THE GREAT SWINDLE

CONTENTS

• Occidental Mind-Set
  • Not the Only Mind-Set
  • Oriental Mind-Set
  • Earlier Occidental Mind-Set
• 'Falling' in "love"
  • Affair of the 'Heart'
  • Why Not Follow the Heart?
• What is 'Love'?
• LOVE
• LOVE vs. "love"
• "love"
  • Infatuation
  • Sex
  • Reproductive Drive
  • Pair Bonding
  • 'Magnetism' / "love" at First Sight
  • Mind  is The  Errogenous Zone
    • Romantic & Sexual Fantasies
    • Sexual Projection
      • Polarities
      • Gender a Matter of 'Plumbing'
      • Sexual 'Perversions'
      • Masturbation / Sex Education?
  • Romantic Attraction / Infatuation

• FRIEND / friend
• "lovers" & FRIENDS
• Four Steps to FRIENDship
• For the Children's Sake
• FRIENDS & New Extended Families
• Relationships

Of the many things that can be said about romantic "love" between a man and a woman, the truest and most enduring statement that can be made about it is that it is deceptive. It never turns out the way we thought it would. It is always disappointing.

Yet, despite the illusionary quality of romantic "love", many people, too many, immersed in the thought patterns of Western Civilization, chase after it, yearn for it, and harbor within their hearts seemingly forever (and against all setbacks and heart breaking experiences with it), the BELIEF that romantic "love" is somehow the basis for, and the best path to finding, the highest and best fulfillment in life.

In just these first two paragraphs we have set out the essence of our ingrained BELIEFS about the high value of romantic "love", and the sum total of the cynicism we all develop about it after having tasted of it.

In just these two paragraphs, we have stated the paradox we all experience with romantic "love", which paradox bedevils those of us with the mind-set of Western culture, seemingly to the end of our days.

We don't trust it. Yet, we keep looking and aching for it.

In stating the paradox of romantic "love", we also made mention of a factor which plays a more important role in making it the paradox it is than many people realize.

We are speaking now of the thought patterns of western culture; western society's 'mind-set'.

This is an important concept in not only this discussion of romantic "love", but with respect to most, if not all, of the other Grand Distractors as well.

By specifying that we are speaking only of Western  (Occidental) Civilization or culture, we mean to say that we are dealing only with those people who have been raised in, and thereby molded by, Western - Occidental - ideas and outlooks.

This qualification carries with it two very important FACTS about human life, and modes of thinking, that must not be overlooked, if any genuine TRUTH is to be gleaned from this discussion.

First, the Occidental mind-set is neither the only one possible, nor the only one that exists in the world today.

It is, for a FACT, a dominant mind-set in the world, and it is our  mind-set -- which is to say it is the mind-set of those who authored this writing, and of those who are most likely to read it - which definitely makes it an important mind-set -- at least to 'us'.

(If this sounds reminiscent of the 'Us' vs.'Them' Syndrome, that similarity is intentional. 'Us' vs.'Them', along with its other negative qualities, also carries with it the ethnocentric attitude on the part of each 'Us' that 'our' way of seeing "reality" and the world is the only way anyone can, or 'should', see them.)

But, the Occidental mind-set is not the only mind-set around. There are other mind-sets which have developed out of human experience which are definitely not Occidental.

The most obvious and well known mind-set which is not Occidental, is that which we of the Occidental world call Oriental, ie., Eastern.

And, there are several others.

Every group of human beings whose culture has developed independently of either Occidental or Oriental civilization (ie., indigenous cultures and tribes in Africa, the Americas and Australia), has also developed its own mind-set unique unto itself, which cannot accurately be grouped with any other mind-set.

And, there is one more important clarification which must be understood.

We are speaking here of mind-set and not genealogy. A person of Japanese, Arabic, African or any other ancestry who has been immersed in the Occidental mind-set during his upbringing, is as surely of an Occidental mind-set as someone so raised who happens to be of some European stock. And, vice versa. It is not the genes of our ancestors, but the attitudes and thought forces of the culture in which we are raised, that determines our mind-set.

Now, to draw the point from the qualifications we have gone to such pains to make as to the difference between Occidental and non-Occidental mind-sets.

The high value and importance attached to the notion of romantic "love", is found primarily, if not solely, in the minds of those of us who have been raised, and who live, in the Western, ie., Occidental mind-set.

By way of comparison, let's take a look at the Oriental mind-set in this regard.

The Oriental mind-set places no such importance on the notion of romantic "love" as does the Occidental.

There are the concepts of a father and a mother (in recognition of a biological fact of life); a husband and a wife (a societal structure based upon and designed to deal with the biological fact of fathering and mothering); and ranked far above even these concepts, is the concept of the family.

But by family, the Oriental mind-set isn't focused on just daddy and mommy and the little kiddies (ie., the nuclear family as we know it). The Oriental view of family is the extended family, including all of one's ancestors, all of one's descendants, and many of one's collateral blood relatives.

The concept of romantic "love" plays absolutely no role in structuring these familial relationships. Indeed, one's spouse is not even considered a direct member of one's blood family, but, rather, as an adjunct to it.

Economic and social factors are taken into consideration in the formation of nuclear families; not factors of romantic "love".

For the traditional Oriental, whatever meaning or value there might be in romantic "love", he found it with geisha girls or in other adulterous relationships. They did not try to mix it into the equation of successful marriage or family.

Finally, with respect to the role of mind-set in relation to the notion of romantic "love, while it is only we of the Occidental mind-set who attach the high degree of significance to it that we do, even we haven't always done so.

Not so many years back, even we of the Occidental mind-set considered the extended family to be of the highest importance, and marriages between men and women were arranged according to the dictates of family elders, who, in making such decisions, concerned themselves only with the economic and social enhancement of the two families so united. Whatever notions of romantic "love" that may or may not have arisen during those earlier times, they were considered irrelevant, and certainly nothing to be taken into serious consideration in arranging marital unions.

In short, whatever romantic "love" is, and whatever its true value may be, it is something which has been accepted in human society as having any high degree of importance in the formation of marriages, only in the Western mind-set, and even there, only relatively recently. It is definitely not a notion that has, at least as yet, earned the stamp of approval of human society in general, or of human history as a whole.

Of course, the mere fact that placing such high value on romantic "love" is only relatively new, and only in the Western mind, doesn't necessarily disprove its value or validity. After all, we Westerners of recent vintage may have seen the light as to the value of a concept that all others simply weren't yet in a position to appreciate.

There is weight to that viewpoint which must be acknowledged. All we intend to suggest at this juncture is, that while simply because something is new and Western doesn't necessarily make it wrong, and perhaps makes it very right, we must still acknowledge the FACTS as they are. Right or wrong, of value or not, romantic "love", as being of significance in forming marriages, is only Western, and only recent.

Now to the concept itself.

In dealing with the concept of romantic "love", it seems reasonable and appropriate to investigate the traits which we Westerners so consistently ascribe to it.

Firstly, it is something we 'fall into'.

It is neither expected nor insisted that entering into a state of "love" is something any of us can consciously will ourselves into.

In fact, anyone who might claim to be able to consciously control his or her ability to enter into the state of being 'in love', would be highly suspect as being either a 'phony', or as having missed the point of 'falling in love' completely. If we can control it, we can't 'fall into' it. And, if we can't 'fall into' it, it can't be "real".

Secondly, while there aren't any coldly scientific methods of determining when we have 'fallen in love', or any such methods of determining when such "love" is the "real" thing, there are some indicators which can help us along.

When we are thinking about the one we "love", we are in a state of euphoria. We are on 'cloud nine', 'six feet off the ground', and all the world and everything in it is nothing but beautiful. We hear bells ringing when there are none around, we hear birds singing on a rainy day, and we just feel tingly all over. There is no accurate way to describe this state of being in words, but we will somehow "know" it when it is there, and when it is "real".

Also, when we are with or thinking about the person who generates within us the kinds of feelings we have just described, we want to have children with that person, spend the rest of our entire lives with that person, living happily ever after, and we "know" that we will do so and that every thing will work out just fine.

And looking at these generally accepted attributes of romantic "love", we can discern a common thread running through and between them. Indeed, that common thread, upon closer examination, appears to be, in actuality, the essence of all of them. Each of these attributes is really a different way of expressing the same thing - emotional excitation.

After all, what is "love" if not an affair of the 'heart'?

And, what does the heart signify to we of western culture, if not emotion?

Emotion, as distinguished from rational intellect. 'Feelings', as distinguished from 'thought'.

We 'fall' in "love". We don't think our way into it.

When teenagers feel this way, it is called 'puppy love' and is patronized as being 'cute', but fantasy. Put about three more years or so on it, and it can qualify as the "real" thing.

But what is so wrong with going with our feelings as distinguished from, or even opposed to, our intellect?

Haven't we of the western mind-set been so enthralled with the intellectual and scientific side of our beings that we have raised it far above the ability of our spiritual/emotional side to endure? Don't we need to reestablish our intellectual and spiritual/emotional equilibrium; to find a way to allow our spiritual/emotional side to reassert itself as an equal alongside our intellectual side?

There is nothing wrong with that. There is something very right about it.

Indeed, it is our recognition of all that is very right about paying attention to and trusting in one's own feelings and intuitions, that is the key to how we have allowed the notion of romantic "love" to overflow its proper bounds and create this Grand Distractor.

Our emotions are very real and very powerful. They are, indeed, a very important part of who and what we are as living beings. Without question, were it not for our feelings, and our spirituality, life would be about as meaningful and enjoyable for us as existence as robots.

So, here we are extolling the virtues of human spirituality and emotion, and yet, at the same time, questioning their validity as factors in their highest and most important phase, ie., in matters of "love".

Have we created a paradox here?

Not really.

As with all paradoxes, the seeming self-contradiction is only a surface appearance - an illusion created by looking at the situation incorrectly.

So, let's get below the surface, and take a more accurate look at this whole subject.

What is 'love'?

How many times have you and your friends (or even 'lovers', for that matter) bounced that question off one another? How many times have you pondered and queried and sincerely tried to fathom the essence of love? And, in so doing, how much luck have you had in coming up with an answer that really works? Be honest. Have you ever come up with an answer that truly satisfies your own questions about the nature and essence of human love?

Probably not.

And the very fact that you, and all your friends, after all your pondering and searching and experimenting with love, still haven't answered the question as to what love really is, raises yet another question. A question of threshold importance in understanding not only why we call romantic "love" a Grand Distractor, but also in understanding the very nature of human love itself.

Here we have a basic, essential and extremely potent quality within us, ie., love, and yet we can't define it. We're not really sure what it is.

Why is that?

Could that very fact be telling us something?

We know that we love our parents, and members of our own biological family, and our children and friends (well, some of them anyway, at least some of the time, and to some extent).

And, those of us who are sufficiently developed within ourselves, will also allow ourselves to know that we love ourselves, as the individuals we are, and without any Conceit of Self in that love.

We may be displeased with any of these people at any time. We may occasionally even be extremely angry with them. But when the chips are down, we love them, and we KNOW it.

And, that, at least in some part, is LOVE.

Human LOVE is very REAL, very powerful and very beautiful.

It is as powerful and beautiful as human anger is powerful and destructive.

And what is it, when it is boiled down to its essence?

It is the total acceptance of another person as that person is. It is an absolute and total acceptance of that person in his good points, his bad points, his in-between points, and otherwise. No matter how badly he might fail you; no matter under what circumstances he might abandon you; no matter how badly he might mistreat you (or you him); he is important to you simply because he is the person he is. You can rejoice with him in his successes, empathize with him in his hurts and failures, and forgive him his weaknesses.

To put it more concisely, the definition of genuine  human LOVE is:

That's it!

That is what there is to it, and all  there is to it.

And, the problem with romantic "love" (and other kinds of so called "love" as well) is that we have taken this very elemental, and sublimely beautiful, part of our nature as human beings, and tried to apply it to aspects of our nature in which it does not fit.

We have taken a size twelve foot - LOVE - and tried to cram it into a size two shoe (romantic attraction), and have given this mismatch the name of "love".

There is a pinch there; an unavoidable pinch. And it hurts each one of us.

Yet, rather than realize that the pain comes from trying to squeeze the grandiose part of our nature which LOVE is, into the confines of a more limited part of our nature (romantic attraction), we lay the blame for that pain on Love, itself.

Why do we do this?

Because we have chosen to call the romantic attraction between men and women "love".

By so calling it, we have confused true human LOVE with those feelings of romantic attraction. And, by confusing those two powerful attributes of our own humanity, we have confused ourselves.

So, let's make a deal between ourselves to eliminate this confusion. Let's agree to be a little more precise and careful in the words we use to define the concepts involved here. (By so doing, you will be amazed at how quickly the situation will clarify itself in your mind, and how easily and quickly all the pieces you could not put together up until now will all fall readily into place).

First off, let's agree that there is such a thing as LOVE (as we have just defined it) in our human makeup. Because there most assuredly is. And, it is the greatest, most powerful, and most beautiful aspect of what each and everyone of us are as human beings.

And, let's agree to take care to see to it that when we refer to a feeling or set of feelings, or state of being, as LOVE, that it is, in FACT, this powerful and beautiful aspect of our nature we are referring to, and not something else.

Let's solemnly commit between ourselves that before we will ever again use the term LOVE to describe a state of being or a relationship between people (any people; man-woman, parent- child, friend-friend), to be certain that that state of being or relationship genuinely and totally falls within our careful definition of LOVE.

If any feeling, or set of feelings, or state of being does not fit within that definition, let's not  call it LOVE. Let's call it anything but  LOVE. Surely we can think up some other name to call all those other states of being which do not REALLY qualify as LOVE.

Surely we must  !

For as long as we allow ourselves to call that which is not genuine LOVE by the same name, we shall remain mired in the confusion of mind which that confusion of terms has created for us. And so long as we allow that confusion, we shall continue to suffer the personal and social tragedies of broken dreams, broken hearts, broken families, and emotionally devastated children which that confusion has brought about.

So, what is this highly charged romantic state of being really all about?

And, if we can't call it LOVE, what shall we call it?

Let's take a closer look.

Let's begin by going back to those attributes which are generally attached to that romantic state, ie., 'falling' into euphoria, a desire for closeness, etc.

What is all this?

Well, it is definitely emotion. And the emotion and attraction involved are definitely powerful.

But, can that emotion and attraction fairly be termed LOVE as we have agreed to define it? Is it selfless, totally accepting and unconditional caring about the other person? 

No, let's face it. Whatever the romantic attraction is between men and women, it is not LOVE. It is something else.

So, what is it?

The dictionary defines 'infatuation' as, 'To be inspired by an unrestrained and foolish admiration or love'.

The key descriptors here are 'foolish' and 'unrestrained'. Any problem with those descriptions?

Have you ever been in such an emotional state? Most likely you have.

And, prior to reading this, you may very well have referred to that state as having been 'in love' (which error we have now agreed to correct- haven't we?).

And, having been in such a state, you are by now no doubt aware of just how foolish and unrestrained you were while in that state. 

Does 'infatuation' not adequately describe and define the set of feelings and state of being surrounding the relationship and attraction between a man and a woman which we heretofore called being 'in love'?

Well, not quite.

There is at least one additional element, isn't there?

And it, like LOVE (the genuine LOVE) is one of the most powerful and beautiful aspects of who and what we are as human beings.

And that element, to put it directly, is sex.

We say that unabashedly and unashamedly.

There is nothing wrong with sex. There is something very right about it.

The sexual drive within each of us, and the sexual attraction between us, is as potent a drive as our bodies have been imbued with, and as beautiful an aspect of our nature as living beings that God has given us, other than our capacity for LOVE.

How can it be anything other than right (despite what you may have been taught to the contrary)?

Unless, of course, we permit it to detract from our ability to LOVE, which we so often do, in which case it is definitely wrong  !

In order to better understand this, let's take a closer look at what this purely sexual attraction is all about.

As reproductive beings, there is no question that our drive for sex, purely as sex, is based upon our drive for procreation.

But if that were all there is to it, we would rut like all the other animals do, without any further ado, and be on our way.

But we don't do this. At least, most of us don't.

Most of us are looking for something 'more'.

And even those of us who do seem to be in a 'rut and run' approach, when asked about it, will admit to looking for something 'more' as well, but just not having found it yet.

So, what is that something 'more' that we humans are looking for?

There are examples of other species in the animal kingdom (eg., certain species of birds) in which mates form a pair bond that lasts for their lifetimes.

And this same type of almost genetic desire for pair bonding no doubt plays a role in the mating attraction between men and women as well.

Yet, such a desire for pair bonding doesn't work too well with us. Such animals as do pair bond know nothing of adultery or divorce. They are monogamous, and it lasts for a lifetime.

So, there must be still something else at work here.

Many people have experienced the instantaneous 'spark' of attraction in which the eyes 'lock', and seem to communicate almost subliminally, and both parties feel a sexual arousal and attraction.

What is this all about?

Is it just 'pure' sex?

If it is just sex, why does it happen so rarely? Why doesn't it happen every time members of the opposite sex meet, whoever they might happen to be, so long as their sexual hormone cycles are at the right stage?

No, there is still something more at work here.

Our bodies are imbued with certain physical errogenous zones. We won't go into them here, because we all know what they are, and there are plenty of other writings available on the subject.

But, the simple FACT is, unless it is actually a case of pure sex, which it sometimes is, but not usually, our physical errogenous zones don't become activated until an even more basic errogenous zone swings into action.

And that basic errogenous zone within us is our mind .

And, therein lies the answer to that something 'more' we are looking for, in addition to just pure procreative sex.

It is the mind that is the source of our 'fantasies' about sex and romance.

And it is the fulfillment of our so-called 'fantasies' about sex and romance, that is the something 'more' we are looking for in our mates.

And it is highly instructive, and unfortunate, that we call these sexual and romantic qualities in our minds 'fantasies'.

Indeed, it is Swindlous  that we do so.

Because, to call them 'fantasies' is to deny their REALITY.

And in denying their REALITY, we shut ourselves off to an inner voice that is trying very hard to speak to us of a far more fundamental REALITY, than is simple procreative sex.

Instead of giving credence to that inner voice which is trying to teach us about a genuine spiritual  REALITY, and thereby allow it to become REAL in our lives, we denigrate it as speaking mere 'fantasy', and thereby totally misunderstand what the voice is saying, and thoroughly confuse ourselves.

And that is where most of us are today. We look upon that inner voice as being 'fantasy', and, as a result, we all but totally misunderstand what its message is all about. And, in trying to make at least some sense out of a fundamentally misunderstood situation, we confuse LOVE and spiritual growth with what now become genuine fantasies  about Romantic "love".

So, what is that inner voice REALLY all about?