CYCLE NINE
1. As the subjective stands in a secondary
relationship to the objective, as that which, in some sense, derives from it,
we may hold that fire and water are primary elements but vegetation and air
secondary ones, since the former are objective and the latter subjective.
2. Likewise the female aspect of life is primary
but the male aspect secondary, since men not only derive from women but
demonstrate a dependence on them, especially with regard to those objective
factors which it might be thought demeaning or somehow irrelevant for someone
with a subjective disposition to broach.
3. This is certainly true of the generality of
men or, rather, males, though independence of women has also been demonstrated
by a comparatively small number of higher males who, as gods, tend to function
beyond the confines of strict dependency.
4. Nevertheless even gods are secondary to
devils, since of a subjective disposition, and without the Devil it is doubtful
there would be God.
5. Of course what applies in sensuality has less
applicability to sensibility, since sensibility offers to the male side of
life, whether phenomenal or noumenal, the possibility
of a higher degree of independence of its female side than would characterize
sensuality, where, in cursed vein, males are under-plane subordinate to
females.
6. For females are blessed with a hegemonic position
both in relation to spatial space and volumetric volume, eyes and tongue, and
both the corresponding male organs, viz. ears and penis, are fated to remain
under the shadow, so to speak, of an objective control.
7. Only deliverance from sensuality to
sensibility, which is called salvation, can release the male side of life from
such a subordinate position, making for a diagonal rise from ears to lungs, or
sequential time to spaced space in noumenal
subjectivity, and from penis to brain, or massive mass to voluminous volume in
phenomenal subjectivity.
8. Then, and only then, is the female side of
life damned (from the hegemonic blessing in sensuality) to the under-plane
positions of repetitive time in noumenal objectivity,
as from eyes to heart, and massed mass in phenomenal objectivity, as from
tongue to womb. But even then the male
side of life is still secondary, if not now subordinate, to the female side.
9. Obviously in a situation where there is both
sensuality and sensibility, the human situation, as it were, it is impossible
to cultivate one thing to the total exclusion of the other. Nor should one try. For too much emphasis on the one thing will
sooner or later result in a return to its opposite, be it in sensuality or in
sensibility.
10. However, a preponderating ratio favouring
sensuality or sensibility will tend to be reflective of both the individual's
personal and/or universal disposition and the nature of the society in which
he/she lives, be it one that emphasises objectivity, and hence freedom, or one,
on the contrary, for which subjectivity, and hence binding, is primarily
characteristic.
11. It would seem that the striking of a sort of
balance between sensuality and sensibility is also possible and indeed
characteristic of those societies, not to mention individuals, for whom both
freedom and binding have to be kept within moderate limits.
12. I call such societies, and the individuals of
which they are consciously composed, liberal and worldly, and they differ from
both the free societies of a pre- or nether-worldly disposition and the bound
societies of a post- or other-worldly disposition.
13. Such more extreme societies are less liberal,
or a balanced mixture, so far as possible, of libertarianism and conservatism,
than either ultra-libertarian in the free case or ultra-conservative in the
bound case, thereby approximating less to the world than to that which, as Hell
in the one case and Heaven in other, may be said to flank it above.
14. For the world is a combination, to varying
extents, of purgatory and the earth, water and vegetation, relative freedom and
relative binding, whereas that which stands in a sort of anterior position to
the world is absolutely free in its fiery hellishness, while that which stands
in a kind of posterior position to the world is absolutely bound in its airy
heavenliness.
15. Yet even extreme societies must grapple with
the problem and to some extent allow for the actuality of life as a
combination, in varying degrees, of sensuality and sensibility, not just one or
the other.
16. Know that in the world, which has a lot to do
with the planet Earth, liberalism is much more applicable than either
ultra-libertarianism or ultra-conservatism, but that extremes will nevertheless
persist in existing, especially in relation to those geographical extremities
which have been characterised as
17. We can no more build a world solely on the
basis of ultra-libertarianism than solely on the basis of ultra-conservatism;
for the world defies both extremes as it liberally perpetuates itself in
relation to both libertarianism and conservatism - the former female (and
primary) and the latter male (and secondary).
18. But we can certainly allow for the existence
of extremism, and if we are wise - and geographically favoured - we will prefer
ultra-conservatism to ultra-libertarianism, thereby offering mankind, the bulk
of whom will still prefer some kind of liberalism, i.e. libertarianism and/or
conservatism, the leadership of Heaven as against the rulership
of Hell.
19. Ultra-libertarianism is sartorially akin to a
dress and libertarianism to a skirt, whether in sensuality or sensibility
(flounced or tapering), whereas conservatism is sartorially akin to trousers
and ultra-conservatism to zippersuits.
20. Hence a female distinction, elementally
conditioned, between the noumenal objectivity of
ultra-libertarianism, i.e. dresses, and the phenomenal objectivity of
libertarianism, i.e. skirts, as against a male distinction between the
phenomenal subjectivity of conservatism, i.e. trousers, and the noumenal subjectivity of ultra-conservatism, i.e. zippersuits, whereof not fire and water but vegetation and
air are the corresponding elements.
21. As illogical, on the female side of life, for
a libertarian person, a woman, to be dressed in a dress as for an
ultra-libertarian person, a devil, to be dressed in a skirt.
22. As illogical, on the male side of life, for a
conservative person, a man, to be dressed in a zippersuit
as for an ultra-conservative person, a god, to be dressed in pair of trousers
and/or jeans.
23. Life does not, of course, preclude people from
dressing in a manner incompatible with their ideological bent, whether in terms
of up- or down-dressing on one's own side of the gender fence or even, in the
more paradoxical cases, of cross-dressing, whereby females wear subjective
attire and males attire which, in its skirt- or dress-like cylindrical
looseness, is manifestly objective.
24. Personally, I find pants and/or zippersuits on females as illogically objectionable as
skirts and/or dresses on males.
25. Anything beyond a constrained objectivity, and
hence freedom, for females is symptomatic of sartorial hype and prolific of
gender subversion. One ends up with the
paradoxical situations of females either playing at being men or, in the more
extreme cases, playing at being gods!
26. This is as much the case with an overly
subjective hairstyle, hair brushed or combed back from the brow, as with the
wearing of male-oriented attire by females.
All honest and genuine women, by contrast, wear some kind or degree of
fringe. The rest, with few exceptions,
are hyped subversives.
