The Ontological War

Last night on tv a woman on the program CSI: NY said about the man who had raped her: “He stole my soul.” This statement by her shows that she was sensitive ontologically, but she wasn’t insightful ontologically, and she needed to understand two important facts about her sexual assault.

First of all, in all of my explorations of what is in us, I have never found or seen any trace of a soul, as such, but we definitely have a being—or as I often call it a realself–within each of us. When ontologically insightful people look in to the deepest depth within themselves, the self they sense or see there is their realself. And it was this self the woman was thinking about when she referred to her “soul” as being stolen. Even though she wasn’t conscious of it, she intuitively knew that her rape had reached who she was before everything else, her realself, and she used the best term she knew to describe it.

The second point she needed to understand is that sex is a realself event. I know, there are many cases where men and women have socialself-to-socialself sex, and their relationship is as superficial and shallow as they can make it. (Much more could be said about socialself-to-socialself sex, but I won’t go into it now.) But for couples who are ontologically sensitive and love each other, sex is very much a realself-to-realself event, and the realself component in it is what gives their sexual activity most of its excitement and pleasure. These men and women open their ego boundaries to each other, to one degree or another, and by doing this they make their sexual activity a sensuous blending of beings and bodies.

The down side to all of this is that when an ontologically sensitive woman is raped, the sexual activity of the attack makes the rape an ontological activity, because of this she became more her realself during it, and by doing this she makes it possible for the man to gain a much greater access to her realself, which under almost every other circumstance she would have much more control in preventing him from reaching that part of her. But by being raped, just because of what sex is ontologically, she was forced to let him reach the very best part of her, her realself, and by doing that he was, in her mind, able to damage or diminish her realself in some way. (Much more could be said about why she thinks she and her realself have been damaged or diminished, but, again, that will be for a later time.)

As for the rapist, possibly a large part of the reason he raped the woman was because of the ontological emotions involved. If it were strictly a matter of releasing his sexual tension, he would have been able to do that by himself. But by raping the woman, he was able to reach more of her realself, this made it possible for him to become more his realself with her, and doing this made it possible for him to gratify an ontological desire or need that he may not have been able to satisfy in any other way. His desire for this ontological gratification may in fact have been the sole reason for his committing the assault.

As always, we all need to increase our degrees of realself so that we can start to understand what is driving us and what we are striving to reach.