Eros and other Anomalous materials.

There is in many of us, obviously, a deep-seated desire to assent to extraterrestrial forces – to be embraced by them, overwhelmed by them, and if possible deprived by them of our own weary responsibility for ourselves. ​— ​“HICCUPS FROM OUTER SPACE”: RUSSELL DAVIES, REVIEWING CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, IN THE OBSERVER, MARCH 19, 1978 Vallee, Jacques. Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults (p. 32). 

Eros is deeply, deeply irrational, and traditionally understood as a yearning for the sublime. A chalice of wonder and bliss we can't ignore. 

And we seek the the outer to ignite the inner...

The quote made me think. About the sublime. About Eros. About yearning. And I'd not considered how powerful people's yearnings for "The space brothers" can be until I read Messengers. A yearning for the benevolent, wisdom rich, anomalous saviours of the Earth, that some people hope will save us from the horror engines of war, of mechanised murder. I hadn't considered that this yearning  is also Eros. Because I've never felt that way about UAPs, especially as the poltergeist was trying to hurt me. And my single UFO experience was of what looked like a peddle bin in the sky and my mind said, 'oh, must be Google'! 

I suspect that UAPs know that I'm not easily impressed!

No sublimity in UAPs for me, and they know it!

I locate the sublime in adoration and submission. I know that I can prostrate myself in abject poverty and joy, saying (silently) take me, take me! And for some it may be drugs that open the door to this endless void, for others, it will be found within a relationship, obviously for some it is "The space Brothers". Their symbolism is very clear. But, having read a lot of Jacques Vallee, I cannot see any evidence that security, sublimity or enlightenment even, can or will come from The space Brothers. Contact with them seems a very bad thing; whatever the actual experience really is; Milabs with their psychotronic devices, Collins Elite and their 'demons', or actual ET. 

Nope.

Whatever the key, the experience is ultimately within us - ignited from without. This is my theory at the moment. Taking it further, the fire - for me anyway - must come through a resonance with someone.

Hold tight, Ms Contrary and Tangential is in charge. I will turn words, recast and reframe. 

Read the quote again ...there is in many of us, obviously, a deep-seated desire to assent to external forces – to be embraced by them, overwhelmed by them, and if possible deprived by them of our own weary responsibility for ourselves. 

My experience is that there must be a power exchange to create the entry into sublimity- and the actual process of power exchange is very difficult to explain; choosing to explore the edges of  surrender and entitlement. Handing one's sense of authority and privilege over in exchange for the wisdom flash of understanding. Seeing directly how daily assumptions about permission, and force operate. It has to be with another human.

Jacques Vallee understands this as the danger with UFO cults, that the power exchange can end most dramatically in a death, as in Heaven's Gate, or the failure of Truthers to live and learn - because humanity and our wealth of knowledge isn't as fantastic as 'what's really happening'.

But, experientially? 

The experience of submission is of merging with the soul of the world - or with my own soul? I'm not sure. My experience is that the loss of my sense of myself as an individual, was union with the sublime. Safety in restriction, safe contact with what terrifies...with that loss of self, no 'I'.

In his lectures the therapist has spoken of 'Courtly love' too many times for me to ignore. I know the power of dominance and submission, the power of intention. And I see Courtly love as the misogynistic version, where submission misses out the physical yearnings of the other. The beloved then becomes a cross to be crucified upon, a fire that can never be extinguished. Devotion belongs to God alone - or rather to The Virgin. The lowly mistral can never have the beloved - but he will love her relentlessly and forever, as if she were the Holy virgin Mary...all his songs will be for her. 

As Manley Hall 1928 put it: 

"As regeneration is the key to spiritual existence, they therefore founded their symbolism upon the rose and the cross, which typify the redemption of man through the union of his lower temporal nature with his higher eternal nature."

Unconsummated, Eros.

The therapist never said that he was a religious man, quite the opposite. And I could not believe him! That was always a mystery. I imagined him experiencing a severe and final break with The Church for some reason, and no going back!

Capellanus ( 1184) in De amore:

It is the pure love which binds together the hearts of two lovers with every feeling of delight. This kind consists in the contemplation of the mind and the affection of the heart; it goes as far as the kiss and the embrace and the modest contact with the nude lover, omitting the final solace, for that is not permitted for those who wish to love purely.

But - now bear with me - we are now on the outskirts of Goon town, or Edgeville. Eros without consummation, and a long way away from The Space Brothers (I hope!). Both Gooning and edging are quite a long way away too from 'fin'amor' in theory, but in practice? I'm not convinced. I think it amounts to practically the same thing. 

Prove me wrong!

Courtly love, or it's more noble cousin, fin'amor is desire, flirting, and yearning and pain. Pain is regarded as purification (I imagine?) but fundamentally, the forces preventing true union between the lovers, are culturally defined. Hierarchy is preserved, the threat of harm resulting from subverting 'Holy laws' is real - enforced by people.

And the dreaded dual relationship - I want to shout "It couldn't be a dual relationship, I wasn't a client!" is assumed to be all about power dynamics - whenever I asked him a question I was attempting , by therapy logic, to be reversing the power imbalance...and I'm truly unclear how or why that's a problem? Except, power is something a therapist talks to her supervisor about, never with the client?!?

“Any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client”. (Good Practice, point 33b) The degree of harm that may be caused varies enormously, ranging from very little potential for causing distress, to extremely likely to cause significant and permanent harm which may not be immediately obvious and may take time to emerge. Power differentials require continual monitoring in any counselling relationship, and introducing a secondary relationship complicates this further and may intensify or reverse the power imbalance.

OK, to finish. Eros is innate, and it is our attempt to enter the sublime - an intense experience characterised by a loss of self and union with the beloved; a sense of profound safety and transcendence. The consensual agreement to explore a power imbalance is one route into this state. It is not the only one, sometimes the power exchange is subliminal and automatically created by resonance. Resonance occurs when people have something significant in common - a past experience - an unhealed, psychological wound.

When Eros is used, it is used to preserve (goon or edge) the experience of yearning, it becomes an end in itself. No one else is involved. The beloved may as well be on-the screen porn. Edging is a little different. 

When Eros is embraced the extra dimensions of communication including another person in the most naked and intimate of relationships fosters self-awareness, self-exploration, and self-acceptance.

And my argument is, that the therapist preserved yearning, in me, by refusing to be clear about his feelings. I assume that his version of reparenting gave him a rosy glow? But when I broke the spell by being truthful iIt was as if knowledge about his desire, or lack of, was denied and so he created the very power dynamic that the ethical framework warns against, and in so doing, caused me great harm.

So?

So!

So there we are.