is equivalent to an attempt to condemn to lifelong loneliness not only the sexual invert but also many others, including those who cannot be aroused to generative intimacy except through indulgence in penetrative non-generative foreplay.

Level 11: Cannibalism

On almost all levels of evolutionary development we find cannibalistic practices. At one end of the scale, protozoans attempt to dispel hungerloneliness by absorbing into themselves any non-irritant they can wrap themselves around, while at the opposite end the warriors of Genghis Khan dined on virgins. In religious ceremonies we find residuals of the primitive practice of devouring what we love. The language of endearment, "sweet," "luscious," etc., betrays this tendency, as does the baby-talk, "I'm going to eat you up." The Red Riding Hood fable is an example of the extremes to which a lonely wolf may go to alleviate loneliness. To eat what one loves is to possess it entirely. Despite the adage, "You can't eat your cake and have it too," one cannot in a sense really have his cake unless he does eat it, cheesecake being no exception.

As a means of escaping loneliness we usually find it imprudent to devour what we love, and so we turn on ourselves-chew our nails, bite our knuckles and lips: infantilisms which reveals the cannibalistic craving in the depths of our nature.

Discussion

I do not mean to suggest that we should tear down all cultural barriers -divest ourselves of raiment, get down on all fours, and "do what comes naturally." This we could not stand. We do not want to return to "state of nature." What we can and want to achieve is a gradual, carefully controlled, and accurately evaluated transition to a less lonely and more

congenial type of civilization. In making this transition, we would do well to heed the words of Pascal: "Man need not believe that he is equal to the beasts or the angels, yet he should not be ignorant of the one nature or the other, but he should know the one and the other."

Certainly, as in other habits of daily living, there is need for moderadiscovery of the golden mean, not as a tion. The achievement of this requires along which it is possible to expestatic point but as a gentle zig-zag aloneness. Aloneness is not loneliness rience the values of both intimacy and except when one is starving for intimacy.

In contemporary civilization man finds it increasing difficult to be either intimate or alone. Through the constant bombardment of commercialism each, but has little leeway to zig-zag he is tantalized by the attractives of in either direction. One is struck by the anguish of human beings dominated by a great longing that they know not how to overcome. Cocooned within inhibitions or hypocrisies, with whom can modern man relate except a stranger in the night? Having lost touch with each other, there is for many no dread in the prospect of atomic war.

The lonely person experiences himself as an outsider, one who is helpless to help himself. It may be overwhelming loneliness in the midst of a multitude, loneliness in which one is estranged from the life about him and from the development of his positive potentialities-the loneliness of a thousand closed doors along a thousand streets, the loneliness of a forest of dead trees, the loneliness of a tunnel leading in an endless circle . . . The loneliness of a psychotic patient at a dance. Loneliness in modern society is not due to an absence of associates but to the inhibition of intimacy.

In a society more considerate of human values, intimacy within broad