• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Spirituality and sexuality

And while we're on the topic: a lack of desire for sexual relations has its hardships as well.
 
Surley from a biological and evolutionary perspective, the only reason we're even alive is simply to reproduce?
 
azzazza, based on what you're saying, is looking forward to things an impediment to lasting inner peace? Because although I've mastered to some degree the art of not mistaking a material want for a need, I find it very hard to live an enjoyable life without looking forward to what events and epic adventures may come.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
azzazza, based on what you're saying, is looking forward to things an impediment to lasting inner peace? Because although I've mastered to some degree the art of not mistaking a material want for a need, I find it very hard to live an enjoyable life without looking forward to what events and epic adventures may come.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is simply another form of craving. You're Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the mount, looking for a glimpse of something just out of your reach. Once you get to the top, your view is unimpeded for the slightest of moments, when the rock begins its downward decent, you think you see a trip overseas, a new lover, a life goal fulfilled... In reality, the glimpse is over as soon as you see it. The event happens, and you begin pushing the boulder up the next incline, waiting for the next glimpse.

To truly maintain that inner peace, you must abandon all perception of future endeavors and past events.
 
azzazza !? said:
we are talking about is what Levinas calls (in Totality and Infinity) 'metaphysical desire'. 'desire in itself'. or what Camus talks about in his essay on Sisyphus. it is an abstraction, not a desire bound to an object. in essence, taken as such desire is desire for 'otherness'. and this is the fundamental dual structure of desire that is insatiable: in making this otherness its own, pleasure is taken. but, as the otherness is absorbed into the totality of the self, it is not desired, and your desire is already turning away from it, to (a new) otherness. the moment of actual 'satisfaction' is so short-lived and fleeting, and it is questionable whether it really existed or just appeared to come close enough to tell yourself it did. structurally though, it is illusionary. you cannot grasp the otherness desired, for then it ceases to be other. for example: you have mindblowing sex. a mindblowing orgasm ensues. are you satisfied? no! the moment did not even pass and you already say "that was mindblowing!" even at the moment of orgasm itself you think to yourself "wow this is fantastic!", creating a distance between 'you' and 'the orgasm'/your satisfaction (some feel guilty, ashamed, etc...). and there the 'you' escapes its satisfaction and you put yourself above/besides/outside of it. its really easy to look over this teeny bit, but its there. you already desire something else; talk, cuddle, narcissim, go to the bathroom, eat, whatever or even to have sex again! a tiny part of you is not satisfied with it, its outside of the satisfaction. you were never 'complete', you remained dual/opposed to it.

contrary to what you say, its not cyclic, it never got satisfied. though this is something we overlook or forget, its nonetheless always present. you ate a big meal, you are already thinking what you will do next. one could even venture to say that everything we do is an attempt at forgetting something, pushing it away, fleeing from it into the things we do, and we're constantly doing doing doing. Heidegger calls this "Seinsvergessenheit" (forgetfulness of being), in the existentiale (ontologic mode of being) of 'uneigentlichkeit' ('inauthenticity' or lit. 'not-himself-ness' 'not his own or proper being'). which is the binding of our infinite desire or 'openness' to a finite object. an objectification of the essence of our subjectivity which is 'openness'.
the talk would have as its object a 'true state of happiness' wherein we do not feel any need to do or say anything (which isn't the same as not doing or saying anything); instead of constantly being driven by 'something' insatiable until your dead. (Kierkegaard - the Sickness unto Death)

all ultimately draw a similar conclusion (though their ways differ tremendously, and the real point lies exactly therein); which is essentially: to be happy is to accept the infinity of desire itself as the fulfillment of man's heart. ("one must imagine Sysiphus happy"); thus resolving, or putting at rest, desire in desire itself. the destination is the path itself. and so one comes back to where one started from, albeit a richer man.

herein lies the difference between craving and desire: craving is desire having an object (of fulfillment), while desire has itself as its subject.
Click to expand...


"The moment of actual 'satisfaction' is so short-lived and fleeting, and it is questionable whether it really existed or just appeared to come close enough to tell yourself it did.

I completely agree that the actual satisfaction of desire is so short, and fleeting that its not satisfactory because it is ultimately impermananet and anything that is impermanent is unsatisfactory so looking for happiness in anything that passes away is really just insanity, because everytime we look for fufillment in something temporary when we know it wont last then we are committing error or what Einstein defined as insanity: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." For example an extremely fat person who continues to seek satisfaction/pleasure/temporary happiness in food by eating double cheeseburgers over and over is crazy.

Because the satisfaction derived from that cheeseburger wont last, and if you get addicted to that pleasure or whatever you derive from eating it then every time you dont have that fleeting pleasure you are unsatisfied, and even when you do get your beloved cheeseburger it only lasts a few minutes and then your left out to dry. Not to mention the negative effects from repeating any desire ad nasueum in the case of the cheesebruger he becomes tremendously overweight.

"He who binds to himself a joy
Doth the winged life destroy.
He who kisses the joy as it flies,
Lives in eternity's sunrise. "

As soon as you bind yourself to any desire and seek it incessantly you suffer, but when you can relish it in the moment and accept it as a fragile and passing gift then you have accepted the way things are and you can abide in truth.

structurally though, it is illusionary. you cannot grasp the otherness desired, for then it ceases to be other. for example: you have mindblowing sex. a mindblowing orgasm ensues. are you satisfied? no! the moment did not even pass and you already say "that was mindblowing!" even at the moment of orgasm itself you think to yourself "wow this is fantastic!", creating a distance between 'you' and 'the orgasm'/your satisfaction

This part is fascinating you captured it beautifully , even during the moment of pure rapture and bliss this false sense of self separates itself from the intensity of what it actually thinks it wants and in doing so escapes the moment and tries to own the immediacey of the experience and in doing so creates the illusonary duality, of itself and the experience. As soon as the ego or "I" tries to seperate itself from any experience and own or label what "is" then its lost the bliss of the moment and it is stuck in past experiences or future dreams of pleasure.

(some feel guilty, ashamed, etc...). and there the 'you' escapes its satisfaction and you put yourself above/besides/outside of it. its really easy to look over this teeny bit, but its there. you already desire something else; talk, cuddle, narcissim, go to the bathroom, eat, whatever or even to have sex again! a tiny part of you is not satisfied with it, its outside of the satisfaction. you were never 'complete', you remained dual/opposed to it."

The way you phrased all of this is so crucial to understanding non-duality, as soon as that duality comes into experience it brings with it the mind which can only reminesce about the past or dream of the future and separate itself from everything.

As soon as that "I" puts itself outside of the experience what it wanted/enjoyed is now in the past, and now it needs something else which it thinks can only come from the future. This sepearate sense of identity is totally illusory and completely imagined and its where suffering comes from and also where desire comes from, almost certainly desire arises when this sense of separation is felt because it is trying to fill the sense of lacking or imagined separation. And as you said even during orgrasm its immediately avoiding the moment and creating that duality and then its on to the next high because it hasnt even experienced what it wanted in the moment because its always avoiding by separating itself and in doing that it always needs more, instantly its looking to cuddle, eat anything to find something to fill this separation or dualistic sense of self.

As you said then you can never feel complete because that "small self" will never feel complete or whole because its not real its sepearated itself from all enjoyment and all it can do is desire more and more experiences but even when it attains those experiences it puts itself outside of them so it never really experiences the moment or anything as its always projecting that imaginary duality or false sense of self onto reality. And in doing so it is never satisfied, its always lacking, always feeling a nagging separation as you said you remain dual or opposed to everything.
 
Very well written, stonerfromohio. I think I might be using this post often as a reference to what I mean from now on. :)
Thanks! <3
 
The_Winner said:
You have understood me completely wrong. I am not saying having sex in itself can't be pleasurable. I was talking of the desire for sexual pleasure.

Would you consider craving for something, that can't ever satisfy you permanently positive or negative?
Click to expand...

Positive. I love the cravings I have for love, food, sex, euphoria, etc. Without cravings, what use do you have for even getting out of bed? Only in Buddhism would they consider it negative to deal with that.
 
azzazza !? said:
the moment did not even pass and you already say "that was mindblowing!" even at the moment of orgasm itself you think to yourself "wow this is fantastic!", creating a distance between 'you' and 'the orgasm'/your satisfaction (some feel guilty, ashamed, etc...). and there the 'you' escapes its satisfaction and you put yourself above/besides/outside of it
Click to expand...

Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness.
 
Coolio said:
It works pretty well. Wu wei all the way.
Click to expand...

Do you see the validity of Buddhism? Based on your two responses previous, I felt you certainly didn't.

edit: of course wu wei is Taoist, and I just woke up at 5am for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Sex isn't the problem, it's the desire to possess another that is.

Can 2 people engage in spiritual sex without possession?
 
LiquidMethod said:
Sex isn't the problem, it's the desire to possess another that is.

Can 2 people engage in spiritual sex without possession?
Click to expand...

I believe its possible..

I've had intense sexual experience's on my own without objective desire, in which i've re-channeled that immense sexual energy through my chakra's to my crown and effectively experienced a merging of lower and higher self entwined in pure bliss.

You experience the actual 'orgasm sensation' in your mind rather then your genitals.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
azzazza, based on what you're saying, is looking forward to things an impediment to lasting inner peace? Because although I've mastered to some degree the art of not mistaking a material want for a need, I find it very hard to live an enjoyable life without looking forward to what events and epic adventures may come.
Click to expand...

no, not neccesarily (at least according to Levinas). it depends how this looking forward is filled in. or rather, not filled in. its not an impediment if you leave room for the Other and accept otherness as the a priori. the future should remain as an infinite 'not yet'; that is: not a product of your 'design', or project, but a 'feeling your way in the dark'. the subject 'vaguens' in it, there are no forms in this night that he may 'grasp' and is thrown back unto itself, but it does not dissappear, as a subject.

in concreto that would mean there is nothing 'wrong' with dreaming as long as you do not take it as more as a dream. sort of a weak 'proposition' or 'entertaining thought' to your own future which is a priori other to yourself, but of which you are able to completely let go of and forget, just like a dream or an illusion. enjoy it, but take it for what it is. these things may very well influence your future, but don't force them to, or you will be at least somewhat disappointed somewhere.

(but not to the extent that it would 'ruin' your fun, should one choose to turn away from it). its only a very weak 'appèl' (french for a 'calling'), in Levinas' words, but, it is nonetheless an ethical choice. it means to turn your being to something different then ones own being/pleasing ones own being in the face of another, namely, to actually turn to another being; and not insofar as 'it' can be dragged back to ones own.

Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness.
Click to expand...

i think we're all at least a bit mentally ill then. if not completely bonkers. don't be to hasty dismissing the thought. when you talk to someone else, you are also talking to yourself as you hear your own words. when someone else talks to you, you talk your words in his voice in yourself. you do not speak his words inside yourself, he speaks yours (to quote Merleau-Ponty). nuances, feeling associated with the same words differ for every person. a man who becomes deaf quickly becomes mute as well.
i ment what you will probably be itimately acquainted with as 'internal monologue' or the internal you as you know yourself. this is not about splitting the you of which you are aware in two entities you are aware of. what it means is that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between the you that talks/knows and the you that registers that to itself. it is called reflection or self-awareness. in its deepest intimacy, the subject is an other to himself, which is his essence as sub-jectum. underneath the foundation of 'you yourself' as you know yourself is a radical otherness to this 'you'; that, by its very nature, resists all 'bringing to light' that is knowing. this is a purely/absolute passive principle that has no content other then its own pure 'otherness' to whatever it reflects.

yes yes, tales from the deep end.
thank you all for the kind words
 
Last edited:
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
It's a behavior found in many mentally healthy people too. :|
Click to expand...

He was positing this convoluted theory that sounds crazy to me. He goes on theorizing about separation of self from the experience and such, in ways that don't sound at all normal to me in Western or Eastern minds, nevermind particularly philosophically advanced. From "are you satisfied? no!" on, he carries on talking to the proverbial 'you', which I took to apply to me, and to the majority of people. It all sounds wrong to me from there on. I think the perceptions and attitudes reflected in his convolution are inapplicable for most.
 
Changed said:
Do you see the validity of Buddhism? Based on your two responses previous, I felt you certainly didn't.

edit: of course wu wei is Taoist, and I just woke up at 5am for no reason.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not interested in Buddhism as it introduces an objective value system into spirituality and philosophy.
 
^ i thought it helped us along with subjectivism, shedding light on the fact that what we see is illusion -- a hologram computed by our biocomputers for us to experience
 
Coolio said:
He was positing this convoluted theory that sounds crazy to me. He goes on theorizing about separation of self from the experience and such, in ways that don't sound at all normal to me in Western or Eastern minds, nevermind particularly philosophically advanced. From "are you satisfied? no!" on, he carries on talking to the proverbial 'you', which I took to apply to me, and to the majority of people. It all sounds wrong to me from there on. I think the perceptions and attitudes reflected in his convolution are inapplicable for most.
Click to expand...

the decentration/ambiguation of the subject is hardly my own convoluted theory (i wish!) its practically a given in contemporary continental philosophy since Heidegger. it can also be, be it more implicitly, found in the early existentialists such as Kierkegaard and Sartre. for what i type here in this thread, im mostly using the framework of Levinas in Totality and Infinity, which you are welcome to read if you don't believe me. the ambiguation is beautifully described in the second section called 'Au-delà du Visage' ('Beyond the Face'). (infinitely better then i can do it (but very far from an easy read). and its in a much more positive tone, which you can afford when you write that difficult. its for that reason that i usually don't go down to the very concrete level as i did there; it's rather 'disrespectful', at times)

its true that there is something very unsettling about it though. the 'il y a' (the 'there is') that breaks into the subject is at best experienced as a stranger, but very often as inimical to the self. most people prefer to be left alone by it, as the self tied to itself is considered to be the ransom we pay to being for exactly that reason; to forget. the following are standard examples where we seem to touch the fringes of this 'il y a':

insomnia: you want to sleep, but, there is something about yourself that won't let you.
deep boredom: you find yourself an ennui to yourself, involuntary attached to something in yourself you want to get rid of.
Anxiety (fear without an object of fear): something in yourself is afraid for your self, threatening it, but you don't know what or how.

furthermore, the Other, which is both inside (as openness to(ward)) and outside ourself (as the other person) confronts us with an ethical calling that is a responsability, which expresses itself as a shame or 'fault without fault' for the conatus essendi (the self for itself). the weight of this is very often enough for someone to turn away to 'das Man' ('the everyone') to hide behind. which i would not call 'wrong' per se in my personal opinion, though Levinas is very strict in this and does consider this an ethical wrongdoing, at least, insofar as it consciously ignores the request (appèl) of the Other (person).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top