Music Man said:
You know, if every human on earth had such high ideals, there would never be any procreating done at all.
Every other creature on earth just gets stuck in and does the deed.
They know what it's all about.
Humans think too much about it, and set "values" on it.
For [insert deity of choice here]'s sake!
I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. The devil is in the details. "Every other creature" is a prisoner of the General Law. As Thorn quoted
Gurdjieff said:
Sex: it is the
principal motive force for all mechanicalness . . . Sex which exists by itself and is not dependent on anything else is already a great achievement. But the evil lies in the constant self-deception.
Mouravieff speaks of three different Absolutes or sets of cosmic laws which serve a purpose to maintain the cosmos. These Absolutes all radiate love in their own way to all the creatures throughout the Ray of Creation. The Absolute I is the love of the creator. It is the gift of life that pervades all entities from the most spiritual to the least.(7th density) Mouravieff defines the love of the Absolute II in terms of a duality of creation emanated in perfect equilibrium. In my view, this level corresponds to STS and STO. The Absolute III maintains biospheres and ecosystems through the pleasure of sexual reproduction. He goes on to say that this third Absolute maintains the General Law, in order to keep organisms in their place so that worlds remain balanced. Now these Absolutes are all nested within each other so that the lower ones increase the mechanicalness of the divine love emanated by the higher one to a level appropriate to the cosmoses that they govern, but that the original energy from the Absolute I is still passed through in some form.
Our world is governed by the many mechanical laws of the Absolute III, which is in alignment with the STS expression of the Absolute II, creating all of the problems that we know about. However, the STO energy is still offered and presented as a choice. Those wishing to utilize the Law of Exception to escape the mechanical domination of the Absolute III can choose to absorb as many B influences as possible in order to master their machine and cross the third threshold into the Deuterocosmos(which I think corresponds to 4D in Mouravieff's cosmology) Now, for personal reasons I posted on another thread, I think sex still exists on the next density, albeit in a more energetic form, but even if it doesn't, we live in 3D under the sway of the Absolute III's laws, we are subject to their influence even though we may choose to transduce energy from the Absolute II.
So, to bring all of that abstract theory down to a practical level, sex that is done mechanically in service to the biological need to reproduce falls under the laws of the lower cosmos and the realm of A influences. However, the love archetype of the higher cosmos can be transduced through conscious sex (and even conscious procreation if that is the choice) which would simply be one possible expression out of many others in accordance with adapting the STO principles to our reality and using what energies you have to actualize that alignment. So let those who are happy to slumber under the influence of the Absolute III "just get stuck in and do the deed."
Getting back to the Gurdjieff quote, he kind of explains the whole deal with the Absolute III in a much more abbreviated way, and the way I read it, considers sex which exists outside of it to be a great achievement. When something is done consciously, even if it's something supposedly "base" like sex, it can be utilized to serve a higher aim. He then says that this is really only possible for advanced disciples, because self-deception has to be eliminated. Considering the sex drive is the #1 area of influence for the General Law, it is probably the hardest thing to be honest with yourself about. I would prefer to channel my libido toward a higher ideal. Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from without too much wiseacring on my part.
Luke Wilson said:
My mum always says it's better to have all the spoilings of success and be lost, than to be poor and to be lost!
Maybe, but what if the choice is to be poor and "found?" Of course, rich and found wouldn't be so bad...
Luke Wilson said:
Do you reckon it's a waste of energy to pay some of this stuff lip service? Now we've spoken about it, I think we've covered enough ground. But do you reckon it was worth it to begin with?
In my case yes, because I have some things to get off my chest too. We're both dealing with different facets of the same "beast." I would've never brought it up if you hadn't opened the channel, so to speak. I have a tendency to tell myself that no one is really interested in what I think about such personal subjects and that I shouldn't waste the space trying to dissect it. You were one of the people who told me to network, so here I am. You network about basically anything and everything and I've found myself thinking I should be more like you in that respect.
Luke Wilson said:
Food for thought Neil, consider you may have a puritan and idealised view of the whole thing. I suspect there is rather a lot of grunting and sweat involved.
I wasn't trying to say there wouldn't be or shouldn't be, but I think it stops there for a lot of people and that is like floor 1 of a 100 story building.
Luke Wilson said:
Some say experience is the best teacher but some also sau you should learn from those who have walked the path before!
Yes, I agree, Laura talks quite a bit about relationships in Amazing Grace and was basically at the same age dealing with the same sorts of issues. I studied that book because it gave a good preview of the various futures that would result from the choices available to me. I'd rather avoid going through all of the heartbreaks and disintegrations and learn those lessons early. Hopefully I'm smart enough to figure it out.
Luke Wilson said:
If I end up having sex with more than just 1 person, I know I took a wrong turn somewhere!
It may surprise you, coming from "Mr. Perfection" here, but I don't necessarily think this is the case. I remember Mouravieff speaking of a situation where you encounter a being that is so close to your polar opposite that everything "feels" right and the potential for evolution is great, but it's not quite the best. This situation leads the both of you to your real polar opposites, where you can take your relationships even farther. This situation is not what I would consider a mistake. Also, I think you have multiple polar opposites and a lot of them become unavailable due to geography, career, tragedy, etc. leaving only a handful that are actually feasible. It just seems a bit naïve to think that over all of the eons that souls evolve, there is only one potential true soul mate in the entire universe for you. I mean, what if they incarnate on a different planet? Maybe you meet one of these potentials, but circumstances come up and you find that you've outgrown each other and have to move on. I'm sure there are many more possibilities than Mouravieff could speculate about. Ideally it would just be one person, but I do think there are other possibilities that are valid and not "mistakes."
What I was referring to as a mistake is falling head over heels for someone that I really have nothing in common with all because they knew how to push my buttons and got my "love bite" program running. I mean, what would you do if some cute little girl walks in and starts telling you about all this stuff she's been reading about hyperdimensional realities and how she's been looking for someone to share her time with, but she can't be with anyone because she's so weird...and then she turns out to be some kind of vampire who likes to string you along just so she can watch you suffer. Or a more subtle example is you find someone who is suffering and you take her under your wing and start telling her all of this stuff, and she kind of plays along because she likes you and wants you to stay, but you find out a couple years later that she was never really interested, never had any possibility of really understanding you, and the whole thing was just your White Knight program creating illusions about her. You made a relationship out of something that should've never been anything more than a friendship. That's the kind of mistakes I was worried about.
Luke Wilson said:
It can sound like a broken record every year to periodically talk about 'sex', 'partners' etc, but that's only because I'm human and humans are social creatures and want those things.
Yeah, I agree. I've honestly thought life would be much easier if these drives just left us alone, but being in my 20s, the subject just never does quite leave me alone. It has been helpful to me to find some possibility of being able to direct the drive to a higher purpose through the esoteric studies instead of having to choose between the two dead end answers that society gives, that being "Get laid! Orgasm is the meaning of life," and "It's sinful! repent now" On the flipside, I sometimes feel I don't really have any business thinking about this because a relationship isn't even on the horizon in my life and won't be for the foreseeable future. In practice, being able to use sex to fulfill a higher manifestation of the archetype of love is probably rare to the point of being nearly impossible. It would take a heck of a lot of discernment to be able to see when the right use of sex could be applied as Gurdjieff and Mouravieff repeatedly warn. Still, if I had that discernment and met someone who was sincerely asking, maybe giving them my virginity would be appropriate.