Self, Ethics and Your Sexual Essence
A companion piece to the free online novel "Brandon Gets His Big Break"
If you’re gay, straight, or asexual, you’re righteous. Same with cis or trans.
This is the second substack post that will discuss my free online novel Brandon Gets His Big Break. ‘Brandon’ is an idea-centric book. My favorite authors are George Orwell and Albert Camus. Both presented their thoughts by telling stories. Camus wrote stories to discuss his philosophy (mistakenly considered to be a form of Existentialism but he preferred Absurdism):Orwell wrote stories to further his political analysis which was an indictment of authoritarianism. Hell, I’m going to give a shout out o B.F. Skinner’s “Walden II”. The novel was complete crap (don’t read it – not recommending it). He wrote it to publicize his psychological theory Radical Behaviorism. I respect that. Still…total crap.
That first paragraph makes ‘Brandon’ sound dry and turgid. Far from it…at least that’s not my intent. Hopefully, the reader will find it – at turns – funny and harrowing. Never boring. Sometimes, it’s a little sexy – from an LGBT take – but never over the top. I don’t want any reader – who’s sympathetic to the big picture message – to feel uncomfortable. I always pull back before much – if anything – happens. Restraint can be a virtue.
‘Brandon’ is about an emotionally committed polygamous clan. Set in Hollywood, Brandon becomes a staff writer on Ilana Glazer’s new (and fictitious) dramedy: I incorporate famous people – that I like – as secondary characters. Something horrible happens to the clan (don’t want to give it away, I’m about to write the chapter where it happens). Glazer helps them through it. I think Glazer’s cool, a lot of cool people out there. And the cool people are disrespected and even threatened.
In the latter part of ‘Brandon’, I’m going to bring in characters that are reflections of people that I do not like into the story. For example, there’s this guy – Nick Fuentes – who is a creep, a homicidal sociopath. I don’t cotton to homicidal sociopaths, just funny that way. When turning a famous person into a character, I only use the actual name when I like that person (like Glazer). When it’s someone I don’t like I use a nom de plume. I do use the name ‘Donald Trump’ because there’s some political commentary in ‘Brandon’ (and…gosh…where am going I to come down on the issues?). Trump is only referenced and not a character.
As I write ‘Brandon’, I am posting it online at johnswriting.org. At this moment – 13 January 2024 – the first eleven chapters are posted. I am actively writing 12 (and VERY happy with it) and will post it ASAP. In addition. I am writing these substacks that discuss the novel that I’m writing.
Everyone has to have a thing (no, not that). Each person should find an avenue of self-expression. Dance or graphic arts (things that I ABSOLUTELY cannot do). Writing (a thing that I foolishly convinced myself that I can do). Whatever the thing is, it should bring the creator clarity. My writing has been freeing me: it has been bringing my essence – an intellectual, emotional, and sexual being – into progressively greater focus. In a sense, it doesn’t matter if anyone likes ‘Brandon’: because I’m getting so much out of writing it. Oh, BS. I want to be validated…to be liked. I’m a bit of a ‘Sally Field’ (dated reference, you might have to google it).
In the first post, I talked a bit about the philosopher Albert Camus and a couple aspects of the ancient Chinese spiritual philosophy of Taoism . I’m now going to introduce some more stuff. In subsequent substacks. I’ll combine all of this – keep throwing in more stuff – as I discuss ‘Brandon’.
So, I’m going to talk to talk some philosophy now. When I talk philosophy, I am talking about the meaning of life.
I feel that any ‘meaning-of-life’ question boils down to the following:
What do I think about it?
Meaning is found within. This is not to say that a person cannot strive to be a spiritual person, someone who cultivates a connection with that which lies outside of him or her.
As an aside, I mentioned in my first substack post that the Universal Pronoun is tricky for me. I’ve been trained to use singular personal pronouns when talking about Humanity. There is no acceptable asexual singular pronoun – the equivalent to ‘he’ or ‘she’ – with which I’m familiar. Having gone to college in the Eighties, I’m sticking with the devil that I know: the masculine.
When talking Humanity, I’ll use pronouns like ‘he’ or ‘his’. When focusing on the individual, I’ll use the phrases ‘he or she’ and ‘him or her’.
A person’s view of reality comes from within: opinions and beliefs are generated by the brain, that three pound bundle of viscous crammed into the cranium. Oh, sure, one’s religious beliefs are taught. Oftentimes, a person’s religion is transmitted by the family that he’s born into – and the larger community of which the family is a part – so the ideas come from without. A Hindu tends to be raised by Hindus. Even if a person rebels against the religion of his or her upbringing, he or she adopts another set of ideas from without: another religion, a broader sense of spirituality or ‘just the facts, ma’am’ atheism – it comes from without. But that gross and yucky ball of viscous makes the cut.
I reject the notion that elaborate stories – as found in the Abrahamic Religions – are absolute truth. They are all made up by men (and – in the case of the Abrahamic – dudes, for sure). Made up stories – not absolute truth. A person can hold these made-up stories in special regard: he or she can feel that they are metaphors for a reality that eludes the limitation of ideas. But the stories were not delivered from on high. There is no magical significance to Mount Sinai or – for that matter – Mount Ararat.
A person does strive for order. This need for order arises from a person’s inherent goodness. This might sound like a contradiction. It kinda is. But it isn’t.
Here’s a fun one: what is the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’? We tend to settle on definitions that are either insufferably difficult or absurdly simple. And both extremes are bogus. We are social animals: we strive for a stable society where each individual member can realize his or her potential.
Universal Morality has a basis in evolution and not Jesus.
A countless number of people have been tortured or slaughtered in His name.
A stable society is only possible when made up of good people. An unstable society is – not surprisingly – is made up of bad people. Societies are unstable because manmade constructs pervert our natural tendency to be good. These manmade constructs are religion and political philosophies. A society of deathcamps or socially sanctioned lynchings is unstable because of these things. Besides decimating the intended victims, the supposed victors are ultimately crushed as well.
Now, I’m going to throw a lot of facts out here. If something doesn’t sound right to you – or you just want to read up on it – google it. The internet can be really creepy but is also genius (both literally and figuratively). Shades of The Great Library of Alexandria, it’s all there but discrimination is required.
As I mentioned in my first post, I don’t write for stupid people: the viewers of FOX News. And, if that makes you feel superior, it should. ‘Cuz you are.
Desmond Morris was a British zoologist, ethologist, and author. I recommend his books that compare human and animal behavior: The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo . In ‘Ape’, Morris argued that humans are not fundamentally different from other animals: our behaviors are rooted in our evolutionary past. My takeaway from ‘Ape’ is that human activity is a perversion of the instinctual essence of so-called ‘lesser’ critters (like the great apes). In ‘Zoo’, he talks about the universality of morality or ethics. Morris suggested that there are certain moral principles that are common to all human societies, such as the prohibition of murder and incest. As I just said, ‘Zoo’ argued that these moral universals are a product of our evolutionary history. If stability is essential for the survival of a human society, evolution – which reinforces qualities which enhance survival – is the parent of decency.
A person – or an institution – that kills or tortures another because that person doesn’t hold the correct opinions or beliefs is not decent. A person – or an institution – that shames another because of that person’s sexual essence is not decent.
Consider territorialism.
Morris argued that this instinctual imperative plays a crucial role in stabilizing societies of mammals, like the great apes.
Territorialism refers to the behavior of animals that defend a specific area or territory against other members of the same species. Morris argued that was essential for the survival of a given social group because it helped to prevent conflict and competition over resources. Now, territorialism is often expressed through aggression and violence.
Human territorial disputes are often resolved through war. These conflicts do not quickly establish territory and dominance. They often spin out of control. We are now at the point where global annihilation is constantly in the offing. While humans have developed increasingly sophisticated ways to kill, they have developed sophisticated ways of resolving territorial disputes, such as diplomacy and negotiation.
The imperative is pretty stable among great apes, stuff goes down in the same way from generation to generation. Why is it such an unstable situation among humans?
Humanity infuses a pretty straight forward imperative with made up nonsense like group superiority. This perverts our conflicts and results in conflicts that should not existed in the first place (and…honestly…that’s most conflict). This artificiality created the need for diplomacy (and that’s artificial) to act as a counterbalance. Great apes don’t negotiate: they do their business. But diplomacy is an expression of our ethical imperative. Ethics can act to stabilize us. But – more times than not – they reflect biases and hate: that’s destabilizing.
This takes me back to where I started: that three-pound bundle of viscous crammed into the cranium A person’s ethics can be – but more often is not – a reflection of a ‘meaningful’ sense of meaning. Meaningful meaning was birthed in the primordial soup. This sort of meaning demonstrates its worth by perpetuating harmony. This sort of meaning is found within. There is a simplicity to it. A person can strive to be spiritual – to cultivate a connection with that which lies outside of his or her sphere of awareness – but only if that spirituality causes him or her to turn within. By turning within, a true connection is made to that which lies without.
I’ll close with this thought:
You might be gay or lesbian or whatever and people are telling you that you are bad person. BS. You are a good person.