“In love, acts are carried out without thinking, and its mystery is evident only to a tiny minority of human beings…In the numberless crowd of beings having a human countenance there are very few men; and in this select company there are very few who can understand the meaning of love.” ~ C. Mauclair, La Magie de l’amour
In this section we wish to outline what, from an absolute point of view, is the significance of the duality of sex, which is to say the polarization of man into ‘male and female.’
One’s understanding of sex is based on one’s anthropology and determined by it. The modern evolutionist framework, for example, determines completely its view of sex. Since according to evolution life proceeds from simple to complex, and since man came from animal, then his sexuality is rooted in his animality ‘with a few modifications.’ This is why we will begin by rejecting various aspects of modern anthropology as it pertains to sex. First and foremost we will reject the evolutionist view and replace it with the opposite: man is the center of creation and in him we find sexuality in its total and undiluted form. Human sexuality is not animal sexuality with something extra added: animal sexuality is human sexuality with something removed. In other words, in man love and sex find full expression, whereas in animals the expression is only partial. Not only is it impossible to understand human sexuality by taking animal sexuality as one’s basis and point of departure: it is also impossible to properly understand animal sexuality without understanding human sexuality.
The sacred science of sex is not empirical, which is another reason modern, profane science cannot access its significance. This knowledge cannot be acquired through observation, but must be drawn from experience, and not common experience but in its most developed and profound forms.
We have already stated repeatedly the laws of dissolution that apply to our world, and that as history unfolds spirituality and in general the profound nature of things becomes veiled in human experience. This applies in every field, and sex is no exception. That love was considered a sacred art in many traditional civilizations should be taken as evidence that what we see before us today, trivialized and chaotic, is likely only a diluted form of what was known in ancient and pre-historical times.
As it has been said, “the fact that humanity makes love foolishly and unconsciously, as it does almost everything, does not prevent love’s mysterious nature from upholding the dignity that belongs to it.”
The point here is that it is invalid to object that sex, as experienced today and perhaps by most people in history, is a proper measure of its limits. This is like saying that because very few people are aware of the process of photosynthesis, that they do not breathe the oxygen it produces. That people may not experience or be consciously aware of the significance of an act does not empty the act of that significance, but only demonstrates that the experience of the essence of a thing is rare and limited.
 S. Peladin, La Science de l’amour, Paris, 1911, p. 102.