Corrections on ‘Leftist Critiques of BDSM’

One of the mistakes that I made in my entry titled ‘Leftist Critiques of BDSM’ is that I got so carried away describing the general problems with our ordinary state of consciousness, that I forgot to mention that much of what I was describing was general and not specific to BDSM. And since I write in a stream-of-consciousness manner, I sometimes change topic halfway through saying something, and don’t realize that the reader cannot tell I have changed topic. Sometimes when I elaborate on an idea, it’s not because I’m trying to drive the point home, but because I’m practicing expressing that idea for future use, and because I like seeing my thoughts ‘unfold’.

My ethics are divided into two layers: worldly and spiritual ethics. Worldly ethics should not be upheld with much force, as that tends to result in tyranny. An example of a worldly unethical act is bullying. As for BDSM, it is worldly unethical because of the violent and patriarchal nature of the sexuality, and because an individual cannot really flourished when their ego is so bound up with another’s in an unhealthy, inegalitarian relationship. This is the layer of my ethics that is influenced by such people as Marcus Aurelius and Plato. From a worldly ethical point of view, the ideal life and character are within the limits of ordinary consciousness, but just involve greater use of reason, and a higher level of discipline, inner peace, self-esteem and other healthy traits. I realize now that if something is worldly unethical, I shouldn’t be too moralistic about it. My BDSM post was a bit too moralistic, I now realize, and so I have edited it slightly. Even that which is unedited, I sort of wish I hadn’t written. I do not entirely disagree with what I said, but perhaps I exaggerated a bit. In any event, my critique of BDSM was a worldly ethical one, not a spiritual one. Not that from a spiritual point of view BDSM is okay, but rather that the critique I gave in that entry was intended to be a worldly ethical one.

Spiritual ethics is a whole other matter. It’s a greater influence upon me overall. From a spiritual ethical point of view the ordinary state of consciousness is itself problematic, and this is as true of the person who lives the good life as it is of the person who lives a more vice-ful life. Moralism is also a symptom of such a state of consciousness. However, spirituality is not amoral, contrary to what many neophytes and others claim about it. What exactly spiritual ethics (or Integral Ethics, to be specific) is, I will elaborate upon in more detail later.

My descriptions of stunted growth and so forth were just an attempt to get at the nature of vital-egoism. Vital-egoism is real and my description was accurate, but perhaps I should have described it separately first rather than infusing it in my critique of BDSM. So here’s the short version of my views on BDSM, from the beginning:

Vital-egoism exists and is a symptom of an underdeveloped consciousness, i.e. almost everyone’s consciousness to varying degrees.

It is worldly unethical to bully others or to do violence unnecessarily, among other things. It is similarly unethical even to desire it. BDSM involves those. Go figure.

It is worldly unethical to seek desperately after excitement, and kink is a symptom of such a seeking.

There is no such thing as spiritually unethical, but there is nevertheless the ideal spiritual state, and in such a state the desire for sex disappears. It – and other desires – diminish naturally and do not need to be ‘driven out’ the way that people often attempt to get done when motivated by Judeo-Christian morality.

---