369 — Barbie, Hamas & Homo Amor: from Degraded Love Stories to The Universe: A Love Story
Barbie and Hamas both are degraded love stories
This piece is a lightly edited transcript of a live talk [November 5, 2023] given by Dr. Marc Gafni on the weekly broadcast One Mountain, Many Paths, founded by Gafni and his evolutionary partner Barbara Marx Hubbard. Thus, the style of the piece is spoken word and not a formal essay.
Edited by Elena Maslova-Levin. Prepared for publication by Jamie Long.
Summary: Looking at two seemingly unconnected events — the Barbie movie and the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023 — helps us clarify our perception and articulate a third possibility. Although there is zero moral equivalence between Barbie and Hamas, both are degraded love stories. That’s what makes them so dangerous. Hamas is a wildly destructive expression of fundamentalism; it degrades and demonizes the body and desire itself. Desire, perceived as evil, is projected outwards, onto ‘infidels,’ and then brutally destroyed. Barbie is an expression of postmodernism: it disqualifies love, value, and desire as non-real, as mere social constructs. In absence of real value, we lose capacity for moral distinctions; that’s why Hamas atrocities were celebrated on university campuses across the Western world. Postmodernism and fundamentalism are swelling movements in today’s world, and both will destroy us. Our only chance is the third way, the third possibility — articulating a shared story of value rooted in the clarified realization that the Universe is a love story, Reality is desire, and no one is excluded from the love story.
We need to find a third way
We need to clear our glasses. We need to be able to see clearly. Homo Amor needs to be able to clear glasses, to clarify the interior, to be able to stand in love, to be able to stand in Eros.
If you’ve tracked and understood the fabric of interior culture, the confusion is not surprising. But sometimes something can be not surprising, but shocking.
The confusion —
- the incapacity to distinguish between the utter tragedy of innocent civilians being killed in Gaza — or anyplace in the world, which rips our hearts out, and the jihadi culture of death,
- to distinguish between a culture of death and a culture of life (which may have thousand problems, but is fundamentally a culture of life) —
— undermines the capacity to be Homo Amor.
We need to be able to make these distinctions.
The first requirement of Homo Amor is that we feel the joy. We feel the joy, the pulsing joy of the world, and when there is pain, we feel the pulsing pain of the world.
No one’s blood is cheap. Ukrainian blood is not cheap, and Yemenite blood is not cheap, and Jewish blood is not cheap, and Palestinian blood is not cheap. All blood has the same value, the same intrinsic value. No one’s blood is cheap.
And we need to be able to make the fundamental distinction between a jihadi culture of death, and at least an aspiring culture of life that needs to respond to it.
In order to be able to respond to the culture of death —
- we have to first understand it,
- and then we need to embrace a New Story of Value.
From where we stand today, we don’t have the capacity — as Homo Amor — to respond to the culture of death.
I’m going to try and be as precise as I can today, and outline Barbie (the movie Barbie), Hamas, and the New Story. Those are the three options we have for the world today.
- Barbie, as we’ll see, will lead to a nihilistic destruction.
- Hamas will lead to a puritanical destruction.
- Only a New Story of Value, which realizes with mad joy that the universe is a love story, that I participate in that love story, that no one is outside the circle, can actually respond and move us from horror to hope.
That realization is based not simply on declaration, but on a careful reading of both the hard, exterior sciences and what I would call the interior sciences, the wisdom traditions.
- It’s only such a realization..
- It’s only such an evolution of culture and consciousness…
- It’s only such a progression of moral grasp and understanding…
- It’s only such a progression of ethos rooted in a realization of Eros —
— that can respond to the culture of death and create the new world, the most beautiful world that we’ve always known is possible.
The refusal to make distinctions contravenes the interior of Homo Amor.
Love is not merely a feeling. I haven’t stopped feeling. I feel insanely. I am by nature an empath, so I feel all the time; I’m always feeling. I have never, quite literally never, had a good idea in my life. Any idea, any Dharma, any set of distinctions that I am trying to articulate comes from a deep feeling, a felt sense — and I try and articulate the feeling as it stays with me. Day in and day out, I try and articulate the feeling, and then share it. I am trying to share a feeling, and then to articulate it in a distinction.
We have to feel. But it’s only our capacity to feel and articulate this New Story of Value that can allow us to move from horror to hope, to the hope which is a memory of the future.
THIS WEEK'S EVOLUTIONARY LOVE CODE:
There are three universe stories.
- There is the Barbie universe story.
- There is the Hamas universe story, the fundamentalist
universe story (there are different forms of
fundamentalism).
- And then there is the Homo Amor, CosmoErotic
Humanism story, the New Story of Value.
Those are the three choices that we have today. It’s not a
binary choice; we need to find a third way. We need to find
our way between the binary of Barbie and Hamas — between
postmodern, desiccated, empty materialism, and a
pseudo-erotic fundamentalism, which is wildly destructive.
The third way is the New Story of Value rooted in Evolving
First Principles and First Values, CosmoErotic Humanism.False stories confuse us
Stories matter.
Story is the very structure of Reality itself. Story is not a human invention. Story is ontological to Cosmos.
In interior sciences, there is a phrase we sometimes use: God loves stories. That’s another way of talking about story as structural to Reality.
Don’t worry if you’re confused about God. As we often say, the God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist, it’s okay. The God that you deny, I deny also. When we talk about God, we mean the Field of Value which is infinitely personal.
In CosmoErotic Humanism, we have a name that we use to refer to the Divine that both lives in us and holds us, and that name is the Infinite-Intimate. God is the Infinite-Intimate. The Infinite that desires intimacy, and becomes somehow paradoxically more infinite through desiring intimacy and through realizing ever-deeper intimacies.
Why does that matter so insanely much in this very moment?
False stories confuse us.
I’ll give you an example of a false story.
The atrocity of October 7th took place because of the interior logic of Hamas, which is a failed love story (last week, we talked about Hamas as a failed love story). It has nothing to do with the occupation, whatever the occupation means. That word doesn’t even mean anything, it’s an overused trope, the occupation of Gaza.
Who is occupying Gaza, what does it even mean? Where is Gaza? When was it part of Egypt? Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Hamas took it over, threw out Fatah, and basically massacres and kills its citizens at will in order to hold them captive for its own jihadi aims. Whenever someone says the occupation of Gaza, they actually don’t know what they are referring to, and have no sense of the storyline.
I’ll give you a better piece of evidence. If you study the history of the Islamic State, ISIS, in Iraq and in Syria, there was no occupation there — no West Bank, no Israel, no Jews, no occupation — and still, the Islamic State acted with barbarity and cruelty and atrocity of the same nature.
Or if you see the movie, Hotel Mumbai, which is about another jihadi set of atrocities which killed some 160 people. Again, there is no Israel there, and no occupation, and no Zionist entity — none of those smokescreens. And Jihad does what Jihad does.
That’s really critical to understand. It is very clear that Hamas, although quite distinct from ISIS, is operating in the fundamental logic of a culture of death.
We’re going to go much deeper than that. That’s just the very beginning. But clearly, that’s not about an occupation.
First, because the word occupation doesn’t make sense in the Gaza context.
Secondly, how do you know the difference between a reason and an excuse? If you remove the excuse, does the phenomenon still exist? That’s a very good distinction. If the reason for Hamas’s atrocities is a response to a political agenda opposed by Israel, well, then remove Israel, remove Jews, remove any of those factors — and will jihadism still carry out its atrocities? The answer is, yes. Whatever the political sets of issues are in Gaza or the West Bank, they are not cause (by the way, based on all the polls today, Hamas would win an election in the West Bank; let’s just hold that).
Someone just wrote in the chat box: This is not Jihad, it’s pseudo-jihad.
The most important thing that could happen in the world today would be that the interpretation of Jihad as an internal struggle for liberation would be accepted.
That would be the most beautiful, gorgeous evolution.
That has not happened. We need two billion Muslims to arise in the world and say, what Jihad means is internal transformation. Amen, Hallelujah! That is what needs to happen. We need an evolution of consciousness within the Islam.
However, if you read the classical interpretations that are dominating the discourse, Jihad is very centrally about violence and war, with Muhammad as the model. That is their interpretation of Jihad that they’re now enacting. We need an evolution of what Jihad means, and that would be probably one of the most pivotal evolutions of consciousness that we could enact.
A failed love story on a collective level results in horror
But let’s go deeper. This is just the surface, we’re on the surface now.
Hamas is not a group of sociopaths.
It’s critical to understand, Hamas are not sociopaths. They’re not psychopaths. (There might be a random sociopath and psychopath, and there may be more than a few, like there always is.) If Hamas was just basically a group of mafia sociopaths, we would have a much smaller problem.
No, the whole point is that Hamas are ordinary people who are fundamentally psychologically sound, who have been completely absorbed in a failed love story. The acts they carry out are an expression of an utterly distorted version of a love story. It’s an utter degradation of a love story.
That’s the point.
That’s what we saw last week when we played an audio of this young man Muhammad, who calls home and he says: I killed 10 Jews, and I just killed this woman, and I have her phone and I’m calling you with her phone, and I’m sending images of the Jews that I just killed with my own hands to my WhatsApp. And his father says, you killed 10 Jews? And his mother is there crying, but there is a shared conversation between them.
Compare this to the My Lai massacre, Lieutenant Calley and the My Lai massacre and Medina, I think it was Sergeant Medina, in Vietnam. Can you imagine Calley and Medina calling home to Wyoming and Nebraska, and telling their parents: Wow, I just killed 10 people? The parents would be horrified. You’re out of your mind! What the fuck happened to you? That’s not what happens in this phone call. There is a culture of Jihad. And the father says, when are you going to come home?
Martyrdom. Victory or martyrdom.
Clearly, martyrdom was where Muhammad was going. Muhammad is not evil in the sense that he’s expressing a psychopathy, he is not. He is not a psychopath. He is not a sociopath. He is a normal person with some elemental psychological soundness trapped in a failed love story, and this is far, far more dangerous. Just ask OJ Simpson, what it means to be trapped in a failed love story.
A failed love story on a personal level is OJ Simpson, which results in murder.
But a failed love story on a collective level results in horror. In the 14th century, it resulted in the horrors of The Crusades, and burning heretics alive, and flaying their skin. And in the jihadist moment, it results in this ultimate violation of Homo Amor, and the unimaginable atrocities of October 7th.
That’s just our context. And the context is, story matters. The story you tell matters.
Let’s get out of superficial distortions
We are trying to step out of the horror of social media feeds. They are so often utterly lost in the sad dimensions of human beings. Their architecture and their incentive structures are perverse, and all too often reward the lowest common denominator of human expression.
Let’s get out of social media feeds.
Let’s get out of this unimaginably superficial set of distortions, colored by any number of motivations, of the kind that existed in so much of the legacy press.
For example, some time ago, when a hospital was bombed, and Hamas immediately said, Israel did this, and Israel said, well, of course not. The New York Times and BBC and Reuters and The Guardian all reported, based on Hamas, that Israel did it, without any checks or verification. And it turned out, based on all the available intelligence in multiple vectors, not to be true. What caused the press to do that, what caused our legacy press institutions to do that is a deeper conversation we’re not going to have now.
Let’s get out of those vectors, both out of the legacy press and out of the social media feeds, and let’s look clearly, with our hearts wide open.
Our intention is to come to joy.
Our intention is the evolution of love.
Our intention is to clean our glasses, to see clearly.
Barbie: there is no love story
The movie that played in theaters in lots of United States, just as the Hamas atrocities were happening, was Barbie.
This is culture telling a story. This is the Intimate Universe whispering.
What is Barbie saying? What is the Barbie story about?
Let us look at one clip from Barbie:
If you follow the movie carefully, Barbie is not saying here I’m not in love with this Ken. This is not a personal Barbie and a personal Ken. Barbie and Ken here are archetypes. They are two parts in a larger system, and the question is, is there a love story in the system or isn’t there?
The entire point and plot of Barbie is that there is no love story.
That’s why Barbie says to Ken, when he moves to kiss her in the beginning, what are you doing? And he says, well, maybe I’ll stay over. She says, why would you stay over? It’s girls’ night every night forever.
- Eternity is not about eternal love.
- Eternity is not about a love story.
- There is no love story.
If you read carefully the lyrics of the key songs in the movie, Closer to Find and I Am Just Ken, the point of the songs is, there is no love story. Barbie is not in love with Ken means Barbie is not in love with Ken, period. Love is not the end of the story. It’s not where we’re going.
It is not just a healthy individuation, which is how we would like to understand Barbie: Ken has to individuate, and Barbie has to individuate, and then they come together in this new Eros and this larger love. That’s exactly not what Barbie is saying, if you read the text carefully. Barbie is saying, there is no love story.
There is an incredible scene where Barbie is talking to Ruth, Mrs. Mattel, the founder of Mattel. Barbie says, I want to become a human. And Mrs. Mattel, Ruth says, why? And Mrs. Mattel describes human beings and says, and in the end, they die.
Death, that’s the end, it’s over. They just make up meaning along the way, they just basically make shit up, because the whole thing is this fleeting thing, and why would you want to join that?
No answer to that question is given in Barbie.
It is very, very different from that moment in Tolkien, in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Arwen, who is an eternal — or close to eternal — elf, decides she wants to become human even if she loses her eternity, in order to be with Aragorn. She wants to be with Aragorn because Reality is a love story, and because love is an eternal value of Reality itself, so to step into love is to step into eternity.
That’s precisely not what’s happening in Barbie.
Barbie is a world in which death ends life, in which after death, there is only nothingness. There is no Field of Value. Humans make it up, it’s not real. Therefore the closest that Barbie can get to a love story is biological, so the relationship between Sasha and her mother is a love story. There are about five or six scenes where that biological love story unfolds. Even Ruth says, I named Barbie after my daughter, Barbara. It’s the mother-daughter story feminine biological love story, because the masculine is demonized in Barbie. That’s as close as we can get to a love story, but the core is there is no love story. That’s Barbie’s point.
There is no love story —
- because love itself is not a value,
- because Eros itself is not an intrinsic value of Cosmos.
You have a postmodern desiccation, as Lewis Mumford called it, disqualification of the universe.
There is no Field of Value, and there is no ultimate distinction between right and wrong. That distinction can’t be drawn. It’s an arbitrary distinction.
As Yuval Harari basically says, there is no difference at all, in any ultimate sense, between massacring Muslims in the fourteenth century as a Christian young knight, and going to that same region of the world to work to heal refugees for Amnesty International. He says quite explicitly, those are both just made-up stories, and in a few hundred years, the story we tell now, the Amnesty International story, the positive Western value story, will also seem absurd to us. There is no ultimate distinction.
(I’m not citing Harari as a thinker. He’s not important as a thinker. He’s important as an uncontaminated and unconscious parrot of the Barbie predicament, which is that there is no love story.)
When there is no Eros, there is pseudo-eros
When there is no love story, all you get is the drive for power. All you get is rivalrous conflict governed by win-lose metrics. What you get is a war machine. You get a military industrial complex, you get a medical industrial complex.
You get the lowest common denominator of human drives, which are drives of pseudo-eros.
Eros is not just Eros.
Eros is the movement of separate parts desiring deeper contact and greater wholeness.
Eros is the experience of Radical Aliveness.
This is the New Universe Story. In the New Universe Story, desire is real, it is a value of Cosmos. When you clarify desire, your clarified desire tells you what you value. Desire is an appropriate, and legitimate, and important compass. I follow my clarified compass of desire in order to disclose value.
Eros is a value. Eros is a value of Cosmos.
But if there is no Eros, then there is only emptiness. We try and fill it up, because we can’t bear the emptiness. Postmodern materialism has no explanation of why we can’t bear the emptiness. Existentialism describes — Sartre and Camus describe — with great grotesque detail, the experience of emptiness, but they ignore the question of why the emptiness is there. Why do we feel this emptiness, if we are but desiccated flatland, postmodern, mechanical humans, without any intrinsic value? They can’t explain that.
If there is no Eros, there is pseudo-eros.
Pseudo-eros appears in many forms. One form of pseudo-eros is a military industrial complex, this flexing of muscle, this drive to war, the war machine. Postmodernity can produce war machines, and war machines benefit from wars. Whenever there is a war, you’ll always have to try and see where’s the war machine? Where is the hidden war machine?
Postmodernity creates a moral vacuum. Moral vacuums benefit war machines that traffic in raw power. We all just have to be aware, is there a war machine someplace here, someplace in the background? And feel where it is. (Not all war machines are the same, and there are wars that need to be fought, as I’ve talked about, as the Dalai Lama has talked about. Pacifism is not an option, if I am taking responsibility for love, and for the present, and for the future.)
What emerges out of the Barbie dogmatic claim that there is no love story because there is no Field of Value, and therefore no ErosValue in cosmos, is pseudo-eros that goes to destroy everything, through its rivalrous conflict governed by win-lose metrics.
That’s one story. In this story, desire is not a value of Cosmos. Desire is not sacred. I can’t listen to my desire. My clarified desire means nothing. It is just the social construction that dominates who I am.
- There is no free choice.
- There is no choosing of direction.
- It’s an illusion. It’s made-up.
- My experience of freedom is dismissed, because my experience is dismissed.
- And my desire for freedom is dismissed, because desire has no ontology. It has no reality. It has no ultimate moral force.
That’s the first story.
So what is Barbie? A failed love story. A failed story of desire.
Demonization of desire
What is Hamas? In a completely different way, it’s the same interior structure.
Obviously, there is zero moral equivalence between Barbie and Hamas, but in terms of its interior structure, Hamas is also a failed love story: there is no universal grammar of value rooted in Eros. There is no universal Field of Eros. Reality is divided in only one way. It’s not divided between regions, or geographies, or nations, certainly not nation states. It is divided in one way, Dar Al Harb and Dar Al Islam: those who should be brutally subjugated, and those who are purified by the only pure version of Islam. Whether it’s the Sunni version or the Shia version of Jihad is a deathly argument between those versions of Jihad, but what they share is that only a purified Islam is worthy of care and concern and love.
In this failed love story, the body is demonized.
The stirrings of desire in the body are demonized. Masturbation has no place. Self-pleasuring has no place. The joy of making love, within the right and sacred context, has no place. That’s critical: the body cannot be trusted. The stirrings of desire in the body can’t be trusted.
Martyrdom, the rejection of the embodied manifest Reality is at the center of the conversation.
Now, if the body cannot be trusted, and I experience, deep in my body, the stirring of desire — in violation of the purified version of Islam which has animated my consciousness from early childhood — then I feel there is evil in me.
I cannot own that evil, so I project it outwards — on the other, on the enemy, on the infidel, who needs to be slaughtered by the sword, and painfully.
Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State of the United States reports — a firsthand testimony — about families being tied together. Children and parents, with the limbs of the children, fingers and legs, cut off. We’re talking about phalluses of men cut off before their raped women, and then everyone burned alive.
This is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about this most torturous, most brutal, most vicious slaughter, to inflict the most pain possible. To cut a girl’s arm off and leave her, without killing her, intentionally, so she’ll wallow for seven hours in her pain. That’s the intention. Then she quivers and dies in the end, as one of the first responders arrives hours later.
Because the experience of desire has been degraded, because desire is not holy.
Barbie, in its way, disqualifies desire:
- Desire is not real.
- Desire doesn’t tell me anything real about Reality.
- DesireEros, desire which is the face of Eros, doesn’t lead me to ethos.
In the Hamas version, desire is not just disqualified, but degraded and demonized, and therefore, the body can be violated. An anti-desire torture — the opposite of desire — is inflicted in the name of this purity.
The experience of interior desire, which is experienced as evil, is projected outwards — and then that desire is killed, and destroyed, and violated. That is the interior logic of the jihadi position. Not because they’re sociopaths, not because they’re psychopaths, but because that’s what the good martyr does, inherently.
That’s why even though the details of all these killings were known, they were celebrated.
The third response is a New Story of Value
But the atrocities were celebrated on two different streets:
- They were celebrated on the postmodern street, in universities across the world, including the best of Western liberal universities, who live in a postmodern predicament in which there is no Field of Value. When there is no Field of Value, you cannot do evaluation. If there’s no Field of Value, you cannot evaluate anything. Evaluation makes distinction. We lose that capacity, which is where moral equivalence has come from.
- And they were celebrated on the street in which Jihad is celebrated. Even if one is not an active jihadi, there is an enormous sympathy to Jihad throughout huge swaths of Reality. There is this demonized degraded desire, which allows for an embrace of this jihadi worldview, which is then celebrated, in huge rallies around the world.
So what’s the response? What’s the third possibility?
A third possibility is a return to Eros.
But it is not a return — it is the articulation, for the first time, of the realization that the universe is a love story.
We’ve said many, many times that existential risk is global (climate change, artificial intelligence, the gap between haves and have-nots).
- Global challenges require global solutions.
- Global solutions require global coordination.
- Global coordination requires global resonance, or global coherence. We need global coherence in order to resonate with each other in order to coordinate.
- Global coherence requires global intimacy.
- Global intimacy requires, like intimacy in any relationship, a shared story of value.
But there is no shared story of value. There is a degraded fundamentalist value, and there is a desiccated, disqualified value of post-modernism.
Barbie and Hamas, both swelling movements in the world, postmodernity against fundamentalism, are both failed love stories. We don’t have a shared story of value.
Only a shared story of value can respond to existential risk, which is the death of humanity or the death of our humanity.
A disqualified value produces the military industrial complex, but it also produces TechnoFeudalism, a technocratic totalitarianism — a structure designed to undermine free will, and to undermine choice, and to appeal to the lowest common denominator of human beings. And then you’ve got the fundamentalist position with its demonization of desire, and all of its utter horror.
So what’s the response? The response has to be a third way. And the third way, the third possibility, this new allurement, is the realization that —
- the Universe is a love story,
- Eros is the ground of Reality. Reality is Eros, and Eros is the value of Reality.
- Reality seeks value. Reality has an appetite for value.
- Reality is desire — Eros and intimacy seeking ever-deeper uniqueness, ever-deeper diversity, and then ever-larger unions from that diversity, and ever-deeper goodness, truth, and beauty
That’s why failed love stories are so dangerous. .
The Universe: a Love Story
Look at the name of God, a four-letter name of God:
Going from right to left:
- The Yod enters the Heh. Yah, as in Leonard Cohen, Hallelu-yah. The breath of Reality is the Yod entering the Heh in mad Eros.
- And then the Vav enters the Heh, the third letter enters the Heh, again in mad Eros.
The Yod entering the Heh is called the constant Eros of cosmos: electromagnetism, gravitational allurement, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the structure of Reality.
And the Vav entering the Heh is called the aroused Eros in the interior sciences. The aroused Eros is the Eros generated by that same quality of allurement and desire, but now operating at the depths of human self-reflective consciousness.
In the interior sciences, Reality is Names of God, which is just another way of saying that —
- Reality is allurement.
- Reality is Eros.
- Reality is desire, and desire means: I am seeking value. I am desiring ever-greater value.
- Reality has an appetite, wrote Whitehead, for value.
That’s a love story.
The Universe is a love story.
The Universe is animated by desire — so I can trust my desire, and my desire tells me truth.
I can trust my body. Do you feel that?
The book of Job, as it’s read by the interior sciences, says, in Chapter 19: Through my body, I vision God. Meaning, I can trust my body.
The stirrings of desire in my body — not in their pseudo-erotic form, not in their addictive form, not in their broken form, but my clarified desire — discloses value.
- It is my desire for creativity.
- It is my desire for caring.
- It is my desire for nurturing.
- It is my desire for responsibility.
- It is my desire for aliveness.
- It is my desire for union.
- It is my desire for ever-deeper intimacies, for ever-deeper truth-telling, for ever-deeper transformation, for ever-deeper uniqueness.
These are the First Principles and First Values of Cosmos, which are the first desires of Cosmos. The first desires of cosmos are its First Values, and the whole thing is a love story, which is why one text says:
- ishtaka la b’oraita: she looked in the text, and the text is the names of God, u’bara alma: and the world is an expression of the names of God.
Meaning: Reality is desire. God is Eros, all the way up and all the way down. We are unique participatory expressions of the Field of Eros — Unique Selves, unique qualities, incarnations of intimacy and desire.
That’s a love story — and ethos comes from that love story.
When there is no love story, when Eros is not a value, you have emptiness and you have pseudo-eros. Whether it’s the postmodern version of pseudo-eros, or the fundamentalist version of pseudo-eros, they both produce destruction.
Our response has to be the overriding moral imperative of this time, like it was for da Vinci and Ficino, at the Florentine Platonic Academy in the Renaissance, which was also a time between worlds and a time between stories.
In this moment, in this breach, we have to — not just tell, not just declare, but articulate, research, deepen, write, clarify — the evolution of the human story, which is:
- Reality is a love story.
- No one is outside of the love story.
- Love is the value of cosmos, and ErosValue.
- We all participate in that story.
- We all have unique contributions to that love story.
- That love story is evolving, it is clarifying all the time.
That’s The Universe: A Love Story.
That love story has got to be so powerful, and so pulsing, and so throbbing —
- that it awakens Barbie and Ken;
- that actually, a Hamas apostate — the person who leaves Hamas — doesn’t become a postmodernist, which is what’s happening now.
Those who leave Hamas, go to Europe and become postmodern apostates, because the choice is either Hamas or postmodernism.
No, we have to initiate Reality, as da Vinci and Ficino did, into this new love story, grounded in the best of sciences.
That’s where we’re going. That’s what we are here to do.
Is it Barbie or Hamas?
No, it’s The Universe: A Love Story.
Join weekly Evolutionary Sensemaking with Dr. Marc Gafni every Sunday in One Mountain:
Join Dr. Marc Gafni and the entire community in an evolutionary celebration this and every Sunday in One Mountain, Many Paths. Click here to register for free.
Evolutionary Spirituality | One Mountain Many Paths
