Continuing from Part 2.
Freedom from the self-alienation of either model comes in abandoning the various pretensions of individuality, disconnectedness, and sexual discretion imposed by antilife social models (e.g., "left and right," "male and female," "mine and yours," et cetera). Living within one or any multiples of the sets of illusions, while easy and popular, leads to a painful conflict between the subconscious--which recognizes the self and body--and the conscious, which must constantly rationalize the illusory self within the world, and fit all experiences into an artificial framework. Victims of repressed sexual or childhood abuse can have their repressions teased out by deep therapy, even by a mental health professional who lives within the rest of the illusions, but almost all of the non-popular, unrecognized phobias, such as fear of the sexual self or fear of the fluid world, are neither treated nor recognized.
Disalienation: first comes acknowledgement of the individual's role as a living organism--presumably one bipedal and mammalian, constantly swapping cells with the surrounding environment, and only marginally in "control" of the ever-shifting "consciousness" identified as "me" or "I."
Alongside that comes the separate identification of soul and shell. While the human frame is animated by and bound to, in intimate ways, its associated form, the body does not define the whole of the soul, nor the soul the body. Human eats apple; apple becomes part of human; human defecates; human grows. However united in the pursuit of the world's tapestry, the apple and the human are not "one" in the sense that western philosophy generally sees one. So it is for the body and "its" higher mental processes.
The standard graph of neural patterns does not fully capture consciousness, and a complete said graph, which would be consciousness, is yet only achievable through a connection between lightspring and shell. Ergo, the accurate perception of one's form as a "human" or a "woman" or "man" will come, first, in the understanding that it the ghost occupies a hunk of meat (one day, perhaps synthetics; another day, perhaps more fluid energy structures, et cetera), and that hunk of meat is not fully in the control of the individual. Funny-bones tingle, skin ages, sexual desires and hunger come and go, et cetera.
While "male" and "female" are not the clear-line divides that standard memes would prefer, there are, nonetheless, massively abundant sets of physical-frame correspondence that guide, with great accuracy, toward an accurate prediction of any given human shell. For example, in the same way that a chimpanzee is, pound for pound, far stronger and faster than a human, a "male" human frame will be stronger than a female. By virtue of embryonic steroid infusion, the male's reduced health and accelerated strength and speed are, rather, a given. While patriarchy would attribute this to superiority, or draw from it assumptions of command, and feminism would attack it as a social construct, both neglect an embracing of the respective qualities of different types of (innumerably different, yet understandable in general form) shells. Radical feminists who mock creationism find a curious hypocrisy in their neglect of scientific data regarding testosterone quantities.
Conversely, in addition to the lack of womb, males will never be as nurturing to children. Mentally, and empathically, their ghosts can develop the appropriate feelings, but their shells will never response the same--males do not receive, after a natural birth, a flood of epinephrine, norepinephrine, oxytocin and prolactin (this very rush is why antilife seeks to turn birth into a process of unconscious, drugged medical sterility; to inhibit chaotic chemical love between mother and infant). Males do not respond physically to crying babies, as do nursing mothers (and other females), and males, despite all of the efforts of the wicked among them, have never (and will never) develop an appropriate chemical or robotic substitute for mother's milk and the intense bonding of the nursing process (The infant who doesn't get drawn more fully into the shell through mother's milk, skin and gaze, never develops as close a connection to her or his own shell, and, ergo, feels more disconnected throughout life [or instead channels the feeling into something nastier]).
"Mammals" are, not surprisingly, defined in their lives largely by their ability to reproduce, then connect to and nurture offspring through the transfer of milk (the subconscious motivation for the Bible's manna from Heaven).
Herein is the "downside" to masculinity. The testosterone injections received by the infant designated for life as a male equip for strength, but detach the male from the closest physical connection to the process. The mental stuff is still there, as the soul goes, but the physical wonder is only experienced by the male in infancy (if, nowadays, lucky enough to be so blessed with the mammalian, rather than chemical, transfer of love and life). Aside from that, the male shell is a disposable drone, meant to fight, protect, inseminate, and die. In the common parlance, this is why "guys like boobies"--because they miss nursing as children (or wish they could've, if they never got to play out that instinct) and because they want to create other little sparks of light who can then nurse, grow and do the same. Circle of life.
The right drug cocktail in the embryo not only develops the testes and penis, but drives the resulting entity toward sex in expansive ways. Fight; compete; accumulate; shelter; protect; kill; display bravado; look for an empty spot of meaning; build something glorious that will last when you pass. The standard drug cocktail leads to desire to bear and nurture, worries about biological clocks, which drapes and blankets and sleepers will the baby like, that end table is too sharp, I don't want to end up alone, I just need something to love, I want it to be the right person. Mixes in-between or off the charts leads to other exciting combinations: the scattering stardust that will, in a century or eons, spawn its own offshoot life, if the mad scientists don't bottle it all into deathly beakers first.
Within the numerical majority, "human" ghosts find themselves trapped in one of the two most common shell-types, "female" or "male," and subject to the resulting drug effects. Hating the resultant side effects, or pretending that they don't affect one's shell, might be currently popular, but rejects the car one is driving for life. Believe in it, accept it, and move on with what you have. There's absolutely no room in there for being rude to someone, or assigning different mandatory social roles
but when a meme of acceptance becomes internalized such that an individual actually begins to not see differentiation between people (e.g., everyone is inhabiting identical shells, and the only differences are in our upbringing; being stronger means we get to make all the rules), the soul cries for the loss of its empathy with its attached shell. Disalienation from the shell's sexual drug and organ balance leads to unhealthy (and unfair, to the object) fixations, such as the fetishizing of tamed, trapped "pet" animals as substitutes for children (also seen in older humans who are left alone or who abandon relationships with younger humans), abuse or rape as substitutes for masculine ranging/insemination, or self-destruction by substance or suicide as an expression of constant denial of shell characteristics.
Catechisms in closing
Male drug/organ range: This shell is disposable. It evolved to pass genetic material onto other humans so that they could reproduce, and to fight, kill and die to give my species or social group advantages over others, so that others could survive when this one died. Despite this, this one has a soul, and "I" am more than the sum of "my" parts. I will never be able to control what sexual or violent thoughts I have, but I can control which of those my body acts upon. I can love and contribute to children, families and the entire world, but will never bear within my body that which goes on. That is all right, because love, life and spirit is what endures, not flesh, so I need not construct expensive tombs, buildings, or illusory entities to satisfy myself that the things I believe in will again be felt and discovered. "I" will pass to the spring and others will again be.
I do not need to go out of my way or fabricate reasons to destroy and kill to prove that I have the power to satisfy my mission to protect those weaker than I. I can embrace myself and the purposes for which my body was built, and use strength in a positive fashion in a world that no longer needs me to sacrifice myself killing mammoths and cougars.
Female drug/organ range: This shell is disposable. It evolved to receive, store and nurture genetic material into other humans, and then to be available to them in infancy so that they could feed, grow, and learn how to be adults who could sustain themselves and pass new mixes and mutations on to others. This body would harm itself in the passing, giving life to others and being used by them, without which all would perish and fail to develop. Despite this, this one has a soul, and "I" am more than the sum of "my" design and parts. I will probably never be as physically strong or as abstractly directed as those who were juiced up to rove and disseminate, and cannot in good conscience bear offspring, then delegate their lives and responsible growth and development to chemicals or those who did not bear them and are not drugged to love, nurture and know them in a way no one ever can. My way must always be the final say, including over whether or not they are sustained by, and come out of, my body to begin with.
The world includes others who are designed for different tasks, and if I find them amusing, I should join them in them. However, I should not insist that others hold themselves back for me while simultaneously treating me as though I were also designed for those tasks.
Transcendently-sexual/transsexual drug/organ range: Pick and choose the drives and tendencies of your shell from the above. Lacking (so far!) a mainstream repressive model to fall into, the freedom and exploration of non-capital-crime homosexuality suffers more from traditionalist blacklisting (i.e., gay is wicked!) than from a supra-imposed role. Analyzing the "gay is wicked" repression will be forthcoming. Within each respective community(ies), repressive memes do exist, but aside from PC behavior and token gay commentators, those haven't yet worked their way enough into neoliberal pop culture to be repressive enough on a national scale. Contact for non-standard catechisms and analysis.
(As homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality blend into cultural acceptance, their diversity will be countered by antilife models attempting to impose rigid mores upon them. It will seem crazy and ironic as the movement starts, but a hundred years later, will be the new standard from which anyone who deviates will be radical, imprudent, and suffering from the disease of "thinking about this too much is silly and unhealthy.")
Lightspring embrace us, every one.