CYCLE EIGHTEEN

1. To rise from the physics of socialism to the metaphysics of capitalism, as from people to profits, the phallus to the brain. Conversely, to fall from the metaphysics of parliamentarianism to the physics of republicanism, as from debate to welfare, the tongue to the womb.

2. To rise from the chemistry of communism to the metachemistry of pacifism, as from music to meditation, the ears to the lungs. Conversely, to fall from the metachemistry of fascism to the chemistry of militarism, as from spectacle to imperialism, the eyes to the heart.

3. As I believe I have already suggested, a 'rise' is equivalent to an evolutionary progression, whereas a 'fall' is equivalent to a devolutionary regression, the one effectively masculine and the other feminine. For men are evolutionary, whereas women are devolutionary, the former evolving, in vegetation, from the sensuality of the phallus to the sensibility of the brain, as from Antichrist to Christ, while the latter devolve, in water, from the sensuality of the tongue to the sensibility of the womb, as from Antimother to Mother.

4. Likewise, with gods and devils, or submen/supermen on the one hand, that of an evolutionary progression, and superwomen/subwomen on the other hand, that of a devolutionary regression. Hence from the Antispirit to the Holy Spirit ... in the case of gods, but from the Antisoul to the Holy Soul in the case of devils, the former rising in air, as from ears to lungs, and the latter falling in fire, as from eyes to heart.

5. Men and women are no more interchangeable or equal ... than gods and devils. Indeed, equality between the sexes is an amoral rejection of morality and effective lie. Women remain women and men remain men, never or rarely changing sides, so to speak, and becoming contrary to what they were by birth. Women, who are rooted in the Devil, have no genuine concern for or resolve to become God. Rather, they oppose the godly wherever they find it, from fear that their own power base in the Devil and worldly interests could be undermined. Morality is a male responsibility, though particularly in the supernatural contexts of the submasculine (where it has reference to aural sensuality) and of the supermasculine (where it has reference to spiritual sensibility). A natural society, on the other hand, will be amoral, since it is based in the phenomenal, and phenomenality (as I prefer to call that which pertains to phenomena as distinct from the sense-based empirical philosophy of phenomenalism) is amoral whether having applicability to the physical or to the metaphysical, to the Antichrist/Mother or to the Antimother/Christ, where vegetation and water are the prevailing elements.

6. Hence Christianity has always been fundamentally amoral, with both men and women having simultaneous access, on an equalitarian basis, to the same church, or religious dwelling. Judaism, by contrast, has demonstrated a moral resolve, with strict segregation of the sexes, as befitting a context based in moral sense, and thus in the subjectivity of the submasculine taking precedence over the objectivity of the superfeminine, which is relegated, in the form of Jewish women, to the periphery of the religious dwelling, viz. synagogue. For, unlike Hinduism, Judaism signifies the triumph of subjectivity over objectivity, of Jehovah or, if you prefer, Satan ... over the Clear Light of the Void, and it would be unacceptable for women to exist on an equal footing with men in such a religion, long the repository of moral sense. Where the submasculine takes precedence over the superfeminine, then equality between immoral sensuality and moral sensuality, the eyes and the ears, would be both illogical and morally untenable. Only Christians, who uphold a balance between masculine and feminine, could condone a situation in which men and women existed on an equal footing in what is patently an amoral context of humanist and/or nonconformist phenomenality. For them, the submasculine and the superfeminine of divine and diabolic sensualities within the naturalist and idealist contexts behind ... are no less alien to their phenomenal dispositions than would be the subfeminine and the supermasculine of diabolic and divine sensibilities within the fundamentalist and transcendentalist contexts beyond.

7. In fact, just as Hinduism and Judaism would seem to signify diabolic and divine contexts behind, or anterior to, the Christian religion, so Mohammedanism and Taoism (or non-Aryan Buddhism) signify diabolic and divine contexts beyond, or posterior to, Christianity, the former pair no less rooted in supernatural sensuality (of the eyes and ears respectively) than the latter pair are centred in supernatural sensibility (of the heart and lungs respectively). Christianity, by contrast, remains centred in the natural sensibilities of the womb (humanism) and the brain (nonconformism), the former of the World (Mother) and the latter of Purgatory (Christ), with but a peripheral or tangential acknowledgement, necessarily constrained by phenomenal criteria, of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the one closer to (though not identical with) fundamentalist sensibility, the other closer to (though not identical with) transcendentalist sensibility.

8. There is a sense in which the relation of the Father to Christ in the New Testament of Christian allegiance mirrors the relation of Jehovah to Satan in the Old Testament of Judaic allegiance. For the figures of Christ and Satan issue from their respective progenitors as sons from fathers, the 'Son of God' from the Father, Satan from Jehovah. And, in each case, the 'Son' is a revolt against his 'progenitor' and promise of a new beginning, a fresh resolve!