STATE AND CHURCH

1. In similar fashion to the above, the State (both monarchic and parliamentary) stands apart from the Church (both pantheistic and atheistic) as beauty and strength from knowledge and truth, science and politics from economics and religion.

2. Which is not to say that the State cannot be knowledgeable (and republican) or true (and totalitarian), in shadow-like vein to pantheistic and atheistic churches.

3. Nor is it to deny that the Church can be beautiful (and monotheistic) or strong (and polytheistic), in shadow-like fashion to monarchic (authoritarian) and parliamentary (democratic) states.

4. However, when the State is genuine, or true to itself rather than a reflection, necessarily distorted, of some more genuine Church, it will be beautiful or strong, authoritarian or parliamentary.

5. Likewise when the Church is true to itself rather than a distorted reflection of some more genuine State, it will be knowledgeable or true, pantheistic or atheistic (deistic).

6. If the State is genuine, whether in noumenal or phenomenal, upper- or lower-class terms, then the Church can only be pseudo, or less than genuine.

7. Conversely, if the Church is genuine, whether in phenomenal or noumenal, lower- or upper-class terms, then the State can only be pseudo, or less than genuine.

8. As a male, I logically prefer that society in which the Church is genuine and the State comparatively pseudo.

9. But I also prefer, in my truth-oriented capacity as philosopher, an effectively noumenal type of writer when aphoristically genuine, the Church to be noumenal and upper-class, and the State likewise - a concept I have long identified with 'Kingdom Come', in which the State, necessarily totalitarian, is geared to the protection and service of an atheistic or, more correctly, a deistic Church.

10. Such a Church I have customarily identified with the concept of 'the Centre' and the inclusion thereof of a triadic Beyond in which religious sovereignty is with the People.