THE
FALL OF LOVE
Despite all the
romantic poetry, romances, and love songs which our cultural past has
bequeathed to us, we live in an age when love, signifying a strong and lasting
emotional attachment to someone, has virtually become a thing of contempt, an
outworn sentimentality that, so we believe, only the most foolish or backward
of people can be expected to take seriously.
It is almost as though anyone who does manage to fall in love with
another person should be secretly ashamed of the fact, just as he should be
secretly ashamed of himself if he undergoes a conversion to Christianity and
thereupon discovers the reality of faith.
Somehow he is living against the grain of the age, which has declared
emotional love to be an anachronism and supplanted it with free love - the
backbone of our ostensibly promiscuous society.
And yet, strange as it may seem, people do still fall in love and
remain loyal to a given person over a lengthy period of time, even though the
age may effectively disapprove of the fact and flaunt its promiscuity. Love, despite the derogatory connotations
heaped upon it by the liberated practitioners of free love, continues to
manifest itself in varying intensities, and even its critics aren't wholly
immune to its influence. Free lovers can
become bound, just as bound lovers can eventually become free.
But why, one may ask, has love recently become so suspect, so
quaint and contemptible? Surely an
experience which, if all goes well, cannot be bettered in the here and now, is
its own justification? Even if it
doesn't compare with that eternal, impersonal love appertaining to the higher
mystical state, who, having experienced it, could
possibly deny its legitimacy? Isn't it a
manifestation of divinity on earth translated, as it were, into temporal terms,
a physical parallel to that ultimate spiritual love which, in any case, only a
comparatively small minority of people are ever fortunate enough to
experience? So why should one look down
on it as upon something reprehensible, something to be avoided? Why indeed?
I suspect the answer to this question could be traced to the
nature of our modern industrialized society, with its priority on intellect,
cold rationality, business efficiency, scientific rigour, and all those other
materialistic factors peculiar to a very technology-dominated, urbanized
lifestyle. Having abandoned the
soul-based world in close and regular contact with nature for our technological
advances in large cities, we inevitably turned against the emotional life,
indeed were forced to turn against it by our environmental transformations, and
thus came to regard love as a hindrance or threat to our mounting intellectual
bias, a powerful spokesman, as it were, for the life of the soul which we had
abandoned and could no longer take seriously.
Tending increasingly in the anti-natural direction of modern life, which
puts an ever-stronger intellectual clamp upon our emotions, we see love as an
unpleasant reminder of that other life from which we are in the process of
escaping, a life centred on and governed by the soul rather than the intellect,
and are consequently inclined to denounce it.
Not all of us, of course! But,
still, a great number, perhaps the majority who, consciously or unconsciously,
relate to the general mechanistic tendency of the age.
Yet love, whether or not we endorse it, remains a fact of life,
and nothing we can do to strengthen our intellectual stranglehold on life can
entirely eradicate it. Deep down we
don't really want to eradicate it anyway, for our essential being knows well
enough that there is nothing to compare with it in the here and now, and how
wonderful an experience it can be to really love someone with "all our
heart", even when we are victims of the head. But, superficially, in terms of the intellect
and what we are doing to ourselves and what contemporary society is doing to
us, we are ranged against it, as against a powerful adversary who may usurp the
domain of our rational control. For the
past two-hundred years the intellect has been steadily gaining control over us,
becoming increasingly powerful and autocratic.
It has not, however, succeeded in becoming the complete autocrat, nor,
unfortunate exceptions notwithstanding, is it ever
likely to. But its progress in that
direction is by no means insignificant, and what it has achieved it shows no
intentions of relinquishing. Goaded-on
by our industrialized society, it is now more powerful than ever before and
accordingly much less inclined to tolerate competition from the soul.
A very notable example of the modern fear of the soul is
afforded by Arthur Koestler's suggestion, in Janus - A Summing Up, that science
should develop a special pill which will correct what he alleges to be an
imbalance between the old and new brains, thus providing the intellect with
greater power over the emotions.
Apparently, the ostensible lack of proper co-ordination between the two
brains signifies a biological mistake that should be rectified if man is to
survive, since, so the argument runs, the emotional-bound old brain is
responsible for most of our irrationally destructive tendencies, not the least
of which is war. In light of my own
argument, however, one might question the assumption that the old brain is
still as powerful - and therefore problematic - as formerly. For the very suggestion put forward by
Koestler would seem to betray an allegiance to the mounting imbalance in favour
of the intellect, rather than constitute a valid objection to emotional
tyranny. If we need to fear or curb
anything, it is surely the growing power of the intellect! For it is primarily this part of our
"divided house", to cite Koestler, that is responsible for the
sophisticated weapons of mass-destruction now at our disposal.
The intellect wants to be the boss, but it fully realizes that
when love enters the soul it ceases to be the boss, since love is more powerful
than reason and soon dethrones it from its false position. Love unequivocally reasserts the sovereignty
of the soul over the brain, the essential spirituality of life, and this it is
loathe to accept. For contemporary
society is geared to technological advancement, and for this it requires brain
rather than heart, intellect rather than soul.
Thus love, when it comes, is a subversive threat to that
society, being in direct opposition to the materialistic principles for which
it stands. Love pulls in the opposite
direction to intellect, back towards the soul, towards religion, art, nature,
and everything else we have abandoned for what Spengler calls 'the Civilization',
the modern materialistic epoch par excellence. Love belongs to 'the Culture', is the essence
of 'the Culture', and therefore cannot find favour with 'the Civilization',
which has set itself up against all that is natural and soulful. When love enters our hearts it does so
stealthily, like a thief in the night, come to rob us of our prize possession -
the intellect. What to cultural people
would have signified a gain, a further increase in spiritual richness, is seen
by us as a loss, a return to antiquated circumstances. And yet, in objectively non-historical terms,
it is still very much a gain, the best temporal experience that can ever befall
us, even if our intellects, our cocksure minds, persist in opinions to the
contrary. As victims of the
intellect-over-soul perversion our industrialized society has inflicted upon
us, we have little alternative but to view such an experience back-to-front,
upside down, and inside out. Yet, for
all that, the experience remains essentially what it always was - a temporal
manifestation of the eternal fact of Divine Love, a nourishment imperative to
the life of the soul, and therefore not something detrimental to our individual
wellbeing.
But how many people genuinely experience true love these
days? How many people fall deeply in love
with someone? Is it not evident that a
majority of people, accustomed to the soul-denying conditions and routines of
city life, either experience love in moderation, which is to say, in a weakened
guise, or not at all? Is it not evident
that the maimed and stultified condition to which we have reduced our souls
through confinement in artificial environments has generally robbed us of our
ability to love, our desire to love? For
true love must have the right environment in which to flower. It must be cultivated like a rare and
delicate plant, nourished in the right soil.
It cannot grow in an infertile soil, one deprived of proper, regular,
and sufficient nourishment. But if our
souls, as the soil of love, are not only insufficiently nourished but maimed
and poisoned, moreover, by the artificial environments in which we are obliged
to live, how can they be expected to produce a passion worthy of the name love,
which will endure for years with an intensity beyond mere infatuation?
Accustomed to what is imposed upon them, our souls are unable
to produce that flower of flowers which, in temporal terms, is their chief
justification for being, but are reduced, instead, to the arid production of
weedy sentiments, silly infatuations, and empty pleasures which quickly bore or
exasperate us. No wonder, then, that
love becomes increasingly suspect, and the tributes paid to it by sensitive
poets, novelists, and musicians of the past appear to us as gross exaggerations
of romantic sensibility! How can one
know what real love is with a sick soul, a soil (to return to our horticultural
analogue) in which only emotional weeds and thistles can grow? How, then, can one be expected to take love
seriously? Away with all this nonsense
about the nobility and purity of love!
Down with all those sentimental fools who mistake their weeds for
flowers! Let us make do with free love,
for at least that can be indulged in without sentimentality, without the
consent of the soul, and, no less importantly, without emotional attachments! Who needs strings now that everyone can be
free to live and work as he pleases?
Away with all emotional attachments!
Thus speaks the voice of 'the Civilization', in which the
intellect parades its victory over the soul in the guise of spiritual
freedom. Love, religion, art, nature:
these are no longer relevant, no longer meaningful. Only their substitutes will now suffice, of
which sex is the most important. Sex is
love without a soul, and love without a soul is free love - in a word, 'fucking'
or 'bonking'. Bodies are there to be
exploited, and the more bodies one exploits, or 'fucks', the freer one
becomes. So one had better set to work
as quickly and ruthlessly as possible!
Eventually one may become so free that one can dispense with bodies
altogether and either depend on what is left of one's imagination or, failing
that, utilize pornography instead. And
after that, well, why do anything at all?
The truly free being ceases to live.
He becomes a machine.
Yes, unfortunately, the modern definition of freedom does
indeed point in that existential direction.
For the more we turn against the soul in our preoccupation with the
intellect, the more we abuse it in our technologically-dominated urban society,
the more do we come, in consequence, to resemble the machines which are not so
much our salvation as our undoing as human beings! (In this respect we needn't be surprised if
it transpires that never before have people had such a capacity for or ability
to tolerate solitude as today. For true
friendship depends on the workings of a properly-nourished soul, and the more
the soul is starved and maimed, the less need we have of friends. Our predilection for solitude is largely a
consequence of this mechanistic condition.)
We make love like a machine, like a mechanism that has been programmed
to do a certain thing but to do it without any feelings, including feelings for
the other person. Mechanical sex comes
to replace love sex, and the latter is looked down upon as something for which
an enlightened, emancipated humanity has no need. One travels a lot faster without it. Indeed, one needs to travel a lot faster
because the loss of emotional commitment has to be compensated for by a greater
physical commitment, by a more frequent, violent, and varied physical
commitment to offset the tedium, as far as possible, that sex without love
inevitably entails. It is the example of
Van Norden in Tropic
of Cancer rather than Mellors in Lady Chatterley's Lover
which the industrialized world must follow, accustomed as it is to the
domination of the machine. And sex must
not only be indulged in as often as possible but, under the prevailing
circumstances of our inability to experience genuine love, be rendered as exciting
as possible, which is where recourse to all manner of sexual stimulants, aids,
aphrodisiacs, perversions, and fetishistic accoutrements comes in; though no
amount or combination of them can ultimately compensate, it seems, for the loss
of spiritual content which has made them necessary in the first place!
Alas, even with the most up-to-date and erotic of sexual
paraphernalia, mechanical sex remains a very inferior affair to love sex, and
will doubtless continue to remain such, no matter what people endeavour to do
to make it less so! Deprived of the
emotional raison
d'être which both enhances and ennobles sex, there will simply be more and
more chaos, sterility, and absurdity in the sex lives of a majority of modern
people who, having lost vital contact with their souls, are reduced to the
level of beasts, to the level, one might say, of automata.
No wonder, therefore, that marriage becomes an increasingly
meaningless institution for so many of them.
For what is marriage, after all, if not a testimony to the bond
of love which has sprung-up between two people and made them desirous of living
harmoniously together and of propagating their kind? There can be no doubt as to the validity of
marriage when the souls of the couple concerned are alive and well, and
nourished on the most intense passion known to man. For how could either of the lovers possibly
tolerate being estranged from each other, or tolerate the intervention of a
third party into their sex lives?
"What God has joined together, let no man pull asunder" reads
the matrimonial injunction. Yes, but
where true love is concerned, how could any man or woman not party to that love
really be expected to pull it asunder?
True love is its own master, against which external physical forces are
doomed to labour in vain, if labour they dare.
It testifies to the sovereignty of soul over matter, a sovereignty which
will remain unimpaired no matter how many other people the lovers may come into
contact with or, no less significantly, how many miles should separate
them. Admittedly, if and when it
subsequently wanes, there is perhaps a slender chance that the hitherto
inseparable recipients of its bounty may be exposed to the temptation of
infidelity or even of divorce. But
whilst it remains at full-strength, so to speak, there is next to no
possibility of this happening. Indeed,
its duration should cover the period of time sufficient for the propagation and
rearing of offspring, after which there is no real need for its continuation in
the same form or degree, and no real need for the establishment of other sexual
relationships either. For sex, after
all, centres around the propagation of offspring, a duty which should use up a
man's best years and take care of his sexual needs while they are at their
strongest, which is compatible with the intensity of his love and the virility
of his physique. After this time has
elapsed, sex becomes progressively less important, less meaningful, and less
wholesome, so that the formation of other sexual relationships is rendered
unnecessary, if not downright ridiculous!
Such, at any rate, is how matters stand between people who have
known true love and found it sufficient unto their needs. Strictly speaking, there is no substitute for
it, and the chances of one's experiencing it more than once or twice in life
are, frankly, pretty slim. It isn't a
phenomenon that is here today and gone tomorrow, a brief interlude in one's
life that may be sloughed off at will.
On the contrary, it is a very deep and lasting experience which cannot
be replaced or repeated on a regular basis.
One either loves deeply or not at all.
For how can an experience which is intended to lead to propagation and
the rearing of offspring possibly be shallow?
How can one enter into the difficult and responsible task of rearing a
family on any but the deepest, most solid foundations? Is not love the very justification for the
production of offspring, the divinely-inspired mediator which guarantees the
couple concerned that whatever they produce has been sanctioned and
authenticated by its presence? How,
therefore, can one hope to produce anything worthwhile without the sanction of
this mediator from 'On High'?
Truly, there can be few greater misfortunes than to be born to
parents who were not in love with each other!
For how could the child of such parents be legitimate, legitimate in the
profoundest sense of the word? Even a
child born out-of-wedlock would, I contend, be relatively authentic if the
couple responsible were deeply and genuinely in love. He might be technically a bastard on the
strength of his progenitors' unlawful relationship, but he would still be more
fortunate than a child born to a married couple who were no longer or had never
really been in love, and therefore weren't strictly justified in producing
offspring. Whatever the physical
strength or intelligence of a person brought into this life 'illegitimately',
in the absence of love, there can be little doubt that he will be a freak of
nature who is likely to cause more trouble in the world than anyone sanctioned
by love. He may not be a spastic or a
victim of mental retardation, but he will certainly be unfortunate by
comparison with those whom God or nature or true love, as you prefer, has
provided with an authentic soul. Perhaps
it is simply this fact that distinguishes the children of light from the
children of perdition, of which the world is always composed in varying
degrees? Whether one is of God's or the
Devil's party in life would seem to be determined from the moment of
conception, whether the egg of a future child was fertilized through love or
lust, soul or flesh. Thus no amount of
careful nurturing subsequent to this moment could really transform the
fundamental nature of the 'illegitimate' child's soul, which would remain
fundamentally what it had been fashioned as throughout the remaining years of
his childhood and into adulthood. For
children inherit either the graces or the sins of their parents, and the way
they are brought up is likely to reflect this fact. Consequently, the victim of loveless parents
is unlikely, in any case, to receive the most loving of upbringings.
But any loving upbringing, even one conducted in the humblest
of circumstances, would be preferable to one in which love had not played a
part, no matter how wealthy the parents may happen to be. There is no substitute for genuine love, and,
as such, there is no real justification for loving couples deciding to postpone
a family commitment until they can 'afford' it.
Unless they are without any means of support whatsoever, they should
take advantage of their feelings for each other while those feelings are at
their peak, and thus produce offspring in accordance with nature's
prompting. For what is the point of
being in love with another person if one is not intending to start a
family? One doesn't fall in love simply
for the sake of love. And any
procrastination of procreation is not only the thief of valuable time, it is a
base concession to materialism, to the opinion that children should only be
brought into the world at the dictates of the pocket rather than of the
heart. Procrastinate too long - if
procrastinate one can - and the strength of one's love may be reduced in
intensity to a very mediocre level, may even disappear altogether, so that one
might subsequently be obliged to propagate in cold blood, as it were, in a
context not altogether conducive to the formation of legitimate offspring. For those who are in love but do not take
full advantage of it to start a family are inevitably their own worst
enemies. The consequences of their
procrastination will be visited, if they subsequently decide to propagate, on
their offspring and, through their offspring, on them personally.
But perhaps I have said enough about the role of love in
relation to happily-married 'traditional' couples to permit me to return from
the conventionally idealistic platform, upon which I have stood during the last
few paragraphs, to one closer to the decadent realities of the present, with
its lack of genuine love and consequent breakdown of marriage. Ideally, then, one falls in love at the best
possible time in one's life in order to get married and have children. There is little need, as a rule, for divorce,
because the love is so intense that it keeps the couple together, even after it
has waned and their children grown up.
Love fulfils a necessary function in maintaining the survival of the
kind on as legitimate a basis as possible.
One is not properly mated until one is in love. So far so good! We shouldn't quibble with the laws of nature,
which testify to the workings of a higher mind.
They were not put there as a punishment but, rather, as an aid to our
spiritual wellbeing.
However, even in times more conducive to our essential
wellbeing, it has to be admitted that many people weren't able to take full
advantage of them. Falling in love with
someone isn't guaranteed simply because one lives in close contact with
nature. One has to be fortunate enough to
meet someone with whom it is possible to fall in love, with whom the formation
of a life-long relationship is desirable.
Obviously, many people don't have that good fortune and therefore have
to settle for something less, for a relatively loveless and predominantly
sexual relationship such as would more likely result in the propagation of
'illegitimate' offspring and the continuation, thereby, of unhealthy
souls. Judging by the God-bound nature
of our past culture, however, we may suppose that such 'illegitimate' offspring
were formerly rather more the exception than the rule. For it seems that love and marriage were
taken more seriously in the past than at present, because the soul of Western
man, being in regular contact with nature, was in a much stronger position to
experience true love then than now.
Consequently, such love flourished and marriage was upheld as a sacred
gift, not to be treated flippantly or regarded as an unnecessary
imposition. Once the bond of love was
formed, it had to be honoured. There
could be no question of divorce.
But, subsequently, with the development of the industrialized
society he inherited from the nineteenth century, Western man's capacity for
love began to wane, in consequence of which the role and importance of marriage
became questionable, and the institution of the family duly threatened. Cut off from nature, his soul grew
progressively weaker as his intellect mounted in strength, imposing on his
value-judgements an entirely new attitude to love and marriage, an attitude
which we are only too familiar with in light of our cultural decline. For marriage rests on the bond of love, and
where that bond is weak or, worse still, virtually non-existent, it ceases to
have any real significance. Hence it
must be disposed of, though not all at once.
There are stages to everything, and the disintegration of marriage is no
exception. The restriction to small
families, say, one or two children, is a good beginning and leads, via
extramarital infidelities, to divorce of an ever more frequent order,
culminating, one can only suppose, in the demise of marriage altogether and a
return to pre-cultural patterns of free love, or sexual relations akin to those
of our very distant, savage forebears. For a return to barbarism is the only possibility in store for a
declining civilization, and we are rapidly heading in that direction. Fortunately, we haven't yet entirely disposed
of marriage. One still finds people who
aren't completely destitute of love or the desire to have and raise children. But it has to be admitted that, under the
circumstances of our diminishing capacity for love, the number of successful
marriages are steadily declining in proportion to the number of unsuccessful
ones.
Indeed, it would seem that we have now arrived at a point
essentially the reverse of the cultural norm.
For if the propagation of 'illegitimate' children, in the rather
paradoxical sense in which I am here employing that term, was the exception in
those centuries when Western man could love deeply and lastingly, it has now
become the rule, as more and more children are brought into this world through
parents who were unable to love each other or to love each other sufficiently
deeply to keep their marriage together.
The relative ease and frequency with which so many modern marriages
break up testifies to this tragic fact all too poignantly, and goes some way
towards explaining why the world is becoming an increasingly meaningless and
even hateful place in which to live. For
the children of light, the children whose souls were legitimized by the
presence of true love in their parents, are growing fewer and fewer as the
parental incapacity to love grows ever more firmly entrenched under the
domination of our technological society, which continues to develop along lines
inherently inimical to the soul. Small
wonder that each generation tends to be more violent, callous, and destructive
than the previous one! That vandalism
and juvenile delinquency continue to mount!
How could it be otherwise, when love is becoming such a rare commodity,
when the soul has been maimed to such a deplorable extent, that all but a
minority of parents are incapable of achieving love and thus passing it on to
their children? Alas, our age is so
tragic that we don't even comprehend the real nature or extent of its
tragedy! If we are not gulled by it,
like most of the liberal intelligentsia, we're more inclined to criticize and
condemn it, to point out the absurdity or fundamental evil of so many of the
anti-social activities in which various people regularly indulge, such as rape,
vandalism, drug abuse, mugging, theft, etc., in a spirit which would suggest
that such activities could be done away with, if only the people concerned
would change their ways for the better.
Alas, if only they could!
If only it were possible for people to transcend the materialistic
influence of the environments which have
imposed such absurd or evil activities upon them, and thereupon revert
to lifestyles and principles akin to those of their more fortunate ancestors! Yes, if only!
But, unfortunately, it isn't possible, as anyone with any real
intelligence must inevitably realize. It
isn't possible to discount the detrimental influence of our industrialized and
urbanized society on the health or strength of the soul, and accordingly expect
people to behave in a more soulful and, hence, responsible manner, clearly able
to distinguish right from wrong. It
isn't possible for people who were put into this world without genuine love to
behave other than in the callous way they do.
We must bear the consequences of what we have brought upon ourselves,
and the spiritual consequences of large-scale severance from nature can be
nothing if not extremely grave.
Liars, fools, and hypocrites will doubtless have their own
opinions about this. But they are hardly
opinions which anyone with the slightest degree of moral integrity need be
expected to take seriously. The truth of
modern life may not be very flattering to our egos, but it is no less of a
truth for all that! For, knowingly or
unknowingly, we live in an age which worships sterility, which has turned its
back on the life of the soul in the name of the love-denying, soul-destroying
forces of the city, and there is little we can now do to reverse the
mechanistic trend of 'the Civilization', to revert to Spengler again. Love may not be completely dead but it is
sadly on the wane, not, except in rare cases, entering our souls with anything
like the same intensity as it did in the heyday, as it were, of 'the Culture'.
Thus arises the modern tendency to
free love, to sexual promiscuity rather than emotional fidelity. And thus arises, too, most of the sexual
perversions of which our age is rife, including the widespread use of
pornography. For what is pornography but
another indication of the triumph of the intellect over the soul, the brain
over the heart, the mind over the spirit?
The intellectualization of sex, against which the soulfully-oriented
D.H. Lawrence wrote so vehemently, is nothing more than a consequence of our
technologically-dominated age, in which the intellect continues to grow
stronger at the expense of the soul and thereby, to cite Nietzsche,
"revaluate all values".
Needless to say, sex should not be a thing of the mind. But under the prevailing circumstances of our
mind-dominated civilization, one cannot be surprised if it should increasingly
become so. And neither, curiously, can
one be surprised if pornography should paradoxically indicate the triumph of
the body over the soul. For the
voyeuristic contemplation of photographs of nude bodies necessarily rules out
soulful commitment, and simply testifies to Western man's growing allegiance to
the merely physical aspect of things.
Like the practitioner of free love, the porno enthusiast can indulge
himself in one body after another, one photograph after another of different
models, because there is no emotional commitment, and therefore no lasting
fidelity to any given female.
Unfortunately, so long as Western society continues to pursue its
technological and industrial bent, there is unlikely to be a decrease in
mind-oriented attitudes to sex. On the
contrary, we can only expect a rapidly growing allegiance to this further
manifestation of anti-soulfulness, which also manifests itself in sex films,
wherein the never-ending routines of mechanistic copulation continue to
hypnotize millions of sex-crazed eyes and to fill millions of vacuous minds
with lurid images of sexual depravity.
If this is yet another example of free love, then it is the freest
Western man has thus far evolved for himself - free love at a voyeuristic
distance!
But there is, it must be admitted, a more radical manifestation
of the triumph of the intellect over the soul currently in progress in the
world which, if it catches on (as there seems to be every chance of its doing),
will doubtless hasten our downfall and bring about the total destruction of
morality, or fidelity, in other words, to the preordained natural order of
things. I am referring to the idea,
commonly associated with the latest eugenic developments, of deposits of sperm
- previously stored in deep-freeze 'sperm banks' - from males with allegedly
high IQs being introduced into the wombs of suitable females via artificial
insemination, with the express intention of producing a 'master race' of
technological geniuses. If both the
donor and recipient are highly intelligent, then the offspring of such a
procedure should, so the argument runs, also be highly intelligent, and
consequently better equipped to aid the nation or cause or whatever in its
struggles against political, scientific, religious, or other external threats.
Yes, we can see the intellectual side of this argument plainly
enough. For it usually transpires that
parents with high IQs produce intellectually superior offspring. But what of the spiritual aspect of the
thing, the aspect we generally prefer not to consider these days but which
still persists, like the dark side of the moon, in existing and exerting an
attractive influence, no matter how feeble or perverted, upon us? Isn't it evident that love is the determining
factor in deciding the spiritual status of a child - whether it is legitimate
or otherwise - and that, without love existing between the parents, there can
be little hope for the spiritual authenticity of the child? Is it not therefore evident that this latest
eugenic strategy for producing higher intelligences can only result in the
propagation of still more 'illegitimate' children, and children, moreover,
whose spiritual illegitimacy will be even more radical, if anything, than those
who are currently the victims of 'conventionally' loveless parents, given the
enhanced impersonality coupled to higher intelligence?
Truly, one shudders for the future of humanity, a future in
which an ever-increasing number of moral cretins will be let loose upon the
world to further the Devil's cause in opposition to the spiritual needs of
mankind! For how can a woman who elects
to accept a donor's sperm in such an impersonal manner possibly be expected to
experience love for him, on the basis of the scant information conveyed to
her? And how can the donor be expected
to feel love for the recipient, whom he may never even have seen, let alone
met? If we are given sufficient reason
to feel concern over the growing difficulty which couples who live together
generally have in experiencing genuine love for each other, how much greater
reason do we have to feel concern over a strategy of propagation which takes
this problem one stage further away from the individual and endows it with a
collective impersonality one stage closer to the cold, mechanical aridity of Brave New World! Does it not seem that Huxley's nightmare
vision of the future is becoming more of a reality every day, especially now
that methods of artificial mating are being taken so seriously in some
quarters?
Alas, there would seem to be little we can do to alter the
direction in which we are heading! For we cannot now return to the centuries of soulfulness in which
love and marriage flourished.
Shut out from nature in our giant cities, we can only press-on in the
dismal course originally set for us by the Industrial Revolution and accept the
destruction of traditional values as an inevitability. But we need not pretend that sex-for-sex's
sake or free love or pornography or 'sperm banks' or any of the other
destructive aspects of modern life which now confront us in ever-more brazen
guises mark an improvement on those traditional values which 'the Civilization'
is denying us. On the contrary, if we
are perfectly honest with ourselves, and courageous enough to face-up to the
truth of the situation, we will know only too well that true love cannot be
bettered, and that it is a real tragedy of our time that, unable to experience
such love properly, so many of us should be obliged to regard it with
superficial disdain.
Preview THE FALL OF LOVE eBook
Preview IN THE SHADOW OF SPENGLER eBook