TEMPLE HQ
THIS DREAM AGAIN, DEJA VU!
SEXUAL ARISTOCRACY
Much of the discussion of the libido is framed around a rather immature understanding, where it will cut a strict dichotomy between the view of sex as an unmoored act of hedonism (the view of BDSM practitioners of sex as mere "play" with no impacts of health aside from blunt cases such as latex allergy) against a view of sex held by the exoteric teachings of the church - sex as an instrument for reproduction, with deviations being inherently destructive in some fashion.
To call this immature is an understatement - it belies a complete alienation from sexual health in both respects - the former taking the more stereotypically contemporary approach, of viewing everything as a function of constant dissolving of meaning, a weaponized epistemology of capital committed to what Marx referred to as "all that is solid melting into air". The latter meanwhile is an equally immature perspective, from a modern, though contemporary of an earlier era, where sex is stilled view in light of its economic function, only in respect to its productive capacity rather than its media-consumer capacity - the economic thought of the 19th and 20th centuries. The flaw here should be obvious - both perspectives divorce sex from what it is, as an inherently internal process, contained within its practitioners, that has tremendous implications for health.
Countless authors of the latter school will talk endlessly about the benefits of abstinence - but never got a step further, or distinguish the two forms of abstinence - cultivation and amputation.
Cultivation takes place when one abstains from the lower forms of sexuality - ie, transmuting their sexual energies upwards. I wrote about this previously, of the elite need for sodomy, where lower forms of energy are transmuted into higher levels, with those overseeing this sodomy or transmutation being the aristocracy. The foundational example for this is solar energy being transmuted into cultivated cereals which form a foundation for higher degrees of society - thus the pyramidal structure of an economy. Sexually, this takes the form of semen retention and various other methods of energetic cultivation. Here, arousal is stimulated in order for that energy to then be transmuted upwards. Rather than the expulsive action of ejaculation, a man will arouse himself but never let his semen be expelled, in order for his body to reabsorb the generated energy for long-term benefits.
Amputation is the more well known concept, of sodomizing sexual energy by letting it completely atrophy. As countless authors have pointed out, desire is a machine, not a fluid - ie, to feed a desire is to only grow it even further, while to starve it is to eventually kill it. The alternative view of sexual health is that sexuality in itself is a problem. The Roman Church takes this into an interesting direction where it draws a class distinction, between the laity, who are consigned to put their sexual energy to animal purposes of procreation, which feeds the clergy, who are taught to entirely cut off their libidos. It's this class distinction that can provide such a key insight into an organization like the Roman Church, which has such enlightened structures of governance over the lower bio-strata's libido - their bodies pressed into structures of labor, their sexuality pressed into structures of procreation, their cultures re-oriented towards sets of symbols which all hyperlink to the papacy. Given all of this, it can be said that no organization more effectively demonstrates an enlightened consciousness of controlling the flow of society, by establishing its grip over the physical, biological flows of the people.
Sexual transmutation is in other words, not merely a personal choice, but a political one - to engage in sexual transmutation is to be among the archons, to complete the transmutative action within the self that an economic elite does on the social corpus.
To put things in more blunt terms, both methods - cultivation and amputation - are equally enlightened paths to the control of the libido, as both commit the same action of transmuting the lower and procreative upwards. The Roman Church, in promoting amputation, was attempting to create a clas of castrati, which could then exert removed control over what was seen as a filthy thing of the animal body, while the Daoist teachings, in promoting cultivation could exert control via embracing and digesting what was being produced into the animal realm into higher realms of being.
In this respect, I reject the false dichotomy between sex and abstinence, between fap and nofap, between etc and etc. Rather, I draw the dichotomy as a class distinction, between those who transmute sexuality upwards (the aristocracy) and those who engage in sexuality at its animal, procreative level (the peasantry). The question is not which of them is a universally better option, as a structure needs to contain both - two sets of rules for each social class, as one cannot exist without the other. The amputated priest has nothing if not for the peasantry producing offspring and the cultivating sage has nothing if not for their own genitals producing energies that prevented from fulfilling their simplest end. The question of whether or not one should be personally sexually isn't a question of morality, but of position - whether one is born of Heaven or Earth.