Thinking about homosexuality this morning I came across an interesting observation that relates to the idea of men having a female soul and women a masculine one. In what has traditionally been called “normal”, the “soul” of the particular gender, male or female expresses itself quite in harmony with the traditional idea of what is a male or a female including all the extreme variations within those “frames” themselves but in homosexuals what we could witness in those particular terms, is that the individual steps beyond that frame into his or her soul and actualizes it. This of course is an unconscious process. It “happens” to the individuals. How or why, I don’t know but what the observation shows is that some homosexual males take the “feminine” to another dimension while some homosexual women, take the “male” into another dimension.
In homosexual males the degree of “exquisiteness” that they can achieve often exceeds those of the standard female. It is as if the dimension of the emotional expressed in the beauty of the surrounding is much enhanced in the homosexual male while we can observe the opposite process in female homosexuals: they blur their femininity and physically “appear” less “female” but their minds take on a much more masculine activity than in the average female or male. I’m thinking of Butler and Virginia Wolf for a start. This is the first time I explore this subject.
How or why this happens would be worth exploring. I personally think that in our times heterosexuals as much as homosexuals or transsexuals of any kind are ALL abnormal which makes them ALL normal! In this sense I don’t think human beings are very human, that we are in the process of humanizing our selves and that we need to look at who and what we are today to be able to accomplish that. It also means that no matter how “normal” or “abnormal” we term our “abnormalities” or “normalities” we are still “THE” human being worth every “pulse” of our heart’s strivings.
I don’t believe the average heterosexual with their macho background be that in females or males is any healthier than homosexuals with their macho background be it males or females. In the sexuality of our times we need to bare in mind that it is as conditioned by the status quo and its “inhumanities” as the rest of our psychology.
What I would call “normal” is the activity that allows an individual to “evolve” and what would be abnormal is the activity that conditions the individual to “involute”. In the differential geometry of curves, an involute (also known as evolvent) is a curve obtained from another given curve by attaching an imaginary taut string to the given curve and tracing its free end as it is wound onto that given curve; or in reverse, unwound
I then believe that people “evolve” in particular ways whether they are heterosexuals or homosexuals and that they can equally involute whether they are one or the other. What determines evolution is not the sexuality that is practiced but HOW that sexuality is practiced.
All these are extremely delicate terms because in an extremist position it would be terrible if people used the “you are involuting” condemnation to ban other people from society but from another perspective it seems utterly necessary to understand why and how the different activities that we do are in themselves harmful or healing.
These notions of course take us to the traditional concepts of good and bad, positive or negative, “sinful” or not “sinful” and while we are trying to move beyond those opposites in our understanding of sexuality, when placed within the boundaries of “evolution” “health” “development” we should be able to discriminate between what helps and hinders our processes and progresses.
What I think is worth exploring is how heterosexual activity can become as “harmful” to the individual as homosexual activity and how both can be equally healing. The question is when and how?
In observing heterosexuality in the porn activity what I realized was that the man involved, when in the sexual act itself, was aroused not by the woman in front of him but by the imaginary picture of the woman in front of him as if an intellectual process had to take place for him to become aroused.
In the female homosexual experience I’ve observed the same process in a particular case. What arouses the desire is a “loss” that needs to be healed. The “lost mother” is formulated over and over again to experience the experience of her presence. What “moves” or “impulses” the desire is the loss, the pain. Again the process is unconscious, there is a conditioning that chains the individual into its rails and freeing him or herself from those rails is equally liberating whether it is a homosexual or a heterosexual fixation. The suffering of “being in love” is equally suffered whether we are heterosexuals or homosexuals. The suffering and the joy of the fulfilled desire.
In as much as we can say that individuals are trying to compensate their losses in particular relationships could we affirm that these relationships are “NORMAL”? What would be normal is the impulse to compensate the loss but not necessarily the compensation for the compensation itself does not necessarily heal the loss, I would dare affirm that it often “fixes” it and often “increases” the loss in its inability to heal it. I would even dare say that the solutions we find to our losses are not necessarily solutions but that they often worsen and complicate the “problem”.
A “problem” needs to be defined. I would call a “problem” anything that fixes the individual and makes them viciously turn around the same place without finding a way out; Anything that “fixes” individuals in one dimension and keeps them circulating around it without being able to move beyond it often moving into “lower” dimensions.
In this sense we would need to understand that evolution means the freedom to move within all the dimensions of our selves in a balanced equilibrium and involution, becoming fixed in any one dimension and regressing into “lower” dimensions rather than expanding in “higher” dimensions. Another way to put it would be, involuting means a reduction in consciousness while evolution an expansion in consciousness and consciousness an awareness of the multiple dimensions and the interaction between them not only in the inner realms of the individual but their expression in the outer realms of society.
A “lower” dimension then needs to be defined and actually the idea of dimensions itself needs to be clarified.
A dimension is a cosmos with all its inherent laws. The physical dimension is a complete cosmos and it is at one extreme of the spectrum of dimensions. It isn’t necessarily lower or higher, the lowlessness or the highessness of it depends on the perspective we are looking at it from. From one angle the physical dimension is at the extreme height of the phenomenical possibilities, the “stage” in which the “non phenomenical” actualizes its reality. It is the highest expression of the “non phenomenical” in the physical dimenision and in that sense it does not matter whether the phenomenon being expressed is an involuting or evoluting act. The act is an “involuting act” not because it is being expressed in the physical dimension but because the individual performing it has become “fixed” to the dimension itself and in his or her “movement” tends to “descend” to even lower dimensions.
If we accept the idea that everything is “moving” then we have to accept that we are inevitably moving upwards or downwards in no matter what dimension or dimensions.
Let’s look at an example to see if we can clarify the ideas.
Take the heterosexual man who needs to look at porn images to become sexually aroused even when he is having sex with a woman. Then take that same man and place him in the arena in which he must have sex with increasingly younger women to become aroused. Female children. The younger, the more his sexuality is brought to life. What begins with a certain inclination to become aroused by simply looking at women ends with a powerful necessity to have “children” to become “properly” aroused.
Where would we draw the line of what is healthy and unhealthy? Where exactly is the unhealthiness of the deal? I suspect that there are various dimensions that need to be taken into consideration here. Why do both heterosexual and homosexual men tend to “like” “youth” in those extremes? What is “youth” in itself? Is it not a reality of “purity?” “naivety?” “essence?” Is “purity” itself what has become “arousable” for the man in question in his inner sublimation even if the outer expression of it becomes abnormal to the point of criminal? In his inner world can he find anything “wrong” in looking for the purest? So WHERE is the abnormality of the process?
Could we suspect that the “loss” that the individual is somehow trying to compensate for, transforms itself overtime and acquires definite forms that can enter into a dimension of crime? When would we call it crime? Presently we call it “crime” when an adult has sex with a young person under eighteen but to be able to understand whether this is criminal in all and every instance we would need to explore how THAT happens in societies in which the sexual initiation of the female child is taken up by the elders. The taboos of our society would not be enough to understand the phenomenon in question.
I suspect is that parallel to the process of becoming increasingly “fixed” in the need for “younger” individuals for “arousal” there is a “sublimation” process taking place. The individual sublimates the loss and projects it into other individuals then “purifies” it so to speak in his own inner world even if externally there is a clear tendency to move into crime.
The “crime” would not be in the act itself as much as in the manipulation necessary to carry out the act. In other words, an adult manipulating the child to get her or his approval, conditioning him or her with money and other determinants or overtly “raping” him or her.
This is where we can begin to see the act objectively and the variations of the act in their subjective lights. What makes the act healthy or unhealthy is the subjectivities involved in it.
Many questions to continue exploring. Leaving it there for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment