In Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Cynthia and Ann are talking, and Cynthia says she and Graham made a videotape. Ann then states

You can’t trust him. He’s perverted.

Ann’s resolute comment is a 180° change from her feelings about Graham a few days earlier, and there are several possible reasons for it:

• She thinks sex is ok, but sex videotapes are not.
• She likes or maybe even loves Graham from her realself, but then she finds out that he made sexual videotapes of many other women.
• She likes or maybe even loves Graham from her realself, but then she finds out that he made a sex tape with her sister.
• She feels betrayed ontologically, “You can’t trust him,” because she feels she and Graham were developing some kind of deeper relationship, and then she learns that he made the videotapes or videotape.

It’s impossible to say exactly how much of Ann’s negative and angry feelings about Graham are based on her belief that the videotapes are inherently perverted and how much of her feelings are based on what she feels is his ontological infidelity with other women, with her sister, or with both. Whatever the reasons, she feels they were developing a realself-to-realself relationship, but that relationship has failed and is now over.

Ann doesn’t know it yet, but one of the question she will need to answer as she continues moving forward ontologically is Are the tapes truly perverted or are they something else? She will need to answer this because the answer will go a long ways in determining if Graham truly is perverted, and that answer will go a long way in determining if she should continue developing a deeper relationship with him.

In another ontological area, we have all grown up in a socialself world, and so we have all assimilated a lot of socialself, and even decreasing realself, negative ideas about sex. This assimilation presents a problem for people who are increasing their degrees of realself because they have to understand these ideas in their true ontological context if they are to continue moving forward. Among the many other things she has to think about, Ann is confronting some of these ideas—such as the fundamental question Is sex dirty or perverted?—that are incompatible with the greater and greater degrees of realself she is becoming. She is a woman with a lot on her mind and a lot of strong emotions swirling around within her.

All in all, there isn’t a lot here ontologically; this post is included mainly to set up Ann’s ontological world and then show in the next post how two statements by Cynthia potentially have a great impact on Ann’s changing her mind about Graham.

Number 14 in the Sex, Lies, and Videotape series. All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

In Sex, Lies, and Videotape Cynthia goes over to Graham’s apartment, partly to meet him and partly to find out what “spooked” Ann during her last visit. Soon after Cynthia arrives Graham asks her if she would like to make a videotape, she agrees, and by her own choice she masturbates on film during the interview.

After the filming Cynthia goes home and calls John at his office:

I want to see you.

John: Ah. When?

Cynthia: Right now.

John: I don’t know if I can do that. I got a client waiting. I’ve already rescheduled him once. I’d have to do some heavy-duty juggling.

Cynthia: Then get those balls in the air and get your butt over here.

John goes over to Cynthia’s place, they have very passionate sex, and immediately after they finish John says

You’re on fire today.

to which Cynthia harshly replies

Yes. … You can go now.

Ontologically, the interesting part about all of this is that Cynthia becomes more her realself during the filming, which brings up two important questions: Why did she become more her realself during the filming and Why did that make her more lustful?

As noted earlier, sex is a realself event, and so people become more their realselves when they become sexually aroused or have sex, whether they are conscious of their ontological change or not. Graham is being much more his realself than Cynthia is being hers, and so just by the way he talks to her about sex—the tone of voice he uses, his choice of words, his body language, the self he is being while talking to her—all of these contribute to his reaching her realself and to his helping her become as much of her realself as she is able to be at the time.

Cynthia is very lustful—she is “on fire”—after the filming because her conversation with Graham has made her become more her realself; because of this when she has sex with John she is being much more realself than her socialself; and this shift to greater ontological authenticity explains her greater sexual passion and intensity and her greater desire for it. Sex is much better for a person when the person is the one who is having the sex, as compared to when the person is acting as someone else who is having the sex.

As a side note, Cynthia’s character doesn’t appear to be as accurately drawn ontologically as Graham’s, Ann’s, and John’s characters. Most of what Graham, Ann, and John say and do rings true for the degree of realself they are each being, but Cynthia sometimes says and does things that seem to represent a much greater degree of realself than she is being at the time. For example, she becomes more her realself during the filming, and this greatly increases her desire to have sex. But an important part of her desire to have sex in this circumstance would be to have realself-to-realself sex and not the realself-to-socialself she knows she will have with John.

Cynthia isn’t an increasing realself person; rather, she is someone who appears to have innate ontological sensitivity and insight, but who hasn’t started increasing her degree of realself. If she is looked at in this way, her character makes more sense: she may be a socialself person within whom her realself is just starting to wake up; it is just starting to make her aware of realself thoughts and emotions; and she hasn’t started to reconcile all of her socialself and realself thoughts and emotions.

Number 13 in the Sex, Lies, and Videotape series. All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

Ontologically, Sex, Lies, and Videotape is interesting for two main reasons. The first is that the two main characters, Ann and Graham, are both ontologically sensitive and insightful, and the second is that the movie shows Ann’s ontological growth over a period of time.

Other movies may have one of their characters express an ontological emotion or thought, but in these movies the characters’ ontological expressions are usually more isolated events than extended examinations of people who are committed to increasing their degrees of realself. Graham has spent the last nine years of his life on his ontological journey, and Ann begins her journey at the beginning of the movie.

Ann’s ontological journey is much more interesting because she keeps making progress throughout the movie—she is definitely more her realself at the end of the movie than she is at the beginning.

But not every incident in Ann’s life moves her forward. She senses Graham’s realself within him from the first day or two after meeting him, and she responds to that self and to him from her own nascent realself.

She develops an ontologically trusting feeling for him, and one day she happily goes to visit him. She says “Hi!” on first seeing him, and after seeing that he has videos she asks in a friendly and flirty tone, “Can we watch one?” But her thoughts and feelings about him change as she hears more about the videos:

Graham: It’s open!

Ann: Hi!

Graham: Hello, Ann.

Ann: I hope I’m not botherin’ you.

Graham: No, no.

Ann: I would’ve phoned. You busy?

Graham: No, no. I can finish later.

Ann: I just wanted to see what the apartment looked like with furniture.

Graham: Yeah, well, I’m afraid there’s not much to see. I’m sort of cultivating this minimalist vibe.

Ann: You could use a bookshelf.

Graham: Yeah? Yeah, you think so? They’re … you know, they’re all library books.

Ann: What are these?

Graham: Uh, those are videotapes.

Ann: I can see that. Of what?

Graham: It’s a personal project I’ve been workin’ on.

Ann: What kind of personal project?

Graham: What?

Ann: What kind of personal project?

Graham: Uh, a personal project like anyone else’s personal project. Mine’s just a little more … personal, I guess.

Ann: Who’s Donna?

Graham: What?

Ann: Donna. It says “Donna” here on the tape.

Graham: Donna was a girl I knew in Florida.

Ann: Oh, you went out with her?

Graham: No, not really.

Ann: Why do these tapes all have women’s names on ’em?

Graham: Well, I enjoy interviewing women more than men.

Graham: It’s iced tea.

Ann: Thanks.

Graham: I’m sorry, do you want some lemon?

Ann: No, this is perfect.

Ann: So, all of these are … are interviews, huh?

Graham: Uh, yes.

Ann: Can we watch one?

Graham: No, I’d … No.

Ann: Why not?

Graham: Well, I promised each of the subjects that no one would see the videotapes except for me.

Ann: What are the interviews about?

Graham: The interviews are about sex.

Ann: Sex? What about sex?

Graham: Uh, everything about sex.

Ann: Like what?

Graham: What they’ve done, what they do, what they want to do but are afraid to ask for, what they wouldn’t do even if asked. Anything I can think of. Oh, your ice.

Ann: You just ask them questions?

Graham: Yes.

Ann: And they answer ’em?

Graham: Yeah. Uh … Mostly. Sometimes they do things.

Ann: To you?

Graham: No, uh … for the camera.

Ann: Graham, this is just so …

Graham: I’m sorry this came up.

Ann: No, I’m sorry.

Graham: I’m sorry this came up, and …

Ann: I’m … I’m gonna go.

Graham: Here, I’ll take it.

Ann: OK. Yeah. All right.

Graham: Bye.

Throughout the movie Ann moves forward toward realself-to-realself sex, but even though she does doesn’t mean that she still doesn’t have many negative and conflicting ideas about sex. She likes realself-to-realself sex more as she becomes more aware of it, but this video kind of sex, or what she thinks is this kind of sex, is not that kind of sex. Are the videos voyeuristic? Perverted? Pornographic? She feels a realself-to-realself connection with Graham, but now she knows he has videos of other women, lots of other women, and some of them are doing things sexual on the videos.

Ann soon leaves, stunned ontologically: “Graham, this is just so … .” Probably the main reason she is stunned is that she feels she opened her ego boundary to him, to her realself, and she now feels that he has betrayed that self in some way. As she walks out the door, she has shut her realself off to him.

Number 12 in the Sex, Lies, and Videotape series. All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

As with all increasing realself people, Ann and Graham in Sex, Lies, and Videotape express their current ontological thoughts and emotions through their sex lives. One example of their doing this is when they each say they are the most sexual when they are by themselves.

Ann tells her therapist:

Ann: I mean, I’m sure he probably wishes that I would initiate things once in a while, and I would, except for it just never occurs to me, and … well, the few times I have felt like it I was by myself.

And in the café Graham tells Ann “something personal”:

Graham: I’m impotent.

Ann: You’re what?

Graham: Impotent.

Ann: You are?

Graham: Yeah. I mean, like, well, I can’t … I can’t get an erection … in the presence of another person. So, for all practical purposes, I’m impotent.

Ann and Graham are both in the beginning to early Transition, and so among many other things sex for them is a realself event. Men and women who are in the early stages of becoming their realselves are self-conscious and inhibited about becoming more their realselves with others, and this means they are also self-conscious and inhibited about sex because they sense they become more their realselves during sexual activity.

Ann thinks about sex only when “I was by myself” and Graham says he was impotent “in the presence of another person,” but in fact they are saying that they feel sexual, truly and fully sexual, only when they are their realselves. They have each reached degrees of realself where they sense that they can become as much of their realselves as they are able to be at the time only in privacy, which means they are also their most sexual when they are alone. They don’t understand all the details, but they are both aware that it’s one thing to talk to socialself people and it’s something entirely different to have sex as one’s realself with someone who is being his or her socialself.

At the end of Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Ann and Graham have sex, and they do because, before everything else, they have each found someone with whom they can be their realselves. However, it’s probably more accurate, and it is certainly more insightful, to say that instead of their having sex to say they develop a realself-to-realself relationship that includes sex, because that is by far the most important element in what takes place between them.

All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

It’s very common for people who are increasing their degrees of realself to take a step forward, learn something new, and then use that new knowledge to examine other aspects of their lives. Ann does this in Sex, Lies, and Videotape, and these post about her will do the same.

Going back to the time when Ann and Graham were in the café, she says she wants to tell him “something personal”:

Ann: I think that, um … I think that people place far too much importance on it. And I think that stuff about women wantin’ it just as bad as men is crap. I think they want it, I just don’t think they want it for the reason men think they do.

I’m getting confused. Do you understand what I’m …?

Graham: Yeah.

Ann had started increasing her degree of realself before she met Graham, and that means when she talks to him she is somewhere between her socialself and her realself ontologically. By being in the transitional state between these two selves, she is also, inevitably, between socialself sex and realself sex in both her experiencing and her understanding of each of them.

As people become more their realself, they want to be that self more in their relationship with someone they love. They also want their sex life to be more realself-to-realself because they know that that is what sex truly is: it is isn’t just genital activity of “going through the motions,” but a sensuous blending of being and bodies.

Ann isn’t yet at the degree of realself where she is conscious of the importance of the realself in one’s sex life, but she is definitely at the degree of realself where she senses that sex as socialself sex is “overrated.”

She gets “confused” when she explains her thoughts about sex because she is aware that socialself-to-socialself sex is not very enjoyable and it’s not how sex should be. But at the same time she is not conscious of either the socialself’s or the realself’s existence, and that lack of understanding makes it impossible for her to explain accurately what she is feeling.

In the back of her mind, however, Ann has started thinking about having realself sex. Even though she doesn’t consciously know that the realself exists, or what a realself-to-realself relationship is, or what realself-to-realself sex is, she is moving forward in their direction.

In broader terms, the awareness that sex is “overrated” can represent a beginning understanding of the reason couples can have a good sexual relationship for the first two or three years of their marriage, but after that they have sex less and less until they have it only infrequently. They start their marriage with the unconscious belief that it might develop into some kind of realself-to-realself relationship, and that underlying belief makes the sex good. But once one of the couple slowly becomes more his or her socialself with the other, the sex changes to socialself sex, and that change is followed by a lack of ontological and sexual interest and desire by the other person.

All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

In Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Ann is talking with her therapist, and she mentions that her husband has not been having as much sex with her as in the past. She continues:

Ann: I mean, I’m sure he probably wishes that I would initiate things once in a while, and I would, except for it just never occurs to me, and … well, the few times I have felt like it I was by myself.

Therapist: Did you do anything?

Ann: What do you mean?

Therapist: Did you masturbate?

Ann: Oh! Oh. Oh. God, no. No. Mm-mm.

Therapist: I take it from your response that you never masturbate.

Ann: Well … I tried once. It just seems so stupid!

Two ontological thoughts on Ann’s embarrassment:

• Sex is a realself event, and so she was embarrassed about admitting to having masturbated because it meant she was being her realself when she did it and, to a lesser degree, when she admits to it and talks about it. She puts her hands over her face to cover or conceal her realself, which feels exposed.
• Additionally, by admitting to masturbating she felt as if she were caught being her realself in the socialself world, and we all learn early in our lives that we are not suppose to do that.

A common socialself world misconception about all of this is that some people are confident about their sexuality, and they can discuss their masturbating without getting embarrassed. But what these people don’t realize is that Ann’s embarrassment wasn’t caused strictly by her admitting to masturbating, but by her being more her realself while she was doing it and later talking about it.

It’s not hard to give the impression of confidence when one talks about one’s sex life as one’s socialself, but once people reach the degree of realself Ann was in, they too will feel embarrassed discussing their sex lives, since everyone in the beginning Transition feels embarrassed about being more his or her realself.

The answer to all of this embarrassment, of course, is not to strive to become more “confident,” but to become more one’s realself. Becoming more “confident” now almost always means becoming more confident as one’s socialself, when instead what people really need to do is to become more their realself, thus making them more confident in being it with others.

All the posts in this series are listed in the All the Series’ Posts page.

Quite a few people think sex is “just biological,” or “just physical,” or even “just chemical.” But as men and women increase their degrees of realself, they see that sex is actually linked inextricably to the realself.

Why is this? The main reason is probably that even though we can become alienated ontologically—we can fool ourselves into thinking we are who we aren’t and we aren’t who we are—we probably can’t fool our sexual nature because it is connected with the core of who we truly are, our realselves.

Most people are being mostly their socialselves, and so one might think that expressions of sex as a realself event would be rare. But one needs to keep in mind that everyone has a realself, and so when men and women have sex their realselves, to whatever degree they are being it, enters into and influences their sexual lives.

Future posts will examine in detail many of the connections between sex and the realself, but for now here is a quick overview of a few ontological areas where sex is a realself event:

• The link between sex and the realself means that sex often represents an increase in degree of realself, and so the people who on some level fear, reject, or even hate that increase will also fear, reject, or even hate sex.
• This fear, rejection, and hate is seen in religious and social conservatives preoccupation with sex: gays, gay marriage, contraceptives, abortion, and so on. It’s not sex they dislike the most, but actually the increase in degree of realself that sex represents.
• Sex and the realself can be thought of as two ends of a spectrum, and so even for those who are fully conscious of the realself, it’s hard to tell in some cases where sex ends and ontology begins and where ontology ends and sex begins.
• Men and women have both sexual desires and ontological desires, and sometimes, maybe even often, men and women have sex to satisfy their ontological desires or, but to a lesser extent, they use their ontological emotions to enhance their sexual desires.
• The pleasures of sex are partly the pleasures of becoming more one’s realself with another person, whether the people involved are conscious of this or not.
• The ontological component in sexuality covers the full range of sexuality, from its best to its worst: one man may want a sensuous blending of beings and bodies with his wife and another man shoots his girlfriend who is leaving him, later telling authorities “if I can’t have her, no one will have her” or “now I will be the only man she’s ever had sex with and we will be together for ever.”
• Intense sexual jealousy, in all its various forms, is mostly if not almost entirely an ontological emotion.

There’s no question about it: we will never understand sex until we understand realself ontology.

A minor note about the term: in realself ontology sex is described as a realself event rather than something such as a realself phenomena in order to encompass a lot of non-physical sexuality, such as what have in the past been thought of as strictly sexual fantasies or sexual desires.

At this stage of their relationship, most people might not think a deep connection is developing between Ann and Graham in Sex, Lies, and Videotape. After all, she tells her therapist Graham is “interesting,” and that isn’t much to go on when considering the ontological depth of the relationship between two people.

But there were two incidents that indicate their relationship is becoming more ontological, meaning it is moving beyond the very common socialself-to-socialself relationship and is developing into a relationship between their realselves.

In the café Graham told Ann she was self-conscious, and she said

Ann: Me? Me? You think I’m self-conscious?

Graham: Well … I’ve been watching you. I watch you eat, you know, I watch you speak, watch you move, and I see somebody who is extremely aware of people looking at you.

Initially, it might seem creepy to have someone closely watching everything a person does. And for socialself-to-socialself relationships, this may be true. But when relationships start becoming ontological, the people involved understand that this heightened “tuning in” to another person is more an expression of one person’s realself getting closer to another person’s realself, and it is not seen as a violation of what might be thought of as a person’s sphere of privacy. Ann undoubtedly took Graham’s actions in this way—she wasn’t upset by them.

Late that night, Graham was sleeping on a couch (Ann and John don’t have a guest room?), and Ann got up, went to him, and knelt beside him, looking at him. She didn’t say anything or wake him; she just looked at him for a little while and then went back to bed. (As it turns out, Graham was actually awake, but he didn’t let Ann know.)

What’s happening to Ann is that Graham is reaching her realself, and unconsciously she is responding to him and his realself from her own realself. She goes to him in the middle of the night because she is becoming aware of ontological thoughts and feelings; she knows they are important, powerful, and good; but she doesn’t know what to make of them. At the ontological state she is passing through, Graham represents something much bigger and deeper in her life, but she doesn’t understand what that something is, other than being drawn to it.

She may think that a part of her may love Graham in some way or that a part of her may be attracted to him sexually. But she is also aware that the feelings she has for him are, before everything else, something beyond sexual and something beyond what is usually thought of as love.

In the café Ann and Graham were engaged in what might be called “ontological flirting”: two people who are aware of the realself in each other enjoying the pleasure of being that self with someone they like. But when Ann looks at Graham in the middle of the night, she is unconsciously taking her first steps forward as an adult woman in developing a conscious, realself-to-realself relationship with a man.

In the past, almost all the people who started increasing their degrees of realself did not know that the realself, realself-to-realself relationships, and realself life exist. These people were drawn forward by their wakening realselves, but consciously they didn’t have any idea what was ahead of them ontologically.

Ann, in Sex, Lies, and Videotape, was in this ontological state in the days after she talked with Graham in the café. Before she met him she had told her therapist she wasn’t very happy about one of her husband’s college friends coming to visit. But later, after she has met Graham, she talks about him with her therapist:

Therapist: Did you confront John about the visitor?

Ann: The visitor?

Therapist: The friend of John’s that was staying at your house.

Ann: Graham.

Therapist: Graham.

Ann: Yeah. I mean … no. That actually turned out to be interesting. You know, I was expecting him to be just like John. You know, cos they went to school together and everything. You know, talking about getting drunk together and secret handshakes and … He turned out to be really this … character. He’s kind of arty. But OK.

Therapist: Is he still at your house?

Ann: No. No. No. He’s gone.

Even though consciously she didn’t understand what was taking place ontologically, in the café Ann got caught up in the pleasure of talking with someone with whom she could have more of a realself-to-realself relationship than she was having within anyone else, and that made her conversation with Graham exciting and enjoyable. He was being his realself somewhat with her, and by his doing that she was able to be more of her realself with him.

Ann is sensitive enough to her realself to think that her relationship with Graham is “interesting.” And after he finds a residence of his own, she has a chance to think about him, the type of man he is, and the kind of relationship she might have with him. One of the main reasons she thinks he is interesting is that on some level she is beginning to move from the spontaneous and unexamined realself-to-realself relationship she had with him in the café to a deeper, more considered, and more conscious realself-to-realself relationship with him.

At a future time Ann tells Graham, “You’ve had an effect on my life,” (which will be the subject of another post) and the effect he has on her is in his showing her that she has and can be a deeper self within her, and she can also have the deeper and more intimate relationships that come with that self.

It may be obvious, but in case it isn’t the main reason for this blog is to help make humankind less alienated ontologically and eventually to end our ontological alienation completely.

In working toward that goal, The Ontological War is concerned with two main groups. The first group is made up of ontological sensitive people, and the posts written for them focus on explaining everything having to do with increasing one’s degree of realself. And if these posts are looked at even closer, one will see that half of this blog is actually directed at those ontologically sensitive people who want to, or will want to, become increasing realself people.

The second group is made up of decreasing realself people, and the posts for them explain the great harm their promotion of alienated life causes all of us and explain the reasons for their having made the worst of all ontological decisions: the rejection of their realselves and realself life.

Of course, by having these two ontologically opposite audiences, there will be a wide range in the types of posts. The posts for ontologically sensitive people will include those such as in the Sex, Lies, and Videotape series. These posts will be directed mainly at increasing one’s degree of realself by showing the thoughts and emotions of others who are at various degrees of realself and then explaining why those who continue moving forward make the decisions they do.

The posts for decreasing realself people, on the other hand, will explain why they are alienated and why they made their decisions to turn around in the Transition and become more alienated rather than more who they truly are. The posts for this group will include those such as in the Jesus Is My Bitch! series, the Prof. L. Bernard Budlong Award series, and the Help! The World Is Too Big For Me! series. Besides explaining why the ontological states of decreasing realself people are alienated, a secondary purpose for these post will be to make it very difficult in the future for anyone to happily be a decreasing realself person.

In realself ontology terms, the Transition is the ontological path or road from one’s socialself to one’s realself.

Most of the time when increasing realself ideas are explained here they will be described as if people who are increasing their degrees of realself take an ontological step forward, then another, and another until they finally reach their realselves and the realself world.

But this isn’t how people actually increase their degrees of realself.

Instead, people step forward three, four, or more ontological steps, reach an elevated degree of realself that becomes too painful in some way, and then step back a step or two. By stepping back, these people return to a lower ontological state that is familiar and comfortable. Then, once they have rested and gotten used to and understand better the elevated degree of realself ahead of them, they again go forward several or more steps.

And when people again increase their degrees of realself after having rested at a lower ontological state, the previous “elevated degree of realself” that before was too painful for them now becomes just another step on their way to their realselves, and they go several or more steps beyond it before they again reach an elevated degree of realself that is, temporarily, “too much” for them.

Increasing realself people do this ebbing and flowing throughout their ontological journey, but their doing this doesn’t mean they are erratic, unstable, or inconsistent. This ontological ebbing and flowing is a normal part of our becoming who in the past we always thought was wrong but now realize is the best we will ever be; it takes time for us to adjust to this new understanding of who we really are; and we need to recognize these changes for what they are.

Elevated degrees of realself can become too painful for many reasons. To give just a few examples, on reaching an elevated degree of realself increasing realself people may feel:

• too “lost,” which is caused by their not understanding the elevated degree of realself well enough yet ontologically
• too neurotic, anxious, or depressed, all of which are caused by their becoming more what the alienated world around them, the socialself world, says is wrong but they believe is right
• too exposed ontologically, which is caused by their being more their realselves than they’ve ever been it before
• or too different, which can be caused by their not getting along with family and friends as well as they did before when they were being more their socialselves

What’s important about all of this is for people who are increasing their degrees of realself to understand what’s going on, so that when they step back to lower degrees of realself they realize that all they are doing is resting and adjusting to their recently acquired greater understanding of themselves and of life: their stepping back is not a true reversal in either their ontological direction or commitment.

Ann in Sex, Lies, and Videotape ebbed and flowed in her feelings about herself and in her feelings about Graham. More on her ontological ebbing and flowing will be in future posts.

In Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Ann and Graham are talking in a café, and Ann tells Graham “something personal”:

Ann: I think that, um … I think that sex is overrated. I think that people place far too much importance on it. And I think that stuff about women wantin’ it just as bad as men is crap. I think they want it, I just don’t think they want it for the reason men think they do.

I’m getting confused.

Ann is starting to think of sex in new way. Many people consider it to be just a physical or biological drive and activity, and maybe in the past Ann accepted that definition of it. But now she is starting to sense that sex should be something else, something more. Sex as strictly a physical act is becoming “overrated” for her because once one begins to get a sense of one’s realself and of realself-to-realself relationships, socialself sex starts losing its appeal.

Ann, however, is still in the beginning Transition, and so she says “I’m getting confused.” It takes a while to figure all this ontological stuff out.

The conversation continues. Graham says that he was in therapy, it didn’t work for him, and

Graham: So I just formed my own theory that you should never take advice from someone that doesn’t know you intimately.

Ann: Well, I know my therapist intimately.

Graham: You’ve had sex with your therapist?

Ann: No! No. No.

Graham: Oh, no, I’m sorry. That’s what I meant. Somebody you’ve had sex with.

Ann: Oh.

…

Ann: So, let me see. You said, um … you said that I should never take advice from someone that I haven’t had sex with, right?

Graham: Basically.

Ann: Right. And, uh, we haven’t had sex. Right?

Graham: No.

Ann: So I guess from your own advice, I shouldn’t take your advice.

Graham: I wouldn’t.

Ann: You wouldn’t? OK.

Most of the conversations ontologically sensitive people have with others stop at the surface of the people they are talking to because that is where the self, the socialself, the other people are being is located. Occasionally, though, an ontologically sensitive person will meet another ontologically sensitive person, and the conversation may move almost immediately to deeper levels within each of them.

This appears to be happening with Ann and Graham. Graham is at a deeper degree of realself, and he communicates from that deeper level. But for Ann, talking more from who she is sensing she truly is and talking on a deeper ontological level to another person, and to a man, is something new.

Her relationship with Graham started innocently enough: Graham used to be her husband’s good friend, and Graham has dinner at Ann’s house and stays there a few nights. All of this made it possible for her to become aware of Graham in a realself way, without her ever feeling pushed or pulled in that direction by anyone.

Without really thinking about it, she finds herself talking to someone and developing a deeper ontological relationship without her really being aware that that is what the relationship is developing into.

And she does like her developing friendship with Graham, as shown by her giggling when she says “And, uh, we haven’t had sex. Right?”

So at this stage of her ontological life, on the one hand Ann says sex is “overrated,” and on the other hand she laughs with pleasure and deepening friendship when she says to Graham “we haven’t had sex. Right?”

I started this blog mostly to explain the battle between those who think we should become more our realselves and those who think we should reject that self, but I’ve come to realize that I also need to spend more time explaining what the basic ontological terms mean.

To digress for a moment, I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, just above where the oaks of the valley change to the pines, firs, and cedars of the mountains. After living here for about 5 years, I thought I knew all the native trees, and I told neighbors that madrones trees didn’t grow in our vicinity. But then someone showed me a madrone tree, and in the next two weeks I saw probably half a dozen madrones in the five-mile trip into town. They’d always been there, I just didn’t see them.

My becoming conscious of madrone trees parallels somewhat my becoming conscious of my realself.

I had spent between two and three years looking into myself when, one afternoon when I was living in Pacific Grove, California, I suddenly and consciously saw my realself within me. It was as if a door had opened, when a second earlier I hadn’t known a door was even there or that there was anything behind it. Prior to that moment, I had always thought that I was moving forward toward my somewhat nebulous center.

In the two months after that moment, I realized that my becoming conscious of my realself had also revealed a framework into which many of my earlier thoughts fell into place:

• From the moment I first saw my realself I knew it was who I truly am.
• By consciously seeing my realself, I then knew that my previous thoughts about how the self I had been being wasn’t truly me were true. Later, I would call that other self my “socialself” and the self I saw within me my “realself.”
• By consciously knowing that my realself and my socialself existed, I was then able to see that each of these selves had its own ontological world, and so all my thoughts such as “the day-to-day world doesn’t feel 100% real to me” and “sometimes I get a much greater sense of what human existence should be like” fell into place.
• Looking back, I think the reason I didn’t become conscious of my realself until that moment is that I had to become my realself to a certain degree before I could consciously become it, since my seeing my realself within me wasn’t just a matter of my seeing it within me, but the beginning of my consciously becoming it. If I had seen my realself within me when I was being much more my socialself, I wouldn’t have known what to make of my realself because I wouldn’t have known anything about what it feels, thinks, and understands.
• Like the madrone trees, before I became conscious of my realself I didn’t see the realself anywhere in life, but after that insightful moment I started seeing expressions of it more and more.

For those who are not yet conscious of their realselves, two other things can be learned from all of this:

• If men and women want to become conscious of their realselves, they will each have to spend the time increasing their own degrees of realself; no one will ever be able to explain it well enough to them, as their socialselves, for them see it within themselves. Other people can help them forward ontologically, but everyone has to walk every step of the ontological journey by himself or herself.
• It is important to become conscious of one’s realself, but realself ontology has never been about racing forward as fast as one can to open the greatest Door Prize in the world; instead, it has always been about slowly and consistently becoming more who one truly is.

Perhaps what we can also learn from madrone trees is that the more we become aware of our realselves, the more we become aware that the realself is the center around which all human existence revolves.

When talking to socialself people and decreasing realself people, the increasing realself person gets the sense that the conversation with them stops at the surface of their skin, and the person senses this because ontologically that is where the self of socialself people and decreasing realself people is located. But in talking with increasing realself people one gets the definite sense that one is talking to a self that is deeper within them, because that is where the self they are being is located.

Realself life and everything that goes with it is better than socialself life in countless ways, and one of these ways is that realself-to-realself relationships give increasing realself people an opportunity to be more their realselves with someone, which they want, enjoy, and need.

A good example of this developing relationship is in Sex, Lies, and Videotape when, after knowing Graham for only about a day, Ann asks him a question while they are in a café:

Ann: Can I tell you something personal?

Graham: It’s up to you. Can I tell you something personal?

Ann: Yeah. Yeah.

Graham: Well, you gotta go first.

Ann: OK.

…

Ann: So, are you gonna tell me something personal?

Graham: Do you want me to?

Ann: Yeah. Yeah, I do. I don’t want it to be something gross, about some scar. I want it to be something really personal, about yourself.

Graham: All right. OK.

Ann enthusiastically says “yeah” four times when Graham asks if he can tell her something “personal,” and the question immediately comes to mind, why was she so enthusiastic? She sounds almost like a naïve teenager who has never before talked to anyone in a personal way.

She knows from experience that she can’t have a “personal” talk with her husband. But even though she has known Graham for only a day, she senses that maybe she can be “personal” with him.

Ontologically, there is a big differences between the “personal” talk from one’s socialself and the “personal” talk from one’s realself. LBJ lifted up his shirt and showed his appendectomy scar to the world, and for some people doing that would be considered personal. But this isn’t the kind of personal that Ann and Graham both have in mind. They use the word “personal,” but they really mean something more in the lines of “Can I be more my realself with you?”

Ann has had the growing sense that she wants to and needs to talk to someone in a “really personal” way, and she thinks that maybe she has finally met someone with whom she can have that relationship—someone she can to talk to in a way other than in the usual, on-the-surface, socialself way. She knows she can’t do that with her husband or sister, and even though she probably talks to her therapist in more of a “personal” way, the relationship she has with him isn’t the same as having a realself-to-realself relationship with someone one likes, is attracted to, and maybe even loves.

Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), and Rev. C. John McCloskey III, Catholic evangelist and Opus Dei member, both hate liberals.

In an ERLC statement about its public policy battles of 2009, Land and ERLC VP Barrett Duke write:

As we predicted, we spent most of last year resisting liberal efforts to undermine biblical values. … Considering the daunting challenges we faced at the beginning of 2009, we believe traditional Judeo-Christian values won out in most cases. It is likely that we will be defending these values from liberal attacks in 2010 as well.

Rev. C. John McCloskey wrote his doctoral dissertation on John Henry Newman, “Liberalism and Newman: The Anglican Vision and Response,” but the work is really of more value for its descriptions of several of the main intellectual events in a man’s, McCloskey’s, ontological failure in his own life:

In this thesis we see Newman grappling with the same problems that afflict us today; we call it secular materialism, he, Liberalism. …

I originally planned the work as a study of the prophetical nature of Newman’s statement on Liberalism, after being struck by how well he diagnosed the situation in which modern man finds himself today after nearly two centuries of the infection of liberal ideology. …

The contribution of this work is small although in as far as I have been able to ascertain, it is original. I aim to show that Newman is one of the first to recognize religious Liberalism, based on what he would call the “non-dogmatic principle,” as a destructive force for modern society, mainly in the fact that it does not recognize the claims of objective truth.

Land and McCloskey both think they hate “liberals,” but that’s not what they truly hate. Instead, they hate increasing realself people and increase realself ideas, or more specifically, they hate everything that has anything to do with the realself.

Land and McCloskey think they are fighting a religious war, but their battle is purely ontological. To those who are a little more insightful, they might see this battle as actually an ideological battle, which is partly true, this battle is more ideological than religious. But those who are even more insightful will see that this battle is entirely an ontological battle between those who are weak and fearful ontologically and believe we desperately need to become more alienated and those who are not like that and don’t believe that.

Land says he is fighting “liberal attacks” and defending “biblical values,” but as people increase their degrees of realself they will clearly see how false, empty, and damaging these two belief are. For those who are absolutely clueless about the realself’s existence and who are terrified of increasing their degrees of realself, it’s probably pretty easy to rewrite reality into thinking that those who think we all need to become our authentic selves are “attacking us!” Likewise, it’s probably pretty easy to cherry-pick the bible to find ontologically alienated passages that one can then use to support one’s warped view of human life.

All of this is unfortunate for folks who are genuinely religious because these two men and other likes them have turned religion and religious freedom into little more than weapons to give themselves a little extra muscle in their battle to make all of us more alienated. These men have helped change religion from being something holy and sacred to being just another ideology—like thousands of others—and in this case an ideology built around a core of hypocrisy.

I will be writing more about Rev. C. John in the future. He has written enough so that it will be possible to go into some detail in describing decreasing realself people and why they believe as they do.

In an earlier post I wrote that when people meet Southern Baptists they should think in the back of their minds Danger! Danger! Alienation! Alienation! Well these people should definitely think the same thing when they meet “traditional” Catholics.