A word on my methodology

The realm of love and the extrasensory is arguably one of the most difficult to explore rationally. It is, however, possible to define a perfectly clear method of approach, starting with an axiomatic comprising the definitions of the quantities taken into consideration, the inventory of knowledge considered as acquired, self-obvious proposals without evidences backing them up (axioms), hypotheses to be invalidated or confirmed, the systematic examination of the relevance and validity of reasoning, epistemological constraints, etc.

It is also necessary to define the field of observation or experimentation: the difficulty is that one cannot a priori experiment deliberately when it comes to the things of love. In principle, we can only group observations and try to extract invariants from them. However, behavior depends in part on patterns of normality imposed by morality. These patterns can be altered to a certain extent or lose their significance under the effect of a new theory of sexuality, here metapsychoanalysis. A comparison is therefore possible between the development of romantic relationships under different conditions (for example, by replacing the ordinary conception of adultery with the theory of the triangular constellation). Comparisons ultimately allow the isolation of causal factors that would go unnoticed under ordinary conditions.

When a domain is particularly complex and we do not really know how to take it, we can use what we call a “heuristic”, that is to say a principle that we postulate without intending to demonstrate its validity, but simply for the purpose of advancing research. It is not always easy to disengage from beliefs induced by culture or by biased observations. The solution is to question everything, and this is where a heuristic can be extremely fruitful.

In the hope of once and for all unraveling the Gordian knot of the mystery of love and transcendence, I have relied on the naive principle that any cause of suffering arises from certain errors in the face of natural laws. Such an idea is of course only a heuristic, and aims only to increase the number of questions, as opposed to a hypothesis we had to demonstrate, in order to make it into a law ?

I have thus been led to wonder in multiple circumstances about the primary causes of suffering generally considered inevitable, fatal, intrinsically linked to human nature or to the nature of things. The causes that have emerged have forced me to reconsider many stereotypes of Judeo-Christian morality. The famous Enlightenment equation: “sex = reproduction” has been shattered. It was necessary to replace the current “device of sexuality” (expression of Michel Foucauld) by a much more complex and subtle model, far removed from what is generally accepted in Western societies.

The most unexpected postulate is undoubtedly that which attributes to the non-reproductive part of human sexuality the development of the psychic faculties. Such an idea is difficult to accept, because it calls into question two taboos specific to our form of culture: non-genital sexuality, and psychology. How then can we verify it?

We must review all the material at our disposal: first all the empirical observations likely to either confirm or refute it. Then all the existing knowledge, starting from the teachings of Antiquity (in particular the dialogues of Plato) to the data of modern science, without neglecting psychoanalysis which is in fact the only discipline which has taken seriously dared to tackle the sexual question.

If the postulate is relevant, it should also make it possible to remove the contradictions between the different approaches, or within each system of thought. This is indeed the case with psychoanalysis: the obscure or contradictory points raised by Freud or by his opponents are resolved in a completely unexpected way. For example the contradiction between the Freud’s approach, attributing neurosis to the repression of the Oedipus and Jung’s one, accusing the repression of the metapsychic energy, the metasexual postulate making non-reproductive sexuality the first source of this energy.

Another heuristic consists in considering that the drives specific to the human being, sometimes very complex, are genetically programmed (without worrying about the relevance of this assumption in itself). This postulate leads to asking many questions about sexual taboos: are they or not in accordance with the innate instinctual demands, what are these demands, and for what reason do they collide with the demands of culture and morality? Is morality itself, in part or in general terms, genetically determined?

The genetic determinism we are talking about here has nothing to do with a mechanical conception of the psyche: it is about recognizing certain innate tendencies, which may or may not materialize depending on the data of the social or material environment. Such tendencies, repressed in the existing context, or even ignored, can explain apparently incoherent behaviors and assign them a function.

Another method I have resorted to whenever a necessary hypothesis clashes with common sense: draw up a table with in the left column all the reasons to reject this hypothesis, and in the right column those to legitimize it. The comparison of the two lists then makes it possible to get a clearer idea of ​​the pros and cons, and either to reject the idea if it does not find sufficient guarantee, or to explore it further otherwise.

All of these modes of investigation made it possible to formulate and verify the metasexual postulate, and to provide a solid basis for all the theory it eventually came up with.