TWELVE THINKERS
Carmen Daly (secretary)
I have been
complimented for dressing in a miniskirt, which is considered to be the chastest of skirts by dint of the fact that it symbolizes
shallow vaginal sexuality. I am regarded
as a liberated woman, a type peculiar, apparently, to the petty
bourgeoisie. But I have also been told
that my sartorial status, in this respect, is merely 'the best of a bad job',
since even a short skirt indicates femininity and thereby affirms a sexist
distinction appropriate to an extreme phase of relative civilization. Although the choice of a short skirt is, from
this point of view, preferable to a medium-length or a long one, it's not
preferable to a pair of trousers or jeans, whether in denim, cord, or any other
material. The woman who regularly wears
pants is potentially, if not actually, a female superman - someone, apparently,
who is the civilized proletarian equivalent of a liberated female, the
successor, as it were, to this petty-bourgeois ideal.
That, by contrast, affirms a post-sexist
integrity ... pertinent to an absolute civilization. But, unfortunately, I'm not a female
superman, nor even potentially one, but a liberated female, partial to short
skirts. I have been told that the
flounced ones are preferable to the straight or tight varieties, since by
tapering upwards, from the hem to the waist, they defy the earth's
gravitational force and thereby suggest a freedom from and independence of
diabolic constraint. However that may
be, I've only recently taken the advice to wear the shortest possible
miniskirts and/or dresses, so as to reduce any feminine symbolism still
further. If I cannot bring myself to
wear jeans all the time, then, so the lesson runs, I should at least wear the
'higher' type of petty-bourgeois mini, which apparently betokens an aspiration
towards the proletariat.
According to this theory, skirts and/or
dresses may be classified, in class-evolutionary terms, as follows:
aristocratic ankle length; early grand-bourgeois lower calf-muscle length; late
grand-bourgeois higher calf-muscle length; bourgeois knee length; early
petty-bourgeois lower thigh length; and, finally, late petty-bourgeois higher
thigh length. After which evolutionary
period the feminine is completely superseded through the wearing, either by
potential or actual female supermen, of trouser-like attire, though not
necessarily of the same length as their male counterparts.
David Green (tailor)
I would
never wear tails, not even if I were offered a sizeable financial incentive. To my mind, they signify too great a
concession to the earth's gravitational force, the way they taper downwards to
a point. There is something dualistic
about tails which suggests a grand-bourgeois class
integrity, particularly when compared with the single tail type of frock coat
worn, as a rule, by aristocrats, with but a single pre-dualistic, quasi-pagan
affirmation of the earth's gravity. If
anything, this is morally worse than double tails, since more materialistic and
lacking, in consequence, a 'triangular' space between each tail.
Yet I would no more wear tails than a top
hat which, effectively tapering upwards from brim to crown, suggests an
affirmation of the sun's gravitational force or, at the very least, a
concession to it. So with tails and top
hat a 'gentleman' betrays a simultaneous allegiance to both earthly and solar
gravitational forces, the powerful competing attractions of the Diabolic Alpha,
and does so, moreover, in ostentatious fashion.
That is something I could never do; for my allegiance is towards the
Divine Omega, which is why I make a point of wearing flared trousers, their
upwards tapering defying the earth's gravity.
Unfortunately, I don't always wear
head-gear, but when I do, as in winter time, it is a Russian-style bearskin hat
that tapers downwards, thereby not merely ignoring the sun's gravity but
affirming man's spiritual independence of it - like, I might add, my flared
cords.
Thus I am quite the antithesis of a
gravity-mongering 'tails-and-top-hat' man.
There is a late petty-bourgeois/proletarian integrity about my
clothing. And not only
in terms of style but also in terms of colour, since I prefer to wear dark
clothes - indeed, nothing less than black. I dress to affirm truth, not to look
beautiful, and so wear the most essential or appearance-denying colour,
appropriately transcendental. I have
been complimented on my sartorial smartness and, to be sure, that accords with
my affirmation of truth. Were I to dress
scruffily, in dirty worn workman's clothes, I would regard my appearance as
signifying an anti-beauty ugliness - a kind of negative or indirect affirmation
of truth.
However, I prefer the positive and direct
affirmation of it, as befitting my spiritual bent. But if it came to the crunch, I would rather
dress scruffily than in beautiful fashion, like a dandy. I regard ugliness as the lesser of two evils.
Carlo Stropetti (writer)
I don't
like people staring at me. I'm not a
woman, to take especial pride in my looks.
I only take pride, as a rule, in my intelligence, which I use in the
service of my spiritual life, with particular reference to my literary
interests. I don't strive to attract
attention to my appearance, but am anxious, on the contrary, to deflect
attention away from it. Was I less
essential, less spiritual, I would welcome people staring at me. But, as it is, I do my best to ignore their
attentions. My significance is on the
inside, not the outside!
Yet not many people realize this, even though
I rarely reciprocate their curiosity.
Indeed, I don't even pay much attention to beautiful women whenever I
encounter any, which, frankly, isn't very often in the predominantly
proletarian environment I've grown accustomed to living in. I am too wrapped-up in my thoughts or in
contemplation to be much concerned with female beauty! Besides, I would not want to humble myself
before it, since I am a man, and one who realizes and daily affirms the
superiority of the spiritual life in his concern with truth. Most women take beauty,
and their own beauty in particular, for the highest ideal, the most important
accomplishment, and accordingly entertain inflated ideas as to their own
worth. I shouldn't want to confirm them
in that opinion; for, as a man, I have a right to uphold the sovereignty of
truth and to lead, in consequence, a more absolute existence. Not being a slave to feminine beauty, I am
free to lead an independent life in the name of 'masculine' truth.
I never feel inferior to a woman. On the contrary, I cultivate my detachment
from the world with a degree of pride, making sure, however, that such pride
doesn't interfere with the development of my spiritual life. I am relatively free, but most women are
enslaved to their own beauty, which, in my opinion, they pride themselves on
overmuch! This is less true of the petty
bourgeoisie than of the bourgeoisie or grand bourgeoisie. Less true again of the
proletariat, whose women, for the most part, are neither beautiful nor
attractive but if not ugly then ... certainly plain, in accordance with their
barbarous status as potentially female supermen. There is no reason why they should ever be
anything else. For beauty is not the
means to truth!
Connor Cleary (dietician)
I firmly
maintain that thinking solely in class terms is not enough. A proletarian civilization wouldn't,
admittedly, have any class enemies in it, and neither would there be any tribalists. But
proletarian homogeneity on the basis of occupation and/or environment would
not, by itself, signify an ultimate sifting of man from reactionary or
anachronistic dross. A transcendental
civilization would not be true to itself unless it had been purged, in advance,
of physical types incommensurable with its post-atomic spiritual integrity. I mean by this that there could be no
toleration of endomorphic types, which is to say, of fat men.
Yes, I foresee the day when, like bourgeois
oppressors and tribalists, overly fat people will be
rounded-up and removed from mainstream society - their physical constitutions
deemed incompatible with a society dedicated to an exclusively divine
orientation. They would be regarded as
pagan types, too fleshy to accord with the radically spiritual bent of a
transcendental civilization. Their
existence, while permissible within an open-society context, would be no-less
impermissible within a closed-society context that was spiritual ... than the
existence there of tribalists of one description or
another. Anything that smacked of the
pre-atomic would automatically be excluded from admittance to a post-atomic
society. Many atomists would likewise be
excluded, though mesomorphic types, whose muscular
physical status places them in-between the fat and the thin, the sensual and
the spiritual, would continue to find vocations in a transcendental
civilization, as, for example, in the police, certain kinds of industry,
agriculture, and (until it was disbanded and/or metamorphosed) the army - that
magnet of muscular types.
And yet an absolutely spiritual age would
be partial to the cultivation and protection of ectomorphic
types, whose slender builds and intellectual predilections would accord with
the highest manifestation of the human type, and be especially relevant to the
ultimate stage of civilized evolution.
As a thin man myself, I can speak with some authority on this matter,
and I am confident that, as time progresses, every measure will be taken to
ensure the optimum spiritual development of the ectomorph,
who will be the human type, par excellence, from whom the
Superman of the superhuman millennium will be created.
Katya Gregson (model)
I have
always been slender and lightweight.
Unlike other women, I have never had to go on a diet in order to
slim. My appetite has never been large,
in any case, but I haven't kept to a moderate intake of food and drink out of
consideration for my weight and shape.
Both these factors are very constant with me, which is just as well, I
think! My slender body makes only the
minimum of concessions to gravitational force, both upwards and downwards,
since I am alike small-breasted and narrow-hipped, with but the slenderest of
legs. At one time I used to regret this,
but, these days, I realize that such an overall slenderness is a moral
advantage and confers on one a social distinction, in the eyes of the more
intelligent people, appropriate to an affirmation of evolutionary progress in
spirituality.
What a contrast between my gravitational
neutrality and the conspicuous commitment of most women's bodies to
gravitational force! How some of them
pride themselves on being shapely, on tapering-down from the hips to the ankles
and tapering-up from the breasts to the head!
I doubt that such shapeliness would find much encouragement in the final
human civilization ... of transcendental man.
No more, for that matter, than would the even more radical tapering,
either side of the stomach bulge, of fat people, regardless of which sex. Conspicuous physical concessions to
gravitational force would be taboo in a post-atomic age, of that I have no
doubt! People would be admired for their
slenderness, which would be accorded due recognition as the physical
ideal. Instead of being regarded as
skinny, as I often am by heavyweight boors, people of slender build would be
held up as the golden mean for a transcendental civilization - a mean relevant
to the proletariat. Efforts would
doubtless be made not only to encourage slimming in the medium-built and
medium-weight, i.e. in those of approximately mesomorphic
constitution, but to orientate genetic engineering towards the breeding,
through artificial insemination, of slender physiques, so that ectomorphs, or thin people, would vastly predominate -
their physical constitution better suited to a transcendental cultivation of
the spiritual life.
Barnaby Evans (manufacturer)
I think sex
with a plastic inflatable, a so-called 'sex doll', morally preferable to sex
with a woman, insofar as one is dealing with the artificial, indeed with what
could be described as the antithetical equivalent of a prostitute, just as a
combine harvester is the antithetical equivalent of a peasant wielding a
scythe, and a tractor with mechanical hoes at the back antithetically
equivalent to a peasant wielding a hoe. Thus from the natural to the artificial, from peasants engaged in
manual work to agricultural proletarians manipulating mechanical tools via a
farmer/farm-labourer compromise.
Just so, from prostitutes
to 'sex dolls' via wives. The
prostitute corresponds, one might argue, to the pre-atomic, the 'sex doll' to
the post-atomic - a distinction between paganism and transcendentalism. Of course, prostitutes could not be tolerated
in a post-atomic civilization, any more than wives. But I believe that 'sex dolls' would be,
even if sex with such a doll involves a form of sexual relativity, as with the
use (by women) of a vibrator, and is therefore less good than pornographic
erotica, which, in appealing primarily to the head, i.e. to eyes and intellect,
encourages a more passive relationship between individual and stimulus.
However, not everyone is on the same
spiritual wavelength, nor capable of the same degree of sexual sublimation, so
I believe that the male proletarian masses should be entitled to avail
themselves of 'sex dolls' in addition or as an alternative to certain kinds of
absolute pornography, if a more transcendental relationship to sex is beyond
their powers. Probably, as the ultimate
civilization developed and people became more spiritualized, 'sex dolls' would
be phased-out, with pornographic sublimation becoming more widespread and all
concessions to bodily sex accordingly minimized. Sex would then be predominantly an affair of
the head, to the extent that it existed at all!
As for homosexuals, I don't see why they
shouldn't have access, on the proletarian level, to male inflatables,
assuming that such inflatables could be manufactured
along suitably masculine lines. At least
that would enable homosexuals to transcend the flesh, and thus draw a step
nearer to pornographic sublimation.
Marcus Black (doctor)
I would
have no hesitation in endorsing euthanasia for certain categories of the
incurably ill, not only in order to put them out of their misery or pain, but
to save other people the burden of looking after them, as well as to save the
general public the inconvenience of having to witness their behaviour and/or
condition. I refer, in particular, to
cretins and imbeciles, to the severely autistic and radically malformed - in
short, to those categories of spastic who are of no use to themselves or to
anyone else.
A child who is unable to count or speak
coherently, who will grow into an adult with the mentality of a young
child - such a lamentably unfortunate
individual, who besides being imbecile is malformed and unpleasant to behold,
should be high on the list of those for whom euthanasia is the only merciful
solution. An open society, with its
respect for the pagan root, may keep such unfortunates alive on the grounds
that they, no less than everyone else, are products of nature and, in some
sense, offspring of 'the Creator'. But a
closed society, with no such pagan allegiance, should have no qualms in
disposing of these wretches in the name of intelligence, spiritual progress,
and, not least of all, the wellbeing of the people who, for the most part, are
of sound limb and mind ... or, at any rate, would be in a society run in their
spiritual interests.
As to cripples, who may require constant
attention, the question of introducing euthanasia should not arise if such
physically restricted individuals are capable of leading a fairly normal
intellectual or spiritual life, since it is more important to be sound in mind
than in body, and anyone who can read or watch television or think for himself
is not as badly off as may at first appear.
Since human evolution will probably lead,
in the course of time, to human brains being artificially supported and
sustained in collectivized contexts ...
for purposes of synthetically-induced upward self-transcendence, the man who is
obliged to spend most of his time in a wheelchair is, in some sense, closer to
that eventuality than most of his sound-limbed fellows, and is accordingly
entitled to if not more respect ... then certainly to some respect,
particularly if he is intelligent and capable, in consequence, of leading a
satisfyingly positive spiritual life - not the least aspect of which should be
meditation. But the child or adult who
is incapable of doing so could have no place in a society exclusively orientated
towards the Divine Omega. Cripples may
be respected and even admired, but spastics and cretins should not be! They, on the contrary, should take their
place beside the incurably insane in the forefront of candidates for
euthanasia.
James Steiner (radical politician)
Being
essentially meritocratic in my class integrity, I
would rather serve the people on dictatorial terms than serve them
democratically, in other words as an ideological dictator than as a democratic
president. I am no Khruschev
or Brezhnev to go around in a suit and adopt the role of the proletarian
equivalent of a bourgeois president. I
favour the militant pose and would probably spend much of my time in some kind
of military or quasi-military uniform, even though I would be anxious to
distinguish myself from a military dictator, whose role I have no ambitions to
usurp! My choice of clothing has long
been dark, and I imagine that the uniform I wore would also be dark, with
matching boots. I would wish my personal
bodyguard to also dress in dark uniforms, and would encourage both the secret
police and army to do likewise.
Being a people's transcendentalist, I would
attach special significance to the police, both secret and conventional, since
I believe the ideological bias of a regime dedicated to the cultivation of an
internal proletariat is towards the security services, whereas in a
state-socialist society, by contrast, it is towards the armed forces, who, in
theory if not necessarily in practice, are regarded as the means to the
international spread of a socialism rooted in dialectical materialism. Not that I would ignore or neglect the army,
in either its conventional or revolutionary guises. Yet I regard the conventional army as a necessary
evil that must be utilized in the service of historical progress and gradually
curtailed, its life-span incapable of extending into an absolute civilization,
but drawing to a close following the democratic overcoming of relative
civilization, after which time evolutionary progress will demand the
establishment of an absolute police state, which it would be the duty of
people's transcendentalism to further and take a lead in encouraging.
However, I do not envisage a situation
emerging whereby no armed force will exist to tackle counter-revolutionary or
external aggression, particularly while the world is still exposed to the
possibility of such aggression. Just as
women would become female supermen in a post-atomic civilization while still
remaining, at bottom, feminine, so the army would become an armed security
service while likewise remaining fundamentally military; in other words, so the
army would be transformed into an armed police service in order to supplement
the unarmed police in the protection of law and order. For it seems to me that, strictly speaking,
the police should be an unarmed body and must remain so in fidelity to their
status as a peace-keeping organization, in contrast to the armed quasi-police,
who may be regarded as a revolutionary metamorphosis of the army, serving to
supplement the genuine police in a quasi-electron deference to post-atomic
criteria.
Thus a revolutionary armed security service
would complement the secret security service in a people's transcendental
civilization, existing alongside the conventional police and eventually
entirely superseding the conventional army, so that an absolute police state
would be created which was composed of conventional, secret service, and armed
quasi-police.
Timothy Lee-Jones (philosopher)
I'm an
extremely quiet man by design and regard this fact as a mark of my spiritual
maturity and cultural nobility. This
doesn't prevent me, however, from being the victim of other people's noise and,
often enough, the noise of animals and machines, such as dogs and cars, in addition. I have lived so long in a noisy environment
that I suffer from cerebral and stomach inflammation in consequence, and am
obliged to regularly resort to wax earplugs, if only to reduce the bodily
tension that such noise engenders.
Noise, I have absolutely no doubt, is my chief torment, and I dare say
there are those who would understand me when I maintain that hearing is more
often a curse than a blessing!
Unfortunately, it cannot be switched on-and-off at will, so the best one
can do is to stuff wax into the ears and persevere with any physical
inconvenience that may arise, as some will do once the use of earplugs becomes
habitual.
And yet, living in an urban environment, I
have discovered the value of earplugs and could not conceive of life being
possible, in this situation, without them.
They're the other side, as it were, of modern life, a means whereby
sensitive people may in some degree protect themselves against the base tyranny
of noise.
Yet this is negative, and the problem
should also be tackled positively, through measures designed to reduce
environmental or other noise pollution as much as possible. For noise corresponds to the diabolic side of
life, stems, as it were, from the raging of solar energy in the proton-proton
reactions of stars. I wouldn't like to
hear the sun from a few thousand miles distance - assuming, for the sake of
argument, it were possible to get that close.
Silence, on the other hand, corresponds to the divine, aspires, one
might say, towards the electron-electron attractions of transcendent spirit in
some future Beyond.
The relative world is ever torn between
diabolic noise and divine silence, never completely silent. But the ultimate human civilization ... of
the transcendentalists ... should approximate to the spiritual absolute in a
predominantly silent context, an environmental situation where noise of any
degree was the exception to the rule rather than - as often seems to be the
case in relative civilization - the rule itself.
People will learn to be much quieter in
that final civilization than they've ever been in any previous one. There will be no hammering, because hammers
will have been placed under ban, their use entailing too great a concession to
natural force. Buildings will be
prefabricated and any repairs that may prove necessary will be accounted for in
a relatively prefabricated way. There
will be no shouting or singing or swearing on the streets, for that will be
made an offence against the peace, subject to prosecution. There will be no dogs barking or cats
wailing, for such animals are likely to be destroyed or at the very least
removed from mainstream society as incompatible with a post-atomic
civilization. There will be no blaring
of record-players, radios, or analogous machines, because the appreciation of
music will be confined to headphones, in accordance with absolutely essential
criteria. Televisions and similar
sound-transmitters will be manufactured with a volume ceiling much below the
current one, and users will be required to keep the noise down to a minimum
level and/or avail themselves of special headphones connecting with the
machine.
There will be numerous other such
improvements where noise pollution is concerned, and they will make life in the
ultimate human civilization approximate more closely to Heaven, in this
respect, than it has ever done before.
Geraldine Harris (social worker)
Youths and
adults should not be obliged to share the same house. If a youth doesn't make as much natural noise
as a child, he passively, and sometimes actively, acquiesces in artificial
noise, not the least manifestation of which involves pop music of one kind or
another. Besides having a greater
tolerance than adults for noise, youths have more physical energy and are
therefore inclined to violent and regular movement to a greater extent than
adults. The evolution of man from the
cradle to the grave is, in some sense, a progression from the diabolic to the
divine on human terms, a progression beginning in maximum noise/energy and
gradually evolving away from that into a capacity for silence and
contemplation, whether intellectual or spiritual.
Thus human life approximates, at either
extreme, to the absolutes, with a kind of balanced relativity coming in-between. Generally, females approximate more closely
than males to the diabolic absolute, males more closely than females to the
divine absolute, so that while female babies and children are both noisier and
more energetic, as a rule, than their male counterparts, male adults,
particularly when elderly, are quieter and more contemplative than their female
counterparts. From an adult point of
view, however, it should be feasible to contend that, if it doesn't come from
animals or machines, most noise one hears throughout life comes from babies,
children, and youths - noise being the audible manifestation of energy.
Consequently there ought to be some way of
ensuring that adults aren't unduly victimized by it. Now one of the best ways would be to ensure
that adults were not obliged to live with either children or youths, the two
most conspicuous categories of offenders against adult values. For while certain measures could be taken to
make life less noisy in the future, measures to change the basic energy-biased
constitutions of children and youths would be difficult, if not impossible, to
affect, in consequence of which the most that could be done, from an adult
standpoint, would be to confine noise-loving creatures to a particular
environment, such as nursery, school, college, etc., where they would have less
effect on adults.
Thus I foresee a time when, as an aspect of
this better social ordering, youths will be obliged to live in different houses
or blocs than adults, where, if they cannot be quiet and contemplative, they
can at least be themselves to themselves and not (as is all-too-frequently the
case at present) to people with radically different values!
Ben Freeman (lawyer)
Of the fact
that adults have in the past served what is not in their best interests, but
antipathetic towards them, I've absolutely no doubt. They have been too often and long the victims
of babies, children, and youths - in that order. Such is the way of things in a relative
civilization.
In an absolute civilization, on the other
hand, this would not be the case; for post-atomic criteria would ensure that
proletarian men, become male supermen, and proletarian women, become female
supermen, did not form matrimonial relationships in the name of children. Male supermen would be free of such
relationships, while female supermen would not be dependent on their more
masculine counterparts for babies, but be free to avail themselves of
artificial insemination obtainable, through state regulation, from clinics with
sperm-bank facilities. Neither would the
babies, once conceived, be dependent on their producers, because their
development would be entrusted to the State which, in the future equivalent of
kindergartens, would employ qualified professionals to take over the task of
nurturing them from traditional private means, like mothers, and thus leave the
female supermen free to attend to their various professional or artificial
duties, including the cultivation of spirit.
The upbringing of children would
consequently take place independently of their producers, both donor and
bearer, and wouldn't directly impinge upon the adult world. Female and male supermen would themselves
live apart in separate units, each adult being entitled to a small flat of his
own which he would not share with anyone, least of all for sexual purposes.
No superman, male or female, would be
obliged to acknowledge 'his' children; for propagation would be largely if not
entirely an impersonal affair, with no family strings attached. Babies, children, and even youths would be in
the care of professionals, and never again would adults be obliged to serve
what is not in their best, i.e. spiritual, interests. I look forward to this post-family epoch of
human evolution, when children are not raised in parental love or strife but in
state service, according to the highest impersonal ideals.
Joseph O'Farrell (teacher)
With my
allegiance to transcendental metaphysics, to transcendentalism, conceived in
both practical and theoretical terms, I'm not exposed, like a petty bourgeois,
to occultism, not even to the highest kind of occultism ... in mediumism. There is
none of the Yeatsian or Huxleyite
concern with a 'spirit world' about me, since I know that, from our standpoint,
no such world exists.
Even if pure spirit exists, which it could
well do in the guise of individual spiritual transcendences (assuming there
were other planets in the Universe more advanced than our own which had passed
through a post-human stage of evolution and attained, via superbeing
equivalents, to transcendence), it would not be accessible to mediums for
purposes of communication with the living, and for the simple reason that, as
an electron-electron attraction, pure spirit could not be contacted by the
living, having nothing in common with them and having nothing to impart to them
- thought being alien to an absolutely post-atomic mind; though not, of course,
to a human mind, least of all to one that claims it can induce pure spirit to
part with thoughts or, more ridiculous still, act as a link between the impure
and the pure, and so translate the thoughtless into the thoughtful!
No, even given the fact that no-one from
this planet has ever literally attained to transcendence (including Christ),
since it presupposes new-brain collectivizations in
the superbeing millennium, such pure spirit as might
exist in the post-millennial Beyond would have no connection, ancestral or
otherwise, with the earth. Like it or
not, mediumism is but a petty-bourgeois manifestation
of the occult, a manifestation not directly dependent on soul, like its more
diabolical precursors, but on a false interpretation and projection of spirit,
the least despicable kind of occultism, but nonetheless still far from
admirable from an absolutist point-of-view!
Unlike a petty-bourgeois metaphysician, a
metaphysician of the transcendental civilization won't be exposed to the
occult, since no religious relativity will be possible on the absolute
plane. I'm not now exposed to it, but
anyone who practises relative metaphysics within the wider context of
bourgeois/proletarian civilization is almost certain, sooner or later, to
succumb to a complementary occultism, a situation which, unconsciously upheld,
will be taken for granted, given the relative integrity of such a civilization.
Hence Huxley's relativity between
metaphysics (in petty-bourgeois transcendentalism), as applying to yoga and/or
oriental mysticism generally, and the occult (in petty-bourgeois mediumism), as applying to an interest in the 'spirit
world' and the emotional or, rather, intellectual treatment of spirit, i.e. its
identification with and manifestation in thought, as expressed through a
medium's voice. This oscillation between
the genuine and the pseudo is the relative norm.
By contrast, the transcendental
civilization to-come will know only the truth (of transcendentalism), and that
truth, as proclaimed by he who in his global universalism corresponds to a True
World Messiah, will endure absolutely.
