                           20020121.00

     The question is raised about Kierkegaard and sexuality.

     Just as, to my mind at least, Kierkegaard's admiration of
Lessing strongly suggests that Kierkegaard shared Lessing's
generosity and tolerance in matters of religious diversity, so I
would think, inferring from his admiration of Socrates, that for
Kierkegaard the threshold for punitive criticism of homosexuality
was very high indeed. This surmise appears to be corroborated by
one of Kierkegaard's Edifying Discourses of 1843, entitled, "Love
will conceal the diversity of sin."  in which he lavishes
affectionate praise on Abraham for Abraham's stubborn
intercession with God on behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrha.  The question poses itself, whether in concealing the
diversity of sin, love also extinguishes sin.  I don't know, I
need to think about it.

     Either-Or is a treasure-trove of revelations about
Kierkegaard's emotional life. I avoid the term "sexuality" not
from squeamishness, but as a matter of precision, since what
Kierkegaard did or did not have in common with the tabloid heroes
at the supermarket checkout counter, or for that matter, with the
rest of the barnyard population, is irrelevant to my
interpretation of his writing.

     Part 1 of Either-Or is the unmistakable expression of
youthful erotic exuberance, laced, like Goethe's Faust, with
remorse for the cost of this exuberance to the women it left
behind.  Mozart's Don Giovanni is invoked as role model and
praise is lavished on Mozart's art as if that art itself might
serve to conceal the diversity of sin. In any event, sin is
concealed also by accumulation of pseudonyms. Does Don Giovanni
serve as proxy only for "A", or as proxy for the victorious
Hermit, (Victor Eremita), the pseudonymic editor whose triumph
over (conjugal) objectivity is documented here, as proxy for
Kierkegaard himself, or as proxy for the reader, hiin enkelte, to
whom the story is ultimately meaningful only to the extent that
it is his own.

     Part 2 presents itself as an account of the esthetics of
love within marriage, and it does so in the context of Assessor
Wilhelm's passionate concern for the eternal bliss of his young
friend, A.  One should at least consider the possibility that
Wilhelm's passion for A's eternal bliss has led Wilhelm himself
across a forbidden boundary into the sphere of the erotic.  While
Wilhelm's professed love for A is clearly insufficient to conceal
the diversity of A's sin, it is not inconceivable that that love
suffices to conceal the diversity of Wilhelm's sin from himself,
from A, from us? We don't know.  Correct me, scold me, call me an
infidel Jew, have me expelled from the list, but let me confess:
as I sit here gazing out the window into the rising winter
shadows as they engulf the uppermost branches of the trees, there
appears the ghostly image of Assessor Wilhelm, - and, by golly,
doesn't he remind you of Gustav Aschenbach?

     An ambitious and aggressive psychobiographer might try to
analyse the colorful tapestry of Either-Or in terms of
psychoanalytic jargon, might indeed try to demonstrate that
Wilhelms affection for "A" is an erotic one and argue that the
Either-Or of the title refers not to the alternative between Don
Giovanni's passion for Anna, Elvira, Zerlina et al. on the one
hand, and to Wilhelm's somewhat anemic passion for the anonymous
Mrs. Wilhelm on the other, but that the Either-Or of the title
refers to the alternative on the one hand of the passion of the
seducer of Cordelia and on the other hand to Wilhelm's unrequited
passion, that cocktail of eros, agape and paideia, for the
salvation of A's immortal soul.  Such analyses might move the
book upward a rung or two on the least-seller list but would add
nothing to its meaning as one of the most sensitive and
sophisticated sublimations of the erotic that Western literature
has produced.  For as sublimation it was intended and sublimation
it is.  Those wanting the "true" story of Kierkegaard's life may
look for more earthy reading material at the checkout counter of
the supermarket.

     Say what you will, the bottom line of Either Or, not to be
deduced from the text but inferred from the history of its
author's subsequent life, the upshot of Either-Or is the
repudiation of marriage not in favor of A's irresponsible erotic
extravagance but in favor of the intellectual and spiritual
passion which blazes in the flames of Kierkegaards subsequent
writings, and Either-Or is an essential key to their
interpretation.

     The philosophical basis of the engagement's dissolution:

It is a commonplace on this list to recite Kierkegaard's concern
for eternal bliss, to be achieved by the individual by passion,
inwardness and subjectivity, and that the objectivity, as the
converse of subjectivity, is an obstacle.  Either Or is devoid of
the rigorous analyses of subjectivity and objectivity with which
the Postscript has made us familiar.  Nonetheless I surmise that
Kierkegaards ultimate rejection of a marriage for himself is
related to his experience of subjectivity.

     Of even greater potential import is the implication that
erotic love has for the relationship between individuals. It may
be argued that agapic love (Kjerlighiden) strengthens both the
lover and the loved the self and thereby inadvertently fortifies
the ramparts of selfhood.  While erotic love (elskov) which
unites two individuals both literally and figuratively, weakens
the ramparts of selfhood.  Agapic love strengthens confirms
selfhood while erotic love weakens and compromises it by lysing
the barriers between the lovers.  This effect of elskov is
particularly noteworthy in a context in which the eternal bliss
of the individual is seen as the highest good.  Although there is
plenty of suggestion in the literature of Kierkegaards day of the
joint eternal bliss of lovers as the highest good, Kierkegaard
does not endorse it.  Perhaps one profound explanation for
Kierkegaards rupture of his engagement was his concern to save
his spiritual energy for his work as an artist.  Perhaps a second
explanation for Kierkegaards rupture of his engagement was
concern for his spiritual identity.

     The circumstance that Kierkegaard could not marry
correllates with his inability to find truth in objectivity.
Because marriage is redemption from subjectivity, from inwardness
to objectivity; and the complexity and richness of his work
demonstrate why he was not ready to be so redeemed.

     These considerations corroborate the heuristic hypothesis
that subjectivity and inwardness are facets of individuality and
its attendant loneliness; while objectivity is not, cannot be, a
function of the individual, but is in essence a social function.
With the mating of two individuals and especially with the birth
of their children, the subjectivity of each parent is merged into
the common objectivity of the family, the family which is for
each individual the nucleus of social experience.  In the
jointure of the family we recognize the nucleus, the root of an
objective view of the world.  The family has its own history, it
develops and shares a peculiar view of its environemnt.

     The objectivity of the family merges with that of the larger
society.  This also has a unitary history, a complex language
that makes possible a highly specific representation of reality,
while the individual is ever in need of respite from society, in
need of withdrawal, retreat, inwardness as an individual.  merges
ultimately with the contrived objectivity of the law and the
natural objectivity of science and technology.

                            * * * * *