Monday, November 4, 2019
6:35 a.m. Surprised to find it so late when I woke up. But then, we changed time yesterday, so this is really 5:30. Still, late for me.
Our beginning of a discussion yesterday was carefully steered from your end, wasn’t it? It is only now that I consciously realize what I know as background information anyway: Discussing sex in our culture has become nearly impossible without wrecking on the side of political correctness or on the opposite side of – well, you do it. Bullet-point it, maybe?
The idea is simple enough; you did not take the needed moment to let it gel.
Interesting thought. All right, let me do that. [Pause]
On the one side, sex gets mixed in with questions of love and individual experience. On the other, mixed with questions of gender roles, social expectations, that sort of thing. In neither case are we studying sex per se, as we would, say, gravity, or electro-magnetism.
I do. But I also see that my life-time habit of speaking without prior thought has left me open to just this kind of work – a sort of undirected receptivity.
Accompanied by the occasional taste of shoe.
Oh yes! But, next time I think something too complicated to express, I will try first pausing to let it gel. Only experience is going to teach anybody the value of that, because it doesn’t feel like anything is happening, you’re just sitting there.
Not quite. You are just sitting there in quiet faith that the concepts will clarify, in much the same way that pausing rather than pressing will often restore a word you need but cannot retrieve.
You know what else? It can be hard to remember, to realize, that we aren’t the ones doing the thinking – at a conscious level, I mean. Even though (at least in my case; I don’t know if it is so for others) ideas, like words, bubble up in order as if on their own. It isn’t me consciously arranging them. But I don’t think I am only a passive recipient. It feels like “I” – conscious-3D-I – am part of the equation, but only part, and that other parts of me – non-3D-I – also participate, perhaps initiate more than I do. And, beyond that, that there is a realm in which we are traveling, that brings thoughts out of its agenda more so than out of my agenda.
And so you see –
I do now, yes. I see that this is one reason for the structure we have adopted for these conversations, open-ended, going somewhat where they wish, our not relentlessly pruning what seem to be digressions, yet not entirely giving in to every possible digression.
Only, bear in mind, this structure suits us and our conditions (part of “our conditions” is always, of course, who and what we are); it will not necessarily suit everyone. Some will prefer, even require, tighter control, and others looser.
A million flavors, all authentic and for a purpose.
That is one aspect of the infinite richness of life.
So, onward. Our initial point was to orient the discussion around the known and taken-for-granted but nonetheless mysterious nature of sex in 3D. As you got, we intended to remove from the discussion questions of individual sexual peculiarities on the one hand, and social generalizations on the other. Dogs responding to a bitch in heat did that. But now let us build on it.
We trust that although we did not prove, we nonetheless convinced that the sexual energy is as much a non-3D as a 3D phenomenon.
Hmm, thinking of that, wouldn’t the same have to apply to seemingly physical forces like gravity?
Indeed it would, and does. There is no hard and fast division between 3D and non-3D. The two realms, if you wish to call them that, are more like concepts than like hard and fast alternate habitats. It all interacts; it all is part of the same thing. That’s as we have been saying.
Now if you extend that – how can sex not be a non-3D as well as a 3D phenomenon? But that brings you back to one of the questions we posed and suggested would repay pondering: How can there be sex in non-3D?
Well, now I am wondering if this doesn’t relate to Plato’s analogy – I think it was Plato; one of the ancient Greeks, anyway. He said that male and female had been divided, and people in 3D were continually urged to try to recover that wholeness, by creating the creature with two backs. Rough paraphrase.
But you caught the underlying idea, one part of which is, 3D conditions isolate in separate bodies, but 3D creatures feel, running through them, a longing for lost completeness.
Does this apply to the dogs responding to a female in heat?
Let’s say it is not restricted to human romantic or personalized attraction. Again, we are looking at what are called instinctive urges here. That instinct is as strong as anything in life, and although it may become focused upon, or may channel through, a given individual, we are looking at the urge, not the expression.
It seems to me that that urge – or its original, anyway – must originate in the non-3D.
That is a valid way to look at it. It is not absolutely correct – that is, it isn’t the only way to look at it – but it is productive. So let’s do that. The question becomes, why? Why does the non-3D require, or why does it generate, this urge?
Felt like I sort of took over the second half of that graf.
No problem. It has always been a cooperative effort at the deepest levels. What changes is mostly how you think about it.
The non-3D realm, the non-3D portion of the one undivided reality, experiences unity more vividly than it does separation. The 3D, the converse. It is more a matter of emphasis than of absolute distinctions.
And, I get as I write that – that’s why we get these intuitions, these compensatory inclinations.
Yes. You feel the one-sided-ness of 3D perceptions and reactions, and at your deepest level you seek to correct the imbalance.
And it often feels like we are fighting ourselves.
That is often what really happens. Life is struggle, or anyway endeavor. Continuing readjustment is part of that. Only remember, readjustment is not all struggle, it is also the finding of a haven.
Which sounds like our experience of sex, in fact – or of these conversations.
Yes, funny, but true enough as well.
I’d ask, “My place or yours?” but you never invite me to your place.
Another way to look at it is, we are always willing, and we are always available. What more do you want?
I suppose, at my age, a salacious conversation with the non-3D is as much as I can hope for.
Right back at you, cutie. But, as usual, this bit of byplay can be used to illustrate a point. In this case, how that on-going ever-present reality of sex in the world (much like gravity, as we said) becomes an unnoticed background presence, hence is everywhere.
In the Freudian sense of it being more or less disguised as it is transmuted?
In the sense that it is a background presence. The mineral kingdom experiences gravity, but not sexual division or relative polarity. But the vegetable kingdom does, and of course so does the animal kingdom. Some people assume that the celestial kingdom does not (proceeding usually from the conscious or unconscious assumption that sex is a phenomenon limited to bodies); we tell you, not so. But of course you should not expect it to manifest in the same way in different conditions. And again, for this part of the discussion, remember that we are looking at it in the very limited sense we indicated, excluding both individual and social implications, and looking at it as a force like gravity.
Well, I’m sure I am not the only one interested in where you go with this. Our thanks as always. I can’t remember when I drifted into using that as a sign-off, but it seems appropriate. Till next time.