Preview PHILOSOPHICAL RUMINATIONS & THEOSOPHICAL ILLUMINATIONS eBook
Op.
125
PHILOSOPHICAL
RUMINATIONS
ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS HAVING AXIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Metaphysical
Philosophy
as
Revised
and
Reformatted
Weblogs
Copyright
©
2011
John O’Loughlin
______________
CONTENTS:-
1. Growing
Old
with
Young
Musicians
2. Distinguishing ‘ology’
from
‘osophy’ in Knowledge and Truth
3. The
Real Truth about Being
4. Distinguishing Beauty from Truth and Truth
from Beauty
5. Distinguishing Culture from Civility on
Genuine and Pseudo Axial Terms
6. Examining the Sensible Rejection of
Sensuality from the Standpoint of Elites
7. The
Instinctive Irrational Reductionism of Popular Expletives
8. Freedom
and Determinism
9. The
Development of Civilization against Nature on both Phenomenal and
Noumenal
Terms
10. The
Correspondence
between
Psychology
and
the Elements
11. An Analysis of the Basic Musical Divisions in
Psychological Relation to the Elements
12. Incompatible Gender Ideals
13. An Analysis of the
Church-hegemonic/State-subordinate
Sporting Dichotomy in
14. A Revaluation of Hoods vis-à-vis Umbrellas
15. Probable Parallel of Singers and Hoods
16. Utilizing the Democratic Process to a
Revolutionary Theocratic End
17. Why I am not in the Humanists’ Economic Pocket
18. Concerning a Distinction between the
Administrative Few and the Religiously Sovereign One
19. Never Simply Black and White
20. A Brief Examination of the Moral Distinctions
between Play and Work
21. Synthetic and Non-Synthetic Antitheses
22. From Superbarbarism and Superphilistinism to
Superculture and Supercivility
23. Metachemical and Metaphysical Antitheses
24. Antimetachemical and Antimetaphysical
Antitheses
25. Chemical and Physical Antitheses
26. Antiphysical and Antichemical Antitheses
27. The One and the Anti-Not One
28. Victors
and
Victims
_______________
GROWING
OLD
WITH
YOUNG
MUSICIANS. They
say that people outgrow music or, at least, certain musical tastes, and
that is
doubtless true. For I no longer take much interest in classical or
jazz, which
used to preoccupy me a great deal more than ever it does at present. I
was
always keen on rock music, particularly what is called progressive
rock, but
even that changes and one finds oneself listening to what is called
heavy metal
and, by contrast, electronica, meaning Tangerine Dream-like stuff which
is
likely to be synthesizer-based instrumental. Not that one listens to a
great
deal of it or all that often. There are other things besides music;
but, all
the same, if I had to describe my predominating tastes at present it
would be
heavy metal and electronica, and would include such bands as Motorhead,
Iron
Maiden, the Spiritual Beggars, Black Label Society (BLS), Michael
Schenker
Group (MSG), King Crimson, the aforementioned Tangerine Dream, and -
yes - Arch
Enemy. I don't know what it is about them, maybe a combination of
factors
including Michael Amott (also of Spiritual Beggars), but their music
and lyrics
impress me sufficiently for me to want to rate them as high if not
higher than
all the rest. And I'm fifty-four, for christs
sake!
Anyway, it seems to me that age is not really - thank god! - a problem
in
regard to taste and that, when push comes to shove, one would rather
listen to
good contemporary music, with a 2000+ date, than simply regurgitate the
past
or, worse, dwell on the past as though nothing else mattered. Certainly
it is
good to keep the faith with some of one's old favourites, and it sure
as hell
makes one feel better to be buying and/or listening to someone
approximately
one's own age who, like Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne or even Deep
Purple, is
still, to all appearances, 'going strong' and sounding hip. But I
couldn't do
that exclusively, and I thank my lucky stars, or whatever it is, that I
am flexible
enough to change with the times and grow new tastebuds with the passing
of
time.
DISTINGUISHING
‘OLOGY’
FROM
‘OSOPHY’
IN
KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH. I've often thought that
philosophy is a hyped term which is generally used to describe a love
of truth when,
in point of fact, it is only a love of knowledge, which is something of
a
(physical) shortfall from the metaphysical nature (sic) of truth.
Besides, if
philosophy is a love of knowledge then surely philology would be a more
suitable term for the pursuit of knowledge, something analogous to
theology
having to do with the pursuit of truth and not the love of truth, which
I
should imagine would be theosophical in character, using that term,
like the
aforementioned one, in a wholly novel and more metaphysically pertinent
way
than is usually the case. Thus theology would stand to theosophy as
philology
to philosophy - as an egoistic alternative to anything psychoistic, and
therefore having more to do with truth than joy, not to mention, where
philology and philosophy are concerned, with knowledge than pleasure.
Yet even
the expression 'love of' is problematic in this context, love being
irrelevant
to both metaphysics and physics. Rather could it be said that there is
pleasure
in knowledge and joy in truth; though knowledge can also lead to
pleasure and
truth to joy, which, if experienced for their own sake, would transcend
both a
'love of knowledge' and a 'love of truth', being arguably more than
either
philosophical or theosophical. For ego
and soul are both aspects of psyche, the difference between the two
(male)
contexts normally being that soul tends to revolve around ego in the
case of
physics and ego around soul in the case of metaphysics, where theology
should
lead beyond theosophy, or a 'love of
truth’ and, hence, God, to something
approximating a heavenly redemption of ego in pure soul, which would
truly be
the joyful transcendence of both theology and
theosophy.
THE
REAL
TRUTH
ABOUT
BEING. As a
self-taught philosopher, or thinker, I have long maintained that being, metaphysical being, is
inconceivable without the assistance, in antimetachemistry, of
antidoing, its
female or, more correctly, antifemale corollary. For unless doing is
'brought
low', as from metachemistry to
antimetachemistry,
space to antispace, there can be no 'rising up' of being, as from antimetaphysics to metaphysics, antitime to
time, and hence
the repudiation of what can be called antibeing under doing. Being
requires
antidoing no less, across the axial divide, than doing, its
metachemical
antithesis, the antimetaphysical corollary of antibeing, since neither
can be
unequivocally hegemonic unless their respective gender complements are
'upended' and effectively subordinated to their control. Now what
applies
unequivocally on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and
time/antispace
applies to an equivocal degree, with due axial subversion having to be
borne in
mind, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume,
where
the equivocal hegemony of physical taking requires the 'upended'
subordination
of antichemical antigiving, its 'antifemale' complement, in relative
contrast
to the subordination of antiphysical antitaking under an equivocally
hegemonic
chemical giving. For unless giving is 'brought low', as from chemistry
to
antichemistry, volume to antivolume, there can be no 'rising up' of
taking, as
from antiphysics to physics, antimass to
mass, and
hence the repudiation of what has been called antitaking under giving.
But this
is not universally established or encouraged, since these phenomenal
positions
are also subject, as intimated above, to axial interplay with their
sensual or
sensible (depending on the axis) noumenal counterparts, and this is
what
paradoxically precludes a simple switch from phenomenal sensuality/antisensibility to phenomenal sensibility/antisensuality on the part of those who, under
Catholic
guidance traditionally, would more relate to the possibility of some
degree of
being and/or antidoing as the solution to their lowly predicament in
giving
and/or antitaking than a straightforward switch, across the axial
divide, from
that to taking and/or antigiving, as the gender case may be. For the
Catholic
Church, relative to Western civilization, is the 'one true' church, the
one
that offers a degree of being and/or antidoing to those who have not
'sold
out', usually via some degree of puritanical rejection of Anglicanism,
to
taking and/or antigiving, but such a Church, being Western, is still a
far cry
from global universality, which transcends both the West and the East
alike,
and therefore its 'take' on being and/or antidoing is less than what
could be
and, hopefully, will be independently of such a church when once the
march of
global civilization reaches its sensible/antisensual destiny in the
light of a
metaphysics that is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and
not
subject, as is Catholic Christianity and indeed Christianity in
general, to the
subversion of metaphysics by metachemistry
hyped as
metaphysics in time-honoured, alpha-stemming, Old Testament fashion,
with Devil
the Mother hyped as God (the Father) always precluding anything but a
Son-like
fulcrum in relation to itself which, even in the Catholic postulate of
a
resurrected Saviour, persists as a sort of paradoxical extrapolation to
the
detriment of metaphysical independence and, hence, freedom. For there
can be no
such independence in the 'Son', only in relation to a 'Father' who
precedes
'His Son', as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, independently of
metachemical
subversion and therefore on the basis of metaphysical freedom and the
repudiation, democratically and peaceably, of Devil the Mother hyped as
God,
without which there can be no authentic metaphysical being, much less
beingful
approach to antidoing, in metaphysical bound soma, of the Son, and
therefore no
authentic and fully universal truth. Catholicism may appertain to the
'one true
church', but such a church, being Christian, i.e. centred in the 'Son',
still
falls short of global universality and, hence, the transcendence of
everything
rooted in Old Testament Creatorism, with its hype of Devil the Mother
as
God. We advocates of global
universality, whom I have in the past identified with and continue to
identify
with Social Theocracy, can no more endorse the West than the East where
religion is concerned. We are beyond both traditions in our
revolutionary
advocacy of the one true centre.
And yet we are the
profoundest theocrats. For Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father was
never
truly theocratic but autocracy in disguise, the sugar coating, as it
were, of
the bitter pill of metachemical autocracy, the 'best of a bad job', to
speak
colloquially, and we repudiate all autocracy and everything that pays
tribute,
in aediculated architectural vein, to Creatorism. If
we
refuse
to
regard ourselves as 'atheist'
it is because that would be to pay too much credit to what was never
properly
theocratic to begin with, but effectively antitheocratic in its
autocratic
roots. There is nothing atheist about Social Theocracy, and for that
reason it
can only encourage true being and not the subversion of being by doing
and,
hence, the vitiation of being in relation to what fundamentally remains
contrary to it. The real truth about being is that it has never really
come to
pass because doing has been hyped as being pretty much as the cosmos as
universal and the first-mover She as He. We
absolutely
reject this fundamental lie from the standpoint of truth.
DISTINGUISHING
BEAUTY
FROM
TRUTH
AND
TRUTH FROM BEAUTY. Some say that beauty is truth and truth
beauty, but they couldn't be more wrong so far as I'm concerned. Beauty and love, which hang together like
will and spirit in metachemistry, are a
product of
noumenally objective appearances,
whereas
truth
and
joy,
which hang together like ego and soul in metaphysics, are the
product of
noumenally subjective essences.
Thus there is all the
difference between alpha and omega, appearance and essence, between
beauty and
truth, love and joy, and incompatible they remain. Either you defer to
the
outer heat of metachemical free soma or, in rejecting it,
you cultivate the inner light of metaphysical free psyche. The one is
absolutely female, the other absolutely male. Outer heat is as
incompatible
with inner light as spatial space with repetitive time; for space and time are absolutely antithetical, like alpha and
omega. But outer heat can rule the outer
mode of
time, which I call antitime, and equate with an antimetaphysical
subjection to
the spatial space of metachemistry which
takes the
form of sequential time. Contrariwise,
inner light can rule ('lead' would probably be too soft a term here for
what
amounts to a gender distinction) the inner mode of space, which I call
antispace, and equate with an antimetachemical subjection to the
repetitive
time of metaphysics which takes the form of spaced space. Hence either females get the better of males, who become
antimale, or
males get the better of females, who become antifemale. Yet to the
truth-rejecting male, the antimetaphysical antimale, beauty may well
seem like
truth, since it is what rules him and keeps him in subjection to its
metachemical appearance.
Likewise, if from a contrary gender standpoint, truth may well
seem like
beauty to the beauty-rejecting female, the antimetachemical antifemale,
since
it is what rules over her and keeps her in subjection to its
metaphysical essence. Lacking truth-proper,
which is inner, the antimetaphysical antimale may well project his
sense of
truth onto beauty and convince himself that beauty is truth. Lacking beauty-proper, which is outer, the
antimetachemical antifemale may well project her sense of beauty onto
truth and
convince herself that truth is beauty. Neither one of them is correct.
There is
no more, strictly speaking, any such thing as outer truth than there is
inner
beauty. Truth is by definition inner and beauty outer, essence and
appearance.
The worship of beauty is only possible because of the absence of truth,
while,
conversely, the worship of truth is only possible because of the
absence of
beauty. It is the absence of truth from
antimetaphysical antimales that makes the worship of metachemical
beauty
possible for them and, conversely, the absence of beauty from
antimetachemical
antifemales that makes the worship of metaphysical truth possible for them,
albeit
in
both
cases the worship of the
ruling, or hegemonic, factor is not equivalent to that factor as
such,
but
is
only
a symptom of subjection. Beauty
does not worship itself but projects itself objectively as a
metachemical
expression of spatial space, which is the appearance of outer heat.
Neither
does truth worship itself because, being intensely subjective, it is a
metaphysical impression of repetitive time, which is the essence of
inner
light. Space and time are as incompatible as appearance and essence,
and
therefore beauty is never truth nor truth
ever beauty.
Beauty rules over the antitruthful want of truth as space over
antitime,
spatial appearance over sequential anti-essence, while, conversely,
truth rules
over the antibeautiful want of beauty as time over antispace,
repetitive
essence over spaced anti-appearance. Either the noumenally objective
heat of metachemistry rules over the
noumenally antisubjective
antilight of antimetaphysics as Vanity
Fair over
Anti-Celestial City or, across the upper-order planes of what is an
axial
divide, the noumenally subjective light of metaphysics rules over the
noumenally anti-objective antiheat of antimetachemistry as the
Celestial City
over Anti-Vanity Fair. You can't have it both ways, for you cannot be
simultaneously superheathen and/or anti-superchristian and
superchristian
and/or anti-superheathen, alpha and/or anti-omega or omega and/or
anti-alpha.
But the latter is much harder, much more difficult, of attainment than
the former,
which is in general terms everywhere the alpha rather than the omega of
civilization and therefore that which is most basic and, at certain
epochs (of
which the present is a case in point), by far the more prevalent, and
not just
- though certainly more so - among juveniles!
DISTINGUISHING
CULTURE
FROM
CIVILITY
ON
GENUINE AND PSEUDO AXIAL TERMS.
One has
to distinguish, whether one likes it or not, between genuine culture
and
pseudo-civility, the respective attributes of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry
at the northeast point of what I like to think of as 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. 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, psyche preceding
soma as
'father' preceding 'son' in male actuality. 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 or, in colloquial terms, for
bullgas.
EXAMINING
THE
SENSIBLE
REJECTION
OF
SENSUALITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ELITES. The general rule on either
a noumenal or a phenomenal, an ethereal or a corporeal, basis, is that
the male
comes properly to pass in sensibility in consequence of having rejected
the
antimale whose subordination to the female in sensuality precluded his
moral
enlightenment and kept him more or less in the position of an
Antichrist. For
antigods, whether as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic
antisons, only
exist by dint of the hegemony of devils, whether as free somatic
mothers or
bound psychic daughters, as antimetaphysics
under metachemistry or, in terms of plane,
antitime under space.
Likewise antimen, whether as bound psychic antifathers or free somatic
antisons, only exist by dint of the hegemony of women, whether as free
somatic
mothers or bound psychic daughters, as antiphysics
under chemistry or, in terms of plane, antimass under volume.
For gods and men to respectively come properly to pass, there must be a
sensible rejection of antigods and antimen, the former, whether as free
psychic
fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the noumenal
female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of antidevils,
whether as
bound somatic antimothers or free psyche antidaughters, as
antimetachemistry
under metaphysics or, in terms of plane, antispace under time, and the
latter,
whether as free psychic fathers or bound somatic sons, constraining the
phenomenal female-become-antifemale to the subordinate status of
antiwomen,
whether as bound somatic antimothers or free psychic antidaughters, as
antichemistry under physics or, in terms of plane, antivolume under
mass. Hence no antidevils in antimetachemical
antispace without gods in
metaphysical time, and no antiwomen in antichemical antivolume without
men in
physical mass. But the rejection of antimetaphysics
by the metaphysical is from pseudo-meekness to righteousness and brings
in its
train the eclipse of vanity by pseudo-justice as metachemistry
is abandoned for antimetachemistry by noumenal
females-become-antifemales,
whereas the rejection of antiphysics by
the physical
is from meekness to pseudo-righteousness and brings in its train the
eclipse of
pseudo-vanity by justice as chemistry is abandoned for antichemistry by
phenomenal females-become-antifemales. For the unequivocal hegemony of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry is not subject, like its physical
counterpart, to axial subversion at the hands of its female complement,
but is
free to maintain a psychic emphasis at the expense of bound soma. With
physics,
as with the physical, by contrast, the equivocal hegemony finds itself
subject
to antichemical subversion to bound somatic emphasis in consequence of
the
gender-based axial polarity that antichemistry establishes with metachemistry or, rather, that metachemistry,
ever somatically free, establishes with antichemistry to the detriment
of psychic
freedom. The pseudo-righteous are subject to somatic emphasis at the
expense of
free psyche, whereas the righteous-proper are in an axial position,
unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry and axially antithetical
to antiphysics, to maintain a free psychic
emphasis and to
constrain the antiphysical, their gender counterparts, to bound psychic
emphasis at the expense of free soma, thereby precluding what would
otherwise
be a heathenistic emphasis, under the chemical hegemonic pressures of
free females,
on free soma. Such are the paradoxes of axial polarity, whether the
axis be church-hegemonic/state-subordinate,
as in the
metaphysical-antiphysical and antimetachemical-chemical case, or
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, as in the metachemical-antichemical
and
antimetaphysical-physical case. But, contrary to this, are the
respective class
rejections of sensuality by sensible males which broadly establish the
representative elites on either a righteous or a pseudo-righteous
basis, with
antifemale pseudo-justice or genuine justice their respective
subordinate
corollaries. The salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and the
counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry is a quite
separate and
more paradoxically problematic matter that has not yet achieved its
final,
because maximum, solution. Contrariwise, the damnation of the
metachemical to
antichemistry and the counter-salvation of the antimetaphysical to
physics will
only ensue to anything like a conclusive extent in the wake of the
achievement
of class-elevated salvation and counter-damnation, the class-elevated
as
opposed to class-modified options hitherto being very much, despite
appearances
to the contrary, the exception to the general rule, since it is easier
to
transfer from sensuality to sensibility on either a noumenal or a
phenomenal
basis than to be transformed from the phenomenal to the noumenal or
from the
noumenal to the phenomenal on a sensual/sensible basis, as the class
case may
be. Yet even so, there are sound traditional reasons why the
transference from
sensuality to sensibility, to speak in general terms, on the phenomenal
planes
has not been encouraged and why, in consequence of axial intransigence,
phenomenal sensibility was achieved more in relation to a puritanical
rejection
of Anglican interference than as a consequence of mass Catholic
transfers from
the alpha to omega, as it were, of worldly alternatives.
THE
INSTINCTIVE
IRRATIONAL
REDUCTIONISM
OF
POPULAR EXPLETIVES. Just as the phrase
'sonofabitch' is logically incorrect, insofar as one can only be an
'antison'
of a 'bitch' in the sense of that which antichristically lines up
either as antimetaphysics under metachemistry
or as antiphysics under chemistry, the
hegemonic
position of somatic freedom being in each case female and, hence a
'mother', so
such terribly populist terms-of-abuse as 'motherfucking' and
'motherfucker' are
completely illogical as far as their relevance to the contexts -
metachemical
or chemical - of 'mothers' is concerned. In fact, such expressions
simply
mirror the instinctive or instinctual nature of expletives generally.
For, in
reality, both the metachemical and chemical positions should be
identified with
the specifically female attributes, in noumenal objectivity and
phenomenal
objectivity, of somatic licence, which are 'frigging' in the one case
and
'sucking' in the other. Hence the phrase 'motherfrigging' for
metachemical
objectivity and 'mothersucking' for chemical objectivity would be
logically
more sustainable than the populist - albeit aggressively generalized -
term,
'motherfucking'. But just as a somatically free 'antison' (not to
mention
psychically bound 'antifather') lines up under a somatically free
'mother' (not
to mention psychically bound 'daughter') in both noumenal and
phenomenal modes
of sensuality, and more gender representatively in terms of antisensibility
than of sensuality, so one could - though not necessarily should -
speak of an
'antisnogging-antison' in the case of antimetaphysical antisubjectivity
and an
'antifucking-antison' in the case of antiphysical antisubjectivity, the
antimale free-somatic converse, in each case, of a hegemonic
'snogging-son' in
metaphysical sensibility and a hegemonic 'fucking-son' in physical
sensibility,
not to mention of a 'snogging-father' and a 'fucking-father' where the
free
psychic aspects of such metaphysical and physical hegemonies are
concerned. For free psyche is simply the
concomitant of bound soma, which both
the metaphysical and physical 'sons' are illustrative of.
However that may
be, the corollary, from an antifemale standpoint, of metaphysics is
antimetachemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis
the 'son'
be called an 'antifrigging-antimother', whereas the corollary of
physics is
antichemistry and hence what could vis-à-vis the 'son' be called an
'antisucking-antimother'. Thus, even without reference to
'antidaughter'
positions in both antimetachemistry and antichemistry, both of which
would have
more to do, under male-hegemonic pressures, with free psyche than bound
soma,
the overall perspective on such terms is far more complex than a simple
generalized - and fundamentally irrational - instinctive reductionism
would
have us believe. Just as 'sons-of-bitches' only exist in the
imagination of
those who resort to such language, so such complementary terminology as
'motherfucking' and 'motherfucker' fail to stand up to logical
scrutiny. Yet,
in the heat of the moment, such instinctive populism as passes muster
will
always curry favour with the broad masses at the expense of that which
only
flows, after all, from a considered analysis by a mind at an
intellectual
remove from expletive instinct, and therefore determined not only to
apply more
apposite terminology - no matter how unpleasant such terms may be - but
to
broaden out the perspective until every factor is embraced and one can
see why
such and such a term has specific applicability to only one point or
position
on the overall compass, so to speak, of alternative options.
FREEDOM
AND
DETERMINISM. What if
the much-vaunted dichotomy between determinism and free will is really
a
fallacy? For can't free will be a product
of
determinism? I mean, nature flourishes on both free will and free
spirit, and
therefore can it not be said that both are determined by the
underlining drive
to either wilful (instinctual) or spiritual freedom of nature?
Certainly there
is, as I have sought to logically demonstrate in the past, a
distinction
between somatic freedom as a product of natural determinism and psychic
freedom
as a product of, well, a certain supernatural or cultural determinism,
with metachemistry and chemistry lining up
on the side of free
will and free spirit, but physics and metaphysics lining up on the side
of free
ego and free soul, the former pair effectively female and the latter
pair more
usually male. Now if this much-vaunted dichotomy between free will and
determinism is, as I happen to think, a fallacy, then it could be
maintained
that not only is freedom a product of determinism, but that determinism
works
towards freedom, if in opposite gender ways. There is the determinism
of free
soma, both instinctually and spiritually, on the one hand, and the
determinism
of free psyche, both intellectually and emotionally, on the other hand.
For if
females are fundamentally soma preceding and predominating over psyche
and
males, by contrast, essentially psyche preceding and preponderating
over soma,
then each gender's freedom is determined by contrary factors which are
not only
incompatible but fated to war on one another until the victory of one
or the
other is assured, whether intermittently or permanently. Life is
oriented
towards freedom, but such freedom is determined by gender and by the
underlining interests of nature. Female freedom is more metachemical
(fiery)
and chemical (watery) than either physical (vegetative) or metaphysical
(airy),
and therefore females have certain metachemical and chemical
predilections,
including the ugly periodic bleeding of menstruation and a weak
tendency
towards tearfulness, really quite alien to males. But, by a similar
token, they
are less physically and metaphysically free, or knowledgeable, than
males,
whose bodies are more suited to strenuous physical and intellectual
behaviour.
The somatic freedom of females in will and spirit does not imply a
suppleness
of movement for the simple reason that their physiological disposition
hampers
the kind of overall flexibility to which the male, unaccustomed to
pendulous
breasts and amply protruding buttocks arching over fleshy seductive
thighs, is
predisposed with his leaner overall frame. And such a more uniform
frame is no
less the precondition of a degree of intellectual freedom to which the
female,
except in rare - and usually physiologically untypical - instances, is
completely unsuited and, frankly, indisposed.
THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF
CIVILIZATION
AGAINST
NATURE ON BOTH PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL TERMS. The
wonder about this world is that civilization has advanced as far as it
has -
admittedly not everywhere and not in the same ways - in spite of what
males are
up against vis-à-vis females. For females are programmed, by nature, to
get the
better of males and more often than not they do, with depressingly
predictable
consequences! Yet males are still able to carry on the struggle for
civilization, meaning principally culture and civility, which is no
small
achievement in the circumstances, since civilization only develops at
the
expense of nature and all that is behind it in the Cosmos, pretty much
as man
at the expense of woman and the Devil. But ultimately civilization only
develops to its cultural maximum in God, Who is beyond man, and
therefore even
man must eventually submit to the will of God if not merely woman but
the Devil
is to be defeated. And by 'the Devil' I do not mean Satan or any other
false
conception of evil rooted in an antimetaphysical 'fall guy' for
diabolic
denigration from 'on high', but the metachemical 'first mover' whom I
have
consistently identified, in my writings, with Devil the Mother (hyped
as God),
whether in the Cosmos, in nature, in mankind, or, from a contemporary
camera-besotted standpoint, in Cyborgkind, where one could say that She
is
least rather than less (in relation to least), more (in relation to
most) or
most somatically free, as She assuredly is in Her cosmic manifestation.
But
this hype of Devil the Mother as God is what bedevils conventional
religion and
ensures that what properly appertains to godliness, in metaphysics, is
given a
raw and usually somewhat partial deal, a deal unable to transcend bound
metaphysical soma for want of free metaphysical psyche relative to itself.
Only the repudiation of the false Father of Devil the Mother hyped as
God can
lead to the full complement of godliness, as it were, in metaphysics,
and then
only for males, since metaphysical free psyche and bound soma is a
profoundly
male actuality that requires a subordinate - and necessarily upended
femaleness
- in the guise of antimetachemistry, the Antidevilish
complement of true godliness which, in truth, is less female than
antifemale in
character and therefore the opposite of everything somatically free and
psychically bound. Thus if God and the Devil are antithetical, they are
so on
an alpha/omega basis, not on what could be called an alpha/anti-omega
basis for
metachemistry and antimetaphysics,
still
less
on
an
omega/anti-alpha basis commensurate with metaphysics and
antimetachemistry. What 'hangs together' in either sensuality or
sensibility,
the outer somatically-dominated context of space/anti-time or the inner
psychically-dominated context of time/anti-space, is Devil and Antigod
in the
one case, that of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and God and the Antidevil
in the other case, that of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and each
pairing
is mutually exclusive of its antithesis. Therefore in a 'world' where
God is
hegemonically triumphant over the Antidevil,
there
can
be
no
Antigod subordinate to a hegemonic Devil ... the Mother. Such
metachemistry and antimetaphysics
will simply cease to theologically exist or to be acknowledged. They
will have
been consigned, along with everything else that stands in the way of
godliness
and antidevilishness, to the 'rubbish heap' of history. And this will
happen,
when it happens, democratically, by dint of a majority mandate for
religious
sovereignty in paradoxical elections designed to deliver the people
from every
last manifestation of the Devil and Antigod and empower them with
rights in
relation to God and the Antidevil, both of
which will
only fully or properly materialize when the people are in a position to
live
either a godly or, in the antifemale case, an antidevilish
kind of existence, as explained in more detail in various of my mature
philosophical works. See, for instance, Opera
D’Oeuvre and, more specifically, Metaphysical
Megatruth.
THE
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
PSYCHOLOGY
AND THE ELEMENTS. Just as
fire and water line up on the female, or objective, side of life
against
vegetation (earth) and air, their male, or subjective, counterparts,
which have
more to do with a convergent plenum than with a divergent vacuum, as in
the
distinction between phallus and vagina or, if you will, 'balls' and
'cunt', so
it could be said that the unconscious and the subconscious line up on a
like
basis against consciousness and superconsciousness, with a noumenal
antithesis
between the unconscious and the superconscious, will and soul, on the
ethereal
planes of space and time, but a phenomenal antithesis between the
subconscious
and the conscious, spirit and ego, on the corporeal planes of volume
and mass.
Hence fire and air are the alpha and omega of the noumenal planes,
water and
vegetation (earth) the alpha and omega of the phenomenal ones. But, in
practice, either the alpha gets the better of the omega, establishing a
sensual/antisensible correspondence between will and antisoul, the
unconscious
and the anti-superconscious, on the planes of space and antitime, and
between
spirit and anti-ego, the subconscious and the anticonscious, on the
planes of
volume and antimass, or, alternatively, the omega, premised upon an
urban
rather than a natural precondition, gets the better of the alpha,
establishing
a sensible/antisensual correspondence between soul and antiwill, the
superconscious and the anti-unconscious, on the planes of time and
antispace,
and between ego and antispirit, the conscious and the
anti-subconscious, on the
planes of mass and antivolume. For the one gender can only be
hegemonically
ascendant at the expense of the other, which means that either females
sensually triumph over antimales, whether unequivocally in space or
equivocally
in volume, or, by sensible contrast, males triumph over antifemales,
whether
equivocally in mass or unequivocally in time. Thus what has been called
anticonsciousness in the one case (phenomenal) and
anti-superconsciousness in the
other case (noumenal) are products of female domination through either
the
subconscious (phenomenal) or the unconscious (noumenal), anti-ego
antiphysically subordinate to the chemical hegemony of spirit, and
antisoul
antimetaphysically subordinate to the metachemical hegemony of will. By
contrast, what has been called anti-unconsciousness in the one case
(noumenal)
and anti-subconsciousness in the other case (phenomenal) are products
of male
domination through either the superconscious (noumenal) or the
conscious
(phenomenal), antiwill antimetachemically subordinate to the
metaphysical
hegemony of soul, and antispirit antichemically subordinate to the
physical
hegemony of ego. However, only the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics
over
antimetachemistry permits mind to truly flourish in superconscious
freedom of
anti-unconsciousness, its antifemale counterpart. The equivocal
hegemony of
physics over antichemistry, on the other hand, tends to fall victim to
axial
subversion at the behest of metachemistry
over antimetaphysics, and therefore such
egocentric
consciousness as obtains is usually vitiated by anti-subconsciousness
to the
greater glory or, rather, power of the unconscious. For where the
unconscious
is sovereign, even consciousness must toe an anti-subconscious line.
AN
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
BASIC MUSICAL DIVISIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL
RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS. If the unconscious and the subconscious line
up, objectively, against their subjective – and male – counterparts,
the
conscious and the superconscious, as contended in my previous entry,
then this
may not only be equivalent to fire and water on the female side of life
vis-à-vis vegetation (earth) and air on its male side but, in musical
terms, to
rhythm and harmony vis-à-vis melody and pitch, the former pair
equivalent to
fire and water, the unconscious and the subconscious, but the latter
pair
equivalent, by contrast, to vegetation and air, the conscious and the
superconscious. Thus not only would
rhythm and harmony appertain to the objective, or female, side of life,
but
they would correspond to will and spirit, power and glory, whereas
melody and
pitch, their subjective, or male, counterparts, would correspond to ego
and
soul, as though in association with form and content(ment). And in broad musical terms I can think of no
better genre distinctions for each of these contrasting attributes of
the
musical totality than ballet and opera vis-à-vis the symphony and the
concerto,
taking the former pair as largely synonymous with rhythm and harmony,
power and
glory, but the latter pair as largely synonymous with melody and pitch,
form
and content(ment).
Doubtless other musical genres, such as jazz and pop vis-à-vis
rock and
electronica, could also be cited in this respect, but the fundamental
distinction between rhythm and harmony on the one hand, and melody and
pitch on
the other would seem to confirm a gender dichotomy between the
unconscious and
the subconscious, fire and water, on the female side of things, and
between the
conscious and the superconscious, vegetation and air, on its male side. In terms of contrasting axes, however, it
could be contended that rhythm and melody would stand hegemonically
apart from
what may be called antipitch and antiharmony where
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, rhythm and
antipitch
lining up as metachemistry over antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, and melody and antiharmony lining up as physics over
antichemistry at
its southeast point. By axial contrast,
it could be contended that pitch and harmony would stand hegemonically
apart
from what might be called antirhythm and antimelody where
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria were concerned, pitch and antirhythm lining up as metaphysics
over
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial compass, and harmony and antimelody lining up as chemistry over antiphysics at its southwest point.
But that is another story, and it suffices
here if we limit our criteria to the fundamental distinctions between
unconscious rhythm and subconscious harmony where noumenal and
phenomenal
objectivity are concerned, and between conscious melody and
superconscious
pitch where phenomenal and noumenal subjectivity are concerned, thereby
establishing the likelihood of a noumenal antithesis between
unconscious rhythm
and superconscious pitch, fire and air, power and content(ment), will
and soul,
but of a phenomenal antithesis between subconscious harmony and
conscious
melody, water and vegetation, glory and form, spirit and ego. And if this is not commensurate, in classical
terms, with an antithesis between ballet and the concerto on the one
hand and
opera and the symphony on the other hand, then I should be the first to
concede
to being the most surprised individual on earth!
INCOMPATIBLE
GENDER
IDEALS. From the standpoint of
soul, which is metaphysical, will is something to avoid, pretty much as
contentment is only possible if one steers clear (the word is not
exactly
apposite, but never mind!) of power or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous
commitment to the pursuit of power. Likewise, from the standpoint of
the ego,
which is physical, spirit is something to avoid, pretty much as form is
only possible
if one steers clear of glory or, at any rate, an unduly rigorous
commitment to
the pursuit of glory. For spirit and ego are no less phenomenally
incompatible,
in relation to the planes of volume and mass, than will and soul, their
noumenal counterparts in relation to the planes of space and time, and
therefore any commitment to either soul or ego on the part of males, in
particular, presupposes a rejection of will or spirit, depending on the
class/plane context, and the correlative acceptance, in gender
subordination,
of antiwill or antispirit, as the antifemale case may be. For if that
which
appertains to air or vegetation (earth) is to be hegemonically
triumphant,
whatever pertains to fire or water must be brought low and effectively
upended,
functioning in effect as either antifire vis-à-vis air or antiwater
vis-à-vis
vegetation. Now the converse of course applies to female hegemonies in
sensuality, where either antisoul or anti-ego will be the subordinate
corollary
of will or spirit, as the class/plane case may be. But this is still to
think
independently of axial subversion of the phenomenal hegemonic factors
via a
contrary link, sensual to sensible or sensible to sensual, with their
noumenal
counterparts 'on high', which has the effect of switching the
phenomenal
emphasis either from soma to psyche or from psyche to soma, depending
on
whether metaphysics over antimetachemistry has control of antiphysics
under chemistry on a northeast-to-southwest axis compatible with
church-hegemonic (and state-subordinate) criteria or whether, on the
contrary, metachemistry over antimetaphysics
has control of antichemistry under physics on a northwest-to-southeast
axis
compatible with state-hegemonic (and church-subordinate) criteria. For
the
subversion of spirit by anti-ego at the behest of soul over antiwill is
what
makes salvation from anti-ego to soul psychically possible to
antiphysical
males, whereas the subversion of ego by antispirit at the behest of
will over
antisoul is what somatically precludes the damnation from will to
antispirit of
metachemical females, the axially correlative modes of
counter-damnation of
females and counter-salvation of males notwithstanding. Therefore, in
the end,
it is only the unequivocally hegemonic factors, whether wilfully
metachemical
or soulfully metaphysical, which rule or lead, as the axial case may
be. And,
because of this, they remain mutually exclusive and incompatible, which
brings
us back to our starting point and to the age-old knowledge that will is
something to avoid from the standpoint of soul - as Schopenhauer
himself well
knew, albeit on somewhat pinched metaphysical terms.
AN
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
CHURCH-HEGEMONIC/STATE-SUBORDINATE SPORTING
DICHOTOMY IN
A
REVALUATION
OF
HOODS
VIS-À-VIS UMBRELLAS. It took
me a long while to get around to seeing a parallel between hoods and
stars
and/or triangles on the one hand, and brollies and crosses on the
other,
whether on the noumenal planes of space/antitime and time/antispace or,
down
below, on the phenomenal planes of volume/antimass and mass/antivolume,
to
divide each between, in general terms, its sensual and sensible
alternatives.
Previously I had tended to think of hoods as male and brollies as
female, since
there appeared to be a centripetal/centrifugal distinction between
them, but
then I began to realize that a sensual/sensible distinction could be
discerned
which was akin to the distinction between stars and crosses. The
hood-wearer
was in some sense heathenistic in his subordination, if male, to female
criteria, to the female-like symbolism or implication of the hood
which, in a
manner of speaking, prevailed over him in metachemical (noumenal) or
chemical
(phenomenal) fashion, depending on the class standpoint, whereas the
person
utilizing an umbrella was more christianistic, as it were, in his
holding aloft
of a cross-like structure which, while shielding him from the rain,
suggested a
male symbolism in its phallic-like tubularity and erectness that
connoted
rather more with physical (phenomenal) or metaphysical (noumenal)
criteria,
again according to class. But of course there are two axes, one
stretching from
northwest to southeast and the other from southwest to northeast, on
the intercardinal axial compass which I
use to illustrate the
distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the
one
hand, and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on the other
hand, and
while the one is characterized by the dominance of female criteria in
free to
bound somatic and bound to free psychic fashion, the other is
characterized by
the dominance of male criteria in bound to free psychic and free to
bound
somatic fashion, as in a kind of British/Irish cultural and ethnic
divide. For
me, this means that both the sensuality of the northwest and
sensibility of the
southeast of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis will be
dominated by
objective criteria in unreflexive vein, whereas both the sensuality of
the
southwest and sensibility of the northeast of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be dominated by subjective
criteria in reflexive vein. In other words, a
distinction
between noncollapsibles in the one case and collapsibles in the other,
whether
with regard to hoods or umbrellas. Hence a descent from the
noncollapsible hood of the northwest to the noncollapsible brolly of
the
southeast in the case of the female-dominated
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis, but an ascent, by contrast, from the collapsible (or fold-in)
hood of the
southwest to the collapsible brolly of the northeast on the
male-dominated
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. A descent, in the one case,
from the
noumenal sensuality of metachemistry and
the noumenal
antisensibility of antimetaphysics
to the phenomenal antisensuality of antichemistry and the phenomenal sensibility of
physics,
but an ascent, in the other case, from the phenomenal antisensibility
of antiphysics and the phenomenal
sensuality of
chemistry to the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics and the noumenal antisensuality of antimetachemistry. Those
dominated, in
autocratic fashion, by the noumenal objectivity of metachemical
sensuality will
be unreflexive and thus given to noncollapsibles of one sort or
another.
Those
dominated, in theocratic fashion, by the noumenal subjectivity of
metaphysical
sensibility will be reflexive and thus given to collapsibles of one
sort or
another. The noncollapsible hood will find its antithesis, within an
axis
characterized by the dominance of objectivity, in the noncollapsible
brolly; the
collapsible hood ... its antithesis, within an axis characterized by
the
dominance of subjectivity, in the collapsible brolly. Therefore hoods
are no
more necessarily low than brollies high. Hoods, as argued above, can be
high
(and noumenal) or low (and phenomenal), pretty much like drama and
poetry. Just
so, across the sensual/sensible divide, brollies can be low (and
phenomenal) or
high (and noumenal), pretty much like fiction and philosophy. But a
star and/or
triangle vis-à-vis cross-like distinction between the two approaches to
weather
protection will continue, I believe, to prevail, as though in a
contrast
between left-wing (whether extreme or moderate, noumenal or phenomenal)
and
right-wing (whether moderate or extreme, phenomenal or noumenal)
criteria,
thereby suggesting that hoods are less christianistic than heathenistic
and
umbrellas, by contrast, more christianistic than heathenistic, despite
appearances to the contrary.
PROBABLE
PARALLEL
OF
SINGERS
AND HOODS. While
on the subject of hoods and brollies (see previous entry), I should
like to
make a distinction between the free-standing singer of, say, a rock
group and the
one who also plays an instrument, particularly a guitar, on the basis
of the
distinction already drawn (see previous entry) between noncollapsible
objectivistic hoods and collapsible subjectivistic hoods, as though the
former
were on the level of the free-standing singer and the latter parallel
with the
guitar-playing singer, whose disposition is arguably less unequivocally
objective than equivocally subjective. Either way, singing,
particularly in a
rock-band context, is indicative, it seems to me, of a fiery or a
watery female
dominance of the male (as antimale), as with hoods, and therefore the
'male'
singer appears to be one who is either antimetaphysically subordinate
to metachemistry (free-standing singer) or
antiphysically
subordinate to chemistry (piano-playing singer), in hood-like vein.
Naturally,
there are female singers as well, but they tend to be either
metachemical (and fiery) or chemical (and watery), with the
piano
arguably more applicable than the guitar in the latter context, as
alluded to
above.
UTILIZING
THE
DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS
TO
A REVOLUTIONARY THEOCRATIC END. I have always maintained
that Social Theocracy should only strive for a position of ideological
influence through the democratic process, albeit in relation to
countries
where, like Eire, a majority Catholic tradition would make the prospect
of a
return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria feasible, if only
because
the people concerned have been accustomed to such an axial reality and,
in some
cases, remain acquainted with it even in the face of a
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate lapsed Catholic
decadence
commensurate with Anglo-American - and particularly American - secular
influence. But such a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial
criteria could only be Social Theocratic and therefore strictly
revolutionary
in character, extending the axis in relation to a post-worldly and
therefore
effectively global age. The paradoxical utilization of the democratic
process
to counter the contemporary paradox of
quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference by those at
the
southwest to those at the northwest of the intercardinal
axial compass would be intended to foster a desire, in the people, for
a return
to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria on the basis of a
Social
Theocratic revolution such that could only transpire in the event -
however
unlikely at present - of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty,
which I
have been advocating for several years as the desirable alternative to
political sovereignty and its worldly concomitants and implications.
Therefore
I am no advocate of republicanism, neither on the liberal basis of the
Irish
Republic nor on the radical basis of a more totalitarian approach to
politics
such that would lead to a socialistic/fascistic polarity in Eire
analogous to
that which prevailed, in the inter-war years, between Sinn Fein and the
Blue
Shirts. For me, the Republic is something that, in Nietzsche's
memorable
phrase, 'should be overcome', and the only way that this can happen is
if a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty were to transpire from a
paradoxical
utilization of the democratic process with a view to 'world overcoming'
in
relation to the prospect of 'otherworldly' criteria taking precedence
over
anything else. Then what I have called the Social Theocratic Centre
would be
born, and it would be akin, in my judgement, to 'Kingdom Come', insofar
as it
would be designed to accommodate the rights of a religiously sovereign
people,
including the right to be free from religious superstition and tyranny,
with
its basis in netherworldly tradition. For
until the
people are
religiously sovereign they will not be free from the last bastion of
tyranny,
which is that of Jehovahesque Creatorism in respect of Old Testament
criteria
and the notion - no matter how nonsensical or infantile - of a cosmic
Creator
Who, in metaphorical parlance, was or remains responsible for
everything that
followed. But free from is
not, as
Nietzsche would doubtless agree, the same as free for,
and more important than being free from religious superstition and
tradition
would be being free for religious self-realization through
self-transcendence
of a synthetically artificial character, the sort of character that
would be
necessary not only to global civilization as a synthetic actuality in
the
process of development, but to the defeat, through potent alternatives,
of
contemporary American-dominated synthetic artificiality such that more
often
than not takes a celluloid form in its associations with the film
industry and
camera-based media in general. But of course this could not transpire
without
recourse to a correlative process of what I have in the past called
'cyborgization'
such that would enable the religiously sovereign people (earmarked for
supra-human transmutation) to have recourse to enlightenment of a
synthetically
artificial character without fear of natural repercussions such that
are only
too prevalent on the human plane. For 'man is something that should be
overcome' from the standpoint of godliness, call it superman or
superbeing if
you will, since godliness, when properly understood, could only be
dangerous to
man and we wouldn't want man to suffer from trying to play God without
actually
undergoing the necessary transformations that would render him, or his
evolutionary successor, godly and thus capable of living on a properly
or fully
godly plane with virtual impunity. However, I am merely scratching the
surface
of the overall complexity of the problem in this essayistic aphorism -
which is
not a substitute for my works in general (see, for example, Opera
D’Oeuvre) - and therefore I have
not mentioned the antimetachemical corollary of metaphysical godliness
which,
as an antifemale reality, would be antidevilishness, and therefore
something
that needs to be addressed as a quite separate category germane less to
the
Celestial City, to use Bunyanesque terms, than to what I have tended,
in the
past, to equate with Anti-Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, conventional
Western
thinking is too inclined to subsume the sexes into one another rather
than to
differentiate between them in such fashion that criteria applying to
the one
sex are not applied to the other. All this will have to change in the
more
fully developed global future, once universality gets properly under
way on a
basis that requires an anti-polyversal corollary if it is not to be
subversively undermined.
WHY I
AM
NOT
IN
THE
HUMANISTS’ ECONOMIC POCKET. One
thing the godly individual, who is metaphysical, can't be, and that is
culturally or creatively in the liberal democrat's or the social
democrat's
economic pocket. I have not sought publication for my writings in book
form
because, quite apart from my lack of commercial appeal as a
truth-oriented
writer of Irish stock, I would only end up in the bourgeois humanist's
or the
proletarian humanist's economic pocket, and that is no place for the
godly
individual to be! Books, whether hardback or
softback,
liberally relativistic or socially absolutist, have no professional or
commercial appeal for me. I despise them and their humanistic
dupes and
perpetrators! The book has no place in the sphere of godliness, and
that
includes the so-called Book of Books, the Bible which, as (I was going
to say
'we all know', but that is evidently not necessarily the case) I have
long
maintained, is rooted in God's opposite, the Devil, meaning - contrary
to
popular if not populist presumption - Devil the Mother hyped as God the
Father,
and extends, New Testament-wise, only as far as an extrapolation from
such a
Devil which is better known as the Son, though doubtfully of God! since this Son is unable to transcend himself
(something, in
any case, the Son is in no position to do), but is both the mark and
the end of
the Western road in religious terms. Frankly, this netherworldly
alpha to worldly omega of things religious is not enough! Even the
Catholic
postulate of otherworldly omega in the Resurrected is a Son, and
therefore
significant of metaphysical bound soma rather than of free psyche
which, in the
West, has never existed independently of metachemistry
(or Devil the Mother hyped as God), as, by elitist contrast, it has in
parts of
the TM-oriented East, where nothing like Jehovah has existed in the
religious
tradition to hold metaphysical ego back from expressing itself in the
interests
of soul. But all this is rather beside the initial point; which was
about the
incompatibility of books with godliness and the irrelevance of both
liberal
democratic and social democratic criteria to the sphere of metaphysics,
which
is rather to be thought of as social theocratic, even if it may have to
pass
through a comparatively liberal phase in which a degree of pluralism
exists
prior to a long-term centro-complexification which may well be more
totalitarian in character. We shall just have to wait and see! But the
godly
individual will continue to take books with a considerable pinch of
salt as he
pursues his internet-oriented e-book or, rather, e-scroll vocation
independently of book publication and, hence, of market forces and/or
commercial pressures. The Truth - or that which is properly germane to
metaphysics, particularly to metaphysics of a synthetically artificial
and
therefore properly or definitively universal order - is not to be found
in
books, and those who are looking for it there are going, later if not
sooner,
to be sorely disappointed!
CONCERNING
A
DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
THE RELIGIOUS FEW AND THE
RELIGIOUSLY SOVEREIGN ONE. I like to distinguish between the Few and the
One at the northeast point of the intercardinal
axial
compass that I am always citing these days, and principally in terms of
the
Leaders and the Led or, more to the future point, the Served, who would
appertain to the Saved and the Counter-Damned in a framework
characterized by
religious sovereignty. Hence the Servants of the People are more of the
Few
than of the One, since they would remain outside the sphere of
religiously
sovereign centro-complexification as so many personally cyborgized
individuals
whose duty it was to serve those earmarked, as religiously sovereign,
for
cyborg universality, that is, for transmutation from what they had been
at the
southwest point of the intercardinal axial
compass,
namely the Many, into what they were destined to become at its
northeast point
in relation to revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria
- namely, the aforementioned One. For centro-complexification will
require that
the saved (male) and counter-damned (antifemale) masses be transformed,
by
degrees, into supra-human communes in which any given artificially
supported
and sustained individual will be germane to the One, however many
brains or new
brains or brain-stem/spinal-chord aspects of a given brain may happen
to be
simultaneously 'housed' in the supra-human commune of what, in the
past, I have
tended to term a superbeing, meaning the communal entity in general,
including
its support and sustain features. Such a superbeing would be germane to
universal oneness even as its servants, in the administrative aside to
the
Centre proper of supra-human experience, continued to operate as, in
effect,
the Few. For, as intimated above, they would be personally cyborgized,
not
communally or universally cyborgized, and would always be at an
administrative
and protective remove from the focus of supra-human advancement, rather
like
shepherds tending their flock and overseeing its 'spiritual' grazing,
so to
speak. But such a superbeing entity, constitutive of a kind of communal
unity
of religious purpose, would still be germane to universal oneness even
as it
co-existed, on the earth and perhaps even in the same city and/or
country, with
other such superbeingful entities, who would also have their respective
administrators and protectors. 'Heaven on earth', in this particular
ideological context which I like to think of as being the most credible
projection of evolutionary progress for the future, would always be
relative,
never absolute; for there would almost certainly be a number of
superbeing
communes in existence on different parts of the earth that only had the
potential for definitive universality in a Oneness Supreme such that,
by
definition, could not emerge on the earth but only beyond it ... in
space ...
as the destiny of all earthly communes. Consequently while 'heaven on
earth' is
a precondition of Heaven per
se, which can only be set in space in space centres or,
more
desirably, a definitive Space Centre, it is not something that can be
regarded
as an end-in-itself, but only as a means to a higher end such that
earth
centres can be transformed into over the course of eternity, being
transported,
via shuttle-like arrangements, to outer space where the possibility of
their
further centro-complexification can be fully realized in relation to an
ultimate Space Centre the sum-product of all earth centres, which will
be more
absolutely representative of universal oneness and therefore be capable
of
sustaining and supporting a beingfulness in the metaphysically free
which will
be nothing short of ultimate and more properly germane, in consequence,
to what
could be termed ultrabeings, their antimetachemical antifemale
counterparts
less super-antidoings by then than ultra-antidoings in correlative
bound
somatic deference to the free psyche metaphysically obtaining above
them on the
plane not of antispace so much as of time, which will be less germane
to
Anti-Vanity Fair than to the Celestial City, and therefore constitute
the
higher aspect of that Oneness which will be led by theocracy though
also
embrace a degree of anti-aristocracy in its antimetachemical elements.
Yet a
core of what may be called the ultra-technocratic Few will continue, on
an
enhanced cyborg basis, to serve the interests of the
theocratic/anti-aristocratic
One - in complete contrast to the rule of the
aristocratic/antitheocratic – if
not, in free soma, autocratic/antitechnocratic - Few by the
ultra-autocratic
One of metachemical/antimetaphysical tradition on the northwest point
of the intercardinal axial compass.
NEVER
SIMPLY
BLACK
AND
WHITE. It is
always tempting to see things in black and white or, shall we say,
bright and
dark, but, unfortunately, things are rarely that simple. For a start,
there are
two axes, one dominated by free soma in female fashion and the other
led by
free psyche in male fashion, and therefore there are fundamentally two
kinds of
bright and dark, or light and shade, even without class complications.
Take metachemistry over antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass. Free soma, the female ideal, is a
brightness,
whilst its bound psychic counterpart is somewhat of a dark shadow,
trailing
behind the leading string, as it were. Therefore a somatic brightness
has to be
contrasted, in each gender case, antimetaphysical as well as
metachemical, with
a psychic darkness. The same is true of chemistry over antiphysics
at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, free soma being bright and bound psyche dark. But on the
sensible side
of the moral divide things are quite otherwise. There free psyche is
bright and
bound soma dark, whether in terms of physics over antichemistry at the
southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass
or, up above, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at its northeast
point. The
bright side of a male hegemonic coupling, being free, is certainly
psychic,
whilst its dark side, corresponding to the bound, is somatic. This has
some
interesting, if quite unconventional, moral ramifications, but I don't
wish to
enlarge upon that now. Suffice it to say that things are never simply
black and
white, least of all in terms of evil being
somehow
dark and good bright (the reverse is actually the case, bearing in mind
the
distinction between free metachemical soma and bound antichemical soma
on
primary state-hegemonic terms). To be sure, a distinction between the
dark and
the bright most certainly exists, and at all points of the intercardinal
axial compass, but it is not simply in terms of soma being dark and
psyche
bright, or vice versa. That is why, with both the female ideal of free
soma and
the male ideal of free psyche corresponding to the bright side of
things, one
has a moral incompatibility between them which is no mere black/white
dichotomy
but a competition between alternative kinds of brightness that is
likely to
lead, in axial differentiation, to different types of society,
depending on
which kind of freedom is officially encouraged and regarded as alone
right, and
to keep those who believe in the one kind quite separate from those who
believe
in the other, both within and without their particular society. For
mutually
incompatible, as free females and free males, they respectively remain.
A
BRIEF
EXAMINATION
OF
THE MORAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PLAY AND
WORK. If it is not possible to categorically
maintain that soma is invariably dark or black or shaded vis-à-vis
psyche, and
for the simple reason that brightness is determined by freedom, whether
somatic
or psychic, and darkness by binding, likewise irrespective of the
faculty, then
it should
be
possible to maintain that whatever is bound is
dark and whatever is free, by contrast, is bright. Therefore brightness
can be
associated with either soma or psyche and darkness likewise, the chief
determinant being the distinction between freedom and binding. But this
distinction can be applied quite categorically to the dichotomy between
play
and work, since play is invariably free, or associated with freedom,
whereas
work is contractually obligated and is therefore a manifestation of
binding.
Since soma can be free or bound, so it can have associations with
either play
or work. The same holds true of psyche, which is only to be associated
with
play when free, not when bound. Therefore we can plot a distinction
between
play and work on the basis of freedom and binding, whether in relation
to soma
or psyche. Since metachemistry is the
element of free
soma and bound psyche par
excellence,
as
germane
to
noumenal absolutism, we can maintain
that metachemistry exemplifies somatic
play and
psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary likewise, if on secondary
terms,
exemplifying somatic play and psychic work. Similarly, since chemistry
is the
element of free soma and bound psyche on phenomenally relative terms,
we can
maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its
antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms in relation,
traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic emphasis
at the
behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or,
at any
rate, of some degree of metaphysics, whether hyped or not, over
antimetachemistry. Be that as it may, it should be possible to contend,
for
sensibility in contrast to sensuality, that since physics is the
element of
free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can
maintain that
physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antichemical
corollary
likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in relation to the
subversion of
physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics
or, at any rate, of some degree of metachemistry
over
antimetaphysics. Finally, since metaphysics
is the
element of free psyche and bound soma par
excellence,
as
germane
to
noumenal absolutism, we can
maintain that metaphysics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work,
its
antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms,
exemplifying
psychic play and somatic work. Hence the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis which stretches from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal
axial compass would indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between
the
brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as
the
female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry is concerned, but a secondary
state-hegemonic
polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of
somatic
work as far as the male contrast between antimetaphysics
and physics is concerned, the contrast between the darkness of psychic
work and
the brightness of psychic play being primarily church subordinate in
relation
to metachemistry and antichemistry, but
secondarily
church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics
and
physics. By complete contrast, however, the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis which stretches from the southwest to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a
primary
church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the
brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but a
secondary
church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the
brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between
chemistry and
antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of
somatic
play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate
in
relation to antiphysics and metaphysics,
but
secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and
antimetachemistry.
Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms
and
work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the
former
axis, irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms, while
work-darkness
has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and
play-brightness a
work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter axis, again
irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms. Therefore in
terms of metachemistry to antichemistry,
evil is bright and goodness
dark, for evil corresponds to somatic freedom of metachemistry
and goodness to somatic binding of antichemistry, whereas crime is dark
and
punishment bright, since crime corresponds to psychic binding of metachemistry and punishment to psychic freedom
of
antichemistry. Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics
to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and pseudo-wisdom dark, for
pseudo-folly
corresponds to somatic freedom of antimetaphysics
and
pseudo-wisdom to somatic binding of physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark
and
pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin corresponds to psychic binding of
antimetaphysics and pseudo-grace to psychic
freedom of
physics. In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics
to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright, for sin corresponds to
psychic
binding of antiphysics and grace to
psychic freedom
of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom dark, since folly
corresponds to somatic freedom of antiphysics
and
wisdom to somatic binding of metaphysics. Likewise, in terms of
chemistry to
antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright,
for
pseudo-crime corresponds to psychic binding of chemistry and
pseudo-punishment
to psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright
and pseudo-goodness
dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to somatic freedom of chemistry and
pseudo-goodness to somatic binding of antimetachemistry. Strange, but
it is so.
SYNTHETIC
AND
NON-SYNTHETIC
ANTITHESES. Speaking
in axial terms, one might note a fall, on the one hand, from synthetic
naturalism (supernaturalism) to non-synthetic artificiality, as, in
general
terms, from metachemistry to physics, but
a rise, on
the other hand, from non-synthetic naturalism to synthetic
artificiality
(super-artificiality), as, in general terms, from chemistry to
metaphysics. For
the four main points, effectively hegemonic, of the intercardinal
axial compass would seem to connote with synthetic naturalism at the
northwest,
non-synthetic naturalism at the southwest, non-synthetic artificiality
at the
southeast, and synthetic artificiality at the northeast, the axes, of
course,
being determined according to a polarity between the northwest and the
southeast on the one hand, and between the southwest and the northeast
on the
other hand, even with other - and subordinate - factors to consider in
each
case. However that may be, I have little doubt that the noumenal
antitheses, in
space and time, are equally synthetic, if in relation to supernature
and
super-artificiality respectively, which amounts to a distinction
between metachemistry and metaphysics,
superheathen objectivity and
superchristian subjectivity, absolute alpha and absolute omega, whereas
the
phenomenal antitheses, in volume and mass, are equally non-synthetic,
if in relation
to nature and artificiality respectively, which amounts to a
distinction
between chemistry and physics, heathen objectivity and Christian
subjectivity,
relative alpha and relative omega. The pairings of metachemistry
with antimetaphysics, of chemistry with antiphysics, of physics with antichemistry, and
of
metaphysics with antimetachemistry do not substantially alter this
conclusion,
although they modify the respective axial realities of what, in total,
are
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
mutually exclusive traditions.
FROM SUPERBARBARISM
AND
SUPERPHILISTINISM
TO
SUPERCULTURE AND
SUPERCIVILITY. If the distinction - excluding for the moment
the paradoxical emphases of axial subversion - between chemistry and
physics in
the sensuality and sensibility of phenomenal relativity is one of
barbarism and
philistinism in free soma and bound psyche vis-à-vis culture and
civility in
free psyche and bound soma, then the distinction between metachemistry
and metaphysics in the sensuality and sensibility of noumenal
absolutism could
be described as one of superbarbarism and superphilistinism in free
soma and
bound psyche vis-à-vis superculture and supercivility in free psyche
and bound
soma. Clearly, if barbarism appertains to chemical free soma and
philistinism
to chemical bound psyche, then civility must appertain to physical
bound soma
and culture to physical free psyche, civility being the bound-somatic
antithesis of barbarism no less than culture the free-psychic
antithesis of
philistinism. Likewise, if superbarbarism appertains to metachemical
free soma
and superphilistinism to metachemical bound psyche, then supercivility
must
appertain to metaphysical bound soma and superculture to metaphysical
free
psyche, supercivility being the bound-somatic antithesis of
superbarbarism no
less than superculture the free-psychic antithesis of
superphilistinism. So far
so good! But we also have underplane, or
secondary,
positions to bear in mind where each point of the intercardinal
axial compass is concerned, namely antimetaphysics
under metachemistry at the noumenal
northwest, antiphysics under chemistry at
the phenomenal southwest,
antichemistry under physics at the phenomenal southeast, and
antimetachemistry
under metaphysics at the noumenal northeast, the actual
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
differentials being established on a northwest to southeast basis on
the one
hand, and on a northeast to southwest basis on the other hand, with the
noumenal heights more or less dictating the terms of the phenomenal
positions
below. So much for that! What we have now to establish is that the
secondary or
'anti' positions are less equivalent to the primary or 'pro' positions
directly
hegemonic over them than contrary to their corresponding primary or
'pro'
positions in sensuality or sensibility, as the gender case may be.
Hence it
makes logical sense to regard antimetaphysics
as
anti-supercivil and anti-supercultural
rather than,
like metachemistry, as superbarbarous
and superphilistine, since metachemistry
is superheathenly supernatural and antimetaphysics
anti-superchristianly anti-superartificial,
after the
respective fashions of noumenal objectivity and noumenal
anti-subjectivity.
Similarly it makes logical sense to regard antiphysics
as anti-cultural and anti-civil rather than, like chemistry, philistine
and
barbarous, since chemistry is heathenly natural and antiphysics
anti-christianly anti-artificial, after the
respective fashions of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal
anti-subjectivity.
Crossing to the sensible side of the phenomenal axial divide, it makes
logical
sense to regard antichemistry as anti-barbarous and anti-philistine
rather
than, like physics, as civil and cultural, since physics is christianly
artificial and antichemistry anti-heathenly anti-natural, after the
respective
fashions of phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity.
Similarly
it makes logical sense to regard antimetachemistry as
anti-superphilistine and
anti-superbarbarous rather than, like metaphysics, supercultural and
supercivil, since metaphysics is superchristianly super-artificial and
antimetachemistry anti-superheathenly anti-supernatural, after the
respective
fashions of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity. Thus,
in
overall axial terms, metachemistry and antimetaphysics form a gender-conditioned
polarity with
antichemistry and physics on the basis of somatic opposition between
superbarbarism and anti-barbarism on primary state-hegemonic terms
(free
somatic metachemistry to bound somatic
antichemistry)
and anti-supercivility and civility on secondary state-hegemonic terms
(free
somatic antimetaphysics to bound somatic
physics),
with a corresponding psychic opposition between superphilistinism and
anti-philistinism on primary church-subordinate terms (bound psychic metachemistry to free psychic antichemistry) and
anti-superculture and culture on secondary church-subordinate terms
(bound
psychic antimetaphysics to free psychic
physics). Contrariwise,
metaphysics and antimetachemistry form a gender-conditioned polarity
with antiphysics and chemistry on the
basis of psychic
opposition between superculture and anti-culture on primary
church-hegemonic
terms (free psychic metaphysics to bound psychic antiphysics)
and
anti-superphilistinism and philistinism on
secondary church-hegemonic terms (free psychic antimetachemistry to
bound
psychic chemistry), with a corresponding somatic opposition between
supercivility and anti-civility on primary state-subordinate terms
(bound
somatic metaphysics to free somatic antiphysics)
and
anti-superbarbarism and barbarism on
secondary
state-subordinate terms (bound somatic antimetachemistry to free
somatic
chemistry). Superculture is the salvation of anti-culture no less than
supercivility the salvation of anti-civility for those who, as
antiphysical,
are neither cultural nor civil in physical fashion and therefore are in
with
the prospect of their noumenal counterparts. But if metaphysics is the
salvation, in church and state,
of antiphysics,
then antimetachemistry is most assuredly
the
counter-damnation (a counter fall from hegemonic ascendancy in relative
gender
sync to antimetachemical underplane
subservience in
absolute gender upendedness) of chemistry, since anti-superphilistinism
is the
counter-damnation of philistinism no less than anti-superbarbarism the
counter-damnation of barbarism for those who, having been philistine
and
barbarous in the phenomenal relativity of an equivocal hegemony, will
be denied
their noumenal counterparts in the absolutism of an unequivocal
subjection to
the metaphysical ascendancy of superculture and supercivility, the
'father' and
'son' of the super-artificial superchristianity of the truly blessed
(with
complete gender sync).
METACHEMICAL
AND
METAPHYSICAL
ANTITHESES. To
contrast the superbarbarism (noumenal barbarism) of metachemical free
soma and
the superphilistinism (noumenal philistinism) of metachemical bound
psyche with
the superculture (noumenal culture) of metaphysical free psyche and the
supercivility (noumenal civility) of metaphysical bound soma, as one
would
contrast the supernatural (noumenal natural) with the super-artificial
(noumenal artificial) across the absolute gender divide - female and
male - of
the hegemonic positions of the northwest and northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass. Therefore to
contrast the
beauty and love of metachemical free soma and the ugliness and hatred
of
metachemical bound psyche with the truth and joy of metaphysical free
psyche
and the illusion and woe of metaphysical bound soma, as one would
contrast evil
and crime with grace and wisdom, the former pairing appertaining to
Devil the
Mother/Hell the Clear Spirit and the Daughter of the Devil/the Clear
Soul of
Hell; the latter pairing to God the Father/Heaven the Holy Soul and the
Son of
God/the Holy Spirit of Heaven. In brief, both the evil of metachemical
free
soma and the grace of metaphysical free psyche are bright, that is to
say, they
appertain to contrary types of freedom, whereas both the crime of
metachemical
bound psyche and the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma are dark, which
is to
say, they appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses
correspond to contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas
the
latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic -
of
work. And, being noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining,
as
noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the
hegemonic
factors - metachemistry over antimetaphysics
as space over antitime and metaphysics over antimetachemistry as time
over
antispace.
ANTIMETACHEMICAL
AND
ANTIMETAPHYSICAL
ANTITHESES. To
contrast the anti-supercivility (noumenal anticivility) of
antimetaphysical
free soma and the anti-superculture (noumenal anticulture) of
antimetaphysical
bound psyche with the anti-superphilistinism (noumenal
antiphilistinism) of
antimetachemical free psyche and the anti-superbarbarism (noumenal
antibarbarism) of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast
the
anti-superchristian (noumenal antichristian) with the anti-superheathen
(noumenal antiheathen) across the absolute gender divide - antimale and
antifemale - of the subservient positions of the northwest and
northeast points
of the intercardinal axial compass.
Therefore to
contrast the anti-illusion and antiwoe of antimetaphysical free soma
and the
antitruth and antijoy of antimetaphysical bound psyche with the
anti-ugliness
and antihatred of antimetachemical free psyche and the antibeauty and
antilove
of antimetachemical bound soma, as one would contrast pseudo-folly and
pseudo-sin with pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, the former
pairing
appertaining to the Antison of Antigod/the Unholy Spirit of Antiheaven
and
Antigod the Antifather/Antiheaven the Unholy Soul; the latter pairing
to the
Antidaughter of the Antidevil/the Unclear
Soul of Antihell and Antidevil
the
Antimother/Antihell the Unclear Spirit. In brief, both the pseudo-folly
of
antimetaphysical free soma and the pseudo-punishment of
antimetachemical free
psyche are bright, that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of
freedom,
whereas both the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical bound psyche and the
pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical bound soma are dark, which is to
say, they
appertain to contrary types of binding. The former antitheses
correspond to
contrary orders - somatic and psychic - of play, whereas the latter
antitheses
correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of work. And,
being
noumenal, they are absolutely exclusive, appertaining, as noted above,
to
contrary axes, of which, as also noted, they are the subservient
factors - antimetaphysics under metachemistry
as antitime under space, antimetachemistry under metaphysics as
antispace under
time.
CHEMICAL
AND
PHYSICAL
ANTITHESES. To
contrast the philistinism of chemical bound psyche and the barbarism of
chemical free soma with the civility of physical bound soma and the
culture of
physical free psyche, as one would contrast the natural with the
artificial
across the relative gender divide - female and male - of the hegemonic
positions (duly subverted to uncharacteristic gender emphasis by
inclusive
axial factors) of the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass. Therefore to contrast the weakness and humility of
chemical
bound psyche and the strength and pride of chemical free soma with the
ignorance and pain of physical bound soma and the knowledge and
pleasure of
physical free psyche, as one would contrast pseudo-crime and
pseudo-evil with
pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace, the former pairing appertaining to the
Daughter
of Woman/the Clear Soul of Purgatory and Woman the Mother/Purgatory the
Clear
Spirit; the latter pairing to the Son of Man/the Holy Spirit of Earth
and Man the
Father/Earth the Holy Soul. In brief, both the pseudo-crime of chemical
bound
psyche and the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma are dark, that is
to say,
they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas both the
pseudo-evil of
chemical free soma and the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche are
bright,
which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of freedom. The
former
antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic - of
work,
whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders - somatic
and
psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively
exclusive,
appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also
noted, they
are the subverted hegemonic factors - chemistry over antiphysics
as volume over antimass and physics over antichemistry as mass over
antivolume.
ANTIPHYSICAL
AND
ANTICHEMICAL
ANTITHESES. To
contrast the anticulture of antiphysical bound psyche and the
anticivility of
antiphysical free soma with the antibarbarism of antichemical bound
soma and
the antiphilistinism of antichemical free psyche, as one would contrast
the
anti-artificial with the antinatural across the relative gender divide
-
antimale and antifemale - of the subservient positions (duly subversive
of the
hegemonic ones under pressure from noumenally inclusive axial factors)
of the
southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass. Therefore to contrast the antiknowledge and antipleasure
of
antiphysical bound psyche and the anti-ignorance and antipain of
antiphysical
free soma with the antistrength and antipride of antichemical bound
soma and
the antiweakness and antiwoe of antichemical free psyche, as one would
contrast
sin and folly with goodness and punishment, the former pairing
appertaining to
Antiman the Antifather/Anti-earth the Unholy Soul and the Antison of
Antiman/the Unholy Spirit of Anti-earth; the latter pairing to
Antiwoman the
Antimother/Antipurgatory the Unclear Spirit and the Antidaughter of
Antiwoman/the Unclear Soul of Antipurgatory. In brief, both the
sinfulness of
antiphysical bound psyche and the goodness of antichemical bound soma
are dark,
that is to say, they appertain to contrary types of binding, whereas
both the
folly of antiphysical free soma and the punishment of antichemical free
psyche
are bright, which is to say, they appertain to contrary types of
freedom. The
former antitheses correspond to contrary orders - psychic and somatic -
of
work, whereas the latter antitheses correspond to contrary orders -
somatic and
psychic - of play. And, being phenomenal, they are relatively
exclusive,
appertaining, as noted above, to contrary axes, of which, as also
noted, they
are the subverting subservient factors - antiphysics
under chemistry (at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry)
as antimass
under volume, and antichemistry under physics (at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics)
as
antivolume
under
mass.
THE
ONE
AND
THE
ANTI-NOT ONE. Not so
long ago, in an aphoristic entry entitled 'Concerning a Distinction
between the
Religious Few and the Religiously Sovereign One', I made the mistake,
unusual
for me, of subsuming the antifemale position in antimetachemistry into
the
concept of Oneness in relation to the male hegemonic position in
metaphysics,
and this in spite of customary differentials between the two
supra-human
contexts, such as time and antispace or, indeed, the Celestial City and
Anti-Vanity Fair. Doubtless part of the reason for this was the
existence of
the concept Few in relation to the serving elite, who would constitute
an
administrative aside, so to speak, to the religious rights and
experiences of
the religiously sovereign supra-human entities of the Centre-proper;
but
another reason was that I just hadn't formulated an adequate
distinction, at
the time, between the two supra-human contexts that would have done
justice to
it in terms of what properly appertained to the One, namely the
metaphysical,
and what was correlative of it in relation to the antimetachemical.
Since then,
however, I have had plenty of time in which to revaluate the situation
and,
true to my long-standing methodology, I have come up with the ingenious
concept
of the Anti-Not-One as the most appropriate description of that which,
appertaining to the upended female in antimetachemistry (the noumenal
antifemale) should be regarded as complementing the One of those for
whom
metaphysical self-realization is the name of the church-hegemonic game.
Therefore not just a distinction, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, between the Few and
the One,
the serving and the served, but a further distinction between the One
and the
Anti-Not-One, the latter of whom, being antimetachemical, will be
contrary to
Not-Oneness, as typifying that which appertains to metachemistry
in relation to free soma. Therefore the metaphysical/antimetachemical
complementariness of noumenal male and noumenal antifemale elements at
the
northeast point of our intercardinal axial
compass is
most assuredly more and less than just the One: it is to be thought of
in terms
of metaphysical oneness and antimetachemical anti-not-oneness, the
latter of
which is contrary, in bound soma, to all that is freely somatic at the
northwest point of the said compass, with specific reference to the
unequivocally hegemonic position of metachemistry,
as
appertaining
to
noumenal
females. If Oneness has to do with the Self,
with
psyche, then Not-Oneness is most assuredly its somatic antithesis
which, in the
past, I have identified with the concept Not-Self. Hence the Not-Self
is not
only that which cannot be identified with the Self; it is contrary to
it in
relation to soma and therefore originates on a female-hegemonic basis
in metachemistry in which soma takes
precedence over psyche as
Not-Self over Self, the former free and the latter bound to it in what,
elsewhere, I have described as church-subordinate fashion. For the
Not-Self is
the root of all that is if not state absolutist then, at the very
least, state
hegemonic. But the Anti-Not-Self, having to do with bound soma and, by
extrapolation,
free psyche, can only materialize in relation to the hegemonic triumph
of the
Self and, hence, of metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and where the
triumph of the
Self is primarily about free psyche, the vanquishing of the Not-Self in
terms
of the Anti-Not-Self can only be primarily, if not rhetorically, about
bound
soma, since the unequivocal hegemony of noumenal male criteria in
metaphysics
is only possible on the basis of the constraining of females to
noumenal
antifemale criteria in antimetachemistry, thereby not only upending
them in
relation to bound soma and free psyche (or the church-hegemonic
rhetoric of
free psyche and bound soma), but opposing them to whatever is contrary
to that
in metachemistry. Thus the overall context
of the
religiously sovereign would be divisible between the One and the
Anti-Not-One,
between free psyche (with a concomitant degree of bound soma) for
noumenal
males and bound soma (with a degree of spin-off free psyche) for
noumenal antifemales,
the cultivation of the Self to ever-greater degrees of universal
Onenesss
requiring the correlative curtailment, in antifemales, of the Not-Self
to
ever-greater degrees of what could be termed antipolyversal
Anti-Not-Oneness.
For whereas cultivation of the Self makes for increased unity in
undifferentiated subjectivity of a wavicle cohesiveness, the
curtailment of the
Not-Self ensures that soma is not in a metachemical position to foster
polyversal differentiation on the basis of particle disjunctiveness
attendant
upon a vacuous objectivity at its spatial roots. And whereas with metachemistry and antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass one has a situation whereby the Not-One and what could be
called, for
the noumenal antimale, the Anti-One rule over the Few, or those whose
aristocratic allegiance is to the prevailing royalty, with metaphysics
and
antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the said compass, by
contrast, one
has - or will have - a situation in which the Few, or those whose
technocratic
allegiance is to the religiously sovereign, serve under the One and the
Anti-Not-One, pledged to protect and advance their religiously
sovereign rights
for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity, for all time and antispace, until
such time
as the metaphysical oneness of superbeing transcendence achieves its
space-centre apotheosis, as it were, in an ultrabeingful universality
of
definitive Oneness, the ultimate godly individualism, and the
antimetachemical
anti-not-oneness of anti-superdoing antimaterialism likewise attains,
in the
slipstream of what properly obtains in metaphysics, an
anti-ultradoingful
antipolyversality of definitive Not-Oneness, the ultimate antidevilish
anti-collectivism, as the Celestial City achieves the maximum of
evolutionary
being in the utmost psychic freedom and the Anti-Vanity Fair is
correlatively
brought to the maximum of counter-devolutionary antidoing in the utmost
somatic
binding. Then and only then will one have the Omega Point and the
Anti-Alpha
Point as the culmination of things Superchristian and Anti-Superheathen.
VICTORS
AND
VICTIMS. Whether in relation to metachemistry
over antimetaphysics
at the northwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass, to chemistry over antiphysics at
the southwest
point of the said compass, to physics over antichemistry at its
southeast
point, or to metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast, each
point is
divisible between a hegemonic gender position and a subservient,
upended gender
position in such fashion that we can distinguish between victors and
victims,
the hegemonic victors and the subservient victims. For
life
would
seem
to
be divisible between these two options, even though there
are a
number of different permutations in which they materialize or operate.
Either
soma
gets
the
better of psyche in sensuality, and we have a distinction
between the Not-One and the Anti-One at both noumenal and phenomenal
points of
the intercardinal axial compass, or psyche
gets the
better of soma in sensibility, and we have a distinction between the
One and
the Anti-Not-One at both phenomenal and noumenal points of the said
compass,
the former divisible between the sensuality of the Not-One and the antisensibility of the Anti-One; the latter
between the
sensibility of the One and the antisensuality
of the
Anti-Not-One. Therefore victors, corresponding to the hegemonic
positions, will be either metachemical, chemical, physical, or
metaphysical,
while their victims, corresponding to the underplane
subservient positions, will be either antimetaphysical, antiphysical,
antichemical, or antimetachemical, depending on the exact point of the intercardinal axial compass. The victory
of free soma
over bound psyche is a victory for heathen values, whether noumenal or
phenomenal,
ethereal or corporeal, at the expense of antichristian values, whereas
the
victory of free psyche over bound soma is a victory for Christian
values,
whether phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal, at the expense
of
antiheathen values. Our age is one in which, thanks to medial
like
television and film, heathen values tend to prevail at the expense of
antichristian ones, but a time must surely come when this situation
will be
reversed and Christian values, duly resurrected in a superchristian
mould, will
get the better of their antiheathen counterparts, obliging bound soma
to defer
to free psyche in the interests of all, including culture and civility,
that is
best in civilization. Then, as now, something of the hegemonic
position
will rub off onto the subservient, upended position, but the two
positions will
remain, as now, quite distinct according to gender. The
Antimetachemical
may not be as partial to truth and joy as the Metaphysical, but their
opposition to beauty and love, not to mention ugliness and hatred, will
ensure
a deference to truth and joy, not to mention illusion and woe, that
would not
otherwise materialize or be possible. The Anti-Not-One will lie
down with
the One, as Anti-Vanity Fair with the Celestial City, and thus defer to
the
victor's triumph as an honourable victim, one who though not godly will
be so
far from anything devilish as to be effectively antidevilish
in her antifemale subjection to male hegemonic criteria. The
triumph of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry will signify the triumph of the
ultimate
victor over the ultimate victim and, eventually, it will be the sole
victor
over the sole victim as God and the Antidevil
supersede all that is not only axially polar to themselves in
post-worldly
manifestations of woman in chemistry (duly subverted to psychic
emphasis) and antiman in antiphysics, but
contrary and opposed to them on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis of
the Devil and Antigod in metachemistry
over antimetaphysics and man and antiwoman
in physics (duly subverted to somatic emphasis) and
antichemistry. For
the end of the world in relation to the triumph of Heaven and Antihell will also put an end to the netherworldly
rule of Hell and Antiheaven over the world, both directly, in axial
relation to
physics and antichemistry, and indirectly, in inter-axial exploitative
relation
to chemistry and antiphysics, whose
worldly standing
- excluding axial subversion - is less omega and anti-alpha than alpha
and
anti-omega and is therefore directly capable of being overcome once the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis gets its act together so
conclusively
as to provide a lasting salvation and counter-damnation to all who,
identifiable with the phenomenal not-one and the phenomenal anti-one,
can be
delivered from their lowly plight at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the divine and antidiabolic heights of its northeast point as a
matter of
moral and eschatological necessity. Then the victimized 'last' of
antiphysical anti-self will be metaphysically 'first' in noumenal self,
while
the victorious 'first' of chemical not-self will be antimetachemically
'last'
in noumenal anti-not-self, the psychically bound becoming psychically
free and
the somatically free somatically bound. So be it!
LONDON
2006–07
(Revised
2011)
