Since Cal Roeker asked about sex and public viewing, I will try my best to answer: Children's precocious observations on sex are thought cute, because they don't know what they are talking about; adults do, and when they cross the known boundaries, they get the canned "oooh!"  

What it is all about is boundaries.  There is no culture that I have ever read or heard about that does not have sexual taboos.  Margaret Mead wrote a then-revolutionary book (1920's, I believe) called "Coming of Age in Samoa" that purportedly depicted a culture - an obscure and dying culture - where the last vestiges of paradise could still be seen in the lack of taboos over sex.  Here, it was made both explicit and implicit that a decent society could be built that did not restrict sexual desires, referring both to Marxist and Freudian theory that hierarchy and dominance were maintained by sexual prohibitions, prohibitions that tortured the libido and forced it to express itself in violence.  It did matter that subsequent field work - and archival work - proved her wrong; violence in Samoa existed and had always existed, and sex was a part of the problem, rape being particularly high among them.   They also had strong, though different, sexual taboos. 

Mead was a part of a new wave of "liberation" intellectuals who sought to redefine European and American culture based on theories that might free people to "do  their own thing," in the vernacular of the 60's, whose activists were intent on doing the same thing.  Like Samoa, free love in the communes of that era was neither free nor free of conflict, and the communes quickly died, which returns us to the previous blog: why is sex, particularly uncontrolled sex, thought to be so antithetical to spiritual progress?
In the former blog, I showcased a few examples that underscored the horrendous abuse of sex in service to the ego, with the idea that sex itself, like any form of physical pleasure derived from particular things, was an anchor, or chain, to the grosser aspects of living. Taking sex out of the spiritual realm for a moment, we can see that sexual norms are fundamental to every culture.  Without them, the culture dissembles into chaos - although it is hard to say which comes first (that is, does cultural disintegration create sexual chaos, or sexual chaos cultural disintegration?  We might say that they are co-determinant).  In the West, we have a long tradition stemming from the Greeks and Romans that states the family is the cornerstone and embryo of the nation.  So it has been believed until very recently.

On the spiritual plan, it seems that sex, like any other consistent appetite, focuses the ego on alleviating the desires, desires that are never fully, or completely,satisfied, creating a vicious circle of need and appropriation (of said needs); that is, using the world for never- ending egoistic demands.  Sex goes further, though - as the foundation for the family, it lies at the basis for permanent relationships and the world-outlook of the children produced.  If sex is usuress, then so might be relationships of all kinds,and so, as the Romans would have it (and eventually did), would be the state that arouse from the family structure.  

Theoretically, the reason the priests in the Catholic Church are celibate is so that they might love all equally without the draw of family ties.  The converse, free love, has often been seen as the more pleasurable alternative, but wherever it is tried, it fails - because, it seems, sex is fundamentally egotistic.  Social rules attempt to reduce that, either by tying sex to clan and lineage, or to procreation (with similar results) or to spiritual union.  I do believe the latter is possible, without forming destructive and exclusionary relationships, but that, in this era, is difficult to achieve.  Then again, so is every other spiritual goal.    

To make a perhaps too-long explanation short, the oohs and ahhs of the canned audience for sitcoms marks, for the people who dub the shows at least, points where sexual taboos are nearly crossed.  We are often titillated by this walking of the line.  However, we know inherently that a line must be drawn and maintained (thus the hush as the line is approached).  In our own society, it might seem that taboos are falling left and right, and some are; but others are becoming stronger to replace them.  Rape is now one of our worst crimes, when a few centuries ago or less, it was seen primarily as a woman's problem - that is, except for forcible rape through invasion (which was also taken for granted - even the British troops in the Rev. War raped regularly, and were cast a blind eye by superiors), it was casually thought that rape was more often than not the fault of the woman being in the wrong place, or dressing or acting immodestly.   Child sex is now seen as the absolute worst, although until recently in Europe, and still in the Middle East, a man taking a boy as a lover was seen, if not as normal, then as only marginally immoral.  We have, then, tightened the defenses in some areas as it is weakened in others.

Sex: our greatest access to spiritual union, and the greatest obstacle.  It is a world of opposites and paradoxes, as religious scriptures point out (the first shall be last; the meek shall inherent the earth; love thy neighbor but "despise" your family.  Similar aphorisms can be found in other religious texts).  The greatest paradox of all, however, is that this world, this "hard fact" world, is only a weak film on the substance of reality; that our quotidian realm of thought is at odds with the deep, permanent truths that underlie everything, without end.  Sex, in its way, is the epitome of this paradox, for it is both vulgar in temporal outlook, and yet creates out of ecstasy images of ourselves, potentially forever.  FK             

While I have not yet arrived at the grain at why sex and spirituality have often been treated as antagonistic - this may involve something like "spiritual essence," of which I am not totally aware nor convinced - a recent movie and book have given further insight.  The book, "JFK:Reckless Youth" by Nigel Hamilton tells of the life of young Jack Kennedy as he matures and eventually becomes president of the US.  In it we learn of his individualism, his rebellion against rules, his intelligence concerning foreign affairs, and his courage - all of which are well-documented and believable.  His sex life, however: while I am in no way a moralistic or ideological prude on the matter, in matters of the opposite sex, JFK was even more appalling than I have been led to believe.  Conquest was always first and foremost in his mind, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of the woman in question.  For him, it was stunningly clear that women served as spring boards for his ego, and little else.  And while this might be seen as typical of a young man in late adolescence or early adulthood, he carried it on in such a grand fashion and so late into life - until his death - that there can be no excuse.  

This forced me to think of my own views on sex.  Left untempered, it seems that  sex, at least for the male, is inherently egotistic.  Without forethought, the sex-ego is glad to liberate one from the deal, "you be loyal to me and I will be loyal to you," by saying, "well, it's ME.  Nobody will know the difference.  It's just for fun," while ignoring the anger that would be generated in that same ego if his wife/girlfriend did the same.  That's NOT you, so it matters!  A natural blind spot, and one that underscores the very definition of the entrenched, ignorant ego, detached from even its own personal world.  

The movie, of which I saw only bits and pieces, was Michael Douglas's take on Liberace.  Again, the ego was in spectacular display, so much so that Liberace had his boyfriend undergo plastic surgery so that he would look more like him.  Expanding to the much-publicized life of male homosexuals in general, are the documented tales of men who knowingly had AIDS having sex with many others.  These men would not kill someone with a gun or a knife, but they would do so with a known deadly disease for the mere satisfaction of the sexual drive - making it more powerful, in its push towards selfishness, than gold and money.  To make it fair and extend the thesis, JFK never had any thought as to spreading his own venereal diseases either - and this, from the man who became responsible for our nation and the future of the world.  

And yet - and yet, most of us understand that sex is also the easy gift that allows us to get beyond ourselves and understand the ecstasy, and loving care, of unity.  It creates children, who most of us love more than any others.  It does not require long years of meditation or dietary restrictions and is available to us all.   In this it might be possible to judge an age's spirituality - that is, by how a society, and world at large, if we may do so, not only talks of sex (or not) but also practices it.  It would seem to me that in a golden age, sex would be understood by the general population to be what I believe it was meant to be - that is, an easy step towards divine union.  In descending ages, we might see it fall towards crass commercialism and personal greed.  In some societies present and past (Tantrism in India, certain practices of the Incas)  there seem to be (or have been) vestiges of a greater age.  In our own, it is neither at its best or worst - but certainly no where near its best.  At this juncture, it would probably be best to move beyond "liberation" towards "actualization" of what sex was meant to be - with neither an attitude of prudish celibacy, nor of licence, but with the goal of obtaining what it has best to offer - unity, selflessness, love - all the things we cherish and wish for in our society.  FK

      

 

To continue with the power of prayer (or wishing): as mentioned, there is God's intention (or, if you prefer, the laws of the cosmos), against which a prayer could be counter-productive - as it often is - or simply juvenile.  As I believe, the cosmic intention is Self Realization, all else being toy stuff.  However, life in the here and now, as we understand it, is NOT toy stuff and must be taken seriously - or why this "experiment" in the first place?  In such a situation, prayer would and should be taken just as seriously.   Still, the fabric of the whole must be maintained.  A wish to win the lottery would deprive another of it, whose life may need such an alternation.  Or football.  I have often heard the snide comment that the player thanking God at the end of a touchdown is in battle with the guy on the OTHER team thanking God for his touchdown.  Such things must be considered when we pray and feel unanswered.  

Yet there is an entire field of inquiry that is now insisting that the world - that is, reality - is made up of information, and this information stream is alterable by intention.  Most know, for instance, that a wave will become, or behave, like a particle under observation.  Whether or not this is indicative of the extreme power of intention is beyond my knowledge, but we might look at it this way: while the universe is moving in a certain direction, there can be perturbations made in the stream, like rocks in a river.  This would incorporate free will, the power of intention, AND the overall integrity of the universe.  Or we might look at it from this perspective: we ARE the rocks in the stream, meant to make the perturbations, although the exact nature of the anomalies would be unknown (free will).  In the end (in infinite time), however, all becomes one with the the aim of the river, the infinite sea.

All the above, I know, is only speculation.  However, it is clear from the spiritual texts that an individual's intent is paramount, whether it affects his material well-being or his spiritual.  And it is on that latter element where intent is proven most efficacious.  Here, it would not matter whether God was on the side of one football team or another, but rather that the player who makes the touchdown seriously was giving thanks to God - not for power over the game, but for the intent of worship.  In the moral realm, the intent, then, of one's actions might be seen as more important than the results - except if the results detract from the power of sacred worship.  In other words, giving the destitute stranger a helping hand because he is a fellow human is part of the sacred intent.  Continuing to do so, so that the stranger becomes more interested in the material help than the sacred intent, would do harm (or, if a touchdown made one more aware of God, then it would be good; if it simply made one more aware of his own fantastic ability as a football player, then not).      

As for prayer, than, it would be the intent with which it is given: does it increase the spiritual nature of the actor and/or his environment?  Or does it degrade it towards a more physically dependent one?  Unfortunately for those praying to win the lottery - or for anything else merely for excess physical comfort - their prayers most likely would end as whims - unless the answer to the prayer would make the hardship or condition, known or otherwise, that might lead to spiritual advancement.  FK     

            

Today, an essay, "World's Ugliest Man," under the Essays section of the website.  

Briefly, to be taken up next time:  Why pray (or wish or hope or gamble)?  Why, if God (or the Absolute) is only interested in our resolution of separateness, would IT acquiesce to a wish?  I would have to think, first, that the very fact of our being must mean that there is more to "being" than the goal.  We don't - at least I don't - know why, but given that, why might we not change our temporal destiny through prayer-full or mental appeal?  Is not our very reality at least in part determined by our perception, a perception that we know is largely malleable?  Having a choice to influence our world by other than material means would also give further meaning to "free will," as well as to provide reference to the importance of "getting what you wished for" - perhaps as a life lesson.  Something to consider for next time.  FK     

In the quiet of this morning, I was given a clear idea about the implications of what I had written in yesterday's blog - that is, that realization of the Absolute was the ultimate goal, and the only one in which cosmic intelligence is fully reliable (that is, altogether sympathetic).  In this, it became obvious why the Absolute allows suffering, misfortune and all the rest: because, in a relative sense, it is absolutely unimportant.  This is nothing new to me, but the clarity with which I received it was - and it resolves all but one question that I have about the way our world works.  That is, that ALL is pointed at getting us to the God realization; that this power IS interested in our welfare, but the only welfare that counts is the eternal presence.  There is no happiness or achievement or state of being that can compare, and so reaching the highest trumps all, our worldly health and happiness included.  

Hard stuff, really, but all already said by the great spiritual leaders, including Jesus.  Give away your other cloak?  Leave your family and home?  Yes; all are inconsequential, and if they are holding you back , are not worth it.  This includes the objects of our ambitions, which I now find particularly hard - this website, for instance, was started primarily as an attempt to reach an audience for my current book and the several more to come.  I do have ambition.  And we can pray for our success, or, if you do not believe in prayer, work harder and harder for it and perhaps hope for that special ingredient, luck;  but if it is not compatible with the prime directive, cosmic consciousness, don't count on any extra help.  And if it comes, it may come as a back-handed hard lesson.  How many have been ruined by achieved goals?  Conversely, how many have been helped towards God by success?  Perhaps many on both counts, but we cannot see the results of success or failure until one or the other happens.  

Still, we must try - and pray or hope that our desires are consistent with cosmic design.

Of the one thing still unanswered:  Why?  Why the trial and sometimes torture to re-achieve what always AM?  In the face of all-knowing eternity, our lives, even our concepts of eternity, are nothing, not a dream, but dream-like in their ephemerality.  But why the dream of God, of us, in the first place?  In the Old Testament we are given a very human god wanting company, but that concept seems far too limited.  No, there is another game afoot.  It just hasn't come to me what, and may never; it may be the mystery that must remain so.  FK               

    

Here, the Sand Hill cranes are starting to gather, even as the temperatures remain high.  By the amount of sun, by the colder nights, by the changing flora, by whatever means, they know that fall is coming.  Soon they will gather to fly, circling first low, then high, then higher until they cannot be seen, perhaps purposefully caught in the jet stream to help them on their way south.  

They know.  Many peoples, most common among many tribes of Native Americans, have certain animals they identify with, either as their clan representatives or as personal guides.  After moving here (to Wisconsin), I felt that the Sand Hill cranes were mine - both majestic in their ancient ways and calls, and downright goofy in their flight and walk.  In both I see them as pertaining to me.  And within that idea of animal spirit guides or identifications, is a greater idea  - that the world is a sacred place, an imprint of God's design.  From taking something particular, such as a clan animal, we can extend this identification from the earth into the heavens, each thing here a mirror of ultimate meaning and purpose.  

And so I get back to my book, The Irreducible Mind.  Following Fred Myers, there is a belief that we partake of a far greater consciousness than we are ordinarily aware, one that is merged with another - whatever we wish to call it - that links all in a web of cosmic meaning.  We find this in the idea of the animal spirit identity.  To Myers, we are following an evolutionary path to this great uber-mind, but the totem animal reminds me of the conservative authors of the perennial tradition.  What, would they say, is so evolutionary about the modern mind?  From their perspective, we have gone down, backwards, away from greater meaning, just as we seldom seriously believe in a totem or a natural link to the heavens anymore. 

Which reminds me of the tremendous music I was listening to on the radio yesterday on a program called "Musica Antigua."  The high music of the pre-classical period was all about God and spirit - all of it - and one can tell.  Listening to it in quiet openness, one can feel the identity of the composer with the sacred.  How much of the music of today says the same thing?  And as I listened to the music, I understood better the perennialists.  For them, the highest plane of all is the plane of God - all other things and ideas are inferior.  It is similar to the feelings that I have gotten at times, in that praise of the Absolute is not a command, as it seems from religion, but the ultimate privilege, for in praising, one partakes; and by partaking of the Absolute, one is at one's highest, and most noble state.  And so the claim of the perennialists becomes clear: the less we are in touch (or in praise) with God (or the Absolute for those who do not like the western connotations of the word "God"), the further we are from an evolutionary apex.  All else - technology, space flight, even basic psi functions, are all nothing in its shadow. Thus they see not a straight time line to some distant perfection, but a cycle.  In this cycle, man is born "in the image of God," that is, in harmony with the great plan of being.  Through time, we become enamored of the outward forms, gradually forgetting the greatness of being from which we depart in our quest to understand, or use, the particular things in the environment.  Eventually, we become completely absorbed in the outward forms, and completely removed from the spiritual.  This, then, marks our nadir, not our ability to transform the environment.  

In the cycle, as we fall out of tune with the greater design of being, we screw up - that is, a monumental world-wide collapse of human institutions ensues.  From this, then, a new cycle is born: the phoenix, the resurrection from the ashes, from the "dead" eventually arises. Thus the spiritual traditions speak to us.

I have expressed hope before that this need not be the case, and so I still believe.  I still see something greater in the flight of the crane, and in the changing of the seasons.  I know I am not alone. Have we reached the end, then, or are we only in a temporary trough in the sign-wave of being?  FK