately. Filling your mind with a rich map for Getting to Grace.

Remember—you are in a process. Your consciousness is ever evolving. The question is: “are you evolving consciously or unconsciously”.

The choice, as always, is yours. What will you choose?

relationships

Many of you heard Jason [me] talking about Personal Evolution on the Reality Sandwich radio show on KPOO 89.5FM with Julie and Martin Mathews. It was a rich hour of conversation. If you missed it and are looking for it, look no further. It is available now in MP3 format:

Download Here.

audio, ego, emotions, radio

[As a preface, this piece assumes the rules of justice are commonly agreed upon and in place. That people are free from force and fraud as a matter of justice, principle, and integrity. These ideas are meant to build creativity within, and are not meant to give a way to violate that premise.]

“I would never die for one of my beliefs. I may be wrong [about it].”—George Bernard Shaw

“I am not interested in being right. I care about finding out whether I am or not.” –Albert Einstein

What Einstein and Shaw were both saying was that they would rather be accurate than be “right”.

Have you ever had a friend who thought they remembered something a certain way while you remembered it differently? Have you ever had a friend willing to argue with you about this very discrepancy? Have you ever done the same? While some may be eager to tell you how you are wrong, still others are willing to say “you may be right…but I remember it thus…”. Oh, what a difference a few words can make.

And it is that difference that makes the difference. It is that difference that can create ease, or foster dissonance. Generate grace, or create tension. Resolve differences or create new ones out of thin air.

Some would rather be right than be accurate. That is to say that they are constantly looking for evidence that their positions are “right”—buttressing their opinions in the face of contradictory information. This shows up in a range of behaviors from eco-terrorists violently attacking companies based on junk science to others ignoring the evidence of man-accelerated climate change. From those blaming intolerance for incompetence on racism whenever they can to the Bush Administration only listening to views that supported the existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs and the call for the invasion of Iraq. From someone judging an acquaintance on limited information when their own self-esteem issues are triggered by them to having a fixed perspective on someone without direct personal experience with them. On both sides of the aisle—both ends of the spectrum—equally distasteful manifestations of this mind-set can arise.

At the same time, others would rather be accurate than be “right”. That is to say they are constantly taking in new information to verify their interpretations—and in fact working constantly to update them—having far less identification with them. They know they are not their opinions or views. They have their views. However, their views do not have them. These people are far more enjoyable to engage in political dialogue, they are truly intellectually curious.

Let us briefly examine both mindsets.

As usual, self-esteem plays an important role. As well as attachment. As well as ego—the antitheses of true self-esteem.

If one is interested in being “right”—they have their ego wrapped up in whether they are right or not—they are then deeply identified with their perceptions as an extension of themselves—then you can expect them to defend their positions as a matter of “honor”. They will be “up in arms” doing so. What follows may be a rather distasteful display of emotion in support of their belief, perception, etc. And, as a useful side note, you can always calibrate yours or another’s attachment to their view by whether or not they have a sense of humor around it. A sense of humor is a signal to a fluid perspective.

If one [you] are interested in accuracy, then they will be open, curious, have a lack of attachment to their views. They will be constantly working to verify their interpretations of the events in the world around them—of the people around them. This person will inevitably have high[er] esteem for the self, as it is only from this place that one can relax into the not-knowing that is required for fluidity around one’s perceptions.

What if one [you] in their self-reflexive moments notice that they are being attached to their view as “right” being blind to new information that may correct their accuracy?

What to do? As usual, the answer is to witness it, and then choose another path. Build the muscle of a lack of identification with your views. Build the muscle of witnessing. As it is from this place of pure witnessing that your spiritual path may lie ahead of you—quite clearly. Enjoy the view…and then step down and begin to walk the path. One. Step. At. A. Time.

Beliefs, emotions, inter-personal dynamics