The Conspiracy Against Lovers: The Real Truth They Don't Want You To Know

Originally posted by Biliverdin
[ You can only work on yourself, and have to give others the space and freedom to act according to what they want out of life...and sometimes, the twain will not meet and you have to accept that and let go. Or change yourself accordingly. That very much depends upon what is more important to you, or them, or both...etc, etc ad infinitum....

VERY good points. I for one won't change myself accordingly anymore until I find a woman in whom I see a lot of my own qualities. Kind of falls hand in hand with changing yourself for what you think will be best for yourself in the long run. We all change, there's no disputing that, but I'm not going to change simply to fit into someone else's "model". I am my own man. I will change accordingly however to help fill someone else's model when I see that it's on line with my own.

No one wants to be alone after all.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
No one wants to be alone after all.

It depends, there are worse things than being alone, speaking from experience. And being with someone in the spatial sense, but them being absent emotionally or even in terms of physicality, that can tear a person's heart out and shatter self-esteem.

Also, I think that people who are afraid to be alone, are not necessarily going into relationships for the right reason. We all get lonely from time to time, and crave company, we are social beings after all, so it is only natural, but those who cannot be alone, are often, though not always, running away from themselves and looking for others to fill the spaces inside themselves. What you said on another thread, I can't remember which one, we should look for someone who compliments us, not completes us. That was sage advice.

I really dig this passage:

But I do believe that sexuality can be about more than pleasure. It can be about finding pleasure and intimacy through connection. I use the metaphor of heat and light. There is a cliche that when an argument is of little value, it produces more heat than light. One of the ways this culture talks about sex is in terms of heat: She's hot, he's hot, we had hot sex. Sex is bump-and-grind; heat makes the sex good.

But what if our embodied connections could be less about heat and more about light? What if instead of desperately seeking hot sex, we searched for a way to produce light when we touch? What if such touch were about finding a way to create light between people so that we could see ourselves and each other better? If the goal is knowing ourselves and each other like that, then what we need is not heat but light to illuminate the path. How do we touch and talk to each other to shine that light? There are lots of ways to produce light in the world, and some are better than others. Light that draws its power from rechargeable solar cells, for example, is better than light that draws on throw- away batteries. Likewise, there will be lots of ways to imagine sex that produces that light. Some will be better than others, depending on the values on which they are based.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Thanks, X.

reply to post by Eidolon23


That'd be the Fifth Way.

And, to an extent, or in part, involves that co-mingling of the fluids that we mention on the other thread...according to the Alchemists. So for safety sake, should only be undertaken in a monogamous union.

But seems to me, a very viable and active path to transformation, assuming the given that it is a conscious endeavour on the part of both parties.

Though on a cautionary note, that self-sacrificial aspect that you ascribe to Attis, a model much more explanatory if it includes his co-conspirator, Cybele, does, seemingly, eventually apply. It is therefore, not for the faint hearted, or, the easily excited, and especially not for the needy or clingy.

There is a great need for equality, on all levels, to prevent self-mutilation Don't want to get blinded by the light, afterall. Be it Zeus's or Cybele's, it's a killer, by all accounts

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by Eidolon23

 

Though on a cautionary note, that self-sacrificial aspect that you ascribe to Attis, a model much more explanatory if it includes his co-conspirator, Cybele, does, seemingly, eventually apply. It is therefore, not for the faint hearted, or, the easily excited, and especially not for the needy or clingy.

Good God, I hope you're not referring to the practice wherein a willing partner is physically sacrificed during the sex act and "expressed internally" as the surviving partner's anima (or animus, although this invariably seems to be a dude thing)?

With unions like that, who needs divorce?

Nutties thread ever.

I am coming to the conclusion that you all don't know jack squat about "love" and there definitely isn't any conspiracy against lovers, expect the one on why some would think that there is. But again that conspiracy was solved some pages ago.

And the answer to that particular conspiracy was---> after all the bells and whistles---> and much whining and bla bla bla---> The answer seems to be---> oh my god its a total shocker--->They seem to actually get off on that stuff...It's like a total duh. So what else is new.

I call shenanigans on this whole thing.
This thread should be moved to the hoax bin.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Good God, I hope you're not referring to the practice wherein a willing partner is physically sacrificed during the sex act and "expressed internally" as the surviving partner's anima (or animus, although this invariably seems to be a dude thing)?

Errr...no I am not. That would be a very silly thing to do and would entirely defeat the object. But then as was and so did Attis's self-castration. The principle of self-sacrifice is to carry the burdens of the Beloved, not to become, or be consumed.

reply to post by Biliverdin




Oh, good. Thank you for the clarification.

reply to post by Biliverdin


You know, I am considering the idea that Love = Martyrdom is a poisonous narrative. Ditto Love = Work.

Also, I hope you'll forgive me if I am occasionally silly, it is solely in the hopes of amusing you.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
You know, I am considering the idea that Love = Martyrdom is a poisonous narrative. Ditto Love = Work.

I suppose it depends upon what the objective is, and whether it is worth it to you. I don't think that the intention is martydom, personally, for me, that sums up the more traditional marriage union, and blah to that. It is more about giving as receiving as a means of spiritual growth, or transformation in the alchemical sense.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Also, I hope you'll forgive me if I am occasionally silly, it is solely in the hopes of amusing you.

I've had a quadruple humour by-pass, it was necessary due to the on-set of middle-age, in order to avoid involuntary dribbles in public. Tena Lady proved inadequate, and made an impression in my skinny jeans.

Oh jeez, apparently I'm about to go all confessional on this thread.

Here's what I want. I want a best friend I get to have sex with. I want to dig and respect them, and to be dug and respected in return. I want understanding to be a dynamic process, engaged in by both parties. I want to keep curiosity and playfulness in the fore.

I don't want to hurt or be hurt.

Seems obtainable.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Oh jeez, apparently I'm about to go all confessional on this thread.

Here's what I want. I want a best friend I get to have sex with. I want to dig and respect them, and to be dug and respected in return. I want understanding to be a dynamic process, engaged in by both parties. I want to keep curiosity and playfulness in the fore.

I don't want to hurt or be hurt.

Seems obtainable.

Don't we #ing all! #, honey, I hope you find it...

Yup, I think that would be the ideal, however....

This thread went from nutty, to straight to the moon, to it shot straight on through the moon and into the next galaxy.

Oh jeez, apparently I'm about to go all confessional on this thread. Here's what I want. I want a best friend I get to have sex with. I want to dig and respect them, and to be dug and respected in return. I want understanding to be a dynamic process, engaged in by both parties. I want to keep curiosity and playfulness in the fore. I don't want to hurt or be hurt. Seems obtainable.

Oh and E23 remember when I said in some other thread that it may be easier to blow up the moon and the galaxy then truly get what you want with your ideal version of love.

Well I wasn't joking when I said that.

nope, aint no body got a chip on there shoulder around here, no sir ree bob!

reply to post by r2d246


Everybody has chips on there shoulders that they must shake off, and most especially those who say they don't. But as a wise man once said...Whatever.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
I really dig this passage:

But I do believe that sexuality can be about more than pleasure. It can be about finding pleasure and intimacy through connection. I use the metaphor of heat and light. There is a cliche that when an argument is of little value, it produces more heat than light. One of the ways this culture talks about sex is in terms of heat: She's hot, he's hot, we had hot sex. Sex is bump-and-grind; heat makes the sex good.

But what if our embodied connections could be less about heat and more about light? What if instead of desperately seeking hot sex, we searched for a way to produce light when we touch? What if such touch were about finding a way to create light between people so that we could see ourselves and each other better? If the goal is knowing ourselves and each other like that, then what we need is not heat but light to illuminate the path. How do we touch and talk to each other to shine that light? There are lots of ways to produce light in the world, and some are better than others. Light that draws its power from rechargeable solar cells, for example, is better than light that draws on throw- away batteries. Likewise, there will be lots of ways to imagine sex that produces that light. Some will be better than others, depending on the values on which they are based.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Thanks, X.

Hmmm. Hard to get past the blowbangs to be honest.

I'm trying to remember the pagan/occult book I read about the use of light and sex.

The upshot of it was that a call to soul during sex should be seen as a merging of light and a helix proceeding from the couple to heaven. That this is a depiction of a perfect moment of joining for a purpose. Intent and focus being on creation rather than just recreation.

The perfect balance of the energetic systems of the individual being a rotating triangle moving through the plane of the human body.

It be interesting to see if the two could be balanced together. The rotating triangles and the Helix of Light.

Eidolon23
I read a thread on another forum recently about a phenomena known as "Tantra Induced Delusional Syndrome".

This stuff, it is very very volatile. Psychosexual TNT. People literally lose their minds. Or they turn into Sting.

But I have a hunch that Tantra is a cheap shortcut. Many sages have hinted broadly at the real path to union with the One, and some have come right out and told us. The closest we can come to the experience of divine union in this life is through falling in love.

At its worst, Tantra is just another way to hack the groin in order to induce a trance state, and at its best a way for couples to enjoy a serotonin cascade they associate with one another. Which is nice, but is maybe not the central point of Love.

edit on 28-1-2012 by Eidolon23 because: ?

I know that this is a very old thread now, but I'd like to comment.

There is low Tantra and there is high Tantra. With "High Tantra"
one forms the golden nectar of the "upper world" and uses it as
the major component in the divine alchemy in the human body.

But yes, I'd certainly agree -- that what passes for tantra in
the uninitiated can be harmful; in fact can lead to madness.

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


Hey, KPB, thanks for stopping by.

Does the alchemical process you refer to require a partner?

Eidolon23
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

 

Hey, KPB, thanks for stopping by.

Does the alchemical process you refer to require a partner?

Nope.

But most of the "Rishis" were known to be married, except for one,
or so my old mentor told me.

I myself did not have a partner. I'm married so I don't have sex
in my life, you understand.

The process itself is one where the body is prepared for the
'divine male' to meet the 'divine' female, and they in fact
make whoopee and even birth a child together.

Unfortunately the process on how to do this correctly is
not documented anywhere.. I know many kundalini yoga
groups, Taoists and secret societies would howl in protest
at that assertion.. but I guess I'm saying that's it's not
PUBLICLY documented.

I've been thinking of documenting it for years.. well actually
I did document a form of it and sent it off to a 'secret society'
just to be a nice guy.. but since the document did not say
nice things about their 'holy man' and his writings, it
presumably fell on deaf ears.

I'd thought about writing it all up and releasing it to the public
for free.. but if you do it wrong you blow up your nervous
system, and I don't want to be responsible for that.. and
I'd acquire groupies no doubt, emailing me incessantly about
their half-baked ideas or their 'progress' every week, like
I did when I first met my old mentor.

The fact that I can't release my information slightly annoys
me... I'd like to see my process studied in the lab, and
'debunked' if I'm wrong.. but I can't release it without hurting
people... and no 'scientists' or 'secret organizations' with
the required support structures and resources have shown
any interest.. so I pretty much keep 95% of what I've
studied secret.. or drop subtle hints that won't hurt
anyone..

KPB