Preview the Centretruths PDF eBook version of TOWARDS THE SUPERNOUMENON
Op.
45
TOWARDS
THE
SUPERNOUMENON
Supernotational
Philosophy
Copyright
©
2011 John O'Loughlin
______________
CONTENTS
Aphs.
1-234
______________
1. Just as, formerly, right-thinking people
opposed slavery and serfdom, so their latter-day counterparts should
oppose
work. For work is no less evil in
relation to the contemporary world than slavery and serfdom were evils
in
relation to the past. Work divides and
degrades people, sets up artificial barriers between them which are no
less an
obstacle to universal harmony than the natural barriers of race and
class which
formerly divided them and which, to a certain extent, still do so today. Where man was formerly divided by race and
class, he is now divided by profession.
Only when work is also consigned to the 'rubbish heap of
history' will
man be truly free - free from
division
and free for
unity. Such unity, it need
hardly be said, can only be achieved through play, albeit play of the
most
spiritual order - the order making for universal joy.
2. Decadence is to civilization what cancer
is
to the flesh: a degeneration which must be eliminated by the scalpel of
revolutionary change.
3. It is only when and because men
generally
symbolize goodness that they look-up to women, as to the Beautiful,
from a
worldly point-of-view, propagating truth in the guise of children.
4. Why did Christ say: You must become as
little
children in order to enter the
5. Better to suffer for Heaven than to seek
pleasure in the world.
6. To distinguish between small paving
stones as
People's democratic and medium-to-large paving stones as bourgeois
democratic,
with macadamized 'pavements' corresponding to a People's theocratic
equivalent
by dint of their construction within the idealistic context of a
wavicle
continuum. Thus, on the one hand, the
particle materialism of paving stones while, on the other hand, the
wavicle
idealism of macadamized sidewalks, so-named after their Irish inventor,
MacAdam.
7. Stereo speakers as worldly in relation
to
stereo headphones, whether of the larger particle-suggesting variety,
more
suited to rock, or of the smaller wavicle-suggesting variety, better
suited to
jazz. Conventional and micro, Communist
and Fascist equivalents beyond 'democratic' speakers, as especially
suited to
classical and pop. Certainly, headphones
connote with the head in contrast to the body, with theocracy as
opposed to
democracy, and can be distinguished, on the above-mentioned basis of
type, as
brain from mind, particles from wavicles.
8. But if we ascribe Communist and Fascist
equivalents to stereo headphones, depending on their type, e.g.
conventional or
micro, then it seems not unreasonable to ascribe an Ecological
equivalence to
radio headphones, so that we regard them as ideologically situated in
between
the alternative kinds of stereo headphones, much as trikes can be
regarded as
being ideologically situated in between Communist motorbikes on the one
hand
and Fascist scooters on the other ... in a uniquely middle-ground
theocratic
position, as befitting Ecological equivalents in general.
Certainly radio headphones are as distinct,
given their individual construction and purpose, from stereo headphones
as
trikes from motorbikes or scooters, and while they may come in a
variety of
shapes and sizes, it would seem that an Ecological equivalent is much
the most
likely and plausible description. Thus
whether radio headphones are designed on a uniquely middle-ground basis
or in
such a way as to suggest a leaning towards either of the flanking
extremes, it
will suit our ideological purposes if we regard them in the
aforementioned
light, as a kind of trike-like extrapolation from or extension beyond
small
streamlined transistors with microlight headphones, which, by contrast,
suggest
a radical Liberal Democratic equivalent.
9. Concerning stereo headphones, we should
distinguish, I believe, not only between Communist conventionals and
Fascist
micros, but (to the extent that more radical ideological equivalents
can be
derived from these) also between Transcendental Socialist and Social
Transcendentalist stereo headphones, and on the following basis: namely
that
while Communist conventionals will be of a chunky construction with
ring- or
doughnut-like ear pads, Transcendental Socialist conventionals will be
of a
slender construction with correspondingly more streamlined ear pads,
possibly
of a centralized foam design; and that while Fascist micros will be
very
lightweight and all-of-a-piece, Social Transcendentalist micros will be
of the
collapsible or fold-up variety, with larger centralized ear pads and a
stronger
overall construction. Such larger micros,
together with the smaller conventionals (in relation to Communist
headphones)
will, I contend, stand to one another as plain scooters to streamlined
motorbikes, both of which may be said to form a closer parallel that
not only
overhauls and transcends the more absolute and wider parallel of
Fascist micros
and Communist conventionals, but overhauls and transcends radio
headphones as
well, just as plain scooters and streamlined motorbikes overhaul and
transcend
trikes, on the basis of a post-superworldly relativity.
10. Clearly ring-padded radio headphones will be
of an Ecological status with a bias towards Communist conventionals;
streamlined centre-padded radio headphones will be of an Ecological
status with
a bias towards Fascist micros; streamlined ring-padded radio headphones
will be
of a uniquely middle-ground Ecological status.
Parallels may be drawn with rock-blues, jazz-blues, and
blues-blues
respectively, not to mention with comparable kinds of trikes.
11. To me, Social Theocracy and Social
Transcendentalism
are interchangeable terms for the ideology of what is potentially, if
not
actually at this point in time, a true world religion, a religion
capable of
genuinely global aspirations. I
personally prefer to think of the first term in connection with
political
equivalents, since it is closer in appearance and sound to Social
Democracy,
and the second term in connection with religious equivalents, since it
better
expresses the freedom from alpha-stemming orientations and correlative
freedom
for omega-aspiring orientations. For,
despite my transcendental use of the word, 'theocracy' too easily
connotes with
quasi-autocratic subservience to alpha-stemming deities, whereas
'transcendentalism' more readily expresses the freedom that an
omega-aspiring
religion entails. Thus one can conceive
of a Social Theocratic Party or Movement, but the actual religious
realization
of the ideology in question would be better served by the term Social
Transcendentalism, which, in any case, is the term I tend to prefer.
12. Public ownership of the land in relation to
public ownership of industry - a natural/artificial distinction which
finds a
parallel between hand-played percussion on the one hand and drums on
the other,
as befitting alpha and omega manifestations of decentralization. Thus primitive Communism and contemporary
Communism, each of which are unacceptable from a truly civilized, and
therefore
centralized, standpoint. Better than
public ownership of the means of production, whether natural or
artificial,
agricultural or industrial, is Centrist trusteeship of those means for
the
People-become-Holy-Ghost. Otherwise the
People can never become Holy Ghost, but will remain enslaved to
materialism and
be no better than proletarian. A truly
free people are free for the spirit.
Those who elect, under Messianic auspices, to serve the People
in this
ultimate freedom must bear the 'sinful' materialisms of the world for
them in a
Christ-like sacrifice ... in order that
they may go free of such 'sins' for all time.
But trusteeship is not ownership! Trusteeship
is
social, not Socialism. Ownership is a
dirty concept from a divine
standpoint.
13. Purely as a matter of general interest, can
there be ownership of the land, as of anything else, without prior
purchase? Is not ownership dependent upon
one's buying
what is offered for sale? So can there
be true ownership where no purchase was involved, as in primitive
communal
societies which knew nothing about money and would not have cared for
financial
transactions had they done so? No, it
seems to me that no ownership could have existed in those primitive
communities, least of all where land was concerned.
Rather did people, whether as individual
clans or tribes, occupy and make use of land for the benefit of the
community,
as in ancient
14. A modern example of occupying but now owning
is afforded by squatters, who take over deserted or derelict property
and make
use of it for themselves. For to own one
must first buy. No ownership can be said
to exist where a purchase has not been made.
The Irish were once beneath ownership, but hopefully one day
they will
be beyond it, even in the collective sense advocated by Socialists. Yet while public ownership may be preferable
to, because more evolved than, private ownership, it is still
ownership, and
thus rather more on the diabolic than the divine side of life. It can only truly exist where the State,
acting on behalf of the community, buys out the private owners of their
land,
industry, or whatever, which is then nationalized.
Thus the State, having first bought in the
collective interest, owns what it has bought.
Yet such ownership can only exist in a
15. Transcendental Socialism is one-party
Socialism, in which the proletariat own the means of production through
the
State. Social Transcendentalism is
one-party trusteeship of the means of production for the People through
the
Centre. Hence whereas the former implies
ownership, the latter implies trusteeship.
16. Re-evaluation (in relation to evaluations
carried out in, for example, From Materialism to Idealism) of
different
types of People's discs in relation to ideological equivalents:
Democratic
Socialist long-playing album; pure Socialist large single; Communist
small
single; Transcendental Socialist compact disc.
Thus from the democratically large-scale disc to the
theocratically small-scale
disc.
17. No-one who is familiar with contemporary modes
of motorized transportation will have failed to notice a distinction
between
cars on the one hand, and motorbikes and scooters on the other, which
can be
inferred to parallel the distinction I have already drawn between the
body and
head, as regarding worldly democracy and otherworldly theocracy, the
latter
divisible into brain and mind, with particular reference (in relation
to
motorbikes and scooters) to the new brain and the superconscious mind. By which I mean that whereas cars connote, on
account of their extensive bodywork, with the body and thus may be
ascribed a
democratic significance, motorbikes connote, on account of their engine
bias,
with the brain or, more accurately, the new brain, while scooters
connote, on
account of their preponderant panelling, with the superconscious, i.e.
mind of
a post-worldly and hence transcendent order.
Consequently a dichotomy in the first place between
body-oriented cars
and head-oriented motorbikes/scooters, with a further dichotomy between
brain-oriented motorbikes and mind-oriented scooters.
World-Devil-God distinctions on democratic
and transcendent terms.
18. Certainly we need not doubt that cars will
appeal more to worldly, democratic people than to those of a
post-worldly or
otherworldly disposition, who will doubtless prefer motorbikes or
scooters, as
befitting 'heads'. But in a democratic
society such more ideologically-advanced individuals are rather the
exception
to the rule, as can be confirmed by the preponderance of four-wheel
over
two-wheel motor vehicles on today's roads.
Of course, distinctions between Fascist streamlined scooters and
Social
Transcendentalist plain scooters do not
alter the fact that scooters are essentially mind orientated, any more
than
streamlined motorbikes cease to be brain orientated in relation to
plain, or
conventional, motorbikes just because they signify a Transcendental
Socialist
extrapolation from Communist purism.
Certainly a latter-day plain scooter will be less idealistic and
mind
orientated than a streamlined scooter, but it will still be more a
phenomenon
of the superconscious than of the new brain.
Similarly a latter-day streamlined motorbike will be less
materialistic
and brain orientated than a plain motorbike, yet still be more a
phenomenon of
the new brain than of the superconscious.
For scooters are ever scooters, no less than motorbikes remain
motorbikes whatever modifications are introduced. They
pertain
to separate ideological spectra.
19. However, it is my unshakeable conviction that
scooters and motorbikes are more relevant to post-worldly intellectuals
than
ever cars would be, given their inherently bodily construction. Cars for the democratic masses, scooters and
motorbikes for the transcendental elites, whether divine or diabolic,
fascistic
or communistic. For it is incontestable
that two-wheeled motor vehicles are as much beyond the world ... of the
democratic masses ... as ponies and horses may be said to have preceded
it, with
scooters as a kind of antithetical equivalent to ponies and motorbikes
as a
kind of antithetical equivalent to horses - a difference, in part, of
scale
and, in part, of design. Certainly
ponies are smaller and slower than horses, and the same is generally
true of
scooters in relation to motorbikes; shorter legs in the case of ponies
and
smaller wheels in the case of scooters, making for a slower overall
performance. Doubtless the type of
person who would have preferred a pony to a horse in the pre-worldly
age of
pagan antiquity will have his antithetical equivalent in the type of
person
who, in this incipiently post-worldly age of transcendent futurity,
prefers a
scooter to a motorbike - the difference, in other words, between
alpha-stemming
idealism (the Father) and omega-oriented idealism (the Holy Ghost). And doubtless, too, the type of person who,
in an alpha-stemming age, would have preferred a horse to a pony has
his
antithetical equivalent in the typical motorcyclist for whom scooters
are
inadequate or unacceptable, as the case may be.
20. But what of those who come in-between each of
the extreme choices? For we can no more
ignore the reality of a mid-position in between scooters and motorbikes
than in
between ponies and horses, and if the former has to do with trikes,
then it
seems not unreasonable to contend that the latter had to do with
donkeys,
quadrupeds which were no less distinct from (and slower than) ponies
and horses
than trikes (are) from scooters and motorbikes.
Thus if we are to consider trikes as the antithetical equivalent
to
donkeys, it will be partly on account of the slow pace at which each
mode of
transportation moves, neither of them a match for their immediate
rivals. Yet just as trikes are rather more
a
scaling-down of the body than truly correlative with the head, so we
may
believe that donkeys were less suitable modes of conveyance for
'heads', or
head types, prior to the world (of carriages and cars) than for
'bodies', or
mass types, in that pre-dualistic context, thereby rating lower in the
alpha-stemming estimation of pagans than either ponies or horses. Just as, in the omega-oriented estimation of
post-dualistic transcendentalists, trikes rate lower than either
scooters or
motorbikes, being no less bodily or populist, in relation to these
latter modes
of conveyance, than donkeys were in relation to the former modes.
21. So from natural modes of conveyance to
artificial modes via carriages and cars, which is to say, from
alpha-stemming
God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the subworldly donkey) to
omega-oriented
God/Devil dichotomies (excluding the supra-worldly trike) via the world. Certainly, the head is making a comeback, but
on diametrically antithetical terms to its first appearance, when
subconscious
and old brain were predominant. We may
be some way from a society in which scooters and motorbikes, not to
mention
trikes, are the rule rather than the exception, but if the world is not
to last
for ever, then such a society must surely arise ... whether with a bias
for scooters
over motorbikes, or vice
versa.
22. Possibility of tanks as the antithetical
equivalent of chariots, particularly those of the martial variety. For are not tanks designed both to protect
their occupants from enemy fire and enable them to train projectiles on
an
enemy - the very things which chariots were intended to do, albeit from
a
relatively naturalistic point-of-view?
Tanks may have displaced cavalry in the evolution of warfare,
but their
role is more akin to that of chariots, which were evidently displaced
by
cavalry.
23. Evolutionary theory of lettering from
autocratic Block Capitals to centrist lower-case writing via theocratic
mixed-case writing, democratic mixed-case printing, socialist
lower-case
printing, and transcendental socialist lower-case italics.
Consequently, lettering may be assumed to
evolve from a materialistic inception in BLOCK CAPITALS to an
idealistic
culmination in lower-case writing via writerly and printerly
compromises in
between. From the separate to the
joined, as from the large to the small, strength to truth, the
particular to
the general. Or, put in nuclear terms,
from proton particles to wavicles, atomic particles to wavicles, and
electron
particles to wavicles - pre-worldly, worldly, and post-worldly
alternatives,
with diabolic/divine implications on the extreme levels, which, however
you
regard them, tend to be mutually exclusive.
Thus lower-case printing excludes both the autocratic
possibility of
upper-case printing and the transcendental possibility of lower-case
writing;
lower-case writing excludes both the theocratic possibility of
mixed-case
writing and the socialist possibility of lower-case printing. Spectra remain distinct, and alpha and omega
manifestations thereof cancel out the possibility of an antithetical
option. Unfortunately the age of
lower-case writing is still some way off, though we are seeing more
lower-case
printing these days, particularly where consciously socialist or
proletarian
publications are concerned. (Supplementary to the above distinctions, I
should
like to add the theory that mixed-case italics correspond to a Nazi
equivalent,
in contrast to lower-case italics.)
24. I have never been particularly happy with
Schopenhauer's The
World
as Will and Representation, and now, for the first
time, I realize exactly why. It is as
though it were the philosophical equivalent of the
25. But if we can distinguish between an
alpha-stemming and an omega-oriented will on the above basis, with
latitudinal
implications, one should also be careful to distinguish longitudinally,
as it
were, between divine, diabolic, and worldly types of will on each of
the
extreme positions, and to a certain extent Schopenhauer did in fact do
so - at
any rate, with regard to the alpha-stemming types of will.
For he fully admitted to a distinction
between conscious will, or will of which the subject is fully
conscious, and
unconscious or subliminal will, which rises up of its own accord from
the
instinctual depths of the organism, a testimony to the automotive. Clearly this distinction is between diabolic
will in the case of the conscious, and worldly will in the case of the
unconscious; for the former would seem to owe more to the old brain
than to the
subconscious, about which Schopenhauer had relatively little to say,
and may
therefore be accorded a diabolic origin, in contrast not only to
worldly
instinctual will but to divine will, which, on the alpha-stemming
level,
manifests itself in imagination, whether as dreams or
consciously-willed
fantasies, images, and so on, that do not impinge on or lead to bodily
actions. For the essence of divine will
is unconnected with bodily actions, which depend on conscious or
subliminal
types of will, and is accordingly complete in itself.
Whether in dreams or fantasies or the even rarer
instance of natural visions, divine will pertains to the subconscious
as a kind
of psychic extrapolation from the central star of the Galaxy, which
corresponds
to the Creator by dint of its centralized uniqueness and almost
transcendent
aloofness from planetary revolutions, a star seemingly wrapped-up in
itself
rather than directly responsible for the motions of planets, in
contrast to the
myriad suns which circle around it (as monarchs around a pope) in the
rest of
the Galaxy, of which our sun is but a minute component.
And yet, if dreams can be regarded, in some
basic metaphysical sense, as extrapolations from the central star of
the
Galaxy, then we need not hesitate in ascribing to consciously-willed
activity an
extrapolation from the sun, as though it corresponded to the influence
of the
sun on the earth's motions, while reserving to the unconscious or
instinctual
will a parallel with the influence of the earth's molten core on the
planet
itself, as though that, too, were but an extrapolation from some more
fundamental principle acting upon the cosmic head.
Consequently while the central star of the
Galaxy would connote with mind, being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of
the
subconscious, the sun would assume, in this context, a connotation with
the brain,
being a kind of cosmic foreshadowing of the old brain, from which all
conscious
willing proceeds, leaving the planet itself to foreshadow the
instinctual,
subliminal manifestation of will in the body.
Needless to say, each kind of will is to be found in everyone,
although
not, I shall argue, to the same extent, since we can generalize people
into
divine, diabolic, and worldly dispositions, according to both racial
and class
factors, about which the reader will already be familiar from earlier
sections
of my work.
26. So we have three levels or types of will in
the sense of action - one primarily mental, one arising in the mind but
intended to activate the body, and one primarily physical, residing in
the
body. All three types of will discussed
above pertain to an alpha-stemming orientation, which is to say, they
are of a
naturalistic, proton-based constitution.
Schopenhauer, as we have seen, was particularly mindful of two
of them,
viz. the diabolic, or conscious, will, and the worldly, or subliminal,
will,
and so far as he was concerned no alternative will existed, nor could
ever
exist, these two types of will being extrapolated from a single primal
source
and returning to it, in the context of noumenon, once their phenomenal
manifestations had passed away. Yet, as
I have already argued, an omega orientation is also possible and
presupposes a
different order of will, as well as parallel types or levels of will
within
that omega-oriented context. In other
words, just as there are divine, diabolic, and worldly types of
alpha-stemming
will, so there must be divine, diabolic, and worldly types of
omega-aspiring
will, which constitute antithetical equivalents to the former. Such omega-aspiring types of will should be
of an electron-based supernaturalistic constitution and may
alternatively be
regarded as levels of superwill.
Consequently the antithetical equivalent of imaginative will on
the
plane of dreams or fantasies or visions, as the case may be, will be
imaginative
superwill, which should take the forms, in an ascending order of
importance, of
film-viewing, video-making, and LSD-tripping.
Similarly, the antithetical equivalent of conscious will on the
plane of
bodily actions will be conscious superwill, which should have to do not
with
natural actions in relation to nature but with artificial actions in
relation
to artificial phenomena such as machines, computers, synthesizers,
motorized
vehicles, and so on. Finally, the
antithetical equivalent of subliminal or instinctual will with regard
to bodily
functions will be instinctual superwill which, as in the case of the
higher
levels of omega-oriented will, should have to do with an instinctual
response
to external artificial stimuli, whether in the guise of music or sport
or any
other artificial inducements. Thus in
complete contrast to the alpha-stemming types of will, whether on the
divine or
diabolic or worldly planes, the omega-aspiring types of will are
dependent upon
and stimulated by artificial phenomena, without which they would cease
to exist. Rather than being behind all
natural
phenomena, like Schopenhauer's noumenon, artificial phenomena are, in a
very
real sense, behind all supernoumena, a precondition for the emergence
of
whichever type of superwill. It is the
disco that creates the dance, not vice versa.
And, by a like-token, it is the machine which conditions the
response of
conscious superwill, no less than LSD which creates the trip. The former is a precondition of the latter.
27. Thus in complete contrast to Schopenhauer, we
have
a will which is the effect of artificial causes rather than the cause
of
natural effects, a will which, far from being the means to a higher
end, namely
the creation of phenomena, is an end-in-itself, and therefore the
transcendence
of all phenomena through self-realization, or realization of the
superwill. Such self-realization can be
bodily or intellectual or spiritual, although the long-term goal of
evolutionary progress must be the utmost divine type of superwill, in
spiritual
transcendence, and not the utmost worldly or diabolic types of
superwill in
connection with, and hence enslavement to, artificial phenomena. Even if the latter are preferable to the
different types of alpha-stemming will, they are inherently inferior to
the
highest omega-aspiring type of superwill and must eventually be
eclipsed by it,
as spirit triumphs over both brain and body in the attainment not only
of
salvation from the world but, more importantly, of heavenly bliss. Such a heavenly culmination to evolution may
not have been envisaged by Schopenhauer but it was by Nietzsche, whose
'great
noontide' would seem to correspond with the ultimate fulfilment of
Christian
aspirations in the heavenly Beyond - a Beyond which is no mere return
to the
pre-worldly noumenon but an advancement beyond the world to Paradise. If Schopenhauer was the culmination of one
philosophical tradition, then Nietzsche can at least in part be
regarded as the
inception of another. It is my belief
that I am the culmination of that alternative tradition, necessarily
antithetical to the first.
28. Can one have been noumenon, in the sense of
will as expounded by Schopenhauer, before birth in the phenomenal world
as a
particular individual, and, if so, is one destined to become noumenon
again,
following death? I do not believe
so! Such a noumenon is equivalent to
cosmic energy or force ... in the context of suns and stars, and it
seems
rather unlikely that before birth one was a star or component thereof,
since
one's entry into the world came via one's parents and is inconceivable
on any
other basis than parental procreation.
Similarly, after death one will simply cease to exist as a
person and
become nothing, particularly if, instead of being exposed to the
organic cycle
through burial, one's corpse is incinerated and thereby reduced to a
few pounds
of common ash. One is no more likely to
become pure will after death than to have been it before birth. Such will is solely cosmic, existing on
primitive divine, diabolic, and worldly levels, which is to say, in the
central
star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy); in the circling stars of the
Galaxy (as
of any galaxy); and in the circling planets of the Galaxy (as of any
galaxy),
where molten cores may be presumed to exist.
In such alpha-stemming contexts we have a gradual scaling-down
or
reduction of proton energy from the comparatively pure level of the
central
star of the Galaxy to the cruder level of the earth's core, as the
noumenon
descends towards the phenomenal world.
Beyond it there is nothing or, rather, only the possibility of
supernoumenal electron-electron attractions.
Yet such pure spirit would not have emerged from man, and hence
the
world, but from a more evolved life form, corresponding to a new-brain
collectivization,
elsewhere in the Universe - it being assumed, for the sake of argument,
that
the Universe does in fact contain such a life form.
29. Concerning will on the alpha-stemming worldly
and omega-aspiring worldly levels, it seems to me that dance is to sex
what
sport is to war - namely a kind of antithetical equivalent wherein
electron-biased criteria, as germane to worldly superwill, are
preponderant. Thus from sex on the
wavicle level of proton-biased atomic will to dance on the wavicle
level of
electron-biased atomic will; and from war on the particle level of
proton-biased atomic will to sport on the particle level of
electron-biased
atomic will. In a primitive, or pagan,
society it follows that sex and war preponderate over dance and sport,
whereas
in an advanced, or transcendental, society ... dance and sport will be
preponderant over sex and war, and possibly to the complete exclusion
of the
latter. Only in a worldly, or Christian,
society will a balance exist between sex and war on the one hand and
dance and
sport on the other, as befitting atomic criteria. Thus
from
sex and war at one end of the
evolutionary scale to dance and sport at the other end, the former
presupposing
alpha-stemming atomic will and the latter, by contrast, presupposing
omega-aspiring atomic will. Wavicle
construction (self-indulgence) and particle destruction
(self-sacrifice) on the
proton-biased levels; wavicle co-operation (self-transcendence) and
particle
competition (self-assertion) on the electron-biased levels, with all
due
gradations and compromises coming in-between.
30. Certainly, contemporary society testifies to a
preponderance of dance and sport over sex and war, and I venture to
suggest
that disco-dancing, wherein people dance freely in the collective, is
the
antithetical equivalent of the pagan orgy, wherein people copulated
freely in
the collective, choosing whomsoever they pleased. Of
course,
orgiastic behaviour was not
unheard of in the late-twentieth century, but it was more an expression
of bourgeois
decadence within a pseudo-modern context than a reflection of truly
contemporary trends. The genuinely
modern man, a proletarian, will rather be found free-dancing in a disco
than
free-fucking at an orgy. And what
applies to the male sex applies no less to the female, whose commitment
to the
dance should leave one in no doubt that what is happening isn't so much
sexual
as an antithetical equivalent of sex with superior moral implications -
certainly when judged in relation to orgiastic behaviour!
For it is the consequence of a different kind
of
will, one dependent on artificial, though in this case musical,
motivation. Transcendent rather than
mundane.
31. Consequently we may distinguish not merely
dance from sex, but collective sex at one end of the wavicle-atomic
spectrum
from collective dance at the other end, with alpha and omega, proton
and
electron, implications ... as pertaining to the noumenal within a
worldly, and
hence bodily, context. For the noumenal,
as pure will, is characterized by its indivisibility, and such
indivisibility
manifests itself within the collective, whether on the alpha-stemming
levels of
a proton-biased atomicity or on the omega-oriented levels of an
electron-biased
atomicity, that is to say whether as noumenon or supernoumenon. It is only in the phenomenal as such, which
comes in between these antithetical kinds of noumena as a manifestation
of
worldly individualism, that individualized sex and dance have their
rightful
place and are properly intelligible, with individualized sex, or sex
between
man and wife, succeeding orgiastic sex as atomic wavicles succeed
proton-biased
atomic wavicles, while, from the converse viewpoint, individualized
dancing, or
dancing between couples, precedes the more collectivized free-dancing
one would
associate with the disco. Thus from
pre-worldly sexual noumenon to worldly sexual phenomenon, and from
worldly
dancing phenomenon to post-worldly dancing noumenon.
32. Likewise, we can distinguish between the
particle equivalents of sex and dance, namely war and sport, on alpha
and omega
worldly levels, reserving a collective (noumenal) status for tribal
war, or
warfare between various tribes, clans, etc., and an individualized
(phenomenal)
status for national war, or warfare between two rival rulers, a kind of
war
which may be regarded as having succeeded the tribal kind to the degree
and in
the sense that individualized sex succeeded orgiastic sex.
Conversely, we should reserve an
individualized (phenomenal) status for national sports, or sporting
contexts
involving two competitors or teams, and a collectivized (noumenal)
status for
international sports, or sporting contexts which involve a number of
competitors or teams from a variety of countries ... such as cycling,
motor
racing, motorcycle racing, speedboat racing, and so on, which are not
only more
transcendental in relation to national sports but, as a rule, more
artificial
as well. Indeed, a distinction should be
drawn between these truly modern or artificial sports on the one hand,
and
athletics on the other which, although fulfilling some of the criteria
we have
laid down for international sports, presupposes strong naturalistic
bodily
exertions suggestive of a form of neo-pagan behaviour.
Could it be that athletics, despite its unquestioned
contemporary significance and popularity, is less truly modern than
pseudo-modern, standing to cycling as sunbathing to solariums or hand
percussion to drums?
33. However that may be, we have before us an
atomic-particle spectrum stretching from pre-worldly martial noumenon
to worldly
martial phenomenon, and from worldly sporting phenomenon to
post-worldly
sporting noumenon, a spectrum which can be seen to parallel the
sex/dance one
outlined above. Such relativity is
germane to the world, and not only implies two opposite kinds of
noumenon or
will, viz. alpha-stemming noumenon on the sex/war levels and
omega-aspiring
noumenon on the sport/dance levels, but two opposite manifestations of
each
kind of will, viz. the will to survive on the war and sport spectrum,
and the
will to live on the sex and dance spectrum.
For is it not the case that war and sport call forth the will to
survive, to vanquish opposition, whereas sex and dance entail the will
to live,
to enjoy and fulfil oneself? No mean
distinction, and the co-existence of each type of will at both ends of
the
worldly spectra is, it seems to me, an indisputable fact, even if one
or other
of the opposite types of will tends to preponderate in any given
individual,
making for a sports bias or a dance bias, as the case may be. Certainly such opposite types of will
correspond to the particle/wavicle dichotomy, which is a characteristic
of
atomic structures ... whether pre-worldly and of a proton bias, worldly
and
atomically balanced between protons and electrons, or post-worldly and
of an
electron bias, and this dichotomy is to be found not only within the
bodily, or
worldly, context but is originally and even more characteristic of the
head, or
divine/diabolic, context, since germane to the basic distinction
between the
Devil and God, whether on the traditional proton levels of the alpha
duality
between old brain and subconscious, which finds its cosmic analogue in
the
distinction between the central star of the Galaxy and the sun, or on
the
contemporary electron levels of the omega duality between new brain and
superconscious, the latter of which should lead to the transcendental
culmination of evolution. Consequently
we may characterize the will to survive as a particle-biased, and
therefore diabolical,
atomic disposition, in contrast to the will to live, which pertains to
the
wavicle side of the atom and is accordingly of a divine bias. War and sport are alike of a diabolic bias,
since expressions of the will to survive, whereas sex and dance are of
a divine
bias, since expressions of the will to live.
In the cases of war and sex, we have an alpha-stemming
proton-biased
dichotomy within the worldly context. In
the cases of sport and dance, by contrast, an omega-oriented
electron-biased
worldly dichotomy. Self-sacrifice and
self-indulgence on the one hand, self-assertion and self-transcendence
on the
other hand. Two diametrically opposite
kinds of will manifesting on two diametrically opposite planes.
34. But if the bodily, or mass, level of will is
subject to such divisions, then so too, as already intimated, is the
head, or
elite, level, with similar divisions on both alpha/omega and
wavicle/particle
terms. Taking the alpha-stemming old
brain and subconscious first, we can attribute a divine bias to
self-indulgent
dreaming and/or fantasizing, while reserving a diabolic bias for
self-sacrificing consciously-determined actions, of which the most
purely
diabolical would be suicide, since that takes effect with regard to the
self
and is accordingly not diluted, as it were, through worldly relativity
in the
form of war. Conversely, we should
attribute a divine bias to self-transcending tripping and/or the
viewing of
films, videos, etc., and a diabolic bias to self-assertive
consciously-determined actions, of which cultural commitments in the
form of
playing a musical instrument or typing a book or painting a picture
will be
more representative than anything connected with the body and directly
involving other people, like competitive sport.
These latter options will of course pertain to the
superconscious and
new brain in an omega-oriented context, and therefore be morally
antithetical
to the former, or self-transcending, options.
35. However, now that I have written all this, I
can imagine a number of objections, not least of all concerning the
simple
division of will - far more though it is than anything Schopenhauer or
Nietzsche ever contemplated - into 'will to survive' on the one hand
and 'will
to live' on the other. How, for
instance, can one categorize suicide or a particularly reckless and
virtually
self-destructive act of war under the rubric 'will to survive'? Is it not rather the case that such acts
follow from a will to die and that we must accordingly allow for such a
will in
our overall calculations, mindful of Freud's distinction between
Thanatos and
Eros, or death-urge and life-urge, which are clearly antithetical
postulates
either side of an alpha/omega division, much as Freud equated them with
the id
and the superego respectively, which is to say with the old brain and
the
superconscious. How, then, can we settle
for an alpha-stemming will to survive on the one hand and a no-less
alpha-stemming will to live on the other, reserving the notion of
self-sacrifice for the former and self-indulgence for the latter? Can the will to survive co-exist with the
will to live? Doubtless it can on the
omega-oriented level, where we have distinguished between sport and
dance. But one must reserve some doubts
about such a
co-existence on the alpha-stemming level of war and sex.
In fact, I incline to think that the will to
die and the will to love would be more applicable to that distinction,
thereby
adding not one but two extra types of alpha-stemming will to our
overall
picture.... Or, alternatively, it could transpire that the will to
survive is a
kind of half-way house between the will to die and the will to live,
and that
we should accordingly be thinking in tripartite terms, with, say, the
will to
die corresponding to a proton-biased particle atomicity, the will to
survive corresponding
to a proton-biased particle/wavicle atomicity, and the will to live
corresponding to a proton-biased wavicle atomicity.
36. Obviously what applies with regard to the
alpha-stemming noumenal levels would also have to apply to the
omega-oriented noumenal
levels, with similar tripartite distinctions.
But then death, in the electron-biased particle atomicity, would
be
rather different from and certainly less lethal than its alpha-stemming
counterpart. More like wishing to lose
in a sports competition or purposely throwing away one's chances of
survival. A sort of self-willed defeat
that, by no stretch of the imagination, could be equated with the will
to
survive! However, we can be under no
doubt that limiting will to either survival or living, as both
Nietzsche and
Schopenhauer did (though with greater reference to survival), is
totally
inadequate for explaining the complexity of will, as is the no-less
one-sided
limitation of the noumenon to an alpha-stemming status, even when such
a primal
noumenon is occasionally invested with attributes more correctly
belonging to
what I have called the supernoumenon, which is, in reality, radically
antithetical to it. Indeed, I doubt that
the use of the singular is really correct; for whilst I will not argue
with the
professed indivisibility of will, as employed in the aforementioned
sense, I
most certainly believe that distinctions between divine, diabolic, and
worldly
levels of will, whether at the alpha or omega poles of their respective
spectra, justify one in speaking of noumena, and that use of the plural
more
accords with an objectively valid recognition of such distinctions than
would
the singular, it being remembered that wavicle, particle, and atomic
distinctions are the ones primarily at stake, as between the central
star of
the Galaxy, the sun, and the earth. And
yet, irrespective of whether or not one prefers to be pedantically
exacting,
the indivisibility of will on the alpha levels is neither the same nor
as pure
as its indivisibility on the omega levels.
For the indivisibility of the former is merely apparent,
as
pertaining to proton-proton reactions, whereas the indivisibility of
the latter
is essential, as pertaining to electron-electron attractions,
and
therefore is much more truly indivisible, as befitting the Holy Ghost. Proton-proton reactions may be indivisible to
the extent that we are concerned with a subatomic absolute, but such an
indivisibility is really very frictional in character, calling to mind
the
difference between an orgy and a disco dance, self-indulgence and
self-transcendence or, alternatively, between tribal war and
international
sport, self-sacrifice and self-assertion.
There can be no question that indivisibility is not being truly
manifested on the alpha plane but is merely apparent, as between
conflicting
protons.
37. Which leads us to another contention about the
alpha noumenon, namely that it is perceptible.
By which I mean that the basic pre-phenomenal 'thing-in-itself'
can be
seen or known by dint of its frictional constitution, which is nothing
less
than the proton-proton reactions of solar fission and all fiery
manifestations
thereof. Yes, the stars are the alpha
noumenon or, as I should say ... to distinguish between the central
star of any
galaxy and sun-like revolving stars, noumena, which not only precede
worldly
phenomena, including the earth, but are a precondition of the
phenomenal, since
atomic cohesion derives from solar cooling and the consequent formation
of core
and crust which, certainly in the case of the core, are more noumenal
than
properly phenomenal. It is only with the
organic that the phenomenal is truly born, whether in nature, animals,
or man,
and this is because only in the organic do we get a proton-electron
fusion to a
degree which transcends the noumenal absolutism of the stars. In other words, nature is more than
solidified protons; it is fully atomic and no more can be described as
the
objectification of the will, or alpha noumenon, than the sun can be
described
as organic. There is more to it than
proton-proton reactions! And yet, the
fact that stars can be seen, i.e. are perceptible, does not preclude
them from
being noumenal. For the alpha noumenon
is, like flame, apparent, and does not become phenomenal on that
account. All I have to do to perceive the
noumenon of
or in a piece of wood is to set fire to it, with spectacular if
diabolical
results! And what applies to a piece of
wood applies no less to a chair or a table or a cupboard made from
wood, the
atomic constitution of which is well stocked with protons!
38. Why, then, did philosophers like Hume and Kant
stress the unknowability of the thing-in-itself, or noumenon? Surely because they made the mistake of
investing it with attributes better reserved for the omega noumenon,
the
supernoumenal thing-in-itself which is the end-product of evolution
rather than
its precondition, while simultaneously regarding stars, and by
implication
flame, as phenomenal because of their apparent nature, so that there
was
nothing to fall back on except some hypothetical rudimentary noumenon
behind
all appearances. Alas, the truth is more
complex than that! The noumenon they
were alluding to most certainly can be known as well as experienced, if
one is
unfortunate enough to get burnt alive and so drop, as it were, from the
phenomenal plane of the organic to the noumenal plane of proton-proton
reactions. We can both feel and see (and
therefore have knowledge of) the alpha noumenon ... to the extent that
we are
brought into contact with flame. What we
cannot see (though feeling and knowledge cannot be ruled out, the
latter
dependent on the former) is the omega noumenon, which is a spiritual
antithesis
to the alpha noumenon, essential rather than apparent, blissful as
opposed to
agonized, centripetal as opposed to centrifugal, and only embryonic in
human
life to the extent that we cultivate pure spirit in the superconscious
mind and
accordingly aspire towards the supernoumenal culmination of evolution. Such a culmination will of course be Heaven, a
condition of perfect essence, in complete contrast to the perfect
appearance of
the stars. With the phenomenal, whether
in nature, animals, or man, both appearance and essence are imperfect
... by
dint of the fact that the one has fallen away from proton absolutism
into an
atomic relativity, whereas the other, trapped in such relativity, is
somewhat
short of the electron absolutism which is commensurate with the Holy
Ghost. Now obviously, no-one who values
Christian teachings and the notion of evolutionary progress is going to
want
perfect appearances or wish to resurrect a proton-biased idealism, as
if the
'fall' from proton purism into worldly atomicity was a cause for regret! Only a madman or a neo-pagan barbarian could
possibly want a world governed by fire and equivalent to Hell! But neither is turning away from the alpha
noumenon sufficient for salvation, since it merely entails a worldly
stasis or
death-in-life which falls woefully short of a heavenly aspiration. Only through the cultivation of pure spirit
can man begin to change the imperfect essence of his
intellectually-polluted
spirit into the perfect essence of transcendent spirit, and so aspire
towards
and eventually achieve salvation from the world, not just the world of
imperfect appearances but, no less importantly, the world of imperfect
essences, which is thought. Doubtless
there are degrees and stages of evolving towards this supernoumenal
perfection,
both within and beyond the human context, as well as different means of
cultivating pure spirit, both visionary and post-visionary. But whether the means employed is the
relatively humble ones of television or the more advanced ones of
artificially-induced internal visionary experience or, indeed,
something in
between ... like video, the outcome can only be a diminution of impure
essence
and an expansion of pure essence towards an omega culmination in
undifferentiated spirit, which is ultimate divinity.
Oh, how different that omega noumenon beyond the
phenomenal would be from the alpha noumenon behind it!
All the difference, in a word, between Heaven
and Hell, electron-electron attractions on the one hand and
proton-proton
reactions on the other, irrespective of the quality of these reactions,
i.e.
wavicle, particle, or a planetary compromise between the two.
39. Consequently we have an evolutionary
progression, as it were, which stretches from the alpha noumenon in
perfect
appearance to the phenomenal world and from the artificial
superphenomenal
world (a precondition of anything higher) to the supernoumenal
culmination of
evolution in perfect essence. From the
central star of the Galaxy (as of any galaxy) to the natural world via
suns and
planets, and from the synthetic world of progressive humanity to the
ultimate
globe of pure spirit via intermediate transcendences.
In relation to man, such transcendences are
still a long way into the future. Yet we
who relate not to the phenomenal world but to supernoumenal aspirations
raised
on the back, so to speak, of superphenomenalism ... are in the chain of
progress that leads in their direction.
We can have no truck with any alpha-stemming chain, which finds
its
culmination in the world. Bourgeois
criteria are beneath us!
40. As regards Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, it
could be argued that, in seeing through and spurning the alpha
noumenon,
Schopenhauer was a wise fool, or a man who was wise enough not to
advocate its
furtherance in life but too foolish to perceive the possibility of an
alternative noumenon which pertained not to Hell but to an omega Heaven
lying
in the distant future. In this respect
he was certainly superior to Nietzsche, who foolishly affirmed the very
will
that Schopenhauer spurned and so prepared the way for the worst
excesses of
neo-paganism which were to follow in the twentieth century. To coin a Jungian distinction, Nietzsche was
less modern than pseudo-modern, and consequently he fell woefully short
of
genuine transcendentalism. We cannot
entirely blame such philosophers for their failings, since they were as
much
victims of their times as of their class and, in all probability, their
race. For it does seem that, no less
than class and time, race has to be taken into account when we assess a
philosopher's work, the better to understand it, and on the basis of
the
God-Devil-world divisions which find approximate European parallels in
the
Celtic-Slavic-Nordic distinctions touched upon elsewhere in my work. Clearly, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were not
just philosophers; they were Germanic philosophers, and this
fact should
not be ignored when we assess their work in relation to the truth. Neither can we appraise it in isolation from
the civilization to which they belonged, nor in isolation from the age
in which
it was written and the nature of their social class.
There is much difference between
alpha-stemming philosophy and the omega-oriented philosophy or, rather,
superphilosophy to which I relate - all the difference, in effect,
between a
pony and a scooter.
41. Dresses pertain to the alpha noumenal in and
of the world, which is to say, they reflect proton absolutism on the
bodily
level, whether with a wavicle bias, a particle bias, or something in
between
... according to the texture and quality of the fabric employed. Beyond the noumenal dress we find, in the
context of worldly phenomena, skirts on the one hand and trousers on
the other,
each of which reflects an atomic heterosexual compromise between
protons and
electrons, female and male. Suits,
whether feminine or masculine, are quintessentially phenomenal ... in
the sense
of a worldly atomicity, and beyond trouser suits we find jeans of one
description or another which, whether worn independently of short
matching
jackets or in conjunction with them, suggest a superphenomenalism, a
socialistic post-worldly norm pending supernoumenal leathers and/or
PVCs,
particularly in terms of one-piece zipper suits. Such
zipper
suits will become the
supernoumenal norm of the future, an antithetical equivalent to dresses. Thus from an apparent, centrifugal noumenal
absolutism to an essential, centripetal noumenal absolutism via worldly
phenomenalism and superphenomenalism. A
sartorial progression from alpha to omega within a bodily context. For it should not be forgotten that what
covers the body is one thing, what also covers the head quite another,
so that
shroud-like dresses or hooded gowns stand to dresses as God or the
Devil to the
world, which is to say symbolic of a divine and/or diabolic
alpha-noumenal
absolutism, depending on the texture and quality of the hooded garment. Smooth or silky and we have a proton-wavicle
equivalent; coarse or thick and we have a proton-particle equivalent. Alpha God and Devil as distinct from and
superior to the alpha-biased world ... of hoodless dresses. Conversely, an omega-oriented distinction
should also be drawn between hoodless one-piece zipper suits and hooded
one-piece zipper suits, with a superdivine and/or superdiabolic
implication
beyond - and above - superworldly equivalents, depending whether the
one-piece
zipper suits in question be made from leather or PVC, the former
thicker and
coarser than the latter, and therefore standing to them in an inferior
moral
relationship - as, for example, electron particles to wavicles. Such hooded one-piece zipper suits should not
be confounded, however, with hooded anoraks or waist-length zipper
jackets,
which pertain rather more to the superphenomenal than to the
supernoumenal,
apart, in any case, from being primarily intended for protection
against rain. Yet the state of the weather
would no more
condition the wearing of one-piece hooded zipper suits in the future
... than
it did the wearing of hooded dresses or gowns in the past.
Moral considerations alone would obtain, and
doubtless some people(s) would have a moral advantage over others in
this
regard - certainly in the short term!
42. Strictly speaking, one should distinguish
between alpha devolution and omega evolution, since there is no overall
evolution from alpha to omega but, rather, a gradual devolution from
the Alpha
Absolute accompanied, at an approximately midway point in phenomenal
time, by a
gradual evolution towards the Omega Absolute.
Evolution therefore begins where devolution ends: within the
phenomenal
context of worldly dualism. Dresses to
skirts signify proton devolution; trousers to one-piece zipper suits
signify
electron evolution. However, skirts and
trousers are alike atomic, so that we are dealing not so much with the
noumenal
as with the phenomenal, which is both more and less than the noumenal
extremes;
more than the alpha and less than the omega.
A strictly noumenal devolution from the Alpha Absolute in regard
to
clothing would be evinced by the distinction between long dresses and
minidresses. Conversely, a strictly
noumenal evolution
towards the Omega Absolute would be evinced by the distinction between,
say,
PVC pants and PVC one-piece zipper suits.
In the one case, contraction; in the other case, expansion. Skirts and trousers form a phenomenal balance
in between these two extremes, though skirts can also be regarded as
devolving
from full-length phenomenalism in a radically proton-biased atomicity
to
mini-length phenomenalism in a moderately proton-biased atomicity. Conversely, trousers can be regarded as
having evolved, within the phenomenal context of worldly dualism, from
a
knee-length moderately electron-biased atomicity (breeches) to an
ankle-length
radically electron-biased atomicity.
Jeans, whether worn separately or with a matching jean-jacket,
are
rather less an electron-biased atomicity than an electron atomicity,
superworldly rather than worldly, and a precondition of free-electron
supernoumenal pants, whether in the electron-particle guise of leathers
or in
the electron-wavicle guise of PVCs - superdiabolic and superdivine
distinctions
beyond the superworld.
43. Shorts are socialistic and/or communistic,
depending on the type. Rather as I have
elsewhere distinguished between socialist chips and communist chips,
with
Democratic Socialist, pure Socialist, Communist, and Transcendental
Socialist
distinctions, I shall here divide shorts into similar categories,
contending
that cotton shorts with turn-ups are Democratic Socialist; cotton
shorts
without turn-ups pure Socialist; nylon shorts Communist; and nylon
shorts with
sown-in underpants Transcendental Socialist.
Furthermore, I should like to distinguish between socialistic
Nazi
shorts and fascistic Nazi shorts on the basis of a denim/cord
dichotomy,
reserving a possible liberal status for knee-length shorts, such as are
often
worn by elderly or academic-looking males.
44. My reason for regarding shorts as broadly
socialist is that they suggest a particle bias ... by dint of being so
short
and compact, and are therefore materialistic rather than idealistic. Being masculine, or of a phallic connotation,
they are obviously on the electron side of the atom and may accordingly
be
regarded in an electron-particle light, as suitable for sports. As a rule, Democratic Socialist shorts will
be longer than pure Socialist shorts, while Communist shorts will be
shorter
than Transcendental Socialist shorts.
Made from cotton, Socialist shorts, whether democratic or pure,
may be
described as superworldly, since connected with the natural (cotton)
and
therefore retaining a superphenomenal status - as, incidentally, do
Nazi
shorts. By contrast, Communist and
Transcendental Socialist shorts, being fashioned from nylon, which is
synthetic, appertain to the artificial, and are accordingly of a
supernoumenal
status.
45. Objects presuppose subjects.
There can be no objects unless there is first
a subject who perceives them. My table
does not exist for me until I look at it.
And yet, that is not to say that until I look at my table it
does not
exist. On the contrary, my table exists
whether or not I or anyone else is there to look at it, though not as
an object
but as a phenomenal thing-in-itself, which is to say, as a nondescript
'thing',
neither more nor less. Obviously one can
argue that if I am not present to perceive my table the table still
exists, and
certainly it would for me by dint of my recollection of what a table is
and
that I happen to possess one in my room, etc.
But if I were to die tomorrow, then that would not apply. For in death I would have no recollection of
tables, whether in general or in particular, as applying to myself. Now if no-one else connected with me in life
knew that I had such-and-such a table in such-and-such a room, then
that table
would not exist as a table but solely as a phenomenal thing-in-itself. For there would be no consciousness of it as
table. I and others like me (fellow
human beings) create the category 'table', just as I create objects by
being
their subject, the mind that perceives them.
Take away all perceiving subjects and not only would all
perceived
objects cease to exist, but their function and status along with them. Only phenomenal things-in-themselves would
remain, and they would differ from noumenal things-in-themselves as
matter
differs from flame. Absence of mind,
whether
literally or through madness, is the precondition for objects being
reduced
from intelligible phenomena to unintelligible phenomena, which is
thing-in-itself. Berkeley's argument no
longer passes muster, since we no longer believe in an all-seeing and
all-knowing God. (Probably the nearest
cosmic equivalent to such a theological postulate is the sun, and yet
the sun
does not literally see, since it has no eyes.
Neither is it strictly divine!)
46. Both Hume's and Kant's admission of the
unknowability of the thing-in-itself has to do with the noumenal
thing-in-itself rather than with the phenomenal one which I have just
been
discussing, and is true up to a point, that is to say, when applied to
objects
considered as phenomena. As I have
already argued, however, it ceases to apply to a flammable object, like
a
wooden chair or table, once that object has been set alight and is
burning
extensively. For the resulting flame
would be as close to the noumenal thing-in-itself as one could get ...
short of
setting oneself alight and thereby subjectively experiencing noumenal
thing-in-itself in the guise of fire, which is nothing less than the
creation
of proton-proton reactions out of atomic cohesion.
But there is another reason why these and
other such philosophers, including Schopenhauer, denied the possibility
of
direct knowledge of the noumenal thing-in-itself, which is that the
society and
age in which they lived was too phenomenal to permit of identification
with the
noumenal. In short, we have the seeds of
modern atheism in the eighteenth century, which gave birth, after all,
to the
Age of Enlightenment, and in an age when God, in the primitive sense of
Creator, was being denied, it is virtually inconceivable that
philosophy could
have acknowledged the knowability of the noumenal thing-in-itself. We are so used to regarding the Cosmos from a
phenomenal point-of-view - as stars, suns, planets, etc., - that the
concept of
a noumenal Cosmos composed of gods and devils is totally alien to us
and
explains, in some degree, why both Hume and Kant were indisposed to
crediting
man with an ability to directly know and experience the noumenal
thing-in-itself, which is nothing less, after all, than stellar and/or
solar
flame. The ancients of course had a
different view, living at a time when stars were gods and the noumenal
view of
the Cosmos, as of life in general, accordingly prevailed.
But Hume and Kant lived in a more evolved,
albeit worldly society and, being Protestant, neither of them could be
expected
to give the alpha noumenal its papal due.
Once again, one is made conscious of the degree to which a
particular
philosopher's thinking is conditioned not only by the age and society
in which
he lives, but by his race and class. If
the truth is graspable, as I happen to believe, then it is more likely
to be
grasped by someone of idealistic racial disposition living in an age
conducive
to its realization ... than by a Germanic philosopher living in the
thick of
worldly phenomenalism and regarding everything, including the Cosmos,
in a
phenomenal light!
47. However, one has to admit that if, from a
relatively evolved viewpoint, the alpha noumenal is not directly
accessible to
human knowledge or is not regarded as being directly knowable, then the
resulting materialism and phenomenalism will nonetheless be tinged with
a
quasi-noumenal significance, and a kind of false mysticism of the
phenomenal,
as upheld by the aforementioned philosophers (though criticized by
Schopenhauer), will prevail in which, for example, a discrepancy
between object
and subject, on the basis of the former's being inherently different
from how
the latter sees it, will be postulated at the expense of an exact
correlation
between the two. Such worldly mysticism
is rather more Protestant than Catholic, and its subsequent rejection
by more
evolved, or superphenomenal, philosophers is a precondition of
advancement
towards an admission of the possibility of direct experience of a
thing-in-itself which is not so much noumenal as supernoumenal, and
consequently of an omega orientation.
Such an admission is in fact made by me, and made, I should add,
less in
defiance of anti-philosophy than from the truly revolutionary
standpoint of
theosophy, which stands to philosophy as omega to alpha, completely
beyond all
phenomenal middle-grounds. Direct
knowledge of the omega thing-in-itself, which is pure spirit, comes
through
transcendental meditation, and that is the path to God ... the Holy
Spirit. Here we are beyond not only Hume
and Kant,
but the entire civilization to which they belonged, with its worldly
phenomenalism. We are beyond both
philosophy and anti-philosophy alike, the Father and the Son, love of
the
external and love of the phenomenal self.
We love only the eternal, which is internal and therefore
psychic.
48. One should distinguish not only between
philosophy and theosophy on an alpha/omega basis, as regarding the
centrifugal
and the centripetal, but also between anti-philosophy and
proto-theosophy,
which pertain to the phenomenal middle-ground in between noumenal and
supernoumenal extremes. Indeed, the
strictly phenomenal mode of idealistic writing is both
anti-philosophical and
proto-theosophical at once, and therefore uniquely Christian in a
worldly, or
Protestant, sense. Yet because of this
it is neither properly philosophical nor theosophical, but a cross
between the
two. Only proto-theosophical writings
prepare the ground for theosophy as such.
49. Similarly, if the above distinctions apply to
a divine spectrum stretching from alpha to omega, as from the
subconscious to
the superconscious, then we need not doubt that their diabolic
counterparts,
which may be regarded as applicable to a spectrum stretching from the
old brain
to the new brain, will be theology on the one hand and psychology on
the other,
so that knowledge of God ... the Father in the one case and of the
psyche in
the other ... constitute the extreme poles of a spectrum rather more
naturalistic than idealistic in character.
For the brain stands in a diabolic relation to the mind, and in
using
the former to study the latter one is looking-in at it from outside,
not so
much as subject to object as ... object to subject, particle naturalism
to
wavicle idealism, whether at the alpha or omega pole of the brain, with
reference
to the subconscious or to the superconscious, to the Father or to the
Holy
Ghost. Hence, on the one hand,
philosophy and theology, with the former standing in a superior
relation to the
latter, and, on the other hand, theosophy and psychology, the former of
which
likewise stands in a superior relation to the latter - love to
knowledge,
direct experience to analytical observation.
50. But if both philosophy and theosophy treat of
how best to live life from a divine standpoint, whether of the Father
in the
one case or of the Holy Ghost in the other, and, by contrast, both
theology and
psychology treat of understanding either the Father or the psychical
Holy Ghost
from a diabolic, because external, standpoint, then sexology and
sociology are
the twin disciplines which treat of man from a physical and, hence,
worldly
standpoint, having reference to man as a reproductive animal on the one
hand
and as a social animal on the other, with alpha and omega implications
within a
mass, or bodily, context. Of course,
such a standpoint is not rooted in the body but in the brain, and so we
should
distinguish between brain activity which looks down to the body, as in
the
cases of sexology and sociology, and brain activity which looks up to
the mind,
as in the cases of theology and psychology, reserving a superior status
for the
latter than the former, as though a higher part of the brain, or
old-brain/new-brain symbiosis, was being exercised in each case. Doubtless a theologian is a morally superior
kind of man to a sexologist, and what applies on the alpha-stemming
level of
the old brain ... must also apply on the omega-oriented level of the
new one,
so that we may regard a psychologist as a morally superior kind of man
to a
sociologist - diabolic rather than worldly, looking up towards the mind
as
opposed to down towards the body.
51. However, such divine, diabolic, and worldly
antitheses as I have named, viz. philosophy and theosophy, theology and
psychology, sexology and sociology, form only the extremes of a picture
which,
if it is to lay claim to a more comprehensive perspective, must also
include a
middle-ground position, so to speak, in between each of the
aforementioned
antitheses. For such a middle-ground
position does of course exist, and more so over the past few centuries
than
have either of the respective extremes, if we recall the inevitability
of a
phenomenal divisibility coming in-between alpha-stemming noumenal
indivisibility on the one hand and omega-aspiring supernoumenal
indivisibility
on the other hand. Consequently such a
phenomenal middle-ground is relative to and symptomatic of a kind of
compromise, or cross, between what precedes it in the history of the
particular
spectrum to which it pertains and the discipline that is destined,
sooner or
later, to succeed it, about which, however, it will be largely if not
entirely
ignorant. In the case of the
philosophy/theosophy spectrum, which is that which most closely
approximates to
the Divine, we are alluding to anthroposophy, or a love of man
considered in
its humanistic context, and such a discipline corresponds to a
Christian
position in between Creator-stemming philosophy and theosophical
aspirations
towards the Holy Ghost, with particular reference to idealistic
Protestantism. Not how best to conduct
one's life in the
light of philosophical wisdom, nor how best to conduct oneself in the
light of
theosophical idealism, but how best to love one's fellow man in the
light of
anthroposophical humanism. 'The happiness
of the greatest number' follows from an anthroposophical premise ...
that the
chief concern of life is neither personally practical nor impersonally
theoretical, active nor passive, but both active and
passive,
practical
and
theoretical, in relation to the interests of humanity
generally. What one might call worldly
idealism or, as I have elsewhere termed it, a wavicle atomicity, which
corresponds to phenomenal religion. In
the case of the theology/psychology spectrum, however, we are obliged
to posit
an epistemological middle-ground in between knowledge of God (the
Father) and
knowledge of the psyche, which takes the form of knowledge of
knowledge, or
knowledge of how we know what we know - the origin, nature, and
limitations of
knowledge as such, a discipline that focuses attention on man's
knowledge-forming faculty rather than on either theological anterior
knowledge
in relation to the Father or psychological posterior knowledge in
relation to
the psyche and such bearing as it may have on the future development of
transcendent spirit. If epistemology
fits in between these two extremes, then so, it seems to me, does
ontology, or
the science of being, and philology, or the science of the structure
and
development of language, with the latter preceding epistemology and the
former
succeeding it, pretty much as grand- and petty-bourgeois disciplines
flanking a
specifically bourgeois discipline on the diabolic spectrum. Finally, it will be necessary to posit an
anthropological middle-ground in between sexology and sociology on the
third,
or worldly, spectrum, so that the study of man as such is seen as
taking a
phenomenal position in between the study of his sexual habits on the
one hand
and (the study) of his social habits on the other, that is to say as a
humanistic concern coming in-between reproductive and productive
extremes, sex
and society.
52. Thus our three spectra should read as
follows:-
1. philosophy
anthroposophy
theosophy
2. theology
epistemology
psychology
3. sexology
anthropology
sociology
with
Father
-
Son - and Holy Ghost implications stretching through divine,
diabolic, and
worldly distinctions. Clearly the three
major contemporary disciplines are theosophy, psychology, and
sociology, since
they alone pertain to the omega poles of their respective spectra ...
and
things can only become more omega orientated as time goes by, doubtless
even to
the point where, firstly, sociology and, then, psychology will be left
behind
as both worldly and diabolic biases are eclipsed by the divine bias of
a truly
supernoumenal indivisibility in Transcendentalism.
At present, however, open-society criteria
tend to prevail in the world and, consequently, a seemingly timeless
juxtaposition of one discipline with another - philosophy with
theosophy,
theology with psychology, sexology with sociology - is not uncommon. Yet, strictly speaking, each of the extremes
is mutually exclusive. Philosophy
excludes the possibility of theosophy and vice
versa. One is a philosopher or a
theosophist, a
theologian or a psychologist, a sexologist or a sociologist, not both
at
once! Although appearances of being
'three in one', like Christ, will accrue to the anthroposophical,
epistemological, and anthropological middle-grounds, as befitting a
worldly
phenomenal compromise in-between alpha and omega, proton and electron
antitheses. Where philosophy ends,
anthroposophy begins. And where
anthroposophy ends, there begins theosophy.
The same of course applies to the disciplines on each of the
other
spectra.
53. Correct doing in relation to God ... the
Father; correct doing/being in relation to God ... the Son (of Man);
correct
being in relation to God ... the Holy Ghost: philosophy - anthroposophy
-
theosophy. The more doing the less being
and, conversely, the more being the less doing.
A theosophist is not only atheistic with regard to the Father;
he is
indifferent to philosophy. A stoical or
hedonistic theosophist would be as paradoxical or, rather,
self-contradictory
as a meditating philosopher.
54. Many of the things that pass for philosophy
are less philosophical than ontological or epistemological or
philological or
psychological or even theological.
Genuine philosophy, by which is meant classical philosophy, is
concerned
rather more with the practical conduct of life than with theories about
life as
such. In that respect, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Cowper Powys are somewhat closer to the classical
ideal than,
say, Kant or Schopenhauer. So, in The
Conquest
of
Happiness, is Bertrand Russell.
Worldly, or phenomenal, philosophy, on the other hand, is far
more
conceptual than perceptual.
55. In music, the distinction between
alpha-noumenal, phenomenal, superphenomenal, and supernoumenal can be
recognized on the basis of a percussive absolutism in the first case,
an orchestral
relativity in the second, an electronic relativity in the third, and
synthesizer absolutism in the fourth.
Thus in the case of the alpha noumenal, we are dealing with a
reactive
indivisibility between a variety of, for the most part, hand-played
percussion
instruments, the musical equivalent to proton-proton reactions. With the ensuing phenomenal stage of music,
however, percussion is reduced and transmuted, played rather more with
drumsticks or some similar artificial means, and it takes on a
subordinate role
to stringed and wind instruments, as in the classical orchestra, so
that an
atomic integrity between protons and electrons is the musical result,
with
correspondingly relativistic implications.
Similar implications accrue to the compromise between percussive
and
electric instruments - as, for example, guitars, keyboards, etc. -
which
characterizes superphenomenal music, whether in terms of pop, rock,
modern
jazz, or any combination of the three; though, as a rule, percussion is
rather
more persistent on this level of music than on the classical, if
slightly less
forceful, diversified, and (except in rare instances) obtrusive,
serving merely
to accompany the lead instruments rather than to rival or dominate them. Yet if some kind of electron-biased atomicity
may be elicited in connection with superphenomenal music, then the
ensuing
supernoumenal music would suggest an attractive indivisibility
symptomatic of
free-electron criteria ... in which several synthesizers co-operate in
the
production of a totally synthesizer-derived sound, as in the cases of
Jean-Michel Jarre and Tangerine Dream traditionally.
Such synthesizer indivisibility is the
ultimate musical format and, if progress is to come, it can only be in
terms of
how the synthesizers are played, that is to say with regard to
increasing the
pitch-biased, and hence idealistic, element at the expense of rhythm,
so that
even synthesizer-derived percussion 'withers away' in the course of
supernoumenal time, as music approximates ever more closely to the pure
electron indivisibility of the Omega Absolute.
Such truly divine music will be as far removed from the
percussive
inception of music in alpha-noumenal rhythms ... as one-piece zipper
suits of a
PVC construction from ankle-length cotton dresses.
Only with the transcendence of rhythm will
music become entirely free.
56. It is not by mere chance that coital sex is
rhythmic, that man makes love to the opposite sex on a rhythmical basis. Such coital rhythms amount to a deference, on
the part of men, to the proton-biased alpha-noumenal nature of the
vagina. Like music, sex can only become
free, from a
male standpoint, once it is released from coital enslavement and
elevated above
the rhythmic to a masturbatory status in pornographic sublimation,
albeit with
the long-term aim of transcending the masturbatory element altogether -
an aim
comparable to synthesizer music or, rather, supermusic that transcends
percussive rhythms. Hence supersex,
which is supernoumenal in character, permits of sexual salvation to the
extent
that the rhythmic element is left behind, or transcended, as 'sex'
becomes
increasingly mind-biased. Such
supernoumenal sex is to phenomenal sex what the Centre is/will be to
the State
- the only terms on which the State can 'wither' ... as the Centre
expands. When, however, the State
becomes an end-in-itself, as in communist countries, there can be no
withering
of sex in regard to its rhythmic roots but, rather, a continuation of
sex on
artificial terms, with particular regard to the use of plastic
inflatables
and/or vibrators, depending on the individual's gender.
In other words, sex is superphenomenal in the
context of the
57. But the Socialist State will not properly
understand the nature and status of pornography (although I use the
term with
regard to erotic as opposed to sadistic material, and especially within
a
lawfully teenage context), in consequence of which it is improbable
that
pornographically-dependent sex will flourish wherever Socialism
prevails. Only in the Centre, and thus
with reference
to Social Transcendentalism, can proper justice be done to this
ultimate mode
of sexuality. However, if the Socialist
State is incapable of coming to terms with supernoumenal criteria,
whether with
regard to sex, music, art, or anything else (and primarily because its
naturalistic bias will dispose it to superphenomenal criteria), then
there
should be no doubt as to the place of inflatable and vibrator sexuality
in such
a State; for this alone is truly commensurate with the superphenomenal. On the other hand, homosexuality will be
frowned upon and its practitioners penalized within the context in
question,
since it is symptomatic of sexual decadence within a phenomenal, or
democratic,
context, having strong socialist implications from a Western, and hence
Germanic, point-of-view, which makes it not so much superphenomenal as
anti-phenomenal and therefore somewhat more antinatural than
supernatural. Such antinatural sexuality -
and all modes
and degrees of anally-biased intercourse come under this category -
could not
be countenanced within a superphenomenal society, such as Communism
strives to
realize. For the antinatural is but a
degeneration of the natural and accordingly fails to meet the
artificial
criteria required in and by a superphenomenal context.
Plastic inflatables are no less beyond
homosexuality than straight heterosexuality is before it.
Homosexuality is the end of phenomenal
civilization, not the beginning of superphenomenal civilization! And even homosexual pornography, or
pornographic material involving male models, would be irrelevant in a
superphenomenal society, since a form of sexual Nazism in which
materialism is
idealized through the medium of photography.
An idealistic decadence is no less unacceptable to a new
civilization
than decadence in all of its materialistic baseness.
Nazism and Socialism are alike beneath the
superphenomenal pale.... Of course, what applies to the superphenomenal
applies
even more to the supernoumenal, where even inflatable and vibrator
sexuality
would be to a certain extent taboo, the emphasis being on mature
juvenile
erotica.
58. Probable antithetical equivalents to be found
between (a) erotic paintings and/or drawings on the one hand and
pornographic
erotica on the other, as regarding alpha and omega idealistic extremes,
e.g.
ancient Indian or Persian drawings/paintings in relation to latter-day
photographic pornography; (b) erotic sculptures or carvings on the one
hand and
'sex dolls' or vibrators on the other, as regarding alpha and omega
naturalistic extremes, e.g. ancient Greek nude statues in relation to
plastic
inflatables; (c) cunnilingus in relation to fellatio, as regarding
worldly
idealistic extremes; (d) lesbianism in relation to homosexuality, as
regarding
worldly materialistic extremes. Thus,
treating heterosexuality as a worldly and therefore realistic mode of
sexuality, one could speak of cunnilingus and fellatio as flanking it
above ...
in the realms of pre- and post-worldly sexual idealism, but of
lesbianism and
homosexuality as flanking it beneath ... in the realms of pre- and
post-worldly
sexual materialism. Flanking these
extremes, however, will be the alpha and omega idealistic extremes
cited in (a)
above, and the alpha and omega naturalistic extremes cited in (b)
above, so
that we may speak of erotic drawings, for instance, as preceding
cunnilingus
and of pornographic erotica as succeeding fellatio on the one hand, but
of
erotic sculptures as preceding lesbianism and of plastic inflatables as
succeeding homosexuality on the other hand.
An atomic breakdown of each mode of sexuality would read as
follows:
alpha idealistic extreme: proton wavicles; omega idealistic extreme:
electron wavicles;
alpha naturalistic extreme: proton particles; omega naturalistic
extreme:
electron particles; pre-worldly idealistic extreme: proton-biased
atomic
wavicles; post-worldly idealistic extreme: electron-biased atomic
wavicles;
pre-worldly materialistic extreme: proton-biased atomic particles;
post-worldly
materialistic extreme: electron-biased atomic particles; worldly
realistic
middle-ground: atomic balance.
59. Treating cunnilingus and fellatio as
antithetical on this pre- and post-worldly basis seems to me the most
objectively credible interpretation of these modes of sexual behaviour,
which
reflect diametrically opposite attitudes - the former an attitude of
deference
and even obeisance towards the female sex, the latter an attitude of
deference towards
the male sex, as appropriate to the moral and social standing of each
of the
sexes during the pre- and post-worldly epochs in question.
By which I mean that until the properly
worldly epoch of Western civilization, as pertaining to the 17-19th
centuries,
men were inferior to women and, accordingly, would have been more
disposed to
practising sexual deference towards them in the form of cunnilingus,
whereas
ever since the first decades of the twentieth century women have been
losing
ground to men and thus becoming less feminine than masculine in their
outlook
on life, more disposed, in consequence, to practise sexual deference
towards
men in the form of fellatio, in which the woman is the sexually active
partner
within a context that places her in a quasi-obeisant position,
acknowledging
the phallic ascendancy of male-biased post-worldly society. For whereas women were once the exemplars of
everything good and noble, the balance has increasingly tipped, during
the past
hundred years, towards men, and women now continue to prostrate
themselves
before men as the exemplars of everything good and noble - in a word,
of
triumphant male progress! Yet such a
view is of course relative and therefore pertinent to the world, or
worldly
sexuality, rather than to the divine and diabolic modes of sexuality
which
exist at a proletarian remove, as it were, from bourgeois modes,
including the
aforementioned, and which presuppose a free-electron orientation, not
merely
atomic sexuality with either a proton or an electron bias, depending on
the
mode or context in question.
Consequently we could speak of cunnilingus as grand-bourgeois
idealistic
sexuality, in contrast to petty-bourgeois fellatio.
And by a similar token it should be feasible
to regard lesbianism in a grand-bourgeois materialistic light, in
contrast to
petty-bourgeois homosexuality - treating each mode of sexuality on an
alpha/omega basis within the worldly framework of fleshy realism, so
that, on
the one hand, we are able to distinguish between alpha and omega modes
of
realistic idealism, whilst, on the other hand, we are distinguishing
rather
more between alpha and omega modes of realistic materialism.
60. But why do I distinguish, in such fashion,
between idealism and materialism anyway?
What is it about cunnilingus and fellatio that justifies me in
applying
the term 'idealism'? Well, the answer to
that question is: because each mode of sexuality requires the use of
the head
and entails a quasi-absolutist sexual commitment ... either to the
vagina or to
the penis, rather than - except in the case of dualistic oral sex,
which ought
to be described as idealistic realism - to both at once.
Thus in the case of cunnilingus, the male
applies his mouth and tongue to the female's vagina ... in an
idealistic deference
towards her sexual femininity, which makes for an alpha-stemming
orientation,
whereas in the case of fellatio the female applies her mouth and tongue
to the
male's penis ... in an idealistic deference towards his masculinity,
which
makes for an omega-oriented sexuality, albeit within the worldly
context. Such idealism is in marked
contrast to the
sexual materialism of lesbians and homosexuals, since the head is not
here at
stake and two sexually identical bodies pleasuring each other on a
rather more
down-to-earth basis are somewhat less idealistic than materialistic (on
account
of their sexual identity). For realism
is precisely the compromise between male and female, penis and vagina,
which
constitutes the heterosexual norm as the world's sexual fulcrum, so to
speak. There can be idealistic realism,
as in the case of a dualistic oral experience, but never materialistic
realism
... except to the extent that sodomy takes place between the sexes. Straight heterosexuality is realistic on
account of this sexual compromise between opposites.
Only on the pre- or post-worldly flanks, as
it were, can one speak of realistic materialism - realistic to the
extent that
two bodies are involved, materialistic to the much greater extent that
both of
them are sexually identical. Yet if both
materialism and idealism flank realism in its strictly coital context,
it
should not be forgotten that such pre- and post-worldly manifestations
of
sexual extremism are also flanked, on both alpha and omega levels, by
more extreme
manifestations of sexuality, with noumenal and supernoumenal,
subphenomenal and
superphenomenal implications ... as discussed above.
In point of fact, we have already
distinguished between superphenomenal and supernoumenal on the omega
plane,
with specific reference to plastic inflatables and pornography
respectively,
and should categorize the former in terms of idealistic naturalism, or
supernaturalism, and the latter in terms of idealistic idealism, or
superidealism. Contrast this with the
naturalistic idealism of the divine alpha-noumenal and the
materialistic
naturalism of the diabolic alpha-noumenal, or subphenomenal, and you
have a
complete picture of sexual evolution, both civilized and natural, from
the dawn
of civilization to the present day and even into the next and ultimate
civilization, which, being transcendental, will place especial emphasis
on the
superidealistic modes of sexuality in preference to anything natural
or, for
that matter, antinatural (without, however, unduly encouraging sex of
any
description).
61. Interestingly, a further distinction could be
drawn between the superphenomenal and a crude supernoumenal mode of
sexuality. For there is a sense in
which, contrary to what I maintained earlier with regard to the
Socialist State
effectively being a plastic-inflatable dead-end, extrapolations from
Communist
purism to a Transcendental Socialist order suggest the possibility of a
video
alternative to inflatable sex which might be defined as crudely
supernoumenal
... insofar as motion is involved with regard to actual participants. There are other analogies with what I am
attempting to express here - for example, the superphenomenal/crude
supernoumenal distinctions between, say, light-blue denims and leather
pants
(in contrast to the smooth supernoumenal status of PVC pants), which
suggest a
Communist/Transcendental Socialist option.
Doubtless, what applies on the supernaturalistic plane also
applies, in
a converse kind of way, on the superidealistic plane, where a
distinction between
Fascism and Social Transcendentalism would be in order, so that the
supernoumenal mode of sexuality, which requires erotic pornography, may
be
regarded as being less pure on the Social Transcendentalist level than
on the
strictly Fascist level - less pure to the extent of being more actively
heterosexual than passively erotic in character, i.e. pornography
rather than
erotica, though always on a non-sadistic and non-sensational basis. Of course, there are other applications of
video than the purely sexual, and our theorizing has to account for
them if a
more comprehensive and possibly accurate perspective is to emerge. One could even distinguish between videos on
the basis of a Transcendental Socialist/Social Transcendentalist
dichotomy,
with those on the former side being linked to television, i.e.
projected onto a
television screen, but those on the latter side being relatively
free-standing
in the context of a video screen.
Clearly, if televideo is Transcendental Socialist, then a colour
portable of streamlined construction, like a monitor-style TV, can be
regarded
in a Communist light, given its purist implications.
Similarly if free-standing video is Social
Transcendentalist, then colour slides projected onto a screen would be
Fascist,
and we could regard the video as a 'fall' from Fascist purism to the
extent
that it entailed pictorial movement, i.e. action, and therefore stood
closer to
the Transcendental Socialist ideological plane in terms of doing at the
expense
of being, or doing-being as opposed to being-doing - a distinction,
within
relative terms, between the Divine and the Diabolic.
62. Taking a wider view of being and doing, we may
contend that sleep or, rather, dreaming signifies doing-being on the
alpha level
of subconscious self-indulgence, whether for good or bad, with regard
to
pleasant dreams or nightmares, whereas consciously-determined activity
signifies being-doing, whether for good or ill, with regard to life or
death,
sex or war. Sublimated actions, or those
which proceed instinctively from the body, are the closest to pure
doing, since
they lack conscious determination and accordingly may be described as
worldly,
in the strict bodily sense of that term.
Instinctive sexual actions come within this category, as do
involuntary
movements, scratchings, jerks, etc. But
all of this is natural or, at any rate, has reference to natural
behaviour,
which is why I used the word 'alpha' a moment ago, in order to
distinguish it
from those artificial or supernatural modes of behaviour that would be
better
defined in terms of 'omega', whether on divine, diabolic, or worldly
levels -
in other words, with regard to artificially-motivated doing-being, such
as
watching television, video, or, more inherently, experiencing LSD
visions;
artificially-motivated being-doing, such as dancing (particularly
within a
disco context), playing a musical instrument, or competing in some
engrossing
sports context, like motorcycle racing; and, finally,
artificially-motivated
doing, whether in a sports or a dance or some other context, where what
happens
at the time is more automatic than consciously determined.
Such distinctions hold true, then, at both
ends of the evolutionary spectra, and while supernatural doing-being
and being-doing
are preferable, from an evolutionary standpoint, to their natural
counterparts
(the same should be said of automatically-motivated doing in relation
to
instinctively-motivated doing), we must not forget that the goal of
human
striving is pure superconscious being, and that such being is as much
above
artificially-motivated doing-being as the unconscious being of pure
unconsciousness is beneath the subconsciously-motivated doing-being of
dreams.
63. Just as we spoke of being or doing-being on
alpha and omega levels, with regard to natural and supernatural
distinctions,
so we can speak of natural truth on the alpha divine level and of
supernatural
truth on the omega divine level or, to be more precise, of a continuum
of
truths stretching from subnatural alpha beginnings to a supernatural
omega end
via a natural worldly compromise. Thus
we have truth in relation to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
or
protons, atoms, and electrons, with centrifugal/centripetal
implications. But I shall simplify matters
by speaking of
natural-to-supernatural, including within the scope of the former term
subnatural truth. Hence truth in
relation to nature and the Cosmos on the one hand, and truth in
relation to
man's aspirations towards the Holy Ghost on the other.
Outer truth and inner truth, centrifugal
truth and centripetal truth, natural religion and supernatural religion. Similarly, we can speak of two opposite kinds
of beauty, viz. natural beauty (including the cosmic subnatural
variety) and
supernatural, or artificial, beauty - the former outer and centrifugal,
the
latter inner and centripetal; natural aesthetics and supernatural
aesthetics. Doubtless race horses come
within the former category and streamlined motorbikes within the latter. Or beautiful women on the one hand and
plastic inflatables on the other hand.
Or perhaps even natural flowers in relation to artificial
flowers - for
example, plastic roses? Indeed, the more
disposed a person is to artificial beauty the less he will be disposed
to its natural
counterpart.... Now what applies to beauty applies just as much to
truth, that
is to say, to supernatural truth in relation to natural truth. 'The
more a man
cultivates the arts, the less he fornicates', wrote Baudelaire in
regard to
beauty, and the more mindful a man is of inner truth in relation to the
Holy
Ghost, the less he will care for outer truth in relation to either the
Cosmos
or nature.
64. But if truth and beauty are the divine and
diabolic alternatives with which life presents us on very antithetical
terms,
then strength and goodness are their worldly counterparts, and we can
just as
readily distinguish between natural strength and artificial, or
mechanical,
strength ... as between natural goodness and artificial goodness,
reserving for
ourselves the right to a specific bias either way.
Doubtless natural strength applies to
truncheons, fists, feet, and hands used in an aggressive way, while
bullets,
bombs, missiles, and torpedoes are all manifestations of artificial
strength
when launched from their mechanical platforms.
So are tractors when used to clear away or lift something that
would
have required three or four times as many horses or even ten times as
many men
all exerting their muscles at once.
Strength is the power of force exerted against something else
and,
although it is of the world, it has a diabolic bias, in contrast to
goodness
which, while being worldly in character, smacks of the Divine, whether
in terms
of the natural or the artificial, with reference, say, to fruit on the
one hand
and to flavoured yoghurts on the other, or to water as opposed to cola,
or
potatoes as opposed to chips. The Good
is always useful, particularly to human wellbeing, and doing well to
others is
only intelligible within the framework of what is good for them. If strength is fundamentally autocratic, then
goodness is essentially democratic.
Apples are good so long as one needs to eat and even after one
has
eaten, though rotten apples are bad. The
absence of all apples, or of any food, is also bad, especially if one
is
starving to death in consequence. Yet it
isn't bad in the same concrete way as a rotten apple, but in an
abstract way,
which is rather less evil than unfortunate.
65. Similarly, the absence of truth isn't
necessarily falsity, though falsity can exist alongside truth and even
be taken
for truth until it is 'seen through'.
Falsity is, rather, the negation of truth, just as ugliness is
the
negation of beauty, weakness the negation of strength, and evil the
negation of
good. Whatever conduces towards
happiness is true, whatever conduces towards love is beautiful,
whatever
conduces towards pride is strong, and whatever conduces towards
pleasure is
good. Conversely, whatever results in
grief is false, whatever results in hate is ugly, whatever results in
humiliation is weak, and whatever results in pain is evil.
And this whether we are considering the alpha
or omega poles of any given experience-spectrum, the natural or the
supernatural. There is natural truth and
supernatural truth, natural happiness and supernatural happiness. Pleasant dreams are an example of the former,
pleasant trips an instance of the latter.
Conversely, there is natural falsity and supernatural falsity,
natural
sadness and supernatural sadness.
Unpleasant dreams are an example of the former, unpleasant trips
an
instance of the latter. Likewise, there
is natural beauty and supernatural beauty, natural love and
supernatural
love. Good-looking women are an example
of the former, well-made 'sex dolls' an instance of the latter. Conversely, there is natural ugliness and
supernatural ugliness, natural hate and supernatural hate.
Bad-looking women are an example of the
former, badly-made 'sex dolls' an instance of the latter.
Similarly, we may speak of natural goodness
and supernatural goodness, natural pleasure and supernatural pleasure,
with
natural food an example of the former and synthetic food an instance of
the
latter. Conversely, we may speak of
natural evil and supernatural evil, natural pain and supernatural pain,
with
rotten or mouldy food an example of the former but rotten or poisonous
synthetic food an instance of the latter.
Finally, we may speak of natural strength and supernatural
strength,
natural pride and supernatural pride, with athletic ability an example
of the
former and Grand-Prix ability an instance of the latter.
Conversely, we can speak of natural weakness
and supernatural weakness, natural humiliation and supernatural
humiliation,
with athletic inability an example of the former and Grand-Prix
inability,
whether for personal or mechanical reasons, an instance of the latter. Examples could be multiplied, but each
category is to a large extent independent of the others and should only
be
evaluated in relation to itself.
66. Speaking of any given spectrum in terms of
another is both morally wrong and patently absurd.
A person isn't necessarily weak because he
lacks the appearance of strength, since he may well be primarily good
or
beautiful or true and, accordingly, entitled to evaluation on one or
other of
these alternative terms, with the possibility of an alternative
negative
evaluation if appropriate. Also we must
bear in mind the nature of the quality - or absence thereof - we select
in regard
to any given person or thing, since there is an antithetical
distinction
between the natural and the supernatural and/or artificial, and what is
entitled to evaluation in terms of the one should never be evaluated
according
to the other! Of course, no man is
entirely any one thing. All men are a
combination, in different degrees, of a variety of qualities and
quantities. Yet this need not prevent us
from ascribing a leading or principal characteristic to any given
person, since
no man is everything in equal degrees either.
Some men are predominantly divine and, hence, truthful or false;
some
men are predominantly diabolic and, hence, beautiful or ugly; some men
are
predominantly worldly in an autocratic way and, hence, strong or weak;
some men
are predominantly worldly in a democratic way and, hence, good or evil,
with
all due gradations of quality in accompaniment.
Thus sadness with the false and happiness with the true; hate
with the
ugly and love with the beautiful; humiliation with the weak and pride
with the
strong; and, finally, pain with the evil and pleasure with the good. Basically, men are divisible along these
essentially tripartite lines, with divine, diabolic, and worldly
implications. It is only in a democracy
that this fact can be lost sight of, the more so in proportion as
worldly, and
hence bodily, criteria obtain. For there
can be no doubt that societies differ from one another in evolutionary
terms,
and the ideal of one society may differ considerably from that of
another,
especially when the societies in question are not only diametrically
antithetical in terms of, say, to what pole of a given spectrum they
may
pertain but pertain, moreover, to different spectra, with the
possibility -
certainly in the case of a divine/worldly distinction - of no real
cultural or
social contiguity whatsoever.
67. Thus whilst a materialistic society will make
strength its principal ideal, beauty will be the principal ideal of
naturalistic societies, goodness the principal ideal of realistic
societies,
and truth the principal ideal of idealistic societies.
There may also be periods in any given
society when not strength but weakness will be the prevailing norm, not
beauty
but ugliness, not goodness but evil, not truth but falsity,
irrespective of whether
or not such negative quantities and their respective qualitative
attributes are
elevated to the status of an ideal.
Certainly there is ample evidence to show that the negative
attribute
tends to precede the positive one in any given type of society, so that
before
truth can get an airing, even in relatively rudimentary terms, there
must first
be falsity; for falsity is ever the alpha roots of the Divine from
which the
flower of truth must eventually spring.
One might even say that falsity is a precondition of truth,
since
without it there can be no revolt in favour of truth.
Without paganism there would have been no
Christianity, without the Creator no Christ.
And what applies to the alpha-stemming half of the divine
spectrum
applies just as much to its omega-aspiring half; for no less than
natural
falsity is superseded by natural truth ... must supernatural falsity,
or
Fascism, be superseded by supernatural truth, or Social
Transcendentalism. Fascism is as much a
precondition of
theocratic Centrism as paganism ... of Christianity, particularly in
its
Catholic manifestation. Truth, whether
natural or supernatural, is not possible without reference to a falsity
against
which it is in revolt. You cannot
conjure truth out of thin air. Falsity
is the ground of truth. Similarly,
ugliness is the ground and precondition of beauty.
Beauty, whether natural or artificial, cannot
materialize where there has not first been ugliness.
You do not start from beauty and work down to
ugliness, since evolution proceeds forwards, and as much within the
diabolic
spectrum as within the divine spectrum or, for that matter, each of the
worldly
spectra. Beauty is perfect form, which
is perfect appearance, and should be regarded in terms of the
maturation of the
Diabolic rather than as a refutation of or antithesis to it. Thus ugliness and beauty are both diabolic,
the only difference being that whereas ugliness is the root, or
primitive,
manifestation of the Diabolic, beauty is its flowering into full
maturity, a
more evolved manifestation of the Diabolic which stands to the original
manifestation as the blossom of a flower to its roots, just as Christ
stands to
the Creator as Son to Father, natural divinity to subnatural divinity -
the one
true and the other false. Doubtless, the
same may be held of artificial beauty in relation to artificial
ugliness, a
modern skyscraper city, say, in relation to the slum- or ghetto-type
city that
may have preceded it - assuming the new-style city was not built from
scratch
(though obviously in relation to other cities, both contemporary and
past).
68. Imperfect form precedes perfect form no less
on the artificial plane than on the natural one, which stands to it as
alpha to
omega, even though they may overlap and co-exist, which is usually the
case
within contemporary open societies where, more often than not, the
natural
takes precedence over the supernatural, as though in deference to a
traditional
hierarchical pattern. Obviously my chief
intellectual interest is with the latter, or artificial, modes of
ugliness/beauty, and I wager that, ideologically considered, Communism
and
Western Socialism stand to Transcendental Socialism as Fascism to
Social
Transcendentalism, which is to say, as ugly preconditions of a more
beautiful,
and hence ideologically mature, extrapolation.
For it has to be admitted that Transcendental Socialism is more
concerned with beauty than truth, even when it boasts of connections
with the
latter, and that such beauty testifies to a revolt against Western
ugliness. The artificial beauty of the
69. Alpha-stemming diabolic evolution can be
regarded as a struggle from the formless to the formful, as from the
sun to the
most beautiful men, which entails a progression from protons to
electrons,
albeit with reference to a particle as opposed to a wavicle bias ...
contrary
to what appertains to the Divine. And
yet, if we are talking, in effect, of two different levels of
the
Diabolic, viz. ugly and beautiful, with qualitative implications of
hate and
love, we are also talking of two different types of the
Diabolic, with
Satanic and Antichristic implications respectively.
For if natural ugliness is characterized by a
particle-biased formlessness with regard to protons, then the
particle-biased
form which characterizes the Beautiful has regard to electrons, and
therefore
to a more atomically-evolved manifestation of the Diabolic. Just as Christ stands to the Creator in the
manner of natural truth to natural falsity, or wavicle-biased electrons
to
wavicle-biased protons, so natural beauty stands to natural ugliness in
the
manner of Antichrist to Satan. But if
this is true of the alpha-stemming part of each spectrum, it is no less
true of
its omega-aspiring part, since, as we have noted, artificial ugliness
tends to
precede artificial beauty, and artificial falsity to precede artificial
truth.
70. Thus we have two types of the Diabolic, or
Superdiabolic, on the artificial plane no less than on the natural one,
together with two types of the Divine, which may be characterized in
terms of
the Supersatanic and the Super-antichristic on the one hand, and the
Superfatheristic and the Superchristic on the other, with proton and
electron
distinctions - protons tending to predominate on the planes of falsity
and
ugliness, electrons on the planes of truth and beauty, though always
with the
aforementioned wavicle and particle distinctions ... as applying to the
Divine
and to the Diabolic respectively. For
whereas a wavicle bias makes for essence, a particle bias makes for
appearance,
whether in terms of ugliness or beauty.
Hence proton-wavicle artificial or supernatural falsity and
proton-particle artificial or supernatural ugliness on the one hand,
but
electron-wavicle artificial truth and electron-particle artificial
beauty on the
other hand. Alternatively, one could
speak of superfalsity and supertruth with regard to the omega part of
the
divine spectrum, and of super-ugliness and superbeauty with regard to
the omega
part of the diabolic spectrum. These
would contrast to both natural falsity and truth in the one case, and
to
natural ugliness and beauty in the other - as relative to the alpha
part of
each spectrum.
71. Thus there is a progression from the Father to
Christ with regard to the natural part of the divine spectrum, and from
the
Superfather to Superchrist with regard to its artificial, or
supernatural,
part. Such alternatives are of course
more characteristic of the head than of the body, and oblige us to
posit
analogies with mind and brain on a tripartite basis, as between
subconscious,
conscious, and superconscious in the one case, with old brain,
mid-brain, and
new brain in the other, the subconscious correlative of the Father, the
conscious correlative of Christ, and the superconscious correlative of
Superchrist; although a correlation between the lower part of the
superconscious and the Superfather also has to be considered, which
accords
with the superfalse and therefore with an artificial, external
precondition of
the supertrue ... in pure superconsciousness.
Doubtless the Jungian distinction between the personal
unconscious and
collective unconscious is correlative of the Father and the Superfather
respectively, while leaving Christ and Superchrist to the conscious and
superconscious. With regard to the
brain, however, we shall posit a correlation between the old brain and
Satan,
the mid-brain and Antichrist, the lower part of the new brain and
Supersatan,
and the upper part of the new brain and Super-antichrist, though such
correlations are not of course to be taken literally but merely
regarded as an
approximate guide to the true nature of both mind and brain in their
tripartite
entirety. Certainly, analogies with
political or religious figures could be inferred, and few people would
doubt an
argument to the effect that Hitler more accords with the superfalse
collective
unconscious than with the supertrue superconscious, whereas if Marx is
as
credible a candidate as any for the role of Supersatan in relation to
socialist
super-ugliness, then no better candidate than Lenin could be found to
fill the role
of the Super-antichrist in relation to communist or, rather, Soviet
superbeauty. I shall say nothing,
however, about the best candidate for the Superchristic role in
relation to
supertruth! For as surely as the
Diabolic proceeds from the lower new-brain to the higher new-brain, so
the
Divine proceeds from the lower superconscious to the higher
superconscious. Indeed, we should really
be speaking of superdiabolic and superdivine in connection with the
omega pole
of each spectrum, since that is what, in effect, the roles of the
Superfather
and Superchrist on the one hand and of Supersatan and the
Super-antichrist on
the other hand actually amount to, in contrast with the alpha-stemming
equivalents which precede them.
72. Certainly this distinction we have drawn
between one type of divinity and another, as also between one type of
diabolism
and another, could be further defined in terms of negative and
positive, with
the Father and Superfather corresponding to the negative Divine on
natural and
supernatural levels, but Christ and Superchrist corresponding to the
positive
Divine on natural and supernatural levels.
Just so, Satan and Supersatan would correspond to the negative
Diabolic
on natural and supernatural levels, with the Antichrist and the
Super-antichrist
corresponding to the positive Diabolic on these same levels, which are
equivalent and yet antithetical in evolutionary terms.
Thus the negative divine and diabolic levels
would correspond to proton wavicles and particles respectively, while
the
positive divine and diabolic levels would likewise correspond to
electron
wavicles and particles. As already
noted, the false is not diabolic and the true alone divine; it is
simply a
lower, i.e. negative, mode of the Divine.
And, by a similar if converse token, beauty is not divine
because
ugliness is diabolic; it is simply a higher, i.e. positive, mode of the
Diabolic. Hence Baudelaire, no less than
73. However that may be, the distinctions we have
drawn between falsity and truth, ugliness and beauty, etc., appertain
to the
head, both psychologically and physiologically, more than to the body,
which,
not altogether surprisingly, has a different order of distinctions
which are
less divine or diabolic than worldly. I
have already noted the body's basic distinctions in terms of weakness
and
strength on the one hand and evil and goodness on the other, with the
former
options appertaining to what may be called an autocratic spectrum, and
the
latter options appertaining to a democratic one, whether with regard to
the
natural or to the artificial, that is, whether on alpha-stemming or
omega-aspiring terms. Sticking to our
physical analogue, it will come as no surprise to most people that
broken bones
are symbolic of weakness, whereas muscles, particularly when developed
beyond
the normal scale, serve to symbolize strength.
In the first case, humiliation; in the second case, pride. Similarly, spilt blood all-too-readily
connotes with evil and, hence, pain, whereas sensual gratification,
particularly when of the flesh, connotes with goodness and, hence,
pleasure. Taking our analogies a step
further, one could argue that bones and muscles connote with autocratic
weakness and strength respectively, while blood and flesh connote, by
contrast,
with democratic evil and good. Certainly
we have adequate reason to equate broken bones with weakness and spilt
blood
with evil, since in both cases violence is usually responsible, and
violence is
the product of ugliness and thus of hate.
The body isn't usually the motive of its own actions, neither on
the
negative planes of weakness and evil nor on the positive planes of
strength and
goodness, which, likewise, may require some motive from 'On High', so
to speak,
such as beauty and love if, for example, the gratification of the flesh
is to
acquire diabolic sanction. The more
democratic the society, however, the less importance such a motive will
be and
the more purely carnal the bodily satisfactions. Mindless
self-assertion
and mindless
self-indulgence become equally indicative of worldly purism.
74. However, even in the world there are diabolic
and divine leanings, with the particle-biased atomic spectrum of
weakness and
strength, negative and positive autocratic worldliness, leaning towards
the
former and, by contrast, the wavicle-biased atomic spectrum of evil and
good,
negative and positive democratic worldliness, leaning towards the
latter. In other words, each spectrum has
a bias
towards either the Diabolic or the Divine within the context of its own
worldly
integrity. Consequently the
weakness/strength spectrum is the worldly parallel to the
ugliness/beauty
spectrum above, whereas the evil/goodness spectrum is the worldly
parallel to
the falsity/truth spectrum above, the former diabolic and the latter
divine. Now just as we distinguished
between negative and positive in regard to the atomicity of each of the
'head'
spectra, so the negative worldly attribute within each of the 'bodily'
spectra
has a proton bias, the positive worldly attribute, by contrast, an
electron
bias. Thus proton-biased weakness and
evil, electron-biased strength and goodness.
Particles and wavicles within an atomic cohesion.
75. Speaking more generally of each of the
spectra, whether 'head' or 'bodily', we have to satisfy ourselves as to
whether
the qualitative attribute precedes and is a precondition of the
quantitative
attribute, or vice
versa. In other
words, does sadness precede falsity or is falsity a precondition of
sadness? Or, to take the negative
diabolic equivalent of falsity, does hate precede ugliness or is
ugliness a
precondition of hate? Similarly, within
the positive side of each spectrum, does joy precede truth or is truth
a
precondition of joy? And does love
precede beauty or is beauty a precondition of love?
Obviously a commonsensical, merely physical
answer to these questions will assert that the quantitative precedes
and is
therefore a precondition of the qualitative, viz. falsity a
precondition of
sadness, truth a precondition of joy, and so on. But
while
this would be the most apparent
answer, the essential, or metaphysical, answer is to the contrary;
namely that
sadness precedes and is the necessary precondition of falsity, just as
joy precedes
and is the necessary precondition of truth.
Likewise, within the diabolic spectrum, hate is the precondition
of
ugliness, love the precondition of beauty.
And, taking the worldly spectra to complete the picture, it will
transpire that humiliation is the precondition of weakness, pride the
precondition of strength; pain the precondition of evil, pleasure the
precondition of good. For it must be
admitted that the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, and what is
qualitative is
inherently noumenal, in contrast to the quantitative, and therefore
phenomenal,
attribute that stems from it. Contrary
to superficial appearances, hate precedes ugliness, not vice versa,
and,
conversely,
no woman is more beautiful than when she is loved.
Indeed, love is what renders her beautiful
or, if that sounds too sweeping, let us rather say that without love
there is
no essential beauty but merely an apparent, or
superficial,
beauty such that merely pertains to the physical. With
love,
her beauty becomes metaphysical
and accordingly acquires soul.
76. Thus we concur with Schopenhauer in positing a
noumenal precondition of phenomenal quantities, although such a
qualitative
precondition extends beyond the negative attributes to the positive
ones as well,
which are not so much Cosmos-derived as ... nature-derived, and
therefore more
worldly, since appertaining to the electron side of the atom, whether
on
wavicle or particle, divine or diabolic terms.
Unlike hate, love cannot be derived in any degree from a cosmic
noumenal
source, for instance the particle-biased proton-proton reactions of the
sun,
since it requires an electron-particle bias, and such a bias will not
be found,
as a rule, on the subatomic plane but only within a worldly and, in
particular,
organic context, with especial reference to man. Even
animals
would seem incapable of love as
we understand it, since of a psychic constitution which is too
rudimentary and,
hence, biased towards protons for all but the most primitive
expressions of love,
as for example in loyalty and trust, to materialize.
Yet, in man, love can be so intense as to
completely transform his world-view, and this manifestation of the
Diabolic
must be subsumed under the general rubric of Antichristic emotionalism,
in contrast
to the satanic emotionalism of hate, which may be said to derive from a
pre-worldly and therefore genuinely noumenal source.
Of course, what applies to hate and love will
apply to each of the other pairs of attributes as well, the negative
preceding the
positive and the qualitative the quantitative, so that we may trace the
original negative experience to one of three noumenal roots, viz.
divine,
diabolic, or planetary, while reserving for the positive experience a
comparatively worldly noumenal extrapolation, as in the case of joy as
a
precondition of truth. As the reader may
have surmised, falsity is everywhere the root divine condition, though,
before
falsity can arise in the phenomenal, there must first of all be
sadness, or
something analogous, in the noumenal, which is to say, in the central
star of
the Galaxy, for which a wavicle proton-proton reaction is the most
apposite
definition, as befitting the Creator.
Thus falsity is the expression of sadness no less than truth the
expression of joy. Truth cannot be
achieved on the basis of sadness, and neither will falsity arise from
joy.
77. Yet if the qualitative precedes the
quantitative on the alpha-stemming levels of the divine, diabolic, and
worldly
spectra, so that we have a noumenal precondition of a phenomenal
outcome, it is
completely the converse where the omega-aspiring levels of these same
spectra
are concerned! For, as I have elsewhere
argued, the superphenomenal is a precondition of the supernoumenal, and
consequently before there can be any qualitative attribute of a given
negative/positive polarity, there must firstly be a quantitative
attribute that
precedes it. Thus before there can be
supersadness, a superfalsity such as Fascism must arise, and, likewise,
before
superjoy can become a reality, there must firstly be supertruth. In each case, whether of the negative or
positive Divine, Superfather or Superchrist, the quantitative is a
precondition
of the qualitative. And what applies to
the divine spectrum is just as applicable to the diabolic one, where,
taking
the negative pole first, super-ugliness will precede superhate and be
no less
its precondition than superbeauty in relation to superlove - the
positive
diabolic pole on both quantitative and qualitative terms.
An example of super-ugliness would be heavy
rhythmic rock music, whereas light, pitch-biased modern jazz will serve
as an
example of superbeauty. Thus if
superhate, or hate which springs from and is inspired by artificial
ugliness,
accords with the qualitative attribute of the negative Superdiabolic,
in which
a proton-particle bias will preponderate, then superlove, or love
inspired by
artificial beauty, accords with the qualitative attribute of the
positive
Superdiabolic, in which an electron-particle bias will be preponderant. Both of which contrast with the wavicle bias,
whether on proton or electron terms, of the negative and positive
Superdivine -
in other words with supersadness and superjoy, as appertaining to the
superfalse
and to the supertrue respectively. Generally
speaking,
it
will be found that whereas the Divine is optical the Diabolic is
aural, and that purer feelings accrue to the former than to the latter. But more about that later!
Here I wish to stress the superphenomenal
precondition of supernoumenal experience, and this applies as much to
the
'bodily' spectra within an omega-aspiring context as to the 'head'
spectra,
whether mind or brain, divine or diabolic (or, as I should say,
superconscious
or new brain/superdivine or superdiabolic).
78. Thus superweakness will be a precondition of
superhumiliation, or humiliation attendant upon artificial weakness,
i.e. a
mechanical breakdown or technical malfunctioning in some artificial
context on
which one is dependent, while superstrength will be the precondition of
superpride, or pride attendant upon the powerful and efficient
functioning of
some machine or mechanical apparatus with which one is associated - a
racing
car, say, or a high-speed powerboat.
Clearly, there will be quite a difference of feeling between
someone
whose racing car malfunctions early-on in a race and the driver whose
machine
is performing at peak levels, leading him to eventual victory over his
remaining rivals. In the first instance,
superhumiliation attendant upon superweakness; in the second instance,
superpride attendant upon superstrength.
A proton-biased particle atomicity in the one case, an
electron-biased
particle atomicity in the other.
Negative and positive modes of superworldliness respectively.
79. Similarly, in turning from the superautocratic
to the superdemocratic, we shall find that superevil is a precondition
of
superpain, or pain attendant upon the reception of artificial evil,
whether
through violence or electric shock or some accident involving
mechanical or automotive
means, while supergood is a precondition of superpleasure, or pleasure
attendant upon the use of some artificial good, whether in the realms
of food,
drink, sex, drugs, or whatever. Thus
superpain attendant upon superevil, for instance a bullet wound, and
superpleasure attendant upon supergoodness, for instance a (drink of)
cola. In the one case, a proton-biased
wavicle atomicity; in the other case, an electron-biased wavicle
atomicity. Negative and positive modes of
superworldliness within superdemocratic terms.
Thus here, no less than elsewhere in the other spectra, the
superphenomenal is effectively a precondition of the supernoumenal.
80. My philosophy can accordingly be regarded as
the antithetical equivalent of Schopenhauer's, since he is concerned
with the
alpha, where noumenon precedes phenomenon, whereas I am primarily
concerned
with the omega, where superphenomenon precedes supernoumenon. Before one can be 'turned on' at any given
supernoumenal level, one must firstly be 'wired up', 'plugged in',
'geared up',
etc., to the relevant superphenomenal precondition.
A new world is thereby established which is
the converse of the old one. And,
increasingly, the more this new and artificial world takes hold of the
'turned-on' individual, the less will the old and natural world have
any
meaning for him. Beyond a certain point,
one has no use for the noumenal or phenomenal in the alpha-stemming
contexts
propounded by Schopenhauer. One denies
them. For the Father is irrelevant to
anyone set upon attaining to the Holy Ghost.
He must be atheist with regard to the former before he can
become truly
theist or, rather, deist with regard to the latter.
A true re-evaluation or, rather,
'transvaluation of all values' is required here, and this presupposes
the
adoption of the superphenomenal as a means to the supernoumenal. Such is the real implication of being 'born
again'.
81. We have agreed, therefore, that the negative
precedes the positive, whether in terms of the Divine, the Diabolic, or
the world. The further back in
alpha-stemming time we go
(at least in imagination), the more will falsity predominate over
truth,
ugliness over beauty, weakness over strength, and evil over good ...
though not
to the same extent everywhere or in every early pagan society. Some societies, which may be accorded a
divine bias, will have more falsity than ugliness; other early
societies, the
converse of divine, will have more ugliness than falsity; and yet
others, which
we may regard as predominantly worldly, will have more weakness than
ugliness
or more evil than falsity, as the case may be.
In other words, identical criteria cannot be applied right
across the
global board irrespective of racial factors, no more than all men can
be judged
according to criteria only applicable to one class or type of man -
say,
worldly and, hence, bodily criteria, as in a democratic society. For the world - and here I use the term in
its most general sense - is a much more complex place than some
people(s) would
have us believe, and while divine, diabolic, and worldly factors will
be found
in virtually all societies, they will not be found to the same degree,
neither
on a caste nor a racial basis. Early
Irish society was no less divine because falsity generally prevailed
than when truth
subsequently emerged victorious in the guise of Catholic Christianity. It was simply divine in a negative way. And, doubtless, early English society, while
having a divine dimension, was if not more diabolical in a negative
way, as
relative to a predominating ugliness, then almost certainly more
worldly in
terms, for example, of weakness or, to a lesser extent, evil. Therefore we cannot categorically argue that
ugliness predominated over beauty in every early society, since
that
would be to judge them all according to only diabolic criteria, but
should
rather maintain that while some societies were dominated by ugliness,
others,
though still subject to a degree of ugliness, were dominated by falsity
or
weakness or evil, depending on the type of society in question. Now since, paradoxically, the Divine takes
precedence over both the Diabolic and the world, a predominantly false
society
would have been morally superior to each of the other types, whether
ugly, weak,
or evil. Similarly, a predominantly ugly
society, whilst inferior to a false one, would have been morally
superior to
both predominantly weak and evil societies.
For the Diabolic takes precedence over the world, since aligned
with the
head as opposed to the body, if, in relation to the Divine, as brain
rather
than mind. Thus in
82. However that may be, it is perhaps one of
life's supreme ironies that the society or caste which is most false or
ugly or
weak in an early phase of its existence is the one destined to become
most true
or beautiful or strong at a subsequent phase of it, when the positive
pole has
come to the fore at the expense of the negative one and electron-biased
norms
accordingly preponderate. Provided the
racial structure of any given type of society remains relatively
unchanged,
then positive counterbalances to the earlier negative preconditions
will duly
emerge ... to usher in a better age for the peoples concerned. A predominantly false society will thus
become a predominantly true, or Catholic, one.
A predominantly ugly society will become a predominantly
beautiful, or
Orthodox, one. And, finally, a
predominantly weak society will acquire new strength and emerge in a
Protestant
guise, just as a predominantly evil society will cast of its painful
constraints and become good - in a word, democratic and equalitarian,
serving
the happiness of the greatest number.
Such swings from one extreme to another are shared by all
societies, and
we may characterize the negative pole and approximations to it in terms
of
devolution, in contrast to the evolutionary nature of progress towards
and
approximations to the positive pole.
Devolution from the alpha, evolution towards the omega. This in both natural, i.e.
noumenal/phenomenal, and supernatural, i.e.
superphenomenal/supernoumenal,
societies ... whether divine, diabolic, or worldly.
And in all three cases, at whichever pole of
their respective spectra, we have devolution from protons, evolution
towards
electrons. Devolution from falsity,
evolution towards truth; devolution from ugliness, evolution towards
beauty ...
and so on, with the same of course applying to the super-manifestations
of each
quantity and its qualitative attribute - as, for example, in the case
of
superhate and superlove, which are conditional upon the prior existence
of
super-ugliness and superbeauty respectively.
Thus there is devolution from super-ugliness and evolution
towards
superbeauty, each of which pertains to the artificial part, so to
speak, of the
diabolic spectrum, with Supersatanic and Super-antichristic
implications. Generally speaking,
devolution at this level
is commensurate with the superphenomenal, whereas evolution at such a
level is
commensurate with the supernoumenal.
83. Likewise, in relation to the naturalistic part
of each spectrum, we can speak of devolution from the noumenal and of
evolution
towards the phenomenal, with mainly proton and electron implications
... such as
find a moral analogue in the distinction between centrifugal and
centripetal. But if progress towards the
centripetal is evolutionary, it is only so on a rather limited,
centrifugal-dominated basis within the noumenal-to-phenomenal part of
any given
spectrum, where the proton element preponderates overall, and moral
progress is
accordingly subordinate to the root centrifugal element and has its
existence
within the umbrella, so to speak, of that element, as where trousers or
breeches are worn under or in conjunction with jackets and coats,
creating a
paradoxically amoral impression. It is
only with the artificial part of each spectrum that the centripetal
element can
break increasingly free of the centrifugal element and thereby achieve
supernoumenal salvation. For here it is
not the centripetal which exists in
the
centrifugal but, on the contrary, the latter which exists in
the
former, since the electron element is preponderant overall. Hence not coats or jackets over trousers or
breeches, but trousers or, rather, jeans and pants over T-shirt and
vest, which
are the last refuge, so to speak, of the centrifugal within an
omega-aspiring
context. A transvaluation beyond the
phenomenon has taken place, and therefore the centripetal element has
become
truly ascendant and capable of encroaching ever further upon what
remains of
the centrifugal, until, with supernoumenal salvation, nothing
demonstrably
centrifugal remains, since one-piece zipper suits have eclipsed
pants/vest
relativity, the pants having paved the way, as it were, for the suits
in
question, which are not so much pants and vest in one as expanded pants
...
symptomatic of a centripetal absolutism.
84. Yet if there is devolution from dresses to
skirts, and evolution from pants to one-piece zipper suits, there is
also
co-existence within the phenomenal and superphenomenal contexts of
skirts and
trousers, as relative to a worldly compromise in atomic cohesion. There is a second femininity within the
alpha-stemming context of the artificial part of each spectrum, and
this is the
femininity of skirts made from synthetic materials like PVC and
co-existing
with pants of an equally synthetic construction. For
one
cannot limit skirts to the phenomenal
when they are made from synthetics, and therefore it follows that such
skirts
encroach upon the superphenomenal as a devolution from phenomenal
skirts, or
those made from naturalistic materials like cotton and silk, and are
accordingly of shorter length, i.e. mini.
Devolution presupposes a reduction of scale, particularly in
terms of
length ... which connotes with sexual status, or the social standing of
the
feminine element in life at any given point in time, and short skirts
are
certainly devolved in relation to long or medium-length ones. Therefore just as devolution of the dress,
that inherently noumenal parallel, proceeds from full-length to mini
via
intermediate lengths, so devolution of the skirt, that inherently
phenomenal
parallel, proceeds from full-length to mini via intermediate lengths,
with its
optimum devolution occurring within the superphenomenal context of PVC
minis -
at any rate, with regard to length; though the shift from natural to
synthetic
materials is, of course, rather more evolutionary than devolutionary in
character, and may be regarded as the evolutionary ingredient par
excellence within a superphenomenal context - a context, however,
where
jeans and pants will always predominate, since a masculine bias is more
characteristic of the superphenomenal than of the phenomenal. Indeed, so much is this so ...
that the more positive and progressive it becomes, the closer it will
draw to
the centripetal indivisibility of the supernoumenal, as, for example,
with
regard to one-piece zipper suits of a synthetic construction. Accordingly, it is my belief that while
skirts of a synthetic and devolved order are permissible within the
negative
pole of the superphenomenal (the quantitative pole, which may be
described in
terms of super-ugliness), dresses would be quite anomalous there, even
when made
from synthetic materials and of a highly devolved, i.e. mini-length,
order. For dresses and skirts are not
identical or interchangeable but pertain to different civilizations,
one might
almost say to different ages and classes, and while the dress is
perfectly at
home in an alpha-stemming noumenal context, it would be completely
out-of-place
in a superphenomenal one, since far too feminine for the context in
question. Only the half- or
quarter-femininity, so to speak, of a miniskirt could have any place
there, and
then in a rather subordinate way to jeans or pants.
For if the centrifugal dominates the noumenal
and, to a lesser extent, the phenomenal, then the centripetal is the
dominating
factor of the superphenomenal and, to a greater extent, of the
supernoumenal.
85. I have digressed at some length from my
original devolutionary/evolutionary theme, although not altogether
without good
reason, since the sartorial parallels drawn above indicate, in no
uncertain
terms, that the ratio of negative to positive within a naturalistic
context is
more in favour of the negative than of the positive, whereas in an
artificial
context, by contrast, it is the positive pole that comes out on top. Let us take the naturalistic context of any
given spectrum first - say, falsity and truth in the case of the Divine. Now if we equate falsity with the noumenon
and truth with the phenomenon, our sartorial parallel will show that
falsity is
equivalent to the dress, any dress, and truth to trousers.
Therefore falsity is indivisible and truth
divisible. Falsity is whole, truth
merely a half-measure; falsity accords with proton absolutism, truth
merely
corresponds to relativity with an electron bias. The
one
outweighs the other and, accordingly,
the imbalance is always in favour of falsity or, what amounts to the
same
thing, the noumenal indivisibility of the negative pole.
In other words, the Father outweighs Christ,
and even when truth has come to the fore, as in Christianity, there is
always
more falsity to be reckoned with. Again,
to revert to our sartorial parallel, we may have all males in trousers,
but not
all females will be in skirts. Many will
still prefer dresses, whether long or short, and even those who usually
wear
skirts may also at certain times favour a dress, so that any possible
balance
between trousers and skirts is countered by the number of females
wearing
dresses which, when added to the number of skirts being worn in
society,
creates or, rather, maintains an imbalance in favour of the negative
and, hence,
of alpha-stemming domination. Had men
the possibility, during a phenomenal age, of one-piece zipper suits,
they could
balance-out the negative, feminine element of dresses ... and thereby
achieve
or maintain a comparable degree of positivity, bringing their own
masculinity
to the full. But this they cannot of
course do, since no such possibility then exists, and so their
existence is
that of a male half-measure vis-à-vis female half-measures, i.e.
skirts, and female
whole-measures, i.e. dresses, in consequence of which truth is
accordingly a
half-measure in relation to alpha-noumenal falsity.
And not only Christian truth in relation to
pagan falsity (not to mention Christian falsity, as paralleled by
skirts), but
Antichristian beauty in relation to Satanic ugliness, worldly strength
in
relation to worldly weakness, worldly good in relation to worldly evil.
86. Thus, taking the qualitative attributes of
each of the above-mentioned dichotomies, joy is a half-measure in
relation to
sadness, love a half-measure in relation to hate, pride a half-measure
in
relation to humiliation, and pleasure a half-measure in relation to
pain. No matter how earnest the endeavour
to
establish the True on the basis of joy, or the Beautiful on the basis
of love,
or the Strong on the basis of pride, or the Good on the basis of
pleasure, the
negative correlations of these virtues always preponderate, and the
result is a
world in which truth, beauty, strength, and goodness are outweighed by
falsity,
ugliness, weakness, and evil; a world in which sadness, hate,
humiliation, and
pain predominate because they are always the whole measure, or capable
of
becoming such, while the others remain merely the half.
They are the dress while the others are
merely the trousers. Small wonder if men
of a certain progressive stamp grow weary of natural virtue and instead
turn
towards the possibility of supernatural, or supernoumenal, virtue,
which
requires a superphenomenal precondition!
Better to fall into a new and therefore artificial falsity,
ugliness,
weakness, or evil ... if in due course that will pave the way towards a
new and
higher type of truth, beauty, strength, or goodness which, in contrast
to the
natural types, will be a whole measure rather than merely a half. Better that the negative poles should be
half- or quarter-measures on the artificial part of each spectrum ...
than that
one should remain a perpetual victim of negative whole-measures on
their
natural part. Better PVC miniskirts than
full-length cotton dresses. Better jeans
than half-measure cotton trousers, particularly if they lead to boiler
suits in
due course. Or, better still, PVC pants
leading to one-piece zipper suits of an equally synthetic construction,
since
jeans are merely worldly whereas PVC pants, being synthetic, are of a
divine
orientation.
87. Indeed, one should distinguish between cords
and denims on the one hand, as alternative types of worldly
masculine-biased
attire, and leather and PVC pants on the other, as alternative types of
post-worldly (diabolic and divine) attire which are not so much
masculine as
supermasculine - certainly on the supernoumenal levels of one-piece
zipper
suits! Be that as it may, there is no
guarantee of strength or goodness or beauty or truth, not to mention
their
qualitative concomitants (which, on the omega-oriented artificial part
of each
spectrum, derive from them), except from a superphenomenal base which,
even
when a half-measure or, more correctly, less than a whole-measure, is a
precondition of supernoumenal whole-measures thereafter, and hence of
full-blown positivity. Now, obviously,
while full-blown strength, symbolized by a denim boiler suit, is
preferable to
the half-measure strength which obtains in the naturalistic context, it
is not
the ultimate positivity but merely a worldly or, rather, superworldly
positivity that complements, on a superautocratic plane, full-blown
goodness
... as relative to superdemocratic worldliness, which can be symbolized
by a
one-piece cord suit - a sort of cord boiler suit. Both
kinds
of one-piece suit - rare though
they were in the late-twentieth century - are only really relevant to a
superworldly supernoumenon and, hence, to a supernoumenon of the body
as
opposed to the head. One might define
them in terms of Western supernoumenalism ... insofar as the West,
being
largely a Germanic phenomenon, is nothing if not bodily, and therefore
values
strength and goodness above beauty and truth.
A higher supernoumenon, namely that of the head, would have to
be given
the 'go ahead' elsewhere ... by peoples more inherently disposed to
diabolic or
to divine criteria, i.e. beauty or truth, and such post-worldly peoples
would
eventually eclipse the worldly ... as demanded by evolutionary
progress, which,
in this day and age, tends away from the body (and thus the world)
towards the
head (and thus the Antichristic Diabolic in relation to the new brain,
and the
Superchristic Divine in relation to the superconscious).
Higher than worldly supernoumenalism would be
the diabolic supernoumenalism of leather or rubber one-piece zipper
suits, as
especially relevant to the Slavic East, and higher again would be the
divine
supernoumenalism of PVC one-piece zipper suits, as especially relevant
to the
Third World and to theocracy-biased countries like Ireland and Iran.
88. Thus whilst all kinds of supernoumenalism are
preferable to their respective superphenomenal preconditions, because
significant of full-blown positivity, evolution will demand that only
the
highest supernoumenalism eventually prevails.
Since this is commensurate with the Divine, and hence with the
(electron-wavicle) Holy Ghost, so the ultimate indivisibility must be
of a
PVC-type construction, and therefore a reflection of truth rather than
of
beauty, goodness, or strength. Or, more
correctly, a reflection of supertruth rather than of superbeauty,
supergoodness, or superstrength. Such
supertruth, whether in sartorial or other terms, is the goal of all
evolutionary striving. For true world
unity can only be achieved on the basis of spiritual homogeneity, not
on the
basis of co-existence between incompatible ideals.
Even superbeauty will eventually have to be
consigned to obsolescence ... if supertruth is ultimately to prevail.
89. Some pages ago I briefly referred to a kind of
divine/diabolic distinction between the optical and the aural, and now
I wish
to expand on that reference on the basis of distinguishing between
optical
perception, which is linked rather more closely to the mind than to the
brain,
and aural perception which, by contrast, is linked rather more closely
to the
brain than to the mind. For it will not
have failed to dawn on the reader that, through the agencies of seeing
and
hearing, the eyes and the ears are two modes of perceiving the world -
the
former optical and the latter aural.
Using the term 'perception' in the general sense of
understanding and
noting, it is indisputable that perception of the world is no less
aural than
optical, and that while people may differ from one another in terms of
the
degree to which their perception of the world is either optical or
aural, all
would agree, I think, that hearing is as much a mode of perception as
seeing,
the only real difference being that in the one case the emotions are
more
deeply involved than in the other case because, as already remarked,
hearing
connects more directly to the brain than to the mind, and the brain is
nothing
if not emotional. This being the case,
it is right that we should regard it in a diabolic rather than a divine
light -
indeed, to switch metaphors, as heat rather than light, since emotions,
passions, etc., are of a deeper and less-elevated order of noumenal
experience
than feelings, using that term in the narrow sense of abstract emotions
like
sadness, joy, and happiness which, by contrast, are not only more
refined but
of an altogether higher order of noumenal experience, an order
pertaining to
spirit as opposed to soul. Thus if we
associate emotion with the brain, and hence the Diabolic, it is only
proper
that we should equate feelings with the mind, and hence the Divine. Accordingly, in the one case we shall have
concrete noumenal experience and in the other case abstract noumenal
experience, as befitting the respective natures of hearing and seeing,
aural
perception and optical perception.
90. But of course we cannot limit perception to
the pre-worldly, and hence natural, context that may be regarded as
preceding
worldly concepts and conceptions.
Perception does
precede conception, as Schopenhauer correctly maintained, but it
is no less the case, in this day and age, that there are modes of
perception
which succeed the conceptual, and we should be careful to distinguish
them from
the pre-conceptual varieties.
Accordingly I use the term 'superperceptual' for all modes of
perception,
whether aural or optical, that relate to and are dependent upon
artificial
phenomena such as television, radio, record-player, video-recorder,
etc., and I
maintain that they relate to the natural modes of perception as omega
to alpha
or as the supernoumenal to the noumenal, with an antithetical status in
consequence. Yet such supernoumenal
perceptions, or superperceptions, are only relative, not absolute. For there is a sense in which, say, optical
perception of television differs only in degree rather than kind from
optical
perception of natural phenomena like trees and flowers.
Admittedly, we should distinguish perception
of the artificial from perception of the natural, and many people, me
included,
would hold the view that the perception of flowers on television, where
in a
sense they become artificial, is superior than and preferable to the
perception
of flowers in
naturalis, and therefore is a mode of superperception.
However, such 'superperception' is relative,
in contrast to the use of artificial modes of perception, whether
optical or
aural, which may be regarded as constituting a direct, or absolute,
antithesis
to the natural modes, and the chief examples of which are the camera
and the
microphone, the former functioning as an artificial eye and the latter
as an
artificial ear, albeit in a more radical sense than is achieved by
corrective
lenses on the one hand or by hearing aids on the other, each of which
may be
described as intermediary between natural modes of perception and their
artificial,
and hence mechanical, counterparts - at any rate, to the extent that
they serve
to correct a natural defect rather than to take the place of natural
modes of
perception as such. Consequently we may
define the camera as an artificial eye, or optical recorder of
phenomena
external to itself, while reserving to microphones, including those
which are
used in bugging operations, the status of an artificial ear, or aural
recorder
of phenomena external to itself. (Although the glass eye is artificial
and intended
to replace the loss of a natural eye, it has no perceptive function and
therefore cannot be accorded an antithetical status to the natural eye
in the
functional sense we are elucidating here.)
91. Interestingly enough, while we increasingly
use our natural modes of perception in connection with artificial
phenomena
such as television and radio, the artificial modes of perception are
more often
used in connection with natural phenomena, including people,
conversation, and
singing, a fact which cannot be without some significance in throwing
light
upon the paradoxical and transitional nature of the age.
For it does seem that most people have what
borders on an aversion to photographing or recording artificial
phenomena,
preferring to concentrate on subjects which the natural eye or ear has
grown
out of, in their preference for artificial phenomena.
Doubtless, this ironic situation will be
transcended in the course of time ... as artificial modes of perception
become
increasingly important and the world becomes correspondingly more
transcendental. In the future, people
will cease to be interested in natural phenomena perceived through
artificial
means, but will increasingly turn towards the artificial perception of
artificial phenomena. Even the natural
perception of artificial phenomena, as, for example, on and through
cinema
films, television, and videos, will be transcended by and through
artificially-induced visionary experience, thereby opening-up new
worlds of
internal perception as required by the progression of divine, or
visionary,
experience from superfalse to supertrue levels, in conjunction with the
correlative progression of the diabolic, or auditory, experience from
super-ugly to superbeautiful levels.
92. Indeed, now that I have returned to my initial
divine/diabolic theme, it is incumbent upon me to distinguish divine
from
diabolic progressions in terms of an optical/aural dichotomy, and to
regard the
following options as constituting parallel progressions, viz. films and
records, television and radio, videos and compact discs, and, finally,
LSD
trips and cassettes, with, in the one case, divine and, in the other,
diabolic
implications. Thus, with this
dichotomous view of artificial visionary and auditory phenomena, we
have a
divine progression, on the one hand, from films to trips via television
and
videos, which is paralleled by a diabolic (aural as opposed to optical,
heat as
opposed to light) progression, on the other hand, from records to
cassettes via
radio and compact discs. Now, obviously,
films in the context of cinema must precede the showing of films - TV
films
excepted - on television, just as records in the context of LPs must
precede
the playing of records on the radio, and therefore we can categorically
maintain that there is a sequential and, in a limitedly literal sense,
evolutionary progression from the one to the other, since without prior
films
or records there could be no television or radio transmission of films
and
records, which may consequently be regarded as a precondition of the
media in
question. Furthermore, both television
and radio are alike in that they are multimedia modes of transmission,
with a
variety of channels broadcasting an even greater variety of programmes,
some of
which will be literary and theatrical, some of which musical and
operatic,
others of which documentary, sports, current affairs, and so on. Thus there exists a definite parallel between
radio and television, irrespective of the type of radio or television
we have
in mind. A parallel of sorts, although
of a different order, may also be said to exist between videos and
compact
discs, insofar as they are extrapolations from and evolutionary
improvements on
films and records or, as we could alternatively argue with qualified
justification, the equivalent of films and records in a post-television
and
post-radio age, society, mentality, or whatever, while further along
our
evolutionary spectrum we find ourselves positing a like-parallel
between
artificially-induced visionary experience and cassettes only on the
basis that
there would seem to be little else - at any rate on such a radically
extreme
level, a level which suggests an outright supernoumenal indivisibility
in each
case (not forgetting our divine/diabolic distinctions between visionary
and
auditory modes of perception). Here the
Divine truly attains, as only it can, to an internal level of visionary
perception, while the Diabolic, though not capable of such
internalization
itself, at least becomes less external to the degree that cassettes
increasingly depend upon microlight headphones - indeed, as in the case
of
portable minicassette-players, can only be listened to with the aid of
such
headphones, there being no speaker option.
93. Until now we have been considering the
perceptual beyond the world, i.e. the conceptual, on both optical and
aural
terms, which we have called superperceptions.
Now we must consider artificial levels of the conceptual beyond
the
world, which likewise may be called superconceptions, and which, like
the superperceptual,
can be divided into relative and absolute distinctions.
In the first category we shall find pocket
calculators and other portable modes of computation which serve as a
correction
to or substitute for the brain, and which stand to it rather as
spectacles and
hearing-aids to the eyes and ears respectively, having a direct
connection with
their user. In the second and more
absolute category, however, we shall find computers ... from the
smallest to
the largest, the least complex to the most sophisticated, which exist
not
merely in relation to the brain, and hence in an intermediate position,
but as
completely artificial brains antithetical in every way to it, and
therefore no
less independent of natural intelligence than cameras in relation to
the eye or
microphones in relation to the ear. Such
'artificial brains' assume a superworldly conceptual status analogous
to the
superdivine status of artificial optical perception and to the
superdiabolic
status of artificial aural perception, and accordingly complement these
latter
modes of perception within the artificial context of an omega
orientation, in
contrast to natural thought, which stands to the computer as natural
sight to
the camera and as natural hearing to the microphone.
Nevertheless, natural thought, or the
conceptual capability and employment of the human brain, can be used in
conjunction with artificial phenomena, i.e. as thought about the
man-made
world, just as the eye can be used to see and the ear to hear
artificial
phenomena, and we should distinguish such thought from purely natural
thought,
or thought about nature and naturalistic phenomena generally, including
people,
animals, etc., in the same way and to the same extent that we have
distinguished optical and aural perceptions in relation to artificial
phenomena
such as television and radio from their more naturalistic counterparts. In such fashion, we shall be able to
distinguish thought of a new-brain order from its old-brain
counterpart, as
well as from any mid-brain compromise between or conjunction of the
two, so
that a relatively superconceptual status will accrue to the former,
thereby
allowing for the varieties of thoughts, some of which are antithetical
to
others, that fall to the human brain, itself divisible in the
aforementioned
ways.
94. Consequently an omega-oriented order of the
conceptual will be antithetical to the alpha-stemming order of
conceptual
thought to the degree that the new brain is antithetical to the old
brain. One cannot think on both levels at
once, since
there are evolutionary and class distinctions between the two contexts
and
those who most approximate to a dual integrity in their thinking are
neither
specific to the one nor to the other but pertain to an intermediate,
bourgeois
level situated in between. Traditionally
such a level has found its religious embodiment in prayer, as relative
to
Christianity or some such 'worldly' religion, and we may regard the
conceptual,
contrary to Schopenhauer, as truly appertaining to the Divine ... in
contrast
to the perceptual, which can only pertain to it indirectly, that is to
say
through the medium of appearances. For
true divinity is essential, not apparent, and therefore centripetal as
opposed
to centrifugal in character, a turning in upon oneself, whether in
pagan and,
hence, sensual terms, as in sleep, or in Christian and, hence,
intellectual
terms, as in prayer, or, beyond both of these, in transcendent and,
hence,
spiritual terms, as in meditation.
95. Thus one can distinguish, on a tripartite
basis, between the subconceptual, the conceptual, and the
superconceptual,
where the above-mentioned modes of conceiving are concerned, and there
should
be no doubt that progress tends from the first to the third, though not
without
apparent levels of the Divine coming in-between, so that we may allow,
to take
a single example, for a television-to-video-to-LSD progression in
between
mid-brain cognitive conceptions on the one hand and new-brain
meditative
conceptions on the other, which constitutes ascending levels of
artificial
perception ... from the external to the internal, and so from the false
to the
true or, more correctly, quasi-true. For
it must be admitted that film, whether on television, video, or at the
cinema,
pertains to divine superfalsity to the extent that we are dealing with
appearances external to ourselves which come to us via mechanical
means,
whereas artificially-induced visionary experience of an hallucinogenic
order is
closer to divine supertruth by dint of taking place within
the psyche
in a context rather more chemical than material, and therefore more
directly
spiritual. If it is less than truly
superconceptual, it is at any rate more than merely superperceptual. One might distinguish this ultimate mode of
visionary experience from the mechanically-derived modes like
television or
video in terms of a perceptual-conceptual integrity ... in contrast to
the
conceptual-perceptual integrity of the latter, which I accordingly
equate with
the superfalse. For the closer one draws
to the Holy Ghost, the more superconceptual things become, since
ultimate
divinity is not apparent but essential and therefore can only be
approached,
i.e. evolved towards, from within ... on the basis of superconceptual
freedom. Such freedom paves the way for
the pure meditative experience to follow, and is its necessary
precondition.
96. But such a meditative experience shouldn't be
confounded with the petty-bourgeois meditative experiences so prevalent
in the
West in the late-twentieth century.
These latter were more akin to 'prayer without words' - decadent
modes
of Christian religious observance analogous to abstract paintings,
which call
to mind a denial of the will in the negative and merely relative sense
advocated by Schopenhauer. The decline
and extinction of bourgeois civilization is one thing, the rise and
expansion
of proletarian civilization quite another, and those who demand the
Truth
should never rest content with the half-measures and subterfuges of a
civilization in partial eclipse! The
ultimate meditation, when it becomes possible, will as little resemble
'prayer
without words' as laser light art the painting without subject-matter
which is
but the Schopenhaurian/Sartrean decline into the nothingness, or neant,
of decadent bourgeois civilization. It
will
be dynamic, like the Tao-te-Ching mode of meditation assisted
by
deep-breathing exercises. But if that
admirable form of yoga corresponds to the positive pole of a divine
integrity
within a naturalistic context, i.e. the Eastern equivalent to Western truth as embodied in the person of
Christ, then the supermeditation I have in mind for the future will
correspond
to the positive divine pole within an artificial, or supernaturalistic,
context
and be relatively artificial - indeed, assisted not by breaths of
natural air
but by inhalations of chemically-manufactured air stored in oxygen
containers
and requiring the use of special oxygen masks.
Such dynamic supermeditation will, I believe, greatly facilitate
upward
self-transcendence, particularly in contexts simulating, through
recourse to
special body harnesses, the gravity-defying miracle of levitation. The result will not only be higher than could
be achieved via natural meditation but purer as well, since such
impurities as
cling to natural air would not exist within the comparatively
artificial
context of oxygen containers.
97. However, in returning to the distinction we
were making between perception and conception, it should be
re-emphasised that
the Divine would be rather more conceptual than perceptual; for that
which is
above appearances is essential and therefore beyond sight, or the
possibility
of optical perception. Being in
the Holy
Spirit would be to feel
the
bliss
of electron-electron
attractions, not to see
them. For where there are no eyes,
there is no
sight. Of course, one should distinguish
between sensory perception, which depends upon the use of sight, and
spiritual
perception, which, like the artificially-induced visions of an LSD
trip, is less
a matter of external vision than of internal vision ... as germane to
the
mind's eye, that elusive capacity of the imagination to 'visualize' its
contents. Such spiritual perception
extends down to the dream contents of the subconscious, as well as to
daydreams
or fantasies, and, as I have argued, can also embrace natural visions,
or
hallucinations; though these will have the appearance of being outside
the
psyche and accordingly border on sensory perception, especially when
motivated
by external phenomena. Conversely, it
may be argued that films, whether at the cinema or elsewhere, primarily
appeal
to sensory perception ... to the extent that they are external to the
psyche
and have to be watched, in contrast to the artificially-induced
visionary
experience of LSD trips which, as already noted, transcend sensory
perception
and accordingly enter the realm of supertruth.
For here we touch upon the crucial distinction between the
superfalse
and the supertrue - a distinction between sensory perception of
artificially-produced
visionary phenomena, i.e. films, and the spiritual perception of
artificially-induced visions which are not so much phenomenal as
noumenal or,
rather, supernoumenal ... as pertaining to the superconscious part of
the
psyche. Here we move from the realm of
the superphenomenal to the much higher and therefore more genuinely
divine
realm of the supernoumenal. It is a
progression, in other words, from appearance to essence, from sensory
perception to spiritual conception or, at any rate, to a realm of
spiritual
perception which borders on the superconceptual. For
me,
it signifies a Superchristic prelude
to properly transcendental essence.
98. Since I began, some pages ago, by contending
that the eyes, and hence the sense of sight, were of divine origin in
relation
to the ears, and that there exists, in consequence, a kind of
divine/diabolic
distinction between optical perception and aural perception, I had
better
qualify my original statement by words to the effect that such a
distinction is
merely apparent and relative in relation to spiritual perception of
either a
visionary or an auditory order, since no sensory perception, whether
optical or
aural, can be truly divine or diabolic.
Rather, it is superficially so in relation to dreams, visions,
voices,
whisperings, etc., which correspond to the inner eye and to the inner
ear in
their various hallucinatory manifestations - more usually as
manifestations of
subconscious activity than of conscious activity as such, which, except
in the
context of fantasies or daydreams, corresponds to the conceptual, and
hence to
abstract thought.
99. Yet we are just as susceptible to auditory
perceptions in our dreams as to visionary perceptions, and the ratio of
the one
to the other will indicate the nature of the dream, i.e. divine or
diabolic,
whether on negative or positive terms, which is to say with reference
to the
false and/or ugly on the one hand, or to the true and/or beautiful on
the other
hand. Some people's dreams are
predominantly visionary and therefore 'quiet', as befitting the Divine,
whether
negative or positive. Other people's
dreams, by contrast, are predominantly auditory, as befitting the
Diabolic,
again whether negative or positive. Yet
others experience an approximate balance between the two poles of the
subconscious or, as I should say, the subconscious-proper and the old
brain. Just so, some people are more
susceptible to auditory hallucinations than to visionary ones and may
accordingly be regarded as having a relatively diabolic psychic bias,
in
contrast to those for whom visionary hallucinations are the norm. There is no reason why auditory
hallucinations should be regarded as any stranger than visionary ones,
nor need
we discount the possibility of a psychic balance between the two, as
germane to
a worldly integrity. Probably most
people's autonomous psychic activity outside dreams is so faint and
distant,
these days, that they are unaware of its existence, particularly since
so much
time is now spent in front of televisions, radios, and other such
mechanically
autonomous devices. Doubtless in the
future, LSD trips will open-up further autonomous regions of the psyche
and
duly eclipse natural hallucinations with artificially-induced
hallucinatory
experience either of a predominantly visionary or of a predominantly
auditory
nature, depending on the type of hallucinogen and the character of the
tripping
recipient. A 'good' trip will almost
invariably be predominantly visionary; a 'bum' trip will be less
visionary than
auditory. Yet whatever the psychic
nature of the trip, the positive will generally preponderate over the
negative,
to the extent that we are referring to a supernoumenal and, hence,
full-blown
positivity as opposed to a phenomenal or, rather, superphenomenal
half-measure
... as relative to films, which, as everyone knows, can be good or bad
or good
and bad, depending on the type of film in question.
100. Thus trips have this further advantage over
films, in that not only are they internal rather than external, but
almost
invariably 'good'. A 'bad' as opposed to
an audibly-biased 'bum' trip is indeed the exception to the rule, and
so much
so that one would have cause to suspect the quality of the recipient
rather
than that of the LSD, in the event of persistently 'bad' tripping. Conversely, with dreams it is more usually
the bad dream, or nightmare, that is a full-measure and the good dream
a half
one, particularly in the case of the very young and of people who are
psychically backward. For dreams are
predominantly noumenal by nature, and the noumenal is nothing if not
negative. Even good dreams, which are
comparatively rare, are less good than bad dreams are bad, owing to the
predominantly negative constitution of the subconscious.
Either the Father gets the better of Christ,
so to speak, or Satan the better of the Antichrist, depending on the
type of
dream to which one is usually partial.
And even persons whose dream life is predominantly truthful or
beautiful, which should include most well-constituted males, will only
experience the Christic or the Antichristic on the basis of a
half-measure, as
relative to natural truth or beauty. For
a full-blown positivity, one must turn to the superconscious and to the
experience, therein, of artificially-induced visions.
Doubtless the future will in fact encourage
such a procedure, in accordance with the transcendental requirements of
an
omega-oriented society - the only possible society in which true
salvation can
be achieved.
101. Having spoken of the senses of sight and hearing,
of eyes and ears in relation to superficially divine and diabolic
parallels, I
should now like to expatiate on the senses of smell and taste, of nose
and
tongue in relation to the world, since, in contrast to the
aforementioned ones,
these senses overlap with the body - indeed, are connected to bodily
organs in
the form of the lungs and the stomach respectively.
Whereas sight and hearing solely have
reference to the head and are therefore comparatively transcendent
senses,
indirectly connected via eyes and ears to the Divine and to the
Diabolic (which
find their true parallels in mind and brain), smell and taste, although
situated in the head, have reference to the body, since whatever is
smelled as
scent or perfume soon passes, if inhaled, into the lungs with air,
while
whatever is tasted as food or drink soon passes, if swallowed, into the
stomach
with saliva. Thus although the senses of
smell and taste only have effect with regard to the nose and the tongue
respectively, these latter organs lead, via bronchial tubes and throat,
to the
lungs and the stomach, and thereby compromise the senses in question,
rendering
them less transcendental than mundane, and hence comparatively worldly. Indeed, just as sight may be identified with
sadness and happiness, depending on the nature of what is seen, and
hearing
likewise be identified with hate and love, depending on the nature of
what is
heard, so smell and taste can be ascribed a qualitative dichotomy on
the basis
of what is smelt or tasted, whether negative or positive.
Now if humiliation and pride are the twin
poles around which the former revolves, then we shall have to ascribe
to the
latter the poles of disgust and pleasure, as befitting such a worldly
and, indeed,
democratic sense as taste. A sweet scent
causes one to feel pride; no less than a savoury meal gives one
pleasure. Conversely, a bad smell, like
B.O. or
halitosis, will cause its perpetrator humiliation, no less than rotten
or stale
food will bring him disgust. Disgust at
other people's bad smells is the converse of humiliation at one's own,
and to
disgust with bad food can be added humiliation at the prospect of
having to eat
it! Nevertheless, whilst emotional
reactions do overlap, depending on the context and the relation of
subject to
object or vice versa, it seems feasible to attribute an autocratic axis
to
smell and a democratic axis to taste, so that the one is perceived as
worldly
with a diabolic bias, whether negative (humiliation) or positive
(pride),
whereas the other is perceived as worldly with a divine bias, whether
negative
(disgust) or positive (pleasure).
102. However, in between we shall find the uniquely
worldly, and hence middle-ground, sense of touch, which pertains to the
body
and, in particular, to the hands, that focal-point of the will to touch. Now if a qualitative dichotomy is to be
reserved for this last and most basic sense, then I can think of none
better
than fear on the one hand and hope on the other, the latter of which
may also
embrace trust and mutual goodwill, as between one handshaker and
another. Touch, then, is not so much
autocratic or
democratic as plutocratic, one might even say parliamentarian, taking
that term
to signify something coming in-between authoritarianism and
republicanism, and
I define the quantitative attributes of this sense in terms of war and
peace,
which strike me as constituting a quintessentially worldly dichotomy -
the
phenomenal consequences of fear and hope respectively.
103. Anyone who is conscious of a distinction
between the body and the head, who doesn't treat the head as a part of
the body
but perceives it in relation to divine and diabolic realities above the
world,
of which the body is a microcosm, will have noticed that whereas the
body is
basically rectilinear in shape, the head, by contrast, is usually of a
curvilinear design, and that this is relative to the fundamental
distinction
between the world on the one hand, and the Divine and/or Diabolic on
the other
hand. Thus even when caste and racial
exceptions have been taken into account, the fundamental dichotomy
between body
and head is generally based on a rectilinear/curvilinear distinction. We see this distinction clearly enough when
comparing stereo speakers with headphones, whether of the ring-like
conventional design or of the centralized micro design.
For speakers are rectilinear and therefore
bodily, whereas headphones are curvilinear and thus of the head ... in
more
than an obvious sense. I have discussed
this subject elsewhere, so will now proceed to analogous distinctions
between
cars, which are usually rectilinear in design (the old-style, or
'Beetle',
Volkswagen being a paradoxical exception to the rule), and motorbikes
and/or
scooters, where we are conscious of a predominantly curvilinear
impression which
is partly attributable to the wheels and partly to the engine and/or
panelling. Likewise between paintings in
the rectilinear case and light art, whether relatively materialistic or
spiritualistic, in that of the curvilinear.
And, most especially, between modern rectilinear architecture on
the one
hand and modern curvilinear architecture on the other - a conspicuous
instance
of our basic body/head dichotomy, and no small indication as to the
nature of
any given contemporary society - the rectilinear variety preponderating
in the
democratic West where, not surprisingly, bodily criteria take
precedence over
those of the head, especially in cities like New York and Chicago,
which abound
in rectilinear skyscrapers of a superworldly order, a blatant testimony
to the
body's rule even when, as often transpires, the architecture concerned
is so
towering and stylistically indivisible as to appear highly idealistic
in
character. Such a paradoxical idealism
of the body is particularly characteristic of
104. However that may be, ring-like curvilinear
architecture is, by contrast, communistic and therefore comparatively
naturalistic in character; though we should take pains to distinguish
between
the relatively low, pure Communist architecture and the higher, less
naturalistic architecture which, while still of a ring-like design, may
be
described as Transcendental Socialist.
For the reader will be aware that such a
Communist/Transcendental
Socialist distinction has been encountered in my work before, and has
its
divine counterpart in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist one which,
in
architecture, takes the form of tall, highly centralized, and hence
idealistic,
curvilinear buildings on the one hand, and of less tall and highly
centralized,
though still idealistic, curvilinear buildings on the other hand, this
latter
option directly paralleling the taller, less ring-like, and therefore
naturalistic, curvilinear buildings of a Transcendental Socialist
design. Consequently, with 'head'
architecture our
basic distinction, already noted with regard to motorbikes and
scooters, not to
mention conventional and micro headphones, between a ring-like and a
centralized design also holds true, and is precisely that which
distinguishes the
Diabolic from the Divine, or curvilinear naturalism from its idealistic
counterpart. Doubtless in the future,
most if not all buildings will be curvilinear, since the head alone
will count
... as the body, and hence the world, is overcome.
But it is to be hoped that, ultimately, the
centralized variety of curvilinear architecture will preponderate over
the
ring-like variety, as divine criteria displace the diabolic in a world
tending
ever more closely towards the heavenly Beyond.
We may not yet have seen the last of the rectilinear mode of
architecture, but the future belongs to the curvilinear - of that there
can be
little doubt!
105. Smoking, which involves the sense of smell and
possibility of inhalation into the lungs, corresponds to the
diabolic-in-the-world
and is therefore a relatively autocratic habit, having strong overtones
with
both weakness and strength, humiliation and pride, depending on the
smoker and
his mode of smoking, viz. pipe, cigar, or cigarette, with class and
even
evolutionary implications between them.
By contrast, drinking, which involves the sense of taste and
necessarily
has reference to the stomach, corresponds to the divine-in-the-world
and is
therefore a relatively democratic habit, having strong overtones with
both evil
and good, pain and pleasure, depending, once again, on the drinker and
his mode
of drinking, viz. bottle, glass, or can, with class and evolutionary
implications between them, as before.
Generally speaking, the pipe is to the bottle what the cigar is
to the
glass, and we may regard them as constituting a negative/positive
dichotomy on
the basis of noumenal and phenomenal distinctions.
Thus pipe to cigar on the one hand, and
bottle to glass on the other - at any rate, such is the case with
regard to the
natural part of each spectrum. For when
it comes to the artificial, or supernatural, part ... we have a
dichotomy
between small cigars (cheroots) and cigarettes on the one hand, and
between
small glasses (half-pints) and cans on the other hand, which
constitutes a
superphenomenal/supernoumenal distinction, albeit within a strictly
worldly
framework. For it should be emphasized
that smoking and drinking are essentially bodily habits, and that
'heads',
whether divine or diabolic, will either smoke or drink only in
moderation or,
more usually, not smoke or drink at all.
Those, on the other hand, who both drink and smoke regularly …
are
worldly on both democratic and autocratic terms, whether or not they
are also
disposed to the sense of touch and therefore highly sensual. Considered politically, if bottles and pipes
correspond to the autocratic and cans and cigarettes to the democratic,
then
glasses and cigars should correspond to the plutocratic, and so be more
strictly of the world. One might say,
using a perceptual-conceptual axis, that whereas bottles and pipes,
together
with cans and cigarettes, are perceptual and therefore noumenal, albeit
in
diametrically opposite ways, glasses and cigars are conceptual, and
therefore
relatively phenomenal. From worldly
alpha to worldly omega via the world.
106. A similar tripartite distinction to the above
is to be found in the progression from umbrellas to hooded jackets via
raincoats, with umbrellas corresponding to pipes and bottles, hooded
jackets to
cigarettes and cans, and raincoats to cigars and glasses.
Head - body - head.
107. Since we have ascertained that, in relation to
eyes, cameras are an artificial mode of optical perception and that, in
relation to ears, microphones are an artificial mode of aural
perception, both
of which stand as artificial senses to the natural senses of seeing and
hearing, we should now take our investigation a stage further and
contend that,
in relation to internal visionary perception, i.e. dreams, televisions
are an
artificial mode of visionary perception and therefore antithetical to
natural
dreams, whereas in relation to internal auditory perception, i.e.
audible
hallucinations, radios are an artificial mode of auditory perception
and
therefore antithetical to natural thoughts, or thoughts which occur on
an
hallucinatory or dream-like basis, as though spontaneously generated. In other words, televisions and radios are to
the psyche what cameras and microphones are to the senses - their
antithetical
equivalents, which lead an autonomous, or quasi-autonomous, existence
of their
own and, in a certain sense, take the place of natural autonomous
psychic
experience. Thus televisions are
dreaming artificial brains, just as radios are artificial brains that
render
the auditory equivalent of visionary dreaming, which is a kind of
artificial
audible hallucination - an audible dreaming.
Not that I wish to imply this is all
radios
and
televisions
amount to - since there is obviously a great deal more to
them than
that! - but simply that when they are employed in a literary or a
dramatic way,
as with the transmission of plays, stories, serials, etc., their
function is
rather more analogous to dreaming than to thinking, to fantasy than to
fact. Thus if they are the artificial
equivalents of internal modes of perception, whether visionary or
auditory, and
cameras and microphones are the artificial equivalents of external
modes of
perception, both optical and aural, then computers are the artificial
equivalent of conceptual thinking, which stands in between the sensory
external
and the psychic internal modes of perception as a bridge and link from
the one
to the other. Hence for the full
complement to the natural head, with its senses and psyche, it is
necessary to
be in possession not only of camera and microphone but of computer,
radio, and
television as well, all of which, taken together, constitute an
artificial head
whose parts function on an equivalent, if antithetical, basis to what
we are
all, or at any rate most of us, endowed with by nature.
Add to fantasies and natural visions the
artificial fantasies of video, particularly of the home-made variety,
and the
artificial visions, or artificially-induced visionary experience, of
hallucinogens like LSD, and one has an even fuller antithetical
complement to
the natural psyche - a complement stretching into the truly divine
realms of
the supertrue.
108. 'In the beginning was the Word and the
Word
was God'. - Such a claim is not so much pagan as proto-Christian or
simply
Judaic. For it places God in the
conceptual and therefore attests to a relatively worldly approach to
divinity
which finds its Christian complement in the New Testament.
But before the conceptual there was the
perceptual, and after the conceptual there is, or will be, the
perceptual
again, albeit on artificial rather than naturalistic terms. Hence a more comprehensive account of
divinity, which would in some measure correspond to the Blessed Trinity
of
divinities ... from the Father to the Holy Ghost via Christ, would read
as
follows: In the beginning was the Star and the Star was God; in the
beginning
was the Word and the Word was God; in the beginning was the Film and
the Film
was God (at any rate, on a somewhat rudimentary basis).
Thus pagan - Judeo-Christian - transcendental.
However, for the modern post-Christian age,
God's origin can neither be traced to the Star nor to the Word but
simply to
the Film, Video, Trip, etc., in increasing degrees of spiritual
refinement. To the extent that we watch
the Film or,
rather, films ... we partake of and become God (Superfather). Such a crude level and manifestation of
divinity will gradually be transmuted into higher and more genuine
levels
(Superchristic) as the contemplating head progresses, over the decades,
from
films to trips via videos, and so draws ever closer to the ultimate
level of
divinity (Supertranscendent) in pure contemplation achieved through
dynamic
meditation. In the meantime, film stars
(as opposed to cosmic ones) will be the Superfatheristic norm for most
contemplating
heads. The Superchristic can only come
later, as the Son followed the Father and truth eclipsed falsity. Those of us who prefer the positive Divine to
the negative Divine, and hence truth to falsity, will welcome the
inevitable
eclipse of the mechanical, external, superfalse divinity by the
chemical,
internal, supertrue divinity, and thus the real coming of the 'Kingdom
of
Heaven' under Social Transcendentalist auspices. For
the
Superpagan must be superseded by the
Superchristian, if salvation is truly to be achieved.
To the extent that video paves the way for
the Superchristic ... it should be encouraged, even though it pertains,
as
film, to the Superfather and, hence, to superfalsity.
109. To the extent that a wavicle/particle and,
hence, divine/diabolic distinction can be drawn, on the level of what
may be
called theocratic smoking, between cannabis and hashish ('grass' and
'shit'),
we should also distinguish between capsule vision-engendering LSD and
tablet
audio-engendering LSD on a similar basis, which, taken in conjunction
with
'dope', will furnish us with the basis of a working dichotomy between
Social
Transcendentalism and Transcendental Socialism.
Thus in the one case a cannabis/capsule LSD integrity, with
cannabis
corresponding to the 'Social' and capsule LSD to the
'Transcendentalism',
whilst, in the other case, a tablet LSD/hashish integrity, with tablet
LSD
corresponding to the 'Transcendental' and hashish to the 'Socialism'. In the case of Social Transcendentalism, the
emphasis would be on capsule LSD; in the case of Transcendental
Socialism, by
contrast, the emphasis would be on hashish.
That follows, needless to say, from the divine/diabolic
distinction
between the two ideologies which, though not absolutely divisible, yet
maintain
a relative bias one way or the other, depending on the ideology in
question. Thus a lesser emphasis on
cannabis and a greater one on capsule LSD would be juxtaposed with a
lesser
emphasis on tablet LSD and a greater one on hashish.
Accordingly, capsule LSD and hashish are the
two main adversaries or, as I should say, parallel alternatives, with
cannabis
and tablet LSD constituting subordinate options within the overall
framework of
each ideology. Yet if cannabis is
subordinate to capsule LSD within the Social Transcendentalist context,
and to
the extent, I wager, of being confined to particular rather than
general use,
then tablet LSD should be no less subordinate to hashish within the
Transcendental Socialist context, and to the extent, once again, of
being
confined to particular rather than general use.
Should time or circumstances prove me wrong, then so be it! But as the principal architect of Social
Transcendentalism, I reserve the right to define ideological priorities
as I
see fit. For how else can a
divine/diabolic distinction be maintained?
Transcendental Socialist tendencies may be unquestionably bad,
or
immoral, in relation to Social Transcendentalist ones, though this fact
would
not render the latter ideology perfect - least of all where the
subordinate
possibility of cannabis was concerned.
Were men capable of only the divine, we could ban or eliminate
the
'dope' element outright. But even where
and when they have a divine bias, the capacity for the diabolic will
still
exist, albeit in a transmuted and relatively innocuous guise. And yet, if cannabis is paradoxically
preferable to hashish from a moral, or divine, standpoint, it can
hardly be
deemed superior to tablet LSD. Certainly
it is better to be an 'acid head' than a 'shit head'; but if a 'shit
head' is
all one can be, there will at least be the consolation, within a
Transcendental
Socialist context, that one is not a tobacco head or, rather, body,
insofar as
tobacco is arguably to the body what hashish and cannabis are to the
head - the
relatively diabolic, or smoking, side of a worldly dichotomy which
finds its
relatively divine, or drinking, side in alcohol.
110. Of course the world opposes what threatens its
own tobacco/ alcohol integrity, whether such a threat comes from beyond
... in
the forms of 'dope' and 'acid', or from behind ... in the neo-pagan
forms of
hard drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, etc., which, whether smoked or
injected, threaten to resurrect the alpha-stemming
(old-brain/subconscious)
head at the expense not only of the body but, from an omega-oriented
standpoint, the (new-brain/superconscious) head as well.
For in a transitional age, when body
civilization is in decline but the ultimate head civilization hasn't
yet
officially arisen, it is all too easy for neo-pagan tendencies
associated with
the old-brain/subconscious mind to come out of hibernation, as it were,
and
seek to gain a footing at the expense of traditional worldly norms,
including
alcohol and tobacco. Such traditional
hard drugs correspond, in their own context, to neo-royalism in
politics, and
will be vigorously opposed - and rightly - by those bent on defending
the
worldly status quo. Whether, however,
such people have as much justification in opposing post-worldly drugs
like LSD
... is another thing - at any rate, from a new-brain/superconscious
standpoint,
though they doubtless act correctly from a worldly standpoint and,
hence, in
opposition not only to the Super-antichristic diabolic, but to the
Superchristic divine as well, i.e. with reference to both
Transcendental
Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, not forgetting their respective
'dope'
and 'acid' concomitants. Thus the body
has to defend itself against a fourfold encroachment upon its
democratic
integrity by both divine and diabolic alpha-stemming and omega-oriented
head
alternatives. Ultimately both the body
and the alpha-stemming (old-brain/subconscious) head should lose,
though not
before the omega-oriented head, in both its diabolic and divine
aspects, proves
worthy of global victory, thereby initiating an age of exclusively
new-brain
and superconscious drugs. For salvation
is not only at the expense of the world, and therefore of tobacco and
alcohol,
but of everything pertaining to the pre-worldly divine and diabolic
options as
well. Now from a Social
Transcendentalist and hence truly divine
standpoint, it is from the possibility of post-worldly drugs
like
hashish and tablet LSD too, since what pertains to Transcendental
Socialism
must, of necessity, be irrelevant to Social Transcendentalism.
111. If cocaine is relevant to some kind of
superworldly ideological bias, then that, too, would prove irrelevant
from both
divine and diabolic standpoints. Broadly
speaking, if the cannabis/capsule LSD equation pertains to rock-jazz (a
Social
Transcendentalist equivalent), and the tablet LSD/hashish equation ...
to
jazz-rock (a Transcendental Socialist equivalent), then cocaine should
pertain
to electric blues, that middle-ground theocratic musical form (whose
political
analogue is Ecology) in between centristic jazz and communistic rock. So if the future turns out anything like I
imagine, which is not inconceivable, then cocaine will go the way of
all the
other drugs not strictly relevant to either of the two main ideological
alternatives
under discussion.
112. As a sort of footnote to the above, I should
like to draw attention to the superphenomenal nature of 'dope', whether
cannabis or hashish, as opposed to the supernoumenal nature of 'acid',
whether
capsule or tablet. Cocaine is also
superphenomenal, though from a different standpoint than either
cannabis or
hashish, whereas untipped cigarettes and/or roll-ups on the one hand,
and fizzy
beer on the other hand are superphenomenal from a strictly worldly and,
hence,
bodily standpoint. Musically speaking,
they stand to the head drugs in the manner of pop and/or soul to rock,
jazz,
and blues. Both rhythm 'n' blues and
rock 'n' roll pertain to a mid-point in between pop and soul - the
former with
a bias towards soul and the latter with a bias towards pop. Such a mid-point corresponds, as already
noted, to a moderately worldly integrity as characterized by touch,
that
uniquely worldly sense, and finds its chief drug neither in alcohol nor
tobacco,
but simply and purely in sex. For sex is
to touch what alcohol is to taste and tobacco to smell.
113. Writing or, more specifically, the technique of
writing will correspond to phenomenal, superphenomenal, or to
supernoumenal
categories according to whether it is divisibly relative, divisibly
absolute,
or indivisibly absolute. In the first
case, we are dealing with word pairs, for example pronouns and verbs
like 'I
am', 'you are', 'they are', as well as with negative verbs like 'do
not', 'will
not', 'shall not', 'cannot'. In the
second case, we are dealing with the contraction of such word pairs
into one
word divided by an apostrophe, as in 'I'm', 'you're', 'they're',
'don't',
'won't', 'shan't', 'can't'. In the third
case, however, we are dealing with the further contraction
(centro-complexification)
of such words by elimination of the apostrophe, as in 'Im', 'youre',
'theyre',
'dont', 'wont', 'shant', 'cant'. Thus we
have an overall progression from worldly relativity, which is
bourgeois, to divine
absolutism, which is classless, via diabolic absolutism, which is
proletarian. A progression, in other
words, from divisible relativity to indivisible absolutism via
divisible
absolutism, which corresponds, so I maintain, to phenomenal,
superphenomenal,
and supernoumenal distinctions. In a
bourgeois society, the phenomenal mode of writing will be the accepted
norm,
while superphenomenal contractions will accord with a proletarian
alternative
or opposition to it. There will be
scarcely any writing conceived on a supernoumenal basis, since that
presupposes
a classless society and, hence, the supersession of State divisibility
by
Centrist indivisibility - in a word, the transcendence of
bourgeois/proletarian
or, in the case of liberal republics, white- and blue-collar
distinctions ...
through a social homogeneity aimed at the creation of a truly divine
society,
one which is neither plutocratic nor democratic but theocratic and
therefore
socially indivisible. In such a society,
where the great majority of people are programmed for spiritual
transcendence
by a politico-religious elite assisted by special police, supernoumenal
writing
would become the accepted norm, and consequently something
approximating to
what G.B. Shaw pioneered would take the place of all phenomenal and
superphenomenal modes of writing in the name of absolutist
indivisibility. For in writing, no less
than everything else,
centro-complexification is both a mark and a standard of evolutionary
progress. 'I have' - 'I've' - 'Ive', or
'do not' - 'don't' - 'dont' ... attest to just such a
centro-complexification,
and any writer worthy of the claim 'progressive' will doubtless be more
disposed to one or other of the two absolutist technical approaches to
writing
than to conventional relativity. But a
radical technique is of little use or justification if it does not
serve an
equally radical subject-matter, the thematic treatment of which should
be no
less radical. One cannot and should not
marry superphenomenal contractions to a worldly, or democratic,
subject-matter,
and neither should a post-worldly, or transcendental, subject-matter,
treated
positively and with sincerity, be married to phenomenal relativity. Getting sorted out in this regard and
remaining both technically and thematically congruous ... is the test
of a
great writer. It is also the mark of
one!
114. Other examples of phenomenal vis-à-vis
superphenomenal vis-à-vis supernoumenal distinctions are afforded us by
time
and money. In the case of time, we are
speaking of a progression, as it were, from conventional alphanumeric
relativity to noumenal absolutism, whether this latter be divisible, as
between
a.m. and p.m., or indivisible, and hence 24 hrs. Thus
'five
past six' or 'two minutes to
eight' or 'half-past twelve' will accord with phenomenal relativity by
dint of
the compromise between numerals and words, even when, as in the
examples cited,
numerals are written as words (for, in reality, they are read as
numbers from
conventional wind-up watches). However,
superphenomenal time-reading will only entail numbers, as from a
twelve-hour
digital watch, and it is the division of such time into a.m. and p.m.
which
makes for a divisible absolutism. With a
24 hr. digital, on the other hand, no such division exists, and
therefore the
indivisible absolutism which results from a 24 hr. mode accords with a
supernoumenal status - the ultimate mode of time-reading, especially
pertinent
to a Social Transcendentalist society and ideological bias.
115. As to money, a similar progression from the
phenomenal
to the supernoumenal via the superphenomenal can be inferred with
regard to the
distinctions between traditional pounds/shillings/ pence counting and
decimal
counting which either divides pounds from pence, as in superphenomenal
usage,
or counts in pence alone, as with the supernoumenal alternative. Thus whereas '£5 - 2s - 6p' accords with
phenomenal relativity by dint of its fulcrum, so to speak, being
shillings
rather than pounds or pence, and therefore having a worldly and,
indeed, atomic
significance in between larger and smaller units (not to mention
entailing a
compromise, as with phenomenal time-reading, between words and
numbers), '£6 -
50p' accords with a superphenomenal, or divisible, absolutism by dint
of being
pounds and fractions of pounds, i.e. pence, in contrast to the
indivisible
absolutism of '650p' which accords with a supernoumenal counting by
dint of its
exclusive emphasis on pence - a more idealistic emphasis, given the
indivisible
character of pence in relation to pounds.
Of course, in speaking of pounds, I am alluding to pound pieces
rather
than to notes. For the superphenomenal
can only be established on the basis of a coin absolutism, and would
not be
possible with notes and old-style (large) pennies, both of which accord
with
the phenomenal in its extreme manifestations.
It is just that with the superphenomenal this coin absolutism is
divisible, as between pounds and pence.
With the supernoumenal, by contrast, it is only in pence and
therefore
indivisible.
116. Similarly, in respect of length measurement,
yards, feet, and inches accord with the phenomenal, feet standing in
between
the two extremes in the way that shillings may be said to stand in
between
pounds and pence or, for that matter, minutes in between hours and
seconds. With metres and centimetres,
however, one enters the realm of superphenomenal length measurement,
the metric
absolutism divisible between metres and centimetres, which can be
transcended
only on the supernoumenal basis of centimetre indivisibility. Nowadays we deal in metric units rather than
imperial ones and accordingly measure on a superphenomenal basis. The same is true of weighing (grams,
kilograms), solid volume (cubic metres, cubic centimetres), and so on
...
through all the possible metric modes of quantification, and to that
extent it
is fair to say that phenomenal, i.e. imperial, standards of
quantification no
longer have any relevance. In my view,
telling the time on a conventional alphanumeric basis is no less
obsolete than
imperial measurements. The man for whom
the time is 'half-past twelve' (instead of 12.30) or 'five to six'
(instead of
5.55) is living on the level of imperial measurements and is
accordingly
lagging behind the times. Even the
superphenomenal will one day be eclipsed as indivisible absolutism puts
divisible absolutism in the shadow of its supernoumenal light.
117. Devolution from autocratic theocracy (the
Father) to theocratic autocracy (Satan), with further devolution from
autocratic autocracy (worldly alpha) to democratic autocracy (alpha
world). Evolution from autocratic
democracy (omega world) to democratic democracy (worldly omega), with
further
evolution from theocratic democracy (the Antichrist) to democratic
theocracy
(the Holy Ghost). Thus a 'fall', on the
one hand, from alpha theocracy to the worldly alpha/alpha world via
diabolic
autocracy, and a 'rise', on the other hand, from the omega
world/worldly omega
to omega theocracy via diabolic democracy.
God - Devil - world; world - Devil - God, with the head, on both
subconscious and old-brain terms, eclipsed by the worldly body on both
autocratic and democratic terms, prior to the possibility of the head
being
resurrected, on both new-brain and superconscious terms, with the
return of
Devil and God on an omega basis.
118. Similarly, one could speak of a regression from
alpha idealism to worldly realism via alpha naturalism and worldly
materialism
on the one hand, but of a progression from worldly superrealism to
omega
superidealism via worldly supermaterialism and omega supernaturalism on
the
other hand. Thus from (idealistic)
autocratic theocracy to (realistic) democratic autocracy via
(naturalistic)
theocratic autocracy and (materialistic) autocratic autocracy. And thus from (superrealistic) autocratic
democracy to (superidealistic) democratic theocracy via
(supermaterialistic)
democratic democracy and (supernaturalistic) theocratic democracy. On the one hand, noumenal to subphenomenal
regressions; on the other hand, phenomenal to supernoumenal
progressions. Devolution from the noumenal
head to the
subphenomenal body in the case of the regressive distinctions. Evolution from the phenomenal body to the
supernoumenal head in the case of the progressive distinctions. Treated graphically, this will read as
follows:-
ALPHA DEVOLUTION
OMEGA
EVOLUTION
1. autocratic
theocracy (noumenal)
8. democratic theocracy
(supernoumenal)
2. theocratic
autocracy (noumenal-subphenomenal)
7. theocratic democracy
(superphenomenal-supernoumenal)
3.
autocratic autocracy (subphenomenal)
6. democratic democracy
(superphenomenal)
4. democratic autocracy
(phenomenal-subphenomenal) 5. autocratic democracy (subphenomenal-phenomenal)
Such
a
procedure
is rather more complex and, I trust, accurate than would be the use of
comparatively simple noumenal/phenomenal or
superphenomenal/supernoumenal
distinctions, given the necessary gradations of alpha devolution on the
one
hand and of omega evolution on the other hand which, considered with
regard to
the head in each of its dual extremities, flank worldly phenomenalism
in regard
to the body.
119. Thus we can pinpoint antithetical equivalents
between idealistic autocratic theocracy, which is noumenal, and
superidealistic
democratic theocracy, which is supernoumenal; between naturalistic
theocratic
autocracy, which is noumenal-subphenomenal, and supernaturalistic
theocratic
democracy, which is superphenomenal-supernoumenal; between
materialistic autocratic
autocracy, which is subphenomenal, and supermaterialistic democratic
democracy,
which is superphenomenal; and between realistic democratic autocracy,
which is
phenomenal-subphenomenal, and superrealistic autocratic democracy,
which is
subphenomenal-phenomenal. On the one
hand, a devolutionary regression, as we have seen, from idealism to
realism via
naturalism and materialism; on the other hand, an evolutionary
progression from
superrealism to superidealism via supermaterialism and supernaturalism,
with
antithetical correlations between alpha idealism and omega
superidealism, alpha
naturalism and omega supernaturalism, alpha-worldly materialism and
omega-worldly supermaterialism, worldly realism and worldly
superrealism. Thus the realistic body is
flanked by the
materialistic body, while the naturalistic head is flanked by the
idealistic
head. Worldly relativity and worldly
absolutism; diabolic relativity and divine absolutism.
120. Defining each historical distinction separately,
we have in autocratic theocracy the subconsciously-dominated,
Creator-oriented
societies of pagan antiquity, including the Egyptian and early Irish,
which may
be defined as proto-papal by dint of their cosmic religious essence, an
essence
shared, though on a less elevated plane, by the succeeding theocratic
autocracies which, again like the Egyptian and Irish, were rather more
disposed
to god-kings than to kingly gods ... to the extent that the latter lost
power
in proportion to the increase in power of the former, who thus ruled on
the
basis of diabolic and, hence, old-brain autocracy.
Contrasted to which we shall find the
autocratic autocracies of alpha-worldly societies like the ancient
Greek and
Roman, whose chief characteristic is a secular ruling elite of kings
and
tyrants - an autocracy of the body as opposed to the head.
This is also true of the succeeding
democratic autocracies, including the late Roman and early English,
except that
in their case the tyrant or monarch is accountable to his nobles
through some
agreement such as the Magna Carta, which effectively curbs his
autocratic
power. One might say that autocratic
devolution has gone as far as it is possible to go at this point
without ceasing
to be autocracy, and that such an autocratic nadir is a precondition of
subsequent democratic transformation, following a Cromwell-type
parliamentary
revolution which shifts the balance of power from the monarch and his
nobles to
the People or, at any rate, the bourgeoisie in what I have termed an
autocratic
democracy - the parliamentary democracy upon which Britain built its
greatness
as a world power of the first rank, a democracy in which not the People
but
parliament is sovereign, an essential representational sovereignty
which
contrasts with, though exists in the service of, the apparent
sovereignty of
the reigning monarch within the constitutional framework of a United
Kingdom.
121. And yet, if a parliamentary democracy is, by
definition, bourgeois on account of its semi-autocratic nature, then
the
succeeding republican democracies of, for example, France and the
United States
may be regarded (somewhat contrary to accepted opinion) as proletarian
democracies within a Western, or Germanic, context, which is
necessarily bodily
rather than of the head (in its new-brain aspect) and therefore
inherently
relative or, as we usually say, pluralistic.
For the body is politically divisible not just in the autocratic
and
democratic parts, as between blood and bone on the one hand and muscle
and
flesh on the other, but - as just indicated - in both its autocratic and
its
democratic aspects. Now if this is not
to push the metaphor too far, then I would say that in between such a
division
we can posit a bodily parallel to parliamentary democracy on the basis
of a
vein/nerve compromise, which is relatively middle-ground in relation to
autocratic blood and bone on the one hand and to democratic muscle and
flesh on
the other, and therefore suitable to something which, strictly
speaking, is
neither of the one nor of the other but ... a sort of half-way house in
between
the two. Thus if we are to equate blood
with royalty, and hence a secular or bodily monarchy, while reserving
for the
nobility in general a connection with bones, both of which accord with
an alpha-worldly
autocracy, then the antithetical equivalent to this, namely an
omega-worldly
democracy, should be conceived in terms of the equation of bodily
muscles with
one part of the democratic democracy and flesh with the other, so that
a kind
of antagonism between muscles and flesh is envisaged, which, so I
contend,
would typify a Western-style People's democracy.
122. Taking the American democracy as our model, it
seems feasible to equate muscles with the Democrats and flesh with the
Republicans, which gives us a kind of pain/pleasure distinction between
workers
and players or, in popular parlance, the poor and the rich, the
have-nots and
the haves. In a parliamentary democracy,
on the other hand, no such political distinction really exists, because
we are
speaking rather more on the level of veins in the one case and of
nerves in the
other, neither of which has any real connection with proletarian
extremes
within a bodily context. Indeed, such a
division, being relative to an autocratic democracy, is somewhat more
bourgeois
than proletarian, as between plutocratic conservatism on the one side
and
laissez-faire liberalism on the other, and, so far as the British
example of
parliamentary democracy is concerned, no longer exists in its
traditional mould
but has been superseded by a kind of vein/muscle dichotomy between Low
Toryism
and Democratic Socialism (Labour), a dichotomy between disjunctive
adversaries
which is neither bourgeois nor proletarian but effectively grand
bourgeois in
the Tory case and petty bourgeois in that of the Democratic Socialists,
so that
each side pulls in obliquely opposite directions rather than, as with
republican democracies, at approximately parallel points to each other. The only way anything approximating to the
American type of democracy could arise in Britain would be if the
Labour Party,
as the party correlative with muscles, found itself in opposition to a
Liberal
and/or Social Democratic party which, correlating with the flesh,
sought to
stay in government or to become the government at Labour's expense. In other words, if the only two main
contenders for political power in Britain were the Democratic
Socialists and
the Liberal Democrats - the former broadly representative of
blue-collar
interests and the latter of white-collar interests, neither of them
much
interested in either bourgeois or grand-bourgeois interests.
123. Yet such a dichotomy between alternative
working-class parties is hardly likely to arise in a parliamentary
democracy
like Britain's where, one way or another, the Tories will always be a
major, if
not the
main, contender for office, given British plutocratic
traditions, and only one 'working-class' party can ever hope to
seriously rival
them as an effective alternative. Two
'working-class' parties in competition for the majority vote may be a
fact of
life in republican democracies, but it certainly doesn't and can't have
any
reality in a parliamentary democracy, where one of the contending
parties will
always be bourgeois or, more correctly, grand bourgeois, and therefore
constitute a direct link with the aristocracy and monarchy, the Lords
and the
reigning sovereign. It is for this
reason that any party to the right of the Conservatives will be not so
much fascist,
in the accepted latin sense, as neo-royalist, since blue blood in
Conservative
veins can be replaced, if necessary, by a transfusion of red blood in
the event
of the monarchy being seriously called into question or put under
threat from
the Extreme Left, no matter how unlikely such a prospect may seem in
reality. For just as the Extreme Right
in a parliamentary democracy like Britain's can only be of the body,
and hence
a resurrection of royalist blood, so the Extreme Left will also be
merely bodily,
and hence muscular. In both cases, the
head is beyond the pale, as it must be in any parliamentary democracy,
where
either neo-royalism or socialist anarchism will be the alternative
extremes,
never genuine Fascism or Communism, which pertain to the head, but only
something bodily.
124. And yet in a republican democracy, which is
rather more extreme than a parliamentary one, head alternatives to the
bodily
rule will
encroach
upon
the democratic status quo from time to time and
threaten to destabilize it, as in France, where communistic opposition
to
democracy is not unheard of, even if such opposition hasn't had any
appreciable
effect in undermining or supplanting it.
For even the French remain by and large democratic in a Western
mould,
which, being bodily, is inherently superphenomenal and therefore
relative. Like their American
counterparts, they fall
short of the head and, consequently, France is not on that account a
bourgeois
democracy like Britain or Holland, even if it is less of a proletarian
democracy,
in the Western mould, than the United States of America, which is far
more
Germanic and accordingly more bodily and materialistic than France. If France is ideologically contiguous with
the lesser East European states like Poland and Hungary, then America
is
ideologically contiguous with the Commonwealth of Independent States
(formerly
the Soviet Union), that great supra-national entity which signifies a
full-blown theocratic democracy, a democracy not of the body but the
head and,
needless to say, in terms of the new brain, which, in contrast to the
democratic body, is indivisible and accordingly aligned with absolute
political
criteria, as congenial to the Slavic race.
For the Slav is less bodily in proportion as he is more brainy,
using
the word in an ideological sense.
Consequently he leads the ideological field and will continue to
do so
until the superconscious has its ideology and democratic theocracy, in
the form
of Social Transcendentalism, stakes its claim on a variety of, for the
most
part, Third World peoples in the name of a divine alternative to
Transcendental
Socialism.
125. Such an alternative, no less supra-national,
would not be Fascist but, as I define it, Centrist, and therefore no
mere
resurrection of the subconscious or collective unconscious such as
Nazism and, to
a lesser extent, Italian Fascism tended to be.
These latter ideologies are no more identical to Social
Transcendentalism than a military dictatorship is identical to
Transcendental
Socialism. For whereas Fascism
resurrects the subconscious, military dictatorships to some extent
resurrect
the old brain, and accordingly stand to Communism as Fascism to
Centrism or,
for that matter, bodily neo-royalism to socialism - mere rehashes of
the
alpha-stemming past rather than genuinely omega-oriented proletarian
ideologies. Now, obviously, for a head
people like the Italians, the resurrection of subconscious idealism is
no
closer to true progress than the resurrection of Mosleyite neo-royalism
for a
bodily people like the British. Either
way - and with regard to neo-autocratic militarism as well - we are not
seeing
anything new but, rather, a kind of archreactionary obstacle to
transcendental
progress. As history dealt with
neo-royalism, so it has dealt with Fascism and military dictatorships.
126. Which leaves three contemporary alternatives,
viz. Socialism, Communism, and Centrism, approximately paralleling the
omega
world, the omega Devil, and the omega God, whether or not subdivisions
can be
adduced in the case of the world, as between muscular Democratic
Socialism and
fleshy Liberal Democracy in Britain, or the muscular Democrats and the
fleshy
Republicans in the United States, or, indeed, any other Western
equivalents of
a two-party proletarian option which suggests if not an alternative
approach to
Socialism then certainly an alternative approach to Capitalism - one
either
State Capitalist, as in the British Labour movement traditionally, or
Corporate, as in the American system, where Socialism in any strict
sense of
the word, i.e. with reference to public ownership of the (artificial)
means of
production, is strictly taboo. For it
does seem that Socialism in the West is interpreted far more with
regard to a
wider distribution of wealth on a capitalistic basis than in terms of a
Socialist economy as such, which, within the bodily context relative to
the
germanic democracies of the West, could all too easily be interpreted
too
literally and materialistically, as in the case of fringe Socialist
parties in
which ownership is conceived on the basis of worker collectivism, or
literal
ownership by workers of the means of production at their factory,
rather than
in the more elevated, and hence idealistic, sense of public ownership
through
the State.
127. And yet ownership of the means of production by
the People through the State should not be confused with State
ownership as
such. For whereas the former is
Socialism on a theocratic and therefore head (new-brain) basis, the
latter is
State Capitalism, and it is this rather than State Socialism which
obtains in
the West, particularly in countries like
128. Now this is no less true of those Western
societies where Corporatism tends to prevail over State Capitalism and
consequently provides the main alternative to Private Capitalism, that
is to
say, to Capitalism pursued on an individualistic or traditional basis. One could argue that whereas Private
Capitalism is Republican and therefore aligned with the flesh,
Corporate
Capitalism is Democratic and accordingly more aligned with the muscles. In each case, we have a post-parliamentary
democratic antagonism between Private and Corporate Capitalism, which
is not so
much horizontal as vertical, and therefore constitutive of a
proletarian polarity
rather than of a grand-bourgeois/petty-bourgeois antagonism on the
parliamentary model, as in
129. Yet such an approach paves the way for State
Capitalism which, masquerading as Socialism, seeks under Labour,
traditionally,
to supplant private-owned industry by nationalized industry whenever
possible -
at any rate, provided the Labour Party is being true to its
petty-bourgeois
colours and is not playing either the grand-bourgeois tariff
capitalists' or
the middle-bourgeois laissez-faire
capitalists' games. Should either of the
latter subsequently
change their tune slightly - the Tory capitalist becoming less
obstructive of
foreign imports and the Liberal capitalist partial to a degree of
nationalized
industry, services, etc., then that is no reason for Labour to sell-out
to the
private sector, but, rather, all the more reason for it to remain State
Capitalist until such time, if ever, as politicians of a genuinely
Socialist
stamp begin to infiltrate the Labour movement and - dare I say it? -
introduce
notions of public ownership of the means of production on a Western
and, hence,
literal basis, the very basis that would undermine democratic
centrality and
threaten Labour's elected status as a parliamentary party.
For one cannot advocate decentralist economic
policies without calling into question the entire future of State
Capitalism,
and to advocate such policies from a centralist, i.e. parliamentary
point of
view, is both hypocritical and illogical, particularly when there
cannot be the
slightest chance of their implementation, least of all in terms of the
basis in
question! Therefore, much as some people
in the Labour Party may traditionally have entertained genuine ideals
with
regard to Socialist economics, there is no way those ideals could bear
practical fruit without that party becoming torn apart and effectively
committing political suicide. For such
ideals undermine the very basis on which the parliamentary Labour Party
is
elected, since they run contrary to its centralized grain.
Consequently the Labour Party, true to its
state-capitalist colours, has no option but to oppose all those who
would take
power away from the centre in pursuance of Socialist economics. For such people are wittingly or unwittingly
a socialist 'fifth column' within the Labour movement and, like the
Trojan
Horse, their decentralist predilections can only lead to Labour's
downfall!
130. However, despite militant-type infiltration, it
has to be admitted that most decentralist economic thinking takes place
outside
the Labour
Movement by Socialist parties that bitterly oppose what Labour stands
for and
see themselves as the vanguard or, at any rate, focal-point of
Socialist
opposition to Capitalism, both private and state. Such
parties
are not interested in political
centrality, with its socialistic politics of distributing wealth as
widely and
fairly as possible on the basis of State Capitalism, but represent
economic
decentralization and are accordingly economically Socialist (on the
Western
bodily model) where Labour is politically Socialist.
Thus they signify a 'fall' from political
centrality to the economic fringes where, invariably, they languish in
verbal
opposition to the Capitalist status quo.
Frankly, there is scant chance of any hard-line
extra-parliamentary
party influencing the course of British political or economic thinking,
and I
wager that if, at some future time, the East became responsible for the
political and economic direction of the West (as to some extent it
already has
done in regard to Japan), it would oppose the kind of economic thinking
that
advocates literal worker ownership of the means of production and
introduce its
own theory and, indeed, practice of a sort of sublimated ownership of
those
means by the workers through the State, so that State Socialism rather
than
Utopian Socialism became the economic norm, and the head, in its
new-brain
manifestation, accordingly prevailed over the body, whether as flesh or
muscle. For it is most unlikely that a
highly centralized people like, for example, the Chinese would
encourage
decentralization, particularly in view of the fact that what they
upheld, as
State Socialism, was superior - as superior as the head to the body,
and
therefore not a materialistic but an idealistic approach to Socialist
economics.
131. And yet State Socialism is not the ultimate
form of economic management, no more than the new brain is the ultimate
form of
the head. If it is superior to Utopian
Socialism, it is distinctly inferior to theocratic Centrism, or
trusteeship of
the means of production by the Centre for the People, which pertains
not to the
Transcendental Socialist stage of evolution or mode of democracy, but
to the
Social Transcendentalist stage of evolution and mode of theocracy
beyond,
whether or not co-existence between the two becomes a temporary fact of
life. For just as what I have described
as theocratic democracy, analogous to Transcendental Socialism, comes
after
democratic democracy in evolutionary terms, so democratic theocracy
comes after
theocratic democracy ... to usher in not the kingdom of superhell but
the
kingdom of superheaven, the Social Transcendentalist heaven in which
trusteeship of the means of production by the Centre relieves the
People of
responsibility in respect of public ownership, and thereby renders
them,
through Superchristic auspices, all the more credible as collective,
albeit
rudimentary, Holy Ghost. For one cannot
own the means of production and be saved to the Holy Spirit at the same
time,
and if the People are
to be saved (from the State and, hence, the materialistic worldly
responsibilities which accrue to a republican status), then they must
be freed
from public ownership and elevated to the divine status of so many
units of
potential transcendence. This can only
happen by and through the Centre, which is my principal contribution to
ideological evolution, and thus on the basis of a Social
Transcendentalist
revolution, democratically achieved, in those countries where the
establishment
of 'Kingdom Come' would be both logical and just.
132. For other countries - and I have gone into this
subject often enough elsewhere in my writings without wishing to repeat
myself
here - Transcendental Socialism, with its state-socialist control of
the means
of production, would continue to be valid for quite some time, if only
because
the superdiabolic destiny is required if the world is to be overcome
and all forms
of Capitalism be consigned to the rubbish heap of history.
Doubtless the head in both its new brain and
superconscious aspects will work together to this end, since such
aspects have
more in common and are closer to each other than to the body against
which they
must struggle, if the world is eventually to be overcome.
For the goal of history is not the perpetual
co-existence of the world (with its autocracies and democracies), the
Devil,
and God, but the overcoming of the world by the Devil (theocratic
democracy),
and, finally, the overcoming of the Devil by God (democratic
theocracy), in
order that only the Divine may ultimately prevail and the 'Kingdom of
Heaven'
be globally established as the necessary precondition of
post-millennial
transcendence. Thus if State Socialism
corresponds to a superphenomenal-supernoumenal integrity commensurate
with
theocratic democracy, then Centre trusteeship corresponds to a
supernoumenal
integrity commensurate with democratic theocracy, that ultimate
ideological standpoint
which must eventually eclipse the penultimate ... if divine justice is
to be
done. Verily, we have come a long way
from the age of autocratic theocracy, both in terms of devolution and
evolution, but haven't yet arrived at the age of democratic theocracy. Only when we do, will 'heaven on earth' be
more than just a dream or hope of the pious millions!
133. Strictly speaking, we should speak of the
devolution of ape to pagan man, and then of the evolution of Christian
man, and
Christian-equivalent men in other (so-called) world religions, from
pagan
man. For the necessary corollary of
evolution towards the Omega Absolute is devolution from the Alpha
Absolute, and
in Christian man devolution and evolution balance out between the Devil
on the
one hand and Christ on the other, that is to say, between Hell and
Heaven in
relative terms. The evolution of
transcendental man from Christian man, however, takes man beyond such
relativity into an aspiration towards the absolute Heaven of pure
spirit, i.e.
the Holy Ghost. Transcendental man is
thus wholly evolutionary and therefore antithetical to the
devolutionary
integrity of pagan man. If the former
can be described as superhuman, then the latter may be regarded as
subhuman. Only Christian, or relative,
man was purely human, and thus balanced between devolutionary and
evolutionary
extremes in a kind of worldly purgatory of bodily humanism. One might say that with this stage of life
there is neither a dress absolutism nor a zipper suit absolutism, as
between
alpha and omega sartorial extremes, but a sort of compromise in the
form of
skirts on the one hand and trousers on the other hand.
Transvaluated devolution and untransvaluated
evolution (since trousers are usually worn in conjunction with an
overlapping
jacket - a phenomenon rather more feminine than masculine).
134. Thus we should think in terms of devolution
from planets and trees to animals, including apes, and early man, who
himself underwent
a further series of devolutions from autocratic theocracy and
theocratic
autocracy to autocratic autocracy and democratic autocracy, as already
described. The fact that early man
tended to look-up to certain animals and even to worship trees can only
be
fully comprehended on the basis that he felt himself to be at a further
remove
from the noumenal than those animals or trees and consequently, in a
very real
sense, their inferior, so untransvaluated, and hence merely
devolutionary, was
his point of view. Therefore it need not
surprise us that women and children also held - and to some extent
still hold -
a special place in the estimation of men by dint of being closer to
nature and
accordingly more alpha-orientated in themselves. The
disparity
in status between women and men
was amply reflected in their respective modes of attire - the women
garbed, as
a rule, in full-length dresses ... suggestive of an alpha-noumenal
absolutism,
the men, by contrast, restricted to shorter-length dresses or, rather,
tunics
by dint of their inferior feminine status, not quite men but more akin
to women
in their psychological stance before the world.
In fact, we should distinguish men from women at this early
juncture in
time on the basis of a submasculine/superfeminine dichotomy, since if
men were
neither sartorially nor psychologically quite masculine, they were
nevertheless
not women in any clinical sense, and therefore deserve at least a
submasculine
status, which contrasts quite sharply with the full-blown femininity,
as it
were, of women, whom I have accordingly described as superfeminine. For if we think of men in this way, it
enables us to pit an evolution from submasculine to supermasculine via
masculine levels against a devolution from superfeminine to subfeminine
via
feminine levels, as between submen and superwomen in a devolutionary
stage of
history, men and women in a balanced devolutionary/ evolutionary stage,
and
subwomen and supermen in an evolutionary stage such as we are currently
embarked upon. For what devolves on the
one side must evolve on the other. A
contemporary female in miniskirt is rather more a subwoman than a
woman, for
whom a knee-length skirt would be the norm, whereas a male in a
one-piece zipper
suit is rather more a Superman than a man, for whom trousers would be
the
norm. Yet just as women can now dress
beyond miniskirts in jeans, one-piece zipper suits, etc., and so become
effectively quasi-supermasculine, so men once dressed beneath
pantaloons,
breeches, leggings, etc., in gowns or tunics, and thus appeared
effectively
quasi-superfeminine. Sartorial
dichotomies between male and female are to all intents and purposes
cancelled
out at the very extremes of devolution and evolution.
There is only noumenon in the one case and
supernoumenon in the other. But as soon
as the phenomenon enters into account, no matter how modestly
initially, i.e.
in subphenomenal terms, we have a 'fall' from noumenal indivisibility
into
noumenal/phenomenal divisibility which, contrary to appearances,
continues as
devolution until such time as a transvaluation along Christian lines
('rebirth') establishes the phenomenal in an evolutionary light, and
consequently it assumes an independence from the noumenal which paves
the way
for true evolution in due course, that is to say on the basis of a
superphenomenal/supernoumenal dichotomy, pending the eventual eclipse
of the
superphenomenal and subsequent attainment of a supernoumenal
indivisibility. For we must pass through
the relative in order to attain to the absolute, and the world is but a
phenomenal precondition of supernoumenal salvation.
135. Applying my devolutionary/evolutionary theories
to Darwin and, indeed, to the creation-verses-evolution argument which
persists
even now in some quarters, I would maintain that while the
evolutionists are
not entirely right, the creationists are far from being entirely wrong. Or, put like this, it should be apparent that
while man wasn't literally created by God (the Father), he didn't
evolve from
apes either but, rather, devolved from them to become not man as we
understand
him, but a subhuman creature with no concept of evolution and no
desire,
initially, to break with the alpha-stemming system of things. It is only because and to the extent that we
are evolutionary that we tend to regard man's emergence from apes in an
evolutionary light. An untransvaluated
point of view, strongly autocratic in character, would regard it in an
entirely
different light - indeed, in terms of creationism, which is nothing
less than a
mythical concept of devolution, i.e. devolution in a noumenal age, when
gods
rather than stars ruled human consciousness and man sought an
explanation for
life not in science but in religion. Of
course, this is still true of some men even these days, which is why
they
oppose evolutionary theories from a creationist point of view. Yet two wrongs don't make a right! Both creation and evolution must go, the one
because alpha-stemming metaphysics is no longer relevant, and the other
because
it imposes where it doesn't belong. Only
devolution can adequately explain the link between ape and man, and the
more
devolved man became from nature, the less sway alpha-noumenal criteria
had upon
him and the closer he grew to an evolutionary possibility, the very
possibility
to which we, in this post-Christian age, are logical heirs.
136. To my mind, the Big Bang theory of the origins
of the Universe is merely a secular extrapolation from monotheism and,
consequently, no nearer the truth as to how the Universe began than
monotheism. For as most people will
know, monotheism was not the original state of religious observance but
a
Judaic creation established in defiance of pagan polytheism, as
sanctioned by
virtually all of the ancient world, including the Greeks and Romans. Thus polytheism is the original mode of
religious observance, monotheism a revolt against pagan precedent and
therefore
a worldly, anthropomorphic development which sought to eclipse the Many
by the
One, the Gods by God. But polytheism is
closer, by dint of its primal nature, to the truth of the origins of
the
Universe than monotheism, if by 'truth' we mean that which accords with
a
proton-constituted diabolic order or, rather, disorder of flaming stars
flying
everywhichway. Consequently ‘Big Bangs’
would likewise be closer to the truth of the origins of the Universe
than the
monotheistic Big-Bang theory currently in vogue in the Judeo-Christian
West. For what begins in proton-proton
reactions does not begin in unity but, rather, in disunity and, hence,
friction, and such a beginning is less divine than diabolic, even
though it
will be perceived as divine by pagan humanity, who are polytheistic in
consequence. Divinizing the diabolic, or
replacing polytheism by monotheism, comes later ... at a more devolved
juncture
in time when, as with the ancient Hebrews, the desire for a unitary
explanation
of creation took precedence over polytheistic diversity, and the One
God was
accordingly proclaimed. It could be said
that at this monotheistic point in time, the universal has been
eclipsed by the
galactic, that the Galaxy has, in effect, replaced the Universe, and
the divine
reference-point accordingly become more centralized, as though a
macrocosmic
centrifugal bias has been superseded by a microcosmic centripetal one,
which
could only signify progress away from the Many towards the One.
137. It has long been a contention of my philosophy
that the central star of the Galaxy, as of any galaxy, is the
God-equivalent
star (the Almighty), and if we devolve from galaxies in general to this
galaxy
in particular, then the inevitable religious concomitance of doing so
is a
devolution from gods in general to the particular god which, as the
central
star of the Galaxy, serves a monotheistic purpose.
Furthermore, devolutionary progress is also
guaranteed by citing an unseen First Mover (the central star of this
galaxy) at
the expense of stars in general, irrespective of their galactic
positions, so
that, contrary to polytheistic precedent, only this First Mover, or
Creator-star,
is accorded a divine status, not the small or peripheral stars which,
in
reality, are diabolic by dint of their decentralized, revolving, and
(in
relation to the central star) cruder proton formations.
For the largest stars will be the purest as
well as the oldest, and therefore be wavicle proton-proton reactions as
opposed
to particle proton-proton reactions, which is nothing less than a
distinction,
on an alpha-cosmic basis, between the Divine and the Diabolic, the
large
central star of any given galaxy and the host of smaller peripheral
stars which
revolve around it. Thus not only is
monotheism an improvement on polytheism by dint of singling out one
galaxy,
namely the one in which we happen to live, and effectively attributing
divinity
to its principal star; it improves on polytheism by avoiding the error
of
attributing divinity to stars in general, irrespective of their
galactic
positions, with a consequence that only that which is relatively divine
in
relation to lesser stars (inherently diabolic) is acknowledged as such,
and no
confusion of the Divine with the Diabolic, or vice versa, can result.
138. If monotheism refers back, willy-nilly,
knowingly or unknowingly, to the central star of the Galaxy, then it
seems to
me that atheism, or the refusal to acknowledge God's existence, whether
monotheistically or polytheistically, is inherently worldly and
therefore a
step down, as it were, from the head to the body or, more literally,
from the
Cosmos to the planet, so that earth-centrism comes to replace
star-centrism,
and man accordingly becomes the measure of all things, including
divinity,
which no longer exists transcendently but anthropomorphically and,
consequently, in the guise of man, in accordance with humanistic
criteria. Such a humanized God is hardly
God in any
true, or formless, sense, but a worldly figure whose reign will only
last while
the world, and hence the body, has its day.
For He is relative to the world and must end with it, once it is
overcome by the superdiabolic Antichrist.
Of all churches, the Protestant Church is the most purely
Christic and
therefore worldly, since it is effectively atheistic with regard to the
Father,
or Creator-God, having no allegiance whatsoever to the papacy, that
symbol and
representative on earth of the Father.
Yet if bourgeois liberal humanism is centred in a false, or
worldly,
God, then proletarian socialist humanism is centred in the Antichrist,
which is
to say, the superdiabolic. It is not
only atheist with regard to the Father, but also with regard to the
Son, whom
it looks down upon from a head (new-brain) standpoint.
One might almost say that it is polytheistic
in respect of the People who, as proletariat, are democratically
sovereign,
sovereign diabolically rather than divinely.
For this latter sovereignty can only exist in and through the
Centre ...
in which not the new brain but the superconscious prevails, making for
a
theocratic sovereignty in the People which is monotheistic to the
extent that
it can be associated with a collective spiritual aspiration towards
divinity,
conceived as the omega goal and culmination of evolution.
139. Thus from atheistic worldly sovereignty to
monotheistic divine sovereignty via polytheistic diabolic sovereignty -
three
stages and manifestations of popular sovereignty, two of which have
already
come to pass, the third of which awaits its coming largely in and for
the Third
World, that truly godly part of the globe.
For just as the so-called
140. Traditionally, man stands to woman as the sun
to the earth, which is to say as the Diabolic to the world. Woman is physical, whereas man is
wilful. Woman is mundane, whereas man is
transcendental. He is 'will' in the
Schopenhaurian sense of the word, and it is the exercise of this will
which, in
connection with woman, results in sexual conquest.
For the bigger, more powerful body that is
man goes in search of the smaller, weaker body that is woman and
strives to bend
it to its will. Sex is therefore akin to
a union of the sun with the earth, and the child that ultimately
results from
this union is akin to the moon, is effectively a kind of human
satellite,
dependent upon and hence revolving around its mother, who is akin to
the earth. It shines, like the moon, with
a borrowed or
reflected light, the light of parental, though especially maternal,
authority. Now this light is chaste and
intellectual, not unchaste and sensual, like the sun and, by
implication, emotional
love of the husband for his wife.
141. Thus the family is but a microcosmic reflection
of and extrapolation from the Solar System, is effectively a mini solar
system
... with sun, earth, and moon(s), the father giving, like the sun, to
his wife
and child, who revolve around him - the one directly (as planet) and
the other
indirectly (as moon). Originally man had
many wives, the principle of polygamy more closely paralleling the
Solar System
than monogamy, which is really an attenuation of it consequent upon
solar
devolution. In other words, the more
primitive the age or society, the more likely it is to reflect the
Solar System
in terms of one sun and several planets or, translated into human
terms, one
husband and several wives, each of whom have children (satellites) of
their own
who, naturally enough, revolve around them.
Thus the modern monogamous family is but the furthermost
contraction of
a cosmic principle, the utmost point of galactic devolution. Father, mother, and child - sun, earth, and
moon. Add a godfather, and one has the
equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy, the First Mover in the
family
cosmos, who remains somewhat aloof from the family unit itself, as
godfathers
should, just as the central star remains at a constant, almost aloof
distance
from the Solar System of which the sun is the principal mover. For the father-proper, corresponding to the
sun, is effectively a devilfather in relation to the godfather and,
hence,
someone who directly imposes, through masculine will, upon his wife,
who, as
mother of her child, corresponds to the earth, with its moon in
attendance.
142. Yet just as the sun is a larger and more
powerful body than the earth, and the earth in turn is a larger and
more
powerful body than the moon, so the husband is a larger and more
powerful body,
as a rule, than his wife, who, in turn, is a larger and more powerful
body than
her child, be it son or daughter. In
relation to his wife, the husband, or devilfather, stands, like the
sun, in an immoral
light, since he imposes upon her for his own sexual
self-gratification. On the other hand,
the wife, or earthmother, stands to her husband in an amoral light,
like
the
earth to the sun, prepared to bow to his will when required to do
so but
not, in herself, sexually self-assertive.
Thus she stands in between husband and child, since only on this
amoral
basis can the latter be accredited a moral standing in relation to
herself. For the child shines, it will
be remembered, with a borrowed light, like the moon, and is therefore
anything
but amoral itself, still less immoral and, hence, self-assertive like
its
father. On the contrary, the child is innocent
and therefore sexually moral, shielded from the immorality of the
father by the
amorality of the mother, who is the intermediary making the child's
existence
possible, just as the earth makes the existence of the moon possible
and, in a
sense, shields it from the sun. Thus
children were regarded by Christ as epitomizing, in their innocence and
purity,
the 'Kingdom of Heaven', since they are not consumed, like husbands and
fathers, with sexual lust, but exist at a transcendent or, at any rate,
moral
remove from any such possibility, shining with the light of
intellectual
curiosity, which includes curiosity as to the nature of sexuality,
particularly
as it bears upon parental distinctions.
143. Such curiosity, however, has nothing whatsoever
to do with lustful fantasies concerning sex itself.
For these only emerge, as a rule, following
puberty, when the moral innocence of childhood is undermined and
besieged by
creeping adulthood, and one of two things generally happens, depending
on one's
sex: either, as a female, one becomes amoral, like the earth, and
accepts the
possibility of being sexually imposed upon or, as a male, one become
immoral,
like the sun, and actually proceeds to sexually impose oneself upon
others. There is, however, a third
possibility, which is considerably rarer and only found, as a rule,
among
people - and in particular men - of genius, and that is a refusal to
consider
oneself in either a sexually amoral or an immoral light but, on the
contrary, a
determination to remain celibate and therefore moral.
As I say, it is usually only men of genius or
religious vocation who are like this, and they may be regarded as very
much an
exception to the rule, a kind of adult children who, willy-nilly,
aspire to
following in Christ's footsteps and becoming as little children in
their own
creative or contemplative 'Kingdoms of Heaven', wherein the pursuit of
truth is
the principal aim, the raison
d'être of their moral
existence. On the other hand, the great
majority of men are drawn towards the sun, as it were, and effectively
function
towards women in a diabolic and, hence, immoral fashion, albeit one
regulated by
social conditioning. Where marriage does
not take place, it can be assumed, I think, that the couple concerned
are more
evolved than to fall for a social pattern which derives, in all its
essentials,
from cosmic precedent and is therefore inherently alpha-stemming and
atomic. Yet cohabitation is still hardly a
transvaluation along the lines of a social rebirth, but more a symptom
of the
breakdown or decay of traditional values.
For as often as not the male partner in such a relationship has
imposed
himself upon the female and thereby functions, in effect, as a sun
vis-à-vis a
planet, or as the sun to the earth.
Now if a child results from their
relationship, it is no less a kind of moon equivalent than if they had
been
married. The only real difference is
that it is then more of an unofficial moon equivalent than an official
one,
just as its progenitors may be described as unofficially paralleling
the sun
and the earth respectively.
144. No, while the degeneration of an age-old system
of familial relationships is one thing, a true transvaluation is quite
another! For whereas the former is the
utmost point of devolution, a truly evolutionary stance can only be
maintained
outside of and beyond all heterosexual cohabitations, whether official
or
unofficial, bound or free. Yet by this I
do not mean through homosexual cohabitation, which is less
omega-orientated
than worldly or, rather, antiworldly, but through the establishment,
under
Social Transcendentalism, of a transcendent process of propagation
which is
designed to free both men and women alike from atomic interdependence
and
thereby allow for a free-electron society commensurate with divine
criteria. For men and women cannot live
together and be saved. Even Christ
taught that to follow Him and set-up the 'Kingdom of Heaven' one would
have to
abandon family, wife, girlfriends, etc., since such a 'Kingdom' can
only be
established on a supermasculine basis, and so long as atomic
compromises
between males and females continue to exist, it is not Heaven but the
world
that prevails, as at present, for the great majority of people, who
maintain
familial relationships.
145. Consequently the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which I
interpret in Social Transcendentalist and hence Centrist terms, cannot
be
established while families, patterned on the Solar System, continue to
exist,
and therefore the family, which is already under threat from the winds
of
change, will have to be consigned to the rubbish heap of social history
... if
the free-electron Heaven is ever to be born.
For Heaven and the world are incommensurate, cannot co-exist,
and if
Heaven is to become more than a wishful dream but a sort of concrete
reality,
then the world, in all its permutations, must die - whether naturally
or
violently. Those of us who wish to
further Heaven have no option but to oppose the world.
For unless we do so, the world, and hence the
family, will continue to exist indefinitely, to the detriment of Heaven.
146. Thus Social Transcendentalism will be pledged,
in the future, to rejection of the family and to the furtherance of
artificial
methods of propagation, including sperm banks, artificial insemination,
test-tube reproduction, incubators, State- or, rather, Centre-sponsored
collective nurturing and upbringing of children, and so on ... in order
that
the need for family relations, and thus by implication the cohabitation
of men
and women, can become a thing of the past, as relative to an
alpha-stemming or
atomic phase of social experience. For
where the People are concerned, we are dealing less with atomic man and
woman
than - potentially if not literally at this juncture in time - with
electron
Superman and quasi-Superman respectively, at any rate within the
republican
context, and it would be both morally and socially wrong to regard them
in a
strongly atomic and, hence, familial light.
Everything should be geared to the absolute, to absolutist
criteria, and
this includes sexual behaviour no less than any other pattern of social
behaviour. Where a more sublimated,
pornographic sexuality is neither possible nor desirable ... by dint of
an
individual's comparative spiritual or psychological limitations, then
plastic-inflatable ('sex doll') or vibrator sexuality should obtain,
thereby
lifting sex from the natural to the artificial plane and providing a
release
from sexual tensions which might otherwise seek traditional and
therefore
worldly outlets, to the detriment of spiritual progress.
For, in the future, people will not behave
like animals but like gods - indeed, the People will be God ...
the Holy
Ghost and consequently be above natural patterns of sexual behaviour,
even if
only as far above, initially, as is compatible with the use of either
plastic
inflatables or vibrators, depending on one's gender.
Life will not be relative and dualistic, as
at present, but absolute and transcendental, with a much more radical
swing
between solitude and multitude, which is to say, between sensual
obligations
conducted in private and spiritual aspirations carried out in public. Thus while people will live alone in single
rooms or cubicles, and so sleep, eat, drink alone (non-alcoholically),
and have
solitary sex, they will be far more public and collective as regards
the
spiritual, cultural, and educational aspects of life.
For the public face will be entirely
religious in character, and such a face can only achieve a blissful
smile when
it no longer has to compete with public sensuality, of whatever
description. To all appearances, it will
be as though the sensual side of life didn't exist, since only the
spiritual
side would obtain a public airing.
Truly, the Social Transcendentalist '
147. Masculinity and femininity are of the world
rather than of that which precedes or succeeds it.
Strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the
stars are either masculine or feminine, since they are less masculine
or feminine
than pre- or sub-masculine/feminine ... in that their existence is on
the plane
of a subatomic absolute, i.e. proton-proton reactions, and therefore it
cannot
be accorded gender. Yet just as the
stars are beneath gender, so pure spirit of a transcendent order, i.e.
electron-electron attractions, would be above gender and therefore
supra-atomic
in constitution, no less absolute in its own fashion than the stars or,
at any
rate, the biggest and purest of them are in theirs.
For the smaller stars may be regarded as
having devolved from proton purity to a crude atomicity which, in the
case of
planets like the earth, assumes an inorganic materialistic status
commensurate
with the atom as such and, hence, with a combination of protons and
electrons. Doubtless there are degrees of
devolution
from the utmost, or wavicle, proton purity to a very crude, or
particle, proton
purity, which is nothing less than a distinction between the Divine and
the
Diabolic, or the central star of the Galaxy and peripheral stars like
the sun,
while further devolution will entail the formation of inorganic
materialism on
the basis of planetary atomicity.
148. However that may be, we would have no more
right to consider a proton star masculine than an electron globe of
pure spirit
feminine. Gender only obtains in the
world, and it does so both simultaneously and successively, the former
literally and the latter effectively, since the world passes from a
predominantly centrifugal phase to a predominantly centripetal one in
the course
of its historical unfolding, and this is approximately commensurate
with the
distinction between autocracy and democracy - the one preceding the
other, just
as dresses precede trousers and bottles precede cans.
Thus whilst it obviously goes without saying
that men exist in an autocratic age no less than women in a democratic
one, it
nevertheless has to be said that in the former context the female
element
predominates, whereas in the latter context it is the male element
which is
ascendant, and to such an extent that the female element becomes
threatened
with total eclipse, a fact which in large measure explains the
paradoxical
phenomenon of feminism - really quite the opposite of what it at first
appears
to be, since less a defence of woman as woman than a
manifestation of
masculine criteria or, more correctly, a symptom of the ongoing
'masculinization' of the female to a point where she no longer regards
herself
in traditional feminine terms but, rather, in relation to a liberation
from
them. Through Feminism woman is
effectively pursuing her right, in this incipiently post-atomic age, to
be
treated like a man and granted equal opportunity with men.
For, as I have often maintained in the past,
women who effectively function like men deserve to be treated like men,
and
this is the only workable basis for equality between the sexes, an
equality
founded upon the post-dualistic nature of an advanced democratic
society,
wherein distinctions between male and female gradually cease to apply,
as
ongoing masculine progress eclipses the feminine element in life.
149. Of course, there are women and women, just as
there are men and men ... on each side, one might say, of the political
divide,
and while some women are determined to socially progress and to see
that
justice, on the basis of sexual equality, is done, there are others
who,
inherently more conservative or intellectually less-evolved, seek to
impede
post-sexist progress as much as possible and thereby stand-up for
traditional
female norms, whether in terms of sex or motherhood or domestic
responsibility
or whatever ... to the detriment of women's liberation.
Whether or not they realize it, such women
are fighting a losing battle - like their male counterparts. For the pressure of evolution is decidedly
away from female/male distinctions, which are merely bourgeois, towards
a
unisexual uniformity in which, instead of a skirt/trousers dichotomy,
one finds
a jeans and, eventually, one-piece zipper suit absolutism indicative of
a
free-electron homogeneity. The world may
be balanced between female and male elements, not to mention autocratic
and
democratic political norms, but that which supersedes it, whether as
Devil or
God, Transcendental Socialism or Social Transcendentalism, is less
concerned
with such a balance than with establishing, on a unisexual basis, free
societies in which everything sexist has been consigned to the rubbish
heap of
world history, including the traditional maternal and sexual status of
women.
150. Yet while such societies - and in particular
that which pertains to the Superdivine rather than to its superdiabolic
counterpart - would maintain a unisexual bias, the eventual outcome of
evolution should be no less post-feminine than the inception of
devolution was
pre-masculine, and accordingly aspirations towards the
culmination-point in
Eternity would be beyond gender and therefore manifestations of a
free-electron
absolutism which, being neither male nor female, could only be defined
in terms
of a blissful 'it'. This would be
especially
true of those aspirations which were conducted on a post-human basis
within the
millennial context of the Supra-beings, or new-brain collectivizations,
which I
have hitherto characterized as the second (after the Superbeings) and
final
post-human life form beyond man. For a
Supra-being would be as much above man, and hence gender, as a tree is
beneath
him, and in this totally classless, genderless society of
hypermeditating
new-brain collectivizations, the development of pure spirit would be
taken to
such a point that transcendence, or the achievement of pure
electron-electron
attractions, would automatically ensue ... to signal the beginnings of
a truly
heavenly phase of evolution. Such
electron-electron attractions, antithetical to the proton-proton
reactions
which characterize the alpha noumenal, would bring evolution to a
supernoumenal
culmination, which would be as far above masculine superphenomenalism
as the
inception of devolution was beneath feminine subphenomenalism. Verily, at whichever extreme of the Universe
one cares to dwell, there is neither 'she' nor 'he', but only 'it'.
151. Although the death penalty is fundamentally an
autocratic procedure deriving its justification from the tit-for-tat
mentality
of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', we can, I think,
distinguish
between applications of the death penalty which are bodily and
applications
which pertain, by contrast, to the head, thereby effectively
distinguishing the
world from the Diabolic and/or Divine - a distinction more often taking
effect
between one type of country or society and another ... than within the
confines
of any given country or society. Thus
whilst it can be argued that some countries will favour executions
which make a
target of the head, other countries will favour executions which take
immediate
effect against the body, and this, I argue, is because such countries
are
inherently bodily rather than of the head, i.e. worldly as opposed to
diabolic
or divine. Consequently in the first
category of executions we can place beheading (whether by sword or
axe),
hanging, and guillotining, the latter a kind of antithetical equivalent
of the
axe option, insofar as the head is actually removed, albeit by
mechanical
rather than manual means. In the second
category, however, we shall find crucifying, shooting, and
electrifying, as
with the electric chair. Broadly, the
first modes of execution in each category are parallel both in an
historical
and an evolutionary sense, as are the second and third respectively. Therefore we can posit a parallel progression
from beheading/crucifying to guillotining/electrifying via hanging/
shooting -
at least in an approximate way, since overlappings between one mode of
execution and another do of course occur, and some countries have shown
a
susceptibility towards more than one mode both in terms of horizontal
and
vertical distinctions - in other words, with regard to both the head
and the
body (Britain being a case in point, as between hanging and shooting,
for which
its inveterate dualistic integrity may be cited as a probable
explanation).
152. However that may be, such options are usually
with regard to adjacent modes of execution like beheading and hanging
or
shooting and electrifying, rather than with regard to what might be
described
as the historical extremes, like beheading and guillotining on the one
hand, or
crucifying and electrifying on the other hand.
The Republican French may have guillotined people, but they
didn't
literally behead them with an axe.
Similarly, while Americans may sentence people to death through
electrocution, they are unlikely to crucify anyone.
Such extremes are mutually exclusive and,
hence, reserved for antithetical periods in historical time - as
between
autocratic antiquity and democratic modernity.
Yet no matter how antithetical these methods of execution may
happen to
be, they have reference either vis-à-vis the head, as in the French
case, or
vis-à-vis the body, as in the American case, and this factor is
symptomatic, it
seems to me, of the peoples concerned and the type of society in which
they
happen to live. Just as the guillotine
affects the head via the neck, so the electric chair affects the body
via the
limbs.
153. Now what applies to these latter-day modes of
execution applies no less to the primitive modes such as beheading on
the one
hand and crucifying on the other hand.
It even applies, in some degree, to the relatively bourgeois, or
realistic, modes of execution coming in-between. For
hanging
predominantly has effect with regard
to the head and shooting with regard to the body, the former a more
idealistic
method of execution than the latter ... to the extent that it focuses
on the
head or, more specifically, the neck as opposed to the body, while yet
leaving
the head intact. In effect, hanging is
more moderate than either beheading or guillotining, just as shooting
(in the
chest) is more moderate than either crucifying or electrifying. Each of these pertains to a less extreme type
of civilization, and one could argue that the replacement of hanging by
shooting is indicative of a degenerate progression from idealism to
materialism
and is therefore symptomatic of a liberal rather than a Christian epoch
in time
- the head having been eclipsed, as it were, by the body.... As to the
distinction I suggested earlier between the Diabolic and the Divine,
both of
which pertain rather more to the head than to the body, I think we
should
regard beheading by axe as a diabolic mode of execution and beheading
by sword
as a divine one, insofar as the axe suggests, in its truncated
materialism, a
particle equivalence, whereas the sword suggests, in its elongated
idealism, a
wavicle equivalence, and this is nothing less than the fundamental
distinction
between the Diabolic and the Divine. Accordingly,
one
could
argue that the use of a small or short guillotine would signify a
diabolic mode of execution, while the use of a large or tall one would
amount
to a comparatively divine mode of execution - the length of the blade
also a
determining factor, on the basis of the particle/wavicle distinction
already
drawn in relation to axes and swords.
Since, in principle, I am against the death penalty, I am not
here
advocating its reinstatement in terms of either the guillotine or the
electric
chair, still less in terms of older and cruder methods of execution,
but am
simply endeavouring to provide a brief outline, necessarily partial, of
the
principal historical modes of execution as they bear upon God/Devil and
world
distinctions between the head and the body, and therefore in relation
to the
tripartite essence of my teachings.
154. The opposite of a gentleman is not a man but a
rough man - in short, a lout. For the
world isn't simply dualistic or antithetical, but is divisible between
divine,
diabolic, and worldly options, with the latter somewhat preponderant
these
days. Thus while the majority of men may
be described as neither particularly gentle nor rough but as existing
somewhere
in between the two extremes, it can be inferred that they correspond to
the
mean and consequently are men in relation to the less populous
categories of
divinely-biased gentlemen on the one hand and diabolically-biased rough
men on
the other, both of which stand to the former as the head to the body
and,
hence, as God and Devil to the world.
For a tripartite division on this basis is of the essence of
life, and
explains why it is so often riven with frictions not only between the
Diabolic
and the Divine, but between each of these and the worldly, the latter
of which
will often be divided against themselves (as in parliament). To establish approximate sartorial
distinctions between each of our three principal categories of males
(each of
which has its female counterpart), we may posit a PVC zipper-jacket
mean for
those in the first, or divine, category; a leather-jacket mean for
those in the
second, or diabolic, category; and a cotton denim/cord-jacket mean for
those in
the third, or worldly, category.
155. However, as I have specifically selected
superphenomenal modes of jacket attire, I must qualify my selection in
relation
to supermen rather than men, since we have to distinguish between
contemporary
proletarian norms and the more conventional bourgeois norms ... if we
are to do
proper justice to the present. Thus males
who regularly dress in such fashion will be less gentlemen, rough men,
and men
than effectively supergents, super-roughs, and supermen - as
appertaining to an
alternative society. Obviously, in
traditional terms, gentlemen have dressed in silk or some other finer
material
than either rough men or men in general, and where bourgeois gentlemen
continue
to exist, as in
156. Further to my earlier supernotational entry
concerning the division of theism into monotheistic, polytheistic, and
atheistic categories, I should now like to add a fourth category -
namely that
of pantheism, and to place this mode of theism, which identifies God
with
nature, in between polytheism and atheism in a chronological sequence
reading
as follows: monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, which I would
like to
equate with specific historical/ideological periods of time and/or
civilization
... beginning with (idealistic) autocratic theocracy and ending, as
before,
with (superidealistic) democratic theocracy, all due gradations of
devolution
and evolution coming in-between. Thus to
take the devolutionary series from autocratic theocracy to democratic
autocracy
first, we shall have a regression, so to speak, from autocratic
theocracy to
democratic autocracy via theocratic autocracy and autocratic autocracy,
which
can be illustrated, as before, in the following manner:-
1.
autocratic theocracy (idealistic monotheism)
2. theocratic autocracy
(naturalistic
polytheism)
3. autocratic autocracy
(materialistic
pantheism)
4. democratic autocracy (realistic
atheism)
with
autocratic
theocracy
corresponding to idealistic monotheism, theocratic autocracy
corresponding to naturalistic polytheism, autocratic autocracy
corresponding to
materialistic pantheism, and democratic autocracy corresponding to
realistic
atheism, the latter of which brings us to the possibility and, indeed,
reality
of a democratic transvaluation, as it were, and therefore of an
evolutionary
progression from autocratic democracy to democratic theocracy via
democratic
democracy and theocratic democracy, as follows:-
8.
democratic theocracy (superidealistic monotheism)
7. theocratic democracy
(supernaturalistic
polytheism)
6. democratic democracy
(supermaterialistic
pantheism)
5. autocratic democracy
(superrealistic atheism)
with
autocratic
democracy
corresponding to superrealistic atheism, democratic
democracy corresponding to supermaterialistic pantheism, theocratic
democracy
corresponding to supernaturalistic polytheism, and democratic theocracy
corresponding to superidealistic monotheism - the ultimate divinity.
157. Thus if we once more bring the two series
together into one devolutionary/evolutionary diagram, we shall find:-
ALPHA
DEVOLUTION
OMEGA
EVOLUTION
1. monotheistic autocratic
theocracy 8.
monotheistic democratic theocracy
2. polytheistic theocratic
autocracy
7.
polytheistic theocratic democracy
3. pantheistic autocratic autocracy 6.
pantheistic democratic democracy
4. atheistic democratic autocracy
5.
atheistic autocratic democracy
which
gives
us
a comprehensive outline of religious regression ... from the Creator
to
Catholic atheism via Satan and the Virgin Mary on the one hand, and of
religious progression ... from Protestant atheism to the Holy Ghost via
the
Second Coming and the Antichrist on the other hand.
For in relation to the monotheistic extremes
of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the anthropomorphic middle-ground of
Catholicism and Protestantism is distinctly atheistic, as befitting
worldly
humanism. In other words, the divine
focus of Christianity is not the Creator, still less the Holy Spirit,
but
Christ ... regarded as the Son of God and therefore in effect as man. The only real difference between the Catholic
Christ and the Protestant one is that whereas the former is autocratic,
the
latter is democratic ... as relative to the distinction between
democratic
autocracy and autocratic democracy, each of which corresponds to
realistic periods
of worldly time. Thus whereas the
Catholic Christ is closer to the Father, both theologically and
paternally, the
Protestant Christ is relatively independent of the Father and
consequently more
democratically humanistic and religiously accessible.
In the one case pessimistic atheism; in the
other case optimistic atheism. But
atheist they both remain, if for no other reason than that the
religious focus
is on man rather than on some theistic Creator of the Universe.
158 Hence Christianity is essentially idolatrous
from a truly divine standpoint, and may be described as the religion of
the
world, as opposed to either God (monotheism) or the Devil (polytheism). Similarly, pantheism is also a worldly
religion, if in the somewhat broader sense of identifying God with
nature
rather than with either the Cosmos, in one or more of its components,
or
man. Certainly polytheism and pantheism
can and do overlap, as when the stars are regarded as being part of
nature. But, strictly speaking, worldly
pantheism will
be confined to the earth. I have
subsumed this under the Virgin Mary only because, like Venus before
her, she
can be equated with 'Mother Earth' and, hence, with nature as opposed
to the
Cosmos on the one hand and man on the other, coming in-between
polytheistic and
atheistic alternatives. Similarly, I
have subsumed superpantheism, or the artificial pantheism of a
democratic
democracy, under the Second Coming ... not because I wish to identify
it with
Christ, but to point up a kind of sexual antithetical equivalent to the
Virgin
Mary which, taking America as our model, can be regarded as a symbol
for
worship of the machine - the form superpantheism more usually takes. Thus God as machine rather than God as nature,
and, in a certain mythical sense, Superman, who may well approximate to
the
American equivalent of the Second Coming - an all-powerful doer of good.
159. However that may be, superpantheism accords
with a supermaterialistic age and society, the exact antithesis to
autocratic
materialism, and whilst it, too, is of the world, it borders on
superdiabolic
polytheism which, in the guise of Transcendental Socialism, threatens
it from
an Antichristic and proletarian point-of-view, as pertaining to a
supernaturalistic age and society. For
the world doesn't have eternal validity, even on its most evolved
level, and
beyond the machine are the People, polytheistically sovereign in a
160. Thus far religious evolution may be said to
have progressed from worship of Christ to worship of the People via
worship of
the machine. Hence from superrealistic
individualism to supernaturalistic collectivism via supermaterialistic
collectivism. In the future, the new
factor of an aspiration by the People towards a definitive transcendent
unity
will take its rightful place and, ultimately, eclipse everything else. For this is no mere worship of anything, but
a transvaluated spiritual aspiration towards the ultimate individualism
of the
Holy Ghost, and may accordingly be described as superidealistic
individualism
... insofar as the People will be collectively aspiring, whether
indirectly
(through contemplation) or directly (through meditation), towards that
indivisible absolute which, as electron-electron attractions, is the
ultimate
indivisibility - the transcendent unity of the Omega Beyond. Therefore better than the Antichristic
worship of the collective is the Superchristic aspiration by the
collective
towards a definitive unity. For that
which is ultimately one is beyond collectivism, beyond polytheistic
Communism
in monotheistic Centrism. The collective
is simply a means to that higher end.
And in superidealistic Centrism the People will effectively be
One, not
a 'collection' of democratic individuals but an 'individual' of
theocratic
collectivism - in a word, God.
161. Should anyone mindful of Schopenhauer's
criticisms of the atomic theories of the noumenon, propounded in his
day by
Cartesian materialists, regard my own theories as atomic, and therefore
equally
deserving of criticism from an idealistic standpoint, I should like to
say this
in their defence: that they are not atomic but subatomic as regards the
alpha
noumenon and supra-atomic as regards the omega noumenon, which I have
also
termed the supernoumenon. Thus my
concept of the alpha noumenon as proton-proton reactions is no more
atomic than
the antithetical concept of the omega noumenon as electron-electron
attractions, since in both cases we are dealing with elemental
absolutes,
necessarily formless, and not with formal atomic relativities, of which
the
world, in both its organic and inorganic manifestations, affords us a
permanent
example. To extrapolate the noumenon
from the atom, on the other hand, would be to take a worldly,
materialistic
view of it commensurate with anthropomorphic predilections, of which
ghosts, or
the concept of bodily spirits, are among the best known.
For electrons and protons joined together
form atoms, and atoms are the building blocks of the material world. Thus an atomic view of the noumenon will be
worldly, as Schopenhauer well-knew, and consequently far from being the
primal
view of the noumenon as something that lies at the back of the world
... as its
subatomic precondition. It will also be
far from the omega view of the noumenon which, according to my
teachings, is
diametrically antithetical to the alpha noumenon and therefore one
dependent on
the world as its precondition. In short,
it will be a bourgeois view of the noumenon, and accordingly be neither
subatomic nor supra-atomic but, rather, an atomic compromise between
the two -
a noumenon which is neither alpha nor omega but strictly of the world. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer was not prepared
to admit to the validity of such a noumenon, or view thereof, since he
was
somewhat more aristocratic and monarchic than bourgeois and democratic,
in
consequence of which he spoke from an alpha-noumenal point of view. Yet much as I despise the atomic conception
of the noumenon, I have to accept it as a precondition of a
free-electron
conception, since the subatomic conception, to which Schopenhauer
related,
leads nowhere because it is an end-in-itself.
Without bourgeois materialism or, more correctly, realism ...
there
could be no proletarian idealism, but only the aristocratic idealism of
a
proton noumenon which defies change. And
yet salvation is more than just a denial of the alpha noumenon; it is
evolution
towards the omega noumenon, conceived on a post-atomic basis. Schopenhauer may have been correct as regards
the alpha noumenon, but the bourgeois philosophers were not incorrect
to
conceive of a worldly noumenon. They
were simply more evolved.
162. Since a constitutional monarchy is
democratically accountable, it cannot be a thing of the head (old
brain) but,
rather, a thing of the body (blood) and hence contiguous with
democratic
constraint, which is also bodily, if in a relatively more evolved way. Thus a constitutional monarchy is less solar
than planetary, less diabolic than worldly, and may be regarded as an
extrapolation from the earth's molten core, in contrast to monarchies
which
derive their authority from the sun and are accordingly diabolic. Traditionally it will be found that head
peoples,
including Slavs and Latins, have been more given to autocratic, or
absolute,
monarchies than bodily peoples, who, like the British, prefer a
constitutional
monarchy, since that alone accords with the body and, hence, a
democratic
compromise. It is a secular monarchy,
more devolved than the diabolic monarchies that preceded it in the
overall
devolution of autocratic traditions.
163. Further to my entry on drugs, especially
cannabis and hashish, I would like to add a new theory which, on
balance,
probably does more justice to truth than the old one.
For I was wont to regard 'dope' as a
continuation of smoking beyond tobacco and therefore as a kind of
complement to
LSD. Now, on further reflection, it
seems to me that cannabis and hashish are not so much transcendental
drugs
beyond tobacco as transcendental, or head, drugs before
it, and
consequently symptomatic of pre-worldly theocratic societies, including
the
Islamic. For is it not the case that
such drugs are natural, i.e. grown in plant form from the soil, rather
than
synthetic, and that they are accordingly more symptomatic of an
alpha-stemming
naturalistic age or society than of an omega-aspiring artificial age or
society
- in short, a traditional theocratic equivalent of tobacco. Hence their use would signify a sort of
neo-pagan or theocratic alternative to democratic smoking norms, which
are
called into question in and by the decadence of worldly, or Western,
society. Thus the democratic body could
be regarded as being under threat, in its civilized decrepitude, from
the
theocratic head, albeit in old-brain/subconscious and, hence,
traditional
terms. Consequently, instead of
signifying a progression beyond worldly norms, the use of hashish and
cannabis
may be regarded as constituting an assault upon those norms and, by
implication,
Western civilization ... from a traditionally theocratic angle, as
though Islam
were seeking to subvert and replace Christianity, now that Western
civilization
appears to be in rapid decline. One
might say that smoking 'dope' instead of or in addition to tobacco is
akin to
embracing Islam or Buddhism or some other oriental religion at the
expense of
Christianity, and is therefore less a progression towards some new,
higher
religion than a regression towards some older, more sensual religion.
164. Now what applies to 'dope', or natural drugs
that are smoked, could and probably does apply just as much to drugs
that, like
heroin and morphine, are injected, which, on account of their
liquidity,
suggest an alternative, albeit more lethal one, to alcohol, including
spirits. For it does seem that just as a
parallel exists between, say, hashish and tobacco, so a parallel
likewise
exists between heroin and alcohol, and that just as people are
divisible into
drinkers and smokers, so a like-division can be discerned between those
who
smoke 'dope' and those who inject 'smack'.
It may even be that people who smoke are more susceptible to
'dope' or vice
versa,
whereas those who drink are more susceptible to 'smack' or vice
versa -
assuming the one habit doesn't automatically exclude the other. Whatever the case, it would seem that, like
'dope', injected drugs are more usually a resurrection of the past, or
infiltration of traditional theocratic norms into Western civilization,
than an
indication of the future, contrary to synthetic drugs like LSD. It could be that such a phenomenon is
inevitable in a civilization which has absorbed, through mass
immigration,
peoples from older, more theocracy-biased civilizations who may well,
in some
cases, have need for drugs of this order.
For while tobacco and alcohol are endemic to the West, 'dope'
and
'smack' stem from the East, both Middle (dope) and Far (smack), and
should be
regarded in a traditional light by dint of their naturalistic
constitution and
narcotic properties. Substituting the
old-brain/subconscious head for the autocratic/democratic body does not
indicate either evolutionary or moral progress.
On the contrary, it creates a problem which the West has to
solve, if
civilized progress isn't to be set back hundreds if not thousands of
years!
165. Regarding drugs from the standpoint of a
divine/diabolic dichotomy, it seems feasible to contend that drugs
which expand
consciousness are entitled to a divine connotation, in contrast to
those which,
like heroin and morphine, reduce or contract it, and may therefore be
presumed
to connote with the Diabolic. Thus we
can distinguish between 'divine' and 'diabolic' drugs on this
fundamental
basis, and it would seem that, as a rule, mind-expanding drugs are
smoked
whereas mind-contracting ones are injected.
For hashish and cannabis are both mind-expanding in relation to,
say,
heroin and morphine. Furthermore, such a
distinction to some extent also exists between tobacco and alcohol,
since
tobacco is a stimulant which slightly increases consciousness, whereas
alcohol
almost invariably results in a diminution of consciousness
proportionate to the
volume drunk and the alcoholic strength of the type of alcohol - be it
wine,
spirits, or beer. Consequently what
'dope' and 'smack' are to a pre-worldly context, namely mind-expanding
and
mind-contracting drugs respectively, tobacco and alcohol are to the
worldly
context itself, and thus, it could be argued, divine and diabolic
alternatives within
the
world rather than outside of or before it.
166. Yet if we are to distinguish between
pre-worldly divine and diabolic drugs and worldly drugs which assume a
relatively divine or diabolic status, then we should also distinguish
between
divine and diabolic drugs on a post-worldly basis, the basis of the
Holy Ghost
and its diabolic counterpart, rather than of either the Father or
Christ and
their diabolic counterparts. Thus we
should distinguish between mind-expanding drugs like LSD and
mind-contracting ones
like cocaine, regarding both in a post-worldly transcendental light by
dint of
their synthetic properties. For it does
indeed seem that a kind of divine/diabolic dichotomy exists here which
in the
one case transcends smoking and in the other case transcends drinking,
since
LSD and cocaine are truly contemporary drugs, not merely age-old drugs
which
have acquired a pseudo-modern currency in the decadence of Western
civilization, but contemporary in a way that suggests a Centrist and a
Communist polarity - the one comparatively divine because
mind-expanding and
the other comparatively diabolic because mind-contracting or, more
specifically, mind-numbing. If God
desires the expansion of consciousness, would it not be logical for the
Devil
to reduce it or, at the very least, maintain it at a level of heat
(emotion) as
opposed to light (awareness)? Such a
rhetorical question requires no answer, and if cocaine was not the
diabolic
drug of the late-twentieth century, then I would be at a loss to
discover an
alternative. After all, is there not a
correspondence
of sorts between LSD ('acid') and soda on the one hand, and cocaine
('coke')
and cola on the other - a correspondence of names which, as I am sure
many
people would agree, is more than merely coincidental but, rather,
indicative of
an underlying Centrist/Communistic dichotomy?
167. However that may be, I should like to expand
this basic dichotomy in terms of a Fascist/Social Transcendentalist
distinction
on the one hand, and of a Communist/Transcendental Socialist
distinction on the
other, reserving for the first category a distinction between capsule
LSD and
tablet LSD, and for the second category a distinction between injected
cocaine
and snorted cocaine. Thus Fascist
capsule LSD and Social Transcendentalist tablet LSD in the one case,
but
Communist injected cocaine and Transcendental Socialist snorted cocaine
in the
other - a double distinction paralleling that between streamlined
scooters and
plain scooters on the one hand, but plain motorbikes and streamlined
motorbikes
on the other hand, which reflects a regression from idealism towards
materialism in the Fascist/Social Transcendentalist case, but a
progression
from materialism towards idealism in the Communist/Transcendental
Socialist
case, both cases still essentially remaining apart and therefore
indicative of
a divine/diabolic dichotomy.
Consequently while tablet LSD is less idealistic than capsule
LSD,
snorted cocaine (free basing) is more idealistic than injected cocaine. This is because in the one case we have a
regression from a wavicle-suggesting (capsule) entity to a
particle-suggesting
(tablet) entity, whereas in the other case we have a progression from
fluid
cocaine intravenously injected to powdered cocaine nasally inhaled, the
latter
symptomatic of a higher approach to the use of this narcotic. Of course, I do not, as a self-pronounced
Social Transcendentalist, recommend cocaine, since my ideological bias
is
towards LSD-type hallucinogens which, in the event of a Social
Transcendentalist
revolution, I would favour legalizing, though only within certain
restricted
terms and, hence, germane to the context of the Centre - both
ideologically and
spiritually. Not for me to expect LSD to
be legalized in an open-society democratic context, since it would be
irrelevant to the type of society in question!
If LSD, or some such hallucinogen, was to be legalized in the
future, it
could only be under Social Transcendentalism for purposes of religious
aspiration. Cocaine, however, would
remain illegal - what it is in all democratic societies at present. (As
an
afterthought, I would like to contend that mescaline is an Ecological
equivalence in between Fascist LSD and Communist cocaine.
This is because it usually has the appearance
of the latter but the essence of the former, comes in a powdered form
but tends
to expand consciousness ... making for artificially-induced visionary
experience of an upward self-transcending order. In
that
respect, it can be regarded as a
cross between cocaine and LSD, since having the appearance of a
narcotic but
the effect of an hallucinogen.)
168. Hegel teaches us that societies evolve from a
state where a few are free to a state where all are free via a state
where some
are free. Thus from approximately
autocratic to theocratic via democratic levels.
Likewise, we can infer from this fact that in the first type of
society
'the Few' make history, in the second type of society 'some' make
history,
while in the third type of society 'all' make history.
Therefore the question: is history made by
the Few or by the Many, by individuals or by the People in general, can
be
answered by reference to the type of society prevailing at any given
historical
time. If, formerly, the Few (the
nobility) and, subsequently, some (bourgeois parliamentarians) made
history,
then these days it is increasingly the Many (the People) who are
responsible
for its making.
169. But what exactly do we mean by 'free'?
Certainly freedom, or the concept thereof,
changes from society to society, from age to age, and what is free to
one age
or society may appear unfree, or bound, to another.
Yet, as a rule, men are neither free nor
bound but, in greater or lesser degrees, both free and
bound ...
depending on the individual and the society or age to which he belongs. If we are to speak of a few being free at one
point in history, with 'free' taken to mean independent or in a
position of
freedom from want or simply not enslaved, then we should qualify that
freedom
in terms of their independence, and without reference to moral or
spiritual
values, which can be assumed to have less applicability or to be
relatively
undeveloped. Thus in this basic respect
'being free' is simply the antithesis to 'being enslaved', or
physically bound,
and therefore merely relative, not absolute (or with regard, in other
words, to
spiritual values). One can be free and
yet be a tyrant or a slave-driver at the same time.
But this is hardly compatible with freedom in
a moral or spiritual sense! For that is
the ultimate freedom, far superior to physical freedom, and it tends to
be less
the concern of the State than of the Church, which interprets freedom
spiritually - as freedom from sin or, in Schopenhauer's sense, the will
and its
sensual desires.
170. Thus one could argue that contraction of
physical enslavement to a point of freedom, or seeming physical
freedom, is the
prerogative of political progress, whereas expansion of spiritual
freedom to a
point of binding ... is the prerogative of religious, or moral,
progress. We cannot speak of freedom
simply in physical
terms; it must also be considered from the standpoint of the spirit. Now in terms of spirituality it is, above
all, the idea of a new and higher binding which has to be borne in
mind, since
it is not enough to be free from
physical
enslavement, one must also be free for
the new
spiritual binding. For freedom is not an
end-in-itself but simply a means to a higher end, which I conceive as
the
ultimate spiritual binding of and to the Centre. It
is
only in the struggle against physical binding
that man is free, since freedom is not absolute but relative, as
between
protons and electrons in the atom.
Indeed, it is atomic. For, being
relative, there are options, and one must choose between them if one is
to be
free - in other words, if one is free to make such a choice. Only with pre-atomic societies is man truly
bound, since in such autocratic societies there is no (democratic)
relativity,
but an approximation, derived from cosmic precedent, to proton-proton
reactions. Such a society is absolutist,
and therefore bound to alpha-stemming criteria.
The bound man is not free and neither, in a moral sense, is the
so-called freeman, whose physical freedom depends upon the enslavement
of
others. All men are, in effect, bound to
the physical, whether as master or slave.
171. Now while some men are bound to the physical,
whether as employer or employee, within a democratic society, others
are free
from the physical and bound to the spirit.
There exists a balance between the bound and the free, and the
struggle
against the bound is waged by the free, whether in the name of freedom,
as with
Socialists and Communists, or in the name of a new binding, as with
Fascists
and Centrists. In the one case, freedom
from physical enslavement to the bourgeoisie is regarded as an
end-in-itself. In the other case,
freedom from enslavement must lead to a new binding, since the bound is
what is
truly absolutist and, in post-atomic societies, it will amount to
electron-electron
attractions as an approximation - at any rate within a Social
Transcendentalist
context - to the Holy Spirit. For that
is the ultimate spiritual binding, which makes for the Centre, and such
a
theocratic binding is no less absolute than the autocratic binding of
pre-worldly societies. Beyond the atom
there is no more a relativity (between protons and electrons) ... than
there
was before it. Both the Father and the
Holy Ghost are bound - as, for that matter, are Satan and the
Antichrist,
though they or, rather, their devotees may proclaim themselves free. Only the world, however, is truly free
because indeterminate, and therefore torn between antithetical options. Yet freedom is a passing phase of historical
time. Even Communist freedom is, in
effect, bound to a new centre - namely that of the totalitarian State. But because Communist society is more
economic and political than religious and spiritual, it will proclaim
itself
free from autocratic bindings rather than bound to theocratic
aspirations. And in this respect it is
totally free, not
partially free like Liberalism, whether of the centre or of the left. In other words, the difference between a
proletarian democracy and a bourgeois democracy, particularly one with
autocratic roots still nominally intact.
172. Yet it is not just adherence to autocracy that
constitutes a binding, since the bourgeoisie are also bound to their
own centre
to the extent that they are capitalistic and parliamentarian, and if
the Father
is one binding, then Christ is very much another - a middle-ground, or
worldly,
binding in between antithetical absolutes.
Thus freedom in a bourgeois democracy is relative to those who
oppose
such a Capitalist binding, whether from a Socialist or a Communist
standpoint,
and is necessarily decentralist and anti-Christian.
For 'the free' are either a 'fall' from the
centre or an opposition, in freedom, to the centre, whether it be
autocratic or
democratic, aristocratic or bourgeois.
And freedom is a kind of damnation in relation to the centre, to
those
who are saved on whichever evolutionary level.
Freedom is an alienation from and opposition to the centre, and
therefore an imperfect condition which, except for those who revel in
it, goads
its protagonists towards the establishment of a new centre, superior to
the old
one. For some, this objective is
eventually achieved. For others -
perhaps the great majority of those caught between centres - there is
no
alternative but to languish in freedom or perish from it.
That has certainly been the fate of most
Western Socialists to-date!
173. I am not free to act if I am bound, but I am
bound to act if I am free - whether against an old binding (Socialism),
for the
sake of acting (Anarchism), or for a new binding (Communism/Centrism). Broadly, freedom in the twentieth century was
for the proletariat (an electron equivalence) to become free from
aristocratic
(proton) and bourgeois (neutron) constraints, and so achieve a
proletarian
absolutism within a uniquely People's society.
One can trace the beginnings of this struggle to bourgeois
liberalism (a
neutron-centred atomicity), and from there a split developed between
Democratic
Socialism (a particle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) and Liberal
Democracy
(a wavicle-biased atomic-electron equivalence) - as between blue- and
white-collar
interests. These are relative to the
world, or Western democracies, and can co-exist within the same
political
framework.
174. Beyond the world, however, no such relative
co-existence is possible, since both the Divine and the Diabolic are
absolute
on post-worldly terms, and therefore can only exist independently of
each other
... in different societies or countries, even though, in the
paradoxical nature
of contemporary life, each will uphold relativity within their
respective
ideological frameworks. Thus we get (or
will do in the future) Transcendental Socialism (a particle-biased
electron
equivalence) on the one hand and Social Transcendentalism (a
wavicle-biased
electron equivalence) on the other - the former morally free and the
latter bound
to the Centre (conceived in its Social Transcendentalist context), as
befitting
a wavicle and, hence, idealistic bias.
Alternatively, one could speak of Centristic Communism in the
one case
and of Communistic Centrism in the other.
For whilst each ideology would exist in absolute independence,
they are
intrinsically relative, albeit with diametrically opposite biases. In the case of Transcendental Socialism an
electron-particle freedom of the proletariat from bourgeois and/or
aristocratic
constraints, in the case of Social
Transcendentalism an electron-wavicle binding of the proletariat to the
ultimate Centre - the transcendent 'Kingdom of Heaven', wherein lies
divine
salvation for all Eternity.
175. To distinguish, on the one hand, between unfree
binding (proton wavicles), bound unfreedom (proton particles), bound
binding
(atomic protons), and freedom-in-binding (proton-biased atomicity), as
regards
alpha-stemming idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism; and then
to
distinguish, on the other hand, between freedom-from-binding
(electron-biased
atomicity), free freedom (atomic electrons), bound freedom (electron
particles), and free binding (electron wavicles), as regards
omega-oriented
realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism.
Thus a devolutionary regression from unfree binding to
freedom-in-binding via bound unfreedom and bound binding on the one
hand, but
an evolutionary progression from freedom-from-binding to free binding
via free
freedom and bound freedom on the other hand.
Consequently, Transcendental Socialism may be defined in terms
of bound
freedom, Social Transcendentalism, by contrast, in terms of free
binding - a
distinction, one could argue, between the centralized State and the
state-like
Centre.
176. Not free from
what but
free for
what (Nietzsche)? And the
ultimate response to that is: For a new binding! Thus
as
the Diabolic contracts, and greater
degrees of physical freedom from autocratic constraint are accordingly
proclaimed, so the Divine expands, and greater degrees of binding to
theocratic
transcendentalism are likewise proclaimed.
As the State withers, so the Church expands.
The ultimate contraction of the State is a
free, or socialist, society. The
ultimate expansion of the Church is a bound or Centrist society. Freedom is diabolic, binding divine. The world achieves a balance between binding
and freedom, and is therefore amoral. On
the other hand, an imbalance on the side of binding, as in traditional
secular
autocracies, is relatively moral (albeit in an untransvaluated sense),
whereas
an imbalance on the side of freedom, as in republican democracies, is
relatively immoral. For morality is
proportionate to binding, and the more moral the society the greater
the degree
of binding. In the alpha-stemming case,
a proton morality; in the omega-oriented case, an electron morality -
the
former false and the latter true.
177. Only in the case of an omega-oriented society
can binding, and hence being, be not merely apparent (as in
alpha-stemming
societies) but essential, as regarding the wavicle indivisibility of
electron-electron attractions - a truly indivisible absolutism in
relation to
the false absolutism of proton-proton reactions in the apparent
'indivisibility' of the Creator, viz. the central star of the Galaxy.
178. In relation to being, doing is always immoral,
whether positive and constructive, like good acts, or negative and
destructive,
like evil acts. For, like the Divine,
the Diabolic is both negative and positive, Satanic and Antichristic,
and while,
from a Christian standpoint, good acts may be preferable to bad ones,
nonetheless they are immoral in relation to true morality, which is
being-orientated and therefore not free but bound, whether the binding
be
negative or positive, to proton wavicles or to electron wavicles, to
the Father
or to Christ; as also, within an artificial and hence contemporary
context, to
the Superfather or to the Superchrist (both the latter of which can be
generalized into an allegiance, temporary or otherwise, to violent
films in the
one case and to passive trips in the other case). Being
should
be associated, in its negative
manifestations, with illusion and sadness, whilst in its positive
manifestations it should be associated with happiness and truth. By contrast, doing should be associated, in
its negative manifestations, with ugliness and hate, though in its
positive
manifestations it should be associated with beauty and love. Whether the qualitative attribute precedes
the quantitative one, or vice versa, will depend upon whether the type
of being
or doing in question is naturalistic or artificial, which is to say
upon
whether it conforms to a noumenal-phenomenal regression or, by
contrast, to a
superphenomenal-supernoumenal progression, depending on both the
individual and
the age or society in which he happens to live.
In the one case, a regression, for instance, from hate to
ugliness at
the negative pole of the naturalistic diabolic spectrum.
In the other case, a progression from
ugliness to hate at the negative pole of the artificial diabolic
spectrum. Similarly a regression, for
instance, from
happiness to truth at the positive pole of the naturalistic divine
spectrum,
as, conversely, a progression from truth to joy at the positive pole of
the
artificial divine spectrum.
179. Thus whereas hate is a precondition of ugliness
in the one context, ugliness is a precondition of hate in the
artificial
context antithetical to it. In the
former case, an act could only be ugly if preceded or motivated by
hate,
whereas in the latter case hate, or a hateful feeling, follows upon the
precondition of ugliness. For whereas in
the natural context the noumenal precedes the phenomenal, of which the
quantitative attribute is a phenomenal manifestation, in the artificial
context
antithetical to it, by contrast, the superphenomenal precedes the
supernoumenal, of which the qualitative attribute is a noumenal
manifestation. No less than the good act
(beauty) is preceded by the positive diabolic feeling and the bad act
(ugly) by
the negative diabolic feeling in a naturalistic context, so the
positive
diabolic feeling (love) is preceded by the good act and the negative
diabolic
feeling (hate) by the bad act in an artificial context.
And no less than the false being (illusion)
is preceded by the negative divine feeling and the true being (truth)
by the
positive divine feeling in a naturalistic context, so the negative
divine
feeling (sadness) is preceded by the false being and the positive
divine
feeling (joy) by the true being in an artificial context.
And so on, with due regard to the worldly
spectra of strength/pride and weakness/ humiliation, evil/pain and
goodness/pleasure, strife/fear and peace/hope, which I have
characterized as
bodily rather than of the head. In an
alpha-stemming
naturalistic context, pride will precede strength and humiliation
likewise
precede weakness, but in an omega-oriented artificial context strength
is a
prerequisite of pride and weakness a prerequisite of humiliation.
180. Returning to our moral/immoral distinctions, one
should distinguish between worldly immorality and diabolic immorality
on the
basis of a pantheistic/polytheistic dichotomy.
For whereas worldly immorality has to do with nature or some
antithetical equivalence thereof ...
like the city, diabolic immorality has to do with the stars or some
antithetical equivalence, like the proletariat.
Immorality is free rather than bound, is decentralized rather
than
centralized, and accordingly contrasts with divine morality, which, at
its
purest level, can only be monotheistic.
Thus one should speak of an alpha-stemming regression from
monotheistic
morality to atheistic amorality via polytheistic and pantheistic
immorality,
while reserving for the omega orientation a progression from
superatheistic
amorality to supermonotheistic morality via superpantheistic and
superpolytheistic immorality.
181. Correlated with the specific ideological and
historical stages we have already touched upon, the devolutionary and
evolutionary distinctions listed above will read as follows:-
ALPHA
DEVOLUTION
OMEGA
EVOLUTION
1.
monotheistic autocratic theocracy (moral)
8. supermonotheistic
democratic theocracy (moral)
2.
polytheistic theocratic autocracy (immoral)
7. superpolytheistic
theocratic democracy (immoral)
3.
pantheistic autocratic autocracy (immoral)
6. superpantheistic
democratic democracy (immoral)
4. atheistic
democratic
autocracy (amoral)
5.
superatheistic autocratic democracy (amoral)
with
a
devolutionary
regression from alpha monotheistic morality to worldly
atheistic
amorality via alpha polytheistic immorality and worldly-alpha
pantheistic
immorality on the one hand, and an evolutionary progression from
worldly
superatheistic amorality to omega supermonotheistic morality via
worldly-omega superpantheistic
immorality and omega superpolytheistic immorality on the other hand.
182. As to the distinction between monotheistic and
supermonotheistic morality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds of
divine
binding ... commensurate with the Father and the Holy Ghost. As to the distinction between polytheistic
and superpolytheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite
kinds of
diabolic freedom ... commensurate with Satan and the Antichrist. As to the distinction between pantheistic and
superpantheistic immorality, we have two diametrically opposite kinds
of
worldly freedom ... commensurate with the Virgin Mary and the
(Germanic) Second
Coming. And finally, as to the
distinction between atheistic and superatheistic amorality, we have two
diametrically opposite kinds of worldly binding ... commensurate with
the
Catholic Christ and the Protestant Christ - the former divisible
between the
Child and the Resurrection, the latter humanistic or, as one should
say, adult,
making for a neutron amorality in contrast to a proton/electron
oscillation
between antithetical extremes.
183. Put more concretely, we have an extrapolation,
in the case of alpha morality, from the central star of the Galaxy,
which is
worshipped as Creator, while, in the case of omega morality, we have an
aspiration towards the transcendent culmination of evolution in
spiritual
unity. In the case of polytheistic
immorality we have a 'fall' from binding, or monotheism, into worship
of the
stars, or extrapolations thereof, as gods, whilst in the antithetical
case of
superpolytheistic immorality we have a worship or, rather,
quasi-religious
self-identification of the People, collectively, with ultimate
sovereignty - at
any rate, in democratic terms. In the
case of pantheistic immorality we have an identification of nature, in
all its
diverse manifestations, with divinity, whereas in the superpantheistic
immorality antithetical to it, the city and/or machine become the focus
of a
divine identification. Finally, in the
case of atheistic amorality we have a worship of man as God which, in
both
Catholic and Protestant contexts, takes the form of Christ.
184. Thus whereas the bound is always individual,
whether moral or amoral, the free is ever collective, whether in a
worldly and,
hence, pantheistic context, or in a diabolic and, hence, polytheistic
one. Morality is rooted in the individual,
immorality in the collective. Binding is
to the One, freedom is for the Many.
Whether the One be Father, Son, or Holy Ghost (depending on the
type and
stage of religion), a moral binding thereof will ensue, whereas in
between, on
both polytheistic and pantheistic levels, a decentralized freedom (from
such a
binding) will become the immoral norm.
What makes adherence to Christianity, in a binding to Christ,
amoral
rather than strictly moral is that, being man, Christ is neither
protonic nor
electronic, the Father nor the Holy Ghost, but an atomic mid-point in
between
two purist extremes, and accordingly an impure realism appertaining to
the world. For true morality is ever
idealistic and,
hence, bound to the absolute - in a word, monotheistic.
Thus it happens that, traditionally, the Jews
have shown themselves, through their refusal to compromise with worldly
relativity, to be the most moral people, even in the face of worldly
persecution. Doubtless once the Jewish
people accept Social Transcendentalism as the true world (global)
religion,
they will become no less moral but, if anything, even more so ... as
they take
a lead in furthering the ultimate monotheism - the supermonotheism of
an
unequivocally transcendental aspiration which, unlike allegiance to the
Creator, will be rooted in the people and tend towards the true
indivisibility
of an ultimate binding in electron-electron attractions.
For centro-complexification leading towards
the projected Omega Point is the way of divine evolution, and those of
us who
have an interest in furthering such evolution must champion the Social
Transcendentalist Centre at the expense of the decentralized State.
185. True morality resides in the individual and
adherence to the One through personal binding to a religious
focal-point. No-one can trip or meditate
for you, and even
if you trip or meditate in a group ... you are essentially still alone
with
your spirit. For the group is not
indivisible, like spirit, but divisible, like matter, and therefore any
concept
of divinity which is social in character is less moral than immoral -
in fact,
is polytheistically diabolic. Doubtless
the world, or a certain part of it, must pass through this polytheism
before
any prospect of global monotheism on the ultimate spiritual level
becomes
possible. Now, paradoxically, such a
diabolic immorality is preferable, from an omega-divine standpoint, to
the
worldly immorality that characterized the greater part of the Germanic
West in
the twentieth century. Being equivalent
to the new-brain head rather than to the flesh/muscle body, it is
closer to the
superconscious than to the latter - indeed, so close as to be virtually
contiguous. Only a standpoint which, like
worldly
amorality, was beneath worldly immorality would find the flesh/muscle
body
preferable to the new-brain head. For
one part of the body, in this case that of the veins/nerves, is closer
to
another part of it than to the head, and when it comes to the crunch
the body
will stick together, as it were, to defend itself from encroachments of
one
kind or another from the head. The world
is not interested in becoming either the Devil or God but only in
remaining
itself, and accordingly its end can only be at the expense of bodily
will.
186. God helps his own, and can only do so through a
divinely-biased publisher, like one affiliated to the Catholic Church. He cannot seek publication in the world,
through commercial channels, and neither should he seek it through
academic or
university publishers, since publishers of that sort are the nearest
Western
approximation to the Devil or, at any rate, to a diabolic
(brain-centred) order
of publication. For let there be no doubt
on this point: the commercial worldly and the academic diabolic types
of
publishers are not
the channels through which divine truth should seek printed
dissemination! Neither the body nor the
brain is of direct use to God. Only the
mind, and the mind will be given its due by religious rather than by
academic
or commercial publishers. The true
equivalent to the Second-Coming appeals to the Church for recognition
of his
messianic revelations, since the Church is alone qualified to recognize
divine
truth when such truth is put before it, and for the Church the Second
Coming is
no mere myth or figment of the imagination but a centuries-old hope and
waiting
... that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' may be proclaimed and established here
on
earth for those who deserve such a 'kingdom'.
God calls His own, and those who deserve salvation from the
world will
surely receive it ... through Social Transcendentalism.
187. Traditionally the State is an instrument of
oppression,
a means of defending the interests of the oppressor rather than of the
oppressed. It is only with the Welfare
State that the State becomes less an instrument of oppression than a
source of
help to the oppressed. Yet the Welfare
State is not absolutist but, within the liberal contexts of Western
democracy,
co-exists with the traditional bourgeois State of capitalist oppression. Only in a
188. It is no less important to realize that there
is a negative morality ... than to realize there is a positive one. There is no more a single kind of morality
than a single kind of immorality. Being
can be both negative and positive, like doing, and by 'negative' and
'positive'
I mean active and passive or, alternatively, for and against. Thus, within the sphere of naturalistic
morality,
one can speak of the negative morality of the dream but the positive
morality
of visionary experience. In the more
contemporary sphere of artificial morality, one can speak of the
negative
morality of film viewing but the positive morality of
artificially-induced
visionary experience. Indeed, films are
to dreams what trips are to visions - their antithetical equivalence
... as
relative to an omega-oriented age or society.
189. Likewise, within the sphere of naturalistic
immorality, one can speak of the negative immorality of doing against
others
and/or the self, in contrast to the positive immorality of doing for
others
and/or the self ... where the former is Satanic and the latter
Antichristic,
with worldly and diabolic options depending upon whether the target of
whichever kind of immorality is other people or the personal self. Now what applies to the sphere of
naturalistic immorality applies no less to that of artificial
immorality, in
which doing for or against the self and/or others will be conducted
rather more
via mechanical or synthetic means than via natural means, including the
human
body.
190. Thus to recapitulate: being against my self -
negative divine morality; being for my self - positive divine morality;
doing
against myself - negative diabolic immorality; doing for myself -
positive
diabolic immorality; doing against others - negative worldly
immorality; doing
for others - positive worldly immorality.
191. Although 'good' and 'evil' are relative terms
usually employed in connection with worldly contexts, it is possible to
employ
them absolutely, in terms of distinctions outside the world, the way
the
Catholic Church has traditionally done, and on the basis that absolute
good is
divine and absolute evil diabolic, a distinction, I maintain, between
wavicle
proton-proton reactions on the one hand, and particle proton-proton
reactions
on the other - the former appertaining to the Father (central star of
the
Galaxy) and the latter to Satan (the sun).
192. Thus within a strictly cosmic framework, it is
possible to differentiate between absolute good and evil, though only
up to a
certain point. For while we need not
doubt that the particle proton-proton reactions of the sun are
absolutely evil
by dint of their infernal essence, the wavicle proton-proton reactions
of the
bigger, purer, central star of the Galaxy (from which, willy-nilly, the
Creator
was extrapolated) are only absolutely good to the extent that we have a
wavicle
being which contrasts with the particle doing, as it were, of stars in
general,
i.e. those which revolve around the central star of the Galaxy. Yet such being is merely apparent,
since wavicle proton-proton reactions are no less reactive in their own
context
than ... particle proton-proton reactions in theirs, and while the
central star
has the appearance of stillness, and hence being, on account of its
central
position in a galaxy of revolving stars, nevertheless its essence is
reactive
and, consequently, this apparent being is negative, a negative morality
of being-against-the-self
or, rather, itself, which is the condition of alpha divinity.
193. Hence while we can infer absolute goodness from
the apparent being of the Galaxy's central star, such goodness is
merely
negative in character, and therefore a poor second to the positive
absolute
goodness which can only arise with the Holy Spirit at the culmination
of
evolution when, from the utmost omega-aspiring life form, i.e. the
Supra-being
new-brain collectivizations, the wavicle electron-electron attractions
of transcendent
spirit are set free, in the guise of spiritual globes, to converge
towards the
long-term possibility of a definitive unity (of all such spiritual
globes) in
the Omega Point (de Chardin). Only in
wavicle electron-electron attractions does positive being, or
being-for-itself,
come to pass, and such an essential being stands to the apparent being
of the
Creator as positive morality to negative morality, or ultimate Heaven
to primal
Heaven, or the purest bliss to the purest agony - in sum, as true
absolute
goodness to false absolute goodness.
194. The fact that, in contrast to Catholicism, the
Protestant faith denies the existence of absolute good and evil outside
the
world may be attributed to the inherently worldly nature of this
largely
Germanic mode of Christianity. For
Protestantism is, above all, concerned with man in
the world,
and therefore with good and evil conceived relatively, as worldly
experiences. Doubtless this lack of a
cosmic sense - at any rate, with regard to absolute good and evil on
the alpha
plane - is in large part due to the bodily nature of Germanic humanity,
who,
unlike both Slavic and Celtic humanity, have their kingdom in
the world,
that planetary correlation of the body, and not in either a cosmic hell
or a
cosmic heaven such as correlates with the head - at least on
old-brain/subconscious terms. For the
world is a revolt against the Cosmos, in some sense a more evolved
orientation
which, religiously speaking, fights shy of both the Father and Satan -
much as
bourgeois philosophy fought shy of the alpha noumenon by positing, to
Schopenhauer's aristocratic displeasure, the thing-in-itself as in
the
material world rather than as its subatomic precondition.
Thus while Protestant insistence on relative
good and evil is no less incorrect from a Catholic standpoint than
Kant's
insistence on a worldly thing-in-itself, it is perfectly inevitable
within the
context of its time and society, not to mention the racial
preconditions - in
this case Germanic - of a bodily standpoint.
True, to acquire a bias for positive absolute goodness and even
(within
the communist context) positive absolute evil, one has to turn one's
back, so
to speak, on the alpha negative absolutes.
But, ironically, it is only the peoples whose religious
traditions
upheld these negative absolutes who would be qualified, both racially
and
morally, to acquire such a bias, since the Protestant peoples are ever
worldly
and, by themselves, incapable of transcending the worldly body for
either the
divine or the diabolic head. Thus the
Resurrection, in both its diabolic and divine manifestations, has
especial
applicability to those very peoples for whom the truth of absolute good
and
evil outside the world was incontestable.
Communism is one resurrection.
Centrism has yet to establish the other!
195. Returning to the distinction between moral
being and immoral doing, the former divine and the latter either
diabolic or
worldly, depending whether it is focused on the self or on others, I
must now
add amoral being to our calculations, since this is primarily the
worldly
equivalence which assumes a Christian status in relation to both
immoral and
moral alternatives. Indeed, just as we
have distinguished between negative and positive morality on the basis
of being
against self on the one hand and being for self on the other (a
distinction
which also applied to each kind of immorality ... whether diabolic and
self-centred or worldly and focused on others), so we must distinguish
between
negative and positive amorality, conceiving of the former in terms of
being
against others, and the latter in terms of being for others. Thus not only does doing have two modes of
diabolic immorality, viz. doing against self and doing for self, as
well as two
modes of worldly immorality, viz. doing against others and doing for
others,
the same also applies to being, with being against self and being for
self the
negative and positive modes of divine morality, but being against
others and
being for others the negative and positive modes of worldly amorality. Hence a four-way division between negative
and positive which, so I maintain, parallels our earlier divisions
between
devolutionary idealism, naturalism, materialism, and realism on the one
hand,
and evolutionary realism, materialism, naturalism, and idealism on the
other,
as regards monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism ... or vice
versa,
depending on whether we focus on alpha stemming or omega aspiring,
devolution
or evolution.
196. Using a similar schema, we can list our being/doing
options as follows:-
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1. negative
divine morality of being against self
8. positive divine morality of
being for self
2. negative
diabolic immorality of doing against self
7. positive diabolic immorality of
doing for
self
3. negative worldly immorality of
doing against
others 6. positive worldly immorality of doing for
others
4. negative
worldly amorality of being against others
5. positive worldly amorality of
being for
others
or
alternatively:-
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1.
idealistic being against self (monotheism)
8.
superidealistic being for self (supermonotheism)
2.
naturalistic doing against self (polytheism)
7.
supernaturalistic doing for self (superpolytheism)
3. materialistic doing against
others
(pantheism)
6. supermaterialistic doing for
others
(superpantheism)
4. realistic being against others
(atheism)
5. superrealistic being for others
(superatheism)
which
also
corresponds, it should be remembered, to:-
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1.
proton-wavicle autocratic theocracy
8. electron-wavicle democratic
theocracy
2.
proton-particle theocratic autocracy
7. electron-particle theocratic
democracy
3. atomic-proton
autocratic autocracy
6. atomic-electron democratic
democracy
4.
proton-biased atomic democratic autocracy
5.
electron-biased atomic autocratic democracy
Consequently,
we
have
a journey, so to speak, which begins in the Father and regresses
to the
Catholic Christ via Satanic and Maternal (Virgin Mary) stages of
devolution,
but which then progresses from the Protestant Christ to the Holy Ghost
via
Messianic (Second Coming) and Antichristic stages of evolution.
197. At death both the spirit and soul die, which is
to say are terminated by and through the body's mortality.
Emotion and consciousness cease at death,
since death is their end. It is not the
body that dies, since, strictly speaking, the body had never lived but
merely
functioned like a machine. Yet the
breakdown of this worldly machine puts an end to both diabolic
emotions,
whether negative or positive, and divine consciousness, whether
negative or
positive; to heat-will and light-will, soul and spirit.
What was potentially eternal (certainly on
the divine plane of conscious being) is thus prevented from being
eternally, and so succumbs to death, or nothingness.
One could say that the world, or the body,
gains a victory over it, since the world is temporal and its
temporality becomes
an obstacle to eternity. Only when the
body has been overcome ... through the gradual replacement of natural
parts by
artificial parts and the subsequent even more radical elevation of
human brains
to the post-human status of being artificially supported and no-less
artificially sustained in collectivized contexts, analogous to a
Christmas
tree, will both the soul and the spirit, though particularly the
latter, be
freed from the threat of death and thereby enabled to realize their
eternal
potential. Then will God have achieved a
definitive victory over the world.
198. Worldly will, or sensations; diabolic will, or
emotions; divine will, or consciousness.
A connection may accordingly be posited between worldly will and
the
body, diabolic will and the brain, and divine will and the mind, with
blood in
the body the essence of worldly will, blood in the brain the essence of
diabolic will, and consciousness the essence of divine will. Thus whereas both worldly and diabolic will
are centred in the blood, divine will is transcendently aloof from the
blood,
as light from heat or, more correctly, fire.
In this regard, it is less a will than a will-less being. For will is indistinguishable, physically
speaking, from the blood, and without blood there can be no will, which
is to
say sensations and emotions, both of which stand to will as feelings to
consciousness. Thus whereas we have a
quantitative distinction between will and consciousness, a qualitative
distinction exists between emotions and feelings. The
real
difference, however, is that whereas
will is subordinate in both body and brain to sensations and emotions
respectively, feelings are subordinate in the mind to consciousness. Put analogically, one could argue that
whereas light (will) is subsidiary to heat (sensations/emotions) in
both
electric cookers and electric fires, heat (feelings) is subsidiary to
light
(consciousness) in electric lights. For
electric cookers and electric fires stand to bodily sensations and
brain
emotions as electric-light bulbs to mind consciousness, which is to say
as
worldly and diabolic parallels to a divine parallel.
Now at death it could be argued, to extend
our analogy, that the cooker overcomes both the electric fire and the
electric
light at once, precluding a diabolic and a divine eternity. For it is the electric cooker which parallels
the world and, hence, bodily temporality.
199. However that may be, traditional theology has
upheld three posthumous options for the dying: either Hell, Heaven, or,
failing
both, a sort of purgatorial no-man's-land in between.
Doubtless these options correlate with the
tripartite distinctions we have already drawn between diabolic emotions
(soul),
divine consciousness (spirit), and worldly sensations (will), so that,
depending on the person, a bias one way or another in life could be
expected to
lead to a correlative, albeit more absolute, fate in death. The emotional man would be a candidate for
Hell, the conscious man a candidate for Heaven, and the sensual man a
candidate
for Purgatory or, in Eastern terms, reincarnation.
Thus to a certain extent people would be
predestined for one or another of the three posthumous options,
depending on
which level they generally conducted their lives whilst alive. The divine man would go to Heaven, the
diabolic man to Hell, and the worldly man to Purgatory.
Strictly speaking, however, people went
nowhere. For one cannot survive death,
neither spiritually, soulfully, nor wilfully.
Yet the fact that Christian theology distinguished between three
options
accords with the tripartite division of man into divine, diabolic, and
worldly
selves, a division, so I maintain, which can be extrapolated from the
cosmic
roots of life in the central star of the Galaxy (negative spirit), the
sun
(negative soul), and the fiery core of the planet (negative will) - the
first
and second eternal (Heaven and Hell), the third temporal (the world). Hence the Christian emphasis upon overcoming
the will, if any possibility of salvation (from the world) is to be
achieved.
200. Consequently the body, as the objectification
of the will ... as taught by Schopenhauer, must be denied if salvation,
and
hence greater consciousness, is to become a reality.
Thus not only sex but exercise, eating, drinking,
etc., which conform to the world as opposed to God.
Divine teaching is therefore profoundly
anti-bodily and anti-populist. For it is
the mass man who most accords with a bodily and therefore sensual
predilection,
in contrast to the intellectual or spiritual elites.
A democratic society will accordingly be
anti-divine, since such a society is precisely that in which the mass
man, and
hence the average bodily type, is king or, more literally, politically
sovereign, and where the mass man is free to please himself ... there
can be
little denial of the will but, on the contrary, a maximum affirmation
of it
which, in democratic societies, will take a predominantly positive and
therefore pleasure-oriented form rather than, as in worldly autocratic
societies, a predominantly negative and therefore pain-oriented form
more
suggestive of a will-to-death than of a will-to-life.
Such a wilful state-of-affairs can only
continue so long as the world is free to please itself and do what it
wants. For the world will not deny itself,
since it
isn't free to become other than what it is by nature.
If the will is to be denied, then the world
must be overcome and a new order of will, less worldly than diabolic,
take its
place, with one kind of democracy supplanting another.
Yet from a divine standpoint, that would be
less of a salvation than a damnation, since salvation ultimately rests
with the
Superchristic God rather than with the Super-antichristic Devil, and
therefore
isn't so much a higher and more attenuated order of will ... as a
complete
denial of the will achieved through will-less being in pure
consciousness. Thus not positive soul but
positive spirit,
not love but joy. Such is the ultimate
divine order, and it can only be achieved under Superchristic auspices,
which
is to say through the Social Transcendentalist Centre.
201. Put analogically, one could argue that the
supersession of worldly will by diabolic will is equivalent to electric
fires
superseding electric cookers, while the analogical equivalence for
divine
consciousness is electric light, which towers above both fires and
cookers
alike, shining at a quasi-spiritual remove from soulful and wilful
orders of
heat. Yet before the victory of light
over heat, the victory of diabolic heat over worldly heat, of positive
emotions
over positive sensations, in order that one kind of will be eclipsed by
another
in the progression of will from the body to the head.
For denying bodily will through the
affirmation of head will is a step in the direction of liberation from
the will
through divine consciousness, albeit an indirect step, and one which
those who
support it would probably regard in a definitive light, as though an
end-in-itself. The fact that it is not
such an
end ... is an article of divine judgement, and, while from a divine
standpoint,
emotional and intellectual will may be superior, because of the brain,
to
sensational and physical will, nevertheless it is manifestly inferior
to the
pure feelings and consciousness which accrue to the affirmation of
positive
being. Will is ever connected with the
realm of doing ... whether for others, as in the context of positive
worldly
will, or for self, as in the context of positive diabolic will, and
until doing
is denied, there can be no true being, the being-for-self which is the
ultimate
positive affirmation because the definitive morality -
supermonotheistic in
character.
202. Thus whilst a People's democracy is preferable
to a bourgeois democracy because symptomatic of a more elevated order
of will,
it can only be morally inferior to a People's theocracy, which is less
a
question of will than of consciousness, less a question of soulful heat
than of
spiritual light, and therefore less a question of eternal damnation
than of
eternal salvation. For whereas a
bourgeois democracy is purgatorial, since of the world, a People's
democracy is
hellish, since aligned with a soulful survival of the body. It is not a means to a higher end, i.e. a
People's theocracy, but an end-in-itself and, consequently, a kind of
eternity. Only a People's theocracy can
be heavenly, since aligned with a spiritual survival of the body, and
such a
survival is the will-less salvation which is commensurate with the true
eternity of Heaven. Thus in the event of
the world 'dying', i.e. being overcome, the two positive eternities of
communistic soul and centristic spirit will co-exist on a bipolar
supra-national planet for centuries to come, in fact until such time as
Heaven
finally comes to terms with Hell, and the spiritual eternity vanquishes
the
soulful eternity in the name of global unification - the material
precondition
of ultimate spiritual unity achieved on a truly divine basis.
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1.
proton-wavicle being against self
8. electron-wavicle being for self
2.
proton-particle doing against self
7. electron-particle doing for
others
3.
atomic proton doing against others
6. atomic electron doing for others
4.
proton-biased atomic being against others
5.
electron-biased atomic being for others
203. Regarding the above-mentioned devolutionary and
evolutionary options, it becomes clear that whereas 'self', whether in
the
contexts of being or doing, pertains to
the proton and electron absolutes, 'others', whether in the contexts of
being
or doing, pertain to atomic relativities, so that while the former is
either
divine or diabolic, the latter is inherently worldly.
In other words, reference to 'self' puts
being and doing on the plane of God and Devil (whether in regard to the
alpha
or to the omega alternatives), whereas reference to 'others' puts being
and
doing on the plane of the world (whether in terms of materialism or
realism,
pantheism or atheism).
204. Thus, bearing this in mind, one can list the
aforementioned options as follows:-
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1.
proton-wavicle being against self
8. electron-wavicle being for self
2.
proton-particle doing against self
7. electron-particle doing for self
3. atomic proton-particle doing
against others
6. atomic electron-particle doing
for others
4.
proton-biased atomic-wavicle being against others
5. electron-biased
atomic-wavicle being for others
with, in the case of (1) and (8), an alpha and
omega divine antithesis; in the case of (2) and (7) an alpha and omega
diabolic
antithesis; in the case of (3) and (6) a worldly alpha and worldly
omega
antithesis; and in the case of (4) and (5) an alpha worldly and omega
worldly
antithesis. With wavicles one has being,
with particles doing. With protons one
has reaction against, with electrons ... attraction towards. Proton-wavicle absolutism is accordingly
being against self, proton-particle absolutism ... doing against self. Electron-wavicle absolutism is accordingly
being for self, electron-particle absolutism ... doing for self. Reaction and attraction, against and for, or,
as one could also say, active and passive, bearing in mind the reactive
nature
of action and the attractive nature of passivity - doing and being. Similarly, atomic proton-particle relativity
is doing against others, proton-biased atomic-wavicle relativity ...
being
against others. Electron-biased
atomic-wavicle relativity is being for others, atomic electron-particle
relativity ... doing for others. Thus
with wavicles one is either in the sphere of morality or, as in the
case of the
alpha worldly and omega worldly antithesis, in that of amorality,
whereas with
particles one is in the sphere of immorality, whether on worldly or
diabolic
terms.
205. All being is in space, whereas all doing is in
time. For space is no less correlative
of being than time ... of doing. There
is divine space and worldly space, diabolic time and worldly time, both
negatively and positively. On the one
hand, devolutionary space and time, and, on the other hand,
evolutionary space
and time; the one preceding the other on an alternate basis, starting
on the
devolutionary plane with negative diabolic time as the effect of
negative
divine
space, and ending on the evolutionary plane with positive
diabolic time as the cause of positive divine space, due
worldly causes
and effects coming in-between. For
whereas effects succeed causes when space is at issue, causes precede
effects
when time is at issue, though in the world such a procedure is less
absolute
than relative. Consequently we may speak
of negative diabolic time as the effect of negative divine
space but
negative worldly time as the effective cause of negative
worldly space
on the one hand, and of positive worldly time as the causative
effect of
positive worldly space but positive diabolic time as the cause
of
positive divine space on the other hand.
Otherwise we would fall into the illogical trap of accrediting
space,
and hence being, with directly causative properties when, in point of
fact,
being of a negative order, i.e. alpha and worldly, can only be
indirectly
responsible for doing of a negative order, which, whether diabolic or
worldly,
finds its correlation in time - the direct cause of being, whether
negative or
positive.
206. Hence a distinction between cause and effect
where the divine and diabolic absolutes are concerned, but a
distinction
between effective causes and causative effects where the worldly
relativities
are at issue, as in the devolutionary regression from negative worldly
time to
negative worldly space, the former the effective cause of the latter,
and also
as in the evolutionary progression from positive worldly space to
positive
worldly time, the latter the causative effect of the former. Thus as against alpha worldly relativity,
negative diabolic time is the effect of negative divine space (the
apparent
cause), whereas as against - or beyond - omega worldly relativity,
positive
diabolic time is the cause of positive divine space (the essential
effect). Therefore whereas negative divine
space is
merely the apparent cause of negative diabolic time, positive divine
space is
the essential effect of positive diabolic time.
Alpha and omega, protons and electrons, centrifugal and
centripetal,
reactions and attractions. In the alpha
case, a space-time continuum leading to worldly time/space; in the
omega case,
a time-space continuum results from worldly space/time.
Alpha outer space and outer time, negative
worldly time and worldly space; positive worldly space and worldly
time, omega
inner time and inner space.
207. Outer space and time have reference to self, to
a self with a subconscious/old-brain bias or, more correctly, to selves
with
either a subconscious bias or an old-brain bias, depending on the type
of alpha
'self' in question; negative worldly time and space have reference to
others,
to others with a blood/bone bodily bias or, more correctly, with either
a blood
bias or a bone bias, depending on the type of negative worldly 'other'
in
question. Positive worldly space and
time have reference to others, to others with a flesh/muscle bodily
bias or,
more correctly, with either a flesh bias or a muscle bias, depending on
the
type of positive worldly 'other' in question; inner time and space have
reference to self, to a self with a new-brain/superconscious bias or,
more
correctly, to selves with either a new-brain bias or a superconscious
bias,
depending on the type of omega 'self' in question.
208. Put in the form of our familiar
devolutionary/evolutionary diagram, we could say:-
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION
1.
being against self in negative divine space
8. being
for self in positive divine space
2.
doing against self in negative diabolic time
7. doing
for self in positive diabolic time
3.
doing against others in negative worldly time
6. doing for
others in positive worldly time
4. being against others in negative
worldly
space
5. being for others in positive
worldly space
Additionally, we should also note that while
both negative worldly time and space on the one hand and positive
worldly space
and time on the other hand are in the world, and therefore neither
strictly
outer nor inner, alpha nor omega, the negative pair constitute a
relative outer
in relation to the relatively inner nature of the succeeding positive
pair.
209. Space and time are thus either inner or outer,
depending on the type of space and time in question.
In the world they are relatively inner and
outer, before the world they are absolutely outer and beyond it they
are
absolutely inner. Outer space and time
are only intelligible within the context of proton absolutism, in
contrast to
inner space and time which are synonymous with electron absolutism. In between, we find the worldly space and
time which is both outer and inner, protons and electrons, in an atomic
compromise. Space as we ordinarily
understand it, i.e. cosmic space and the gaps between objects, pertains
to the
world, albeit more in terms of a neutron void than an atomic compromise.
210. Similarly, when consciousness is equated with a
void, or nothingness (neant),
as
by Sartre, we have a neutron
position in between protons on the one hand (old brain/subconscious)
and
electrons on the other (new brain/superconscious), which is symptomatic
of
bourgeois decadence. By contrast,
proletarian consciousness (light), when properly 'turned on', is an
electron
being in superconscious space, whereas proletarian motion (heat) is an
electron
doing in new-brain time, the difference, in other words, between
wavicles and
particles, divine and diabolic, white- and blue-collar alternatives. Such superbeing and superdoing are dependent
on and motivated by artificial phenomena (superphenomena) of an
electronic
bias, whether in optical or aural terms.
On the other hand, worldly being and doing are motivated by
natural
phenomena of an atomic constitution, whether in optical or aural terms,
and
stand between the transcendental orders of (super)being and
(super)doing and
the traditional, alpha-stemming orders of (sub)being and (sub)doing
motivated
by natural noumena of a proton bias. For
whereas the superphenomenal is a precondition, or cause, of the
supernoumenal,
the phenomenal stems from a noumenal precondition and may accordingly
be
described as its causative effect.
211. As against being in space, of whatever order,
we have doing in time of whatever order, and whereas being accords with
binding
- indeed, is inseparable from binding - to a centre, doing accords with
freedom
from a centre, be it alpha or worldly.
To be free is to do in time; to be bound is to be
in
space. If I am free to do, I am not
bound to be. If I am bound to be, I am
not free to do. Space cancels time and
time space, though a time-space continuum of doing-being or a
space-time
continuum of being-doing are possible and, indeed, inevitable while
relativity
remains a reality. In the one case, a
Social Transcendentalist free binding; in the other case, a
Transcendental
Socialist bound freedom. The
Devil-God/God-Devil
ideological alternatives of the foreseeable future (see Appendix).
212. If Schopenhauer can be described as a
theosophical philosopher, then it seems to me that I, who stand in an
antithetical relationship to him, should be described as a
philosophical
theosophist. For philosophical theosophy
is, after all, the antithesis to theosophical philosophy.
213. Philosophy is not about saying simple things in
a complex manner, as certain pseudo-philosophers have erroneously
supposed, but
about saying complex things as simply and therefore straightforwardly
as
possible. The philosopher has the
difficult task of rendering extremely complicated issues as simply as
possible. It is not his business to
obfuscate or seek to appear profound. On
the contrary, it is his business to reveal the Truth.
214. We need be in no doubt concerning the fact that
Schopenhauer was a revolt against bourgeois idealism, or claims for the
primacy
and supremacy of thought, since he posited will as the supreme and
primary factor
in life, which he rightly regarded as preceding intellect and, hence,
thought. Yet unlike Marx, who also
revolted against bourgeois idealism, Schopenhauer effectively did so
from an
aristocratic point-of-view and thus functioned as a Neo-Platonist, a
kind of
traditional idealist - as to a lesser extent was Nietzsche, given his
'aristocratic radicalism'. Thus
Schopenhauer and Marx may be regarded as having revolted against
bourgeois
idealism in opposite ways - the former backwards and the latter
forwards ...
into proletarian materialism. For
Schopenhauer, the will was paramount.
For Marx, on the contrary, economic factors were the driving
force
behind historical change, a subject which, in any case, Schopenhauer
repudiated. Consequently while
Schopenhauer
was reactionary, Marx was progressive, taking economic materialism as
his
starting-point. And, to be sure,
dialectical materialism is the only logical starting-point for a
progressive,
and hence proletarian, revolt against bourgeois idealism.
One extreme engenders another. So
any philosopher whose work is in the least
degree proletarian effectively stems from Marx, rather than from either
Hegel
or Nietzsche or any of the other bourgeois idealists.
It has the People as its starting-point and
treats of them in a respectful manner.
They are not 'rabble', 'mob', 'poisoners of all wells', etc., as
with
Nietzsche, but simply proletarians whose oppressive and unfortunate
circumstances stem, in no small degree, from bourgeois exploitation,
and
therefore can only be properly alleviated once that exploitation has
been
removed from their backs and they are enabled, in consequence, to walk
upright
- as proud, free-standing men.
215. However, whilst it is incontestable that the
proletarian philosopher will maintain a respectful attitude towards the
People,
it does not follow that he will be a materialist, like Marx, and only
think in
economic terms. While that may be the
most logical starting-point in the revolt against bourgeois idealism,
it is
anything but the most logical or even desirable finishing-point, since
it
leaves the religious essence of man out of account - indeed, negates it
through
its vehement opposition to bourgeois religion, and thus pictures man in
his
proletarian manifestation as a kind of behavioural machine for whom
economic
factors are the main, if not sole, determinant of his destiny. Now, doubtless, whilst a blue-collar view of
the proletariat will largely confirm one in such a picture (and Marxism
is
nothing if not a view which conceives of the proletariat as synonymous
with
industrial workers), it cannot claim to do justice to working-class
people who
are white collar and therefore more disposed, in their use of intellect
or
mind, to a religious or, at any rate, idealistic view of life. Consequently, Marxism is largely irrelevant
to the white-collar proletariat who, though doubtless suffering from
bourgeois
exploitation as much as if not more than their blue-collar
counterparts, are
less materialistic than manual or industrial workers.
That is why proletarian philosophy has to
evolve towards an idealistic position if justice is to be done to that
not-inconsiderable stratum of the working class which is more
spiritually
conscious, and hence culture-loving, than the Marxian proletariat. For the time has come for proletarian
idealism to be voiced, and such an idealism can only be voiced in terms
of a
proletarian ideology which, contrary to Marxist Communism, has its
starting-point in the white-collar proletariat.
216. Yet if proletarian idealism has a
starting-point in the white-collar proletariat, it cannot have its end
or
finishing-point there, since true idealism is more a question of play
than of
work, and consequently the goal of this idealism must be proletarian
play of
the most idealistic and, hence, religiously being-oriented order. In other words, the end of proletarian
idealism must be play and thus the gradual transmutation of workers
into
players, with especial reference to spiritual play.
For while proletarian idealism has its
starting-point in the social, or white-collar, stratum of the People,
its end
can only be theocratic and accordingly less concerned with social
wellbeing
than with cultural and, in particular, spiritual fulfilment achieved on
the
basis of the utmost being-oriented play, thereby confirming its divine
bias on
both negative, or worker, and positive, or player, terms.
Likewise, while proletarian materialism has
its starting-point in the blue-collar proletariat and is therefore
socialist,
it likewise proceeds in the course of time towards a kind of theocratic
idealism which is less being orientated than doing orientated, and
accordingly
of a sports order of play commensurate with blue-collar criteria - a
diabolic
mode of playing which both contrasts with and provides a positive
counterbalance to the diabolic order of work that, in its manual
essence,
appertains to the industrial proletariat.
217. Thus from being-oriented work to being-oriented
play within the divine spectrum of proletarian idealism, and from
doing-oriented work to doing-oriented play within the diabolic spectrum
of
proletarian materialism - the twin poles of God and Devil beyond and
above the
(bourgeois) world. On the one hand, a
Superfatheristic/Superchristic distinction between (proton-wavicle)
being-oriented work and (electron-wavicle) being-oriented play, and, on
the
other hand a Supersatanic/Super-antichristic distinction between
(proton-particle) doing-oriented work and (electron-particle)
doing-oriented
play. Social Transcendentalism in the
one case, but Transcendental Socialism in the other case.
218. Of course, such proletarian idealism as is
voiced throughout my writings does owe something, if indirectly, to
bourgeois
idealism, particularly to Schopenhauer (to the extent that he can be
classified
as a bourgeois idealist), Hegel, Nietzsche, and even Teilhard de
Chardin, whose
starting-point is rather more Catholic than secular.
But there can be no question that,
fundamentally, any idealism which is intended for the proletariat comes
after
Marxian materialism as a revolt against both a blue-collar concept of
the
proletariat and the concomitant economic determinism which, while
largely
relevant to the proletariat in question, could only be an insult to
that
greater proportion of the working class which is white collar or, at
any rate,
other than industrial. Certainly, late
Marxist thinkers like Koestler and Sartre unwittingly undermined
proletarian
materialism by their subversive repudiation of a variety of traditional
communist assumptions about man and society, and therefore indirectly
paved the
way for the proletarian idealism to follow; though this idealism makes
no
short-term claim to supplant Communism, as though the age were ripe for
universal Centrism! On the contrary, I
fully accept the historical value and necessity of Communism for
certain
countries, since the world cannot be elevated to the Divine overnight,
so to
speak, but will remain divided between diabolic and divine interests
for some
time to come ... according to the natures of the various countries,
some of
which are traditionally more democratic, others of which traditionally
more
theocratic, neither of which can nor indeed should be forced into the
same
ideological straitjacket ... contrary to racial factors which, to a
significant
extent, condition their respective ideological standings.
Even Marx spoke rather more in terms of a
Germanic version of Communism than of a Slavic version, which, as we
all know,
had to wait for Lenin to modify Marxism away from the (muscle) body
towards the
(new-brain) head, in order that quasi-dictatorial criteria, founded
upon the
need for a vanguard party of the (blue-collar) working class within the
framework of a totalitarian State, could come to the fore at the
expense of
purely Marxist, democratic criteria more suited to the Germanic West,
where
notions of literal worker ownership, worker management, mass-democratic
participation, etc., are especially congenial - at any rate, to those
Marxists
whose Socialism is inherently materialistic rather than naturalistic,
decentralist (in relation to bourgeois centrality) rather than
centralist, and
democratic rather than theocratic.
Anathema to both Western Capitalists and Eastern Communists
alike, they
find themselves trapped between the Scylla of State Capitalism and the
Carybdis
of State Socialism, mouthpieces of a uniquely Germanic mode of
Communism which,
instead of opposing the world from a diabolic standpoint beyond it,
stems from
the world as the furthermost reach of worldly or, more correctly,
anti-worldly
materialism.
219. However, if this proletarian materialism is
strictly Marxist and, by implication, an ideological precondition of
the
proletarian naturalism, or State Socialism, advocated by Lenin and
upheld by
his Asiatic followers, of whom the Chinese must be accounted the
principal
latter-day exponents, then proletarian naturalism may likewise be
regarded as a
precondition of my own Social Transcendentalist Centrism, which is both
a
revolt against and an extension beyond Transcendental Socialism to the
extent
that, in the one case, it opposes State ownership by Centre
trusteeship, and in
the other case it advocates a People's theocracy in which the People,
with
particular reference to the white-collar proletariat, become
religiously
sovereign ... as, in effect, Holy Spirit, and are thereby empowered to
aspire,
no matter how indirectly or humbly at first, towards the definitive
realization
of spiritual unity in the Omega Beyond - an aspiration, so I contend,
which
would be stepped-up and accordingly rendered more efficacious in the
course of
millennial time ... as in due course the People were transcended by the
successive stages and manifestations of post-human life, as described
elsewhere
in my writings.
220. Thus Social Transcendentalism is no mere
reaction against Transcendental Socialism, like Nazism or Fascism, but
an
extension beyond and above proletarian naturalism to the divine level
of a
proletarian idealism, no less supra-national in scope than its diabolic
counterpart, though determined to further the cause of People's
theocracy
throughout the globe in the name of spiritual salvation.
For ultimate reality rests neither in the
material world nor in the blue-collar proletariat, but in the
superconscious
mind, which is the starting-point of transcendent heaven, the
Superheaven of an
electron-wavicle attraction. If
bourgeois idealism accorded thought the status of an ultimate reality,
then we
proletarian idealists must ensure that positive pure spirit is accorded
such a
status, as it fully deserves.
221. In the wisdom of his old age Sartre believed -
and correctly - that the ultimate society had to be ethical, i.e.
concerned
with the transcendent absolute beyond man, and that no such ethical
society
could arise except on the basis of freedom, but that no such freedom
was
possible until bourgeois power, or the economic ability of the
bourgeoisie to
oppress the proletariat, had been abolished.
Like Sartre, I, too, believe that there can be no transcendental
ethics
without freedom (from bourgeois oppression), and no freedom until
Capitalism
has been overcome. But, unlike him, I go
beyond opposition to capitalist power in my belief that the People must
also be
spared power or, at any rate, have political, economic, and judicial
power
removed from them, if an ethical aspiration towards the transcendent is
duly to
result. For it is not enough that the
People should be freed from bourgeois oppression. They
must
also be freed from their own power,
if the '
222. In terms of economics, a series of distinctions
could be drawn between:-
1.
amoral worldly power, or capitalist private ownership;
2. immoral worldly power, or
corporate
capitalism;
3. immoral diabolic power, or state
socialist
ownership;
4. moral divine power, or centre
trusteeship.
For
the
basic
distinction between moral or amoral and immoral modes of economic power
is
fundamentally one with regard to the individual, on whose shoulders
rests
morality, and the collective, which can only be immoral in view of the
diffusion of power on a necessarily decentralized (centrifugal) basis,
whether
we then make a further distinction between the literal implementation
of this
basis, as in Marxian Socialism, or a sublimated implementation, as in
State
Socialism. Yet, if both Corporate
Capitalism (not to be confused with the first of the above options) and
State
Socialism are economically immoral because of the collective, and hence
diffused, modes of ownership, Private Capitalism, although centralized,
is less
than moral by dint of the ownership of capital, shares, industry, etc.,
by a
particular individual, who is likely to amass further capital,
industry, etc.,
at other people's expense. Only when
industry is transferred to Centre trusteeship and, hence, to an
impersonal,
institutionalized 'individual', viz. the Centre, can economics
approximate to a
moral order ... commensurate with divine criteria, in which no
ownership is at
stake and capital profits accruing to industrial success are used to
further
the People's interests, with particular emphasis on their spiritual
welfare,
and thus the furtherance, in effect, of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore the Centre alone would have true
economic power, a power used for the general good rather than (as with
private
ownership) to further the economic growth of a particular person. Consequently we can speak, overall, of an
economic spectrum stretching from amoral realism (private capitalism)
to moral
idealism (centre trusteeship) via immoral materialism (corporate/state
capitalism)
and immoral naturalism (state socialism), with worldly and divine
individualism
flanking worldly and diabolic collectivism respectively - Fascist and
Communist
modes of economic immorality in between Liberal and Centrist modes of
economic
morality (Germanic Second Coming and Slavic Antichrist in between
Germanic
Christ and Celtic Holy Ghost).
223. On balance, Bertrand Russell was less a
philosopher than an historian of philosophy, which is a breed of writer
antithetical to philosophers of history, such as Toynbee and Spengler. In my opinion, historians of philosophy are
no less a superior breed of historian to historians-proper than ...
philosophers of history are an inferior breed of philosopher to
philosophers-proper. For whereas the
former are rather more of the philosophical head than of the historical
body,
the latter are rather more of the historical body than of the
philosophical
head. Should Bertrand Russell's name
mean anything to future generations, it will be more in consequence of
monumental
books like A
History
of Western Philosophy than of the series of slender
essayistic volumes - quick to date - which bear many of the hallmarks
of a
left-liberal homme de lettres, and few if any hallmarks of a
systematic
philosopher!
224. Re-evaluation of different kinds of football,
viz. eleven-a-side, five-a-side, six-a-side, in relation to ideological
equivalents: Democratic Socialist eleven-a-side football played on a
grass
pitch; pure Socialist eleven-a-side football played on a plastic pitch;
Communist five-a-side indoor football; Transcendental Socialist
six-a-side
indoor football. Thus, further to my
previous thoughts on this subject, [See,
for
instance, From
Materialism to Idealism.] I have distinguished between Communist
and
Transcendental Socialist equivalents on the basis of a
five-a-side/six-a-side
dichotomy between a type of indoor football which is materialistic,
i.e. played
all along the ground and therefore absolutist, and a type of indoor
football
which is comparatively idealistic, i.e. allowing for flighted balls and
therefore
relativistic - a distinction analogous to our musical dichotomy between
soft
rock as Communist and jazz-rock as Transcendental Socialist. Thus the addition of a flighted ball
possibility to six-a-side football entitles it to be regarded, in my
view, as a
Transcendental Socialist equivalent beyond the Communist purism of
(ground-low)
five-a-side football - at least that is one of the principal reasons
for
considering it in a more idealistic light, a light analogous (to give a
further
parallel) to that in which we view streamlined motorbikes vis-à-vis
plain or
conventional motorbikes of a comparatively light-weight (in relation to
the
larger socialist motorbikes) construction.
Doubtless the free-flow of substitutes adds or, rather, confirms
an
idealistic, i.e. wavicle-biased, dimension to the game, and possibly
the
existence of the not-inappropriately named 'sin bin' does likewise ...
if on
Leninist 'theocratic' terms.
225. Considering both types of indoor football in
relation to conventional outdoor football, it should be clear that the
former
are of the head rather than of the body to the extent that the indoor
context,
having fewer players, signifies a degree of centro-complexification
unattainable on an outdoor eleven-a-side basis, and thereby confirms a
superior
ideological development commensurate with communistic criteria. In a very real sense six-a-side football is
the ultimate mode of football, just as Transcendental Socialism is the
ultimate
mode of Socialism, as superior to Democratic Socialism as the new-brain
head to
the muscle body. Certainly there is
every chance that indoor football will be the
football
of
the
future, played long after the outdoor variety has been consigned to
the
rubbish heap of history. For it alone
accords with the diabolic head above the worldly body, and therefore
stands in
a parallel relation to Fascist basketball on the one hand and to Social
Transcendentalist hoopball on the other: five-a-side football a direct
parallel
to the former and six-a-side football to the latter.
226. To distinguish between outdoor American
football as Nazi in a left-wing way and indoor American football as
Nazi in a
right-wing way, as regarding avant-garde rock on the one hand and
avant-garde
jazz on the other, both of which are ideologically parallel. Thus American football may be said to stand
in an ideologically superior light to conventional outdoor football,
whether
Democratic Socialist or pure Socialist, but in an ideologically
inferior light
to basketball, which succeeds it, so to speak, on the basis of a
properly
theocratic parallel to Communist five-a-side football (see above). As to the possibility of an Ecological
equivalent in between Fascist basketball and Communist five-a-side
football, I
should like to posit team handball as the most credible candidate for
this
position, since the term 'handball' suggests a midway-point in between
materialistic football and idealistic basketball, and Ecological
equivalents
are nothing if not midway between one theocratic extreme and another. Granted that we derive the materialistic
status of football largely from the fact that, in relation to hands or
head,
feet are the lowest-common-denominator and therefore balls which
proceed along
the ground in consequence of having been kicked or passed can only be
regarded
in a materialistic light, correlative with Socialism, by contrast to
those
which are thrown through the air or passed from hand to hand, then it
must
follow that the idealistic status of basketball owes not a little to
the
transcendentalism of the term 'basket', which has nothing whatsoever to
do with
any part of the body (any more than does the hoop of hoopball), since
an
artificial phenomenon quite distinct from hands or feet.
Now if basketball corresponds to a Fascist
equivalent on account of both the transcendentalism of the basket and
the
hands-high method of play, and indoor football corresponds to a
Communist
equivalent on account of the foot-low method of play which is confirmed
by the
term 'football', then it needn't surprise us if handball corresponds to
an
Ecological equivalent in between these theocratic alternatives on
account of
the midway status of the 'hand' in relation to the 'foot' in the one
case and
to the 'basket' in the other - a status confirming a relatively
realistic
position vis-à-vis basket-high idealism and foot-low materialism. Such a realistic, or as I should say in
regard to this level of sport, superrealistic position is commensurate
with an
Ecological equivalent - a superrealism lying in-between superidealistic
and
supermaterialistic positions ... commensurate with Fascist and
Communist
ideological equivalents respectively, as, to a lesser degree, with
their Social
Transcendentalist (hoopball) and Transcendental Socialist (six-a-side
football)
extrapolations.
227. When we speak of a 'good ball' in relation to
football, we generally mean an accurate or skilful pass from one player
to
another, whereas a 'bad ball' implies just the opposite, i.e. that one
of the
players has given the ball away to the opposition through a careless or
foolish
pass. Consequently the expressions have
nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the ball itself, which does
not
enter into account. Yet balls can also
be good or bad, depending on their construction, that is to say,
whether they
conform to the specifications of the game and are accordingly of the
correct
size, shape, weight, material, etc, or whether, on the contrary,
something is
amiss with one or more of these factors.
Thus we distinguish a good ball from a bad ball in terms of
physical
factors, which contrasts to our way of distinguishing, within the
context of an
actual football match, between a 'good ball' and a 'bad ball', as
applicable to
the standard of play. Clearly, whereas
criteria applying to the actual construction of the ball are physical,
those
which apply to the way the ball is played are metaphysical, and
consequently we
have a distinction between the ball itself and what is done with it
during the
course of play - a distinction, in other words, between the phenomenal
and the
noumenal or, as we should be saying in connection with such a
comparatively
advanced and artificial game as football, the superphenomenal ball and
the
supernoumenal pass, the latter of which is only possible on account of
the prior
existence of the former, which may accordingly be described as its
material
precondition. One could argue, in
Hegelian terms, that whereas the ball itself is a manifestation of the
world,
the play resulting from its use, whether for good or bad, is a
manifestation of
Spirit in the world at that particular level of its unfolding.
228. For a writer, technique is a kind of bridge
between style and theme, a worldly link between appearance and essence. The more apparent the style, the less
essential the theme and, conversely, the more essential the theme, the
less
apparent the style. The simplest and
most alpha-stemming writing will be the most stylistic; the profoundest
and
most omega-oriented writing, by contrast, the most thematic. In between will come worldly, or bourgeois,
writing, which strives to achieve a balance between style and content,
appearance and essence. Now whether this
balance is effectively with regard to the Father and the Holy Spirit,
or Satan
and the Antichrist, or indeed worldly alpha and worldly omega options
... will
depend on the kind of writer in question, which is to say,
whether a writer primarily concerned with the
pursuit of truth, like a philosopher; or one primarily concerned with
the
pursuit of beauty, like a poet; or one whose primary concern is with
the
pursuit of strength, like a playwright; or one whose primary concern is
with
the pursuit of goodness, like a novelist.
For each different type of writer correlates with a different
spectrum,
and no two spectra have the same stylistic or thematic extremes. To distinguish style from content on the
basis of beauty or truth alone would be to misrepresent the issue,
since these
quantities pertain to different spectra and could only be inferred to
co-exist
in writers who were neither divine nor diabolic but a paradoxical cross
between
the two, like philosophical poets or poetic philosophers.
As to those who are less mongrels than
thoroughbreds, we must allow for a false style no less than a true
theme, an
ugly style no less than a beautiful theme, a weak style no less than a
strong
theme, or an evil style no less than a good theme, depending on the
type of
writer, viz. philosopher, poet, playwright, or novelist, in question.
229. Just as there was a pre-historical time of
doing-oriented chaos before historical chronologies were compiled, so
there
will be a post-historical time or, rather, eternity of being-oriented
order, in
which the study of history or the making of chronologies will be taboo,
since
beneath the pale. For history is only
relevant to an open society, not to one which, like the post-historical
eternity I have in mind, will be so omega orientated as to be
indisposed to
looking back over its shoulder, so to speak, at the doings - for the
most part
sordid - of the past. In a truly
omega-oriented closed society, history would be as much beneath the
pale as it
was once beyond the pale of the most alpha-stemming closed societies. For history is the Becoming, not the Become
(being).
230. As a rule, worldly societies, whether
autocratic or democratic, are matriarchal, whereas diabolic and divine
societies, by contrast, are patriarchal.
For whereas the body is of the world, the head is either of
Heaven or
Hell above the world, depending on whether a mind or a brain bias is
upheld in
and by any given divine or diabolic society.
Because woman more accords, traditionally, with the worldly body
than
with either the divine or the diabolic head, being, to all intents and
purposes, akin to a planet vis-à-vis the sun and stars (the sun more
conspicuous than the stars on account of its correlation with husbands
and
fathers ... as previously discussed), we should have no hesitation in
regarding
a worldly, and hence feminine society, as matriarchal ... in contrast
to pre-
and post-worldly patriarchal societies, which accord with the head on
either
subconscious/old-brain terms in the former case or
new-brain/superconscious
terms in the latter case - the divine (mind) level rather more
archpatriarchal
than patriarchal. As yet, however, we
haven't witnessed a post-worldly divine society, since that is germane,
so far
as I am concerned, to Social Transcendentalism and, hence, to
ideological
futurity. But we have ample evidence of
post-worldly diabolic societies, especially in regard to the Communist
East,
and they are nothing if not patriarchal, with male leaders in both
presidential
and ministerial posts - leaders who would be unwilling to share power
with
women. How different is the People's
Republic
of China, in this respect, from Western countries like Great Britain, a
quintessentially worldly democracy in which not only has a woman been
elected
Prime Minister on three successive occasions but ... co-existed with a
female
monarch who has been on the throne even longer than her indefatigable
Prime
Minister was in parliament! Thus at both
autocratic and democratic poles of this worldly society women have been
in
power, thereby confirming its matriarchal nature. Indeed,
it
is scarcely surprising that two of
the three most esteemed monarchs in English history have been women -
namely
Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, and probably it is no mere
coincidence
that their respective reigns marked cultural and imperial highpoints in
English
history. It was only during the
Cromwellian revolution that anything resembling a democratic patriarchy
existed, while Henry VIII would be the most credible candidate for an
autocratic one - a sort of medieval patriarch who is better remembered,
in the
popular imagination, for his eight wives than for his political
achievements.
231. What especially limits languages like French
and German to a bourgeois, worldly status is their division into
feminine and
masculine gender, which ensures a dualistic balance at the expense of a
transcendent or genderless one-sidedness.
In other words, a worldly relativity as opposed to a
post-worldly
absolutism, the very factor which makes for a bourgeois view of life. For it cannot be denied that language to some
extent conditions one's psychology, and regular use of languages
balanced
between feminine and masculine genders can hardly fail to elicit
complacency in
dualistic norms - short of one's rebelling against such languages in
favour of
one which, like English, is genderless and therefore more extreme in
character. Certainly the Creole language
of the island
of Reunion is considerably less dualistic than French, having but three
feminine nouns, viz. la
pic (the mountain peak), la tunnel (the tunnel), and la
sable (the sand), which, ironically, are all masculine in
French. Could it be, I wonder, that the
Creole
speakers of
232. One of the most controversial issues for the Church,
particularly the Protestant one, in the late-twentieth century was the
ordination of women priests, which some saw as a necessary advance
towards
complete equality of the sexes and others, evidently more conservative,
regarded with deep suspicion ... as something that flew in the face of
Christian tradition. My own position on
this issue has recently become clearer, so I shall here set it down for
the
philosophical record, irrespective of my ideological opposition to the
Church,
particularly in its Protestant manifestation, and professed adherence
to Social
Transcendentalism. Not altogether
surprisingly, it is the Catholic Church which most opposes the concept
of women
priests, and quite logically too, since Catholicism is much more an
idealistic
mode of Christianity than Protestantism, more - to revert to my
customary
metaphors - a church of the head (mind) than one of the body, given its
Latin
origins and, in the main, following.
(For it is only in the Germanic countries that bodily
Christianity, or
Protestantism, has traditionally flourished.)
Thus where the head rules, the head decides, and masculine
criteria
accordingly prevail. Where the body
rules, on the other hand, such criteria, while nominally upheld, are
less
unassailable - indeed, can and have been subverted to suit the climate
of the
age. Now since the present age is highly
decadent insofar as the Germanic West is concerned, it can be of no
surprise to
us if liberal tendencies of the sort we are discussing make an
appearance in
the Church to usher in a new era or, more correctly, a further
manifestation of
the general decadence in which, effectively, the bodily phenomenon of
women
priests has its day. For let there be no
doubt on this issue: women priests are only credible in a bodily Church
whose
decadence is so far advanced ... as to warrant female salvation from
the
socialistic and/or communistic damnation which not only lies in wait
beyond the
boundaries of the Christian West, but threatens the Church from within,
to the
ultimate detriment of women themselves!
Thus, as in other comparable worldly contexts where middle-class
women
have been called in or, rather, have called themselves in to heal the
breach
and shore-up the tottering edifice of worldly civilization, the
233. But let us now take a countervailing argument
which, though essentially irrelevant in this context, can be formulated
on the
basis of sexual equality between men and women.
For if women are prepared to do the same things as men, why
shouldn't
they be allowed to, providing they can do them just as well? Isn't sexual equality a contemporary ideal,
and therefore doesn't the ordination of women priests confirm that the
ideal is
being realized? Superficially it
does. But, judged by more exacting
standards, can the sort of women who want to become priests be regarded
as
quasi-Supermen in relation, officially or unofficially, to masculine
Supermen
and, consequently, as deserving of real equality? And
the
answer to this question has to be
'no'. A middle-class woman can never be
the real equal of a middle-class man, since bourgeois heterosexuality,
confirmed by unequal sartorial customs, precludes unisexual equality
between
men and women, keeping the latter in a relatively inferior position
vis-à-vis
the former. Now since the Church,
especially in its Protestant manifestation, is nothing if not middle
class,
there can be no equality in the sense that proletarian women, who both
dress
and appear masculine, achieve equality with proletarian men on a
quasi-Superman/Superman basis. Rather,
one will have a heterosexual inequality between men and women, and such
an
inequality can only result, in the event of women being ordained, in a
neo-autocratic materialism in which, effectively, priestesses seek to
replace
priests as the most credible representatives of bodily Christianity in
a
radically decadent age. Now to the
extent that certain male priests may no longer appear quite so
credible, for
one reason or another, regarding this purpose, female priests would
have a
limited justification, albeit not one that could outlive the eclipse of
Western
civilization.
234. When a religion is worldly, like Christianity,
Heaven is otherworldly and only arrived at, if at all, following death. When, on the other hand, a religion is
transcendental, Heaven is in the world and can be arrived at through
self-realization ... in successive stages of spiritual
centro-complexification. Heaven for the
former is without. For the latter
it is within. Christ taught the '
