the inward-looking individual,
not for the public
Woman is probably the most difficult concept possible, because it demands immense personal courage to wish to see the psychology of Woman, and to abandon it. It is all about identifying irrationality in oneself and others, and rejecting it, no matter how comfortable or appealing.
I am not a misogynist. I do not hate women; I do not blame them for being what they are. Misogynists denigrate women maliciously, have no deep understanding of women, and show no interest whatsoever in their welfare. I am not a misogynist. Would you guess who the real misogynists are? Women themselves! Women refuse to recognise flaws in themselves; they attack those who try to help them to think; and they even accuse a logical person of lacking sympathy! For what? Life after Woman is consciousness, so what's there to complain about?
Attachment to the psychological ideal of Woman is doing oneself a disservice. Instead, it's important to disassociate oneself personally from 'womanhood', step back, and see a bigger picture. I hope that one day people of a better calibre will develop, who have no love of Woman, who understand things by their own native power of thought, who value aloneness, and need no support nor friendship in enjoying the marvellous reality of the Infinite.
With this vast perspective in mind, it's time to examine the commonplace horror passing itself off as the solution to humanity's wretchedness: the headless whore, a.k.a. the hugging or fucking saint.
The Headless Whore
1. Love, happiness, desire, sexual desire, child-rearing and care for the ill and elderly
Love-need is literally life to most people. It means safety in a group, where others want you to exist and so will defend you.
We have all heard of the idea of a broken heart, and of an elderly person pining away in grief, even "losing the will to live" when their loved-one dies. People kill out of jealousy when a loved-one, with whom a pair-bond has been established, has sex with somebody else. When a pair-bond is broken by the death or sexual contract-breaking of one of a pair, people often say they feel they are dying, or would like to die. Not only movies, love songs, school-girls, and flimsy romances present these ideas. Grown men and women, who assert the importance of common sense, say they cannot imagine living out their lives alone, meaning, without having an intimate egotistical relationship with another human.
Do not underestimate the strength of love-need. It is the single greatest psychological drive in humanity. From love-need has developed religion, arts, music, literature, theatre, law, politics, civilisation itself. It is not possible to outgrow love-need if one doesn't know what one's dealing with.
Love is similar to happiness, in that both nourish the ego, but love has a broader outlook than happiness. Happiness is distinctly different, so to help explain love, we need to sift the two apart.
Happiness is a focus on the accomplishments and attainments of the self, 'I'. Happiness is a sense of well-being, power, lightness, and easiness, where everything appears to be a friend. The sense of everything being well-disposed towards one is important as there is a very strong relationship between feeling lucky and feeling happy. Happiness only arrives when one's bold actions bring desired results: so good luck is always believed to be deserved. We have the phrase "a happy result".
So happiness is a feeling about the self as a distinct being, that is itself blessed with power.
By contrast, love is the ego focussing on the self as an intrinsic part of a huge and powerful entity, such as the life of loved-one, or a nation, or world, or community of powerful people, or the entity of Mother. Agape, eros, and philos are all branches of this core lust for safety.
So love is a feeling about the self as a part of a distinct being, that is blessed with power on being accepted by this greater being.
Love and happiness are both about the safety, power, and well-being of the I. So, now I turn to why the I is inevitably insecure and needy. I desires.
All desire is the ego. The ego is everything based on the premise that a self, I, inherently exists. Examine closely: the premise of a finite self that inherently exists automatically creates what it is bounded by. To be finite, means, to be bounded by something. So that which bounds the I must also inherently exist. Therefore, ego always generates insecurity, and desire for security: for something to complete itself.
The ego's premise is illogical. All things, meaning absolutely everything in all realities, are interdependently originating. So no things whatsoever can exist inherently. Desire is the result of mistaking the nature of things. Thus, desire is irrational.
Sexual desire is a comical version of desire, where that desired is an intimate bond with another person or thing. Coupling-up is not only physical, but psychological. The coupling is truly a kind of psychosomatic knitting, in the same sense that Christians use the word knitting, e.g. "Thou hast knit my bones together." People in love actually believe they are knit-together with someone else.
Sexual desire is the anxious search for means to fulfil one's love-need.
Sexual desire is what happens when the ego, meaning, the finite I believed to exist inherently of its own accord, is associated with a physical organism: a body, with senses. The body obviously exists relative to its total environment. Not only does matter pass in and out of its orifices and pores, but sound, light, energy, gravity, and x-rays pass right through it. So the body doesn't have an inherent boundary, or any inherent fixed entity-ness. Even the abstraction 'body' refers to different things at any moment in time. This is just to explain that the body, like all physical things, is not inherent.
It is only when the ego, with its irrational beliefs, projects the 'I' onto the body, that the body is used to fulfil egotistical needs. So, the body's senses are used to indicate security or not of the I. That is the birth process of sexual desire.
I will examine sexual desire more fully in the section on the psychology of orgasm, below.
We can explain the evolution of the love-bond in terms of better survival rates. Offspring with reliable carers will have better chances at developing successfully into adulthood. Evolution seems to have chosen the simplest way, by flooding adults with certain neural chemicals on producing offspring, to ensure the three parties stick together. So love is really the offspring of chemicals.
But when creatures develop rationality, which is the ability to weigh pros and cons and foresee consequences, then reliance on other machinery is not so important. Humans are the only mammals who have a clear notion of time. So, it doesn't take much thinking to show that adult humans should not rely primarily on the pair-bond to raise children effectively. In terms of a good upbringing, love-bonds are a last resort when rationailty fails.
The same goes for looking after sick and elderly persons. All that is needed for helping others and for life in general is rationality and consciousness.
Charity, altruism, compassion, and selflessness are all much better produced without the love-bond, since the love-bond has irrational underpinnings, and a narrow-minded prejudice against everything not belonging to the bond.
Consider this: A conscious person is interested in everything by having no love or hatred of anything, so no prejudices against anything. It weighs the pros and cons of everything fairly. It quickly learns the mechanics of any situation because it has no emotional blockages to bog-down thinking processes. It responds efficiently and clearly. This is a far superior attitude to life in general than love, if we are talking about selflessness.
So, not only is sexual desire irrational on a philosophical basis, it is not necessary.
The Hugging and Fucking Saints
Someone has said all nuns are women with their breasts exposed. This was true ten or more years ago. Now nuns are women with their vulvas exposed.
The classic nun is a hugging saint, who spreads the worship of Woman by trying to foster social togetherness and arousing love-need. She is more Mother than Prostitute, having the role of sacred representative of Love and Charity. She likes to touch, smile, and nourish feelings of belonging to the most noble group. She has great aversion to individuals who do not submit to this noble group; individuality is only permissible by Her so long as it helps to glorify the group, and attract others. The group might be 'Christianity' or 'Buddhism' or 'Country Women's Association' or 'Vocal Group to Prevent Extinction of the Black Beetle'. The hugging saint seeks to impregnate one with group-love. Her version of the Virgin is more impersonal, and outward-seeking. It is a public Virgin, so to speak: the advertisement of Virgin.
The modern nun is a fucking saint with similar match-making aims, but goes further than touching and fostering love-need: She either literally fucks, or fosters sexual desire. She is more Prostitute, and closer to the Virgin as it is actually experienced. The modern nun is more interested in personal happiness, rather than belonging to the noble group. The ideal is not important to the fucking saint, but only the loss of consciousness through immediate enrapture. She fucks using language that fucks the mind, with its total lack of any coherent meaning. She also fucks by encouraging coupling-up, by smiling on babies and couples, by portraying sex as a sacred duty and opportunity for great spiritual progress. Fucking-teachers are not classical prostitutes in the sense of 'adult services'. The fucking saint is literally teaching sexuality as spirituality. One need not include Californians advertising tantric sex courses here. The fucking saint does not have a clear, coherent educational curriculum. Anything as structured as that would destroy her.
3. The psychological muddle of orgasm
I now examine the thought process that creates orgasm. This will expose the selfish character of the headless whore, that seeks to be happy and achieve social safety, by chasing others for love.
Here we have that badly overrated mood of emotional frenzy: sexual orgasm. The point of the following account is to drive home the truth that orgasm is a form of wishful thinking, albeit without much thinking.
Fact #1: Orgasm is not a state that can be attained, like an on/off state. It is a psychosomatic thing, like feeling hungry, that grows in intensity, interspersed with sharper pangs, and then (unlike hunger) fades in response to certain perceptions.
Fact #2: Orgasm is psychological, because of its basis in perception.
Fact #3: The brain is able to engineer physical sensations purely by imagination, in the same way that a person who imagines or dreams being struck, will jump in shock, as if they had been hit. This mechanism is used in the psychological process up to orgasm, as explained here:
I will describe the orgasm in abstract, as for a normal person. The 'beginning' mindstate is neutral, where the body is not in a state of arousal. The pulse and breathing rates are near to basal. Perceptions are normal and with ordinary content - that is to say, somewhat emotional, but not noticeably so for that person. This is pre-orgasm.
Now the orgasm begins with a psychological change: there occurs a perception, that contains an attachment to sex. The attachment is a sexual meaning. The perception could just occur 'out of the blue', or some sense-data might trigger an association with sexual feelings. The sexual meaning is value-laden: it is always valued, probably existing in that value-laden state as a subconscious thing, for it would not occur if it were not valued. Perhaps past experiences of sexual desire were marked as 'valuable' and 'enjoyable', so the sexual meaning is stored in the brain for later retrieval. So the value-laden perception, like a wind-blown leaf carrying a small bacteria, is now up for examination. Intuition rapidly assesses its worth. By carrying the 'valuable' tag, the perception is assessed as 'benign' - but this alone does not allow the perception to propagate. The intuition process has one other test. It is the overall character of the individual: if the perception is 'out of character', then the attachment will die. Otherwise, the fledgling orgasm will continue to develop, as it will in this scenario.
Now, with the sex-perception alive and well, and out in the open, it seeks to grow stronger. It grows by association. The individual actually seeks material to help the perception grow. So other attachments form, all carrying the 'valuable' and 'enjoyable' meanings. The sex-perception grows. These new attachments are usually memories of physical sensations, mental images, sounds, ideas, emotions, and so forth. These refreshed memories are strong and valuable enough to appear real and happening. The brain switches between a dream-state, and a sense-data-aware state, creating an association between the two 'realities'. So quite literally past lives are being re-enacted in the present.
With consciousness overcrowded by the sex-perception, fully grown into an imagination-rich experience, the hardwiring of the body responds. Literally, it is responding to an imagined reality: a mutant combination of past experiences with new inventions for the fantasy. Without the prior development of the sex-perception turning into an acceptable delusion, the hardwiring of the body would not respond with the physical excitement drawing to a peak. It makes no difference whether an individual is providing new stimuli for the imagination of others or itself alone. It is basically a process of auto-suggestion. The orgasm's peak is just that period of sensation and mental activity which is as intense as the individual can stand. 'Attaining orgasm' just means 'Feeling as close to X as I possibly can get myself to feel'. It is an entirely arbitrary location.
Fobbing orgasm off as a way of 'blowing off steam' or 'releasing emotional pressure' is not honest. Orgasm is about feeling one has achieved some private heaven: an exercise in wishful thinking, to rebuild and rebuild the fantasy of ego.
Orgasm is psychologically a mud-wallow. So what the fucking-saint is advertising is no heaven.
It is long, long, long past the time for people to re-focus on the intellect, instead of trying to avoid and negate it. Intellectualising brings understanding, and emotion only brings emotion. If we wish to be intelligent, avoid mistakes, and be in touch with reality, then we need to stop acting like headless fools.
Here is an example of the headless whore's productivity:
Some people interpret 'tanden' (or Dan Tien in Chinese), the centre of gravity in the human organism, as the source of consciousness because it is physically so close to the sexual organs.