Performance of pleasure in Para-Christian culture is generally socially constructed as non-Christian performance of Christian vice. To be sure is this not the only way pleasure is experienced in Para-Christian society but in those other cases is pleasure generally socially constructed as experience of pleasure rather than as performance of pleasure.
In French feminist theory is there the notion of jouissance, meaning pleasure beyond social construction and so need we carefully consider the question of pleasure itself. In Para-Christian culture is there the fundamental idea that pleasure is derived from breaking morality and so is performance of pleasure discursively dissociated from ethics as well. Pleasure is thus only considered wrong if violation of law is involved.
We need understand the historical context of the emergence of this culturally most peculiar social construction. Performance of pleasure was considered paramount in Greco-Roman Mediterranean society and religious ritual sex was widely performed in the semi-secret nocturnal ceremonies of Greco-Roman mystery religion such as Mithraism, all Mediterranean denominations of Median Judaism.
This European culture of performance of pleasure did not cease to exist merely because of the introduction of Christianity. Rather did European medieval society become bisected into two parallel domains, namely the domain of Christianity (church jurisdiction) and Christendom (state jurisdiction. This gave rise to a cognitively split society of structural cognitive dissonance as pervasively structurally experienced throughout medieval and post-medieval Christian/Para-Christian Europe as premised on pervasive hypocrisy as still typical of Catholicism, including among Catholic clergy worldwide, most of whom hardly live in celibacy to put things mildly.
There are several fundamental problems with this. First is pleasure conceived of as performative antinomianism, namely essentially a culturally Christian so called “satanist” conception of pleasure. Pleasure is legalistically perceived as legitimate as long as not illegal. There is also the notion that pleasure must be performed privately to varying degrees rather than publicly as the public domain still nominally belongs to the virtues of Christianity while the private domain belongs to vices of Christendom.
The police may therefore tolerate secretive practices of sexual minorities but will definitely persecute them once this is no longer performed covertly in so called “privacy”. Sexuality and other pleasure is thus still hegemonically supposed to be performed in the private space of Christian vice and not in the structurally and pervasively hypocritical public space of Christian virtue. This of course is a surviving continuation of Greco-Roman culture where pleasure was performed covertly as part of so called orgies, namely nocturnal ceremonial practices of Greco-Roman mystery religion.
This matter should be examined from several perspectives, including ethics, epistemology, ontology and cultural studies. The Para-Christian culture of pleasure was frown at by both nobility and European Rabbinic Jewry. In Yiddish are Para-Christian pleasures known as goyim naches (literally “international pleasures”) as referring to the culturally hegemonic Para-Christian practice of performing Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure. European nobility including royals were not supposed to look down upon other social classes yet rightly considered Para-Cristian performance of Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure as most despicable and lowly indeed. Catholic clergy were usually hypocrites who lived parallel lives where they too performed Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure. Yet, criticism of Para-Christian performance of Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure is in cultural terms hegemonically mostly associated with the structurally and pervasively hypocritical position of Catholic clergy who only outwardly opposed Para-Christian performance of Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure. The term “goyim naches” is thus best explained as simply “unethical pleasures”.
Ethics and aesthetics must not be dissociated from each other as pleasure needs be refined, ethical, aesthetic, noble and idiosyncratically individualized. The problem is thus not only Para-Christian performance of Para-Christian pleasure, but furthermore the very culturally hegemonic social construction of the Para-Christian performance of Christian vice as Para-Christian pleasure.
In the 19th century did the new pseudo-science of “sexology” performatively institute perceptions of physical interpersonal intimacy of Christianity and Christendom respectively as so called “sexuality”. These set-aside pleasures were thus discursively dissociated from other forms of pleasure and was in turn bisected into purely reproductive marital Catholic-style sexual please and all other sexual pleasures which were branded as practices of so called “paraphilia”.
The discursive invention of so called “sexuality” as a particular Para-Christian social construction in the Western history of ideas was thus from the start discursively partitioned into Christian virtue and Para-Christian vice. This was simply reflective of Catholic church doctrine whereby non-reproductive “carnal pleasure” outside of marriage was all officially considered vice and in fact still are as of writing.
Socially is this perpetuated by means of cultural hegemony but how is it culturally perpetuated? Simply due to cultural participants as typically in culture taking these partly subconscious socio-cultural structures for granted as most simply have no cultural competence or considerable cultural experience beyond the cultural hegemony of the Christendom/Christianity Para-Christian social dichotomy.
What is needed thus is to end the culturally essentially “satanist” symbiosis between pleasure and iconoclasm, in the sense as so called “satanism” in Para-Christian culture being precisely about transgression of Christian taboos.
How then should this be attained? We need do this by artistically and innovatively so devising ethico-aesthetic new forms of interpersonal pleasure as no longer delimited by the sexual/non-sexual binary.
The macabre teleology of Para-Christian evil pleasure is precisely epistemologically evil indeed and so we need reconceptualize pleasure from a self-centered activity of “getting” something from someone else to most human beings becoming non-commercial “geishas” and feminist supergals in ethico-aesthetically gendered feminist diversity as devoted to fully recognizing and acknowledging the full personhood (combined physical appearance and sentient cognition) of a profoundly respectively la tout autre and ethico-aesthetically optimizing shared refined interpersonal pleasure of neurological, physical, sentient and cognitive interaction indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project
The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.