The Intellectual & the Sexual
A companion to John Eisenhauer's online novel, the spirituality of authentic self
Your intellectual essence and sexual essence are one essence. You might be gay or straight…cis or trans. You might be an analytical sort (and math is your deal): you might be down with contemplation (and reading is your jam).
It’s all one. Better still, the one is part of the One. The One is not about gods or myths that were made up men – and the vibe is definitely patriarchy – but the Unknowable. The One is Unknowable and not unknown. When you say that something is unknown then you are making an aspirational statement. While a thing is currently unknown, it can become known (through the efforts of the mind). When you say the Unknowable is unknown, you are issuing a challenge to make it known. And it’s a challenge that cannot go unanswered. The challenge compels and drives you forward. But you move forward into the void because no answer can be found. So, you make up gods and myths to approximate knowledge of that which cannot be known. You say that the approximation is precise and whole. And it is not. Your gods and myths are fictions. These fictions are not what they claim to be: a literal description of the Unknowable (and the Unknowable is the One).
And the One is Divine.
If you are gay or straight that is your visceral awareness of the Divine. If you’re down with math that’s your visceral awareness as is grooving on words.
Let’s say that you’re a lesbian. Your lesbianism is a wonderous thing (wonderous because that is how you connect to the Divine). Do not let others shame you for that wonder. They shame you because they cannot connect to the Divine. Unable to connect to it, they take solace in the fiction of gods and myths. The solace breeds arrogance. The arrogance is screaming into the void that they cannot admit. The void is the delusion that the Unknowable is simply unknown and can become known.
Gay or straight…cis or trans…you are righteous. For that is how you experience the Divine within you (that also is without you).
This is the third substack post that will discuss my free online novel Brandon Gets His Big Break, an idea-centric book. Now, I’ve copped to a special fondness for George Orwell and Albert Camus (in a prior substack): they were thinkers that presented their thoughts by telling stories. I’m a thinker as well. Perhaps my thoughts are ultimately just crap. But I think them. I want to present them. And I want to do so by telling stories.
We are of the Divine. We exist and that existence is a miracle. The miraculous defies definition. Almost always, the word is used differently. A ‘miracle’ exists to be defined. That definition gives perceived order: the perception – however – is a lie. There is that which is beyond definition. And that ties everything together: that is the Divine.
If this supposed Divine is beyond definition, then how can I define it? Or know that the Divine even exists? Oh, I can’t and don’t.
I have beliefs but my definition of that word is different than the common one. Belief and knowledge are two unique concepts. Out of narcissism, a person tries to conflate belief with knowledge. While my belief structures my personal understanding, only knowledge is of practical value. My beliefs are speculative. I own that. But I like the speculation. I reject the mania that all opinions must be provable and the delusion that proof does not matter.
I am fond of Eastern Philosophy and not Western. Perspectives like Buddhism and Taoism knowingly discuss the Unknowable and present conclusions about it. If you ‘read between the lines’, these philosophies know that they are talking about things that defy discussion. I sense great humility in Eastern perspectives. Even a didactic approach – like Zen – that is really opiniated and presents a structured approach to living is consciously shot through with an appreciation that linear thought is limited ( a strength and not a weakness).
I’m going to start throwing facts out. I encourage you to verify them (if needed).
According to Buddhism reality is called dharma or dhamma. Dharma refers to the system of natural laws which constitute the natural order of things. But Gautama Buddha – the founder of Buddhism – taught a method by which people could develop an awareness – not conscious connection – to the Dharma.
And I call the Dharma the One: I then call the One Divine.
Buddhism tell us that a person develops an awareness of reality (Dharma or – my nomenclature – One) by breaking free of existential suffering. This suffering arises from embracing delusion that is meant to provide structure to that which eludes structure. A person is unable to perceive the harsh truth that everything is impermanent: everything dies or crumbles. Now this dates me. I was a fan of the progressive rock band Kansas in high school. Their song Dust In The Wind is from their 1977 album Point of Know Return. Google the lyrics.
A person breaks free of the delusion through mindfulness and meditation. Clearing away the delusion, the person is able to embrace understanding. This understanding is rooted in a form of knowledge that is beyond the intellectual. Buddhism does not disparage the intellect and its pursuits. However, intellectual knowledge is not able to dispel the crippling delusions. Because that requires going beyond the limitations of linear thought.
Buddhism thus seeks to address any disparity between a person's view of reality and the actual state of things. This is called developing Right or Correct View (Pali: samma ditthi). According to Buddha's teaching, seeing ‘reality as-it-is’ is an essential prerequisite to mental health and well-being.
This is what ‘Brandon’ is about. But such ideas are in the background. That’s why I’m writing these substacks. I’m explaining themes of the book that might not be obvious to the reader. If the internet existed in 1942 - when Albert Camus wrote The Stranger (French: L'Étranger, lit. 'The Foreigner'), he may have done this.
The additional explanation by Camus may have been beneficial to the reader. In his1956 analysis of the novel, Carl Viggiani wrote:
On the surface, ‘L'Étranger’ gives the appearance of being an extremely simple though carefully planned and written book. In reality, it is a dense and rich creation, full of undiscovered meanings and formal qualities. It would take a book at least the length of the novel to make a complete analysis of meaning and form and the correspondences of meaning and form, in ‘L'Étranger’.
I agree with Buddhism that connecting to ‘reality as-it-is’ means going beyond linear thought. When a person goes beyond linear thought, he or she connects to the One or the Divine. And the One is both within and without that person. In the subsequent substacks, I’m going to dig into ‘Brandon’ a bit by referencing the ideas introduced in my first two substacks (and more). For example, major characters are unable to connect to the One – and this connection is central to the realization of meaning – because this natural connection is blocked by external actors.
As a young woman, Amy was mocked and abused for being an intelligent lesbian by her evangelical mother and their larger community (her mom’s church). Her mother attempts to murder her when she’s a teen – in a very disturbing way – for being gay. As a result, adult Amy has great difficulty fully embracing either her intellect or sexuality: these things are her connection to the Divine. It’s only through the full embrace of one’s fundamental nature is a connection to the One realized.
Jane is both queer and a Jew (I’m both as well). Her pervasive fear of antisemitism – the pernicious interference of external actors – keeps her from fully embracing these noble qualities. And these are noble because their full embrace is integral to her connection of the Divine.
Jane and Amy help each other to connect to their respective authentic self. By connecting to one’s authentic self, a person connects to the Divine.
A woman’s lesbianism – for example – is part of her authentic self, that which is integral to her connection to the Divine. But people shame her for it and that frustrates the realization of her fundamental self.
In these substacks, I am going to identify and discuss esoteric qualities that are the gateway to the realization of the Divine: sexual essence and intellect among them.
It is not exclusively the judgement and persecution by others that would keep our lesbian friend from the realization of the Divine. While her lesbianism is inherently honorable, it would frustrate her connection to the Divine if she used it dishonorably. For example, she promises her partner to be monogamous but sleeps around. As I eluded to in my second substack Self, Ethics and Your Sexual Essence, a person is inherently good.
A person’s authentic self was birthed in the primordial soup. A full embrace of this perpetuates social harmony. Maintaining this harmony is an evolutionary imperative. Being good comes not from a deity or scripture but is an expression of authentic self. If someone shames another for that person's authentic self - or expresses self in a duplicitous manner - that person is denying his or her authentic self because that creates disharmony.
So...be cool.
Meaning is found within because that is what lies without. 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 credit Elliot Page with helping me develop the philosophy that is reflected in ‘Brandon’. (and discussed in the companion substacks).
As I discuss in the ‘Prologue’ – an autobiographical section before the novel – I was kept from being my authentic self by external actors (my parents and the medical establishment). Since I go into some detail about this in the ‘Prologue’, I’ll just quickly recap. The messed-up influence of these external actors both turned me into a raging alcoholic and caused the overprescription of a needed – but indescribably dangerous – drug. The overprescription caused numerous profound side effects (both physical and psychological). This situation bedeviled me from my teens to my mid-fifties. So, external actors denied me my authentic self. I’ve worked through it. I’m clear headed and sober (except for pot which I love, LOL).
I want to say this as clearly as possible. I believe everything that Mr. Page says about himself. 100%. While not trans, I want Mr. Page to know that his book - Pageboy - changed my life. I want him to further know that this change caused my view of trans to evolve: from the knee jerk support of a political lefty to one of sincere advocacy.
I mentioned earlier that Albert Camus may have used the internet to expound on his philosophy of Absurdism if it existed in the 1940’s. While I honestly don’t know about this, Camus might have been indebted to contemporaries – who he did not know – for either his philosophy, an expression of his sense of meaning.
Would he have used the internet to reach out to these positive influences?
I pretty much worked through things when I read Mr. Page’s memoir Page Boy. Reading it may not have resolved my problems – or even – gotten me on the path where I was actively resolving them. However, my messy past finally made sense after I read it. That was huge. When dealing with a huge existential problem, focus is need. He provided me that.
While our respective life circumstances are totally different, each of us were kept from being our authentic self by others. And, in my take, that kept each of us from connecting to the Divine.
For that reason, I would be totally blown away if Mr. Page consented to a brief Zoom. But he’s this super-cool guy and I’m just another internet rando.
Still…
I want to talk to him for two reasons.
ONE: I want to talk to him because I’m writing ‘Brandon’ to help me work through my issues over being denied from being my authentic self. I don’t journal: I write fiction. By writing this fiction, I force myself to think about my life in constructive manner. As of 17 January 2024, I’m working on Chapter 12 (of a proposed 20). His input – his thoughtful perspective – would improve the product. Since writing ‘Brandon’ is a contemplative exercise, his input would improve me as person.
TWO: He’s cool. And he’s a cool guy who had a very positive impact on me. It’s said that you shouldn’t meet your heroes. That’s BS. You just have to pick the right people to be your heroes.
But he’s this super-cool guy and I’m just another internet rando.
Still…
He might find my ideas provocative and like to discuss them further. He might be curious about the face and voice behind these words.
Regardless…
I’d be blown away if he made that choice. And, if he were so inclined, my contact information is at www.johnswriting.org.
I don’t want to make him feel uncomfortable, but a fella has to try. I don’t want to pester the Brother – and mentioned this elsewhere in my ‘Brandon’ writings – but wanted to mention it one last time. I will not mention this again in any future writings. If he decides to speak to me, I’ll take that to my grave and never mention it. I respect his privacy.
Regardless…
I hope that you keep reading these substacks for more about my ideas about authentic self and stuff.
Namaste & Shalom,
John