The Erotic Art of Living

Oscar Wilde once said, "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." There is such overwhelming truth to this statement; its validity is experienced everywhere. Sexuality is the foundation of many of our drives and motivations, and our media culture is inundated with it to the point where it is impossible to escape it. Perhaps we grieve the loss of "childhood innocence" because it represents a time when the sexual impulse doesn't exist (though Freud of course would argue against that), and all the emotional problems that arise from it likewise don't exist. We can all agree that sexuality is complicated for everyone, and that it in turn complicates everything it comes in contact with. It certainly adds a complexity to our relationships with others either for good or ill. The desire that becomes inflamed in us for another person can become consuming, distorting, or enrapturing. But we must remember that the absolute basis for sexuality is undeniably the biological need to procreate. Sex in general has become so cheapened by sentimentalization and capitalism that it has become almost ugly. 

The Platonic Spheres

The esoteric Kabbalists and Hermeticists tell us that the sephira of Yesod is associated with the genitals, animal instinct, and procreation. It is also "the moon on a lower arc," as of course Luna in her highest aspect is represented by the path of Gimel descending from the Highest of Kether to the Son of Tiphareth. The Platonists developed the concept of a geocentric universe in which the planets occupy "spheres," or ring-like metaphysical territories that surround their path of orbit around the earth. The order of the planetary spheres in emanation outward from the earth was Luna, Mercury, Venus, Sol, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and something called the Primum Mobile - the "first mover." I hope you will notice that the order of the Platonic spheres is perfectly in line with the order of the Kabbalistic Sephiroth, where following Malkuth/Earth, we have Yesod/Luna, Hod/Mercury, Netzach/Venus, Tiphareth/Sol, Geburah/Mars, Chesed/Jupiter, Binah/Saturn, Chokhmah/Fixed Stars, and Kether/Primum Mobile. 


In Classical thought, the sphere of the moon was considered the source of fate, that which cruelly ties man to the earth, forces him to labor and die. The goal of all budding mystery cults at the turn of the first century was essentially apotheosis (the process by which man becomes a god), or something much akin to it. The deities worshipped by mystery cults were thought to occupy certain planetary spheres, it was believed that if one offered supplication to them throughout life that deity would then redeem the spirit of the individual after death. Prior to this period, Greco-Romans didn't have much of a conceptualization of the afterlife. One simply became a shade, neither enjoying any benefits nor suffering any punishments. With the development of a Western concept of an afterlife and the popularization of Plato's ideas regarding the soul and spirit of man, people became more concerned with the condition of these metaphysical substances, and thus redeeming gods such as Christ, Dionysus, or Mithras became more prominent. Religion became focused on saving man from his fatalistic attachment to materiality and corporeality that was the result of living under the sway of the ever-changing moon. The alternative was remaining in a cycle of reincarnation, as the heaviness of the spirit, weighed down by attachment, would inevitably be drawn into another body. 


All Savior gods are represented by the Son in Tiphareth, which is also Sol and directly above Yesod, Luna, on the Middle Pillar. Compared to Yesod, which is a sephira of illusion and deception, Tiphareth is truth and reality as it is truly meant to be seen. Still drawing from Plato, Tiphareth is the true sun in his famous cave allegory. We see the light of Yesod, the moon, and believe it to be the only source of light, the only ever-changing reality. But the truth of reality lies in Tiphareth, the sun which is the original source of the lunar light. Tiphareth is eternal, balanced, and the change it represents is more benign. For truly there is nothing on the Sephiroth that does not move or change in some capacity. This is the change and evolution of the spirit throughout all lifetimes, whereas Yesod is the evolution of the body, being associated also with vegetable growth. Put simply, Tiphareth is the light of Reason, which endows all existence with purpose and destiny. 


When we synthesize all of these seemingly disparate ideas, we come to the perhaps startling realization that basis of salvation is, as St. Hildegard von Bingen always said, Virginity and Chastity. And yet not. For salvation always comes at the price of death; the solar divinity must give of his body and blood, his life force, in order to redeem the fallen. What better represents the life force itself than the sexual drive? The innate biological impetus to create life in one's own image? The artists of the Renaissance (literary, visual, and musical) all equated the orgasm with death, and for good reason. Death is the orgasmic release of life energy from the body, which allows it to transmute itself and assume a new form for the next life. The energy sublimates and attempts to rise above the planetary influences, so to speak. If it cannot do so it is eventually dragged down by its material attachments and is reinstated in material existence. 


It is our obsession with base sexuality that leaves us under the sway of Luna and Yesod, ignorant and blind to any greater self-purpose than procreation. We may have some inkling of knowledge about our purpose since the Redeemer lives within us and organizes our universe so that we might know Him. But as St. Paul wrote, we do indeed see Him through a glass darkly until we meet face to face. Our lives remain a seemingly cluttered and confusing cluster of symbols, signs, and mysteries. 

From Hildegard's Ordo Virtutum.
The soul being tempted by carnal
sin. 

Therefore, the Truth and Reason of Tiphareth is the personal "Why" veiled behind our sexual impulse. It is the Divine Mandate that motivates man to create himself through his own hands and works. Every act is a magickal act, a sexual act, in which one brings into manifestation not a copy of their biological self, but their own divine self. Salvation is the recognition of Identity and Destiny, which are synonymous, and the simultaneous harnessing of that Wisdom to create discriminately with purpose. The result is clean, without attachment or obligation to anyone other than one's own self. It is content to operate on its own accord, and it cannot be manipulated by anyone other than yourself. It is the origin of free will, the eternal "yes," the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and, being erotic in essence, is the essence of pure health and happiness. The spiritual Marriage is the wedding of the procreative passions with self knowledge. To offer oneself as a Virgin to God is to declare oneself chaste to all things that are not of the True Self. It is the adherence and dedication to the reason behind individual destiny. It is to realize and be aware that you are as a field constantly being plowed by the hands of God. To allow yourself to falter and deviate because of the passions and the biological need to procreate is to take the more difficult road. 


This is not to say that sexuality is lacking in morality, for one can remain a Vestal Virgin despite whatever sexual encounters one may have. And it is true that the sexual impulse is holy. To close it up within the body is as much a sin as giving it out indiscriminately. We were made to love and to give that love; apotheosis is to give the world one's unique creative essence constantly, without ceasing, with purpose, direction, and integrity. It is to transform life into art. 

The New Dilemma for Divine Love

There is a crisis upon the Christian community, and anyone else who believes Christ gave a valuable message. It is none other than the issue of homosexuality.

You may grab your Bible and cite several instances throughout the work in which the action of homosexuality is vigorously condemned, but Christ himself never singles it out as a sin. The Word of God in the flesh is silent on the issue. But Paul (that bastion of liberal opinions on gender) certainly has things to say, as does Lot, and supposedly the God of the Old Testament himself. For these figures, homosexuality is a sin that must be rooted out and eliminated, and is akin to idolatry, adultery, and general whoredom.

At the same time, however, it is generally accepted that the overall purpose of Christ's message was to reveal to man that God is forgiving and loving despite our flaws. What made Christianity so appealing to men and women of late antiquity, a period characterized by a fashionable love of syncretism and all things Jewish or Egyptian, was that it connected all the dots, so to speak, between these Mediterranean ideologies. It acted as the sequel to the Torah, which was greatly respected as all "holy books" were at the time; it contained the myths of resurrection espoused in Mithraism, Greek mythology (I'm thinking of Dionysus being torn apart by the Titans and being resurrected by Zeus), and the Egyptian religion; it posits a trinitarian God along the lines of Neo-Platonism, and Philo the Jew and others would have been thrilled with its inclusion of the Logos factor; it included mystical apocalyptic texts, which certainly were in vogue at the time; and it catered to the growing demand for privatized ritual centered around some sort of specific sacrament only allowed to the initiated. It is very difficult to say anything definitive about Christianity because of its bizarrely adoptive origins. What came first? And, if he came back today, would Christ's life be told in quite the same way? Wouldn't the new cultural demands color the story differently as it did in the religion's origins? In some ways these characteristics were contemporary selling points, and strong ones at that. It incorporated the most popular aspects of religion and magic of the time, while also delivering a powerful, redemptive message: God is love, and is willing to die for that love.

But what happens when this message is undermined by its own proponents? The Catholic

Church and other fundamentalist Christian institutions have raised a strong campaign against homosexuality, deeming it unnatural and the result of a "sick" society. As I'm sure many of you are aware, their argument has reached such high pitches as to create atrocities like the Westboro Baptist Church's signs that read, "God hates fags." While this does not characterize the Christian anti-gay sentiment as a whole, it is quite obviously worrisome. The notion that God "hates" someone because they have sinned is glaringly antithetical to the "God is love" message. On the more mild end of the spectrum, Catholics agree that the primary issue is one of procreation - God made Adam and Eve, man and woman, and that's that, end of discussion. Marriage, therefore, also must consist of this bond between man and woman solely. But what do we do when we find homosexual animals in nature? The line between "choosing" to be homosexual and simply being homosexual becomes irrevocably blurred. For the Church, animals do not have free will, and therefore cannot choose to be anything but what they are. While one can argue that man, in his ability to "choose the higher road," should choose to reject homosexual behavior, we can no longer deny the simple fact that the great Author of nature somehow slipped homosexuality into Mother Earth's architecture.

Then there is the argument, "hate the sin, love the sinner." But how is the expression of love between two individuals, whether two men or two women, a sin? Surely the issue is not about caritas, platonic love shared between neighbors. The issue comes down to eros, erotic love and sexual intercourse. The problem lies in the fact that reproduction cannot occur without opposing sexes. And yet, Pope Benedict has written that agape (sort of similar to caritas) and eros are two halves of one "true love." Therefore, God Himself must embody this sort of love, both passive agape and active eros, modulating in currents of both. Marriage is the greatest representation of this, as it depends on both forms as well. But eros, the pope explains, is grossly misunderstood by mainstream culture today, and it is really about the desire to possess something as one's own for unselfish reasons. True love is all about the sublime act of giving oneself and receiving another simultaneously. I believe the problem with society's interpretation of sex is that there's too much eros and not enough agape. It stresses the importance of sex's materiality, the idea that one gains some sort of accreditation by having intercourse, and thus it breeds individuals who only know how to take and possess and not give back equally.

Here lie several hitches, however. Firstly, if God embodies true love for all people, He must therefore also be homosexual, unless we finally dispense of the whole singularly gendered God idea. Secondly, how can we love as God does - indiscriminately - if we do not possess an equal agape and eros for both men and women alike? How do we act "as Jesus would do" if we are not willing to entertain a desire to essentially wed both sexes? If to marry is to perfectly embody God's love, then why do we deny marriage to same-sex couples? Does God, because he is supposedly male, not want to marry other men? Whatever one's definition of eros may be, it is crucial for us to truly understand Divine Love in its full scope by breaking down the segregating effect of marriage's limited social definition. Otherwise, we are left with a God that we are meant to emulate to the best of our abilities by following in Christ's example, but who, at the same moment, expects us to disregard entirely any feelings of love toward another of the same sex. It is dreadfully paradoxical and confusing, but it is what we are confronted with.

Christ is often termed the "Second Adam," as he reverses the mistake the first man made at the Fall. Adam failed to obey God and sacrifice his own egoistic curiosity in the name of love. He did what we moderns do and chose only eros without agape. But Christ managed both, and preached that God loves all people, and that we must learn to love in this same way. So now we have a few options. For one thing, either the papacy must revise its statements or change its position on homosexuality entirely. Additionally, we now may choose essentially between two Gods - one that represents a selective love, and one that embodies a holistic, indiscriminate love. What is more important to Christianity? the words of the Apostles? or Christ, the living Word? the apocalyptic image of Christ as Judge throwing sinners into lakes of fire? or the absolutely fundamental and foundational concept that a redemptive God is a loving God? For these reasons, we absolutely must resolve to admit that homosexuality is warranted by the infinite capacity of Divine Love, otherwise the whole religion implodes upon itself.