Philosophical Truth
GARY:
Someone told me, the other day, that you don't believe in sexual equality,
being of the opinion that it is a sort of modern myth.
OLIVER: She
was right to tell you that! I don't
believe in it.
OLIVER:
Very well! Men and women are
fundamentally different creatures, and so they must remain until such time as
technology may decide otherwise. Women
signify appearance over essence and men, by contrast, essence over appearance.
GARY: Which means, I take it, that women are more beautiful than
men, and men more intellectual than women. The former are more sensual, the latter more
spiritual.
OLIVER:
Yes, generally speaking, that is indeed the case! One might argue that whereas women stem, in
their greater sensuality, from the diabolic roots of life in the Cosmos, men
aspire, in their greater spirituality, towards the divine blossom of life in
the Beyond. Women remain rooted in
appearances, in accordance with the dictates of their natural beauty.
OLIVER: No,
but we must ignore the exceptions in the interests of an overall rule. Philosophy deals with the general, not the
particular.
OLIVER: Traditionally men and women are contrary phenomena, and
therefore unequal.
We habitually speak of 'his better half', but, in reality, the reverse
is usually the case, insofar as women are less spiritual than men. Custom, however, dictates otherwise, male
vanity requiring the illusion of female superiority for convenience's
sake. To admit the truth would be
demeaning for a man and humiliating for a woman.
OLIVER:
Quite so! However, now that we have
acknowledged the traditional dualism between men and women, we are obliged to
come more up-to-date and thus face-up to the contemporary situation, in which
the sexes are increasingly being regarded as equal. Why is this?
OLIVER:
Because, my dear chap, we no longer live in a balanced environmental context
between nature and civilization but are becoming increasingly lopsided on the
side of civilization - in other words, because we live in a world which is no
longer dualistic but post-dualistic, growing estranged from the sensuous
influence of nature.
OLIVER: On the contrary, this is something to be grateful for,
especially if one is a man, since it confirms the fact that we are gradually
evolving towards the supernatural with the help of our expanding urban
environments. Yes, we are progressing
towards God, and because of this we live in a society which is becoming ever
more spiritual, ever more biased towards essence. Small wonder, therefore, if men and women are
increasingly being regarded as equal!
For women are also experiencing the consequences of civilized evolution
and becoming less sensual and correspondingly more spiritual, as they grow
isolated from nature in our great cities.
They are gradually being regarded as 'lesser men' rather than simply as
women, in deference to the post-dualistic status of the age. We treat them as equals because they are no
longer, in the main, what they used to be, no longer diametrically opposed to
us in the context of a less-evolved, and therefore more natural,
civilization. They want to wear the
pants, to work outside the home, to become professionals, to buy themselves
what they like, to travel abroad at will, to prevent traditional marital
obligations from dominating them, to subvert nature through contraception, to
participate in sports, to drive their own cars, to cut their hair short - oh,
to do so many things which suggest a spiritual rather than a sensual
turn-of-mind. And this is a good thing, this is something we men can be proud of, since we
are largely responsible for the development of civilization to a point where
women are virtually obliged to behave like men.
And so we treat them as equals.
Not many men would automatically offer their seat to a woman in a
crowded bus or train these days, and this, believe it or not, is a reflection
of the fact that we are inclined to regard women as equals, as 'lesser men',
rather than to emphasize a distinction between the sexes, as formerly.
OLIVER: Ah,
you've anticipated my argument! I
admitted to you earlier that I don't believe in sexual equality, and I stand by
what I said. We treat women as equals
because of the post-dualistic status of the age, which makes it both logical
and expedient to do so. There is no
reason why we shouldn't, since they increasingly behave like men. However, as to a literal equality between the
sexes, it no more exists now than when dualistic distinctions were
paramount. For that same evolutionary
coercion, stemming from the growth of cities, which has spiritualized women to
the contemporary level ... has further spiritualized men, thus making them even
more aware, even more intellectual, than they would otherwise be. Instead of a male stasis, as it were, while
women have progressed or, rather, been coerced away from their sensual
traditions, men have also experienced the influence of their changing
environments, thus progressing ahead of women into higher levels of authority. One might say that whereas women are now so
many clerks, men are so many managers or executives. Thus instead of drawing closer together, the
sexes have progressed at equal distance apart along a post-dualistic region of
the evolutionary spectrum. Women are
therefore 'lesser men' and, on that account, not to be treated as women ... but
as equals!
OLIVER: So
it might appear on the surface. And so
for a relatively small minority of exceptional women, like Emily Pankhurst, it doubtless was and continues to be! But, overall, this isn't really the
case. The feminist movement subscribes
to a myth, a theology, in the sense that Schopenhauer would have used the term,
which is designed to coat the bitter pill of male coercion with the sugar of
self-willed progress. Yet, really, a
philosopher's task isn't to defend or expound the popular myths of the age, but
to reveal the truth for the benefit of that relatively small percentage of
higher minds who are capable of appreciating and coming to terms with it. One is like Roland Barthes,
exposing the popular myths in the interests of the truth. Yet this isn't to say that one wishes to
force one's findings upon the masses. As
Schopenhauer well knew, they are as entitled to their various myths as we
philosophers to exposing them for the benefit of the Few, in order to keep the
light of truth alive. A myth may be
expedient to the Many for a given period of time, but it mustn't be allowed to
usurp the domain of truth. The world
could so easily become a madhouse, bumbling-on in the dark, if no place, no
matter how small, was reserved for the truth.
We philosophers endeavour to lead the Few towards truth, since we cannot
lead everyone towards it.
OLIVER: And too humiliating, since the masses, and women in
particular, need their High Priests to soothe them with the mitigating
illusions and half-truths of contemporary myth.
To some extent a High Priest should be accessible to truth and not be
entirely at the mercy of his theology.
For a theologian who is completely the victim of his illusions and
delusions is not only a potential danger to the truth, but a potential danger
to the Few as well, and can easily become akin to a raging lunatic. He must be restrained before too much
mischief is done at the expense of the higher men - a subject about which
Nietzsche had more than a few words to say, since priests have more than once
put philosophers to the stake for refuting their myths. Fortunately for philosophers, however, the
Christian myth is no longer anywhere near as influential as formerly, even
where priests are concerned, and so they don't have to worry so much about
clerical censorship these days. Instead
they have other myths to contend with, including the Marxist and feminist ones,
which pertain to contemporary 'theology'.
For theology, remember, appeals to the Many, philosophy to the Few. Theology is alpha, philosophy omega. Marx may have been a philosopher, but Marxism
is a theological simplification of Marx.
GARY: And yet, as evolution progresses and one theology supplants
another, surely there is more overall approximation to truth?
OLIVER:
There is indeed! But then philosophy
continues to evolve too, so that, at its furthermost contemporary level, it is
no less inaccessible to the Many than formerly.
A contemporary theology can approach the level of a previous philosophy,
but it can't get to the level of contemporary philosophy. Just as men and women
evolve apace, so do theology and philosophy, continuing to remain unequal. Now just as, in Hindu myth, a man who has
lived egocentrically cannot unite, following death, with the Clear Light of the
Void, so a man of egocentric disposition, balanced between the subconscious and
the superconscious, cannot relate to what the
foremost philosopher is contending about his particular grasp of truth. There is an equivalence
here between a light which is too clear and a truth which is too strong. Hence theology is required, in order to
convey a diluted version of the truth to the masses. But such a version cannot arise from
nowhere. It must come from a stronger,
purer concept of truth, and thus from a philosopher originally. You can see how dangerous to evolutionary
progress it can be when theologians, wallowing in self-delusion, put
philosophers to death or otherwise impede them.
By disposing of philosophers they run the risk of cutting themselves off
from the truth and floundering, without a guiding light, in the relative
darkness of their particular theology.
Evolution can be set back decades, if not centuries. And this applies as much to Marxist
theologians as to any previous ones, who can all-too-easily make the same
mistakes, with similar fatal consequences!
GARY:
Presumably those philosophers who live in Marxist states should have access,
through special depositories, to the Few, who will accordingly be kept in touch
with stronger doses of the truth than their work-a-day theology would allow?
OLIVER:
Yes, and not only those philosophers who live in Marxist states but, more
particularly, those who live outside them, whose truth may be no less relevant,
in the long term, as the basis for the subsequent development of theology to a
higher and more truthful level. No
state, no matter what its official theology, can afford to live without
philosophers. For they act as a guiding
light to the Few, who, whether as statesmen or professors, scientists or
economists, artists or priests, must subsequently set about modifying the
particular theology with whose preservation they have been publicly
entrusted. Thus there should be a
continual interaction between philosophers and leaders, so that the theology is
constantly upgraded and not allowed to become fixed in a permanent mould ... at
the risk of becoming stale and anachronistic.
There must be continual evolution.
OLIVER:
Only to the extent that the philosopher serves to enlighten the
leadership. For when a philosopher takes
it into his head to govern outright, as did Plato for a time, the result is
more likely to be chaotic than beneficial!
Plato made the mistake of taking his own advice too literally. But actual governance must always be left to
politicians, the Few, and not be usurped by those whose provenance it is to
remain at an intellectual remove from the real world. Admittedly, there have been one or two
notable exceptions that, like Marcus Aurelius, were able to combine theory with
practice. But, as a rule, this isn't the
case. The philosopher's proper sphere of
influence lies in the theoretical domain, not the practical one! He should leave the actual governance of the
state to others, since his duty is to understand the world rather than to
change it, even if his understanding of it may lead to considerable
governmental change.
GARY: What
happens when the philosopher is so brilliant, his grasp of truth so firm, that
not even the Few can appreciate or stomach it? I am especially thinking of Nietzsche.
OLIVER:
Such cases don't occur all that often, but, when they do, a wise leadership
will draw what truth it can from the philosopher concerned, and leave the
greater part of his teachings to posterity.
That is preferable to dismissing him outright, seeing that one day his
truth, which should be roughly compatible with the truth,
will be fully intelligible and recognized at its true value.
GARY: And this, I take it, also applies, in some degree, to your
own philosophy, which is occasionally too truthful for even the strongest
stomachs, or perhaps I should say minds, to digest? What you say, for example, about men and
women being unequal certainly isn't reflected by contemporary feminist
theology, is it?
OLIVER: No,
but then there is little reason why it should be, at this point in time. For my philosophy appeals more to a few of
the Few than to the Few as a whole, if you follow me, and therefore isn't all
that likely, at present, to have much influence on the modification of
contemporary theology. That must come
about in the future, as my work becomes more accessible to the leadership. Currently it is known only within the rather
restricted circle of my friends and acquaintances, who
don't hold responsible public positions.
But I can bide my time.
GARY:
Presumably without taking much interest in the High Priests or, rather,
Priestesses of feminist theology, who would appear to be the biggest dupes of
the age?
OLIVER:
Quite! I leave them to their rhetorical
patter and attend to my affairs, in pursuance of higher degrees of truth.
OLIVER: Oh,
that society is tending in an increasingly spiritual direction and, if all goes
well, will continue to tend in such a direction in the more distant future,
inevitably reaching a point where women effectively cease to exist, as
appearance gives way to essence to such an extent ... that nothing demonstrably
sensual remains. The subsequent climax
of evolution, in which human spirit will become transcendent and therefore
divine, can only be a supermasculine affair, devoid
of even the faintest shred of sensuality.
For irrespective of what the Pope may have had to say about the
probability of men and women retaining their sex in Heaven, I, being a
post-dualistic philosopher and not a humanistic theologian, contend
otherwise. Just as I contend that Heaven
will come at the climax of evolution rather than following individual death. And, coming then, it will not only be
completely beyond women but ... completely beyond men as well, since humanity
will have become God, not be existing in any recognizably human form within the
presence of God as anthropomorphically conceived of by Christians.
OLIVER:
Yes, I believe that, from a post-dualistic standpoint, he most certainly
was! But, from a Christian anthropomorphic
standpoint, he was absolutely right, absolutely consistent with the humanistic
beliefs of dualistic civilization. He
would have been wrong had he spoken like a transcendentalist, and especially
like a transcendental philosopher. For
then one would be perfectly justified in wondering what business he had being
pope. But, of course, he is consistent
with Christian theology, and therefore not an impostor. The fact that, as a post-dualistic
philosopher, one may not agree with his beliefs oneself ... is another matter,
and hardly one that we need enlarge upon here!
Suffice it to say that my concept of the Beyond is radically different
from his. It is closer to Nietzsche's.
OLIVER:
Yes, transcendent spirit, to use a term I recently coined as an alternative to holy spirit, which will arise from the new brain following
the period of intense cultivation of spirit which I call the post-Human
Millennium. We men may be a long way
from being actual candidates for Heaven at present, but we are at least nearer
to it, now, than any previous generation have ever been, bearing in mind the
increasingly post-dualistic development of the age. As Blake once wrote:-
'Till I turn from Female Love,
And root up the Infernal Grove,
I shall never worthy be
To step into Eternity.'
Now what
his concept of Eternity actually amounted to, I don't pretend to know. But he was at least right to contend that sex
is incompatible with Heaven.
GARY: So,
evidently, the spiritualization of the female is a step in that post-sexual
direction?
OLIVER:
Yes. And so is our gradual progress away
from literal sex through the sublimation provided and encouraged by various
forms of erotica, which transfer sex from the body to the head and thereby
spiritualize it. Even the recent
growth-industry in plastic inflatables, otherwise
known as 'sex dolls', is indicative of a trend in the general direction of
overcoming the natural by the artificial and so transcending traditional
norms. Eventually there won't be any sex
at all, not even of the sublimated variety.
For technology will have phased-out the natural body in the interests of
spiritual progress. Neither will there
be any women, even if women's brains or, rather, brains that may once have
belonged to women are retained. For it
isn't so much the brain which distinguishes a man from a woman ... as the
psychology imposed upon it in response to the possession of a given body. Free a female's brain from her body and it
will eventually become spiritualized, conscious not of appearance over essence
but of essence over appearance.
GARY: And assuming appearance was reduced to the physiological
existence of the brain itself, in conjunction with an artificial
support/sustain system, there would presumably be a considerable imbalance in
favour of essence?
OLIVER:
Indeed there would! And in accordance
with the supermasculine dictates of a society
evolving towards ultimate essence, which is nothing less than God. At present, however, we must resign ourselves
to unisexual trends and the liberation of women from traditional roles. We may be some way from a supermasculine
society, but what we have now is certainly preferable to dualism and its social
concomitance of sexist discrimination.
If a majority of women are still fundamentally appearance over essence,
it is because, despite dressing and acting increasingly like men, they retain
their natural bodies, and those bodies are sufficiently attractive to draw male
attention and oblige men to force consciousness of appearance back upon them at
the expense of essence. A man, on the
other hand, doesn't attract so much physical attention, since he wasn't meant
to be beautiful, but intellectual. He
can afford to cultivate essence to a greater extent.
OLIVER:
Yes. Though, as I have already said, it
is important these days to treat women as if they were equal to men, and this
may sometimes involve one in not taking as much notice of their beauty as may
formerly have been the case ... in the heyday of sexist dualism, so to
speak. For what one is really doing, in
treating a woman as an equal, is looking upon her as though she were a man,
albeit a lesser one. That is really
what, in response to the post-dualistic nature of the age, this drive towards
sexual equality really amounts to, these days.
However, not until the last vestiges of the natural body have been
artificially supplanted ... will women really become men or, rather, supermasculine. Then
a true equality will exist, because transcending sex. Yes, an equality of brains is really what we
are tending towards, superior to that of bodies. And beyond that, my friend, lies the goal of
our evolution in spiritual unification with God. Transcendence!