20-25/04/13
Paradoxically, the most salient feature of rock
music (rock 'n' roll), certainly in its mainstream permutations, is that it is
straight in other words, conceived on a 'once-born', alpha-stemming basis
that glories in sensuality, not least in respect of love and sex. Most male
rock musicians are inevitably pseudo-physical and, hence, sons-of-bitches, for
whom deference to females (the chemical and effectively pop music hegemony
over pseudo-physics) is a given. There is little that is Christian, much less
Superchristian (Social Theocratic?) about such people, although on the fringes
of rock music one does encounter elements of a desire for otherworldly release
from worldly bondage, even if this is sometimes misinterpreted in terms of 'the
Beautiful', and a return, via Nature, to metachemical criteria presided over,
as it invariably is, by the supernatural. Much of the hippy-based so-called
'counter culture' of the mid-late 1960s was effectively of this tendency, with
an Indian-inspired alpha-oriented fatality that fought shy of omega-oriented
criteria. When you succumb to beauty and love, those twin pillars of metachemical
free soma (in the female), that, alas, will be pretty much the inevitable
consequence, and you become no better than a kind of apostle or even apostate
of a superheathen disposition within the framework of New World-dominated
contemporary secularity. Too bad!
When civilization is little more than an
artificial form of Nature, as it tends to be in these days of secular freedom,
it's as though the equivalent of a shoal of mackerel or other small fish that
had bunched up into a revolving (rock 'n' roll-like) ball in order to have some
chance of surviving a two-pronged predatory assault from the air and the sea,
from sharp-beaked birds diving down into the sea and big fish (sharks, dolphin,
tuna, etc.) storming up from below, had its human counterpart in the way the
lapsed Catholic/republican socialist masses are axially preyed upon by men
whose suit-wearing sartorial norms of bow-tie and neck-tie put them in an
analogous position to the diving birds and storming fish that were assaulting
the bunched-up swirling shoal of mackerel from above and below, from
approximately metachemical and physical positions whose human correspondence
would be state-hegemonic and very much a bow-tie and neck-tie polarity for whom
open-necked shirts and/or tee-shirt-wearing types were their chosen prey, to be
ripped off from above (somatic licence) and below (profiting from the financing
of said licence) in a two-pronged attack upon the chemically-dominated church
hegemonic or, in republican guise, lapsed catholic socialistic masses, their
own proletariats not altogether excepted.
So when, to repeat, civilization is no more
than an artificial form of Nature, you simply have a predator/prey dichotomy
that allows the former to exploit (rip off and effectively gobble up) the
latter in a mirror image of what transpires not only in the oceans (dreadful
places!), but also in the jungles and deserts of the planet in general. And
this situation will continue until the masses, preferably within traditionally
church-hegemonic axial contexts or nations, democratically opt for a new
religion that will have the ability to deliver them from their preyed-upon
plight and thereby put the predators out of axial business, as it were, for
want of prey. That alone would put an end to the so-called 'exploitation of man
by man', since it would be germane not to this world, with its predatory/prey
dichotomy, but to the otherworldly criteria of 'Kingdom Come' in which 'man' is
being 'overcome' and the ensuing life-form lives independently of human
limitations, not least as they derive from Nature and all things natural.
The dedicated reader of my writings, not just
this book, or collection of ideas, will of course already know what I consider
the 'new religion' to be and how it can be brought about, so I needn't bother
to repeat myself here, especially as it would be with the utmost reluctance,
except to say that civilization can and should be more than
just a glorified form of Nature, and won't have attained to its full
global/universal stature until it becomes so.
But, of course, it won't be the people who are
behind (both literally and figuratively) the contemporary form of global
civilization that will have to be 'resurrected', in the appropriately new
religious terms, for the overhaul of what now exists to transpire. On the
contrary, it will be those who have lived in the shadow, as it were, of this
development, stretching from the Reformation on down to the overlap with the
present state of civilization, who will have to be 'raised from the dead' if
true progress beyond it is to become a reality and not continue to remain a
kind of life wish of their 'dead souls'.
When they call Hell 'Heaven', as they do, there
can be no place for Heaven as such, and religion is
accordingly corrupt. Joy-excluding love is the name of their metachemical game,
which is emblematically embodied in triangles, angular pediments, and such-like
expressions of a tripartite (trinitarian) shortfall from the possibility, in
'Kingdom Come', of metaphysical heaven, or Heaven per se.
People refusing to demystify themselves (an
observation Ionesco first raised in, if I remember correctly, his Journal
en Miettes), the big religious lie (the Lie par excellence) of
Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father permitting priests, citing beauty and
love, to say, with complete unction: What God has joined together, let no man
pull apart, or words to that paradoxical effect. As if beauty and love had
anything to do with God or, more correctly, the godly in relation to Heaven,
that is to say, of truth in relation to joy!
I would be reluctant to put a ring on anybody's
finger, never mind to acquiesce in the God-rhetoric of Nature or, more
specifically, of Supernature, as of metachemical beauty and love,
corresponding, as I believe, to Devil the Mother and to Hell the Clear Spirit.
Newton, who was of course a scientific genius
of the first rank, was little more than a Jew or a Moslem when it came to
identifying God with 'the Creator' (the Father, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc.) and
making Christ out to be no more than a link between 'God' and 'man', not a
separate succeeding order of deity germane to Christianity. In that respect,
one can see how the Protestant departure, both axially and theologically, from
the 'Mother Church' of Catholicism paved the way, in Anglicanism, for a more
fundamentalist approach to religion that would reap a Puritan backlash when the
emphasis came to be placed on Christ (though not, of course, in Catholic terms,
which is to say, neither Christmas-like nor Easter-like) at the expense of the
Father, and in adherence, not least, to the New Testament at the expense of the
Old, not excepting the King James Bible, which would have been more congenial
to Newton from a standpoint favouring the Old Testament at the expense of the
New.
But whether, in a kind of Anglican/Puritan
axial polarity, you prefer the Old Testament to the New or the New Testament to
the Old, even going so far, in the more radical Puritan case, as ditching the
Old Testament altogether in favour of a Gideon New Testament-type parallelism
to the Cromwellian Republic, the fact remains that in neither case are you
subscribing to Marianism, but to different interpretations of God that puts the
Holy Spirit in either a cohesive light, as between Father and Son, Old and New
Testaments, or, notwithstanding biblical reference to the Holy Spirit as a
conduit from the Father to the Virgin Mary (and thus to the Mother-to-be of God
the Son a way of theologically justifying or even delineating the 'Immaculate
Conception'), in a leading light that makes of it the so-called 'Third Person'
of the Trinity, beyond both the Father and the Son, the attenuated 'Creator
God' of an Old Testament in cahoots with a New Testament, in what may seem like
a portent of Eternity, 'Kingdom Come', Heaven, and even the transfigured Christ
of the Resurrection and/or Second Coming. In that respect, the Holy Spirit
permits of an open-ended future in which there is the possibility, if not
actuality, of an Omega Point, antithetical to the Alpha Point, so to speak, of the
fundamentalist monotheism of God as Creator, a point, by contrast, of
otherworldly significance lying beyond the 'light of the world', which is
Christ, but not as a link, simply leading back in pointless fashion, to the
Creator.
This, however, is evidently not something that
Sir Isaac Newton, as a Creator-oriented telescope-wielding scientist with his
eyes firmly fixed on the Cosmos, or so-called Universe of monotheistic
make-over, would have subscribed to, and for that reason, much as he may have
been a scientific genius of the first magnitude, he was incontestably a kind of
theological idiot.
As, several generations of scientists later,
was Aldous Huxley, son of Thomas Henry Huxley, whose Anglican, or High Church,
fatality towards fundamentalism led him to espouse the Clear Light of the Void
(in America), thereby going back behind Jehovah Witnesses and
Jehovah-worshipping Jews to a position owing more, in its cosmic orientation,
to Hinduism than to any later religious traditions, Eastern or Western.
Really, you can't go further back in
pseudo-time and space, pseudo-metaphysics and metachemistry, than that,
and it just goes to show how English Protestants of a certain scientific
disposition just cannot be trusted, never mind believed, where religion is concerned.
Huxley was an even bigger idiot, in that respect, than
The People, being naturally conservative,
esteem all that is natural and utilitarian, fighting shy, with cynical
insouciance, of the artificiality of culture and thus of that which, with
otherworldly aspirations, is truly radical.
The People do not have the intelligence for
anything progressively radical, but tend rather to cling to the past out of
fear of the unknown and from an inherent scepticism concerning the possibility
of significant change, what with the female-dominated evidence to the contrary
which daily characterizes their lives.
It is my privilege, as a 'leading light' in the
field of radical philosophy, or philosophy with an ideological edge, to have
remained, all these years, relatively if not completely unrecognised and
unknown, rather than to have become, after the tastes of the populist masses,
some kind of celebrity or pseudo-intellectual star, shining from the television
screens with a set of shiny white teeth and a jovial demeanour. Had it been
otherwise, I would have had reason, long ago, to doubt my entitlement to
consideration as a philosophical genius of the first rank.
If there's one thing I'd be most reluctant to
do, it would be to debase my philosophy no, not by having it published in
conventional mainstream book format (which could never happen anyway) but by
climbing onto the proverbial soapbox, so to speak, and haranguing the masses
especially the cynical British masses as to the moral value and eschatological
significance of Social Theocracy in relation to the possibility of 'Kingdom
Come'. If ever there was a sense in which, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'I am not
the mouth for their ears'
it would apply to my philosophy and its
irrelevance, by and large, to the British, whom I have been fated to live among
whilst not being of
Unlike Nietzsche, however, I could well be the
mouth for German ears, but having my works translated into German, much less
understood, would not be too straightforward.
If I have no friends, especially British ones,
it is for the sound reason that I would find it difficult to be friendly
towards such people or that I would sooner or later come up against the usual
ethnically-conditioned incompatibilities and divergent attitudes towards things
Irish or religious or cultural. After all, I am (if on revolutionary terms)
profoundly church-hegemonic, and nothing that the state-hegemonic British
uphold, whether superficially or profoundly, in relation to either noumenal
objectivity or phenomenal subjectivity, has any great appeal to me. In most
things, I find that I am simply out of sympathy with them.
In actuality, I have spent the best part of my
life avoiding, not embracing, British criteria, including education, sport,
religion, science, economics, politics, and what passes for culture generally.
As a youth I was in rebellion against it, seeing in rock 'n' roll an antidote
to the so-called classical music of the bourgeois establishment. As an adult I
developed my own alternative lifestyle and philosophy, to which, quite
logically, I still adhere, since it adds up, and what adds up within a
comprehensive structure must be true.
Reluctance to play the 'British game' has
always been a salient aspect of my character and fundamental nature. Both
Protestantism and Parliamentary Democracy have always left me cold, and when
confronted by the choices they present to one I tend, more usually, to freeze,
given my antipathy to state-hegemonic criteria. Any decision in regard to such
choices would still amount, so far as I'm concerned, to a sell-out, to a
repudiation of one's better knowledge and identification with church-hegemonic
criteria.
His was a life that couldn't be lived; only
endured.
There is nothing romantic or heroic about being
an outsider. On the contrary, it is one of the worst fates imaginable, both
humiliating and depressing, with a sense of everlasting solitariness.
I was once asked, by an Englishman, whether, as
a self-professed Irishman, I was ignorant. I should have retorted: Only of
things British, but, as usual, fearing to give offence and being too nervous
to think straight, I simply replied: No or, rather, I hope not, which now
strikes me as lame and
evasive. Besides, everyone is ignorant as well as
knowledgeable and, as I think I explained in one of my earlier titles (possibly
The
Fall of Love), knowledge breeds ignorance and ignorance knowledge.
So his question, being sarcastic and probably rhetorical, was fundamentally an
expression of ignorance based on ethnic prejudice.
You do not get rid of oppression by removing
the oppressor (the socialist delusion). The only way to get rid of oppression
is by delivering, through salvation (of males) and counter-damnation (of
females), the relevant masses (lapsed catholic and/or republican socialist)
from their lowly predicament at the foot of the church-hegemonic axis in
countries, like the Republic of Ireland, with a predominantly church-hegemonic
axial tradition, to the polar axial heights of a full complement of metaphysics
(for the pseudo-physical) and a properly deferential pseudo-metachemistry (for
the chemical), so that those who had been pseudo-physically 'last' (equivocally
subordinate to the chemical) become metaphysically 'first' (unequivocally
hegemonic over the pseudo-metachemical), and those who had been chemically
'first' (equivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-physical) become
pseudo-metachemically 'last' (unequivocally subordinate to the metaphysical), a
process which, if thoroughly undertaken by a revolutionary regime mindful of
Social Theocratic criteria, will eventually lead to the downfall of oppression,
as of metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical oppressors and, hence, to the general
collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria, that secular offshoot of schismatic
heresy. Think otherwise and you don't really think at all. Which is generally
true, after all, of the state-hegemonic themselves, including the
physical/pseudo-chemical polarities to the aforementioned
metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical positions that effectively dominate the axis
from 'on high'.
I fail to see how anybody dressed in a
conventional suit, with triangular lapels, could possibly have any time for or
inclination towards metaphysics and the possibility, never mind prospect, of
'Kingdom Come'. Such people are usually, if not invariably, at loggerheads with
idealism, never mind transcendentalism, and are more likely to be in cahoots
with a waistcoat-inclusive 'suit' who prefers, when he is 'properly dressed',
to wear a bow-tie to a neck-tie, thereby equating himself with an unequivocally
triangular disposition that has an architectural parallel in pediments of a
triangular nature what, in other writings, I have tended, without any degree
of reluctance, to dub aediculated monstrosities.
Today, thank goodness, the monstrosity they
call Alexandra Palace is largely obscured by a dense low-lying veil of cloud
that has come down, like a deus ex
machina, to hide the central pediment and the 'angel' that stands atop
its pinnacle as the ruling principle of such architectural and by association
social integrities, one I am profoundly out of sympathy with, since where
they see Truth I see the Lie, and where they see God I see the Devil (Devil the
Mother, not Satan or, for that matter, King David), and where they see an angel
I see a whore, and where they see autocratic freedom I see not plutocratic or
democratic freedoms, the freedoms of 'the world' in its antithetical axial
positions, but the justification of deliverance from freedom to that which is
neither free nor unfree (bound), but, in being true to self, simply is
not, to be sure, as metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, the age-old 'best of
a bad job' starting-point for civilization in its Judeo-Christian
manifestations, so much as metaphysics proper, independent, for all Eternity,
of everything metachemical, physical, and even (polar to itself) chemical.
The only ecumenicism worth taking seriously
would not be that of Catholics disgracefully cosying-up with Anglicans, and the
latter with Puritans or Nonconformists, but, on a much broader basis, that
between Christians, especially Catholics, and non-Christians, especially
Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, etc., in order to make their various religions or
faiths more open to the possibility of Social Theocracy, as of a Social
Theocratic overhaul of traditional religion, and the global promise, thereby,
of 'Kingdom Come'.
Pets (especially dogs) revolve around men, men
revolve around women, women revolve around children, and children revolve
around toys (including toy animals like teddy bears) the cyclic nature of
family relationships.
Family relationships are, of course, germane to
the 'wheel of suffering' that both perpetuates and is a symptom of worldly
life.
The bigger the family, the smaller the
individuals who comprise it.
The more natural the people, the less
artificially radical are they and the more correspondingly conservative.
But there are two ways of being artificially
radical the state-hegemonic axial way that leads down to Social Democracy,
and the church-hegemonic axial way that can lead up though hasn't as yet
begun its mission to Social Theocracy, the former being subhumanist and the
latter superhumanist or, which amounts to the same, superhuman.
Socialist intellectuals, who are artificially
radical on state-hegemonic axial terms, I would describe as inherently scatological,
their church-hegemonic counterparts, by contrast, as eschatological.
Man being something that 'should be overcome'
(Nietzsche) is a notion which can be applied to subhumanists as well as to
superhumanists, though, like Nietzsche, I would always interpret it in relation
to the superhuman, not to the mere overcoming of the bourgeoisie (man) by the
proletariat (subman), which is, rather, the position of Marxism and a
narrowing-down of life to the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
Britain, at the time of writing, is a land
chock-full of loud-mouthed foreigners who don't even close or shut their mouths
when eating, presumably because the type of food they eat is so hot and spicy
that it would be painful to close one's mouth even if one were not overly
extrovert by nature (and thus more given to hot food anyway) with, in all
probability, a correlatively loud-mouthed disposition.
Laws of nature are not about right or wrong in
a moral sense, but about what works and is therefore 'good' as opposed,
with the violation or negation of such laws, to what doesn't work and is
therefore 'bad'. Morality, on the other hand, is not utilitarian or pragmatic
(scientific), but an expression and/or impression, depending on one's gender,
of conscience (religious). And conscience, especially when male, is often in
conflict with nature.
The idea that morality is or should be
naturalistic is as false as the notion that religion is or should be
scientific, and derives, I believe, from the same misguided
(scientifically-biased) premise.
Christian morality, when genuine (catholic) has
little in common with Nature and is therefore bad, advisably from the
standpoint of conscience, for 'the world', as even Nietzsche, with his
anti-Christian polemics, well knew. But being 'bad' for the world is, in this
instance, to be 'good' for the Otherworld, as for otherworldly criteria centred
around Eternity and the prospect of 'Kingdom Come', for which, incidentally,
the Protestant Nietzsche, who was in many respects the culmination of
anti-Christian protest, had little capacity.
However, being 'bad' for the world is also
something that applies to the false morality deriving not from Christ but,
through Marx, from an opposition to humanism likely to culminate,
degeneratively, in a subhuman rather than superhuman dispensation having
nothing in common with otherworldly criteria because a manifestation of what
could be called subworldly criteria with a degree (revolutionary vanguard-like)
of neo-netherworldly criteria tacked on, with consequences that, given its
Social Democratic connotations, are likely to encourage a sodomy-oriented order
of homosexuality at axial variance with the 'priestly kiss' of Catholic tradition,
and doubtless with any prospective Social Theocratic removal from the depths of
bodily carnality that, like someone blowing a kiss, would be equally if not
more elevated than its priestly counterpart and, in an historical sense,
predecessor, and certainly correspondingly more (if not most) artificial in its
sublimated implications.
Conscience is gender divisible and also
divisible according to class, that is, whether one is upper or lower class,
noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or relative, in both
alpha and omega.
The morality of conscience is about truth to
self, be that self female or male, predominantly of soma (body) or
preponderantly of psyche (mind), and the rightness or wrongness of morality is
in respect of the degree to which one is either true to self (right) or false
to self (wrong), and therefore subject to censure for having 'sold out' or
betrayed oneself or otherwise acted contrary to self-interest, be that self
somatic (female) or psychic (male) or, in androgynous cases, a paradoxical
cross between the two.
There is no more one mode of conscience than
there is one mode, or type, of morality, or loyalty to self. Whether you are
morally wrong or right is determinable, unlike natural law, by conscience,
which enables you to weigh your relationship to self in the balance of moral
judgement and, if you're not unduly corrupt, draw appropriate conclusions.
Whereas metachemical and chemical modes of
being true to self are female in respect of will and spirit, their physical and
metaphysical counterparts are male in respect of ego and soul, with alpha and
omega noumenal distinctions between will and soul on the one hand,
that of absolute or ethereal morality, and alpha and omega phenomenal
distinctions between spirit and ego on the other hand, that of relative or
corporeal morality, neither of which, whether noumenal or phenomenal, are
compatible with the other, because germane to opposite gender positions on what
transpire to be antithetical axes, the only difference being that whereas will
and soul are absolutely incompatible, spirit and ego are relatively
incompatible and therefore incompatible to a lesser (2½:1½ as opposed to 3:1)
degree.
The conflict between social conscience and
individual conscience, natural morality (not to be confused with natural law)
and, for want of a better word, artificial morality, corresponding to
gender-based antithetical modes of self-interest (soma and psyche, body and
mind, subdivisible, in each case, between will/spirit on the one hand, and
ego/soul on the other), is a seemingly never-ending struggle that typifies 'the
world' (not simply planet Earth but the human sphere of civilization in
general), torn, as it is, between social and individual interests, the latter
of which usually come off worse in a world where, traditionally and even
typically these days, the female side of things, being objective (stemming from
a vacuum) is effectively dominant and normally disposed to getting its way.
But people themselves are often divided on this
issue, and never more so than in the relative, or phenomenal, contexts of
worldly life proper, which are either collectively social with aspirations,
when not unduly corrupted, towards universal individuality (church-hegemonic
axis) or individually personal and beholden (as with an oath of allegiance by
British parliamentarians to the British throne) to collectively polyversal
society, so that their own antithetical positions are subject to the pull of
polar opposites which lead (individually universal) or rule (collectively
polyversal) them, according to the prevailing axis.
Thus whether the personal conscience of ego is
undermined by the polyversal conscience of will or, contrariwise, the
impersonal conscience of spirit is undermined by the universal conscience of
soul, undermined it will be, and a correspondingly greater degree of moral
ambiguity and ambivalence, amounting in many instances to amorality, tends to
obtain.
Goodness, for all its pompous claims to victory
and moral supremacy, is constantly undermined by evil, as is punishment by
crime (the church-subordinate corollary, in psyche, of state-hegemonic somatic
polarities), while, contrariwise, grace is constantly undermined by sin, as is
wisdom by folly (the state-subordinate corollary, in soma, of church-hegemonic
psychic polarities), to take but two contrary aspects, in each case, of what
appertains, in mainstream terms, to each axis, be it state-hegemonic (and
unequivocally dominated by metachemistry) or church-hegemonic (and
unequivocally dominated by metaphysics).
Justice can no more completely defeat vanity
than, on the church-hegemonic axis, righteousness completely defeat meekness,
at least not on the traditional more-or-less humanist terms of the Catholic
Church. But on more than humanist terms, the terms, more precisely, of the
superhuman, meekness can be saved to righteousness (along with the correlative
counter-damnation of its female counterparts from pseudo-vanity to
pseudo-justice), thus bringing about a situation whereby vanity will be damned
to justice (along with the correlative counter-salvation of its male
counterparts from pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness), thereby putting an
end to the seemingly never-ending struggle between the conflicting kinds of
conscience that is 'the world' or, more correctly, 'the world' still ruled over
by metachemical polyversality and not yet entirely led by metaphysical
universality an eventuality commensurate, were it to transpire, with 'Kingdom
Come', and thus with the 'resurrection' of church-hegemonic criteria in terms
of a full-complement, as it were, of metaphysics and a correspondingly
deferential pseudo-metachemistry which, together, would allow for the
deliverance of that manifestation of 'the world' which corresponds to
pseudo-physics and chemistry at the base of the traditional church-hegemonic
axis since gone, in a manner of speaking, to the republican socialist 'dogs' of
secular degeneration but not, thank god, to a degree where there could be no
accommodation with the religion to come and no prospect, in consequence (as
with state-hegemonic societies), of 'Kingdom Come'.
If I am reluctant to write this morning
(25/04/13), it is more because of the continuous drilling and hammering
next-door than of anything else, even the state of my health which, largely I
suspect in consequence of having to endure months of such brutal noise, is not
all it could be, neither physically nor mentally, and that quite apart from the
poor condition of my eyes, which have continued to deteriorate.
Today, however, I am due back at Moorfield's
Not able to do any work (writing) because my
pupils are still too dilated from the drops I was given at the hospital earlier
this afternoon. So I sit in my living room and listen, helplessly, to the
noises still being generated by the workmen next-door. Of course, I could play
music, but somehow I don't feel in the mood. It was ironic that I was limping
to and from the eye hospital with a painfully wonky right knee that came upon
me Monday morning (22/04/13) just before I was due to walk down the road
towards the Estate Agents in order to pay my monthly rent. What it is, exactly,
I don't pretend to know, though I have my suspicions, not least in respect of
the amount of pressure I have been under from all the noise being generated
next-door. I suppose, at sixty, one has to be resigned to such ailments or
afflictions, including rheumatism and/or arthritis. I only hope I don't end-up
using a walking stick, particularly as my mother, who is still alive, is a
great walker and categorically refuses to use one!
