coupled

I was happy to realize that the Sun had gone into Gemini on Wednesday, as it feels like we are on the fairground slide straight to Summer when we get to this point. I always feel that Mercury’s signs take us in and out of the middle of Summer. The Cardinal Grand Cross disengaged a little while ago (I think it is about a week, but it feels ages ago already) and I can truthfully say that I really felt a big difference, and Mars has gone direct now, though it will be July before it comes out of the shadow of its retrograde (ie goes past the point where it originally turned backwards).

The mythology of Gemini is generally related to the twins Castor and Pollux (Polydeuces in Greek), “born” of one egg to their mother Leda after congress with Zeus in the form of a swan; however whereas Pollux was the immortal son of Zeus, Castor was the son of the mortal king Tyndareus. The twins were inseparable and had many adventures together, but eventually Castor was killed, and Pollux grieved so much that Zeus reunited them in the Heavens as the constellation Gemini. Castor and Pollux are also two stars within the constellation itself. Hyginus and Ptolemy though associated these two stars with Apollo and Heracles, also half brothers.

Sign of Gemini – Giovanni Maria Falconetto [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

There are intriguing resonances with the myth: the egg that hints at the alchemical, the twins mortal and immortal, dark and light. We can recall other “twins” or pairings of sames that are crucially different: Cain and Abel, Set and Horus, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Jesus and John the Baptist, Thelma and Louise, on they roll, receding into the twilight.

On a related note (this will make sense, promise) last week I saw an article that brought about a change of mind with respect to Jungian psychology. Like many people of my generation, as a youngster I found Jung a delightful and open minded ally, as someone who found so much meaning in the occult and paranormal. Just his idea of “synchronicity” was an immensely useful tool in validating the way that meaning unfolds in our lives, independent of rational-materialist causation. At some point in my twenties though, I finally tired of the apparent inheritance from Jung in the counterculture, most especially in the way it related to gender, sexuality and the psyche, with what became the soft dogma of anima and animus, or the internalized “opposite sex” elements within people, and what they were meant to signify.

I don’t know how many times I have been faced with a reader (or similar) who would say “and as a man you would feel x, function as y, the feminine would mean z to you” etc. It was as tiresome as it was both smug and inaccurate. And when it came to a psychological understanding of homosexuality, astrologers and others would again serve up a secondary causative explanation, seemingly taken from Jung’s own lack of understanding. No one seemed to stop and ask: “if we still subtly look for an etiology of homosexuality, then why didn’t we ever look for an etiology of heterosexuality, and what does that say?”. Psychology should ideally extend perception, deepen insight, empathy and compassion, and help us to listen and see. Unfortunately amateur psychology can devolve into a method of avoiding all those things. Even without the “amateur” element though, there were enough qualified Jungian therapists with seemingly no insight into the processes that might be true for gay people. It was a two tier psychology, however promising it might seem in other regards.

Carl Jung, standing in front of building in Burghölzi, Zurich – See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

But last week I got directed to an article at the website of The Institute for Contemporary Uranian Psychoanalysis which for the first time showed me Jungians really getting their feet wet in issues that spoke to me as a gay man. So much so that I was taken back to an earlier, less disenchanted self, that felt able to look to Jung with some sense of excitement, as I did back in the early 1980s. That sense that somewhere in here, maybe there was a Rosetta Stone, translating between alchemy, astrology, art, tarot, magic, healing and the whole mystical thing I glimpsed as a teenager. It was a really good feeling. The article was written by Mitch Walker in 1991 (over 20 years ago!), and looked at theories of individuation for gay men. He acknowledges and lists some of the distorted theories about male homosexuality that Jung himself expressed (eg that it is due to psychological immaturity, a “mother complex”, “anima identification” etc). He then notes:

“Nowhere in his writings does Jung articulate a soul psychology for homosexuals …… But starting from his viewpoint on individuality, such a soul psychology of gays can be responsibly developed. This is the task now facing analytical psychology, to grasp the idea of becoming and being gay in salutary terms of the improvemental growth of valuable personhood, that is, to conceive of individuation as gay, in which the realization of the Self occurs through becoming and being homosexual. Models of gay individuation can then be articulated and explored, as has been done so profoundly in the work on individuation as heterosexual (that is, the coniunctio and the anima/animus as soul-image)”¹

Mitch Walker 1991

That gets to the heart of it really. Analytical psychology had come up with profound models of straight individuation, and these models have become part of the lexicon of psychological spiritual growth for quite a few people both inside and outside esoteric studies, as if they were the universal human form. But these were not models of homosexual individuation. There were no formulated models of homosexual individuation, yet there must surely be models to be found for an entire (but historically marginalized) section of humanity. Mitch Walker goes on to say:

 “becoming gay and living as gay must then involve the individuation of a homosexual relationship between the ego and the Self parallel to the heterosexually organized relations Jung has articulated, especially that concerning the Anima as soul-figure. Indeed, in a gay person the structures of personality organized by the developing libido will constituently individuate homosexually”

Ibid

We are not just talking about sexuality, but about structures of personality, and relationships with and within the psyche that fit the developing life, and achievement of maturity, for a homosexual man. There is a point at which one realizes this, without explicit reference to psychology as such, but through one’s experience. You need a language that comprehends that you are a valid person, who grows and matures and makes mature relationships, and homosexuality is as central to that growth and language for a gay man, as heterosexuality is to a heterosexual. It is so simple and so obvious, and yet utterly invisible unless one sincerely takes the beginning and the end to be the individual meaning which is real for that person within their experience. Jung, who was so concerned with meaning, I do think appreciated this in essence, but he was maybe born too early to see how much he was excluding.

“Monick also identified Jung’s views on sexuality as in some aspects completely inadequate and outdated, especially his (non)treatment of masculine sexuality ………. ‘ in fact, there is an ‘avoidance of focused attention upon male sexuality’ (1987, p. 55). Monick suggests that ‘Jung was leery of physicality,’ but whether true or not ‘the fact remains’ that Jung did not engage in ‘significant direct research work on phallos,…[which] has resulted in a fundamental disservice to the importance of the archetypal masculine, a theoretical imbalance that cries out to be redressed’ (p. 56)”

Ibid

Further more:

“Jung emphasized the feminine in his analysis of homosexuality, just as he did in many other areas, such as his treatment of parental origins (Monick, 1987, pp. 51ff). Perhaps in actuality gay male psychology is deeply involved with the masculine. This is suggested by Jung’s third theory of homosexuality, that it represents “an incomplete detachment from the original archetype of the hermaphrodite” (Hopcke, 1988, p. 75), a symbol of wholeness, of the Self

Ibid

I do think this is all really very interesting, and starts to point towards areas that could be of use and relevance. As the author continues, he outlines the understanding that both gay and straight boys identify as male from early on, then:

“in the subsequent stage differentiate alternative yet parallel sexual selves. Thus, in gay boys’ development just as for straights, sexuality and the self are not to be separated and in conflict but intertwined and interdependent, mutually fostering a lifetime of personal growth and fulfillment as gay. Both straights and gays are capable of the adult maturity described by Erikson and Kohut”

Ibid

It seems extraordinary that this would even be in question, but that is how far a lot of theory was from the lived experience of gay persons. In many ways this is reflected in persisting mainstream attitudes towards gayness, which conflate it with a form of transgenderism² and being not-truly-men. The reality of a gay man though is every bit as male as any other man.

On the organization of the libido:

“The concept of a homosexual organization of the libido, as distinct from a heterosexual organization, then, would likewise underlie any analytic attempt to understand important issues concerning psyche in gay people today, such as the relationship with the unconscious. For a homosexually organized man, the ‘orientation’ of the god Eros would have to be gay, the relationship to phallos would be homosexual, the relationship with the feminine and the Anima would be a gay rather than a straight one, the actions of the libido, for example in the constellation of complexes and symbols of transformation, in the transcendent function, and so on, would occur through homosexually differentiated forms. The inner universe would be gay.”

Ibid

Bravo, because actually, that is how it is if you are gay. You are not “fitting in” to a heterosexual unconscious. You are not seeking a dispensation from a heterosexual Eros etc, like getting a sick note to be able to watch from the side lines of your own world. Everyone gets their own, authentic relationship and process. Getting it without support can be hazardous, but there aren’t any second class citizens of the psyche.

Walker asks on what kind of basis a Jungian model of individuation can be constructed, where the libido has a homosexual organization?  His answer is:

“Such a basis can be developed through analytic research into homosexually organized archetypes, as they can be studied in symbols and motifs from literature and other arts, mythology, dreams, visions and so on”

Ibid

He cites an example from Plato’s Symposium which talks of Aphrodite Urania (daughter of Uranos) as the goddess of homosexual love, and Aphrodite Dione (daughter of Zeus and Dione) as the goddess of heterosexual love. Each of these goddesses had their own sons, an Eros each, one of homosexual and one of heterosexual love.

“Plato, thus, proposes two ‘homosexual archetypes,’ one female and one male, counterparts of two heterosexual archetypes, who embody and express a homosexual organization of gendered love and libido as counterpart to a heterosexual organization”

Ibid

Then he goes on to describe the famous story of the origin of the emotion of love, where the original doubled humans are split in two, to make the two armed and two legged humans we are familiar with. Those who came from an originally two sexed individual strive to reunite with their other half in heterosexual love, while those who came from a doubly same sexed individual seek to reunite with their other half in homosexual love. Love is the yearning to regain the original unity. The former follow Aphrodite Dione and her Eros, the latter Aphrodite Urania and her Eros.

“In Jungian terms, the original Platonic hermaphrodite broken into male and female describes heterosexual development and the Anima/Animus dynamic, as Jung and other writers have discussed. It is all too typical that, in contrast to this treatment, the ‘union of sames’ in Plato’s story has not been discussed by these authors, or, as in one case, was mentioned but in a distorted, trivialized version. But Plato in his Symposium provides the outline for an archetypally-based image of homosexual love: ‘Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half’ (Plato, 1956, p. 355)”

Ibid

Entwined Geminis, Safavid Dynasty. Persia/Iran 1630-1640 C.E. – See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

You can feel that we are really starting to get somewhere here. Walker continues by making reference to the alchemical image of the coniunctio as the Royal Pair, the King and the Queen. He notes that this same royal pair can be seen in the astrological sign of Gemini, and in The Lovers tarot card.

 I. CLAVIS, the first key, engraved by Matthaeus Merian (1593–1650) - Chemical Heritage Foundation [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons

I. CLAVIS, the first key, engraved by Matthaeus Merian (1593–1650) – Chemical Heritage Foundation [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons

But Gemini is also “the twins”, sames as well as opposites, and The Lovers card is ruled by Gemini (which is ruled by Mercury). In fact Aleister Crowley refers to an alternate title for the card of “The Brothers”³. Walker notes that there are thus two occult images for the same position (carrying the meaning behind the coniunctio or sacred marriage). And in Gemini of course, we meet the Dioscouri again, Castor and Pollux, born from Leda’s one egg, placed in the sky by Zeus as a testament to their love.

“Thus, that image of the ‘union of sames’ articulated by Plato as a basis for homosexual love can be seen amplified as the figure of Gemini. The celestial Twins, therefore, express a symbolism of mutual relationship in which libido is homosexually organized. Through analyzing this symbolism, then, a homosexual organization of the developing gay personality can be exploratorily studied”

Ibid

Mitch Walker notes that the Anima is a soul image in classic Jungian psychology, but that when Aphrodite Urania rules romantic love, then the situation of the feminine is going to be different. This has always appeared to be so for me, and the constant harping on the feminine and what it must mean for every man has always been one of the real drags of Jungian theorizing. Walker turns away from the motif of the King and the Queen here, and towards Plato’s image of two sames, “the Star Twins“, as a better expression of archetypal gay soul relationship.

 “This image describes a symbolic situation of a man having a special, erotic, twin ‘brother’ who is felt to be the alluringly personified ‘source of inspiration.’ I have previously termed this male soul-figure the Double, a term first proposed by Otto Rank in 1914. It is a different figure than those described by Jung as the Anima, the Shadow or the Self, but can and does enter into the constellation of these other archetypes in a way analogous to the role of Anima”

What he then says about the history of the idea of the soul as a “double” is very interesting. He cites the Sumerian myth of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, a myth which I think probably holds resonances for a lot of gay men:

“In that story, the Sumerian king Gilgamesh is redeemed from a wasteful, purposeless life by, and subsequently goes on great heroic adventures with, a strong man named Enkidu, specifically created by the gods as a ‘second image of Gilgamesh: may the image be equal to the time of his heart’ (Gardner and Maier, p. 68). Their love and union is explicitly likened to that between husband and wife, indeed, it is portrayed as ‘the paradigm of primary social relationships: male bonding, husband and wife, brother and brother’ in one (Gardner and Maier, p. 42). Ultimately, it is through passionate love for manly Enkidu, a same-sex figure too grand and bright to be a Shadow, yet too weak and mortal to be the Self, that every-inch-a-man Gilgamesh finds spiritual realization and maturity”

Ibid

Gilgamesh and Enkidu By Bepege (from Mark Zulawski/University of Nicolaus Copernicus Emigration Archives (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

When he turns to Ancient Egypt we find ourselves delving into the subtle anatomy as envisaged by that culture. Within each person was an invisible being, a “source of life and breath” called the Ka. The Ka was shown as an idealized image of the person themselves.

“Your Ka was born into life with you, always embracing and protecting you with his love, and connecting you with the world of Paradise, with the deity. The Ka served in this capacity because, as the image of the beloved soul, it was itself a body containing within it a soul, just as the person contained the Ka within his or her own body”

Ibid

This soul within a soul was called the Ba, and was usually depicted as a small bird with the idealized face of the person. The Ba flew down from heaven during pregnancy and brought the “Light of God”, the Akh into the body of the Ka within the fetus.

“The Ba inseminated the Ka with the seed of Light, from which flowed the Waters of Life, animating the soul. In this way, it was actually the great Akh which brings life to mortal flesh, only to be withdrawn back into heaven upon the person’s demise. However, the Egyptians held an even more sophisticated view of the soul and its workings. They held that the Ka itself was actually the summatory expression of fourteen constituent aspects, each itself considered a Ka. These fourteen Kas, in turn, were grouped in seven pairs as the incarnation of seven distinct Bas, each with its own aspect. The qualities of the seven Ka pairs can be seen to portray a developmental sequence ………… Through development of these fourteen aspects of the Ka, the soul could thereby be ‘perfected.’ Perfection of the Ka was conceived of as a spiritual ‘ladder’ of development, up which a person could move, and thereby obtain a form of spiritual self-realization, portrayed as eternal residence with the Ka soul in heavenly paradise”

Ibid

Egyptian Ba Bird – Walters Art Museum [Public domain, CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Interestingly, this “spiritual ladder” was thought of as belonging to Horus and Set, who helped the ascent up it.

“Horus and Seth are among the most ancient of Egyptian gods, and were seen to personify the workings of the eternal opposites, as they represented light and dark, just and unjust, in and out, and all such dyads. Their eternal struggle yet ultimate reconciliation has been aptly characterized by Joseph Campbell: ‘Mythologically representing the inevitable dialectic of temporality, Horus and Seth are forever in conflict; whereas in the sphere of eternity, beyond the veil of time and space, where there is no duality, they are at one’ (Campbell, 1962, p. 81)”

Ibid

  According to Campbell the union of Horus and Set was known as “the Secret of the Two Partners”, and their united form was called “the double god”, shown as a single body with the heads of both Set and Horus. Walker also notes that there are texts where the pair are specifically likened to a man and his Ka, and to a man and his sexual partner.

“The relationship between a man and his Ba soul is also repeatedly likened to that between husband and wife in ‘The Dialogue of the World-Weary Man with his Ba’ (Jacobsohn, 1968, pp. 29-34). In the latter text (ca. 2000 B.C.), the Ba says to his man, ‘In that stillness shall I alight upon you; then united we shall form the Abode’ of spiritual rebirth (Reed, 1987, p. 83)”

Ibid

As Walker says, the Egyptians held a belief about the development of the soul which involved the struggle and integration of opposites, and this is actually a feature of the coniunctio, which can be related to the unconscious and “soul making”, but based upon a marriage of man and manly double; “a sacred union animated by a male-male eros, which leads to the integration of opposites and to psychic wholeness” (Walker 1991).

“Your soul, BA, become[s] conscious little by little in your incarnate KA. Our texts tell you that “he rises from your vertebrae”; from the dual fire in them, that is. That “he quickens your spiritual heart, opens your mouth and eyes to the Real”; that “being realised in you and having at last stripped you of your transient names, freed you from the humanity that is in your members,” he will “reveal your true face,” your face of Maat, and “make you one of the KAs of universal Horus.” (Schwaller de Lubicz, 1967, pp. 198-99) The idea of gaining this “perfection,” that is, individuation, through a gay sort of love echoes down from these original Egyptian and Sumerian ideas through subsequently recorded mythologies. Plato, of course, discourses at length on how this love leads to union with God, and similar ideas can be seen in Gnostic and Sufi thought. When the eye of homosexual libido is regardfully opened, its worthy manifestations can be meaningfully perceived, and thus more accurately studied and better understood. Far from nonexistence, the phenomena of homosexual Eros have always been expressed by humanity, and can be reasonably observed when they are approached with respect and openness. From studying such phenomena an accurate conception of a gay male soul- figure and his workings in psyche can be (re)constructed”

Ibid

This is a quite extraordinary passage, both poetically, and with its resonances with Hindu ideas of the raising of the kundalini, leading to a form of enlightenment.

Walker sees the Ka as an inspiring double through which a person can come to the Divine (in accordance with Egyptian teachings), and similar themes of coming to the Divine through a beloved “twin” or partner he sees reflected in Gilgamesh’s love for Enkidu which leads to “his initiation as a shaman”, in Socrates’ knowing “the truth” through his relationship with a beautiful youth, in Ibn Arabi finding Allah through his “Angel-Soul”. These are relationships of growth and realization, that occur “through a cyclic rising and sinking of homosexual libido”.

“Jung has formulated the concept of Eros as the secret operator of the transformations by which the processes of individuation occur, a figure who both inspires and guides this process, and he has also seen this operator in the Egyptian Thoth, the Greek Hermes, and the alchemical Mercurius”

Ibid

 II. CLAVIS, the second key, engraved by Matthaeus Merian (1593–1650) - Chemical Heritage Foundation [Public domain]

II. CLAVIS, the second key, engraved by Matthaeus Merian (1593–1650) – Chemical Heritage Foundation [Public domain]

And here it is interesting to note that Thoth is himself in some myths considered to be the child of a homosexual congress between Set and Horus, the “son of two fathers” as Walker says. Walker refers to this figure as “Eros as teacher”, and says that in terms of the soul the Egyptians referred to this kind of teaching figure as the “divine ka”, who guides his man towards spiritual self-realization, and a union of the human and the divine. Of Thoth (Tahuti) Walker says:

“He represented the “fruit” of the sacred union of the Great Opposites: spiritual realization and knowledge. As such, Tahuti was considered the original shaman, the first alchemist, the first gnostic, the archetypal initiate of the Wisdom of God, who is both the originator and product of the developmental process of self-realization gained through union with the Ka soul”

Ibid

The Ka here starts to look like the inward divine presence in the heart, the Lover or Beloved of various mystics.

On the European alchemical Mercurius Walker says he is:

“the cause and result of the operations which complete the opus. In fact, to effect the operations Mercurius, who is “duplex” (CW 13, par. 267), splits himself up into an active half and a passive half, and it is those two halves that are then called the King and the Queen, and it is they that combine to recreate Mercurius on a more refined level, that is, the process of “perfection” we examined previously, here gained through Mercurius’s submission, by his feminine half, to the inseminating union of his masculine half”

Ibid

So the King and the Queen are the two sides or phases of Mercurius, separated so they can recombine at a higher level. But Mercurius is the start and Mercurius is the end. Walker further claims that during the Middle Ages and Renaissance the figure of Hermaphroditos (“the basis for the alchemical combination”) may have been considered an allusion to homosexuality, as shown in woodcuts depicting the alchemist being inseminated “by the masculine spirit” in an act of anal intercourse. In similar vein, the story of Zeus and Ganymede was also employed by alchemists to represent “alchemical union and transformation”.

Ganymede abducted by Jupiter – Rubens – photo by Jérémy Jännick (Own work) [Public domain or CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

“the twinship union could be perceived of as procreatively potent, as enacting a form of generation in its own right. Otto Rank was the first modern psychologist to identify ‘the self-creative tendency symbolized in the magic meaning of twinship. As the twins appear to have created themselves independently of natural procreation, so they were believed to be able to create things which formerly did not exist in nature;’ the twinship union has an ‘inherent creative power’ making the twins ‘independent of [hetero]sexual procreation’ (Rank, 1958, p. 92). Such generative capability gives the twinship union ………. the viability to sustain and further the individuation process in gays in a productive manner valuationally parallel to that occurring through heterosexual procreativity”

Ibid

In other words, the twins or doubles are an expression of a profound and primal psychic reality, and their union is erotically, magically and spiritually potent in a way which parallels the motif of heterosexual union envisaged as the marriage of the King and the Queen. Their procreativity is not physical, but then neither is that of the King and the Queen alchemically.

The last thing that Mitch Walker deals with is the question of “the feminine” in gay men, which is important both for the weight placed upon the feminine by Jung, and on account of popular conceptions and misconceptions about gay men and femininity. To do this he goes back to  Plato’s placing of homosexual love under the protection of Aphrodite Urania. Whereas in classical Jungian thought a man’s femininity is projected as the soul figure or Anima, for a gay man under the influence of Aphrodite Urania, the feminine falls into place as “a helpful attitude toward the masculine soul, that is, one of receptivity toward feeling love well”. Walker sees such a feminine homosexual orientation in Gnostic thought about Sophia and Jesus, and in the tale of Amor and Psyche.

Psyche Opening the Door into Cupid’s Garden by John William Waterhouse (1904) – in Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons

“It is the Sophia, the Psyche in a gay man which allows him to orient to and gain union with the divine Eros (J. Clark, 1987, p. 11). From this perspective, the positions of Psyche and Ganymede are metaphorically the same. It is not a question of effeminizing an otherwise properly masculine person: In becoming and being gay, a gay man’s ego becomes attitudinally “wife” to his masculine soul “husband,” he attends raptly to psyche organized homosexually, so as to undergo the processes of union and transformation with the Angel within”

Ibid

Thus a gay man does not become less of a man, but in alliance with the feminine (not polarization and projection) realizes his own receptivity as a man and:

“becomes the crucible for psychic change and maturation via congress with and insemination by the Spirit of God, that is, the Self, in subsequent order to productively bear the Sacred Child of the Two Fathers. Through quickening relationship with this transformative union a gay man can meaningfully progress towards an individuated androgyny, and thus wholeness and completeness of being”

Ibid

Thus there is a homosexual alchemical opus.

***

Jungian writing can appear very wordy, cerebral and over complicated, but I do believe it is useful, when mulled over poetically, digested, played with. In many ways this is connected with what I was trying to get to in posts on a morning of the magicians, the medicine beast, and a flag stained with earth and wine.  There is a way for us to mature and reach higher forms of human realization as gay men, and while they are not unconnected with the masculine and the feminine, they involve our own relationships to them, but those relationships still have to be genuinely soulful. Similarly the androgyne holds keys here, as it does with other forms of the alchemical opus, though I feel for us it holds particular virtues and particular hazards or pitfalls. The source Mercurius and the goal Mercurius are not the same, even if outside of time they ultimately are. Separation must still occur before recombination, for a higher form to be reached. I have for quite a few years been intrigued by two contrasting visions of the androgynous: the mercurial spirit that is reflected in the youthful, flighty, almost asexual sense of androgyny, and the realized, fully embodied, mature form of the androgyne, which I provisionally called the “gynander” to distinguish it from the former, though it most essentially is an inward realization residing fully in one’s own body at peace. And lastly, as gay men, we can come to a state of true peace with being male, being men, in erotic, libidinal and loving relationship with other men. This single-genderedness is part of our meaning and our functioning, and the mature form of our life.

Let’s dance on to the heart of Summer, and find our own meanings.

Mercury on island of Källskär by ReinerausH (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

PS 25th May 2014: I have drawn heavily on a single article by Mitch Walker for this post, but have tried to select quotes,  comment on and illustrate it in the hope of making the subject matter more accessible. If you wish to follow up on Mitch’s sources or see the full article, you can find it here.

¹ Not that Jung was ill disposed towards his homosexual patients, he was progressive for his time, and he expressed forward thinking ideas eg  “an individual’s homosexuality has its own meaning peculiar to the individual in question and that psychological growth consists of becoming conscious of that meaning”.

² The psychic processes of gay transmen are something which I do not have enough personal insight with to be able to offer any added or alternative suggestions for here, but every individual will have their own valid individuation process, and every grouping must surely have their own characteristic inner patterns.

³ Aleister Crowley – The Book of Thoth.

sacred ass

You can’t really have any contact with modern Paganism and avoid the selective religious blessing given to the body and physical existence. That there is any perceived blessing of the body is a good thing. We’ve had so much condemnation of the body and the flesh from religious sources over many, many years, that it’s high time the blessing was brought back.

Yet we seem to hang on to old sentiments and old prejudices when it comes to the flesh. How long did it take us to rush to worship at the altar of procreation? No time at all, for it was right there in the anthropological and psychological fixations on “fertility cults”. Back then it looked like the good wannabe noble savage was gonna have to get down to baby making, or at least going through the motions with spiritual intent. And what was the one form of sexuality traditionally endorsed by the Church? The one leading to childbirth. Admittedly with other controls and binds and dogmas attached. But if you are coming down to sexual nuts and bolts, what the Church approved of was heterosexual vaginal sex with a reproductive outcome. Which kinda makes them a fertility cult as well really.

I don’t think that Pagan revivalists meant it, or saw it quite that way though. They just inherited a sensibility, and poured their counterculture into it. But the fact is it’s there. And they were trying for a kind of liberation, and hopefully found what they were looking for. We don’t get most places in just one leap, after all. But neopaganism as a whole has I think got stuck with the inheritance of sacralizing procreative sex above all others. We want people to have choices, but we still put it there at the middle. We justify this by linking it to birth and life and saying well, isn’t that what Paganism is about? We ameliorate it by cultivating tolerance. But really I don’t think it washes well enough.

I think we need to push this a little further, because we will never understand or experience sexuality fully and freely unless we decouple it from procreation, and it does not help us if we iconize sexuality as the procreative process. I think babies are awesome, wild things – it’s like looking in the eyes of an astronaut that just went through the most gut wrenching re-entry, but that’s about them, not about sex and sexuality.

The “what we need to look at” sexually is I believe everything that isn’t the procreative process. That will include all such  sexuality (including the majority of instances of heterosexual sex), but will also put it in the “condemned” category in old Church teachings, and the “class B” of neopagan iconography. Where such sexual expression is intentional, you could sum it up in the traditional term “sodomy“, in the broader meaning of the word. In fact sodomy is a word with a fantastic, almost piratical ring to it. I suggest we reabsorb some of its positive and life affirming content.

At various times the term sodomy has meant a range of religiously or legally prohibited sexual acts and behaviours, that separate sexual intention from procreation (in addition to other “vices”)*. I’d say that it is exactly the intention to separate sexuality from procreation that we actually need. Sex is no reason to have kids. Procreation is not what makes sex sacred. It’s time we broke the equation, especially given how appallingly overpopulated the world is. We don’t need to add alternative sexuality around the edges of “sacred procreativity”. We need to accord the non-procreative its own place of supreme sexual honour. I say supreme, because we then don’t confuse sexuality and reproduction. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with …….. sacred sodomy!

Of course, when most people hear the word sodomy they think “anal intercourse”. Now penetrative sex of any kind is not everybody’s thing, but the anus is indeed an interesting door to our relationship with sex and the body. There are few parts of the body quite as despised, yet also commonly desired, and like it or not, it is a sex organ (and guys, whether you know it or not, you do have a g spot up there). In itself it is neither male nor female by nature, which is to say it is common to all sexes and genders.  Not only is it a sex organ, but you’d also die without it (surgical stoma formation apart). Put simply, if the penis and the vagina may be accorded iconic religious status (and they historically are), then so can the anus. If we talk about the sacred lingam and yoni, then we should talk about the sacred anus too.

In fact where we tend to find it more is in demonological and apocalyptic illustrations, where its taboo and despised qualities are maximized and given a nightmare edge. It does turn up in the kama sutra, but that tends to be glossed over in public reputation. And then there is the “obscene kiss” of the Witches’ Sabbat, where the participant must kiss the Devil’s behind. It betrays a potent power over the cultural psyche, but it is not exactly roses and light. I would argue though that a rose is still a rose, and the hidden light can be the most enlightening.

illustration of the

illustration of the “obscene kiss” – image in public domain

Interestingly anal intercourse as a magical formula was attached to the XI degree OTO by Aleister Crowley, while the heterosexual (and non-reproductively intentioned) practice of intercourse during menstruation was associated with this degree by Kenneth Grant. As some people have noted here, 11 is the number of magick and the “passionate union of opposites”. It is not the number of reproduction in the ordinary sense. To some traditions the number is viewed as “evil” because it goes beyond the “perfection” of 10, tipping it into the unbalanced and “demonic” (and here we see the features of some traditional anti-gay arguments reanimated and twitching to life). In actual fact, balance does not come from abstractions and maintenance of taboo – rather the opposite. 11 is also viewed as a “master number” in numerology. It is as well the number of the sign of Aquarius, and the Age we are meant to be heading towards. Its component parts are equal, and it indicates a union between two levels of being (seen either as 5 + 6 or 1 +10). There is in its form a reflectiveness, a symmetry and a balance, yet also a presence that is more than the sum of its parts. But it is a departure, into one’s own direct experience. Katon Shual gives a nice reflection on some of these matters in his book “Sexual Magick“, and a good deal else besides.

Of course, sacred sexuality and sexual magick need have nothing to do with the anus or penetration, and there is much else besides, and much to be explored and discovered with an open mind and a clear heart. We have so much to unlearn, and so much to explore, with love. But I would like to give the anus its place of honour, as a representative of so much that could be, need not be, and could be otherwise. In Nature’s sacred vocabulary, it needs no introduction.

Here’s to the ass, and the many colours and tastes of love without conception.

By Klearchos Kapoutsis (Flickr: Santorini's donkey) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons - image electronically altered

By Klearchos Kapoutsis (Flickr: Santorini’s donkey) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons – image electronically altered

* from what I can gather the accusation of “sodomy” has been used primarily against men, but the quality of deviance (or creative inspiration) that it traditionally embodies can be taken to include women in its moral sweep, especially when it comes to include non-procreative, unsanctioned sexual behaviour.

red as rust and sweet as honey

Probably due to the conjunction between the Sun and Mars that occurred this week, I have had some reason to think about the red planet, though I actually feel some real curiosity and interest about Mars in any case.

There’s a lot of traditional bad vibes attached to Mars, he’s a bit of a bad guy to a lot of people really, as the litany goes something like: war, violence, aggression, murder, rape, destruction and the kind of wildness that people don’t consider romantic and noble. But is that really the story?

There is a clue in astrology of course, for though he is traditionally the “lesser malefic”, he is in modern astrology associated with energy, vitality, drive and sex, as well as aggression and conflict and accidents. When we say sex of course, we don’t so much mean flirty, toying eroticism and all the refinements of love making. The eroticism of Mars is a fiery, locked on chemistry where you know already that full consummation is gazing right into you, intelligently and deeply.  You might say “no thank you” and so might they, but the horse power is on the tracks, and it shakes and humbles all. Not the chase and the charm, but the timeless end game. Put it down, condemn it as you like, try to control it as you will, the eroticism of Mars is the unfurled plot line of eroticism. Which in part is probably why Mars rules Scorpio as well as Aries.

If Mars is destructive, it is the destruction that life depends upon. If his wildness isn’t all nice or controllable, that’s because that is what real wildness necessarily includes. So have a heart for a god not so simple.

His metal is iron, that rusts red, that colours our blood red also, so that the blood can carry oxygen to our cells to burn fuel, and carry carbon dioxide away to dispose of the waste of respiration.

Iron that conducts lightning, and forms much of the heart of our own planet Earth, and gives us (along with nickel) a magnetic field that protects us from the radiation of space. Iron that is one of the last elements to be formed in stars, which can only be burned into heavier elements by the star exploding as a super nova.

Iron than gives rose quartz its delicate pink colour. Is it a surprise that Mars’ mineral is what gives rose quartz its pretty, misty colour, with its association with the heart? I don’t think so really.

And if Mars has an association with blood and muscle and exertion, there is surely an association somewhere here with menstruation and childbirth?

According to Ovid, Mars himself was born from Juno without being fathered, except by the touch of a special flower which Flora provided for Juno. The tale goes that Juno wished to bring forth a child all of her own, as Jupiter had brought forth Minerva from his head without a mother. Juno’s own child was Mars.

In fact Mars has associations not just with war, but old associations with agriculture. The kind of war he was associated with was a protective fight that should lead to safety and peace, not jubilation in  bloodshed. He is very different to the Greek Aries in this sense. He has associations with the wild as well, and with forests, but again there is a sense of a balance here. Wilderness must have its place, so that cultivation can as well. Mars’ animal was the wolf, which we endow with endangered nobility often nowadays (and I find them extraordinary and beautiful animals), though our fairy tales betray an older prejudice.

Some years ago me and my husband had a therapy business, combining hypnotherapy and Reiki. We had a number of concessionary offers, eg for students, and one of the concessions was for military veterans. I found people’s reactions to that to be puzzling, because some were quite bemused, almost verbalizing “why do you do that?”. Why would you make special offers for soldiers? Like, is that a necessary thing to do? As if no one should be looking after the soldiers themselves, as if that were a strange idea. It reminds me of people who seem to resent firemen their wages. Like, can’t they just get on with it, doing that physical, risky stuff? Didn’t they sign up to be sacrifices? Well, no. They signed up to protect you, and be respected for it, not to be your willing sacrifices. And I do wonder what part the eye on the blood sacrifice has to play in our attitudes and subconscious relationships to martial issues?

And as blood flows through the vampire myth with an almost mystical allure, morphing between sex, seduction, violence, bestial transformation, immortality, life, soul, magical power, the body and it’s transcendence, I would say that Mars has his place there as well.

Richard Gardner used to say that blood sacrifice was one of the fundamental characteristics of human civilizations. I don’t know how accurate that is anthropologically, but he made a poetically persuasive argument. Basically that we are here to transform energy, and the bargain basement way of doing it is bloodshed. That’s part of our relationship with the Earth, and with being here. It doesn’t need to be blood, but in the absence of a finer consciousness, blood becomes the default. Richard thought we could do away with this subconscious need for bloodshed through the cultivation of good will. Gurdjieff also used to characterize human civilizations as going through cyclical processes of periodically destroying everything that they had built and developed, a process which his Beelzebub bewails as a tragedy. Richard was of the opinion that we couldn’t transform consciousness (and so energy) effectively without the free and enlightened exploration of Mars’ other domain of sex, so enlightened sex also becomes a remedy for social violence, as well as much else in his view. Love transforms energy basically, so that violence does not need to do it as a default. On this he was in broad agreement with Wilhelm Reich I think.

The transformation of energy must inevitably fall partially under Mars’ domain astrologically, because he is our personal, passionate and fully embodied experience of energy. So it makes sense that Mars is associated with sex, drive, energy, violence (and you should probably add sacrifice), and of course, transformation of energy. He should also be associated with a profound kind of healing.

Mars is a great and mighty need. The Wolf cannot be condemned or denied by a few inches of conscious awareness, and a mountain of righteousness. Blood and sex will have their way, because what both he and they spell out is the transformation of consciousness.

It is not Mars’ fault if we choose our own default of denial. But it is an ever present opportunity, that we could have such wonders and bliss in a world where our relationship to energy was affirmative, enlightened and free.

 detail from "Mars and Neptune" by Paolo Veronese, retouched electronically. Original image in public doamin via wikimedia commons


detail from “Mars and Neptune” by Paolo Veronese, retouched electronically. Original image in public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Naked

“we live in a world where we have to hide to make love,

while violence is practiced in broad daylight”

John Lennon

I saw the above quote this morning, and like so much of John Lennon’s perceptions, it was awesome in its simple clarity. A clear perception makes questions possible.

Coincidentally we were in town yesterday sitting outside a cafe,  and a really delightful thing happened. An enormous and joyous naked bike ride went down the end of the road. Just lots and lots of naked people on wheels, all shapes and sizes, ages, sexes, naked and beautiful and bringing laughter and surprise. Also a few disgusted expressions from passers by, just a few, but mainly people seemed just amused or supportive.

My reaction, after simple delight, was that we so need more nakedness. It was so healthy to see naked people, not naked models, or the standard (usually slim, young and female) consumer depictions of  the unclothed, but real naked people, with bellies and dangly breast, smooth and hairy, genitals showing without it being a big deal. Happy, real nakedness. It was wonderful.

Yet as per Lennon’s observation, our culture still finds it hard to get it. You can have films that show appalling violence, and video games that do the same, but passionate consensual sex gets hedged around with restrictions. A face full of hate is ok, or a fist used to hurt, but what is dangerous and too much? An erect penis, a vagina, an anus.

Moreover, what is the spill over of this into our life and living culture? What on earth is wrong with public nakedness? What is wrong with seeing someone have consensual sex? We watch people box and bloody each other, and seriously injure each other at times. Why is watching people fuck less acceptable than that? We can happily see someone dressed to kill (literally) for war, but we shy away from someone dressed for something entirely natural and pleasurable, and overwhelmingly associated with affection. What is our culture saying to us, and to our children?

We need less violence and less hurt, and less valuation of violence. We need more nakedness, more life, more love and more sex.

I don’t think the promotion of the one is unrelated to the suppression of the other. On that I tend to feel that Wilhelm Reich may well have been on to something.

World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR) in Zaragoza (Spain) – By Enrique Matías Sánchez (Quique) (dsc_5495) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

sex, pornography and human community

Reactions to pornography are often very strong, simply to the idea of it, never mind the actual phenomenon, which tends to mask the fact that things labelled pornography or “pornographic” can be very different in nature, circumstance and function.

The word “pornography” goes back to a Greek word relating to prostitution, and that term goes back to an Indo-European root relating to “selling” (see podictionary and online etymology dictionary). So we’re already onto the conjunction of sex, commodification and money right back then. Pornography in this very old sense would have related to writing about prostitution, but the link back to prostitution is there. I am no scholar of Greek social history, but we all know you don’t buy something you can get for free, nor sell something without a market, so there are implicit questions about the valuation and freedom of sexuality even that far back.

The word starts to appear in its more modern form in the 1880s (possibly earlier in the French speaking world), relating to depictions of sex, or “portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction” (Wikipedia) and “salacious writing or pictures” (online etymological dictionary). Here we are getting a more explicit focus on attitudes and judgements about sex and sexual arousal itself. Feminist critiques of pornography used to focus on exploitation of human subjects though (specifically of women in this case) when I was young. I was very aware of this criticism of porn, and selective as it is, I think there is no doubt that people have been exploited in the production of pornography at times, even though this is not always so. Many kinds of depiction of women and men, not just in pornography, can be seen to have an oppressive subtext or overt message, which was another analysis of the destructive action of pornography. But just how far and wide, and universally, does this apply?

If we wish to separate out the exploitation aspect, then I think we look to the choice, autonomy and conditions of those working in pornography. Are they free, are they safe, are they reasonably paid, is it their free choice (given that we’re talking about work)? Slavery and abuse are unacceptable under any circumstances – but why do we have difficulty decoupling the erotic from this area?

If we separate out the exploitation aspect, is paying for something bad in itself? Well, only if we disapprove of it apparently. We pay doctors for their services, in spite of healing being considered something approaching a sacred responsibility. We pay priests similarly. Do we object to these people “prostituting” their services? No, not really, though in the UK we have transferred the transaction to taxation in the case of doctors. Financial transactions can certainly distort human relationships, depending on the nature of the transaction and the attitudes of those taking part.

We live in a society which has had a problem with sex for a very, very long time. Think back to the various obscenity trials and controversies we have seen over the years, and the role that the term “pornographic” used to play in the censorship of writers and artists. Think back to the hounding of DH Lawrence and the book burnings of Lady Chatterly’s Lover. Think of Henry Miller, and of Ginsberg’s “Howl”. Think of the vandalising of ancient statues and sculptures by colonialists and missionaries. I can remember performance artists ending up in court on such charges in the 1970s, and Gay News being prosecuted on related blasphemy charges about the same time. Remember the controversy over Cronenberg’s “Crash”? There’s clearly a powerful censoring and anti-sexual (and sometimes anti-intellectual) cultural drive that can come into play here which really has nothing to do with preventing or critiquing exploitation, and it meshes with attitudes towards “pornography” and eroticism. These are strands which we need to separate and gain some clarity over, yet they are strands which many still cannot achieve that clarity on.

Given that our society still suffers from anti-sexual attitudes, and has not kicked the habit of it being ok to exploit people, it would be something of a miracle if the entire field of pornography did not somewhere reflect these distortions. But is pornography the problem, or is it “us”? Is porn the demon seed, or is it our own problem with sex and human equality? Is porn the malaise, or is it an attempt to articulate an answer in spite of the malaise? Is it even that much different to the rest of life? It’s sometimes hysterical detractors characterize it as “bestial”, “dirty”, “perverted”, which is odd given that a good deal of it does seem strikingly plastic, verging on the hilarious at times. But what these terms really point to is the body, sex and sexuality and human difference. Or rather, they point to our inexplicable trouble with these things.

While for some porn is a simple source of pleasure, or employment, or mirth, for others it is something akin to moral panic, which they would feel guilty of even by association. This seems strange in this day and age, but it is so. The only word really I can think of is shame, with a whiff of damnation, to describe the complex of quite irrational reactions surrounding porn for some – surprising given that these folks presumably do not view porn themselves, let alone make it.

I think a lot of this comes down to what sex can and can’t be for, in the society we live in, and I think we have one hell of a moral hangover. Where sex had to be for procreation in order to be sanctified, then of necessity we made of sex and sexuality an iceberg with an impossibly policed “tip”. Most of the iceberg is below the surface. Every time the sea moved, you had problems. It’s a big iceberg, and the sea of Life never stops moving. You can see many driven and convoluted scenarios arising from this scheme, but is it not the denial of sexuality that powers these scenarios, rather than the implicit nature of sexuality and eroticism?

One question here is: do the things we associate with things like pornography and prostitution make sense in a sexually free world? Sexuality is a mighty force, which for some reason we think less sacred and more morally culpable than the drive to have a child say, even in these horrendously over populated times. Procreation and sexuality are two different things, circumstantially linked for heterosexuals, but only some of the time at that. If these things were not so, then we would view someone expressing the desire to have sex with the same rosy glow we are encouraged to feel when someone says “I want to have a baby”. At least we’d say “congratulations”! Until we kick the habit of procreative necessity, and can look at everything calmly and reasonably, then we are stuck on that wobbly iceberg where everything is perfect and pure, but actually nothing really is. These issues are also another reason why effective contraception was such a landmark development, and why it led to greater sexual freedom for all I feel.

But in an area as contrived and conditioned as pornography, does any real sexual liberation happen? Well actually yes, as a side effect, or more particularly dependent on our relationship to it, and the type of porn. I only really have experience of viewing male gay porn, and a good deal of it seems to be, as I said above, plastic and unintentionally funny. I hope some of the actors have a sense of mirthful irony in this, because I do think a good few viewers enjoy both the comedy and any incidental turn on. Anything that helps us laugh at sex and the predicament of human desire is a good thing, and if it turns us on as well, that’s even better. We are in a sense laughing at ourselves, and celebrating what human beings will do in honour of the erotic.

Having said that, in general it’s pretty much a turn off seeing even attractive men being professional in front of a camera; the posed tough scowl, the faked passion, the “come hither” narcissism that somehow sends the libido plummeting. Not just the pose, the formula, but something in the eyes, that makes you feel like you’re actually stuck on top of someone else’s frigid iceberg again. It is emotionally unreal. A good film, or even watching a guy weight lifting, is actually better porn, but of course that isn’t porn at all. But there are of course other things.

If well paid, well treated, autonomous porn models and actors take us away from the old Greek associations of the word to a healthier part of the river, other people have actually burst that river’s banks. The gay Bear community brought about a mind blowing world of non-commercial amateur porn, of men sharing themselves with the adult male community by means of their own cameras on the internet, entirely for free. This was not for money, and this was not formula, it was an overflowing of male generosity and self revelation (and I suspect self discovery in many cases). This was not producers and consumers, plastic “perfection” marketed to the “imperfect” – the “objects” were all subjects themselves, which was very much part of the message of this medium. You could see it in people’s eyes, and their average Joe smiles. Someone real was home, and the lights were on. It wasn’t even porn in the usual sense, because it was freely given. It was genuine “community porn” and that entirely bucks the term.

I think these men gave an enormous amount, in a way which was nurturing, sustaining and profoundly humanizing. For me they brought recognition, empathy and self-understanding to an entire area of sexual manhood during an important time in my life. Beyond that it was sheer celebration of the goodness of the erotic, and may it remain so.

Far from the demonized myth, these men were benevolent, humorous, harmless, ordinary and embracing. The only way in which this was porn was either in a redefined personal sense, or in the sense that it would be judged too sexual and naked, and too candid by an outsider, which is exactly the kind of judgement we need to disregard. They did just that, with immense good will.

Would such a phenomenon have arisen without professional pornography being there in the first place? Given the repressiveness of our sexual history, I don’t know, but I know that professional porn couldn’t do it. Of course they wouldn’t have gone through any of this analysis or theorizing that I just have (any more than I did when I saw it), and thank the gods for that, because they let the real into an area of human sexuality and shared it with us, and debunked all the porn myths in one go, without even thinking about it. What an education. Bless them all.

There is hope.

“solarized version of public domain image by Priwo”

29/1/12 – corrected inaccuracy re payment of priests in the UK.

Esotericism – how we laughed and cried

I had quite a nice time yesterday and today, reading through online writings of the astrologer Dane Rudhyar, and indeed I had picked up an old book recently on the Sabian Symbols by him. Dane Rudhyar produced some very interesting writings and was himself a Theosophist with many interests, and a long and active life.

I enjoyed reading through some of his stuff and may well return to it, there are real insights in his work, but eventually I just had to come to a halt and sit outside and shake it off. It wasn’t the man or his obvious talents, but the spiritual edifice of early twentieth century esotericism that did it. It recalled for me what it used to be like reading occult literature at one time, with its spiritual hierarchies and avatars, it’s immutable laws and ineffable planes, and its sour moral undertone (though Dane is more sweet than sour, I have to add). Madame Blavatsky rattled her chains, Alice Bailey and Dion Fortune put on their rubber gloves to barely mention homosexuality and similar “vices” that would soil your evolution (not to mention Bishop Leadbeater). Dane Rudhyar was a modernising and open-minded saint compared to this, but the terminology and the inherited structure just brought it all back somehow. It just leaves a kind of chill. A gay youngster reading through any of the old stuff had to take a deep breath and be ready for the standard objectified condemnation, pathologizing, or complete silence on anything beyond the holy heterosexual couple in occult teaching. It’s a good thing that youth is resilient.

But just to show a little of what Dane Rudhyar was capable of, see this quote:

“Scorpio is usually considered to be related to sexual activity and to all passions connected with sex (for instance, jealousy). But actually we must differentiate clearly between two aspects of sex. Sex as a strictly biological and procreative function of the human animal is expressed in the zodiacal sign, Taurus — the sign of fertility. The sign, Scorpio (its opposite in the zodiac) refers, on the other hand, to what I might call ‘personalized’ sex. And it is with this latter that Freudian theories and the Kinsey Report deal primarily.

“Psychological problems related to sex, sexual behavior as an indication of psychological attitudes and of inner pressures, fear or desires — and all sexual abnormalities, sex rituals, and religion induced frustrations — should be referred to the sign, Scorpio. The intentional prevention of birth, either as a social measure, or for personal reasons, comes also under Scorpio. Scorpio opposes Taurus; the more “personalized” the approach to sex, the less it tends to result in fertility”.

Astrology and the Kinsey Report

January 1954

Elsewhere he goes a little into the needlessly negative associations attached to Scorpio on account of this, associations which ought to be changing with a changing world (which indeed they have in a lot of quarters). It’s interesting stuff worth reflecting on.

You can see from this how gay sexuality would feed straight into this Scorpionic association, for it truly fits the bill as non-procreative sexuality. It is also apparent from this how the linkage with the “personalization” of sex would lead an outdated culture to completely misjudge gayness as a “lifestyle choice” (which it is not, any more than heterosexuality is). Yet the central thing that this spiritual ideology fails to address is that non-procreative sexuality is entirely natural. It’s right there in the “Taurean” realm in that sense.

The transpersonal aspects of Taurean sexuality relate to different realms than Scorpio, realms which are readily visible and apparent. The transpersonal aspects of Scorpio relate more to the invisible undercurrents of life. Maybe this is also why Scorpionic sexuality was seen as more personalized, as the collectivity of Taurus is more physically obvious. But it is also a question of what we see as normative – that sex has an almost ordained function as reproduction, or that this is not necessarily so. Nature would seem to indicate the latter, as I think did many cultures older than Victorian and Edwardian Christianity.

Gay folks might fit the Scorpio model in this discourse (though gay people are found in all types in fact), and Dane Rudhyar’s characterisation of the sign by the zoomorphic image of the Phoenix rather than the Scorpion fits the experience of the modern gay movement rising from the ashes of patriarchal, monotheistic culture (the bisexual D H Lawrence also identified with this symbol) quite poetically. From my early teenage years my sense of sex and sexuality as something sacred was overpowering. But the association can become something of an imprisoning cliché.

A gay person is not born opposed to Nature, but as a less common manifestation of its diversity. We experience sexuality maybe in a more Scorpionic way on balance, by virtue of where society puts us in its scheme of things, but there’s a great deal which is the same, both ways. Take away the imposition of social values, and would a “barren” heterosexual couple’s sex be seen as “personalised”? There seems to be a whole battery of value judgements surrounding this scheme.

Separating nature and nurture, and data and social judgement, is not always simple, but at times the old esotericism appeared to have a great investment in the separation and the question not even being looked at. This is one of the problems of unexamined tradition, and of sacrosanct “teachings”. This very attitude seemed to feed into the popular approach to Jungian psychology as well.

The occult and the esoteric are immensely rich areas, with deep roots and multiple flowerings. The output of the Victorian and Edwardian eras are not necessarily characteristic of these things as a whole either, and imposed their own blue print of values and selective perception upon the occult, as I’m sure all eras do. I think it was only during the 20th century that a freer and more self reflective perception slowly grew, though who knows what the distant past sheltered in obscurity? For now though, it is neither relativism nor dogmatism, but a more flexible open-mindedness in this area that is most interestingly offered.

For LGBT people vis-a-vis the occult interpretation of sexuality, I think there is little doubt that we are still stationed in the realm of Scorpionic experience by society and our history. The question is how do we get out, and how do others come in to find what is theirs too. Or put another way, how do we realise that when it comes down to it, we are all pretty much the same.

Our commonality is the gift we all receive, and the means by which we may give back our little bit of transformation to the world, that in the mirror of each others experience and loves, we see that we are each other.