CYCLE TWENTY-THREE

 

1.   Just as the metachemical person, a devil, is primarily a doer and the chemical person, a woman, primarily a giver, so the physical person, a man, is primarily a taker and the metaphysical person, a god, primarily a be-er.

 

2.   The apparent nature (unnature) of doing contrasts with the essential nature (subnature) of being, no less than the quantitative nature (supernature) of giving contrasts with the qualitative nature (nature per se) of taking.

 

3.   What applies to Nature in general is also applicable to its Antinatural antagonist, wherein doing is less fundamentalist than materialist, giving is less nonconformist than realist, taking less humanist than naturalist, and being less transcendentalist than idealist.

 

4.   Materialism could also be described as anti-fundamentalism, realism as anti-nonconformism, naturalism as anti-humanism, and idealism as anti-transcendentalism, since the Antinatural is everywhere contrary to the Natural in its inorganic, and therefore primal, constitution.

 

5.   People will think it odd that I have described naturalism and idealism as antinatural, but, in actuality, the Naturalist and the Idealist are as much antinatural, in the inorganic sense implied, as the Materialist and the Realist, since they subscribe to conditions which owe more to primacy than to supremacy, whether in the noumenal contexts of cosmic malevolence (materialist and idealist) or in the phenomenal contexts of geologic malevolence (realist and naturalist).

 

6.   In this respect naturalism is not to be confounded or equated with Nature, meaning the generality of organic options, but applies solely to a physical manifestation of the Antinatural which has an inorganic as opposed to an organic correlation.

 

7.   Nature in general terms is of course organic, but it is organic on the basis of fundamentalism, nonconformism, humanism, and transcendentalism, with humanism being its physical manifestation and therefore that which organically parallels naturalism.

 

8.   Life struggles away from naturalism in plant, animal, and especially human terms, but naturalism itself remains rooted in the core of the earth, which is inorganic in its geologic formations.

 

9.   Like idealism, its fellow subjective mode of primacy, naturalism is more competitive, and hence malevolent, than co-operative, if on a phenomenal rather than a noumenal basis.

 

10.  If idealism equates with antibeing and naturalism with antitaking, then materialism equates with antidoing and realism with antigiving, the negative modes of being, taking, doing, and giving.

 

11.  Whereas materialism is rooted in the antiwill and realism in the antispirit, naturalism is rooted or, rather, centred in the anti-ego and idealism in the antisoul.

 

12.  Hence the negative modes of metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, to which we have given the names of materialism, realism, naturalism, and idealism.

 

13.  Primacy, based in the inorganic, makes malevolent competitors out of people who were organically intended to be benevolently co-operative, turning the self against itself, and thus against other selves, in what has been described as the antiself.

 

14.  Not simply a doing devil of beauty and love, a giving woman of strength and pride, a taking man of knowledge and pleasure, or a being god of truth and joy, but an antidoing antidevil of ugliness and hatred, an antigiving antiwoman of weakness and humility, an antitaking antiman of ignorance and pain, or an antibeing antigod of falsity and woe.

 

15.  Which is to say, not simply a Fundamentalist, a Nonconformist, a Humanist, or a Transcendentalist, but a Materialist, a Realist, a Naturalist, or an Idealist, all the latter of whom take their cue from inorganic primacy and live the death-life, the life-killing death of competitive malevolence.

 

16.  Truly, if 'the dead' are to be resurrected, much will have to be done to overcome primacy and institute a new and superior order of supremacy ... as germane to 'Kingdom Come', that people may live to the maximum of their respective organic capacities.  Then and only then will co-operative benevolence become the rule!