The whole idea of romantic relations may be a social construct

I had this wacky train of thought come to me.
Hope viewers of this post find it entertaining/interesting.

The whole idea of romantic relationship is a societal/cultural/civilizational/human-organization based construct.
If all humans just lived wild,
Males would randomly have sex with 100s of women, and probably have 30-40 children each or more.
The male would not know who his child is.
Also, there seems to be no easily observable causality linking the sexual act to the consequence of pregnancy, and the consequent children that come from that.

There is just a wild instinctual desire for the male.
Similarly women too feel this same wild desire, in certain time periods, and depending on their mood they may run away, resist, or allow the sex to happen.
The man in his prime years would probably be more motivated, since he can easily manage to do 1 or 2 every day without any time-off periods.

The things is, after the sex, the woman too may not be able to causally connect the act of sex to the pregnancy that happens after.
Could she not take it as something that just naturally happened from God?
So the causality is not known from either side, male or female.

The female would bond with the child from the oxytocin and breastfeeding period, and that bond may result in the child and mother recognizing each other.
But there is no way the child will know the father, and neither will the father know.
It could be anybody.
If the woman has had sex with 5 men in a day, and gets pregnant, how would she have any idea who caused the child OR if the 5 acts had anything to do with the child at all?
The first symptoms of pregnancy after all come much later, probably a fortnight later at least, right?

Another aspect is that, if the child grows up away from the mother from a young age, it is doubtful if the mother can recognize the child.
The child may recognize the mother, because her age may not change her appearance as much in the 15-45 zone, but even that may not be easy.

So it seems like the entire notion of civilization/society is to regulate birth and to ensure the spread of resources to everyone.
By putting the responsibility on the father, the father is deterred from following his raw instinct and seeking new mates.
Similarly, a responsibility is also put on the mother, to take care of the child for much longer than she might have otherwise done.
The socialization/enculturation/civilization process is to suppress the sex instinct’s wildness, and instead redirect it into the structures of society, that is, to gain status/position/rank and then seek out the opp-sex of similar status/position/rank etc.
This I guess spawns the whole matrix of mating/romantic fantasy and social status/rank/position/specialness.
The fantasy of being the elite and mating with other elite,
Like the notion of kings/queens, emperors/empresses, prince/princesses and so on.

Names are used in societal organization to TAG the person.
It is an identifier similar to your debit card number, social security number and so on.
Similarly even the roles of mother/father are tags society puts on folk.
Like XXX is the mother of XXXX —–OR—— XXXX is the father of XXXX.
Also the agreement of marriage itself, is really a contract/agreement that serves the children who will be born from the mating of the 2.

Marriage was essentially a system created for the bringing up of children.
Nowadays people use it for companionship, but that is a conscious contract of sort, and it does not have much binding, since both the parties are independent.
It is only the child that is born helpless, and needs a lot of nurture at least till the age of 10.

There seems to big rift in the way “natural biology drives/impulses/instincts” operate and in the way we view everything from the “societal/cultural/civilizational lens”.
The former is generally subsumed into the latter in the process of socialization.
I guess, based on seeing the consequences, ramifications, and aftermath, birth causation etc. – Wise people with vision created systems such as culture/society/civilization to organize and regulate the different drives so that the system could serve in the longer term as a win-win for everyone.
Society/Culture then seems like a long distance vision of how people can live together and mutually fulfill all their needs .
As more needs get satisfied, people may become conscious of finer and subtler needs, which would gradually make their way into modifying society’s formal or informal structures.

Programming, Judgment, Disowning, and Projection

You want to have sex or relations,
With the qualities that you are not identified with,
But want to include in yourself and identify with.

This would apply even to attractions to even what we refer to as negative.
For instance, say you are attracted to abusers, manipulators, selfish/exploitative, uncaring, angry others,
That means you like their “service to self” quality,
Which is something you would desire to include into yourself.
But it may be too difficult to own because of your heavy identification with its opposite.

Our soul is precisely attracted to the qualities of other souls,
Which we need to balance/null/neutralize/complete ourselves.
The flow chart would be something like this:
The programming structures -> Perception/Vision -> Judgment -> Disowning -> Projection of qualities (which become others).
Then we attract all others with that projected quality,
Because it is too difficult to own that in ourselves.
It would require a lot of transformation and rewiring to include those aspects too.

This applies to both what we judge as good and bad in others.
We may project the judged good qualities out, because we may believe we are not worthy of them.
We may project the judged bad qualities out, because we may hold on to an ideal of ourselves and these bad qualities may be ruining that ideal.

A quality may contradict the very identity we currently have.
So we judge -> disown -> and then project it.
So what this means is, all others are your own projected qualities.
All attraction or repulsion is from disowning.
However when these disowned qualities are witnessed as others, it creates resonance.
The resonance of aspects of ourselves we do not like = disliked ppl.
The resonance of aspects of ourselves we do like = liked ppl.

It is not that you “Actually Are” all the others you perceive.
Rather, you are your perception/experience of them, i.e. how ‘you’ see them.
You can only know them to the extent that you are willing to see,
Which is actually the same as your willingness to see and know yourself.

It is like the analogy of the ‘Blind men and the elephant’.
Each starts off at their point of view and explores/owns/projects their reality from there.
The ultimate reality is our true nature, but we ascend to that stage by stage in evolution.
It is every being’s deepest longing to realize this.

Creativity is a lot like orgasm

What is the process that leads to orgasm?
Arousal (build up) -> Increasing focus/pleasure/interest/intensity to more and more coherence -> Reaching highest coherence point, the peak attainment -> And then sliding back down with fulfillment/peace/relief/relaxation.

This is a kind of energy pattern:
It feels like all creation comes out of this energy pattern.

A man is born from an “innate inspiration energy/force” – maybe a combination of his own karmic desire and the biological desire for reproduction.
Then there is this will/desire to live/explore/conquer/experience/gather/collect/amass.
The individual then reaches his peak and enjoys the peak satisfaction and attainments.
Thereafter the energies recede into quietude and death,
Where the fire now becomes burning embers, and finally gets extinguished in ash.
The man is no more, and then there shall once again be this explosive inspiration power/energy that can bring him back into existence, to achieve/attain/actualize a new goal/possibility/ideal/inspiration.

All the way from the big bang to the mundane,
There are many day to day things that also have this process:
Making a consumer electronic purchase = similar to an orgasm.
Arousal(Research) -> Increasing immersion/interest/focus/pleasure -> Purchase(orgasm) -> Enjoyment of purchase (exploration, enjoyment, relaxation)

Even making art/writing is similar to an orgasm = the inspiration comes into you = you get immersed and give it form and then reach the peak coherence (completion of the work).

So there are many orgasms of various kinds in one’s life.
The ego itself is an orgasmic journey: From its source desire to its completion/attainment (Kohut’s tension arc in psychological terms).
Sort of like a firecracker, that moves towards the sky with great intensity/power and then “BOOM”, splatters and falls down in a shimmer.

The ascent to Shiva and descent to Maya

The influx into the earth plane of density,
And the vacating of the earth plane of density,
Are like Shiva moving in and out of Prakriti/Maya/Matter.
This is birth and death.

Breathing/Heartbeat/Sex/Birth-Death,
Waking-Sleeping/Day-Night/Light-Darkness,
All of this goes in-out, in-out, in-out…
In a state of vibration.
Like a dazzling flashing strobe in consciousness.

At the microcosmic the vibrations are incredibly rapid,
While in the macrocosmic, the flux of day and night takes 24 hours say.
We find ourselves in the middle.
Macrocosmic(slower vibration) —“Us/We”— Microcosmic(faster vibration)
Maybe for the earth, each of our lifetimes is equal to a blink on an eye for it.
The life forms on earth would be like multicolored sparking,
And shimmering coming from a revolving diamond in the presence of light.

We are experiencing all of our lifetime in this unique perspective.
As a mote on earth, living what feels like around 85 years of lifetime.
What a wonder it is!,
When all of our life is seen from such an expanded perspective.

Why is motherhood worshipped but sexuality demonized?

A deep trend I observe in society is:
Maternal instinct is deified —while— Sexual instinct is demonized.
Are they not the 2 sides of the same coin?
Ultimately isn’t the sexual instinct prior to the maternal instinct itself?
How would the children even happen without sex?
The mother’s urge to play and protect the child, is it not the same as the male’s urge to protect and play with the opposite-sex?
Why is the sexual instinct and mothering instinct treated like they belong to 2 different levels of reality?
Aren’t both of them part of the same nature?
And it is totally prevalent across the entire animal kingdom.
What gives the mothering instinct is also driven by hormones only, just as all of sex-instinct too is driven by hormones.
Why is the mothering instinct elevated to a different level of reality?
It is considered a blasphemy even to think about it.
This is a vast topic, but just wanted to share this as food for thought.

A fantasy of sex and union

Why can’t all women fully surrender,
And receive sex from all men unconditionally? freely?
Why can’t all men fully surrender,
And give sex to all women unconditionally? freely?
With no judgments, rules, restrictions, laws, and boundaries?
Why can’t we just live in an “endless orgy” until we leave this plane?
Why can’t everything just have sex with everything else all the time?
Why can’t there be limitless pleasure of libido?
Instead of it happening just for seconds at a time as the orgasm?
Why can’t everyone just be in an eternal orgasm?
Why can’t all control just end?
Why can’t everything just merge and flow as one?
With no concept of possession?
Where all “desire” is instantly received everywhere and instantly gratified?
Why can’t there be free-love everywhere?
Why can’t there be no disease, suffering, pain, resistance etc.?
Wish there was no such thing as self-preservation,
And its consequent emotions of disgust/fear/threat.
Wish everything just mingled into one flow/dance.
With the cohesion of water, and like a single emerging grand tapestry.
Where “everyone and everything” transforms “everyone and everything”.
And where everyone is part of the hologram, but identified with the whole hologram and its total play.

Sex would not have issues if there was enough love

The whole sex issue would not exist at all if there was enough love.
If there was enough love:
# The woman would love the man, and will freely receive him, allowing him to fully express himself to her physically.
# The man would freely love the woman, and will fully give himself physically to her.

This would not apply just to sex, which is one of the needs.
It would extent to everything.
Needs will be sensed naturally by the other and fulfilled without any force/violence.

There would be no resistance at all from either side, from the yin or yang.
The yang would pour itself into the yin whole-heartedly.
The yin would receive the yang whole-heartedly.
Creating an eternal dance.

Think of the ideal child and mother relationship.
The mother senses the needs of the child naturally, and effortlessly attunes herself to the child.
Supposing this was less that ideal, what would happen?
The child would have to struggle, cry, scream, beg, plead, throw things, and try to desperately get attention, because it is helpless to fulfill itself.
If nothing worked, it would feel powerless and despaired, and just resign.
Now would such a child have ANY TRUST in the world?
The trust in the world really begins from the mother.
That would be a different topic to explore.

A man represents potential/shiva/power.
A woman represents projection/shakti/creation.
A man rejecting woman = potential rejecting creation.
A woman rejecting man = creation rejecting potential.

Love and light go together

I define love as ‘the willingness to see’.
I define light as ‘the seeing’ itself.
Love and light go together because your ‘seeing’ and your ‘willingness to see’ are highly intertwined.
In fact, they are one and the same.
So, I could use “Love/Light” as a single term.
Because, in deeper truth, you see something only from your willingness to see.
In other words, your seeing is a manifestation of your love.
Deeper you love, deeper and finer is your seeing itself.
If you have no love for something, or no willingness to see it, then you won’t see the thing at all.

Let’s consider the various physical drives/hungers:
# Hunger = is what makes you think about food, that is what allows you to even see food.
# Thirst = is what makes you think about drinks, that is what allows you to even see drinks.
# Sexual charge = is what makes you think about sex, that is what allows you to even see the opp-sex, as the opp-sex.
# Impressions appetite = is what makes you seek experiences, that is what allows you to even see those possibilities and pursue them.
These are all hungers, and “the seeing” arises from “the hungers” themselves.
The hunger is what ENABLES you to see at all.

# The hunger which we call love = is the infinite willingness and desire to see and understand all of existence as it is.
Your light/seeing is only proportional to the level of love/willingness in you.
The love is the potential/willingness/desire/hunger, which emanates as the light that let’s you see anything at all.