{Love and Sex (4) [continued (4)]}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:184-185][19890802:1734d]{Love and Sex (4) [continued (4)]}[2nd August 1989]

.1734

[continued]

I would not think that the Holy Man (or Woman) is necessarily without sexual impulse: look at Isaiah 8:3.* But in him or her the sexual impulse is entirely internalised;** that is to say, it arises consciously or intuitively within him when it suits him, and not in response to external provocation or stimulation. Such a person would be immune to seduction (except, perhaps, by love and through Love, which is not really what I mean by seduction); he or she would certainly be safe from the sort of accidental external stimulation which might occur at an inappropriate moment, intended by nobody.

It is at this point that the nakedness of innocence, such as is experienced in infancy, can be regained, and the sort of communal mixed-sex all-age changing-and-bath-rooms of which I wrote a few years ago*** in ‘Report from Treganella’,*** which seem so promiscuous to our prurient minds,**** can become a real aid to, and part of, total spiritual communion impregnating# the whole of communal life, by the engendering, in perfect innocence, of mutual intimacy and trust.

#*

*[Isaiah 8:3: ‘Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.”’ (New International Version of the Bible)]

**Once the sexual impulse is internalised,#** a man of high spiritual development may find that no occasions will arise when it is actually relevant: he will then become, at his own choice and easily, without sexuality.

***[Actually 1975. See [Redbook6:171-173][19890730:1801]{Christian Communities}[30th July 1989]]

****[But not in Russia, traditionally; and see also (eg) the 1997 film “Starship Troopers”]

#[That word again; see last previous entry, fn**]

#*(In such a community, it would, I guess, seem as strange to wear any clothing while bathing [eg in the sea] as it would to walk naked in the street; but I am speculating) <890803>

#**‘Internalised’ is not quite the word I want; I hope that the meaning for which I use it is clear from the context (above, [this journal entry] p184). Perhaps ‘inner-generated’ would better convey my meaning, if I add that it by definition excludes any other kind of generation (ie arousal).

[& see [Redbook6:181-185][19890802:1734]{Love and Sex (4)}[2nd August 1989]]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger10for12012020]

{Love and Sex (4) [continued (3)]}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:184][19890802:1734c]{Love and Sex (4) [continued (3)]}[2nd August 1989]

.1734

[continued]

But* I should never, never, present {a} stark contrast between sexuality and the Spirit, because it does not exist: the Spirit can impregnate** sexuality as it impregnates everything else, removing it onto a higher plane. There is indeed the contrast of base sexuality and the Holy Spirit, as there is between anything base and anything holy; but we are given our whole lives in which to ascend from (or through) the state of animal to that of Angel. And if this ascent should be more gradual in the nature of some than of others, that is no cause for concern for anyone who knows that he is aiming for the Spirit, and does not lose sight of it. Love is the great transformer.

*[See last previous entry]

**{As it were?}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger10for11012020]

{Love and Sex (4) [continued]}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:182-183][19890802:1734b]{Love and Sex (4) [continued]}[2nd August 1989]

.1734

[continued]

Normal sexual impulses arising naturally within the Individual should not be a cause for agonising or guilt: they should be answered in the appropriate manner, which can be discovered generally as a matter of social ethics, ie how to treat others on a Christian basis. They should not be deliberately projected to* others in an effort to provoke sexual impulses in them which would not otherwise have occurred: it is not so difficult for the experienced sense to know when another person in a relationship is naturally ready for sexual intercourse, and some ‘chemistry’ often tells us. Much modern (and animal) behaviour is, therefore, misconceived.**

It would be stupid to suppress normal and natural sexual impulses, even if sexual intercourse is not always available to the ethically-minded (compromise is, as always, unavoidable). Since by all accounts we are sexually most active in early adulthood, and become less interested – generally speaking – as we get older: I would not try to prevent sexually mature young adults from sexual intercourse, except on medical grounds (if any); certainly not on religious grounds. The teens are the time for learning about sex as a part of life: I should simply advise them generally to be extremely wary against having sexual intercourse where they doubt there is mutual love [sic], and I should try to teach them what Love is,*** and how to identify it in themselves and in others, and how it relates to sexuality. I should also warn them of the emotional and physical complications which may result from sexual intercourse (and from sexual frustration), and how to avoid them: how not to get hurt, or caught.

*[Originally ‘onto’ – ‘on’ deleted]

**{Old joke – see earlier (Vol?) [[Redbook6:38-39)][19881126:1330]{Right Homosexuality}[26th November 1988]]}

***{They, ideally, should have learnt this intuitively from their parents' love of them.}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger10012020]

{Love and Sex (4)}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:181-185][19890802:1734]{Love and Sex (4)}[2nd August 1989]

.1734

*I suppose that my interest in the relationship of sexuality and the Spirit arises because I am a person both strongly sexual and strongly spiritual; and I know that unless I can integrate these impulses, I shall not be able to integrate myself. The conflict arises because I recognise both the base and the sacred in sexuality and sexual intercourse [(]– as, indeed, there are evil spirits as well as the Holy Spirit of God, the former being Man’s distortions of the latter[)]. I recognise also that even as a neutral force, sexuality can lead to the same sort of material and worldly complications as can (for example) money.

I believe I can distinguish between these sexual impulses which are initiated and reveal themselves predominantly within the Individual, and those that are initiated and act predominantly without, ie externally: the former being natural and intuitive, the latter involving an attempt to impose the will upon another or others – the will to sex. As in all these matters, there are few or no clear divisions: but one should know where one is. There is a difference, for example, between sexual attraction for a loved one, and the same for a striptease artiste; just as there is a difference between sexual attraction arising in the course of a loving relationship between two adults well known to each other, and sexual attraction for another provoked by her (or his) seductive manner of dress and movement.

*[[Redbook6:177-178][19890801:1226]{Love and Sex (3)}[1st August 1989],] 177 →

[continues]

[PostedBlogger07for09012020]

{Marys and Marthas in the Church}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:180-181][19890802:1504]{Marys and Marthas in the Church}[2nd August 1989]

.1504

[Text extracted from ms diagram reproduced above:]

		C
		|
G~	–	+	–	M~
		→
		|
		←

It is not a new thought that differentiates between males and females by the strength of their M~ and G~ sides (respectively).

In relation to Christ – and nowadays, the Church – we can say that males tend to move away from Christ (C) on the outer circle; but that those who move towards Christ will do so in the strongest arc of the inner circle, always bearing in mind the dangers of a reversal and fall through the Lucifer point.*

Females, on the other hand, if they take the shortest apparent approach to Christ, will do so on the final arc of the outer circle: to develop, to integrate, to find Unity, they must turn on to the inner circle through the Transformation Point, and return through Diversity, although always keeping Christ in view in the light of the Spirit. Many women, perhaps because not having experienced the full rigours of the outer circle disintegration (as nor would, of course, men moving from m~ → s~ → C), may tend not to recognise the need for the transformation, but to continue past C and on round the outer circle, losing direct sight (or insight) of Christ until they come up again. Perhaps this is why there has been so little pressure for women priests; and why the Church generally has so few Marys, and so many Marthas.

*[cf

[Redbook4:137][19871019:0925h]{Angelic Hierarchies [continued (11): Note on Cherubim]}[19th October 1987];

[Redbook5:59][19880314:1115i]{Fundamental Points of View [continued (9)]}[14th March 1988];

[Redbook5:61-62][19880314:1600]{Lucifer (1)}[14th March 1988];

[Redbook5:83-84][19880317:2250]{Lucifer (2)}[17th March 1988]

]

[PostedBlogger07for08012020]

{For friendship’s sake}[2nd August 1989]

[Redbook6:180][19890802:1443]{For friendship’s sake}[2nd August 1989]

19890802.1443

‘Do you think that your friendships exist for your sake, or for your friends’ sakes, or for both your sakes?’

[PostedBlogger07012020]

{Categories of Truth}[1st August 1989]

[Redbook6:179][19890801:1706]{Categories of Truth}[1st August 1989]

.1706

God is the God of Truth: is the one and only pure and absolute Truth. In searching for God, therefore, we must search for the truth; and if we allow the truth to be covered by lies or other misinformation, if we adhere to untruths, knowingly or unknowingly,* to that extent we increase our separation from God: we deviate from god, allow God to be covered, adhere to false gods, or idols. We must therefore use every** means at our disposal truthfully to discover the truth.

Nevertheless there are with us different categories of truth, and each may be analysed by different tools. The Virgin Birth, for example, is a truth (or not) of History and of Science, an external truth; *** the Resurrection of Christ may be such a truth or may with equal validity be a truth of perception and psychology, a truth of inner perception; and the teachings of Christ are truths in the realm of ideas. And any historical truth may also (or otherwise) constitute a symbol, as a mythological truth.

But the categories must not be confused: we do need to know into which category or categories of truth any truth falls.

*{Wow!}

**[? – Within reason & ethics, obviously]

***[cf [Redbook6:98-99)][19890219:1218f]{Jesus}[19th February 1989];

[Redbook6:135][19890531:2218c]{The Resurrection of Christ}[31st May 1989]]

[PostedBlogger06012020]

{Cleverness and Scholarship}[1st August 1989]

[Redbook6:178-179][19890801:1531]{Cleverness and Scholarship}[1st August 1989]

.1531

I’ve often (I think) seen surprise expressed at the way crazy cults attract educated people,* eg professionals and academics. But there is no puzzle here. To climb relatively high up the educational and academic ladder, one needs to be above all a good learner: that is, able to accept given facts and theories without question, or at least without much question: without too much question. That is exactly what is required of the disciple of a Krazy Kult.

**Your true scholar, if I may be permitted the expression, is not so much clever as obstinate: enough to be cautious, if not suspicious, about new ideas. I have an impression that most modern academics, in the Humanities at least, defend and attack positions rather than ideas; but I cannot substantiate that impression.

*(eg T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement] 8/7/89-3/8/89, p819)

**{(ref earlier Vol [[Redbook4:120-121][19871007:2330b]{Learning [continued]}[7th October 1987], probably])}

[PostedBlogger05012020]

{Love and Sex (3) [continued]}[1st August 1989]

[Redbook6:177-178][19890801:1226b]{Love and Sex (3) [continued]}[1st August 1989]

.1226

[continued]

I have certainly* known that disinterested love of the body and the Spirit and Soul expressed by it;** in childhood, in youth, and when full-grown; for my parents, for my brothers and sisters and some other relations, at various earlier times; and now, of course, for my wife and my two young children, who are all three more beautiful to me than any official definition of beauty could possibly circumscribe.*** And the key to that beauty, I believe, is the light of the eyes, and the communication of that light; although I have no doubt also that (for example) the blind have other measures for spiritual beauty of the body, and other means of communicating it.

*[See last previous entry]

**[it = the body, presumably]

***{cf [[Redbook6:8][19881015:1255d]{Beauty}[15th October 1988], ] 8,

[[Redbook6:99-100)][19890219:1218g]{Grace and Beauty}[19th February 1989],] 99}

{→ [[Redbook6:181-185][19890802:1232]{Love and Sex (3) [continued]}[2nd August 1989],] 181}

[PostedBlogger03for04012020]

{Love and Sex (3)}[1st August 1989]

[Redbook6:177-178][19890801:1226]{Love and Sex (3)}[1st August 1989]

.1226

I should not like it thought that the spiritual love to which I have referred* was in some way anti-physical, or even non-physical. It is, of course, the Love which binds the Spirit of God in one to the Spirit of God in another, in others: the closest they can come while still separated from the ultimate and absolute Union and One-ness with and of God the Spirit. But as we are embodied, so our bodies express our Souls and Spirit; and as we may express our Spirit and our Soul in and through our own body, so we may love the expression of another’s Spirit and Soul through his or her own body. In principle, the bodies may be clothed or naked** – nakedness expressing the potential for innocence and intimacy –, of the same or opposite sex, adult or child. In practice, each of us should know the power of nature in himself and in others to drag us down to self-gratification, in her*** own interest, the interest of propagating the race.****

*ref [[Redbook6:173-175][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2)}[30th July 1989],] p173ff

[Underlining added later]

**{cf V. [[Redbook5:277-278][19880814:1130e]{Dream Nakedness}[14th August 1988],] 277}

***{ie Nature’s}

{This is, of course, a short-hand: I do not think of Nature that ‘she’ is a person, physical or spiritual}

****[species, presumably: the expression ‘the Human Race’ was still quite common at the time of this journal entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger03012020]

{The Holy Spirit}[1st August 1989]

[Redbook6:177][19890801:1013]{The Holy Spirit}[1st August 1989]

19890801.1013

In all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is recorded as saying* that all human sins and all blasphemies may be forgiven – even speaking against the Son of Man (and, by implication, blasphemy against God the Father); but blasphemy, or speaking, against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, ‘either in this world or the next’ (M[at]t[hew].

In my view, this is an indication that Jesus believed the Holy Spirit to be the purest, and in that sense the highest, expression of (or for) God.

*M[at]t[hew] 12:31-32**

M[ar]k 3:28-30

L[u]k[e] 12:10

**[

‘Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.’

Matthew 12:31-32 (Authorised (King James) Version)

]

[PostedBlogger01for02012020]

{The Face against the Window-pane}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:176][19890731:2309]{The Face against the Window-pane}[30th July 1989]

.2309

I have been watching Tony Harrison’s* Byline,** a fairly repetitious attack on Muslim and Christian priests via an exploration of ‘blasphemers’ Omar Khayam, Molière, Voltaire, Byron, Rushdie and himself. So far as Christianity is concerned, apart from the historical selectivity of a view which represents Christianity by its attacks on playwrights of two to three centuries ago, and its priests by Ian Paisley*** and his ilk – what comes across most strongly from Harrison’s theme, manner and visage is the essential aridity of a man whose idea of the highest point of the inner life seems to be a glass of wine in an Indian restaurant.**** From what I have seen of his other work, however, I should guess that Harrison has a genuine, if suppressed, fascination with religion, not unmixed with fear. He is a man who, I suspect, condemns himself – for all his repeated assertions that ‘I love this fleeting life….’, and his characterisation of religion as life-denying – always to be on the outside of the essence of life, looking in: the face pressed against the window-pane.#

*[Tony Harrison (born 30 April 1937) is an English poet, translator and playwright. He was born in Leeds and he received his education in Classics from Leeds Grammar School and Leeds University. He is one of Britain's foremost verse writers and many of his works have been performed at the Royal National Theatre. He is noted for controversial works such as the poem "V", as well as his versions of dramatic works: from ancient Greek such as the tragedies Oresteia and Lysistrata, from French Molière's The Misanthrope, from Middle English The Mysteries. He is also noted for his outspoken views, particularly those on the Iraq War. In 2015, he was honoured with the David Cohen Prize in recognition for his body of work.]

**[A television programme, presumably]

***[Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Baron Bannside PC (6 April 1926 – 12 September 2014), was a loyalist politician and Protestant religious leader from Northern Ireland. He became a Protestant evangelical minister in 1946 and remained one for the rest of his life. In 1951 he co-founded the fundamentalist Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and was its leader until 2008. Paisley became known for his fiery sermons and regularly preached and protested against Roman Catholicism, ecumenism and homosexuality. He gained a large group of followers who were referred to as Paisleyites. Paisley became involved in Ulster unionist/loyalist politics in the late 1950s. In the mid-late 1960s, he led and instigated loyalist opposition to the Catholic civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. This contributed to the outbreak of the Troubles in the late 1960s, a conflict that would engulf Northern Ireland for the next thirty years. In 1970 he became Member of Parliament for North Antrim and the following year he founded the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which he would lead for almost forty years. In 1979 he became a Member of the European Parliament. Throughout the Troubles, Paisley was seen as a firebrand and the face of hardline unionism. He opposed all attempts to resolve the conflict through power-sharing between unionists and Irish nationalists/republicans, and all attempts to involve the Republic of Ireland in Northern affairs. His efforts helped bring down the Sunningdale Agreement of 1974. He also opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, with less success. His attempts to create a paramilitary movement culminated in Ulster Resistance. Paisley and his party also opposed the Northern Ireland peace process and Good Friday Agreement of 1998. In 2005, Paisley's DUP became the largest unionist party in Northern Ireland, displacing the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), which had dominated unionist politics since 1905 and had been an instrumental party in the Good Friday Agreement. In 2007, following the St Andrews Agreement, the DUP finally agreed to share power with republican party Sinn Féin. Paisley and Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness became First Minister and deputy First Minister respectively in May 2007. He stepped down as First Minister and DUP leader in mid-2008, and left politics in 2011. (Wikipedia)]

****[Classicist…. :) ]

#I like that, although I can’t remember who said it: ‘The face pressed against the window-pane of life….’

[Posted Blogger01012020]