Goddess: The Ghost Of Matriarchy Past

http://goddessofsacredsex.com/who-is-the-goddess/

Ach. You know, on the one hand, I kind of like those romantic notions of ancient female goddesses and a golden time in which sex was without shame.

After all, the shaming of sex is a bane everyone in the so-called "west" feels. (And probably everyone else, too.) As far as religion goes, a strong injection of feminine divinity, along with a more healthy attitude towards our physicality is surely called for and sadly missed!

The Hopi, the Germanic tribes, Babylon were frequently suspected of having employed matriarchal systems. In general, the idea of an ur-matriarchy seems to stem from the 19th century.

But on the other hand, we have precious little evidence that there ever really was a powerful matriarchy in place. Much less a matriarchy spanning the whole of humanity. True, temple prostitution did exist - but whether those prostitutes actually held a lot of power is quite doubtful. True, there are lots of little statues of fat women with huge breasts - but are all of them objects of reverence, do they all represent The One Female Goddess? (The reduction to One God, whether male or female, might be seen as patriarchal by many a feminist, by the way.)

From what I've read so far, we have only very little evidence of actual matriarchies. When you read the article I linked, which is fairly typical of the... shall we say "spiritual" reading of such hypotheses, it's a mesh-up of second-wave feminism, thinly veiled kinky eroticism, and new-age eclectic spirituality. It takes everything it can find, by way of free association, and attempts to create a myth from it.

Charming, but hardly scientific.

Moreover, there is often a kind of scientific conspiracy theory going on in those articles. Because female history has been hushed up by patriarchal historians, therefore every little sign of female activity is a hint at an overarching matriarchy. It's just bad science.

It's a compelling, fascinating, enthralling fantasy. But, for better or worse, that's all it is.

Kundalini Danger - The REAL Dangers Of Tantra

I knew a woman, and we got intimate, and at some point I suggested that she try out a little tantric breathing.

It took her about 30 seconds to break off the experiment in alarm.

What was going wrong?

Well, you should probably know that this woman had suffered through some severe trauma. And while, in theory, I knew that tantra might wake up buried emotions, at that point I just didn't think about that, or didn't quite realize the connection with the situation at hand, and suggested it anyway. Luckily for the both of us, this woman has put lots of time and energy into her therapy, and - partly as a result of that, partly because this is just how awesome she is - she is reflected and mature enough to know what is good for her, and what is not.

So, this stirring of arbitrary emotions without any controlling instance, without a carefully set-up safe environment, definitely counts as a danger to me. What if this hadn't happened with a woman in her mid-30s, but with an insecure twen suffering from bipolar disorder? What if it hadn't happened at home, but in a tantra course, with some "instructor" pushing people into the exercises? Stuff like that falls under the category of a psychotherapeutic intervention, and stuff like that is definitely not to be fooled around with.

In short, tantric breathing can trigger re-traumatization in victims of childhood abuse, people who suffer from PTSD, torture victims, etc. If this is your history, you'd better consult with a trained professional before venturing into tantra.

The other real danger I see is that a so-called "kundalini awakening" seems to sometimes trigger a state similar to perpetual arousal syndrome. From what I know, this is quite rare, so it won't keep me from venturing further on this path. One thing I shall say is that there were a few moments when I was a bit afraid of what might happen if the state of arousal wouldn't wane off by itself. If having a few orgasms doesn't get you off your arousal, then what are you supposed to do? That doesn't sound like a healthy thing to me at all. But as I said, I figure the chances of that are actually extremely slim, so I see no real issue.

Interestingly, some of the symptoms seem to be consistent with what some fundamentalist christians describe as the result of the demonic influence that they see behind said "kundalini awakenings".

If you'd like to learn more, the following article relates a personal experience with that issue - it completely turned the lady in question off sex for several years:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/my_tantric_awakening_turned_me_off_sex/

"How To Change Your Beliefs And Identity"

Dear Stefan Pylarinos,

in our recent conversation on your youtube video about "How To Change Your Beliefs And Identity", you claimed that you can give me "hundreds of examples of people that have made amazing changes." From context, I infer that you are talking about people who have made changes following your own method which you detail in your videos and on your website.

Talking about your website, you claim there that you have a "7-Step Proven Method To Creating The Life Of Your Dreams" and that you know and can teach people "How To Change Any Negative Behaviour Or Emotion Instantly".

Regarding those claims, I have a challenge that I am sure you will enjoy to meet. After all, what's in it for you is nothing short of the best publicity you can ever hope to get: independently verified, irrefutable proof of your claims. You can find this challenge at the end of this blog posting, under the heading "The Challenge".

Before we start, I would like to make one thing abundantly clear: I do not doubt your sincerity. I am perfectly sure that you believe what you say, and that you are convinced that you're doing a tremendous amount of good for other people. The same goes for many other life coaches out there. To what degree that assessment is correct, of course, is an entirely different question.

A Few Remarks About Skepticism And Beliefs

Let's talk a bit about your latest contribution to our youtube conversation, and let me clarify a few things. Here is your text:

I have some feedback, if you're open to it. You have a very disempowering way of looking at things. You very much have a pessimistic or skeptical view of life coaches in my opinion, which is all fear based - it's a fear of being disappointed, or that change can't happen that fast. As long as you believe this, how is it going to help your life? How does believing what you just said going to empower you in any way? I can give you hundreds of examples of people that have made amazing changes.

First off, please stop calling this feedback. It violates pretty much every rule of feedback I ever learned in all the communication courses I took: It generalizes my remarks about self-help and life coaches to my overall worldview, it personalizes matters, it attempts to turn the factual problem I raised into my own personal issue, and most amusingly, it is an attempt at reading my mind. You don't know anything about my personal fears or disappointments, because I never talked to you about that. If you've taken any NLP course at all, you know that mind-reading is one of the main ways of distorting your internal representation of the world. It is also a good way of unnecessarily escalating a conflict, and in the case of a life coach, it is entirely unprofessional and unacceptable.

In short, I guess I might have struck a nerve there, ain't I?

Fast Change

Let's talk about "fast change" first, since it is a repeated topic here on my blog. (Probably even ad nauseam, sometimes, I'm afraid...) Do I believe that change can't happen "that fast"? (How fast is "that fast", anyway? Well, you claim instantaneous radical change on your webpage, so let's go with that.)

Well, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of very fast changes.

What I can say is that I have never witnessed any such change. What I can also say is that I probably should have witnessed at least a few, given that I have a sheet of paper in my drawer that says "NLP practitioner" in nice golden letters, that I have another certificate identifying me as a mediator, and I've looked into various "transformative" practices ranging from christianity to kabbalah to buddhism over the years. In my NLP class, there were about 30 peple, and we spent a lot of time with each other over the course of about 18 months. And yet, none of those 30 people ever reported any significant, mind-blowing, instant changes, even though NLP claims to be the most effective method ever, and the institute is probably the largest and most renowned NLP institute in my country. Are we to surmise that they all had those drastic mind-boggling revelations, but somehow all of them just kept their mouth shut about it? Perhaps they talked with each other and somehow kept me out of the loop? Possible. But not very convincing, if you ask me.

As I said, I don't even claim that instant, radical change can never ever happen. I'm sure it does. In fact, it happened to me, and I blogged about it here and here. I do think, however, that probably no-one has ever devised a fool-proof, 100% method of achieving it. If that were not so, how do you explain thousands upon thousands of self-help books and methods, all claiming total effectiveness, often contradicting each other? Don't start with "not everything is for everyone". The moment you admit that, you have essentially admitted that your specific method is not proven, not 100%.

In short, if anyone has a "100% proven method for achieving instant, radical and lasting change", where the heck do they hide their Nobel Prize, and why do they hide it in the first place? Looking around, this is the most sought-after knowledge since the goddarn frakkin' dawn of humanity. If you claim that you have a method like that, be prepared to back that up with evidence. This is a very, very, VERY extraordinary claim, almost as extraordinary as the claim of being able to walk on water or raise the dead. Evidence for this should be MASSIVE if you want it to be believable.

Change is chaotic and unpredictable, in my experience. We can learn how to ride the avalanche, how to steer it to a degree, and that's about all we can do.

Skepticism

You write that I have a "pessimistic or skeptical view of life coaches". You are spot on: In fact, I do, and it is backed by my own experience. Looking at the name of my blog, what else do you expect?

I don't claim that they're all completely bogus, and I do think that a lot of them actually have something useful to say. But I also think that most of them overgeneralize their own experience, have read a few books here and there, and create some brilliant positive, good-sounding, overly optimistic ideology from that, and then sell this as absolute truth. I also think that this is a devastatingly destructive way of going about things that ultimately hurts the customers way more than it benefits them.

But all that is just my own very personal rambling, and skepticism is not about that. Skepticism is about requiring evidence. You made a claim, you show us the evidence, we examine it. Simple, really, isn't it?

The Usefulness Of Beliefs

You asked me (rhetorically, I guess), "How does believing what you just said going to empower you in any way?"

I take from that that you have a very utilitarian view of beliefs. In fact, it is the view taught in NLP and next to all self-help and life coaching. I bought into that view myself, for a while.

Here's the catch: It is not TRULY utilitarian. It consistently overlooks the fact that beliefs, ultimately, are tools for survival. And they can't well function as that if they are not in some way realistic. Yes, beliefs can be disempowering, and we can rephrase and reframe a good many of our beliefs in better ways so as to better empower ourselves and others. But I have also found that I can not make myself believe something that I know to be objectively false. Have you ever tried to make yourself believe that you ate ice cream for breakfast, when you really ate toast? Go on and do it, I challenge you. I predict that you will fail. Your brain will simply reject it as not consistent with your experience.

How will my belief about life coaches empower me? By avoiding to fall for bullshit claims that don't actually work in reality. By avoiding to invest time and money in methods that fail to deliver.

And yes, I did try that stunt with the ice-cream, thanks for asking.

The Challenge

Okay, here's your challenge. As an honest entrepeneur, a decent human being and a great life coach, I'm sure you'll be happy to meet the following criteria:

1. Hundreds of Examples

Regarding the hundreds of examples of people that have made amazing changes, I am looking forward to having all of those reply to this posting. Specifically, I require that the following criteria be met:

1. Every entry has to come from a different person.
2. Every single one of them has to be properly authenticated, so we can make sure that none of them are faked. I am flexible about the method of authentication; however, I'm sure our audience and your prospective customers will have a keen and skeptical eye on any method you come up with.
3. In order to reflect permanent change, the radical instantaneous experience has to have taken place more than 6 months ago.
4. The report has to be detailed and sufficiently void of vague language.
5. The person has to attest that the change they achieved was actually the change that they planned to achieve before the experience.
6. Your influence on and involvement with the change have to be obvious in the report.
7. The challenge is met if there are at least 200 ("hundreds") such entries within the next month. For starters, I'll be happy to provisionally declare the challenge met if we have 50 entries within one week.

2. 7-Step Proven Method

Regarding your "7-Step Proven Method To Creating The Life Of Your Dreams", kindly answer the following questions:

1. Without revealing any trade secrets, what is the main psychological method that you base your method on?
2. What renowned institution performed the scientific tests necessary to devise the proof you claim?
3. What methods of psychological and sociological measurement were employed?
4. Were the tests double-blind?
5. Were the tests quantitative or qualitative?
6. How many subjects were tested?
7. What measures were taken to avoid, or at least account for, confirmation and selection bias?

I am looking forward to literally hundreds of replies...

With kind regards,

Betlamed

What's Wrong With Statistics (at least the ones you read in the news)

On the web or in newspapers, you can read excellent articles such as this. In it, you can read how the male brain is 10% larger on average, but the female brain has more connections. Men think more with the left side of the brain and are therefore more logical. But women have more nerve connections and a bigger corpus callosum (that's the part of the brain that connects the left and right halves), so they use both hemispheres of their brain more in-sync and are therefore better at intuition, communication... basically, women are better at everything that really matters, while men are good for the workforce, as cannon fodder, and for fixing your PC.

Well, the latter isn't even true anymore, now that the majority of 'puters are tablets that cannot be fixed if you don't have a contract with Apple(TM). D'uh.

Sounds about right, doesn't it?

Well... it doesn't. I often had this vague feeling that those claims were somehow wrong. Regardless of whether statistics were used to prove that men were superior (which is rarely the case nowadays) or (much, much more often!) that women are the epitome of goodness; or to show that immigrants are criminals; or that religious people live longer than atheists; or even when the statistics seemed to support my prejudices, showing that the roman catholic clergy are more prone to become child molesters than the rest of us. Something was... off.

Maybe it's just because I was brought up on the firm idea that stereotypes are bad, period. Or it's because I'm a Jewish Studies minor. At any rate, I tend to mistrust generalizations over large groups of people. The pharisees are hypocrites? Really? Every single last one of them did nothing all day except feigning learnedness and empathy, while really clinging to an absurd law and forcing it on others? None of them had families to support? None of them earned their living with hard work? They didn't build schools for the poor and unprivileged? Look up the facts and be surprised.

I'm getting off topic, yeah.

So, basically, I read all those statistical facts, had a hard time believing them, but never could I pinpoint exactly what was wrong.

Then, some fine day, I talked to a friend who knows her way around maths. I mentioned one of those suspicious statistics. One about men and women, probably. And, with a conspiratorial smile, after she had blown out the candle and looked around the room lest anyone should overhear what secrets she had to tell, she whispered the following words into my ear: "Standard deviation, my friend, standard deviation!"

This came as a huge revelation, which I am glad to pass on to you now.

Here's the deal:

Let's say you are trying to score a goal from the penalty spot. Let's also say that you're not exactly the greatest soccer player never to have roamed the field of the Allianz Arena. You shoot 10 times. 5 times, you shoot 10 meters to the left of the goal. The other 5 times, you shoot 10 meters to the right. Not counting those times when you didn't even manage to hit the ball.

So on average, you have hit the goal exactly 10 times. Right in the middle. That's a 100% success rate, right there.

And that's exactly what's wrong with the article quoted above. And that's exactly what's wrong with about 95% of all articles that quote statistics. They all tell you the average, but not the standard deviation. That's about as useful as telling you that the boiling point of water is 75.5°C.

It's not exactly relevant whether women have a, say, 10% larger corpus callosum on average, if the standard deviation is 2 times larger than that. It won't mean that any specific woman you meet will top any specific man in any one area with any reliability. It doesn't help us much to know that the female sexual partners of circumcised men run a slightly lower risk of cervical cancer (they don't, by the way). Not if sexual faithfulness, personal hygiene and the average time between sexual encounters are much more indicative factors.

So... don't believe me, I implore. But the next time you read your newspaper, look out for that standard deviation. I bet you won't find it.

By the way, the boiling point of water is 75.5°C, according to Wikipedia. At 8000 meters above sea level, of course.

Enemies Of The Faith? Enemies Of Believers?

Dear Mr Rowan Williams,

It's easter time. Time of eggs, bunnies, and funny utterances by members of several ritualistic organisations.

For one example, there is this gem: "Guardian" Interview with "bishop" Rowan Williams, in which you are quoted as having a few very interesting stances about "new atheism" and its relationship towards your organisation.

Let me first say that I find it rather funny when a "bishop" of the roman catholic organisation demands a reasonable debate.  I don't want to bash you personally; after all, there is no compulsory sex demanded by law, and having no sense of style in clothing is your personal prerogative, but I cannot help a little chuckle at such an occasion.

I sure hope that you can share in my laugh, though, when I read a few sentences later that "resurrection is a fact".

I will not start to repeat arguments that have fallen on deaf ears for centuries now. I suggest a little experiment you can conduct for yourself in the peace of your living room: Say "reasonable", aloud, ten times. Now do the same for "resurrection".  Now combine the two - "reasonable, resurrection, reasonable, resurrection..." And now try not to laugh.

As I said above, apart from a little friendly teasing, I won't bash you personally.

You see, I think that we should heed the fundamental difference between a person and their beliefs.

In said article, you state that "faith [is] no longer seen as 'a brainless and oppressive enemy' but recognised as a potential ally against a greedy and individualistic way of life that feels 'increasingly insane'".

There are several major issues with that one sentence.

1. Enemies Of The Faith

Abstract: Mr Williams, I am not your enemy, even though I find the teachings your organisation represents to be nonsensical, unfounded and debilitating to the human mind.

First off, faith cannot be an ally or an enemy. We might count this off as just a figure of speech, a lapsus linguae. But the catholic teaching specifically states that Jesus of Nazareth was (and still IS!) "the way, the truth, and the life", and not in a merely figurative way. Indeed, the church's teachings, along with every other religious teaching, are full to the brim with metaphysical entities such as faith, sin, the messiah, the trinity - all said to be "real" in some way. Not simply a metaphor, an image representing something else - no, they're supposed to be real, actual entities. The essential wafer after transubstantiation, to name one of the more absurd ones.

So, seeing as you are an official of said organisation, we have to assume that you're not talking about teachings and logical structures, but about some etherial, hidden, mystical "entity". You are essentially saying that atheists are seeing faith as a metaphysical entity that they can ally with.

Now, of course, atheists can and will sometimes be exactly as unreasonable as theists. Merely recognizing the nonexistence of a deity does not a mature human being make.

Anthropomorphisation is one of the nastiest, most resilient scourges of humanity (as well as one of the most beautiful poetic expressions, of course). It is deeply rooted in our biological system (what you like to call "soul"), serves a few very fundamental purposes, and is an unfathomably dangerous weapon in the hands of demagogues and church leaders.

The good news is that we can educate ourselves not to fall into that trap. Thus (whenever I'm not simply talking tongue-in-cheek and having some teasing in good humour), I habitually make a point of distinguishing between a person and their ideas. You, Mr Williams, are, for all I know, a decent, loving, caring, intelligent, well-educated human being. I might be wrong, since I don't know you, but I'm happy to assume the best about people I don't know, until otherwise proven.

But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with anything you say.

In fact, the teachings of your organisation thrive on such human flaws. They are specifically designed to do just that. They are a highly sophisticated, intricate system of flawed logic - circular, adhominem, no-true-scotsmanesque syllogisms interwoven with invitations for identification, us-vs-them thinking, reification, hyperbole, guilt-tripping, double binds and simple denial - built upon each other and resting on unfounded assertions.

And that, Mr Williams, I see as a huge problem.

Try thinking that the church is the "body of christ", that christ died for your sins, that you are a labourer in the vineyard, and that someone is attacking this very body-church-vineyard-thingie by saying that christ's teachings are utter nonsense. And then try to stay calm. You'll have to be an iceberg to be able to accomplish that with any consistence.

2. An Ally Against A Certain Way Of Life

Abstract: Religious teachings are generally a hindrance, not a tool, for human development.

I agree that greed is bad. I fail to see any reasonable connection between the belief in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth on the one hand, and overcoming greed on the other hand. On top of that, I fail to see how being an individual, and being conscious of being an individual, have anything to do with being greedy. (The "individualism is bad" stance that the catholic organisation has adopted is deeply troubling in and of itself, but more of that later.)

In reality, compassion and rationality are the mental capabilities that can help me overcome my greed. Both can be trained using various methods, and those methods are available to atheists as much as theists. Some of those methods are described in this very blog. But ultimately, everybody has to find their own ways to deal with their shortcomings, and - apart from my own experience and a few informed speculations - I cannot offer any bulletproof system for overcoming vice; and neither can you. If you claim that you can, then please show the evidence.

Well and also, compassion and reality can be scientifically shown to be grounded in human biology - I fancy this as a slight, but definite advantage over a metaphysical overlord who sacrificed himself to himself in order to set humanity free from the punishment he himself imposed upon them in the first place.

If anything, the us-vs-them mentality endorsed by the christian gospels - as well as the catholic teachings purportedly grounded upon those gospels - serve to maintain one's greed while hiding it behind a mask of piety. Do I really need to mention the gold-and-silk escapades of your organisation as one very obvious example?

I will not venture to claim that christians are, on average, more greedy than atheists. But I challenge you to show, based on peer-reviewed academical studies, that people of faith are less greedy than us grim dark heathens.

In conclusion, every christian, hindu, muslim, buddhist, even scientologist can be my friend, and can be an ally in dealing with all the challenges we are currently facing - but that doesn't change the fact that I find the teachings of all those religions ridiculous, destructive and - well, simply plain old wrong.

I am looking forward to your reply,

With kind regards,
Betlamed the Skeptic Tantrika

Shiatsu

Last week at the spa, I had a very interesting and instructive experience with shiatsu.

Passive stretching and that specific style of massage feels extremely good. Not a big surprise there, but an excellent reason to grant myself some more regular shiatsu sessions. The movements have a relaxing and activating effect at the same time. And besides, the flexibility and agility of those masseurs is pretty impressive.

Now about the "energetic" part. Shiatsu is not meant to be a simple stretching exercise. It's meant to work on your "meridians". Now, this specific practitioner did something very interesting: She predicted that, since she had worked on my "bladder meridian", I would probably have to use the restroom more often the following day.

Did I? I have no clue. For one, I was sweating all day in the sauna, and therefore drinking a lot; secondly, I really couldn't tell whether I peed more than usual; and thirdly, she gave me the suggestion beforehand, so in case there was an effect, we can't tell whether it came from the massage or from the suggestion.

But in hindsight, another thing stands out. Imagine a western doctor treating you for... whatever, a nosebleed. And at the end of the treatment, said doctor says, "Oh by the way... I gave you something for your bladder, you'll have to use the restroom a lot these days."

Wouldn't you be a bit upset? I, for one, can imagine suing that doctor all over the place. I rather like to know beforehand what I will be up to, or if there are any side-effects to a treatment. That is because I like to take my decisions myself. Strictly speaking, this is an invasion of my privacy and physical integrity.

Of course, I wouldn't do that with a shiatsu practitioner, and I don't think anyone would.

The reason for this is shockingly simple: When a western doctor gives you a prediction, you can bet almost all your money on that prediction coming true. When a practitioner of some eastern massage technique does the same, you can bet that the prediction will come true in exactly 50% of all cases.

Now, I don't even want to claim that there is literally NOTHING to meridians. I'm perfectly convinced that those old chinese (or, in the case of shiatsu, those not-so-old japanese of the late 19th century) knew a bit about the human body.

But I am equally sure that their metaphysical, "energetic" explanation kept them from developing their knowledge to its full potential.

I would bet that because the "energetic" explanation is unfalsifiable, and therefore utterly useless. You cannot disprove any specific part of a theory like that, therefore the theory cannot be expanded upon or improved.

In other words, the "bladder meridian" will most probably have an effect on the bladder in some cases - namely, those cases where they hit on an actual nerve center by chance. In all other cases, nothing will happen. Or perhaps, something entirely different from what the practitioner expects. Happily, since our body is constructed to withstand outer influences to a large degree, most effects will either be beneficial or insignificant. That is, in my view, eastern practitioners' real competitive edge.

And of course, because eastern medicine never ever claims any actual effects - it's only ever for prevention, never for healing - you cannot decide whether there is something to it or not. If the desired effect does not appear, then there's always some explanation for that. And even that practitioner at the spa only said that it would "probably" happen.

I will definitely go on with shiatsu. I will ask the next practitioner to refrain from giving me their predictions beforehand. One week later, I will ask them, and then compare notes.

Starting Point for an Explanation

So, assuming that tantra actually does something for its practitioners - a fact that many seem convinced of, so it cannot simply be disregarded - what is a non-mystical explanation?

Let's look at one classical instruction (for guys - it's actually the one I practice the most):

"Focus on your breath. Upon inhaling, breathe as deeply as possible into your pelvic floor. upon exhaling, clench your PC muscles and direct the energy from the sex chakra up the spine."

This roughly translates to: "Focus inward - feel your breath - feel its flow - breathe deeper and deeper now - and as you go deeper and deeper inside, disregarding conscious thoughts that only come in the way, relaxing and feeling those good feelings, notice how the energy flows..."

To me, this sounds suspiciously like a trance induction. I'd hazard the guess that that's what it really is. Shifting the focus around inside your body helps to abandon verbal thinking, thereby driving you deeper into the trance. And of course, clenching the PC muscles does have a physical effect and produces sexual feelings, because it massages your prostate, and because the anal area is an erogenous zone (even if many males don't like to admit that).

As an experiment, you can try focusing the breath on totally unconnected areas. I don't know about you, but if I inhale into my left leg, and then exhale into the right leg, I get pretty much the same results. If that's not quite as much fun, probably that's because focusing on the organ that is producing those delicious sexy feelings is the best way to intensify those feelings?

I think we might be on to something here. No voodoo involved, no hindu gods invoked, no transcendental energy fields presupposed.

It simply makes sense, that's all! I strongly feel that this practice makes me stronger, that I'm actually more energetic and have more willpower if I do not ejaculate, but practice tantra instead.

This factor remains unexplained, for the time being. I have no frakking clue why not ejaculating makes me more energetic. If I had to guess, I'd say it's simply because I'm more horny, and tantra is a clever way to sublimate this horniness into useful actions.

I Do Not Believe In Energy

Okay, let's be more specific here.

Of course there is energy. It is equivalent to mass times speed of light squared. It is present as electromagnetism, the weak and the strong force, as sunlight and movement, and of course, it runs through all of our bodies in the form of chemo-electrical nerve impulses and chemically bound ions, as long as we're alive.

What I do not believe in is chi (or qi), a mystical fluidum that cannot be measured or otherwise objectively perceived, but is still supposed to somehow "be there", ready to be influenced and manipulated by puny humans.

I think that there is good reason to only believe what is actually proven to be there. And there is also excellent reason to mistrust anyone who claims to be able to manipulate unproven mystical powers, even moreso if they make a big fat show of it and have a huge flock of followers.

Ever wondered about those qi gong "masters" who are seemingly able to throw people around the room against their will and beyond any physical explanation - just by focusing their qi? Well, duh... perhaps it's time to look into why those "masters" only ever seem to be able to demonstrate their magic powers on their own followers - and how, as soon as they are to work their qi on a non-believer, they always come up with the wildest of excuses. Like, "today is a bad day for qi gong" (lame), "It would be unethical to show this to the uninitiated" (really? why?), or my all-time favourite "I would hurt him so bad it's not worth it" (at least that one's funny, albeit unintentionally so).

So... no qi going 'round. And still, I'm an avid qi gong practitioner, and as the title of this blog suggests, I'm also into tantra... an awful lot, actually.

So how can I rationalize this obvious contradiction away?

Umm... *rolls up biblical sleeves* well, it's all symbolic, ya knows?

Naaah. Not symbolic AT ALL. Quite the contrary, actually.

I like to distinguish three seperate elements: a) my actual physical/mental experience at that moment; b) my conscious visualisations; c) my theory and interpretation of the experience

In other words:

I feel whatever I'm feeling while I'm consciously breathing and working my PC muscle; this feeling is there whether I can explain it or not. If I start conceptualizing this feeling, I can compare it to other things - it feels LIKE an energy flow through my body. (That obviously doesn't mean that it IS an energy flow; big fat conceptual mistake there! Our inner perceptions are obviously flawed, as our nervous system isn't very much equipped for that - ever had a wound in your mouth, and touched it with your tongue? It feels much bigger than it really is, doesn't it?)

By visualising this energy flow, the feeling gets even more intense. The line between the feeling and the visualization gets blurred and sometimes completely vanishes, and thus in my mind at that moment, the feeling IS an energy flow. My mind has no other frame of reference, and thus, this is what it will come up with.

Now, when theorizing about it later on, one will most probably turn to the philosophical framework one is used to: If you're a christian, you might interpret this as the Holy Spirit moving through you (though I highly doubt that there are many christians out there practicing tantra, but what do I know). If you're a taoist, you might call it the qi flowing through your meridians. The yogi might find her kundalini awakening. And if you're a materialist like myself, you will perhaps look for clenched and stretched muscles, nerves transmitting signals of relaxation, and the reward center in the brain getting activated.

In all those cases, the experience itself can only be beneficial. Your ideology or your interpretation really doesn't change the experience, at least as long as it doesn't keep you from having it. (I have already been tempted to teach a few past-middle-aged christian ladies how to breathe into their pelvic floors... believe me, resisting this temptation wasn't easy... NOT AT ALL EASY!!!)

So the interpretation doesn't really matter, there might as well be none at all... does it?

Well, yes and no. Sure, we can all just join hands and enjoy.

But for one, as the buddha taught, coming up with explanations is so deeply human as to be almost unavoidable.

And secondly - and, I think, much more importantly - if we can come up with a good and solid scientific explanation, tested with the utmost scientific vigour, then we can use this knowledge for even more pleasure, even more healing, even better orgasms. Of course the trap is to make a sport and a tournament out of it and thus spoil the fun - but this trap is there anyway, even the most "spiritual" people somehow manage to engage in contests of who is "even more spiritual" than the next person.

So, to sum it up: Enjoy the experience, and enjoy making up an explanation for the experience later on! And if you cannot find any explanation, don't worry - it'll be fun anyway.