A
TRUE
EXTREMISM
Short
Prose
Copyright
©
1984–2012 John O'Loughlin
_______________
CONTENTS
1.
Free-Electron
Sexuality
2.
A
Vertical Integrity
3.
Creative
Extremes
4.
For Truth
5.
Leader's
Transcendentalism
6.
A
True Extremism
7.
A
Permanent Cross
8.
More
Plastic
9.
Supernatural
Upgrading
10.
Centrist
Sexuality
11.
Writerly Print
12.
Supernatural
Travel
13.
Six
Thinkers ...
14.
Five
Speeches ...
15.
Thus
Speaks the Social Transcendentalist
_______________
FREE-ELECTRON
SEXUALITY
"I
must
say,
I'm fascinated by this theory of yours, Terry, that homosexuality
corresponds to a pseudo-electron equivalent," the professor remarked,
turning a pair of seemingly enlightened eyes in my direction. "A kind of higher
materialist petty-bourgeois sexuality."
The professor's wife smiled
deferentially
through prim lips. "And one that
apparently compliments the higher spiritual petty-bourgeois sexuality
of
pornographic indulgence, which corresponds, by contrast, to a
free-electron
equivalent," she averred, showing herself to be no mean learner either.
I nodded confirmatory
encouragement and
waited for one or other of them to continue.
"A homosexual materialist
and a
pornographic spiritualist," the professor mused, smiling to himself. "Why, one might alternatively expect
homosexuality to appeal more to LSD trippers and pornography, by
contrast, to
the practitioners of transcendental meditation, seeing as one can
distinguish,
in each case, between a pseudo-electron and a free-electron indulgence!"
The professor's wife cast me
an admiring
and vaguely expectant look. "Then
one ought to argue that anti-artists who produce a pseudo-electron
literature
would be partial to homosexuality, while their free-electron
counterparts, the
pure poets, would prefer pornographic sexuality," she remarked, as
though
it were an everyday occurrence.
I nodded again, this time,
however, in an
attempt to express the most unequivocally tacit endorsement of the good
lady's
argument.
"Well, if that's the case,"
the
professor responded, turning towards his wife, "one ought to equate
avant-garde classical music with a homosexual bias, since Terry tells
us that
such music conforms to a pseudo-electron status, while reserving for
modern
jazz an equation with a pornographic bias in view of the fact that it
conforms,
so we are told, to a free-electron status."
The professor's wife smiled
her guarded
approval of this suggestion through newly moist lips.
"And one might just as well contend that
avant-garde painting pertains, in its pseudo-electron status, to the
homosexual
side of things, in contrast to light art which, through its
free-electron
integrity, suggests an affinity with pornography."
I nodded my affirmation of
this further
contention and remarked: "Yes, there is definitely a logical
consistency
about all this; though one shouldn't forget that in a relatively
post-atomic
civilization things are also relative within themselves, not just
across the
board with regard to, say, the distinction between avant-garde
classical and
modern jazz. These two art forms are
also relative - as between a steady rhythmic root and notational pitch
expansions in the case of avant-garde classical, and between flexible
rhythmic
accompaniment and improvisatory pitch expansions in the case of modern
jazz. Although we can speak of the one
as essentially a pseudo-electron equivalent and the other as a
free-electron
equivalent, there is a proton side to the first and a pseudo-electron,
or
neutron, side to the second, in accordance with their respective
extreme
relativities. And the same of course
applies to the distinction between avant-garde painting and light art,
art
forms which divide into sub-relativities between canvas and abstract
painting
in the context of, say, abstract expressionism, and between plastic
tubing and
neon lighting in the context of light art - in other words, between a
subordinate materialistic and a dominating spiritualistic ingredient,
the ratio
of the one to the other varying with the type of art and/or artist in
question.
Needless to say, each art form, whether
painterly or post-painterly, is divisible, within relative
civilization, into
antithetical atomic biases, so that we can differentiate between
pseudo-electron painting and free-electron painting in regard to
abstract
expressionism and abstract impressionism (more usually known as
post-painterly
abstraction), as well as between different types of light art, whilst
at the
same time acknowledging that, in the relativity of these things,
avant-garde
painting as a whole becomes a pseudo-electron equivalent in relation to
light
art as a whole, which we can have no hesitation in describing as a
free-electron equivalent."
The professor and his wife
stared
penetratingly into my face, as though at some art object, smiled their
gratification for the privilege of receiving such esoteric information,
and
nodded what appeared to be simultaneous approval of my argument.
However, I could only
continue:
"Coming back to sex, we will therefore note that both homosexuality and
pornography are relative within themselves, the one materially so, with
regard
to the relationship of two male bodies, and the other spiritually so,
with
regard, as a rule, to either two photographed participants of different
sex
and/or to one participant of female sex whose body is either completely
or
partly on display, with particular reference to her cun
..., I mean, vagina. Such is the way of
things in an extreme relative civilization, like
Both the
professor
and his wife appeared quite astounded, their lips pursed and their
heads gently
shaking from side to side. It seemed
that this speculative declaration was too far above them to be properly
intelligible or sympathetic to their manifestly petty-bourgeois
mentalities,
which, in any case, could only relate to magazines and the employment,
therein,
of adult models. Probably they would
forget all about it in due course!
A
VERTICAL
INTEGRITY
Philip
Brennan
had
been standing for over an hour in the company of most of the other
guests to a conference of senior Social Transcendentalists, held in the
main
office of the party's Dublin headquarters, and was beginning to tire a
little
on his feet, though not without a quiet satisfaction that he had so far
avoided
the ignominy (as it was fast becoming known to those in the know) of
taking a
seat in one of the few available upright chairs. Usually
that
ignominy was reserved for
females and youths, who were regarded as less qualified than men to
spend long
periods of time in a vertical position.
Had the Leader not himself declined to sit down in order, no
doubt, to
set an example to his followers? For,
assuredly, most of them were aware, by now, of his views on sitting,
which he
regarded as a bourgeois habit unworthy of proletarian emulation; though
he was
hardly a bona
fide proletarian himself!
However, his views on sitting, as on lying and standing, were
representative of Social Transcendentalism, which sought and adhered to
the
truth about everything, in the interests of evolutionary progress
towards a
more absolute society.
For sitting was relative, a
kind of
compromise between lying and standing, in which one part of the body,
namely
the thighs, was horizontal whilst another part, namely the trunk and
head, was
vertical, this in turn significant of a compromise between the feminine
and the
masculine, the mundane and the transcendent.
For in case anyone had any doubts on the matter, the horizontal
and the
feminine were aligned, and sharply contrasted with the vertical and the
masculine, which was how they would always remain.
But not for men, for a
society dedicated,
more specifically, to revolutionary change in the name of masculine
progress! If the ancients, with
particular reference to the pagan Greeks and Romans, spent more time
lying or,
rather, reclining than sitting or standing, that was because they were
essentially feminine in character, a people stemming from nature, like
animals,
who also spend the greater part of their time - indeed almost all of it
- in a
horizontal position. Not having attained
to a dualistic compromise, the ancients were content to spend most of
their
time, days as well as nights, lolling about in pursuit of carnal
indulgence. When not dozing or sleeping,
they had been
wolfing fruit, swilling wine, and philandering, not to say fornicating. They had even read scrolls and listened to
music in a reclining posture, as often as not dozing off in the process. So much for the ancients!
Fortunately, however, man
went on to make
some progress during the succeeding centuries and, with the rise of
bourgeois
consciousness, became less a reclining animal than a sitting one -
indeed,
became properly human. No longer
absolutely feminine, and thus horizontal in his lifestyle, man
developed a dualistic
compromise between the feminine and the masculine, a compromise
reflecting his
religious progress towards the transcendent, which necessarily acquired
the
form of a partly transcendental inclination, as germane to
Christianity, that
anthropomorphic allegiance between Hell and Heaven, the centrifugal
alpha and
the centripetal omega. So now man,
properly so-considered, was between the horizontal and the vertical as
he sat
in his chair, one part of him seemingly stemming from the natural and
another
part of him seemingly aspiring towards the supernatural.
Of course, this development had passed
through a number of stages, from chairs with slanting backs to chairs
the backs
of which were almost straight and, in some of the more up-to-date
examples,
totally so. And, then, the amount of
time men had spent in their variously-constituted chairs varied with
the
individual's social standing and the epoch in question, the European
grand
bourgeoisie, nominally aristocratic, spending much less time seated
than their
bureaucratic successors of more recent date.
However, this wasn't because they spent more time standing, but,
as the
Leader was only too keen to remind us, because they remained enslaved,
in
varying degrees, to pagan precedent - the early grand-bourgeoisie most
especially so! There were still too many
things which could be better done reclining than sitting, and we need
not doubt
that the people in question had no qualms about thus doing them. So much for the medievalists!
When we come to the moderns,
as the Leader
(having briefly drawn our attention to the bourgeoisie ... with their
dualistic
compromise reflecting a lifestyle more balanced between horizontal and
vertical) referred to petty-bourgeois man, we arrive at a procedure the
converse of that favoured by the medievalists, with their
grand-bourgeois
integrity. We note a gradual loosening
of the connection between men and chairs.
For even though the backs of modern chairs are usually vertical,
there
is still a concession to the horizontal with the seat, and this
concession,
though in many instances tempered by diagonally-slanting seats, is
precisely
what, consciously or unconsciously, petty-bourgeois man happens to be
in
rebellion against, if only relatively so and, hence, on a rather
intermittent
basis. His extreme relativity favours
the vertical, so he inclines to spend more time standing than sitting,
whereas
his class predecessor, the bourgeois, spent as much time sitting as
both
reclining and standing - indeed, probably spent more time sitting,
since that
would have accorded with a uniquely bourgeois compromise.
Of course, one can divide the petty
bourgeoisie into early and late stages, thereby inferring two distinct
classes,
and contend that if the late-stage petty-bourgeoisie preferred to spend
more
time standing than sitting, then their immediate class predecessors
probably
preferred to spend as much time as possible sitting with a straight
back in the
straightest possible type of chair.
Moreover, one could argue that the grand bourgeoisie
...
No, rather than dwell on
them, one would do
better to bear in mind the Leader's contention that proletarian man,
that
successor to the moderns, should be prepared if not to completely avoid
sitting, during the barbarous phase of his society's evolution, then to
completely avoid doing so during the subsequent civilized phase, when
all truck
with the relative, and hence the
horizontal, would be strictly taboo, man having become so
masculine by
then as to be indisposed to any degree of compromise with the feminine,
society
having become absolutely post-dualistic and thus exclusively orientated
towards
the attainment of a supernatural goal.
Such was the absolute fate in store for proletarians in the
civilized
phase of their transcendental society, as championed by Social
Transcendentalism in general but by the Leader in particular. In the meantime chairs, although not strictly
taboo, would remain discredited objects, things to which one could
succumb in
the event of physical tiredness, albeit not without a degree of shame! Gone were the days when chairs could be
complacently accepted and utilized on an intermittent basis. The Leader had ensured that much!
Well, Philip was still
feeling tired and
exposed, in consequence, to the temptation to slump into one of the
nearby
upright chairs which stood against the wall to his right.
These chairs assumed the appearance of
ignominious traps at such times, and one of them had already claimed a
victim
in the form of a young female whose apparent nonchalance suggested the
probability that she was less well-informed than most as to the moral
nature of
her behaviour! However, whilst a young
female of around twenty would have reasons of her own for sitting down,
Philip
knew that, if he wanted to remain a candidate for promotion in the
Leader's
eyes, he would do better to gently shift his weight from one leg to the
other,
as though marking time.... This, to all appearances, was exactly what
one or
two other comrades were already doing!
Meanwhile the Leader had
taken centre
stage, so to speak, in order to address his followers about an
innovation which
he hoped to introduce into meditation centres in due course. Clearing his throat with guttural relish, he
thus proceeded: "As you all know, the practice of meditation has
traditionally been carried-on while sitting cross-legged on the floor. Orientals have long maintained this practice
and, since the introduction of meditation-centred religion to the West,
most
petty-bourgeois devotees of transcendentalism have likewise been
content to sit
on the floor or, alternatively, on a bed or a chair.
Now while this mundane habit may be
appropriate to Buddhism and other such traditional oriental religions,
reflecting the devotee's continuing allegiance to the Ground, that
oriental
equivalent of the Creator, Social Transcendentalism couldn't possibly
endorse
it, since we are dealing here not with a continuation of tradition but
with a
total departure from it, as relevant to an absolutely post-atomic
integrity. Therefore we cannot meditate
while sitting on
the floor, because such a mundane posture would connote with Buddhist
relativity, and we are beyond any such dualism.
Neither can we meditate while sitting on a chair, which, besides
bringing
us into contact with the floor, would impose a degree of horizontality
upon
that part of the body resting on its seat, just as the legs of those
who sit
cross-legged on the floor are far from being in a vertical position. No, and neither can we meditate while
standing on our feet, since, besides tiring us, such a posture would
keep us
anchored to the floor and detract, moreover, from our commitment to
meditation. So what should we do? I'll tell you what! We
must
meditate suspended in a vertical
position a few feet above the ground, as though levitating, and thus
free of
mundane allegiance. This is the only
acceptable posture for a Social Transcendentalist, and it will reflect
an
absolutely free-electron status symptomatic of post-atomic civilization. So, clearly, we must design meditation
centres in such a way that people can be hoisted free of the floor when
they're
due to meditate, a procedure requiring the installation of special
chest-to-crotch harnesses suspended from some scaffold-like apparatus
under the
roof of the building which can be raised or lowered by remote control,
according to the demands of the occasion.
Thus instead of squatting on the floor, like primitives, those
who
practise meditation in our meditation centres will be suspended from
aloft in
comfortable body harnesses that will enable them both to forget about
their
body weight and to assume a more transcendent posture - one relevant to
the
exclusive verticality of a proletarian civilization, beyond all
dualistic
compromises."
Ah, how the phrase 'to
forget about their
body weight' appealed to Philip Brennan at that moment, now that he had
been
standing on his feet for over an hour-and-a-half! He
was
certainly unable to forget about his
own, or to completely detach his mind from the tempting proximity of
those few
straight-backed chairs to his right, which made him slightly envious of
the
seated young woman whose morals appeared to be less rigorously applied
than his
own. If only such harnesses as the
Leader had spoken of were to be found in his office!
But, of course, meditation and ideological
meetings were two entirely different things.
Perhaps, however, a day would eventually dawn when some
scaffold-like
apparatus would be installed even for the latter, indeed for any
meetings
between people, so that instead of standing on tired feet or succumbing
to a
chair - that bourgeois anachronism - one would automatically step into
a body
harness and be hoisted aloft, to conduct one's tête-à-tête, or
whatever, in a
comfortably vertical position, a truly-civilized posture. Well, there was at any rate a degree of
comfort in the thought, and Philip Brennan needed all the comfort he
could get,
now that the meeting was over and the Leader had left the office,
presumably to
slump into a chair himself. It was at
least a relief for Philip Brennan to know that he was not the only one
in need
of a seat at this moment!
CREATIVE
EXTREMES
James
had
loved
her passionately as a youth, when they had worked in the same
office for
a time, but only from a distance, because her love had been bestowed on
someone
else, a fellow-worker who was either quicker off the romantic mark or
just less
inhibited than himself. He suffered his
unrequited love for her throughout the years following her departure
from the
firm, and when he also departed to become an apprentice author, his
life had
grown accustomed to solitary nights and friendless days.
Being alone in his lodgings was no great
burden on him. On the contrary, it was a
logical step from his previous loneliness.
And so he wrote for years,
throughout the
greater part of each weekday, until the number of typescripts - writing
first,
typing later - piled up in his room, and his notebooks, in which the
works were
drafted, grew to fill a large drawer. He
considered himself, above all else, a philosopher, a seeker after the
Truth, a
pioneer of new insights into life and the world. He
was
too serious-minded to be content with
fiction, his solitude and unrequited love not having conditioned him to
become
an artist in the usual objective sense.
He was resigned to philosophy, even when he realized that it was
the
most intellectually-demanding mode of writing and the least
commercially
viable. Better to be a philosopher, he
thought, than to have remained a clerk.
Besides, I'm no ordinary philosopher.
More a revolutionary pseudo-philosopher than a traditional
type.... Not
that he discovered this fact all at once, but only when the time was
ripe. A pseudo-philosopher was somehow
superior to
a genuine, or academic, philosopher, more a man of essence than of
appearance,
a metaphysician as opposed to a physicist, an original writer rather
than 'a
chair'. In similar vein, a pseudo-state
was somehow superior to a genuine state, a matter of the people rather
than either
the land or country considered from a nationalist point of view. Pseudo-democracy could likewise be considered
superior to genuine democracy, giving maximum representation to the
electorate
- a qualitative absolutism.
Yes, James Riley realized
all this and so
much else as, year after year, he scribbled the time away in his single
room
and noted the progress of his work from a bourgeois relative stage to
an early
petty-bourgeois relatively absolute stage, and even, in due course, to
a late
petty-bourgeois absolute stage of creative and ideological integrity. If he had begun as a philosopher or, more
correctly, a philosophical novelist and essayist, he had progressed
quite some
way beyond that point by the time he came to evaluate the
ideological/creative
status of his various stages of philosophical endeavour.
Why, he had recently abandoned even the
pseudo-philosophical in his evolution towards a quasi-poetic integrity,
a lower
phase of his late-stage petty-bourgeois writings, relevant to a new
ideology in
the form of Social Transcendentalism, which pertained to the future
development
of a proletarian civilization. Gone were
the days when he could take academic philosophy seriously!
All that appearance-mongering was not for
him. Even the pseudo-philosophical
endeavour was now effectively a thing of his past, a passing phase in
his
evolution to higher things. It always
amazed him when he looked back over his early work and noted the
intellectual
distance between that and his latest work.
Was it possible that the same person had written both?
Ah, but even if such a
question had to be
answered affirmatively, there could be no denying that the persona
relevant to
each stage of his creative evolution had continuously changed for the
better,
for more radically extreme positions.
The persona was not him, no! But
it had developed at his expense and to a degree he scarcely imagined
possible. Certainly there were times
when he wanted to disown it, to turn away from and abandon it, like an
alienated husband about to divorce a petulant wife.
Was he not, after all, a petty bourgeois, for
whom the comforts of the home were more important than the struggles of
the
street? He could not deny that fact,
even though he was less than confident that he could escape from his
persona
and return to a more relative style and content. He
found
it hard to believe that, with the
inevitable termination of his quasi-poetic writings in due course, he
could
return to being a philosophical novelist and literary philosopher. Had he not said everything there was to be
said
within that context? Besides, wasn't
being a philosophical novelist a waste of time these days, an
anachronistic
grand-bourgeois approach to the novel in an age of petty-bourgeois
poetics?
No, philosophical novels
weren't for him,
not now! His revolutionary urban
conditioning would never allow him to return to that
level
again. Even the poetic novel was beneath
him, an early-stage petty-bourgeois art form more suited to the
first-half of
the twentieth century than to its second.
Besides, he had never been a poetic artist but a philosopher and
philosophical artist turned pseudo-philosopher and, more recently,
quasi-poet,
the latter still being a type of philosophical writer, a continuation
of his
collectivizing tendencies from essayettes
at the beginning
to a novelette or, rather, medium prose at the end, as a sort of climax. Whereas the artist made progress, over the
generations, by evolving from the novel to the poetic novelette and
even, in a
late petty-bourgeois age, to the poetic short-story, the philosopher
made
progress by evolving from essays and dialogues to philosophical short
prose and
the philosophical novelette, attained to a petty-bourgeois status with
the
abandonment of the older genres for the newer ones, used either
collectively or
separately. Thus arose the extraordinary
paradox that whilst a philosophical novel was a grand-bourgeois
approach to
literature, an approach more appropriate to a late grand-bourgeois age
like the
mid-seventeenth century, a philosophical novelette was a
petty-bourgeois
approach to philosophy, one more relevant to a late petty-bourgeois age
like
the second-half of the twentieth century.
So the contemporary philosopher, or
pseudo-philosopher, was effectively a 'novelettist',
just
as
the contemporary artist, or pseudo-artist, was a short-story writer,
both of them co-existent with the modern poet, a largely metaphysical
and/or
experimental creator, the most representative of the age.
But James Riley - our
mysterious subject of
intellectual inquiry - didn't exactly fit into any of these late-stage
petty-bourgeois patterns; he was neither a contemporary philosopher,
artist,
nor poet, but a Western outsider, an Irishman of fundamentally catholic
descent
writing on behalf of a future civilization and in terms which set him
radically
apart from all those who fitted into contemporary Western civilization,
terms
uniquely collectivized, as befitting his assumed Messianic status. He had always been something of an outsider
in any case, even where love and sex were concerned.
Not for him to write philosophical
novelettes! His work had to be both
anachronistic and revolutionary at the same time, if it wasn't to be
mistaken
for late petty-bourgeois philosophy.
Hence his retention of the aristocratic aphorism, the early
grand-bourgeois
essayette, the late grand-bourgeois essay,
and the
bourgeois dialogue in the formal composition of his
pseudo-philosophical
collectivized literature, early petty-bourgeois short prose and late
petty-bourgeois medium/long prose usually bringing the volume to a
modernistic
climax. Only with his progression to a
quasi-poetic collectivized literature did he axe the aphoristic root,
thereby
symbolically setting his work free from aristocratic moorings. The other genres had stayed relatively in
place,
defying petty-bourgeois convention.
As for the artists with
their novels, he
knew he would never become one of them, since he preferred extremes,
had an
Irish bias, one might say, for the absolute.
He would rather become a poet than return to that
middle-of-the-road
genre more suited to moderate temperaments than his own.
Was not the novel a passé
genre compared with film, that late petty-bourgeois/early proletarian
successor
to fictional literature, as much a successor to that as early
grand-bourgeois
plays had been its predecessor. Films
were the truly contemporary 'literature', an extension and
transformation of
fiction co-existent with modern poetry.
However, film - except possibly when conceived in video terms -
would
not be suited to a proletarian age in a genuinely transcendental
civilization. It was an extreme
relativity, not a relative absolutism.
It signified the abstract climax to a fictional tradition. By contrast, plays signified the concrete
beginnings of a fictional tradition, as in Shakespeare, an early
grand-bourgeois extreme relativity following-on behind philosophical
absolutism, that truly aristocratic mode of intellectual endeavour
better
suited to the ancient Greeks and Romans than to those fated to develop
relative
civilization in the Christian West, which has always been primarily a
literary
civilization, not so much given to philosophic or poetic extremes as
finding
its golden mean in novel-writing, that quintessentially bourgeois genre
-
analogous to painting - in between the extreme relativities of plays
and films
respectively.
But if novels are passé,
plays
were
utterly obsolete and anachronistic by late-stage petty-bourgeois
criteria ... as pertaining to the contemporary West,
with
particular
reference to
But who would be the
antithetical
equivalent (if one can speak of such a thing where absolute extremes
are
concerned) to, say, Thales or Phythagoras
or Heraclitus?
Certainly no contemporary philosopher, even if contemporary
philosophy,
in the strictly academic sense, is antithetical to ancient philosophy
... to
the extent that it entails a critique of language as opposed to a
critique of
nature, and is therefore relatively artificial.
No, the absolute antithesis to such ancient philosophers would
only be
found in a transcendental civilization, a necessarily poetic absolutism
germane
to the proletariat. Certainly, one could
speak of certain late-stage petty-bourgeois poets as being antithetical
to
later Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, who were less
absolute or
more relative, as you prefer, in relation to the earliest philosophers. But only in a transcendental civilization
would the absolute antithesis to pagan absolutisms emerge, and it would
probably take an abstract anthological form, replacing the individual
with the
collective, and thus contrasting the collectivized poetic with the
individualized philosophic, the essential with the apparent, the One
with the
Many.
Yes, there poetic endeavour
would attain to
its climax, transcending intellect. And
James Riley, the creator of a quasi-poetic collectivized literature,
was
intimating of this transcendence on his own collective terms,
interpreting life
and art for his future followers in order that they could be completely
confident in the correctness and inevitability of their creative
predilections. The modern Irish were
nothing if not poets. Even he had begun
his writing career as a poet of unrequited love, the noblest kind of
love
poetry, he now mused, though he hadn't realized it at the time!
FOR
TRUTH
The
Leader
paced
backwards and forwards in front of us, deeply immersed in
reflection, and
I thought for a moment that he would take the seat offered him by one
of our
comrades. But, to my surprise, he turned
away and, raising his eyes to survey us all, recommenced speaking, his
voice
clear and firm, the channel of fresh inspiration from above. What puzzled him, he said, was how people had
come to equate Fascism and its Social Transcendentalist successor with
the
Extreme Right. For, in reality,
theocratic Centrism (his use of the latter word, which he pronounced Centerism, implied a markedly radical
implication which
contrasted sharply with the conventional use of the term as applying to
moderate democratic positions) was no more extreme right than
autocratic royalism had been extreme left
or, for that matter, extreme
right.
As expected, there were
plenty of smiles in
the room with this utterance, and even one or two muffled laughs or
would-be
guffaws. Even I was tickled by it.
No, it was difficult to see,
he proceeded,
how an extreme movement, one pertaining to the theocratic spectrum,
could have
anything to do with either left- or right-wing designations, since they
applied, after all, to the democratic spectrum.
Probably, he went on, the application of the term 'extreme
right' to
Fascism was simply in order to distinguish it from Communism as an
extreme
left-wing ideology, which, incidentally, it was, rather than as a
product of
logical reasoning.
Here more amusement broke
loose, but he quickly
calmed it down by continuing with words to the effect that, objectively
considered, the Extreme Right began with the Cromwellian
revolt against autocratic royalism,
resulting in a
form of democratic dictatorship which in turn led to a parliamentary
system of
government the essence of which was division between the Right and the
Left,
Tories and Whigs, the one in part stemming from the victorious
roundheads, the
other in part stemming from the defeated cavaliers, additional
bourgeois
factors increasingly coming forward to shift the balance of power from
a kind
of artisanal/feudal opposition to a
monopoly
capitalist/liberal capitalist opposition, and from that to a small-time
capitalist/democratic socialist opposition, with successive
evolutionary transmutations
from Whigs and Liberals to Fabians in more radically left-wing
alignments
against a progressively less-extreme right-wing opposition. The culmination of this gradual shift from an
extreme right in Cromwellian dictatorship
to an
extreme left within a two-party system was, the Leader assured us, the
emergence in certain countries of a communist system of one-party rule
by the
Extreme Left, more extreme by far than the democratic socialists of
countries
like Britain and France, and necessarily hostile to all such
compromises
between the Right and the Left. So if
the democratic spectrum began with the extreme right-wing dictatorship
of
Cromwell, its culmination could only be with the extreme left-wing
dictatorship
of Lenin, each dictatorship leading, in due course, to democracy, the
first to
relative, or bourgeois, democracy; the second to absolute, or
proletarian,
democracy - a progression from liberal to social democracy along a
spectrum
which, coming in-between autocratic and theocratic extremes, is the
only one to
which the distinctions of left and right can reasonably be applied.
So any reference to Social
Transcendentalists as extreme right wing could only be subjective and
contingent, an expedience, the Leader assured us, on the part of
democrats and
Marxists alike. In truth, we were
neither right nor left but above any such distinction, just as, prior
to the
emergence of bourgeois parliamentarianism, the monarchy was beneath it,
ruling
in an authoritarian manner on the principle, expressed or unexpressed,
of
'divine right', a strictly non-sectarian rightness.
However, such 'divine right'
was founded on
the galactic-world-order of central star (monarch), peripheral stars
(peers),
and planets (populace); though the Galaxy, as the Leader had on
occasion
pointed out to us, was far from being literally divine, that is to say,
divine
in the sense of pure spirit, as germane to electron-electron
attractions. On the contrary, it signified
the
proton-proton reactions of pure soul, the central star no less than
peripheral
ones, such theological abstractions as were subsequently made
distinguishing
central from peripheral stars in terms of the Creator and the Devil,
the latter
most especially relevant, so the Leader maintained, to an abstraction
from the
sun, which is (or was) literally the root of all evil in the world,
since the
closest star to it. Not that he made the
mistake of confounding theology with science, the abstracted Father
with the
literal First Cause, the abstracted Satan with the Sun.
Hell and Heaven remained, for him,
theological postulates, corresponding to cosmic realities - the nearest
thing
to hell on earth being a raging fire, the nearest thing to heaven on
earth
being a profoundly peaceful meditation experience.
But if proton-proton reactions already
existed in space in the guise of stars, then it was the business of
evolving
humanity to ensure that the cultivation of spirit went ahead on earth
so that,
one day in the distant post-millennial future, electron-electron
attractions would
arise from the ultimate life form, the new-brain collectivizations
of the Superbeings, and proceed towards
other such
transcendences in space, some of which may well have been there for
centuries
or longer, presuming upon the existence, elsewhere in the Universe, of
more
advanced planets than the earth - planets, I mean, where the post-human
millennium had been established long before its eventual establishment
here.
But, of course, such
transcendences, our
Leader had informed us, would no more constitute the culmination of all
evolution than planets or small stars constituted its inception. They would simply amount to contributions of
pure spirit - spiritual globes - on route, as it were, to the distant
culmination
of heavenly evolution in the ultimate spiritual globe ... of the Omega
Point,
the sum-product of all convergence. The
establishment of God as the
Holy Spirit, the
ultimate
globe of pure spirit, was seemingly too far into the future for us on
earth to
have any knowledge about or intimation of when it would literally come
about. All we can do as progressive
theocrats ... is work towards our own fulfilment in ever-increasing
expansions
of spirit, of greater awareness, bringing ourselves nearer, by degrees,
to the
envisaged future goal of all evolution, the quality of which would be
ineffable
from our point of view, the quantity of which ... an unknown factor
because
beyond and above all quantification, not really quantitative at all but
...
absolutely qualitative in its noumenal
perfection.
Ah yes, I came back from
these divine
reflections with a near-beatific smile on my face for the man or,
rather,
divinity who had taught us all this, who was the soul of our party, the
guiding
spirit of our movement! There he stood
before us, nodding his head at the amused response which his latest
wisdom had
engendered among his faithful followers, my comrades in arms, despisers
of
democracy in all its phases. He was the
arch-despiser of democracy, for whom the
concept of
mass political sovereignty was but a passing phenomenon which would
soon be
entirely redundant, like, for that matter, public ownership of the
means of
production, its economic concomitant. He
represented political sovereignty for us, his followers, and we were
pledged to
obey him, this embodiment of the Holy Spirit, this manifestation of the
Second
Coming, whose word was Truth. Superior
in wisdom and insight to both Hitler and Mussolini, his crudely
theocratic
predecessors, his word was Law and we, drawn to the Truth, could not
but be
eager to implement it, to carry out such instructions as he gave us. Not for us to impose our will upon him, as if
he were merely a representative of our democratic rights and we
alone, as people, were politically sovereign!
He led us and we were only too willing to follow, knowing
ourselves to
be honoured in this way, to work for the ultimate victory of theocracy
over
democracy, in order that real progress towards a post-human millennium
could be
achieved, thanks to our efforts.
Yes, no less than the other
comrades
gathered round the Leader today, I was eager to serve evolutionary
progress by
carrying out such instructions or tasks as were received from 'On High'. Our conviction of absolute rightness gave a
certain exuberance and even ruthlessness to our dealings with enemies
of
theocratic enlightenment, be they bourgeois or proletarian, moderate
left or
extreme left, moderate right or extreme right.
Political salvation resided in the Leader, and the Way to
ultimate salvation
from the flesh resided in our following his instructions to the letter. We were proud of what we had already achieved
in this respect and were convinced that, no matter how many obstacles
lay in
the way of Truth and Progress, we would be capable of overcoming them. And the Leader, sensing as much, imparted to
us his confidence in us as servants of the Truth. Such
Truth,
as he had just reminded us, had
nothing to do with left or right, but solely with God.
Soon even people's democracy would be
consigned to the rubbish bin of history, and extreme left-wingers along
with
it. Salvation!
All
Hail the Saviour,
May His Will be Done,
In Kingdom
Come,
This day and evermore.
Amen!
LEADER'S
TRANSCENDENTALISM
"Of
course,
the
theocratic spectrum is more complex than I have hitherto let
on," I said, turning to party comrades 7 and 22, as we awaited the
moment
to proceed along the tunnel and climb onto the vast rostrum that
awaited me in
the stadium tonight, "since there is a lacuna in it between autocratic
Roman Catholicism and the inception of democratic Protestantism. If it began in the former, then the emergence
of the latter signified a subdivision of the spectrum, a kind of
parallel
development to it which, in countries where Protestantism caught on,
pushed the
Catholic spectrum into a subordinate position, even if, in the
relativity of
things within an atomic framework, it was permitted or able to continue. So from approximately a late-stage
grand-bourgeois age to an early-stage petty-bourgeois one, from the
late-seventeenth
to the early-twentieth century, Catholicism survived as the main, or
absolute,
manifestation of the theocratic spectrum, albeit in a subordinate
capacity to
this relative manifestation of theocracy which, as Protestantism,
continued to
dominate the age, being the ideological justification behind democracy."
As both party comrades
appeared to be
engrossed in what I was saying, I continued, following a brief glance
at my
digital watch: "Thus if the main theocratic spectrum is imagined as
beginning in blue, it became grey during the age of democratic
hegemony, when
the relative heresy of Protestantism dominated the West with its pink
spectrum. So the subdivision, running
parallel to the main theocratic spectrum, is garishly dominant while
the age of
democracy holds sway. But then, as if
through Providential intervention, a new age suddenly erupts, what I
have
elsewhere called a late-stage petty-bourgeois age, and it is
fundamentally
hostile to democracy because more absolute in character, time having
brought
evolution closer to a proletarian age.
Now suddenly the main part of the top spectrum comes alive again
with
the emergence of Fascism, giving it a new look in a navy-blue/black
combination, the antithetical equivalent to the royal blue, so to
speak, of
Roman Catholicism. No matter if Fascism
was eventually defeated by democracy, its emergence threatened the
democratic
status quo and it went on to defeat certain of the democracies during
the
high-point of its ascendancy. At last,
after centuries of subordinate status, the main part of the top
spectrum had
come to life again and, in the guise of Fascism, waged war with the
middle
spectrum, including the communist tail-end of it. For
even
the heretical manifestation of the
theocratic spectrum in pink Protestantism is subject to supersession,
with the emergence of a late-stage petty-bourgeois age, by a red
Marxist-Leninist part, the theology applicable to people's democracy,
which
extends this heretical spectrum towards absolute criteria while yet
opposing
its relative predecessor. As surely as
Catholicism led to Fascism, Protestantism led to Communism, whilst
autocratic royalism continued to fade and
wither into military
dictatorships."
I could tell, as I glanced
at my watch
anew, that these two comrades were all ears for such information, which
was
grist to their Social Transcendentalist mill.
One of them appeared to be on the point of speaking, but I cut
any
prospect of that out by adding: "Yet if Fascism leads, via
Neo-Catholicism, to Social Transcendentalism, as germane to an absolute
theocracy, then Communism most certainly doesn't lead to anything else,
since
it signifies the tail-end of that heretical spectrum in the furthermost
reach
of humanism, devoid of any concerns with an aspiration towards the Holy
Spirit,
Protestant materialism pushed to its ultimate conclusion in communist
atheism. Thus, on the middle spectrum, a
shift from relative to absolute democracy, the inevitable outcome of
the
Christian notion of the equality of all souls, an attempt to establish
a more
equal society, with sovereignty alone vested in the proletariat, who
are more
equal to one another than the people of a relative democracy, divisible
between
bourgeois and proletarian elements. Such
is life on the tail-end of the middle spectrum, which owes its
materialist
integrity to the tail-end of the heretical subdivision of the
theocratic
spectrum in Communism, a necessarily false world religion, being but an
expansion of the Protestant faith.
However, no such heresy prevails here, since we're most
decidedly on the
true part of the top spectrum, no longer as Catholics but as absolute
theocrats, idealists with a Social Transcendentalist faith, and
harbingers of
the True World Religion. Here political
sovereignty is vested in the true Second Coming, who leads from above,
dragging
the masses after him, bringing them closer to divinity, inspiring them
with his
teachings, goading them toward higher things, always assisted by his
trusted
followers, who form an elite of faithful men, serving his Truth in
order that
the masses may be ennobled and improved in the course of time. Only democrats serve the people.
They are the people's representatives, for the
people are politically sovereign. Here,
however, party comrades serve me, as the embodiment of Truth, and I
lead the
people as sovereign, the antithesis to autocratic rulers, an aspiration
towards
the Holy Spirit, not a stemming from the Creator, a spiritual
leadership as
opposed to a sensual rule. And those who
serve me well will be rewarded!"
Party comrades 7 and 22
smiled now, and I
felt obliged to consult my digital watch again in order to ensure a
prompt
appearance at the appointed time. I was
in a speaking mood and eager to get out of this room and along the
tunnel
leading, via the processional stairs that would be flanked by rows of
my
uniformed followers, to the rostrum, from which I would calmly survey
the
seething mass of people in the stadium below, their heads bathed in the
myriad
neon lights which issued from the roofs of the surrounding stands, a
veritable
cathedral of light in which the whole stadium became an appropriate
setting for
such spiritual illumination as I would generously bestow upon the
near-hypnotized multitude, whose hunger and thirst for spiritual
nourishment....
To be sure, I had studied National Socialist precedent carefully and
knew just
what to do, in this receptive atmosphere, to renew and strengthen their
faith!
Already the music, processions, and banners would be having an effect,
softening them up, lifting them beyond the narrow confines of their
individual
selves, making them drunk on the mass - the nearest approximation on
earth to
the indivisible unity of transcendent spirit, the goal of evolutionary
striving.
Yes, I loved the crowd and
they loved it
too, and loved their Leader and his closest followers and all the
banners
fluttering in the wind, the black abstract emblem of the Second Coming
on a
white ground, symbolic, in its Y-like abstraction, its inverted
CND-like
uprightness, not only of the Holy Spirit, but of Centrist trusteeship
of the
means of production for the development and spread of Truth. Social Transcendentalism was by no means
socialist, in terms of public ownership of the means of production, as
relative
to a democracy, though most especially a people's democracy, where the
proletariat were sovereign and consequently owned the means of
production
through the State, the organized bureaucracy of the people. Not the ownership of the means of production
by the people for the people, but the ownership or, rather, trusteeship
of
those means by the Centre for the Truth, the development and spread of
the True
World Religion, which could only be to the lasting advantage of what
was best in
the people - namely their spirit. Social
Transcendentalism was certainly beyond Socialism, not a phenomenon of
the
middle spectrum, and therefore above criteria applying to democracy. If it was social, or socialistic, it was in
terms of the way it sought to treat people fairly, using such economic
wealth
as industry produced in the interests of evolutionary progress, which
implied a
decent standard of living for the people in order that they would be
able to
take their spiritual aspirations seriously.
There could be no question,
however, of
Social Transcendentalism striving to serve the people for the sake of
people's
service, as if they were politically sovereign and should consequently
be
served on their own account, divorced from a truly religious
perspective or
objective. On the contrary, Social
Transcendentalism served the advancement of Truth, and that demanded
that the
people be led towards a better future, towards the penultimate heaven
of the
post-human millennium as a prelude to the ultimate heaven ... of the
post-millennial Beyond. Truth had no
interest in the people for themselves, only in their spiritual
potential. For that alone pertained to the
theocratic
spectrum. That alone would liberate them
from the flesh!
Suddenly a hand on my
shoulder startled me
out of my reflections and reminded me of the body.
I glanced down at my wrist and saw that it
was time to move. Party comrades 7 and
22 were on their feet and already heading towards the door that led
through the
tunnel into the stadium. I smiled my
appreciation of this fact, now that the moment had at last arrived, and
led the
way out of the room.
A
TRUE
EXTREMISM
Leader's
transcendentalism
is
really more the antithesis of ruler's royalism
than its antithetical equivalent, which would have to pertain, by
contrast, to
the same spectrum, namely the autocratic one.
Yes, Comrade 5, the nearest one gets to an antithetical
equivalent of
ruler's royalism is with a military
dictatorship,
where sovereignty is vested in the reigning general or colonel or even,
occasionally, officers of inferior rank, and a situation may arise
whereby the
masses serve an elite ... in a kind of submission to Nietzschean
criteria. That's right, Comrade 10. Nietzsche's philosophy was partly conceived
against the backdrop, as it were, of a military dictatorship, namely
Bismarck's, and consequently tends to uphold a kind of neo-royalist
position of
aristocratic radicalism, with the masses conceived as but means to the
nurture
and development of the higher men, be they Supermen or whatever.
I agree,
Comrade 23,
there is much more than the influence of a military dictatorship to
Nietzsche's
philosophy. But, even so, that cannot be
discounted! Anyway, an antithetical
equivalent to ruler's royalism will tend
to place the
interests of a ruling elite above those of
everybody
else, just as the interests of the king and his nobles took precedence
over the
populace in the age of feudal autocracy.
Monarchs rule in their own interests.... Well, the antithesis to
a ruler
is a leader, as pertinent to a fascist or a centrist society, and he
exists on
the third, or theocratic, spectrum, the spectrum centred on the Holy
Ghost
rather than, like the autocratic one, on the Father.
He leads the people in their spiritual
interests.
No, Comrade 4, he doesn't
serve or
represent the people, like a people's representative on the spectrum
in-between
autocratic and theocratic extremes, which pertains to democracy, and
hence to
representative's parliamentarianism. He
serves only Truth, and this requires that he leads the people from the
Centre. They do not exist for his own
aggrandizement or material enrichment, as in a royalist or neo-royalist
society. On the contrary, they exist to
be improved, and this is the antithesis of royalist autocracy - an
antithesis
only being possible between the first and third spectra, as between the
Father
and the Holy Spirit. As for Christ, He
pertains, in His humanism, to the democratic spectrum, the tail-end of
which
signifies a more absolute people's sovereignty in the guise of
Communism, the
ideology of the Antichrist. By contrast,
the continuation of the true part of the theocratic spectrum from Roman
Catholicism and Fascism leads to the Second Coming, and thus to the
ideology of
the True World Messiah, as appertaining to Social Transcendentalism.
Yes, Comrade 27, such an
extreme
ideological position entails an anti-tribal perspective, since there is
no
contiguity between the first and third spectra, and tribalists
- be they Celts, Bantus, Nagas, Bedouin,
Gypsies, or
whatever - pertain to the first.
Yes, Comrade 92. Tribalists, nationalists, and transcendentalists. No connection between the first and the
third, and so, wherever the third emerges, tribalists
are beneath the pale. Only a theocratic
society can be truly closed in relation to what is beneath the pale. A communist society has no anti-tribal policy
because Communism is only extreme in relation to the moderate part of
the
second spectrum, an extreme middle-of-the-road ideology rather than an
extreme
closed-society perspective, since its allegiance to the democratic
spectrum
implies contiguity with the bottom one, if from an extreme point of
view.
You're right, Comrade 63, a
communist
society is more closed at the top, with regard to evolutionary progress
towards
the post-human millennium - Lenin's 'No God-building, comrades!' comes
to mind
here - than at the bottom, whereas Fascism and its ideological
successor,
Social Transcendentalism, is closed at the bottom, to first and second
spectra
influences, but virtually infinitely open at the top ... with a
perspective
stretching, via the post-human millennium, all the way to Heaven. Communism is closed to aspirations towards
the Holy Spirit, being but the furthest reach of democratic humanism. It opens out to democracy and capitalism, if
on a negative basis, as an ideological opposition to democratic
precedent in
the world at large - Communism against Protestantism (Marxism against
Calvinism). It liquidates bourgeois
exploiters, but not tribalists.
That's right, Comrade 14, it
culminates in
a dead-end of proletarian atheism, an extension of the Protestant
heresy of
Christian relativity, a more extreme relativity, you might say. Whereas we Social Transcendentalists are
opposed, like our fascist precursors, to everything relative, be it
Protestant
or Communist. And
opposed, moreover, to absolutism on the autocratic spectrum, not to
mention to
earlier absolutist manifestations of our own.
It would be ironical for Social
Transcendentalism to come to power solely through democratic means when
it's a
theocratic ideology and therefore not directly connected with the
democratic
process. In fact, a veritable
contradiction in terms!
Yes, Comrade 28, Mussolini's
ascension to
the dictatorial leadership of the Italian people was more theocratic
than
Hitler's rise to power over the Germans, Hitler being obliged to partly
rely on
democratic methods - a not-altogether surprising fact, given the
Protestant,
democratic integrity of most North Germans!
Had he been seeking power in a more ideologically homogeneous
state,
like
No, Comrade 41, the
traditional Provisional
Sinn Fein attitude of a ballot paper in one hand and an armalite
in the other strikes me as having been significant of a compromise with
the
majority democratic population of Northern Ireland.
The Social Transcendentalist attitude in the
South of
Ah, as you say, Comrade 35! But those who are genuinely democratic would
wish to retain sovereignty for themselves.
Only a people who were essentially theocratic would be prepared
to use
the democratic system to further theocratic interests, and thus
transcend
democracy! Well, none of you need me to
remind you of the ethnic essence of the majority population of
Yes, maybe you're right,
Comrade 16! As long as we know what's best
for the
majority population of
A
PERMANENT
CROSS
He
remembered
his
doctor looking at him in sceptical surprise and saying:
"Why, you're not a nutcase! You've
got musical taste and culture and ...!"
Michael had discussed
classical music with
his doctor on a previous occasion, but had gone along to the surgery,
this
time, for some anti-depressants in order to combat a depression the
doctor knew
all about, and the latter had kindly scribbled out a prescription for tryptizol or dothiepin
or some
such soothing drug. But he hadn't been
encouraged to pay a visit to a specialist at the nearest mental
hospital. Indeed, he had been dissuaded
from pursuing a
more intensive course of treatment, though, god knows, he knew that
something
more was needed than recourse to mild anti-depressants!
In fact, he had long been of the opinion that
his depression was due to overlong confinement in an urban environment,
the
city he inhabited more as a foreigner blown in from the provinces than
as a
genuine native, an outsider as opposed to an insider, and a
fundamentally
Catholic one at that! The doctor was
clearly an insider, a native Londoner sceptical of depressions caused
by environmental
incompatibility, doubtless on account of his own environmental
compatibility. A kind of sophisticated
proletarian was how he saw his doctor - jolly, rotund, prone to
self-inflected
accidents, hooked on valium, which he
swallowed more,
apparently, to keep himself calm than to ease depression; though if he
had one
it was evidently attributable to some other source than environment -
possibly
matrimonial or hereditary.
But whilst, as a patient,
Michael was of
the opinion that environment was chiefly responsible for his
depression,
he had never claimed that it was solely responsible.
Simply the root cause that
led to certain effects conducive to depression.
Like, for instance, being alone in one's room
most of the time because the outside world was too obnoxious to
encourage
socializing and, in any case, appeared bereft of the types of people
who would
have appealed to one's sense of friendship, its inhabitants being
either mostly
of the simple or yobbish proletarian varieties, or of the stand-offish
and
unintelligible immigrant varieties, with but a scattering of petty
bourgeoisie
and bohemian intellectuals thrown-in for good measure.
And being alone of course meant that one
wasn't talking or copulating, two things which, providing they were
indulged in
regularly enough, served to release pent-up tensions and keep one
relatively
free from depression.
Yet if the environment was a
cause of these
effects, which stood like a thistle on a jaded stalk, it was also a
direct
contributory factor to his depression, not only in the sense that it
was too
artificial and built-up for his liking, or too squalid and ugly, too
smelly and
polluted, but, worse still, too noisy and thus a constant source of
tension -
tension which entered his head in the form of noise and stayed there,
he having
no social or sexual way of releasing it again.
So he was in a kind of tension trap, with noise - in the
extremely
disagreeable forms of dog-barkings,
worker-hammerings, door-slammings, pop-screechings, kid-shoutings,
phone-ringings, car-hummings,
radio-
and/or
TV-blarings, etc. - going into his
head, but no noise - in the more agreeable forms of speaking, grunting,
laughing, singing, etc. - coming out of it.
All one-way traffic, so to speak. And coupled to this, a lack of deep steady
sleep, in part attributable to increased tension and intellectuality
within a
highly artificial environment, in part doubtless deriving from his
solitary and
sordid lot, a lot compounded by the poverty of a social security
allowance
which, to say the least, further inhibited socializing, there being
relatively
few contexts where one could meet people free-of-charge, and still
fewer women
who would want to meet anyone who lacked the means to date them
regularly,
particularly someone whose sartorial appearance left something to be
desired on
account of his poverty!
No, Michael knew well enough
that females
were highly appearance-conscious, linking a smart exterior with
financial
affluence and an unsmart one with a want
of financial
solvency, thoroughly worldly in their estimations of men, a
consequence, no
doubt, of their fundamentally materialistic natures, which induced them
to
attach greater importance to externals than to internals, to the flesh
than to
the spirit, to appearances than to essences.
Not all women of course, but still too many of them too much of
the
time! And particularly within an
open-society context, and one, moreover, that existed in a
traditionally
materialistic country like
Well, Michael had not gone
along to the
doctor in order to lecture him on ethnic characteristics or to give him
an unprecedentedly bold lesson in free
speech, but simply to
acquire some anti-depressants which, from previous experience, he knew
would be
of minimal avail against the depression that was a permanent aspect of
his life
and had more than a few cogent causes, not least of all the isolation
of an
intelligent Irishman in a major English city!
He knew, too, that his writings would never be accepted by the
English,
since too honest and radical for their middle-of-the-road, bourgeois
taste and
lack of understanding of anything that transcended the literary mask,
like his
philosophical collectivized writings and poetic autobiographical
writings, not
to mention his revolutionary politico-religious ones.
The English were always somehow false and
lying, he, a true son of
Ah, Michael had not allowed
his depression
to prevent him from working on his own, necessarily superior terms -
terms
which, through various literary or anti-literary or poetic stages, had
brought
him to Truth while the majority of British writers continued to wallow
in
illusions and lies, superficiality and dirt, after their commercial
fashions! Unlike them, he had never
'kissed the bourgeois' arse', to paraphrase Goebbels,
but
gone
his own way, the way of Truth.
He had quite admired their better authors, men like Aldous
Huxley and Christopher Isherwood, Anthony
Burgess and
Lawrence Durrell, but had never identified
with them,
preferring to regard most of his work as a continuation beyond Joyce
and
Beckett, at least technically ... with regard to a developing
absolutism in
poetic truth. He could no longer take
the novel genre seriously, since he equated it with bourgeois
limitations both
thematically and technically. A democratic art-form, lacking the inspiration of true
genius as
much on account of its pedantic technical considerations as of its
restricted
subject-matter.
For true genius of
expression demands the
maximum concern with content and the minimum concern with style or
grammar. It cannot emerge if there is a
lack of inspiration on account of one's being bound to technicalities
which
necessarily impede the flow as well as inhibit the development of Truth. Great insights, the product of inspiration,
mostly come 'on the wing', not when one is at rest or bogged down in
stultifying pedantic considerations! The
more you gain on the grammatical roundabout, the less you can have on
the
conceptual swings. The more positive
truth you desire, the less concern you must give to technicalities,
which
merely conform, after all, to the proton and/or neutron side of
writing, its
materialistic as opposed to spiritualistic, or electron, side. The British make for good novelists but,
contrary to literary myth, relatively poor poets, since they are never
sufficiently free from technical considerations to soar to the heights
of
imaginative freedom. Having Irish blood
in their veins, Burgess and Durrell are
less literary
than poetic and produce better or, at any rate, more poetic novels in
consequence. James Joyce and Samuel
Beckett are more poetic again, and it's unlikely that any major Irish
writer
could ever be less than highly poetic, granted a free-electron
predilection. He had seen the age of
English writing superseded, in
But a revolutionary leader
had to write,
and Michael had written as much as anyone, Lenin included, on subjects
and in a
way that Lenin would never have contemplated, being too much the
politician for
anything so theocratic as poetry. A Social Transcendentalist leader was an
altogether different proposition from a Bolshevik or a Communist one,
closer,
in essence, to Hitler and to fascist leaders generally - men who
scorned mere
politics and literary philistinism.
Michael was also a writer in the higher sense, not just a
political or
revolutionary propagandist. Probably
more a writer, if the truth were known, than a revolutionary. A writer who imagined
himself a revolutionary rather than a revolutionary who also dabbled, à la Trotsky, in writing. A kind of literary schizophrenia, an illness
probably shared by such illustrious writers as Gide
and Camus, Malraux
and
Sartre, Koestler and Mailer, who were
expected and
inclined to be political but were never quite sure to what extent or
exactly
where the demarcation line between literature and politics actually
stood. Was it perhaps a failing of a
certain type of
writer that he imagined himself capable of major participation in
revolutionary
politics? Or a
madness? That political
participation was a writer's dream, the grass being greener the other
side of
the professional fence, every profession having a kind of connection
with some
other, to which one was more than likely to be drawn?
So after a writer, a
fascist or communist dictator?
Was that the only way one could, as it were, progress? He had often thought so, and was still of the
opinion that a revolutionary dictator was more likely to come from the
intellectual class, particularly on its literary side, than from any
other. Certainly a Social
Transcendentalist
would have to be highly literate, if his sovereignty as embodied Holy
Spirit
was to be justified. No mere labourer or
philistine politician! Michael had no
reason to doubt his sanity on that
account,
even if he wasn't altogether sure that he was sane to imagine himself a
potential dictator, when he had spent so much time scribbling literary
or
poetic truth!
But was Social
Transcendentalism merely a
figment of his imagination, a mere literary game? He
didn't
think so, couldn't bring himself to
believe that he was merely concocting imaginary worlds for literary
appreciation. He had gone too far and in
too much depth and earnestness to be a mere purveyor of political
fictions. He knew that what he stood for
was the Truth, and that the Truth would have to prevail in the world in
future
if it was to be redeemed. He was no fool
to doubt the authenticity of his Truth.
But whether or not he would actually implement it ... time alone
would
tell. At least he didn't feel that he
was in need of a state psychiatrist on account of his uncertainty in
this
matter, though his mental health might well have profited from some
psychiatric
attention. The depression was still
there, and if it was a Cross he had to bear on account of his solitary
and
celibate lifestyle, then so be it!
Writers were more often than not depressive,
if
not
manic, in any case, since too much alone.
It was a professional hazard and drawback, not something of
which to be
cured if one wished to continue in one's chosen tracks, since writing
could
only be done in solitude or, at any rate, without professional
assistance from,
say, a colleague. Most serious writers
sooner or later took to drink as an antidote to depression on a kind of
intermittent or temporary basis. Also
tobacco of course, another sensual indulgence to counter the enforced
asceticism of solitary intellectual activity, to sensualize
the brain, soak it, drag it down from its too tense and rarefied
heights, if
only to watch the TV or listen to discs.
Such it was for him, and he
didn't think
himself altogether unique in this respect, even if there were writers -
authors
really - who fared better on account of their wealth and social life,
always a
friend or wife around with whom to talk, not really alone all that
much, too bourgeois
to want the heights. But madness, mental
illness, depression, delirium - so prevalent these days, and not simply
among
writers and would-be revolutionaries, either!
He considered himself essentially sane, despite his depression. But there were others who had regular need of
psychiatric attention, were, in fact, more often mentally ill than
physically
ill. He had thought about this
negatively, in regard to his own problem in the past, but now he was
beginning
to see it in a positive light. After all,
why had psychology and psychiatry taken so long to materialize? Why was it only this century that they really
came into their own, so to speak, as respectable medical professions? Surely the answer to these questions had to
be: because it was only in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth
centuries
that, in certain parts of the world and in certain individuals, the
human
psyche had become sufficiently evolved to permit of a looking back and
down on
the subconscious from the vantage-point of the ego and/or superconscious
- in short, because until then humanity had been insufficiently
advanced to be
either capable of or particularly interested in any such psychic
scrutiny.
Well, what applies to the
subconscious may
well apply to the brain in general and to mental illness in particular,
so that
the growth of interest in the former and increasing prevalence of the
latter
were but reflections of the ongoing sophistication of the age, its
coming to
maturity on terms that stressed the mental at the expense of the
physical, the
brain at the expense of the body. He had
little doubt that, paradoxically, the expansion of mental illness was a
symptom
of evolutionary progress; for if bodily illness had hitherto been the
human
norm, might we not be approaching a time when it would be the exception
and, by
contrast, only mental illness be the human norm - a humanity grown
beyond the
merely physical and become ever-more deeply engrossed in the mental and
spiritual, a humanity which had passed from the body to the mind?
Ah, there were sufficient
grounds in this
hypothesis for optimism about the future, for seeing in mental illness
not a
sign of decay and pessimism, but, on the contrary, of growth and
optimism
concerning the evolution of mankind away from the body and ever deeper
into the
mind. Could it be, he wondered, that a
day would come when all or most physical illnesses would be attributed
to
mental causes, to psychosomatic origins?
Would humanity reach such a pitch of evolutionary sophistication
that
doctors and surgeons would become redundant, their dedication to
physical
illness no longer necessary, the psychologists and psychiatrists ruling
an
absolutist roost, and so attending to the prevalent and, in a sense,
only
morally respectable types of illness of that age?
Michael wasn't entirely
prepared to rule
out such a possibility. For it seemed to
him that psychology and psychiatry were complementary aspects of a
growth
industry, the spiritualistic and materialistic sides, as it were, of
the
diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that the ratio of mental
to
physical illness could only change in the course of time, the former
developing
at the expense of the latter, in accordance with the evolutionary
requirements
of a more absolutist age, an age when the representative medical
practitioners
would be psychologists and psychiatrists, in contrast to the norms of
an open
society where, to all appearances, doctors and surgeons constituted the
medical
norm, and to such an extent, in certain countries, that their psychic
counterparts were still regarded with if not contempt then, at any
rate, deep
suspicion, as if their vocations were somehow irrelevant to the
established
order, beyond or outside the pale of representative medical practice, a
kind of
emerging poetic threat to a novelistic status quo, not to be taken too
seriously, but scarcely to be underestimated, either!
Perhaps this would apply
more in
traditionally democratic than in traditionally theocratic societies,
where the
materialistic was always so much more the accepted norm?
Certainly a closed society derived from the
latter kinds of societies would reverse this situation or, at any rate,
expand
the psychic side, and maybe to a point where psychologists and
psychiatrists
would greatly preponderate, with but a minimum quantity of bodily
doctors to
deal, in the main, with accidents and emergency cases, they being
regarded as a
left-over from bourgeois society, corresponding, in their reformed
status, to
the 'Social', and hence inferior, side of Social Transcendentalism, the
ideological integrity of a truly theocratic closed society, necessarily
placing
maximum emphasis on the noun. Probably
by then only mental illnesses, he reasoned, would be socially
respectable,
contrary to the current open-society situation, which inclines to
regard mental
illness from a bodily, materialistic point of view, and thus to apply
such
derogatory expressions as 'nutcase', 'fruitcake', and 'lune'
to those so afflicted. Just as his
doctor had done with regard to himself, albeit on the assumption that
he
couldn't possibly be one, since stable and healthy and ... interested
in
serious music!
Well, at the time, Michael
had been almost
relieved to hear this, though he knew that his depression was a kind of
mental
illness and was more serious than perhaps the doctor, with his limited
knowledge of such things, had supposed.
Yet now, when he reflected on his situation from a higher
vantage-point,
he was almost disappointed in the doctor for not having credited him
with more
sophistication and thereby acknowledged his superior afflicted status. Indeed, now he was almost proud to be in some
degree mentally ill and thus one of the elect of suffering, no mere
physical
democrat but a psychical theocrat, as he had long conceived of himself. He might not be a 'nutcase' in any flagrantly
exhibitionist or delirious or violent or deranged or abusive or
non-communicative sense, but at least he was prone to mental rather
than simply
physical ill-health, if on a comparatively low-key and tolerable basis. This was, he supposed, the price one paid for
one's genius as a writer/thinker, the degree of sophistication and
spiritual
insight to which he had attained being impossible without a
commensurate degree
of physical solitariness and social simplicity.
Yet it was also a mark of
his inherent
sophistication, his status as one of the spiritual elect for whom mere
bodily
ill-health would have been demeaning, a kind of left-wing affliction
more
suited, he supposed, to a person of anti-natural inclination and/or
temperament. If he was not mad in any
seriously permanent sense, he was yet capable of mental ill-health and
not
simply on an intermittent basis either!
It was his shadow self, the price he paid for the light of his
truth. Better of course to be mentally
well than mentally sick; but if one had to be ill, better to be
mentally sick
than physically sick. He was part of a
long tradition of great minds whose common lot had been mental
ill-health. Like Nietzsche, Strindberg,
Baudelaire, Hermann
Hesse, Ezra Pound, and Wilhelm Reich,
Michael Somers
would carry his cross until the end - the end, in his case, of the
World.
MORE
PLASTIC
There
was
too
much wooden furniture in his room for Keith Toland's
liking these days, now that he was becoming increasingly enamoured of
plastic,
which, in contrast to wood, he equated with a supernatural bias. He found himself day-dreaming, on occasion,
of a room in which all the furniture was made of plastic or, at any
rate, some
kind of synthetic material transcending nature.
His room was largely bourgeois, he thought, and lagged behind
his
ideological development. Ideally, he
would have preferred to bring it into line with his current tastes or,
better
still, move into an unfurnished flat which he would then proceed to
furnish
from scratch ... in the most supernatural fashion - plastic everywhere. The room he rented was fully-furnished, no
possibility of the Licensor allowing its wooden contents to be thrown
out. Besides, he knew that, in his current
financial position, he couldn't afford to buy the sort of furniture he
had in
mind. It was just a pleasant dream, a
suggestion of what he would do if given half the chance.
But there were small things
that he had
been able
to afford, and they were invariably made of plastic - his second-hand
portable
television, for example. Not a bad
little set, though monochromatic unfortunately, which he associated
with an
anti-natural and probably bourgeois constitution. Still,
a
black plastic exterior was
something, better, at any rate, than a wooden one!
Then there was his hairdryer, as plastic as
his stereo headphones and, latest purchase of all, headphone radio. There was a plastic wallet, a plastic comb,
pen, typewriter, zipper jacket, pair of moccasins, rubbish bin, shaver,
and
watch - this latter a black digital. He
ate lunch off a plastic platter with plastic cutlery, and drank milk
from a
plastic beaker. His record-player had a
predominantly plastic exterior and his LPs were of course vinyl, which
is a
strong plastic-. They were beginning to
shame him, however. He wondered whether
there wasn't something inherently liberal if not conservative about
records as
opposed to cassettes, which, on account of their more idealistic
constitution,
he supposed to have a comparatively radical right-wing essence. Records were played horizontally, whereas
cassettes usually slotted vertically, if sideways-on, into the cassette
deck,
symptomatic of a masculine bias, he thought.
Probably he would gravitate from records to cassettes, if given
the
opportunity. He had enough records
anyway, and was fast running out of space.
Cassettes were smaller and ... more plastic; they didn't come in
cardboard covers.
For the time being, however,
Keith was
resigned to his records, record-player, and headphones.
He preferred listening to music through
headphones anyway, and this had led him to the purchase of a headphone
radio
set, which he considered to be a marked evolutionary improvement on his
old
radio, even though it was also of plastic appearance.
Probably he would get himself a pair of
headphones for his television before long, just to complete things and
bring an
absolutism to bear on each of his listening habits.
Instead of coming at one from outside the
head, as appearance, sound seemed to come at one from inside it, as
essence,
and this constituted, to him, a far more theocratic way of
listening-in,
suitable for an ongoing transcendental age.
With people living in ever-closer proximity to one another in
large
residential conglomerates, it was imperative to minimize noise and thus
cultivate a headphone exclusivity. Probably a time would come when listening to
music or speech without headphones would, in any case, be unlawful. At present, with walls and houses fairly
materialistic, it wasn't particularly necessary to put what might be
called
'relativistic listening' under ban. Such
a ban would be irrelevant, in any case, to an open society. But with the future development of less
materialistic and more transcendental types of accommodation, with
comparatively thin walls, it followed that 'absolutist listening' would
become
obligatory, in order to minimize neighbour disturbances and, more
importantly,
encourage an increasingly theocratic lifestyle, suitable to a closed
society. A headphone absolutism would
then be the rule rather than, as at present, the exception.
Keith knew from experience
of certain
neighbours, past and present, in his own lodgings that there were more
than a
few noise fools still at large. Time
would eventually catch-up with them, as with everyone.
And as if this thought prompted it, he
glanced down at his digital watch in order to consult the time:
To be sure, there was a
definite
evolutionary progression from the plastic winder to the plastic
digital, as, on
lower terms, from democratic to anti-democratic watches, though perhaps
devolutionary progression would be a more applicable description there! Whatever the case, a watch, no less than
outer clothing, could tell one something about a man's ideological
leaning
and/or class integrity. The same could
even be said of spectacles, which appeared to reflect, in their
different
constructions, various stages of ideological evolution and
corresponding levels
of class allegiance. Why, he himself was
- and had long been - the wearer of a pair of round-lens, metal-rimmed
glasses
which, in spite of the metal, he now supposed to indicate a bourgeois
democratic allegiance, to his slight embarrassment.
It seemed to him that opticals
had evolved from the absolutist autocratic level of the monocle, a
single lens,
to the relative right-wing democratic level of metal-rimmed spectacles,
from
where a further evolution had taken place in the form of plastic
spectacles, as
germane to a left-wing democratic level, before the emergence of
communistic
one-piece spectacles, such as suggested a pair of goggles stretching,
in a
gentle curve, right across the face, and which thus appeared absolutist
within
a democratic context - both eyes covered, after the fashion of
conventional
spectacles, the lens plastic, the frame metallic. Clearly,
he
didn't want either a pair of
plastic democratic spectacles or a pair (if that's the correct word) of
plastic/metallic anti-democratic ones.
If he ever abandoned 'granny glasses', it would have to be in a
theocratic direction, which of course meant the purchase of contact
lenses -
something Keith could, as yet, ill-afford.
However, he could speculate,
and did so on
the basis that hard-lens contacts were somehow petty bourgeois or
neo-oriental,
meaning transcendental in a contemporary Western way, whereas the
soft-lens
variety suggested a more radically transcendent bias appropriate, he
supposed,
to a Social Transcendentalist allegiance. Thus,
ideally,
a pair of soft-lens contacts
for someone who dressed in all-black and wore a plastic digital watch,
confirming a radically theocratic ideological integrity.
Probably the future would witness the
emergence of a one-lens contact fashion; a soft lens, in other words,
for one
eye only, antithetical, in its interiorized absolutism, to the
exteriorized
monocle absolutism of autocratic allegiance.
Did not the monocle lead to dual lenses minus wings, to pince-nez,
the
frame
of which had to be clipped onto the nose and held or perched
there
without reference to ears? A kind of
absolute relativity preceding the development of spectacles-proper,
which
reflected a more extensively relative, and hence democratic, integrity,
a
right-angle formed between lenses and wings, the frame no longer simply
a
support for lenses but embracing, in addition to a nose clip, a pair of
metallic wings, one for each ear. Well,
if autocratic precedent was anything to judge by, why shouldn't contact
lenses,
which simply fit over the eye, be superseded, in due course, by a
contact lens
... in response to the requirements of a more absolutist theocratic age? A progression from the relativistic
absolutism, as it were, of a Social Transcendentalist stage of
theocratic
allegiance to the absolutist absolutism, so to speak, of a
Super-transcendentalist stage, when, if justice is to be done, the
world will
tend towards a theocratic unity, thus completing human evolution not
only with
regard to optics but to everything else as well!
Yet that is still a good way
off, and most
people with a theocratic leaning can do no better, in the meantime,
than to
purchase and wear a pair of contact lenses, preferably of the soft-lens
type. Keith was looking forward to doing
this, in order to be able to harmonize his appearance and essence, or
ideological integrity, all along the line.
At present he was thinking as a Social Transcendentalist and
looking,
with regard to spectacles, like a right-wing democrat!
Something had to be done about this,
and the sooner the better! He was no
longer the bourgeois naturalist of
some years ago, but a proletarian supernaturalist,
for
whom
the absolute was of paramount importance.
And what applied to optics
applied no less
to sex, where, by contrast, a supernaturalism had long reigned supreme
in his
solitary life in the form of a voyeuristic/masturbatory appreciation of
heterosexual pornography, derived from various quality men's magazines,
which
seemed to constitute a sexuality complete in itself.
His indulgences were, on the whole, very
moderate, no more than once a week, and he usually made sure that his
concentration was focused on the vagina of any specifically congenial
models,
in order to keep his sexuality as supernatural as possible. Deviations embracing the rump and/or anus he
regarded as a left-wing form of theocratic sexuality, permissible
though not
essential to the main supernatural trend.
He knew himself to be predominantly right-wing, and hence
straight. He would occasionally joke to
himself that
there was only one alternative to being right: namely wrong. And this applied no less to right-wing
communist sex, involving homosexual pornography, than to left-wing
theocratic
sex, though, obviously, even that was preferable to the left-wing
communist
variety, such as involved the sodomitic
violation of
man by man. If homosexuals were 'bent',
then those who used homosexual pornography for voyeuristic/masturbatory
purposes were still 'bent', only slightly less so, since given to the
appreciation of a perverse theocratic dimension, endemic to this kind
of
pornography, which suggested a Leninist influence.
Better a right-wing communist integrity, in
his opinion, than a left-wing (Marxist) one.
But better by far a right-wing theocratic integrity! He was glad that his sexuality was
supernatural rather than anti-natural, 'hetero' as opposed to 'homo'.
But he was becoming
dissatisfied with
pornography alone, which seemed to put too great an idealistic strain
on
him. He wondered whether, in view of his
other preferences, it wasn't time to purchase a plastic inflatable, a
so-called
'sex doll', in order to have access to a more bodily and apparent form
of
supernatural sexual activity. Some of
the sex dolls on the market were relatively inexpensive, no more than
£30, and
came with a variety of sexy lingerie to stimulate one's lust and enable
one, if
desirable, to approach sex with rapist's intent. Of
course,
for those who could afford it,
there were all sorts of additional qualities, back passage and talking
mouth
included. But he knew that he was a long
way from becoming a connoisseur in such matters and that a more modest
start
would probably be to his advantage, enabling him to feel his way by
degrees. There were, after all, certain
advantages in
possessing a plastic inflatable. She
(it) couldn't turn one away, pleading ill-health or a period or
business
obligations or an indifferent mood.
There would be no B.O. or farts or back-chat or bad breath or scratchings or bites.
One wouldn't have to worry about getting her pregnant or of
contracting
a venereal or other disease from her.
There would be no contraceptive expenses and no need to date her
on a
regular or, indeed, any basis. In fact,
one wouldn't even have to dress her, if fetishism was not in one's line
or one
regarded clothing as irrelevant to the sexual act, a further
unnecessary
expense. And one could make love to her
in any old fashion one pleased, never fearing an objection or criticism.
To be sure, the plastic
supernatural was
certainly preferable, on a number of counts, to the fleshy natural, and
anyone
who considered himself a supernaturalist
would sooner
or later have to come to terms with sex dolls, if he wanted to remain
consistently theocratic and not regress to or remain the victim of a
naturalistic and democratic mode of sexuality.
There was a place for copulation as well as masturbation in
Social
Transcendentalism, provided they were artificial and, hence,
supernatural. Artificial copulation would
correspond, in a
manner of speaking, to the 'Social' side of this radical theocracy,
artificial
masturbation, or masturbation induced by a pornographic stimulus on
computer
disc and preferably availing itself of the services of a plastic gadget
...
such as would contain the spermatic discharge, to its 'Transcendental'
side,
no-one required to be absolutist on the higher, or pornographic, side,
each man
having a personal bias one way or the other, some doubtless balanced
between
the two sides, himself very much given to the transcendent. Though, of course, a pornographic absolutism
would become the ideal, if not the norm, in the course of time, as
Social
Transcendentalism was duly superseded by Super-transcendentalism, its more absolutist goal.
And what applies to men
(become supermen) also
applies to women who, in a radically theocratic society, would be
encouraged
(as quasi-supermen) to utilize plastic vibrators as their apparent,
bodily
equivalent to sex dolls, an essential side of sexual activity,
doubtless
manifesting on the level of late-teenage computer pornography,
co-existing with
this lower side and eventually completely superseding it, with the
emergence of
Super-transcendentalism. As to communist
sex, whether of the Western Left or the Eastern Right, not a chance! A closed society of Social Transcendentalist
integrity would place it under ban. Only
the supernatural would be respectable.
And Keith knew this better than anyone else.
Yes, he would get a plastic inflatable before
long, if only for very occasional use.
Then there would be a little more plastic in his room, perhaps
even
enough, if the lino was also taken into account, to tip the balance
away from
wood. At least there wasn't very much
steel in evidence, 'granny glasses' notwithstanding!
SUPERNATURAL
UPGRADING
You've
got
this
thing about the natural and the anti-natural, not to mention the
supernatural and the anti-supernatural, which you equate with moderate
right
and left wing, extreme right- and left-wing respectively.
Being something of a poet, you like to melt
away the borders between subjects and make them overlap,
interpenetrate,
relate, in a synthetic, and hence theocratic, perspective.
You believe, in accordance with the
prevailing Zeitgeist,
that
everything can and should be politicized, not
just sport and religion but ... well, sex, clothing, watches,
spectacles, and
... what would appear to be your latest concern - namely food and drink. You claim that there is an ideological
significance to everything, every little aspect of our civilized
behaviour
conforming to some class and/or ideological position.
Only the philosophical poet would seem
qualified, with his supernatural bias, to penetrate the surface of our
customs
and reveal their ideological depths, their inner essences.
You are such a being and you dig deeper than
most in your quest for the essence of things.
Now you are claiming that food and drink should also be
scrutinized from
a supernatural, or theocratic, point of view, since eating and drinking
habits
are no less revealing of a class and/or ideological position than ...
well,
sexual and sartorial ones.
These days you favour meat
derived from
birds - turkeys, chickens, capons. You
claim that such meat appeals to a transcendental taste, birds being
flying
creatures (though doubtfully very gracefully so, in the case of the
above-mentioned ones!), whereas lamb, pork, and beef, extracted from
sheep,
pigs, and cows respectively, suggest a more down-to-earth or stolid
quality
which you apparently fight shy of in your transcendental wisdom. For the past year you have eaten virtually no
other meat but turkey and chicken, with the notable exception of a
little lamb,
pertaining to your doner kebabs, on
Sundays, and some
cod - if fish be meat - on Fridays.
Usually you eat small roast potatoes with your winged meat, not
particularly ideal, you claim, but tolerable all the same, since
suggestive, in
contrast to large roast potatoes, of a petty-bourgeois as opposed to a
bourgeois equivalent. At any rate, still
recognizably naturalistic - unlike chips, which are made from lacerated
potatoes, or spuds sliced into elongated segments, and which appear, in
their
fried skins, quite divorced from the natural - indeed, bearing in mind
their
genesis, positively anti-natural, so many 'proton' segments cut from
the
'atomic' unity of a potato, a progressive devolution to separate pieces. Why, you're so convinced of their
anti-natural and hence left-wing status, these days, that you've
seriously
contemplated giving them up altogether, even though you only eat them
once a
week, in conjunction with cod. You feel
that, while they may be relevant to industrial proletarians, they're
something
of a slap in the face to you, a man who is very consciously
transcendentalist
in his ideological integrity. You would
rather eat something more supernatural, like mashed potatoes, which, in
contrast to chips, suggest an 'electron' whole of undifferentiated
unity. Probably mashed potatoes are
theocratic,
whereas roast potatoes are democratic and chips ... anti-democratic in
one degree
or another, depending on the size, e.g. length and breadth, of the
chips in
question. Clearly, while some are
arguably democratic socialist, others, more slender and elongated,
could be
described as radical socialist, conforming to a kind of Marxist
equivalent. You can abide the former to
some extent but not, apparently, the latter.
And not those which have been indented in a wavy fashion either,
suggestive of solomonic
columns! You tend to endow them with a
Marxist-Leninist equivalent, the waviness bringing them closer, in your
estimation, to the supernaturalism of mashed potatoes, as if a
theocratic
(Leninist?) dimension had been infused into a fundamentally
anti-democratic
constitution, making them superior to the purely Marxist, or plain,
chip, but
still inferior, for all that, to mashed potatoes, particularly the most
synthetic pre-cooked mash which comes in a plastic packet and only
requires to
be heated in some boiling water before being eaten.
Now you feel that such take-away mash is the
best form of potato, superior to both the natural and the anti-natural
in every
way. Eaten in conjunction with frozen
food generally, it would constitute a significant ingredient in a theocratically-biased dinner, suggesting a
dematerialized
spud appropriate to a supernatural requirement, the antithesis to the subnatural, autocratic spud of a jacket-potato
menu. Not for you the jacket potato! You would probably prefer to eat wavy chips
than that, even if they are communist, albeit on seemingly right-wing
(Leninist)
terms. Rather the democratic roast
potato than the autocratic jacket potato!
Though better again the theocratic mash.
Nevertheless your eating habits don't always keep pace with your
ideological development, probably because you tend, in spite of your
theocratic
ideals, to regard the personal and public selves as distinct, and to a
point
where the more progressive the latter becomes, the more regressive or
reactionary appears the former, as if to compensate you for your
professional
extremism. Can you never break away from
relativity? It seems doubtful.
However, now that you've
'come clean' about
your food preferences (at least with regard to meat and spuds), you
might as
well continue by recording your preferences in drink, attempting, as
you
proceed, to outline a class and/or ideological position where drinking
habits
are concerned. For instance, it is known
that you won't drink beer because you equate it with an anti-natural,
though
specifically Protestant, bias and are inclined, by contrast, to see in
wine a
Catholic alternative ... suggestive of a natural, or early natural,
constitution. You prefer grapes to hops,
the sweet to the sour, a positive taste to
a negative
one. But even beer is preferable, in
your opinion, to the more extreme anti-natural drinks that seem to
derive from
it in some way, like ginger beer or shandy
or tinned
lager. You find lager even more
distasteful than beer, the analogy with fizzy piss always coming to
mind when
you're induced to drink it. For you,
wine is right wing and beer ... left wing, the one stemming from or
endemic to
a conservative tradition, the other liberal, if not, in its extreme
manifestations, radical socialist. But
you don't much care for cola either, probably because it also suggests
an anti-natural
constitution, if one that transcends the anti-natural in some degree
and which
could, in consequence, be accorded a partly supernatural status on the
strength, for instance, of the fizzy upsurge of air bubbles.... Would
the
notion of an anti-supernatural equivalent be totally irrelevant here? You don't think so, since it seems that some
'super' element, like the fizz, has been brought to bear on a
fundamentally
anti-natural taste, the artificial concoction of the actual cola drink. Of course, these artificial drinks are
morally preferable to lager and beer, not to mention shandy
and ginger beer. But, ideally, you would
rather have a supernatural drink, a natural drink upgraded, as it were,
to the
fizzy status of the theocratic, like, say, a lemonade or some
alternative
fruity drink that would seem to have succeeded both lemon and orange
squash,
which, on account of their naturalism, may be accorded a democratic
equivalent.
Yes, you don't particularly
mind these
squashy drinks, but are prepared to regard their fizzy counterparts as
morally
and ideologically superior, suitable to those with a distinctly
supernatural
bias, for whom lemons and oranges would presumably be taboo. And that, you would claim, applies to raw
fruit in general, apples and pears included.
You always prefer flavoured yoghurt, particularly a strawberry
or a
raspberry one, which has transcended natural fruit on a supernatural
basis. You don't care too much for
anti-natural fruit pies, where the filling, particularly in the case of
apple,
has been cut into tiny segments, reminiscent of chips.
There are, however, certain contemporary
apple pies that appear to be supernatural in some degree, on account of
the
filling being liquefied, and you regard them as reflecting an
anti-supernatural
bias, superior to the chunky apple pies.
But while you used to eat such liquefied apple pies, you now eat
only
yoghurts, which you regard as more suitable to a transcendental taste. Similarly, you prefer liquefied cheese to
either cheese slices or chunks, though you're still occasionally to be
found
eating slices, as when you buy a doner
kebab with
cheese.
But that brings the subject
back to food,
and you were expatiating on drink, with especial reference to the
supernatural
and, in the case of cola, anti-supernatural, which you equated with a
right-wing communist bias. You don't
care for spirits, like gin and whisky, since they suggest, in their
unadulterated constitution, a subnatural
and
virtually autocratic integrity, beneath the pale of a theocratic taste. Yet you do like milk and drink it regularly,
though it's the most natural of all drinks and somewhat inferior, in
consequence, to milkshakes, those supernaturally flavoured milk drinks
that you
used to guzzle as a boy. These days,
flavoured milk can be purchased in supermarkets, large and small, and
you would
do well to buy some in future, to complement your yoghurt-eating habits. It won't be shaked
though, so if you want a truly supernatural milk drink, replete with
bubbles,
you'll have to visit a milk bar or get a mixer in order to shake your
own
flavoured milk. If you start to drink
lemonade and orangeade, you might as well drink milkshakes too, and so
bring
all your drinking habits into line on the supernatural level. Yet you had better avoid the anti-milk drinks
like tea and coffee, which dilute the milk to such an extent that it is
no
longer recognizable as milk but subordinate to the tea or
coffee - the
actual hot drink. Most such drinks are
anti-natural and, hence, left wing in one degree or another; though
whipped
coffee (with cream) is partly supernatural and therefore of an
anti-supernatural equivalent, preferable to plain coffee.
Hot drinks predominantly made from milk are,
of course, less anti-natural than those in which hot water predominates. A cold whipped coffee may also be partly
supernatural, like a coffee-flavoured milkshake. At
any
rate, the chances are that it will
betoken a right-wing communist, as opposed to a left-wing socialist,
integrity,
preferable to a plain (unwhipped) coffee,
but still
inferior, for all that, to a genuine milkshake, whether or not
coffee-flavoured. For a cold whipped
coffee is still a coffee, i.e. a drink in which milk is subordinated
to, and
thus diluted by, the coffee, whereas a milkshake is a flavoured milk
drink. You can't fail to perceive the
distinction, which is, after all, between the anti-supernatural and the
supernatural. Though
it is admittedly less apparent than between the anti-natural and the
natural,
such as you have been referring to with regard to coffee and milk.
Certainly, it seems that you
prefer the
natural to the anti-natural, while reserving a place of honour for the
supernatural. You don't envisage people
gravitating from the anti-natural to the supernatural; though it's just
possible that the anti-supernatural will bring anti-naturalists closer,
in due
course, to a supernatural position, from which a transcendental
upgrading may
be effected ... compliments of the supernatural themselves. You are probably right about that, as about
most other things, Mr. Crosby.
CENTRIST
SEXUALITY
A
Social
Transcendentalist's
favoured sexuality is not atomic, as between a
proton woman
and a bound-electron man, still less anti-atomic, as between two men,
but ...
post-atomic or, which amounts to approximately the same thing, of a
free-electron integrity. There is, to be
sure, a relativity involved, but it is decidedly post-atomic, as
between the
particle and wavicle sides of the electron. Social Transcendentalists are absolutist but,
paradoxically, in a relative kind of way.
They should alternate between the two sides of the electron, as
between
plastic inflatables, or 'sex dolls', and
computer
erotica - the former confirming a bodily (particle) approach to sex,
albeit one
that is supernatural; the latter confirming a mental (wavicle)
approach to it, again of a supernatural bias.
For women or, rather, quasi-supermen, vibrators should be
substituted
for 'sex dolls' and, in respect of mental sex, masculine rather than
feminine
erotica, that is to say, erotica involving a male model, should be the
order of
the day. Probably late-teenage juvenile
erotica will come to replace the adult varieties in the course of
post-atomic
time, confirming a supra-natural as opposed to a merely supernatural
integrity,
as appropriate to a Centrist civilization.
It is to be hoped that, with the second phase of the
post-humanist
millennium ... pertinent to Super-transcendentalism, such erotica will
supersede any inflatable/ pornographic relativity, bringing
supra-natural sex
to a mental (wavicle) climax in ...
pornographic
absolutism. Thus whereas supermen will
still have recourse to bodily sex, superbeings,
their
hypermeditating successors, will be above
it, though
not as far above it, paradoxically, as the superhuman brain collectivizations
of the ensuing post-human millennium!
Be that as it may, the
gradual progression
away from natural sex will be endemic to theocratic Centrism, which
will
champion a supra-natural rather than a merely supernatural sexuality. If there is a link between plastic digital
watches and sex, it could only be with regard to a mature teenage
erotica, that
comparatively new genre - relative to computer disc - succeeding the
strictly
adult varieties such that utilize persons of twenty-one or over. Nevertheless supernaturalism is morally
preferable to naturalism, being a kind of petty-bourgeois sexuality in
contrast
to bourgeois sex, a fascistic as opposed to conservative integrity. It is the antithesis to subnatural
sex, such as involves recourse to masturbation in a merely physical
context -
independently, in other words, of pornographic stimuli.
Such purely masturbatory sex would be deeply
frowned upon from a supernatural and/or supra-natural point of view,
just as it
is avoided, if not frowned upon, by naturalists, with their atomic
compromise. Even the Catholic Church,
that grand-bourgeois subnaturalism,
condemns
masturbation as the sin of Onan; though
there are
undoubtedly priests who are - or have been - its victims, living, as
they do,
in a subnatural way in priestly celibacy. No doubt, this keeps them closer to the
Father, as does their ankle-length cassocks, those dress-like garments
confirming a superfeminine integrity ...
symptomatic
of a deep-vaginal symbolism. Decidedly
the proton side of things, against which the state, and hence bourgeois
naturalism, rears its atomic head, as particle electrons set about wavicle protons in a heterosexual relativity of
give-and-take, the man's penis sexually active within the woman's
receptive
vagina, corresponding to the DC side of atomic electricity, a
direct-current
flow of copulation culminating in orgasm.
If subnatural masturbatory sex was
(is) DC in
reverse, a taking rather than giving, then natural sex most definitely
drives
it ahead into the woman, who gratefully receives the proffered charge
of
spermatic release, becoming part of the DC in orgasmic response.
But heterosexual
relationships, like
electricity, are relative, as between DC and AC, or alternating
current, and we
may equate the latter with conversation, that two-way give-and-take, as
questions and answers, information and opinions, flow back and forth
between
partners. If DC corresponds to the
Church, including the Protestant one, then AC is equivalent to the
State and,
in typical bourgeois relations, it will predominate over the former,
cementing
the physical relationship with the shared impressions and beliefs of
the mental
one, the former corresponding to the Protestant Church, the latter to
its
political concomitance in the Democratic State, itself divisible into
give and
take, capitalism and socialism, plutocracy and bureaucracy.
However, as the State
evolves, it follows
that the AC will increasingly predominate over the DC in marital and
other
relationships, so that, from a liberal balance between give-and-take,
we find,
through Democratic Socialism and/or Social Democracy, a progressive
imbalance
on the side of taking, relative to an escalation of bureaucratic
socialism. And the same applies to sexual
relationships,
as physical sex goes into decline, one way or another, and conversation
becomes
increasingly prevalent, even to the point where it apparently
necessitates a
switch from women and men, in heterosexual relations, to men only, as
homosexual criteria take over, with the sexual concomitant of the
further
decline of physical sex in outright anal violation (assuming any
physical sex
may still be said to apply at all) with this point of AC hegemony,
corresponding to a Marxist bureaucracy of preponderant taking. Not, in all fairness, that this AC
near-absolutism is all-pervasive in contemporary Western or, indeed,
any other
society. For while
homosexuals very definitely exist, they're not in the majority where
sexual and/or
social habits are concerned. If
they are equivalent, in political terms, to a Marxist purism, or
left-wing
Communism, we should not forget that all other shades of political, not
to
mention sexual, identification still exist in the West, particularly in
Britain, with its unbroken democratic traditions stretching back
several
centuries. Similarly, Marxist
bureaucracy, as applying to the Welfare State, co-exists with
Conservative
plutocracy, and will doubtless continue to do so until history may
decide
otherwise.
However, if the development
of alternating
current at the expense of direct current has characterized the State's
evolution, we will find that the emergence within the modern, pluralist
state
of Centrist, or supernatural, tendencies has given a new lease-of-life
to DC,
with particular reference to the sexual use of pornography and plastic inflatables, so that sexual giving has come for
some
people, still perhaps a minority, to replace either DC/AC relativity or
AC
absolutism, if, indeed, 'replace' is the correct word.
In other words, they consistently partake of
a supernatural giving vis-à-vis the artificial sex-partners of their
choosing,
whether with regard to a particular pornographic model or,
alternatively, their
favourite, if not only, plastic inflatable.
Conversation between the supernaturalists
and
their artificial partners is necessarily ruled out (at any rate, as a
rule),
and a superior DC absolutism than the subnatural
masturbatory purism is the inevitable result, corresponding to a
fascistic
integrity. And yet, if a petty-bourgeois
folksy integrity suits some people - at present only a comparatively
small
minority - it should not be forgotten that a specifically
petty-bourgeois
right-wing sexual integrity will also suit some people, probably not
such a
small minority, in which DC tends to predominate over AC, or physical
sex over
conversation, though not simply in terms of coitus but, rather, with
regard to
oral sex, especially fellatio, which, in contrast to cunnilingus,
confirms a masculine
bias, suitable to a petty-bourgeois age.
Having one's penis 'sucked off' by a liberated female is not
only a
pleasurable experience for the person concerned, but one that reflects
male
domination and, hence, the ascendancy, within a relative context, of
the
neutron side of an atomic divide, inducing an 'intellectualized'
sexuality
germane, in all probability, to an Ecological, or 'Green', political
integrity.
Which is, after all, quite
distinct from
the bisexual anal-violation of a social democratic integrity and, so I
contend,
antithetical to the grand-bourgeois relative subnaturalism
of a bias for cunnilingus, that Whiggish
predecessor
of heterosexual naturalism. No doubt,
there is still a fair amount of tongue-oriented vagina-grovelling sex
going on
these days, whether because the people involved are - or consider
themselves to
be - grand-bourgeois types or whether because, whoever they may be,
they are
simply ignorant of the ideological implications of their behaviour ...
I leave
for others to decide. Suffice it to say
that cunnilingus is not indicative of a masculine superiority and/or
ascendancy
but, on the contrary, is relative to a pre-bourgeois subatomic age, so
that its
continual indulgence smacks of the anachronistic, not to say absurd. A truly right-wing petty-bourgeois sex, in a
liberal society, will always favour fellatio, appropriate to an
Ecological as
opposed to a Whiggish orientation. And it could be argued that a penis in a
woman's mouth is a good way of preventing conversation, even if one
cannot, in
the relative nature of such a sexual integrity, keep it there all the
sucking
time but must succumb, sooner or later, if not to actual copulation
then, at
any rate, to actual conversation, whether or not about sex ...
I again
leave for others to decide. Only an
extreme right-wing petty-bourgeois sex, relative to heterosexual
pornography
and/or inflatables, will be permanently
elevated
above AC relativity!
However, having stressed the
fellatio
aspect of Ecological sex at the expense of the coital aspect, and the
cunnilingus side of Whiggish sex in the
same way, I
should belatedly point out that coitus is not the only side of
Conservative
sex, there being an oral side to it as well which, though such an
argument may
seem academic, we can estimate as approximating a balance between
cunnilingus
and fellatio, applicable to a bourgeois relativity.
Thus moderate heterosexual sex also has its
vaguely supernatural, or wavicle, side,
albeit one
stressing a balanced dualism appropriate to an atomic integrity ... in
which
proton-wavicle cunnilingus and neutron-wavicle fellatio complement the particle/wavicle relativity of actual copulation. Now actual copulation, whether conventional
or otherwise, isn't something that can be divorced from other stages
and types
of 'fringe' sexual activity either, even the most extreme, including
the
supra-natural recourse to plastic inflatables,
which,
if
it doesn't reflect a fascist integrity in bodily sex, must surely
reflect a
Centrist one, germane to a new civilization; though if inflatables
and soft-core juvenile pornography would co-exist during a Social
Transcendentalist phase of such a
civilization, there would be a shift towards a wavicle
absolutism with its Super-transcendentalist phase, thus rendering
recourse to inflatables obsolete, as
hard-core juvenile pornography,
still of course relative to computer discs and involving consenting
mature
teenagers, increasingly came to the fore.
Such supra-natural sex might alternatively be defined as supercultural, and I propose a new
terminological strategy
for distinguishing between the relative and absolute phases of Centrist
sexuality, viz. supra-natural for the former and supercultural
for the latter.
Furthermore, one should
distinguish more
closely between the supernatural and the supra-natural; for it seems to
me that
supernatural sex, corresponding to a petty-bourgeois folksy integrity,
can
likewise be divided into two phases, viz. a supernatural relativity
between inflatables and soft-core adult
pornography and, again at
the risk of seeming unduly academic, a supernatural absolutism
involving
hard-core pornography alone, this latter tending to induce masturbation
and
thereby weakening the urge to copulate. So a classical fascistic sexuality, beyond the
relativity of
sex-doll copulation. Could it be,
I wonder, that plastic inflatables
modelled on adult
women, with large breasts, correspond to a petty-bourgeois folksy
sexuality,
whereas a proletarian folksy or even folkish
sexual
integrity would require, in conjunction with soft-core juvenile
pornography,
that inflatables were modelled on teenage
girls of
between, say, sixteen and nineteen years of age, and thus had small
breasts. Again, the distinction may seem
academic, but it is, after all, between the supernatural and the
supra-natural. So I shouldn't be at all
surprised if sex dolls came, in the future, to level with supra-natural
requirement.
But if the supra-natural is
above and not
just beyond the natural, then we need not doubt that it is the
antithesis of
that which, in pagan civilization, was beneath the natural, viz. the
unnatural. Some people will doubtless be
puzzled by such a term, but I use it to distinguish between the subnatural before the natural, pertinent to
extreme
grand-bourgeois criteria, and the very subnatural
sexual behaviour which, with regard to pagan civilization, confirms an
aristocratic integrity more beneath than before the natural. Thus while supernaturalism leads to
supra-naturalism, so, at the opposite extreme, does unnaturalism
lead to subnaturalism.
Yet, contrary to fascist and centrist
integrities, the relative does not lead to the absolute, as from
supernaturalism to supra-naturalism, but the absolute leads to the
relative, as
from unnatualism to subnaturalism,
germane
to
a stemming from the Father rather than, as in the former case, an
aspiration towards the Holy Ghost.
So, to take the
grand-bourgeois extremism
appertaining to Cromwellian
parliamentarianism first,
we may note a progression from subnatural
masturbation,
with or without accompanying fantasies, to subnatural
intercourse with young teenage girls ... in a kind of juvenile
paedophilia. But beneath this, and
preparatory to it, we will find an aristocratic extremism, appertaining
to
pagan criteria, of unnatural masturbation ... induced by erotic
sculpture,
leading in unnatural relative time to paedophilia, or the sexual
violation of
children, particularly young boys. Which
would probably apply more to the ancient Greeks and Romans than, say,
to
certain very early pagan peoples, like the Egyptians and Assyrians, who
would
probably have been more given to bestiality, or intercourse with
animals,
particularly sheep, goats, dogs, and mules, though still disposed to
children
on occasion.
However, whatever the
literal case,
unnatural sex would have preponderated over natural sex for a majority
of men;
although, judging by the fact of procreation, they evidently still had
time for
natural sex as well! These days, by
contrast, such unnatural intercourse (not to mention its subnatural
successor) is beneath the bourgeois pale and subject, if indulged, to
prosecution. We cannot reasonably expect
either bestiality or paedophilia to be condoned, and it is extremely
unlikely
that intercourse with children will ever be legalized.
The majority of people may not, as yet, be
supernatural, still less supra-natural, but we're heading towards a
supra-natural age when 'girlish' sex dolls and mature juvenile
pornography will
be the rule, as much above natural sex as erotic sculpture and
paedophilia ...
were beneath it.
Of course, these days there
is quite a lot
of left-wing homosexuality about. But
sodomy, or sexual intercourse between men, is distinct from pederasty,
or the
anal violation of children - specifically boys.
It's an anti-natural, not an unnatural, sexuality, deplorable
from a
supernatural (not to say supra-natural) point of view, but still
relative to
the age, and seemingly perfectly permissible within a liberal society. Only in a Centrist society would it, together
with its right-wing counterpart of homosexual pornography, be illegal
and
subject, if pursued, to suppression.
But, then, so would a number of other sexual integrities,
including,
ironically, the supernatural. And as the
supra-natural increasingly came to the fore, so, as if to complement
it, would
artificial means of reproduction, entailing, amongst other things, the
use of
sperm banks and artificial insemination, thereby permitting adults to
live
absolutely independent lives on the level of supra-naturalism. The final sexual revolution may not be
destined to occur for some time yet, but when it does ... being
revolutionary
will entail more than merely political extremism. The
true
revolutionary is extreme all
along the line, and he must struggle mercilessly against sexual
reaction
... no less than against every other kind of reaction!
Thus speaks Neil Tobin,
sexual spokesperson
for the Social Transcendentalist revolution.
WRITERLY
PRINT
I
have
to
confess that I'm not purely a 'typer', or
author who
types-up his work without reference to a manuscript, but a writer or,
more
correctly, scribbler who later types-up what he has scribbled. Generally, I scribble in the morning and type
in the afternoon, typing-up the morning's scribble.
I pride myself on this arrangement, since it
makes for variety and is beneficial to my health, particularly with
regard to
my eyes and stomach, which would become respectively strained and
ulcerated,
were I to make a point of typing all day, like some authors. For me, there is too much physicality in the
use of a typewriter, even the small portable one I use, so I prefer the
usually
more relaxing medium of scribble, which I also find more intimate.
I always scribble with a
black felt-tipped
pen, not only because I like its facile motion across the page but, no
less
importantly, because it confers a kind of supernatural bias on my
scribbling
and is appropriate to such scribble. Why, you may wonder, do I scribble and not
write, meaning to write clearly and carefully, if not beautifully. The simple answer is that, being a supernaturalist, I prefer truth to beauty, and
scribble is
the best and most suitable way of conveying the Truth.
In other words, it makes no claim to beauty,
to belles
lettres in a
merely technical sense, but enables one to pursue one's ideas at
maximum speed,
the very speed necessary for the acquirement and development of a high
degree
of inspiration commensurate with the rapid flow of one's thought. Write carefully, with special attention to
the formation of the lettering, and you get bogged down in
technicalities,
sacrificing truth to beauty, or essence to appearance.
No, I am no 'belle-lettrist',
in any sense of that term, but a confirmed scribbler, and have been so
for some
years now, to the general advantage of the Truth. Those
who
pursue truth must abandon beauty,
and not merely in their style or technique ... but in their lifestyle
generally. Hence the
absence of women in my life and its consequent freedom from enslavement
to the
Beautiful. Had I acquired a
beautiful woman some years ago, when I almost did, I would never have
got to
this. I may not even have become a
writer in the first place, or, if I had, it would probably have been on
a less
supernatural level than that to which I'm now accustomed.
However, speculation aside, I know for sure
that the pursuit of truth requires the abandonment of beauty, and the
nearer
one gets to the Truth, the more must one abandon the Beautiful,
since
the formless and the formal are ever antithetical.
You may have perceived, reader,
that my work is formless, and this, too, is appropriate to its
supernatural status. Instead of
proceeding from A to B or M and back to A again, like most authors, I
proceed
from A-Z, with little or no hint of a recapitulation.
You can believe me when I say that it took
some time for me to get to this level, to completely abandon my
starting-point
and wind-up my work with an approximately antithetical culmination. It's as though, having begun in the Father or
some diluted equivalent thereof, I must end in the Holy Ghost,
maintaining a
forward-tending momentum throughout the work's duration.
Such work is not literary, my friend, but
poetic, and if I was once a philosopher, I have since veered towards
the
opposite extreme in accordance with my Irish temperament, which fights
shy of
literary endeavour, that middle-of-the-road creativity more suited to
the
atomic British. For me, it is philosophy
or poetry, not fiction, which, by contrast, I equate, whether in the
novel or
novella, with a democratic proclivity, in contrast to the autocratic
and
theocratic essences of the extreme disciplines.
Well, I'm no autocrat, and
it is debatable
whether my philosophy was ever genuinely autocratic.
Certainly, I now consider myself a theocrat,
and theocracy means, besides poetry in an anthological context, Social
Transcendentalism, or the ideology of the Holy Ghost.
I have scant regard for autocratic theocracy
or for democratic theocracy, just as I have scant regard for the use of
crayons
or pencils in writing, the first of which I regard as subnatural
on account of their waxy constitution, the second of which I regard as
natural
on account of their lead constitution.
Could it be, I wonder, that, in contrast to
pencils,
fountain pens conform to an anti-natural constitution by dint of
their
reliance on ink, which, unlike wax and lead, is an artificial
phenomenon? This would imply that, while
pencils were
right wing, fountain pens are left wing, albeit of a liberal rather
than a
radical persuasion. For if there is one
thing more anti-natural, or artificial, than a fountain pen, it can
only be a
biro, which contains its own synthetic ink and channels it, through a
ball-point tip, more sparingly and pointedly, as a rule, than ever the
nib of a
fountain pen can do, if indeed 'channel' is the correct word here. At any rate, there is less mess with a biro
and, compared to a fountain pen, it is relatively easy and economical
to use. It's also more absolute, in that
one doesn't
refill the slender container but simply throws it away once the ink has
run
out. This saves a lot of time and
inconvenience!
So where does it stand in
the evolutionary
spectrum - extreme anti-naturalism? Very extreme anti-naturalism?
Certainly more anti-natural than the fountain
pen, but doubtfully of a truly radical or, if a political analogy be
permissible here, communist persuasion.
More like a Democratic Socialist vis-à-vis a Liberal
distinction,
something left wing within a democratic, or atomic, writerly
system. After all, one still writes with
a biro, even if in a scribbling fashion, and the same, of course, holds
true of
fountain pens and, though I loathe to admit it, felt-tip pens, which
must also
fall within a democratic writerly
framework, if on a
relatively supernatural and, hence, very right-wing basis.
Is there not, however,
something beyond the
ball-point pen which would correspond, in its extreme anti-naturalism,
to a
communist equivalent? Doubtless you have
all heard of typewriters, and if my logical intuition is anything to
rely on,
then I think we have hit upon the truly anti-natural, anti-democratic
mode of
conveying verbal information, which doesn't so much write as print, and
thus
signifies a 'fall' (forwards) from the joined lettering of natural
writing or,
for that matter, moderately anti-natural (biro) writing and/or
scribbling ...
to the disjointed lettering of print. At
least, this is generally the case; though there are, I believe,
typewriters
which can actually write, albeit in a highly orthodox and stereotypical
kind of
way, and we may accord them a crudely supernatural significance. However, the majority of typewriters,
including my own, print, as do young children and as adults used to do
in
comparatively backward times ... such as the early Middle Ages, when
writing
was unheard of and only a relatively small number of people even knew
how to
print, that is to say, to write in a disconnected way.
And these were the favoured people, the
learned, monied, powerful, and industrious
men of a
largely subnatural age who, not
surprisingly, had
access to a subnatural mode of writing,
commensurate
with the particle side of a proton absolutism, each letter separate and
distinct, reflecting this particle apartness - an autocratic norm.
But, of course, man
progressed to joined
writing, i.e. to writing-proper, in the course of time, and we may see
in this
development a naturalism commensurate with the wavicle
side of a proton-biased atomic relativity, as germane to the Church
and, in
particular, the Catholic Church, which conforms to an attractive atomic
bias
... in contrast to the reactive proton bias of the preceding particle
kingdom. Wavicles
signify an indivisible unity, and words become wavicle
equivalents, on the protonic level, when
the
lettering of which they are formed is joined together in writerly
prose. Obviously, such a procedure must
be naturalistic, effected by hand though
guided by
mind. There is mind, too, in the subnatural mode of writing, e.g. printing, but
such as
there is would be more concerned with concentrating attention upon
appearances,
or the style of the lettering, than on essences, or that which was
being
communicated through it. A lot of
evolutionary time must pass before men give the greater part of their
attention
to content, and as we approach the modern age, an age par
excellence
of scribbling, we can rest assured that concern with essence over
appearance has reached a high-peak, if not in the case of scribblers
like
myself the peak, confirming the utmost writerly
decadence. For writing is, after all,
essentially an apparent phenomenon, since it stems from a proton
tradition, and
whilst appearances have their essences, and hence writing its content,
the
essence of the proton is ever apparent.
Paradoxical and confusing, I know; but incontrovertible
nonetheless! Much more concern with
content over form, and my writing would become illegible and therefore
thoroughly
decadent from a naturalistic point of view.
Probably it would be illegible to most people now, and even I
occasionally have to strain my brain in order to decipher it, assuming
my
memory is at fault. Fortunately by
typing-up in the afternoon what I have scribbled in the morning, I
retain in
memory most of what I 'wrote', and this greatly facilitates the
deciphering of
my text. Were I to leave a gap of three
or more days between scribbling and typing, the latter would
undoubtedly prove
a more difficult, if not impossible, task than it does at present!
As a rule, however, my
typing is fluent,
and this is all the more remarkable in that I am self-taught, not to
mention
prone to ulceration of the stomach. Yet
the typewriter - and I use the term generically - is in some sense a
decadent medium
of communication, corresponding to the particle side of an
electron-biased
atomicity, which signifies an evolutionary 'fall' (forwards) from wavicle precedent, as from the Church to the
State, and in
particular the republican state, with especial reference to people's
republics. Certainly the production by
the typewriter of disconnected lettering indicates a 'fall' from the
joined
lettering of naturalistic writing, which is the essence of such
writing, whilst
also reflecting a progression, with regard to appearances, from the
natural to the
artificial, as from writing to typing and, in a certain sense, the
bound to the
free, or the production of independent artificial lettering
(characters) which
are free, as it were, from the constraints of a proton-biased
determinism -
just as, in a wider context, republican man is free from the domination
of the
Church, and never more so than in a communist state.
Probably, if ideological inferences or
analogies are to be drawn, a manual typewriter corresponds to a Marxist
status,
whereas an electric typewriter corresponds to a Marxist-Leninist
status, as if
the addition of electricity conferred a kind of spurious, and hence
Leninist,
theocracy on the fundamentally anti-democratic, egalitarian nature of
the
typewriter and, no less importantly, typeface in question.
An improvement, no doubt, on the manual
machine, but still leaving something to be desired!
And what, from a
supernatural viewpoint, is
that something if not joined artificial lettering, and thus a return to
a wavicle status, albeit one antithetical
to the
proton-biased wavicles of naturalistic
writing. Yes, I am of course alluding to
electron wavicles, such as would conform
to a radically theocratic
status applicable to a supernatural age or society.
Now we may believe that if a manual writerly
typewriter corresponds to a fascist status, then
an electronic or, preferably, battery-run writerly
typewriter would correspond, by contrast, to a Social Transcendentalist
status
- the use of batteries signifying a more theocratic correlation than
electricity
by dint, one can only suppose, of the absence of wires, leads, plugs,
etc. So an artificiality that served a
higher, wavicle end,
the
production of the
most supernatural lettering, germane to a free-electron integrity.
Ah, I have to admit that my
little manual
typewriter is a long way from that! But
perhaps this is another reason why I disdain its use on a full-time
basis,
preferring to scribble in the morning and type-up the result in the
afternoon,
as if afraid or unwilling to completely part company with naturalism,
and hence
my Catholic roots, at the risk of becoming unduly or extensively
anti-naturalistic and thus Marxist - a not-untypical Irish position,
rarely
appreciated by the materialistic British!
Not once, in all these years of scribbling, have I ever entirely
parted
company with my scribble and proceeded to type from scratch in an
absolutely
typing framework. There is nothing of
the Shaw or Priestley about me, no left-wing allegiance.
If I prefer to scribble than to write, and to
use a black felt-tipped pen instead of a pencil, not to mention biro,
it's
because I identify more with the supernatural than with the natural and
choose
to push the natural in a supernatural direction, conscious of the
ideological
limitations imposed upon one by the inherently democratic medium of
writing,
which necessarily makes for a constricted supernaturalism analogous, in
a way,
to the supernaturalism endemic to the use of painterly art for
transcendental
ends, as in Mondrian, Kandinsky,
Rothko,
Vasarely, and other such 'supernatural'
abstractionists. Theirs is a
transcendentalism within a democratic, or canvas/painterly, tradition,
in
contrast to the fascistic transcendentalism, as it were, of the light
artist or
the Centrist transcendentalism, if you will, of the holographer,
that ultimate type of visual artist who is destined, one way or
another, to
dominate the future. Much as I would
like to utilize a writerly typewriter, I
have to
write with the tools available to me, and I can't say that I
particularly mind
this, having grown accustomed to the art of pushing a plastic pen, not
to say
resigned myself to my 'printerly' portable. I am no slave to electron-biased atomic
particles and would rather people know that I also scribble, in a
decadent
proton-biased wavicle style, than suppose
me to be
solely a typing author, like the great majority of so-called writers,
no matter
how ignorant they may be of the ideological implications of a typing
absolutism. I conform, you might say, to
the compromise between church and state of the contemporary Irish
republic:
though while this is so in technical appearances, in conceptual
essences I'm
all the time agitating against such a compromise in the name of
electron-wavicle absolutism ... as germane
to Social Transcendentalism. Such are the
paradoxes of which relative
lives are made!
Also paradoxical is the
distinction between
what might be described as the apparent and the essential means of
communication, relative to the dichotomy between, say, speech and
writing. Clearly, naturalism is not simply
a matter of
writing (I use the term in its classical bourgeois sense) but also, and
more
obviously, of speaking, and when we speak to another we talk. As it happens, I talk very rarely, being
something of a loner and, hence, supernaturalist. But talking is as important to most people as
writing, and those who write - as opposed to
scribble
- invariably talk. Talk, then, is the more
natural of the two modes of communication, and if a Christian dichotomy
between
Satan and Christ is in order here, then talk corresponds to the Devil
and
writing to the Son. Yet beneath talk -
and perhaps prior to it - there is (or was) what you may call speaking
to
oneself, a subnatural indulgence germane
to a
proton-particle absolutism, and above talk - and in a sense subsequent
to it -
there is (or will be) what you may call speaking to an artificial self,
such as
a tape-recorder or a cassette-recorder, the former equivalent to a
fascist mode
of supernatural speech, the latter commensurate, so I believe, with a
Centrist
mode of supernatural communication, whether intended for industrial,
commercial, professional, or relaxational
purposes. Such supernaturalism is
absolute, a recording of a voice that can be replayed and listened to
at a later
time, whether by the same person or another.
And it must contrast with the anti-naturalism of relative voice
recordings and/or transmissions, as in intercoms and telephones, which
invariably transform the natural voice as it is broken up into
electronic
signals and conveyed along wire to the recipient at the other end of
the
line. If a distinction between
anti-natural Marxist and anti-supernatural Marxist-Leninist ideological
equivalents is to be made, then the dialling phone probably corresponds
to the
former and the press-button phone to the latter, although the
battery-operated
digital phone would approximate to the supernatural, being more
transcendentalist, irrespective of the relativistic context of phoning
which,
increasingly these days, acquires a quasi-absolutist character in
conjunction
with the use of blank cassettes (for absences) and taped recordings
(for
messages).
Be that as it may, voice
transmissions of
whatever kind, including the use of walkie-talkies, correspond to the
apparent,
superficial side of verbal communication between people.
In contrast to the essential, profound side
... of 'literary' communication, the wavicle
as
opposed to the particle side. And we
find such a distinction in most other aspects of human experience,
including
the sexual, where it takes the form of a coital/oral dichotomy,
specifically in
bourgeois heterosexual relations ... as germane to an atomic age and
society. Elsewhere, in my evolving
oeuvre, I have defined the archetypal Social Transcendentalist
sexuality as
implying a compromise between sex-doll copulation on the apparent, or
'social'
side, and mature juvenile pornographic voyeurism on the essential, or
'transcendental' side, this latter, pertaining to computer discs, a
late-teenage sublimated oral equivalent intended for the head. Similarly, I could define the archetypal
Social Transcendentalist verbal modes of communication as implying a
compromise
between cassette and/or digital speech on the apparent, particle side
and ...
electric and/or battery writerly-typing on
the
essential, wavicle side, with the
emphasis, so far as
possible, on the latter. Could it be, I
wonder, that aural communication is destined to wither and die as
supernaturalism evolves, in the course of Centrist time, into
supra-naturalism? Yes, I believe so,
though this isn't to say
there is any guarantee that 'literary' communication will continue
throughout
the duration of the next civilization either.
Probably it, too, is destined to make way for something higher,
born
from the essential and completely transcending all appearances, even
'literary'
ones. The ultimate
verbal communication between men, the antithesis of early pagan sign
language,
a developing telepathy as the utilitarian complement to a developing
awareness
in beatific spirituality. Now
that, after all, is something above all thought, the pure awareness of
absolute
mind, the wavicle side of the electron,
the superconscious at its most refined, a
true essence of
nonverbal being!
Yes, even superior to
telepathy; though we
need not seek to underestimate the direct transference of thought from
one mind
to another. For
telepathy is not, to say the least, an everyday occurrence, and few of
us can
lay claim to such an achievement.
Yet is there any reason, on that account, why it should not
become a
norm of communication in the more advanced future, when appearances,
even on
the level of writerly typing, should
become
increasingly taboo? As far as verbal
communication is concerned, telepathy would signify a stage beyond such
means
to one that completely transcends appearances, even on the most refined
wavicle level. For
if
writing
is intended to be silently read, to be thought through as if an
indirect form of telepathy, then the direct transference of thought
would likewise
maintain a silence, transcending all recourse to speech.
This silence would surely complement the
peace of hypermeditation!
Whatever transpires to being
the case, I do
know that wavicle communication is going
to gain in
importance in the decades ahead, and at the expense of the particle
side of the
electron, with particular reference to printerly
typing. Already one finds, in various
contemporary magazines, the use of an italic print as a stylistic mean
for
certain pages, and if this is not indicative of a transitional status
from
disconnected print to connected print, or writing-proper, relative to a
quasi-theocratic leaning, then I'm at a loss to explain it! Telepathy may yet have to wait a while, but writerly print is just around the corner.
Now just as joined natural
writing is
easier to read, when clear, than subnatural
printing,
making for a quicker transmission of verbal communication, so joined
supernatural typing will be easier to read than the current
anti-natural
printing of the contemporary book, magazine, letter, etc., confirming
an
upgrading of intellectual activity, commensurate with the Centre, and
the
consequent return to a wavicle essence -
the true
antidote to republican print!
Thus speaks Shay
SUPERNATURAL
TRAVEL
It
is
said
that we live in the age of the train, and, judging by the number of
trains on
the rails these days, such a claim cannot be far wrong, even though
most people
would probably give priority to the plane.
At any rate, the twentieth century is the age of the train that
runs on
two rails, whether across the surface of the land or deep underground,
and we
may believe this fact is inherent in the relative nature of an atomic
society,
which likes to do things in pairs. The
monorail, it would seem, is something for the future, since suggestive
of an
absolute trend more applicable, it may well be, to a Social
Transcendentalist
age than to a liberal or democratic one.
I like the idea of the
monorail train quite
a lot, and I am confident that it will function both above ground,
on an elevated line, and beneath ground, like the contemporary
underground. Though not every country
will desire the latter, for reasons I shall shortly outline. It is well known, for instance, that
For what is an underground
system? Not simply a mode of mechanized
transport,
but, like all other artificial phenomena, a mode of transport
corresponding to
a specific ideological equivalent, in this case ... a Marxist one. Yes, the fact is that the underground system
signifies a plunge into a democratic or, rather, anti-democratic
absolutism,
much as submarines signify a like-plunge
compared with
a surface vessel, such as a destroyer or a cruiser.
We may argue that, to a degree, the one
precedes the other, the relative the absolute, and that, just as
surface ships
pre-date submarines, so trains pre-date underground trains, as a
land/air
relativity preceding a tunnel absolutism and, moreover, as a relativity
between
trains running in opposite directions on adjacent, parallel tracks ...
preceding
an absolutism of independent underground trains running along the
single tracks
of a given tunnel, isolated from those heading in the opposite
direction, which
likewise have a tunnel to themselves.
In the underground, then, we
perceive a
'fall' (forwards) from the relative to the absolute, as from
above-ground
liberalism to beneath-ground radicalism, equivalent to a communist
status. Now when this fact is properly
appreciated,
it won't surprise us to find that the Irish, with their theocratic
bias, do not
possess an underground system and probably wouldn't want to build one
even if
they could afford to, bearing in mind the ideological implications of
such a
system - implications that may have been grasped intuitively rather
than
rationally by the modernity-wary Irish!
A fact that would apply no less to the building and staffing of
submarines, which are likewise Marxist and also scorned by the Irish,
who
prefer gunboats and corvettes, corresponding to a petty-bourgeois
liberal
integrity.
We may therefore presume
that, unless
These days, however, I
dislike the
underground on principle and make a point of avoiding it.
I have been on surface trains once or twice
in recent years, but would not wish to cultivate a habit with them
either, partly,
I suspect, because of the expense, yet partly also for ideological
reasons. If I were asked to stipulate an
ideal mode of rail travel, I would have no hesitation in replying:
overhead
monorail travel, as equivalent to a Social Transcendentalist
ideological
integrity, and therefore applicable not to an anti-natural bias, nor
even an
anti-supernatural one, but to a supernatural bias, such as I trust
Ireland will
develop to a greater extent in the near future.
Yes, for if surface rail
corresponds to a
liberal, or democratic, ideological position, then air rail, as we may
call it,
would certainly conform to a radically theocratic integrity, as
appropriate to
a people who fight shy of democratic and, in particular, Marxist
criteria,
being heir to a Catholic tradition. Such
a transcendental absolutism would be the logical successor to the
current
diesel/electric trains, and would doubtless permit of greater speeds,
each rail
running separate from rather than parallel to another, as in the
underground
system, with any given train travelling backwards and forwards along
its
particular rail. Probably, on second
thoughts, the ideal way of designing monorails would be to have one
above the
other, so that a vertical as opposed to a horizontal arrangement was
established, in accordance with transcendental criteria.
Thus neither train on any specific route
would ever see the other, since each of them would be on different
levels of
track, and stations would have to be designed accordingly ... with
platforms
one above the other, though not necessarily on opposite sides of their
respective rails but, to save space and enable stations to be built
along the
most vertical lines, one directly above the other, with the trains'
doors
opening on opposite sides, depending on the direction of the train in
question,
but only on one side in each case.
Who knows, such suggestions
may yet bear
fruit, once qualified people get down to working out the details of a
viable
two-way monorail system of overhead transport, the lower rail itself
some yards
above the ground, the higher one several yards above that, with no
possibility
of either train colliding. Certainly
safer than the parallel type of tracks, which more accords with a
democratic
society, where a horizontal compromise is never far away and collisions
are always
possible. As are derailments, a
misfortune I can't conceive of happening to a monorail train, sunk
deeply onto
and around the rail, almost hugging it from either side, as if afraid
to part
company. Yet, for all that, more
flexible than the conventional twin-track train, which is obliged to
slow down
to accommodate bends in the track and would almost certainly become
derailed if
it leant over too far on either side.
There is something ponderous and materialistic about such a
train,
whereas the monorail alternative would suggest a wavicle
lightness and swiftness applicable to the supernatural.
Thus it would form the transcendental
complement on land to hovercraft at sea, which skim across the water's
surface
in a like-supernatural capacity, greatly preferable to surface ships,
with
their liberal equation. As yet, however,
monorail and hovercraft are, alike, something of a rarity, even in the
most
advanced industrial/technological nations.
A full appreciation of their significance has still to come, as
it
surely must during the twenty-first century!
Thus speaks Peter Sloane, transportational spokesperson for the Social
Transcendentalist revolution.
SIX
THINKERS
SPEAKING TO SIX LISTENERS
WHO
IN
TURN THINK ABOUT THEIR SPEECHES
"I've
gradually
come
to the conclusion that rock is the European and, in particular,
British equivalent of jazz, the nearest most European musicians ever
get, or
desire to go, to what is, after all, America's principal form of music. However, unlike jazz, rock is an atomic
music, whereby a bound-electron equivalent, viz. melody and/or harmony,
is
harnessed to a proton equivalent which, as a persistent beat mainly
issuing
from the drums, tends to impose or maintain a rhythmic bias on the
music
overall, thereby making for a proton-biased atomicity.
Unlike pop, rock is fundamentally a
petty-bourgeois art form and one, moreover, with a high regard for
vocals,
whether in a supporting or, more usually, a lead role.
Generally these vocals, which pertain to the
neutron aspect of its overall atomic integrity, will be dedicated to
romantic
concerns, sometimes of a reverential nature, more often of a rebellious
one, as
might be expected from a proton-dominated atomicity in which there is
both a
straining at the proton leash, as it were, and a simultaneous hint of
complicity, partly expressed in the instrumental solos, with this
negative
atomicity.
"Rock can, however, extend
in two
directions - either down towards a classical bias or up towards a bias
for
jazz. In the one case we get
rock-classical, with its strong melodic and rhythmic integrity, whilst
in the
other case we get jazz-rock which, though still melodic and highly
rhythmic,
shows greater respect for improvisation and, thus, intermittent solos
from
whichever lead instrument. At best, such
jazz-rock becomes a pseudo-electron equivalent in relation to modern
jazz.
"As for jazz itself, that
relatively
post-atomic music which I tend to equate with a free-electron
equivalent, it is
unquestionably the highest music of the age, somewhat on the level of
American
light art rather than, as with rock, closer to European avant-garde
painting. If a political analogy can be
drawn, then one could contend that, in modern jazz, a Republican
equivalent,
viz. the free-electron soloist, 'does his thing' to the deferential
accompaniment of a Democratic equivalent, viz. the pseudo-electron
percussionist, their co-existence and mutual co-operation confirming
the
relatively post-atomic nature of mainstream bourgeois/proletarian
civilization. Indeed, one could extend the
analogy by
contending that the soloist is akin to a liberated male and the
percussionist
to a liberated female, their relationship mirroring the 'free sex' of a
typical
unmarried couple.
"However, not wishing to get
bogged
down in such analogies, I should add that, while modern jazz is the
highest
type of contemporary music, there also exists a tendency for certain
jazzmen to
extend their musical commitments down towards rock and so produce
rock-jazz,
which, as the American equivalent of jazz-rock, can alternatively be
termed
'fusion', to distinguish it from 'progressive', the European extension
of rock
towards jazz. Such 'fusion music', it
need scarcely be emphasized, will be less free than modern jazz, since
more given
to vocals and/or melody, harmony, and a monotonously persistent beat. By comparison with modern jazz, it will be a pseudo-electron music and will approximate, in
some sense,
to rock. There is, of course, a
co-existence of jazz with rock in contemporary
I
like
the
way the first speaker distinguishes between rock and 'progressive' on
the one
hand, and ... jazz and 'fusion' on the other - a distinction, in
effect,
between the European - in particular British - tradition and the
American one,
which is regarded by him as pertaining to a different integrity -
namely a
relatively post-atomic integrity rather than, as with Britain, an
essentially
atomic one. Thus rock, a proton-biased
art form, stands to 'progressive', its bound-electron alternative,
somewhat in
the order of the Labour Party to the Conservatives in modern Britain,
whereas
modern jazz, corresponding to a free-electron equivalent, stands to
'fusion',
that pseudo-electron development, somewhat in the order of the
Republican party
to the Democrats in America. Certainly
an interesting theory, if a little rigid overall! One
cannot
deny that many 'progressive'
musicians in
*
"It
would
be
out of the question for quasi-supermen to dress in furs in a
transcendental civilization since, unlike liberated females, they will
be
considered a masculine phenomenon, not be discriminated against as
women. Besides, furs are so naturalistic,
so damn
pagan! They make their wearers look like
animals, albeit sophisticated and attractive ones.
Certainly quasi-supermen will not be partial
to furs, nor to stockings, skirts, dresses, high-heels, necklaces, et
cetera. Nothing that could be considered
feminine would be worn by them.
"Ah, how I look forward to
such a
post-sexist age! How refreshingly
different it would be from the usual dichotomies of an open society! There would be nothing stemming from the
Diabolic Alpha in that closed society of the future; for it would
signify an
exclusive aspiration towards the Divine Omega.
Consequently there would be no furs and no ... oh, what a long
list one could
draw up here! There wouldn't even be any
anti-naturalism. For the natural world
would have been superseded by the artificial, which would serve as a
base from
which to launch a truly supernatural aspiration, from which the
cultivation of
pure spirit would proceed as never before!
Yes, instead of a proton/electron antagonism, as in open
societies, one
would find a pseudo-electron/free-electron co-operation, the artificial
being
put to the service of the supernatural, or supermen."
I
used
to
like furs on women as a youth, because they appeared to denote class
and
affluence, but these days I think I would be more inclined to
sympathize with
the second speaker's viewpoint. He made
no mention, curiously, of the moral dimension accruing to the
acquisition of
fur from various animals - foxes, bears, weasels, etc. - and I can only
suppose
this subject doesn't particularly interest him, else he would surely
have
alluded to it. However, one can't argue
with the assertion that fur coats would be irrelevant to
quasi-supermen, those
civilized proletarian women of the future, since a post-sexist society
could
not countenance such feminine attire, especially when one bears in mind
the
degree of its naturalness, about which, curiously, he said scarcely a
word! Though I suspect the likening of
wearers of fur coats to animals, the fact that they remind one of bears
and things, was intended to imply as much! No doubt, furs on women are only relevant to
an alpha-stemming society, and we need not be surprised by the fact
that the
majority of fur wearers are bourgeois types.
I liked his distinction between the anti-natural and the
artificial, the
former being against the natural while the latter is pro-supernatural,
a base,
as it were, from which to launch a truly supernatural aspiration. Anti-naturalism would seem to accord more
with atomic societies, since effectively a bound-electron equivalent,
whereas
the artificial, functioning as a pseudo-electron equivalent, seems to
accord
with post-atomic societies, including the contemporary American. He lives, it seems
to me, for the future development of an absolutely post-atomic
civilization, as
germane to an omega-orientated society.
*
"Spectra
of
evolutionary development in the arts - such a
fascinating idea! Proton philosophers,
atomic novelists, electron poets. Then philosophers who rebel
against academic philosophy, becoming anti-philosophers,
pseudo-electron
equivalents. They rebel as petty
bourgeois against bourgeois philosophy, with its ethical focus:
Schopenhauer
against Kant, Nietzsche against Schopenhauer, even, in some sense, Marx
against
Hegel. They prefer a metaphysical to a
physical line, essence to appearance.
They co-exist with petty-bourgeois academic philosophy, which
signifies
the upgrading of appearances from the humanistic to the artificial,
ethics to
language, as with Wittgenstein. But they
extend beyond this extreme reach of philosophy, undergoing, in the
process, a
transformation from negative to positive, from anti-philosophy to
pro-poetry. They become, in the course of
time, pseudo-philosophers,
bringing metaphysical philosophy to its culmination in a collectivized
format,
a petty-bourgeois level less stemming from the bourgeoisie, as with
academic
philosophy and its anti-academic antagonist, than aspiring towards the
proletariat on the highest terms, that's to say, in a pseudo-electron
context
of metaphysical expression, free from the aphoristic root.
"Yet why stop at philosophy? Doesn't literature, in the strictly
novelistic sense of that word, likewise undergo a parting of the ways
and thus
witness a petty-bourgeois rebellion against its fictional heritage? Yes, most assuredly! This
rebellion
takes the form of a turning
against the fictional on autobiographical terms, is championed by
anti-novelists who, like Henry Miller, prefer to tell the story of
their lives
than to create silly and possibly inconsequential fictions. Whereas the anti-philosophical development
was predominantly a European and, in particular, German phenomenon, the
development
of anti-literature finds most of its support in America, almost as if
it
signified a turning against the European tradition, even as affecting
American
literature. And like its philosophical
counterpart, it co-exists with the end of the bourgeois fictional
tradition and
the transformation of such a tradition into a uniquely illusory or,
rather, illusional guise - co-exists, in
other words, with the
continuation of literature along petty-bourgeois lines.
"But just as we can note a
distinction
between anti-philosophy and its pseudo-philosophical successor, so a
distinction soon becomes apparent between anti-literature and its
successor
in pseudo-literature - the higher, experimental, non-expressive
literature of a
later and superior phase of petty-bourgeois evolution, such as largely
pertains
to the mainstream contemporary civilization of America, and which
outstrips the
illusional tradition stemming from
bourgeois
fiction. This higher literature,
championed by pseudo-novelists like William Burroughs, aspires towards
a
proletarian absolutism, brings literature the closest it has ever been
to pure
poetry while yet still remaining prose.
This pseudo-electron literature of the later petty-bourgeoisie
parallels
the pseudo-philosophy of the metaphysical collectivist and finds its
aesthetic
equivalent not in abstract sculpture, as with the pseudo-philosophical,
but in
the furthest reach of abstract art, particularly with regard to
abstract
expressionism.
"That leaves, then, the
progression of
poetry from a traditional pseudo-poetical bound-electron status, such
as
continues to apply wherever poetry is conceived in expressively
materialist or
descriptive terms, to a revolutionary free-electron status via the
rebellion of
anti-poets who, like Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot, turned against the
pseudo-poetical tradition appertaining, in the main, to Western Europe,
with
its emphasis on appearance and description, and did so, needless to
say, on
largely autobiographical and/or occult terms.
"Such a rebellion, however,
was soon
to bear revolutionary fruit as the emphasis changed to metaphysics,
with the
development of a pure poetry along relatively free-electron lines, a
poetry
which alternated between metaphysical expression and poetical
impression, as
relevant to the extreme relativity of late twentieth-century America,
and which
was championed by poets such as Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso,
who pertain to the later phase of petty-bourgeois culture.
After such pure poetry, the literary equivalent
of light art, the evolution of poetry can only be from the relatively
pure to
the absolutely pure, as achieved through an exclusive concern with the
impressive, with pure impression, a development which should pertain to
the
next and final civilization in the history of man, which, as a
proletarian
phenomenon, will avail itself of computer discs."
I
like
the
way he speaks of a progression from the 'anti' to the 'pseudo', from
anti-philosophy to pseudo-philosophy, anti-literature to
pseudo-literature,
anti-poetry to pseudo- or, rather, pure poetry, moving all the time
from what
he considers to be the proton roots of literature to its future climax
in the
most free-electron terms. Very
systematic thinking indeed! He doubtless
despises academic philosophers, considering that, to him,
they are more often than not proton types who pertain to an
aristocratic stage
and manifestation of literary development.... Though I'm not convinced,
myself,
that philosophy is as bad, or alpha-stemming, as he chooses to depict
it! The rebellion against bourgeois
Kantian
philosophy seems, not altogether surprisingly, to have begun in
Germany, with
Schopenhauer and (later) Nietzsche, and continued to develop alongside
a
petty-bourgeois stage of academic philosophy until such time,
apparently, as
pseudo-philosophy came to the fore as the logical successor to the
anti-philosophical tradition, a higher type of petty-bourgeois
philosophy which
leaves the academic tradition behind, since the latter is unable to
extend beyond
a lower petty-bourgeois stage, being aligned with appearances and,
therefore,
stemming from a proton root. It is the
furthest straining at the leash, so to speak, of an academic tradition,
whereas
pseudo-philosophy extends towards a proletarian absolutism from its
roots in
anti-philosophy, that pseudo-electron equivalent. Does
such
pseudo-philosophy become genuinely
free, however? Apparently not, since it
must express metaphysical ideas and thus remain intelligible. Yet when it gets to the stage of abandoning
the aphoristic root, as it seemingly does on the level of the highest
pseudo-philosophy, then it almost becomes genuinely free, is virtually
a
free-electron equivalent in relation to anti-philosophy.
Likewise, the progression from
anti-literature to pseudo-literature is one that outstrips the
tail-end, as it
were, of the novelistic tradition, as mainly pertaining to Western
Europe, and
takes an illusional twist on the level of
a
bound-electron equivalent. This
progression from autobiographical novels to largely experimental,
non-expressive novels signifies a development from lower to higher
petty-bourgeois stages of literary evolution, and is especially
relevant to
contemporary America, with its relatively post-atomic bias. Apparently, this pseudo-literature, like its
negative forerunner, corresponds to a pseudo-electron equivalent,
though the
third speaker makes no mention of the fact that, like abstract art, it
can also
entail a free-electron status when primarily concerned with religious
issues of
a transcendent nature, as in the novels of Jack Kerouac.
But, of course, when one is simply
distinguishing between different stages of literary development, from
academic
philosophy through to poetry via novels, then one's scale of reference
necessarily differs from what it would be in the event of each stage
being
considered in isolation, so that, willy-nilly, pseudo-literature
becomes a
pseudo-electron equivalent in relation to pure poetry, that ultimate
art form,
about which the third speaker has some enlightened views.
Certainly, one should distinguish once again
between the negative and the positive stages of this largely American
development, the anti-poets turning against the European tradition of
pseudo-poetry,
with its emphasis on appearance and description, as relevant to a
bound-electron equivalent. Whether they
should be regarded as pseudo-electron or as free-electron equivalents,
however,
is not clear, though I suspect he had the former in mind, since he
speaks of
the emphasis changing, with pure poetry, to a concern with metaphysics,
as
germane to a free-electron bias - a supposition which would suggest
that the
later petty-bourgeois stage of poetic development doesn't simply stem
from the
earlier stage, but pertains to a new spectrum of poetic evolution - one
directly leading towards the ultimate pure poetry of an absolute
civilization,
which would avail itself of computers.
If that is so, then one need not doubt that pseudo-philosophy
and
pseudo-literature also pertain to separate spectra of literary
evolution from
their negative forerunners. Truly a
complex affair!
*
"We
should
distinguish,
I believe, between soul and pseudo-soul, not to say
between
pseudo-spirit and spirit. Thus we will
be distinguishing, on the one hand, between that which is uniquely soul
and
that which is basically spirit conditioned by soul, and, on the other
hand,
between that which is basically soul conditioned by spirit and that
which is
uniquely spirit. Soul, as we all know,
pertains to the body, is the occult side, as it were, of the physical,
the wavicle aspect of the flesh. Soul is what we feel,
and
we
can feel either negative or positive feelings, depending on the context. We can describe negative feelings as occult,
strictly appertaining to the proton content of the flesh's atomicity,
and, by
contrast, positive feelings as pseudo-occult, since appertaining to the
neutron
content of the flesh's atomicity - in other words to pseudo-soul. However, if soul is never alone in the body,
its greatest preponderance over pseudo-soul is in the flesh, where
negative
sensations somewhat outweigh positive ones in intensity.
"From sensational depths,
however,
soul proceeds through emotional middlings
in the
heart to feeling heights in the old brain, becoming, all the time, more
diluted
with pseudo-soul until, by the time it reaches the new brain, it is
distinctly
pseudo itself, functioning on the level of thought, as conditioned and
promulgated by awareness, i.e. genuine spirit, and therefore akin to
pseudo-spirit. By contrast, pseudo-soul
acquires more positivity the higher it
ascends until,
by the time it reaches the old brain, it is the strongest feeling, the
pseudo-occult preponderating over the occult, whether as happiness or
love. Here soul co-exists with bound
spirit
as subconscious, as spirit conditioned by and in some degree enslaved
to
soul. For whereas soul is feeling and,
at least in the old brain, also visionary appearances, spirit is
awareness, or
consciousness, and the awareness of the subconscious is distinctly
sensual, as
we discover when we sleep and contemplate dreams through bound spirit.
"Yet if spirit is bound in
the old
brain, it's most decidedly free in the new one, where it exists as superconscious, as awareness untrammelled by
feelings
and/or thoughts, and thus pertains to the supernatural, the
psychological side,
as it were, of the natural, with particular reference to the new brain. This free spirit co-exists, as I've said,
with pseudo-spirit, the transmutation of soul from the occult in the
old brain
to the quasi-supernatural in the new brain, where it manifests in
thought, as
conditioned by the majority electron content, functioning as awareness,
of that
brain. Thus soul expands from the flesh
to the old brain, pseudo-soul likewise, where it co-exists with bound
spirit. Free spirit exclusively
appertains to the superconscious, where it
co-exists
with the pseudo-spirit of the new brain.
Although existing in
the new
brain, free spirit is not of
the new
brain. Appertaining to the supernatural,
it can be cultivated to the point of transcendence and so become
entirely free
of the natural.
"Evolution will witness the
subsequent
detachment of noumenon from phenomenon, of
superconscious from new brain.
The reformed neutron content of pseudo-spirit,
together with the atomicity of new-brain materialism as a whole, will
be
escaped from in the course of millennial time, as free electrons emerge
from
the earth's most artificial (post-human) life-form ... to expand into
and
converge towards other such free-electron transcendences in space,
conceived as
the setting for the post-millennial Beyond."
I
like
the
distinction the fourth speaker draws between bound spirit as
subconscious and
free spirit as superconscious, the one
enslaved,
during sleep, to soul; the other free to condition thoughts, which
pertain to
pseudo-spirit. He could have emphasized
the fact that such freedom is relative as opposed to absolute, since
spirit
only becomes truly free when wrapped-up in self-contemplation, as
appertaining to
meditation. Nevertheless the use of
spirit as will to condition thought, to order and regulate it, bespeaks
a
freedom of sorts, if only relatively so.
Not surprisingly, this distinction between pseudo-spirit and
spirit,
thought and awareness, anticipates the social distinction which must
soon arise
between quasi-supermen and supermen, the former as pseudo-electron
equivalents,
the latter as free-electron equivalents.
Conversely, at the alpha or pagan end of the spectrum, his
distinction
between soul and pseudo-soul, negative and positive feelings, calls to
mind the
pre-atomic distinction he occasionally makes - for I have heard him
speak on a
number of occasions - between superwomen and quasi-superwomen, whilst
in
between the two extremes one finds the atomic distinction between
apparent
soul, as dreams, and bound spirit, as subconscious, mirroring the
heterosexual
stage of evolution whereby men and women co-exist on separate terms
within an
open society, in which marriage is the norm.
Returning, however, to his argument, one can understand how in a
post-atomic society, whether relatively or absolutely such, the new
brain comes
to acquire greater importance, since the focal-point of psychic
activity has
shifted away from both the flesh and the old brain to a mounting
concern with
the development of spirit. Undoubtedly,
whilst a relatively post-atomic society will place more emphasis on the
conditioning of pseudo-spirit by spirit, its absolutist successor will
favour
the cultivation of pure spirit, as appropriate to a genuinely
post-atomic
age. Transcendental meditation will
supersede LSD tripping, leading, inevitably, to the post-human
millennium and
beyond when, as he maintains, free electrons will emerge to converge
towards
and expand into other such transcendent noumena
in
space. Turning right away from
pseudo-spirit, genuine spirit will become divine, the superconscious
at length escaping from the new brain, the supernatural arising not
from the
natural but from the most artificially supported and sustained of life
forms -
the new-brain collectivizations of the superbeings!
*
"Bourgeois
painting,
surrounded
by and encased within its wooden frame, marks the
mid-point in the evolution of art, the dualistic compromise, as it
were,
between sculpture and holography. Either
side of this representational art-form one finds the largely pagan
mural,
conceived in naturalistic terms, and the largely transcendental
abstract-painting of 'modern art', that antithetical equivalent of the
mural
which, exhibited against a wall rather than - as with murals - on one,
is
usually free of a frame. If the mural is
higher/later grand-bourgeois, then 'contemporary' canvas art is very
much
lower/earlier petty-bourgeois.
"We have started in the
middle, so let
us now proceed further outwards to embrace the art forms either side of
the
above-mentioned ones, which, of course, are vase modelling on the one
hand and
light art on the other, the former lower/earlier grand-bourgeois, the
latter
higher/later petty-bourgeois; the one particularly relevant to the
ancient
Greeks, the other to their antithetical equivalents, the modern
Americans. As vase modelling, even with
its painting, is
closer in essence to sculpture than to either murals or framed
paintings, so
light art is closer in essence to holography than to either 'modern
art' or
framed paintings. Amphora art stems from
sculpture no less than light art aspires towards holography, the
aristocratic
and proletarian extremes, respectively, in the evolution of art.
"So that brings us - does it
not? - to
the beginnings of art in pure sculpture, usually conceived in stone,
and to the
culmination of art in pure holography, as a projection into enclosed
space of
an image/design through refracted light.
Whereas the former is utterly materialistic and mundane,
standing on the
ground or, in its earliest manifestations, carved from the bare face of
mountain rock, the latter is utterly spiritualistic and transcendent,
seemingly
floating free of material connections, suspended, so to speak, in the
void as
an intimation of pure spirit, such as would be compatible with an
absolutely
transcendental civilization, the refinement of holography from
representational
to abstract levels taking place there as a matter of chronological
course.
"Where does one find the
earliest
manifestations of fine art? In Egypt, that cradle of pagan civilization, where the
largest and
most materialistic sculptures were chiselled into existence, carved out
of the
towering mountain rocks or set free to stand on the ground like a
reformed
rock, a formful boulder.
And, not altogether surprisingly, such pure
sculpture was very often created in animal or semi-animal forms, beasts
being
closer to nature and therefore closer to the Creator than men, more
fundamental
than their evolutionary successors. Ah,
such diabolical art!
"Where, by contrast, will
one find the
latest and highest manifestations of fine art?
Hopefully, in Eire, should it become the champion of a
full-blown
transcendental civilization given to the creation of the most pure
holography,
abstract and transcendent.
Certainly, pure holography must spread from
there to every country on earth, as civilization becomes truly
universal and
all mankind are disposed to contemplation of the ultimate civilized art
- that
of the people."
Yes,
one
looks
forward to the development of abstract holography, that ultimate
art,
which should be formless rather than formful
or,
rather, formal, like ancient sculpture.
The fifth speaker is certainly correct to imply that such art
could only
be championed by an absolute civilization, since contemporary
holography,
pertaining to the relatively post-atomic societies of the
bourgeois/proletarian
West (with particular reference to America), is generally
representational, and
therefore relative. It's on a level with
original anthological poetry and modern jazz, a level contiguous with
the
finest light art which, ironically, is non-representational or, rather,
abstract. Certainly, at its best, light
art is closer to holography than to painting, just as, from a converse
viewpoint, the vase art of, for instance, the ancient Greeks was
closer, in
essence, to sculpture than to murals, even though it involved the
painting of
tiny figures on the curvilinear surface of the vases.
Such vases stemmed from formal sculptures no
less than contemporary light art aspires towards the formless holograms
of the
future.... As for so-called modern art, I would never have considered
it the
antithetical equivalent of murals had not the speaker pointed out this
fact. Murals were naturalistic and on a
wall, whereas avant-garde painting, by contrast, is
non-representational and/or
abstract and distinct from a wall, painted on a lightweight canvas
which, as a
rule, is free of a frame, that wooden surround suggestive of a
sculptural
connection. Indeed, bourgeois paintings
would seem to stem from sculpture rather than - as with the best and
most
progressive modern art - to aspire towards holography.
A quintessentially
middle-of-the-road development in the history of art's evolution, both
materialistic and spiritualistic at the same time.
But then, with modern art, the beginnings of
a transvaluation of values, the severance
of painting
from sculptural/representational connections, as it is conceived, upon
a frame-free
canvas, in increasingly non-representational terms, becoming, with the
transformation to light art (and even a little while before that), an
unequivocally abstract intimation of spiritual truth, and the
relatively
post-atomic forerunner of abstract holography.
Of course, one should not overlook the fact that modern art in
Western
Europe and modern art in America signify two distinct traditions, nor
forget
that such art is itself divisible into a kind of higher materialism, or
pseudo-spirituality, and a lower idealism ... wherever relative
criteria apply,
as happens to be the case in the contemporary West.
*
"How
dreadful
to behold a man or a woman walking a dog down
the street! How still more dreadful to
have to suffer the appalling noise of continuous barking!
How vulgar and demeaning is the spectacle of
dog's excrement on pavements and roads!
"No, a time must surely come
when men
are freed from this ghastly atomicity, severed from the proton root of
a beast
and obliged to be not bound-electron but free-electron equivalents. Dogs can have no place in a free-electron
civilization. They will have to be
banished and/or destroyed, along with cats, horses, hamsters, and other
unnecessary animals. The spirit of the
Last Judgement must extend to beasts as well as to those categories of
human
beings which stem from the Diabolic Alpha and consequently oppose
evolutionary
progress.
"Truly, there are many who
are too
corrupt and foolish to take such teachings seriously, people who would
oppose
their implementation. But, rest assured,
they won't oppose them for ever!
Judgement will be merciless and irrevocable.
He saves, but he also damns; he isn't
absolute. He brings a 'sword' as well as
the Truth."
No
doubt
the
sixth speaker suffers or has suffered a great deal from barking
dogs ... to
bring such a mundane subject so callously into his predominantly
Messianic
lecture. His suggestion that dogs,
together with other pets, constitute the proton side of an atomic
integrity
involving pet-owners is most interesting, and doubtless true as well! Clearly, there can be no such atomicities in the absolutely post-atomic
society that must
one day soon come to pass. So away with
dogs, cats, horses, etc. in the name of free-electron progress! Curious how he made no reference to the fact
that the relatively post-atomic civilization of contemporary America
could be
regarded as having pioneered, through the development of such animal
cartoons
as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, a relative transcendence of animals
...
suggestive of a transitional stage between the indulgence of pets and
their
eventual destruction. There is something
agreeably artificial about these animal cartoons, and doubtless the
speaker has
enjoyed them in the past, even if they only signify a relative
transcendence of
animals, as applying to the substance rather than to the form. Still, the absolute transcendence of pets
isn't something that I, for one, would greatly regret, since I don't
own
any. In fact, I'm fairly confident that
the implementation of a banishment and/or destruction order on dogs,
cats,
horses, etc., would constitute an aspect, by no means the least
important, of
the Last Judgement.
FIVE
SPEECHES
SUCCEEDED BY THEIR SPEAKERS' THOUGHTS, PRECEDING
FIVE THOUGHTS
SUCCEEDED
BY
THEIR THINKERS' SPEECHES
First
Speaker
"Atomic
weapons
correspond
to a later stage of petty-bourgeois military development,
the 'barbarous' preceding the 'civilized' in terms of atomic bombs
preceding
nuclear missiles, the former dropping to earth from a large bomber, the
latter
hurtling through space once fired from their launch pads.
Thus a distinction, in effect, between the
mundane and the transcendent, which accords with that between lower and
higher
phases of late-stage petty-bourgeois evolution."
What
makes
atomic
weapons petty bourgeois is the fact that they correspond to a
relatively
post-atomic status, a negative dualism implying the splitting of the
atom, the
severance, through nuclear fission, of electrons from protons and
neutrons - an
evolutionary stage between bourgeois atomicity and proletarian electron
freedom, a kind of transition between the relative and the absolute,
part
mundane and part transcendent in constitution.
Consequently atomic weapons are the
weapons of
the late-twentieth century, appropriate to a later petty-bourgeois age
on both
its civilized and barbarous sides, as mainly applying to the Americans
and the
Russians respectively. Because the
late-twentieth century corresponds to a 'civilized' phase of higher
petty-bourgeois development, it follows that missiles rather than bombs
are the
relevant weapons.
Second
Speaker
"Just
as
late
petty-bourgeois evolution passes through two phases, so
proletarian
evolution will do likewise, beginning in a 'barbarous' phase and
proceeding, in
time, to a 'civilized' phase, which will entail a distinction between
the
mundane use of laser weapons and, eventually, their transcendent use,
meaning primarily
that whereas during the lower phase of proletarian evolution laser
beams will
mainly be fired on the ground, either from guns or tanks, they'll be
fired from
satellites and such-like 'transcendent' phenomena during its higher
phase. Thus we are distinguishing between
laser guns
and laser satellites."
What
makes
laser
weapons proletarian is the fact that they correspond to an
absolutely
post-atomic status, one in which electrons are free from proton and/or
neutron
constraint and capable, in consequence, of being fired at any given
material
target at an incredibly high velocity, a much greater velocity than
missiles or
rockets, those materialist projectiles subject to the force of gravity,
which
would be like sitting-ducks to incoming laser beams.
However, one should distinguish carefully
between a proton absolute use of lasers and their electron absolute
use,
particularly in view of the post-atomic status of a Social
Transcendentalist
society, which must favour the latter, especially during its
'civilized'
phase. While proton beams need not be
banned during the preceding 'barbarous' phase, their employment during
the
higher phase of proletarian evolution would be both morally
indefensible and
ideologically incommensurable, so that one envisages electron beams
alone being
fired from satellites in accordance with a free-electron
integrity. Probably electron beams would
be employed on the ground during the preceding 'barbarous' phase as
well, since
- so I believe - more relevant to an incipiently absolute post-atomic
society
than proton beams, which have the ring of a pre-atomic integrity about
them,
though, admittedly, not on the low level of fire, that much cruder
manifestation of proton negativity!
Certainly there could be no more barbarous weapon than the
flame-thrower, and we need not doubt that proletarian society will
continue to
uphold a ban on its use.
Third
Speaker
"Modern
classical
music
is inferior to both jazz-rock and modern jazz on account of the
fact that it pertains to an earlier stage of petty-bourgeois
development and
accordingly employs techniques and instrumental combinations stemming
from the
bourgeoisie, i.e. from nineteenth-century classical music, which mainly
took
the form of romanticism. In its lower or
barbarous phase, early petty-bourgeois music is either expressionist or
impressionist in character, reflecting a partly atonal revolt against
romantic
precedent. In its higher or civilized
phase, late petty-bourgeois music is either abstract expressionist or
abstract
impressionist in character, reflecting an atonal revolution
commensurate with
the growing entrenchment of petty-bourgeois civilization."
By
contrast,
late
petty-bourgeois music signifies a break with traditional media
of expression, such as acoustic violins and pianos, by employing
electronic
instruments in a variety of fresh combinations and in a partly or even
largely
improvisatory context, depending on the phase in question, that's to
say,
whether barbarous or civilized. In the
lower phase, we get a revolt against civilized classical precedent in
the form
of either trad jazz or rock 'n' roll. In the higher phase, we get a revolutionary
attainment via modern jazz or rock classical to a new degree of
civilized
music, one germane to the late petty-bourgeoisie. Whereas
the
barbarous and civilized phases of
early petty-bourgeois music are equivalent to early- and
mid-twentieth-century
painterly art ... from expressionism to abstract expressionism, the
barbarous
and civilized phases of late petty-bourgeois music are equivalent to
mid- and
late-twentieth-century light art ... from sculptural to abstract light
art.
Fourth
Speaker
"Just
as
late
petty-bourgeois music passed through two phases, so proletarian
music
must do the same, beginning as a largely tonal revolt against civilized
late
petty-bourgeois precedent, and culminating in an exclusively atonal
attainment
to revolutionary proletarian civilization - a progression, one might
argue,
from jazz-rock to pure jazz.
"The revolt or reaction,
already well
under way in certain Western countries in the late-twentieth century,
employs
electronic instruments, particularly synthesizers, in a largely tonal
way and
generally avoids rhythmic or harmonic accompaniments.
It is not afraid of notation but quite often
uses scores or some pre-planned directive, a fact which further
confirms its
barbarous status - the paradoxical use of a higher medium suggesting a
'fall',
as regards content, from civilized precedent.
A music equivalent to representational
holography,
that paradoxically barbarous reaction to abstract light art."
By
contrast,
civilized
proletarian music, pertaining to people's civilization,
will be exclusively atonal or, rather, 'pitchful'
...
as
we should describe an ultra-positive music dedicated to the maximum
improvisatory equalitarianism of notes, all of which would be free from
rhythmic or harmonic constraints and consequently moving in quick-note
successions of free-electron 'runs'.
Such pure music will be programmed for performance by
synthesizers and
serve as an inducement to self-realization, being associated with
people's
religion as an aspect of super-transcendentalism, inseparable from
religion and
therefore truly civilized - the ultimate religious music, corresponding
to
abstract holography.
Fifth
Speaker
"Like
art
and
music, the evolution of religion may be said to pass through phases
relevant to a given class integrity ... from a barbarous revolt against
some
civilized alien-class precedent to the establishment, within a higher
phase, of
a new civilized level. In this fashion,
we need not doubt that early Protestantism signified a late
grand-bourgeois
rebellion against early grand-bourgeois Roman Catholicism, the
barbarous phase
giving way, in due course, to the civilized ... with the entrenchment
of
Puritanism.
"Probably the bourgeoisie
likewise
revolted against early Protestantism before going on to establish what
could be
called middle Protestantism, Calvinist as opposed to Lutheran, as its
civilized
successor within the higher phase of bourgeois religion.
"Similarly one can argue
that the
early petty-bourgeoisie revolted, in their turn, against bourgeois
religious
precedent before going on to establish late Protestantism, whether
Pentecostal
or Unitarian, as the civilized religion relevant to themselves."
Of
course,
religion
continued to be relativistic within the context of evolving
relative
civilization, a kind of spiritual religion co-existing with a material
counterpart, though never more conspicuously so than during the extreme
stages
of relative evolution, as applying to the grand- and petty-bourgeois
stages
respectively. If Catholicism was
predominantly a soulful religion, then Protestantism signified a shift
towards
the spiritual, a shift which could only lead to the predominantly
spiritual
with the development of higher/early petty-bourgeois Protestantism,
though not
to the same degree as with the introduction of civilized late
petty-bourgeois
religion in the form of neo-Buddhism, which extended the spiritual bias
still
further. Although relative in itself,
not to mention vis-à-vis a materialist counterpart in the form of
mescaline
tripping, neo-Buddhism shifted the emphasis away from the physical
exercises of
Yoga towards the spiritual contemplation inherent in itself, and
thereby
affirmed a fresh civilized attainment, one more spiritually orientated
than any
previous civilized religion, though falling short of an absolute
spiritual
orientation both in terms of its physical connection with the ground -
either
directly, through a squatting posture, or indirectly, through the
interposing
medium of a chair - and, moreover, in terms of its acquiescence in and
acceptance of positive feelings like happiness and love - an integrity,
in
short, not excluding affiliation with pseudo-soul, as derived from the
majority
neutron content of the old brain.
First
Thinker
Late
petty-bourgeois
religion
divides, then, into spiritual and material kinds, the
one kind associated with neo-Buddhism, the other with mescaline
tripping; the
former predominantly appealing to the majority electron content of the
new
brain, the superconscious; the latter, by
contrast,
predominantly appealing to the minority proton/neutron content of the
new brain,
the quasi-superconscious.
These two kinds of 'contemporary' civilized
religion signify the higher phase of late petty-bourgeois civilization,
the
lower, or barbarous, phase having given rise to a Yoga reaction against
neo-Catholicism on the one hand, and to a doping reaction against late
Protestantism on the other, the reaction of a spiritual barbarism
generally
being against a materialistic civilized religion and, conversely, that
of a
materialistic barbarism generally being against a spiritual civilized
religion
- a procedure generally paralleled by the arts.
"Of
course,
the
development of a proletarian religion can also be seen to divide
into two phases, viz. a barbarous and a civilized, and we find in the
former
case a revolt against neo-Buddhism which takes the form of LSD
tripping, a
relatively barbarous mode of religious allegiance involving the
contemplation
of the visionary contents of the minority proton/neutron content of the
new
brain by a majority electron content functioning as awareness. Such indirect, 'representational' meditation
parallels the development of representational holography.
"Certainly, a reaction
against late
petty-bourgeois religion and art is not something that a Social
Transcendentalist Eire need over-concern itself with, since its
principal
obligation, once the cobwebs of tradition had been cleared away, would
be to
prepare the ground for Super-transcendentalism in the name of people's
civilization, a procedure necessarily placing emphasis on the
introduction of
meditation centres, where transcendental meditation or, rather, hypermeditation ... would be carried on both
free from the
ground, i.e. in a vertical position entailing recourse to special
chest-to-crotch harnesses, and in a psychic context free from feelings,
including
positive ones, and so exclusively concerned with the cultivation of
awareness,
as applying to the majority electron content of the new brain.
"If the barbarous phase of
proletarian
religion mainly pertains to the United States, where LSD tripping is
quite
widespread, then its civilized phase should ultimately pertain to Eire,
which,
while not immune to the barbarous, would be primarily dedicated to
furthering
the civilized."
Second
Thinker
In
passing
from
a post-humanist millennium to a post-human millennium, from the
superhuman
and superbeingful phases of the one to the
superman
and superbeing phases of the other, we
find ourselves
concerned with post-human life forms, not with post-humanist life but
with life
forms which completely transcend man, being as different from that
two-legged
creature as apes and trees, the two life forms immediately preceding,
in some
sort of chronological order, his emergence.
Just as trees precede apes and apes precede man, so the supermen
will
succeed him and the superbeings succeed
them. As human brains artificially
supported and
sustained in collectivized contexts the supermen - those antithetical
equivalents to apes - will trip on a regular basis, experiencing such
artificially-induced visions as LSD, or some such synthetic stimulus,
makes
possible. As new-brain collectivizations the superbeings
- those antithetical equivalents to trees - will hypermeditate
towards transcendence - the goal of late-millennial striving.
"Speaking
personally,
I
prefer to distinguish between the twin phases of the coming
post-humanist and post-human millennia on the basis of a
quasi-spiritual phase
from an ultra-spiritual phase, as befitting the distinct psychic
preoccupations
of the respective post-humanist and post-human life forms - the
superhuman
men/supermen and the superbeingful men/superbeings respectively.
"Whereas the former pair
would be
contemplating the visionary contents of the new brain's minority
proton/neutron
content from a consciousness not unconnected with feelings, the latter
pair
would be solely attuned to self-contemplation as superconsciousness
of the new brain's majority electron content, being free from old-brain
connections and consequently enabled to expand consciousness towards
transcendence.
"Whereas trees directly stem
from the
Diabolic Alpha, their leaves enslaved both to branches and trunk, the superbeings would directly aspire towards the
Divine Omega,
the collectivized new-brains served by the artificial
support-and-sustain
systems which had been engineered by qualified technicians."
Third
Thinker
Obviously
the
support-and-sustain
systems of the supermen and the superbeings,
respectively,
would be created in such a way as to appear antithetical
to the
trunk and branches of a tree. Whereas
the trunk stems from the ground and then the branches tend diagonally
from it,
creating the impression of a concession to gravitational force
downwards, a
tapering down towards the trunk, one envisages the main support
apparatus of a superbeing (not to mention
the preceding supermen) pending
from the roof of a meditation centre, its length stopping well short of
the
floor, whilst a series of diagonally-slanting arms (reminiscent of
branches)
tend from it in seeming defiance of gravitational force downwards,
those arms
directly issuing from the main support slanting gently downwards, those
indirectly issuing from the main support, i.e. stemming from the main
branch-arms, slanting radically downwards, the resultant impression
quite the
reverse of anything which could be described as directly stemming from
the
Diabolic Alpha. In short, an appropriate arrangement for a life form
directly aspiring
towards the Divine Omega.
"Speaking
personally,
I
incline to regard the superman and superbeing
phases of the post-human millennium as equivalent to the barbarous and
civilized phases of preceding post-humanist millennial evolution,
though as a
more intense, because absolute, barbarism and civilization respectively. After the supermen have had their fill of
tripping,
the technocratic servants of this post-human life form will doubtless
approve
their upgrading to the superbeing stage,
and thus
take measures to free the new brain from its physiological connection
with the
old one. The resulting life form will
consequently be beyond sleep and therefore disposed to hypermeditate
on a permanent basis, a procedure bringing life closer to the
absolutism of the
pure spirit of heavenly transcendence.
"From indirectly cultivating
awareness
through the contemplation of new-brain visions, life will have
progressed, in superbeing guise, to
directly cultivating awareness through
self-contemplation, this absolutism significant of the highest degree
of
civilized religion, an absolutism inexorably leading to transcendence,
and thus
to the escape of free electrons from new-brain matter, their escape, or
definitive salvation, being facilitated along the hollow interior of
the
support apparatus, which should lead via the main trunk-like support
into the
deeps of space, in which setting pure spirit would be free to converge
towards
and expand into other such transcendences on route, as it were, to
ultimate
unity, as the envisaged goal of heavenly evolution.
Fourth
Thinker
The
evolution
of
literature from the early to the late petty bourgeoisie is, in
effect, from novels to poetry, from a genre-type corresponding to
painterly art
to one which corresponds to light art.
As with music and art, each stage of petty-bourgeois literary
evolution
passes through two phases, viz. a barbarous and a civilized, which
entails a
revolt against civilized literary precedent during its lower phase and,
by
contrast, the attainment to a fresh level of civilized literary
achievement
during its higher phase. As the early
petty bourgeoisie commenced their stage of literary evolution with a
revolt
against bourgeois fictional precedent, it follows that the late petty
bourgeoisie will commence their
stage of
literary evolution with a revolt against higher/early petty-bourgeois
precedent.
"Inevitably,
the
early
petty-bourgeois revolt against bourgeois fiction, corresponding
to
expressionism and impressionism in art, takes the form of
autobiographical
and/or realistic novels, the former concentrating on the individual's
background and experiences, the latter on the everyday world of
societal
phenomena; the one subjective, the other objective.
"Both modes of writing are
relatively
barbarous because entailing a paradoxical commitment to the novel
genre,
neither autobiography nor realism corresponding to a strictly literary
approach
to the novel. They're not complete in
themselves but seem transitional between bourgeois fiction and
higher/early
petty-bourgeois literature, which takes the form of either
experimental,
largely non-expressive novels or illusional
novels,
such as involve completely imaginary worlds and creatures.
"Both these higher modes of
early
petty-bourgeois writing, corresponding to abstract expressionism and to
abstract impressionism in art, are civilized, because complete in
themselves
and transcending not only traditional modes of novelistic literature
... but
the everyday world of societal phenomena.
With experimental and illusional
literature
the novel attains to a climax, beyond which literary progress can only
be made
in terms of late petty-bourgeois poetry."
Fifth
Thinker
The
revolt
of
lower/late petty-bourgeois poets against civilized literary
precedent takes
the form of either revolutionary political writing or writings on the
occult,
depending on the kind of poet in question and whether he is in revolt
against
what has been called illusional literature
or its
experimental counterpart. Naturally,
this revolt signifies a barbarism because, apart from using poetry in
an unpoetical way, the content of the poem
created falls
beneath the level of content attained to by civilized novelistic
precedent -
political poetry being conceptually inferior to illusional
literature, occult poetry likewise conceptually inferior to
experimental
literature, the revolt of a materialistic barbarism against spiritual
civilized
precedent paralleling that of a spiritual barbarism against
materialistic
civilized precedent. With the
development of a higher/late petty-bourgeois poetry, however,
literature is
surpassed by the attainment of poetry to a new civilized achievement,
one that
is either experimental, and therefore
largely
abstract, or metaphysical, and therefore primarily concerned with
spiritual
truth, particularly as applying to neo-Buddhism. Whereas
experimental
poetry corresponds to
abstract-expressionist light art, metaphysical poetry corresponds to
light art
of an abstract-impressionist tendency, an expansion of the spiritual
rather
than a contraction of the material. But
no sooner does late petty-bourgeois literature attain to a climax in
the above-mentioned
kinds of poetry ... than a proletarian revolt against such civilized
precedent
sets in, to signal the commencement of a new class-stage of literary
evolution
- namely the ultimate stage.
"Inevitably,
the
early
proletarian revolt against late petty-bourgeois poetry,
corresponding
to representational holography in art, takes the form of expressive
anthological formats, anthologies of new or unknown poets being the
genre
relevant to a proletarian stage of literary evolution because
collectivized and,
therefore, absolute in constitution, signifying a convergence to omega
on the
level of poetry, the Many having become One, so to speak, in a format
which transcends individual and/or
separate publications.
"But, of course, such
anthological
poetry as is published in this context generally signifies a conceptual
'fall'
from the experimental or metaphysical content of late petty-bourgeois
poetry,
being largely romantic or autobiographical or realistic or otherwise
expressive
in a way which falls beneath civilized precedent.
"Such barbarous poetry is
equivalent,
consciously or unconsciously, to a revolt against late petty-bourgeois
poetry,
the lower phase in the evolution of proletarian writing from negative
beginnings to a positive ending, such as would apply to a people's
civilization, properly so-considered, in which only the most civilized
kind of
poetry would be encouraged, poetry which was neither experimental nor
metaphysical, but totally abstract in character.
"Yes, it is towards a
completely
impressive, free-electron status that proletarian poetry will tend, as
literature attains to its ultimate climax within the context of
abstract superpoems - the literary
counterpart to abstract
holography. Thus will higher proletarian
literature be born, an abstract literature testifying, in its
computer-disc
presentation, to the transcendent nature of proletarian civilization. If
literature began in alpha philosophy, it
is most certainly destined to culminate in omega poetry - the ultimate
civilized achievement and attainment of the goal.
THUS
SPEAKS
THE SOCIAL TRANSCENDENTALIST
Five
speeches
to his friends followed by five speeches to his
enemies
"Love,
my
friends,
is a Protestant ideal relative to Christ.
Have Catholics ever been Christians? Traditionally,
I
don't think so; though these
days there are apparently quite a few of them who put Christ before
everyone
else, including the Blessed Virgin, and are consequently akin to
Protestants in
Catholic disguise, heretics posing as adherents to the main, or
absolute, part
of the theocratic spectrum. I know this
isn't simply a failing of the common people.
But a catholic Protestant is not the true Catholic allegiance
which, now
as before, continues to be the Blessed Virgin, that second deity in the
evolution of religion from pagan Creator propitiation to an aspiration
towards
the Holy Spirit via the Catholic, Protestant (Christ), Communist
(Antichrist),
and Centrist (Second Coming) 'deities' respectively.
"Yes, my friends, Roman
Catholicism,
corresponding, in its prime, to an early-stage grand-bourgeois age, put
the
relativistic absolutism of the Holy Virgin above pagan absolutism and
paid due
homage to her as an intercessor between
mankind and
the Father. Catholicism was always
essentially
a religion centred in refined sensation, as with incense, holy water,
the mass,
et cetera. Stoicism, or the endurance of
pain, had preceded it in absolute pagan times, and Christian love, or
positive
emotionality, was to follow it, with the development of Protestant
civilization.
"Stoicism pertained to the
autocratic
spectrum of the God-Kings, but refined sensation, conceived as morally
preferable to crude sensation, i.e. hedonistic sin, pertained to the
inception
of the theocratic spectrum in a grand-bourgeois age.
The subsequent subdivision of that spectrum,
relative to the Protestant heresy, ushered in the religion of love,
with Christ
as the religious cynosure. This was not
only an impersonal love of one's fellow man in humanism, but a personal
love
for another person as well - the emotional love of the sexes sanctified
through
marriage. If the former kind of love is
wise for a time, then the latter must fall somewhat short of wisdom,
corresponding, as it does, to a fool's paradise. Wisdom
and
folly are but two sides of a
relative coin."
"There
are
those,
my friends, who claim that Hitler was the Antichrist; that the
deity
which follows on behind the Christian one must be the Antichrist, and,
to be
sure, there is some truth in that idea.
But Hitler didn't follow on behind Christ for the simple reason
that
Fascism, to speak in general terms, appertained to the main part of the
theocratic spectrum as the enemy of everything democratic rather than
to an
extension of the heretical subdivision of it from the religion of love,
in
Protestantism, to the religion of hate, in Communism - this latter
germane to
people's democracy.
"No, Marx was the closest
approximation to the Antichrist (even closer than Engels),
while
Lenin
was his 'Pauline' disciple, the founder, in effect, of a
communist
'church' or, rather, antichurch, viz. the totalitarian state. Communism is but the logical outcome of the
Protestant heresy, the antithesis to Christian love for all men in the
hatred
of one category of men, namely the proletariat, for another, namely the
bourgeoisie. It would be illogical to
think of the Antichrist as pertaining to the true part of the
theocratic
spectrum, as did Hitler, who, by contrast, signified an antithetical
equivalent
to the Blessed Virgin, a kind of crude approximation to the Second
Coming,
necessarily subordinate to the main deity of the age, namely the
Antichrist
(whose Soviet followers were chiefly responsible for defeating Nazism),
and
therefore not entitled to consideration in any evolutionary list of
principal
deities from pagan beginnings in the Primal Creator (Father) to
transcendental
endings in the Ultimate Creation (the Holy Ghost).
"So, my friends, we can
dismiss Hitler
as a secondary god, a failed god, whose eventual eclipse was
inevitable, given
the heretical status of the age. He may
have been the antithetical equivalent to the Blessed Virgin - Fascism
as much
post-Protestant as Catholicism was pre-Protestant - but the subdivision
of the
theocratic spectrum remained dominant over truly theocratic interests
in the
guise of Soviet Communism, that legacy of Marx.
"So any list of principal
deities
would have to proceed thus: The Father, the Blessed Virgin, Christ, the
Antichrist (Marx), and, in due course, the Second Coming, as
signifying, in the
name of Social Transcendentalism, a return of theological primacy to
the true
part of the theocratic spectrum in the wake of the heretical
Antichrist."
"If
Protestantism
was
a religion of love, then Fascism, contemporary with the
religion of hate (Communism), must be accorded a bias for refined
feelings, the
antithetical equivalent to refined sensation.
In a word, happiness!
"Yes, the happiness of the
German
people was of cardinal importance to Hitler, even if it had to be
obtained through
force of arms. There was much positive
feeling at the annual party rallies in Nuremberg. Almost
everywhere
Hitler went, there were
smiles on the faces of the German people.
Even post-war Communism was keen to indulge its citizens in the
primary
ideal of the age and, when not true to itself (through hatred of the
bourgeoisie), be true to the main part of the theocratic spectrum in a
kind of
quasi-fascist worship of happiness.
"There is something about
the tail-end
of the democratic spectrum which intimates of the contemporary
(fascist) part
of the theocratic one. In an extreme
relativistic age, necessarily late-stage petty-bourgeois in character, overlappings and hybrid interbreedings
are less the exception than the rule.
Does not a military dictatorship often appear fascist or even
communist?
"Be that as it may, the
extension of
the true part of the theocratic spectrum beyond Fascism and its
positive
feelings can only lead to a more absolute religious ideal, the
antithesis to
stoicism ... in awareness, the pure awareness of meditation as germane
to
Social Transcendentalism/Super-transcendentalism (synthetically-induced
visionary experience/hypermeditation), the
brainchild
of the true approximation to the Second Coming, the Messiah long
awaited by both
Jews and Gentiles alike ... as embodiment and intimation of the Holy
Ghost -
the ultimate deity of undifferentiated pure spirit at the culmination
to
evolution.
"So in a sense this
successor to the
Antichrist is the real antithetical equivalent to the Virgin Mary, the
penultimate deity in the evolution of deities from the Father to the
Holy
Ghost. Between the two absolute
extremes, that of pure sensuality and pure spirituality,
come the two relative absolutes, both celibate in constitution. And between these come the two relativities
of the heretical subdivision of the theocratic spectrum, viz. the
moderately
relative Christ and the radically relative Marx, Protestantism and
Communism,
bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy, liberalism and socialism
- from
religion and politics to economics, the three forever intertwined
throughout a
relative age."
"Not
so
in
the coming absolute age, when sovereignty would be vested in the
Leader
and the ownership or, rather, trusteeship of the means of production
pass to
the Centre, of which the Leader is sovereign.
There politics and economics will be absorbed into the Leader,
who will
bear these 'sins of the world' in his sovereignty, much as Atlas bore
the world
on his shoulders in the pagan mythology of the ancient Greeks, and
Christ did
the same for the ensuing Christians.
"There theocracy alone will
prevail,
the relativity of politics and economics becoming a thing of the past,
like the
democratic and autocratic spectra to which they correspond, economics
preceding
politics no less than the God-Kings preceded people's representatives,
religion
succeeding politics no less than the people's representatives succeeded
kings,
everything passing from matter to spirit, from doing to being. The Truth alone triumphant, as mankind is set
on course for the post-human millennium.
Aesthetics and ethics having faded away or been killed off. The Leader beyond good and evil,
not motivated by ethical considerations, like a democratic politician,
but
solely by service to the Truth, considering 'good' that which furthers
and
consolidates the Truth.
"Yes, my friends, I am
beyond good and
evil, and I rejoice in my freedom, the freedom of the Free Spirit! 'The Good' are not admirable to me, they are
the obverse side of a dualistic coin, striving to combat and counter
evil. They're part-and-parcel of a
relative
compromise, the existence of the one presupposing that of the other,
'the Good'
continuing to exist so long as there is evil, 'the Right' so long as
there is 'the
Left', private enterprise so long as there is state socialism.
"But I, who represent the
Truth, am
beyond good and evil, and my followers would live in a society where
there was
no compromise between these two adversaries of the ethical spectrum,
where evil
had been stamped out for all time and 'the Good' ceased to be
necessary, there
being no good for them to do in a society where 'the Evil' no longer
held sway
because no longer able to do evil.
Ah, such an absolute society would be free for the Truth, saved
from
good and evil by the Truth!"
"Like
the
Blessed
Virgin, the True World Messiah, loosely corresponding to a
Second
Coming, pertains to the true, or absolute, part of the theocratic
spectrum. In being the antithetical
equivalent of the Blessed Virgin, he, too, is virginal, celibate, pure
- a
relative absolutism. Even the crude
approximation to this deity, as signified by Hitler, was in some degree
virginal or, at any rate, less carnal than the average German.
"Yes, my friends, he was no
great
womanizer, being too shy as a youth and too preoccupied with saving the
German
people from their enemies as a man ... to have much time or inclination
for
women. As Leader, he took Eva Braun for
mistress, being in theory her lover but in practice somewhat neglectful
of
her. He only married her after Germany
was lost and his position as Leader no longer tenable.
Their marriage was, as you'll know, but a
brief affair, soon to be interrupted, so legend has it, by mutual
suicide. It was an act of charity on
Hitler's part to
marry this simple girl at the end.
"Well, my friends, marriage
would be
quite inappropriate for the more credible manifestation of the Second
Coming,
so you needn't expect him to get married at any time, even if he were
subsequently to take a woman or female companion for domestic help,
which is
not impossible though, given his celibate past and absolutist
integrity, by no
means guaranteed! Rather, he must
maintain his celibacy in conformity with his status as embodiment and
intimation of the Holy Ghost. After all,
he pertains to the main part of the theocratic spectrum, unlike the
Antichrist,
Marx, whose status on the heretical subdivision of that same spectrum
wasn't
entirely incompatible with lecherous proclivities!
"There is no intimation of
the Holy
Ghost in endomorphic Marx, simply an extension of Protestant love into
communist hate, the hatred of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie, the
division
of the ethical spectrum into warring factions more sharply polarized
than ever
before, the former striving for an ultimate victory over the latter,
but
without the guidance of the Truth, without which no ultimate victory
can be
achieved, Communism being but an extension of the ethical antagonism of
the
middle spectrum to a polarized antithesis between private capitalism
and state
socialism, in which the great world Illusion of Marxism seeks to
overcome
Ethics. So not, my friends, 'the Good'
against 'the Evil', as in a liberal democracy, but 'the Illusory'
against both
'the Good' and
'the Evil' in the name of the Great Illusion of World Communism,
that heretical ideology of the Antichrist!"
"Know
then,
my
enemies, that the Truth alone will ultimately be victorious! There can be no question of Illusion
triumphing over Truth. The way to the
post-human millennium leads through Social Transcendentalism, that
historical
successor to Fascism and antithesis to autocratic royalism
- the age of leaders superseding that of people's representatives, even
those
who, in communist states, represent the people dictatorially. Dictatorial representatives correspond to the
Illusion, not an absolute antithesis to Truth, to the theocratic
leader, but
falling just short of it, a near miss or relative antithesis.
"You will have noticed, my
enemies,
how fashionable it has become, in this post-Hitlerian
age, to speak of people's representatives as 'leaders', how even
bourgeois
prime ministers are regarded, if superficially, as 'leaders'. The age, even now, isn't wholly sympathetic
towards mere representatives. The Zeitgeist
increasingly points towards the coming of leaders, the 'Caesars' in Spengler's paradoxical prophecy, who lead the
People from
above, scorning identification with democratic criteria, knowing
themselves
to be above and beyond the scope of prime ministers and presidents.
"What use had Hitler for the
Chancellorship or the Presidency? He
absorbed both offices into himself and transcended then in the guise of
Führer,
the
Sovereign Leader of a fascist state. As
Nietzsche to the Kaiser, so Spengler to
the Führer. Away
with
petty democrats! The age calls forth
theocracy!"
"Even
the
Americans,
despite their democratic traditions, have an inkling of the
Truth, an interpretation, necessarily bogus, of the Second Coming ...
in the
guise of Superman, whether on film or in comic books.
This Superman, owing little or nothing to
Nietzsche, arrives on earth as a boy from a distant galaxy, like a
Christ from
'On High', and is found and raised by latter-day equivalents of Mary
and
Joseph. They discover, in due course,
that their adopted child has superhuman powers, and he learns from the
spirit
of his true father - another New Testament parallel - that he must use
these
exceptional powers for good, not to alter the destiny of the world but
to
combat evil wherever it may arise.
"So, my enemies, this bogus
Second
Coming is implicated in the ethical spectrum and is only marginally
wiser,
despite his extraordinary powers, than the good right-wingers who, in
liberal
societies, are accustomed, after their fashion, to combating political
evil in
the form of the left-wing opposition. He
stands no more chance of overcoming evil, in any absolute sense, than
they do,
and is all the more bogus from a genuinely Messianic point-of-view,
since it is
precisely the American way of life, with its liberal institutions and
capitalist freedoms, that he wishes to protect.
He's not 'the True' but 'the Good', and if 'the Evil' are among
his
chief enemies, they certainly aren't the only ones!
He would oppose 'the Illusory' as well,
assuming there were any Communists at large in the land of his adoption.
"Fortunately for
"Could
Social
Transcendentalists
be statesmen, in any real political sense? No,
my enemies, Social Transcendentalists
should never be defined in terms applicable to the democratic spectrum. Rather, they're theocratic Centrists, for
whom the meditation centre takes precedence over any parliamentary
assembly. Indeed, there wouldn't be a
parliamentary assembly, since parliaments appertain to democracy as
places
where people's representatives congregate to do the people's business.
"If theocratic Centrists
were to
congregate anywhere, it wouldn't be in a parliament building but in a
special
Centre, a kind of arch-cathedral equivalent in which they would discuss
what
needed to be discussed in relation to Social Transcendentalist
progress, and
where they would listen to the Leader haranguing them on the domestic
and
global situation, ideological ambitions and obligations, or the finer
points of
Centrist logic. They would face the
Leader in a kind of semi-circular arrangement, followers in the
presence of the
ideological cynosure, somewhat along the lines of Mussolini's Grand
Council,
the Leader and his chief disciples - members of the ruling elite.
"Naturally there would also
be
regional Centres, where the generality of theocratic Centrists in any
one area
could congregate to discuss local affairs and carry on the business of
what
would formerly have been called Local Government. Most
if
not all Centrists should, in
addition, have an individual meditation centre for purposes of
religious
instruction and enlightenment of the masses, their role there akin to
that of a
priest in a church, being effectively the successors to priests.
"Unlike in a relative
society,
however, these theocratic Centrists would not function separately from
politicians, since there would be no politics as generally understood
within a
democratic context. With the supersession of democracy, legislative and
administrative
authority should pass exclusively to the theocratic spectrum, as
signified by
the Centre. Just as in Catholic
"Of
course,
I
know that you, my enemies, will try to prevent Social
Transcendentalism from coming to pass in
"But just consider, my
enemies, how
dissatisfied he would feel if, in being democratically elected, he was
duly
obliged, along with his chief enemies, to take a seat in parliament, in
the dáil, and play the democratic game,
co-existing with
political parties on the basis of democratic representation, obliged to
face
the prospect of future general elections and a permanent or
intermittent
representative status!
"No, that kind of situation
he could
never tolerate! So if he were to be
elected democratically - and there is no other way that he would want
to assume
political responsibility - it would have to be on the prior
understanding,
backed and sanctioned by the Church, that he intended to abolish the
parliamentary system and set up a Social Transcendentalist
administration -
admittedly a most unorthodox and paradoxical basis for being elected,
but not
altogether inconceivable in a country where 'God and the Church come
first' and
a majority of people could therefore probably be depended upon to use
democracy
in order to vote for a new and ultimate theocracy, even granted
hard-line
democratic opposition to theocratic absolutism.
"Yet he knows that even if
he were
elected in such a paradoxical fashion, there would still be
parliamentary
opposition to his intentions to abolish the democratic constitution, so
that,
one way or another, friction would probably break out between those on
his side
- the true and theocratic Irishmen - and those on the other side - that
of the
state, democracy, capitalism, private property, petty-bourgeois
internationalism. There is no way that
my enemies, a sizeable minority of the population of
"So,
my
enemies,
I take up the responsibility of the Last Judgement and I say:
if
struggle there must be, then we shall struggle to the end, using the
opportunity any such reactionary revolt against majority interests may
give us
to remove your influence from the land, in order that our people may go
forward
to a Social Transcendentalist salvation ... free from all alien
influences,
free to be true to their selves, to develop an absolutely theocratic
Ireland. We would rejoice in the
opportunity any such struggle would give us to purge you from our midst!
"Eventually, my enemies,
there would
be few if any enemies left on the island, and the Irish people would be
free
from oppression for all time, free to develop their theocratic
potential to its
utmost, as they grew into the True World Religion ... of Social
Transcendentalism/Super-transcendentalism and paid regular visits to
its
meditation centres, the future successors to churches.
"But, of course, the Irish
Social
Transcendental Centre, as
"Ah, hear this well, my
enemies: we
Social Transcendentalists have truly global objectives!
We are no petty-bourgeois internationalists,
still less bourgeois nationalists, but proletarian supra-nationalists
for whom
the existence of nation states is but a passing phase of political
evolution,
one especially pertinent to the democratic spectrum.
We of the theocratic spectrum know where
evolution is tending and, rest assured, we shall know how to further it
as
well!"
Thus speaks the Social
Transcendentalist.
