Unformatted text preview: ct is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by
thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of
eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. "To be" means "to be in
Now the Enemy's philosophy is nothing more nor less than one continued attempt to evade this very obvious truth. He
aims at a contradiction. Things are to be many, yet somehow also one. The good of one self is to be the good of another.
This impossibility He calls love, and this same monotonous panacea can be detected under all He does and even all He
is—or claims to be. Thus He is not content, even Himself, to be a sheer arithmetical unity; He claims to be three as well
as one, in order that this nonsense about Love may find a foothold in His own nature. At the other end of the scale, He
introduces into matter that obscene invention the organism, in which the parts are perverted from their natural destiny
of competition and made to co-operate.
His real motive for fixing on sex as the method of reproduction among humans is only too apparent from the use He has
made of it. Sex might have been, from our point of view, quite innocent. It might have been merely one more mode in
which a stronger self preyed upon a weaker—as it is, indeed, among the spiders where the bride concludes her nuptials
by eating her groom. But in the humans the Enemy has gratuitously associated affection between the parties with sexual
desire. He has also made the offspring dependent on the parents and given the parents an impulse to support it—thus
producing the Family, which is like the organism, only worse; for the members are more distinct, yet also united in a
more conscious and responsible way. The whole thing, in fact, turns out to be simply one more device for dragging in
Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as "one flesh". He did not lay "a happily married couple"
or "a couple who married because they were in love", but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make
them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes "one
flesh". You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of "being in love" what were in fact plain
descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there,
whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally
endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered
into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of
affection, fear, and desire which they call "being in love" is the only thing that makes...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/07/2014 for the course MIS 304 taught by Professor Mejias during the Spring '07 term at Arizona.
- Spring '07