CYCLE TWENTY-FIVE

1. GENDER CLASHES. In the Heathen and Superheathen triads there is a gender clash between two modes of objectivity, the objective selflessness of superfeminine idealism vis-à-vis the objective selfishness of submasculine naturalism in the Superheathen triad, and the objective selfishness of feminine realism vis-à-vis the objective selflessness of (sub)masculine fundamentalism in the Heathen triad. Hence where the Superheathen triad affords us the clash of Hindu and Judaic modes of objectivity, with particular reference to the Clear Light and Satan, the Heathen triad affords us the clash of Anglican and Presbyterian modes of objectivity, with particular reference to the Mother and the Father. The Moslem and Puritan contexts of Allah and the Son, respectively, are subjectively aloof from such a gender clash, the former in selfish (soulful) and the latter in selfless (intellectual) terms.

2. MOHAMMEDANISM AND PURITANISM. Hence there exists a correlation between the Clear Light of the Void and the Father with regard to noumenal and phenomenal modes of objective selflessness; between Satan and the Mother with regard to noumenal and phenomenal modes of objective selfishness; and, more loosely, between Allah and the Son with regard to noumenal and phenomenal modes of subjectivity, albeit with selfish and selfless distinctions respectively. There is thus a sense in which Mohammedanism is to the Superheathen triad what Puritanism is to the Heathen one, to the extent that both are effectively aloof from the gender clash which characterizes their objective counterparts. Yet it would be wrong to infer from this fact that Mohammedanism is Puritanism in a Superheathen guise, since its selfish essence necessarily precludes the kind of selfless subjectivity one would ordinarily associate with Puritanism. It is not the intellect but the heart that reigns with Allah, and this soulful order of selfishness is closer, in effect, to the prayerful selfishness of the Christian devotee of the Christ Child, who thereby hopes to prepare his psyche for the visionary selfishness of the Holy Ghost.

3. BEYOND GENDER CLASHES. With regard to the Christian triad, the subjective selfishness of prayerful devotion is turned away from the objective selflessness of subfeminine humanism, and thus the devotee of the Christ Child is orientated towards the phenomenal subjectivity of the Holy Ghost, whose visionary essence is selfish. There is no gender clash in such a triad, which is why it is trinitarian rather than triangular. Neither, of course, is there a gender clash between 'feminine' and 'masculine' modes of objectivity in the Superchristian triad, since the objective selfishness of the Second Coming is turned away from the subjective selflessness of the Mary Child, its subfeminine precondition, and is thus orientated towards the objective selfishness of the Holy Spirit of Heaven in what must be its true destiny, an orientation leading from visionary contemplation of an hallucinogenic (synthetic) order to transcendental meditation of a spiritual (airy) order. Thus the Superchristian triad shares in common with the Christian triad a gender-transcending avoidance of clashing objectivities, and for this reason both contexts are properly trinitarian.

4. FALSE TRINITY. The so-called 'Holy Trinity' ... of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is, in reality, non-trinitarian, since it combines two Heathen deities, viz. the Father and the Son, with one Christian deity, viz. the Holy Ghost, and the result is less trinitarian than triangular, bearing in mind that the Father corresponds to objective selflessness, the Son to subjective selflessness, and the Holy Ghost to subjective selfishness. Hence we have two modes of subjectivity, one selfless and the other selfish, together with one mode of objectivity within these phenomenal contexts. Now there is not, it must be conceded, a gender clash between the objective selflessness of the Father and the subjective selfishness of the Holy Ghost, and, to that extent, the Heathen/Christian trinity is relatively 'holy' or 'blessed'. But the two modes of subjectivity are in contrary orientations, the selflessness (intellectual) of the Son contrasting with the selfishness (visionary) of the Holy Ghost, and therefore there is no metaphysical link between them but, rather, a lacuna such that results from the juxtaposition of the Heathen with the Christian in what is effectively a false trinity, one in which the Son will, in the fatality of subjective selflessness, tend back towards the objective selflessness of the Father, whose standing is meaningless except in relation to the objective selfishness of the Mother, and who must therefore function as a subversive refutation of the Holy Ghost. Hence although superficially a trinity, albeit one straddling two irreconcilable cultures, a triangular relationship to the Mother is implicit in the existence of the Father, and this false trinity is therefore less holy than profane.