Much of Huxley's book was framed as his vision of what a communist/socialist society -- the World State -- would look like in the future. As such, he took many of the communitarian ideas of Marx and others to turn them on their heads. One of these ideas involved the act of sexual intercourse. He fashioned a society that would make current day religious right-wing zealots heads explode: Sex as pure recreation and NOT for procreation.
In Huxley's view, sexual activities would be encouraged from an early age. Monogamy was taboo and the concepts of marriage and family were blasphemy. Sexual intercourse was a fun pursuit that allowed members of society to release tension without passion. The more partners the better because "everyone belongs to everyone else."
I've been thinking a lot lately about passion. It leads a double life. On the one hand, it can be the spur to the betterment of society. Passion can be the fuel to fight for noble causes, produce great insights and further our technological advancement. On the other hand, passion gets us in trouble time and time again. It too often gets tied to our ego and those ego-based desires. We lose all sense of perspective and, following our passions, it's not uncommon at all to spin wildly out of control.
In my readings of the Taoist texts, particularly the Zhuangzi, I would contend that the Taoist sages viewed passion as a dangerous commodity for the very reasons mentioned above. In a manner of speaking, I think Chuang Tzu believed that a sage lived a life of dispassionate passion.
Sounds like a real contradiction in terms, doesn't it?
The dispassionate portion has to do with our ego. By eschewing ego-based expectations or, as Lao Tzu stated, doing the work that needs to be done and then walking away, we don't allow passion to skew our perceptions of the world. And yet, we still possess a passion for the beauty and interconnection of all things.
I'm not explaining this dichotomy as well as I would like, but it's one of those things I seem to understand intuitively, but have trouble finding the right words to express it. I suppose the best I can do is say that I have no problem with the dictum "everyone belongs to everyone else." I simply disagree with the implications that Huxley attaches to it.