EXPRESSION VIS-A-VIS IMPRESSION

Just as I have conceived of an alpha/omega antithesis between objectivity and subjectivity, the concrete and the abstract (see, for example, 'False Art vis-à-vis True Art' above), so a like-antithesis obtains between expression and impression, conceiving of the former in relation to the concrete, which derives from the objectivity of a particle vacuum in nature, and the latter in relation to the abstract, which derives from the subjectivity of a wavicle plenum in nurture, the objective and the subjective having reference to a female/male antithesis between vacuums and plenums or, in subatomic terms, particles and wavicles, whether in absolute (elemental) or relative (molecular) terms.

Hence I would have no hesitation in equating the expressive with objectivity and the impressive, by contrast, with subjectivity, maintaining that that which is concrete is an expression of the objective, whereas that which is abstract is an impression of the subjective, whether corporeal or ethereal, phenomenal or noumenal.

Thus whereas the concrete, deriving from a vacuum, is somatic in its particle-based expression of the objective, the abstract, deriving from a plenum, is psychic in its wavicle-centred impression of the subjective. Will and spirit, in their primary, or metachemical and chemical, manifestations (both of which are female), appertain to the former, whereas ego and soul in their primary, or physical and metaphysical, manifestations (both of which are male), appertain to the latter.

Thus whereas will and spirit express the objective in relation to the concrete (soma), which derives from a particle vacuum, ego and soul, by contrast, impress the subjective in relation to the abstract (psyche), which derives from a wavicle plenum. More correctly, whereas will and spirit are expressions, in their particle-based objectivity, of the concrete, ego and soul are impressions, in their wavicle-centred subjectivity, of the abstract, the only difference being that whereas will and soul are noumenally antithetical in relation to the ethereal, spirit and ego are phenomenally antithetical in relation to the corporeal - the difference, in sum, between the absolute and the relative, elemental particles vis-à-vis elemental wavicles in relation to the ethereal alpha (space) and omega (time) of will and soul, but molecular particles vis-à-vis molecular wavicles in relation to the corporeal alpha (volume) and omega (mass) of spirit and ego.

The human body is not the objectification of the Will, as propounded with some conviction by Schopenhauer. Or, rather, it is the objectification of both will and spirit in the case of females, some of whom will be less of the one than of the other, whereas, by gender contrast, the human body is what could be called the subjectification of both ego and soul in the case of males, some of whom will be more of the one than of the other, thereby confirming an alpha/omega antithesis between one kind of particle vacuum or another (ethereal or corporeal) and one kind of wavicle plenum or another (corporeal or ethereal) in the noumenal alpha and omega of will and soul, which are elemental in their absolutism, but the phenomenal alpha and omega of spirit and ego, which are molecular in their relativity.

Now just as will wars on soul through the noumenally objective expression of the ethereal concrete (elemental particles), so the spirit wars on the ego through the phenomenally objective expression of the corporeal concrete (molecular particles), making peace for both the ego and the soul correspondingly more difficult of attainment for those (males) who are naturally or, rather, nurturally egocentric and/or psychocentric.

Peace of mind for the male can only be guaranteed on the basis of a categorical rejection of both will and spirit, and therefore of females, who are the objective embodiments of expression (and here we concur with Schopenhauer, who, unlike Nietzsche, taught the necessity of rejecting the Will). Needless to say, any abstract manifestation, through psychic peace (grace) of such a categorical rejection will be relatively (ego) or absolutely (soul) impressive, not least in the context of the Arts which, when true (see the previous weblog, 'False Art Vis-a-Vis True Art'), will be abstract, whether abstracted from knowledge in the ego, as from the New Testament, or more genuinely, because metaphysically, abstracted from truth or, more correctly, joy in the soul. That is why 'true art', whether Christian or 'modern', is ever impressive, concerned not with a concrete expression of the objective, but with an abstract impression, by contrast, of the subjective which, whether corporeal or ethereal, physical or metaphysical, resides not in soma but in psyche, not in the body but in the mind, not in nature but in nurture, not in a vacuum but in a plenum, not in females but in males, not, finally, in will or spirit, but in ego or soul.

A Christian disposition may favour, through the New Testament, the ego, and hence knowledge (that 'forbidden tree' which the Jews categorically reject), but a Superchristian disposition, which I equate with Social Theocracy and/or Transcendentalism, can only favour the soul, and hence joy and the soul's impression, which is truth.