Intuitive Social Integration

Intuitive Social Integration

Part I: Feelings

The present approach to feelings - maybe unique to US culture, maybe worldwide (I can't know) seems to be that feelings are to be feared. They must be wrestled into submission, gagged through tricks, or given the reigns to take over the body as an entity of their own, so one can somehow distance oneself from the shame of associating with them, as perhaps from a toxic relative.

Being taught to "deal with" emotions, especially as children, teaches that feelings are essentially negative and, thus, threats. But i impress that denying one's feelings is denying one's very self and immediately produces discord within oneself.

Feelings are the primary form of communication used by one's true self to gain attention, and when confronted with care and thoroughness, promise a freedom by discovering and rejoining that true self. The people or things or circumstances which trigger the emotions are often seen as the answer to the emotions, but they are merely external mirrors of the message. They can provide clarity to the message in a new way. Unfortunately, they often provide further distraction, prolonging the discord. One must fearlessly identify the trigger, take pause to look inward at the feeling and then dig DEEP for that lost piece using the aforementioned clues. Only then is the true beauty and appreciation of the power and utility of feelings, and accordingly what it means to be human, found.

In summary, listen to your feelings: they are essential to being. But do so with enough time and care get the full message, which could be older than originally thought

Part II: Love and Sexuality

I think this subject is another which our culture gets very, very wrong; and, yet again, the teaching is fear. Children are taught to closely guard their hearts and that sexuality (which at a young age is symbolized by part of their very own, innocent bodies) is bad. This leads to strong paranoia and fear of each person as somehow having the power to steal something personal, and fear of not controlling oneself and damaging oneself permanently through using the wrong type of sexuality.

Sexuality and practicing one's passions are part of one's identity. How and when they are experienced is as unique as each person. I am providing my own definition of sexuality: a broader, misleading, term to describe the sensation of oneness with a people - be it through a shared passion, representing a missing part of oneself, or when loving them. The normal assumption is that a person who sparks the feelings of sexuality is someone to be feared (cut-off) or contained (obtained) in order to gain control of the feelings, lest they cause a lack of control of actions and accidental sex.

Sometimes a shared passion prompting that oneness isn't immediately recognized, or an existing disharmony within oneself will make the attraction all the more veiled. I suspect additionally that some who have a passion involving people, have the hardest time being understood and accepting their own sexuality, because they don't enjoy the luxury that is having context to separate the sexuality from passion for people. For example someone who is passionate about music will feel that same thrill as someone who is passionate about people, but they don't understand each other and thus cannot discern that they are the same. Perhaps the person passionate about people receives shaming for acting with passion towards people, links the passion with sex and yields lots of confusion all around. If there is an added level of disharmony in oneself, the stronger and longer that part of this self has been rejected, the stronger the self will be drawn to someone who points to the oneness sought in one's self. This is not sexuality as a passion, but something else entirely. This breeds dependency on the person to act in place of the rejected part, permanently, or at least until that rejected piece is recovered.

None of this is love (Hahaha). Just as a musician does not truly love the piano which is the vehicle of their passion, so does someone who experiences their sexuality with other people, not automatically love those people. Love is a choice to open one's ears to another's needs and give to them. It is a VERY broad spectrum, but always a choice. Also, the more one decides to love, the more one develops a passion to love, and the more love becomes available for one to give. It's a fascinating thing. But where I think this culture goes wrong is the emphasis that one should only love one person, or worse, depicting as love what is actually sexuality. To be clear, choosing a companion should be choosing to love that person MOST, in that their needs are put ahead of one's own and everyone else's. What's been lost, I speculate with the advent of high speed transportation as well as the world wars, has been loving each other as part of a community. The effects have been disastrous and, I believe, can be blamed for so much of the current, confusing tragedies. It's become commonplace to keep distance and deafen to the needs of others. Different versions of the mantra "do what works for you" are a useful to begin accepting oneself, but they cannot solve the destructive crisis of the lack of love. The mantras wouldn't be necessary if the love from the community were present and felt. I think this is where there is so much opportunity for change. What if each person tried to love EVERYONE RADICALLY: not being afraid of using the word "love", not being afraid to show affection, not being afraid to express appreciation for each person's uniqueness, not being afraid let someone else shine, not being afraid to accommodate, not being afraid to sacrifice some tears, not being afraid of being hurt. When one rejects fear, the world opens up.

In summary, sexuality is a sensation of oneness, and not something to fear. Love is a choice and should be practiced as lavishly as possible.