08-12/12/12
If superstition is bad for science, as
pseudo-subjectivity for objectivity, then it should follow, if on an
antithetical basis, that art will be bad for religion, as pseudo-objectivity for
subjectivity, since a corruption, in effect, of inner feelings through outer
presentation (representation). Just as science could do without superstition,
as of an emotional deflection from empirical evidence or analysis, so religion,
when in any degree genuine (true) would be better served without art, although,
as with science and superstition, religion and art are close bedfellows on
effectively opposite sides of the gender fence, and religion, like science, has
rarely been able to escape from the attentions of its suitor or gender
counterpart, since subjectivity, which is male, will usually if not invariably
engender a pseudo-objective reaction in the form of art that is, I suppose, a
bit like a nun to a monk or even, in an analogous context, fiction of one sort
or another to philosophy, the equivalent, where superstition and science are
concerned, of a kind of poetic reaction to drama, the more objective art form
that poetry often unconsciously undermines through a pseudo-subjective
interpretation of facts or objective phenomena largely deriving from a
disposition that, being in some degree male (if pseudo-male in its gender
subordination to a female, that is, dramatic hegemony), is fundamentally at
loggerheads with the outside world and with whatever speaks directly from
objective experience or is capable of being empirically verified.
Were science able to be entirely rid of
superstition it would no doubt proceed as though superstition didn't exist or
had been exposed for what it was worth and summarily dispatched to the
historical rubbish bin of false claims and presumptuous inferences, and there
are doubtless scientists who would consider themselves above superstition and
objectively incapable of drawing false conclusions, even though plenty of evidence
to the contrary can usually be found.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint,
religion would doubtless prefer, in the course of its subjective progress
towards enhanced lightness of being, to be rid of art, but a deal with the
Devil or, in this case, pseudo-Devil (the Mother) is a necessary evil in
consequence of having to deal with matters effectively germane to the opposite
sex, and it is better that art should be the proverbial handmaiden of religion
and therefore be, to some extent, religiously accountable than have a largely
or, worse, completely independent existence in the form of art-for-art's-sake
that, in the nature of things, could only result in its secular downfall,
whether on a quasi-scientific 'objective' basis likely to reflect, as
empirically as possible, the outside world or, alternatively, on a
quasi-superstitious 'pseudo-subjective' basis in which the outside world is
imaginatively transformed if not grossly distorted through emotions having
their basis in a certain pseudo-subjective contempt for objectivity. Either way
and the art in question, be it quasi-female ('objective') or quasi-pseudo-male
('pseudo-subjective') will no longer be depicting religion, so to speak, but
have 'sold out' to the other side, to all that is both contrary and inimical to
religion, not to mention genuine art, in what can only be described as one type
of another of anti-art, of which there are countless examples, from modern
realism and surrealism to expressionism and impressionism, in the twentieth century
and beyond that, like the artistes alluded to on an earlier page, tend to
predominate and to pass muster, with the ignorant, as art and the work of
artists!
Nothing, however, could be further from being
the case. But so much are things alpha-stemming if not alpha-orientated in this
day and age of bourgeois decadence/proletarian barbarism, that anything
remotely resembling genuine art would appear completely out-of-place in a world
habituated to the ruthless deployment of the 'objective' and 'pseudo-subjective'
so-called freedoms of the anti-artist, the musical artiste's creative
counterpart. Suffice it to say that the madness of anti-art can only continue
to prevail in a sick and barbarous world so long as society has not opted, via
messianic intervention or some equivalent exponent through philosophy of a 'transvaluation of values', for a new religion and a new art
(beyond the Catholic tradition of religion and religious art), the latter of
which will both delineate and admire (worship?) the former from a standpoint
which is nonetheless capable of being censured and made categorically aware of
its subordinate status in a kind of supporting role reserved for all that is
less than metaphysical but indubitably no more than pseudo-metachemical,
with art equivalent to the (neutralized) dragon under the saintly heel of this
ultimate religion.
As a footnote to the above, I should add that
although the 'bovaryization' of art towards
superstition in quasi-pseudo-subjectivity and science in quasi-objectivity, with
consequences described as anti-art, is the more prevalent tendency in the
modern age, the contrary if comparable 'bovaryization',
or twisting, of superstition towards both art and religion in
quasi-pseudo-objective and quasi-subjective terms is by no means unheard of,
even these days, and instead of the standard pseudo-subjective 'take' on
matters objective, such as the presumption of an alien life-form contrary to
empirical verification of a rare species of monkey or ape by science, one has a
predilection, through what could be called anti-superstition (the contrary
equivalent of anti-art) towards either magic or mysticism or some occult belief
that may seem to be grounded, like astrology, in a degree of objectivity.
Although I am far from being an expert in such
matters, my guess is that the quasi-subjective 'bovaryization'
of superstition tends towards mysticism and belief in miracles, whereas the
quasi-pseudo-objective 'bovaryization' thereof tends,
rather more 'pseudo-scientifically', towards the occult, with a corresponding
predilection for 'black' as opposed to 'white' magic. So just as art can be
bent towards science and superstition, and is arguably the more prevalent kind
of 'art' in our own time, so superstition can be bent towards art and religion,
and I fancy (though the word seems like an understatement) that the tendency
towards 'anti-superstition' was much more prevalent in the Christian, and
particularly Medieval Catholic, past than ever it is today, when science is the
ruling discipline within an alpha-stemming if not alpha-orientated society
deriving, in no small measure, from Protestant opposition to church-hegemonic
axial norms and culminating in the technologically-driven secularity which is
becoming increasingly global in character and not just confined to the
traditionally more industrialized West, not least in its British and American
manifestations. Only in an age that was self-consciously committed to an omega
orientation would one find superstition turning against itself to a degree whereby
both religion and art were threatened by its 'bovaryization'
as, paradoxically, 'anti-superstition', the counterpart of 'anti-art' and the
quasi-scientific and quasi-superstitious audacities of 'modern art' in an age
and/or society dominated by the objective criteria of science.
There is a saying 'less is more', and, to be
sure, this can paradoxically be the case, as when soul is less will and,
instead of the dominance of Hell, you have Heaven; or when ego is less spirit
and, instead of the domination of Purgatory, so to speak, you have the Earth,
both of which male attributes require the subordination, through some degree of
neutralization or inhibiting, of will and spirit, as of the female capacity to
objectively impose them, via free soma, at the expense of or, where the male is
concerned, to the detriment of soul and ego, will noumenally
eclipsing soul and, down below, in the realm of phenomenal relativity, spirit
eclipsing ego, with predictably pseudo-bound psychic consequences for what is
then the pseudo-male of either pseudo-metaphysical subordination to metachemistry, the element of will, or pseudo-physical
subordination to chemistry, the element of spirit.
So, in that sense, 'less' is certainly 'more',
and the male who can avoid having either his soul or his ego eclipsed in such
fashions will be less false to himself, or his self, and correspondingly more
true to his self, be that self the soul or the ego, noumenal
or phenomenal, absolute or relative, within contexts that, being subjective,
are psychically abstract, the antithesis, in every sense, of the somatic
concretion to which, through will and spirit, he can so easily and, no doubt,
more naturally succumb, thus serving to perpetuate the world.
Increasingly, I find myself looking forward to
death as an escape from life.
Soma and psyche, female and male, alpha and
omega, concrete and abstract, particles and wavicles,
objective and subjective, body and mind, whether on absolute or relative, noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal terms, with
the 'body's mind', the blood (seat through the heart of the spirit), still
classifiable as soma, and the 'mind's body', the brain (seat through cogitation
of the ego), still classifiable as psyche, if on relative (spirit vis-a-vis ego) as opposed to absolute (will vis-a-vis soul) terms. And all because, gender-wise, the
body, being objective, can only be soma, like will and spirit, with the mind,
its subjective counterpart, psyche, like ego and soul. The 'body's mind' is no
less of the body proper (flesh) than the 'mind's body' of the mind
(consciousness), even if on devolved terms respectively. For spirit is no less
devolved from will than ego from soul, the literal core of the self from a male
standpoint which absolutely contrasts with its female counterpart in the
genitalia, whose self is somatic as opposed to psychic.
All backward peoples are fundamentally more
objective (and female-dominated) than their civilized counterparts in the
developed world like, for example,
If America, or the so-called New World, has
injected new life into the moribund carcass of Europe, or the so-called Old
World, particularly in its Western manifestation, it has come, this 'new life',
at a high price – namely at the cost of Christian values and the
cultivation, through culture, of sensibility, not to mention its corollary
(particularly with regard to pseudo-females) of civility. Rather is the '
The distinction I drew the other day between
female devolution on the one hand from will to spirit, flesh to blood, body to
the body's mind, and male devolution on the other hand from soul to ego, spinal
cord to brain, mind to mind's body, needs to be further qualified in terms of
the progressive nature of objective, or female, devolution from will to spirit,
etc., in the one case, and of the regressive nature of subjective, or male, devolution
from soul to ego, etc., in the other case, since whereas the female mode of
devolution leads down from beauty to pride, as from a vacuum to the
acquirement, via pregnancy and childbirth, of a surrogate plenum (the Marian
'ideal' or female resolution in maternity), its male counterpart leads down
from joy to knowledge (the 'forbidden tree' of Biblical reference), as from
perfect self-centredness independent of objectivity to a mode of self
physically dependent, by and large, on external sources of knowledge axially
dominated by the rule of beauty. Therefore whilst progressive devolution for
females implies the superseding of will by spirit, regressive devolution, its
male counterpart, implies the superseding of soul by ego and a kind of
egocentric selfhood which, being phenomenally relative rather than noumenally absolute, is subjected, via the pursuit of
knowledge, to the rule of beauty in free will.
But the converse of each kind of devolution is,
of course, evolution, and when the female evolves back to free will from free
spirit in free soma it is necessarily a regressive order of evolution that
leads from pride to beauty, as from giving to doing. Contrariwise, when the
male evolves back to free soul from free ego in free psyche it is necessarily a
progressive order of evolution that leads from knowledge to joy, as from taking
to being.
Therefore whilst regressive evolution leads
from chemistry to metachemistry, as from relative
alpha to absolute alpha, phenomenal objectivity to noumenal
objectivity, Purgatory to Hell, progressive evolution, by contrast, leads from
physics to metaphysics, as from relative omega to absolute omega, phenomenal
subjectivity to noumenal subjectivity, the Earth to
Heaven.
That is the distinction, more categorically,
between the gender-conditioned antithetical modes of devolution and evolution,
and one can be confident that where the male side of the equation is concerned
there is indeed a devolutionary 'fall', regressively, from soul to ego
commensurate, in a sense, with the fall of God (or God in Heaven) to man (or
man on the Earth), which can only be rectified, or reversed, in the event of an
evolutionary 'rise', commensurate with salvation, from man to God or, more
accurately in relation to the metaphysical fulcrum being soul, to Heaven.
As for 'woman', she too 'falls', albeit
progressively, as described above, but also 'rises' regressively back to her
starting-point in the wilful fulcrum (genitalia) of the flesh, from which
position she can progressively devolve afresh, and so on, until such time as
man elects to be delivered, via God, from subservience to this cycle of
world-perpetuating objectivity by refusing to meekly submit to woman and,
instead, opting (democratically) for Heaven the Holy Soul as his true centre in
what has been called 'Kingdom Come', the goal of progressive evolution that
will require the regressive counter-devolution (counter-damnation) of females
to a subordinate status in pseudo-metachemistry under
metaphysics, as the proverbial 'lion and/or wolf' that 'lies down' (through
neutralization) with the 'lamb' less of godly truth than of heavenly joy in the
absolute centre of metaphysics.
Is it the day of deliverance or is it doomsday?
Actually, right now, despite the date being 12/12/12, it's neither. But that
doesn't mean to say that such a day can't come to pass presumably at some time
in the not-too-distant future. And if it does, rest assured that it will be
both a day of deliverance and a
doomsday, that is, salvation from pseudo-physics to metaphysics for males (the
'last' becoming 'first') and, correlatively if conversely, counter-damnation
from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry for females
(the 'first' becoming 'last'), for whom the day in question would not be one of
deliverance (from female domination) but, rather, one of doom, as the world
officially comes to an end in relation to the beginning, in 'Kingdom Come', of
otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly criteria designed
to reward males with the grace and wisdom of eternal righteousness and condemn
females, by contrast, to the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of
pseudo-infinite pseudo-justice, the pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-diabolic concomitant, through pseudo-Devil the Mother, of a metaphysical
hegemony in Heaven the Holy Soul.
