Preview OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM eBook
Op.
123
OPUS
POSTSCRIPTUM
VOL.1–
A
Re-examination
of
the
Intercardinal
Axes
Metaphysical
Philosophy
as
Revised
and
Reformatted
Weblogs
Copyright
©
2011
John O’Loughlin
____________
CONTENTS
01.
Positivity
vis-à-vis
Negativity
in
Sensuality and Sensibility
02.
Gender
Contrasts
in
Soma
and Psyche
03.
Female
Advantage
in
Worldly
Relations
04.
Alpha
and
Omega
of
the Metaphysical Self
05.
Nature
and
Philistinism
06.
Understanding
Culture
and
Civility
07.
Man
and
God
08.
Traditional
and
Contemporary
Music
09.
Understanding
Homosexuality
10.
Theory
of
Sartorial
Polarity
11.
Re-examining
Philistinism
and
Culture
in relation to Barbarity and Civility
12.
Football’s
Violent
Traditions
13.
Of Pediments and Domes
14.
Concerning
Educated
Females
15.
Free
Will
verses
Free
Soul
16.
Re-defining
the
Left
and
the Right
17.
Worldly
and
Post-Worldly
Distinctions
18.
Genuine
and
Pseudo
Axial
Antitheses
19.
Comprehensively
Non-Humanistic
20.
Overcoming
the
World
21.
Revaluations
and
Transvaluations
22.
Metaphysics
and
Antimetachemistry
23.
God
and
Heaven
24.
Secular
Freedom
vis-à-vis
Religious
Conformity
25.
A
Revaluation
of
Meritocracy
and Plutocracy
26.
A
Brief
Examination
of
Religious Freedom
27.
Freedom
From
vis-à-vis
Freedom
For
28.
Concerning
Noumenal
Subatomic
Wavicles
and Particles
29.
Concerning
the
Respective
Phenomenal
Subatomic Positions
30.
On Irish and British Distinctions
31.
On the Relationship between Righteousness
and Justice
32.
Divine
and
Other
Laws
33.
Space
and
Time
34.
God
out
of
Man
35.
No
‘Fall of Man’
36.
The
Nature
of
the
Age
37.
An
Earlier
Oversight
Corrected
38.
Man’s
Yearning
for
Eternity
39.
Free
Cross
and
Bound
Star
40.
Overcoming
the
Gender
War
in the Interests of Universal Peace
41.
A
Metaphysical
Rejection
of
Brass
42.
Across the Socialist Divide
43.
Beyond Nationalist Politics
44.
The
Moral
Necessity
of
Gender Discrimination
45.
Falls
and
Counter-Rises
vis-à-vis
Rises and Counter-Falls
46.
No
Simple
Right
and
Wrong
47.
Re-examining
the
Axial
Compass
in relation to Right and Wrong
48.
Getting
the
Life-force
into
Perspective
49.
Exploring
the
Role
of
Percussion in Music
50.
The
Struggle
between
Opposite types of Sanity
51.
Exposing
the
Antichrist
Hype
52.
The
Alternative
Patterns
of
Salvation and Damnation
53.
Understanding
Class
54.
A
Reappraisal
of
Salvation
and Counter-Damnation in relation to Damnation
and
Counter-Salvation
55.
From Phenomenal Particle Collectivity to
Noumenal Wavicle
Individuality
56.
Contrasting
Objectivity
with
Antisubjectivity
and Subjectivity with
Anti-objectivity in Noumenal and Phenomenal contexts
57.
Envisioning
the
Supra-Christian
Beyond
58.
Understanding
the
Contrary
Modes
of Noumenal Saluting
59. Examining the Noumenal Antithesis
between
Space
and
Time
and the Phenomenal Antithesis between Volume and Mass,
together with their Subordinate Concomitants
60. More on the Relationship
between Culture and Civility in both Noumenal and Phenomenal Contexts
61. The Duties of Social
Theocracy
62. A Critical Look at the
Resurrection
63. An Examination of
Faithfulness and Faithlessness
64. An
Investigation of Death in relation to Life, both Temporal and Eternal
65. Setting the
Time/Antispace Record Straight
66. A Common Phrase Corrected
67. Another Look at Freedom
68. A Re-examination of Light
and Darkness relative to Gender
69. The Tasks Lying Ahead for
the Godly and the Antidevilish
______________
POSITIVITY
VIS-À-VIS
NEGATIVITY
IN
SENSUALITY
AND SENSIBILITY. Anyone who reads my mature
aphoristic philosophy, which is to say texts written during the past
few years,
will know that I distinguish between female and male on the basis of
free
soma/bound psyche in sensuality and free psyche/bound soma in
sensibility, so
that the genders are forever at loggerheads as somatic/psychic
antitheses in
which either soma triumphs over psyche, as with sensuality, or psyche
triumphs
over soma, as with sensibility. And this happens on both
phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal, terms, as
between the
planes of volume and mass for physics and chemistry, not to mention
antichemistry and antiphysics, and the planes of space and time for
metachemistry and metaphysics, not to mention antimetaphysics and
antimetachemistry. Hence the genders present us with an axial
compass, as
it were, which either descends/counter-ascends from metachemistry and
antimetaphysics to physics and antichemistry or, conversely,
ascends/counter-descends
from chemistry and antiphysics to metaphysics and antimetachemistry,
taking the
first elemental term in each pairing as hegemonic irrespective of
gender and of
the modifying effects of inter-axial relativity across the
noumenal/phenomenal
'class' divide. The axes are a good deal more complicated than
this, but
I have gone into that often enough in my mature philosophical works and
need
not elaborate on them here. Suffice it to say that if, when free,
females
are basically about free soma and bound psyche, free body and bound
mind, and
males, by contrast, about free psyche and bound soma, free mind and
bound body,
then females will be naturally more disposed to external, or somatic,
calmness
and males, by contrast, to internal, or psychic, calmness - at least
when they
are free to be either sensually hegemonic, as in the female case, or
sensibly
hegemonic, as in the male case. For the converse of such
antithetical
hegemonies will of course be subservience or subordination to the
prevailing
gender, be it female or male (as in the case, for example, of
antiphysics to
chemistry at the southwest point of the axial compass or, indeed, of
antichemistry to physics at its southeast point), and in those cases we
can
expect males to demonstrate more external aggression and females more
internal
aggression, since the converse of male psychic calmness, or passivity,
will be
male somatic aggression, while the converse of female somatic passivity
will be
female psychic aggression. Hence while females are generally more
externally calm than males they become, under male hegemonic pressure
in
sensibility, internally, or psychically, more aggressive, whereas
males, though
generally more internally calm than females, become, under female
hegemonic
pressure in sensuality, externally, or somatically, more
aggressive.
Think of the sexual act. Coitus is generally a context in which
the
female is sexually passive and the male sexually aggressive, and this
is
consonant with a female hegemony in sensuality in which somatic
passivity is
triumphant over somatic aggression, or activity. Cheerleaders
presiding
at or, rather, over a male sporting context of a certain
sensually-biased stamp
are also indicative of this kind of sensual situation in which
comparative
female passivity is juxtaposed (hegemonically) with male activity of a
somatically aggressive nature. On the other hand, females are
likely to
become more internally, or psychically, aggressive under male hegemonic
pressures in sensibility, since mental calmness in the male excites the
female
to psychic aggression and often serves to facilitate her maternal
interests in
respect of offspring. The 'nagging wife' syndrome is significant
here,
and this is the other side of the matrimonial coin, if I can put it
like that, which
rather contrasts with coitus and male somatic aggression
generally.
Females, in sum, are more mentally aggressive in sensibility than males
but
this, paradoxically, is due to male hegemonic pressure in sync with
their
gender reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in such
fashion
than psychic calmness is the norm. Males, on the other hand, are
more
somatically aggressive in sensuality than females, and this,
paradoxically, is
due to female hegemonic pressure in sync with their
gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche in
such fashion that somatic calmness is the norm. The psychically
aggressive female is no more representative of female gender freedom
than is
the somatically aggressive male of male gender freedom. Each
alike are at
cross-purposes with their respective gender realities, but that is only
because
of hegemonic pressures stemming from the opposite gender. Verily,
life is
a gender tug-of-war between class and/or
axial
manifestations of sensuality and sensibility, soma and psyche.
GENDER
CONTRASTS
IN
SOMA
AND PSYCHE. If females
are generally more externally, or
somatically, calm than males and males, by contrast, more internally,
or psychically,
calm than females, does this mean that females are generally stronger
than
males in sensuality and males stronger than females in
sensibility? In a
manner of speaking I guess it does, because somatic passivity is
hegemonic over
somatic activity, or aggressiveness, in sensuality, whereas psychic
passivity
is hegemonic over psychic activity, or aggressiveness, in sensibility,
and one
could argue that the female is accordingly stronger than the male in
the one
context and the male stronger than the female in the other. But
'strong'
is not a word I would care to use here, because of its antithetical
association
with 'weak', both of which, to my way of thinking, correspond to female
realities in competition with a male antithesis, in corporeal
phenomenality,
between knowledge and ignorance, weakness chemically hegemonic over the
antiphysicality of ignorance, knowledge physically hegemonic over the
antichemistry of strength across the phenomenal axial divide of the
southwest
and southeast points of our axial compass (see preceding entry), both
of which
positions are subject, however, to inter-axial modification in respect
of their
northeast and northwest points respectively. Therefore rather
than
arguing in terms of a strong/weak dichotomy between somatically calm
females
and somatically aggressive males in sensuality or, conversely, between
psychically calm males and psychically aggressive females in
sensibility, I
shall contend that a sort of positive/negative distinction exists
between the
genders in both sensuality and sensibility, with females more
somatically
positive than their male counterparts in the one context but males more
psychically positive than their female counterparts in the other case,
neither
of whom are 'true to themselves' when negative, or aggressive, because
obliged
to be negative under positive hegemonic pressures appertaining to the
hegemonic
gender. Hence females and males can only be 'true to themselves'
in
opposite fashions, and this is why life remains a kind of gender
tug-of-war
between those whose positivity appertains to somatic calmness and
those, by
contrast, whose positivity appertains to psychic calmness, the
respective extremes of
calmness
only
possible
independently
of the opposite sex, whichever sex that may happen to be, since
aggressiveness from the subordinate gender in either context takes its
toll on
the hegemonic gender's positivity even as that positivity is
responsible for
conditioning, in no small measure, such negativity as may somatically
or
psychically accrue in the opposite gender to its hegemonic sway.
FEMALE
ADVANTAGE
IN
WORLDLY
RELATIONS. The fact that females are externally calmer
than males and internally more aggressive means that, by and large,
they have
the sexual advantage over males and maintain it throughout life. For the male is trapped in a kind of vicious
circle in which his psychic calm is regularly warred upon by a less
psychically
calm and altogether more mentally aggressive female at loggerheads with
her
gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche under
male
hegemonic pressure in sensibility.
Consequently he will incline to revert to somatic aggression in
order to
avenge himself in some degree on the female and become trapped in a
situation
the converse of hers as he struggles with her external calmness at
loggerheads
with his gender reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over
soma under
female hegemonic pressure in sensuality.
Now obviously there are instances of direct retaliatory somatic
aggression, whether sexual or otherwise, to female psychic
aggressiveness, but,
by and large, one can believe that arguments are not resolved in such
brutal
fashion and that each gender withdraws into its own position to start
afresh,
usually with a renewed commitment to coitus on the part of the male in
consequence of a display of female somatic calmness and togetherness. For sex, being sensual, more usually follows
from a male response to the female position of somatic calmness rather
than in
consequence of anger with female psychic aggression.
The male who ‘loses his cool’ with a female
in sensibility is in no position to enjoy sex or to properly satisfy
his
woman’s sexual needs. He is more likely
simply to make a violent fool, if not criminal, of himself. But because females generally get the better
of males in life, it follows that wisdom as a male preserve is keenly
aware of
this situation and knows that the only way to defeat it is to remain as
independent of females as possible, since no male who has regular
relations
with females or even a certain female can possibly avoid having his
psychic
calm undermined by a creature whose calmness is somatic and therefore
contrary
to his. This is what justifies certain
enlightened males, like monks and philosophers and great artists, in
living
independently of females in the interests of enhanced psychic calm, of
that
calmness which will not be subject to the aggressiveness of females
under male
hegemonic pressure in sensibility but be able to maintain itself at or
near peak
levels of inner sanity, of self-realization and actualization in
relation to
psychic freedom. But such psychic
freedom is only possible as a metaphysical postulate, and therefore in
relation
to godliness and, most especially, heavenliness, which is the alpha and
omega
of the metaphysical self.
ALPHA
AND
OMEGA
OF
THE METAPHYSICAL
SELF. It has been said that God or godliness is
both alpha and omega and, to be sure, there is some truth in this,
albeit not
necessarily in the way that many people would think.
For this is not the beginning and end of
things per
se, a cosmic ‘first
mover’ and whatever may be yet to come.
Rather, this alpha and omega should be seen, as hinted at in the
entry
above, in relation to the self, and the metaphysical self most
especially. For it is only in the
metaphysical self,
which is a male preserve, that godliness and, more importantly,
heavenliness is
possible, and it is in respect of the ego of the one and the soul of
the other,
of a transposition, as it were, from the one to the other that we
should think
of the alpha and omega not so much of godliness as of godliness and
heavenliness, the formal beginning and contented end of the self in
question. Therefore ego into bound will
and bound spirit of the metaphysical not-self, say lungs and breath, is
the
methodology, mankind-traditionally, by means of which the ego may
achieve unity
with the soul and in becoming one with it lose any sense of otherness,
of
relativity vis-à-vis the relevant not-self, for the nonce, thereby
achieving
the bliss that is the sublime reward of self-unity.
God is the metaphysical alpha that finds His
redemption in the metaphysical omega of Heaven, ego in soul, form in
contentment, the knowledge of truth in the pleasure of joy, of which
there is
nothing more pleasing to the self. Hence
do not conceive of this alpha and omega solely in relation to God,
still less
to anything outside metaphysics, which is always the northeast
hegemonic point
of the intercardinal axial compass, whether in cosmos, where it exists
to a
least evolved degree, in nature, where it exists to a less (compared to
least)
evolved degree, in mankind, where it exists to a more (compared to
most)
evolved degree, or, to anticipate the future, in cyborgkind, where it
will
exist to a most evolved and therefore effectively per se
degree commensurate with ‘Kingdom
Come’. Verily the truth about religious
alpha and omega is that it is both godly and heavenly, and that godly
ego is
the beginning of the metaphysical self which has one raison d’être and one raison d’être only: namely to get
from ego to soul,
godliness to heavenliness, through achieving, via whatever
metaphysically
not-self means are most appropriate to any given ‘life-stage’ of
metaphysics,
perfect self-harmony, a perfection, I teach, which is only going to be
truly –
because most – perfect in relation to the utilization of synthetically
artificial procedures as germane neither to the West nor to the East,
not to
anything intermediate or anterior, but solely to global civilization as
it
comes into its sensibly cyborg own in the decades and centuries to come.
NATURE
AND
PHILISTINISM. It has
been said that philistinism is undesirable because too naturalistic or
insufficiently cultural, and so, up to a point, it is. But
philistinism is
not naturalism or the same as being too natural, since ‘the philistine’
is,
thanks to inter-axial relationships of a church-hegemonic order, one
who is
fundamentally against nature even as he occasionally or even often
indulges it
in what he would regard, again under church-hegemonic pressures
stemming from
the northeast point of the axial compass, as sinful conduct, sin being
consequent upon an acknowledgement, from a male standpoint, of the
folly of
freely somatic behaviour from a position that is committed, no matter
how
imperfectly, to the wisdom and, more importantly, grace of metaphysics,
wherein
psychic freedom has its throne. Hence ‘the philistine’ is a cut
above the
merely heathen naturalist, for whom there is no concept of sin because
no
recognition of an independent cultural principle commensurate with
metaphysics
at the northeast point of the axial compass. The heathen is
simply
naturalistic whereas the philistine is effectively antinatural in his
rejection
of somatic freedom from a standpoint centred in or, at any rate,
theoretically
committed to psychic freedom of a metaphysical order.
Philistinism is the
precondition, for the catholic masses, of culture, even though, in
priestly
vein, culture can – and does – exist independently of nature and,
hence, of
philistinism when it is truly or even approximately metaphysical.
Therefore the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from
the
southwest to the northeast point of the axial compass provides us with
a
polarity between philistinism and culture as far as the male
distinction
between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, with a secondary
distinction,
on both church and state terms, between what can be called
pseudo-barbarity and
pseudo-civility as far as the female distinction between chemistry and
antimetachemistry is concerned, chemistry having less to do with sin or
folly
than with pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil, antimetachemistry less to do
with grace
or wisdom than with pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness. But
all this
is the converse, after all, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria on
the axis which stretches from the northwest to the southeast point of
the
compass in question, where we have every right to speak of the genuine
barbarity and civility of metachemistry and antichemistry on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms but, by contrast, of the
pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture of antimetaphysics and physics
on
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, the former polarity
largely
female in character and the latter one its male counterpart in what,
with
pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom coupled, in church-subordinate vein, to
pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace, is a poor cousin to the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate distinction between antiphysics and
metaphysics. But even here we can speak of a further distinction
between
pseudo-philistinism, which at least acknowledges the existence and
rights of
pseudo-culture, and what could be called pseudo-nature in consequence
of a
rejection of such rights attendant upon a shift in emphasis from
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria to state-absolutist
totalitarianism. Such pseudo-nature is not even pseudo-meek but
simply
the pseudo-heathen male corollary of a more absolutist approach to
vanity as an
extrapolation less from antimetaphysics than from metachemistry in
female-oriented state primacy. It is the male equivalent of
heathenistic
naturalism within an axial context that had once been state hegemonic
but was
now, informally if not formally, state absolutist and hence overly
totalitarian
UNDERSTANDING
CULTURE
AND
CIVILITY. One way
or the other culture and civility are always on the sensible side of
life, as
of our axial divide, and barbarity and philistinism, if not naturalism
in one
form or another, on its sensual side, the side which combines either
metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the axial
compass
or, alternatively, chemistry and antiphysics at its southwest point. Culture and civility always appertain, by
contrast, to either the southeast or the northeast points of the
compass in
question, though, once inter-class axial factors are taken into
account, the
point at which metaphysics is unequivocally hegemonic over
antimetachemistry
will be the only point at which culture can be genuine and civility, by
contrast, somewhat pseudo in view of its subordinate status on both
church and
state terms. The southeast point of the
axial compass provides us, on the other hand, with the subversion of
physics by
antichemistry acting under the rule of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics ‘back
up’ what is, as a rule, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and
therefore with a shift of emphasis from free psyche to bound soma in
typically
state-oriented and female-dominated vein, so that the paradoxical
outcome has
less to do with genuine culture than with pseudo-culture – and hence
pseudo-righteousness – in subordination to genuine civility, wherein
justice
has her throne, even if such a position will normally co-exist with
pseudo-righteousness
to the exclusion, sensibly, of state-absolutist criteria of an overly
social
democratic nature.
MAN
AND
GOD.
Strictly speaking, prayer is not as religious, or metaphysical,
as
meditation from a mankind (as opposed to a natural or cosmic or even
cyborgkind) standpoint, though there is certainly a sense in which
prayer is
more germane to man than to woman, the Devil, or even God, to take the
respective alternatives into account.
Which is because prayer is egoistic, or centred in ego as a
projection
of knowledge, and therefore more germane to a creature for whom
ego takes precedence over spirit, will, or soul. In that sense prayer, being
a form of intellectuality, is not really religious at all, because more
ego
than soul. If true religion is
metaphysical, then only that type of ego which wishes to escape itself
into
soul, as from godliness into heavenliness, is commensurate with God. Any ego which subsumes soul into itself, on
the other hand, will be manly and thus an earthly shortfall, in
transcendent
knowledge expressed through prayer, from godliness.
Man, to be sure, is distinct from God, or
godliness, but that only confirms an alternative to godliness which
man, as a
certain type of male centred in physics rather than metaphysics, wishes
to
perpetuate at true religion’s expense.
Also, it must be said, at the expense of religions based in
chemistry
and metachemistry, and therefore contrary to anything physical or
metaphysical,
being closer, in effect, to philistinism, if not nature, and barbarity
than to
civility or culture. Consequently when
we say ‘man’ we do not intend to signify the entire human race, all of
what
generally passes for mankind, but only a certain type of human who is
less
godly, or for that matter womanly or devilish, than manly in his
physical
disposition for what, in previous entries, has been characterized as
the
southeast point of the axial compass.
Ego-centred religion in a sense excludes spirit, will, and soul
at the
southwest, northwest, and northeast points of the axial compass. For it is religion centred on man as opposed
to woman, the Devil, or God, and therefore its focus will always be
egoistic,
after the nature of prayer as a certain type of God-oriented
intellectuality of
a more subjective stamp. But the godly
individual, even when recognizably human, does not pray; on the
contrary, he
meditates, and thus uses ego as a starting point for an accommodation,
no
matter how imperfectly intermittent, or cyclical, with soul, which is
to say,
with a transposition of the focus of self from brain stem to spinal
cord. In that he passes from godliness to
heavenliness he redeems his intellectual or egoistic self and attains,
for a
moment of perfect self-harmony, to the bliss of Heaven.
This is the raison
d’être of true religion, which is always
metaphysical, whether at its least evolved manifestation in the Cosmos,
its
less (compared to least) evolved manifestation in nature, its more
(compared to
most) evolved manifestation in mankind, or its most – and therefore
definitively – evolved manifestation in cyborgkind (to anticipate the
future),
when, in all probability, even meditation of a transcendental order
will be
overhauled by a synthetically artificial approach to achieving an
enhanced
accommodation of the self which will surpass the, shall we say, less
complete
and more intermittent self-harmony typifying transcendental meditation
as a
mankind, albeit god-centred, approach to metaphysics which, being more
rather
than most evolved, will always leave something to be desired from a
truly
definitive religious standpoint. Hence
we come to distinguish what could be called global destiny from both
Eastern
and Western shortfalls and alternatives to such a destiny, not to
mention
whatever stands closer, within mankind, to woman and the Devil, to
nature and
the Cosmos, than to God and man. For
only with the overcoming and, in some sense, transcendence of mankind
through
the progressive cyborgization of life, as of the world, will godliness
independently of mankind come to pass as that which not merely more but
most
perfectly achieves heavenliness through synthetically artificial means,
thereby
becoming increasingly heavenly the more godliness is subsumed into
Heaven, as
ego into soul. If the beginning of
religion signified most God and least Heaven, then its future
culmination will
most assuredly signify most Heaven and least God. For
God
will
have
become One with Heaven to a
degree that was never possible with mankind, nature, or the Cosmos,
never mind
with shortfalls or alternatives to metaphysics in those life-stage
contexts
which hyped either man, woman, or the Devil as God and were
consequently less
metaphysical than physical, chemical, or metachemical in character –
the more
prevalent types of civilized religion for contexts dominated by
civility,
philistinism, or barbarity, as germane to per se
manifestations of man, woman, or the Devil. Only
when
religion
is
characterized by
culture to a metaphysical degree which surpasses anything cosmic,
natural, or
human will it be definitively true and thus concerned less with God,
whether
genuinely or falsely, than with Heaven, God’s sole raison d’être, wherein form is redeemed by and in content(ment),
the
sublime
joy
of heavenly bliss in perfect
self-harmony with the soul.
TRADITIONAL
AND
CONTEMPORARY
MUSIC. Almost
everywhere these days the distinction not only between West and East,
Western
civilization and Eastern civilization, but between each of those and
global
civilization rears its challenging head and obliges us to come to terms
with it
as best we can. Take music. It is common knowledge that
there is a
difference between Western music and Eastern music, though more of
style than
of kind, since in both cases we find a dichotomy, traditionally,
between folk
music and classical music, whether in relation to a distinction between
harmony
and melody on the one hand or, arguably where the East is concerned,
rhythm and
pitch on the other hand. For it will not have escaped many
people’s
attention that the West is by and large more given, traditionally, to
harmony
and melody, those phenomenal, or corporeal, approaches to music, than
to rhythm
and pitch, their noumenal, or ethereal, counterparts. Yet with
all their
respective forms of folk music and classical music, the West and the
East
remain distinct from what could be called the march of global music,
which is
neither specifically harmonic nor melodic, rhythmic nor pitchful, but a
combination, in opposite ways, of all four ingredients to greater or
lesser
extents, thereby affirming a global dimension in which aspects of what
one
would have identified with Western music are combined with elements
closer to
the East in such fashion that the resulting form, whether with a bias
for pitch
and rhythm, as in the case of Jazz, or for harmony and melody, as in
the case
of Rock, signifies a marked progression over both folk and classical
traditions
which would not be intelligible except in relation to
globalization. But
since globalization can be devolutionary or evolutionary, female or
male, and
we are as yet still in its devolutionary stage … from fascist
totalitarianism
to corporate liberalism on state-oriented terms, it is small wonder
that global
music reflects this regression in the overhauling, by and large, of
Jazz by Rock
and of the pre-eminence of the latter type of music to the contemporary
global
scene, a type of music which is more electronic than its global
precursor but
arguably of a lower overall calibre in its less noumenal and altogether
more
phenomenal presentation as a music biased towards, though not
exclusively
committed to, harmonic and melodic as opposed, with Jazz, to rhythmic
and
pitchful impulses. Yet Rock could no more turn its back on rhythm
and
pitch and still remain credibly global than Jazz reject the more
phenomenal
elements, largely stemming from the West, of harmony and melody.
Neither
would either music be quite as global without the benefit of electronic
means –
a factor applying no less to Modern Jazz than to Hard Rock or Rock ‘n’
Roll
generally. But if Rock is still at the cutting edge of
contemporary
global music, then that must indicate, whether we give it a folksy or a
classical interpretation, depending, I guess, on the type of Rock music
(something equally applicable to Jazz), that global music has yet to
attain, on
the heads side of the metaphorical coin, as it were, of global
civilization, to
a progression from Rock to Jazz in a kind of reverse order of its
devolutionary
regression that would signify an evolutionary advancement from
pluralistic to
monistic criteria, commensurate with a progression from liberalism to
totalitarianism within a framework that was strictly global and
probably Social
Theocratic, meaning of a church-oriented character that revolved around
societies founded in religious sovereignty as opposed to political
sovereignty
that could be expected, little by little, to encourage a gradual
centro-complixification of society in line with evolutionary
progress.
Then it would be a kind of progression, in reverse order, from Rock to
Jazz
that we would witness, as things climbed from the phenomenal towards
the
noumenal, from a bias, within a more comprehensive framework, towards
harmony
and melody to one favouring rhythm and pitch, albeit in both cases with
a
markedly centripetal rather than centrifugal disposition that
contrasted each
with whatever existed – and still exists – on the devolutionary side of
the
global divide as a manifestation, totalitarian or liberal, jazzy or
rocking, of
a centrifugal urge commensurate with particle-based and externalized
criteria. The coming forms of Rock and Jazz, some of which
arguably
already exist in a somewhat peripheral or informal capacity, will
signify a
switch to wavicle-centred and internalized criteria such that can only
properly
emerge in a stage of civilization, in this case global, committed,
through
religion, to inner values of an egoistic and, more importantly,
psychoistic, or
soulful, character. Therefore we may anticipate a switch from
manually
performed instruments that require to be plucked or banged or blown or
tapped
or whatever to increasingly autonomous or synthetic instruments which
will
produce sound on a much more consistently subjective and interiorized
string-like basis, whether on a pluralistic (New Rock) or a monistic
(New Jazz)
basis, with a corresponding advance from harmony and melody towards
rhythm and
pitch within a context which, being global, necessarily combines all
elements
to greater or lesser degrees, and this whether the type of global music
in question
be of a folk or a classical character within parameters broadly though
not
exclusively determined by ideological epoch. For no less than
Rock can be
folksy or classical, without being equivalent to Folk music or
Classical music,
so, too, can Jazz show folksy or classical leanings without being in
any way
identifiable with Eastern or Western folk and classical
traditions.
Probably this underlying dichotomy between folksy and classical
tendencies in
either type of global music simply reflects a more basic gender
distinction
between male and female such that is always to be found in society at
one level
or another, and which will probably continue to exist as global
civilization
switches, at some future time, from a devolutionary to an evolutionary
stage of
its advance, attaining to a classless/anti-upperclass dichotomy, in
metaphysics
and antimetachemistry, between folksy and classical, or anticlassical
(Romantic), approaches to the reborn development of Jazz as it
gradually
supersedes its Rock counterpart in the evolution of global music from
phenomenal to noumenal, corporeal to ethereal subjectivity in line with
the
centro-complexifying advance of religious values generally. Hence
the
ultimate type of global music may well combine rhythm with pitchful or,
more
correctly, anti-pitchful ingredients to a degree which transcends
anything we
have heard before, and do so in completely the reverse fashion of how
Jazz has
hitherto been composed and performed, with a commitment, that is, to
time and
antispace as opposed, like its totalitarian antithesis, to space and
antitime,
the alpha and anti-omega beginnings of global civilization which has
yet to be
totally eclipsed, so to speak, by its omega and anti-alpha endings such
that,
far from literally ending, will signify an eternal culmination of
values
commensurate with Eternity.
UNDERSTANDING
HOMOSEXUALITY. If
there is a distinction between so-called ‘assholes’ and ‘bums’ it must
surely
lie in the fact that the one is perceived as the nadir of subjective
phenomenality
and the other somewhat cynically disparaged as the zenith of subjective
noumenality. For if we make such a
distinction it soon becomes evident that there are two different axes
at stake
here with correspondingly different points of the axial compass, an
extreme
south-eastern point on the one hand and an extreme north-eastern point
on the
other hand, both of which would more or less accord with sensibility. To be an ‘asshole’ or, in English slang,
‘arsehole’ is in some sense to be beneath the pale of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate relativity in what transpires to
being a
state-absolutist position commensurate with social democratic
totalitarianism. It is to be neither
parliamentary nor puritan, just nor pseudo-righteous, but effectively
communistic
in the extent to which one has parted company with such relativity in
favour of
a justice absolutism – always more antichemical than physical – which
has the
effect of eclipsing pseudo-righteousness and effectively subsuming the
male
position, corresponding to physics, into the female one in quasi-just
vein,
thereby transforming knowledge-centred polemic from a
pseudo-transcendental
position (humanistic) in relation to church-subordinate
pseudo-righteousness to
a quasi-antirealist position in relation to state-absolutist justice,
making of
it an apologist for such class partisanship as affirms the sole rights,
in
social democracy, of proletarian humanism at the expense of its
bourgeois, or
liberal, counterpart. Hence an ‘asshole’
is in a very real sense someone who has forfeited even
pseudo-righteousness to
quasi-justice and now acts and thinks pretty much on the female level
of
absolute antirealism, in which bound soma takes absolute precedence
over free
psyche and everything revolves around the state. But
is
this
not
commensurate with
homosexuality of one kind or another – male or female – and therefore
with the
nadir of sexual phenomenality, of post-church-subordinate state
absolutism
which has the effect of making even males behave like females to the
extent
that they are prepared to regard other males in a homosexually somatic
light,
not as brothers in free psychic partnership but as quasi-sisters in
somatic
binding? Therefore with the last bastion
of state/church relativity swept away, these sexual degenerates behave
like
women or, more correctly, antiwomen, the antichemical corollary of what
would
have been a physical hegemony of men over antiwomen, masculinity over
antifemininity, had not state-absolutist criteria, whether formally or
informally, ensued at the expense of men.
Consequently it would not be an exaggeration to say that
homosexuals are
effectively sexual communists and that homosexuality is the sexuality
of an
extreme, or totalitarian, form of social democracy which reduces
everything, men
included, to the overly mundane parameters of somatic binding, a
binding which
cannot but strain at its own leash in the interests of somatic freedom. But the irony is that such freedom can never
be granted except to the ruling few of a communistic state-absolutist
situation
for fear of a general outbreak of evil and crime in neo-metachemical
terms, the
very terms which would be commensurate with a nazi-like revolt against
Bolshevistic criteria and therefore with a fellow female-dominated
opposition,
based in absolute vanity at the expense of pseudo-meekness, to
everything
absolutely just, including, be it not forgotten, homosexuality itself. Therefore the people – and males not least -
of such a radical social-democratic nadir are trapped in a sexually
totalitarian dead-end from which there is no escape except via a return
to
state/church relativity and the comparative liberality of heterosexual
intercourse. They may not be absolutely
vicious, like the jerks of an absolutely vain disposition who,
determined to
keep their banners aloft, would goosestep them into the mud, but their
virtue,
affiliated to bound soma, is far from stable in relation to
state-hegemonic
criteria that acknowledges, even if it doesn’t always defer to,
church-subordinate criteria and to the possibility of a
pseudo-righteous
‘independence’ of justice. For stripped
of pseudo-righteousness, their quasi-justice will always be straining,
on the
back of a free tradition, towards somatic freedom and hence the utmost
phenomenal vice, of which buggery is the epitome, if only as an
expressly
phenomenal mode of masturbation that still requires to be
differentiated from
its noumenal and, in some sense, more openly vicious counterpart. Yet state-absolutist criteria degenerating
off a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate tradition or axis are still
quite
distinct from anything appertaining to a
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial tradition, and if the apex of this is often cynically disparaged,
not
least from the contrary axial standpoint, in respect of ‘bums’, it
should not
be forgotten that such ‘bums’ are a far cry from the ‘assholes’ or
arseholes’
of phenomenal degeneracy, being, if anything, closer to ‘snogging’ than
to
‘sodding’ and therefore of a category that transcends the cruder
aspects of
phenomenal degeneration from a standpoint oriented towards noumenal
criteria of
an intensely subjective order, of which chaste kissing between males
may
occasionally be an expression, if arguably of a no-less homosexual
character
than its phenomenal counterpart, albeit one conditioned by male
hegemonic
criteria and therefore far removed from anything crudely reductionist
in overly
somatic vein. However that may be, it is
extremely unlikely that such godly males would regard themselves as
‘bums’, and
one feels, in spite of the requirement of a comprehensive assessment of
the
various points of the axial compass even in regard to slang or
denigratory
expressions, that metaphysical types are anything but ‘bums’ in the
more vulgar
or derelict sense, being the closest of all males to a godly
disposition. Neither, of course, are they
‘assholes’, for
the noumenal can never be reduced to the phenomenal but must always be
differentiated from anything corporeal in light of its ethereal status,
whether
in metachemistry or, across the axial divide, in metaphysics, the
northeast
point in question of the axial compass.
Only physical/antichemical types degenerate towards
homosexuality of an
overly phenomenal character, and they are less to be pitied than
despised for
their want of psychic fidelity, the dark seeds of which were sown even
in what
could be called the masturbatory heterosexuality of
contraception-utilizing
liberality.
THEORY
OF
SARTORIAL
POLARITY. People
tend to distinguish, rather simplistically, between trousers, or pants,
and
skirts on the one hand and, well, let us say suits, or zippersuits, and
dresses
on the other hand. That is, they
distinguish on a kind of polar basis between skirts and trousers or
dresses and
suits, which is all very well. But I
believe it is rather more complicated than that, not least in respect
of the
phenomenal distinction, germane to corporeal relativity, between pants
and
skirts and, by contrast, the noumenal distinction, germane to ethereal
absolutism, between suits, especially zippersuits, and dresses. For it should not have escaped one’s
attention that there is a kind of class distinction between pants and
skirts
vis-à-vis suits and dresses, both of which categories would logically
lend
themselves to our axial compass (see preceding entries) in which the
noumenal
and the phenomenal constitute polarities on either a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate basis or a
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate basis, depending on the axis. Therefore if, in relation to these axes, we
distinguish between, say, space and antitime at the northwest point of
the
compass in question and, equally, between mass and antivolume at its
southeast
point where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned,
it
behoves us to likewise distinguish between, say, dresses and antisuits
in the
one case and pants and antiskirts in the other case, this being in
effect a
distinction between noumenal sensuality and phenomenal sensibility
where the
hegemonic factors (space/dresses and mass/pants) are concerned and,
conversely,
between what could be called noumenal antisensibility and noumenal
antisensuality where the subordinate factors (antitime/antisuits and
antivolume/antiskirts) are concerned, so that we could be
distinguishing, in
effect, between flouncy dresses and flared suits (antisuits) on the one
hand
and, conversely, between tapering pants and tapering skirts
(antiskirts) on the
other hand. Likewise, if in relation to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria we distinguish between,
say, volume
and antimass at the southwest point of the axial compass and, equally,
between
time and antispace at its northeast point, it behoves us to likewise
distinguish between, say, skirts and antipants in the one case and
suits and
antidresses in the other case, this being in effect a distinction
between
phenomenal sensuality and noumenal sensibility where the hegemonic
factors
(volume/skirts and time/suits) are concerned and, conversely, between
what
could be called phenomenal antisensibility and noumenal antisensuality
where
the subordinate factors (antimass/antipants and antispace/antidresses)
are
concerned, so that we could, in effect, be distinguishing between
flouncy
skirts and flared pants (antipants) on the one hand and, conversely,
between
tapering suits, or zippersuits, and tapering dresses (antidresses) on
the other
hand. Therefore far from a simple
distinction between, say, pants and skirts or, up above, suits and
dresses, we
find that, with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
considerations, an
unequivocally hegemonic dress in noumenal sensuality will correlatively
justify
an unequivocally subordinate antisuit in noumenal antisensibility, as
between
metachemical and antimetaphysical factors respectively commensurate
with space
and antitime, whereas equivocally hegemonic pants, or trousers/jeans,
in
phenomenal sensibility will correlatively justify an equivocally
subordinate
antiskirt in phenomenal antisensuality, as between physical and
antichemical
factors respectively commensurate with mass and antivolume. Similarly, where
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria are at stake, we
shall find
that an equivocally hegemonic skirt in phenomenal sensuality will
correlatively
justify equivocally subordinate antipants in phenomenal antisensuality,
as
between chemical and antiphysical factors respectively commensurate
with volume
and antimass, whereas an unequivocally hegemonic suit in noumenal
sensibility
will correlatively justify an unequivocally subordinate antidress in
noumenal
antisensuality, as between metaphysical and antimetachemical factors
respectively commensurate with time and antispace.
Therefore while flared suits, or boilersuits
and/or zippersuits, are the type of the antisuit par
excellence under the type of the dress par
excellence, which is a flouncy affair,
tapering skirts are the type of the antiskirt par excellence under the type of pants, or trousers and/or
jeans, par excellence, which is a
tapering affair. Likewise while flared
pants, or trousers and/or jeans, are the type of the antipants par
excellence under the type of the skirt par
excellence, which is a flouncy affair,
tapering dresses are the type of the antidress par excellence under the type of the suit par
excellence, which is a tapering
affair. Doubtless we can and should
distinguish between straight with turn-ups and straight without
turn-ups in
pants and suits, as though between an intermediate realm moderately
sensual in
the one case and moderately sensible in the other case, as well, no
doubt, as
between straight with slit and/or pleats and straight
without slit
and/or pleats in skirts and dresses, with similar moderate sensual and
sensible
implications that would further complicate the above theories in
respect of
intermediate criteria coming in between flouncy and tapering antitheses. But, that said, such straight alternatives
would still qualify for estimation as either dresses/antisuits and
pants/antiskirts on the one axial hand or, conversely, as
skirts/antipants and
suits/antidresses on the other axial hand, if to a proportionately less
extreme
degree. Which would be typical of
liberal criteria in between more radically sensual and sensible, outer
and
inner alternatives, just as relativistic suits, with jacket and
trousers, are
much less radical than zippersuits or even boilersuits from a properly
noumenal, and therefore absolutist, point of view.
Could it be, I wonder, that the future will
witness an increase in the use of tapering zippersuits or perhaps even
velcrosuits in relation to tapering dresses as the most appropriate
attire for
the northeast point of the axial compass, the point commensurate, after
all,
with godliness and antidevilishness, according to gender, and hence
with a
distinction, elementally speaking, between metaphysical and
antimetachemical
criteria?
RE-EXAMINING
PHILISTINISM
AND
CULTURE
IN
RELATION TO BARBARITY AND CIVILITY. I have
said it before and I shall say it again: philistinism is the
precondition, for
the redeemed phenomenally sensual, of culture, even though there are
those who,
as noumenally sensible, properly – and eternally – appertain to culture
and are
not, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, to be thought of in terms
of their
co-gender antithesis. But if one is
avowedly philistine one is not, by definition, natural … in the sense
of overly
heathen or uncatholic by nature … and therefore one stands, as a
self-confessed sinner, at a Christian remove from those who would
indulge their
naturalistic appetites without shame in consequence of a heathenistic
disposition from want of axial interrelativity.
One also stands axially apart from those who, antimetaphysically
subordinate to the noumenally sensual, are no better than
pseudo-philistine in
their state-hegemonic/church-subordinate want of genuine sinfulness
under
duress of a somatic emphasis in pseudo-folly, just as, from the
opposite class
standpoint, the cultural stand axially apart from those who, physically
hegemonic over the phenomenally antisensual, are no more than
pseudo-cultural
in their parliamentary/puritan want of genuine grace by dint of a
somatic
emphasis upon pseudo-wisdom, their pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace
subordinate,
in secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, to the just,
whose
antichemical dispositions, as antiwomen, are polar to the metachemical
freedoms
(of soma) which keep them at a civilized disadvantage to the barbarous
‘privileges’ of their upper-class co-gender antithesis, not least in
respect of
state-hegemonic materialism. No, if the
philistine must be axially distinguished from the pseudo-philistine and
the
cultured from the pseudo-cultured, then so too must each of these be
distinguished from their female counterparts, whether as
pseudo-barbarous from
pseudo-civil on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms or, across the
axial
divide, as barbarous from civil on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
terms,
and both alike from the naturalistic want of philistinism, whether
genuine or
pseudo, that typifies an absence of culture as an antithetical
co-gender
position to a philistine precondition (although in practice the
cultural must
precede the philistine for the philistine to arise out of nature). For when philistinism is absent there is only
naturalism, and such naturalism is the fruit of heathenistic licence,
which is
rooted in barbarism and the rule of barbarism, whether chemically
pseudo or
metachemically genuine, over both antiphysical and antimetaphysical
male
positions. Verily, nothing short of male
hegemonies in sensibility can transmute naturalism into philistinism
and permit
of salvation to culture, obliging barbarism to transmute, via
philistinism,
towards barbarity as the 'constitutional' precondition of civility, the
female
counterpart to culture, whether, according to axis, in genuine or
pseudo
terms. For while the male
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate will be saved from philistinism to
culture
and their female counterparts counter-damned from pseudo-barbarity to
pseudo-civility, the male state-hegemonic/church-subordinate will only
be
counter-saved from pseudo-philistinism to pseudo-culture if their
female
counterparts are first damned from barbarity to civility, an
eventuality
unlikely to transpire to any significant extent if those in the former
categories have not been sufficiently saved and counter-damned from
their
bound-psychic anti-omegaworldly sins and alphaworldly pseudo-crimes,
not to
mention correlatively free-somatic follies and
pseudo-evils, to
no longer provide a livelihood to those in the latter categories who
would avail
of their respective shortcomings to enhance their own freely somatic
evil and
pseudo-foolish, not to mention correlatively bound-psychic criminal and
pseudo-sinful, dispositions, and do so, moreover, with the connivance,
if not
financial backing, of their good and pseudo-wise, if not punishing and
pseudo-graceful, antitheses within the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis,
the latter of whom already exist at a civil and pseudo-cultural remove
from all
that is not damned or counter-saved in relation to themselves.
FOOTBALL’S
VIOLENT
TRADITIONS. In
OF
PEDIMENTS
AND
DOMES. I have
never been too keen on rectilinear pediments in the classical style,
partly I
suspect because of their association with autocracy. Yet until
comparatively
recently I did not bother to distinguish between squares within circles
and
circles within squares, so to speak, but tended to make a simple
antithesis,
more or less on an alpha/omega basis, between rectilinear pediments and
domes;
squares, if you will, and circles. What
I had still to learn, though the development of my philosophy duly
rectified
the situation, was that one needed to distinguish between rectilinear
pediments
independently of domes and those which could be, as it were, framed
within the
overall circumference of a dome, so that one had a fairly clear-cut
distinction
between autocracy, with or without a roundel within the pediment, and
theocracy, with or without an accompanying pediment.
Hence, on a broader basis, one would have a
distinction between autocracy and what I call antitheocracy where the
rectilinear pediment with enclosed roundel was concerned and, across
the axial
divide, between theocracy and anti-autocracy where the curvilinear dome
with
enclosed or proximate pediment was concerned, the former approximating
to
metachemistry over antimetaphysics and the latter, by contrast, to
metaphysics
over antimetachemistry. Although a
clear-cut autocratic/theocratic distinction between rectilinear
pediments and
curvilinear domes could be found, it was usually the case that some
degree of
antitheocratic or, depending on the context, anti-autocratic feature
would also
play a part in the overall composition of such architectural complexes,
and
that this was not something to decry but, rather, to accept and even
admire for
its gender relativity or realism, using the word in the sense of
acceptance of
a variety of correlative factors which happen to constitute the overall
nature
of reality at any specific intercardinal point of the axial compass. Hence one could no more dismiss autocracy
because it embraced a subordinate antitheocracy in the form of the
roundel
within the pediment than dismiss theocracy because it embraced a
subordinate
anti-autocracy in the form of some minor pedimental ingredient
that, in
the past, one might have supposed to be autocratic in its
rectilinearity. The distinction between
circles in squares
and squares in circles, so to speak, was no arbitrary or haphazard
matter but
of the nature of the two antitheses, where some degree of justice had
to be
done to each gender irrespective of which gender was hegemonic and
which
subordinate. Obviously, I would still,
on comparative terms, prefer the antimetachemical subordination to
metaphysics
to its autocratic converse, but I could not reasonably expect
metaphysics to
stand completely independently of an antimetachemical factor and simply
make
a distinction between curvilinear domes as metaphysical and
rectilinear
pediments as metachemical, as though between theocratic and autocratic
antitheses. One had to take the overall
composition into
consideration, and if, in the case of preponderantly theocratic
entities like
certain great cathedrals, one found a degree of rectilinearity in
respect of a
subordinate pediment, that was no argument against the style or,
indeed, the
reality of things at the northeast point of the axial compass but,
rather, the
way they are and should, with due variations proportionate to cultural
insight
and development, remain. There is no
simple alpha/omega dichotomy. Rather,
alpha stands no less over what can be called anti-omega than omega over
anti-alpha in the overall noumenal, or ethereal, distinctions between
space and
antitime at the northwest point of the axial compass and time and
antispace at
its northeast point, the former pairing commensurate with autocracy and
antitheocracy, the latter, by contrast, with theocracy and
anti-autocracy,
which is equivalent, after all, to a distinction between classless and
anti-upperclass criteria relative to a context in which, with
metaphysics
hegemonic over antimetachemistry, god gets the better of the antidevil,
as the
Celestial City of Anti-Vanity Fair, rather than to a context in which,
with
metachemistry hegemonic over antimetaphysics, the devil gets the better
of
antigod, as Vanity Fair of Anti-Celestial City, on the basis of an
autocratic/antitheocratic distinction between upper-class and
anti-classless
criteria – the worst of all possible noumenal worlds.
CONCERNING
EDUCATED
FEMALES. One
thing for sure about education in relation to females is that it does
not turn
them into males or in any way make them second-class male citizens. On the contrary, an educated female is simply
a female who can intellectually express the female side of life more
articulately and methodically than would otherwise be the case,
rounding on
male values with a vengeance as she preaches, effectively if not
literally from
a realistic and/or materialistic point of view, in favour of female
freedoms
and the abandonment of any kind of deference to the male sex. But of course the only upshot of all this
somatically liberated realism and/or materialism, coupled, be it not
forgotten,
to a degree of bound-psychic nonconformism and/or fundamentalism, is a
world in
which somatic freedoms are taken for granted, along with their
bound-psychic
corollaries, and psychic freedom is if not castigated as a legacy of
male
chauvinism, then conveniently or perhaps even inadvertently overlooked
as a
social irrelevance. An educated female
is usually someone who paradoxically works on behalf of female freedoms
through
the intellectual medium of her gender adversary, using words not to
liberate
from the flesh but to advocate and enslave to the flesh in as many ways
as are
compatible with one or another kind of somatic freedom.
Females do not, even when highly educated,
struggle on behalf of the intellect or the soul but, on the contrary,
in the
name of the will and/or the spirit, which they use, as ever, to
dominate males
in the interests, more usually, of reproduction. A
liberated
female
will
rarely be liberated
from herself as
a
female, whether
feminine or diabolic, chemical or metachemical.
On the contrary, she will be liberated from male domination and
that
sensibility which requires that females defer either from an
antirealist/antinonconformist antichemical standpoint to the
physicality of
naturalism/humanism or from an antifundamentalist/antimaterialist
metachemical
standpoint to the metaphysicality of transcendentalism/idealism,
depending on
the axis and the corresponding emphasis upon either bound soma or free
psyche. Unfortunately, domination of the
one gender by the other is not the exception but the rule of life and
therefore
if males aren’t sensibly engaged in dominating females from hegemonic
vantage-points in physics over antichemistry or metaphysics over
antimetachemistry, according to axis, females will be sensually engaged
in
dominating males from hegemonic vantage-points in chemistry over
antiphysics or
metachemistry over antimetaphysics, again according to axis and with
all the
inevitable vengeance of a more openly heathenistic disposition. Such is the nature of life, which requires
the domination of the weaker by the stronger whether the stronger
happens to be
objectively somatic, as in the female case, or subjectively psychic, as
in the
male case, and one has two opposite if not opposing systems of
domination –
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate female and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate male, with all the axial
differentiation
already described in my writings between northwest and southeast points
of the
one axis and southwest and northeast points of the other on both male
and
female terms. Thus the
metachemical-to-antichemical polarity of primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
values is coupled to the antimetaphysical-to-physical polarity of
secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vales on the one axis and,
conversely, the
metaphysical-to-antiphysical polarity of primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate values is coupled to the
antimetachemical-to-chemical
polarity of secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate values on the
other
axis, the axis which, far from exemplifying overall female dominion, is
indicative of the psychic bias of male dominion, the only dominion
commensurate
with the possibility of church-hegemonic salvation for males from
antiphysical
bound psyche (antihumanism) to metaphysical free psyche
(transcendentalism) and
of church-hegemonic counter-damnation for females from chemical bound
psyche
(nonconformism) to antimetachemical free psyche (antifundamentalism),
as well,
correlatively, as with the possibility of state-subordinate salvation
for males
from antiphysical free soma (antinaturalism) to metaphysical bound soma
(idealism) and of state-subordinate counter-damnation for females from
chemical
free soma (realism) to antimetachemical bound soma (antimaterialism). Such is the axis that will have to be
overhauled from its Catholic and/or Buddhist, Western or Eastern past
if it is to
meet the challenges of modernity and stretch into an eternal future of
global
universality, a future in which there will be no liberated females but
only
males liberated from female dominion and able to lead godly lives in
relation
to metaphysics and its hegemonic transcendentalist/idealist control of
antimetachemistry and, hence, of antifundamentalist/antimaterialist
antidevility.
FREE
WILL
VERSES
FREE
SOUL.
When we contrast the two types of strength
(in general terms) that are both gender
and moral opposites, metachemical and/or chemical free soma
vis-à-vis
metaphysical and/or physical free psyche, it soon becomes necessary to
ask
ourselves: which of the two is the strongest, that is, which tends to
have most
sway, traditionally or even contemporaneously, over life?
And the answer to that question must be: the
female-based metachemical and/or chemical orders of freedom which have
hitherto
ruled the roost and, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, generally
continue
so to do from the standpoints of will and/or spirit.
For when we look more closely into the
distinctions between metachemistry and metaphysics, or devil and god,
and also
between chemistry and physics, or woman and man, we find that the
female
elements, corresponding to fire and water, are primary in their vacuous
objectivity and the male elements, corresponding to vegetation (earth)
and air,
merely secondary in their plenumous subjectivity. Verily,
fire
and
water
precede vegetation and
air, as metachemical and chemical free soma in will and spirit precede
physical
and metaphysical free psyche in ego and soul.
That which is godly, or metaphysical, is not first but last in
the
overall chain of devolutionary and/or evolutionary events, even though,
as
metaphysical psyche, it precedes its metaphysically somatic
counterpart, as, in
metaphorical terms, father precedes son.
But on the female side of life mother precedes daughter,
metachemical
soma its psychic counterpart, and therefore before there is any
prospect of
grace in free soul there is a hellish amount of evil in free will, the
free
will, more specifically, of metachemical soma and thus of Devil the
Mother
(hyped as God). Frankly free psyche is
no match, in nature, for free soma, and God, in any genuine sense, is
anything
but the Almighty that the arrogation of divine attributes to what is
fundamentally diabolic would tend to suggest.
On the contrary, godliness is as far removed from anything
all-powerful,
in metachemical free will, as it is possible for anything or, better,
anyone to
be, and therefore something or someone that only comes to pass by
turning away
from the rule of somatic freedom and shutting itself off, as far as
possible,
from the sway of evil and its criminal accomplice of metachemical bound
psyche,
pretty much as the exception to the general rule. At
least
this
has
always been the monk-like
case up till now; though we are living in an age, fortunately, which,
thanks to
synthetic artificiality in a variety of contexts, not least urban, is
gradually
turning the tables on all forms of naturalism and slowly but surely
gaining the
upper hand over nature, including, not least, its cosmic progenitor. Therefore the prospects for free psyche
having its way at the expense of free soma, of metaphysics at the
expense of metachemistry,
have never been brighter, even though metaphysics, like its physical
lesser
brother, corresponds to a secondary element in the overall spectrum of
elements
stretching from fire and water to vegetation and air.
This, however, is not something that need
penalize it in an age which can turn things around from metachemical
and/or
chemical domination to physical and/or metaphysical liberation from
such a
naturalistic dominion, and precisely through the utilization of
synthetically
artificial means commensurate with one degree or another of
civilization. Even at the mankind stage of
evolution (which
after all succeeds both the cosmic and natural stages of devolution …
from fire
to water) physical liberation from chemical domination tends to be the
salient
aspect of the gender struggle, not least in respect of a certain
puritanical
opposition to anything catholic. But
that is, of course, to oversimplify, and we now live in a time which,
superficially universal and therefore cyborgistic, demands a higher and
altogether post-worldly, not to say post-Western, pattern of
liberation, namely
that of metaphysics from any outstanding metachemistry, whether
traditional or
contemporary, in order that godliness may get the better of
devilishness, of
any and all forms of Devil the Mother (hyped as God), in the interests
of what
properly appertains to God the Father, and the masses of those
countries which
are overwhelmingly antiphysical/chemical in their catholic antecedents
be
brought to salvation and counter-damnation in terms of metaphysical and
antimetachemical deliverance from their specific types of worldly
plight,
whether phenomenally alpha or anti-omega, a plight that leaves them at
the
mercy of every kind of metachemical and antimetaphysical imposition
from the
noumenal alpha and anti-omega heights of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria as the last manifestations of free will and bound soul play
themselves
out to a devilish and antigodly tune which is really no music at all
but a kind
of barbarous and pseudo-philistine noise in which vanity and
pseudo-meekness
take centre stage. The power is still
there, that cannot be denied, but the time has come for that which
pertains to
contentment to sing its free psychic song as the expense of all
manifestations
of somatic freedom that would keep the world chained to evil/crime and
pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin whether the world is as described above or,
across the
axial divide, simply that which, omega worldly in its physicality and
anti-alpha worldly in its antichemistry, is financially in partnership
with its
metachemical/antimetaphysical axial poles in a Faust-like pact between
antiwoman and the Devil and man and Antigod to the detriment not only
of woman
and antiman but, from a truly moral standpoint, God and the Antidevil,
neither
of which will be in a position to save and counter-damn from the
anti-omega and
alpha manifestations of worldliness until the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in question has been
substantially
overhauled and - given the extents to which its base is now
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate under external pressures
- effectively resurrected in relation to what expectation would
regard as
‘Kingdom Come’ but which I have all along associated with Social
Theocracy and
its promise of religious sovereignty in the event of a paradoxical
utilization,
in certain countries (not least Eire), of the democratic process to a
profoundly theocratic end, an end in which, with a majority mandate for
religious sovereignty, God the Father and the Son of God will be
metaphysically hegemonic over Antidevil the Antimother and the
Antidaughter of
the Antidevil and, by extrapolation, Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy
Spirit
of Heaven hegemonic over Antihell the Unclear Spirit and the Unclear
Soul of Antihell
for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity in a classless/anti-upperclass
partnership,
at the northeast point of the axial compass, between the Celestial City
of true godliness and the Anti-Vanity Fair of beautiful
antidevilishness. Verily it is for those
who are chemically and/or antiphysically aloof from physics and
antichemistry
but victims of metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions to accept
such a
paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in due course and be
delivered from their respective types of worldly shortcomings to the
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly heights of a metaphysical and
antimetachemical elevation which, according to gender, will be both
salvation
and counter-damnation, psychic liberation and somatic
counter-enslavement, for
all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.
RE-DEFINING
THE
LEFT
AND
THE RIGHT. We have
established an axial compass which stretches from northwest to
southeast on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms and from southwest to
northeast on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, thereby supporting the thesis
of two
separate and indeed opposite types of society, no less incompatible, in
fact,
than Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, or the UK and Eire. At each point of the inter-axial compass we
have paired hegemonic positions with their upended gender subordinate
complements, whether as metachemistry with antimetaphysics at the
northwest
point or as physics with antichemistry at the southeast point, or,
across the
axial divide, as chemistry with antiphysics at the southwest point
or as
metaphysics with antimetachemistry at the northeast point.
We have also maintained that antithetical
links tend to be formed between the same gender polarities, whether
between metachemistry
and antichemistry on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms
or
between antimetaphysics and physics on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms or, across the axial divide,
between
metaphysics and antiphysics on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms
or between antimetachemistry and chemistry on secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.
These pairings have also been discussed, on such a polar basis,
in
relation to terms like upper class and anti-classless
vis-à-vis
anti-lower class and middle class where
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria are concerned and, conversely, to such terms as classless
and
anti-upperclass vis-à-vis anti-middleclass and lower class in the
context
of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, as well as in
relation to
distinctions between, say, space and antitime vis-à-vis antivolume and
mass or,
conversely, time and antispace vis-à-vis antimass and volume. We have even resorted, in Bunyanesque
vein, to such terminological distinctions as Vanity Fair and
WORLDLY
AND
POST-WORLDLY
DISTINCTIONS. The distinction between worldly and
post-worldly ages or types of civilization indicates that the pseudo
nature of
the noumenal in relation to a genuine phenomenal counterpoint,
irrespective of
axis, in the one context has to be contrasted with the pseudo nature of
the
phenomenal in relation to a genuine noumenal counterpoint in the other
context,
so that whatever is phenomenal or noumenal will always be in a contrary
nature,
whether genuine or pseudo, to that which is its axial counterpoint and
effective antithesis. Hence the
Christian traditions of the West would indicate that a pseudo order of
metaphysics and antimetachemistry, whether or not such a distinction
has been
consciously or even practically upheld, has tended to co-exist with a
genuine
order of chemistry and antiphysics in relation to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, just as, across the axial
divide,
a pseudo order of metachemistry and antimetaphysics has found itself
antithetically ranged against, and yet supportive of, a degree of
genuine
physics and antichemistry, placing the hegemonic factors, whether
unequivocal
in the noumenal or equivocal in the phenomenal, first in each case. Now all this would seem to have transpired
because in a worldly age or stage of civilization the phenomenal,
corresponding
to whatever is corporeal, takes precedence over the noumenal, its
ethereal
counterpoint, which is obliged to constitutionally accept the rights of
the phenomenal
positions to exist if not independently then on terms which reflect the
reality
or actuality of a worldly situation, a situation much more corporeal
than
ethereal and, in a limited sense, lower class than higher class. But in a post-worldly age all this changes,
as first new manifestations of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria and then, hopefully, new
manifestations of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria reverse
the order
of precedence, so that the phenomenal positions become comparatively
pseudo in
relation to a more genuine or, at any rate, elevated manifestation of
the
noumenal, such that would suggest that, far from chemistry and
antiphysics
being genuine vis-à-vis metaphysics and antimetachemistry of a pseudo
order or,
equally, physics and antichemistry being genuine vis-à-vis
metachemistry and
antimetaphysics of a pseudo order, it is the noumenal positions which
then take
precedence over anything phenomenal in the overall polarities
established
between corporeal and ethereal antitheses.
Therefore one should be entitled to contrast pseudo-physical and
pseudo-antichemical positions with a more genuine order of metachemical
and
antimetaphysical positions on the one hand, and, at the risk of
anticipating
the future, pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical positions - a
consequence
in large part of metachemical and antimetaphysical license - with a
more
genuine order of metaphysical and antimetachemical positions on the
other hand,
even if, in practice, the former axial polarities achieve something
approaching
a genuine noumenal antithesis to the phenomenal more on the basis of an
overlap
with pre-worldly criteria than on strictly post-worldly terms, since,
while
they may exemplify something of the former, they are still strictly
post-worldly
and, hence, a departure, if on parallel alpha-oriented terms, from the
kinds of
genuine metachemistry and antimetaphysics characterizing, both
traditionally
and even to a lesser extent contemporaneously, pre-worldly
civilization, which
is generally more Eastern than Western in character, and hence of an
alpha-oriented disposition which fights shy of worldly, including
Christian,
criteria. Nevertheless, even when the
paradox of countries like America has been taken into consideration,
there is
arguably more post-worldly and therefore pseudo-noumenal criteria than
anything
pre-worldly about them, which drives them into opposition, both
culturally and
politically, with the remnants, both domestically and globally, of
pre-worldly
civilization, such that by its very existence can only detract from the
claims
of universality which post-worldly civilization is in the process, both
unconsciously and even consciously, of making, and ultimately making –
paradoxical exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - in the interests,
be it
not forgotten, of a more genuine order of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
such that not only requires a pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical
counterpoint to itself but the rejection, by such a pseudo
manifestation of the
world, of anything still pertaining to a genuine order of metachemistry
and
antimetaphysics in order that metaphysics and antimetachemistry may
emerge into
full maturity from out the shadow of their pseudo counterparts and
bring the
struggle for global universality to its logical resolution in complete
independence of anything that would hold it back not merely from a
pre-worldly
standpoint but, more inveterately, in relation to what could be called
the
primitive roots of pre-worldly civilization which, whether monist or
pluralist,
of an Edenic or a tribal nature, were enslaved to cosmic pantheism and
thus to
a sort of untempered devil worship which is the born enemy of
everything
godly. Therefore if in the future a more
genuine order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry does democratically
come to
pass, it will be because the people have rejected the cosmos-based
obstacles to
this maturation and elected to part company, once and for all, with all
forms
of Creatorism, whether savage, polytheistic, or monotheistic, such that
keep
religion tied to Devil the Mother at the expense of God the Father even
when
and as Devil the Mother is hyped as God and that which is really
autocratic is
given a theocratic veneer. We may be
living in a post-worldly age as far as the leading nations of the
globe,
including America, are concerned, but it has not yet passed from the
last
manifestation of Devil the Mother hyped as God, which wears a
superficially
cyborg, or camera-oriented, face and is effectively the least
somatically free manifestation
of metachemistry (superimposed, as it invariably is, upon older and
freer
manifestations of Devil the Mother in mankind, nature, and the cosmos),
to the
first truly free manifestation, in metaphysical psyche, of God the
Father, the
manifestation which is not merely least metaphysically free in relation
to a
metaphysical aspect of the cosmos like Jupiter or Saturn, nor less
(compared to
least) metaphysically free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of
nature like
winged seed-pods on various trees, nor even more (compared to most)
psychically
free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of mankind like lung-based
meditation, but most metaphysically free in relation to a metaphysical
aspect
of cyborgkind like respirator-based support of life in a post-human
stage of
evolution which has made the support and sustain of the self, the brain
stem
and spinal cord, of cardinal importance in the evolution of life to a
truly
godly stage of self-realization in which synthetically artificial
self-illuminations will constitute the apex of eternity for all that is
metaphysical, requiring correlative not-self sacrifices for all that is
antimetachemical and therefore of anti-infinity, the antidevilish
complement to
godly resolve. Far from a society in
which the female side of life is somatically free and males bound to
it, such a
projection of post-worldly civilization into a universally global
future
envisages a society in which the male side of life is psychically free
and
females are bound to it in terms of the degree of somatic modesty which
sensible cyborgization, as the synthetically artificial somatic
complement to
psyche, can establish and maintain in and as the counter-just
complement to
righteousness, the counter-damnation to salvation, the anti-Vanity Fair
to the
Celestial City which, far from being anti-infinite, will signify the
essence of
eternity throughout ‘Kingdom Come’.
However, I should add that free psyche and bound soma cuts both
ways,
for metaphysics as well as for antimetachemistry, and that no more than
we can
speak of metaphysics solely in terms of free psyche can
antimetachemistry be
reduced to bound soma. It is rather
that, with male criteria to bear in mind, free psyche precedes bound
soma in
metaphysics, as God the Father precedes the Son of God, and should
establish a
situation, vis-à-vis antimetachemistry, its female complement, whereby
bound
soma will be the precondition of free psyche, as Antidevil the
Antimother of
the Antidaughter of the Antidevil or, in simpler language, as Beauty of
the
beautiful approach to Truth which will be the antidiabolic female
complement to
both the Truth of God the Father and the truthful approach to Beauty of
the Son
of God, but only because of a divine male imposition from ‘above’ … in
metaphysics. No Truth, no truthful
approach to Beauty. Such is the rule of
metaphysics. But no Beauty, still less
beautiful approach to Truth, in antimetachemistry without the truthful
approach
to Beauty of the Son which stems from the Truth of the Father. For genuine Beauty is an
attribute of antimetachemical bound soma, which is a consequence of the
truthful approach to Beauty of its metaphysical complement. No truthful approach to Beauty, no genuine
Beauty. And no genuine Beauty, no
beautiful approach to Truth which will be the (secondary)
church-hegemonic
complement to Truth and thus the completion of the virtuous circle
that, at the
northeast point of the axial compass, begins with Truth, with God the
Father
who is the father, or author, of the Son of God whose truthful approach
to
Beauty not only stems from the Truth but establishes, by its very
presence, the
antimetachemical existence and authenticity of Beauty in Antidevil the
Antimother, without which no beautiful approach to Truth of the
Antidaughter of
the Antidevil is possible, and therefore no antidiabolic complement to
the
divinity who is at the roots of all metaphysical and antimetachemical
virtue,
being the first rather than second, third, or fourth manifestation of
virtue at
the northeast point of the axial compass, the only point at which
godliness and
antidevilishness exist, a point, be it not forgotten, which is both
metaphysically universal and antimetachemically antipolyversal, since
eternity
requires the support of anti-infinity, as time of antispace, if it is
to rule
the roost in the interests of Truth and the attainment, more
importantly, of
heavenly joy, the
raison d’être, after all,
of everything godly.
GENUINE
AND
PSEUDO
AXIAL
ANTITHESES. Having
distinguished between genuine and pseudo modes of the noumenal and the
phenomenal in the previous entry, not least in respect of the
distinction
between worldly and post-worldly ages, I should add that this is in no
way
identical to the more intrinsic distinctions between genuine and pseudo
which
exist on an axial basis between church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria
and, conversely, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, where,
irrespective of era, a fundamental distinction between genuine sin and
grace in
relation, somatically, to genuine folly and wisdom has to be
distinguished from
its pseudo counterpart within the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis, just
as, conversely, the fundamental distinction between genuine evil and
good in
relation, psychically, to genuine crime and punishment has to be
distinguished
from its pseudo counterpart within the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis. For what is true of the one axis is manifestly not true of
the
other. In other words, what is genuine on the one axis will be
pseudo on
the other, the distinctions between genuine sin and genuine grace and
pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace where church-hegemonic and
church-subordinate axial
criteria are respectively concerned being a case in point, as, to
reverse the
axial standpoint, are the distinctions between genuine evil and genuine
good
and pseudo-evil and pseudo-good in relation to state-hegemonic and
state-subordinate axial criteria respectively, neither axis being
compatible
with the other because antithetical in virtually every respect.
Therefore
much as we have to allow for worldly and post-worldly distinctions
between the
genuine and the pseudo, these still exist in conjunction with the
rather more
fundamental distinctions inhering to either axis which are simply a
reflection,
after all, of the dichotomy between a genuine church coupled to a
pseudo state
and a genuine state coupled to a pseudo church, whether in the
phenomenal or in
the noumenal. But, of course, the positions of the respective
axes are
modified by epochal or historical factors, as described in some detail
in
several of the mature texts in Opera
D’Oeuvre, my collected
writings. For instance, the establishment of pseudo-chemical and
pseudo-antiphysical positions at the expense of traditional chemical
and
antiphysical positions at the southwest point of the axial compass is
due in
large part to the impositions, from the northwest point of the compass
in
question, of metachemical and antimetaphysical liberties of a somatic
nature
which ensure that what was formerly antiphysically sinful and foolish
becomes,
under antimetaphysical pressure, quasi-pseudo-sinful and
quasi-pseudo-foolish,
pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly typifying the antimetaphysical position in
respect
of bound psyche and free soma, while likewise ensuring that was what
formerly chemically
pseudo-criminal and pseudo-evil becomes, under metachemical pressure,
quasi-criminal and quasi-evil or, in
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
vein, quasi-evil and quasi-criminal, evil and crime typifying the
metachemical
position in respect of free soma and bound psyche. Therefore
while the
genuine sensually phenomenal positions at the southwest point of the
axial
compass have effectively been overhauled and eclipsed by their
post-worldly
pseudo successors, they are still distinct from anything either
pseudo-foolish
and pseudo-sinful in antimetaphysics or genuinely evil and genuinely
criminal
in metachemistry, being simply the
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
transmutation of genuinely church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria
which,
ever distinct from metachemistry and antimetaphysics, will be merely
quasi-evil
and quasi-criminal in relation to pseudo-chemistry, and
quasi-pseudo-foolish
and quasi-pseudo-sinful in relation to pseudo-antiphysics. Yet it
is
precisely in that paradoxical straining towards the northwest point of
the
axial compass that the transmuted southwest point, now more
democratically and
somatically free than ever before, finds itself in a pseudo-worldly
situation
which requires to be delivered from its paradoxical predicament via an
equally
paradoxical utilization of those very same democratic freedoms which
are not
germane to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria but a
consequence, in
large measure, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate cultural
imperialism from
without, in order that the people concerned may be returned,
progressively, to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in the event of a majority
mandate
for religious sovereignty and be delivered, in terms of salvation
(males) and
counter-damnation (females), from those who now prey upon them in such
unabashedly metachemical and antimetaphysical vein, twisting them from
the path
of righteousness and, for females, counter-justice to the pit of vanity
and,
for males, pseudo-meekness or, in other words, to all that is unjust
and
unrighteous. Only the application, within countries like the
COMPREHENSIVELY
NON-HUMANISTIC. I do
not speak in terms of the ‘exploitation of man by man’, for that is too
facile
and symptomatic of the kind of humanistic reductionism that, at the
southeast
point of the axial compass, would substitute proletarian humanism for
bourgeois
humanism, social democracy for liberal democracy, Marxism for
parliamentarianism, and duly reduce life to the
pseudo-righteousness-excluding
justice of state-absolutist communism. I
have nothing but contempt for that kind of terminological reductionism,
which
has nothing even state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, never mind
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, about it.
Rather, I am conscious of how, in the broader and taller
opening-out of
our understanding of life in relation to the full-gamut of
intercardinal points
on our axial compass, the northwest point, which is divisible between
metachemistry and antimetaphysics, has nothing whatsoever to do with
humanism,
still less antihumanism, but simply with a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
dichotomy, conditioned by gender, between devilish
materialism/fundamentalism
(free soma/bound psyche) and antigodly
anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism
(free soma/bound psyche), neither of which are anything but
respectively
antithetical, on a like-gender basis, to antiwomanly
antirealism/antinonconformism
(bound soma/free psyche) and manly naturalism/humanism (bound soma/free
psyche), whether on genuine or pseudo terms, as well as being
predatorily
detrimental to antimanly antihumanism/antinaturalism (bound psyche/free
soma)
and womanly nonconformism/realism (bound psyche/free soma), and
precisely in
terms of their quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate
transmutation in
relation to what then becomes, on a like gender-to-gender basis, a
quasi-metachemical and quasi-antimetaphysical corruption of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate antiphysical/chemical gender
dichotomy in
terms of pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical idolatrous strainings
towards
the predatory impositions of the metachemical and antimetaphysical
somatic liberties
at the northwest point of the compass in question.
But that which is antimanly and womanly or,
in quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate corruption,
pseudo-womanly
and pseudo-antimanly is nonetheless quite distinct from both devilish
and antigodly
libertarian impositions, as well as from its phenomenal counterparts of
antiwomen and men or, in post-worldly terms, pseudo-antiwomen and
pseudo-men,
across the axial divide, irrespective of the presence or absence of
Bolshevistic extrapolations thereof. It
is also quite distinct, be it not forgotten, from anything appertaining
to the
northeast point of the axial compass, whether in godly or antidevilish
vein,
and thus from all forms of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, whether
in
relation to transcendentalism/idealism (free psyche/bound soma) or, on
the
female side of the gender divide, to antifundamentalism/antimaterialism
(free
psyche/bound soma). And, as
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate corruption of an
antimanly and
womanly alternative to other types of worldly existence, it cannot be
saved,
much less counter-damned, by what, in Catholic tradition, are pseudo
manifestations of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, since they only
suffice
for the genuinely antiphysical and chemical worldly positions of, for
instance,
uncorrupted rural Catholics, not for their latter-day ‘corrupted’ and
effectively pseudo-worldly urban counterparts and democratized
successors, who
are already a little higher at the southwest point of the axial compass
than
would be compatible with such rural traditions, and require, in their
almost
heliotropic straining towards its northeast point, to be delivered from
their
paradoxical predicament by an altogether superior order of metaphysics
and
antimetachemistry, an order stretching beyond the mankind limitations
of both
the Catholic West and the Buddhist East alike,
and therefore not held back from its ‘coming out’, in the full
realization of
what it is, by dint not only of a more genuinely worldly position
‘below’ but,
noumenally antithetical to itself, the constitutional or other
manifestations
of a much older and altogether more genuine mode of metachemistry and
antimetaphysics which, rooted in the Old Testament and all that is of
the
northwest point of the axial compass, hold the traditional northeast
point back
from any radical ‘coming out’ such that, in a manner of speaking, would
be
commensurate with messianic intervention and, hence, a repudiation of
everything metachemical and antimetaphysical, everything devilish and
antigodly, that would otherwise continue, by its very existence, to
constrain
the northeast point of the compass in question to what has been
described,
principally in relation to Roman Catholicism, as pseudo manifestations
of
metaphysics and antimetachemistry. Even
Celtic Christianity would have been constrained, in such fashion, from
even
approaching anything like a Buddhist degree of metaphysical and/or
antimetachemical psychic freedom and somatic binding, notwithstanding
the fact
that Buddhism itself remains, for all its alleged atheism in relation
to cosmic
‘first movers’ of a stellar/solar nature, hamstrung by older
traditions,
including Hindu, more deeply rooted, polytheistically, in cosmic
materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry) and
anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism
(antimetaphysics). No, this new and not
merely more but most genuine mode of
metaphysics and antimetachemistry, commensurate with its definitive
manifestation, can only be advanced independently of all religious
traditions,
Eastern or Western, if it is to fulfil its global potential and assume
true
universality, and such a mode of transcendentalism/idealism
(metaphysics) and
antifundamentalism/antimaterialism (antimetachemistry) has always been
associated, by me, with Social Theocracy and the paradoxical
utilization of the
democratic process in certain countries, not least those with a
Catholic
tradition like Eire, by a movement offering a religiously sovereign
alternative
to political sovereignty in the interests, in the event of a majority
mandate
for such an ultimate sovereignty, of deliverance of the peoples
concerned from
their worldly or, rather, pseudo-worldly predicament to that
otherworldly and
anti-netherworldly situation at the northeast point of the axial
compass which
will be commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ and, hence, with the right to
universally enhanced orders of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such
that
would not be possible without a repudiation, democratically, of all
metachemical and antimetaphysical obstacles to that ‘coming out’ and,
indeed,
fuller development of all that is genuinely godly and antidevilish, a
development which would be given every encouragement within the
paradisiacal
context of a religiously sovereign people.
For what was formerly pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly would,
in the
event of a Social Theocratic church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
transformation
of society, become the pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly
preconditions of
godliness and antidevilishness, thereby being delivered from all that,
in
metachemically devilish and antimetaphysically antigodly vein, would
otherwise
continue to prey upon them netherworld without evil/criminal end in the
one
case and anti-otherworld without pseudo-foolish/pseudo-sinful end in
the other
case. It is time, surely, for those who
would traditionally have related to sinful/foolish (antiphysical) and
pseudo-criminal/pseudo-evil (chemical) worldly positions at the
southwest point
of the axial compass to be given the opportunity to turn away, in their
lapsed
Catholic dilemma, from all quasi-evil/quasi-criminal
(quasi-metachemical) and
quasi-pseudo-foolish/quasi-pseudo-sinful (quasi-antimetaphysical)
corruptions
at the hands of their metachemical and antimetaphysical exploiters and
opt, via
the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, now less
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate, for deliverance from
both their
own shortcomings and those who prey upon them to what, in the event of
a Social
Theocratic revolution, would be the radically overhauled northeast
point of the
axial compass wherein the blessed righteousness of genuine grace/wisdom
(free
psyche/bound soma) and, for females, the counter-cursed pseudo-justice
(counter-justice) of pseudo-punishment/pseudo-goodness (free
psyche/bound
soma), will prevail for all eternity and anti-infinity, eventually
bringing all
that pertains to infinity and anti-eternity in metachemistry and
antimetaphysics crashing down its own
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
into the worldly or, rather, pseudo-worldly justice and
counter-righteousness
(pseudo-righteousness) of those who are already germane to the
southeast point
of the axis in question but would no longer have any reason to finance
the
libertarian freedoms of their axial antitheses when such freedoms could
no
longer command an audience for want of any audience to speak of in
respect of
its removal, as prey to somatic licence, from its own pseudo-worldly
predicament in the aforementioned pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly
terms,
terms which salvation and counter-damnation would reverse in relation
to the
salvation of pseudo-antimen to God and of the counter-damnation of
pseudo-women
to the Antidevil, that the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of
‘Kingdom
Come’ could reign On High for ever more, blessed otherworldly freedom
and
counter-cursed anti-netherworldly binding without metaphysical or
antimetachemical end.
OVERCOMING
THE
WORLD. With
Social Theocrats like us, for whom the world-affirmation of a Nietzsche
is
anathema, the world is decidedly something that should be overcome, but
not in
the sense that one is thinking, at least initially, about the world in
general,
which is both alpha and omega, sensual and sensible. On the contrary,
only
about the kind of worldliness appertaining to the southwest point of
our axial
compass, the type that has been identified with alpha worldliness or,
rather,
pseudo-alpha-worldliness in pseudo-chemistry and
pseudo-anti-omega-worldliness
in pseudo-antiphysics, the ‘pseudo’ being the contemporary ‘lapsed
Catholic’
manifestations of sensual worldliness that owe much to freely somatic
libertarian impositions from the northwest point of the compass in
question,
which has been identified, in previous entries, with metachemistry and
antimetaphysics. Thus the kind of
‘worldliness’ that has to be overcome from a divine, not to mention
(for
females) antidiabolic, standpoint is precisely that which is not, on
any account,
an ideal in itself, whether falsely or otherwise, but a sensual
limitation
which is subject to the sorts of predatory exploitations characteristic
of
metachemistry and antimetaphysics, not least in their contemporary, or
synthetically artificial, guise. Being
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical is not the same as being
chemical and
antiphysical in traditional alpha-worldly and anti-omega-worldly vein,
since
beyond any kind of worldly per
se in
terms of a degree of post-worldliness which is nevertheless distinct
from
anything supra-worldly, whether on netherworldly or anti-otherworldly
terms. The pseudo-chemical and
pseudo-antiphysical manifestations of post-worldliness may be
straining, in
respectively quasi-metachemical and quasi-antimetaphysical vein,
towards the
metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions stemming from the
northwest point
of the axial compass, but they are neither supra-worldly on those terms
nor,
more importantly, supra-worldly in respect of otherworldly and
anti-netherworldly criteria which, in the event of its coming to pass,
would
save and counter-damn them, according to gender, from their
pseudo-chemical or,
rather (with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria),
pseudo-antiphysical
and pseudo-chemical limitations to a more exalted metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
commensurate with the messianic overhauling of the northeast point of
the axial
compass in relation to ‘Kingdom Come’.
They are trapped in a kind of intermediate realm which is
neither
properly worldly, in traditional Catholic fashion, nor supra-worldly in
terms
of a new order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and therefore they
remain
the playthings of those who would prey upon them from metachemical and
antimetaphysical heights, reducing them, for all their paradoxical
straining at
a pseudo-worldly leash, to a sort of idolatrous worship of whatever it
is that
the netherworldly and anti-otherworldly can synthetically create and
commercially foist upon them. Thus they
have need of deliverance from this paradoxical situation, and in that
sense they
correspond to what, as pseudo-alpha-world and pseudo-anti-omega-world,
should
be overcome in the interests of elevation to such metaphysics and
antimetachemistry as would stand in a noumenally antithetical
relationship to
their predatory exploiters and constitute their salvation (in the case
of the
pseudo-antiphysical) and counter-damnation (in the case of the
pseudo-chemical)
from the pseudo-anti-omega-world and pseudo-alpha-world to all that was
genuinely otherworldly and anti-netherworldly in its sensibly
supra-worldly
removal from the world. No, we do not
make a point, in Nietzschean vein, of affirming the world, least of all
in
respect of that which is manifestly the victim of both its own sensual
shortcomings and of the freely somatic liberties which reign down upon
it from
‘above’, i.e. the northwest point of the axial compass, but conceive of
the
need of delivering such a manifestation of worldliness or, rather,
pseudo-worldliness from itself in order that it may be delivered from
those who
would continue to exploit its limitations and grow famous and wealthy
on its
gullibility and moral helplessness. In
that respect we are categorically opposed to any ‘world affirmation’,
particularly since it would more accord with the omega worldly or,
increasingly
in this day and age, pseudo-omega-worldly and pseudo-anti-alpha-worldly
positions at the southeast point of the axial compass whose sensible
disdain,
both traditionally and contemporaneously, for anything phenomenally
sensual
across the axial divide keeps it in cahoots, more usually in respect of
financing the somatic liberties of their axial counterparts, with all
that is
metachemically and antimetaphysically ranged against the possibility
and,
indeed, desirability of metaphysics and antimetachemistry from
standpoints
rooted to the northwest point of the axial compass.
Thus the reign of the world or, rather, of
the sensible pseudo-worldly in this post-worldly and even
alpha-supraworldly
(netherworldly) and anti-omega-supraworldly (anti-otherworldly) age, is
commensurate with the phenomenal reign of pseudo-man and
pseudo-anti-woman in
relation to the noumenal reign of devils and antigods (not to mention
their
‘pseudo’ counterparts) at the expense not only of pseudo-women and
pseudo-antimen across the phenomenal axial divide but, more shockingly,
at the
expense of genuine godliness and antidevilishness at the northeast
point of the
axial compass which is precisely the point that needs to resurrect
itself and
overhaul its traditional manifestations if those at the southwest point
of the
axis in question are to be more efficaciously saved and counter-damned
from all
that would hold them down and keep them enslaved to
pseudo-anti-omega-worldly
and pseudo-alpha-worldly criteria, sensual post-worldly limitation
without
exploitable and exploited end. The
pseudo-world that affirms itself, in relation to the (indirect)
exploitation of
those whose pseudo-worldly predicament across the axial divide is
anything but
desirable, is not our world but the world of those who have made peace
with
worldliness and, in so doing, signed a Faustian pact with the Devil and
the
Antigod (no matter how paradoxically and irrationally hyped as God and
denigrated as the Devil) to exploit, in predatory fashion, the
pseudo-alpha-worldly and pseudo-anti-omega-worldly for their mutual
somatic
benefit, the secular product, in large part, of schismatic heresy in
axial
terms. We, who struggle on behalf of
genuine godliness and (for females) antidevilishness, are not of this
sensible
world, and therefore our appeal is to its sensual victims whom we wish
to
deliver from the clutches of all who, in
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
vein, would prey upon them, and deliver, more specifically, to the
metaphysical
and antimetachemical heights of the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly
salvation and counter-damnation of God and the Antidevil at the
overhauled
northeast point of the axial compass.
And we firmly believe that this can be done and that it is
commensurate
with ‘world overcoming’ in the truest and religiously best sense,
taking what
is already pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly and transforming it into
the
supra-human godliness and antidevilishness of what most accords with
heavenly
and antihellish criteria for all eternity and anti-infinity in the
Celestial
City and Anti-Vanity Fair of ‘Kingdom Come’ which, in the event of a
majority
mandate for religious sovereignty in certain countries entitled to
counter one
paradox – the paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate
criteria
– with another – the paradox of an election in which religious
sovereignty was
very much on the table in the interests of a progressive restoration of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria – would be commensurate
with the
messianic transformation of the northeast point of the axial compass in
relation to metaphysics and antimetachemistry of a universally and
anti-polyversally definitive order, beyond, in its synthetic
artificiality, both Western and Eastern
shortfalls
alike, and therefore truly reflective of the triumph of culture over
counter-civility in global civilization.
REVALUATIONS
AND
TRANSVALUATIONS. I have
doubtless been guilty, from time to time, of confounding Nietzsche’s
‘revaluation of all values’ with a transvaluation
of all
values. Yet, in point of fact, such
terms are not synonymous but as distinct as, say, physics and
metaphysics, or
man and God, or knowledge and truth, or, in a certain literal sense,
philosophy
and theosophy. For to revaluate is not
to transvaluate in the sense that I turn things around from noumenal
sensuality
to noumenal sensibility, Devil the Mother to God the Father, renouncing
all
that would devaluate, but simply to counter the feminine tendency to
evaluate
from a masculine standpoint that would owe more to the earth, and hence
earthiness, than to anything purgatorial, much less divine and/or
diabolic. With Nietzsche there is
certainly much earthiness, much German continental land-mass
physicality which
fights shy of both wateriness and, up above, airiness, even as, in
time-honoured earthy fashion, it defers to fire, not least in respect
of the
‘beast-of-prey’ mentality which Nietzsche, glorying in all things upper
class,
fatalistically esteems, and esteems, be it not forgotten, if not at the
expense
of the earthy then most certainly of the watery and anti-earthy
positions which
I have identified, all along, with the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass, thereby confirming what would have to be
interpreted as a protestant (in Nietzsche’s case Lutheran) mentality
and bias
that fights shy of catholic norms.
Frankly, Nietzsche’s revaluations are not to be mistaken for
anything
divine and transcendentalist, since his superman is, for him, the
‘meaning of
the earth’
[my
italics],
and
such
a ‘meaning’ has no bearing on ‘world overcoming’ in
the
sense of otherworldly faith in a godly transvaluation such that would
save ‘the
meek’, meaning principally anti-earthy males of a phenomenally
anti-sensible
(antiphysical) disposition, from their worldly plight to noumenal
sensibility
of an altogether transcendental departure from anything subject, in
anti-earthly and (for females) purgatorial fashion, to the predations
of those
who reign, in metachemical fieriness and antimetaphysical
anti-airiness, at the
northwest point of the axial compass and make it their business to prey
upon
the aforesaid anti-earthy and purgatorial, antiphysical and chemical,
positions
in heathenistic defiance of anything moralistic in Catholic or, better,
supra-Catholic terms. It is well known
that Nietzsche had no time for ‘world overcoming’ in that sense, and
therefore
his revaluations smack of the triumph not of God, nor even of God’s
female
partner, the Antidevil, but of man and, hence, of a certain earthy
refusal to
contemplate any heights which are not, in time-honoured protestant
fashion,
metachemically ranged against metaphysics in what I have all along
described as
Devil the Mother hyped as God. Of
course, Nietzsche is also famous or, depending on your point of view,
infamous
for the phrase ‘God is dead’. But this
phrase is literally a contradiction in terms, since what properly
appertains to
godliness can never die, being commensurate with eternal life even as
such life
evolves through successive life stages, as it were, from a least
evolved level
of psychic freedom in metaphysical cosmos to – in anticipation of the
future -
a most evolved level of psychic freedom in metaphysical cyborgkind via
less
(compared to least) and more (compared to most) evolved levels of
psychic freedom
in metaphysical nature and mankind, as described in several of my
mature
philosophical writings (See Opera
D’Oeuvre). The usual interpretation,
almost invariably Protestant, of this paradoxical notion of the ‘death
of God’,
notwithstanding the death of Christ on the Cross, is with regard to
‘the
Creator’, i.e. the so-called Father, who can be identified – and often
is –
with Jehovah, and hence with something Old Testament in character
deemed
responsible for all of Creation, including much of the cosmos itself. But this interpretation normally leads to
humanism and, hence, to the substitution of the reign of man for the
reign,
ostensibly, of God; though, unbeknownst to its rejecters, this alpha
'divinity', rooted, in noumenal sensuality, is not really God at all
but Devil
the Mother hyped as God. Hence far from
turning away from God, such deluded humanists have simply rejected
Devil the
Mother hyped as God without realizing it, with the unfortunate
consequence, for
them, that they take humanism for granted, never realizing that the
rejection
of Devil the Mother is anything but commensurate with the rejection of
God the
Father whom they refuse, in their blind humanism, to contemplate. Besides, as Protestants of a puritanical
cast, they are on the wrong axis to attempt any ‘God building’, any
aspiration
towards God or, better, response to a godly intervention approximating
to the
Second Coming which could result in a higher order of salvation (and
counter-damnation for females) to anything Catholics have known in the
past. No Second Coming equivalent (and I
use the term in a very approximate and provisional manner) could do
anything
for these blind humanists, whether liberal democratic or social
democratic, the
latter of course being the more radically atheistic offshoots of the
former,
but only for those whose axial orientation was approximately Catholic
in its
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate integrity, an integrity which, no
matter how
twisted and undermined by countervailing axial pressures, was still
ethnically
distinct from anything deriving, in contemporary secular fashion, from
the
various manifestations of schismatic heresy which have dominated the
West for
the past three-four centuries, and sometimes, as in the case of Eire,
nationally distinct as well. However
that may be, Nietzsche was no friend of godly transvaluations, he did
not, like
myself, expose the so-called Creator for Devil the Mother hyped as God,
nor
indeed, for all his talk of the ‘death of God’, did he turn away from
noumenal
sensuality and reject the ‘beast-of-prey’ mentality which derives from
metachemistry, since his commitment to humanism or, what he would have
preferred to call, the triumph of man over God was provisional
upon the
self-overcoming of this man in favour of the Superman, and the
Superman, as we
now know, can be given rather unpleasant state-absolutist (not merely
state-hegemonic) twists of either a Bolshevistic or, more usually, a
Nazistic
character, making it commensurate with the oppression, either directly
or indirectly,
not merely of man (out of whom it is expected to emerge) but of antiman
and,
via him, woman at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
neither of whom can be expected to attain to God and the Antidevil
while those
responsible for financing, despite their ostensible atheism, the Devil
and
Antigod continue so to do, even though the Devil is still officially
identified
with God (as Devil the Mother hyped as God) and the Antigod still
officially
identified with - and done down as - the Devil (as the Antison of
Antigod). Frankly the death of the
possibility of God occurred a long time before Nietzsche for those who
went on
to become affiliated, as Protestants of one persuasion or
another, with
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis; though for Catholics, no
matter
how lapsed under contemporary corrupting pressures, the possibility of
godliness and, for females, antidevilishness once more prevails, if now
on
terms which, being Social Theocratic, require the democratic
abandonment of Catholicism
at some future time in order that a more efficacious order of salvation
and
counter-damnation may be developed and offered to them such that,
unlike their
Catholic traditions, really would
be able to deliver them from their predatory enemies and, in the
process, deliver such predators into the hands of those who, whether
pseudo-manly (supermanly) or pseudo-antiwomanly (super-antiwomanly) are
now
financially hand-in-glove with them but who, in the event of their
damnation
and counter-salvation, would be obliged to ‘make them over’ in their
own image
as a precondition of their own subsequent entitlement to salvation and
counter-damnation in the event of an axial transposition of the sort
that would
allow them to step into the places vacated by the pseudo-antimanly
Saved and
pseudo-womanly Counter-Damned, call them anti-supermanly or
superwomanly, as
you prefer, but always bearing in mind that what, under predatory
pressures
from the northwest point of the axial compass, is now a ‘new’
anti-earth and a
‘new’ purgatory portends that most genuine heaven and antihell which,
in the
event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will be the
touchstone
of ‘Kingdom Come’.
METAPHYSICS
AND
ANTIMETACHEMISTRY. When we
conceive of God and Heaven in relation to metaphysics, which is the
only
elemental context properly germane to God and Heaven (a male context I
have all
along identified with the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass
and contend to be unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry, its
female
complement), it transpires that not only does one have God and Heaven
in
relation to the transcendentalism of metaphysical free psyche, God the
Father
and Heaven the Holy Soul in terms of metaphysical ego and soul, but
also God
and Heaven in relation to the idealism of metaphysical bound soma, the
Son of
God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in terms of metaphysical antiwill
(bound
will) and antispirit (bound spirit), psyche taking precedence over soma
in the
elemental context in question, since psyche precedes and preponderates
over
soma as a male actuality and, in this case, as a metaphysical male
actuality
the ratio of which preponderance should be in the region of 3:1. But, of course, not only is there
metaphysical psyche and soma; there is also the soma and psyche of
antimetachemistry, with the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the
antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound soma, Antidevil the
Antimother and
Antihell the Unclear Spirit in terms of antimetachemical antiwill
(bound will)
and antispirit (bound spirit), and the Antidevil and Antihell in
relation to
the antifundamentalism of antimetachemical free psyche, the
Antidaughter of the
Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell in terms of antimetachemical
ego and
soul, neither of which would be capable of deferring, in secondary
church-hegemonic vein, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul
without the
secondary state-subordinate precondition of Antidevil the Antimother
and
Antihell the Unclear Spirit having been established in consequence of
the
subjective influence of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven
directly
stemming, in primary state-subordinate vein, from the church-hegemonic
primacy
of God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul.
For the deference of what may be called the beautiful approach
to Truth
(the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and the loving approach to Joy (the
Unclear
Soul of Antihell) to what properly appertains, in God the Father and
Heaven the
Holy Soul, to Truth and Joy would not transpire were Antidevil the
Antimother
not constrained to Beauty and Antihell the Unclear Spirit not
constrained to
Love via the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son of God and the
joyful
approach to Love of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which, being
idealistically metaphysical, directly stem from the Truth of God the
Father and
the Joy of Heaven the Holy Soul, the prime movers in metaphysics and
the basis
of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry which
constitutes the order of the northeast point of the axial compass as
that in
which God is triumphant over the Antidevil as the Celestial City over
Anti-Vanity Fair or as metaphysical classlessness over antimetachemical
anti-upperclassfulness or as Eternity (repetitive time) over
Anti-Infinity
(spaced space, or antispace). Therefore
God and Heaven, though primarily of metaphysical transcendentalism, are
also to
be thought of in relation to metaphysical idealism, albeit as the
state-subordinate corollary of a church-hegemonic – and therefore
strictly religious
– precedence which is properly of God and Heaven. Likewise,
if
conversely,
the
Antidevil and
Antihell, though primarily of antimetachemical antimaterialism, are
also to be
thought of in relation to antimetachemical antifundamentalism, albeit
as the
church-hegemonic corollary of a state-subordinate – and therefore
strictly
political – precedence which is properly of the Antidevil and Antihell. For whereas psyche precedes and preponderates
over soma as male actuality, whether absolutely (3:1) as above or
relatively
(2½:1½) in relation to physics (and hence to man per se), the converse
situation of soma preceding and predominating over psyche happens to
coincide
with female actuality, whether on the 2½:1½ ratio of chemistry or,
indeed, on
the 3:1 basis of metachemistry, something that doesn’t cease to obtain
under
male pressures in sensibility, even though, paradoxically, such
pressures,
germane to the opposite gender actuality, will result, contrary to
chemical or
metachemical norms based in sensuality, in bound soma and free psyche,
whether
with an emphasis upon the former (antichemistry) or upon the latter
(antimetachemistry), as determined by the overall axial situation (as
described
by me in several of my mature philosophical texts, not least those
included in Opera D’Oeuvre). However
that
may
be,
that which is
metaphysical will ever differ from the antimetachemical (as, indeed,
the
physical from the antichemical) in terms of this fundamental gender
differentiation which no amount of male pressure can substantially
modify or
undo, though confound and undermine it most certainly can, especially
in the
metaphysical context which, being unequivocally hegemonic, does not
have to
compete, like physics, with an unequivocal metachemical hegemony over
antimetaphysics
back up its state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which has the
effect, in
linking the two female elemental positions (metachemistry to
antichemistry), of
subverting the equivocal hegemony of physics to a bound somatic
emphasis,
despite the overall male conditioning of the female position in
antichemistry
to free psyche and bound soma, and all because the free soma of
metachemistry
is able to determine the terms of primary state-hegemonic criteria on
the basis
of an antithesis between metachemical free soma and antichemical bound
soma. But if physics must accept such a
paradoxical twist of emphasis under female hegemonic (metachemical) and
subversive (antichemical) pressures such that preclude genuine
righteousness
(or complete male gender sync with its underlying actuality) for the
males so
twisted from what might otherwise be a psychic emphasis, no such fate
characterizes the unequivocally hegemonic metaphysical, and therefore
far from
a pseudo-righteous (counter-righteous)/just dichotomy between the
genders one
will find a righteous/pseudo-just (counter-just) dichotomy germane to
the
northeast point of the axial compass in what must be regarded, in
overall axial
terms, as a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate orientation
traditionally more
characteristic, in the West, of Catholic nations than of their
Protestant (and
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) counterparts, irrespective of how
imperfect
the Catholic approximation to anything metaphysical and
antimetachemical is
compared not only to the Buddhist East but, even more so, to any
definitive
working out of such a dichotomy in something approaching properly
universal
terms with the coming of global civilization in ‘Kingdom Come’. But either way, whether Catholic West or
Buddhist East, holiness is only possible, for metaphysical males, in
relation
to the correlative existence, institutionally upheld, of unclearness
for the
antimetachemical, as the female of the species is confounded and
somatically
undermined in the interests of psychic freedom.
You do not have holiness without unclearness, whether on genuine
(metaphysical) or pseudo (physical) terms, and you can take it as
axiomatic
that the existence of genuine holiness in metaphysics will require the
correlative
co-existence of pseudo-unclearness (counter-unclearness) in
antimetachemistry,
whereas the existence of pseudo-holiness (counter-holiness) in physics
will be
in consequence of the correlative co-existence of genuine unclearness
in
antichemistry, the latter of which is no counter-damnation (up the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) but the product of damnation
(down the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis), damnation, one might say,
from free
to bound soma in primary state-hegemonic terms and from bound to free
psyche in
primary church-subordinate terms.
GOD
AND
HEAVEN. As I
believe I have mentioned before, God and Heaven not only exclusively
appertain
to metaphysics, with particular reference, in transcendentalism, to
metaphysical free psyche, but can be said to evolve, depending on the
evolutionary context, from least evolved, or psychically free, in
cosmic
metaphysics to most evolved – to anticipate the future – in cyborg
metaphysics
via less (compared to least) evolved in natural metaphysics and more
(compared
to most) evolved in mankind metaphysics, as though from planets like
Saturn in
cosmic metaphysics to some synthetically
artificial mode of cyborg metaphysics in the coming ‘kingdom’ via
winged
seed-pods on tall trees in natural metaphysics, or the metaphysical
aspect of
nature, and verbal absolution for penitential contrition (Catholic
West) and/or
transcendental meditation (Buddhist East) in mankind metaphysics, all
of which
would be of a noumenally sensible order of evolution that contrasted
with
anything noumenally sensual and, hence, devolutionarily metachemical,
never
mind phenomenally sensual or sensible in devolutionary chemistry and
evolutionary physics, the devolutionary elements of course being
somatic and
hence female, their evolutionary counterparts psychic and hence male. I say nothing, however, of the upended gender
positions in relation to each of these four principal elemental
positions,
which would of course complicate the overall picture in terms of an
antimetachemical
corollary of metaphysics, an antimetaphysical corollary of
metachemistry, an
antiphysical corollary of chemistry, and an antichemical corollary of
physics. But let us confine ourselves,
for the moment, to metaphysics, the elemental context of God and
Heaven, which
is solely male in its transcendentalist basis in free psyche and
idealist
requirement of bound soma in the state-subordinate offshoots of a
church-hegemonic primacy, whether in respect of the bound will
(antiwill) of
the Son of God or the bound spirit (antispirit) of the Holy Spirit of
Heaven,
neither of which, however, are properly germane to God and Heaven in
terms of
the free ego of God the Father and the free soul of Heaven the Holy
Soul. But if God and Heaven can be said,
in overall
contextual terms, to evolve from least psychically free in one
metaphysical
context (cosmic) to most psychically free in another metaphysical
context
(cyborg) via less (compared to least) and more (compared to most)
psychically
free in the intermediate metaphysical contexts of nature and mankind,
then it
should also be said that the relationship or, rather, ratio of ego to
soul in
relation to God and Heaven changes proportionately and with an
emphasis,
moreover, upon soul irrespective of the metaphysical context, whether
in terms
of most God and least Heaven with the least
evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche (cosmic), of more
(compared to most) God and less (compared to least) Heaven with the less (compared to least) evolved
manifestation of free metaphysical psyche (natural), of less (compared
to
least) God and more (compared to most) Heaven with the more
(compared to most) evolved manifestation of free metaphysical
psyche (mankind), or of least God and most Heaven with the most
evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche, which can
only be the definitive manifestation still to come with the sensible
cyborgization of life in ‘Kingdom Come’ in the event of the spread of
global
civilization in relation to the ‘overcoming of man(kind)’, to use a
kind of
Nietzschean expression, following majority mandates for religious
sovereignty
in countries that were ethnically and ideologically capable of
furthering a
genuinely godly (coupled, for females, to antidevilish) resolve in the
interests of global universality and the full maturation of metaphysics. For metaphysics will not have attained to its
peak, its goal, until what, with mankind, is metaphysically less
(compared to
least) God and more (compared to most) Heaven becomes, with cyborgkind,
least
God and most Heaven, thereby evolving beyond the best that mankind has
achieved
in respect of transcendental meditation (Buddhist East) into what, the
other
side of secular modernity and of anything Eastern or Western, will be
its
definitive realization, a situation that cannot be achieved without
recourse to
the relevant synthetically artificial substances coupled to a
correlative
degree of cyborgization to render such substances viable long-term. Thus if ultimate metaphysical godliness and
heavenliness is to come to pass in terms of the most evolved
manifestation of
metaphysics, not only will it have to be at the expense of anything
mankind may
have achieved in the past, and then not universally, but at the expense
of
mankind itself, so that the ensuing cyborgization of life in relation
to certain
synthetically artificial substances can
be given due encouragement and take over from where metaphysics left
off in
both the West and the East, as well as counter all forms of secular
modernity
such that owe little or nothing to Catholicism or Buddhism but largely
derive
from Protestant preconditions in the West and Hindu if not Judaic
preconditions
in the East. However that may be,
metaphysics will not have attained to its goal and definitive
manifestation until
there is a situation, necessarily supra-human, in which there is least
God and
most Heaven, least brain-stem ego and most spinal-cord soul, a
situation that
can only materialize in relation to a progression from visionary
experience of
a synthetically artificial order to mystical or unitary experience of a
synthetically artificial order, and thus over a protracted period of
time
within ‘Kingdom Come’, or the context of a religiously sovereign
people, as
though from a super-catholic phase centred in visionary experience to a
super-puritan phase centred in unitary experience of a no-less
synthetically
artificial order, and all because one cannot legalize and make
institutionally
available, within the context of the Centre, the institutional
framework, so to
speak, of Social Theocracy, certain substances before
cyborgization is at a sufficiently advanced
stage to permit their widespread and protracted use.
If we begin with substances of a visionary
order it will not be because we disbelieve in unitary experience but
because
the capacity to handle that unitary experience at a suitably – for
contemporary
and especially future global civilization – synthetically artificial
level over
a protracted period of time and in meaningfully stimulating quantities
will not
be there until such time as cyborgization is sufficiently advanced as
to permit
of their use. You cannot ‘jump the gun’,
as it were, and allow for wholesale unitary experience of a
synthetically
artificial order, the order necessary to global civilization, before
you have
developed the cyborg capacity to handle such experience and render it
relatively safe, safe, that is, for a supra-human godly creature who
will be
able to ingest it with absolute impunity because any not-self obstacles
that
may have stood in the way of self-realization of a more – indeed a most
–
complete order will have been systematically replaced by their
synthetically
artificial counterparts in what would amount to a sensible
cyborgization of
‘human’ life, of those who, as pseudo-antimen and pseudo-women at the
southwest
point of the axial compass were entitled to godly and antidevilish
deliverance
from their respective pseudo-worldly predicaments to the most genuinely
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly salvations and counter-damnations
at the
northeast point of the axial compass in what I have all along described
as the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the axis that alone has any
reference
to godliness and antidevilishness in contrast to any devilishness
(hyped, in
Old Testament fashion, as God) and antigodliness (‘done down’, in Old
Testament
fashion, as the Devil) at the northwest point of the axial compass or,
indeed,
in contrast to any manliness and antiwomanliness, whether traditionally
genuine
or contemporaneously pseudo, at the southeast point of the axial
compass such
that between them amount to a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
opposition to
anything Catholic, whether genuine or ‘lapsed’, and thus to all forms
of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society.
No, if man is to be ‘overcome’, to use the Nietzschean
expression, it
will not simply be man in that physical, parliamentary/puritan sense
which we
have identified with the southeast part of the axial compass, least of
all
initially, but those who, as lapsed Catholics, are effectively
pseudo-antimanly
in their antiphysical distinctiveness, at the southwest point of the compass in question, from anything physical,
or phenomenally sensible, and who are accordingly in axial line for the
possibility of genuine godliness ‘On High’ in the event – with female
entitlement to antidevilishness for pseudo-women to also bear in mind -
of a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election
conducted
in countries with, like Eire, a Catholic majority resulting in the
institutional establishment of ‘Kingdom Come’ as that in which the
people had
certain rights proportionate to their religious sovereignty, not least,
for
metaphysical males, the right to move beyond less God and more Heaven
in Roman
Catholicism to least God and most Heaven in Social Theocracy, coupled,
for
antimetachemical females, to a departure from less Antidevil and more
Antihell
in Roman Catholicism to least Antidevil and most Antihell in Social
Theocracy,
as the subordinate gender position was brought into line with the
supremacy of
metaphysics and accorded its own right to synthetically artificial
substances
in relation to what would become an antidiabolic approach to
cyborgization, one
upon which the emphasis, for all the rhetoric of a free-psychic order
coming
from above, i.e. the metaphysical hegemony, would have to be on binding
soma in
order to ensure that what actually takes precedence with females (soma
preceding and predominating over psyche) is granted due emphasis, if on
a
necessarily restrictive basis that ensures that soma, once bound, will
continue
to facilitate a secondary – compared to metaphysical males – order of
psychic
freedom in the interests of harmony between the genders and the
perpetuation,
in consequence, of a virtuous circle of church-hegemonic and
state-subordinate
criteria at the northeast point of the axial compass.
Therefore even females will have to be
granted a new and higher deal in respect of the Antidevil and Antihell
than
anything they may have known in the Catholic past, one that is no less
synthetically
artificial than that appertaining, in godliness and heavenliness, to
their male
counterparts and therefore no less germane to global universality, if
on an
antimetachemical as opposed to a metaphysical basis and thus with
reference to
Anti-Vanity Fair rather than to the Celestial City which it would be
the male
prerogative to both establish and realize to the maximum of their – and
the
heavenly system’s – transcendental ability.
Only when, for them, least God and most Heaven becomes an
established norm
can it be said that the reign of man will have come to an end and the
reign if
not of God then of God-in-Heaven truly begun, a reign that, seemingly
mimicking
man, will begin with godliness and culminate in heavenliness as
synthetic
artificiality slowly progresses from brain-stem visionary to
spinal-cord
unitary orders of self-realization in conjunction with the gradual
evolutionary
progression, in global civilization, of centro-complexification.
SECULAR
FREEDOM
VIS-À-VIS
RELIGIOUS
CONFORMITY. Open societies, by which I mean societies
rooted in alpha materialism/fundamentalism (coupled, for the male
gender, to
anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism) but extending into worldly
naturalism/humanism (coupled, for the female gender, to
antirealism/antinonconformism)
in democratic fashion, do not and cannot endorse the concept of
religious
coercion, or, to speak less bluntly, of religious conformity to the
path of
Truth (for males) and (notwithstanding the state-subordinate
significance of
Beauty) the beautiful approach to Truth (for females), and for the
simple
reason that they are irreligious if not antireligious and therefore in
no
position to encourage everyone – or as many people as possible – to
toe-the-religious-line and conform to ecclesiastical requirement. Such societies, while they might uphold
erroneous and fundamentally false notions of God, whether in respect of
Devil
the Mother hyped as God at the state-hegemonic metachemical level of
religious
materialism (I say nothing of the Daughter of the Devil at the
church-subordinate metachemical level of religious fundamentalism) or
of the
Son of Man hyped as God at the state-hegemonic physical level of
religious
naturalism (I say nothing of Man the Father at the church-subordinate
physical
level of religious humanism), are ethnically incapable – ethnic
minorities
notwithstanding – of upholding or advancing anything even approaching,
in
traditional Catholic fashion, a true concept of God such that is
removed from
anything axially state-hegemonic/church-subordinate in its relevance to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.
Consequently they do not believe in any kind
of institutional enforcement or, shall we say, encouragement of people
to
conform to ‘the will of God’ (though this is a problematic term that
owes much
to the conventionally false association of God, even by many Catholics,
with
Devil the Mother hyped as God in creatoresque Old Testament vein). They believe, lacking any true sense of
religion, in allowing people to decide for themselves and make up their
own
minds as to how much, if at all, they are willing to conform to
religious
precepts or, indeed, prefer to go against the whole grain of religion
in
blatantly secular, atheistic, scientific terms.
Of course, there are valid reasons, even in
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies, why some people may want
to do
that, not least the difficulty of adhering to anything genuine godly
when even
the nearest approximation to Truth is manifestly false and somehow
corrupted by
criteria owing more, in Bible-punching fundamentalist vein, to what I
would
call state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, not least in respect
of Devil
the Mother hyped as God. Still, no
secular society, whether contemporary or decadent, protestant or
catholic, will
endorse widespread religious conformity or devotion at the expense of
what it
upholds as freedom, which includes the freedom to opt out of religious
conventions and be as irreligious if not anti-religious as one likes. At least such societies have a certain
inherent honesty and paradoxical logic to them which is in keeping with
their
fundamentally secular if not exactly atheistic natures.
But a society that really was determined to
establish and maintain a commitment to genuine godliness (coupled, for
females,
to antidevilishness) would have a duty, sooner or later, to encourage
conformity to religious practices or norms, if only to safeguard the
new order
of religion against reaction and ensure that obsolete institutions,
including
those pertaining to religious traditions, were undermined and
systematically
removed from society. In a society that
does know what Truth is, any refusal to endorse it by reactionary or
traditional powers would be subject to censure and judged contrary to
the
interests of the people, meaning, in that context, a religiously
sovereign
people who had rights in relation to their sovereignty, including the
right to
be protected from reactionary subversives and any kind of entrenched
adherence
to ungodly practices. In that kind of
society, which is essentially an ideal society, one would not be free
to please
oneself and do what one wanted irrespective of its moral nature. The people, on the contrary, would be given
every encouragement to do what was morally in their best interests and
simultaneously be protected, as a corollary of this, from those who
would
thwart them from fully enjoying their religious rights by dint of
continuing to
adhere to some alternative principle, one either humanistic,
naturalistic, or
cosmic. In such a society the
development of religious freedom would entail the reduction if not
elimination
not only of political freedom but, no less significantly, of economic
and
scientific freedoms as well. If God is
to triumph, and hold sway over the Antidevil, which is antimetachemical
female
binding, woman, man, and the Devil must be defeated, since the noumenal
reign
of God over the Antidevil can only be achieved at the expense of the
reign
(phenomenally) of woman over antiman, and that in turn will have grave
implications
for both the noumenal reign of the Devil over Antigod and,
subsequently, the
reign (phenomenally) of man over antiwoman, neither of which latter
types of
reign has anything to do, in any case, with
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria but, rather, with their converse.
A
REVALUATION
OF
MERITOCRACY
AND
PLUTOCRACY. I have long associated autocracy with
aristocracy as metachemical free soma and bound psyche, associating, by
contrast,
anti-aristocracy with anti-autocracy as antimetachemical free psyche
and bound
soma. Likewise I have long associated
theocracy with technocracy as metaphysical free psyche and bound soma,
while
associating, by contrast, anti-technocracy with anti-theocracy as
antimetaphysical free soma and bound psyche.
Thus autocracy and aristocracy would line up over
anti-technocracy and
anti-theocracy as metachemistry over antimetaphysics in free soma and
bound
psyche respectively. Conversely,
theocracy and technocracy would line up over anti-aristocracy and
anti-autocracy as metaphysics over antimetachemistry in free psyche and
bound
soma respectively. On
the one hand, the upper-classfulness and anti-classlessness of the
northwest
point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the classlessness and
anti-upper-classfulness of the northeast point of the axial compass. Noumenal sensuality and
noumenal anti-sensibility vis-à-vis noumenal sensibility and noumenal
anti-sensuality. So
much
for
the
noumenal positions. Turning
now to their phenomenal counterparts,
I had long associated bureaucracy with plutocracy as chemical free soma
and
bound psyche, associating, by contrast, anti-plutocracy with
anti-bureaucracy
as antichemical free psyche and bound soma.
Similarly, I had long associated meritocracy with democracy as
physical
free psyche and bound soma, while associating, by contrast,
anti-democracy with
anti-meritocracy as antiphysical free soma and bound psyche. Thus bureaucracy and plutocracy would line up
over anti-democracy and anti-meritocracy as chemistry over antiphysics
in free
soma and bound psyche respectively.
Conversely, meritocracy and democracy would line up over
anti-plutocracy
and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and
bound
soma respectively. On
the one hand, the lower-classfulness and anti-middle-classfulness of
the
southwest point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the
middle-classfulness and anti-lower-classfulness of the southeast point
of the
axial compass. Phenomenal
sensuality
and
phenomenal
anti-sensibility
vis-à-vis phenomenal sensibility and
phenomenal anti-sensuality. So much for the phenomenal positions. But even though I would still strongly argue
in favour of the antiphysical subversion of chemistry to a
bound-psychic
emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry and, by
axial
contrast, of the antichemical subversion of physics to a bound-somatic
emphasis
at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, I do not now think
in terms
of the coupling of bureaucracy with plutocracy or, conversely, of
anti-plutocracy with anti-bureaucracy but, rather, of the coupling of
bureaucracy with meritocracy and, conversely, of anti-meritocracy with
anti-bureaucracy. Likewise, I have
ceased to think in terms of the coupling of meritocracy with democracy
and,
conversely, of anti-democracy with anti-meritocracy, but, rather, in
terms of
the coupling of plutocracy with democracy and, conversely, of
anti-democracy
with anti-plutocracy. Hence, to rephrase
the phenomenal antitheses, bureaucracy and meritocracy would line up
over
anti-democracy and anti-plutocracy as chemistry over antiphysics in
free soma
and bound psyche respectively.
Conversely, plutocracy and democracy would line up over
anti-meritocracy
and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and
bound
soma respectively. For it seems to me
that there is a close association, in chemistry, between bureaucracy
and
meritocracy which contrasts, as feminine to masculine, with the equally
close
association, in physics, between plutocracy and democracy.
In religious/political terms it could be said
that the meritocracy and bureaucracy of chemistry would contrast with
the
democracy and plutocracy of physics as feminine Catholicism, or the
feminine
(nonconformist/realist) aspects of Catholicism with masculine
Puritanism, or
the masculine (naturalist/humanist) aspects of Puritanism, bearing in
mind the
gender subversions in overall axial terms that conduce to bound-psychic
emphasis
(paradoxically) in the one case and to bound-somatic emphasis (no less
paradoxically) in the other case.
However that may be, I am now as good as logically convinced
that the
hegemonic factors of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis,
whether unequivocally
(noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are
theocracy/technocracy in the
case of metaphysics and bureaucracy/meritocracy in the case of
chemistry,
theocracy linking, however, with anti-plutocracy and technocracy with
anti-democracy to bring off the paradoxical psychic emphasis which
characterizes primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in
terms of
the salvation of antiphysics to metaphysics, with the counter-damnation (for females) of chemistry to
antimetachemistry entailing the link of anti-aristocracy with
meritocracy and
of anti-autocracy with bureaucracy.
Likewise I am now as good as logically convinced that the
hegemonic
factors of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, whether
unequivocally
(noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are
autocracy/aristocracy in the
case of metachemistry and plutocracy/democracy in the case of physics,
autocracy linking, however, with anti-bureaucracy and aristocracy with
anti-meritocracy to bring off the paradoxical somatic emphasis which
characterizes primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in
terms of
the damnation of metachemistry to antichemistry, with the
counter-salvation
(for males) of antimetaphysics to physics entailing the link of
anti-technocracy with democracy and of anti-theocracy with plutocracy. In broad hegemonic axial terms, however, the
former axis would seem to indicate a contrast, in positive terms,
between
bureaucratic politics and theocratic religion, whereas the latter axis,
ever
antithetical to it, would appear to indicate a contrast, positively,
between
autocratic science and plutocratic economics.
Hence my distinction, the other day, between
economics
and science in relation to the respective reigns of man (the civility
of
civilization) and the Devil (a Faustian pact with barbarity), but
between
politics and religion in relation to the respective reigns of woman
(nature)
and God (culture). Woman is not,
strictly speaking, a ‘breadwinner’ but, rather, one who
bureaucratically
distributes to each (in the family) according to their meritocratic
needs. That is less economic than
political, for the
plutocratic money-making, which hinges upon democratic rights, is
traditionally
the preserve of man.
A
BRIEF
EXAMINATION
OF
RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM. Although I believe I invented the concept of
religious sovereignty as the ultimate form of peoples, or ‘mass’,
sovereignty,
I could not have done so without the benefit of having lived in a
country with
a long tradition of political freedom and, hence, democratic
sovereignty behind
it. Certainly I am no democrat, in the
usual essentially parliamentary/puritan sense, and have never felt
myself to be
other than an Irishman living in English exile.
But I am aware that, in the broader sense, religious freedom is
a stage
beyond political freedom, and that religious, or theocratic, freedom
would be
inconceivable without political freedom as its necessary precondition. The one kind of freedom could be said to
precede the other, since freedom from political tyranny is what makes
democracy
democratic, and if you are to be free from political tyranny there is
always
going to come a time when you have to be free from religious tyranny as
well,
not simply in the Protestant and especially Puritan sense of being free
from
Catholic or Anglican persecution, but, more generally, in terms of
taking
freedom to its logical conclusion, which is freedom from all forms of
tyranny,
including arguably the oldest form of tyranny as that which wears a
religious
mask. But at bottom such religious
tyranny is less theocratic than autocratic, and therefore less germane
to God
the Father conceived in metaphysical terms than to Devil the Mother
hyped as
God in relation, fundamentally, to metachemistry. Even
with
the
relative
religious freedom that
accompanies the relative, or worldly, political freedom of
parliamentary
democracy, namely the freedom of Puritanism to dissent from State
religion, we
do not have a situation in which Devil the Mother hyped as God has been
both
exposed and, finally, rejected … in favour of a truer, more genuine
(compared
to anything traditional) concept of and relationship with God the
Father. On the contrary, even Puritanism
retains some
links, no matter how much the more radical elements may deny it, with
the Old
Testament and, hence, with the Bible in general, which in England has
come to
be known as the King James Bible. Such a
Bible may be more Anglican than Puritan, but few Puritans would be so
exclusively New Testament as to be bereft of any association with the
Old
Testament, even if their concept of the Bible would favour the New
Testament,
as in relation to the Gideon form of it.
Protestantism, neither in its Anglican nor Puritan
manifestation,
provides a mandate for the rejection of the Bible in
toto, and therefore it remains affiliated with
both the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God and the Christic
extrapolation
from this lie which finds its fulcrum in the New Testament. Catholicism, too, despite its unique postulate
of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ which, particularly in
Ireland,
lends itself to axial criteria at variance with those of England and
even of
Great Britain and the UK in general, is also hamstrung by Biblical
norms, both
in relation to the Old Testament and the New Testament, and falls
demonstrably
short, in consequence, of the kind of religious freedom which would be
commensurate with a more developed sense of metaphysics coupled, for
females,
to antimetachemistry at the northeast point of our intercardinal axial
compass. It is both freer and less free
than its
Protestant counterparts, for while it may lay special claim to some
degree of
association with the northeast point of our axial compass which is
completely
alien to Protestantism, it is still tied to Old Testament criteria and
in no
position to affirm religious freedom independently of such criteria,
including
from the acceptance of Devil the Mother hyped as God which, in
time-honoured
paradoxical fashion, has passed muster for God the Father in the sense
of
loosely equating, within a Christian context (necessarily at variance
with
Judaism), with Jehovah as cosmic First Mover and effective Creator. Even Puritans have more freedom to the extent
that their relationship with the Bible would favour the New Testament
at the
expense of the Old, much as they would be affiliated with parliamentary
democracy rather than with constitutional monarchy in the axial
distinction
between the Monarchic/Anglican northwest point of the compass and the
Parliamentary/Puritan southeast point of the said compass, both of
which
antithetical positions, taken in the round, constitute the basis of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in Britain.
Therefore even with greater religious freedom
than Anglicanism, Puritanism does not provide a template for religious
freedom
taken to its logical metaphysical conclusion, being, if anything,
merely
physical and antichemical in character.
There is freedom vis-à-vis Anglicanism, but such freedom
parallels the
political freedom of Parliament vis-à-vis the Monarchy which, in
Britain, is of
course constitutional and in no position, therefore, to preclude the
relative
kind of freedom which typifies the generality of the British people
whether as
parliamentarians or puritans, parliamentary democrats or democratic
theocrats. But, of course, many ordinary
British are
also Anglicans, even if not all Anglicans are Monarchist rather than
Parliamentary. Logically speaking, they
should be, though the traditional class structure of British society
also
compels one to differentiate the Few from the Many largely on a
Monarchist/Parliamentary and, correlatively, Anglican/Puritan basis, as
between
noumenal sensuality/noumenal anti-sensibility and phenomenal
sensibility/phenomenal anti-sensuality, whether or not, in practice,
many
Anglicans ‘of the people’ would not, in their heart of hearts, be more
pro-Monarchist than pro-parliamentary.
After all, the English Civil War was not exactly a struggle
between the
Few and the Many, though it can always be portrayed in such terms in
the
interests of logical expedience. Many
Anglicans would have fought for the King and Royals without being in
any way of
the Few themselves, and such has it always been. Nowadays
there
may
be
Anglicans who play
football and even Puritans who play Rugby, but one would hesitate to
regard
football as an Anglican game or rugby as puritan. And
yet,
in
general
axial terms, a
distinction nevertheless exists, in Britain, between rugby and football
which
parallels that between Monarchism/Anglicanism at the northwest point of
the
axial compass and Parliamentarianism/Puritanism at its southeast point,
contrasting, as both points must, with anything
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate in the Irish Catholic tradition,
wherein we
are conscious, British imperial influence notwithstanding, of a
distinction
between hurling and Gaelic football which is indicative not only of the
axial
and therefore cultural differences between Britain and Ireland (Eire)
but of
the greater religious freedom which Catholicism enjoys as religious
freedom
rather than simply, in the Puritan manner, as freedom from Anglican
persecution
or proscription. Freedom from tyranny
smacks much more of democracy, and hence of
parliamentarianism/Puritanism, than
of religious freedom per se, even if
the degree of religious freedom enjoyed by Catholicism still leaves
much to be
desired from a genuinely metaphysical and, by extrapolation,
antimetachemical
standpoint such that would be more than just an Eastern, or Buddhist,
alternative to Western religious limitations, but the full maturation
of
religious freedom within an ideological context, necessarily Social
Theocratic
in character, that was determined to advance religious freedom to a
level
commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ as something genuinely universal and,
hence,
global. For the next logical stage from
a politically sovereign people, as in the Irish Republic, is a
religiously
sovereign people, and only a people who had some prior sense of
religious
freedom per se, no matter how
imperfect such freedom may be, rather than merely of freedom from
autocratic
tyranny in both political and religious terms, could be expected to
endorse it
and to accept the paradoxical terms by means of which it could be
brought to
pass, terms that, being less democratic/plutocratic than
anti-plutocratic/anti-democratic in the male case of antiphysical
worldliness
and less anti-bureaucratic/anti-meritocratic than
meritocratic/bureaucratic in
the female case of chemical worldliness presaged, with their
pseudo-worldly
transmutation under American-type pressures from the northwest point of
the
axial compass, that more genuine – indeed, that most genuine
theocratic/technocratic and, for females,
anti-aristocratic/anti-autocratic
elevation which we have identified, in previous entries and, indeed,
throughout
my mature oeuvre (See Opera D’Oeuvre)
with salvation and counter-damnation from anti-omega
and alpha pseudo-worldly positions to
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly positions properly commensurate, in
Social
Theocracy, with ‘Kingdom Come’, and thus with the lead of Anti-Vanity
Fair by
the Celestial City in what must become the final stage of noumenal
sensibility
and noumenal anti-sensuality with the triumph of metaphysical Eternity
and
antimetachemical Anti-Infinity. But such
a triumph could not come to pass without a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty in a paradoxical election, or series of elections, which
only a
people with a traditional sense of religious freedom, like the Irish,
could be
expected to endorse, and at the expense, needless to say, of
provisional
political freedoms within a country which was anything but
democratic/plutocratic, never mind (in antichemical vein)
anti-bureaucratic/anti-meritocratic, in the British manner, and
therefore
hardly inclined to exaggerate the significance of democracy as an
end-in-itself.
FREEDOM
FROM
VIS-À-VIS
FREEDOM
FOR. Freedom
from religious and/or political tyranny, which is the freedom par
excellence of
Parliamentarianism/Puritanism, and hence in England of
New-Testament-oriented
Puritanism from the clutches of Old-Testament-oriented Anglicanism, is
potentially a dangerous trend if a certain respect for what it is in
revolt
against does not continue, as in Britain, to prevail and to constrain,
in some
degree, the relative freedom from Monarchic/Anglican tyranny of the
Parliamentarians/Puritans from turning into an absolute freedom from
tyranny of
those who would not merely oppose state-sponsored religious tyranny but
oppose
religion itself in the interests of (scientific) freedom from religion. For it is just one more degenerative step
from that which demands to be free from religious oppression at the
hands of
Monarchic/Anglican tyrants of an Old Testament persuasion to that which
insists
on being free from all religion, whether of the Old or the New
Testaments, in
the interests of a scientific license to take humanism one stage
further down
the road that leads to Bolshevism and to an atheistic denial even of
Christ. One can see, from a British
perspective, just how important the retention, constitutionally, of
Monarchism/Anglicanism was – and in some sense continues to be – in
precluding
the freedom from religious tyranny of Parliamentarianism/Puritanism
from
turning, as though by a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde transformation, into a
freedom
from religion per se, even without a
significant number of extra-parliamentary unbelievers to contend with
who, in
the nature of these things, tend to be in the unofficial vanguard of
atheistic
degeneration and social democratic humanism.
But, of course, all that is by way of the fatality, potential or
otherwise, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and, hence, of
an
axial integrity stretching from the northwest to the southeast point of
the
intercardinal axial compass that we have continuously used to
illustrate the
distinctions between, for instance, British and Irish society, the
latter of
which would traditionally have adhered to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria in keeping with a phenomenal/noumenal antithesis between the
southwest
and northeast points of the said compass.
Doubtless that is still to some extent the case, else we would
not have
a dichotomy between, for instance, hurling and Gaelic football that
axially
contrasts with the British dichotomy between rugby and association
football. Consequently, in the Irish
case, no such freedom from religious persecution or tyrannical
overlordship
ever presented itself as an indigenous predilection but, rather, in
relation to
the Protestant character of British imperialism, since adherence to
Roman
Catholicism guarantees, for the Irish, a degree of religious freedom per
se, which accordingly has less to do with
freedom from (tyranny) than freedom for self-realization through grace,
albeit
more in terms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition than in
relation
to the practice of transcendental meditation, or anything of the kind. It is in a sense not the free from
so much as the free
for of Nietzschean paradox that characterizes the generality of
Irish
catholics, insofar as grace is vouchsafed to the confessee via a priest
acting
as intermediary between the penitent and the almost uniquely Catholic
concept
of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ who is the sole embodiment
of
metaphysical transcendentalism or, at any rate, idealism, as germane to
the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
To be sure, the so-called Father of a
Christian extrapolation from Jehovah still exists, falsely, at the
northwest
point of the axial compass, as does the Old Testament, but rather more
as an
aside to the chief focal-point of religious devotion and faith than as
a
principal figurehead in Judaic-to-Anglican fashion, wherein not
church-hegemonic but state-hegemonic and therefore church-subordinate
criteria
have long been the political and religious norms, to the detriment not
only of
Catholics, not least in England, but of those who, as Puritans, have
chosen the
path of freedom from religious tyranny or, rather, who had the path of freedom from axially mapped out for
them by the nature of British society following the Reformation and the
Anglican dethronement, schismatically, of Roman Catholicism, and were
therefore
not in a position to endorse the freedom for religious self-realization
that
requires, at the Christian level of mankind, adherence to the northeast
point
of the axial compass in what is, to repeat, a uniquely Catholic
commitment to
grace via penitential contrition with the intercession of a priest
acting as a
direct link between the confessee and the concept of a
post-resurrectional
Christ ‘On High’ who embodies all that is of metaphysics and therefore
of the
context of grace and wisdom, a provisional context pending the Second
Coming
and the return, in a manner of speaking, of Christ, or the messianic
destiny, to
the world in the interests of its final overcoming and redemptive
resurrection
to ‘Kingdom Come’ following what I have described as a majority mandate
for
religious sovereignty in countries, like Eire, which should still be
capable,
in their fundamentally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
integrity, of
responding to the call for redemption in relation to the freedom
for of self-realization, and this in spite of or, perhaps,
because of the extent to which they have been turned from the path, the
axial
integrity, of Catholic tradition by newfangled pressures of a
somatically free
nature emanating from the northwest point of the axial compass and are
now
sufficiently quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate in relation
to
those pressures as to require the redemptive intervention of messianic
criteria
in order to bring them back into line with
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria on a radically new basis that owes less to Catholic tradition
than to
Social Theocratic revolution and, hence, to the democratically-mandated
institution of a new church and a new state which, as the Centre, will
not be
just another church
or state, in
puritan/parliamentary fashion, but a church to end all churches and a
state to
end all states, twin aspects of the Centre which I have hitherto
described as
Social Transcendentalist and Social Theocratic, and maintain to be
commensurate
with the requirements of ‘Kingdom Come’.
CONCERNING
NOUMENAL
SUBATOMIC
WAVICLES
AND
PARTICLES. Although I have described the evolution of
metaphysics, and hence of God and Heaven, as proceeding from a context
of most
God and least Heaven in the Cosmos to one of least God and most Heaven
in
cyborg universality via more (compared to most) God and less (compared
to
least) Heaven in nature and less (compared to least) God and more
(compared to
most) Heaven in mankind, I would not be so foolish as to equate such a
progression, unique to the metaphysical aspects of each of the
aforementioned
contexts, with a shift from most particles and least wavicles to most
wavicles
and least particles via intermediate ratios of particles to wavicles,
and for
the simple reason that I know from philosophical experience that
elemental
particles are not to be equated with God, even if, by contrast,
elemental wavicles
are most certainly to be equated with Heaven.
No, God, being germane to the Truth, and hence to a species of
universal
knowledge germane to metaphysical ego, can only be equated with
molecular
wavicles, since metaphysical ego and soul, the contexts of God and
Heaven, are
always wavicle-equivalents germane to the psyche and, hence, to
transcendentalism. For the particle,
whether elemental or molecular, of the will or of the spirit, one must
turn to
soma, and in this instance to the metaphysical soma of bound will, or
antiwill,
and bound spirit, or antispirit, which have less to do with God the
Father and
Heaven the Holy Soul in metaphysical transcendentalism than with the
Son of God
and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in metaphysical idealism, as though
state-subordinate
corollaries of a church-hegemonic lead.
Thus if, in metaphysics, we equate molecular wavicles with God
the
Father and elemental wavicles with Heaven the Holy Soul, we should be
careful
to associate elemental particles with the Son of God and molecular
particles
with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, thereby avoiding the error of making a
simple
particle/wavicle distinction between God and Heaven.
In truth, God the Father and Heaven the Holy
Soul prevail, as molecular and elemental wavicles, over the elemental
and
molecular particles of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
pretty
much as Truth and Joy over the truthful approach to Beauty and the
joyful
approach to Love of that which, being somatically subordinate to a
psychic
lead, indirectly connects transcendentalism to antimaterialism via its
own
idealism in the interests of an antifundamentalist completion of the
virtuous
circle of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the latter of which
manifests as
the Beauty and Love of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the
Unclear Spirit
on the plane of antimetachemical antimaterialism and as the beautiful
approach
to Truth and the loving approach to Joy of the Antidaughter of the
Antidevil
and the Unclear Soul of Antihell on the plane of antimetachemical
antifundamentalism, so that not only is there a connection – indeed, a
direct
connection - between metaphysical idealism and antimetachemical
antimaterialism
in primary and secondary state-subordinate terms but, more importantly,
such a
connection can be inferred to exist between antimetachemical
antifundamentalism
and metaphysical transcendentalism on secondary and primary
church-hegemonic
terms. However, that has little to do
with the fundamental distinction between molecular wavicles and
elemental
wavicles in relation to psyche, whether metaphysical
(transcendentalist) or
antimetachemical (antifundamentalist) and, by state-subordinate
contrast,
between elemental particles and molecular particles in relation to
soma,
whether metaphysical (idealist) or antimetachemical (antimaterialist). Such subatomic distinctions, on the other
hand, typify the disparity that properly exists between psyche and
soma,
wavicles and particles, whether in relation to elemental or to
molecular
subdivisions of each. Now in the case of
metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the
intercardinal
axial compass, I think we are alluding to a distinction, subatomically,
between
protons and photinos, conceiving of the former as properly metaphysical
and of the
latter as their antimetachemical, and therefore anti-photonic,
counterparts in
what is, after all, a distinction, at this point of the axial compass,
between
essence and anti-appearance, classless and anti-upperclass criteria
germane to
the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair.
If previously, many years ago, I made a simple distinction
between the
sensuality of ‘tons and the sensibility of ‘tinos, as in protons
vis-à-vis
protinos or photons vis-à-vis photinos, I have since come to
re-evaluate my
position in relation to the rather more complex interaction between the
hegemonic and subordinate or, rather, subservient factors at any given
point of
the said axial compass, which strongly suggests to me that the
hegemonic
factor will always be a ‘ton, whether photon or proton at the noumenal
planes
of metachemical sensuality and metaphysical sensibility, and the
subservient
factor a ‘tino, whether protino or photino at the noumenal planes of
antimetaphysical sensuality or, rather, anti-sensibility, and
antimetachemical
sensibility or, more correctly, anti-sensuality. Thus
we
would
come
to the conclusion that the
protino of antimetaphysics was an antiproton in its subservience to a
metachemical hegemony favouring the photon, an antiproton that was both
pseudo-protonic in respect of bound psyche and quasi-photonic in
respect of
free soma, neither of which would accord with what, in metaphysical
sensibility, was properly protonic and therefore free to be true to its
essence
as a free psychic and bound somatic entity which required a subservient
photino
in antimetachemistry, an antiphoton that was both pseudo-photonic in
respect of
bound soma and quasi-protonic in respect of free psyche, neither of
which would
accord with what, in metachemical sensuality, was properly photonic and
therefore free to be ‘true’ to its appearance as a free somatic and
bound
psychic entity which required, as noted above, a subservient protino in
antimetaphysics. Therefore whether at
the northwest point of the axial compass in which metachemistry rules
antimetaphysics, as upper-classfulness over anti-classlessness, or at
the
northeast point of the said compass in which metaphysics leads
antimetachemistry, as classlessness over anti-upperclassfulness, we
should
logically conclude that the hegemonic factor is undivided and therefore
either
a photon or a proton, negatively clear
in noumenal sensuality or positively holy in noumenal sensibility,
whereas the
subservient factor is ever divided and consequently either a protino
(divisible, antiprotonically, between pseudo-protonic and
quasi-photonic
proclivities) or a photino (divisible, antiphotonically, between
pseudo-photonic and quasi-protonic proclivities), anti-positively
unholy in
noumenal anti-sensibility and quasi-negatively unholy in noumenal
quasi-sensuality or anti-negatively unclear in noumenal anti-sensuality
and
quasi-positively unclear in noumenal quasi-sensibility.
In the case of metachemistry, the Ugliness
and Hatred of metachemical materialism vis-à-vis the ugly approach to
Falsity
(Illusion) and hateful approach to Woe of metachemical fundamentalism
constitute the negative clearness of noumenal sensuality.
In the case, however, of antimetaphysics, the
Falsity (Illusion) and Woe of antimetaphysical antitranscendentalism
vis-à-vis
the false approach to Ugliness and woeful approach to Hatred of
antimetaphysical anti-idealism constitute the anti-positive unholiness
of
noumenal anti-sensibility and quasi-negative unholiness of noumenal
quasi-sensuality respectively. Turning
from the northwest point of the axial compass, wherein we are conscious
of the
prevalence of a kind of vicious circle, to its northeast point, which
is the
head of a separate axis altogether, we shall find that in the case of
metaphysics, the Truth and Joy of metaphysical transcendentalism
vis-à-vis the
truthful approach to Beauty and joyful approach to Love of metaphysical
idealism constitute the positive holiness of noumenal sensibility. In the case, however, of antimetachemistry,
the Beauty and Love of antimetachemical antimaterialism vis-à-vis the
beautiful
approach to Truth and loving approach to Joy of antimetachemical
antifundamentalism constitute the anti-negative unclearness of noumenal
anti-sensuality and quasi-positive unclearness of noumenal
quasi-sensibility
respectively. Photons over protinos
vis-à-vis protons over photinos – such is the antithetical reality of
the
mutually exclusive noumenal heights, the heights, in general terms, of
Vanity
Fair and the Anti-Celestial City vis-à-vis the Celestial City and
Anti-Vanity
Fair, neither of which can or ever could have anything to do with the
other,
since the one is infinitely ruled by photon negativity in noumenal
sensuality,
whereas the other is eternally led by proton positivity in noumenal
sensibility
- the alpha and omega of sensual barbarity and sensible culture.
CONCERNING
THE
RESPECTIVE
PHENOMENAL
SUBATOMIC
POSITIONS. Much of what has been said
above in relation to photons/protinos and protons/photinos can be said
of their
phenomenal counterparts, which I would equate with electrons/neutrinos
and
neutrons/electrinos, or something to that effect. For
I
have
long
identified the electron with
chemistry and the neutron with physics, thereby ascribing to the one a
feminine
cast and to the other a masculine cast, neither of which would have
anything in
common with diabolic or divine criteria, irrespective of hype or of
pseudo
manifestations of evil and/or crime and grace and/or wisdom. For if the southwest point of our axial
compass is to be identified with chemistry and antiphysics, then it
should be
subatomically identified with electrons and neutrinos, regarding the
latter as
antineutrons in the sense that antiphysics is antimasculine and
antihumanist in
its phenomenally anti-sensible disposition under an equivocal
female
hegemony (feminine) in the phenomenally sensual guise of chemistry. Contrariwise, if the southeast point of the
said compass is to be identified with physics and antichemistry, then
it should
be subatomically identified with neutrons and electrinos, regarding the
latter
as anti-electrons in the sense that antichemistry is antifeminine and
antinonconformist in its anti-sensual disposition under an
equivocal male
hegemony (masculine) in the guise of phenomenally sensible physics. Consequently in the case of electrons and
neutrinos we would have a chemical/antiphysical parallel with
lower-class and
anti-middleclass criteria, whereas in the case of neutrons and
electrinos
across the (phenomenal) axial divide we would have a
physical/antichemical
parallel with middle-class and anti-lowerclass criteria.
These positions are therefore mutually
exclusive and ethnically incompatible, as would be Roman Catholicism
and
Puritanism or, in political terms, Irish Republicanism and British
Parliamentarianism. And they interact
with and are conditioned by different axial factors ‘on high’, whether
in terms
of metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the
axial
compass or, conversely, in relation to metaphysics and
antimetachemistry at its
northeast point, the point that offers - or has the capacity to offer
if fully
developed - salvation and counter-damnation to whatever accrues, as
chemistry
and antiphysics, to the southwest point, thereby first of all
subverting and
then transmuting that which would be closer to electrons and neutrinos
towards
the possibility of photinos and protons, albeit in terms of a
metaphysical-to-antiphysical link of protons to neutrinos
(antineutrons) and,
secondarily, in terms of an antimetachemical-to-chemical link of
photinos
(antiphotons) to electrons, thereby ensuring a male lead in the
salvation of
antimen to God, of antiphysics to metaphysics, and correlatively in the
counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) of
women to
the Antidevil, of chemistry to antimetachemistry, so that the actual
subatomic
transmutation would be somewhat along the lines of neutrinos to protons
and of
electrons to photinos, with a corresponding change of class from
anti-middleclass to classless for males and, in the female case, from
lower-class to anti-upperclass, thus allowing for the paradoxical
upending of
the female as the necessary unclear concomitant of male holiness in the
ascendancy of metaphysics over antimetachemistry. Notwithstanding
the
need
to
differentiate
between genuine antimen and women vis-à-vis pseudo-godliness and
pseudo-antidevilishness in the case of a worldly/pseudo-otherworldly
and/or
pseudo-antinetherworldly age or society on the one hand, and
pseudo-antimen and
pseudo-women vis-à-vis genuine godliness and genuine antidevilishness
in the
case of a pseudo-worldly (post-worldly)/genuine otherworldly and/or
anti-netherworldly age or society on the other hand, with corresponding
subatomic contrasts, the principle of saving and/or counter-damning
from the
southwest point of the axial compass to its northeast point remains
valid
either way, even if, in the pseudo-otherworldly and/or
anti-netherworldly case
the ‘above’, or northeast point, is less than genuine and therefore apt
to
fudge and short-change, as it were, the context in question, making, in
the
Catholic instance, for the subsuming of metaphysics into
antimetachemistry
(sacred heart-wise) and for the placing of the Christic ‘cart’ (of a
post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’) not only before but, in this
instance,
to the effective exclusion of a Fatheresque ‘horse’ (of metaphysical
psyche
preceding and preponderating over metaphysical soma as, in metaphorical
terms,
‘father’ over ‘son’ as male reality), and all because a Catholic
extrapolation
from Jehovah which is called ‘the Father’ – but actually exists down a
plane
from Jehovah-to-Saul in Old Testament cosmic-to-natural vein by dint of
the
inevitability of a metachemical ‘first mover’ accruing to the postulate
of a
‘Risen Virgin’ – acts as effective anchor to that which, as
post-resurrectional
Christ, sits ‘on the right-hand side’ of this so-called Father
precisely in
terms of somatic binding at the northeast point of the axial compass
vis-à-vis
somatic freedom at its northwest point, whether this freedom is
identified with
metachemistry (a female element corresponding to the so-called Risen
Virgin) or
with antimetaphysics (its male concomitant and effective ‘fall guy’ for
diabolic denigration which, ironically, should correspond to the
so-called
Father of Catholic anchor and triangular decadence).
Therefore Catholicism, for all its
confessional commitment to the northeast point of the axial compass,
has never
properly differentiated metaphysics from antimetachemistry but allowed
such pseudo-metaphysics
as exists in relation to ‘the Son’ – the Christian fatality - as
post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ to be both subsumed into
pseudo-antimetachemistry (sacred heart-wise) and held back and
compromised by
extrapolations from the Old Testament that, even without a paradoxical
reversal
of positions, also exist in relation to the Old Testament and to
unequivocally
metachemical and antimetaphysical postulates like Jehovah and Satan in
relation
to the Cosmos and King Saul and David in relation to nature. Only Social Theocracy has the logical and
ideological wherewithal to rectify this shortcoming and institute
criteria
properly commensurate with genuine metaphysics and antimetachemistry as
germane
to the development, beyond Western and Eastern criteria alike, of
global
universality and, hence, with the coming of ‘the Kingdom’ in terms of
the
Centre which Social Theocracy, in the event of a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty in certain countries capable of utilizing democracy in such
paradoxical
fashion, would be empowered to institutionalize, to the detriment of
pseudo-otherworldly and pseudo-antinetherworldly criteria and in the
interests
of the salvation and counter-damnation of the pseudo-worldly, whether
pseudo-antiphysical or pseudo-chemical, pseudo-antineutronic or
pseudo-electronic, to the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly heights
of a
protonic and antiphotonic deliverance not only from their own
pseudo-worldly
shortcomings but from those, no less significantly, who would continue
to prey
upon them from the netherworldly and anti-otherworldly heights of
contemporary
(synthetically artificial) somatic license at the northwest point of
the axial
compass and ensure, in the absence of revolutionary
countermeasures of a
Social Theocratic order, that they remained at a
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate removal from traditional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, adrift in an idolatrous
limbo from
which only the most genuine order of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria
could deliver them – and precisely on the basis of a majority mandate
for
religious sovereignty under the aegis of Social Theocracy, the
ideology, par
excellence, of 'Kingdom Come'.
ON
IRISH
AND
BRITISH
DISTINCTIONS. Contrary
to popular prejudice, it could be said that the Irish and British
masses are
axially so antithetical as to qualify for equation with extroversion
and
introversion on the basis of a sort of sensually centrifugal and
sensibly
centripetal dichotomy. Hence the popular
British notion that the Irish are somehow ‘thick’ would not hold water
in
relation to the actual intercardinal axial positions of the respective
peoples
as far as the phenomenal distinction between the sensual southwest and
the
sensible southeast of the said axis is concerned, even if many Irish
and
British people do not qualify for such a status in view of their
noumenal
elevation, in sensuality or sensibility, above the ‘world’ of the
phenomenal
alternatives. Therefore it is really the
British masses at the southeast point of our axis that qualify, in
their
parliamentary/puritan phenomenality, for equation with the notion of
‘thickness’ as a slang equivalent not merely for stupid – which, in any
case,
many if not most such persons are – but for a certain centripetal
introversion
which would not be incompatible with the popular British concept of the
‘stiff
upper lip’, meaning a refusal to blabber or complain but to get on with
life in
a reserved manner irrespective of the vicissitudes that come one’s way. Of course, being reserved in this way is
anything but ‘loose’ or ‘open’, in the mass Irish manner, and one can
see that
those who are so reserved would not be particularly talkative or
remonstrative
or have what is called, usually in connection with the Irish, the ‘gift
of the
gab’, even if they would prefer to settle their disputes peaceably and
verbally, like good parliamentarians and, in their phenomenal
sensibility,
would qualify for equation, in relation to the English Civil War, with
the
descendants of ‘roundheads’ as opposed, like Monarchists and High
Anglicans,
with the descendants of ‘cavaliers’, few if any of which, however,
would be
‘cavaliers’ in the Roman Catholic sense of having been circumcised and
thus
bearing witness to a centrifugal phallic disposition in phenomenal
sensuality
which sets them forever apart from both Anglicans and Puritans alike. Be that as it may, the phenomenally sensible
British masses differ so much from their phenomenally sensual Irish
counterparts
that it is not to be wondered at if they tend to see themselves in a
superior
light, if only on phenomenally antithetical terms, and to despise what
they
would regard as an ignorant and weak want of knowledge and strength. But even if the Irish masses are morally
inferior in this respect to their British counterparts, it has to be
said that
the British of this phenomenally sensible ilk are almost unique, of all
the
peoples in this world, in the way they elevate their lowly mass
position to a
kind of ideal, democratically happy in the knowledge that they are
sensible and
somehow phenomenally virtuous while their opponents, whether axially
ranged
above them or contrary to them, epitomize all that is vicious in its
wanton
sensuality. They are a people, par
excellence, for whom man is God and
antiwoman, one could say, the Antidevil, even though what they actually
represent, in phenomenal sensibility, falls a long way short, on both
class and
axial terms in relation to plane, of anything remotely resembling
godliness and
antidevilishness. They are smug, one
might say, in their phenomenal virtues, whether in terms of
goodness/punishment
in antifeminine ant chemistry or of pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace in
masculine
physics, the latter of which is equivocally hegemonic, as mass
vis-à-vis ant
volume, over its ant chemical complement but subverted, nonetheless, by
ant
chemistry acting in conjunction with an unequivocal metachemistry over
antimetaphysics, to somatic emphasis in defence of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial values, the sort of values
that
rebound upon the male as he exists under the domination of female
criteria in
respect of primary state-hegemonic values accruing to the antithesis
between
the evil of free metachemical soma and the goodness of bound ant
chemical soma,
with primary church-subordinate values likewise mirroring the female
distinction between the crime of bound metachemical psyche and the
punishment
of free ant chemical psyche, neither of which can be anything but
paradoxically
subversive of the pseudo-wisdom of bound physical soma and the
pseudo-grace of
free physical psyche, which are the antithetical male positions to the
pseudo-folly of free antimetaphysical soma and the pseudo-sin of bound
antimetaphysical psyche and thus to that which can only be secondary,
in both
state and church, to the hegemony of evil and crime.
But therein, despite its vicious nature, lies
the ideal from a female standpoint, the ideal, in other words, of
metachemical
free soma and bound psyche, of evil and crime, and not, by any means,
in the
bound soma and free psyche, conditioned by an equivocal male hegemony,
of good
and punishment. Hence good or goodness,
regarded in this gender-specific axial way, is anything but ideal from
a female
standpoint, even if it happens to be virtuous in its phenomenal
sensibility. There is nothing ideal
about being good and punished through being at cross-purposes, as it
were, with
one’s gender actuality, as a female, of soma preceding and
predominating over
psyche. State-hegemonic criteria are
symptomatic of the rule of the female ideal of free soma in
metachemistry, even
if they defer to the virtue of bound soma in antichemistry and, by
subversive
extrapolation, in physics, from a standpoint rooted in free soma, the
viciousness of which is forever dominant (sovereign), as female ideal,
over
virtue. That is why, despite their
incontrovertible virtues, the British masses are forever at an axial
disadvantage to their Irish counterparts, who are not ruled,
traditionally, by
the female ideal of metachemical vice but, rather, led by the male
ideal of
metaphysical virtue, the virtue of grace in the free psyche and of
wisdom in
the bound soma of a metaphysics symbolized, no matter how imperfectly,
by the
concept of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ (in noumenal
sensibility)
vis-à-vis their own phenomenally sensual want of sensibly noumenal
elevation. The Irish masses, for all
their phenomenally sensual shortcomings or failings at the southwest
point of
the axial compass, have been traditionally, with Roman Catholicism, in
an axial
position to be delivered from their ‘sins’ to the ‘graces’ that await
those who
make their peace, through verbal absolution, with God.
Unfortunately, Catholicism did not and, in
the circumstances of its dependence on a cosmic Creator of Old
Testament
providence, could not make anything like a proper approach to the
northeast
point of the axial compass, which requires, besides some vague and more
or less
Son-oriented somatic notion of metaphysics, both a full-fledged
metaphysics
embracing a non-alpha order of Father commensurate with free
metaphysical
psyche and, besides the correlative bound metaphysical soma of the Son
(conceived as metaphor for the male actuality of psyche preceding and
preponderating over soma as ‘father’ over ‘son’), a complementary
offering of
antimetachemical bound soma and free psyche in relation to the
Antimother and
the Antidaughter, neither of whom would be entitled to equation with
salvation
from sin to grace in antiphysical bound psyche to metaphysical free
psyche, nor
even from folly to wisdom in antiphysical free soma to metaphysical
bound soma,
but rather with counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic axis) from
pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in chemical bound psyche to
antimetachemical
free psyche, coupled, in state-subordinate terms, with
counter-damnation from
pseudo-evil to pseudo-good(ness) in chemical free soma to
antimetachemical
bound soma. Hence, had Catholicism the
wherewithal to do proper justice to the northeast point of the axial
compass, one
could have spoken of the salvation of males from sin to grace (primary
church-hegemonic) and from folly to wisdom (primary state-subordinate)
coupled
to the counter-damnation of females from pseudo-crime to
pseudo-punishment
(secondary church-hegemonic) and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good
(secondary
state-subordinate). Unfortunately, due
to Old Testament factors acting as alpha-anchor to any omega
pretensions on the
part of Roman Catholicism, no such distinction can properly be made,
the male
position of metaphysics having been dovetailed into what I would regard
as an
antimetachemical position in terms of recourse to the term ‘Sacred
Heart of the
Risen Christ’ which not only falls short of what should, with
metaphysical
soma, be ‘Sacred Lungs of the Risen Christ’ but, by dint of the absence
of a
psychic ‘Father’ over the somatic ‘Son’ (such that would bear witness
to a
meditative resolve on the part of the ‘Father’), gets co-opted to
metachemistry
over antimetaphysics in perpendicular triangular fashion, specifically
with
regard to a Risen Virgin over a so-called Father (Creator-equivalent)
where
mankind Christian Catholicity is concerned, as in relation, for the
sacred
heart, to profane eyes over ears, none of which would be immune from
Old
Testament eclipse in the respective forms either of Saul over David
aided and
abetted by Mohammed, let us say, in nature (blossom over fruit aided
and
abetted by berries on tall trees) or of Jehovah over Satan aided and
abetted by
Allah in cosmos (stellar star over solar sun aided and abetted by
Venus), or
something to that more unequivocal triangular effect which could be
said to
characterize the pre-mankind – and hence pre-New Testament – bias of
the Judaic
Old Testament and equivalent Eastern texts.
However that may be, there can be no question that Roman
Catholicism
fudged the situation at the northeast point of the axial compass, and
that is
why it must be superseded by an altogether freer and truer order of
religion
with ‘Kingdom Come’, in order that the phenomenally sensual masses, now
more
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate under American-inspired
axial
pressures stemming from the northwest point of the intercardinal
compass, may
be brought back into line with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria and
be saved and counter-damned, according to gender, from the southwest
point to
the northeast point of the said compass, thereby bringing about the
downfall,
bit by bit, of those who would continue to prey upon them from an axis
which,
in its domination by female criteria, is heathenistically ranged
against the
possibility of salvation and counter-damnation from standpoints rooted
in
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate values, even, be it not forgotten,
in
relation to those who would now consider themselves antichemically and
physically virtuous in their goodness/punishment (antichemical) and
pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace (physical), their just and pseudo-righteous
opposition, within state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society, to the
vanity
and pseudo-meekness, the evil/crime and pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin, of the
somatically free Few most responsible for exploiting the weakness and
ignorance
of those at the southwest point of the axial compass who are in no
position, as
things stand, to be delivered from their exploiters to the
aforementioned
salvation and counter-damnation which only the revolutionary overhaul,
through
Social Theocracy, of the traditionally
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis
can eventually bring to pass. Thus the
paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate idolatry must
be
countered by the paradox of an election for religious sovereignty if
the
peoples concerned – not least the Irish of Catholic Eire - are to be
returned
to the ‘Kingdom of God’ and, in the event of a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty, inherit the benefit of a return to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on terms that will conduce
towards
a definitive mode of salvation and counter-damnation with Social
Theocracy, a
mode such that will overhaul both Western Catholicism and Eastern
Buddhism
alike as it strives to bring global civilization to its universal
culmination
and to institute the cyborgistic ‘overcoming of man’ (though, strictly
speaking, we are dealing less with ‘man’ in relation to the southeast
point of
the axial compass than with his antihumanist adversary whom we regard
as
‘antiman’ or, more correctly at this pass in time, as ‘pseudo-antiman’
who, in
conjunction with ‘pseudo-woman’, is already in line, on a post-Catholic
basis,
for the possibility of God and the Antidevil) in the interests of the
Celestial
City and Anti-Vanity Fair of an unprecedented degree, effectively
definitive,
of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such that, in conjunction with the
aforementioned cyborgization, will require the synthetically artificial
enhancement of free psychic subjectivity for the Blessed and of bound
somatic
anti-objectivity for the pseudo-Cursed, the Righteous of God/Heaven and
the
pseudo-Just of the Antidevil/Antihell for all Eternity and
Anti-Infinity if the
‘Kingdom’ of God and the Antidevil are to achieve their maximum
realizations of
Heaven and Antihell respectively.
ON
THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
RIGHTEOUSNESS
AND JUSTICE. I have consistently argued in my writings
that righteousness and justice hang together as male and female
principles of
sensibility, whether this sensibility be in the phenomenal realm of
physics and
antichemistry at the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass
or,
indeed, in the noumenal realm of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at
the
northeast point of the said compass, wherein we are not concerned with
genuine
justice and pseudo-righteousness (this latter a product, initially, of
male
counter-salvation) but, on the contrary, with genuine righteousness and
pseudo-justice (the latter of which is the product of female
counter-damnation). Hence there are two
orders of righteousness and two orders of justice, neither of which can
co-exist with the other but only as expressions of entirely opposite
kinds of
society and, indeed, civilization – genuine righteousness and
pseudo-justice
being germane to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria,
pseudo-righteousness and genuine justice being germane, by contrast, to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria.
Therefore a society will be either partial to genuine
righteousness at
the expense of pseudo-justice or, conversely, to genuine justice at the
expense
of pseudo-righteousness. But either way
there can be no justice, whether genuine or pseudo, without the
corresponding
hegemonic entrenchment of righteousness as the male principle which is
responsible, in some degree, for conditioning the corresponding female
position
towards a refutation of its natural condition, be that condition
metachemical
or chemical, noumenal or phenomenal, according to axis.
Hence without the free psyche and bound soma
of the male sensible position in metaphysics or physics, there can be
no
upending of the female position towards a corresponding rejection of
free soma
and bound psyche in favour, contrary to sensuality, of bound soma and
free
psyche. Without grace in free psyche and
wisdom in bound soma of the respective male sensible positions, whether
metaphysical (and genuine) or physical (and pseudo), there can be no
punishment
in free psyche and goodness in bound soma of the complementary female
anti-sensual positions, whether antimetachemical (and pseudo) or
antichemical
(and genuine), and therefore no unclear complement of holiness for a
creature
who, whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, is more
naturally
disposed to free soma and bound psyche.
Hence righteousness is crucial to the establishment of justice,
without
which there will be a gradual slide towards injustice and even outright
vanity. But such a slide is more likely to
transpire
in relation to pseudo-righteousness than ever it is in connection with
genuine
righteousness; for the physical male, though hegemonic over the
antichemical
female, does not have the benefit of an unequivocal hegemony, and
therefore is
subject to the subversion of physics by an antichemistry acting in
conjunction
with metachemistry over antimetaphysics within the axial framework of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society.
Such subversion, as we have seen, results in a switch of
emphasis,
contrary to male gender actuality, from free psyche to bound soma, and
therefore ensures that the fulcrum of authority is always with the
state rather
than the church in the interests of female-dominated state-hegemonic
criteria. Hence not only is the physical
male rendered
pseudo-righteous by dint of the emphasis being put on bound soma rather
than
free psyche, but his authority is undermined in proportion as the focus
of
attention remains with the state in relation to justice as the
antichemical
female counterpart to the vanity of metachemical free soma and bound
psyche
which rules over the pseudo-meekness of antimetaphysical free soma and
bound
psyche at the northwest point of the axial compass, obliging
pseudo-righteousness
to take a secondary position in both state (physical bound soma) and
church
(physical free psyche) as it links with the pseudo-meek complement to
vanity as
its male antithesis in the interests of secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria. Now
of
course
where
the metachemical hegemony,
necessarily unequivocal, over antimetaphysics is deeply entrenched, as
in
Britain, the prospects of justice breaking away from
pseudo-righteousness at
the southeast point of the axial compass must be pretty remote, since
the
vanity and pseudo-meekness of the northwest point of the said compass
acts as
an anchor to whatever is afoot below, in both physics and
antichemistry, and
precludes anything remotely resembling a social democratic state
absolutism
from emerging at its expense. But state
absolutism of a social democratic nature has emerged from such a
combination of
pseudo-righteousness and justice in the past, and precisely as a cry
for
absolute justice, the justice, that is, of proletarian humanism to have
its way
at the expense of bourgeois humanism and for social democracy to
eclipse
liberal democracy in the interests of a kind of Bolshevistic nadir of
totalitarian justice. And yet how just
is the justice that wears a social democratic mask in the name of
proletarian
humanism? Is it not the case, as history
has shown, that such absolute justice is
unworkable
and quickly degenerates into its axial antithesis, becoming
indistinguishable
from neo-vanity for want of any kind or degree of righteous guidance? For justice without righteousness is a
contradiction in terms. Justice without
righteousness is a license to vanity to criminally acquiesce in evil,
the
freely somatic activity directed against such manifestations of bound
soma as
follow from a free psychic hegemony. As
soon as justice demands freedom for itself, it ceases to be just and
becomes
indistinguishable from vanity. The old
gods are toppled, no matter how corrupt or sham they may have been, in
the name
of the new devils. The repudiation of the
Church, no matter how puritanically pseudo, leads from a state
hegemonic just
ascendancy over pseudo-righteousness to a state-absolutist unjust
independence
of pseudo-righteousness. Such
pseudo-righteousness has paid the penalty, it could be said, of its
sham
nature, its coerced emphasis on bound soma at the expense of free
psyche, but,
even so, no such penalty would have to have been paid had vanity
already been
sufficiently hegemonic over pseudo-meekness at the northwest point of
the axial
compass as to preclude justice from having such ambitions in the first
place
or, more to the point, from carrying them through even in the not
unlikely
event of ambitions unbefitting its status as an adjunct to
pseudo-righteousness. For the guarantor
against absolute justice on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
is not
pseudo-righteousness but the constitutional entrenchment of vanity of a
more
traditional nature such that will not brook any alternative to its own
metachemical rule directly over antimetaphysics and
indirectly,
down the said axis, over antichemistry and physics, both
of
which phenomenal positions it is able to hold to liberal political and
religious account. But this is far from
contending, however, that state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society is
ideal,
at least from a male standpoint. There
is nothing ideal about the parliamentary/puritan positions, even if
those
affiliated to monarchy and the Anglican church
have
some connection with the ideal, and then less from an antimetaphysical
point of
view than from that appertaining to metachemistry and its free soma and
bound
psyche, the natural condition of metachemical females.
Yet that it entirely contrary to the male
ideal of free psyche and bound soma, not least where metaphysics is
concerned,
and therefore to a society for which some approximation to genuine
righteousness and pseudo-justice is the hallmark by which it is to be
judged. Such a society, being
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, is able to keep antimetachemistry
subordinate to metaphysics in both church and state, and precisely
through the
unequivocal nature of the metaphysical hegemony allowing the emphasis
to be
placed on free psyche in keeping with the male actuality of psyche
preceding
and preponderating over soma, bound soma being its logical affiliate. Such a society, however, will not encourage
righteousness to develop totally at the expense of pseudo-justice, else
one
could end up with a situation that was no less unrighteous than
state-absolutist justice was and remains unjust. Such
unrighteousness
would
doubtless
owe more
to meekness than to vanity, but it would still be an absolutist
perversion of
righteousness and no less counter-productive than was the emergence of
vanity
out of absolute justice with social democratic totalitarianism. Therefore there can be no social theocratic
totalitarianism in the sense of an absolute righteousness expanding at
the
expense of pseudo-justice. Both
metaphysics
and antimetachemistry are equally necessary to the proper functioning
of the
northeast point of the axial compass, even if they are unequal in
gender and
attributes and therefore in their respective standings as
manifestations of
godliness and antidevilishness, heavenliness and antihellishness. Just as in the alpha-ruled beginning there
was no devilishness without antigodliness, no hellishness with
antiheavenliness, whatever the conventional hype of Devil the Mother as
God may
have to say about the respective positions of metachemistry and
antimetaphysics, so in the omega-led end there can be no godliness and
heavenliness without antidevilishness and antihellishness, whether in
psyche or
in soma. An absolute church is not the
goal of Social Theocracy, but rather the establishment and maintenance
of
church/state relativity on a basis which favours the unequivocal
hegemony, for
all eternity, of metaphysical righteousness over antimetachemical
pseudo-justice. Holiness without
unclearness in accompaniment is no more desirable than grace without
pseudo-punishment or wisdom without pseudo-goodness where the
respective
relationships of metaphysical psyche to antimetachemical psyche and of
metaphysical soma to antimetachemical soma are concerned.
The virtuous circle of the beautiful approach
to Truth and the loving approach to Joy which antifundamentalistically
complements the Truth and Joy of metaphysical transcendentalism is only
possible because the truthful approach to Beauty and the joyful
approach to
Love which idealistically stem from the metaphysical church have made
possible
the Beauty and Love of that antimaterialism which is the secondary
state-subordinate foundation, for all anti-infinity, of the secondary
church-hegemonic deference to Truth and Joy which was have
characterized in
intermediate terms and know to be antimetachemically subordinate to
metaphysics
as the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell
to God
the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, just as the Son of God and the
Holy Spirit
of Heaven are deferential to Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the
Unclear
Spirit as they stem from above in order to inform the below which, once
established in antimetachemical bound soma, is the platform from which
that
which completes the virtuous circle of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry is
launched, pseudo-justice and righteousness joining hands across the
gender
divide for all Anti-Infinity and Eternity in both the Anti-Vanity Fair
and the
Celestial City of ‘Kingdom Come’.
DIVINE
AND
OTHER
LAWS. Justice
without righteousness, we have argued, is a contradiction in terms. Justice takes its cue from righteousness, for
only righteousness has the right to make or acknowledge laws, whether
divine or
human (civil), and justice, true to its subordinate nature, the duty to
apply
them. But laws come in a variety of
different guises, not just divine or civil but also criminal and
natural, these
latter being as distinct from each other as they are from anything
contrary to
them, whether of man or of God. Yet much
of what passes for divine law is really criminal, or diabolic, law
dressed up
as divine, pretty much as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father),
and
therefore it is really anything but truly divine. The
‘thou
shall
not
kill’ commandment, which
passes for divine law, is really a manifestation of criminal, or
diabolic, law,
as are commandments about not committing adultery or not stealing or
coveting
one’s neighbour’s goods, including his wife.
Divine law is not expressive of a prohibition but of an
affirmation of
divine principles, not least those appertaining to self-realization and
to the
soul, which it strives to honour and to attain to, thereby transcending
the
egoistic self in the interests of what I like to call the psychoistic
self, the
deeper manifestation of selfhood which lies more in the realm of the
spinal
cord than in that of the brain stem. A
law that forbids you to do this or to do that is not, in truth, divine
but the
product of an attempt by meekness to constrain vanity, and is, in
effect, the
converse of what issues from righteousness, albeit indirectly, as a
just retort
to vanity. Either way, whether stemming
from meekness or from righteousness, law is generally less female than
male in
character, but its application can be more female than male, as in the
case of
justice, which actively imposes judgement upon what is deemed to be
criminal
conduct. Meekness, whether genuine or
pseudo, is in no position to impose upon vanity, and therefore it
differs quite
demonstrably from justice in that it seems to reflect the male
inability, under
female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, to be as somatically free and
as
psychically bound as the female, thereby opposing, to a degree, the
kind of
criteria that make for vanity even as the male must bow to such
criteria and
acknowledge them from a subordinate standpoint.
He cannot, however, preclude them, and that is why meekness, by
itself,
is insufficient to counter vanity but requires the application of
justice
acting under the guiding light of righteousness, from which one can
extrapolate
an opposition, almost polar in character and analogous to a servant
striving to
protect her master from some evil assailant or general wrongdoer, to
anything
which would appear to run contrary to such righteousness and its
positive
intent. On the other hand, a society
which is insufficiently righteous or which may have turned against
male-hegemonic righteousness under female-dominated decadent pressures
– not
least those stemming from feminism - will perversely use justice as a
weapon to
dethrone righteousness, thereby returning to a situation analogous to
that in
which meekness finds itself obliged to constrain an excess of vanity
without
being in a position to eradicate it.
Only righteousness, at the end of the day, can eradicate vanity,
and
precisely by bringing justice to bear on it from a position in which
the meek
have already been saved from any proscriptive opposition to vanity and
no
longer prop it up without being able to do anything about it. With righteousness triumphant over meekness,
justice is bound to bring vanity to account, though the axial
complexities of
all this go far beyond this sketch, as certain of my earlier writings
would
indicate.
SPACE
AND
TIME. Prior
to me, philosophers would glibly parrot such phrases as space and time
and
space-time continuum as though they had a purchase on truth and the
final
insight into cosmic or other reality.
Little did they realize how restricted and misguided they were! For not only are space and time incompatible,
but what accords with space in the so-called space-time continuum is
not time
but antitime, which I have described in my writings as the sequential
mode of
‘time’ which stands in a subordinate relationship to the spatial mode
of space,
which is space per
se. Hence the space-time
continuum betrays a predilection, one might
say an ethnic fatality, towards
metachemistry and antimetaphysics at what would be the northwest point
of the
intercardinal axial compass. It is the
point, par excellence, of the
noumenal modes of scientific empiricism, wherein we find a distinction
between
the noumenal objectivity of space, or spatial space, and the noumenal
antisubjectivity of antitime, or sequential ‘time’.
It is, in fact, the root position of the
cosmos, as of nature, mankind, and cyborgkind (to come right up to
date), and
hence of all that is to be associated not with God and the Devil
(another
misconception on a par with those who conjoin space and time) but, on
the
contrary, with Devil the Mother hyped as God and the Antison of Antigod
‘done
down’ as the Devil, to take but the freely somatic aspects of both
metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and therefore with what properly
accords, in
any life-stage, with evil and pseudo-folly.
Clearly, this space-time continuum of the philosophical
empiricists
leaves much to be desired, not least its noumenal antithesis in what
could be
called the time-space continuum of repetitive time and spaced ‘space’,
or time per
se and antispace, the former no less
noumenally subjective than the latter is noumenally anti-objective and
thus the
antimetachemical corollary of a metaphysical hegemony.
Now such a corollary of a metaphysical
hegemony centred in what properly appertains to God … the Father … as
psychic
‘first mover’ in the metaphysical context at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass should be thought of in terms of the
Antidevil and,
more specifically in relation to free psyche of an antimetachemical
order, of
the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, the beautiful approach to Truth that
complements the Truth … of God the Father in metaphysical free psyche, just as the loving approach to Joy of
the Unclear Soul of Antihell complements the Joy … of Heaven the Holy
Soul …
where the emotional concomitants of egoistic intellectuality, or
consciousness,
in both antimetachemistry and metaphysics are concerned.
Be that as it may, what can be called the
time-space continuum is no less noumenally antithetical to anything the
empiricists would equate with space-time as to be ‘beyond the pale’ of
those
who are rooted in metachemistry and antimetaphysics and incapable, in
consequence, of stretching their criminal and pseudo-sinful minds into
the
realms of grace and pseudo-punishment, not to mention wisdom and
pseudo-goodness, the bound-somatic complements of the metaphysical and
antimetachemical modes of free psyche which stand antithetically apart,
on
noumenal terms, from anything pseudo-foolish and evil.
In fact, such fundamentally criminal and
pseudo-sinful minds are so restricted that they have even failed, in
the past,
to do justice to volume and mass, whether on the basis of what could be
called
the volume-mass continuum of volumetric volume and massed ‘mass’, of
volume per
se and antimass, at the southwest point
of the intercardinal axial compass, or, by phenomenal contrast, on the
basis of
what could be called the mass-volume continuum of massive mass and
voluminous
‘volume’, of mass per se and
antivolume, at the southeast point of the said compass, thereby
restricting the
scientific perspective to noumenal objectivity and noumenal
antisubjectivity at
the expense not merely of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
anti-objectivity
(which, from a scientific point of view rooted in empiricism is to be
expected
anyway) but, to all intents and purposes, at the expense of phenomenal
objectivity and phenomenal antisubjectivity in chemistry and
antiphysics and of
phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity in physics and
antichemistry ‘down below’. And yet
mass-volume is very much a partner in the game which space-time plays
with
life, as with volume-mass to the detriment, if not exclusion, of
time-space, as
all that is metachemical and antimetaphysical preys upon the chemical
and
antiphysical with the financial support and encouragement of its
physical and
antichemical counterparts to the exclusion, where possible, of all that
is
metaphysical and antimetachemical, graceful and/or wise and
pseudo-punishing
and/or pseudo-good, thereby entrapping the chemical and antiphysical in
a kind
of triangular arrangement which places them at the mercy of predatory
impositions stemming from space-time and mass-volume in what I have
elsewhere
described as a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis dominated by
metachemical free soma. Such a
heathenistic
arrangement is obviously to the advantage of the female-dominated
predators,
whether one regards them on an individual or on a collective, i.e.
national,
basis, and that is why, try as he might, a thinker who is not germane
to their
axial criteria but contrary to it will never be encouraged to air his
views in
public or receive the recognition that, objectively considered, his
work might
deserve. And this is not because they
know nothing of him or are incapable of understanding what he writes
(though a
cynic could argue with that), but because they operate on an ethnically
predetermined basis that is not only responsible for establishing and
maintaining their axial integrities in the first place but is actively
instrumental in excluding from such integrities, whether noumenal or
phenomenal,
of space-time or mass-volume, all that would undermine or counter them
from a
standpoint centred in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria,
whether of a
traditional or, indeed, a revolutionary order.
Hence their alleged openness to truth, or to whatever transcends
the
limitations of their system and ethnic bias, is a lie and a ruse which
they
exploit in the interests of self-preservation and seeming decency,
never for a
moment seriously entertaining the widening of the intellectual
franchise, let us
say, to include those who would expose their moral shortcomings and
social
machinations for what they are. These
people are fundamentally indecent and hell-bent on only one thing: the
preservation of their exploitative freedoms against all objections, or
possible
objections, from without the axial integrities to which they subscribe. Therefore anybody who wishes to free his
people from such indecency, the secular fruit of schismatic heresy,
must not
rely on the likes of them but must go his own way and appeal to his
people over
the heads of those who would exploit them for immoral ends. He is not of the recognized ‘scribes and
pharisees’ of the exploiters and their educational systems but, rather,
one
crying against the wilderness of the desolation which they wreak upon
the weak
and ignorant to the detriment of all that is beautiful and true. Fear not, the days of space-time are
numbered! The will or, rather, the ego
of God is to further time-space, time and antispace, in the interests
of the
redemption of ego in soul, of truth in joy, and, for antimetachemistry,
of the
beautiful approach to truth in the loving approach to joy.
Such noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
anti-objectivity cannot but draw that which is phenomenally
anti-subjective and
phenomenally objective towards itself and, one day, it will be great
enough to
draw both antiphysics and chemistry into itself, as antimass is
transmuted
towards time and volume towards antispace in the world-overcoming that
will
deliver the exploited from their exploiters and collapse the heretical
axis
down upon itself. Then not only
volume-mass, but space-time and, eventually, mass-volume will be on the
rubbish
heap of history, never to return to challenge the eternal supremacy and
anti-infinite antiprimacy of time-space, of godly metaphysics and
antidevilish
antimetachemistry in the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of the
ultimate
Omega Point and Anti-Alpha Point of
(repetitive) time and (spaced) antispace, all things having
passed from
the beginning to the end, from the so-called space-time continuum to
its
time-space antithesis, wherein Truth and Beauty will remain forever
entwined on
the basis of the most virtuous circle of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria.
GOD
OUT
OF
MAN. The
other night I heard something about man being made in the image of God
on the
TV (some dreadful film I happened to be watching) and for a while I
went along
with the notion, automatically translating it into my philosophy
whereby psyche
preceding soma equals Father preceding Son in both metaphysics and
physics, so
that the same procedure applies to each of the sensibly male elemental
contexts. But then my philosophy started
to kick-in and I queried to myself the concept of God preceding man, or
metaphysics preceding physics, since in elemental terms it tends to be
vegetation that precedes air, or oxygen, and therefore physics that
precedes
metaphysics. But this whole business of
man being made in God’s image is so false and contradictory that it
warrants
some critical attention! After all, the
result is some kind of humanistic stasis either way, whether you accept
the
idea of man being made in God’s image or, on the contrary, whether, as
an
atheistic humanist, you turn away from Devil the Mother hyped as God
under the false
impression that you have rejected God and are now left with nothing but
man,
who would be his successor. But of
course Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) is precisely what
precedes
everything else, pretty much as fire preceding water (not to mention
vegetation
and air), or metachemistry preceding chemistry, so that far from man
being made
in God’s image it is actually woman who is made in the Devil’s image,
treating
the Devil as synonymous with Devil the Mother hyped as God as cosmic
‘first mover’. So there we have it! Man, as male, is not made in God’s
image. It is woman, as female, who is
made in the Devil’s image, and precisely as soma preceding and
predominating
over psyche, albeit to a lesser, that is, phenomenal degree of
something like
2½:1½ as opposed to 3:1, which is nothing less than chemical relativity
vis-à-vis metachemical absolutism, the actual noumenal elemental
position
commensurate with Devil the Mother. Thus
things on the tails side of the elemental coin are rather more germane
to
somatic freedom and psychic binding than ever they are to psychic
freedom and
somatic binding, and therefore we can reasonably argue that woman made
in the
Devil’s image (not Satan or anything of the equivalent ‘fall guy for
slag’
kind) is anything but synonymous with the notion of man being made in
God’s
image, even though ‘man’ can and has been used loosely in the sense of
‘mankind’, and God falsely equated with what I have called Devil the
Mother as
metachemical ‘first mover’ in the cosmic or natural scheme of things. But man, considered strictly in male terms,
is a sort of by-product of woman, an adjunct to woman, just as
vegetation (or
earth) is an adjunct to water, which required a fiery precondition
(metachemical),
and out of vegetation, as we have seen, comes air or, at any rate,
components
of the atmosphere that are essential to life on earth.
Therefore it would be nearer the mark, once
having dealt with woman being made in Devil the Mother’s image, to
maintain
that God is made in man’s image, and to be sure the resurrected Saviour
was –
and remains – a paradigm of such a concept to the extent that he was
first man
who ‘rose from the dead’ and ‘ascended into heaven’.
Thus one could regard the concept of a
resurrected Saviour ‘On High’ as a crude manifestation of the emergence
of God
out of man, even though, because of Old Testament factors going all the
way
back to an unequivocal Devil the Mother hyped as God, such an emergence
was
bound, in mankind, to be imperfect and short of the required mark for
true
godliness, the so-called Father of noumenal sensuality in metachemistry
holding
anything germane to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass back
from the possibility of full maturity by dint of its very existence or
recognition
as appertaining to the northwest point of such a compass.
Has it not been said that Christ, in rising
from the dead, sat on the right-hand side of this so-called Father? But that is hardly commensurate with being
under Him as soma succeeding psyche as male actuality whether in
metaphysics
or, down below, in physics! Such a
resurrected Saviour, corresponding in crucifixion to bound soma, is
hardly
commensurate with free psyche of a metaphysical order, which, in
Christianity,
simply does not exist. Even metaphysical
bound soma, which should be identified with the concept of ‘sacred
lungs’, gets
dovetailed into the antimetachemical context, necessarily female, of
‘sacred
heart’ and therefore is further done down from metaphysics to
antimetachemistry
in the interests of the subsuming of such antimetachemistry into a
mankind, of
Catholic, perpendicular triangularity in which some personification or
emblematic representation of eyes over ears, of metachemistry over
antimetaphysics, takes sensual precedence over such truncated
sensibility, and
can be exchanged, with an ecclesiastical sleight-of-hand, for those
unequivocal
manifestations of perpendicular triangularity which, in Old Testament
vein,
accord with either nature or the Cosmos, being less a matter of
heart-eyes-ears
than of berries-blossom-fruit on trees or of Venusian-Stellar-Solar
bodies in
cosmic precedence of anything natural, never mind human or, to bring us
up to
date, cyborgistic. Be that as it may,
perpendicular triangularity is the enemy of anything metaphysical and
capable
of dominating antimetachemistry to the exclusion of metachemistry and
antimetaphysics. And yet metaphysics is the sole context in which
godliness
exists, and not simply as bound soma, in Christ-like vein, but as free
psyche,
as psyche preceding and preponderating over soma as, metaphorically
speaking,
Father over Son, so that before you can have the cart of bound soma you
must
have the horse, so to speak, of free psyche, and precisely as a
metaphysical
principle that would utilize the ‘sacred lungs’ to a transcendent end. Christianity, of course, by which I mean
Roman Catholicism, falls woefully short of doing justice to what
properly
appertains to the Divine, and even Buddhism, capable of utilizing the
lungs in
terms of transcendental meditation, is still a mankind shortfall from
genuine
godliness and thus the globally universal transcendence of both West
and East
alike, a transcendence which, in sensual and hence heathenistically
secular
terms, is already well under way and therefore beyond religious
traditions of a
Catholic or Buddhist order. But it has
not, of course, reached its sensible goal, and until it does there can
be no
widespread emergence of God out of man, since the contemporary mode of
Devil
the Mother hyped as God will persist and constrain life to
perpendicular
triangularity as before, albeit on synthetically artificial as opposed
to
non-synthetically artificial or even pre-artificial terms.
But even the eventual emergence of God out of
man, using man in male and, specifically, anti-masculine terms as
germane to
the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, will only be
the
provisional and inceptive manifestation of the process that results
from the
transcendence of earth, or vegetation, by air, since more applicable to
the
leaders of and strugglers for contemporary metaphysics than to the
masses in
general. God made in the image of man
can only be provisional. Ultimately, God
will become more His own product and creation on an increasingly
communal basis
that will transcend the notion of images altogether, thereby being
properly
germane to what God, in any ultimate context, should be.
And what applies to godliness in metaphysics
will also apply, albeit on a necessarily separate basis, to
antidevilishness in
antimetachemistry, where the counter-damned females are concerned. Their counter-damnation from chemistry to
antimetachemistry or, more correctly, from pseudo-chemistry to
antimetachemistry up what I have in the past called the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis will be in consequence of the salvation of males from
pseudo-antiphysics
to metaphysics, as the Americanized southwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass, now effectively quasi-state-hegemonic, is made subject to the
control
of its overhauled northeast point in the interests of the deliverance
of both
the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical alike from their
pseudo-worldly
plight to both the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly realms of the
metaphysical and the antimetachemical, the Blessed Saved and the
Counter-Cursed
Counter-Damned for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.
Verily, God (and His female companion the
Antidevil) is what comes to pass last in the overall compass of
competing and
rival factors. The lie of man being made
in God’s image has been adequately exposed and dismissed for what it’s
worth. The descent of woman from the
Devil is one thing; the ascent of God from man … quite another, and we
have yet
to make a serious attempt on the heavenly citadel which is the end of
everything else – everything, that is, apart from its antihellish
corollary in
Antidevil the Antimother and, more importantly, the Antidaughter of the
Antidevil, the bound soma and free psyche of antimetachemistry which
will
accompany the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics in terms of God
the
Father and the Son of God, not to mention their free soulful and bound
spiritual concomitants which we have previously identified with Heaven
the Holy
Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the former above the Unclear Soul
of
Antihell and the latter above Antihell the Unclear Spirit, as
metaphysics is
above antimetachemistry in both church and state.
NO
‘FALL
OF
MAN’. Anyone who unthinkingly
goes along with the
notion of man being made in God’s image will almost certainly also
accept the
correlative concept of the fall of man.
Yet as I have attempted to demonstrate in the previous entry, it
is not
man that is made in God’s image but woman that is made in the image of
Devil
the Mother hyped as God, which tends to be the traditional or
conventional
religious norm where the concept of ‘Creator’ is concerned. Therefore a devolution from the Devil (not
Satan but something closer to the cosmic ‘first mover’ or, rather, to
metachemistry
as elemental ‘first mover’ in the cosmos, in nature, in mankind, and in
cyborgkind) to woman would be from absolute free soma and bound psyche
in
metachemistry to relative free soma and bound psyche in chemistry, as
from
noumenal objectivity to phenomenal objectivity, and such a devolution
would be
equivalent to the fall of woman from the Devil or, more
comprehensively, the
fall of Woman the Mother from Devil the Mother in free soma and of the
Daughter
of Woman from the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche, as from fire
to water in
what, objectively considered, are the primary elements.
But since fire and water precede, in overall
elemental terms, vegetation (or earth) and air (with particular
reference to
oxygen), so it must transpire that the fall of woman from the Devil
precedes
the possibility of the rise of God from man, as of absolute free psyche
and
bound soma in metaphysics from relative free psyche and bound soma in
physics
or, more correctly, from relative bound psyche and free soma in
antiphysics,
since we have to consider such a rise less in relation to man per se
than in
relation to his antimasculine counterpart on what I have elsewhere
described as
the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis the respective poles of
which are
rather more southwest and northeast of an intercardinal axial compass
than
northwest and southeast. However that
may be, the general pattern would be that the fall of woman from the
Devil has
to be contrasted with the rise of God from man, as one would contrast
devolution from fire to water with evolution from vegetation to air,
and
therefore one can no more speak of the fall of man than of the rise of
woman. If the female side of life, being
objective, is devolutionary, then its male side, being subjective, can
only be
evolutionary, and it is this evolutionary dimension that equates with
the
notion of a rise, as, in general terms, of God from man.
Therefore I do not believe in the fall of
man, any more than I believe that man (considered in male terms) was
made in
the image of God. All that was made in
the image of Devil the Mother hyped as God was Woman the Mother or, in
plain
parlance, woman, who therefore exists in a fallen state – phenomenal
relativity
of the chemical as against noumenal absolutism of the metachemical –
from the
Devil. But man has yet to achieve his
rise to God on anything approaching definitive or genuine terms. The risen Christ was a foreshadowing of this
potential and possibility, but one necessarily hampered, in the degree
and
nature of its rising, by the prior existence of Devil the Mother hyped
as God,
not least in relation to its root manifestation in the metachemical
aspects of
the Cosmos, which I have tended to identify with the stellar plane. The test for the future will be to achieve
definitive Godhead ‘On High’, at the northeast point of the axial
compass, on
the necessarily supra-human (cyborgistic) basis that will be
commensurate with
global universality, but this can only arise in the wake of what I have
elsewhere described as a paradoxical utilization of the electoral
process in
certain countries for religious sovereignty and the outcome, sooner or
later,
of a majority mandate for such a sovereignty that will permit the
relevant
authorities – call them Social Theocrats - to encourage the development
of
cyborgization in conjunction with human life to levels that surpass
anything
man could achieve in respect of metaphysical perfection …
conceived in necessarily synthetically
artificial terms. And the corollary of
the salvation of the male sex from antiphysics or, more correctly,
pseudo-antiphysics in the ‘lapsed Catholic’ quasi-state-hegemonic
‘world’ to
metaphysics, as from pseudo-antiman to God, pseudo-antiearth to Heaven,
will be
the counter-damnation of the female sex from pseudo-chemistry to
antimetachemistry, as from pseudo-woman to the Antidevil,
pseudo-purgatory to
Antihell on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis that stretches
from the
southwest to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. For if males are to be psychically free and
somatically bound in sync with their gender actuality of psyche
preceding and
preponderating over soma, then females must be upended to follow suit,
becoming, under male pressure, somatically bound and psychically free
in
contradiction of their gender actuality of soma preceding and
predominating
over psyche. Hence holiness in psyche
and soma, soul and spirit, for males is achieved at the price of
unclearness in
soma and psyche, spirit and soul, for females, who will be the
antimetachemical
corollary of a metaphysical hegemony, the Anti-Infinity that will be
forever
subordinate to Eternity as … Anti-Vanity Fair to the Celestial City.
THE
NATURE
OF
THE
AGE. Every
age has to go through itself in order to get beyond itself or, rather,
in order
that that which lies beyond it, whether as its confirmation or as its
refutation, may come to pass. Today we
are still in an age which, despite its technological sophistication and
inventiveness, is fundamentally and almost inexorably sad.
By which I mean that it is not a happy or
contented or joyful age but one, on the contrary, in which the ego and
the
soul, as essentially male manifestations of psyche, are under assault
from a
variety of products and so-called services either rooted in or stemming
from
the cathode-ray tube and all that we would classify as the camera-based
roots
of contemporary society. To be sure, we
now have the benefit of technological extrapolations from the older and
more
basic media which tend to confirm a devolutionary drift, not
incompatible with
the enhanced democratization of society, away from autocratic tyranny
towards
more people-based media or presentations of life in general. But, even with TFTs rapidly replacing CRTs,
we are still caught up in the fundamental snag of contemporary
civilization and
its screen-oriented media. We continue,
on an ever-widening basis, to stare at a variety of different screens,
from
televisions and computers to mobile phones and mp3-players, and therein
lies our dilemma. For
the
more
time
you
spend staring at screens of one sort or another, the
sadder,
in a correlatively proportionate manner, you become.
And why? Because
you
are
cultivating
all that is most
fundamentalist and even materialist in you under the aegis of the
contemporary
form of Devil the Mother (hyped, no doubt, as God), whose spectacular
spell is
extremely difficult to break even when it is not directly connected, as
tends
more usually to be the case, with film and thus with cameras. Never before has there been such pressure on
people to conform to screen-based media; for where previously there may
have
been one or two alternative media to choose from, there are now
literally
dozens of competing media clamouring for our attention via the
utilization of
both eyes and ears alike. Some, of
course, would interpret this as progress, not least technologically. Others, possibly older and wiser, would only
see evidence of a kind of regression or, to resort to a term alluded to
above,
devolution. Few if any would, however,
want to go back to the ‘good old days’ of CRT-dominated terrestrial
television. Doubtless it is better that
people should have more control over what they watch or what they use,
media-wise, than simply be the passive victims of state-sponsored
impositions
from ‘above’. And yet, they are still
watching and therefore staring at a variety of screens.
They are still cultivating a vacuous approach
to life in response to what has more often hailed, in light, from a
vacuum, and
they are still paying the price, not only financially, for behaving in
such a
sensually fundamentalist manner. Some of
us are old enough to recall being told, as children, that it is rude to
stare,
especially at strangers, and that good manners demand that we mind our
own
business. Be that as it may, it is not
only rude to stare at others; it is detrimental to one’s peace of mind
and
emotional well-being to cultivate the habit of staring at electronic
screens,
televisions and the like, for hours on end, as though one had no life
of one’s
own outside the media which have a kind of synthetic life which now
dominates
one and renders one an accomplice, by default, of their activities. And as all of us will know by now, rarely are
those activities of a nature that one would associate with goodness or
truth or
virtue or reason. On the contrary,
television in particular is the source of much that is morally dark and
even
plainly wicked, whether in relation to violence, language, sex,
ambition,
avarice, crime, or what have you. We
become, if not careful, passively acquiescent in the most barbarously
callous
spectacles which glory in all that is ugly and false.
And, after a while, we become desensitized to
it to a degree which allows us to take it all for granted and more or
less
accept the inevitability of a stronger ‘fix’ of evil as a matter of
course,
things becoming more, not less, ugly and violent as commercially-driven
free
enterprise pursues its relentlessly brutal way in the interests of
cultural
credibility and economic viability. And
even if we try to avoid as much of that as possible, still, even in
front of a
serious documentary or biography, we are still staring out of empty
heads at
the fruit of what cameras of one kind or another have provided. We are only comparatively less foolish for
staring at good things than for staring at what is demonstrably evil in
its
barbarous ugliness. So there you
are. This is the age we are living in
and it is, to repeat, a sad age, governed, in no small part, by female
criteria
to an extent which has allowed freedom to become identified with soma
at the
expense of psyche and to exclude, as far as possible, any attempt to
establish
freedom on an alternative basis such that, when sufficiently
independent of
somatic subversion, would reflect the sensible lead of society by male
criteria. And yet those of us who are
male or sensible enough to require such criteria know that they can
only be
established at the expense of contemporary freedom and on the back of
paradoxical elections, in certain countries, for religious sovereignty,
so that
we can begin to turn things around, not merely to attenuate or
extrapolate from
the most noumenally objective tyrannical roots, but to institute that
which is
most noumenally subjective and capable of standing up to and rivalling
all that
would constrain people to vacuous objectivity in front of a variety of
electronic screens. For
until
we
do,
we
shall not cease to be sad. Until
the
alternative is established, there
will be no lasting contentment and therefore emotional fulfilment on
the plane
of joy for males and the loving approach to joy for females, never mind
the
truth and the beautiful approach to truth which are their intellectual
concomitants and effective preconditions.
At least we can be confident that the future will rectify, in
its
evolutionary thrust, all that the present leaves to be desired, turning
us from
‘the without’ to ‘the within’ in the interests of self ... conceived,
needless
to say, in relation to psyche. But it will
not happen without an immense struggle with the present, since the
transformation from female-dominated to male-led criteria is not
evolutionary
but the consequence, if it happens, of an evolutionary alternative to
the
devolutionary norms which characterize contemporary civilization. They are two sides, if you will, of the same
coin, but the heads side differs so markedly from the tails side as to
portend
an entirely different approach to civilization, the evolutionary
progress of
which can only triumph if devolutionary regression has been rejected
and
outgrown. It will be for the people to
judge when and if such a rejection is to transpire, but it is what
might be
called the social theocratic leaders of the people who will have to
encourage
them in this respect if something more than a TFT-style reform of
contemporary
civilization is to emerge.
AN
EARLIER
OVERSIGHT
CORRECTED. How
treacherous writing can be! Not so long
ago in these weblogs I was
confidently making a case for definitive metaphysics being a context of
most
heaven and least god, forgetting my philosophical conclusion of some
years ago
when I had more or less categorically established a distinction between
God and
Heaven on the basis of more (compared to most) ego and most soul,
contrasting
this, in metaphysics, with less (compared to least) spirit and least
will, the
bound-somatic categories, in theological parlance, of the Holy Spirit
of Heaven
and the Son of God as opposed, in free psyche, to God the Father and
Heaven the
Holy Soul. I had also established, I
believe, a distinction between particles and wavicles on the basis of
the
dichotomy between soma and psyche, contending that particles adhered to
soma
whether in elemental or molecular mode, and wavicles, by contrast, to
psyche, again
whether in molecular or wavicle mode.
Hence an elemental particle/molecular particle distinction
between bound
will (the Son) and bound spirit (the Holy Ghost) in metaphysical soma
would
have to be contrasted with a molecular wavicle/elemental wavicle
distinction
between free ego (God) and free soul (Heaven) in metaphysical psyche,
the
church-hegemonic as opposed to state-subordinate aspect of metaphysics. I still think all this is approximately
correct, and that soma is more ‘particular’ than ‘wavicular’ and
psyche, by
contrast, more ‘wavicular’ than ‘particular’, even given the
distinction
between will and spirit on the one hand, and ego and soul on the other. Are we to suggest, on the contrary, that
spirit is ‘wavicular’ in a molecular fashion and ego ‘particular’ in
such a
fashion, so that the emergence of spirit from will is of molecular
wavicles
from elemental particles and the emergence of soul from ego is of
elemental
wavicles from molecular particles? I
would accept that this suggestion has a certain commonsensical appeal,
not
least in regard to a resolution of will in spirit and of ego as more
objectivistic in its approach to soma, but I have to admit to a qualm
with
regard to the suggestion that because will is ‘particular’ spirit must
be ‘wavicular’
or that because, on the contrary, soul is ‘wavicular’ ego must be
‘particular’. Is not the fundamental
dichotomy here between soma and psyche?
And is not soma the objectification of a subjective premise in
free
psyche, at least on the male side of the gender divide?
Can we therefore identify any aspect of
psyche with particles and any aspect of soma, no matter how spiritual,
with
wavicles? My answer had been to say that
since, in overall elemental terms, will and spirit, accruing to soma,
are primary
elements and ego and soul, accruing to psyche, secondary, the
‘particular’
aspect of things would be somatic and their ‘wavicular’ aspect psychic. Therefore I had distinguished between
elemental particles and molecular particles in relation to soma, but
molecular
wavicles and elemental wavicles in relation to psyche, contending that
metaphysics was a context in which God had to be equated with molecular
wavicles and Heaven with elemental wavicles, since ego and soul were
expressive, in their different ways, of psyche, and hence of the
subjectivity
of mind, whereas the Son of God should be equated with elemental
particles and
the Holy Spirit with molecular particles, since bound will and bound
spirit
were indicative, in their separate ways, of soma and hence of the
objectivity
of matter, in this case of metaphysical not-self. I
did
not
envision,
for soma, a leap from
elemental particles to molecular wavicles, nor for psyche a leap from
molecular
particles to elemental wavicles, both of which would have struck me as
a
contradiction in terms. For how can you
fall on the one side and rise on the other if it is simply a question
of
particles to wavicles rather than of elemental to molecular particles
in the
one case and of molecular to elemental wavicles in the other case? Would a molecular particle be conscious of
the desire for elemental wavicles, knowing nothing of wavicles except,
indirectly, through a spirituality that was ‘wavicular’ in molecular
terms? I must confess to a certain
scepticism on this point. For how can
one descend to something lower or ascend to something higher except on
the
basis of a kindred extrapolation of particles from particles or
wavicles from
wavicles in relation to either elemental or molecular distinctions? And then, too, is not soma ‘particular’ and
psyche ‘wavicular’, to revert to our basic metaphysical distinction
between
not-self and self, matter and mind, the former divisible and the latter
indivisible? Enough doubts!
The metaphysical extremes are fixed as elemental
particles and wavicles, bound will and free soul. The
intermediate
positions
can
only be
molecular, whether as particles or as wavicles, as bound spirit or as
free
ego. God is a context, in molecular
wavicles, of more (compared to most) ego,
and Heaven
is His redemption in an elemental wavicle context of most soul. He transcends molecular-wavicle ego in and
through elemental-wavicle soul via elemental-particle will and
molecular-particle spirit, taking a plunge into the not-self in order
to rise
anew in self, which is ‘wavicular’ in its subjective essence. From molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles
via elemental particles and molecular particles, as from free ego to
free soul
via bound will and bound spirit.
Otherwise one would have to argue from molecular particles to
elemental
wavicles via elemental particles and molecular wavicles, as though the
plunge
into the not-self by a molecular-particle ego was simply determined by
the
attraction of molecular wavicles in the spirit and had the effect of
promoting
elemental wavicles in the soul as though by default rather than
predetermined
conscious intent. But I believe, on the
contrary, that the plunge into the not-self by a molecular-wavicle ego
intent
on achieving heaven is only partially determined by the attraction of
molecular
particles in the spirit which then has the effect of promoting
elemental
wavicles in the soul for the self on the recoil from such an
antithetical
attraction, an attraction that cannot but repulse something which is
fundamentally
finer than itself, if only from a ‘wavicular’ standpoint, and which
overcompensates for such a repulsion in the form or, rather,
contentment of
soul, of those elemental wavicles of metaphysics which are the heavenly
reward
for an abandonment not only of ego but, indirectly, of will and spirit
as
psyche climbs from ego to soul on the wings of its own ‘wavicular’
essence, God
having already determined His final end in the peace that surpasses all
egoistic understanding because it is of the soul and not of the spirit
which,
on the contrary, only surpasses – and then imperfectly in terms of a
fall from
elemental to molecular - all volition.
And understanding, like the peace of perfect self-contentment
through
complete self-harmony which is its reward, is essentially subjective,
being of
the psyche in its free, or metaphysical, manifestation such that does
not have
to subordinate itself to brute fact or, as in the case of physics, have
such
freedom, in knowledge, as it does possess subverted by somatic emphasis
under
female axial pressures, as discussed elsewhere.
Truth, finally, is a higher and freer type of knowledge
altogether, and
what it aims for is nothing less than the joy of perfect
self-realization in
the soul which is its psychic companion for all Eternity.
Therefore metaphysics will always be a
context in which there is more (compared to most) ego and most soul,
God being
identified with the former and Heaven with the latter.
MAN’S
YEARNING
FOR
ETERNITY. Contrary to Hegel,
who according to Camus,
affirms that insofar as death is the common ground of man and animal,
it is by
accepting and even inviting death that the former differentiates
himself from
the latter, I maintain that it is precisely in the rejection of death …
in
favour of the prospect of eternal life … that man is distinguished from
the
beasts, since his consciousness is capable of a degree of subjectivity,
in
self-awareness, that transcends nature to such an extent that mere
physical
survival is not enough and neither, therefore, is physical death
acceptable. Hegel’s philosophy of course
led to State absolutism and to alternative kinds of State worship on
the part
of both the Right and the Left. There is
little or no place for transcendence in such a philosophy, and
therefore death
is accepted as the legitimate province of man.
But this is hardly compatible with man’s yearning for eternity
through
that enhanced self-awareness which is his unique distinction over the
creatures
of nature, including those, be it not forgotten, who are less than
fully or
maturely human in their clinging, subhumanly, to natural and cosmic
precedents,
usually in consequence of environmental conditioning especially
predisposing
them to sex or astrology, or something of the heathenistic kind. Now such a yearning has been granted
institutional support through the Church and, most especially, in
societies
that one would traditionally describe as church hegemonic rather than
either
state hegemonic or, god forbid, state absolutist, where man, under
woman, is less
masculine than antimasculine and the corollary of a feminine (not
antifeminine)
counterpart which is capable of aspiring, according to gender, towards
both
divine and antidiabolic resolutions.
Doubtless the overhauling of traditional church-hegemonic norms
by their
revolutionary successors in times to come will enable this yearning,
founded on
a uniquely human capacity for enhanced self-knowledge, to be granted
substance
of a kind that no church hitherto has been able to provide, since it
must take
the form of a cyborgistic support and sustain, whether individually or
collectively, depending on the circumstances, for what is most
essential in
human life, namely the brain and/or brain stem and spinal cord of the
self
conceived in terms of that which accords, physiologically, with ego and
soul as
the principal aspects of psyche.
Doubtless this supersession, by degrees, of the natural body, of
the
physiological not-self, by a kind of artificial one will take much time
and
effort, and be fraught with all manner of problems and even set-backs. But we shall not achieve longevity of a
character one would associate with eternity without the replacement,
gradually
and methodically, of that which, issuing from nature, holds our self
ransom to
mortality and, inevitably, to mortal death.
As creatures born of women, who are more inherently of nature,
we
die. As creatures engineered, in
increasing degrees, by science and technology, we shall be capable of
transcending death and thus of living potentially for ever, give and
take a
replacement here and there of an artificial limb and/or organ or a new
infusion
of blood plasma or a change of oxygen provision as and when
circumstances
demand. But I do not believe – and have
never said – that such an investment in a synthetically artificial
successor,
no matter how piecemeal, to what nature has created for and
imposed upon
us should be developed for its own sake, independent of other
considerations. On the contrary, it must
be a means whereby the self, physiologically reducible to the brain
stem and
spinal cord and psychologically reducible to the ego and soul, can
attain to
the maxim of its self-realization without fear of death and without
dependence,
somatically, on nature, including human nature.
For me, cyborgization, however broached, is simply the means
that will
enable the self to attain to its true end in eternal life on a basis
that, in
keeping with the global requirements of contemporary civilization, will
be no
less synthetically artificial than everything we would now recognize as
properly contemporary and thus already effectively as much beyond man
as
mankind was beyond nature and nature, for that matter, beyond the
cosmos. We already live, believe it or
not, in the
age of the cyborg, as of the mechanization of life through
technological
innovation and development, but we have not yet gravitated, under
messianic
guidance, to that stage of cyborgization which will be no robotic
parallel with
or alternative to man but the means whereby he can transmute into
godliness
and, for females, antidevilishness, in the event of accepting a divine
destiny
for himself via paradoxical elections for religious sovereignty in a
variety of
countries predisposed, at this point in time, to that possibility
because of
their religious traditions and readiness to accept or, in the
contemporary
case, re-accept, on suitably revolutionary terms, a renewal of
church-hegemonic
criteria in the interests of enhanced self-awareness and, ultimately,
of
eternal life. I have made no bones, in
the past, about contending that such a life requires, in the West at
any rate,
a Roman Catholic predisposition, and I see no reason to revise my
contention
now. Unless there is a predisposition,
no matter how undermined by contemporary state-hegemonic impositions
deriving
from Protestant secularity, to church-hegemonic criteria there can be
no
overhauling, democratically and paradoxically, of those criteria in the
future
and therefore no development of the institutional framework that would
make
salvation to eternal life and, for females, counter-damnation to
anti-infinite
death possible on the basis of an ultimate metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
capable of developing truth and beauty, joy and love, to speak in
general
terms, to their logical conclusions in a framework that was both
church-hegemonic and state-subordinate.
For only such a society can guarantee, contrary to Hegelian
state death,
that the ‘horse’, so to speak, of free psyche is put before the ‘cart’,
as it
were, of bound soma, and that cyborgization develops in response to,
not
independently of, the extents to which a religiously sovereign
supra-humanity,
whether divine or antidiabolic, wishes to develop a
synthetically-enhanced
sense of self-awareness with the aid of substances that, for humanity,
could
only prove unsustainable over a protracted period of time but, for
their saved
and/or counter-damned successors, would prove not merely sustainable
but
critical to the achievement of eternal life on successively more
essential
levels of self-realization, be that realization egoistic and visionary
or,
ultimately, psychoistic and unitary, requiring only the correlative
enhancement
of cyborgization for its long-term viability to be chemically and
psychologically assured.
FREE
CROSS
AND
BOUND
STAR. I have never liked
stars. Perhaps part of the reason for that
is that
they remind me of my experience at infants’ school of being awarded a
star
according to how one performed in one’s lessons or play or tasks or
whatever. The stars were of course
different colours in
order to allow for grading, and one was presented by teacher – usually
female -
with a particular colour star whenever one’s activities warranted
reward. But that would not be the whole
answer to
this problem of my dislike, bordering on intense aversion, to stars. Doubtless I have come to see them in relation
to heathenistic as opposed to Christianistic norms, as something more
sensual
than sensible, more ‘once born’ than ‘reborn’, in the Christian lingo,
and
therefore as unworthy of anyone who, especially when male, prides
himself on
being sensible and somehow removed from the glittering superficiality
of show
business and barbarous ideologies and political leftism and religious
fundamentalism and all those things one would normally associate with
the
proximity of stars of one kind or another.
I don’t even like the Cosmos, which is so full of stars, and
regard my
own ideological standpoint as being antithetical to anything cosmic,
pretty
much as civilized mankind would be antithetical, lower down in the
realm of
phenomenal relativity, to nature and even, in an ethnic sense, to what
could be
called the ‘subhumanity’ of natural mankind.
However that may be, I take no pleasure in stars, least of all
when used
as an emblem for a political tendency or movement, and look forward to
a time
when a new kind of cross, call it centrecross or even supracross, will
become
more universally prevalent, as though on a basis of Social Theocratic
Centrism
or with regard to an ideological standpoint that was more
transcendentalist
than humanist and therefore committed to the development of metaphysics
and,
for females, antimetachemistry to their logical conclusions in what
could be
regarded as the closest approximation to ‘Kingdom Come’.
Such a ‘centrecross’ would signify psychic
freedom more than somatic binding and would consequently differ quite
demonstrably from the Christian cross, especially that upon which the
‘Son of
God’ is depicted as though in illustration of bound soma, and not as a
precondition so much as a consequence of free psyche which, in
metaphorical
terms, would appertain to the ‘Father’, albeit to a ‘Father’ who
properly
precedes the ‘Son’, as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, and has
nothing
whatsoever to do with an anterior Creator extrapolated out, in Old
Testament
vein, from some Jehovahesque ‘first mover’ in the Cosmos who, with
Christianity, becomes a kind of ‘Father’ to a ‘Son’ who is successive
to him
like some kind of worldly mean to a netherworldly alpha, the root
creative force
behind everything else. No such ‘Devil
the Mother’ hyped as God could ever make it as God for me, and
therefore what
properly appertains to God can only be first in the sense of psyche
preceding
soma in metaphysics, which is rather like the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass as opposed, with Judaic Creation, to its
northwest
point, being, in elemental terms, closer to the last element (air) than
to the
first (fire). Even the Romans,
appertaining to civilization this side of the Mediterranean, had, as
Europeans,
more cosmic sensibility about them than would have been compatible with
peoples
more under the influence of its stellar and solar aspects in patently
sensual
fashion, and when the apostate Paul brought Christianity back across
the Mediterranean
from the Middle East, from ancient Palestine, it was as though with the
one
worldly, temperate step forward of the ‘Son’ one had to endure two
netherworldly, untemperate steps back with a ‘Father’ who was less
Jupiterian,
much less Saturnian, than an extrapolation, arguably, from some
stellar
primacy more congenial to desert and arid lands than to anything West
European. Be that as it may, the
populism of worldly succession to a primal creative force identified,
falsely,
with God is simply not relevant to any kind of religious
transcendentalism,
being a humanistic extrapolation from a more fundamentalist approach to
religion, and we may be confident that Christianity has failed, even in
Roman
Catholicism, which, as the name might suggest, owes more to sensibility
than to
sensuality, to achieve anything like a consistently transcendentalist
approach
to religion that would lead to a repudiation, unequivocally, of all
religious
fundamentalism, including that which anchors humanism and is not even
unequivocally Old Testament in character.
Such a repudiation can only be achieved, I have argued, with
Social
Theocracy following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in
paradoxical
elections held in certain nominally democratic countries which are yet,
like
Eire, more bureaucratic than democratic and, especially, heir to a
Catholic
tradition, and thus less economically of man and antipolitically of
antiwoman
than politically of woman and anti-economically of antiman, thereby
being less
given to humanistic freedom (which, at bottom, is the only freedom
which
Western civilization has really achieved … in puritanical defiance of
Old
Testament criteria) than to faith in the possibility of
transcendentalist
freedom and, for females, antifundamentalist freedom coupled, more
especially,
to antimaterialist binding, the state-subordinate corollary of idealist
binding, in soma, for males. Hence, in
differentiating between metaphysics and antimetachemistry,
transcendentalism/idealism
and antifundamentalism/antimaterialism in this gender-based way, one
would be
allowing for a distinction between the free centrecross, or Social
Theocratic
emblem, and the bound star, between a cross that was not contiguously
encircled
and a star that manifestly was
contiguously encircled, thereby signifying
an antimetachemical retort to the un-encircled freedom of metachemical
stars,
under which, I fear to say, one can envisage the contiguously-encircled
CND
emblem as exemplifying the antimetaphysical subordination to a
metachemical
hegemony so typical of the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass
and therefore of every form of sensual subservience of males to females
on the
noumenal planes of space and time or, more correctly in this instance,
antitime. Thus the northeast point of
the said compass, wherein metaphysics and antimetachemistry have their
respective positions, is the exact opposite of this heathenistic
state-of-affairs, being one in which the male is free (in psyche) and
the
female, though also free in psyche, bound (in soma), this latter
contrary to
her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche. Thus, in general terms, the ascension of the
free cross requires the subordination of the bound star.
Classless metaphysics is only possible so
long as it is accompanied, subordinately, by anti-upperclass
antimetachemistry,
the female counter-damned and counter-cursed through being at
cross-purposes
with her gender actuality under male hegemonic pressures, in
metaphysics, such
that constitute for males both the salvation and blessedness of being
in sync
with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over
soma. Only in metaphysics is this
possible to the male; for in physics, which is the freedom of man (not
God),
such psychic freedom as exists is undermined by an emphasis on bound
soma under
duress of the antichemical (female) subversion of physics at the
behest,
diagonally back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics, the antithetical link between
metachemistry
and antichemistry constituting primary state-hegemonic and even
church-subordinate criteria on what are patently female terms. Therefore only in salvation from antiphysics
to metaphysics will the male achieve the blessedness of gender sync,
obliging
the female to be counter-damned from chemistry to antimetachemistry in
the
counter-cursedness of free psyche and bound soma for a creature who,
left to
her natural devices, is the other way around.
Such is the logical conclusion to the gender war which, at this
point in
time, is a long way from being won by males!
For even in antiphysics under chemistry, the male is upended to
the
extent of having to go along with free soma and bound psyche under an
equivocal
female hegemony, being foolish in the one and sinful in his
consciousness of
such folly in the other – at any rate, so long, traditionally, as
Catholic
criteria obtained with some kind of link between antiphysics and a
degree, no
matter how imperfect, of metaphysics such that, in male vein, permitted
the
emphasis at the southwest point of the axial compass to be switched
from soma
to psyche, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of unadulterated heathenism. For such a switch would also affect females,
as a chemical link with antimetachemistry established secondary
church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria in terms of bound to
free
psyche and free to bound soma respectively.
But such terms, contrary to Catholic male-led reductionism, were
not
from sin to grace in the one context and from folly to wisdom in the
other but,
on the contrary, from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in respect of
church-hegemonic criteria and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good in
respect of
state-subordinate criteria, thereby retaining a gender differential
which
characterizes both this and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
at
every turn, even if, as was evidently the case, such a differential was
seldom
recognized or institutionally upheld, much less acknowledged. Therefore even the notion that we are born in
sin is fallacious insofar as sin and, more pertinently to sex, folly,
are
contrary manifestations, bound psychic and free somatic, of
antiphysics, the
mass male catholic elemental position, and cannot be applied to
females, for
whom the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma and the pseudo-crime of
chemical
bound psyche would logically oblige us to infer some other stigma than
that of
sin – namely, that of pseudo-crime or, in somatic terms, pseudo-evil,
not
forgetting that what is pseudo on the one axis is genuine on the other
and vice
versa, so that genuine sin and folly in antiphysics and pseudo-crime
and
pseudo-evil in chemistry have to be contrasted with genuine evil and
crime in
metachemistry (female) and pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin in
antimetaphysics
(male), due attention being paid to the switch of emphasis from psyche
to soma
which characterizes state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria. However that may be, whether born in sin or
pseudo-sin, folly or pseudo-folly, males differ demonstrably from
females in
this respect, since while it is foolish for a male to be at
cross-purposes with
his gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma
under
female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, whether in phenomenal
relativity or
noumenal absolutism, the female in such a context is by no means acting
foolishly but, rather, in keeping with her gender actuality of soma
preceding
and predominating over psyche, which is to say in terms of evil and/or
pseudo-evil in free soma and crime and/or pseudo-crime in bound psyche,
the
difference again being one of class, since whereas metachemistry is
unequivocally hegemonic over antimetaphysics, chemistry, as noted, is
only
equivocally hegemonic over antiphysics and is therefore subject, at
least
traditionally in Catholic countries, to psychic subversion at the
behest of
such metaphysics and antimetachemistry as can be religiously and
anti-scientifically mustered to thwart heathen impulses and render
spurious the
forms of evil and crime that chemically obtain.
Such spurious forms of evil and crime, which we have equated
with
pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime, end up playing second fiddle, so to
speak, to
folly and sin or, more correctly within
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
parameters, to sin and folly, being, as pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil,
the
secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate corollaries of that
which
leads to salvation, in grace and wisdom of metaphysics, for males and
to
counter-damnation, in pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of
antimetachemistry, for females, the counter-cursed counterpart to a
blessed
hegemony which is the rule of transcendentalism and idealism over the
anti-infinity of antifundamentalism and antimaterialism for all
eternity.
OVERCOMING
THE
GENDER
WAR
IN THE
INTERESTS OF UNIVERSAL PEACE. If the so-called ‘wise
man’ prefers to avoid sex it is not because he is prudish or squeamish
but
because he has a strong conviction, born of logic, that it is not in a
man’s
interest to contribute, out of ignorance, towards the development of
free soma
when one is, in effect, a creature for whom psyche both precedes and
preponderates over soma. To fall into
the female’s hands and play her game, setting soma free, is not the
mark of a
‘wise man’ but of a fool, and therefore it will generally be the
practice of
sensible males to hold sex at bay as much as possible rather than to
succumb to
it under female pressures and effectively ‘sell out’ to the dominance,
in one
form or another, of evil and crime, becoming merely a foolish and
sinful
adjunct to a reproductive if not lustful female will which is
implacably
opposed to free psyche and to anything which would impede the liberty
of soma
to do its undamnedest, so to speak, in clear rejection of both
unclearness and,
for males, holiness. Hence sex is
fundamentally unholy from a male standpoint, since that which is
contrary to
the male grain of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma can
only be
contrary to the blessedness of being in gender sync with it. But such unholiness, as we have seen, defers
to the hegemonic sway of clearness, of female evil and crime in free
soma and
bound psyche, whether in the phenomenal or indeed the noumenal
elemental
contexts thereof, and invariably becomes ‘fall guy for slag’, or
denigration of
the subordinate position. It is not
males who most profit from sex but females, whether or not, though
especially
when, coitus leads to pregnancy and, hence, the prospect of
reproduction, the
offspring of which ‘firm up’ the female side of life at the expense of
the
male, and this irrespective of the gender of the children, since even
male kids
have something demonstrably female about them, irrespective of the
fact, noted
in the previous entry, that it behoves us to equate them with folly and
sin
rather than with evil and crime, after the fashion of that which, being
female,
will perpetuate, into the next generation, the strategies of seduction
and
conquest which accrue to a XX chromosomal integrity at the expense of
the XY of
their male victims. Of course, such
strategies may be artfully or skilfully disguised under a variety of
complaisant ploys designed to impress the male, not least in
relation to
male virtues, but they cannot but persist in view of the tyrannical
fundamentals of female existence which require to be placated come what
may,
since such fundamentals cannot be wished away or precluded. Hence the XX will war on the XY integrity
virtually until its dying day, though especially from the age of
puberty into
menopausal adulthood, after which its prospects, even if still pursued,
can
only be regressively less likely of success, the more so as the
prospects of
reproduction diminish. For females
are
fundamentally reproductive creatures, not productive ones like males,
and
reproduction with them is not a choice but a virtual necessity born of
natural
causes, of which the persistence of menstruation from puberty is not
the
least. Therefore the female will wage
war against the male come what may, in virtually any circumstances, and
that is
why peace on earth is not characteristic of human life, but rather the
exception to the general rule. Males are capable of peace and of living
peaceably, but the pressures of gender and, via that, of society are
such that
they are more usually co-opted to the triumph of war via what could be
called
the shame of antipeace, becoming merely the antiphysical or
antimetaphysical
adjuncts to a chemical or metachemical hegemony, depending on the class
context. But such antipeace, while it
may differ from war as unholiness from clearness or folly and sin from
evil and
crime, whether of the pseudo or genuine varieties, is a far cry from
peace and
that which, in sensibility, would subordinate the opposite gender to
antiwar,
as though in an unclear deference to holiness.
Unless there is a stance taken for peace and, via that, antiwar,
there
can be no salvation of the male from antipeace to peace and no
damnation,
correlatively, of the female from war to antiwar. The
hegemony
of
grace
and wisdom over
punishment and goodness is crucial to the establishment of peace at the
expense
of antiwar and to the exclusion of war and antipeace.
But such a hegemony
must be unequivocal and therefore metaphysical.
If it is merely physical, as with man, it will be subverted by
antiwar
to somatic emphasis under axial pressure of war over antipeace, and the
female
link between war and antiwar, metachemistry and antichemistry, will
maintain,
as at present in certain countries, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria
on primary terms, relegating any correlative link between
antimetaphysics and
physics to a secondary status in both state and church.
Such a peace, while it may have the
appearance of a solution to the dilemma of war or, more correctly from
a male
standpoint, antipeace, will be forever in the pocket of antiwar and its
inescapable link to war. It will be an
equivocal peace no less than an equivocal antiwar which prevails with
phenomenal relativity, and therefore peace will remain at the mercy of
war. Only the unequivocal peace of
metaphysics can deliver peace from the clutches of antipeace and ensure
that
war is damned or, rather, counter-damned, to antiwar, being forever
unequivocally subordinate to peace as antimetachemistry to metaphysics
or, in
specific psychic and somatic terms, pseudo-punishment
(counter-punishment) and
pseudo-goodness (counter-goodness) to grace and wisdom.
Therefore we return to the necessity of the
revolutionary overhaul and, in some sense, resurrection of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria in certain
fundamentally
Catholic countries in order that peace may be established at the
expense of
antiwar to a degree, on the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
that surpasses anything achieved within a Western and mankind-oriented
framework in the past, never mind its Eastern or Buddhist counterpart. Mankind, even when oriented towards godliness
and antidevilishness at the northeast point of such a compass cannot
really
achieve lasting peace and antiwar, because the gender war persists
willy-nilly,
and nothing the Church can do to palliate or soften this war actually
succeeds
in putting a stop to it. The female will
persist in her XX-based gender assault upon the male, and the male,
more often
than not, will succumb to it and become a familial adjunct to the
reproductive
will of females, thereby perpetuating the world or, at any rate, that
aspect of
it which can be identified with the southwest point of the axial
compass as
opposed, for instance, to its southeast point which, by any large,
remains not
only puritanically separate from but ideologically opposed to the
Catholic
Church, even as that Church is obliged, in the totality of Biblical
traditions,
to acknowledge and accommodate, as best it can, tendencies that run
contrary to
its own primary axial responsibility, including some which one would
associate,
in Old Testament vein, with the northwest point of the axial compass
and,
hence, with netherworldly rather than worldly criteria.
However that may be, peace and antiwar are
only rather imperfectly established even by the metaphysics and
antimetachemistry obtaining within Catholicism by dint of its effective
overall
subordination to a more genuine below which, with antiphysics and
chemistry,
effectively determines the fulcrum of things in favour of worldly
criteria, the
characteristic, after all, of Old World or Western civilization whether
in its
church-hegemonic or, indeed, state-hegemonic axial modes.
Only in a post-worldly age is this
respective balance of powers reversed, as is already the case with
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in the New World,
especially
America, which is less Western than universal, and things therefore are
engineered in such fashion that the ‘above’ truly calls the shots, as
it were,
for the ‘below’ and so transforms society that, in the event of a
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate retort to the contemporary
post-worldly
state of affairs, more efficacious procedures of salvation and
counter-damnation could be effected which would eventually remove from
their
antiphysical or, rather, pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical
positions
under metachemical and antimetaphysical pressures those who now
continue to
languish in quasi-state-hegemonic apartness from both traditional
church-hegemonic
and the prospect of revolutionary church-hegemonic criteria, and bring
them, by
degrees, to metaphysical salvation and antimetachemical
counter-damnation at
the overhauled northeast point of the axial compass which would be
commensurate, under Social Theocracy, with ‘Kingdom Come’, and
thus with a
more genuinely universal and antipolyversal retort to pseudo-worldly
criteria. Only then, with synthetically
artificial implications in both psyche and soma, will it be possible to
put an
end to both the lower forms of antipeace and war as the higher forms of
peace
and antiwar take their place with the supersession of
pseudo-antiphysics and
pseudo-chemistry by metaphysics and antimetachemistry.
And only after that will there be any chance
that the metachemistry and antimetaphysics of the northwest point of
the axial
compass will collapse into pseudo-antichemistry and pseudo-physics for
want of
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical prey at the southwest point of
such a
compass, thereby being damned and counter-saved down to their
phenomenal
counterparts (at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass) as a
matter of course. We who relate to the
revolutionary northeast point of the said compass have no love, in our
elevated
and essentially noble hearts, for those who appertain to
pseudo-chemistry and
pseudo-antiphysics, since we are forever distinct, in our minds and in
our
attitudes, from the mass of pseudo-worldly humanity whose sinfulness
and
(pseudo)criminality, folly and (pseudo)evil, we morally despise. But it is not necessary that we should love
those whom we would save and counter-damn, according to gender, to a
universal
mode of metaphysics and an antipolyversal mode of antimetachemistry. The important thing, from our point of view,
is that those who now keep us out in the cold and who deride our
‘idealism’,
those, in other words, who appertain to the northwest point of the
axial
compass in their metachemistry and antimetaphysics, should be brought
low and
undone, so that it is godliness and antidevilishness which triumphs not
merely
at the expense of pseudo-antimanliness and pseudo-womanliness but, no
less
significantly, to the exclusion of devilishness and antigodliness, and
those
who can be damned and counter-saved, according to gender, are damned
and
counter-saved
to
those who now play
some role, whether directly or indirectly, in financing their somatic
license. For until they are
damned
and
counter-saved,
the
people who are
already damned or counter-saved will not be eligible for any kind of
salvation
or counter-damnation in the wake of their pseudo-antiphysical and
pseudo-chemical counterparts across the axial divide, and will
therefore
continue to remain in the pseudo-physical and pseudo-antichemical
positions
that they already, in post-worldly terms, occupy. But
only
the
efficacious
salvation and
counter-damnation of the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical to
metaphysics
and antimetachemistry can bring about the downfall, for worse or
better, of the
metachemical and antimetaphysical, and therefore it behoves us to ‘get
our own
[axial] house in order’ before we can have the luxury of looking
forward to a
time when those who now ‘rule the [noumenal] roost’ from the northwest
point of
the axial compass are no longer able to do so, and divine righteousness
and
antidiabolic pseudo-justice take their place at the northeast point of
the said
compass for all eternity and anti-infinity, ushering in the age of
permanent
peace and antiwar, and then only because reproduction will no longer be
an
issue within a cyborged-up supra-humanity of divine and antidiabolic
intent
that are no longer subject to the war-like impositions of females,
whether
diabolically metachemical or femininely chemical, but have transcended
such
impositions in the interests, more importantly, of
synthetically-artificial
self-realization and notself-curtailment, as germane to what would, in
effect,
be the psychic raison
d’être of a society
given to bound soma as a matter of course, and therefore divisible
between
church-hegemonic free cross and state-subordinate bound star, as
between
metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity
Fair, as
described in previous entries. Universal
peace and antipolyversal antiwar are possible, but
only on a supra-human and therefore effectively cyborgistic basis that
has got
beyond the human need to reproduce because it can never die and does
not need
to accommodate war in gender or indeed any other fashion in consequence.
A
METAPHYSICAL
REJECTION
OF
BRASS. What
especially fails much so-called classical music and even jazz for me …
is the
prevalence of brass, whether in relation to silver or bronze, to
metachemistry
or antimetaphysics, as a kind of instrumental paradigm of conventional
theism,
not to say autocracy and antitheocracy, at what might be described as
the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.
No one who rejects Devil the Mother hyped as
God in what, compared to convention, must seem an atheistic stance …
can
possibly be complacent about brass instruments in music, since there is
assuredly a correlation between brass, as a fiery order of wind, and
metachemistry and/or antimetaphysics, the fiery and anti-airy elements par
excellence. Whether this brass
is strictly a metachemical
parallel in starry silver or a kind of solar antimetaphysical parallel
in sunny
bronze, the fact remains that it accords with a musical exemplification
of
autocracy and antitheocracy such that is at the roots of all societies
that
defer to Creatorism in the sense of Devil the Mother hyped as God and,
again in
free soma, the Antison of Antigod ‘done down’ as the Devil. Thus there is something Old Testament-like
about the utilization of brass, especially trumpets, and one feels that
no
composition with brass in it could possibly appeal to someone who was
significantly metaphysical and thus committed, transcendentally and
idealistically, to what properly appertains to God the Father and, in
bound
soma, to the Son of God. Even those who,
in female vein, would approximate to antimetachemistry should, one
feels, have
an aversion to brass, not least in respect of trumpets or horns, that
may yet
manifest in paradoxically bound somatic terms through the utilization
of a
muting device coupled, it may be, to some other parallel, perhaps
physiological, to a contiguously encircled star. For
bound
brass,
as
it were, must be the
corollary of free wind, in the sense of woodwind without mutes or other
constraining devices … at least up to and including mankind-centred
music,
which would have been overhauled, alpha-wise, by free brass of an
electronic or
synthetic order in typically contemporary vein which, if it didn’t
spurn
woodwind altogether made sure it was relegated to a subordinate
position that
was effectively psychically bound, like some contiguously-encircled
cross. Across the sensual/sensible divide
of
contemporary civilization, however, we are really talking synthesizers
rather
than synthesized brass or woodwind, and therefore music would be beyond
the
utilization of brass or woodwind of any description, making use of
samples or
original synthetic tones that could create a wind or brass or, more
correctly,
antibrass effect without having to compromise with a mankind-like
shortfall
from cyborgistic requirement, the sort of requirement that
characterizes global
civilization at the expense of both Western and Eastern civilizations. Therefore one would be beyond brass
altogether, even more so than those rock groups that are guitar-based
rather
than synthesizer-led and yet keen to avoid, for reasons best known to
themselves, any connection with brass. I
must say that I respect their integrity in this matter and feel that
there is a
common bond between radical ‘men of the people’ and what might be
called
revolutionary intellectuals that unites them in opposition not only to
the
utilization of brass but to all types of music, including some
so-called rock
music, that are either based in or oriented towards brass.
No atheist in our sense of the word could
possibly enjoy such music, and that is why those of us who are
consciously, if
not unconsciously, oriented towards transcendentalism and idealism,
which
requires in the female an antifundamentalist and antimaterialist
corollary,
more usually try to avoid such music and to reject it as symptomatic of
all
that stands in the way of a metaphysical and antimetachemical
revolution such
that would save theocracy from the autocratic clutches of Devil the
Mother
hyped as God and allow what properly appertains to God … the Father to
transcendentally
reign over the antifundamentalism of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil
in
unequivocally church-hegemonic vein, just as in state-subordinate terms
the Son
of God must take idealistic precedence over the antimaterialism of
Antidevil
the Antimother if justice is to be done to both metaphysics and
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the axial compass for all
eternity
and anti-infinity, God and Antidevil without end.
ACROSS
THE
SOCIALIST
DIVIDE. Although
I would not claim, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, to be a
socialist, it
is incontrovertible to me that socialism comes in different guises and
that it
can be as antithetical in character as the southwest and southeast
points of
the intercardinal axial compass that I am always going on about. By which I mean that socialism can be either
bureaucratic or democratic, political or economic, and therefore
conditioned
either by the equivocal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics in the
one case
or by the no-less equivocal hegemony of physics over antichemistry in
the other
case, so that one is obliged to posit a gender dichotomy between
lower-class
politics and anti-middleclass anti-economics in the case of the
southwest point
of the axial compass and, conversely, between middle-class economics
and
anti-lowerclass antipolitics in the case of the southeast point of the
said
compass, the former naturally making, in its political bias, for
bureaucratic
socialism, the latter, in its economic bias, for democratic socialism,
whether
or not we extrapolate social bureaucracy or social democracy from each
of the
ethnically antithetical positions. For
certainly such extrapolations can be made, if on the paradoxical basis
of
political vanity taking precedence over anti-economic meekness in the
case of
social bureaucracy and of economic righteousness taking precedence over
antipolitical justice in the case of social democracy.
Hence the distinction between the political
and economic forms of socialism, the one conditioned by vanity and the
other by
righteousness, is such that it is inconceivable that they could
co-exist in the
same party or movement, even if, in practice, vanity is duly overturned
by
meekness as male values begin to encroach upon the female hegemony the
more
bureaucratic socialism is displaced by social bureaucracy and, across
the axial
divide, righteousness is duly overturned by justice as female values
begin to
encroach upon the male hegemony the more democratic socialism is
displaced by
social democracy, neither the one nor the other living up or, rather,
down to
its name but displaying symptoms at cross-purposes with itself in
relation to
either antidemocracy in the case of social bureaucracy or
antibureaucracy in
the case of social democracy. Therefore
meekness in the former and justice in the latter become the
paradoxically
totalitarian terms upon which politics and economics rear social
bureaucratic
and social democratic heads, to the detriment of vanity and
righteousness
respectively. Each sinks to the
lowest-common-denominator, but in diametrically antithetical ways such
that
display male and female divergences from what, in bureaucratic
socialism, would
have been a female hegemony and, in democratic socialism, a male one. Bureaucratic politics fuels antidemocratic
anti-economics in the one case, while democratic politics fuels
antibureaucratic antipolitics in the other case. The
antihumanistic
meek
put
on military boots
and stomp over their democratic neighbours, while the just don the
garments of
economic righteousness from a standpoint rooted in proletarian humanism
and an
antipathy to politics which breeds totalitarian opposition to
bureaucratic
freedom. Whereas social bureaucracy is
the anti-economic corruption of bureaucratic socialism, social
democracy is the
antipolitical corruption of democratic socialism. The
former
co-opts
politics
to an
anti-economic crusade against democracy.
The latter hijacks economics in its antipolitical struggle with
bureaucracy. Neither of them can lead to
anything worthy
of lasting respect, for they bring politics and economics down to the
crass
level of their respective forms of anti-economic and antipolitical
state
totalitarianism, which is the nadir of all things socialist, whether on
a
nationalistic male basis or on an internationalistic female basis. For, of course, the male is more centripetal
than centrifugal in his subjectivity and the female, by contrast, more
centrifugal than centripetal in her objectivity. Male
subversion
of
the
one (from out a
catholic tradition) and female subversion of the other (from out a
non-catholic
tradition) breeds the respective perversions of bureaucratic socialism
and
democratic socialism that we have identified with the great
totalitarian divide
of so-called social bureaucracy and so-called social democracy, neither
of
which, as we have seen, have anything particularly bureaucratic or
democratic
to commend them. For, as we have also seen, the eclipse of bureaucracy by antidemocracy
and the
eclipse of democracy by antibureaucracy is what gives them their
respective
anti-economic and antipolitical cutting edges, at least until the time
those
edges blunt themselves on their mutually-assured totalitarian
opposition.
BEYOND
NATIONALIST
POLITICS. Although
I could not, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, endorse the social
bureaucracy of radical republicanism in the Republic of Ireland, I am
not
against it, in the sense that anything to the left of liberal
republicanism is
bound, sooner or later, to encourage something to the right of it,
whether in
the form, traditionally, of the so-called Blue Shirts or in some other,
more
contemporary pro-Catholic guise. I do
not identify with an extreme left/right dichotomy within Irish politics
traditionally or, indeed, contemporaneously, since that would be
Western and
uniquely of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate traditions in
THE
MORAL
NECESSITY
OF
GENDER
DISCRIMINATION. Males, as I am often keen to repeat, are
psyche preceding and preponderating over soma.
Females, by contrast, are soma preceding and predominating over
psyche. Will and spirit predominating over
ego and
soul in the one case; ego and soul preponderating over will and spirit
in the
other case. Therein lies
the roots of the gender struggle which nature ordained largely in the
interests
of females without foreknowledge of the extent to which male-led
civilization,
largely founded on the need to foster and protect families, would
subsequently
exploit this dichotomy to its own advantage.
For a dichotomy once established cannot be undone, nor is there
any
guarantee that the psyche preceding soma of males won’t be taken to
such
lengths, under genuine culture, as to achieve a permanent victory in
hegemony
over the soma preceding psyche of females, thereby not only opposing
nature –
which, in any case, is all that civilization is good for – but
ultimately
transcending her. For nature is
fundamentally feminine or, at any rate, designed in such fashion as to
favour
the female at the expense of the male. I
think I have made a case, in certain of my works (preceding these
weblogs),
about the Cosmos being in its more prevalent, i.e. stellar/solar,
aspects a
context which favours the female absolutely, that is, on a 3:1 basis. If that is so, then nature
is only a context which favours the female relatively, on a
FALLS
AND
COUNTER-RISES
VIS-À-VIS
RISES AND
COUNTER-FALLS. I
was
writing,
not
so long ago, about the lie
of the ‘fall of man’. But there is
another way of looking at the problem, and that is in respect of the
axial
antitheses or poles, rather, at either end of the two intercardinal
axes. Just as a gender cannot be hegemonic
at the
northwest, southwest, southeast, or northeast point of these
intercardinal axes
without the opposite gender being upended and effectively put at
cross-purposes
with itself – antimetaphysics under metachemistry, antiphysics under
chemistry,
antichemistry under physics, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics –
so the
poles of a given axis cannot exist in relation to each other except on
a pseudo
vis-à-vis genuine basis. Which is to say that if the northwest and northeast
poles are
pseudo, the southeast and southwest poles will be genuine, or vice
versa. In a worldly epoch,
commensurate with Western
and Christian criteria, the existence of each axis is premised upon a
pseudo
position above and a genuine position below, like pseudo-metachemistry
vis-à-vis genuine antichemistry and pseudo-antimetaphysics vis-à-vis
genuine
physics on what has been called the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis,
together with pseudo-metaphysics vis-à-vis genuine antiphysics and
pseudo-antimetachemistry vis-à-vis genuine chemistry on what we have
termed the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Hence one could speak of the genuine positions, relative to the
southeast and southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, as
constituting the ‘fallen’ positions … in the sense that they represent
the
worldly fulcrum of things in an epoch when the noumenal positions of
the
‘above’ can only be pseudo, whether as pseudo-autocratic and
pseudo-antitheocratic vis-à-vis genuine antibureaucratic and genuine
democratic, or, across the axial divide, as pseudo-theocratic and
pseudo-antiautocratic vis-à-vis genuine bureaucratic and genuine
antidemocratic. Hence the ‘fall of man’ is
not to be
interpreted in the simplistic Christian sense of a fall from God. On the contrary, it is significant of the
fulcrum of things being phenomenal, or worldly, and therefore as
constitutive
of the mean, whether in relation to the fall of antiwoman from the
pseudo-Devil
on the basis of antichemistry from pseudo-metachemistry or to the fall
or, more
correctly, antirise of man from pseudo-Antigod on the basis of physics
from
pseudo-antimetaphysics, the former position constitutive of a damnation
from
hegemonic pseudo-metachemistry to underplane antichemistry, free soma
to bound
soma, and the latter position constitutive of a counter-salvation from
underplane pseudo-antimetaphysics to hegemonic physics, bound psyche to
free psyche,
as we descend or counter-ascend, according to gender, from the
northwest to the
southeast point of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. Likewise, where
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria are concerned, one
must
differentiate between the fall of antiman from pseudo-God on the basis
of
antiphysics from pseudo-metaphysics and the fall or, more correctly,
antirise
of woman from the pseudo-Antidevil on the basis of chemistry from
pseudo-antimetachemistry, the former position constitutive of a
damnation from
hegemonic pseudo-metaphysics to underplane antiphysics, free psyche to
bound
psyche, and the latter position constitutive of a counter-salvation
from
underplane pseudo-antimetachemistry to hegemonic chemistry, bound soma
to free
soma, as we descend or counter-ascend, according to gender, from the
northeast
to the southwest point of the axis in question.
Consequently, it is not simply a matter of falling from a
hegemonic
position above to an underplane position below, but also, for the
opposite
gender, of rising or, rather, counter-rising from an underplane
position above
to a hegemonic position below. There is
no simple ‘fall of man’. Antiwoman falls
from the pseudo-Devil no less than man counter-rises from Antigod on
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, whereas antiman falls from
pseudo-God
no less than woman counter-rises from the pseudo-Antidevil on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
Neither of them, however, are
relevant to the
post-worldly, and effectively global, present.
What we find, on the contrary, is a polarity, as in America,
between a
pseudo ‘below’ and a genuine ‘above’, pseudo-antichemistry and
metachemistry,
pseudo-physics and antimetaphysics, whereby the conditions of rising or
counter-falling are significantly more relevant than conditions of
falling and
counter-rising. And the same should
apply, in due course, to the development of distinctions, on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, between pseudo-antiphysics and
metaphysics, pseudo-chemistry and antimetachemistry, as pseudo-antiman
is saved
to God, rising from pseudo-antiphysics to metaphysics, and pseudo-woman
is
counter-damned to the Antidevil, counter-falling from pseudo-chemistry,
which
is equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-antiphysics, to antimetachemistry,
which
will be unequivocally subordinate to metaphysics at the northeast point
of the
axis in question. For in a post-worldly,
or global, age it is the noumenal positions which ‘call the shots’ at
the
expense of the phenomenal positions below, and what is already the case
in
terms of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria with
respect, for
example, to contemporary America (with its executive presidential
C-in-C) must
eventually become true of its axial antithesis, wherever that may be
found and,
more importantly, engineered, thereby bringing more efficacious
procedures of
salvation and counter-damnation, according to gender, to bear on the
southwest
point of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (duly returned to
self-respecting order from out the quasi-state-hegemonic
other-deferring chaos
of the present) in order that those who now pertain to it may be
transmuted
upwards towards the northeast point and be delivered from both their
pseudo-worldly failings and those, across the axial divide, who avail
of those
failings to prey upon them in their own not-self, or somatic,
female-dominated
interest. Instead of those in the
‘above’ being the priestly and/or monkish pseudo-exceptions to the
genuine
rule, the ‘above’ itself will become, at the said northeast point of
the axis
in question, the religiously-sovereign rule against which anything
remaining in
the pseudo-worldly ‘below’ will be very much the pseudo-exception,
destined to
remain ‘beneath the pale’ of heavenly and antihellish transmutations.
NO
SIMPLE
RIGHT
AND
WRONG. Yesterday I
attempted to equate the concept
of the ‘fall of man’ with the genuine worldly positions that
constituted the
fulcrum of each axis, irrespective of the antithetical nature, duly
noted, of
the axes themselves. For the very fact
of their being antithetical precludes such a concept from having equal
applicability to each axis. If you are
of the ‘fallen’, what have you fallen from or, alternatively, to what
do you
exist in a kind of polar relation?
Certainly not the Risen! For the
Fallen can only exist in polar relation to the Unfallen, whether as
fallen to
pseudo-unfallen or, alternatively, as pseudo-fallen to unfallen,
depending on
the epochal context of any given form of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
civilization. And where the Fallen exist
in relation to the Unfallen, the Counter-Risen exist in relation to the
Counter-Unrisen, whether as counter-risen to pseudo-counter-unrisen or,
in a
post-worldly context, as pseudo-counter-risen to counter-unrisen, the
Counter-Unrisen no less subordinate to the Unfallen than, at the other
pole of
the axis in question, the Fallen to the Counter-Risen.
Yet what applies to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria most certainly cannot
be applied
to its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate antithesis!
For the Risen can only exist in polar
relation to the Unrisen, whether as pseudo-risen to unrisen in a
worldly epoch
and mode of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate civilization or, by
contrast, as
risen to pseudo-unrisen in its post-worldly – and effectively global –
counterpart. And where the Risen exist
in relation to the Unrisen, the Counter-Fallen exist in relation to the
Counter-Unfallen, whether as pseudo-counter-fallen to counter-unfallen
in
traditional terms or, from a contemporary and/or futuristic standpoint,
as
counter-fallen to pseudo-counter-unfallen, the Counter-Fallen no less
subordinate to the Risen than, at the other pole of the axis in
question, the
Unrisen to the Counter-Unfallen.
Therefore far from an equalitarian reductionism to the Fallen,
the
southwest point of the axial compass presents us with a contrast
between the
Unrisen and the Counter-Unfallen which contrasts with the distinction
between
the Fallen and the Counter-Risen at its southeast point, the point
which exists
in polar relation to the Unfallen and the Counter-Unrisen no less than
its
axial antithesis to the Risen and Counter-Fallen. But
such
a
contrast
in relations is typical
of the antithetical nature of the two axes.
No one set of criteria can be applied to them.
They remain antithetical in virtually every
respect. Nor can one contend, with any
certainty, that the overall distinction between the
Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen
and the Risen/Counter-Fallen on the one hand and the
Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen
and the Fallen/Counter-Risen on the other hand is between right and
wrong. It may seem to be, but, in reality,
the
positions on either axis are not so black and white.
What one can say with logical conviction is that
the sensual positions of the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and of the
Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen correspond to contexts which are subject to
hegemonic
female criteria in which free soma and bound psyche are the most
characteristic
gender differentials, whereas the sensible positions of the
Fallen/Counter-Risen and of the Risen/Counter-Fallen correspond to
contexts
which are subject to hegemonic male criteria in which free psyche and
bound
soma are the most characteristic gender differentials.
Therefore there is an overall hegemonic
contrast between the immorality of free soma and the morality of free
psyche,
both of which are right to their respective genders.
What is wrong is not immorality per
se, but the upended male position in
antimetaphysics under metachemistry for the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen
and in
antiphysics under chemistry for the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen, so that
one has
situations in which the male is antimorally wrong in bound psyche and
free soma
vis-à-vis the immoral rightness of the freely somatic and bound psychic
female,
the principal gender differential in each case being bound psyche for
the male
and free soma for the female. Likewise,
if from a contrary standpoint in sensibility, what is wrong is the
upended
female position in antichemistry under physics for the
Fallen/Counter-Risen and
in antimetachemistry under metaphysics for the Risen/Counter-Fallen, so
that
one has situations in which the female is anti-immorally wrong in bound
soma
and free psyche vis-à-vis the moral rightness of the freely psychic and
bound
somatic male, the principal gender differential in each case being
bound soma
for the female and free psyche for the male.
Thus we cannot argue in favour of sensual wrongness vis-à-vis
sensible
rightness. Female immorality rides
triumphantly over male antimorality in each of the sensual axial
contexts,
whereas male morality rides triumphantly over female anti-immorality in
each of
the sensible axial contexts. But it does
so, of course, in a different way and to a different extent in each
context, be
it sensual or sensible. The immoral
rightness of metachemistry over the antimoral wrongness of
antimetaphysics is
unequivocal, whereas the immoral rightness of chemistry over the
antimoral wrongness
of antiphysics in merely equivocal, subject to subversion in terms of
bound
psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry,
which
establishes church-hegemonic criteria.
Conversely, the moral rightness of metaphysics over the
anti-immoral
wrongness of antimetachemistry is unequivocal, whereas the moral
rightness of
physics over the anti-immoral wrongness of antichemistry is merely
equivocal,
subject to subversion in terms of bound somatic emphasis at the behest
of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics, which establish state-hegemonic
criteria. Again the axes are completely
antithetical. One can no more speak of
moral right unequivocally triumphing over anti-immoral wrong in
relation to the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass than of immoral
right
unequivocally triumphing over antimoral wrong in relation to the
southwest
point of the said compass. It is only at
the northwest and northeast points that anything resembling an
unequivocal
triumph occurs, and that is all the distinction between the immoral
rightness/antimoral
wrongness of the Unfallen/Counter-Unsaved and the moral
rightness/anti-immoral
wrongness of the Risen/Counter-Fallen.
Right and wrong do hang together at each point of the axial
compass, but
they do so on both immoral/antimoral and moral/anti-immoral terms. The female of the species is born for the
immoral rightness of somatic freedom.
The male of the species is intended, on the contrary, for the
moral
rightness of psychic freedom. The one is
soma preceding and predominating over psyche. The
other
is
psyche
preceding and
preponderating over soma. Life is the
result of a gender struggle between these two antithetical tendencies,
neither
of which can simultaneously triumph. For if females are immorally hegemonic in free soma,
males must be
subordinately upended and reduced to antimoral wrongness. But if males become morally hegemonic in free
psyche, females can only be subordinately upended and reduced to
anti-immoral
wrongness. Either fact rules illusion in
sensuality and antisensibility or, in sensibility and antisensuality,
truth
rules or, more correctly, leads fiction.
You can’t have it both ways, and that is why there are two axes
which
are, to all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive in their
respective types
of civilization and commitments to either female-dominated or
male-oriented
values.
RE-EXAMINING
THE
AXIAL
COMPASS
IN
RELATION TO RIGHT AND WRONG.
Having established the pairings of right and wrong in both
sensuality (and antisensibility) and sensibility (and antisensuality),
it is
evident that immoral right and antimoral wrong at the northwest point
of the
intercardinal axial compass correspond to absolute fact and to absolute
illusion (antitruth) in which the noumenal objectivity of metachemical
clearness is unequivocally hegemonic over the noumenal antisubjectivity
of
antimetaphysical unholiness, like the Devil over Antigod in both free
soma
(Devil the Mother/the Antison of Antigod) and bound psyche (the
Daughter of the
Devil/Antigod the Antifather), the former more characteristic of
metachemical
clearness, the latter of antimetaphysical unholiness.
Contrariwise, it should be evident that moral
right and anti-immoral wrong at the southeast point of the said compass
correspond to relative truth (knowledge) and to relative fiction in
which the
phenomenal subjectivity of physical holiness is equivocally hegemonic
over the
phenomenal anti-objectivity of antichemical unclearness, like Man over
Antiwoman in both free psyche (Man the Father/the Antidaughter of
Antiwoman)
and bound soma (the Son of Man/Antiwoman the Antimother), the former
more
characteristic of physical holiness, the latter of antichemical
unclearness. Yet the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis paradoxically illustrates the
subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry
over
antimetaphysics, so that the emphasis is switched from free psyche to
bound
soma in what is a phenomenal partnership between pseudo-righteousness
and
justice in antithesis to the noumenal partnership between vanity and
pseudo-meekness, vanity and justice constituting, in their
metachemical-to-antichemical female link, primary state-hegemonic and
church-subordinate criteria, their pseudo-meek and pseudo-righteous
male
counterparts constitutive, in their antimetaphysical-to-physical link,
of
secondary state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria.
So much for the axis that stretches from
northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal compass, whether
from the
top down or, in post-worldly guise, from the bottom up, wherein we
would be
conscious of an orientation that favoured the noumenal positions at the
expense
of their phenomenal counterparts, transforming pseudo-antichemistry
into
metachemistry and pseudo-physics into antimetaphysics, as the
pseudo-anti-immoral wrongness of pseudo-antiwoman was transformed into
the
immoral rightness (or uncursedness) of the Devil and, in conjunction
with this,
the pseudo-moral rightness of pseudo-man into the antimoral wrongness
of
Antigod on both somatic and psychic terms such that equated with
state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria and were constitutive
of the
undamnation of females and the counter-unsalvation of males, the former
unfalling from the anti-immoral wrongness of bound soma and free psyche
in
pseudo-antichemistry to the immoral rightness of free soma and bound
psyche in
metachemistry, the latter counter-unrising from the moral rightness of
bound
soma and free psyche in pseudo-physics to the antimoral wrongness of
free soma
and bound psyche in antimetaphysics, as Vanity Fair and the
Anti-Celestial
City pursue their hellish and antiheavenly courses through
Polyversality
and Anti-Universality for all Infinity and Anti-Eternity. - By
contrast, it
should be equally evident that moral right and anti-immoral wrong at
the
northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass correspond to
absolute truth
and to absolute fiction in which the noumenal subjectivity of
metaphysical
holiness is unequivocally hegemonic over the noumenal anti-objectivity
of
antimetachemical unclearness, like God over the Antidevil in both free
psyche
(God the Father/the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and bound soma (the
Son of
God/Antidevil the Antimother), the former more characteristic of
metaphysical
holiness, the latter of antimetachemical unclearness.
Contrariwise, it should be evident that
immoral right and antimoral wrong at the southwest point of the said
compass
correspond to relative fact and to relative illusion (antiknowledge) in
which
the phenomenal objectivity of chemical clearness is equivocally
hegemonic over
the phenomenal antisubjectivity of antiphysical unholiness, like Woman
over
Antiman in both free soma (Woman the Mother/the Antison of Antiman) and
bound
psyche (the Daughter of Woman/Antiman the Antifather), the former more
characteristic
of chemical clearness, the latter of antiphysical unholiness. Yet the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis paradoxically illustrates the subversion of chemistry by
antiphysics at
the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, so that the emphasis
is
switched from free soma to bound psyche in what is a phenomenal
partnership
between meekness and pseudo-vanity in antithesis to the noumenal
partnership
between righteousness and pseudo-justice, righteousness and meekness
constituting, in their metaphysical-to-antiphysical male link, primary
church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria, their pseudo-just and
pseudo-vain female counterparts constitutive, in their
antimetachemical-to-chemical link, of secondary church-hegemonic and
state-subordinate
criteria. So much, then, for the axis
that stretches from northeast to southwest points of the intercardinal
compass,
whether from the top down or, in post-worldly guise, from the bottom
up,
wherein we would be conscious of an orientation that favoured the
noumenal
positions at the expense of their phenomenal counterparts, transforming
pseudo-antiphysics into metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry into
antimetachemistry, as the pseudo-antimoral wrongness of pseudo-antiman
was
transformed into the moral rightness (or blessedness) of God and, in
conjunction with this, the pseudo-immoral rightness of pseudo-woman
into the
anti-immoral wrongness of the Antidevil on both psychic and somatic
terms such
that equated with church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria and
were
constitutive of the salvation of males and the counter-damnation of
females,
the former rising from the antimoral wrongness of bound psyche and free
soma in
pseudo-antiphysics to the moral rightness of free psyche and bound soma
in
metaphysics, the latter counter-falling from the immoral rightness of
bound
psyche and free soma in pseudo-chemistry to the anti-immoral wrongness
of free
psyche and bound soma in antimetachemistry, as the Celestial City and
Anti-Vanity Fair pursue their heavenly and antihellish courses
through
Universality and Anti-Polyversality for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.
GETTING
THE
LIFE-FORCE
INTO
PERSPECTIVE. It has been said that the life-force, the
so-called élan
vital of Bergson, is
neither evil nor good: it just is. And
evidently this was the belief of the composer Nielsen when he wrote his
fourth
symphony in 1914-16, at the time of Word War I, a time when the
life-force was
in full throttle. But some genuine
philosophers would beg to disagree with that, not least Schopenhauer,
who was
of the view that the life-force was precisely the thing that had to be
rejected
if one was to secure any peace of mind and effective salvation. But Schopenhauer was a lone voice in his
time, and his opposition to the life-force, to the will and even, I
would
argue, to the spirit, was more negative than positive, less Christian
than
orientally atheistic in the sense of accepting a cessation of will as
tantamount to salvation rather than going on, beyond such an
unchristian
stance, to an acceptance of soul as the godly prerogative of the Saved. There is, in a sense, no salvation with
Schopenhauer but, rather, a refusal to play the heathenistic game of
will
and/or spirit and to regard such a refusal as the best, in the absence
of a
kind of transvaluation of values commensurate with the rejection of
Devil the
Mother hyped as God, that can be done.
Yet, even with his want of a genuinely godly alternative to what
are
fundamentally devilish or womanish proclivities which conventional
religion has
sought to cover with the lie of Providence, Schopenhauer is morally
preferable
to the advocators of the life-force in one or other of its principal
permutations, as either free will or free spirit, and thus a viable
alternative
or even antidote to the likes of Hegel, with his evolution of Geist, or, subsequently, to Nietzsche, with his
paganistic amor fati in the service
of the ‘will to power’, and certainly to those in the twentieth century
who
took affirmation of the life-force a fatal stage further, as did the
aforementioned Bergson, with his élan vital, and
prepared the way, via Spengler and others, for the Hitlerian
apocalypse of World War II, out of which orgy of free will and spirit
there
emerged the Existentialism of the immediate post-war generation, with
its
Sartrean doctrine of freedom through action.
In fact, it is difficult to think of a philosopher in the
post-war
generation who, with the possible exception of Camus, could have stood
up to
the avalanche of heathenistic life affirmation with a Schopenhauerean
or even
Baudelairean, not to mention Sadian, refusal to believe in or advocate
it. For despite the lessons to be learnt
from the
Second World War, with its monumental clash of Nazism and Bolshevism,
the
post-war age has been increasingly dominated by America, and America,
though
less evil than Nazi Germany, is hardly the country to spearhead a
rejection of
the life-force, being, to all intents and purposes, its principal
exponent in a
never-ending succession of wilful and spirited acts, productions,
declarations,
inventions, or what have you. America,
for all its checks and balances, believes in the life-force as it
believes in
free enterprise and the right of those who can to enrich themselves
through the
legal forms of such enterprise and at the expense, it goes without
saying, of
others.
EXPLORING
THE
ROLE
OF
PERCUSSION IN
MUSIC. These days we take so-called beat music, or
music with a regular persistent beat stemming from percussion, so much
for
granted, that it is almost as though music had never been anything
else, having
now reached a kind of plateau of developmental excellence the absence
from
which of a persistent beat would be difficult if not impossible to
imagine. But has it?
Is the prevalence of a regular percussive beat necessarily a
good
thing? Certainly music has not always
been based in percussive rhythms. There
was a time, in Western civilization, when percussion was the exception
rather
than the rule, and in much of the music of Bach, Handel, Haydn, and
Mozart one
finds no discernible percussion at all but, rather, an absence of or,
should I
say, freedom from drum-like rhythms in overly melodic and harmonic
compositions. It was only during the
late-nineteenth century and into the early-twentieth century that what
one
would call classical music began to show signs of beat dependence
which, in the
more pronounced examples, almost reversed the rule, albeit not to an
extent,
arguably, that would have taken percussion to the inalienable position
it
occupies in jazz and rock music and literally made it de
rigueur, as though an indispensable prerequisite of
serious or quality music. That it is not
and, to my mind, has never been. For is
it not the case that what distinguishes quality serious music – call it
classical – from the popular forms of music, including primitive music,
is the
comparative absence or paucity of percussive rhythms such that most
forms of
popular and primitive music take for granted.
And is this not because classical music is, at its best, more
sensible
than sensual and somehow less an exemplification of will and spirit
than of ego
and soul? Is it not the case that
regular persistent beats in music are an indication of that music’s
moral immaturity
and want of true musicality? Can it not
be said that, as though in an exaggerated extrapolation from the
metronome,
percussive rhythms are indicative of something which is fundamentally
more
noise than music, and that in an age which worships power, as the
contemporary
age does, music will be enslaved to noise as though to an engine of
devilish
power which is a reflection of the heathenistic nature of the times,
with its
female-oriented worship of the life-force and all that glorifies brute
strength
and will. Frankly, I have no doubt that,
whatever forms these percussive rhythms take, they are fundamentally
instruments of wilful instinctuality and spirited sensuality which
reflect an
almost fatalistic fascination with militarism and sexuality, power and
glory,
to the detriment, in melody and pitch, of form and contentment, or
intellectuality and religious quietism.
Were not contemporary music, by which is meant beat music of an
electronic character, like rock, in the grip of these percussive
rhythms it
would hardly be contemporary in the sense of reflecting the age’s
obsession
with rocket-like propulsions of engine-driven matter.
And yet what sort of an age is this compared
with one that, like the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, was more
concerned
with the welfare of the soul and of man’s final destiny?
Or, like the eighteenth and early-nineteenth
centuries, was more concerned with the freedom of the mind and of man’s
capacity for reason? Surely it is
something of a barbarous and philistine age which puts power and glory
before
form and contentment! And therefore it
must be an age that, like its predecessors in the history of
civilization, will
be overhauled and superseded by a more sensible age, an age that does
not
equate musical excellence with persistent percussive beats, but had
somehow
learned to transcend the beat in the interests of music of a suitably
synthetically artificial order. Such a
return of music to something approaching the heights of classical
purism is not
as exaggerated as it may at first appear; for even now there are
compositions
of a suitably electronic order which if they do not entirely transcend
percussion are at least able to sublimate it and render it subordinate
to other
musical considerations, incorporating it within the overall synthetic
structure
of their synthesizer-centred integrity.
Such music is already beyond rock and other forms of beat music. It is in the process of escaping from
heathenistic criteria into a sort of superchristian or supra-christian
world
which is more concerned with inner self-development than with
expressions of
outer power through not-self dominion.
It is the music of psyche as opposed to soma, of the mind as
opposed to
the body, of culture as opposed to commerce, and it heralds an age in
which,
once again, percussive rhythms will be the exception to the rule as
music
extricates itself from the power of noise and ceases to dance to the
tune or,
rather, beat of a glorified metronome. I
heartily commend such an age, for it will be one in which music is once
again
true to the self, only this time less on the middle-class basis of the
intellect than on the classless basis, germane to eternity, of the soul.
THE
STRUGGLE
BETWEEN
OPPOSITE
TYPES
OF SANITY. Sooner or later philosophy demands of the
conscientious thinker that comprehensiveness which systematic analysis
of the
opposites of gender and class requires if the result is to do full
justice to
the overall framework. Take the
distinction between metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest
point of
the intercardinal axial compass; such a gender dichotomy between female
and
essentially antimale elements boils down, in particular terms, to a
distinction
between the outer sanity of free soma and the anti-inner sanity of
bound
psyche, specifically with regard to the elements in question, even
though in
reality, on a general basis, such free soma and bound psyche, and
therefore
outer sanity and anti-inner sanity, cut both ways – on primary and
secondary
terms according to gender. Thus we can
speak of metachemistry as signifying a partnership between primary
outer sanity
and primary anti-inner sanity, with antimetaphysics, its antimale
corollary,
signifying a like-distinction between secondary modes of outer sanity,
or
‘outsanity’, and anti-inner sanity, or ‘anti-insanity’. For at the
northwest
point of the axial compass it is the female gender which is primary and
the
male gender secondary, and this has a demonstrative effect upon the
southeast
point of the compass where, in overall axial terms, the equivocally
hegemonic
male position is subverted by the under-plane female or, more
correctly,
antifemale position as physics bows to antichemistry and inner sanity
and
anti-outer sanity to their female counterparts, albeit with the
emphasis
falling, within state-hegemonic/church subordinate criteria, on
anti-outer
sanity, or ‘anti-outsanity’, thereby guaranteeing a primary
state-hegemonic
antithesis between the evil of metachemical outer sanity and the
goodness of
antichemical anti-outer sanity, with, for males, a secondary
state-hegemonic
antithesis between the pseudo-folly of antimetaphysical outer sanity
and the
pseudo-wisdom of physical anti-outer sanity, the church-subordinate
complements
of course being between the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical anti-inner
sanity
and the pseudo-grace of physical inner sanity in the secondary, or
‘male’ case,
and between the crime of metachemical anti-inner sanity and the
punishment of
antichemical inner sanity in the primary, or ‘female’, case. Therefore a primary antithesis, for females,
between materialist metachemical ‘outsanity’ and antirealist
antichemical
‘anti-outsanity’ on the one hand (state) and fundamentalist
metachemical
‘anti-insanity’ and antinonconformist antichemical ‘insanity’ on the
other hand
(church), with males obliged to fall in with a secondary antithesis
between
anti-idealist antimetaphysical ‘outsanity’ and naturalist physical
‘anti-outsanity’ on the one hand (state) and antitranscendentalist
antimetaphysical
‘anti-insanity’ and humanist physical ‘insanity’ on the other hand
(church). So much for
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which is stretched between
the
northwest and southeast points of the intercardinal compass. -
Now let
us take the distinction between metaphysics and antimetachemistry at
the
northeast point of the compass in question; such a gender dichotomy
between
male and essentially antifemale elements boils down, in particular
terms, to a
distinction between the inner sanity of free psyche and the anti-outer
sanity
of bound soma, specifically with regard to the elements in question,
even
though in reality, on a general basis, such free psyche and bound soma,
and
therefore inner sanity and anti-outer sanity, cut both ways – on
primary and
secondary terms according to gender.
Thus we can speak of metaphysics as signifying a partnership
between
primary inner sanity and primary anti-outer sanity, with
antimetachemistry, its
antifemale corollary, signifying a like-distinction between secondary
modes of
inner sanity, or ‘insanity’, and anti-outer sanity, or ‘anti-outsanity’. For at the northeast point of the axial
compass it is the male gender which is primary and the female gender
secondary,
and this has a demonstrative effect upon the southwest point of the
compass
where, in axial terms, the equivocally hegemonic female position is
subverted
by the under-plane male or, more correctly, antimale position as
chemistry bows
to antiphysics and outer sanity and anti-inner sanity to their male
counterparts, albeit with the emphasis falling, within
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, on anti-inner sanity, or
‘anti-insanity’, thereby guaranteeing a primary church-hegemonic
antithesis
between the grace of metaphysical inner sanity and the sinfulness of
antiphysical anti-inner sanity, with, for females, a secondary
church-hegemonic
antithesis between the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical inner
sanity and
the pseudo-crime of chemical anti-inner sanity, the state-subordinate
complements
of course being between the pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical
anti-outer
sanity and the pseudo-evil of chemical outer sanity in the secondary,
or
‘female’ case, and between the wisdom of metaphysical anti-outer sanity
and the
folly of antiphysical outer sanity in the primary, or ‘male’, case. Therefore a primary antithesis, for males,
between transcendentalist metaphysical ‘insanity’ and antihumanist
antiphysical
‘anti-insanity’ on the one hand (church) and idealist metaphysical
‘anti-outsanity’ and antinaturalist antiphysical ‘outsanity’ on the
other hand
(state), with females obliged to fall in with a secondary antithesis
between
antifundamentalist antimetachemical ‘insanity’ and nonconformist
chemical
‘anti-insanity’ on the one hand (church) and antimaterialist
antimetachemical
‘anti-outsanity’ and realist chemical ‘outsanity’ on the other hand
(state). So much, then, for the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which is stretched between the
northeast and southwest points of the intercardinal compass. Consequently there are four positions to take
into account at each of these axial points, whether the free soma and
bound
psyche of metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest; the free
psyche
and bound soma of physics and antichemistry at the southeast; the free
psyche
and bound soma of metaphysics and antimetahemistry at the northeast; or
the
free soma and bound psyche of chemistry and antiphysics at the
southwest. Free soma is equivalent on
either axis to
outer sanity, or ‘outsanity’, whereas bound psyche is no less
equivalent to
anti-inner sanity, or ‘anti-insanity’, each position being germane to
sensuality as opposed to sensibility. By
contrast, free psyche is equivalent on either axis to inner sanity, or
‘insanity’, whereas bound soma is no less equivalent to anti-outer
sanity, or
‘anti-outsanity’, each position being germane to sensibility as opposed
to
sensuality. One cannot have it both
ways. Either outer sanity triumphs over
anti-inner sanity at the expense of inner sanity, free soma over bound
psyche
at the expense of free psyche, or inner sanity triumphs over anti-outer
sanity
at the expense of outer sanity, free psyche over bound soma at the
expense of
free soma. Such is the nature of the
gender struggle which makes, or can make in worldly relativity, for
contrasting
types of society – those dominated by the State with the co-operation
of the
Antichurch at the expense of the Church, and those, by contrast,
dominated by
the Church with the co-operation of the
Antistate at the expense of the State.
Neither of these antithetical types of worldly society will ever
see
‘eye to eye’, for they are torn between alternative types of sensuality
and
sensibility, noumenal sensuality (coupled to noumenal antisensibility)
and
phenomenal sensibility (coupled to phenomenal antisensuality) on the
one hand,
and noumenal sensibility (coupled to noumenal antisensuality) and
phenomenal
sensuality (coupled to phenomenal antisensibility) on the other hand. Only the Social Theocratic overcoming of the
world can put an end to this dichotomous state-of-affairs, the cause of
exploitation and strife. For until those
at the southwest are saved and/or counter-damned (according to gender)
to the
northeast on a truly radical basis, commensurate with the revolutionary
overhaul of Catholic tradition, they will continue directly to fall
prey to the
northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and indirectly to
its
southeast point, which is that which finances the somatic licence of
the
northwest in female-dominated heathenistic defiance of male-led
Christianistic
values. The otherworldly ‘
EXPOSING
THE
ANTICHRIST
HYPE. One hears
so much about the coming of the Antichrist in the time of Christ, or of
the
Second Coming, and other such Christian – and therefore Western –
related
subjects from films, serials, the media generally and the like, that it
gradually grows on one just how irrational such notions are and of how
partial
and misleading they can be. One would
think that the Antichrist was the big bad ‘first mover’ in things,
evidently
male, and simply an antithesis to Christ.
But as my philosophy should have made equally evident by now,
the
concept of ‘the Son’ is in relation to the concept of ‘the Father’, and
this
can sensibly exist at either phenomenal or noumenal levels of the
intercardinal
axial compass, wherein one has ‘Son of Man’ in relation to ‘Man the
Father’ in
the one case, that of physics, and ‘Son of God’ in relation to ‘God the
Father’
in the other case, that of metaphysics.
Let us, therefore, just limit ourselves to metaphysics for the
time
being, which would qualify as being more Roman Catholic than Puritan in
character, since Puritanism effectively operates, humanistically, on
the basis
of the New Testament and not of any faith in a post-resurrectional
Saviour ‘On
High’ (at the northeast point of the axial compass) who would
approximate to
what is axially antithetical to the so-called ‘Father’ (at the
northwest point
of the axis in question), much as the ‘Son of Man’ lower down (at the
southeast
point) would approximate to what is axially polar to the so-called
‘Father’;
though, in reality, this ‘Father’ (at the northwest point of the
intercardinal
axis) would be more metachemical than antimetaphysical, and therefore
not
strictly polar to anything male in physics at all but to its
antichemical
female (and antifeminine) counterpart, which we have elsewhere
described in
terms of ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’ as far as the relevant bound soma
is
concerned, and can therefore place in a polar position – bound soma in
antichemistry to free soma in metachemistry – to ‘Devil the Mother’,
i.e., to
what traditionally and conventionally passes for God (the Father), as
creative
‘first mover’ in, for example, the Cosmos.
Thus not only is the ‘Son of Man’ not polar to ‘Devil the
Mother’, it is
not even metaphysically antithetical to ‘Devil the Mother’, but the
axial antithesis
to what, in antimetaphysics, we may call the ‘Antison of Antigod’. Now this ‘Antison of Antigod’, the
antimetaphysical free soma of that which exists under the hegemonic
sway of
‘Devil the Mother’, is a lot closer to being ‘Antichrist’ in relation
to the
‘Son of God’ than in relation, polar-wise, to the ‘Son of Man’, since
the
noumenal should be contrasted, across the axial divide, with the
noumenal and
the phenomenal, lower down, likewise with the phenomenal, which, in the
case of
the ‘Son of Man’, would give us a Catholic antithesis of the order of
the
‘Antison of Antiman’, or something to that effect.
But that is obviously one kind of Antichrist
in contrast to the other, and in both cases, irrespective of the
co-existence
of bound psyche to free soma which demands antitheses to ‘God the
Father’ and
‘Man the Father’, we have positions which are not free-standing and
capable of
initiating themselves but, on the contrary, positions which owe their
negatively sensual existences to the hegemonic prevalence, in each
case, of
either metachemistry or chemistry, depending on the class context, and
thus to
the prior existence, on the female side of the gender divide, of what
we have
identified with ‘Devil the Mother’ in the one case and what should be
identified
with ‘Woman the Mother’ in the other case, the former of which is as
somatically hegemonic over the ‘Antison of Antigod’ as the latter over
the
‘Antison of Antiman’, neither of which would be capable of an
independent
existence of this female-based control.
Therefore before we talk of Antichrists and other such
scapegoats for
male denigration, we should think about what causes such antimale
positions to
arise in the first place. We should bear
in mind that neither position would
arise without the prior existence of their
female counterparts, which are the actual ‘first movers’ in the sensual
game. Thus without a demonstrably active
‘Devil the Mother’ in metachemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison
of
Antigod’ in antimetaphysical free soma; without a demonstrably active
‘Woman
the Mother’ in chemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison of
Antiman’ in
antiphysical free soma. And neither, in
relation to bound psyche, would there be much evidence of ‘Antigod the
Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of the Devil’ or, down below in the
phenomenal sphere, of ‘Antiman the Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of
Woman’,
both of which accord with the bound psyche stemming, in metachemistry
and
chemistry, from free soma, and therefore effect the binding of male
psyche in
antimetaphysics and antiphysics as a precondition of the correlative
free soma
of the aforementioned, over-hyped, Antichrists whom we have identified
with the
‘Antison of Antigod’ and the ‘Antison of Antiman’ which, contrary to
popular
belief, complete the vicious circle in each class case – ‘Antison of
Antigod’
to ‘Devil the Mother’, ‘Antison of Antiman’ to ‘Woman the Mother’;
though in
the latter case, traditionally, church-hegemonic criteria have ensured
that
‘Woman the Mother’ takes a secondary place, in state-subordinate vein,
to the
‘Antison of Antiman’, while, more importantly, the ‘Daughter of Woman’
takes a
secondary church-hegemonic place to ‘Antiman the Antifather’, the
antiphysical
bound psyche which is the primary church-hegemonic (sinful)
precondition of
grace in salvation to ‘God the Father’.
But, alas, this latter is still a problematic term in
Christianity, as
in Christendom, because Christianity operates less on the basis of the
metaphysical precedence of ‘Son’ by ‘Father’ in relation to the male
actuality
of psyche preceding soma (also applicable to ‘Man’ down in physics)
than on the
basis of a kind of worldly extrapolation from a netherworldly Alpha,
call it
Creator or Father or Jehovah or First Cause, which makes for a rather
more
linear – and populist - situation in terms of ‘Father’ leading to ‘Son’
than is
compatible with the actuality of metaphysical reality at the northeast
point of
the axial compass. Christianity was not
able to escape from the northwest point of the axial compass, from the
Jehovahesque ‘First Mover’ of ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God, and no
matter
how much this root or anchor of cosmic precedence is attenuated by the
Christic
extrapolation from it and by an
intermediate
(between Alpha and Omega) focus on ‘the Son’, on Christ, it remains ‘in
situ’
to bedevil the development or, rather, concept of metaphysics at the
northeast
point of the compass in question, a point unique, as we have seen, to
Catholicism, but still short of that metaphysical fullness or
completeness that
is only possible once ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God is rejected and
one can
regard the concept of ‘Father’ preceding ‘Son’ solely in relation to
the
precedence, for males, of soma by psyche in metaphysics, so that the
terms are
less historically linear than metaphors for male actuality as it
actually
exists on both the metaphysical and even physical planes.
This, however, will take a Social Theocratic
revolution to achieve, since Creatorism, steeped in the Old Testament,
will not
go away by itself. It will take a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections in
certain
largely Catholic countries, like Eire, to start the ball rolling, as it
were,
in this respect, since before one can institute a new and effectively
ultimate
religion the principal upholders of that religion must be in power and
be able
to take the necessary measures not only to develop it in the interests
of the
People, but to demolish the old religion(s) in order that all
Creator-based
obstacles to metaphysical maturation, coupled, be it not forgotten, to
its
antimetachemical female counterpart, may be swept away and effectively
consigned to the rubbish heap of ecclesiastical history.
Only the sovereign People can remove the
historical Church and embrace, via the paradoxical utilization of
democracy,
the revolutionary Church which I have identified with the Social
Theocratic
Centre…. Though, in point of fact, like Marx, who believed that
Socialism would
transmute into Communism with the ‘withering of the State’, I believe
that
Social Theocracy will gradually be superseded by Social
Transcendentalism as
the Church passes from a kind of pluralist to a totalitarian phase of
its
evolution in the course of theological centro-complexification,
evolving, as it
were, from Social Theocracy, which will be based in the State-like
aspects of
the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond of the Centre-proper, to
Social
Transcendentalism, as the Church becomes more prevalent with the
supersession
of ego by soul, of brain stem by spinal cord, of synthetically
artificial
visionary experience by synthetically artificial unitive experience of
the sort
that would signify the triumph of soul over ego and thus of contentment
over
form – in a word, of Heaven over God.
But that will take some time, since the precondition of unitive
experience on the necessarily global level of synthetic artificiality
will be a
correlative degree of cyborgization in the masses that will take some
time to
develop in view of its communal sophistication and render it almost
inevitable,
in the shorter-term, that they will have to make do with visionary
experience
in a kind of supercatholic precedence of a kind of superpuritanism
until such
time as the cyborgization is sufficiently advanced as to render the
purer – and
more potent – unitive experience viable.
One cannot ‘jump the gun’, as it were, but must take each stage
a step
at a time, allowing the religiously sovereign people (if that comes to
pass)
only that which is clinically and technologically feasible at the time,
since
premature idealism in this regard would almost certainly lead to
fatalities and
hence to the discrediting of Social Theocracy.
Naturally, one wants the religiously sovereign to be able to
remain up
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass for longer
and longer
periods, in order that they may be delivered from their immoral
predators at
the northwest point of the said compass. Yet that is contingent not
only on the
type and quality of the synthetically artificial substances to which
religious
sovereignty would entitle them (as rights), but on the correlative
development
of cyborgization as the ‘cart’ that follows the ‘horse’, or the bound
soma
accompanying the free psyche in both metaphysics (for males) and
antimetachemistry
(for females). Without the relevant, for
the era, types of synthetically artificial substances their rights will
not
have been respected; but without the correlative cyborgization, those
rights
will not be advanced and will not bring them to a position, ultimately,
from
which there will be no return, no degeneration, in Catholic fashion, to
the
world of the southwest point of the axial compass but simply the
heavenly (for
males) and antihellish (for females) transfigurations that would be
commensurate
with the divine and antidiabolic destinies of the metaphysically Saved
and the
antimetachemically Counter-Damned in the Social
Theocratic/Transcendentalist
Centres of ‘Kingdom Come’.
THE
ALTERNATIVE
PATTERNS
OF
SALVATION
AND DAMNATION. Carrying on from the previous entry, one
might ask: who are saved and who are damned.
And the answer to that would be: that those in antiphysics who
can be
identified with Antiman the Antifather will be saved in primary
church-hegemonic
terms to God the Father, as from the sinfulness of antiphysical bound
psyche to
the grace of metaphysical free psyche, and in primary state-subordinate
terms
from the Antison of Antiman to the Son of God, as from the folly of
antiphysical free soma to the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma, while
those in
chemistry who can be identified with the Daughter of Woman will be
counter-damned in secondary church-hegemonic terms to the Antidaughter
of the
Antidevil, as from the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche to the
pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical free psyche, and in secondary
state-subordinate terms from Woman the Mother to Antidevil the
Antimother, as
from the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma to the pseudo-goodness of
antimetachemical bound soma. Thus males
will be saved, in both church and state, from Antiman the
Antifather/the
Antison of Antiman to God the Father/the Son of God, while females will
be
counter-damned, in both church and state, from the Daughter of
Woman/Woman the
Mother to the Antidaughter of the Antidevil/Antidevil the Antimother,
antiphysics being saved to metaphysics and chemistry counter-damned to
antimetachemistry, though, in actuality, it will be from the
pseudo-manifestations of antiphysics and chemistry, for the
post-worldly at the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to more genuine
manifestations of metaphysics and antimetachemistry in the otherworldly
heights
of the northeast point of the said compass within the necessarily
revolutionary
context of ‘Kingdom Come’, which I have all along identified with
Social
Theocracy and, hence, the messianic concept of the Social Theocratic
Centre
which could only come to pass in the event of a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty in a paradoxical election – intended to counter the paradox
of quasi-state-hegemonic
criteria within the Americanized secular context of the southwest point
of the
axial compass – such that has the ring of ‘judgement’ about it. Be that as it may, there is another axis to
consider, and that is the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
stretching
from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass. In relation to the success –
should it transpire – of salvation and counter-damnation on the
revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial terms outlined above, those who can be identified with Devil the
Mother
will be damned in primary state-hegemonic terms to Antiwoman the
Antimother, as
from the evil of metachemical free soma to the goodness of antichemical
bound
soma, and in primary church-subordinate terms from the Daughter of the
Devil to
the Antidaughter of Antiwoman, as from the crime of metachemical bound
psyche
to the punishment of antichemical free psyche, while those in
antimetaphysics
who can be identified with the Antison of Antigod will be counter-saved
in
secondary state-hegemonic terms to the Son of Man, as from the
pseudo-folly of
antimemtaphysical free soma to the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound
soma, and in
secondary church-subordinate terms from Antigod the Antifather to Man
the
Father, as from the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical bound psyche to the
pseudo-grace of physical free psyche.
Thus females will be damned, in both state and church, from
Devil the
Mother/the Daughter of the Devil to Antiwoman the Antimother/the
Antidaughter
of Antiwoman, while males will be counter-saved, in both state and
church, from
the Antison of Antigod/Antigod the Antifather to the Son of Man/Man the
Father,
metachemistry being damned to antichemistry and antimetaphysics
counter-saved
to physics, though, in actuality, it will be from the more genuine
manifestations of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, for the
netherworldly at
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to
pseudo-manifestations of antichemistry and physics in the post-worldly
depths
of the southeast point of the said compass within what, even without
the
prevalence of Social Theocratic criteria, is already a post-worldly age
dominated by American somatic freedom.
Thus, in broad terms, salvation, whether genuine or pseudo, is
from
alternative kinds of Antiman and/or Antigod in sensuality (under female
hegemonies) to their manly and/or godly counterparts in sensibility,
whereas
damnation, whether pseudo or genuine, is from alternative kinds of
Woman and/or
Devil in sensuality to their antiwomanly and/or antidevilish
counterparts in
sensibility (where they exist under male hegemonies).
Females are undamned as long as they are free
in soma and bound in psyche; males, by contrast, are unsaved as long as
they
are bound in psyche and free in soma.
For the genders, remember, are opposite: soma preceding and
predominating over psyche being the female mean; psyche preceding and
preponderating over soma the male mean.
Hence salvation is not only a male thing; it is the return of
males, in
sensibility, to hegemonic positions over females - time over antispace
in
metaphysics over antimetachemistry, mass over antivolume in physics
over
antichemistry - which alone guarantee them gender sync with their
actuality of
psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, as evidenced by the
prevalence
of free psyche and bound soma. But of
course such gender sync equally ensures that females are damned to
being at
cross-purposes, under male hegemonic pressures, with their gender
actuality of
soma preceding and predominating over psyche, since they get to
experience, in
contrast to this, free psyche and bound soma.
However, it is only in metaphysics that males are genuinely in
sync with
their gender actuality, since it is only there that an unequivocal
hegemony, as
over antimetachemistry, exists or ever can exist. In
physics,
by
contrast,
physics is subverted
by antichemistry at the behest, back up what is a
state-hegemonic/church
subordinate axis, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, so that the
emphasis
paradoxically falls on bound soma – son of man-wise – at the expense of
the
free psyche of Man the Father. That is
why grace and wisdom for such males is pseudo.
Females remain in overall control of the axis, with primary
state-hegemonic criteria embracing metachemistry and antichemistry in a
polarity between evil and good, free metachemical soma and bound
antichemical
soma, primary church-subordinate criteria likewise reflecting the
female
dominance in terms of crime and punishment, metachemical bound psyche
and
antichemical free psyche, all of which reduces the male position to
secondary
manifestations of such criteria, whether in relation to the
pseudo-folly
and pseudo-wisdom of antimetaphysical free soma and physical
bound
soma or, where the church is concerned, in relation to the
pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace of antimetaphysical bound
psyche and
physical free psyche. Therefore we can
only speak of counter-salvation in relation to damnation where this
axis is
concerned, the exact antithesis of the counter-damnation in relation to
salvation of its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial counterpart. For there, it is males who, in overall
terms, ‘call the shots’, since church-hegemonic criteria
presuppose a male
lead of society, and such a lead, culminating in metaphysics, can only
counter-damn females (up the axis) from chemistry to antimetachemistry,
the
equivocal hegemony of the one eclipsed by the unequivocal subordination
of the
other under what has already been described as an unequivocal hegemony
such
that allows males to be absolutely true to their gender actuality of
psyche
preceding and preponderating over soma, and thus to be psychically free
and
somatically bound in such fashion that the emphasis properly
falls, in due
church-hegemonic terms, on free psyche.
UNDERSTANDING
CLASS. Although
I have been making distinctions in my philosophy for some period of
time now
between the noumenal and the phenomenal, the former appertaining, in
general
terms, to space and time, and the latter to volume and mass, I haven’t
systematically correlated them with the concepts ‘noble’ and ‘plebeian’
before,
and this surprises me insofar as a strict correlation between the
noumenal and
the noble, on the one hand, and the phenomenal and the plebeian, on the
other
hand, can and should be drawn, even if this does mean that nobility is
no more
one thing, or limitable to one point of the intercardinal axial
compass, than
is being plebeian. For there are four
points to the said compass subdivided between the genders into the
noumenal
objectivity and noumenal antisubjectivity of metachemistry and
antimetaphysics
at the northwest point; the noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
anti-objectivity
of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point; the
phenomenal
objectivity and phenomenal antisubjectivity of chemistry and
antiphysics at the
southwest point; and the phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal
anti-objectivity of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point. Therefore on axial terms alone we must
distinguish,
with due gender distinctions, two kinds of nobility from two kinds of
plebeianism, viz. the metachemical nobility and antimetaphysical
nobility of
noumenal objectivity and noumenal antisubjectivity from the
antichemical
plebeianism and physical plebeianism of phenomenal anti-objectivity and
phenomenal subjectivity, on the one hand, and the metaphysical nobility
and
antimetachemical nobility of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
anti-objectivity from the antiphysical plebeianism and chemical
plebeianism of
phenomenal antisubjectivity and phenomenal objectivity on the other
hand, the
former polarities making for state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria, the
latter polarities for church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Therefore damnation is possible, in theory if
not necessarily in practice, from the metachemical nobility to the
antichemical
plebeianism on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with
counter-salvation being correlatively possible from the
antimetaphysical nobility
to the physical plebeianism on secondary state-hegemonic/church
subordinate
terms, as from the evil and crime of noumenal objectivity to the good
and
punishment of phenomenal anti-objectivity in the one case, and from the
pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of noumenal antisubjectivity to the
pseudo-wisdom
and pseudo-grace of phenomenal subjectivity in the other case. Transferring to the other axis, salvation is
possible, in theory if not necessarily in practice, from the
antiphysical
plebeianism to the metaphysical nobility on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with counter-damnation being
correlatively possible from the chemical plebeianism to the
antimetachemical
nobility on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, as from
the sin
and folly of phenomenal antisubjectivity to the grace and wisdom of
noumenal
subjectivity in the one case, and from the pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil
of
phenomenal objectivity to the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-good of
noumenal
anti-objectivity in the other case.
Whatever the case, however, it is evident that the noumenal
contexts are
noble and the phenomenal ones plebeian, and therefore we should
remember that
the nobility are no less divisible on an objective/subjective basis
according
with gender than are the plebs, their phenomenal counterparts. The only difference – and it is a significant
one – is that whereas the metachemical and antimetaphysical nobilities
appertain, in conjunction with the antichemical and physical plebs, to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the metaphysical and
antimetachemical nobilities appertain, in conjunction with the
antiphysical and
chemical plebs, to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria. In that respect, both sets of nobles and both
sets of plebs are axially antithetical and therefore incompatible. It is the story, in a nutshell, of
A
REAPPRAISAL
OF
SALVATION
AND
COUNTER-DAMNATION IN RELATION TO DAMNATION AND COUNTER-SALVATION. One
hears the expressions ‘goddamn’ and ‘goddamned’ so often on the media,
especially filmic TV, that it might seem as if God’s primary purpose is
to damn
those who displease Him or fail to meet the criteria of salvation. Yet, in truth, God has no interest, at least
directly, in damning at all, but only in saving. The
salvation
of
the
antiphysical to the
metaphysical on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching
from the
southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass,
will
happen, if it happens at all, at the expense of the counter-damnation
of the
chemical to the antimetachemical in like-diagonally-rising fashion,
since if
males are to be saved to gender sync in free psyche and bound soma,
females
must be counter-damned to free psyche and bound soma under
unequivocally male
hegemonic pressures at the northeast point of the said compass, falling
in
under metaphysics as the aforementioned antimetachemical who, from a
female
standpoint, will be at cross-purposes with their gender actuality (of
soma
preceding and predominating over psyche) and accordingly damned, albeit
in this
instance in ‘pseudo’ terms under genuine salvation.
Thus the salvation of males presupposes the
counter-damnation of females. But this
is not the act of God. On the contrary,
it falls under the responsibility of the Antidevil, His
antimetachemical
counterpart, whose duty it is to uphold the position of
counter-damnation in
parallel with God’s commitment to salvation.
Thus it is not God who damns or, rather, counter-damns the
chemical to
antimetachemistry, since his principal concern will be to save the
antiphysical
to metaphysics. Counter-damnation
follows on the heels of the salvation of the antiphysical to
metaphysics as the
pseudo-just destiny of the chemical, and is therefore germane to an
axial
position, viz. antimetachemistry, that is characterized by the
Antidevil. For females take care of
females no less than
males of males in these matters.
However, should salvation and counter-damnation of the
respective
genders be carried out to a conclusively metaphysical and
antimetachemical
degree, such that would eventually imply their transfiguration to the
godly and
antidevilish positions at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, then the consequences for the undamned and counter-unsaved of
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis would be damnation and
counter-salvation respectively. For the
metachemical undamned and the antimetaphysical counter-unsaved would
not be
able to commercially or culturally prey upon the chemical
counter-undamned and
the antiphysical unsaved if the latter were not there to be preyed upon
but had
been counter-damned and saved to the antimetachemical and metaphysical
options
which were germane to their church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. And without prey to avail of, the predatory
undamned and counter-unsaved would not be of much use to their
financial
backers at the southeast point of the axis in question, whose
antichemically
damned and physically counter-saved positions only really make axial
sense in
relation to their polar counterparts at the northwest point of the same
axis. So it is likely that, without prey
at the southwest point of the overall axial compass to culturally
exploit,
these commercial backers would cut their losses and accept the
inevitable;
accept, that is, the collapse of the metachemical undamned and the
antimetaphysical counter-unsaved down the axis into positions, once
they had be
‘made over’ in their own image, corresponding to damnation and
counter-salvation. Thus with the
collapse of the northwest point into the southeast point of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis the undamned would experience
damnation
and the counter-unsaved experience counter-salvation, indirectly, in
each case,
in consequence of the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and
of the
counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry.
Therefore it could be argued that God is not only
indirectly responsible for counter-damning the chemical to
metachemistry
vis-à-vis the more direct responsibility of the Antidevil in that
respect, but
that the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry by the
Antidevil will be responsible, across the axial divide, for the
collapse of the
metachemical down into antichemistry, while the salvation of the
antiphysical
to metaphysics in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms will
be no
less responsible, where the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate are
concerned,
for the collapse of the antimetaphysical down into physics, where they
will be
‘made over’ as counter-saved counterparts to the damned.
Thus it can be argued that God is axially
indirectly responsible for the counter-salvation of the
counter-unsaved, while
his antimetachemical counterpart, the Antidevil, is axially indirectly
responsible for the damnation of the undamned.
For salvation is the prerogative of God and counter-damnation
the
prerogative of the Antidevil. Damnation
from metachemical undamnation to antichemical damnation is the
prerogative, on
the contrary, of Antiwoman, while counter-salvation from
antimetaphysical
counter-unsalvation to physical salvation is the prerogative of
FROM
PHENOMENAL
PARTICLE
COLLECTIVITY
TO
NOUMENAL WAVICLE INDIVIDUALITY. Saving
and counter-damning (according to gender) from the southwest to the
northeast
point of the intercardinal axial compass is, in effect, to deliver from
a
context dominated, in its phenomenal relativity, by particle
collectivity to
one led, in noumenal absolutism, by wavicle individuality, which is to
say, by
a wavicle cohesiveness that owes more to male subjectivity in
metaphysics than
to female objectivity in chemistry, and is correspondingly of the Few
as
opposed to the Many on what has previously been described as the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis. For in this southwest/northeast
distinction between the phenomenal Many and the noumenal Few, we have a
parallel, after all, with the class and elemental distinction between
relativity and absolutism, collectivity and individuality, particles
and
wavicles, the temporal and the eternal.
But that is still to put it in general terms.
Each context, or point of the said axis, is
divisible between male and female elements, more specifically in terms
of the
chemical femaleness (feminine) of the volumetric hegemony of the
purgatorial
over the antiphysical maleness (antimasculine) of the massed
anti-earthly, in
which psyche is bound to free soma in reflection of the female
dominance which,
according with soma preceding and predominating over psyche, ensures
that males
are upended in such fashion as to be at cross-purposes with their
gender
actuality (of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma). Consequently, even with church-hegemonic
criteria,
males are fated, in the phenomenal relativity of their
antisubjectivity, to be
psychically bound to a free soma in antiphysics that owes much if not
everything to the equivocal hegemony of chemical free soma and bound
psyche,
its female counterpart. They are sinful
and foolish where their gender counterparts are pseudo-criminal and
pseudo-evil; though such sin and folly can easily find itself reversed
in
relation to quasi-state-hegemonic criteria which have the effect of
putting
soma before psyche in heathenistic vein, thereby causing the emphasis
to fall
not on bound psyche but on free soma.
However that may be – and the contemporary Irish situation, for
example,
is nothing if not quasi-state-hegemonic in its paradoxical deference to
the
metachemical and antimetaphysical manifestations of somatic licence
which hail,
in mostly American terms, from the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass (and thus in effect from the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis) –
the hypothetical return, at some future time, to the possibility of a
new order
of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria will require that
the Many
be saved and counter-damned (according to gender) to the Few, in the
sense that
they will gradually be transfigured or transmuted or even transposed
from the
collectivistic relativity, rooted in free particles and bound wavicles
on both
antiphysical and chemical terms, of phenomenal antisubjectivity and
phenomenal
objectivity to the individualistic absolutism of the noumenal
subjectivity and
noumenal anti-objectivity of that which is centred in free wavicles and
bound
particles on both metaphysical and antimetachemical terms, as germane
to the
northeast point of the axial compass.
Their transmutation, although gradual, will signify the
overcoming of
the phenomenal, in this case anti-omega worldly (antiphysical) and
alpha
worldly (chemical) by and through their noumenal elevation to
otherworldly
(metaphysical) and anti-netherworldly (antimetachemical) positions such
that
will accord with divine and antidiabolic requirement in ‘Kingdom Come’,
that
context, necessarily germane to the northeast point of the axis in
question,
which will be characterized by religious sovereignty, as of a
religiously
sovereign ‘people’ in the event of a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty
in elections no less paradoxical than that which currently prevails in
quasi-state-hegemonic vein compliments of the Americanization of
contemporary life in the wake of such relaxing of the ties between
church and
state as transpired in consequence of the Irish freedom struggles
against
English imperialism. Thus from a
uniquely indigenous and Western form of secularism Ireland, like
certain other
countries of a Catholic tradition, was to regress to a type of
secularism that
owes more to American commercial and cultural influence than ever it
does to
radical republicanism, and which is therefore symptomatic of the
contemporary
situation as germane to global – as opposed to Western – criteria. Only a counter-paradoxical exploitation of
this predicament can hope to restore to the Irish people – and, by
extrapolation, others like them – the prospect of renewed
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, in which the possibility
of
deliverance from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial
compass will
once more become feasible, only this time on a much more radical and
revolutionary basis, under Social Theocracy, than anything
corresponding to
their Catholic traditions such that would gradually transform them from
antimen
and women or, in the contemporary secular context, pseudo-antimen and
pseudo-women into gods and antidevils, the more so as communal
cyborgization
ensued upon any individual cyborgization possibly more typifying the
leaders
than the masses generally, and thus resulted in their transformation
from what
could be called antiwavicle anti-individuality (antiphysical) and
particle
collectivity (chemical) to wavicle individuality (metaphysical) and
antiparticle anticollectivity (antimetachemical), in response to
ongoing
centro-complexification with respect to the noumenal contexts of
wavicle
subjectivity and antiparticle anti-objectivity.
For, ultimately, the Many will not be differentiated from the
Few, the
way parishioners are from their priests, but will even overhaul the
pioneering
Few of a Social Theocratic disposition in terms of the communalization
of
cyborgization in response to technological necessity and, more
importantly, in
consequence of the rights of a religiously sovereign ‘people’ to
self-realization in relation to a variety, according with gender, of
synthetically artificial stimulants intended to facilitate inner-light
enlightenment and thus keep them in a contrary position - sensible
as
opposed to sensual, free wavicle as opposed to free particle, omega as
opposed
to alpha - from how they had been before, a position according, in
Christian
terminology, with the concept of ‘rebirth’, or transposition from
sensual to
sensible, collectivity to individuality, objectivity to subjectivity
(again in
general terms), which would thus constitute a rejection and refutation
of the
heathenism of cultures subordinated to and victimized by the moral
blindness
that hails from the outer light, including, be it not forgotten, the
contemporary mode of outer light par
excellence which, hailing from cameras, more usually takes
a photographic and/or
filmic guise in keeping with cyborgization of a sensual bias within a
culture
that is both global and if not exactly universal and antipolyversal,
then
polyversal and anti-universal in the extent to which it is beholden to
the
particle collectivity of noumenal objectivity and the antiwavicle
anti-individuality of noumenal antisubjectivity, which is to say, to
the
dominance of the metachemical and antimetaphysical Few.
Only when the wavicle individuality of
noumenal subjectivity and the antiparticle anticollectivity of noumenal
anti-objectivity are metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant
over this
metachemical and antimetaphysical mode of globalization, a mode,
incidentally,
which is axially aligned with the antichemical and physical Many, will
globalization have achieved that ‘rebirth’ which is commensurate with
genuine
culture and pseudo-civility and, thus, with the triumph of godly and
antidevilish values for all eternity and anti-infinity, righteousness
and
pseudo-justice without end. For until
the antiphysical Many are radically saved to the metaphysical Few and
the
chemical Many radically counter-damned to the antimetachemical Few, the
metachemical and antimetaphysical Few will not be damned and
counter-saved to
the antichemical and physical Many or, more correctly, to their
latter-day
‘pseudo’ counterparts, but will continue to ride roughshod over those
at the
southwest point of the axial compass whose own post-worldly status is
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical in consequence of their
quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the more elevated metachemical and
antimetaphysical criteria which correspond to the
contemporary modes
of devilishness and antigodliness par excellence. Yet even this contemporary,
camera-based mode of devilishness is in the long metachemical tradition
of
Devil the Mother hyped as God, and will therefore often assume godly
airs
irrespective of the fact that it is as far removed from godliness, and
hence
metaphysics, as it is possible to be.
And that is enough reason – even without the correlative ‘doing
down’ of
the Antigodly as devil - why the
genuinely godly should be of a mind, in conjunction with their female
counterparts, the Antidevilish, to expose this lie and work to bring it
to
justice, which is to say, to antichemical damnation (with the
simultaneous
physical counter-salvation of the antimetaphysical to
pseudo-righteousness the
male gender corollary of female damnation) in the event of the collapse
of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria for want of chemical
and
antiphysical prey at the southwest point of the axial compass. Verily, it will be our duty, as godly and
antidevilish individuals, to remove the prey from its predators and
thereby put
an end to its exploitation at the hands of those whose somatic freedom
and
psychic binding is at noumenal variance with our own psychic freedom
and
somatic binding, and therefore primarily constitutive not of
individuality in
relation to the Few but of collectivity in relation to the Few. For the supreme
individuality will not succeed until the primal collectivity is
vanquished and,
with it, the antisupreme anti-individuality which is the hallmark of
the
antimetaphysical ‘fall guy for slag’.
But for the supreme individuality to succeed, the antiprimal
anticollectivity of antimetachemistry will have to have been
established as the
subordinate partner, for ever after, of the metaphysical hegemony,
necessarily
unequivocal, of the godly, as of God.
Without the Antidevil, God cannot succeed. With
the
Antidevil,
God
can bring salvation
to the pseudo-antimanly and, via the Antidevil, counter-damnation to
the
pseudo-womanly, two orders of deliverance from pseudo-worldly
limitation which,
if thoroughgoing, will indirectly bring pseudo-manly counter-salvation
to the
Antigodly and pseudo-antiwomanly damnation to the Devilish, pending
further
axial transformations in the longer term.
CONTRASTING
OBJECTIVITY
WITH
ANTISUBJECTIVITY
AND
SUBJECTIVITY WITH ANTI-OBJECTIVITY IN NOUMENAL AND
PHENOMENAL CONTEXTS. To contrast the noumenal objectivity of
Space, i.e. spatial space, with the noumenal antisubjectivity of
Antitime, i.e.
sequential time, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
where metachemistry is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetaphysics; to
contrast the phenomenal subjectivity of Mass, i.e. massive mass, with
the
phenomenal anti-objectivity of Antivolume, i.e. voluminous volume, at
the
southeast point of the said compass, where physics is equivocally
hegemonic
over – though subverted to somatic emphasis by its subordinate
complement
acting in conjunction with metachemistry
– antichemistry; to contrast the phenomenal objectivity of Volume, i.e.
volumetric volume, with the phenomenal antisubjectivity of Antimass,
i.e.
massed mass, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass,
where
chemistry is equivocally hegemonic over – though subverted to psychic
emphasis
by its subordinate complement acting in conjunction with metaphysics –
antiphysics;
to contrast, finally, the noumenal subjectivity of Time, i.e.
repetitive time,
with the noumenal anti-objectivity of Antispace, i.e. spaced space, at
the
northeast point of the said compass, where metaphysics is unequivocally
hegemonic over antimetachemistry. Thus
an axial antithesis between the noumenal objectivity of Space and the
phenomenal anti-objectivity of Antivolume coupled to the noumenal
antisubjectivity of Antitime and the phenomenal subjectivity of Mass on
the one
hand, that of state-hegemonic/church subordinate axial criteria, where
metachemistry and antichemistry form female polarities as against the
male
polarities of antimetaphysics and physics; and, contrariwise, an axial
antithesis between the phenomenal antisubjectivity of Antivolume and
the
noumenal subjectivity of Time coupled to the phenomenal objectivity of
Volume
and the noumenal anti-objectivity of Antispace on the other hand, that
of
church-hegemonic/state subordinate axial criteria, where antiphysics
and
metaphysics form male polarities as against the female polarities of
chemistry
and antimetachemistry. Strictly
speaking, we have a logical right to describe antimetaphysics as
antimale in an
antidivine way and antichemistry as antifemale in an antifeminine way,
while
reserving to antiphysics and antimetachemistry the distinction between
an
antimasculine mode of antimaleness and an antidiabolic mode of
antifemaleness. For that which is ‘anti’, whether in sensuality or in
sensibility, is
contrary to its male or female counterpart.
Hence the noumenal antisubjectivity of
antimetaphysics is axially contrary to the noumenal subjectivity of
metaphysics
as antidivine antimaleness to divine maleness; hence the phenomenal
antisubjectivity of antiphysics is axially contrary to the phenomenal
subjectivity of physics as antimasculine antimaleness to masculine
maleness;
hence, by gender contrast, the phenomenal anti-objectivity of
antichemistry is
axially contrary to the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry as
antifeminine
antifemaleness to feminine femaleness; hence, finally, the noumenal
anti-objectivity antimetachemistry is axially contrary to the noumenal
objectivity of metachemistry as antidiabolic antifemaleness to diabolic
femaleness. This, believe it or not, is
how things add up, and it would indicate that the axial interdependence
and
interrelativity of worldly societies is more complicated than a simple
humanistic reductionism would suggest.
As, for that matter is the reversal of worldly criteria in a
post-worldly age or stage of civilization, where not the ‘below’ but
the
‘above’ call the shots, whether for worse, as in relation to the
netherworldly/anti-otherworldly northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, or for better, hopefully in times to come with a resurrected
northeast
point commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ and, hence, with more genuine
otherworldly/anti-netherworldly criteria relative to a universal
(divine
male)/antipolyversal (antidiabolic antifemale) stage of globalization,
when not
metachemistry and antimetaphysics but metaphysics and antimetachemistry
will
determine the fate of everything else, not least those entitled to
deliverance
from antiphysical antisubjectivity and chemical objectivity in the
forms,
according with gender, of salvation and counter-damnation.
ENVISIONING
THE
SUPRA-CHRISTIAN
BEYOND. Henry Miller
had a phrase about reaching for
his revolver when he heard such-and-such a thing that he took an
immediate
dislike to, and I have to say there are religious expressions that come
close to
exciting a similar response in me, if only because they are so patently
false
and lying. Take the expression, so often
used by Irish Catholics, about ‘Holy Mary Mother of God’.
It sounds innocent on the surface of it, but
the more you think about it the more you come to realize that it is
doubly
wrong – wrong about holiness in connection with a female and wrong
about
God. Anyone familiar with my philosophy
and indeed my teachings will know well enough by now that the only
relevant
term to use with the concept of ‘Mother’ is ‘clear’, since the female
can be
either clear or unclear depending whether she is in a sensually
hegemonic
position, as in metachemistry and chemistry, or in a sensibly
subordinate
position, as in antimetachemistry and antichemistry, the former options
being
hegemonic over antimetaphysics and antiphysics, the latter ones
subordinate to
metaphysics and physics. Thus there is
no way in which either Devil the Mother in the one case or Woman the
Mother in
the other case can be other than clear, having intimate associations
with Hell
the Clear Spirit in the metachemical context and Purgatory the Clear
Spirit in
the chemical one. The Virgin Mary, being
germane to Christianity, is more to be associated with Woman the Mother
in
phenomenal sensuality than with Devil the Mother in noumenal
sensuality, and
therefore we should have little doubt that her position, in chemistry
over
antiphysics, is such as to guarantee her a degree of purgatorial
clearness at
the expense of such anti-earthly unholiness as must typify, in psychic
sin and
somatic folly, her male or, rather, antimale counterpart, whom we can
identify,
in traditional worldly terms, with the phenomenal mode of antison in
free soma
and antifather in bound psyche, which is to say, with antiman under
woman. Granted, then, that the Virgin has
nothing to
do with holiness, how much does her son have to do with God? The answer to that question must be: that he
is less God than the so-called Son of God at best and, at worst, the
Antison of
Antigod who is really a mere extrapolation from what, in the alpha-most
anterior context of things, has been identified, falsely, with the
Father,
being rather more germane to the metachemical context of Devil the
Mother hyped
as God (the Father). Thus even as
Antison, Christ or, more correctly, the Antichrist is merely an
extrapolation
from Devil the Mother hyped as God on the plane of antimetaphysics and
an
extrapolation from Woman the Mother hyped as holy on the plane of
antiphysics.
The only way in which Christ gets to be either Son of Man (phenomenal)
or Son
of God (noumenal), is in rejection of the Mother through hegemonic
sensibility,
since such terms have a limited applicability to both physics and
metaphysics,
albeit not as mere sensual extrapolations from anterior sensual
positions in
metachemistry and/or chemistry, but as contrary positions to anything
sensual
and thus subordinate to either Devil the Mother or Woman the Mother. But even the Christ independent of Woman the
Mother in post-resurrectional transcendence of the world is not really
Son of
God (the Father), but a more elevated and in some sense linear
extrapolation
from Devil the Mother hyped as God, since there is no God the Father in
metaphysics for the Christian so-called God but simply a want of
free-psychic
metaphysics by dint of the extent to which the metachemical alpha acts
as
anchor or root to a mere worldly extrapolation which cannot be anything
other
than ‘Son’ to a so-called Father which, in the Christian context,
becomes sort
of constitutional rather than autocratically absolutist (Jehovah) in
the
interests of this linear extrapolation which has been identified with
the
concept ‘Son of God’, the rightful fulcrum of Christian devotion. Christianity, by dint of this limitation, can
never transcend the Son in relation to metaphysics, since that is the
be-all-and-end-all of Christianity, and therefore such transcendence as
it does
uphold is merely somatic in relation to the paradigm for bound soma of
the
Crucifixion. Thus the Crucified ‘On
High’ is still merely ‘Son’, is a cart not merely put before a horse
but to the
exclusion of the relevant horse, the horse, so to speak, that would
have to
precede it in metaphysical free psyche as the Word that made the bound
soma of
the Son truly possible. No such Father
exists in Christianity for the simple reason that Devil the Mother
hyped as God
(the Father) continues to exist, Old Testament-wise, as root concept of
God and
to hold the Son accountable to itself as a mere linear extrapolation
when it is
not, as has already been demonstrated, simply an Antichristic ‘fall
guy’. Christianity does not allow for
metaphysical
freedom in God the Father, and therefore it always falls short of
‘Kingdom
Come’ by dint of being a worldly extrapolation from the alpha-most mode
of
Devil the Mother, the cosmic mode that the Hebrews contrived to think
of in
monotheistic terms but always, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding,
as a
continuation of the Middle Eastern tradition, conditioned by
environmental factors,
of stellar and solar domination of life to the effective exclusion of
sensibility, whether cosmically – not least in respect of those Roman
acknowledgements of Jupiter and Saturn which owed more to European
sensibility
– or naturally, as in relation to winged seedpods on trees of a
sufficient
stature as to qualify for metaphysical association.
Beyond nature, such a civilization did not
venture at all; for that would have implied a New Testament – and hence
Christian
– transcendence of the Old Testament, as germane to mankind as the next
stage
of religious culture, one necessarily more European than Middle Eastern. But even Christianity was tied, as we have
seen, to the Old Testament, and therefore constrained to a mere
Son-like
extrapolation from a so-called Father which doesn’t amount to anything
more
than a pseudo-otherworldly extrapolation from – and effective
repudiation of -
netherworldly primacy, i.e. Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father),
in the
Catholic case and more than a sensibly worldly extrapolation from - and effective repudiation of - Woman the
Mother hyped as holy in the Puritan case, notwithstanding the greater
part
played by the so-called Father in the case of Anglicanism.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on
your viewpoint, God the Father can only be achieved independently of
Devil the
Mother, and therefore as a rejection and absolute repudiation of all
alpha-stemming criteria, whether of the Mother or the Antison, not to
mention,
on linear terms, of the so-called Son.
Godliness, in this ultimate sense, a sense which only the
cyborgization
of life in tandem with the use of synthetically artificial stimulants
to
enlightenment can properly establish, and then following a majority
mandate for
religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections that would effectively
put an
end to worldly limitations – and hence the world – in the event of
judgement
favouring religious sovereignty, has nothing whatsoever to do with
Creatorism
in relation to Devil the Mother hyped as God, but stands, whether
provisionally
through the internet-oriented cyborg-like Word or practically and
eternally
through metaphysical praxis thereafter, at the furthest possible remove
from
anything metachemical. Doubtless those who
most adhere to Devil the Mother hyped as God, which is to say all who
slavishly
adhere to the Bible, will find pretexts to deprecate this independent
position,
just as they have always deprecated what is either beneath them or
contrary to
them from a standpoint rooted in the utmost sanctimonious hypocrisy and
cant. Does not the Antigod of both
Antigod the Antifather in antimetaphysical bound psyche and,
especially, the
Antison of Antigod in antimetaphysical free soma get slagged off as the
Devil,
as Satan, the antimetaphysical form of Antichrist?
And yet the real devil, notwithstanding the
deprecation of Antiman the Antifather and Antiman the Antison in such
terms,
exists hegemonically over it as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the
Father) and
is the root, in metachemical free will and spirit, of all that is most
evil in
life. If there is a significant gender
distinction between Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil
(for we
have to consider what is effectively church-subordinate bound
metachemical
psyche as well as its state-hegemonic free somatic counterpart) and the
Antison
of Antigod and/or Antigod the Antifather, how much more significant is
the
wider distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, between Devil
the
Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil and God the Father and/or the
Son of
God, the latter of whom can only have meaningful existence in relation
to that
metaphysical free psyche which is commensurate with His Father as the
psyche
preceding soma of male gender actuality, whether on the absolute basis
of a 3:1
ratio in metaphysics or on the relative basis, germane to phenomenal
temporality, of a 2½:1½ ratio in physics, the context not of God but of
Man,
not of God the Father and/or the Son of God, but of Man the Father
and/or the
Son of Man, the actual New Testament Christ who stands sensibly apart
from any
so-called ‘Holy Mother of God’ just as he stands sensibly over his
antichemical
antifemale counterpart in the Antidaughter of Antiwoman and/or
Antiwoman the
Antimother, neither of which antifeminine positions (corresponding,
after all,
to free psyche and bound soma) could be other than unclear under what
remains,
despite its phenomenal limitations, a holy hegemony of the masculine
male. But even that hegemony, merely
equivocal in
character, is subject to subversion to the extent that it becomes more
a
context of bound somatic emphasis in the Son of Man than of free
psychic
emphasis in Man the Father, and all because axial continuity and
consistency on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms requires a polarity between
metachemistry and antichemistry, as between evil and good where the
free soma
of the one and the bound soma of the other, corresponding to primary
state-hegemonic criteria, are concerned, and between crime and
punishment where
the bound psyche of the one and the free psyche of the other,
corresponding to
primary church-subordinate criteria, are concerned, neither of which
have
anything male about them but, on the contrary, remain indicative of the
extent
to which state-hegemonic society, rooted in metachemical free soma, is
always
female-dominated, with but secondary male positions in the polarity
between
antimetaphysics and physics, whether in relation to the State, where
the
somatic antithesis is rather more between pseudo-folly and
pseudo-wisdom, or in
relation to the Church, where the psychic antithesis is rather more
between
pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace, the consequence of which, in phenomenal
sensibility, is a pseudo-righteousness which is only equivocally
hegemonic over
genuine justice as far as the antichemical attachment to goodness and
punishment, bound soma and free psyche, is concerned.
Obviously I am not an apologist for Man, with
his subverted physics axially obliging him to take second place,
overall, to
the metachemical-to-antichemical polarity of his female counterparts,
and
therefore I do not place much store by the secondary state-hegemonic
bound
somatic emphasis upon the concept ‘Son of Man’ which tends to typify
the
physical hegemony in relation, logically enough, to its primary
state-hegemonic
counterpart ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’, the focus, after all, of
goodness in
antichemical bound soma, and the voluminous base of subversion, through
antivolume, of massive mass, the form of mass per se.
And as the reader will have realized, neither
am I an apologist for anything clear and unholy across the axial
divide, even
if such unholiness in antimale antiphysics and clearness in female
chemistry,
corresponding on their respective phenomenal planes to antimass (massed mass) and volume (volumetric volume),
are preconditions, in post-worldly pseudo terms, of genuine salvation
to male
metaphysics and genuine counter-damnation to antifemale
antimetachemistry, as
to time (repetitive time) and antispace (spaced space), the holiness
and
unclearness of which is commensurate with godliness and
antidevilishness, and
thus with ‘Kingdom Come’; though that, as we have seen, will require a
series
of paradoxical elections if the possibility of a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty and its rights – the right, above all, to synthetically
artificial
enlightenment rendered viable, long-term, on a cyborg foundation to be
thought
of rather more in connection with the Son of God than with God the
Father and,
hence, with the Holy Spirit of Heaven than with Heaven the Holy Soul
for
metaphysical males and with Antidevil the Antimother than with the
Antidaughter
of the Antidevil and, hence, Antihell the Unclear Spirit rather than
the
Unclear Soul of Antihell for antimetachemical females – are to
materialize officially
and, eventually, institutionally. But it
will not just be the ‘free for’ but also the ‘free from’ that will have
to be
addressed at such a critical and revolutionary time, and here we are of
course
alluding to the need for the then-relevant authorities, in the event of
a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty transpiring, to remove all
religiously and culturally anachronistic obstacles to the development
of a
religiously sovereign people or, rather, supra-humanity earmarked for
godly and
antidevilish transfiguration, in order that they may be able to pursue
their
divine and antidiabolic courses in metaphysics and antimetachemistry
without
hindrance or detraction from those who would continue to identify God,
contrary
to all logical reason, with Devil the Mother and, hence, metachemical
primacy. The Bible, rooted as it is in
Old Testament fundamentalism or, more correctly, materialism in
relation to
metachemical free soma and fundamentalism in relation to metachemical
bound
psyche, the evil of the one complementary to the criminality of the
other, will
have to be officially consigned to the rubbish heap of history, and
this is
something that the relevant authorities, which I have tended to
identify all
along with Social Theocracy, will have to take care off in the
religiously
sovereign people’s best interests, in order that all traces of
Creatorism, of
alpha-stemming or alpha-oriented devilishness, with its immoral
fixation on
the concept ‘Almighty’ and hence, brute cosmic power, may be rejected
and
repudiated, never again to pass muster as godliness from a standpoint
axially
antithetical to God. The day of the
reckoning with Devil the Mother in metachemistry and Woman the Mother
in
chemistry has still to come, but you can rest assured that when it does
eventually come through the Grace of God there will be no more Antigods
or
Antimen under their freely somatic heel and no more possibility of
clearness
being hyped as holy at the expense of an unholy ‘fall guy’ done down as
devil. Clearness, like unholiness, will be
a thing
of the past; for only holiness and unclearness will prevail, and the
more they
do so, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the greater will be the
prospect
of all that is metachemical and antimetaphysical being axially brought
down to
a pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical judgement which will
determine
whether those already pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical, in
post-worldly
vein, can be swivelled across from their position at the southeast of
the
intercardinal axial compass to the southwest foot of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and be made over in the
pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical images of those whose salvation
and
counter-damnation had already taken place, thus precipitating the
collapse of
the other axis which it is the will of godliness and antidevilishness
to
destroy in the wake of the overcoming of the world or, rather, of that
segment
of the contemporary pseudo-world which can be identified, in lapsed
Catholic
vein, with pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics.
For only the systematic overhaul of our own
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, now lamentably quasi-state
hegemonic
in pseudo-worldly deference to netherworldly-dominated somatic licence,
can
guarantee more genuine orders of salvation and counter-damnation
necessary to
the undoing of that axis whose secular exploitations are the bitter
fruit of
schismatic heresy. Without Social
Theocracy there can be no ‘Kingdom Come’ of a religiously sovereign
supra-humanity whose willingness to have their worldly shortcomings
overcome
will attest to their godly and antidevilish resolve.
UNDERSTANDING
THE
CONTRARY
MODES
OF
NOUMENAL SALUTING. If there is a mode of saluting – and I guess
most ideologies have salutes of one sort or another – germane to Social
Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism (for the terms are both
loosely
interchangeable and indicative of a state/church dichotomy within the
Centre,
our projected ideological context of a religiously sovereign people),
it is
that which exemplifies life in noumenal subjectivity and noumenal
anti-objectivity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass – in
short, that which is illustrative of a metaphysical and an
antimetachemical
orientation. I can think of none better,
for this purpose, than a clenched fist on a loosely bent arm that is
raised and
capable of rotating the fist backwards and forwards in due curvilinear
fashion,
the arm and fist being gently turned towards the person in confirmation
of a
subjective orientation that should leave one in no doubt that
metaphysical
transcendentalism and/or idealism is the allegiance being upheld. But this noumenally subjective mode of Social
Theocratic and/or Social Transcendentalist saluting should be
differentiated,
as metaphysics from antimetachemistry, from its female or, more
correctly,
antifemale complement, which should have reference to an open-handed
salute on
a loosely bent arm the angle of which is likewise, as with the male,
gently
turned towards the person and therefore in no way fascist.
For fascist open-handed saluting is of course
conducted on a straight raised arm the hand of which points away from
the
person in due noumenally objective vein, symptomatic of a metachemical
allegiance germane to the unequivocally hegemonic position at the
northwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass and therefore as far removed
from
metaphysical godliness, not to mention antimetachemical
antidevilishness, as it
is possible to be. The squareness, so to
speak, of the typical raised arm fascist salute is indicative of the
barbarism
of Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil hyped as God on a
contemporary, or post-worldly and even global, basis, and where
metachemistry
vainly parades its noumenal objectivity one will invariably find
antimetaphysics pseudo-meekly parading its noumenal antisubjectivity in
terms
of a raised-arm salute the clenched fist of which likewise points away
from the
person in due subjectivity-defying upended male fashion, the fashion,
in other
words, of the antidivine antimale, the devotee of the Antison of
Antigod in
free soma and of Antigod the Antifather in bound psyche, under the
hegemonic
pressure of the diabolic female. Thus
neither the outright squareness of the one nor the twisted and upended
‘hipness’
of the other, the former fascist and the latter communist, are of any
saluting
relevance to Social Theocracy, since symptomatic of all that is rooted
in or
subordinate to metachemical barbarism and therefore contrary to the
metaphysical culture of a godly resolve.
We Social Theocrats should be careful to preserve, according to
gender,
both clenched-fist and open-handed saluting in relation to a loosely
bent arm
that is capable of metaphysically graceful/wise and antimetachemically
pseudo-punishing/good curvilinear movement in defence of noumenal
subjectivity
and noumenal anti-objectivity. This is
the hipness that unabashedly stands apart from and contrary to all
squareness,
and therefore it is fitting that its principal mode of gestural
exemplification, germane to noumenal subjectivity, should take a
clenched-fist
form for males and its subordinate mode of gestural exemplification,
germane to
noumenal anti-objectivity, an open-hand form for antifemales, whose
palm will,
like the fist of their male counterparts, be gently facing back towards
the
person on an arm which is not indisposed to some degree, varying with
the
individual, of oscillatory movement.
Thus do we radically distinguish ourselves from all that is
fascist and
communist, since we Centrists, in that special Social Theocratic and/or
Transcendentalist sense in which I normally employ that term, are heirs
to a
liberal order of totalitarianism which respects both male and
antifemale
positions and stands in marked contrast to all that would
autocratically set
the one gender at the throat of the other in the interests of total
female
domination of society to the lasting detriment if not effective
exclusion of
anything else.
EXAMINING
THE
NOUMENAL
ANTITHESIS
BETWEEN
SPACE AND TIME AND THE PHENOMENAL ANTITHESIS BETWEEN VOLUME AND
MASS
TOGETHER WITH THEIR SUBORDINATE CONCOMITANTS. To
contrast the power of space with the contentment of time, and the glory
of
volume with the form of mass, as one would contrast the noumenal
objectivity of
spatial Space with the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive Time on the
one
hand, that of the absolute antithesis between devilishness and
godliness,
and the phenomenal objectivity of volumetric Volume with the phenomenal
subjectivity of massive Mass on the other hand, that of
the relative
antithesis between womanliness and manliness.
But under the power of space in metachemistry at the northwest
point of
the intercardinal axial compass lies the anticontentment of antitime in
antimetaphysics,
while under the contentment of time in metaphysics at the northeast
point of
the said compass stands the antipower of antispace in
antimetachemistry, the
former the antidivine complement to diabolism, the latter the
antidiabolic
complement to divinity. Likewise, under
the glory of volume in chemistry at the southwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass lies the antiform of antimass in antiphysics, while under
the
form of mass in physics at the southeast point of the said compass
stands the
antiglory of antivolume in antichemistry, the former the antimasculine
complement to femininity and the latter the antifeminine complement to
masculinity. Thus under spatial Space
lies sequential Time, the mode of antitime, while under repetitive Time
stands
spaced Space, the mode of antispace. Similarly,
if
phenomenally
lower
down,
under volumetric Volume lies massed Mass, the
mode
of antimass, while under massive Mass stands voluminous Volume, the
mode of
antivolume. Consequently we may speak of
a primary noumenal antithesis between Space and Time, diabolic
objectivity and
divine subjectivity, and of a secondary noumenal antithesis between
Antitime
and Antispace, antidivine antisubjectivity and antidiabolic
anti-objectivity,
the primary antithesis (of the respective unequivocally hegemonic
elements)
being between Power and Contentment, as between the Devil (Devil the
Mother)
and God (God the Father), the secondary antithesis (of the respective
unequivocally subordinate elements) between Anticontentment and
Antipower, as
between Antigod (Antigod the Antifather) and the Antidevil (Antidevil
the
Antimother), to take the more representative gender aspects of each
secondary
element (bound psyche in the former case, bound soma in the latter). Likewise we may speak of a primary phenomenal
antithesis between Volume and Mass, feminine objectivity and masculine
subjectivity, and of a secondary phenomenal antithesis between Antimass
and
Antivolume, antimasculine antisubjectivity and antifeminine
anti-objectivity,
the primary antithesis (of the respective equivocally hegemonic
elements) being
between Glory and Form, as between Woman (Woman the Mother) and Man
(Man the
Father), the secondary antithesis (of the respective equivocally
subordinate
elements) between Antiform and Antiglory, as between Antiman (Antiman
the
Antifather) and Antiwoman (Antiwoman the Antimother), to take, once
again, the
more representative gender aspects of each secondary element (bound
psyche in
the former case, bound soma in the latter).
Metachemical power takes place no less in connection with Space
than
metaphysical contentment in connection with Time, while chemical glory
takes
place no less in connection with Volume than physical form in
connection with
MORE
ON
THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
CULTURE AND CIVILITY IN BOTH NOUMENAL AND PHENOMENAL CONTEXTS. One has
to distinguish, whether people like it or not, between genuine culture
and
pseudo-civility, the respective attributes of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and
pseudo-culture
and genuine civility, the respective attributes of physics and
antichemistry at
the southeast point of the said compass. For not only are these
pairings
distinct from each other, but they appertain to two diametrically
antithetical
axes, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis that also embraces,
at its
southwest point, chemistry and antiphysics, or pseudo-barbarity and
genuine
philistinism, and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that also
embraces, at its northwest point, metachemistry and antimetaphysics,
barbarity
and pseudo-philistinism. That said, it should be evident that a
polarity
between philistinism and culture on the one hand, and pseudo-barbarity
and
pseudo-civility on the other should not be confounded with the polarity
between
barbarity and civility on the one hand, and pseudo-philistinism and
pseudo-culture
on the other. The polarities of each axis are as distinct as
their
respective components, and that is why they rarely or never see
eye-to-eye, as
it were, across the axial divide but remain symptomatic of ethnic
incompatibility and rivalry. But pseudo-culture and civility (the
genuine
article) are no less guilty of hyping the pseudo-cultural element to
the
standing of genuine culture than they are of hyping Man to the standing
of
God. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your standpoint,
there is
all the axial difference in the world - and even above it - between
these two
superficially parallel but diametrically incompatible elements.
Pseudo-culture is not and never has been or ever will be genuinely
cultural,
but the worldly opponent of such culture that puts commercial
considerations
above the truth or, at the very least, the artist's endeavour to be as
sincere
and honest in his pursuance of self-enlightenment, of self-discovery,
as he
possibly can be. No one who has been published in book form on
the basis
of commercial expedience or in relation to commercial sense is or ever
can be a
genuine artist, a purveyor of genuine culture. Books are
illustrative of
pseudo-culture in the pocket of civility and are axially beholden to
pseudo-philistinism
in the pocket (hegemonically speaking) of barbarity, which usually
takes the
form of a garish illustration. They are no more expressive of
genuine
culture (coupled to pseudo-civility) than Man is expressive of
God. And
by 'God' I do not mean Devil the Mother hyped as God (in
metachemistry), but
the genuine metaphysical article, which is God the Father in
metaphysical free
psyche and the Son of God in metaphysical bound soma. The Son of
Man,
which is the more prevalent take on humanism, is not even on the
physically
free-psychic level of Man the Father, an almost unheard of term.
But he
is still hyped nonetheless, like the bullshit that passes for truth but
is
really the strength co-opted knowledge of physics when it is not, like
antimetaphysics,
the illusory servant of metachemical ugliness, serving merely to
blurb-up the
garish presentation of a compendium of knowledge whose typographical
presentation is merely printerly and, therefore, germane to the
antichemical
subversion of pseudo-culture by civility.
THE
DUTIES
OF
SOCIAL
THEOCRACY. As I
think I may have mentioned some time before, Social Theocracy, if and
when it
attains to power in consequence of a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty
in a paradoxical election in certain countries with, like Eire, a
Catholic
axial tradition, will have more to do than simply to advance the
interests of a
religiously sovereign people, crucial as that may be, but would also
have to
deliver them from religious anachronisms and thus from the whole
tradition of
Bible-based Christianity which still, officially, weighs upon them with
all the
authority of Scripture. Obviously the
‘free for’ is more important than the ‘free from’, but one would still
have to
deal with the latter and thus set about freeing them, our
hypothetically
religiously sovereign people, from every type of Christian anachronism
and
effective obstacle to metaphysical liberation and its antimetachemical
(antifemale) corollary. This means that
the Bible would itself be in the front line of that which had to be
removed
from society in the interests of the religiously sovereign people’s
deliverance
from Creator-based autocracy and metachemical tyranny, the Devil the
Mother
hyped as God-type scenario which has bedevilled conventional religion
for
thousands of years. Thus the Social
Theocratic movement would have to be instrumental in confiscating
Bibles and
having them destroyed, presumably through incineration at special
facilities
where all sorts of religious and cultural anachronisms would be stored
prior to
being destroyed in the wake of judgement.
What certain persons of Germanic stamp set about doing on the
physical
plane in Europe two or three generations ago in relation to perceived
physical
anachronisms or irrelevancies to European progress, which is to say, to
the
West’s gradual emergence from out the autocratic shadow of Eastern –
and
specifically Middle Eastern – influence towards the free horizon of
global
enlightenment, certain other gentlemen of a different ethnic or racial
stamp will
have to set about doing on the metaphysical plane, so to speak, in
relation to
those cultural and religious anachronisms which, if left uncensored,
would
continue to hold the Europe of the future back from global maturity and
thus
preclude its liberation from Eastern tyranny, a thing that Western
civilization
only managed to achieve on the Christian/democratic plane of a worldly
intermediacy, as it were, between the Alpha of netherworldly autocracy
and the
coming Omega of otherworldly theocracy, as though in relation to a
constitutional monarchy which, corresponding to the Old Testament, had
to allow
for such worldly freedoms as first Christianity and then democracy
contrived to
establish at its expense, the New Testament taking precedence – except
possibly
in the Anglican case – over the Old Testament and thus signifying a
relative
break with all forms of netherworldly tyranny.
Doubtless the step beyond the West into a more fully-fledged
global
civilization than that which heathenistically obtains at present under
American
auspices will put an end both to Christianity and to democracy, since a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty would permit the Social
Theocratic
authorities to serve that sovereignty on both positive (free for) and
negative
(free from) terms, thereby advancing the religiously sovereign people’s
rights
as they set about eliminating all obstacles to those rights, both
Western and
Eastern. And the elimination of the
Bible as a representative emblem of Western civilization, torn between
its own
New Testament and that which it basically inherited, Old
Testament-wise, from
the Middle East, would have to take precedence over everything else, at
least
until such time as it became possible to proceed to related matter of
an
equally anachronistic nature. Thus
Social Theocracy will have to use both stick and carrot, so to speak,
in its
determination to deliver the people from the last vestiges of
autocratic
tyranny, since their own rights in relation to religious sovereignty
could be
severely hampered unless all that stands in its way, including
Christian
prayer-books and hymnals, is not systematically removed from the new
order of
society in the form of a purge. But such
a procedure, crucial as it may be to the proper functioning of the New
Order,
will still rank secondary to the principal responsibilities of Social
Theocracy
vis-à-vis the people, which will entail the advancement of
enlightenment in the
forms of synthetically artificial stimulants and, in the case of
females,
tranquillizers or somatic inhibitors – the former to enhance
metaphysical free
psyche as a male, or godly, prerogative, the latter to constrain
females to
antimetachemical bound soma and thus keep them instinctually and
spiritually
bottled up, as it were, and at cross-purposes with themselves under
male
hegemonic pressure and, hence, the leadership of intellect and,
especially,
soul. For any free psyche in the female
or, more correctly, antifemale case can only be secondary to its male
counterpart, and hence no more than a spin-off from antimetachemical
bound
soma. Enlightenment is primarily a male
prerogative, since it is not possible to males on a significantly
consistent
scale unless females are constrained from outer-light clearness in
sensuality
through male pressures emanating from sensibility, the ensuing
unclearness of
the one owing much if not everything to the holiness of the other,
which means
that male freedom in metaphysics can only be achieved at the cost of
female
binding, or somatic enslavement, in antimetachemistry.
If the boot is not on the male foot, so to
speak, it will be on the female foot in sensuality, and instead of
culture and
civility or, in this noumenal instance, pseudo-civility, you will
simply have a
continuation of the all-too-prevalent American-dominated context of
barbarity
and pseudo-philistinism, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, with Devil
the
Mother hyped as God and the correlative
sanctimonious disparagement, in typically devaluating terms, of the
Antison of
Antigod (in antimetaphysical free soma), who naturally becomes Devil in
that
all-too-traditional and sensually conventional event, whether in
relation to
the cosmos, to nature, to mankind or, indeed, to cyborgkind. Therefore if we wish, as Social Theocrats, to
achieve all that is best in civilization, in this instance global
civilization,
which is premised on the cyborgization of life, we must ensure that
culture and
pseudo-civility, righteousness and pseudo-justice, take their rightful
place at
the peak of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society, and thereby
restore to
the lapsed Catholic quasi-state-hegemonic majority of countries like
Eire the
possibility of salvation and counter-damnation from their
pseudo-worldly
predicament to the revolutionary otherworldly and antinetherworldly
positions
which it would be the duty of Social Theocracy to uphold in the face of
both
traditional anachronisms and all-too-contemporary outside influences,
not least
those which, in American-inspired vein, are primarily responsible for
establishing the quasi-state-hegemonic paradoxes of contemporary
star-obsessed
society in relation to a well-nigh polyversal array of films and
film-stars, to
take but two examples,1 whose evil or pseudo-foolish content and
behaviour does
little to advance their moral wellbeing but, on the contrary, enslaves
them to
all that is most somatically licentious and thus contrary to the will
or, more
correctly, ego and soulful aspirations of godliness.
But, even here, I am generalizing. For,
of
course,
the
enslavement that the
contemporary manifestation of global civilization imposes on society is
more in
terms of the male, where bound psyche is concerned, than of the female,
and is
thus symptomatic of the female-dominated heathenistic nature of the age. The boot, right now, is most assuredly on the
other foot, so to speak, and that is the way it will stay until Social
Theocracy can establish itself in certain countries with a Catholic
tradition
(no matter how much such a tradition may since have been overhauled by
contemporary
criteria), and begin the campaign to wrest the relevant people, those
of the
anti-omega-worldly and alpha-worldly southwest point of our
intercardinal axial
compass, away from both their own pseudo-antiphysical and
pseudo-chemical,
pseudo-antimasculine and pseudo-feminine, limitations and, more
importantly,
those who would continue to metachemically and antimetaphysically prey
upon
them from the somatically free and psychically bound heights of its
northwest
point, thereby precluding, short of the revolutionary transformation I
have in
mind, their deliverance, under male hegemonic pressures, to the
salvation of
psychic freedom in metaphysics and, for females-become-antifemales, the
counter-damnation of somatic binding in antimetachemistry (to take the
more
characteristic emphases in each gender case).
Thus Social Theocracy would reverse the current gender
situation,
putting the emphasis of freedom upon psyche in relation to sensibility
as a
male-led and male-inspired ideal which it can only be in the interests
of
males, in particular, to accept and set about furthering by every
possible
means short, that is, of violence and corruption. A
global
civilization
that
finally extricates
itself from the last vestiges of metachemical and antimetaphysical
sensuality
will truly have been reborn into metaphysical and antimetachemical
sensibility
as though in a Superchristian rejection of the Superheathen present. For this to work properly, the religiously
sovereign people will have to have recourse to the most potent inner
forms of
synthetic artificiality as a counterweight to all those outer forms of
it to
which they are currently subjected in the shape, not least, of filmic
and TV
bombardment. If this means that sensible
cyborgization follows from the lead of these inner-light alternatives
to the
filmic outer-lights, then so be it! It
is inconceivable that the people would be able to survive recourse to
such
potent stimulants to free psyche and purveyors of bound soma unless
cyborgization in relation to the person were a concurrent process and
right,
thereby lifting them from out their human – antimasculine and feminine
–
limitations toward the divine and antidiabolic heights of supra-human
blessedness and pseudo-cursedness and simultaneously ensuring that they
remained
up the axis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria at its
northeast
point on an increasingly frequent and protracted basis, preconditions,
after
all, of the collapse of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis for
want of
pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical prey at the southwest point of
the
overall intercardinal compass. For only
when that prey has been systematically removed from its lowly status
through
otherworldly and antinetherworldly transfiguration or transmutation …
will the axis
which is the bitter fruit of schismatic heresy be brought down and the
battle
be won by those whose antipathy to everything metachemical and
antimetaphysical
confirms their divine and antidiabolic, metaphysical and
antimetachemical,
credentials as leaders of Social Theocracy and the Social
Transcendentalist
‘overcoming’ of the pseudo-alpha world of the pseudo-chemical and
pseudo-anti-omega world of the pseudo-antiphysical in the interests
both of
their deliverance from themselves and, more importantly from our
metaphysical
and antimetachemical perspectives, those who will continue to exploit
them and,
by so doing, continue to disparage us and preclude us from triumphing
at their
expense in the name of Truth and, where antimetachemistry is concerned,
Beauty. Thus if ‘man is to be
overcome’, to use a
Nietzschean phrase, it is to bring what has been called the Devil and
Her
antigodly corollary, the freely somatic Antison of Antigod, down, in
order that
godliness and antidevilishness may triumph through the
pseudo-antimasculine
form of ‘man’ and the pseudo-feminine form of ‘woman’ being lifted up
On High
and thereby transmuted into that which appertains, in metaphysics and
antimetachemistry, to all that is most righteous and most pseudo-just,
most
true and most beautiful, most saved and most counter-damned. Verily, God’s triumph over the world with the
help of the Antidevil is the only way in which the Devil’s rule over
the world
with the help of the Antigod (financed and ethnically supported by its
axial polarity
in man and antiwoman or, in contemporary terms, pseudo-man and
pseudo-antiwoman) can be defeated and those who would correspond, in
such
terms, to pseudo-men and pseudo-women be delivered from exploitation. The world as here defined in relation to
pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics is not an ideal place. It is the scene of exploitation from
netherworldly and anti-otherworldly elements financed by omega worldly
and
anti-alpha-worldly elements who are deluded into believing that their
worldliness,
because it is not directly in the firing-line of exploitation, is ideal. Therefore it is something, from our
otherworldly and antinetherworldly standpoints, that should be
overcome, if
only to defeat those who would prey upon it from standpoints at
variance with
if not totally contrary to all that is true and beautiful, holy and
unclear,
godly and antidevilish, blessed and pseudo-cursed.
That is the logic, if you will, of
world-overcoming, and it is not something that is fanciful or pie in
the sky or
in any way utopian in consequence of gender or element reductionism. It is logically well-founded and morally
sound. It is the one form of progress
that is not self-defeating or a contradiction in terms.
It is, frankly, inevitable because the desire
for Eternity and its antifemale corollary Anti-Infinity cannot be
denied for
ever.
A
CRITICAL
LOOK
AT
THE RESURRECTION. Just as
the Catholic term ‘Mother of God’ leaves much to be desired from the
standpoint
of both the sensual reality of Woman the Mother and the Christian
fulcrum of
Son of God, neither of which would qualify for equation with God, since
God the
Father can only be quite distinct from either the Mother or the Son, so
the
concept of the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ is somewhat problematic insofar
as it
infers a change of position from phenomenal to noumenal, sensuality to
sensibility, which simply defies the underlining reality of entrenched
class
positions in both contexts – the contexts, that is to say, of
antiphysics and
metaphysics or, in the Christian tradition of a worldly fulcrum,
antiphysics
and pseudo-metaphysics. The ‘below’ does
not transform itself into the ‘above’ because the sensible position
comes to
pass in consequence of a rejection of the sensual position relative to
itself,
whether on a noumenal or a phenomenal basis.
The Son of God does not arise from Woman the Mother, the
Catholic
so-called ‘Mother of God’, because what immediately appertains, as
direct
extrapolation from or simply under-plane upended gender to Woman the
Mother, is
the Antison of Antiman, a phenomenal manifestation of the Antichrist. There is also, of course, the bound-psychic
corollary of such free soma, which can be described as Antiman the
Antifather
and which would parallel, in antiphysical subservience to chemistry (to
speak
in general terms), the Daughter of Woman, its chemical counterpart. Therefore just as Antiman has intimate
associations with Woman, whether as Mother or as Daughter, so it is
inconceivable that Man could have such associations with her, since he
comes to
pass in consequence of a rejection of Antiman, whether as the Antison
of
Antiman in antiphysical free soma or as Antiman the Antifather in
antiphysical
bound psyche. And such a rejection,
premised upon a sensible alternative to sensuality, establishes, by its
very
existence, the reality of Antiwoman in both psyche and soma, the
Antidaughter
of Antiwoman under Man the Father, and Antiwoman the Antimother under
the Son
of Man. Hence both Man the Father and
the Son of Man come to pass in consequence of a rejection of their
sensual
counterparts, Antiman the Antifather and the Antison of Antiman, and
not as a
result of a resurrection from Woman the Mother (to take but the freely
somatic
aspect of chemistry). Man is the
rejection of Antiman, whose existence under Woman keeps him pegged to
the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass in typically mass
Catholic
fashion. But that is all that this type
of Christ is. It is not godly. It is manly.
And it comes to pass at the southeast point of the intercardinal
axial
compass as a puritanical postulate that establishes humanism as the
physical
alternative to antihumanism and, by subordinate gender implication,
antinonconformism as the antichemical alternative to nonconformism,
using that term
as synonymous with the chemical hegemony of feminine females over
antimasculine
males in antiphysics. But where, then,
does the Son of God arise from?
Certainly not Woman the Mother!
The genuine Son of God must follow as a consequence of the
coming to
pass in metaphysics of God the Father as a sensible rejection of
noumenal
sensuality or, more correctly, noumenal antisensibility in
antimetaphysics and,
thus, of Antigod the Antifather. This
sensible rejection of Antigod the Antifather paves the way for God the
Father
no less than the rejection of the somatic corollary of such a
manifestation of
Antigod, viz. the Antison of Antigod, paves the way for the Son of God,
both of
which male positions in metaphysics appertain to the northeast point of
the intercardinal
axial compass as a noumenal antithesis to that which, in
antimetaphysics, can
only exist under metachemistry at its northwest point.
But such metachemistry is equivalent to Devil
the Mother in free soma and to the Daughter of the Devil in bound
psyche. Therefore no less than Man comes
to pass as a
rejection of Antiman, so God comes to pass as a rejection of Antigod,
of the
antigodly modes, in psyche and soma, of the Antichrist, and in so doing
he
establishes the Antidevil under him as the antimetachemical rejection,
in
effect, of the Devil, i.e. Devil the Mother and the Daughter of the
Devil. Thus it is logically incontestable
that God
does not arise from Devil the Mother, still less from Woman the Mother,
but in
consequence of a rejection, in noumenal sensibility, of all that is
antigodly
and beholden, as ‘fall guy’, to a metachemical hegemony rooted,
somatically, in
Devil the Mother. Antigodliness, no less
than antimanliness in relation to Woman, has intimate associations with
devilishness, with whom it is somatically
and
psychically aligned at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass. Godliness, by contrast, only
comes to pass on the basis of a rejection of such intimacy from a
standpoint no
less noumenal but profoundly sensible.
The sensible ‘high’, or noumenal, remain antithetical to the
sensual
‘high’, to speak more generally, no less than the sensible ‘low’, or
phenomenal, are antithetical to the sensual ‘low’.
The
male ‘high’ do not arise from the antimale ‘low’ but are
effectively
high, if on antisensible terms, to begin with … before their conversion
to
sensibility and hegemonic independence of anything female.
The only way that, in general terms, the
‘high’ can emerge from the ‘low’ in the future, in our hypothetical
context of
‘Kingdom Come’ premised upon a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty, will
be in consequence of the transfiguration or transmutation of the ‘low’,
cyborg-wise, as from the southwest to the northeast points of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
But that will be in consequence of those who are already
metaphysically
and antimetachemically high, in noumenal sensibility and noumenal
antisensuality, being able to impact upon them and deliver them from
their
lowly plight. It will not be a natural
transformation from phenomenal antisensibility and sensuality to
noumenal
sensibility and antisensuality, as though in a more gender
representative
paradigm of the Christian resurrection, but one that transpires, if
ever it
does, in relation to a combination of factors stemming from the
‘above’, not
least of a substance and technological order.
For there will already be, on provisional terms, godly and
antidevilish
elements in situ to effect the overall transformation of the antimanly
and womanly
elements, or their pseudo counterparts (to speak in contemporary,
post-worldly
terms), to a standing that will eventually be more genuinely godly and
antidevilish in relation to both metaphysical and antimetachemical
praxis
taking place in increasingly communal settings germane to the wavicle
cohesiveness of noumenal absolutism.
Thus, with this in mind, it could be said that godliness
ultimately
emerges out of antimanliness and antidevilishness out of womanliness,
but not
without the provisional godliness and antidevilishness of those who
were
already noumenally high being instrumental in effecting such a mass
transformation. And they spring, as was
said above, from a rejection of antigodliness and devilishness, not
from the
‘below’. The ‘high’ remain high and the
‘low’ remain low until such time as the former are in a position to
effect the
transfiguration of the latter in what becomes an artificial
resurrection of the
Many into the One or, when gender differentials are also taken into
account,
the Few. Not even the Son of God arises
from Woman the Mother, the so-called ‘Mother of God’, but in
consequence of the
prior existence of God the Father as metaphysical psyche preceding
metaphysical
soma, the basis of male reality. The Son
of God is certainly an extrapolation, though not directly, from Devil
the
Mother (hyped as God), just as the Son of Man is an indirect
extrapolation,
through rejection, from Woman the Mother (hyped as holy, if not as
godly). But that is merely to posit one
type or
another of son-like fulcrum at the expense of a so-called Father
(Creator) of
Middle Eastern precedence, which is both the achievement and limitation
of the
Christian West. Unfortunately for
Western civilization, the true Son of God does not stem, indirectly,
from Devil
the Mother hyped as Father, but in consequence of a godly individual
whose
psychic freedom puts him at loggerheads with Devil the Mother and leads
him to
repudiate the antigodly Antichrist, her antimetaphysical offspring, so
to
speak. The Son of God who is cart after
horse in metaphysics requires the precedence of the metaphysical Father
in
order that he may implement, from the standpoint of state soma, the
church
psyche which is his Word and moral directive.
Therefore the people, if they elect for religious sovereignty,
become,
by degrees, even more metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical
on both
psychic and somatic terms, as God and the Antidevil really get properly
up and
running on terms quite independent of the initial leadership, though
owing
everything to it. For without the
initial Father and Son of metaphysical independence of metachemistry,
and hence
of Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil, there can be no New
Order,
corresponding to ‘Kingdom Come’, in which metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
will be more fully and practically realized thereafter, as the people
come on
board. Provisional godliness and
antidevilishness paves the way for the bona fide modes of God and
Antidevil to
come when the people have been transmuted up from their lowly state by
those
who have appointed themselves to lead them.
For without this leadership, nothing can or will be achieved by
the
people that would even remotely resemble ‘Kingdom Come’.
AN
EXAMINATION
OF
FAITHFULNESS
AND
FAITHLESSNESS. Christ claimed to have brought a sword to
cleave the faithless from the faithful, the sheep from the goats, the
chaff
from the wheat, etc., etc., and it would seem that I can claim, with or
without
the benefit of a metaphorical sword, to have done likewise,
specifically in
relation to the metaphysical and the antimetachemical at the northeast
point of
our by-now well-established intercardinal axial compass, the former
divine male
and the latter antidiabolic female or, more correctly, antidiabolic
antifemale,
which puts them in the position of the Antidevil under God or, as I
have
elsewhere described it, Anti-Yin under Yang, Anti-Vanity Fair under the
Celestial City, Anti-Infinity under Eternity, and so on.
Clearly, this distinction between the
metaphysically Saved and the antimetachemically Counter-Damned is
equivalent to
the Faithful and, if not to the Faithless then, in this instance, to
the
Anti-Faithless, since those who are antimetachemical can at least be
expected
to defer to the unequivocal hegemony of the metaphysical, and therefore
to
stand in a diametrically antithetical position to those who, ever
faithless,
rule over what could be called the Anti-Faithful, the antimetaphysical
‘fall
guys’ for diabolic denigration from the unequivocal hegemony of Devil
the
Mother hyped as God in metachemistry.
But what, you may wonder, constitutes the distinction between
being
faithful and being faithless? The answer
is relatively straightforward. Those who
are faithful, being male, are faithful to the eternity of godliness, to
the
possibility and, indeed, desirability if not actuality of Eternal Life
from the
standpoint of repetitive time, whereas those, on the contrary, who are
faithless have no such aspirations or ambitions but, being female, are
motivated by criteria stemming from the infinity of spatial space in
what can
be called Infinite Death. Therefore the
absolute alpha and omega of things is Infinite Death on the one hand, and Eternal Life on the other hand. And consequently that
which
appertains, in antimetaphysics, to anti-faithfulness is anti-eternal
life,
whereas that which appertains, in antimetachemistry, to
anti-faithlessness is
anti-infinite death. The
Anti-Faithful are no less the victims of anti-eternity under the rule
of
Infinity … than the Anti-Faithless the victims of anti-infinity under
the rule
or, rather, lead of Eternity. There
stands the great gender-conditioned alpha/anti-omega and
omega/anti-alpha
antithesis between those at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass who are of the Devil and Antigod, viz. metachemistry and
antimetaphysics, and those, by contrast, who, to the northeast of the
said
compass, are of God and the Antidevil, viz. metaphysics and
antimetachemistry. The one category
effectively excludes the other, since the one category can only triumph
over
the world at the expense of the other.
So the Faithful have to be cleaved from the Anti-Faithless in
the
metaphysical/antimetachemical dichotomy between Eternity and
Anti-Infinity,
repetitive time and spaced space. For
that which appertains, in metaphysics, to Eternal Life can only reign
hegemonically if it is accompanied by that which, in antimetachemistry,
appertains to Anti-Infinite Death, the antidiabolic antifemale whose
existence
is premised upon the prior hegemonic sway, in metaphysical sensibility,
of the
divine male. Death and Life,
faithlessness and faithfulness, Infinity and Eternity, the overall
alpha and
omega of things which struggle, across the gender divide, for either
primacy or
supremacy, the primacy of the Faithless over the Anti-Faithful, of
Infinite
Death over Anti-Eternal Life or, antithetical to this, the supremacy of
the
Faithful over the Anti-Faithless, of Eternal Life over Anti-Infinite
Death. But life itself derives from
Infinity, just as death precedes Eternity.
This, however, is on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass
or, more
correctly, volume/antimass in sensuality and mass/antivolume in
sensibility. For life, in that sense, is
subject to death, since all that is born of woman must die,
whether to inherit Eternity or Anti-Infinity or, indeed, Infinity or
Anti-Eternity. Such, at any rate, is how
it stands for mankind, and thus in relation to the antithetical or
complementary fates awaiting those whose death is the prelude to either
an
Afterlife or an Anti-Afterdeath, not to mention, in sensuality, to an
Afterdeath or an Anti-Afterlife. For we
cannot suppose that, even on this basis of phenomenal death, everyone
is
oriented to the same fate – say, to afterlife experience.
There is a male/female distinction between
the Afterlife and the Anti-Afterdeath, as between Eternity and
Anti-Infinity,
but there is also a female/male distinction between afterdeath
experience and
anti-afterlife experience, the former corresponding to Infinity and the
latter
to Anti-Eternity. Thus as one had lived
(or died), whether in sensuality or in sensibility, under the ruling
shadow of
metachemistry/antimetaphysics or, alternatively, under the guiding
light of
metaphysics/antimetachemistry, so shall one live (or die) again,
whether from
the standpoints of chemistry/antiphysics at the southwest point of our
intercardinal axial compass or from those of physics/antichemistry at
its
southeast. Death, in the general sense,
is a prelude to one of a number of fates, and it is of no coincidence
that the
disposal of the deceased often mirrors this fact, whether in relation
to
cremation or to burial. For cremation is
more to be associated with afterdeath (female) and anti-afterlife
(male)
experiences than would be burial in conventional Christian fashion,
which
suggests the likelihood of afterlife (male) and anti-afterdeath
(female)
experiences, depending on the overall lifestyles of the departed. Again, the above generalized distinctions
between male and female could be subdivided more clinically into
female/antimale and male/antifemale alternatives, since that which is
female
lives under the shadow of death even as it gives life to the male and,
subsequently, his posthumous predilection towards either life or, if
foolishly
sensual, antilife. Hence, in overall
terms, we can speak of life out of Death and death as a prelude to
Life, but
with due gender distinctions between the dead to ego and soul, to
psyche, who
are also alive to will and spirit, to soma, and the dead to will and
spirit, to
soma, who may also be alive to ego and soul, to psyche.
But that posits a female/male dichotomy in
the broader sense, and, as alluded to above, one must also allow, as
the
evidence suggests, for female/antimale and male/antifemale
distinctions, the
former pairing of which, ever sensual, will be alive to will and spirit
and
dead to soul and ego, the latter pairing
of which, ever sensible, will be alive to ego and soul and dead to
spirit and will,
the antimales of the one context being more dead to soul
and ego than alive, like their female
counterparts, to will and spirit; the antifemales of the other context
being
more dead to spirit and will than alive, like their male counterparts,
to ego and
soul. For the one gender only triumphs
over the other on the basis of the upending and confounding of its
gender
opposite, whether in sensuality (where the male as antimale is,
strictly
speaking, antisensible) or in sensibility (where the female as
antifemale is,
strictly speaking, antisensual).
Antisensibility under a female sensual hegemony is equivalent to
antilife under death, antipsyche under soma, antilight under darkness,
while
antisensuality under a male sensible hegemony is equivalent to
antideath under
life, antisoma under psyche, antidarkness under light.
Small wonder that the
posthumous fates of each gender, quite apart from their sensual or
sensible
predestinations, are so different, if complementarily so, in each case. There is no such thing as a female
afterlife. Afterlife experience is
solely male, whether in positive (sensible) terms or, in consequence of
gender
subservience to a female hegemony, in negative (antisensible) terms. Females, by contrast, can only experience
afterdeath, whether in positive (sensual) terms or, in consequence of
gender
subservience to a male hegemony, in negative (antisensual) terms. That which was the ‘lady with the lamp’,
whether or not though especially when also blonde, is not fated to
experience
an Afterlife, and even what could be called ‘the antilady with the
antilamp’ of
bound soma, of antispirit and antiwill, will only experience an
Anti-Afterdeath, in keeping with her subordination to male hegemonic
values in
sensibility. Yet such ‘temporal’
afterlives
and anti-afterdeaths, stemming from human life and, ultimately, death,
should
not be confounded with the properly eternal afterlives and
anti-afterdeaths
that lie potentially in store for humanity in the supra-human future …
should
‘Kingdom Come’ actually come to pass on the back of a majority mandate
for
religious sovereignty in a series of paradoxical elections in various
countries, and steps duly be taken, by the then-responsible
authorities, to
implement, gradually and methodically, the cyborgization of that
proportion of
humankind who had democratically opted for godliness and
antidevilishness, for
salvation from pseudo-antimanliness to godliness and counter-damnation
to
antidevilishness from pseudo-womanliness, in relation to their
pro-psychic and
anti-somatic rights, with ego being synthetically enhanced primarily in
the
male population (primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as
spirit was
curtailed to antispirit in the female (antifemale) population
(secondary
state-subordinate criteria) and, later on, when cyborgization was
sufficiently
advanced to permit of it and other changes in society overall had also
taken
place, with soul being synthetically enhanced primarily in the male
population
(primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as will was curtailed
to
antiwill in the female (antifemale) population (secondary
state-subordinate
criteria), the secondary levels of church hegemony having antifemale
and the
primary levels of state subordination male correlations respectively. But that is to anticipate a future outcome to
society which is far beyond anything now existing and therefore
dependent on
the resolve, as it were, of certain higher individuals to help bring it
to pass
in decades or centuries to come. In the
meantime, people will continue to die and to experience one of a number
of
alternative afterlife or afterdeath, anti-afterlife or anti-afterdeath
fates,
as they deserve. Even now a dichotomy
between the faithful and the faithless exists which is symptomatic of
the distinction
between life and death, psyche and soma, light and darkness, Christian
and
Heathen, and such a dichotomy, amounting to an antithesis between
sensuality
and sensibility, has its axial and ethnic implications, for better or
worse. Time alone will determine whether
Eternity triumphs over Anti-Infinity at the northeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass or whether, in all-too-contemporary vein,
Infinity
continues to ride roughshod over Anti-Eternity at the northwest point
of the
said compass, constraining the alpha and anti-omega world to its
exemplification of somatic licence and dark denial of psychic
enlightenment,
while the omega and anti-alpha world continues to finance it from an
axially
antithetical standpoint rooted in humanism.
AN
INVESTIGATION
OF
DEATH
IN
RELATION TO LIFE, BOTH TEMPORAL AND ETERNAL. People
have an unfortunate tendency to confound death with the Afterlife, as
though
the Afterlife and death were synonymous or, more obviously, that you
had to die
in order to experience the Afterlife – which, frankly, is patently the
case for
the type of afterlife experiences, for better or worse, that mankind,
though
particularly males, can become subject to in the event of death. But that is more usually in consequence of
natural causes, not of death brought about through fatal injury as a
result of
an accident, a murder, or war, to take but three possibilities. Even in this latter respect, one cannot rule
out the possibility of some kind of posthumous experience for males in
particular, though that would be contingent on circumstances and not a
foregone
conclusion. If the brain stem and spinal
cord were intact, then some cannibalistic self-conflagration of
retreating
nerve fibres could be anticipated, though not necessarily on terms that
were
strictly synonymous with afterlife experience as a positive phenomenon. It could be that what in the previous entry
was called ‘anti-afterlife’ experience would ensue both in consequence
of
injury and in response, depending on the individual, to a largely
heathenistic
lifestyle premised upon sensual subservience to female domination. Individual variations are obviously not a
matter about which one can speculate with any certainty, but, even in
the event
of violent death, some kind of posthumous experience cannot be entirely
ruled
out. But that is still distinct from any
such experience transpiring in consequence of natural death. And natural death is, for mankind or, at any
rate, its male members, the gateway to
posthumous
experience – for better or worse. Yet
all that falls short of Eternity in a properly otherworldly and
therefore
supra-human context, as germane to what may lie ahead of mankind in the
not-too-distant future in the event of certain revolutionary changes
taking
place in society with the aim of establishing the nearest approximation
to
‘Kingdom Come’, that necessarily universal, and therefore global,
outcome of
the overcoming of the world, as of worldly society.
It is in such a supra-human society, premised
upon a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, that Eternity would
be more
than merely posthumous experience of one kind or another of afterlife,
just as
Anti-Infinity, its female or, rather, antifemale counterpart, would be
more
than either the afterdeath or anti-afterdeath types of posthumous
experience
briefly alluded to in the previous entry.
There would be no fizzling out of the self-conflagration of the
myriad
nerve fibres of the brain stem and spinal cord with the kind of
supra-human
Eternity and Anti-Infinity I have in mind here, since longevity would
be
premised upon a cyborgization of the person that precluded mortality
and
ensured that such self-enlightenment or notself-curtailment as the
individual
was synthetically entitled to would not prove either lethal to him/her
or unsustainable
over an almost indefinite period of time commensurate with Eternity and
an
indefinite period of antispace commensurate with Anti-Infinity. But that said,
death
in consequence of injury and the Afterlife and Anti-Afterdeath of our
projected
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly society would be two completely
different
and incompatible things. Death may or
may not pave the way for posthumous experiences for humankind, but it
remains a
consequence of the mortality of the flesh, and the ensuing
self-conflagration
of the central nervous system is, to my mind, scant reward for such a
fate, the
consequence, all along, of human limitations.
Death is really something to be avoided, that is, defeated
through
evolutionary progress in regard to cyborgization and its raison d’être,
self-enlightenment of a suitably – for global civilization –
synthetically
artificial order that must also embrace, particularly in relation to
antimetachemical antifemales, a proportionate degree of
notself-curtailment of
an equally synthetically artificial order.
But death comes in different shapes and sizes, as we have seen,
and
while death in consequence of human mortality is something that will
need to be
overcome in the future if Eternity and Anti-Infinity are to become
realities in
what has been provisionally equated with ‘Kingdom Come’, death in
consequence
of injury in peacetime or wartime is not to be equated with posthumous
experience in any sense, whether natural or artificial, but will
usually be
found to signify, particularly in war, a peculiarly male response to
the, more
often than not, heathenistic status quo which favours females and
stems, in
consequence, from Infinite Death and its antimale counterpart,
Anti-Eternal
Life. Death as a nihilistic phenomenon,
shall we say, is no substitute for posthumous experience, particularly
of an
afterlife (rather than say anti-afterlife) type, and neither should it
be
confounded with such experience, as though a shortcut to
SETTING
THE
TIME/ANTISPACE
RECORD
STRAIGHT. For a long time now a seeming
contradiction in my work has puzzled me, but now, at last, I have
determined to
resolve the issue and draw it to a logical conclusion.
For the metaphysics over antimetachemistry of
the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass has long
connoted, in my
mind, with the concept of repetitive time over spaced space, the mode
of antispace. And yet this has been
equated with lungs over
heart, air over fire or, rather, antifire, given the sensible status of
the
heart vis-à-vis such sensual, or outer, organs as the eyes. Therefore the lungs have been identified with
repetitive time and the heart, by contrast, with spaced space, the
antispace
conditioned, in no small measure, by the hegemonic proximity, in
metaphysics,
of time. One would think,
to judge by the beating of the heart, that it was the
other way round. And yet, I cannot
logically reconcile myself to such a thought for the very reason that
it would
suggest that repetitive time lay under spaced space as, in some sense,
its
precondition. But I have always
argued
in favour of the precedence of spaced space by time in relation to the
hegemony
of metaphysics over antimetachemistry and, hence, of the lungs over the
heart,
of air over antifire. Therefore it is
logically necessary that one should come to identify repetitive time
with the
rising and falling of the lungs and spaced space, or antispace, with
the
beating of the heart or, rather, with the pulsations of blood flowing
through
the vessels of the heart. And this
contrary to what might at first seem to be the case!
For air must indeed be metaphysically
hegemonic over antifire as lungs over heart if repetitive time is to be
both
triumphant over and a conditioning factor of the existence of spaced
space, of
antispace. Therefore lungs take
precedence over heart from a divine male standpoint, just as
transcendental
meditation takes precedence over dance, or whatever, from such a
standpoint in
relation to mankind, to a humankind stage of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
which is necessarily intermediate between nature and cyborgkind, the
latter of
which is antithetical to anything cosmic.
And, to be sure, one is never so happy, so filled with joy, as a
male,
than when one is brought to an awareness of the rising and falling of
one’s
lungs in the process of breathing, whether or not in relation to
transcendental
meditation. Being aware of one’s
heartbeats, by contrast, would be somewhat less pleasing, more like an
excursion into the antifemale realm of antimetachemistry which is
conditioned
not by joy, still less by truth, but by love and its corollary of
beauty. Therefore lungs over heart is
equivalent,
despite the seeming contradiction, to repetitive time over antispace,
the
spaced nature of which owes not a little to the prior conditioning of
time,
since spaced space is no less the mode of antispace under time,
repetitive
time, than, across the axial divide, sequential time is the mode of
antitime
under space, the spatial nature of which is hegemonically responsible,
in no
small degree, for the existence of the spatially-influenced mode of
time that
has been identified, in its sequential nature, with antitime. And here, in metachemistry over
antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass, we
would be alluding to eyes over ears and hence to fire over air or,
rather,
anti-air, the sensual mode of airiness which would be no less germane
to the airwaves
than its fiery counterpart to optical light.
Thus eyes over ears is equivalent to spatial space over
sequential time,
and one can see, without any equivocation, that the hegemony of the
diabolic
element of fire over its antidivine counterpart of anti-air is
equivalent to
female space over antimale antitime, optical light over the airwaves,
and thus
contrasts, absolutely, with the hegemony of lungs over heart, breath
over
blood, that we have been equating with male time and antifemale
antispace in metaphysics
and antimetachemistry. The hegemony, in
spatial space, of fire over anti-air, its antitime counterpart, has to
be
contrasted, across the noumenal axial divide, with the hegemony, in
repetitive
time, of air over antifire, its antispace counterpart, so that we have
a
contrast between a female elemental rule, through fire, in sensuality
and a
male elemental lead, through air, in sensibility, fire and antifire,
space and
antispace, no less germane, in general terms, to the female side of the
gender
divide than air and anti-air, time and antitime, to its male side. For if fire is the diabolic female element par
excellence, then
antifire can only be the antidiabolic antifemale element, or
anti-element, par
excellence. And if air is the
divine male element par
excellence, then anti-air can only be the
antidivine antimale element, or anti-element, par excellence. The
hegemony of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the one context has
to be
contrasted with the hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in
the other,
and therefore we can have no hesitation in ascribing to noumenal
sensuality and
noumenal antisensibility diabolic female and antidivine antimale
connotations
in respect of eyes and ears which set them forever apart from the
divine male and
antidiabolic antifemale connotations of the lungs and the heart. Spatial space over sequential time stand as
the metachemical alpha and antimetaphysical anti-omega of the noumenal
planes
of space and antitime, whereas repetitive time over spaced space stand
as the
metaphysical omega and antimetachemical anti-alpha of the noumenal
planes of
time and antispace. And time is no less
the characteristic of the lungs than antispace the characteristic of
the heart,
the air-breathing of the former contrasting with the blood-pumping of
the
latter as one would contrast eternity with anti-infinity, air with
antifire. No more conclusive proof could
be advanced in relation to the sensible hegemony of the lungs over the
heart than
that which differentiates this dichotomy between time and antispace
from the
dichotomy between space and antitime which is characteristic, by
contrast, of
the sensual hegemony of eyes over ears.
If noumenal males are to rise, in a
manner of
speaking, from antitime to time, ears to lungs, then noumenal females
must
fall, correspondingly, from space to antispace, eyes to heart. Only a resolve on the part of noumenal males
to reject the noumenal antimale position in favour of the noumenal male
one can
lead to the fall of noumenal females to the noumenal antifemale
position. No metaphysics without the
rejection of
antimetaphysics, but no antimetachemistry under metaphysics until
metaphysics
has been sensibly embraced to grant time its hegemonic sway over
antispace.
A
COMMON
PHRASE
CORRECTED. One so often
hears phrases like ‘sonofabitch’
on TV and elsewhere these days that it is almost tempting to take them
for
granted, never questioning their validity.
But, being something of a thinker in my own right, that is
something I
find difficult to do - and with good reason!
For, as demonstrated in a previous entry, bitches and sons
rarely hang
together, in contiguous phenomenality or noumenality, but the Son,
together
with the Father, is in some sense expressive of a revolt against the
antimanly
and/or antigodly positions of antisons and antifathers which happen to
be
sensually contiguous, down a plane in each class case, with either
devils or
women, that is to say, with either Devil the Mother (hyped as God the
Father)
and the Daughter of the Devil or, in the phenomenal context, Woman the
Mother
(hyped as Mother of God the Son) and the Daughter of Woman. Therefore far from sons stemming from
devilish or womanly bitches, we should be thinking in terms of antisons
and
antifathers stemming from such hegemonic postulates as accord with a
female
first mover in either metachemistry (noumenal) or chemistry
(phenomenal), the
antisons and antifathers of antimanly and/or antigodly disposition
according
with their ‘fall guy’ dupes and, in some sense, victims.
Hence the above-mentioned slang term could be
modified to ‘antisonofabitch’ if one were intent on being logically
credible
and not merely impulsive. And, likewise,
one could conceive, across the sensible divide, of antibitches in
relation to
sons and fathers, whether as ‘antibitchofason’ or ‘antibitchofafather’,
depending whether soma or psyche were the
prevailing
factor. For sons and fathers have a lot
to do with men and/or gods in phenomenal and/or noumenal sensibility,
and
therefore not only with the repudiation of antimen (phenomenal antisons
and
antifathers) or of antigods (noumenal antisons and antifathers) but, no
less
significantly, with the ensuing subordination of the female to either
antiwomanly (phenomenal antimothers and antidaughters) or antidevilish
(noumenal antimothers and antidaughters) antibitchfulness, so to speak. And this antibitchfulness, whether
antichemical or antimetachemical, is the under-plane complement to the
male
hegemonies typifying sensibility, whether on the phenomenal plane of
physics
or, more importantly, on the noumenal plane of metaphysics. For females – more properly antifemales – in
tight skirts or dresses are not to be thought of as bitches if their
behaviour
mirrors their sartorial constraints and confirms either an antiwomanly
subservience to men (at least in planar theory if not always in axial
practice)
or an antidevilish subservience to gods, as it were.
For only the manly and the godly are truly male,
and this compels an antifemale correspondence which if
not always sensible will at least suggest the likelihood of
antisensuality. How distinct, then, from
the antisensible correspondence of antimales, whether as free somatic
antisons
or bound psychic antifathers, to their female overladies or, more
correctly,
somatically free and psychically bound bitches whose familial metaphors
have
more to do with mothers and daughters than with their converse, and
whose
hegemonic influence is such that their gender-subordinate counterparts
soon
become akin to what has been described as if not antisons then
antifathers of
bitches, whether or not – though I guess especially when – their
sartorial
attire mirrors, in some degree, the flouncy looseness of its female
counterpart, a flared-pants situation likely to accord with some degree
of
antibullgas under cowpuss in the case of antimetaphysics under
metachemistry
and, down on the phenomenal planes, of antibullshit under cowpiss in
the case
of antiphysics under chemistry. For you
can no more be subject to bullgas when subordinate to cowpuss than to
bullshit
when subordinate to cowpiss. Bullgas is
the metaphysical prerogative of the godly and bullshit the physical
prerogative
of the manly, the one making for anticowpuss in the antimetachemical
antifemale
and the other for anticowpiss in the antichemical antifemale, since the
existence of cowpuss under bullgas is as unlikely as that of cowpiss
under
bullshit. Therefore the respectable
‘lady’ under the respectable ‘gentleman’ is a creature constrained, in
bound
soma and free psyche, to either anticowpuss or anticowpiss who
simultaneously
pays lip service to the bullgas or bullshit primarily emanating from
her male
counterpart in either metaphysics (if godly) or physics (if manly). She may not be the prime mover in such
bullgas or bullshit, since even the beautiful approach to truth has to
be
distinguished from truth no less than the strong approach to knowledge
from
knowledge, but she is obliged, by convention and certain male-imposed
strategies, to go along with it, and that is what makes, believe it or
not, for
all that is best in civilization, whether with a civilized bias
governed by
bound soma, as in the case of phenomenal sensibility, or with a
cultural bias
led by free psyche, as in the case of noumenal sensibility.
ANOTHER
LOOK
AT
FREEDOM. French
republicanism paved the way for the concept of freedom we are still
living
under today, a concept based not in free psyche and bound soma but,
contrary to
male values, in free soma and bound psyche.
Everything that is adjudged free today is basically reducible to
somatic
freedom and, hence, to the dominance of society by its female elements,
whether
in terms of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, diabolic females over
antidivine males or, rather, antimales, or in terms of chemistry over
antiphysics,
feminine females over antimasculine antimales, the antimale elements in
each
case being such vis-à-vis their female counterparts and thus reducible
to
either antisons or antifathers in what could more generally be equated
with
antichrists. For the antichrist-type of
antimale, whether noumenally antigodly or phenomenally antimanly, is an
antison
and/or antifather (but more antison in free soma than antifather in
bound
psyche, as a rule) of a bitch, and thus an antichrist of either Devil
the Mother/the
Daughter of the Devil or Woman the Mother/the Daughter of Woman,
depending
whether noumenal or phenomenal criteria are at issue.
And yet just as Devil the Mother, to take the
more prevalent and representative female attribute … of free soma, is
hyped as
‘God the Father’ and Woman the Mother, likewise taking the more
representative
female attribute, is hyped as ‘Mother of God’, meaning the Son of God
or, as
some prefer, God the Son, so the antisons and/or antifathers of Antigod
and the
antisons and/or antifathers of Antiman are either hyped as Son or just
not
recognized for the antichristic creatures they manifestly are. In fact, once we have dismissed terms like
‘sonofabitch’ as exemplifying the former, whether consciously or
unconsciously,
we can see that the isolation of the concept Antichrist from a female
‘first
mover’ holding hegemonic sway over it tends to play into the hands of
the
latter, insofar as all responsibility for the antichristic existence is
then
attributed to male wilfulness and rebellion against Christ rather than
conceived in relation to female domination as the root motivation, in
hegemonic
sensuality, of antichristic behaviour.
Therefore the antichristic male is not necessarily understood as
existing in relation to a mother, whether diabolic or feminine, but
taken to be
a perversity of religion with specific reference to Christ. And yet how the facts belie this
assumption! Those who have rejected
Christ,
whether in manly or godly vein, have actually done so, as a rule, under
female
hegemonic pressure that stems not from religion but from science, not
from
sensibility but from sensuality, not from the inner light of psychic
freedom
but from the outer light of somatic freedom whose psyche, being bound,
is dark,
that is to say, either criminally acquiescent in the evil of
metachemical
and/or chemical free soma (I shall forego, here, my usual more pedantic
distinction between the genuine and pseudo manifestations thereof) or,
if
antimale rather than female, sinfully acquiescent in the folly of
antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical free soma, and thus unenlightened. Therefore these antichrists, these
antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical antimales are precisely what they
are
because of the hegemonic prevalence of free females, whether as devils
in
metachemistry or as women in chemistry.
They have little or nothing in common with Christ, with man
and/or god,
because they have not rebelled against the female dominions of noumenal
and/or
phenomenal objectivity from a contrary subjective standpoint, but have
continued, by and large, to exist under the shadow of antisubjective if
not
outright objective criteria, fighting shy of male independence as they
cravenly
defer to its female counterpart. And all
this ‘liberty leading the people’ makes not for culture and civility
but for
their sensual opposites, philistinism
and barbarity, the sort of philistinism and barbarity with which we are
only
too familiar as we witness the grovelling of antimales before the
all-powerful
and all-glorious onslaughts of triumphant females from standpoints that
are
based not in the self-oriented acceptance of ego and/or soul but in the
worship
of will and/or spirit and the correlative acceptance of antisoul and/or
anti-ego, the very bases of antichristic behaviour.
Therefore there is much to be done in this
global age to reverse the terms of existence and further the cause of
male-hegemonic sensibility, especially in relation to metaphysics and,
hence,
the triumph of godliness over its female or, rather, antifemale
corollary,
antidevilishness. Power and glory,
notwithstanding the so-called Lord’s Prayer, do not fit with godliness
but are
contrary to it, as is Devil the Mother hyped as God.
Only antipower and antiglory, bound will and
spirit in metaphysics, accord with godliness, and then in relation to
the Son
of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, not in relation to God as such,
whose
egoistic form is of the kind, unlike man’s, that desires nothing less
than to
be eclipsed by the blessed contentment of heavenly joy, his ego
subsumed into
soul in such a manner that all that it stands for, in truth, is
vindicated, and
Heaven the Holy Soul really is the resolution of God the Father. Therefore unto God … the Father we attribute
form and, especially, the prospect of contentment in Heaven the Holy
Soul. We leave power and glory to Devil
the Mother
and Woman the Mother, the one more power than glory, the other more
glory than
power, since the one is more will than spirit while the other is more
spirit
than will, as though of water rather than fire.
But fire and water are not male elements. Only
vegetation
(earth)
and
air, and to air
alone belongs the throne of God and Heaven.
Therefore we who repudiate power and glory from a standpoint
based not
in physical but in metaphysical form and contentment also repudiate the
female
domination of society that characterizes much of what passes for
freedom in the
West today, whether it stems from the French Revolution or, indeed,
from the
earlier British revolution which firmed up the axis of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in defiance of everything
Catholic
and played no small role in giving to America its own brand of
female-dominated
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate freedom which, modified by criteria
deriving
from the French Revolution, currently rules the Western roost and is in
the
forefront of global imperialism. In
fact, it is almost a truism, these days, that wherever red, white and
blue is
paraded, there stands the emblematic exemplification of the female
domination
of fire and water over vegetation (earth) and air, with few if any
national
exceptions. But it is precisely that
that does not make for civilized maturity but, on the contrary, for a
sort of
wanton juvenility that fights shy of culture and civility even as it
lays claim
to them from standpoints rooted in their philistine and barbarous
converse. Verily, it will be a long time
before truth is aired and granted the sort of encouragement which is
reserved
for all that is contrary to it as the powerful tradition of Devil the
Mother
hyped as God … the Father and glorious tradition of Woman the Mother
hyped as
Mother of God … the Son continues to prevail in the face of all that
would
deliver males from their antimale repudiation of self to self more
completely
than in the Christic, man-based past.
But the day when the repudiation of antigodliness by the godly
and the
salvation of the antimanly to godliness comes successively to past is
fast
approaching, and that will bring in its train the repudiation of
devilishness
by the antidevilish and the counter-damnation of the womanly to
antidevilishness as a matter of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
necessity. Then instead of males
psychically enslaved, as antimales, to somatically free females,
females will
be somatically enslaved, as antifemales, to psychically free males, and
the
dawn of culture and pseudo-civility on terms appropriate to global
civilization
will have officially come to pass, to signal the attainment of such a
civilization to its universal omega point and antipolyversal anti-alpha
point
in the utmost metaphysics of divine males and antimetachemistry of
antidiabolic
antifemales. For the only alternative to
the triumph of males over antifemales is the ongoing rule of antimales
by
females and that, as we have seen and should be only too keenly aware,
is the
enemy of everything true and beautiful if not beautifully true. Enlightenment stems not from free soma but
from free psyche and it is to the advancement of enlightenment on
suitably
metaphysical terms for males that we should dedicate our efforts in the
coming
decades and centuries, that females may be brought to the
pseudo-justice of
divine righteousness and cease to be somatically free.
For somatic freedom is not commensurate,
believe it or not, with beauty, nor even the beautiful approach to
truth that
would constitute secondary church-hegemonic criteria from an
antifundamentalist
antifemale standpoint. Only the
somatically bound female is beautiful, and out of this somatic beauty
there
arises the antifundamentalist free psyche which is the beautiful
approach to
truth and thus secondary church-hegemonic complement of the truth of
transcendentalist free psyche which must forever characterize the
primary
church-hegemonic egoistic form of God the Father as he launches
himself, via
the Son and Holy Spirit, into the psychoistic contentment of Heaven the
Holy
Soul.
A
RE-EXAMINATION
OF
LIGHT
AND
DARKNESS RELATIVE TO GENDER. Light
and darkness, freedom and binding.
As noted in the previous entry, light and darkness hang together
as
freedom and binding, and therefore one can speak of the light of
freedom
vis-à-vis the darkness of binding. But
this does not actually mean that darkness is something to avoid. On the contrary, I have shown that freedom
requires binding whether the freedom be of
soma (and
female) or of psyche (and male). Only
one kind of freedom excludes the other, and therefore one kind of
binding
relative to the prevailing kind of freedom must necessarily exclude the
other
kind. But we have to distinguish each
kind of freedom and binding not only on a female/male basis, free soma
and
bound psyche being female and free psyche and bound soma male, but in
terms of
outer or inner, somatic or psychic. For
somatic freedom, as properly germane to metachemistry (diabolic
females) and
chemistry (feminine females), is the outer kind of freedom and hence
light, the
psychic corollary of which is inner thralldom and hence darkness,
whereas
psychic freedom, as properly germane to metaphysics (divine males) and
physics
(masculine males), is the inner kind of freedom and hence light, the
somatic
corollary of which is
outer thralldom and hence darkness. For
if soma is outer because of the not-self and psyche inner because of
the self,
then somatic freedom will always correlate with the outer light and
psychic
freedom, by contrast, with the inner light.
Yet each type of freedom must have a correlative mode of
darkness, be it
of psyche or of soma, and this thralldom relative to itself will be
inner in
the case of bound psyche and outer in the case of bound soma, since, as
noted
above, psyche is of the self and soma of the not-self.
A free not-self implies a bound self, outer
light the inner darkness which is its psychic corollary, while a free
self implies
a bound not-self, inner light the outer darkness which is its somatic
corollary. But the freedom of the outer
light and the binding of the inner darkness to it as, for example, the
criminal
acquiescence in evil, necessarily excludes the freedom of the inner
light and
the binding of the outer darkness to it as, for example, the wise
acquiescence
in grace, since one cannot have hegemonic female criteria and hegemonic
male
criteria simultaneously in hegemonic sway over the opposite gender. Either females get the better of males
(become antimales) in sensuality or males get the better of females
(become
antifemales) in sensibility. Therefore
if free soma and bound psyche is the prevailing ethos in society or of
a
particular section of it, it is because either metachemistry is
hegemonic,
unequivocally, over antimetaphysics or because chemistry is hegemonic,
equivocally, over antiphysics, and the antimale is consequently
acquiescing,
under female hegemonic pressures, in the outer light of somatic freedom
and the
inner darkness of psychic binding, not so much in terms of a criminal
acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal or on a pseudo basis in
the
phenomenal, in evil but, according with his gender, in terms of a
sinful
acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in folly, the folly of somatic
freedom
in either antimetaphysics or antiphysics.
For pseudo-meekness is no less the corollary
of vanity
in the metachemical/antimetaphysical context than meekness the
corollary of
pseudo-vanity in the chemical/antiphysical one.
Contrariwise, if free psyche and bound soma
is the prevailing ethos in society or of a particular section of it, it
is
because either metaphysics is hegemonic, unequivocally, over
antimetachemistry
or because physics is hegemonic, equivocally, over antichemistry, and
the
antifemale is consequently acquiescing, under male hegemonic pressures,
in the
inner light of psyche freedom and the outer darkness of somatic
binding, not so
much in terms of a wise acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal
or on a
pseudo basis in the phenomenal, in grace but, according with her
gender, in
terms of a modest (good) acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in
punishment, the punishment of psychic freedom in either
antimetachemistry or
antichemistry. For
pseudo-justice is no less the corollary of righteousness in the
metaphysical/antimetachemical context than justice the corollary of
pseudo-righteousness in the physical/antichemical one. Either males are upended as antimales under
female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, where the metachemical and/or
chemical actualities of soma preceding and predominating over psyche
are the
ruling factors or, contrary to this, females are upended as antifemales
under
male hegemonic pressures in sensibility, where the metaphysical and/or
physical
actualities of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma are the
leading
factors. Obviously, to be at
cross-purposes with one’s gender actuality one would have to be either
meek, as
in the antimale cases, or just, as in the antifemale cases, since it is
no less
foolish to be acquiescing in free soma contrary to one’s gender
actuality as a
male than it is punishing to be acquiescing in free psyche contrary to
one’s
gender actuality as a female. Now
although both genders in either sensuality or sensibility are
superficially in
sync with each other, free soma and bound psyche characterizing the
former no
less than free psyche and bound soma the latter, we have a right, based
on the
underlining gender actuality of each gender, to regard antimales as
enslaved to
females when psychically bound and somatically free and antifemales, by
contrast, as enslaved to males when somatically bound and psychically
free. For in spite of appearances to the
contrary in the one case and essences to the contrary in the other, a
psychically bound male is an upended male, whom we have identified with
the
term antimale, just as a somatically bound female, whom we have
identified with
the term antifemale, is an upended female and therefore no less at
cross-purposes with her gender actuality than her sensually subordinate
male
or, rather, antimale counterpart. One
gender’s meat is, to use the proverbial expression, the other gender’s
poison,
and therefore any society based in the outer light of somatic freedom
can only
be unfair to males, who have to live, contrary to their gender grain,
with the
inner darkness of psychic binding.
Contrariwise, any society based or, rather, centred in the inner
light
of psychic freedom can only be unfair to females, who have to live,
contrary to
their gender grain, with the outer darkness of somatic binding. You can’t have it both ways, although most
Western societies, in particular, are more complicated than to be
simply one thing
or the other, bearing in mind the extent to which axial interplay
between the
noumenal and phenomenal, the ethereal and corporeal, factors has
traditionally
been a fact or a truth of life, with due modifications of the
phenomenal
positions in relation to their noumenal counterparts, whether in terms
of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in relation to the male
ideal of
free psyche and bound soma, the inner light and the outer darkness, or
in terms
of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in relation to the
female ideal
of free soma and bound psyche, the outer light and the inner darkness. Those ideals exist on separate axes in
mutually exclusive vein, but they are polar to positions on each axis
that run
contrary to the presiding ideal and have to be judged in relation to
either
psychic binding and somatic freedom (if sensual) or somatic binding and
psychic
freedom (if sensible), being phenomenal parallels to the contrary
noumenal
ideals which head a different axis.
Verily, there is no simple polarity between light and darkness. Only between inner darkness and inner light
on church-hegemonic terms and between outer light and outer darkness on
state-subordinate terms, should the antiphysical be psychically saved
to
metaphysics and the chemical somatically counter-damned to
antimetachemistry,
to take a particular rather than general view.
And, contrary to this, there exists a polarity between outer
light and
outer darkness on state-hegemonic terms and between inner darkness and
inner
light on church-subordinate terms, should the metachemical be
somatically
damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical psychically
counter-saved to
physics.
THE
TASKS
LYING
AHEAD
FOR THE GODLY
AND THE ANTIDEVILISH. Of course, as the reader may already have
learned, the only thing that will damn the metachemical to
antichemistry (to
speak in general terms) and counter-save the antimetaphysical to
physics is the
salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics (again speaking in general
terms)
and the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry, so that
the
metachemical/antimetaphysical position at the northwest point of our
intercardinal axial compass is rendered commercially untenable for want
of
chemical/antiphysical prey to exploit from the standpoint of somatic
license
and psychic enslavement, the outer light and the inner darkness. Hence only the radical and effectively
permanent salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and the no-less
permanent counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry will
bring
down the metachemical/antimetaphysical and effectively collapse the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the secular fruit of
schismatic
heresy, to its polar antithesis at the southeast point of the
intercardinal
axial compass, obliging those who, as physical/antichemical, are
already there
to make the damned/counter-saved over in their own effectively
damned/counter-saved images as a precondition of their own entitlement
to
salvation and counter-damnation in the not unlikely event, longer term,
of
their being transferred to and transformed by the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis as a matter of evolutionary
course. Even those who were damned down
from and counter-saved up from the northwest to the southeast point of
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, sacrificing free soma to bound
soma in
the case, most especially, of the metachemical and bound psyche to free
psyche
in the case, most especially, of the antimetaphysical could conceivably
find
themselves in subsequent line for axial transference and transformation
in the
event of their physical and antichemical counterparts having already
undergone
such an experience, since one cannot put a halt to the processes of
salvation
and counter-damnation until virtually everyone who can be has
been saved or counter-damned to the northeast point of our
intercardinal axial compass and therefore re-made in the mould of
metaphysical
divinity and antimetachemical antidevility, according to gender. But in the shorter term it is only the
antiphysical and chemical who can be so saved and counter-damned, and
it is
those who come, from a revolutionary social theocratic basis, to
identify with
the northeast point of the said compass who will be responsible, sooner
or
later, for saving and counter-damning them in a manner commensurate
with the
synthetically artificial requirements of global civilization. For this is way beyond both the West and the
East, Catholicism and Buddhism, alike, and only a social theocratically
radical
interpretation of salvation and counter-damnation in relation to the
utmost
synthetically artificial criteria, whether applied to the self or to
the
not-self, to psyche or to soma, in both metaphysical and
antimetachemical
contexts, will suffice to so transfigure the antiphysical and chemical
lapsed
Catholic generality of, for instance, violent-film-suffering persons
that,
eventually, they will be removed from their lowly status to the divine
and
antidiabolic heights of the northeast point of our intercardinal axial
compass,
which is also the utmost point of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial
criteria. And it is the extent to which
this transpires that will determine whether or not the metachemical and
antimetaphysical are damned and counter-saved to antichemistry and
physics
respectively for want of
chemical and antiphysical prey at the southwest point of
the
intercardinal axial compass. At present,
those who are prey to all manner of filmic
and other
metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions ‘from above’ are less
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, in traditional Catholic fashion,
than
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate in their deference, in
different
degrees, to what passes for culture at the northwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass. They are less meek and
pseudo-vain than quasi-vain (quasi-metachemical chemical) and
quasi-pseudomeek
(quasi-antimetaphysical antiphysical) and therefore they are, as
secularized
lapsed Catholics, out of kilter with traditional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.
Only the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in
such
traditionally Catholic but effectively secularized countries as Eire to
a
religiously sovereign end can return the people concerned to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, and thus permit
their salvation
and counter-damnation to metaphysics and antimetachemistry to go ahead. But this can only happen in the event of a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty from out the paradoxical
election,
and therefore the paradox of their secular deference to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial criteria largely, though not exclusively, stemming from the
northwest
point of the intercardinal axial compass can only be rectified in
favour of a
return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in consequence of
this
other paradox not only taking place but ultimately proving successful
in
achieving from the electorate a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty,
which will alone guarantee it deliverance not only from its own lowly
condition
but from those who currently exploit such a condition from immorally
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate heights of somatic licence in order
to
increase their fame and wealth at the people’s financial and moral
expense. Only this majority mandate will
entitle the social theocratic leadership to begin the process of saving
and
counter-damning the people to the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial
compass in relation to a renewal, necessarily revolutionary, of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.
There will be much building, within the
framework of the Centre (as explained by me in a variety of
philosophical texts
mostly germane to Opera D’Oeuvre, my
collected writings), for Social Theocracy to undertake and also, as a
necessary
corollary of this, the removal, as and where appropriate, of outmoded
and
obsolete cultural and religious material such that, for all its good
intentions, still stems from the regrettably untransvaluated tradition
of Devil
the Mother hyped as God and the Antison of Antigod ‘down down’ as the
Devil and
would hold the people back from their entitlement, under religious
sovereignty,
to true metaphysical and beautiful antimetachemical self-realization
and
notself-curtailment. In short, the free
psychic triumph of the inner light and its bound somatic corollary of
outer
darkness can only come properly to pass if all that appertains to the
outer
light of somatic freedom and the inner darkness of psychic binding has
been
systematically rejected, and this would be at first implicit in and
then
explicit to the assumption of a religiously sovereign people in the
event of a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty in consequence of a
paradoxical
utilization of the democratic process in certain countries whose
religious
traditions predispose one to believe that such a utilization, not
matter how
seemingly implausible at present, would not only be possible but
likely, later
if not sooner, to achieve the required mandate from the electorate. For only from their mandate can the social
theocratic ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ be established on earth to start the
process of
freeing them, little by little, from all that would hold them back and
down to
the false worship of filmic barbarity and philistinism or, more
correctly,
pseudo-philistinism. Even their own
traditions in relation to Woman the Mother and the Antison of Antiman,
corresponding on state-subordinate terms to chemical free soma and
antiphysical
free soma, not to mention, in church-hegemonic vein, the Daughter of
Woman and
Antiman the Antifather, corresponding to chemical bound psyche and
antiphysical
bound psyche, would hold them back and down, if still operative, from
the
prospect of that more complete salvation and counter-damnation which,
according
with gender, will bring them to the gates of metaphysical heaven and
antimetachemical antihell on a basis that will owe everything to global
universality and antipolyversality and thus to the synthetically
artificial
overcoming of the world to which, in antiphysics and chemistry, they
still
belong, if less now on a traditional Catholic basis than on the
contemporary
secular basis of post-worldly globalization.
I do not pretend that the task of delivering such a people to
the
revolutionary northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass will
be easy or
straightforward, but I am confident that unless a start is made on
establishing
a social theocratic alternative to the contemporary worldly and
netherworldly/anti-otherworldly secular status quo, their exploitation
at the
hands of unscrupulous predators will continue to gather momentum and to
grow
steadily worse. It is we Social
Theocrats who must bring this alternative to pass so that the people
may be
delivered both from evil (metachemical free soma) and pseudo-folly
(antimetaphysical free soma), as well as from crime (metachemical bound
psyche)
and pseudo-sin (antimetaphysical bound psyche), the outer light and
inner
darkness of which can only blind them to their selves and thus to the
possibility, for antimales-become-males, of soulful salvation in the
Joy of
Heaven the Holy Soul through the truthfully blessed ego of God the
Father,
whose primary church-hegemonic positions in metaphysical
transcendentalism will
establish the primary state-subordinate (compared to the
antimaterialism of
antimetachemical antifemales) corollary of transcendentalism in the
idealism of
the blessed antiwill (bound will) of the Son of God and the blessed
antispirit
(bound spirit) of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the truthful approach to
beauty
and joyful approach to love of which will impact on antimetachemistry
in such
fashion that, for females-become-antifemales,
there will duly ensue a pseudo-cursed antispiritual (bound
spiritual)
counter-damnation in Antihell the Unclear Spirit via the pseudo-cursed antiwill (bound will) of Antidevil the
Antimother, the antimaterialism of each of which will establish the
possibility
of a secondary church-hegemonic (compared to the transcendentalism of
metaphysical males) complement to transcendentalism in the
antifundamentalism
of the pseudo-cursed ego of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil whose
beautiful
approach to truth will parallel the loving approach to joy of the
pseudo-cursed
soul of the Unclear Soul of Antihell.
Gender, in itself, is an extremely complicated issue, which
needs to be addressed
from a standpoint favouring the male and engineering the upending, to
unclear
cross-purposes, of the female-become-antifemale in order that holiness
in the
male may prevail as the leading attribute of the metaphysical hegemony
over
antimetachemistry. But once one has
understood gender and taken the necessary precautions to ensure that
gender
discrimination is upheld in the interests of metaphysical holiness,
then it
should be possible to implement the salvation of males and the
counter-damnation of antifemales in such a manner that the one will
never be at
risk of subversion by the other but will continue to prevail in the
interests
of cultural grace and pseudo-civil wisdom, free metaphysical psyche and
bound
metaphysical soma, bringing a secondary pseudo-civility in
pseudo-goodness
(pseudo-modesty) and a secondary culture in pseudo-punishment, bound
antimetachemical soma and free antimetachemical psyche, to pass as a
matter of
secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate necessity vis-à-vis the
primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria obtaining ‘on high’, in the
truth
and joy of metaphysical transcendentalism and the truthful approach to
beauty
and joyful approach to love of metaphysical idealism, the latter of
which will
be instrumental, in no small degree, in establishing the beauty and
love of
antimetachemical antimaterialism as the necessary secondary
state-subordinate
preconditions of the beautiful approach to truth and loving approach to
joy of
that antimetachemical antifundamentalism which has been identified,
correctly,
with secondary church-hegemonic criteria.
Only thus will there be a virtuous circle of metaphysical and
antimetachemical factors in both psyche and soma, church and state,
inner light
and outer darkness, self and not-self, and this can only obtain under
what is
and has every noumenal right to be an unequivocal metaphysical hegemony
over
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
bringing to pass the godly and heavenly leadership of the Celestial
City over
the antidevilish and antihellish antirule of Anti-Vanity Fair, Eternity
and
Anti-Infinity without universal and antipolyversal end.
LONDON
2005–06
(Revised
2011)
