The third and most important issue at stake behind consumerism is identity. There is personal identity, gender identity, sexual identity, social identity, political identity, ethnic identity and national identity. Any of these identities can only grow in freedom. That is why child protection, as all protection, is counterproductive to building identity. The slave is identified as an asset of his or her master, not as a persona sui generis. The modern citizen is identified as an asset of the nation state he or she belongs to. The modern citizen is not identified as a person in her own right and spiritual origin that bears a unique cosmic identity tag in form of an energy code that is written right in our vibrational field. That is why consumer citizens do not enjoy social autonomy. The consumer citizen is a creature that lives with a disowned body, a body that is socially controlled and manipulated.
Aristotelian dualism that was taken over by the Church and later by the modern state has allowed to dissect body and soul so that the theory became possible that a person may disown her body without disowning her soul. I would go as far as saying that it was this paradigm that triggered ancient and modern holocausts. It was a common argument for missionaries for committing genocide of supposedly non-believing native populations. They alleged that those people did ‘not have a soul’ and were thus per definition no humans. Hitler used the same rhetoric against the Jews and the gypsies.
This argument is logically impossible if we maintain that body and soul are a unity because then every creature that owns a body must own a soul. As a consequence we must assume that the modern citizen who lives with a disowned body equally has been deprived of their soul. The question why modern life has no soul finds its answer here. A society of disowned individuals is a group of shadows or an ensemble of ectoplasms, but not a community of soul-beings. Tribal societies are different in their being in unity with their bodies and thus with their souls! That is why their lifestyle is filled with soul, with joy, with significance while modern society’s is empty like a dried-out shell.
The way out of consumerist projections, absurd intellectual assumptions and publicly propagated lies is understanding; it comes about through erotic intelligence. It is a result of finding answers inside, afar from political conceptions and models. People who have problems with being in touch with their natural emotions should make serious efforts to understand and reintegrate their disowned selves – and the problems will disappear.
The new science paradigm shows us that Darwinian reductionism is built on false premises in that the human is not a machine. Humans are not only physical and sexual beings, but soul beings first of all, and thereafter, from a psychosomatic perspective, we are emotional plus sexual, and thus emosexual beings. This is simply so, if sexological reductionism agrees or not. Mechanistic sexology does not consider emotional preferences as factors triggering sexual attraction because emotions do not fit their residual Darwinian scheme of ‘sexual drives’ that has been taken over and reinforced by psychoanalysis and psychological and medical practices that are mainstream today. Mainstream social sciences see emotions only as an add-on to sexuality, as something that can be linked to sexual behavior, but not something that is genuinely involved in sexual attraction, or that even triggers sexual attraction.
By contrast, my hypothesis is that emotional attraction is the primal attraction and that sexual attraction is random and secondary. I further argue that sexual attraction follows emotional attraction, and not vice versa. I am aware that I am contradicting modern sexology in this point and that my hypothesis may sound queer to many psychologists and psychiatric professionals. It’s here where my landscape starts and where traditional sexology ends. Despite the contradiction with established science, I believe there is a good chance that my new terminology will be accepted in the future, simply because it is useful—and truthful.
With the transformation we are presently going through, I believe, there is a high probability that the values of intimacy, love and sexuality will be revisited, if not completely revised in a more enlightened society of the future.