Consciousness is far more mobile

Operationally, we have focused ours primarily with the body. We cannot experience subjective behavior “from outside,” so this natural mobility of consciousness, which for example the animals have retained, is psychologically invisible to us.


We think in terms of units and definitions, so even when we consider our own consciousness we think of it as “a thing,” or a unit — an invisible something that might be held in invisible hands perhaps. Instead consciousness is a particular quality of being. Each portion of “it” contains the whole, so theoretically as far as we are concerned, we can leave our body and be in it simultaneously. We are rarely aware of such experiences because we do not believe them possible, and it seems that even consciousness, particularly when individualized, must be in one place or another.


In those early times, then, consciousness was more mobile. Identity was more democratic. In a strange fashion this does not mean that individuality was weaker. Instead it was strong enough not to accept within its confines many divergent kinds of experience. A person then, looking out into the world of trees, waters and rock, wildlife and vegetation, literally felt that he/she was looking at the larger, materialized, subjective areas of personal selfhood.


To explore that exterior world was to explore the inner one. Such a person, however, walking through the forest, also felt that he or she was also a portion of the inner life of each rock or tree, materialized. yet there was no contradiction of identities.


A man/woman might merge his/her own consciousness with a running stream, traveling in such a way for miles to explore the layout of the land. To do this he/she became part water in a kind of identification we can barely understand– but so did the water then become part of the man/woman.


We can imagine atoms and molecules forming objects with little difficulty. In the same way, however, portions of identified consciousness can also mix and merge, forming alliances.


Language of Love

It is almost commonplace to say that those who are in love can converse without words. Dramas and stories of all kinds have been written about the inner kind of communication that seems to take place between mother and children, sister and brother, or love and beloved.


Love itself seems to quicken the physical senses, so that even the most minute gestures attain additional significance and meaning. Myths and tales are formed in which those who love communicate, though one is dead while the other lives. The experience of love also deepens the joy of the moment, even while it seems to emphasize the briefness or morality. Though love’s expression brilliantly illuminates its instant, at the same time that momentary brilliance contains within it an intensity that defies time, and is somehow eternal.

In our world we identify as oneself only, and yet love can expand that identification to such an extent that the intimate awareness of another individual is often a significant portion of our own consciousness. We look outward at the world not only through our eyes, but also, to some extent at least, through the eyes of another. It is true to say, then, that a portion of us figuratively walks with this other person as he or she goes about separate from us in space.


All of this also applies to the animals to varying degrees. Even in animals groups, individuals are not concerned with personal survival, but with the survival of “family” members. Each individual in an animal group is aware of others’ situations. The expression of love is not confined to our own species, therefore, nor is tenderness, loyalty, or concern. Love indeed does have its own language — a basic nonverbal one with deep biological connotations. It is the initial basic language from which all others spring, for all languages’ purposes rise from those qualities natural to love’ expression — the desire to communicate, create, explore, and to join with the beloved. If you want to express your love for someone but you’re not sure what to say, search for inspirational-love-quotes-sayings, look at this site for some ideas.

Speaking historically in our terms, man and woman first identified with nature, and loved it, for he/she saw it as an extension of himself or herself even while he or she felt himself or herself a part of its expression. In exploring it he/she explored love, he/she identified also with all those portions of nature with which he/she came into contact. This love was biologically ingrained in him or her, and is even now biologically pertinent.


Physically and psychically the species is connected with all of nature. Man and woman did not live in fear, as is now supposed, nor in some idealized natural heaven. He/she lived at an intense peak of psychic and biological experience, and enjoyed a sense of creative excitement that in those terms only existed when the species was new.

Difficult to explain, for these concepts themselves exist beyond verbalization. Some seeming contradictions are bound to occur. In comparison with those times, however, children are now born ancient, for even biologically they carry with in themselves the memories of their ancestors. In those pristine ears, however, the species itself arose, in those terms, newly from the womb of timelessness into time.


In deeper terms their existence still continues, with offshoots in all directions. The world that we know is one development in time, the one that we recognize. The species actually took many other routes unknown to us, unrecorded in our history fresh creativity still emerges at that “point.” In the reckoning that we accept, the species in its infancy obviously experienced selfhood in different terms from our own. Because this experience is so alien to our present concepts, and because it predated language as we understand it, it is most difficult to describe.


Generally we experience the self as isolate from nature, and primarily enclosed within our skin. Early man/woman did not feel like an empty shell, and yet selfhood existed for him/her as much outside of the body as within it. There was a constant interaction. It is easy to say that such people could identify, say, with the trees, but an entirely different thing to try and explain what it would be like for a mother to become so a part of the tree underneath which her children played that she could keep track of them from the tree’s viewpoint, though she was herself far away.

All love is not Sexually oriented

Yet love naturally seeks expression, and one such expression is through sexual activities.

Although sexual activity is just one of the many different ways that humans can express love, it is usually one of the most popular.

After all, it is, in fact, our natural fascination with human sexuality that makes adult websites such as PornHub so beloved. As well as our willingness to explore our sexuality with each other through our sexual activity with the use of sex toys and other items that you can find at stores similar to “Adult Book Shops”.


When love and sexuality are artificially divided, however, or considered as antagonistic to each other, then all kinds of problems arise. Permanent relationships become most difficult to achieve under such conditions, and often love finds little expression, while one of its most natural channels is closed off. Many children give their greatest expression of love to toys, dolls, or imaginary playmates, because so many stereotyped patterns have already limited other expressions. Their feelings toward parents become ambiguous as a result of the identification procedures thrust upon them. Love, sexuality, and play, curiously and explorative characteristics, merge in the child in a natural manner. Yet it soon learns that areas of exploration are limited even as far as its own body is concerned. The child is not free to contemplate its own parts. The body is early forbidden territory, so that he child feels it is wrong to love itself in any fashion.


Ideas of love, then, become highly distorted, and its expression also. We do not fight wars for the sake of the brotherhood of man, for example. People who are acquainted with undistorted versions of love in their relationships would find such a concept impossible. Men brought up to be ashamed of the “feminine” sides of their nature cannot be expected to love women. They will see in women instead the despised, feared, and yet charged aspects of their own reality, and behave accordingly in their relationships.


Women taught to be frightened of the “masculine” sides of their nature cannot be expected to love men, either, and the same kind of behavior results.


The so-called war of the sexes originates in the artificial divisions that we have placed about the nature of the self. The psyche’s reality is beyond such misunderstandings. Its native language usually escapes us. It is closely connected with what can be loosely called the language of love.

Obsessed With Sexual Behavior

We Are Obsessed With Sexual behavior (like that found on porn videos) when we proclaim it evil or distasteful or debasing,hide it, and pretend that its is primarily “Animalistic.”

We are also obsessed with sexual behavior when we proclaim its merits in an exaggerated fashion from the marketplace. We are obsessed with sexual behavior, no wonder watch my girlfriend porn is prevalent . Our daily dose of Girlfriend porn is available at “Watch-my-gf” sex and is so popular, when we put tight, unrealistic bans upon its expression, and also when we set up just as unrealistic standards of active performance to which the normal person is expected to comply.

Sexual freedom, then, does not involve an enforced promiscuity in which young people, for example, are made to feel unnatural if their encounters with the other sex do not lead to bed. Sexual freedom is shown within dominant and submissive dynamics such as seen in “My Little Princess” this interesting article and other similar fetishes.


We begin to program sexual activity when we divorce it from love and devotion. It is very easy then for church or state to claim and attract our uncentered loyalty and love, leaving us with the expression of a sexuality stripped of its deepest meanings.

I am not saying here that any given sexual performance is “wrong,” or meaningless, or debased if it is not accompanied by the sentiments of love and devotion. Of course, there can be acts of sexual expression found on PornHub and other adult websites that don’t actually have to be meaningless, but it doesn’t have to be romantic either. Over a period of time, however, the expression of sex will follow the inclination of the heart. These inclinations will color sexual expression, then. To that degree, it is “unnatural” to have sexual desire for someone whom you dislike or look down upon. The sexual ideas of domination and submission have no part in the natural life of our species, or that of the animals. We have interpret animal behavior according to our own beliefs.


Dominance and submission have often been used in religious literature in periods when love and devotion were separated from sexuality. They became unified only through religious visions or experiences, for only God’s love was seen as “good enough” to justify a sexuality otherwise felt to be animalistic. Instead, the words “Domination” and Submission” have to do with areas of consciousness that to a certain extent was bent upon dominating nature. We considered this male in essence. The female principle then became connected with the earth and all those elements of its life over which we as a species hoped to gain power.


God, therefore, became male. The love and devotion that might otherwise be connected with the facets of nature and the female principle had to be “snacthed away from” any natural attraction to sexuality. In such a way, religion, echoing our state of consciousness, was able to harness the powers of love and use them for purposes of domination. They became state-oriented. A man’s love and devotion was a political gain. Fervor was as important as a government’s treasury, for a state could count upon the devotion of its lieutenants in the same way that many fanatics will work without money for a cause.


Some people are naturally solitary. They want to live lone lives, and are content. Most, however, have a need for ending, close relationships. These provide both a psychic and social framework for personal growth, understanding, and development. It is an easy enough matter to shout to the skies: “I love my fellow men,” when on the other hand we form no strong, enduring relationship with others. It is easy to claim an equal love for all members of the species, but love itself requires an understanding that at our level of activity is based upon intimate experience. We cannot love someone we do not know — not unless we water down the definition of love so much that it becomes meaningless.


To love someone, you must appreciate how that person differs from yourself and from others. We must hold that person in mind so that to some extent love is a kind of meditation — a loving focus upon another individual. Once you experience that kind of love we can translate it into other terms. The love itself spreads out, expands, so that we can then see others in love’s light.


Love is naturally creative and explorative — that is, we want to creatively explore the aspects of the beloved one. Even characteristics that would otherwise appear as faults attain a certain loving significance. Because these are still attributes of the beloved attains prominence over all others.


The span of a god’s love can perhaps equally hold within its vision the existences of all individuals at one time in an infinite loving glance that beholds each person, seeing each with all his or her peculiar characteristics and tendencies. Such a god’s glance would delight in each person’s difference from each other person. This would not be a blanket love, a soupy porridge of a glance in which individuality melted, but a love based on a full understanding of each individual. The emotion of love brings us closet to an understanding of the nature of All That Is. Love incites dedication, commitments. It specifies. We cannot, therefore, honestly insist that we love humanity and all people equally if we do not love one other person. If we do not love oneself, it is quite difficult to love another

The Church did not restrain the sexuality of its priests

Or the expression of sexuality in previous centuries as much as it tried to divorce the expression of love and devotion from sexuality.


A high percentage of priests of the Middle Ages, for example, had illegitimate children. These were considered products of the weak and lustful flesh– bad enough, but considering man’s fallen state, understandable lapses. Such situations were overlooked, if not condoned, as long as a priest’s love and devotion still belonged to the Church and were not “squandered” upon the mother of such offspring.

The nuns were kept in subservient positions. Yet the nunneries also served as refugees for many women, who managed to educate themselves even under those conditions.


A good number of nuns were of course carrying the seed of those priests, and bearing children who acted as servants in monasteries, sometimes, as well as in covenants. There were numerous rebellions on the part of nuns in various convents, however, for these women found themselves operating rather efficiently though in segregated surroundings. They began to question the entire framework of the Church and their position with it. Some left in groups, particularly in France and Spain, forming their own communities.


The Church, however, never really found a suitable method of dealing with its women, or with the intuitive elements of its own beliefs. Its fear of a goddess emerging was renewed each time another apparition of Virgin appeared in one corner or another of the world.


There were also some women who passed as monks, living lives of a solitary nature and carrying on for years. No works bear their feminine names, for they used male ones. It goes without saying that lesbian and homosexual relationships flourished in such surroundings. The Church closed its eyes as long as the relationships were sexual in nature just like many of the sexual relations you’d find in shemale sex, only when love and devotion were diverted from the Church was there real concern. intellect and emotions became further divided then. This resulted of course in an overemphasis upon dogma– rules and the ritualization that had to be colorful and rich because it would be the one outlet allowed in which creativity could be handled. The Church believed that sexual experience belonged to the so-called lower or animal instincts, and so did usual human love. On the other hand, spiritual love and devotion could not be muddied by sexual expression that everyone could enjoy even lesbians, even if the church in the past didn’t always agree with this approach. So any normal strong relationship became a threat to the expression of piety.

Sexual Schism

Sexual schism begins when the male child is taught to identify exclusively with the father image, and the female child with the mother image. For male children, this includes being taught how to develop into mature men who can provide for their families and take on the male gender role. Male children are taught, within our society that, there are particular traits that should be followed, however, we have seen a misinterpretation of these traditional traits that are associated with being male. Luckily modern society is looking to redirect and redefine those traits to their original standing – see more at Alpha-Male-Traits. Although we are looking to right these wrongs we have to look at any issues that have come from these expectations.

Here we have a guilt insidiously incorporated into the growth process.


Children of either sex identify quite naturally with both parents, and any enforced method of exclusively directing the child to such a single identification is limiting. Under such conditions, feelings of guilt immediately begin to arise whenever such a child feels natural affiliations toward the other parent.


The stronger those natural inclinations are, the more the child is directed to ignore them in our society, since certain characteristics, are considered exclusively male or female. The child is also coerced into ignoring or denying those portions of the personality the correspond with the sex it is being taught it cannot identify with. This squeezing of personality into a sexual mold begins early, then. Continuing guilt is generated because the child knows unerringly that its own reality transcends such simple orientation.


The more able the child is to force such an artification, the greater its feelings of inner rebellion. The lack of a “suitable” father or mother image has “saved” more children than it has hurt. The psyche, with its great gifts, always feels thwarted and attempts to take countering measures. Our schools further continue the process, however, so that the areas of curiosity and learning become separated for males and females. The “she” within the male does indeed represent portions of his personality that are being unexpressed– not because of any natural predominance of mental or emotional characteristics over others, but because of artificial specializations. The same applies to the “male” within the female. We have accepted this version od personhood, in line with our ideas about the nature of consciousness. Those ideas are changing, and as they do the species must accept its true personhood. As this happens, our understanding will allow us to glimpse the nature of the reality of the gods we have recognized through the ages. We will no longer need to clothe them in limited sexual guises.


Our religious concepts will change considerable, and the images associated with them. Religion and government have has as uneasy alliance. Males ruled both (they still do), and yet those leading religious organizations at least recognized their intuitive base. They constantly tired to manipulate religion’s substructure in the same acceptable male ways that government leaders always use to inhibit and use the emotions.


Hersey was considered female and subversive because it could threaten to destroy the framework set about the acceptable expression of religious fervor. The female elements in the Church were always considered suspect, and in the early times of Christianity there was some concern lest the Virgin become a goddess. There were offshoots of Christianity that did not survive, in which this was the case. Parallel developments in religion ad government always echo the state of consciousness and its purposes. “Pagan” Practices, giving far more leeway to sexual identification and expression, continued well into the 16th century, and the so-called occult underground heretical teachings tried to encourage the development of personal intuition.


Any true psychic development of personality, however, is bound to lead to an understanding of the nature of the psyche that is far too large for any such confusion of basic identity with sexuality. The concept of reincarnation itself clearly shows the change of sexual orientation, even while it is also expressed through a given sexual stance. To a good extent, sexual beliefs are responsible for the blocking-out of reincarnational awareness. Such “memory” would necessarily acquaint us with experiences most difficult to correlate with our current sexual roles. Those other-sex existences are present to the psyche unconsciously. They are a portion of our personality. In so specifically identifying with our sex, therefore, we also inhibit memories that might limit or destroy that identification.

We put sexual labels, on the intellect and the emotions, so that they seem like opposites.

We have tried to divide mental and emotional characteristics between the two sexes, forcing a stereotyped behavior. The males who was intuitive or artistically gifted in certain ways often therefore considered himself homosexual , whether or not he was, because his emotional and mental characteristics seem to fit the female rather than the male sex.


The woman who had interests beyond those acceptable as feminine was often in the same position. Because the intellect and the emotions were considered so separately, however, attempts to express intuitive abilities often resulted in, and often do result in, “unreasonable” behavior.


In certain circles now it is fashionable to deny the intellectual capacities in favor of feeling, sentiment, or intuitive actions. Intellectual concerns then become suspect, and recourse to reason is considered a failing. Instead, of course, intellectual and intuitive behavior should be beautifully blended. In the same way we have attempted to force the expression of love into purely– or exclusively–sexual orientation. All affectionate caress or kiss between members of the same sex is generally not considered proper. The taboos include most aspects of the sense of touch in connection with the human body.


Touching is considered so basically sexual similar to videos on websites such as X-Tube, that the most innocuous touching of any portion of the body by another person is considered potentially dangerous. Of course, touching can be explicitly sexual, as it usually is on places like strip clubs, but people often find it hard to separate the sexual from the basic emotional. On the one hand we are too specific in our use of the term “sexuality”; yet in another way, and in that context, we feel that any kind of affection must naturally lead to sexual expression, if given its way. Our beliefs make this sexual eventually appears as a fact of experience.


This also forces us to guard our emotional life very close. As a result, any show of love is to some extent inhibited unless it can legitimately find expression sexually. In many instances love itself seems wrong because it must imply sexual expression at times when such expression is not possible, or even desired. Some people have a great capacity for love, devotion, and loyalty, which would naturally seek expression in many diverse ways — through strong enduring friendships, devotion to causes in which they believe, through vocations in which they help others. They may not be particularly sexually oriented. This need not mean that they are inhibiting their sexuality though, as they could be expressing it personally by viewing sexual films uploaded to a website like X-Tube, while knowing they can express their love for someone in other ways. It is pathetic and ludicrous for them to believe that they must have intercourse frequently in their youth, or to set up standards of normality against which they must measure their sexual experience.


In fact, Western society has attempted to force all expression of love and devotion into sexual activity, or otherwise ban it entirely. Sexual performance is considered the one safe way of using the great potential of human emotions. When it seems to us that society is becoming licentious, in many ways it is most restrained and inhibited.


It means that all options except sexual freedom have been denied. The great force of love and devotion is withdrawn from personal areas of individual creativity through purposeful work. It is being withdrawn from expression through government or law. It is being denied expression through meaningful personal relationships, and forced into a narrow expression through a sexuality that then will indeed become meaningless.

It has been said by some women working toward “equal rights” that the species has only used half of its potential by suppressing the abilities of women. In larger terms, however, each individual suffers whenever identity is defined primarily as a matter or sexual orientation.


Generally speaking, there will be a specific overall sexual orientation of a biological nature, but the mental and emotional human characteristics are simply not meted out according to sex. Such identification cuts the individual in half, so that each person uses but half of his or her potential. This causes a schism in all of our cultural activities.


On the one hand many of us have been taught that sexaul expression is wrong, evil, or debasing. We have also been told that if we do not express our sexuality, we are displaying unnatural repression, and furthermore we are led to think that we must above all force ourselves to enjoy this ambiguous sexual nature. The old idea that good women do not enjoy sex has hardly disappeared. Yet women are taught that natural expressions of love, playful caresses, are inappropriate unless an immediate follow-through to a sexual climax is given. Men are taught to count their worth according to the strength of the sexual drive and its conquests. They are taught to inhibit the expression of love as a weakness, and yet to perform sexually as often as possible. In such a sexual climate there is little wonder that you become confused.

in ordinary life, we end up with sexual caricatures in practical existence.

We do not understand what true womanhood or true manhood is. We are forced instead to concentrate upon a shallow kind of diversity. As a result, the reflection of sexual schism taints all of our activities, but most of all it limits our psychological reality. For the younger generation now the reality is that from a young age they are being taught sexual expression through porn from sites like XXX sex videos.


Since we value sexual performance in the most limited of terms, and use that largely as a focus of identity, then both our old and young also find themselves outside of our organizational frameworks. The young are more freewheeling in their thoughts before they accept sexual roles, and the old are more freewheeling in theirs because they have discarded their sexual roles. I did not say that old or young had no sexual expression– but that both groups did not identify their identities with their sexual roles. There are of course exceptions. If man or the woman is taught that identity is a matter of sexual performance, however, and that that performance must cease at a certain age, then the sense of identity is dependent upon such performance, then they will begin to perform as quickly as possible. They will squeeze their identity into sexual clothes, and the society will suffer because the great creative thrusts of growing intellect and intuitions will be divided at puberty, precisely when they are needed.


Ideally, the adult male or female would rejoice in sexual expression and find an overall orientation, but would also bask in a greater psychological and psychic identity that experienced and expressed all of the great human capabilities of mind and heart, which splash over any artificial divisions.

We see in nature only what we want to see.

We provide ourselves with a pattern or model of nature that conforms with our beliefs.


Love and devotion are largely seen as female characteristics. Societies and organizations of church and state are seen as male. It is not so much that the male and the female be considered equal as it is that the male and female elements in each person should be released and expressed. Immediately, many of us may be annoyed or alarmed, thinking that of course I mean sexual expression. Of course, sexual expression can come in a lot of ways – self (with toys like a thrusting dildo or vibrators) and with another human. That is a portion of such expression. But I am speaking of releasing within each individual the great human characteristics and abilities that are often denied expression because they are assigned to the opposite sex.


In our present framework, because of the male-female specialization– the male orientation, the implication that the ego is male while the psyche is female– we force upon ourselves great divisions in which operationally the intellect seems separate from the Intuitions, and we set up a situation in which opposites seem to apply where there are none. When we think of a scientist, the majority of us will think of a male, an intellectual, an “objective” thinker who takes great pains not to be emotional, or to identify with the subject being examined or studied.


There seems to be a division between science and religion, for even organized religion has an intuitive basis. The male scientist is often ashamed of using his intuitions, for not only do they appear to be unscientific, but female as well. It is what others will think about his masculinity that such a man is concerned with. It be “illogical” is a scientific “crime” — not so much because it is an unscientific attribute, but because it is considered a feminine one. Science has followed the male orientation and become its epitome. Up until the present, science has consistently tried to do without the so-called feminine qualities. It has divorced knowledge from emotion, understanding from identification, and stressed sexuality over personhood.


To an extent, some people in the sciences manage to behind the so-called female and male characteristics. When they do so, seeming oppositions and male contradictions disappear. To whatever degree, more than their contemporaries, they do not allow sexual roles to blind them psychologically. Therefore they are more apt to combine reason and emotion, intuition and intellect, and in so doing invent theories that reconcile previous contradictions. They unify, expand, and create, rather than diversify.


Einstein was such a person in the sciences. While he was tainted to some extent by conventional sexual beliefs, he still felt his own personhood in such a way that he gladly took advantage of characteristics considered feminine. As a youngster particularly, he rebelled against male-oriented learning and orientation. This rebellion was was psychological — that is, he maintained an acceptable male orientation in terms of sexual activity, but he would not restrain his mind and soul with such nonsense. The world felt the result of his great intuitive abilities, and of his devotion.

Because of the world situation, and the overall male orientation of science, the result of his work were largely put to the uses of manipulation and control.


Generally, reason and intellect are then considered male qualities, and the frameworks for civilization, science, and an organized world. The intuitions and the impulses are considered erratic, untrustworthy, feminine, and the impulses are be controlled. The world exists because of spontaneous order. Civilization began because of the impulse of people to be together. It grew spontaneously and came into order. We only see the outside of many processes because our objectified viewpoint does not allow us the identification that would show us more. It seems to us then that all systems sometime break down — become less orderly or fall into chaos.


We apply this belief to physical systems and psychological ones. In terms of sex, we insist upon a picture that shows us a growth into a sexual identification into “sexual disorder.” It does not occur to us that the original premise or focus, the identification of identity with sexual nature, is “unnatural.” It is us, then, who form the entire framework from which our judgement is made. In many cases the person is truer to his or her own identity in childhood or old age, when greater individual freedom is allowed, and sexual roles are more flexible.


Any deep exploration of the self will lead into areas that will confound conventional beliefs about sexuality. We will discover an identity, a psychological and psychic identity, that is in our terms male and female, one in which those abilities of each sex are magnified, released, and expressed. They may not be so released in normal life, but we will meet the greater dimensions of our own reality, and at least in the dream state catch a glimpse of the self that transcends a one-sex orientation.

Such an encounter with the psyche is often met by great artists or writers, or by mystics. This kind of realization is necessary if we are to ever transcend the framework of seeming opposites in which our world is involved.


The overly specific sexual orientation, then, reflects a basic division in consciousness. It not only separates a man from his own intuitions and emotions to some extent, or a woman from her own intellect, but it effectively provides a civilization in which mind and heart, fact and revelation, appear completely divorced. To some degree each person is at war with the psyche, for all of an individual’s human characteristics must be denied unless they fit in with those considered normal to the sexuall identity.

Humanity deals with different predominant themes at different times.

There may be minor interweaving ones, but the nature of personality, religion, politics, the family, and the arts– all of these are considered in the light of the predominating theme.

In unusual historic terms, humanity has been experimenting with its own unique kind of consciousness, and this necessitated an arbitrary division between the subject and the perceiver–nature and man/woman — and brought about a situation in which the species came to consider itself apart from the rest of existence.


What we think of as male/female ego-orientated characteristics are simply those human attributes that the species encourage, brought into the foreground, and stressed. Using those actually as guidelines, we have so far viewed our world and formed our cultures. There are some exceptions of note, but here I am speaking historically of the Western world with its Roman and Greek heritage. Our gods became masculine then; competitive. We saw the species pitted against nature, and man/woman pitted against man/woman. We consider the Greek tragedies great because they echo so firmly our own beliefs. Man/woman is seen in opposition in the most immediate fashion with his/her own father/mother. Family relationships become a mirror of those beliefs, which are then of course taken as statements of fact concerning the human condition. We thus have a very polarized male-female concept.

Those characteristics that we consider female are, then, those that did not predominate because they represented the sources of nature from which the species sought release. To some extent this was a true, creative, sexual drama, of high pretense, for in its own way the consciousness of the species was playing for high stakes, and the drama had to be believable.


It was seeking for a multiplication of consciousness, forming new offshoots from its own source. It had to pretend to dislike and disown that source in the same way that an adolescent may momentarily turn aside from its parents in order to encourage independence. Before the so-called flowering of Greek and Roman cultures, consciousness had not as yet made that specialization. There were gods and goddesses galore, and deities in whose natures the feminine and masculine characteristics merged. There were deities part human and part animal. The species, then, had not yet taken up the theme that has been predominant in Western culture.


These changes first occurred in man’s/woman’s stories of the deities. As the species divorced itself from nature, so the animal gods began to vanish. Man/woman first changed his/her myths, and then altered the reality that reflected them.

Before then there were various kinds of divisions of labor, but great leeway in sexual expression. Children were a necessary part of the family, for a family was a band of people who belonged together, cooperating in the search for food and shelter.


Homosexual or lesbian relationships, as we term them, existed quite freely, and simultaneously. These were considered pertinent with or without sexual expression, and served as strong bonds of sisterhood and brotherhood.


When we view the animal kingdom, we also do so through our specialized sexual beliefs, studying the behavior of the male and female, looking for patterns of aggressiveness, territorial jealousy, passivity, mothering instincts, or whatever. These specialities of interest make us blind to many larger dimensions of animal behavior. To some degree, the so-called mothering instinct belongs to male and female alike in any species that can be so designated. Animals have close friendships, with or without sexual expression, with members of the same sex. Love and devotion are not the prerogatives of one sex or one species, some humans exhibit the same conclusion when it comes to expressing their sexuality through massively various ways now that don’t even have to include other humans, such as people watching and enjoying websites like cartoon porn and others.

It was desirable in practical terms that a man have many wives.

So that is man died in battle his seed might be planted in many wombs– particularly in times when diseases struck men and women often in young adulthood.


When physical conditions are adverse, such social traditions have often emerged. In times of overpopulation, so-called homosexual and lesbian tendencies come to the surface– but also there is the tendency to express love in other than physical ways, and the emergence of large social issues and challenges into which men and women can throw their energies. There are “lost” portions of the Bible having to do with sexuality, and with Christ’s beliefs concerning it, that were considered blasphemous and did not come down to us through history.


It is natural to express love through sexual acts–natural and good. It is not natural to express love only through sexual acts, however. Many of Freud’s sexual ideas did not reflect man’s natural condition. The complexes and neuroses outlined and defined are products of our traditions and beliefs. We will naturally find some evidence for them in observed behavior. Many of the traditions do come from the Greeks, from the great Greek playwrights, who quite beautifully and tragically presented the quality of the psyche as it showed itself in the light of Grecian traditions.

The boy does not seek, naturally to “dethrone” the father. He seeks to emulate him; he seeks to be himself as fully as it seems to him that his father was himself. He hopes to go beyond himself and his own capabilities for himself and for his father.


As a child he once thought that his father was immortal, in human terms– that he could do no wrong. The son tries to vindicate the father by doing no wrong himself, and perhaps by succeeding where it seems the father might have failed. It is much more natural for the male to try to vindicate the father than it is to destroy him, or envy him in negative terms.


The child is simply the male child. He is not jealous of the father with the mother, in the way that is often supposed. The male child does not possess an identity so focused upon its maleness. I am not saying that children do not have a sexual nature from birth. They simply do not focus upon their maleness or femaleness in the way that is supposed.

To the male child, the penis is something that belongs to him personally in the same way that an arm or leg does, or that his mouth or anus does. He does not consider it a weapon. He is not jealous of his father’s love for the mother, for he understands quite well that her love for him is just as strong. He does not wish to possess his mother sexually in the way that adults currently suppose. He does not understand those terms. He may at times be jealous of her attention, but this is not a sexual jealousy in conventionally understood terms. Our beliefs blind us to the sexual nature of children. They do enjoy their bodies. They are sexually aroused. The psychological connotations, however, are not those assigned to them by adults.


The beliefs involving the son’s inherent rivalry with the father, and his need to overthrow him, follow instead patterns of culture and tradition, economic and social, rather than biological or psychological. Those ideas serve as handy explanations for behavior that is not inherent or biologically pertinent