Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Consciousness Beyond Individuation

Expand Messages
  • barron.burrow
    Some Insights into Female Sexuality Someday, after mastering winds, waves, tides and gravity, we shall harness the energy of love; and for the second time in
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1 6:15 AM

      Some Insights into Female Sexuality

      "Someday, after mastering winds, waves, tides and gravity, we shall harness the energy of love; and for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire" – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

      Whereas in the male-female love-relationship Eros and Thanatos can be constantly reunified as a result of the body living-out its unlived lines in the couple’s psychosexual activity, by contrast warfare between nations, ideologies and religions has its origins in the failure of countless couples to achieve such erotic satisfaction. Conflict always occurs between (and/or within) groups who are, to a greater or lesser degree, RH or LH biased types.

      Chiefly due to the inability to differentiate breast from father’s penis (i.e. the "alternative source of gratification"), a love deficit comes to exist in men and women possessing a RH bias, with this resulting in group-oriented, boidlike (i.e. ‘flocking’) behaviours, characterised inter alia by (paranoid-schizoid) evacuation of spit-off Thanatos into hallucinated ‘enemies’. By contrast, that the LH type is able to inhibit such evacuations to a large extent, is a consequence of (a) achieving LH separation from the parents (and therefore being able to relate to others as whole objects), (b) reparation of the parents’ love-relationship followed by (c) his or her body’s reintegration of Eros and Thanatos in the very act of love. But as we shall see, this optimally involves a crucial ‘Eleusinian’ component that reintegrates both modes of psychophysical space-time.

                                                     ## <.> ##

      Our most important finding has been that the relationship to the breast-mother is never relinquished; rather her smell-touch is imprinted cross-laterally as between the child’s pre-object relations genital and gonads post partum, this being a prerequisite for acquisition (in both RH and LH biased individuals) of top-down symbol formation. The essential point is that the distinction between breast and penis is always in danger of becoming con-fused, especially in the RH (paranoid-schizoid) biased individual. On the other hand, what is mostly avoided where there is a LH bias is involuntary alternation between breast and penis (as the basis of symbol acquisition); it is eschewed precisely on account of castration anxieties, experienced as coming from a ‘strong’ father (i.e. the Oedipal rival felt to be interpolated between the LH type and the mother). It is the LH type’s acquired ability to differentiate breast from penis, then, that enhances his capacity to repair his parents’ love-relationship (originally damaged by his own murderous evacuations), and then proceed to realise ongoing fulfilment in the love-relationship with his own partner. This induces him or her to contribute towards cooperative relations in the body-politic also, e.g. through a willingness to fight for the rights of the individual and democratic institutions.

      I submit that the success of Greek civilisation was owed to their Eleusinian rites, since the synthesis made between the sacred and profane enhanced the ability (i) to ensure that the pre-object relations genital could remain ‘in touch’ with one Eleusinian protagonist or another, with this also honing the capacity (ii) to make the crucial distinction between breast and penis in the depth-dimension. (It is true that there was a spectrum that included homosexual and bisexual relations in ancient Greece; but my thesis will be that the normative experience was heterosexual.) I repeat, the unification of sacred and profane and the ability to differentiate breast from penis, were gained in the very act of heterosexual love-making.

      The essence of it is that the mother allowed her daughter to share her husband's phallus, but only in unconscious phantasy. This occurred to inhibit mother-daughter conflict, but also in order that the mother might optimise her own positive relations with both daughter and husband. Selective advantage by mature women could be gained in no other way. And underscoring such evolution through the female lay the fact that she is the default sex; consequently the latent love that exists between mother and daughter for each other is greater than that which the female feels for the male.

                                                   ## <.> ##

      Because the mother’s smell-touch is imprinted in the infant’s pre-object relations genital and this is also the source (in conjunction with the relation to the breast) for acquisition of mature symbolism, this leaves the genital with a need to remain ‘in touch’ with the mother at all times (i.e. in order to dissipate the "nameless dread" experienced by the infant post partum). Thus, the need for release of instinctual tension via the genital remains extant at all times in later life, specifically in relation to the mother (or a substitute for her). Moreover, it is a need that goes right down to the surface differentiation that the infant shares 50/50 with the mother in two-dimensional space time, both RH behaviourally 'in here' and in terms of good object-space(s) LH 'out there'.

      In the absence of the pre-object relations genital being able to keep in touch with the mother in this way (originally as a result of the mother serving as a container into whom the infant’s genital can evacuate its anxieties and have them soothed away), then there follows a dependence upon [top-down] object relations and individuation. The latter is the process that leads to the split between consciousness and the unconscious (with consciousness collapsing the wave function on its own 'tail' in the first-dimension in this instance, and therefore perpetuating an essentially closed algorithm -- precisely because 'strings' in the first-dimension have remained RH behaviourally 'stuck' to the mother, at an unconscious level).

      By contrast, the chief feature that distinguishes both DNA and ['Eleusinian'] "extra-corporeal 'DNA'" is (a) the ability to defend against predators, (ii) the ability to replicate, and (iii) the ability to remain open to the cosmos -- with this resulting in constant LH innovation (i.e. via creation of new 1/64 bit binary trees when the "observer" in the seventh-dimension 'out there' collapses the wave function on strings in the first-dimension 'in here').

      That Persephone and Demeter are each other's primary love-objects (rather than Zeus being such) is the result of both females’ pre-object relations genitalia having become ‘imprinted’ with the smell-touch of the other during the course of the girl’s birth. Later, the illusion – from the standpoint of symbolical if not biological consciousness -- that it is the male who is their primary love-object occurs, firstly, due to both females sometimes needing the phallus as "alternative source of gratification" (Klein), but also the fact that, in his absence, the love both females feel for each other would be mutually destructive. "Zades'" [i.e. Zeus + Hades] role is that of mediating in the love-relationship between mother and daughter; and (chiefly) at the older woman’s behest, in unconscious phantasy. [N.B. That Demeter-Persephone represent one woman whilst Zeus (LH biased thought) and Hades (the phallus) comprise a single [LH biased] male, is borne out from Orphism. "Demeter and Kore [Persephone] are two persons though one god", remarks culture-historian, Jane Harrison (Prolegomena, pp 272-73); whilst in Olympian mythology Zeus was god of the sky but also of the Underworld, in the shape of his brother, Hades.]

      Since Demeter is always having to ‘catch up’ with her younger female rival, her husband is employed to help her achieve the goal of remaining close to her daughter (i.e. ultimately so that all members of the self-unified fourfold may optimally access both modes of psychophysical space-time -- and thus annihilate the space and time of the reality principle!). And given the congenital closeness of mother-daughter, it also follows that, at least in unconscious phantasy, the original act of incest occurs, not between father and daughter, but between mother and daughter. Such incest as is allowed in unconscious phantasy between father-daughter is, I repeat, at the mother’s (tacit) behest.

      The family thus created, just because it comprises both psychophysical modes of the fourth-dimension as now reintegrated by the protagonists in terms of Being, constitutes a holon. This self-unified fourfold functions organically, that is to say, from ‘within’ to ‘without’.

      Perhaps the ancient Greeks were able to grasp all this intuitively, due to being on the cusp of the switch from RH to LH dominance. At any rate, denial that incest occurs in the unconscious behavioural phantasy of every person anyway merely perpetuates repression and therefore, as Freud discovered, the universal neuroses that characterises "the disease called man" (Nietzsche"). Moreover, this pathology increases at a compound rate in human history, due to the law of the slow return of the repressed.

                                                   ## <.> ##

      I submit that the essence of a harmonious family derives from the mother sharing the RH horizontal oral-anal axis in the phallus by osmosis (or via activation of mirror neurons - see below) with her daughter, especially during intercourse with her husband; whilst the LH vertical-genital axis is reserved for herself. This differentiation vis-à-vis axes makes it possible, in hypnangogic phantasy, for the two females to also release ‘milk’ to each other from their respective breasts. (Osmosis involves movement of a solvent through a semipermeable membrane, tending to equalize concentrations of solute on two sides of the membrane.)

      [N.B. In fact, it is chiefly activation of mirror neurons that enable mother and daughter to share "Zades’" testes/phallus LH 'out there' in preconscious phantasy. Some fifteen years ago, researchers in Parma, Italy, discovered that a monkey whose brain had been implanted with thin wire in the region involved in planning and carrying out movements, would register a sound (or neurons that would fire) every time the monkey grasped an object. But then it was further discovered that when a student entered the laboratory with an ice cream cone and raised it to his lips, the monitor sounded -- even though the monkey had not moved but had simply observed the student grasping the cone and moving it to his mouth.

      As stated recently in the New York Times:

      Humans, it turns out, have mirror neurons that are far smarter, more flexible and more highly evolved than any of those found in monkeys, a fact that scientists say reflects the evolution of humans' sophisticated social abilities.

      The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their intentions, the social meaning of their behaviour and their emotions [italics added]. "We are exquisitely social creatures," Dr. Rizzolatti said. "Our survival depends on understanding the actions, intentions and emotions of others. Mirror neurons allow us to grasp the minds of others not through conceptual reasoning [italics added] but through direct simulation. By feeling, not by thinking."

      The discovery is shaking up numerous scientific disciplines, shifting the understanding of culture, empathy, philosophy, language, imitation, autism and psychotherapy…Moving to higher levels of the brain, scientists find groups of neurons that detect far more complex features like faces, hands or expressive body language. Still other neurons help the body plan movements and assume complex postures...(Cells That Read Minds, Sandra Blakeslee, NYT, January 10, 2006).]

      The essential point with respect to intercourse between Demeter and "Zades" being mirrored in simulated incest between father and daughter, I suggest, is that coition occurs between all four Eleusinain protagonists, though only in RH unconscious phantasy, through activation of mirror neurons. The result is to enhance tenderness (of emotion, touch, facial expression, and innumerable other signals) that naturally pass between a loving couple and their child and vice versa. But crucially, avoidance of psychic harm to the child is only possible provided LH separation is also achieved between the parental objects and the child; so that in this scenario, which I suggest is typical of the normal happy family, incestuous activity really does occur in RH behavioural unconscious phantasy, even whilst at the same time, it patently does not occur in LH reality (i.e. due to LH separation and the LH taboo against incest) -- see below. Paradoxically, then, successful families remain in an effectively split-brain state wherein incest both occurs (in RH behavioural unconscious phantasy 'in here') and yet is felt to be genuinely repugnant (in LH reality 'out there').]

                                                    ## <.> ##

      If ‘Eleusinian’ intercourse is instigated by the RH unconscious behavioural ego ‘in here’, and therefore is not ‘seen’ by the LH ‘classical’ "observer" self, ‘out there’, it is principally because separation (i.e. between father and daughter) is achieved simultaneously in the LH ego. This is an elucidation of Freud’s observation that: "With the introduction of the reality-principle, one mode of [RH unconscious] thought-activity was split off; it was kept free from [LH biased] reality-testing and remained subordinated to the pleasure principle alone. This is the act of [RH behavioural unconscious] phantasy-making" (The Two Principles in Mental Functioning, S.E. pp. 16-17). Susan Isaacs puts it thus: instinct can be perceived by its mental representative alone, and unconscious phantasy is this mental expression of instinct: "All impulses, all feelings, all modes of defence are experienced in phantasy, which gives them mental life and shows their direction and purpose" (The Nature and Function of Phantasy, Developments in Psycho-Analysis, p. 83).

      In fact, the act of ‘Eleusinian’ father-daughter incest that occurs in (RH behavioural) unconscious phantasy inevitably impinges upon "reality".

      This is important since all of our actions in the world involve oral-genital incest, but by proxy, that is to say, in relation to surrogate objects -- be they animate or inanimate. The crucial point is that if, as in the case of the RH type, there is failure to achieve LH separation (from breast-mother and/or father’s penis), the result is RH behavioural ‘sticking’ – and so psychotic thinking.

      To engage in sublimated incest at a RH behavioural level ‘in here’ -- yet remain unconscious of it such that complete LH separation still takes place between father and daughter LH ‘out there’! -- is a consequence of the RH behavioural system getting into touch with null vector geodesics. (In Einsteinian space-time these represent the shortest distance – in this instance zero distance -- between two points, e.g. between the pre-object relations genital and the ‘Eleusinian’ love-objects. [N.B. For any separation in three-dimensional space there is a time at which the separation in four-dimensional spacetime is zero. Similarly, if a 'real time' axis is introduced which changes with imaginary time then historical events can also be zero distance from a point!] These null vector geodesics are activated in the RH such that they dissolve the space between objects (e.g., whenever the need is felt for exchange of natural affection between daughter and father). But alternatively, if LH separation is consciously sought, this is achieved by switching to LH separation proper (since from this vantage father, mother and daughter are distinct whole objects, and so capable of being apprehended in terms of subject-[sublimated] copula-predicate relations).

      Or as Roger Britton puts this latter LH ‘classical’ situation (involving separation) in The Missing Link: Parental Sexuality in the Oedipus Complex (1989):

      "The primal family triangle provides the child with two links connecting him separately with each parent and confronts him with the link between them which excludes him. Initially this parental link is conceived in primitive [RH biased ‘sticking’] part-object terms and in the modes of his own oral, anal and genital desires, and in terms of his hatred expressed in oral, anal and genital terms. If the link between the parents perceived in love and hate can be tolerated in the child's mind [i.e. as a result of switching to LH dominance and going through the pain and loss of the depressive position, and then achieving separation/reparation], it provides him with a prototype for an object relationship of a third kind in which he is a witness and not a participant. A third position then comes into existence from which [LH mature] object relationships can be observed. Given this, we [and/or our genitalia] can also envisage being observed [italics added]. This provides us with a capacity for seeing ourselves in interaction with others and for entertaining another point of view whilst retaining our own, for reflecting on ourselves whilst being ourselves (Britton, R., The Missing Link: Parental Sexuality in the Oedipus Complex, in Britton et al. (1989), p. 87).

      The crucial point is that the ability to entertain another point of view is unavailable or only minimially available to the RH (paranoid-schizoid) type.

      Nevertheless, even incest in unconscious phantasy (as in the case of the LH type) creates guilt in LH ‘classical’ time; and that is why the benefits deriving from sublimated incest became optimal where religion facilitated forgiveness from sin.

      The sin is that of eating, of incest, but also of wishing for the death of the father, the Oedipal rival. Thus, in the Eleusinian myth Dionysus is first devoured by the twelve Titans, six female and six male (i.e. representing the six modes of psychophysical Space and Time respectively), only afterwards being restored to life by the decree of Zeus.

      Cf. Norman O. Brown,

      "Identification, introjection, incorporation, is eating. The oldest and truest language is that of the mouth: the oral basis of the ego. Even in seeing there is an active process of introjection: perception is a partaking of what is perceived (Fenichel); we become what we behold (Blake).

      The question what is a body, is the question what is it to eat: Take, eat, this is my body.

      Our body is an incorporated body; we are what we eat (man is was er isst). We are father (mother) eaten. The species is cannibalistic. Erst kommt Fressen. "I am Saturn who devoured his children because it was foretold that otherwise they would devour him. To eat or be eaten – that is the question."[Strindberg]…

      Eating is the form of the fall. The woman gave me and I did eat. Eating is the form of sex, Copulation is oral copulation; when the Aranda ask each other, "Have you eaten?" they mean, "Have you had intercourse?" (Love’s Body, pp. 165-67).

      Cf. also,

      "To become conscious of our participation in the creation of the phenomenal world is to pass from passive experience – perceptions as impressions on a passive mind – to conscious creation, and creative freedom. Every perception is a creation – "when we see physical objects we are makers or poets [Turbayne]." Or gods; the world is our creation.

      All flesh shall see it together. Apocalypse is the dissolution of the group as numerical series, as in representative democracy, and its replacement by the group as fusion, as communion. As in totemism [or the ‘Eleusinian’ experience], we participate in each other as we participate in the object.

      Sleepers awake. Sleep is separateness; the cave of solitude is the cave of dreams. To be awake is to participate, carnally and not in phantasy, in the feast; the great communion (Ibid, p. 255).

      Conventional wisdom asserts that the past affects the present and the present the future – that the one-way arrow of time is determinative of cause and effect. But in the Eleusinian case, it is the future self that determines present reality (that is why Dionysus is incarnate yet also immortal!), whilst the present defines the past [thanks for the quote, Glen!...].

                                                   ## <.> ##

      Since mother plus daughter comprise one RH biased female at the level of "extra-corporeal 'DNA'", i.e. with Demeter and Persephone each specialising in different aspects of the RH biased mode of space-time 'in here' (i.e. height, breadth, depth plus good self-time), via Intuition and Feeling respectively -- on the other hand, it is "Zades" who specialises in the LH (temporal) mode of psychophysical space-time 'out there' (i.e. past, present, future plus good object-space(s)) -- in this instance via Thought and Sensation respectively. Thus,

      FEELING -- Persephone -- 1st to 3rd dimensions -- RH bottom-up 'in here'

      SENSATION -- Hades/phallus -- 4th to 6th dimensions -- LH bottom-up 'out there'

      THOUGHT -- Zeus -- 7th to 9th dimensions -- LH top down 'out there'

      INTUITION -- Demeter -- 10th to 12th dimensions -- RH top down 'in here'

      Together Demeter-Persephone represent inertial gravity in relation to the ‘gravitational mass’ of "Zades’" testes, in the same way that the inertial mass of the moon does vis-à-vis the gravitational mass of the earth. However, Newton’s law shows that since all falling bodies (e.g. Demeter-Persephone) have the same constant acceleration, the two types of mass are equal! On the one hand, then, Demeter-Persephone can be regarded as a female ‘satellite’ in relation to "Zades’" testes/phallus. Except that it is just as true to say that the psychophysical attraction exerted by the inertial mass of their breasts upon his testes-phallus, is equal to the gravitational mass exerted by his testes-phallus upon "them". In the Eleusinian paradigm, time emanates from the [phallic] "observer", and the male's spinocerebellar motor output, and this has the result that it emables the [Space and sensory input or RH self-time of the] lower limbs of both females to be shared by them, to some degree.

      The more Demeter and Persephone feel their spinocerebellar systems and lower limbs to be shared (i.e. as a result of "Zades'" successful psychosexual relations with the mother), the more the two females will seek to introject sensory input from each other; and consequently the closer their (RH behavioural) self-time also comes to being integrated. Cf. William Blake: "Time and Space are Real Beings, a [LH biased] Male and a [RH biased] Female, and her Masculine Portion is Death" (A Vision of the Last Judgment).

      Provided the mother's vulva donates the right side (RS) phallus [i.e. as seen from "Zades'" standpoint] to her daughter’s mouth/anus in unconscious phantasy, receipt of this sensorimotor gift enables the girl to return the phallus, but now to her mother's RS vulva [i.e. as seen from the latter's standpoint]-- with all this in turn making it possible for the girl to re-enter her mother's womb (the prerequsite for rebirth) via a direct psychophysical identification with the phallus. Thus, both females engage in intercourse with each other, vicariously, courtesy of the phallus, in unconscious phantasy.

      [N.B. Although smell-touch imprinting from the mother is initially instantiated cross-laterally in the girl’s pre-object relations clitoris to her ovaries post partum, it is then transposed to the anus, the anus being the seat of character-armour (and the RH biased manic defences). Thus, Dionysus, offspring of the incestuous liaison between father-daughter, can also be seen as the product of anal birth; or of imagination (i.e. sublimated anality). [N.B. Freud showed that children think that procreation is anal: the cloacal theory -- mother and father procreate by the way of defecation (On the Sexual Theories of Children, S.E., vol IX (1959), p.215).]

      The overall result is that it is "Zades'" RS phallus/testis that relates chiefly to Persephone's mouth/anus and his LS phallus/testis that does so vis-a-vis Demeter's vulva, in unconscious phantasy -- whilst at the same time each female can 'become' the other from the bottom-up, as it were, as a consequence of introjectiing the phallus.

      For a crucial goal of the latter is to employ the walls of mouth, anus, or vagina to be in touch with the full length, breadth, depth of specifically 'her side' of the phallus, starting from the ovaries, since through this contact she can vicariously feel the other female's side of the erect phallus also, in terms of sensorimotor learning in unconscious phantasy. This makes it possible for mother and daughter to inhabit the body of the other via "Zades'" phallic activity, and so be directly in touch with the other's clitoris, the quick of her being, courtesy of the phallus. The two females' spinocerebellar systems thus share "Zades'" testes LH 'out there', this then enabling them to share sensory input -- specifically from each other (including from each other's breasts) -- RH 'in here'. Thus, the females' RH behavioural activity differentiates between motor-output (which she allows the male to pre-eminently specialise in) and sensory input (i.e. from the other female, which each can then experience in terms of LH object-choice). The net result is to enhance committment to the self-unfified fourfold, just because the latter dissolves dependence upon the alienated domain of the reality-principle and its 'false' objects (i.e. surrogates for the parents).

      It is Demeter's donation of the phallus to her daughter's mouth/anus and the fact that the girl can also employ the phallus to return to her mother's womb, that in turn enables Persephone to release 'milk' to her mother from her own (incipient) breasts. As a consequence, Persephone now experiences her self-time as emanating from the same spinocerebellar source as her mother's, i.e. due to their ovaries' joint [RH 'in here'] identification with "Zades'" testes [LH 'out there']. The mother can similarly identify with her daughter's sensory self and spinocerebellar system, in the latter case through the medium afforded by her husband's phallus/testes.

      In addition, all psychosexual activity, as it emanates from ovaries and testes, may be 'shared' ipsilaterally by any one protagonist in relation to any other, through the medium of the phallus and/or Demeter's vulva/ovaries and/or Persephone's mouth/anus/ovaries. This enables each to experience her (or his) soma with ecstasy – that is to say, by ‘standing without’. Cf. Gr. ekstasis (ek, out, stasis, ‘a standing’), "a state of mental exaltation; excessive emotion; rapture; excessive delight".

                                                  ## <.> ##

      Whilst Persephone’s introjection of the RS phallus in unconscious phantasy vis-à-vis the RH horizontal oral-anal axis facilitates a journey backwards into her past, i.e. to that moment in infancy when she had first needed "Zades’" phallus as "alternative source of gratification", on the other hand, it is her mother’s RS vulva – though only provided Demeter has first donated the RH horizontal oral-anal axis to the girl’s LS mouth/anus -- that is able to go forwards in time, and so compute the future -- in her coition with "Zades". In short, it is "Zades’" RS testis (temporarily felt as separate from his phallus) that needs to keep ‘in touch’ with Persephone’s LS anus (from her vantage) as she goes back to her beginnings in terms of "volumetric space" (i.e. height, breadth, depth plus self-time). Or one could say that by his RS phallus keeping in touch with Persephone as she goes back to her origins in terms of self-time, he may experience the accompanying changes taking place in her in terms of 'dynamic history', i.e. back to her childhood/infancy (in LH future, present, past), via his phallus/testes.

      Only if he is sufficiently in touch with his testes (plus his RS phallus vis-à-vis Persephone’s anus and, alternately, his LS phallus in relation to Demeter’s vulva) to the point of being able to eschew the female breasts will "Zades'" testes/phallus be able to effect the phase transition that assists the self-time of both women in (temporarily) becoming One. It is generation of theta waves via the cerebellum (see Chapter *INS Neuropsychoanalysis) that then facilitates co-consciousness and a telepathic rapport wherein the brainwaves of the protagonists' become synchronized into a single holographic biofield.

                                                     ## <.> ##

      Where previously RH restriction/envy may have prevailed between the two females (due to RH ‘sticking’), following Demeter's orgasm the restoration of left/right symmetry (i.e. going through the mirror of dialectical reversal) that ensues, facilitates return of liberated vision and the capacity for LH innovation. In other words, the female’s ability to stand up to her full height, within and without, is in her own gift; it is she who has command over "Zades'" testes in the last resort, not the male who rules her -- provided she can allow that finally it is his testes/phallus' motor-output that 'compels' herself together with her daugher to distinguish breast from penis (i.e. in the very act of love between herself and him, especially via the underside and topside of the phallus, close to its root.

      The result is to create a world now seen through the "rose-coloured glasses" that the experience of love engenders: split-off vision becomes integrated with the other senses in haptic harmony, so that the body is felt to be a direct expression of the ‘Eleusinian’ holon. This occurs even at submicroscopic scales, and vis-à-vis all "objects" (since "things" experienced in "reality" from the matrix of the self-unified fourfold now derive from the ‘Eleusinian’ love-objects, as oposed to being surrogtes for the parents).

      The concept of the holon follows from the two psychophysical modes of space-time depicted in Figure 1; and Ken Wilber sums up the holon’s properties thus:

      "Even the "Whole" of the Kosmos is simply a part of the next moment’s whole, indefinitely. At no point do we have the whole, because there is no whole, there are only whole/parts forever... every holon [or self-unified fourfold] is a whole/part, it has two "tendencies" or two "drives", we might say -- it has to maintain both its wholeness and its partness ... one of the characteristics of a holon, in any domain, is its [LH biased] agency, its capacity to maintain its own wholeness in the face of environmental pressures which would otherwise obliterate it. This is true for atoms, cells, organisms, ideas.

      But a holon is not only a whole that has to preserve its agency, it is also a part of some other [e.g. Eleusinian self-unified fourfold] system, some other wholeness. And so, in addition to having to maintain its own autonomy as a whole, it simultaneously has to fit in as a part of something else. Its own existence depends upon its capacity to fit into its environment, and this is true from atoms to molecules to animals to humans.

      So every holon has not only its own agency as a whole, it also has to fit with its communions as part of other wholes. If it fails at either -- if it fails at [LH conscious] agency or [RH unconscious] communion -- it is simply erased. It ceases to be (A Brief History of Everything, p.22).

      Wilber refers to the agency and communion features of the holon as "horizontal" capacities (or RH biased boidlike characteristics); and in the ‘Eleusinian’ case, these are originally acquired in the relationship to the breast-mother (since her breasts are experienced in a horizontal plane). On the other hand, the "vertical" aspect of holons, Wilber argues, involves "self-transcendence" (i.e. as a result of acquiring LH individuality – in the context of the body/genital living out its unlived lines in the (in part incestuous) love-relationship; thus the LH vertical axis is erected as a result of castration anxieties, LH separation, and the subject thus keeping his (or her) nose furthest away from Oedipal incest-desires specifically vis-à-vis the mother.

                                                        ## <.> ##

      Proof that it is indeed Demeter who is final arbiter in the male-female love relationship (i.e. ultimately from the twelfth-dimension) can be seen if we consider the 'Eleusinian' scenario from her vantage, that is, commencing from herself directly to "Zades'" phallus/testes. For any irascibility felt by Demeter (i.e. in relation to either husband and/or daughter) will be a consequence of her own genitalia being 'out of touch' with theirs, at an unconscious level. Yet her intuition will only allow her to introject "Zades'" phallus for the purpose of assuaging her angst if, at the same time, his testes are strong enough to support herself and Persephone simultaneously. In other words, because her achieving psychosexual satisfaction is inseparable from the need to introject sensory input from her daughter (i.e. for the reasons given above), then Demeter must first feel that "Zades'" testes can facilitate this before she is able to be receptive to his phallus.

      Yet from his standpoint, the potential of his testes to synchronise the spinocerebellar systems of both mother and daughter presupposes that the two females' pre-object relations genitalia can first 'split' him from the bottom-up (all the way up to, and including, his cerebral hemispheres!) -- such that the above-stipulated criteria are fulfilled, i.e. that his RS phallus/testis remains dedicated to Persephone whilst his LS phallus/testis is alternately activated in relation to his wife's vulva and ovaries. And the crucial point is that for "Zades" testes to be capable of fulfilling this requirement, he must allow himself to be 'split' by mother and daughter ipsilaterally all the way up , such that "they" can finally feel that each of his cerebral hemispheres now apprehends all of multidimensional space-time, the mysterium tremendum, independently! -- that is to say, in that same split-brain state originally experienced by him at birth!

      To engage in 'Eleusinian' intercourse is thus for him to be reborn, precisely because the aforementioned process entails dissolving (finally at orgasm) that zodiacal (quantum gravitational) imprinting from the local solar system with which his pre-object relations genital/testes had been istantiated post partum. For it is as a consequence of this 'dissolution' of zodiacal imprinting (which concomitantly involves dissolution of smell-touch imprinting in his pre-object relations genital from the parental objects), his vision is liberated from the surly bonds of matter for the first time! Consciousness as untrammeled vision is haptic harmony.

      However, to achieve this his pre-object relations penis must be ready to absorb all Thanatic projections from the female genitalia -- this only being possible if his ego is experienced as separate from his phallus (i.e. because the ego was created from imprinting from the mother). In short, it is only possible for him to dissolve Thanatic projections into his penis from both sides of Demeter-Persephone's vulva/anus if his testes are felt to be separate from his phallus, since only in this manner can his testes 'support' both females simultaneously 'all the way up', i.e. via both sides of the phallus, and thence to each cerebral hemisphere. Similarly, Demeter-Persephone's receptive organs need to absorb Thanatic projections felt to emanate from his phallus, which they achieve by experiencing orgasm in relation to each other, via the phallus, since this alone makes it possible for the female (especially Persephone in relation to her mother) to release 'milk' from her own breasts to her 'rival'.

      The result is that at orgasm, Eros and Thanatos are reintegrated in each of the subject's brain hemispheres independently, vis-a-vis the other protagonists, as well as with respect to the zodiacal heavens. By this means, then, the human body finally succeeds in living out all its unlived lines.

      "Dismembered, remembered. Symbolical consciousness is to remember the unity. The unity is the invisible reality: the unconscious is collective...Psychoanalytic time is not gradual, evolutionary, but discontinuous, catastrophic, revolutionary...

      Physical, or "real" birth is really rebirth, a repetition of an archetypal birth of the cosmos from the cosmic egg. Generation is only an image of Regeneration. In Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Ferenczi's Thalassa, a Theory of Genitality, there is a new apocalypse. Symbolic consciousnesss is cosmic consciousness; and the proper object of psychoanalysis is the cosmos; psychanalyse cosmique (Eliade) (Love's Body, pp. 21012).

      ## <.> ##

      Vision is liberated from the reality-principle in the 'Eleusinian' family on account of each member having overcome, at least in unconscious phantasy, the taboo against incest. Such fulfilment through (cannibalistic) sexual-‘eating’ was the precondition for the ancient Greeks' invention of the first democracy -- and gaining freedom (i.e. pre-eminently from enslavement to mere objects, dead 'things').



      "....psycho-analysis, carried to its logical conclusion and transformed into a theory of history, gathers to itself ageless religious aspirations. The Sabbath of Eternity, that time when time no more shall be, is an image of that state which is the ultimate goal of the repetition-compulsion in the timeless id. The romantics inherited and secularised the mystic aspiration for Eternity; Hegel envisioned the end of the dialectic of history, and humanity's final entry into the eternal realm of "Absolute (perfected) Spirit" (Absolute Geist). Psycho-analysis comes to remind us that we are bodies, that repression is of the body, and that perfection would be the realm of Absolute Body; eternity is the mode of unrepressed bodies (Life Against Death, p. 93).

      Or to adapt some words of William Blake's: "Energy is the only life, and is from the Body…['Eleusinian'] Energy is Eternal Delight" (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell).




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.