Discourse 4 : The Edification of Marriage Through Fear and Trembling

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works

And that my soul knoweth right well.

Psalm 139:14

                Too much of our modern world has been molded by things that have been lost to translation. As you will see in this discourse, the word ‘fear’ does not stand alone in having its true meanings obscured. Used frequently in scripture, it is often associated with terror, punishment and even hell. Fire and brimstoning you into compliance, as powerful religious institutions have been known to do throughout history, for all the wrong reasons. Yet, this is not how the word was meant to be interpreted. The current KJV was translated from its original Greek and Hebrew, and many words beyond fear have been obfuscated. Fear in the Bible comes from the Hebrew word yārē. While translated as fear, or fearfully, it does not mean to be afraid, or to experience terror. It means to be in the presence of something sacred. This “fear” is akin to a sense of awe, or amazement that overcomes us when we see a great mountain, a colorful rainbow, a sunrise, or holding your newborn daughters.

Reconsider:

Since then, we know what it is to fear the lord, we try to persuade others.

2Corinthians 5:11

Serve the Lord with Fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.

Psalm 2:11

Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God.

1 Peter 2:17

Although, many in the church would prefer to fear their God in terror, but as I will discuss later, Faith that holds itself heavy is no belief at all.

Love, like fear, has also become lost in translation. Both words and their interpretations, have had an undeniable effect on both our understandings of relationships and their methods of expression. In the way our understanding of fear has influenced our perception of God, our understanding of Love has influenced another relationship, that of marriage. This is the primary topic of this Discourse.

                Marriage, the cornerstone of human societal development; empires, communities and families have all been built upon its back since the dawn of man. We gravitate towards it, as if it were perforce for higher development. It in itself symbolizes a universal human hope; peace. To that point, I feel Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard was correct in saying that marriage is the highest universal in human culture. However, in our current social reality, marriage has become a demonic parody, as it has lost the essence of its meaning to an inversion of the truth. In the late 19^th century, the divorce rate was less than five percent, in the 1950’s it was around 25% and by the 1980s it was up to 51% and higher. Some say marriage is already recovering from this massive transvaluation because the divorce rate in 2023 is around 41%, but this is untrue. Significantly fewer people are getting married and when they do, they are statistically much older than in the past. In the 1960’s, 72 % of adults 18 and over were married, which fell to 51% in 2010. Currently, around 37% of adults are married. The decline in the reverence of marriage is axiomatic. Society, beyond its growing infantilization, has more anxiety, depression, fear, and loneliness than perhaps ever before. The two phenomena are not unrelated.

 Like a voice crying out from the wilderness, I feel it is important to write, to resist the social tidal wave which is helping mold the mainstream view of marriage into that of a sometimes-necessary inconvenience at best, to a form of prison at worst. I may not say it the best, but marriage is not just about me and mine. How we treat marriage as individuals, as society, will determine what type of civilizations we produce. If we cannot embrace the ultimate symbol of peace, of unity, how can we expect to find the same within ourselves, much less in the world outside? I pray for these things, for all of you.  I write not for the sake of mere expression, but for the hope of a possible reversion, perhaps even a re-imagining of our social construct of marriage.  As always with these essays, the pith of my motives is directed towards my daughters. However, this topic is perhaps the most important one from a personal standpoint, with the exception of Faith that I will ever write. Although, while the relationship between the two, marriage and faith, is heavily intertwined from my perspective, it is not absolutely necessary for my purposes in this essay. As a reader, whoever you are, my objective with this essay is to assist in the edification of marriage, the highest form of human relationships.

I begin with a brief reminder from previous Discourse, for the purpose of ‘setting the stage’ and ‘clearing the queue’. Much like many other elements of society, particularly mass society, the “institution” and social construct of marriage has been absolutely bastardized by the ruling class of power for far longer than most can fathom. One should not be under the illusion that marriage has been unscathed during the formation of mass society nor assume that I am unaware of these effects in this discourse. The relationship: its signs, symbols, and meanings, have all been targeted for utility by social engineers, causing significant divergence and obfuscation over meaning and purpose in our social psyche. This is not really debatable as it is demonstrably true for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. However, evaluating these changes is not within the scope of this essay, but they will be mentioned on occasion. This discourse intends to focus on what we can control as individuals, particularly our choices, and the type of role these relationships take within our respective individual lives.

 To my children: If we have gained our free will and become an individual, the captain of our own soul, we get to determine what type of life we live. We can choose what things have value to us and how best to spend our precious time. I have given this considerable thought, and my hope is that you do as well.    In this essay, I will describe what value and meaning I have chosen to give marriage for you to consider, going along with the examples you have seen in your own life which your mother and I have provided. I pray this helps illuminate your path as you make your own choices during your journey of life.

Part I

Statistics

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Mark Twain

                With the statistical qualifiers demanded by the modern world to speak on particular topics, on paper, I should be the last person one should seek counsel from regarding marriage. Although, I find statistics is too often a tool for deception because it inherently lacks detail, which in this case, statistics would teach one nothing about my dispositions or inclinations. Discussions about statistics always conjures in my mind thoughts of Carl Jung’s concept of the 145-gram pebble, where the average weight of a large collection of pebbles is 145 grams, yet not a single pebble weigh as such. Statistics, at its best, will tell you about the general nature of a group of things. It cannot be used to tell you anything about any single pebble because the individual element does not exist. Context is for Kings.

Modern society loves its self-victimization, and this sickness is assisted by various fields of study such as sociology and statistics to name just a few. Societies statistics will tell you that I was set up to fail at marriage and did not stand much of a chance of having a successful one. Furthermore, having experienced a failed marriage myself already, the same statisticians would claim they were justified in their postulations, adding that my opinions on the topic are invalidated due to my lack of perfection.

Yet, I deny this. I deny we are slated to be this or that by statistical fate, as only our circumstances can fall outside of our direct control while we move along our path in life, we always have agency for choice. Our life is a block of clay, and our lives are a long line of steps where upon each one we are granted choices that help shape the clay of our life. Each individual day presents choice after choice, many of which are ignored and thus made by default. This is the root of social statistics. Default, non-purposeful decisions. We can mold and shape ourselves, often through great discomfort as we are both sculptor and clay. We can live purposefully and build ourselves, or we can become a statistic, perhaps an engineered one. However, one must realize this, or learn it, to mitigate the risk of becoming ensnared by circumstances by default. In social reality, that is what statistics represent, the path of least resistance. Naturally, building oneself is opposed by resistance to varying degrees depending upon circumstances for all individuals, both from internal and external forces. Essentially, everyone has their challenges, and statistically speaking I have had mine.

My parents were divorced when I was three years old; I have vivid memories as early as the age of two, so even consciously the impact was present and not just a subconscious remnant. Both of my parents married again in the following years to spouses who had other children. Neither stepparent would be eligible for any parenting awards, but one was tremendously worse than the other. Consequentially as well as for other reasons, these marriages subsequently failed. My parents, both two-time divorcees before the age of 35, and they both married again when I was eleven. When I was twenty, I packed up from near home and moved to the other side of the country to attend grad school. Shortly thereafter I met my first wife, we were both going to the same school, and we moved in together quickly, perhaps more out of convenience. We were young and knew ourselves as well as a turtle knows how to fly. I thought I understood marriage and she just didn’t really care at the time. It was just what people should do who live together right? We married at 23 and divorced when we were 25, not long after graduation. (The statisticians are screaming to not take my advice on marriage) I even had a date walk out on me in my late 20’s for the simple fact that I had been divorced. Damaged goods. Statisticians agree.

However, I do not live on paper or reside in the statistician’s material world average. Neither do you if you choose. I am not defined by circumstances nor am I confined to yesterday’s proclivities or transgressions. At any time, we can choose to transmute ourselves, to take the path less traveled.

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

-          Viktor Frankl

I am not implying I was a bad husband, but I was not what I now consider to be a good one. I thought I had the best of intentions in my heart, but I did not yet understand the path the way any man, or woman, should. For that, I am sorry. Neither did she, to say the least, but I have forgiven her long ago for such things. I pray she has found or is on the path of peace.

Forgiveness is powerful, especially for those who extend it. And we should extend it more often as a habit.  However, as a sobering thought, If she and I remained together and I never went through the tribulation, I would not be as good of a husband as I am today. The tribulation brought growth, an opportunity to build myself better. If it were not for the opportunity to ruminate over the failure, perhaps I would not have sought self-improvement, a better relationship with God, a deeper understanding of the Holy Union, as well as a deeper understanding of myself. Perhaps I would not have begun walking the path of a deeper appreciation for joy, happiness, adversities, moments of time. Meaning. An appreciation of Life itself, all by the grace of God. My despair provided me with the path towards comprehension, as it was designed, I believe. That path has blessed me with my current wife, two beautiful daughters and better personal individual foundation.  

 Although, these variables do not matter to the statistician, only the raw data. Multiple parental divorces, including one personally before turning 26. However, as normal, they miss the details. Both sets of my grandparents were together for over 50 years and had strong relationships, which had a tremendous effect on my perception of marriage. Furthermore, my parents’ third marriage was back to each other when I was eleven. The example of love, duty, and respect for marriage began to unfold before my eyes as they renewed their commitment to one another. I took these positive experiences in and wanted to replicate them in my own life, for my own marriage when the time came. Yet, when the time came, neither myself nor my ex-wife knew how to mold such a thing from clay.

The roles of marriage had become far less intuitive than previous generations like my grandparents. We only knew how to role play at marriage because neither one of us really understood the mechanics of it.  As I now realize decades later, much of modern life is role play, absent substance, depth, and full participation outside of the default. Whereas in the past, my grandparents chose the role, and defined it by writing the definition themselves.  They understood the commitment, duty, and journey of marriage, that many of my generation simply didn’t “get”. It is worse now for generations younger than me as the decay is steady. As mentioned earlier, marriage rates continue to fall and still roughly half end in divorce. Fewer and fewer people know what it really signifies, embracing the symbol without knowing the meaning. Inevitably, they will grow bored playing a role, further contributing to the declining statistics.  If either spouse is role playing, it is not really marriage at all. It is reduced to a mere legal term called marriage by the state, the same state that sets political and socio-cultural narrative. As I will discuss later, neither of us had started the inner journey and were not ready for marriage.

Moving away from my personal experiences, perhaps my advice and perspective shall only be considered by my children. However, I felt it was important for the reader to understand what has driven me to some of my understandings, so they may decide for themselves what value to place upon my words. I hope they find you well.

Part II

The Mythology of the Soulmate and the Original Sin

                During common parlance in the modern world, when someone speaks about, or refers to, a soulmate, it is implied to mean they are referring to a singular pre-determined individual. The other person, by mere existence and fate, is assigned to you as your “other half”. In this case, soulmate is a noun. I have never subscribed to this idea, nor am I attempting to build it up here. In fact, I am seeking to re-imagine the meaning of the word into something more constructive, as well as to establish what this concept has to do with what I refer to as alchemical marriage. However, not only do I have a different perspective on the soulmate concept, I believe what is currently signified by the word is destructive. Prior to getting into my perspective, I want to both recognize and visit a Greek argument on the matter that helped create this mythology of the soulmate.  

“Love is born into every human being; it calls back the halves of our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two and heal the wounds of human nature. Each of us, then, is a ‘matching half’ of a human whole.. and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him.”

-Aristophanes (From Plato’s Symposium)

The Story goes in Greek mythology that the god Zeus split humans in half, who had four arms and four legs, out of fear of usurpation. This cleaving of the human species into distinct male and female counterparts; Aristophanes claimed, is why people will look for their “other half”, in order to feel love, to feel whole. Naturally, and correctly in my opinion, Plato rejected this idea in his Symposium, as he did not feel you could not truly love something unless it is truly good, nor could something be desired that was not separate from itself. Plato thought the idea of a soulmate was sophomoric. While I do not disagree with Plato in the context in which he was referring, I do have another postulation regarding the true nature of a soulmate, which for my point, is a verb and not a noun. I will get to that later, let me not get ahead of myself.

The Greeks have given us significant wisdom, perhaps one could say cumulatively more so than any other culture in History. I am not quite a philhellene, but I recognize the magnitude of effect Greek culture has had in shaping the world as a whole, as well as having influenced many of my personal views. However, the opponents of Plato effectively rule the day in the modern world, among other ideas and philosophies, this mythology of the Soulmate persists, which as previously mentioned is destructive. Another example of Greek perspective, two lovers were offered to be fused back together by the Greek god Hephaestus, a repairing of Zeus had put asunder. A return to perfection and the imminent usurpation of Zeus itself. In the story, the lovers agreed, as to them the alchemical marriage of the soul was that of assimilation back into the prime. The lovers reach their perceived zenith, two halves of one soul made whole, fused, indistinguishable, immutable.

Perfect,- ly, absent of love, as this type of love cannot exist without other, much in the way one can only desire something separate from themselves. This representation, two fused predetermined soul mates, lovers, has helped set this pseudo divine standard that frames the paradigm of the concept of soulmate in the modern world. Bliss, joy, wholeness, love, are sought externally first, to complete the lack of “wholeness” and to “heal the wounds of human nature” according to Aristophanes. This external path to personal wholeness has sent many lovers on the journey for union long before they had reconciled the “wounds of human nature.”

 Searching for someone to complete you, to “heal your wounds”, is an act motivated by self-interests, which is antithetical to the motivations of Love, which should be primary when pursuing marriage. I highly suspect the underlying thought patterns surrounding our social view of soulmates has contributed to marriage losing the meaning of its symbols. Whereas people confuse the initiating rituals for the action in process, as marriage itself is the commitment toward the alchemical marriage, the lifelong process of union. The ceremony is the beginning of the journey, not the end. Once a soulmate is “found” the journey is over, it is not a process as I contend.  Our modern world loves its ‘happily ever after’ endings, where the movie stops when the beginning starts, sparing us the steps and leaving us with just hope. Hope they made it. They Did.

It gives us joy without despair and teaches us nothing about either. We spend an inordinate amount of time culturally discussing the pre-rituals and pageantry of marriage but not the many steps it takes from ceremony to death. If one is fortunate enough to have good examples of a healthy marriage in their youth, (I consider I did) there may have been more discussions about these steps of growing together to varying degrees. This is fortunate if you did, although it isn’t necessary for the understanding of a good marriage, it just assists the choice architecture for the free will.  Otherwise, either through ignorance, weakness or pride, people often will end up quickly role playing in their marriage as I once did. Unfortunately, most people role play, not just in marriage, but with most things in the modern world. They seek out the symbols without seeking the meaning, as a rite of passage without transmutation. People react and act out of necessity more so than out of directed passion and pursue the symbols that grant collective wholeness (this is what I should do to be whole as a societal expectation) while negating the individual meaning or purpose behind that symbol; but that could be its own separate essay. The point is, society does this with marriage as a habit. However, it takes more than a good or bad environment, a statistical circumstance, to determine our path. We have the ability to make a choice, if not, it is made for us. If we choose the path of least resistance and seek external foundations, we will find the destination is that of shifting sand and not that which is built from rock.  

And the rain fell, And the floods came,

And the winds blew and beat on the house,

But it did not fall,

Because it had been founded on the rock.

-Matthew 7:25

The external path to completion produces individuals who are incomplete, who most often have not developed any of their own free will, who predominantly act reflexively, which is the default setting. (social engineering seeks to make people predictable above all) The external path reflects what Kierkegaard called the aesthetic stage of life, which is ruled by passion and hedonistic lifestyles. The aesthete lacks commitment to ideals and most often has not discovered their free will, which means they lack any wholeness. Incomplete, people are slaves to limbic triggers and physical stimulations, most often absent reason or consideration outside of the reaction driving the desire to act. Some, even admittedly, do not engage in internal dialog, modernly known as NPC’s. One cannot help but wonder if a portion of society has regressed to the point that it is absent all together, and the vessel is empty. Perhaps. Overall, there is a steadily growing number of people who have truly not had an original thought since childhood, reduced to mere reactionary bodies. This phenomenon of the modern man in search of a soul has caused what was once considered the height of human relationships in marriage to become an almost impossible feat for many, as we are all statistical failures in some regard and the default setting is now failure. With that being said, even on a leveled scale from the most extreme NPC to someone who cannot consistently command their lusts, pride, or wrath, none are whole enough to participate in a marriage the way it was intended, and that needs to be corrected. However, this type of correction should never be attempted by force through some fundamentalist display of political power, rather it must be gained through the heart of man, a cultural renaissance. This can only be achieved by individuals choosing to not acquiesce the task of personal wholeness to society, the external, by taking a journey inward and committing to ideals, living by example. When the time comes, teach your children the way and don’t delegate that responsibility to the state, mere circumstances, or sitcom TV dads. Eventually in time, if enough people have engaged this revolution, this renaissance, perhaps the cultural norms can change, and the path will not be so difficult for our ancestors. As of now, the odds have never been as stacked. But it will be alright.

In our current global civilization, while allegedly more technologically advanced than at any other point in time in human history, it is also at its most disconnected from its very fabric. Humans mostly reside in artificial environments, where technology has become both the addiction and the cure for perpetual rising expectations, as we have been herded into chasing the convenience it provides without end. Consequently, for both good and bad, individuals are less involved in sustaining their own survival than we have ever been in our known public history. The vast majority of people have never had to, or been taught how to, harvest their own food or source their own water, as it is no longer a necessity to have these primary labor skills in a world that collectively provides such things.

Before the counter argument is made in your mind, there is a distinct difference between chasing money to acquire food from the grocery versus having knowledge of the only labor required by your birth. Sustenance. It is a delegation of a primary responsibility, one that most will never have to really consider as it naturally presents itself absent modern technology and infrastructure. Foraging, hunting, farming et cetera. As mentioned in another work (AOP), this change has made society very fragile because most have lost the knowledge to do such things. Therefore, in the event the food supply chain becomes disrupted or destroyed, mass starvation would be inevitable. It is a dependency that also has untold psychological effects.

For clarity, I am not complaining about the convenience, as I enjoy it as must as the next, but it is about perspective. While I was taught these skills, which were requirements for past survival, less than ten percent of all humans have them to any sufficient degree at all in the modern world. The point I am making as it relates to this essay, we have outsourced our thinking to the collective just as much as our primary labors. As well as our identity.

Sloth begets sloth. Modern man removed from his primary labor finds himself inconvenienced by what he has left to do, tending his own considerations. Furthermore, we are discouraged from doing our own thinking by the experts who demand perpetual deferment. It is clear that the number of individuals who have outsourced their thinking, even their self-determination, to the collective and its external paths is growing exponentially with each passing year. The grip on mass society currently shows no signs of softening and the rat utopia only grows larger. It is axiomatic that this external path has not been advertising itself coincidently, we are infinitely easier to control out there looking for ourselves than we are when we are looking inside building and unfolding ourselves.

It should be clear from previous discourse how I feel about collectivist concepts. They are inherently destructive to not only the social organization of society, but they are personally and spiritually destructive to the individual. As it is said, you cannot pull the cart before the horse. Society cannot provide virtue to an individual who is without, much in the way a church cannot provide salvation to one who has not walked the narrow path. Forced charity through taxes does not make you a better person through society, same as Christ does not grant collective salvation to the whole church based on attendance. Likewise, our spouse cannot complete us, make us whole by performing our labor any more than one can breathe for the other. Furthermore, our spouse cannot help make us better if we are not willing to do the work ourselves. We cannot delegate to the external world the responsibility that belongs to us as individuals without serious consequences, from economics to marriage all the way up to the destination of our soul.

Searching for a soulmate, one who “completes” a person, is in fact, a delegation of responsibility in my opinion. A person may not use the word soulmate, but synonymously, one who seeks another to make ‘themselves’ feel complete, is an act motivated by self-interests, not by love. The ritual of marriage becomes culturally obligatory and not truly symbolic of what is taking place unless the couple evolves both individually and as a couple during the course of their marriage. Or in the case with my parents, years after they first divorced.  Most often in the modern world, the marriage unfortunately fails because neither participant is prepared for such a union.

 Opposing Aristophanes, the “wounds of human nature” to me is not the divergence of man and woman by Zeus, but the divergence of the human spirit that resides inside the heart of man. I am hardly the first to point out the duality of human nature, but interpreting the wounds being that of our own heart, instead of that which is without, is the first step to becoming whole and having the ability to engage in soul mating. To that point, Aristophanes is fundamentally incorrect. Becoming ‘whole’ upon meeting your soulmate implies a completing step. Carrying this logic to marriage, which is how it is often viewed, the ritual beginning of marriage represents the pinnacle of human relationships, as wholeness is now complete.  Afterwards, as previously mentioned, is happy ever after, because the journey is finished. Then begins the societal jokes about the “ball and chain” and the lack of “freedom”. The mask comes off and society says how it really feels, “the duty is too much”. Marriage can and must be so much more. In reality, the journey is just beginning, and it ends in death. The journey is marriage. Those who were not building themselves whole by addressing their wounds of human nature prior to the ritual, are handicapped and are most likely role playing. The marriage will statistically, by default, fail. Addressing the wounds is a journey, and it must be chosen. Deciding on the inward journey is a transition into what Kierkegaard called the ethical stage of life, the second stage following the aesthetic in his book Either/Or.  He correctly stated that many people live their lives without leaving the aesthetic stage, but some do realize that their desires can never be satisfied, and they reached this revelation through boredom. They are then faced with a choice, that is either they remain in the pursuit of pleasures, or they seek higher forms of pleasure.  To me, said another way, either one dies from their wounds of human nature, OR they  heal them through reconciliation, by making a choice and committing to it.

The Journey Inward

Whoever hammers a lump of iron, first decides what he is going to make of it, a scythe, a sword, or an axe. Even so we ought to make up our minds what kind of virtue we want to forge or we labor in vain.

-Saint Anthony the Great

For the individual who seeks to build themselves whole by committing to a moral life with ethical standards, which should be a life objective for all humans, the journey first begins inward towards the direction of our wounded and wrathful nature. This aspect of our nature manifests itself in what is known as the 7 deadly sins: pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, lust and gluttony. These sins are products of the physical and mental body, which we are inherently born into. This is what is meant by the following scripture:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 51:5

While initially formalized by Augustine of Hippo in the 5^th century, it was truly John Calvin who popularized the idea of “original sin” in the 16^th century. This idea states that every person born into this world has inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin. According to Calvin’s teachings everyone is born a sinner and is “wholly inclined to do evil”.  I agree with this on principle, but I want to expand upon the concept to explain my meaning fully. Science does not have to be antagonistic to God, as to me it shows glimpses of the methods and design of the architect, and our understandings of the material world are much improved since the 5^th and 16^th centuries.

 For clarity, I do not believe man can know all things, but we should consider what we think we do.

From what I have come to understand, the mechanics of these “sins” are mere survival mechanisms belonging to the animal body, much like “fight or flight”, built in as a standard autonomic reaction to a particular stimulus. This is why we are “born in sin.” Our bodies are literally sin in the flesh. It is not metaphoric or allegorical like so much of scripture. The body is inherently evil, under that understanding, which happens to also be a hermetic notion. These reactions of the body are both physical and mental in nature, leading us both away from, as well as towards free will, depending upon the nature of the reaction. Psychologists sometimes refer to this as inertia, in a co-opting of a physics term, but conceptually has the same meaning. Essentially, a thing will continue to behave as it will until it is forced by external, or in our case as a reasoning animal, internal influences. I refer to it as our default behavioral algorithm, as these reactions and impulses are various forms of survival dispositions for the animal body, albeit a very complex one.  Naturally, these instincts manifest themselves to varying degrees in all individuals based upon their respective presynaptic settings, as well as how they express themselves due to environmental factors. (traits, i.e. sins) We all know that some people struggle more with X than Y, while someone else struggles more with Y and not X. Our internal challenges are similar, but each uniquely different. (Just another example of why we all have a personal path to salvation, our paths are all different, but the gate is the same) These reactions if untended, can completely stifle free will, which to some is only unlocked by either irresistible grace or prevenient grace. Either way, free will must emerge from the bondage of sin, the innate reactions of the physical and mental body, for a person to defeat it, to overcome it and transcend flesh. For the record, I do believe this requires grace, but I will not attempt to measure in what manner it arrives for that is not an argument man is capable of settling. Equally important, it is also true that these reactions can confuse the decisions of free will, like causing one to conflate animal magnetism with true affinity for another. People often forget that Satan is a trickster.

Said in another way, it is natural to think you are attracted to the beautiful woman, it does not mean there is a deep alchemical connection beyond the need for your body to satisfy its desire, its programming, for the purposes of species continuity. It is often difficult for us lowly humans to differentiate between a real connection with another human being and our autonomic biochemical impulses the same way it is difficult for us to separate exaggerated or false emotions with meaningful and purposeful ones. These are among the challenges we are all presented with as children of God in a fallen world. This is also what we must learn on our inward journey.

(After all, if you believe in such things, the species has to exist to act as a vessel for the soul and it would only make sense that the coding for the creation would include the ability for it to sustain itself and adapt as needed)  

The action, to pursue the beautiful woman, or man, however, is clearly a choice. Our internal dialog, or lack thereof, belongs only to ourselves. Our external expressions are all choices, even to the default ones, and our actions are all the world knows of us. Will one take the path of least resistance, or will they deny that impulse, which is rebellion to the flesh and the exertion of free will? Countering my point, a person could say, “but I choose to lust”. “I am exerting my free will”. Perhaps for some, this is true, and with that will come its own consequences. However, for the most part, they are guided by these impulses because they think the impulses originated from their own free will. It is through this process that a person internally validates their wrath, lust, treachery, et cetera. Although, a person cannot claim to have chosen sin until they are able to control it to begin with. It is akin to someone saying I am choosing to smoke when they have never tried to quit. They really do not know if it is a choice or not. While the analogy doesn’t quite exactly fit, my point is that people often confuse the path of least resistance with being a choice of their free will, when in reality it never was. We are held spiritually responsible for our actions either way, and we all have to navigate the evil trickster, the body in the flesh.  

These “sins” of the body provide temptation to our internal dialog, thereby influencing our external decisions. If we permit these impulses, lust, wrath, pride, gluttony, envy, and sloth, to direct our outward motivations and actions, we as individual souls are not really participating in the decision process. In essence, choosing the default, the path of least resistance, acting without free will. So, will you be overly prideful or give in to wrath? Will you abandon gratitude and chase envy? Will you engage in treachery, or will you chase virtue? The choices we make will determine our nature, our level of personal freedom, as well as our level of wholeness, to tie back into the previous analogy.

 While the story of the beautiful woman is a crude example, it makes the point I am attempting. The physical and mental body has reactions that you cannot control, an errant intrusive thought to a physical reflex, these reactions are what are to be managed and decided upon instead of going where they take you because it felt right at the time. Giving into sin only provides temporary relief to the wounds of man, in the way a counterirritant provides relief to the rash, but consequently causes them (wounds) to grow wider in time, easier to repeat, making the righteous and ethical path harder to pursue. Morality is chosen. Good ethics is chosen. Happiness, satisfaction, meaning, purpose, faith, et cetera... are not default positions so they must be built purposely and are not just stumbled upon by chance or reflex. In a way, they all must be chosen.  A lack of management can jeopardize all of the aforementioned, just like failing to tend your garden will lead to weeds and a weak harvest. If one does not live purposefully, they will be a statistic, and suffer from many forms of personal malcontent.  Luckily, we are not designed with only negative internal motivations.

 For clarity, there are positive instincts such the manifestation of natural law and virtues that oppose the foundational nature of sins which help unlock free will, but I will get to that shortly.  On a side note, I consider the “autopilot” feature of mass society a form of sloth, even though it is mental. I will address this sloth in a bit more detail in the next Discourse.  

 It has often been said by theologians and thinkers alike that Christ did not have the original sin because he was born to a virgin. While this story is well and good, and it is not for me to contest such things, I tend to feel that Christ did not arrive in the world with amnesia and understood that the body is a biological mech suit for the soul, therefore avoiding the “original sin”. He was aware of the game we must learn we are playing. We must struggle to be “born again” to realize that we are not this body and we do not have to listen to its evil.  While similar to what is known as total depravity, it is not impossible to overcome through grace and sheer directed will if a person becomes aware and reclaims full agency. We also have to address the uncertainty of life and death with faith, whereas Christ embodied certainty, he knew from whence he came, and where it was, he was to go. Christ’s struggle was not for himself, but for us. This is one reason why he had to die to tell us we are not this body in which we reside for the time being. While Christ spent his life always above sin as our example, and symbolically died for ours, we are not perfect, nor can we hope to be, we will remain sinners until our bodies die.  As long as our physical bodies live, sin is present. It is inherent to life itself.  Our battle with sin must be won every day. We must pick up our cross and carry it, then we must decide if we will walk up the hill.

And he said to them all, if any man will come after me,

Let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,

And follow me.

Luke 9:23

 I like to think of it as a daily Dante’s Inferno, where one must traverse the nine circles of hell on the inside. Limbo, lust, gluttony, greed, anger, heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery, I am capable of every single one of them. As are you and everyone you know and love. Whether it be just a thought, a moment of weakness, a lifetime of shame or a guilty pleasure, we have all danced with these vices to one degree or another.

 With that being said, one does not ever fully conquer these temptations, even though a person may have conquered their actions. The impulse remains, the inertia is there. It is a lifelong battle, but just like other paths that have become well-worn with use, the resistance to temptation inside one’s own mind will likewise become easier to travel upon its further use and inertia can begin to change. It is during this ethical stage when one realizes they do not always do what they should do, consequently we experience guilt and despair. These emotions can be positive, teaching and prompting a person to change their ways and commit to a better standard and a meaningful existence. Inversely, these emotions can act as an anchor, drowning the participant in a sea of despair. It is for this reason that Kierkegaard felt that most people cannot find a meaningful existence in the ethical stage, for this reason he said that people can then do one of two things. Simply try to be a better person or move to the next stage through a leap of faith. If taken, the third and last stage of life is the religious stage, where we move to understanding that we will not always do the right thing as we live in sin. However, God’s forgiveness can eradicate guilt and despair. The question then arises, “why should humans believe in what they could interpret as irrational or unnatural”? This is where the leap of faith must be taken, but the choice must be based on a self-conscious and authentic decision of the free will and not the effect of conformism. This has been called inwardness, or truth as subjectivity, a process where one becomes more of an individual through conscious choices and full self-awareness before God. To him, this stage is where the individual finds true fulfillment and a meaningful existence. For this to happen, in my opinion, the individual must understand the contrast within their own nature, to illuminate their higher true selves apart from their lower sinful nature, much in the way one must know darkness to appreciate, or recognize, the light.

Regardless of the choices one makes in the ethical stage; if one simply seeks to try to be better or if they choose to take a leap of faith as I have, and suggest, the power of forgiveness remains. Be willing to forgive yourself, especially if a lesson was learned. It is also OK to ask for forgiveness and it is wonderful to grant it to others. This is one of the hopes provided by Christ, as long as we draw breath, we have the opportunity to be better. Right now. Both feet. Some things truly are that simple.

The first objective during the inward journey, which is a prerequisite for the final cause, I believe, is to become captain of one’s own soul. This means we need to always be at the helm of our own ship and are not guided by our inherent depravity and the storms of life.  Those who do not realize this, to me, are at best stuck in limbo. If one does not see the format, they cannot separate who they are from the sin they were born into. They “are” the product of stimulus and will identify with something externally. For those who are building, the primary objective, the final cause, comes into focus. Now that free will has set the contrast and one begins judging their own external actions through a good moral sense, they can begin to unfold their own soul which was tightly packed within the bondage of sin. It is one thing to be a captain, it is an entirely different thing to be a good one, and the former is a prerequisite of the latter.

 Side note but of personal importance: Even if one disagrees with me on the nature of the soul, the process of liberating free will should still be desirable if one seeks to command themselves, to allow themselves the ability of full expression. However, I shamelessly equate our actual free will as the conscious expression of our soul, which is eternal. To the atheist, everything I have said about sins remains true, these are documented physiological reactions. It is only the metaphysics we disagree on. I have chosen to believe that the very clear intelligent design of the world around us, up to and including the human being, happens to be Gods operating system of his creation. My belief is good enough for me and seeks no validation. But all of our paths to understanding are different and I do hope no matter what your personal disposition towards the nature of the soul or God in general, you find value in building yourself and find yourself in a meaningful and well lived life.

Mass society by design puts its captives in limbo, addicted to the aesthetic stage of life, while determining the ethical for you and negating the spiritual or religious.  While structuring the “crowd” is not a historically new concept, over a century ago it became hyperbolic as social engineers began learning how to “scientifically” manage society by weaponizing both the physical and mental body against you, turning it into an extension of the conditioning apparatus of mass society. Dopamine traps, subliminal messaging, algorithmic grooming and many other forms of incentivized hedonism and collectivization, presents challenges that augment the already difficult task of managing what I call original sin. Therefore, it becomes even more difficult for people to see the path to building themselves whole. Individuals become stuck, nay, designed, to be in the default statistical standard, role playing the life of a human being, living in sin, unaware of their slumbering free will. Fostering only the will to obey. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. This is the default state of the modern human.  

 However, for the individual who is building themselves whole, as it is a never-ending tribulation, a perpetual act of building, a perpetual fight against collectivization, it is then they can begin the journey outward towards meaningful relationships and good fellowship because they are aware of who they are by being able to objectify themselves. Not in the sense as it is often negatively presented in the modern world, nor that which could be conflated with idolatry, but a state of being where a person is aware of their relationship to their environment without the inherent personal bias and engineered standards. Becoming whole began with the journey inward towards our wounded & wrathful nature, followed by the journey outward, not to heal wounds, but to build something new, good, and beautiful.

The Journey Outward

To be a “whole” individual, one must be able to evaluate themselves in relation to the world around them, being cognizant of their actions and the consequences, including those of the second order.  Furthermore, as Milton famously said: “He who reigns within himself and rules passions, desires and fears is more than a king”.  To be whole, one must be master and monarch of their internal domain. Such a person is no longer a slave to the temptations and inclinations of the lower, wounded half of human nature. This is, in a way, the discovery of free will, where the pneuma of the body no longer reigns over the spirit. Although, this is a constant battle and is not fought once to completion as previously mentioned, with the one paramount exception.  

Although, in order to rein inside oneself a person must set the contrast and develop a strong moral sense, the terminology of such was developed by Anthony Ashley Cooper Shaftesbury, 3^rd Earl of Shaftsbury. He claimed that selfishness is not the only natural passion, but feelings such as benevolence, sympathy, generosity and gratitude all exist naturally. He stated this gives people an “affection for virtue”, which he called a moral sense, a harmony between self-interest and virtue. His foundations of moral sense were built upon the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Often these are referred to as the seven virtues, which add faith, hope and charity. (I have written extensively on natural law, so I will condense this) I consider these a form of natural law, so all of these virtues are likewise instincts as mentioned before, possible to varying degrees in all people, but with the need to be cultivated to be dominant over the lower, sinful nature. These are what I referred to when I said earlier: “virtues that oppose the foundational nature of sins which unlock free will”. These virtues help act as arbiter to our external relationships, which are by their very nature existential both physically (materially) as well as spiritually. These virtues help foster peace among men, as well as facilitate meaningful expression of our free will to someone who is other.

 In the modern world, in mass society, this is far from the default setting, and we are usually externally challenged long before we have readied ourselves. One must seek it out and choose to listen for harmony or they will not hear it over the noise of modernity.  This harmony not only helps one navigate themselves, it also helps us judge the interactions we have with others through an appropriately less consequentialist paradigm. Virtue helps build our ability to exercise free will.  If one has begun this journey and recognizes their free will, and begins exerting it, it is then they are able to truly connect with others externally instead of playing a role, a symbol without a meaning.   

Additionally, not only does each and every individual human being have to take this internal path themselves, embracing virtue in action and thought, men and women each have a unique set of hells, temptations that must be overcome. The pneuma of the gendered bodies are isomers, providing unique paths for their respective occupants. To think of it another way, men experience the world right-handed, women the left, similar but distinctly different, but unified in their purpose in the whole. One cannot move too far forward in their inner journey without confronting their gendered pneuma, for it is necessary to understand it, to attempt to master it in order for a person to know and express themselves.

Side note: This is another reason why the engineered element of the modern queer theory and its associated trans movements are fundamentally evil, particularly as it pertains to children who yet do not have the ability to choose themselves, adults can do what they wilt. It brazenly conflates the masculine and feminine social constructs with the biological, unfortunately for them it not only matters physically, but it is also psychologically and spiritually relevant. This is one reason why suicide rates are so high in this demographic.  The world is difficult enough, but this movement conflates the spirit, preventing an individual from unfolding themselves like a lotus flower. Such individuals are therefore stuck in the first ring of hell, limbo and are easily manipulated.

For any person who attempts to build themselves whole by confronting our original sins with growing ease and has managed to accept ownership and judgement of their external directed will, have become ready to engage in a marriage and participate in what I will soon refer to as a soulmate. However, reaching out to others and communicating meaning is not easy, let alone agreeing on an established moral sense between you and another. During the inner journey, a person would need to listen to this harmony, and approach it with humility. Considerations for others begin to transcend considerations for the self, and in a way, this is both the discovery of sacrifice as well as that of Love.

 For what good is it for us to feel such passion, if we know not how to express it? As Faith is only as good as the works, the inward journey is only as valuable as its external expression. How do we love? What does it mean to love? What does it signify to another? The ability to adequately express meaning has also been a stumbling block to fellowship, community as well as building a good marriage. Both our lack of humility and consideration towards one another, which can be addressed in the inward journey, as well a lack of descriptive terms to express our feelings and bonds externally, has hindered our pursuit of peace and the building of social bonds.

 For that reason, the implications of those relationships have come to have malleable meanings since our descriptions of those bonds have become superficial and standardized. In the war on words that I have previously discussed, I can see no more unfortunate victims to this hubris as the word Love. Love arrives in the modern world as a condensed can of Campbell’s soup, it lacks any significant punch, but it is economical to use.  

The meaning behind the expression of the word love has been reduced and obscured by the modern world. It is not an accident that in the technocratic age of detailed linguistic specifications and terminology, the expression of what we call Love has been reduced to just a single word. The Greeks did a much better job of expanding upon the meanings communicated by the word Love than they did regarding the concept of soulmate. They had no fewer than four words representing the phenomenon, some claim as many as eight. The reduction of terminology, hence understanding of expression, can be observed in the English translations of the Bible from its original Greek. Agape, for the Greeks was the highest form of Love. Self-less. Christ-like. It was translated to Charity in the KJV and reduced even further in the modern world to a mere tax break.

The love between good friends was called “Philia”, which has affection, support, and a sense of equality. Storge is the term for love in family relationships; empathy, compassion, duty, and affection are all traits of this familial love. Passion and intimacy found in romantic relationships was called “Eros”. This is not to be conflated with lust, as Eros is directed at a singular person whereas lust is a general disposition. The closest English phrase is “being-in love”. In our modern world the most prevalent form of love is self-love, and it often gets conflated with love for another. People love in private worlds just as much as they live in private worlds publicly. However, while our language is much more limiting than the Greek expressions, most people grok there are different forms of love, but only in concept. It isn’t discussed much, particularly with our youth. Consequently, children grow up to express these forms of Love, which most likely is not a product of their free will, in a multitude of ways, inspired by mimicry, television, guesswork, or the worst, default expression. Obligatory ritualistic love. On top of attempting to reconcile the wounds of human nature inside us, we have to find a way to bridge the space between ourselves and someone else by learning how to love fully, who is likewise dealing with their own set of internal challenges. (as well as the normal external challenges of life) For this reason alone, we should approach each other with more patience and humility. This condition is challenging.

 However, those who are working the inner journey are more prepared to express these forms of love “wholly”. If one has not gained their free will, as previously mentioned, their actions were made by default. One merely reacted, or I could say, they role played in their expressions of love. But how did you Love? Is it a ritual or are you immersed? A whole person knows how to love because they know what it means to choose to. They understand, intuitively, how to set the role instead of playing it. Such individuals according to Kierkegaard will begin to gravitate to the highest universal condition, marriage. It is those individuals, if they are so wholly aligned, can participate in what I consider the action of soul mating in what I consider the real alchemical marriage.

Part III

The Pseudo- Alchemical Marriage

                In the beginning, I mentioned there was an element of our modern social construct of marriage that I felt needed re-imagining. On one hand is the mythology of the soulmate, which we are still discussing, but the other is the term alchemical marriage. Much like the word soulmate, my usage of alchemical marriage is contextually different from what is normally used in common discourse. I have chosen to reject these meanings of the word, as I not only perceive they are wrong interpretations, but destructive. Currently, alchemical marriage as defined by the mouth breathing hoard of new age guru’s, allegedly it “goes beyond the traditional understanding of marriage as a religious or legal bond, it is a spiritual union.” They also call this a “twin flame” marriage. The two halves are really the same soul, one is the “divine masculine” and the other is the “divine feminine”. Together they merge and ascend into a singular soul. Hopefully the reader sees how this draws from Zeus and his cleavage of mankind, the lovers transmuted by Hephaestus back into their singularity, the prime soul. The New Ager’s have found their theories of alchemical marriage in the soulmate lore of Aristophanes, a healing of wounds by finding our matching half so our soul can be whole. This is their alchemical marriage, not mine. First, I have to explain what it is not.

Their divine masculine and divine feminine are what I referred to as our male and female pneuma, which are the sin we are born into. Stoics referred to this as the “breath of life”, the generative principle that structures the cosmos and the life contained within it. This pneuma is that breath, it is what animates matter and provides bodies with innate intelligence and will. However, there is a clear distinction between this pneuma and that of our soul, the former is the vessel, and the latter is the passenger. It is possible, I suspect, that all matter, including inorganic matter, has pneuma to leveled degrees, but organic matter has its highest forms as far as I can know. The highest most organized form of known matter is that of the human being, the majestic. Unparalleled cerebral and neural architecture, the human is the most complex vessel that is currently living to hold a pneuma. A physical body blessed with pneuma; intelligence and a programmed will to live. Undirected by conscious thought, it performs the vast majority of its functions to sustain life and comfort, a perfect vessel one could say, to hold a soul. A body provided to the soul, to be its servant, or its master, all depending upon the choices the soul makes. As mentioned, each gendered isomer provides its own unique path to be mastered. Even from what little we know of the human body; the variations are indisputable. Anything that alters sense perceptions, from the physical body and all of its proclivities to the mental body and all of its impulses, presents the world uniquely to each isomer, for them to consider and act based upon how it perceives the world. The art should be honored in both genders, while equals, they are uniquely different in important ways, as the left foot walks with the right, man and woman are complementary, not halves as a whole.

Divine masculine and divine feminine are not halves of a soul joining to become whole as the gurus and Aristophanes say. They are only divine in the sense that the male/female isomer pneumas are part of what I consider Gods operating system. Only the soul contained within (among?) it can be considered divine if it has managed to unfold beyond its physical chains, claimed its free will and acted accordingly as discussed during the inward journey.  Such a soul that has begun the journey of building itself whole has learned how to love themselves, but not in the way a narcissist loves. Moreso in the way a carpenter can appreciate their own craft and work. To a builder, time, detail and directed will become more meaningful. A person can then shape themselves as clay, building as they see fit. Such a person has at the least begun to understand love directed outward and can begin to form deep and meaningful relationships. Hopefully this is achieved prior to ritual marriage, but it can be achieved and acted upon at any time. When both spouses have found their free will surfaced from the muck, and free will chooses free will, it is then they can begin the process of soul mating and the creation of what I call an alchemical marriage. These are the correct mechanics of an alchemical marriage.

Part IV

The Dance of Soul Mating, Synergy, and the Real Alchemical Marriage

                There is ritual marriage with its signs and symbols. The rings. The songs. The entourage. This is what much of mass society is aware of. The superficiality and depth of a happy ending only movie, where the labor is ignored. The zenith reached.  There is legal marriage with its contractual obligations to the state and each other. Then, there is also the marriage represented by the associated signs and symbols, which is what I refer to as alchemical marriage. This marriage is the highest universal, for it is divine in nature. Although, this aspect is not often embraced in the modern world, marriage is not an institution of man, but that of a higher design as it calls us all, just as other universals. It is another form of positive virtue, an innate desire for union, understanding and expression. It is that which has its own essence, a promise between bodies, between souls, a hope that this space can be overcome. I can see past the you, see the whole you. This is a process that must be built. Free will must choose free will.

I believe the promises built into the ritual of marriage are the beginning of a soul mate. It is up to the participants to give depth to this possibility and unfold the alchemical marriage. Soulmate, as in a verb, an action of molding the clay, not a noun. Marriage presents the opportunity for two people to bridge the space between all human souls, the physical bodies, and the words we use for expression. Two individuals who have unfolded their free will from the grasp of their bodies pneuma, the bonds of temptation and sin, can engage in a soul mate. Unlike previous metaphysics, soul mating in my mind is not that of dissolution and amalgamation, but of synergy, an intertwined dance to a mutual harmony. The soul mate is formed and becomes strong in the way a rope becomes stronger through smaller intertwined fibers. A rope that resists even the most extreme of frays, as a marriage like this can weather external storms. Such a relationship has been built upon a rock with solid individual foundations. Trust. Faith. Commitment. Duty. Joy. Gratitude. These actions, and the process of soul mating can be taken at any time during a marriage, but it must be developed by directed will. It is not a product of limbo or default. It is an exercise of free will, it must be chosen. Not just once or twice, but consistently throughout life, both personally and for the sake of the marriage. One must be willing to be uncertain, be vulnerable and express oneself fully to their spouse. A soul mate needs the expression of all forms of love in a marriage, from those who have done the work to know how to express them. Agape, Eros, Storge and Philia are all essential in an alchemical marriage. They must be cultivated constantly. Refreshing and rekindling these forms of expression can be looked at as an investment in your marriage. However, it all begins with meaningful and productive communication. One should ask themselves; Am I expressing myself the way I want to? Does my spouse understand what I mean by this expression. Am I committed? Am I a good friend? A partner?

 Partner, as in a covenant between two people who are pursuing a common goal, in this case the alchemical marriage. This means that marriage is not a 50/50 split, as that assumes one must always have something to give, this is untrue. Partners pick each other up when they are down, sometimes hold one another up, sometimes lean on the other, or onto each other. 50/50 at times, others 90/10, and others still, 0/100. A partner does not complain about this role as it is chosen by free will, instead one finds satisfaction and certainty in what is being built, as well as discovering true gratitude in selfless love. At any time one partner can look at the other and say, “I got you”, and the other finds full comfort and strength, a refuge in the flesh provided by the promises of the spirit. This is an alchemical marriage, symbolized by the ritual, a dance that produces SYNERGY.

However, a strong marriage, the rope of the soulmate, cannot just be about the heavy work or it will become consumed by it, rendering the whole operation null and void. It reverts back to the obligatory, mere role play mechanics. An appropriate comparison with how marriage is incorrectly approached can also be found with how some people approach faith. In the modern church, Faith is often only approached with solemnity, existential concern and with deep gravity. Yet, this is not faith to me. For as an innocent person will not fear the just, rather they will seek it out, in the same way no faithful man can be stern of his condition. Faith that holds itself too heavy is no belief at all, much in the way that if marriage holds itself too heavy, it becomes an act of compulsion and obligation, not that by choice of free will. God and marriage must be chosen freely in joy.  

An often-overlooked important element of human relationships (as well as many others in the animal kingdom), is the concept of play. Play is improvisational, unlike a baseball game or chess. In play, the rules can change with every action of the game. The moment a rule is set, it is no longer true because the rules must always be in flux, as the only constant rule is, the rules change. This differs from the “role play” that I have previously mentioned because role play is adherence to unspoken rules, whereas ‘play’ is breaking the rules and remolding them perpetually. Man, like many other positive virtues, has lost his skill for play. Likewise, he has lost his skill for faith. Hence, why most “religious” people are merely role playing at being religious.  Play is the easiest and lightest expression of virtue where one surrenders themselves to the humor of another for a time. It helps keep perspective, as it is a suspension of the rules, in effect a leveler, where each participant becomes vulnerable to the other. In this way, Faith is in a perpetual state of play, as one in play isn’t concerned with justification or validation, as faith is an invincible certainty. Yes. And?

It will be alright.

Why so?

Because it will be.

Again, defining the rules of the game makes it no longer play, and God in my opinion, has a wonderful sense of humor and is very playful. Take the story of Peter for example. When Jesus called Peter to walk to him on the Sea of Galilee, he did not explain the rules and rituals of walking on water to him but asked him to trust him blindly. So, Peter walks on water, until he doesn’t. Because once he understands the rules, he begins to doubt, and he starts to sink. Once you understand the rules of the game, the game is over. Once a line has been drawn into the sand, it has already been stepped over. Peter understands the game, IF I blindly trust God, THEN I can walk on water. The very same moment that Peter understands this, his faith falters because it must. It is no longer BLIND. God commands us to walk on water knowing that once we do, we no longer can, to teach us about the flux state of play. He does it by doing it first and saying, “come join me”.  Playful indeed.

 The alchemical marriage and the bonding of soul mating should be infused with play, to aid in the lifting of the heavy work of life, to loosen the gordian knot which divides human souls from achieving what is signified by the highest human universal of marriage, peace among men and goodwill to all.

“I do” was the beginning; a happy ending takes work. But the journey is not about where one ends up in the future, which is the residence of fear, the journey is about loving where one is at and being fully present in the moment, living and choosing with purpose. While the dance of the soul mate takes duty to build, the dance requires duty to be joyous and light, like that of faith in Christ. As a carpenter finds the joy in the duty to their craft, the duty to marriage finds such joy. Build something beautiful with your marriage and laugh as you fix the cracks.

Conclusion

The soul is like a bowl of water, with the soul’s impressions like the rays of light that strike the water. Now, if the water is disturbed, the light appears to be disturbed together with it- though of course it is not. So, when someone loses consciousness, it is not the person’s knowledge and virtues that are impaired, it is the breath that contains them. Once the breath returns to normal, knowledge and the virtues are restored to normal also.

-Epictetus

                When we are born in the flesh, our bowl of water is tipped, our soul seemingly thrown into disarray by the convergence with original sin in the body. Akin to being unconscious, our soul finds itself impaired, disconnected from the truth of itself. To me, born again is awakening to this reality, where we realize it was not our soul that was in disarray, but our perception of the reality we find ourselves in. While humans are born in sin, we are born of Love.

Beloved, let us love one another: For love is of God;

And every one that loveth is born of God,

And Knoweth God.

1 John 4:7

As our breath returns, we find ourselves presented with a life of difficult choices. Now only do we find ourselves in a state of internal warfare, we are confronted by the external world that seeks dominion over our minds, and, as I believe, our very soul. This is heavy work, but let us not always be so stern, it will be ok. Victory is already at hand.

My closing advice, to you as a stranger or for my children, it will be the same. Make yourself. Build yourself and live purposefully. Decide on your own ethics, morals, and dispositions. Do not permit others to frame this for you. Never weigh your conscience or beliefs against that of what is presented as the dominant public opinion in judgement of yourself. Cultivate these things inside yourself, embrace a steadfast fortitude. In this world, it is either the strong or the broken who mind not others, as they are above or below the vicissitudes of men. You must be strong, for the world is ran by the weak, celebrated by the broken, and they do not fight with honor. The tricksters of this world fight for your mind, you must fight back. Only you can do this, delegation is not an option. We must all carry that cross as well if we are to be captains of our own soul. However, compliment such heavy considerations with laughter, joy and play. Love yourself and those in your care. Be mindful of others, show compassion and empathy, better said, feel compassion and empathy. Do not role play. Slow down. Lastly, do you want a good marriage? Build it. BOTH FEET. And leave room for a little grace.

Rejoice in the Lord always: and again, I say, rejoice.

Let your moderation be known unto all men. The lord is at hand.

Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication

With thanksgiving let your request be made known unto God

And the Peace of God, which passeth all understanding,

Shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do:

and the God of peace shall be with you.

Philippians 4: 4-9

God be with you all.