201. Christianity reflects the redemption of man in
the 'risen vegetation' of cerebral righteousness through the Word, especially
in regard to prayer. The genuine
Christian is more a praying animal than a copulating one below or a meditating
one above. He has achieved a
nonconformist righteousness through Christ.
202. So much for definitions! Now for some questions. Can a woman become a Christian? - Yes, to a
limited extent. And
how? - By renouncing motherhood and its corollary of pregnancy. And why? - So that
she is less given to a watery purgatory and more given to a vegetative earth,
the latter of which is alone righteous.
203. Clearly, the type of women who become, at least
to some extent, Christians ... are not likely to get married and have children. Usually they are nuns.
204. My belief is that even nuns, being women, find
ways of getting around, or rather compensating themselves for, the taboo on the
watery unrighteousness of pregnancy, since it is inconceivable to me that a
woman, any woman, can (sex-change exceptions notwithstanding) turn herself into
a man, and a Christian one at that, by effectively becoming more vegetation
than water, more earth than purgatory, more nonconformist than humanist, more
subjective than objective, etc.
205. Frankly, I don't believe that women can
transform themselves into men, even when they renounce motherhood and its
attendant heathen shortcomings. A nun is
still a woman, even if a devotedly celibate one.
206. Yet a celibate woman is
closer, in effect, to the 'Madonna' than would be a sexually active and/or
maternal one. She has
rejected the purgatorial unrighteousness of a watery conception, in order to
draw closer to the earthy righteousness of a vegetative conception through
Christ. She is Christian to a degree,
but not to the extent that she ceases to be a woman, and thus a creature in
whom the feminine predominates over the masculine.
207. Woman is primarily and predominantly
unrighteous and only secondarily and subordinately righteous, a creature who,
for all her subjective aspirations, remains fundamentally objective in her
preponderating femininity.
208. It would seem that if we differentiate between
external and internal modes of righteousness on the basis of a distinction
between subjective sensuality and sensibility, we have to accept that both
modes are good, as opposed to the external mode being evil and the internal
mode alone good.
209. Hence we cannot maintain, in relation to
subjective manifestations of sensuality and sensibility, that the sensual is
evil and the sensible alone good, but must allow for the concept of external
and internal modes of good, with the former primal and the latter supreme.
210. What applies to righteousness must also apply
to unrighteousness, where the sensuality/sensibility distinction between
external and internal modes of objectivity has reference to two kinds of evil,
the former primal and the latter supreme.
211. If primal subjectivity is good in its outer
glory, then it can only be virtuous in its outer power, the subjective
divergence of sensual will from sensual glory.
212. Conversely, if primal objectivity is evil in
its outer glory, then it can only be vicious in its outer power, the objective
divergence of sensual will from sensual glory.
213. We should therefore
allow for the distinction between virtuous divergence from good glory and
vicious divergence from evil glory, the former subjective and the latter
objective.
214. If supreme subjectivity is good in its inner
glory, then it can only be virtuous in its inner power, the subjective
convergence of sensible will upon sensible glory.
215. Conversely, if supreme objectivity is evil in
its inner glory, then it can only be vicious in its inner power, the objective
convergence of sensible will upon sensible glory.
216. We should therefore
allow for the distinction between virtuous convergence upon good glory and
vicious convergence upon evil glory, the former subjective and the latter
objective.
217. Subjectivity is absolutely good/virtuous
when noumenal and relatively good/virtuous when
phenomenal, whereas objectivity is relatively evil/vicious when phenomenal and
absolutely evil/vicious when noumenal.
218. In a phrase,
Heaven/God is absolutely good/virtuous and earth/man relatively good/virtuous,
whereas purgatory/woman is relatively evil/vicious and Hell/the Devil
absolutely evil/vicious, and this whether in relation to sensuality or to
sensibility, the external or the internal contexts of alpha and omega, primal
and supreme.
219. To compare the absolute evil/vice of fire with
the relative evil/vice of water, and then to contrast each of these with the
relative good/virtue of vegetation and the absolute good/virtue of air.
220. Evil/vice is either unclear (absolute) or clear
(relative), in contrast to good/virtue being either unholy (relative) or holy
(absolute).
221. To objectively
diverge, in spatial space, from super-unconscious/super-unrighteous evil to
super-unnatural/super-unreasonable vice, as from unclear external glory to power,
but to objectively converge, in repetitive time, from
sub-unnatural/sub-unreasonable vice to sub-unconscious/sub-unrighteous evil, as
from unclear internal power to glory.
222. To subjectively diverge, in sequential time,
from subconscious/subrighteous good to subnatural/subreasonable virtue, as from holy external
glory to power, but to subjectively converge, in spaced space, from
supernatural/superreasonable virtue to superconscious/superrighteous good, as from holy internal
power to glory.
223. To objectively diverge, in volumetric volume,
from outer unconscious/unrighteous evil to outer unnatural/unreasonable vice,
as from clear external glory to power, but to objectively converge, in massed
mass, from inner unnatural/unreasonable vice to inner unconscious/unrighteous
evil, as from clear internal power to glory.
224. To subjectively diverge, in massive mass, from
outer conscious/righteous good to outer natural/reasonable virtue, as from
unholy external glory to power, but to subjectively converge, in voluminous
volume, from inner natural/reasonable virtue to inner conscious/righteous good,
as from unholy internal power to glory.
225. For me, the equation
of righteousness with consciousness is as gloriously credible as the converse
equation of unrighteousness with unconsciousness.
226. Likewise, the equation of reasonableness with
naturalness is as powerfully compelling as the converse equation of
unreasonableness with unnaturalness.
227. Women, I hold, are fundamentally
unrighteous/unreasonable in their feminine bias towards phenomenally
unconscious/unnatural clearness, whether with regard to divergent objectivity
in volumetric sensuality or to convergent objectivity in massed sensibility,
within the volume-mass axis of 'falling water'.
228. Men, by contrast, are
essentially righteous/reasonable in their masculine bias towards phenomenally
conscious/natural unholiness, whether with regard to
divergent subjectivity in massive sensuality or to convergent subjectivity in
voluminous sensibility, within the mass-volume axis of 'rising vegetation'.
229. Similarly, superwomen/subwomen
are fundamentally unrighteous/unreasonable in their superfeminine/subfeminine bias towards noumenally
unconscious/unnatural unclearness, whether with regard to divergent objectivity
in spatial sensuality or to convergent objectivity in repetitive sensibility,
within the space-time axis of 'falling fire'.
230. Conversely, submen/supermen
are essentially righteous/reasonable in their submasculine/supermasculine bias towards noumenally conscious/natural holiness, whether with regard
to divergent subjectivity in repetitive sensuality or to convergent
subjectivity in spaced sensibility, within the time-space axis of 'rising air'.
231. One should differentiate between the subnatural/subreasonable power of the subman
subjectively diverging from subconscious/subrighteous
glory ... and the supernatural/superreasonable power
of the superman subjectively converging upon superconscious/superrighteous
glory.
232. Likewise, one should differentiate between the
super-unnatural/super-unreasonable power of the superwoman objectively
diverging from super-unconscious/super-unrighteous glory ... and the
sub-unnatural/sub-unreasonable power of the subwoman
objectively converging upon sub-unconscious/sub-unrighteous glory.
233. The virtuous power diverges/converges
subjectively in relation to good glory, whether it be primal (and sensual) or
supreme (and sensible), alpha or omega.
234. The vicious power diverges/converges objectively
in relation to evil glory, whether it be primal (and sensual) or supreme (and
sensible), alpha or omega.
235. Evil/vice is always negative, like photons and
electrons, fire and water.
236. Good/virtue is always positive, like neutrons
(neutral with a positive bias) and protons, vegetation and air.
237. Negativity is always objective, like Hell and
Purgatory.
238. Positivity is always
subjective, like the Earth and Heaven.
239. Objectivity is always barbed (straight), like
the devility and femininity of superwomen/subwomen and women.
240. Subjectivity is always curved (bent), like the
masculinity and divinity of men and submen/supermen.
241. Although phenomenal self-indulgence is
relatively righteous/reasonable on account of the subjective nature of
philistinism, one has to distinguish the sensual self-indulgence of the phallus
from the sensible self-indulgence of the brain, as one would differentiate
between massive mass and voluminous volume within the mass-volume axis of
'rising vegetation'.
242. Likewise, although noumenal
self-indulgence is absolutely righteous/reasonable on account of the subjective
nature of culture, one has to distinguish the sensual self-indulgence of the
ears from the sensible self-indulgence of the lungs, as one would differentiate
between sequential time and spaced space within the time-space axis of 'rising
air'.
243. Conversely, although noumenal
other-indulgence (self-denial) is absolutely unrighteous/unreasonable on
account of the objective nature of barbarity, one has to distinguish the
sensual other-indulgence of the eyes from the sensible other-indulgence of the
heart, as one would differentiate between spatial space and repetitive time
within the space-time axis of 'falling fire'.
244. Similarly, although phenomenal other-indulgence
(self-denial) is relatively unrighteous/unreasonable on account of the
objective nature of civility, one has to distinguish the sensual
other-indulgence of the tongue from the sensible other-indulgence of the womb,
as one would differentiate between volumetric volume and massed mass within the
volume-mass axis of 'falling water'.
245. Self-indulgence, whether in sensuality or
sensibility, is relevant to either a masculine (phenomenal) or a submasculine and/or supermasculine
(noumenal) standpoint, and is correlative with
other-denial.
246. Other-indulgence, whether in sensuality or
sensibility, is relevant to either a superfeminine and/or subfeminine
(noumenal) or a feminine (phenomenal) viewpoint, and
is correlative with self-denial.
247. One denies 'the other' because it is
subordinate to one's male gender, whose essence is self-indulgence.
248. One denies 'the self' because it is subordinate
to one's female gender, whose essence is other-indulgence.
249. Self-denial for a man is as paradoxical as
self-indulgence for a woman, since it puts one at loggerheads with one's gender
and its preponderating bias.
250. What applies to men and women, for whom
masculine and feminine attributes in mass and volume are preponderant, is no
less applicable to gods and devils or, more correctly, to lords and ladies ...
for whom submasculine and/or supermasculine
and superfeminine and/or subfeminine
attributes in time and space are paramount.
251. Repentance for sin can lead to grace, but only
in terms of sensual sin vis-à-vis sensual grace or sensible sin vis-à-vis
sensible grace.
252. There is no question of repentance for sensual
sin entitling the penitent to sensible grace, as though the phallus
automatically led to the lungs.
253. Conversely, there is no question of repentance
for sensible sin entitling the penitent to sensual grace, as though the brain
automatically led to the ears.
254. Grace for the habitual sinner can only be
achieved on the basis of sensuality for sensual sin and of sensibility for
sensible sin, phallus leading to ears and brain to lungs.
255. Thus from primal taking to primal being on the
one hand, that of the sensual penitent, and from supreme taking to supreme
being on the other hand, that of the sensible penitent.
256. Although, compared to grace, sin is unholy
because phenomenally self-indulgent, it is nonetheless still
righteous/reasonable in view of its subjective association with
consciousness/nature in due philistine fashion.
257. In fact, philistinism only becomes identifiable
with sin to the person for whom noumenal
self-indulgence, whether through sensuality or sensibility or even some
combination of and/or alternation between both, is habitually paramount, and
who consequently adheres to a superior plane of righteousness/reasonableness.
258. Where culture is not possible, philistinism is
the next best thing, just as vegetation is the next best thing after air,
which, in any case, arises from it.
259. The philistine, whether or not consciously aware
and ashamed of his sin, is preferable to the civilized punisher, or civilian,
from a divine standpoint, since he stands on the masculine side of the gender
divide ... as one who is characterized by the conscious/natural subjectivity of
unholy righteousness/reasonableness through phenomenal self-indulgence.
260. Despite being clear as opposed to either
unclear (behind) or unholy (beyond), the punishing civilian is not
righteous/reasonable but unrighteous/unreasonable in his or, rather, her (for
punishment is no less a feminine attribute than sin a masculine one)
unconscious/unnatural objectivity and tendency, through other-indulgence
coupled with self-denial, to exact vengeance, in one way or another, on the
basis of an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'.
261. Christ, Who was about righteousness, taught
'turning the other cheek', which is a doctrine that could only appeal to
someone who, being male, was sufficiently masculine to be able and capable of
doing such a thing in the interests, not unreasonably, of preserving
subjectivity.
262. Christ had more compassion for phenomenally
self-indulgent persons, or sinners, than for phenomenally other-indulgent
persons, or punishers, and for good reason.
Sinners can be redeemed to and by grace; punishers can't!
263. If Christianity remains a religion primarily
for men as opposed to women below or supermen above, the Christic
cynosure marginalizing both the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Spirit, Superchristianity must become a religion primarily for
supermen above as opposed to men below and women at the bottom. In other words, a religion whose focus is
grace rather than sin and/or punishment, and which opens out, in a triadic
Beyond, to the prospect of Eternity.
264. That which is neither Christian (masculine) nor
Superchristian (supermasculine)
can only be either Heathen (feminine) or Superheathen
(superfeminine), and therefore characterized not by
sin or grace but, on the contrary, by punishment or crime.
265. Just as the Superheathen
is most characterized by crime, so the Heathen is most characterized by
punishment, the former through the barbarity of war and the latter through the
civility of sport.
266. Just as the Christian is most characterized by
sin, so the Superchristian is most characterized by
grace, the former through the philistinism of sex and the latter through the
culture of dance.
267. Just as science and war go 'hand in glove' with
regard to their barbarous essence, so do politics and sport with regard to
their civilized essence.
268. Just as economics and sex go 'hand in glove'
with regard to their philistine essence, so do dance and religion with regard
to their cultural essence.
269. Politics and sex no more
mix than do economics and sport, religion and war, or science and dance - at
least not in their per se or bona fide manifestations.
270. 'Bovaryizations' of
politics, economics, science, and religion can and do mix with other things,
whether or not the 'bovaryization' is tolerated.
271. In Britain, the mixing of politics and sex does
not receive the kind of toleration it would in, say, Eire, since politics in
Britain is civilized (parliamentary) and therefore bona fide,
whereas politics in Eire is philistine (republican) and therefore 'bovaryized'.
272. One could argue, in
analogical fashion, that in
273. This contention does not invalidate the notion
of a scientific Behind to the one country and of a religious Beyond to the
other, bearing in mind the propinquity of barbarity to civility on the one
hand, and of nature or, rather, philistinism to culture on the other hand.
274.
275. Neither country, it seems to me, would be
strictly correlative with either gold bullion or notes - the former more
barbarous and the latter more cultural.
276. Democracy, whether parliamentary or republican,
is akin to the hegemony of coins at the expense of gold bullion behind and
notes beyond.
277. It would be interesting to ascertain the extent
to which religion in
278. As a 'bovaryized'
form of politics, republicanism slots into subordinate relation to a context
with an economic per se, the economics in question of course being capitalist.
279. What is to some extent true of the Republic of
Ireland is to an even greater extent true of the American Republic, where economics
is in its per se, or capitalist, manifestation, and everything else,
including science and religion, slots subordinately into its service.
280. It would be difficult to characterize
281. My perception is that the
282. Hence it is not representative of the majority
of Irish people to anything like the extent that the
283. Consequently the Irish Republic is something
that I believe should be democratically superseded in the interests of a new
and higher culture ... such that will be more fully representative, and
therefore reflective, of the majority Irish people.
284. I call this new and higher culture 'Superchristianity', and I identify it with 'Kingdom Come',
or the coming of religious sovereignty to the People via Social
Transcendentalism, the ideology of what is potentially an ultimate culture.
285. It would be for the People to democratically
decide whether or not they wanted religious sovereignty and the right to
religious self-determination in a triadic Beyond.
286. Such a Beyond would be beyond the fundamentalism
of 'Father Time' in the humanism, at the bottom, of a new form of 'Mother
Mass', the nonconformism, in the middle, of a new
form of 'Son Volume', and the transcendentalism, at the top, of a new form of
'Spirit Space'.
287. Hence it should be possible to reconcile
Anglican, Puritan, and Catholic traditions to this triadic manifestation of
Eternity.
288. That which is ultimate is not the Church, still
less the State, but the Centre, as pertaining to the administrative service of
popular religious sovereignty, and the Centre would, in being voted into
existence, be obliged to arrogate State responsibility to itself, thus
transcending the relativity of Church and State which, certainly in Eire, puts
a minority at loggerheads with the majority, to their mutual detriment.
289. The Centre would
effectively become the antithesis of the Kingdom, the kingdoms, in particular,
of autocratic antiquity but also, in a relative sense, the
290. It is my hope that a democratically-engineered
devolution, accompanied by disestablishment in Great Britain, would eventually
lead to a situation whereby Ireland could participate in the establishment, by
popular consent, of a Gaelic federation, with, say, Scotland and Wales,
following the acceptance of religious sovereignty by those, in the main, fellow
Gaelic nations.
291. The unrighteousness/unreasonableness of the
State, which is fundamentally feminine in its objectivity, may be held to
contrast with the righteousness/reasonableness of the Church, which is
essentially masculine in its subjectivity.
292. The State can, in certain instances, become a
means to an ecclesiastical end, rather than an end-in-itself.
293. When the State strives to become an end-in-itself,
it makes war on the Church in the interests of its atheistic diabolism.
294. The authoritarian State is effectively superfeminine in its unclearness, which strives to exclude
from itself all that pertains, through holiness, to supermasculinity.
295. The parliamentary State, being clear, tolerates
the masculinity of the Church even when it defers, through Constitutional
Monarchy, to authoritarian traditions.
296. Just as the authoritarian State is effectively
a Superstate in its superfemininity,
so the totalitarian Church, the universal Church, will be effectively a Superchurch in its supermasculinity.
297. The antithesis between autocratic and
theocratic forms of the State and the Church, loosely corresponding to fire and
air, was increasingly superseded, from the sixteenth century, by the
Protestant-inspired compromise between democratic and bureaucratic forms of the
State and the Church, corresponding, by contrast, to water and vegetation, both
of which could be regarded as reflecting a 'fall' from the noumenal
planes of diabolic/divine compromise to the phenomenal planes of
feminine/masculine compromise, as from Limbo to the World.
298. It remains for the World to be democratically
overcome, as purgatory and the earth, corresponding to watery femininity and
vegetative masculinity, draw farther apart in subordinate relation to a Heaven
liberated from Hell, and hence from the dichotomous relativity of Limbo.
299. Such a triadic Beyond would necessarily exclude
all forms of authoritarianism, including, not least, the political.
300. My symbol for this Beyond and the Social
Transcendentalist ideology (stretching from civilized humanism at the bottom to
cultural transcendentalism at the top) which endorses it should include, besides
the masculine sign in parallel juxtaposition with the third band of an inverted
CND emblem, the feminine sign in parallel extension beneath the vertical band,
thereby symbolizing the reconciliation of feminine and masculine elements to
the Supercross, as I prefer to regard the principal
emblem of what is, after all, essentially a Superchristian
ideology.
