09 August 2011

On "'loving, conscious sexuality'"

Gordon Wheeler, president and CEO of Esalen Institue, was quoted as saying: "'It's loving, conscious sexuality ... everything in one: deep love, deep pleasure, deep communication, and spirituality all at the same time'" (Matlack, n.d.). This is definitely a view of sex that I agree with.

I think sex in and of itself is boring. The unnecessary risks with unknown partners also outweigh the benefits of sex, which I believe go beyond the physical.

In many cases, people jump into sex on the first night or early in the relationship. Some decide later without really knowing how they or their partner(s) feel about each other; I think a meaningful relationship has a strong basis in trust and communication. If a connection is missing between two people (that is, if what you know of your partner doesn't extend beyond the superficial), it's too early to engage in sexual frolicking, however tempted you might be; disintegration is almost inevitable.

But let's take this point by point. What is meant by:

deep love: more than friendship, more than physical; knowing someone as a root person

deep pleasure: sex based on partnership and trust that's more than just physical but mental as well

deep communication: this is about dialogue and interaction, of being heard and the ability to listen

spirituality: core values and beliefs

This kind of sex is powerful. It's not a relationship built on friendship with benefits, because, without passion, there's no connection. Friendship love is not the same as real love; real love is rooted in core commonalities and an appreciation of differences, while also being invested in sexual energy - because sex is a communication tool that answers the unknowable (what language fails to express).

What is at the root of marriage is the concept of inseparable union: fidelity based on love of the root person whose sexual attraction is not just physical but intimate (the need to express what is limitless: love at the core). Doubt has no role in real love; marriage is a tangible commitment on which fidelity and trust are based  and these are easy to offer when you love fully and not partially.

We can't look back on history and claim that's how marriage has always been. It never really has been except in fewer cases than most. We still see it today: marriages that have less to do with real love than with pleasing families, personal interests like starting a family, etc.

Yes, more and more people choose to live together; for too many people, it's because marriage is a joke to them. In fact, they fear commitment and have become too jaded with themselves and others; they are also afraid to be alone, or want to assuage their doubts (but can't because they don't really love), etc.

Real love has no affectation, is not hypocritcal or something one grows into. Here's the difference between real love and friendship love: real love extends from the root person, friendship love from comfort. One feels safe with friendship love, real love exposes you.

References

Matlack, T. (n.d.). "Sh*t guys do, The: On guy rituals: Disgusting and divine." The Good Men Project Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/35040444/Sh-t-Guys-Do#source:facebook [1]

[1] Thanks to L.B. on Facebook for sharing this article.

07 August 2011

Quoting Béla Hamvas

Zoltán Danyi praised Béla Hamvas (2006)'s trees as an "essay form [or] organic fusion of philosophy and of poetry of the highest order" (p. 11), which contradicts Hamvas who claimed, "This is not an essay/this is a poem" (n.p., italics added). So how does one read the following:

"The lime tree of Koloska is a heroic tree. It is not beautiful. But it is a glorious thing, the strength of life ... It never knew happiness, not for a moment, but laughs at anyone pitying it for that ... It does not know, except in dreams, what tranquility might be ... It is ... possessing the viciousness of the evil-doer and the circumspection of a sage" (pp. 30-31).

(1) Beauty is an image concept, though it's also been claimed as an internal construct. From a religious standpoint, which Lady Gaga exemplified in Born This Way, "God makes no mistakes" (quoted in "Lady Gaga," n.d.); but this is true only for believers or those whose self-worth doesn't revolve around beauty.

(2) We are not, in the end, the product of other people. Yes, we are influenced by things external to us; but we mold ourselves despite them. For example, the best parents can't teach their children to be good; their children must want it for themselves, and that, I'd accept, can only arise from an internal construct.

(3) Life is struggle, from whatever position we might entertain it. The more adaptable of us learn from it, and failure is only a stepping stone. As Edgar Allan Poe (n.d.) wrote, "From childhood's hour I have not been/As others were; I have not seen/As others saw." Meaning: Our experiences define our relationship to the world. Ask yourself: What moments of inspiration would I have missed if I'd had a different life?

(4) If you are unafraid of who you are, you fight - because people who are afraid of themselves will always see you as a threat. In reality, there's no win or loss record; you must choose to survive; no victim is alive. Survivors must learn to speak in whatever form (because some are artists, others writers and musicians), and not back down in the face of contempt or ignorance.

The more open we are to ourselves, the more we understand ourselves. You should question, listen, and live different boxes; but know that you will never really know more than you are.

Here's what you do: Break the mirror. For too many, the mirror offers a false acceptance of their worth.

Are you the measure of someone else? Because if you accept God, beauty has no meaning; he's already accepted you. Even without that, what does beauty mean for people?

So here's why people went with the internal construct of beauty: Too many people hide themselves. They put on makeup (even men), risk their bodies for high heels, concealers (e.g. corsettes), needles, and knives (e.g. plastic surgery), etc. The only natural is what you wake up with without having put anything on.

The concept of the good isn't new, and has long been associated with beauty. This beauty is a concept: an unexplainable allure to something for which words exist beyond the periphery of the langauge(s) we know. Those of faith might call it seeing the hand/work/whatever of God, but people have corrupted that by suggesting that only the beautiful have been touched by God, which negates anyone who fails to inspire for whatever reason (different class, race, gender, status, etc.).

I've long rejected beauty. Ugly, however, isn't a criticism for me; I am ugly, which I mean in quite a different way. Ugly as in not perfect, as in not aspiring for perfection, as in accepting me for me and not what other people think or want me to be. I know how people use ugly to describe me; it was easier to laugh it off before California, and since California I wonder at the lack of intelligence. No, I'm not afraid of ugly.

I've also said: I'm not a quitter. The thorns aren't always easy to push through, but I manage. But I also see small wonders, have loved fully and continue to smile. Am I unhappy? lol I'm just me.

References

Hamvas, B. (2006). trees [Fák]. Trans. by P. Sherwood. Szentendre, Hungary: EDITIO M.

Lady Gaga: Born This Way Lyrics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metrolyrics.com/born-this-way-lyrics-lady-gaga.html

Poe, E. A. (n.d.). From childhood's hour. Retrieved from http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~richie/poetry/html/aupoem69.html