Monday, July 5, 2021
4:45 a.m. All right, took the day off as indicated. Let’s continue. I’m getting the feeling I should ask more questions, which involves thinking more about the material and criticizing it. Not so easy to do, of course. At least, not for me. Another combination of strands might find it easy.
Rather than pursue things that have begun to surface, let us continue for the moment on the strands as they interact. If we can continue to use you and your components as specific examples, it will serve well.
It’s all right with me.
Well, let’s start not with individuals but with particular characteristics or traits. So the one that made you queasy to discuss – David’s sexual makeup – will also serve as the most charged, hence as the most potentially productive.
Feel free. You know as well as I do that discussing any sexual aspect is going to make me uneasy mostly at the questions it may raise among others about me, questions I won’t even know are asked, and so couldn’t be answered.
Of course. It would be that way for anybody. But that is the value of the gift, your willingness to let us discuss what normally is not discussed in such context. The fact that sex is a particularly charged subject makes it useful. It holds people’s attention, in that they will not be able to hold it to a safe abstraction, nor hold it to a question of your lives or of you as an individual, but will feel its relevance to them as we go along, hence it will be real to them, will be relevant.
So, we mentioned David Poynter’s sexual ambiguity. You mentioned it, in fact, which is helpful. Now, let’s look at sexual experience, expression, and attitude in general as if it were the individual, and the individuals we looked at were examples of how it manifested. Bertram, Smallwood, Joseph the Egyptian, David, John Cotten, Kristina, Clio. That’s seven individuals, alive and functioning as part of Frank. Obviously there are many others, but these are enough to make the point.
Consider sexuality as if it were a constant in and of itself, expressing in various strengths and in combination with various other traits, one 3D individual at a time. And of course what we are out to do with sexuality may equally be done with any trait.
So, Bertram. Bertram, half “not in this world,” a mystic, a person entranced with experiences of “the other side,” living his life almost divorced from ordinary life once he left the family as a teen to enter the church. Sexual urges were so commonly sublimated within him that he scarcely recognized them as sexual. That is, his everyday life was far removed from ordinary life. Women were not the temptation to him that they would have been in secular life, but – and this is harder for your times to understand – not just women (nor men) were a temptation: animal life, that is, the body as lived, was not a temptation. That was the reason for celibacy originally; it was an attempt to live a higher life by denying and thus sublimating the energies of the lower life. (“Higher” and “lower” are not value judgments here; your time might say “higher vibrations” and “lower vibrations” and mean more or less the same thing.) In Bertram’s life, sexual energy was not expressed in the normal way, but neither was it dammed up, or denied, or struggled with: It moved upward, so to speak. It fueled other-worldly experience.
Joe Smallwood, by contrast, experienced sex as a physical joy and as a release from the intense aloneness of his life as shuttler between worlds. (White and Indian, we mean, not 3D and non-3D.) He very much enjoyed and appreciated his years with Pretty Lady Slipper, and missed it after she was gone. But the urge was not a driving urge otherwise. It was more like a background refrain in his life except for a few intense years, then a background refrain once again.
John Cotten was so intensely in love with his wife, her loss embittered sex for him as it embittered the rest of life. You could say he gave up on it as he gave up on everything. He ate and drank and slept because you have to eat and drink and sleep in life, but he didn’t bother with sex (that’s how he would have thought of his antidote: “didn’t bother with it”) after he had been cheated out of the life they might have had together. The urge itself became little more than a memory, embittered by the tragedy.
David Poynter had no experience of sex at all. His life as outsider and nomad (so to speak) held him away from others in any case. The fact was that he was strongly drawn to male companionship and had no female companionship at all, for all this relations were in one or another way related to whatever work he was doing. So, late in his life, when he as sub-editor would sit around after work drinking and enjoying the companionship of a group of “his boys,” as his subordinates were called, and as he thought of them, he didn’t realize it, but there was his equivalent of a love life. This was the only emotional outlet he experienced. If love among men had been accepted, if his own inhibitions had been less, if – in short – time, place, and opportunity had been different, perhaps he would have had homo-erotic experiences more direct than vague half-recognized feelings.
Joseph the Egyptian is a special case. His society and yours are so different, you will find it hard to understand. He was part of a priesthood that comprised both males and females. They lived separately yet not separately, celibate yet not always celibate, in a way very hard for you to grasp.
I had the sense, years ago, that the men lived in one wing of the complex and the women in another, and that they usually functioned separately yet at times and under some conditions I never got, the man and the woman would come together in some experience of sex that was aimed not at procreation nor strictly as a unitive experience. I guess it was a different form of sublimation?
Sacred sex sounds to your age like a dirty joke, which is why you find it hard to discuss. But that’s what it was. It was not a denying of sex, nor an indulging in sex as recreation, so to speak, but an experiencing and an employment of sex for higher purposes.
And then there is Clio, and Katrina. Clio’s brotherhood was cloistered not only in relation to sex but to any and all 3D experience that could be lessened, all in the service of producing one who could see beyond the ordinary. Katrina, who was made for an ordinary, sane, balance, unassuming life, was cut down before sex was even on the horizon. So neither of these two experienced even the longing, let along the urge, let alone the experience.
And then there is Frank, the inheritor and personification of all these experiencers (and non-experiencers). Can you see that it would be impossible to describe your reality in two words? And beyond that, bear in mind – it can be difficult – that each one of these examples is himself or herself a mixture of strands, and so on and so forth, back forever.
I take it you are saying that sexuality per se has its needs of expression.
Let’s not get too abstract, but yes, in a way you could put it that way. We told you long ago that from the non-3D side, the threads are as obvious as the individual are obvious on the 3D side. Only, sexuality is one of the vast impersonal forces: Don’t think of it as somehow an equivalent of personal forces.
That’s almost clear to me.
You all experience sex as if it were part of you, but it would be as accurate, almost more so, to say you are a part of it, in the same way that air (being necessary to you in a way that you are not necessary to it) may be said to be primary, and air-breathers secondary.
I guess this is an example of the vast impersonal forces – sex, in this case – blowing through our lives, we living it, transducing it, to 3D lives.
That is a good place to start next time: The vast impersonal forces (spirit) are embodied (flesh) in an uneasy, unquiet, continuously transforming relationship, and the living of those forces is just what you do.
I’ll be interested to see what people get out of this. I suspect they’ll mostly root around trying to put together a guess about my hidden life.
Or it is just barely possible they will be more concerned with themselves than with you.
Very funny. Till next time, then, and thanks.