Eros In Venus

"Sexual desire without Eros wants the thing in itself." -- The Four Loves,  C.S. Lewis

Venus, the goddess of love in Greek mythology and Eros, god of the same are often bandied about; today science and technology have made us too smart, too slick for something so imprecise as a myth. And yet author C. S. Lewis, most famously wrote about this. Lewis, who is the author of many 20th century works, is best known for Narnia.

About Eros and Venus he writes, Eros without Venus is for lack. Owing to the ancient devotion of the Romans, erotic principle well observed Eros on its own was something altogether different than when enfolded in Venus. As Lewis explains, the 'carnal element within Eros I intend to call Venus.'

"Sexuality,' he adds, ' operates without Eros, or as part of Eros."

It is not necessary to feel anything more than attraction or desire to activate that part of the equation which functions wholly by instinct. And Lewis hastens to add that he writes without moral or other notions, some such as the thought that sex 'with love' is pure while without love it is something else; nor does Lewis seek to describe the activities of Eros 'under a soaring and iridescence which reduces the role of the sense to a minor consideration.'

Eros in Venus is Lewis'; contribution to a description of what the ancients saw as estimable, worthy of a spiritual cause, a religion of degree. This experience he describes as the 'in loveness of the Beloved.' When one first beholds another, it as if he is captured, so captivated may one be by the gazing upon who has inspired this. In a simple, general delight, pre-occupied with all that the one may be, a thirst develops to simply know the creature of ones' gaze, to behold in totality. While in this state one really hasn't the leisure to thing about carnal matters; rather the thought of the person takes precedence. While filled with desire, he may be satisfied to continue in reverie and contemplate this creature whom one may call beloved.

In contemplation, the arrival of Eros, erotic love arrives as if a 'tidal wave, an invader taking over and reorganizing his sensuality. Sexual desire without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros while in Venus wants the Beloved. While one may want a woman not for herself but for the things she may provide, in Eros one wants a particular person--that person for the person them self. This is the Beloved created through some mysterious activity of Eros; in Eros at its most intense, the beloved is needed, craved even for their very self, distinct and unique from all others, admirable in itself. And it's importance is far beyond the lover's need.

While certainly hard to explain, its metaphysical aspects may be explained thus, 'I am in you, you are in me. Your heart is my heart, and my heart is part of your heart alone.' So without Eros, sexual desires, like every other desire is simply about our self. Eros makes it uniquely other focused. Now it's about the Beloved one. The distinction between giving and receiving blurs, indeed it's obliterated when Eros is in Venus.

The Impulse for Affection

"That our affections not kill us, or die." --Donne


Affection unites even the most unlikely of partners. Affection, an intense need to be needed often finds an outlet in attraction, indeed sometimes suffocating obsession, to find, for some, expression in pet holding.
For many, their dog or cat is a substitute for association with ones' fellows. That someone is terribly fond of animals, that they endeavor to protect and pet them tells us little beyond this until we know more clearly their deeper nature.

For some, animals are the bridge between their intellectualism and a corresponding slipping sense for nature; for others it may be a relief from the expectations and demands of human companionship. Animals, after all are animals, they don't object to our coarser habits.

Affection is, after all, responsible for the greatest majority of happiness and contentment we feel in our lives. Yet if one is honest for a moment, it can be seen that affection for all its positiveness can be twisted or warped into something quite different, unrecognizable in its usual form.

Here, it takes a dark shape. Nine tenths of the human population would find this darkness unrecognizable. For those who do recognize such a thing within themselves or others, it might be termed, an 'affection of the fallen,' those who work for wages in the salt mines, who like Pinocchio, find themselves donkeys pulling wagons, enslaved.

Affection, it seems, produces happiness if, only if, there's a good measure of decency, common sense give and take. In other words, mere feeling isn't enough to sustain affection. Greed, self centeredness, deception of self and others are but a few of the darker motives.

If, on the contrary, there's a sense of decency, that's inclusive of give and take, of justice; humility, patience and the admission of a higher, out of self love, affection will be sustained. Affection is respectful, forgiving, tolerant, kind. It thrives on the familiarity of long established ties.

If these types of sensibilities are lacking, affection darkens, or simply fades. There's not enough without decency and fair justice to sustain it. It goes bad. Living through affection alone leads to the pleasures of those who resent, who despise, who hate with an often extreme depravity. "Love,' said author C.S. Lewis, 'becomes a God, becomes a demon."

Affection wishes neither to wound, to dominate nor humiliate. "If you would seek to be loved, be lovable." --Ovid. 
 Affection is neither indifferent nor overwhelming in its attentions. It admits to free will. It is the most humble of loves. As for erotic love, without affection, its lifespan is short. Affection doesn't suffocate, nor does it seek to tie one or another up, to control, to dominate or to submit. These are all for the animals, for whom affection means little.

C.S. Lewis, Apostle to the Skeptics

"By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; once awake, who can foresee the result?" C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Chad Walsh writing in his delightful 1949 apology, first serialized in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, later published in book form has much to say about the genius of the Irish author, Lewis whom he likens to Saint Paul. No "Christian apologist in the English speaking world today is as much talked about and argued about as C.S. Lewis." So it remains today, 50 years later.
At Oxford university, England the young Lewis studied the Classics. While there he seemed "a gifted student with a bit more imagination than average," writes Walsh. A favorite author of the young Lewis was G. K. Chesterton. At age 30 he joined the Anglican Church of England. In 1933 Lewis published Regress, a volume which brought him notice.

And now we rejoin him at the Screwtape Letters' apology by Chad Walsh. With the publication of the "Screwtape Letters starting in 1941, Lewis was a surprise to everyone." Walsh describes the book as a "neat turning the tables on everyone... the writing from the viewpoint of Hell--put the shoe on the other foot; he [Lewis] charged the secularists with intellectual fuzziness. And the secularists-- those who had a sense of humor--read the book for a good natured laugh."

In the course of 31 letters, His Infernal Excellency finds "numerous occasions to warn Wormwood that Reason and Thought are menaces to the purposes of Hell. 'The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's ground." Wormwood as Lewis conceives, is not to clarify or reason with one, but to confuse, to befuddle. Some have called this the 'divine lie.' In another passage in the book, Hell is mentioned as having made Wormwood's job all the easier by encouraging 'evolutionary' European thought . This, says Screwtape gives the 'invisible agents' of Hell an excellent opportunity to whisper suggestions to them "while their minds rattle around an intellectual vacuum."

Later he writes that "no one except specialists read old books... In this way, the present period of history is cut off from other periods, and there is little danger that the characteristic truths of the past will correct the typical errors of the present." Ultimately, Lewis, in the voice of Screwtape, has much to say about Faith. Despite his view of Faith, Lewis does not see that, for the most part, Faith is set apart from Reason, unlike most scholars of his time. Lewis insists that Reason is the key to every enduring Faith.