Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tango and flamenco demonstrate reiterative antipathy (divergence) and sympathy (convergence) between archetypally gendered sovereigns at edges of constituted ‘being’. Extraordinary rhythms and physical grace unveil an irreducible mystery celebrated again and again by the triumphant shout, “Ole!” Such elegance pinpoints fulcrums between ‘beauty and beast’ in each partner, balancing the push and pull of person-hood, and of human will and bio-quanta as they turn the gyros of spontaneous creativity. Here is where Rumi’s ‘mystic dynamo’ and Al-‘Arabi’s whirling hearts mirror each other as Imago Dei. Like twin suns or Saturn’s dancing moons, they wax and wane between tides of coherence and incoherence in submis-sion to orbits defined by unambiguous gender imprints of validated identities that continually confirm and uplift each other. Well-matched partners not only perform an innate choreography but also advance to improvise and transcend the mundane plodding of the uninitiated to realize individual and collective allotments of celestial promise.

—  Indeed: Ole!

Degrees of ability, expertise and virtuosity are assuredly conditional for the humblest success. Like fine art, each realm requires ongoing periods of incubation for synthesis and re-creative efforts. But most importantly, prosperous heterosexual marriage is only made possible by the fusion of three aspects of love: eros, fileo and agape [169]. Without all three, the match may dance on Broadway but never with the stars. These devotional emotions are rooted in divine imperatives that permeate the core of every boson-emitting chemical exchange in the human body and coalesce as described by Ibn ‘Arabī to spiritualize the material realm [170]. They form a tripartite matrix we can liken to a metaphysical infrastructure that obtains and transports the synergy of consciously applied unicity. This only occurs within the fortress of fidelity’s submission to the divine performative. All else is the rebellion that obtains distressing pathos, which marks jaded reprobates and sundry unqualified hearts.

This approach to the Tree of Life dwarfs the prestidigitation of lust-for-power apple eaters. Rumi called its cynosure the ‘pouring of one soul into another‘ but Sam Shepard, Robert Graves and I disagree with this romantic phish, as does the dance. Optimized heterosexual union is a metaphysical chelation of human hearts that reiteratively, responsively and responsibly meet at the edge of touch to train our heart-centered sensorium; what Al’Arabī called “taste” (ibid). Here is where spouses manifest and experience dimensions of human existence that otherwise remain un-tasted (Arab proverb). Here, at the threshold of preconstituted differentiated and differentiating identities, they seize each other’s heart-kernel to simultaneously maintain and enhance individual and collective singularities. The dance enables autonomy within bio-resonant fields that uncompromisingly shield and confirm respective identities (singularities) at all levels of expression, as God’s duly-qualified vicegerents (patriarch & matriarch) (ibid).

LGBT and lesser heterosexual unions cannot taste this wondrous marvel for want of credentials, mostly because they generally fail the three-love-qualification test for want of ability and thus, cannot dance with Rumi’s stars. Like riderless souls in hell’s vestibule, many scuffle over scapegoats rather than apply redemptive willpower as did Oliver Sacks. Besides this, the synergy required is uniquely heterosexual. It can be imagined but never experienced by ambiguous alternatives because it literally beatifies a concord between confirmed gender sovereigns who require the dance to complete dyadic wholeness; which unveils heart-to-heart human ‘being’ as saints of Imago Dei (ibid). Its teleological goal commands a continuum of unadulterated yin-yang quantum dynamics that are explicitly gendered, both physically and psychically. The dance of the divine performative can be imagined and even simulated by LGBT people but never actualized. Try as they might, due to anomalous handicaps they remain imitators who cannot qualify.

Licit heterosexual dyads naturally accomplish performativity. Step-by-step they breech walls of mortal restraint to defeat unbelief with a privately encrypted quantum key that distributes the grace of divine fellowship and intention, be it ever so humble or exalted. This is romance! All else is lust that falls short or great expectations and disappoints with impene-trable waves of wounded and wounding hadrons, fermions and bosons; precisely what our majority bemoans but has been programmed to accept as the foppish disenchantment of moral pretense; like fine art given to brutes, or Hypatia in the cruel hands of the Trinitarian mob that rent her limb-from-limb.

Well matched spouses gradually gain mastery by faithfully yielding to an inexplicably simple compulsion to press the same flesh and go bump night after night. After passing fidelity’s trial on and off the dance floor, they attain requisite skills that open the borders of naturally endowed apposites rather than opposites or complainants. Eventually, the couple arrives at a golden mean that grants each bespoken ‘other’ a cognitive compass to navigate straits of ‘love vs. hate’, ‘demand vs. need’, ‘give vs. take’, ‘condemnation vs. mercy’, ‘sympathy vs. antipathy’, etc. They learn to ‘taste’ and ‘be tasted’, to sense each other like first-rate spies on an endless mission of sacred congruity. The entire process unveils the holy heart-to-heart image of fellowship with God (Imago Dei), described by the words, ‘Adam knew Eve’ or ‘Abraham knew Sarah’ or ‘Mohammad knew Kadijah’—so few ‘taste’ the sacred mean [171].

Pristinely gendered cognition and participation redeems what reductionists consider an inflexible ‘male vs. female’ polarity and renders marriage a subtler, suppler, more fluid and user-friendly bargain. And business it is! Each partner’s transcendence of self in favor of the union increases its pool of compassionate resourcefulness within an immutably fused bond affixed to multidimensional vortices teeming with vibrating syntheses. Like dauntless twin suns, bespoken spouses endlessly churn the meal of mutual reciprocity, making even mundane fare appetizing, not only for the radiant duo but also for the planetary system of their nested community. These dynamics obliterate artifice by directly accessing cascades of beneficial quanta from an inner source as activated products of reflection. Thus, unadulterated love requires no priestified ritual, legal certification or long robed cult pretending superior piety. Its participants are naturally endowed priestess and priest. Public acknowledgement suffices. Anything else is a power grab to manipulate the human will.

The tranquility and ambiance of this experience [172] denies pretense as the marriage morphs on its own momentum into a highly refined emollient that unfailingly eases the animal rubs of man’s lower being. Its complementary dynamics obtain quanta of the most vigorous élan vitae directly from the hill of truth, which can only be occupied by lovers submitted to the hegemony of the divine performative. Such couples generate ever-new beneficence from what appears to be ordinary, which is why grand nuptials are superfluous and belie vanity. True riches lie in the heart, which is where the Kingdom of God is. Properly wedded to divine intention and presence, blessed dyads are freed from wantonness and isolation. Indeed, consummation of the divine performative is as close as earth-walkers can get to God on a continuum without special invitation. What is more, trust crowns the private unicity of licit marriage. It is a concord of exceptional reliance that must be vigilantly guarded against disturbers of the peace of God [173].

FOR MUSLIMS ONLY

Khadija brought food and drink to Mohammad during his retreats. Her life force, her prana, her vibration-stimulating bio-photons, her chi-emanating Yin-aether and bio-magnetic field (aura), suffused his sustenance and Yang-‘being’. As his personal tea ceremony, she saturated him with the feminine workings that comprise half of the three loves and one-fourth of the deen. Only she qualified for the sacred reciprocity. No other woman would or could have done so, which is why he remained monogamous while she lived, and why Aisha envied her memory.

Thus Speaks Omar the Sinner:

  • By isolating, abusing, suppressing, repressing and murdering their women; by savagely amputating God-given privates, by keeping them ignorant and dressed in sacks with bags over their heads, Muslims are removed from divine fellowship; from the mystical heart of imago dei; from relationship with the reciprocal kindliness of Allah’s divine pleasure; from His intent, guidance, wisdom and protection, all superogatory graces. Without the mirror of gender reciprocity and sextant fashioned by spousal partnership  guided by Three Love Synergy, they wander in wastelands of unforgiveness, dutifully attending the gilded prattle of legalism like Sadducees. Indeed, the ‘worst of generations’ has arrived: an arrogant mob of ignorant, murderous, lust-filled yobs, inferior to Arabs of the jahilayyah. They spawn hordes of poorly informed, badly married offspring, or worse, no marriage because greed-filled elders, parents, mullahs and leaders have made it too difficult for love to manifest in the face of riba, honor killings, sectarianism, dancing boys, pederasty and sex slaves. So ask no more ‘Where is the God of Mohammad?’ Divine Performative quanta do not attend brute creatures who fail to perceive Rumi’s stars and remain earthbound by arrested development. Pray as you like, it will do this lot no good.

NOTES

[169]    Eroticism, Affection and Honor; respect for Divine Order: See Zaid O (2010). The Taqua of Marriage. KL, Malaysia: AS Noordeen.

[170]   Clark J (2001). Fulfilling our Potential: Ibn ‘Arabī’s Understanding of Man in a Contemporary Context.  J of Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabī Society, 30.

[171]     Ibid.

[172]    Simplified rules for attainment are described in The Taqua of Marriage.

[173]   I have exhaustively discussed trust’s relation to human development and purpose in previous papers. See: http://ssrn.com/author=2447458