The only thing we can do is to hazard a hypothesis, to create a mythological figure, call it "human personality", and hope that circumstances will not by destroying us, prove our imaginative guesswork too hopelessly wrong. But myth for myth, human personality is preferable to God. We do at least know something of human personality, whereas of God we know nothing, and knowing nothing, are at liberty to invent as freely as we like.
If men had always tried to deal with the problem of love in terms of known human rather than of grotesquely imagined divine interests, there would have been less making of eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake, less persecution of sinners, less burning and imprisoning of the heretics of unnatural love, less grundy-ism, less comstockery, and at the same time less dirty Don-Juanism, less of that curiously malignant and vengeful love making so characteristic of the debauchee under a Christian dispensation.
Reacting against the absurdities of the old mythology, the young have run into absurdities no less inordinate at the other end of the scale. A sordid and ignoble realism offers no resistance to the sexual impulse, which now spends itself purposelessly without producing love, or even, in the long run amusement, without enhancing vitality or quickening and deepening the rhythms of living.
Only a new mythology of nature, such as in modern times, Blake, Robert Burns, and Lawrence, have defined it; an untranscendental and (relatively speaking) realistic mythology of energy, life, and human personality will provide, it seems to me, the inward resistances necessary to turn sexual impulse into love and provide them in a form which the critical intelligence of post – Nietzsche-an youth can respect. By means of such a conception a new fashion in love may be created, a mode more beautiful and convenient, more healthful and elegant, than any seen among men since the days of remote and pagan antiquity.
‘Do What You Will (1929)’, Aldous Huxley. (Relevant)