PROTONS
AND ELECTRONS
There are two kinds of
antithesis, and they may be defined as relative and absolute. The vast majority of antitheses are relative,
though as evolution approaches the antithesis of the Alpha Absolute(s) in ...
the Omega Absolute, we may note an approximation to or from the absolutes at either
end, as it were, of the evolutionary spectrum.
Only the Alpha Absolute(s) ... of the stars and the projected Omega
Absolute ... of undifferentiated transcendent spirit would constitute an
absolute antithesis, however. Such an
antithesis is absolute in every sense, there being no point of contact or
similarity between the two extremes of evolution. On the other hand, a relative antithesis,
such as exists between stars and planets, or men and women, presupposes points
of contact, and may be likened to the North and South poles of a magnet - the
unlike poles of which attract, while the like poles repel. Those poles which are opposites are yet
similar to the extent that they are both comprised of the metallic substance of
the magnet, and accordingly form a relative rather than an absolute antithesis.
Such an antithesis we may note at the basis of the Solar System
and, on a larger scale, of the Galaxy.
There is a kind of magnetic reciprocity between the sun and circling
planets of the Solar System formed by the relative contrast between the
negative, i.e. active, charge of the sun, in which, according with the
principles of a proton-proton reaction, hydrogen is transformed into helium,
and the positive, i.e. passive, charge at the core of this planet, which is
gradually cooling. The sun's core would
therefore be radically different from the earth's, and I wager that while the
one is hard, the other is soft, and this contrary to traditional notions on the
subject! Indeed, in describing the sun
as possessing a negative charge and in equating that with the active, I have
already reversed the traditional notions as to what constitutes a negative
charge, and this reversal, corresponding to a Nietzschean
'transvaluation of all values', is at the core of my
philosophical endeavour, and may be traced back to the essay 'The Negative
Root' from BETWEEN TRUTH AND ILLUSION - my first step in this revolutionary
direction.
The sun, then, generates energy from deep within its
tightly-packed proton core, and is thus active, whereas the earth has a soft
core which feeds upon the surrounding hardness of its outer layers and is thus
dependent on those layers for sustenance, i.e. the continuation of its
existence. This distinction between an
independent hard-core sun and a dependent soft-core planet is fundamental to
the mechanistic workings of the Solar System, which function in the guise of a
magnetic reciprocity - the hard core of the sun attracting the planet's soft
core to itself but having to contend, in the process, with the attractive
forces of other suns (stars), which establish a dynamic equilibrium between
suns and planets, after the manner of an atomic integrity involving protons and
electrons.
Here, of course, the equation of the sun's hard core with
protons gives the lie to the traditional notion of protons as positive and
electrons, by contrast, as negative. For
any 'transvaluation of values' applying to the
macrocosm must also apply to the microcosm, since the inner workings of the
latter are at the base, so to speak, of the solar and indeed galactic orders,
which would not exist at all were they not derived from a microcosmic
blue-print in the atom. Admittedly, it
may have been acknowledged that protons were active and electrons passive, but
activity is not, contrary to traditional belief, a positive phenomenon. On the contrary, it is only passivity which
is positive and the more passive ... the more positive is it. That is why only a planet, as a place with a
positive core, could be used as a base from which to launch an aspiration, in
the form of mankind, towards a condition of ultimate passivity in the heavenly
Beyond (of transcendent spirit). No star
could be so used, for stars are the very converse of such an aspiration,
because the diabolic active roots of the Universe.
No, if the sun is a negative phenomenon, corresponding to the
proton of an atom, then the planets must be positive phenomena corresponding to
electrons, the overall integrity of the Solar System corresponding to the
interactions of an atom, and the still greater integrity of the Galaxy
corresponding to a cluster of atoms forming a kind of molecular structure. This structure, kept in dynamic equilibrium
by the relatively antithetical constitutions of stars and planets, only exists
by dint of the common will of stars for dominion over planets. For without planets to keep them in
equilibrium, the stars would fly-out in every direction, in accordance with the
divergent inclinations of a negative charge, through anarchic revolt against
the dominating influence of the governing star of the Galaxy, which probably
exerts a greater attraction over the planets of whichever solar system than any
of the smaller stars considered either separately or taken together. Thus arises the paradoxical situation in
which like are kept in the vicinity (a galaxy) of like because of their mutual
interest in the dominion of planets - phenomena which have the effect of
preventing the stars from breaking away.
When this pattern is repeated on earth, as it must be whenever
evolution is insufficiently advanced to warrant an exclusive aspiration towards
the Divine Omega, we get what I have termed the galactic-world-order, in which
a monarch, as personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy,
lords it over both nobles, who correspond to the lesser stars of the Galaxy,
and populace, who of course correspond to the planets. The nobles and monarch are fundamentally
akin, and would tend away from one another were it not for their mutual
interest in the domination of the populace for their own aggrandisement, an
interest which constrains nobles to an oath of allegiance to the throne. Naturally, the populace are also bound by
loyalty to the throne, but their allegiance is of a very different order from
that of the nobility, who, after all, stand to gain a share of the spoils. The allegiance of the populace more resembles
the submission of slaves to the will of the conqueror, and we may infer from
the term 'subject' the subjection of such slaves to monarchical dominion, a subjection which entails an indirect rather than a direct
allegiance to the throne. Only those who
are fundamentally 'of the same stuff' as the monarch are entitled to a direct
oath of allegiance, and this applies no less to a constitutional monarchy than
to an authoritarian one - the only difference being that the sphere of direct
allegiance is widened, though not necessarily deepened, by the admission of the
parliamentary bourgeoisie, who have partly taken over the traditional preserve
of the aristocracy.
The relationship of peer and/or parliamentarian to the populace
of his particular sphere of geographical influence thereby comes to resemble
the relationship of sun to planets in a solar system, and is thus atomic. While the wider relationship of monarch to
peers, parliamentarians, and populace as a whole comes to resemble the galactic
order in being molecular, or composed of separate atoms which interact and are
obliged to remain in place by the stronger attractive power of the governing proton
- namely, the monarch. Since a star is
negative, and therefore active, it may be described as of essentially feminine
constitution, and never is the galactic-world-order so faithfully reproduced on
earth than when the reigning monarch happens to be a woman, as was usually the
case in more primitive societies, given their greater disposition to
violence. Then the pomp and ceremony
essential to maintaining the cohesion of nobles, politicians, and populace to
the monarchy was reinforced by the charismatic power of the reigning queen.
I do not wish to go into the distinction between monarch,
nobles, and populace to any extent, though I should remark that the antithesis
formed between the personifications on earth of the stars of the Galaxy and the
populace itself is relative rather than absolute - there being various points
of contact, not least of all in the common structure and substance of the human
body. That the monarch rules by 'divine
right' isn't, however, strictly true, although there is a sense in which it
could be said that he/she does rule by 'diabolic right', which is to say, as
the personification on earth of the governing star of the Galaxy, and therefore
according to the principles of the galactic-world-order. He/she functions in the guise of an
arch-devil. For even if the governing
star of the Galaxy isn't literally the Devil it corresponds to the diabolic
roots of evolution in the Universe and is therefore antithetical, in an
absolute way, to the future divine culmination of evolution there. In truth, the Creator is an abstraction from
this governing star and consequently appertains to the subconscious mind, a
mind, however, which is being outgrown, as modern man tends ever more deeply
into the superconscious, expanding consciousness
upwards rather than remaining a victim of the Given. The monarch is therefore the nearest person
on earth to that abstraction, since he/she functions in the role of the
governing star vis-à-vis society in general.
Compared with the monarch, the various grades of nobles, from a duke
down, correspond to petty devils, having status positions relative to the
lesser stars of the Galaxy. Reversing
this correspondence, one might well argue that our sun is but a
baron-equivalent in the overall hierarchy of the Galaxy, being but a small
peripheral star of only moderate power.
A duke-equivalent would be much larger and, needless to say, would stand
closer, as it were, to the governing star of the Galaxy than a mere
baron-equivalent. The Solar System of
this important star would doubtless be somewhat larger and more imposing than
that pertaining to a star like our own.
But, cosmic speculation aside, we can say for certain that the
twentieth century signified a turning-point in the evolution of man in which,
for virtually the first time in history, the galactic-world-order was
completely overthrown in a number of countries, in order that he could be set
on course for a post-atomic society tending, eventually, towards the Divine
Omega in conscious transcendentalism.
The example of
Of course, I have described the workings of the Solar System
and the Galaxy in rather Newtonian terms in these pages, stressing the
force-and-mass aspect of magnetic reciprocities in preference to the
curved-space notion of latter-day quasi-mystical physics, and I am fully aware
that many educated persons would strongly object to this, considering me
mistaken and hopelessly anachronistic.
After all, it is in our interests to regard the workings of the Cosmos
from a quasi-mystical point-of-view, which is a good deal more comforting than
to dig deeply into its basic diabolism and unearth findings not guaranteed to
flatter our transcendental bias or reassure us that we live in a good
universe. Yes, I know the position well
enough! But I also know it is important
that some people, broadly regarded as philosophers, should commit themselves to
a more literal investigation of the Cosmos, the better to understand how it
really works. For unless they do, the
truth of evolutionary progress will be obscured beneath the 'theological'
expedience of scientific subjectivity, and no truly objective knowledge of the
Universe will be accessible to us, a knowledge which a small number of higher
minds should be able to live with ... no matter how much the spiritual progress
of the age may demand a subjective interpretation of the physical cosmos, such
as corresponds to our superconscious bias and
reflects our growing allegiance to internal as opposed to external
reality. The literal truth of the
workings of the Cosmos and of the relations between planets and stars would seem
to be very different from what the curved-space mysticism of Einstein would
have us believe! But the truth
concerning the external cosmos isn't necessarily what an age tending towards
the post-atomic absolute should want to uphold.
Rather, it will increasingly view life in terms of the freedom of
electrons from proton control - not their dependence upon them!
