25-31/10/12

An introvert, if he didn't occasionally 'let off steam', would be likely to implode. On the other hand, an extrovert who wasn't permitted or encouraged to 'let off steam' (his normal condition) would be more likely to explode.

The English have a problem with bohemian intellectuals, as with bohemian intellectualism in general, largely because they are expected to toe a middle-class line axially in cahoots with the upper class, who are the furthest removed from bohemian intellectuals/intellectualism and the epitome, for the English, of all things sacrosanct, if not sacred.

Disappearing them beneath ground until they are no more and won't ever reappear except in superhuman if not supra-human guise in the long-term apotheosis of the messianically-inspired evolutionary process. - These are the opening lines of his new poem, which remained unpublished or, rather, unfinished, because he couldn't think of what else to write.

For every endeavour to establish and adhere to an ideal, be it ever so flawed, there is an equal if contrary reaction likely to take an overly materialistic form, as the female side of life fights back with a vengeance against essentially male attempts to further the ideal. The reaction is a dreadful thing to behold, but it appears to be a law of life in this world that the ideal will not acquire universal support. Even at the domestic level this would appear to be the case, as the artist, philosopher, or whatever, finds himself surrounded and hemmed-in by any number of philistine if not barbarous nincompoops with little or no discernible sensibility. God, these bitches (and their pseudo-male devotees) are hard to defeat!

They will never accept the truth, but will do everything in their power to stand in its way, block it out, pretend it's something other than what one knows it to be, and so on, under the sway of Nature, of the beauty and strength, love and pride, that follows from a female – not a male – creative force in back of it, as of the world. This fact has always bedevilled religion, not to mention philosophy and the Arts in general.

I've never seen a goose doing anything resembling a 'goose-step', still less soldiers marching in 'goose-step' formation resembling geese. What I do see about goose-stepping soldiers is a down-to-earth emphasis compatible with a certain socialistic disposition not incompatible with church-hegemonic axial criteria (from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass).

This would contrast with armies, like the British, given to an arm-swinging approach to marching suggestive, in its aloofness from the world, of an autocratic disposition typifying state-hegemonic axial criteria (northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass), with an emphasis on the northwest point, or pole, of the axis in question.

Therefore a contrast, in these two styles of marching, between the foot (southwest point) of the church-hegemonic axis and the head (northwest point) of the state-hegemonic axis, as though deriving from contrary ethnic traditions (catholic and protestant) that are, nonetheless, alternative forms of alpha objectivity (female in character), whether alpha-orientated (high arm-swinging) or alpha-stemming (goose-stepping).

That, at any rate, would be my perception of this marching differential.

Art, when true, is the highest form of free enterprise. The true artist, including the philosopher of religious truth, does not serve the People, like a slave to barbarism and philistinism, but in his pursuit and, ultimately, attainment of truth provides a goal for individual persons to aspire towards. He remains true to himself, to his vocational duty as an artist, and thereby transcends the world, including not least the People, who are germane to the world.

The desire for a better world, a world transcending this one in its otherworldliness, is the prerogative of the artist, the thinker, the genius, since the People themselves, who are of the world, do not habitually aspire towards such a 'better world' but seek and strive towards only an improvement of the existing one, whether through socialism or capitalism, republicanism or parliamentarianism.

The artist, aloof from both forms of worldliness, pursues his own ideal independently of the People and also of other artists. Thus he is the ultimate embodiment of free enterprise, without whom there can be no possibility of 'world overcoming' (Nietzsche) in and through 'Kingdom Come', which is the brainchild of the ultimate artist, the artist as 'philosopher king' and messianic harbinger of religious, or metaphysical, truth.

Those who defy the world in this way are alone worthy of 'Kingdom Come'.

If you don't like sport, don't go to or, worse, choose to live in Ireland. Not only the usual British sports, like football and rugby, but the traditionally more Irish sports of Gaelic (so-called) football and hurling, plus pretty much everything else, including golf and tennis, will ensure that you are never very far from the sight and sound of some kind of sports action and/or news.

Frankly, that would be the last thing I would want, since I find most sport depressing in its barbarous competitiveness and boring in its philistine execution. The less sport, as far as I'm concerned, the better!

Hurling is apparently the oldest game in Europe if not the world and, being Irish, it is played with a peculiar intensity that is chilling to behold. The hurleys (hurling sticks) remind me uncomfortably of clubs, and to be sure there is something almost Stone Age about the savage nature of this invariably high-scoring game. Not for me!

Had I grown up in Ireland I would probably have ended-up taking hurling and/or Gaelic football for granted. Instead of which, growing up in England, I not only don't understand them but don't much like them either. Not that I like rugby or football instead, though I suppose, growing up with football (soccer), I have more tolerance for the latter, which I can at least understand, if still subject to a certain moral revulsion every time somebody heads the ball. But I would hate to be in a position where I was expected or even had to encourage any male offspring of mine to play it! The fact that I am not a father means that I don't have to risk kicking a ball around some local park in five or six years time and encourage any male child of mine to do likewise or, worse, physically apply his head to it. Besides, my age alone, as someone in his sixties, would preclude any such eventuality, since I would quickly run out of breath or, more to the point, become victim to my breath getting carried away with itself and virtually choking me, as has happened on occasions in the recent past when I was stupid enough to run for a bus and discovered, to my horror, that my lungs had taken on a momentum of their own from which they seemed to be in no hurry to release me.

The artist, if genuine, has nothing to do with sport, finding it physically and morally abhorrent. Sport is for barbarians and philistines, not for civilized and cultured persons. Naturally, the masses adore sport and detest art, whereas the artist, who should never court the masses, detests sport and adores art, especially his own.

No artist who is worthy of the name ever can be a 'man of the People'. On the contrary, the People, being natural, are inimical to art and thus to the artist, who can only produce art by defying the masses and carrying on regardless, knowing full-well that his art will not be understood by the common herd, least of all in its female manifestation. Yet, then again, it was never intended for the common herd, but only for those who can rise to the appreciation of higher values, having the ability to think and act independently of the masses.

Yet that is indirectly rather than directly the case, since no genuine artist, when actively engaged in the pursuit of truth (not beauty!), actually produces anything with others in mind. On the contrary, what he does is complete in itself, not an advert for some appreciation society. For the artist, being an individual, cannot appeal to the crowd or do anything that would encourage mass appreciation which, were it to transpire, could be highly detrimental to his art, not to say to art in general, which, as in museums and galleries, is soon killed off by the masses.

Mass appreciation is for the artiste, who is fundamentally female in character and behaviour, not for the artist. Yet with the masses the artiste, everywhere apparent and actively 'in your face', is the artist! Hence the corrupting influence of the masses upon art, which risks becoming the sole preserve of the artiste, the popular entertainer, the charlatan, at the expense of truth and whatever is more genuinely male, that is, metaphysical, or essentially beyond the limitations of the masses, who have no understanding, let alone experience of, the sublime, never mind 'God in Heaven' (akin to truth in joy).

The masses, on the contrary, relate, whether directly or indirectly, to 'Hell in the Devil' (akin to love in beauty), and therefore are not disposed to genuine art. The so-called People's artist, which seems to me a contradiction in terms, is really a People's artiste, and all she/he does is reinforce those alpha-orientated and/or alpha-stemming prejudices and predilections which keep the world turning as something from which metaphysics, whether in terms of Heaven, God, or Art, is systematically excluded.

But the People, conversely, are excluded from genuine art, just as they are excluded, by their own attitudes and limitations, from Heaven and the godly face of Heaven, which is Truth.

Were Art, Heaven, Godliness ever to universally triumph, it could only be at the expense of the People. The People would have to die (to the flesh), just as Christ Himself died (in the flesh) before any prospect of Eternal Life could transpire.

Man is indeed 'something that should be overcome' (Nietzsche), but that can only happen in consequence of messianic intervention, without which the People would never die to themselves as Devil-worshipping deniers of God rooted, if not centred, in the world. If man is something that 'should be overcome', then so, too, is the world … in the name of otherworldly values centred in the Beyond, the Eternal Life of Heaven the Holy Soul.

Circumstances and experience have taught me not to like people until given sufficient grounds for revising that stance.

A clever man and an enlightened one are not necessarily the same. A clever man may, in music, prefer harmony and pseudo-melody to melody and pseudo-harmony, but an enlightened one will prefer rhythm and pseudo-pitch not only to pitch and pseudo-rhythm, but to harmony and pseudo-melody also.

Those who climbed out of barbarism to become civilized through Christianity, praying and hoping for salvation from this world to a better one, are alone human beings. The rest, bogged down in sin-worshipping sensuality and tribal barbarity, are simply a two-legged species of animal. They are not fully human, much less superhuman and/or supra-human, but subhuman(istic) animals dominated by instinct and impulse, whose creed has nothing to do with 'turning the other cheek' in order to remain 'true to self', but is fundamentally power-worshipping.

If the police are the only ones permitted to override the law in the interests of justice, then it seems not unreasonable to me that judges should be the only ones permitted to override the police in the interests of law.

A humane attitude towards pets is not incompatible with an inhumane one towards pests.

The extrovert is extrinsically (selflessly) expressive, whereas the introvert is intrinsically (selfishly) impressive.