Social Policy for the 21st Century
“The Tao of Love”
“Toward a Functional Understanding of Love”
“On the True Nature of Human Sexuality”
“The Demonization of Adult-Child Erotic Love
“The Commercial Exploitation of Abuse”
“The Patriarchal Love Bias”
“The Truncated Account of Adult-Child Erotic Attraction”
“Does Pedophile Love Equate Abuse?”
“Is Pedophilia a Sexual Perversion?
“The Legal Split in Child Protection”
“The Violence of Morality”
“The Roots of Violence”
“The 12 Angular Points of Social Justice and Peace”
Download PDF from Scribd
Download the Book (607 Pages)
Download PDF from Scribd
This book was published with Createspace / Amazon back in 2010, yet shortly after it was for sale on Amazon.com it was banned without reasons given. All my emails to support were not responded to. In the instructions given, I was said that if I attempted to republish the book, my Createspace account would be closed.
How could they justify their decision, given that it was bluntly unconstitutional? Only by a possible claim that I had stepped outside of the laws. Fact is that my intention with this book was to respect the present laws, and provide solutions for a future society; hence the ban of the book could only be the result of a very superficial perusal of it; given that the original was almost 800 pages, such perusal was probably entirely lacking, and a decision was forged that violated not only my civil rights as the author but also the US Constitution.
And while I do not give a judgment here about Createspace/Amazon, the empire, the multinational, and their managers, I believe this action has given us a very good self-judgment of this conglomerate of enterprises. It has shown its political couleur, it’s values, and ultimately, its fascism. I might add, in this context, that Wikileaks was first hosted on Amazon servers, until Amazon shut the door when they began to have legal problems.
Does that mean the present book was considered by Amazon managers as ‘political’ just as Wikileaks is political? It might be. I refrain from judgment. My intention is indeed political, but not in the sense this word is commonly used today, and certainly not in the sense of Wikileaks’ operational procedures that do violate certain laws and regulations of the world of diplomacy, while my book doesn’t.
My intention is political in the sense of the old Roman notion of the ‘res publica,’ that is, in the sense that I am writing about matters that concern us all, that have public relevance, and my task is to elucidate problems in our society and how they can possibly be solved by future policy makers. Needless to add that this is a legitimate concern and has not deserved the ban of a book which is a barbarous and inhuman measure in any given society, and besides, a total irony in a country that considers itself as the greatest living democracy on earth!
“The Tao of Love”
There is no good that is always or only good, no single virtue appropriate to every situation. Lao tzu tells us that it is only when we lose contact with out innate intuitive intelligence that we resort to ‘goodness’ and ‘righteousness’ as the ethical guideposts of our lives. It is only when real love is lost that we resort to ‘filial piety’ or ‘family values’. It is in this spirit that we can understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ dictum, ‘Love God and do as you please.’ Love is superior to any ethical code. — Laurence G. Bold in The Tao of Abundance (1999) The classical Taoists take a much more positive view of human nature. For the Taoist, all depraved or perverse manifestations of human behavior result from rejecting our deepest nature, not from following it. It is by denying the unity of all life and committing to the attachment of the ego that we go astray. — Laurence G. Bold in The Tao of Abundance (1999) Insofar as love expresses itself, it is not expressing itself in terms of the socially approved manners of life. That’s why it is all so secret. Love has nothing to do with social order. — Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth (1988)
Krishnamurti said we can never define what love is but well what love is not. Is pleasure love? Is love something we can quantify and receive in well-defined portions? Is love something we can store and accumulate in the warehouse of our mind, or in our heart? Is love a thing we can run after, chase, conquer, and possess?
Can we pursue love as a deliberate activity?
Is love something that can be damaged or hurt, or is it rather a quality? Is love perhaps a quality of relationships, and as such, something related to something else?
I know it is confusing to ask such questions, and yet they open doors. I do not pretend to know answers to all of these questions, and in case I know them, I do not pretend that these answers are valid for others as well, let alone that they are eternal. I rather think that it’s the questions that are important, and not so much the answers, as answers to all essential questions in life are in most cases temporary and volatile.
When I look at relationships, I can see there are loving ones and ones where love is painfully lacking, and I instantly understand that when love is lacking in relationships, they tend to be formal, cold and ‘calculated,’ and hurt is only a step away. I can also see that in relationships ruled by power, and where people play power games, love is absent.
This seems to point us to the truth that where power is, love cannot be. But power in which sense? What kind of power am I talking about? Is it soul power or social power?
I believe that soul power is well compatible with love, and that the power that only is destructive, and that defeats love, is worldly power, social power, which is power born by the ego.
I think when we direct our focus toward loving relationships instead of reflecting about love as such, we are getting closer to the truth, for love is something that bears fruit only in relating. When the sage says ‘I love the world,’ he means ‘When I relate to the world, I feel love.’
You may never have reflected about love yet when a child comes to you, smiling at you, stretching out his or her hand toward you in full trust, you may be permeated with one thought: ‘Relating to this child, I feel love.’ And you may, or not, conclude ‘I love children,’ while the latter statement bears something volatile and abstract. One may ask you back ‘Do you mean you really love all children?’ Or does it mean you love certain children, or children who relate to you?’
And you may think that at times, when you saw a very naughty and unruly child who drove their parents crazy in a hotel, or in a restaurant or department store, you thought you did not love that child. And as this is so, and for all of us, the statement ‘I love children’ may not be taken for granted as it were as total truth, but as a generalization. Hence, if we want to avoid generalizations because they always bear an element of untruth in them, we can honestly only talk about love as far as a relationship is concerned that is mutually felt as loving.
We all experience love and have experienced love when we were children; some of us have experienced lack of love, because their relationships with parents, relatives and educators were not felt as loving; hence, their main behavior trait and attitude is not loving, but rather cynical and revengeful. When we observe this by studying various kinds of people, we quickly realize that those who experience loving relationships early in life become ‘loving’ people, and those who have been deprived of love early in life lead conflictual lives or even end up with long prison fines.
As a young law student, interested in the psychological reasons for violent crime, I came to realize that as a general rule, people tend to give to the world what they themselves have received when they were children; when they received love they give love, when they received hate and violence, they give hate and violence. As, contrary to many psychiatrists, I do not believe that life cycles are lifelong conditions, I have been thinking for many years how an accidented life cycle can possibly be rerouted and thus become constructive again. I studied criminology and visited people in prisons, and what I saw shocked me; it shocked me not only because of the humiliating conditions these men were subjected to, which could be called the outside reality, but how these people, after I got to know some of them more closely, were torn up inside. Their inner reality, I felt, was locked; they were bathed in guilt and shame, and caught in denial; most of them as children could not accept one or both of their parents because of the caretaker’s abusive behavior.
Generally speaking, none of the inmates I met who were in for violent crimes had experienced loving relationships when they were children; they could not build a positive self-image and identity. What then happens is that the person comes up with projections, which means that a large part of their inner drama is projected upon ‘the world’ or ‘society.’
The projections, as I found later, are in turn the effect of repression, the constant denial to recognize and embrace an inner conflict or psychological complex.
This, then, in turn and over time leads to building a characterological and muscular armor around the inner shell, the heart and the soul, which effectively shields from feeling inside, and feeling with, thereby reducing compassion and empathy to a minimum.
Once the negative and projective worldview is built, it is reinforced through experience, for we attract in outside reality what we bear inside, in our thoughts and feelings. The negative experiences that occur, and occur necessarily once the inner setup is distorted through denial, fear and shame, again reinforce the person’s negative setup, thereby triggering a reinforcement of the original negative proposition about life.
Such statements can be reduced to one single base affirmation they all share.
— There is no love!
Once you are on the ‘There is no love’ track, the way back to a normal and harmonious way of relating is rather difficult; it is difficult because willpower to effect the opening of the closed door is not enough; thus some work on the deeper levels of consciousness is required, which in most cases asks for assistance and empathic care from the side of a counselor. For example, it is of little help to give such a person an auto-hypnosis manual and tape, for working on their inner mind because their negative self-talk and their shame-based identity will invariably lead to a defensive reaction of the kind ‘What should I do with all this gimmick? There is no love in this world. They are probably out to manipulate me or it’s altogether useless.’
Any kind of work to be engaged at this point needs empathic support from an expert who knows to untie the inner knot. It’s really like a knot, an entanglement situation, both inside and in outer reality. Relationships, when the loving response has been thwarted early in life, tend to be strained and ‘calculated;’ they tend to be either ‘icy’ or are outright codependent (fusional), which is a condition not conducive for love to blossom.
The silent question I start out with is ‘What was first, love or abuse’? I ask the question not as a matter of personal fancy but because today, after a glance at the content of our international media, you really gain the impression that what controls the public debate is abuse, not love.
And yet, it seems to me that love was first, as love is the natural condition. In a society that has forgotten about love, it is not astonishing to see scientists and researchers focused on abuse.
From a simple perspective of common sense, one should think that logically, what first should be elucidated is love, not its accidented variant. It’s very similar with Western medicine that equally is focused only upon the pathological, instead of finding out, first of all, what health is about.
As in the times of religious perversion, crusades and witch hunts, today again, at the start of the 21st century, certain forms of love have been declared anathema. This may not surprise when you consider the general level of fragmentation in our society; where life has lost its wholeness, where love is schizophrenically split into acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, people tend to create fictitious concepts in a virtual reality of fake-values.
It seems to me that only poets and lovers are able to see through the thick layers of hypocrite life denial that is currently the invisible paradigm of the majority of humanity — at least in the part of the world that has incorporated postmodern international consumer culture as its new credo and lifestyle.
In a climate of bewilderment where erotic love is today again equated with abduction and abuse, there is only one step to end up in hysteria — individually and collectively. Western society has done that step, and thoroughly! It has ended up not only in hysteria, but in public paranoia.
Today we should do a retrospection and ask how this was possible, after Freud? And how it’s possible that after the turn into the 21st Millennium we have ended up in the Middle-Ages?
Timewave Zero, it is true, shows us cyclic patterns in human evolution — and it indeed shows that the present times are most closely related to the early Middle-Ages. However, a timelined view of human history hides the spiraled growth patterns that characterize all evolution.
When we progress, this is not a linear movement, but a spiraled one because the spiral is the only form in nature that ideally combines the line with the circle. And when we advance, we not only relocate farther but also higher. While the line leaves its root, the circle stays with it, and the spiral, while advancing, carries its root along. When that happens, we are again within that pattern, but at a higher level of it. In modern systems theory, this is expressed in the formula ‘all growth is nonlinear.’
Applying this insight to humanity’s psychological evolution, we see that right now we are evolving from the Pisces Age to the Aquarius Age. During this transition, we not only assimilate more of the qualities associated with Aquarius, but we also go through a catharsis regarding the Pisces qualities that have hurt us collectively, such as ruthless group pressure, dogmatism, absolutism, fanaticism and a sectarian, limited, shell-based worldview. This means that we are now more instrumental for dealing with the pattern effectively, and perhaps for dissolving it completely.
What kind of pattern is it? Astrologically it is the Pisces archetype, as opposed to the Aquarius archetype. It is a pattern of energies that puts the collective, the group and the majority’s rules, opinions and feelings higher than the individual’s. It values the group before it values the individuals who compose the group. It considers standard solutions before it considers intelligent solutions. It typically fears the marginal and original and blesses uniformity and herd thinking. Its educational paradigm is one of mass indoctrination and mass alphabetization. It educates by disempowering the child, and by using threat and authority-based hierarchy, and strong competition. It basically positions the human as opposed to nature or as ‘master over nature’ and, as a result, is rather hostile toward the child’s expressing their natural emotions, feelings and desires.
This paradigm is the reigning educational paradigm of the great monotheistic religions and it often serves for justifying ritual abuse and even the torture of children as a disciplinary measure and in the name of some religious authority, savior, leader, ideology or dictator.
Now, what we face, especially in controversial matters of public discussion is a resistance that operates in the masses’ collective unconscious because of their fear to progress into the unknown.
This unknown is not so unknown after all. It’s the Aquarius paradigm. The Aquarius Age will definitely be one of more individuality, more democracy, and more choice at every level of life. The Aquarian energy which is the energy of the planet Uranus, as opposed to the Neptunian energy that reigns Pisces, will help us face and confront rather then repress our hitherto unconscious desires and render them conscious so that we can deal with them on a more rational basis. We will then be able to see love as an encompassing erotic love (erós) of all-that-is, and abuse as a form of psychological distortion that is created by repression, and the denial of love, or certain forms of love, and that is regularly acted out in a violent manner.
To see this will render us sensitive to the fact that non-violent and consenting forms of love are not abuse.