Sexual energy and the non-3D
Sunday, November 3, 2019
5 a.m. You said for us to ponder sex and love in 3D and non-3D, but I can’t say that I have done it. Maybe others have. Must we wait until I, at least, have done so?
You may think with us, if you wish. Only, bear in mind, what you and we come to may not be what just anyone and his or her non-3D component will come to. We are exploring from angles, not from all-knowing-ness.
Obvious once you say it, as so often, and, as so often, not at all obvious beforehand. Okay, then, let’s think together.
Now, bear in mind, we are addressing sex and love as examples of basic items of interest; we are addressing them in contrasting 3D and non-3D environments as a way of exploring how these environments reflect reality. And the ultimate goal is to explore the non-puzzling context for puzzling phenomena such as, specifically, how can evil exist, how do vast impersonal forces manifest in 3D life, etc.
One way to explore is to examine the familiar in non-familiar contexts, and see the differences. So we posed the question, can there be sex without bodies. It sounds like the medieval question, how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. And maybe that question was posed not in expectation of an answer but for the same reason.
I took it to be what Schumacher (I think) called a diseased question stemming from a diseased metaphysics.
Well, regardless, let’s look at our diseased question.
I know what you’re getting at, or anyway I think I do. I have long felt that sex is only badly understood if seen as strictly a phenomenon of bodies. I never got very far with my thought, but it certainly seems to have to do with energies as much as physical tissue. It is as if 3D mammals, at least, are generators or carriers of a high-intensity broadcasting and receiving set which is the primary thing, and are also the chemical contrivances that respond to the broadcasting. I know this is a very clumsy analogy, but I don’t find a better one.
You look at dogs in heat, for instance.
One good example. A bitch in heat will draw male dogs from some area around her. How? It may be as simple as scent, I don’t know, but I get the impression that the lure is felt from a very wide distance. This is sex unconnected with any personal characteristics; it is individual bodies being magnetized, so to speak, by something in one’s femaleness and others’ maleness.
Rather than broaden our inquiry, let us concentrate on this aspect, then go to another aspect in due course.
Well, how does that work? Maybe it is scent, and maybe it is also other sensory cues, but at this level it is strictly impersonal. What is being generated, what is being responded to?
You aren’t really interested in how the mechanism works, so much as in what it implies. So, if sex were seen to depend upon pheromones, or vision, or – anything – you still would not have addressed the question really of interest here.
All right, I see that, but it is of interest, at least abstractly. What we call “chemistry” seems to determine who we will or won’t find sexually attractive (regardless of personality traits, I think), but “chemistry” doesn’t have much to do with dogs in heat or sex-starved teenagers either.
Again, to examine it, put it in an unfamiliar context and try to imagine what must follow. Can there be sexual differences where there are no bodies? Can there be sexual attraction in the absence of 3D cues such as scent, touch, vision, etc.?
Well, it seems to me that at least for compound beings, there would have to be, if only because the non-3D is a part of the same totality the 3D is. But that isn’t the way we usually think of it.
Pursue your thought, no matter how eccentric or even warped it may seem to you; that is the way to get the advantage of your individuality. But then, having done so, cross-check your results. But until you have fearlessly thought, you have no new data to cross-check. This is, after all, only the way an artist proceeds, or a scientist. Exploring implies extra-vagance, as Thoreau pointed out: going beyond the bounds.
Okay, well, here we are in 3D, a highly compressed environment that holds us in one place at one time, and limits us in every way except perhaps in our access to the non-3D, but really, come to think of it, limits our access there too if only in terms of fatigue, distraction, other variables on the 3D end. I am not sure it is any different for other mammals, in fact I am not sure it is any different for any animals at all, let alone the other kingdoms. We are all 3D expressions of something that is larger than 3D limits; hence we are all incomplete if considered only as 3D characters.
So our lives are larger than 3D. Everything we experience in 3D presumably extends into All-D by definition.
Go a bit slower, now, but we would say you are on a productive track.
Well, if sex in 3D, considered for the moment only on what we might call the broadcasting level, exists as a universal that is funneled through specific individuals –
No, say that more carefully because it is important in where it may lead.
Yes, I see the difficulty though. Can you bullet-point it?
- Sex is broadcast and received.
- At that level, individual differences are more or less irrelevant.
- Nevertheless, each individual functions as a transceiver.
- The strength and accuracy of transceivers vary, but the commonality is stronger than the differences.
Thanks, that does it nicely.
At the level we’re looking at – the dogs-in-heat level – sex may be seen to be as natural and as mysterious as any other physical process. Things science tends to lump as “instinct” may be looked at productively as in fact non-3D characteristics expressing in 3D.
So, in 3D, sex is experienced as an instinct, as a non-logical, almost non-discretionary attraction not to other individuals so much as to any individual representing certain characteristics.
And this is tied in to our limitedness somehow, our bound-in-3D-limitations.
Yes it is. So – thought experiment – does the sexual energy experienced by
Why am I thinking of a bee, when we were thinking of mammals?
It was a hint that the subject is not confined to mammals, perhaps. But continue with mammals for the moment: Does the sexual energy that flows through wolves, say, or horses, or cats, overlap in non-3D, or is it still separate?
Another way to say that would be, is it one instinct beyond 3D that is channeled first by species then by individuals as it is experienced in 3D.
What you just rephrased is not wrong, but don’t discard the way we phrased it. The two together will illumine each other.
This quick glance ought to be enough to show you that sex as it plays out in 3D cannot be a 3D-only phenomenon.
I don’t know if it will convince anyone else, but it convinces me, anyway. Or, let’s say it expresses what I already felt, and does so more definitely than I had clarified it in my mind.
Bear in mind, this hasn’t needed to discuss the phenomena around the female coming into heat. Some animals have a distinct invariant season, others may mate at any time (or rather, subject to different constraints). No matter. What we looked at is the interaction of 3D experience and non-3D influence, or energy, however you wish to look at it. This is a very small part of a very large subject, and more another time.
Our thanks, as always. Till then.