On Love

By Alraune

The definition of “Love” is one which has escaped human endeavor throughout the ages, but that does not mean it has not been attempted and, in some instances, very closely arrived at. It is my intention here to offer my own attempt at defining “Love,” if I may be afforded the opportunity by the dear reader.

First, it should be noted that “Love” is not an objective thing which can be accurately and adequately defined for all conscious entities, nor is it a purely subjective thing which can hold any definition, but it is much more of an interjective thing, meaning it by definition involves some sort of relationship.

I therefore propose that the definition of “Love” requires the inclusion of relationship; otherwise, it cannot and is not what we all know to be Love. 'Tis true one can love their self or love another without return, but a relationship of some sort, either superficial or between “me” and “I” must necessarily be in order to have any sort of Love.

I further propose that “Love” requires the recognition, acceptance, and desire for the unique characteristics of that other with which a relationship is being shared, and that varying degrees of Love can and do exist in direct correlation with the amount of recognition, acceptance, and desire entered into.

Finally, I propose that there is a difference between “loving” and “being loved.” The former is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire for another from the first person perspective while the latter is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire being felt by one in the first person perspective. “Love” is then, the condition of feeling “Love” for another (loving), or feeling “Love” from another (being loved), or being in-love (the reciprocal relationship of loving and being loved).

For the layman then, “Love” is what is experienced with someone whom you can be your true and naked self around, and who can be their true and naked self around you, and you both recognize, accept, and desire one another for exactly what you are individually and together.

True Love is the freedom to enter into a relationship without fear or reservation concerning who you are, and with no fear or reservation concerning who the other is, but rather acceptance and desire for one another.

This is the best definition for “Love” I have arrived at to-date, and I do not think it can be surpassed by me in any other way other than poetry and art and expression, for “Love” is a form of expression as well as feeling.

How else could I define “Love?”

Jennelle

I explode with joy and excitement,
I burst into flame,
I thirst to be me in you,
For you to be in me,
All fades and is nothing,
We are clarity and life,
I am alive, I am me!

You have become my breath,
I suck you in,
I soak you up,
You soak me up,
I am full and happy,
We are complete and one,
You are alive, I see!

You melt with my desire,
I consume you,
I experience you,
You experience me,
You are safe and warm,
We are united in being,
We are alive, we feel!

An ocean washes in,
I am calm in you,
You rage in me,
Our emotions stir,
We flow and ebb,
We bath in our delight,
We share total existence!

There is nothing else now,
Time ceases to exist,
Space is meaningless,
Life is purposeful,
We are, that we are,
All pain and sorrow fades,
Love has come, I awake!

It was all just a dream,
It was all just a dream.
We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers.

It's alright now,
The dream is over.
We have awoken in Paradise,
Lying beside one another.

The birds are singing,
Butterflies are everywhere.
The grass is soft,
The Sun is warm.

We frolic in the woods,
We laugh and sing.
We bathe in cool waters,
We share all things.

The Sun sets but we do not sleep,
We make love in the moonlight.
Our emotions rise into the sky,
In this place we find our being.

Sleep creeps in and we both grow scared,
Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Together we can overcome,
Our love is far too strong!

We drift off to sleep in each others' arms,
I am asleep, but you awaken.
You cover me with a blanket, and all your love.
You kiss me, I moan in delight.

The Sun rises and we both are roused,
You are still there, I am still there.
We are in love, we are one.
I hold you close to my chest.

We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

We were not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Hold me tight, hold me close.
Cover me with your love,
I long to awaken beside you.

Love has come.

True Human Sexual and Relational Behavior

Definition. “Desirable” — any number of subjective and deeply personal perceptions

True human sexual and relational behavior is much like is describe in classical texts about sexual evolution and such liberal and modern texts on sexual evolution as 'Sex at Dawn' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

The woman wishes to be ejaculated within by as many “desirable” men as she possibly can within her fertility cycle, once she loses her fertility cycle she wishes to be ejaculated within only by “desirable” men which she trusts to be disease free, safe/loyal, and who are also fertile (she still hopes in technological society or supernatural salvation), although she will occasionally stray from that guideline if the male or female is extremely attractive (seeking 'pleasure'). Afterward, the major portion of her project becomes “self preservation” with the secondary hope of “help for her” along with a fertile and a “desirable” male.

Her “denial” stage is marked by the very real possibility of salvation and her realization of growing older, running out of time, and having become less biologically (and therefore instinctually) acceptable. She adapts and becomes more sexually “open” to compensate for her lack of “biological attraction” and becomes more sexually “liberal” At the same time the resourceful woman becomes more conscious of the end of things; and therefore the end of life, and becomes more spiritually “open” to love, and its many forms. She seeks to “give birth” through other means and seeks out “relationships” as a means to continue to “give birth.”

Eventually she accepts her circumstance in life and she desires someone she feels the most satisfaction and comfort in to be someone to die with or die loving. Her entire sexual, relational, and sexual moral belief system is eventually discovered as being based upon and centered around “giving birth” and “seeking pleasure.” The woman becomes fully conscious of herself!

Meanwhile, the male action is completely different. First the man seeks the women most easily had, then he seeks out the women most “desirable”, and then he seeks out the most :fertile” and otherly pleasant. He does this constantly and consistently, in a cycle. The male is as equally concerned with pleasure as he is reproduction, if not more concerned for the former. His primary concern is “relief of stress” followed by “survival through reproduction.”

It must be understood that the male “emotional” outlook is much different from the female “emotional” outlook. Men do not necessarily at FIRST feel their survival in the feminine sense. It may be more about “personal NOW preservation” than “later preservation,” but this is the dominant masculine view (I am confident any study would prove).

At first, men will likely act more on “attraction” and “mere pleasure” than on any sort of attachment. Next, as they grow older they will act more on “relationships”, attraction, interaction, and united states, because they will realize that although their seed is still good, their “appearance” in comparison to other young and fit men becomes increasingly difficult to counter-display. Although they “hold” the part, they no longer “look the part.” By doing this older men find a way to adapt to the still available women and find the “attraction” and “mere pleasure” which drove them and still drives them to begin with.

The infertile women find pleasure in their many available options, and the elder or infertile men, then find the same. Inevitably, both genders, if given sufficient thought, end up with bisexual and polyamorous tendencies due to life experience and the wisdom gained from it.

Hypothesis On Magick

Ordinarily and almost across the board, in Western society, many things chalked up to “magick” are dismissed as coincidence and/or psychological anomalies. I have pondered this thought and held this thought for many many years (mostly due to indoctrination in the Western education system), but I no longer think it may be true.

I base my conclusions largely on experience, but also upon logic. I do not think “magick” is something which can be, or is meant to be, understood via the traditional Western understanding of knowledge, but more upon experience and the knowledge gained through 'relationship.'

Most Western thinkers, especially psychologists and philosophers, would agree that there is something to be said for “we create our own reality”, but they would emphatically state this is minimal and possibly no more than 25% of true and objective reality, with most stating the percentage of reality created by subjective “opinion” is much less and therefore much less important. They would even go one step farther and state that those who believe otherwise must be either confused/mistaken or mentally-ill/insane. They base this upon their subjective opinion that materialism/physicalism as an axiom underlying their worldview is 100% correct – at least once you boil the “logic” down.

As I approach age forty and read, learn more, and experience more, as well as think more, I tend to be nagged to death by my own conscience to disagree and reevaluate the underlying axioms of this worldview.

“If” panpsychism is, or could be, true, “if” positive thought is recognized as a force within psychology, “if” modern physics admits the place of the observer, “if” parapsychologists have empirical evidence of psychic phenomena, and “if”various philosophers of consciousness (such as Christian de Quincy and/or Galon Strawson) could be correct in their assessments, then my personal subjective experience combined with rational analysis could very well be a heavy indication of something―another force—much more powerful than is, and has ever been, recognized by modern scientific thought.

In other words, I look back on various “experiences” and I cannot logically assign them to coincidence or any “natural” occurrence. Take the wonder and excitement of my teenage years for example – that which occurred was not chance, but much too perfect. I had a great early life, and I expect to have a much greater life as I go!

Too often I got what I placed my “intention” into, not just in my teenage years, but beyond – even now. These things were too often against chance occurrence, in my mind. How could I by chance “find beer” on many occasions as an underage teen deeply desiring such, be with two women or more at once, have the women I desire, experience the things I longed for, have the paranormal experiences I was excited to have, experience mystical/magical/paranormal phenomena, go through the things I thought “normal” occurrences in life, and generally get exactly what I either expected or longed for including those things indoctrinated and drilled into my head as “normal?”

This is too much for me. I cannot chalk this up to chance occurrence – I somehow made it happen. You would not understand unless you experienced it and been through it. Somehow, someway, I can, we all can, make a large portion of our reality despite the supposed objective reality – it has to be! Subjective “intention” must account for 50% or more of objective reality – it just seems such to me when I view it in light of experience.

The only other option is that what is “thought” to be uncommon is actually common, which means someone or something is screwing with us all, which, in my mind, is just as “crazy” as my hypothesis. Either “magick” is true, or someone knows the probabilities and possibilities of objective reality and they are using them to control us. Which do you believe, because it can only be those two – in my estimation. Something is going on “experientially” which requires explanation beyond the normal.

I cannot really explain my experienced reality, but I can state that when I look back it could not be mere chance. Somehow I made (or something listening to me or monitoring my experience made) a large portion of my reality, if not all of it, occur – this is the true definition of magic or the supernatural in most minds.

Just look! Tally it up! Take the good and the bad, evaluate it against what you desired, throw in a few other subjective things and LOOK! Something is going on!!! Either someone is working with you or against you – we all see it. Well, what if it is largely “you”?

This is my hypothesis on “magick” - we actually create a very large portion of our reality, but not necessarily all alone. Objective reality is merely an agreed upon subjective reality, but maybe and perhaps not even as deeply as we believe. Maybe it is more like 75% subjective and 25% objective makes reality or more towards the subjective, or at the very least 50/50? What “if?” There are plenty of experiential reasons to “know” this – we just lack understanding.

We do make our reality, but sometimes it takes time – which is maybe something else to consider, and perhaps something that remains taught but is entirely forgotten? There is certainly something going on and it should not be denied, but explored. Somehow we are actually “making” reality and not by the traditional scientific worldview in this present day and age. Something “larger” is going on! I feel it in the depths of my being – I “know” it.

Forget about what I said, just take your life and calculate “chance” against your own thoughts and “intentions” — see what YOU think. Experience tells me magick, to some degree or another, is true. It is completely obvious to me, especially after all these years of pondering and searching for “logical' evidence to potentially support what seems obvious. What can be more “logical” than searching for supporting evidence for what you know to be obvious, especially if you understand logic and axioms? You will be told it is wrong, but in actuality if you look at the core of what makes the scientific method you will KNOW the axioms and/or “assumptions” are the true reality of your thought-processes! You need only demonstrate them, and not necessarily consistently, if you agree one can change their mind and the “observer” is key.

The knowledge of the truth of “magick” is experiential, and that is how and the only way in which the truth of “magick” can ever be understood by the wise man or woman. “Magick” is experiential “knowledge”, which is another true form of knowledge and perhaps the only one.

Peace,

Alraune