301. There is a sense in which not only would the Centre
transcend both state and church, as traditionally understood, but their
principal figureheads as well, the Messianic Redeemer of the People (from
republican 'sins of the world' to Centrist 'graces of the Beyond') subsuming
and transmuting both monarchic and papal traditions, as state and church are
reconciled to the Centre, the context of popular religious sovereignty which I
loosely identify with 'Kingdom Come'.
302. There would thus be an end not only to monarchy
but to papacy as well, since the Centre, striving for transcendence of
state/church relativity, could not be subservient, in any degree, to the
303. The coming of Social Transcendentalism and its
corollary of popular religious sovereignty would therefore require a
'declaration of independence', unilateral if necessary, from the
304. I have always been extremely suspicious of ediculated buildings, since their triangular pediments
bespeak a Superheathen correlation which goes all the
way back, in fundamentalist fashion, to the Cosmos.
305. It seems to me highly unlikely that anyone
habituated to living in and/or functioning from ediculated
buildings ... would have any great longing for a Superchristian
alternative to the Creator-bound enslavement which such an architectural style
betrays!
306. Thus one can only be
pessimistic that the Pope, for instance, would be capable of endorsing a
concept of divinity, based in the lungs, which 'flew in the face' of cosmic
fundamentalism.
307. It is well known that,
in his writings, Pope John Paul II regards Buddhism as atheistic in its
self-centredness, and thus a threat to Bible-based notions of God as 'Creator
of the Universe', etc.
308. The present pope would have scant regard for
transcendentalism and the contention that, ultimately, supreme being derives
from one's being into the lungs as one rises on wings of calming breath towards
a joyful summit, the heavenly goal of the superman.
309. Rather, he would revert, in due theological
fashion, to the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, where, in Genesis, God
is identified (in primal terms, be it noted) with a creative force behind
stars, suns, planets, etc.
310. Such theological primitivism, which effectively
defers not to primal divinity but to primal devility
in its stellar-over-solar fundamentalism, is only to be expected from a
theologian, particularly a high-ranking one, since priests are enslaved to the
Bible and cannot or dare not think for themselves, but only in relation to what
the Bible tells them and what is expected of their priestly vocation.
311. So long as the People are subject to the sway
of Bible-ruled Fundamentalists, they - and males in particular - will continue
to be held back from true religion and the self-affirmation/realization that
such an attainment culturally implies.
312. It should be for the People to decide for themselves,
democratically within the framework of the contemporary State, whether or not
they want deliverance from theological primitivism and the opportunity, in
contrast, to embrace theosophical radicalism, whether with regard to supreme
being at the top, supreme taking in the middle, or supreme giving at the
bottom, which is to say, whether with regard to a supermasculine
heaven, a masculine earth, or a feminine purgatory ... in what I have termed
the triadic Beyond.
313. Hell is always to be found on the space-time
axis of 'falling fire', and nowhere else!
314. Heaven is always to be found on the time-space
axis of 'rising air', and nowhere else!
315. Purgatory is always to be found on the
volume-mass axis of 'falling water', and nowhere else!
316. The Earth is always to be found on the
mass-volume axis of 'rising vegetation', and nowhere else!
317. Everybody knows that Hell is evil (because noumenally objective, or objective, in other words, in
relation to space-time) and Heaven good (because noumenally
subjective, or subjective in relation to time-space).
318. Likewise everybody knows, or should know, that
Purgatory is evil (because phenomenally objective, or objective, in other
words, in relation to volume-mass) and the Earth good (because phenomenally
subjective, or subjective in relation to mass-volume).
319. Doubtless, one could distinguish objective from
subjective in relation to sensuality and sensibility in terms of antiselves vis-à-vis selves.
320. Hence one could distinguish the antiselves of eyes and heart in relation to space-time from
the selves of ears and lungs in relation to time-space.
321. Likewise one could distinguish the antiselves of tongue and womb in relation to volume-mass
from the selves of phallus and brain in relation to mass-volume.
322. Thus the antiselves
would be aligned with the unconscious/unnatural, whether in noumenal
or phenomenal terms, and therefore be unrighteous/unreasonable in their
objectivity.
323. Conversely, the selves would be aligned with
the conscious/natural, whether in phenomenal or noumenal
terms, and therefore be righteous/reasonable in their subjectivity.
324. Antiselves, being
objective, are negative, whereas selves, being subjective, are positive - the
former either diabolic or feminine (depending on the planes) and the latter
either masculine or divine (depending on the planes).
325. The antiself will
correspond, on whichever plane, to other-indulgence in its selflessness, while
the self corresponds, on whichever plane, to self-indulgence in its
selfishness.
326. Hence to contrast the noumenal
selflessness of the eyes and the heart within space-time other-indulgence with
the noumenal selfishness of the ears and the lungs
within time-space self-indulgence.
327. Hence to contrast the phenomenal selflessness
of the tongue and the womb within volume-mass other-indulgence with the
phenomenal selfishness of the phallus and the brain within mass-volume
self-indulgence.
328. In the West, and these
days in particular, self-indulgence is virtually a term of disrepute. Yet the self-indulgent is ever either
masculine (in phenomenal subjectivity) or divine (in noumenal
subjectivity), and contrasts with the diabolic and/or feminine nature of
other-indulgence.
329. Really, it is because the twentieth century was
primarily a Superheathen/Heathen age ... in which
objective values took precedence over (formerly discredited) subjective ones
... that this immoral situation exists at all.
330. The twenty-first century will, hopefully,
witness a revolutionary 'rebirth' of subjectivity ... in which Christian/Superchristian values will begin to 'turn the tables' on
the current unhappy situation, making the individual once again of more
significance than the societal collective.
331. For morality adheres,
in subjective self-affirmation/realization, to the masculine and supermasculine individual, who must rise and stand
up for himself/his self in the face of female opposition.
332. Only thus will there be an end to Superheathen domination, as Christian and Superchristian assert their nonconformist and
transcendentalist values in a triadic Beyond in which the humanist values of
the Heathen are kept in their rightful place down below ... in what
would be a purgatorial basis upon which both the Earth and Heaven,
corresponding to vegetation and air, could rise towards perfect
self-indulgence.
333. Self-indulgence of the ego that uses
self-affirmation in subjective sensuality as a means to sensual
self-realization, positive outer power leading to positive outer glory in due
primal virtuous course.
334. Self-indulgence of the ego that uses
self-affirmation in subjective sensibility as a means to sensible
self-realization, positive inner power leading to positive inner glory in due
supreme virtuous course.
335. Other-indulgence of the anti-ego that uses antiself-affirmation in objective sensuality as a means to
sensual antiself-realization, negative outer power
leading to negative outer glory in due primal vicious course.
336. Other-indulgence of the anti-ego that uses antiself-affirmation in objective sensibility as a means to
sensible antiself-realization, negative inner power
leading to negative inner glory in due supreme vicious course.
337. One should carefully distinguish the 'son of man'
from the 'Son of God', since whereas the one is masculine and nonconformist,
the other is supermasculine and transcendentalist.
338. He who is 'son of man' uses the ego to rise
from nature to consciousness, reasonable power to righteous glory through the
virtue of phenomenal self-indulgence.
339. He who is 'Son of God' uses the superego to
rise from supernature to superconsciousness,
supersensible power to super-righteous glory through
the virtue of noumenal self-indulgence.
340. Thus whereas the 'son of man' uses his ego to
affirm the brain in the interests, ultimately, of conscious self-realization,
the 'Son of God' uses his superego to affirm the lungs in the interests,
ultimately, of superconscious self-realization.
341. One could also have the sensual contexts of
outer self-indulgence, in which the 'son of man' uses his ego to affirm the
phallus in the interests, ultimately, of orgasmic self-realization, while the
'Son of God', a subman, uses his subego
to affirm the ears in the interests, ultimately, of aural self-realization
through, for instance, music.
342. Reference to the word 'son' in relation to
'man' and to 'God' should be identified with devotion, since one is only a 'son
of man and/or 'Son of God' by being a devotee, through either ego or superego,
of that which specifically pertains to man and God.
343. Thus the phenomenal 'son', the 'son of man', is
a devotee, in sensuality, of the phallus and, in sensibility, of the brain,
while the noumenal 'son', the 'Son of God', is a
devotee, in sensuality, of the ears and, in sensibility, of the lungs.
344. Although it is preferable to be a devotee of
male and/or divine attributes in sensibility than in sensuality, given to inner
self-indulgence rather than to outer self-indulgence, it cannot be logically
argued that the sensual devotee is evil compared to his sensible
counterpart. On the contrary, his is
simply a lower form of self-indulgence.
345. I cannot now contend, as formerly, that
deliverance from phallus to brain in phenomenal self-indulgence is from
Antichrist to Christ, as though from evil to good. On the contrary, it would be from an outer
good to an inner good, which is to say, from masculine sensuality to
sensibility, a 'son of man' in mass to a 'son of man' in volume.
346. Likewise, I cannot contend, in former vein,
that deliverance from ears to lungs in noumenal
self-indulgence is from Antispirit to Holy Spirit, as
though from evil to good. On the
contrary, such a deliverance would be from outer good to inner good, which is
to say, from submasculine sensuality to supermasculine sensibility, a 'Son of God' in time to a
'Son of God' in space.
347. If the term 'Antichrist' cannot be applied to
self-affirmation of the phallus, then to what or whom can it be applied? Answer: to that which
stands in watery opposition to the phallus and/or brain ... as phenomenal
other-indulgence. In other words, to the feminine realm of purgatory.
348. Hence the 'Antichrist' would be a term having
reference to that which was feminine as opposed to masculine, and which could
therefore be identified with those unconscious/unnatural attributes of the
tongue and/or womb which make, in due other-indulgent fashion, for an
unrighteous/unreasonable outcome.
349. Likewise, the 'Antispirit'
would be a term having reference to that which was superfeminine
and/or subfeminine (in the noumenal
sensuality and sensibility of space-time) as opposed to submasculine
and/or supermasculine (in the noumenal
sensuality and sensibility of time-space), and which could therefore be
identified with those unconscious/unnatural attributes of the eyes and the
heart which make, in due other-indulgent fashion, for an
unrighteous/unreasonable outcome.
350. Humanism, to the extent
that it is Heathen, is anti-nonconformist, and thus effectively a thing, in its
feminism, of the Antichrist, viz. woman.
351. Fundamentalism, to the
extent that it is Superheathen and/or Subheathen, is anti-transcendentalist, and thus effectively
a thing, in its diabolism, of the Antispirit, viz.
the Devil.
352. Thus the objective is ever against the
subjective, whether on the phenomenal planes of the feminine/masculine
distinction between water and vegetation, or on the noumenal
planes of the diabolic/divine distinction between fire and air. Woman is effectively anti-man and the Devil
... anti-God.
353. Being anti-man (against men) in feminine
objectivity is equivalent to being anti-'son of man', and hence anti-mind (against
mind), while being anti-God (against God) in diabolic objectivity is equivalent
to being anti-'Son of God', and hence anti-spirit (against spirit).
354. That which is anti-mind is the id, which is its
instinctual antithesis, whereas that which is anti-spirit is the soul, which is
its emotional antithesis.
355. Hence, in phenomenal sensuality, the tongue is
no less anti-phallus than, in phenomenal sensibility, the womb is anti-brain,
while the eyes are no less anti-ears in noumenal sensuality than the heart is anti-lungs in noumenal sensibility.
356. Similarly, the phenomenal objectivity of
humanism tends to exclude the phenomenal subjectivity of nonconformism,
and vice versa, while the noumenal objectivity of
fundamentalism tends to exclude the noumenal
subjectivity of transcendentalism, and vice versa.
357. The clear tends to
exclude the unholy, the civilized ... the philistine, while the unclear tends
to exclude the holy, the barbarous ... the cultural.
358. Punishment punishes crime but excludes sin,
while grace excludes crime but forgives sin.
359. Just as crime and punishment are primary
attributes, having a particle correlation, so sin and grace are secondary
attributes, in view of their wavicle correlation.
360. Every axis, whether in
sensuality or sensibility, can be subdivided into primary and secondary
components, the former scientific and political, the latter economic and
religious.
361. Science is always barbarous/criminal
in its unclearness, whereas politics is always civilized/punishing in its
clearness.
362. Economics is always philistine/sinful
in its unholiness, whereas religion is always
cultural/graceful in its holiness.
363. This is not to overlook the distinctions,
already drawn, between bona fide and 'bovaryized'
manifestations of each of the principal disciplines or subdivisions of any
given axis.
364. The descent, in both spatial space and
repetitive time of the space-time axis, from fiery fire/hellish hell to airy
fire/heavenly hell via watery fire/purgatorial hell and vegetative fire/earthy
hell ... could be more abstractly defined as one from the scientific per se
of unclear unclearness to the religious 'bovaryization'
of holy unclearness via the political 'bovaryization'
of clear unclearness and the economic 'bovaryization'
of unholy unclearness, as from cosmology to fundamentalism via authoritarianism
and feudalism.
365. The ascent, in both sequential time and spaced
space of the time-space axis, from fiery air/hellish heaven to airy
air/heavenly heaven via watery air/purgatorial heaven and vegetative air/earthy
heaven ... could be more abstractly defined as one from the scientific 'bovaryization' of unclear holiness to the religious per se
of holy holiness via the political 'bovaryization' of
clear holiness and the economic 'bovaryization' of
unholy holiness, as from ontology to transcendentalism via totalitarianism and
corporatism.
366. The descent, in both volumetric volume and
massed mass of the volume-mass axis, from fiery water/hellish purgatory to airy
water/heavenly purgatory via watery water/purgatorial purgatory and vegetative
water/earthy purgatory ... could be more abstractly defined as one from the
scientific 'bovaryization' of unclear clearness to
the religious 'bovaryization' of holy clearness via
the political per se of clear clearness and the economic 'bovaryization'
of unholy clearness, as from chemistry to humanism via parliamentarianism and
socialism.
367. The ascent, in both massive mass and voluminous
volume of the mass-volume axis, from fiery vegetation/hellish earth to airy
vegetation/heavenly earth via watery vegetation/purgatorial earth and
vegetative vegetation/earthy earth ... could be more abstractly defined as one
from the scientific 'bovaryization' of unclear unholiness to the religious 'bovaryization'
of holy unholiness via the political 'bovaryization' of clear unholiness
and the economic per se of unholy unholiness, as from
physics to nonconformism via republicanism and
capitalism.
368. In distinguishing between primary and secondary
attributes or disciplines on the basis of a particle/wavicle
dichotomy, one should also distinguish, in like manner, between 'power from
glory' and 'power to glory', allowing (unlike before) for each tendency in both
sensuality and sensibility.
369. Hence not only can there be 'power to glory' in
sensuality, there will be 'power from glory' in sensibility, the former a
secondary manifestation of sensuality characterized by a wavicle
preponderance, and the latter a primary manifestation of sensibility
characterized by a particle preponderance.
370. The primary, having
reference to particles, whether elemental (in science) or molecular (in
politics), will reflect an impersonal manifestation of sensuality/sensibility.
371. By contrast, the secondary, having reference to
wavicles, whether molecular (in economics) or
elemental (in religion) will reflect a personal manifestation of
sensuality/sensibility.
372. One could argue that the primary is centrifugal
and the secondary centripetal, but either can be objective or subjective,
depending on the plane.
373. This distinction between impersonal and
personal in sensuality and sensibility means that whatever is affiliated to the
one, being primary, will have power stemming from glory, whereas the other,
being secondary, will have power aspiring towards glory.
374. This, to repeat, is a
distinction between science and politics on the one hand and ... economics and
religion on the other hand, whether in sensuality (external) or sensibility
(internal).
375. Hence we can distinguish more comprehensively
the impersonal from the personal forms of sensuality/sensibility within
space-time on the basis of a dichotomy between 'falling fire' and 'falling
hell' - the former having diagonal reference to a Star(s)-Venus axis, and the
latter to an eyes-heart axis.
376. Likewise we can distinguish more
comprehensively the impersonal from the personal forms of
sensuality/sensibility within time-space on the basis of a dichotomy between
'rising air' and 'rising heaven' - the former having diagonal reference to a
Sun-Saturn axis, and the latter to an ears-lungs axis.
377. Similarly, we can distinguish more
comprehensively the impersonal from the personal forms of
sensuality/sensibility within volume-mass on the basis of a dichotomy between
'falling water' and 'falling purgatory' - the former having diagonal reference
to a Moon-Oceanic axis, and the latter to a tongue-womb axis.
378. Finally, we can distinguish more
comprehensively the impersonal from the personal forms of sensuality/sensibility
within mass-volume on the basis of a dichotomy between 'rising vegetation' and
'rising earth' - the former having diagonal reference to a Terrestrial-Mars
axis, and the latter to a phallus-brain axis.
379. Both the Star(s)-Venus and the eyes-heart axes,
corresponding to space-time, are equivalent to materialism, except that where
the former is an impersonal manifestation of materialism in external and
internal terms, the latter is its personal manifestation thereof.
380. Both the Sun-Saturn and the ears-lungs axes,
corresponding to time-space, are equivalent to idealism, except that where the
former is an impersonal manifestation of idealism in external and internal
terms, the latter is its personal manifestation thereof.
381. Both the Moon-Oceanic and the tongue-womb axes,
corresponding to volume-mass, are equivalent to realism, except that where the
former is an impersonal manifestation of realism in external and internal
terms, the latter is its personal manifestation thereof.
382. Both the Terrestrial-Mars and the phallus-brain
axes, corresponding to mass-volume, are equivalent to naturalism, except that
where the former is an impersonal manifestation of naturalism in external and
internal terms, the latter is its personal manifestation thereof.
383. The impersonal, to
repeat, is either scientific (in elemental particles) or political (in
molecular particles), whereas the personal is either economic (in molecular wavicles) or religious (in elemental wavicles).
384. Thus whether one believes in an impersonal
deity or in a personal deity will depend, to a large extent, upon whether one
is primarily identifiable with either science/politics or economics/religion,
the former options centrifugal and the latter options centripetal, as befitting
their particle/wavicle differentials.
385. The term 'deity' should be interpreted to
include diabolic, divine, feminine, or masculine alternatives, in sensuality no
less than in sensibility.
386. Everybody believes in some deity, whether outer
impersonal/personal or inner impersonal/personal, sensual or sensible, but only
the inner personal (in sensibility) will do proper justice to
economics/religion, whether in terms of 'bovaryized'
or bona fide adherence thereof.
387. 'Power from glory' is not necessarily evil in
relation to 'power to glory'; it is simply contrary to it ... as impersonal to
personal, primary to secondary, particles to wavicles,
extrovert to introvert.
388. Hence the impersonality of vegetation, for
instance, is not Antichrist in relation to the personality of the phallus. It is simply the impersonal form of outer
mass, subjectively diverging as opposed to converging in phenomenal sensuality.
389. That which is evil is, in any case, primarily
objective, whether in sensuality or sensibility, and thus associated with
unconscious/unnatural processes which will either diverge (as 'power from
glory') or converge (as 'power to glory') in straight as opposed to circular
terms, given their rectilinear as opposed to curvilinear basis.
390. One can be a subjective extrovert, diverging
curvedly in sensuality or sensibility, no less than an objective introvert,
converging pointedly in sensuality or sensibility.
391. Contrary to the impression I may have given
some while ago, the sensualities and sensibilities are just as capable of
diverging impersonally as of converging personally, although I hold that
convergence is more germane to the subjective sensualities and sensibilities
than to their objective counterparts, which remain closer, in consequence, to
their impersonal bases, in the Cosmos, of science and politics.
392. Hence, in sensuality, the eyes and the tongue,
being primarily objective in noumenal and phenomenal
terms respectively, will never be as naturally disposed to converging as the
ears and the phallus.
393. Likewise, in sensibility, the heart and the
womb, being primarily objective in noumenal and
phenomenal terms respectively, will never be as naturally disposed to
converging as the lungs and the brain.
394. Not altogether surprisingly, this is because
the objective sensualities and sensibilities are given to unconscious/unnatural
processes rather than to conscious/natural ones ... after the manner of their
subjective counterparts.
395. Nevertheless, the capacity for both convergence
and divergence will accrue to each of the sensualities and sensibilities,
bearing in mind their atomic relativity.
396. Hence there will be instances, not least of all
in scientific and political contexts, when it would be more logical to identify
a given sensuality and/or sensibility with either fire, air, water, or
vegetation ... than with, say, Hell, Heaven, Purgatory, or the Earth. Such contexts would of course be reflective
of a divergence from 'glory to power' in due impersonal fashion.
397. Adherence to impersonal deity, whether in
sensuality or in sensibility, has nothing religious about it at all but is, as
I hope to have shown, germane to either a scientific or a political
orientation.
398. Consequently there is no question of belief in
either external (sensuality) or internal (sensibility) impersonal deities
having anything whatsoever to do with religion.
On the contrary, such deities, deriving from various stars and/or
planets, are subversive of religion, which is centred in personal deity,
whether externally (in sensuality) or internally (in sensibility).
399. Literal belief in certain stars and/or planets
would be as impersonal as it is possible to get, whereas extrapolations from
such cosmic entities to anthropomorphic symbols would more parallel the
divergent use of sensuality and/or sensibility in 'power from glory', a less
absolute but nonetheless still demonstrably scientific and/or political
alternative that would be no less subversive of religion.
400. In this respect, the
Old Testament is guilty of religious subversion through the anthropomorphic
figure of Jehovah, the 'Creator of the Universe', etc., whose affiliation with
scientific impersonality through 'power from glory' is all too apparent.
