Preview THE QUEST FOR TRUTH eBook
Op.
130
THE
QUEST FOR TRUTH
AND THE
MEANING OF LIFE –
An
aphoristic
philosophy
project
deriving from
articles originally published at Helium.com
By
John
O’Loughlin,
aka
johalin,
Who
has
written
on
a variety of predetermined
subjects and questions which have since been extensively revised and
reformatted in the interests of this e-scroll presentation.
Copyright
©
2011
John
O’Loughlin
_________________
CONTENTS
1. The
Quest for Truth and the Meaning of Life
2. The
Human Condition
3. Perspectives
on Class in Modern Society
4. Attempting
to Define God
5. What
is Religion and what is it all about?
6. Should the Bible continue to be used in
Swearing-in Ceremonies and in Courtrooms?
7. Reflections: My Father
8. The Pros and Cons of having a Y
chromosome
9. The Concept of Good and Evil, Positive
and
Negative
10. Discussing the concept of Moral Truth
11. Comparative Ethics: A Historical View
12. Recognizing the Big Picture when Contemplating
Life
13. What does Freedom mean to you, and does
Absolute Freedom exist?
14. Why Moral Relativism is wrong
15. The Role of Philosophy in Religion
16. Who is Virtuous?
_____________________
THE
QUEST
FOR
TRUTH
AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
The
quest
for
truth
as the meaning of life is
only one of a number of quests or meanings which life vouchsafes its
human
beings. I personally – or perhaps one should say ‘universally’ – have
made the
quest for truth and, I believe, achievement of it the meaning or
purpose of my
existence, thereby enriching my life. But those with a metaphysical
bent, who
are more likely to be divinely male and classless, are always up
against the
other types that life throws-up from out the pluralistic chaos and
manifoldness
of her will.
There
are
people
who
get their purpose from
knowledge and are arguably physical and more likely to be male on
masculine
rather than divine terms; others who get it from strength and are more
likely
to be chemical and female on feminine as opposed to diabolic
(superfeminine) terms;
yet others whose raison
d’être would
appear
to
be
the pursuit of beauty from a
metachemical disposition the opposite of their chemical counterparts,
whom I
would describe, despite appearances to the contrary, as diabolical.
Truth
is
airy,
knowledge
vegetative, strength
watery, and beauty fiery. I say nothing of their respective upended
gender
counterparts, who will be more against the corresponding gender virtue,
or
freedom, in sensuality or sensibility, depending on the case, than
strictly of
the virtue, whether heathen or christian, superheathen or
superchristian, that
reigns over them.
But
the
Beautiful
and
the True are
incompatible, as, to a lesser extent, are the Strong and the
Knowledgeable. If
life were only one thing, say meaning achieved through Truth, it would
be a lot
different from how it is, and doubtless anyone who seriously entertains
the
prospect of or hope for ‘Kingdom Come’, as a society governed by godly
criteria, would approve of a life governed by Truth. But
then
not
only
the Strong, but the
Beautiful and the Knowledgeable would have to have been defeated and
consigned
to the proverbial rubbish heap of history. Some task!
I
fear
that
gender
and class rivalry, with
conflicting meanings and virtues, will persist in the world for some
time yet,
and the world will continue, in consequence, to be a place which defies
a
single meaning because it is by nature heterogeneous and more disposed,
if
truth be told, to phenomenal virtues like strength and knowledge than
to their
noumenal counterparts.
Otherworldly
virtues
like
Truth,
whose raison
d’être,
as
a
godly
thing,
is Joy, its heavenly reward, have always been against ‘the
world’,
and can only emerge to any appreciable extent at the expense not only
of ‘the
world’, but of those netherworldly forces, like beauty and love, which
normally
prevail over it.
THE
HUMAN
CONDITION
You
cannot
understand
the
human condition, torn
as it is between gender conflict, without understanding psychology and
physiology, and you can’t understand psychology without physiology or
physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of
factors
somatic and psychic ‘hang together’, though with different ratios,
depending on
gender and class.
Females,
I
have
long
believed, are more
physiology than psychology, males, by contrast, more psychology than
physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally
predominates over it), whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche
precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it),
thereby
indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with
correspondingly opposite
concepts of self.
Self
for
the
female
is basically somatic, for
the male it is essentially psychic. Therein lie
the
roots of the gender friction and so-called ‘war of the sexes’. Self is
whatever
is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt
for
somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the
not-self,
whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as
chemical
bound psyche to chemical free soma. By contrast, the male, if left to his
own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic
binding,
the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound
soma to
physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free
psyche.
Therefore
self
for
the
male is the opposite of
what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as
psychology or
physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively
(2½:1½) as
more (relative to most) psyche/less (relative to least) soma, or
absolutely (3:1)
as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a
conscious/unsensuous
(nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the latter to a
superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in
metaphysics.
With
the
female,
on
the other hand, soma takes
precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two
class/elemental
ways: either absolutely (3:1) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively
(2½:1½)
as more (relative to most) soma/less (relative to least) psyche, the
former
corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious
(supernatural/subnurtural)
disposition in metachemistry, the latter to a sensuous/unconscious
(natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry.
Of
course,
there
are
more than four elemental
positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender
presupposes
and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether
as
antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it),
as
antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass
(church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as
antichemistry
under physics at the southeast point of the said compass
(state-hegemonically
polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under
metaphysics
at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass
(church-hegemonically
polar to the southwest point of it).
But
even
the
‘antipositions’
under the
hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally
equivocal,
absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to
soma,
depending on the upended gender, corresponding to their class/elemental
positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a
plane above
them in each class/elemental instance.
Antimetaphysics
is
not
a
context, like
metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather,
one
which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and
anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to
supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position
that would
never be capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely
antimetachemistry,
across
the
noumenal
axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a
superconscious/subsensuous
integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will
be
anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a
paradoxical
deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a
position that
would never be capable of such an integrity itself.
And
what
applies
to
the noumenal positions
applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being
a
context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but,
rather, one
which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and
anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to
sensuousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that would
never be
capable of such an integrity itself.
Conversely
antichemistry,
across
the
phenomenal
axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous
integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will
be
anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical
deference to
consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never
be
capable of such an integrity itself.
But,
of
course,
subversion
of the equivocally
hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the
behest of
the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch
of
emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from
psyche
to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of
metaphysics
over antimetachemistry or, by contrast,
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics
can be
axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial
stability
and continuity.
For
the
Catholic
southwest
point of the
intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis
than
the Puritan southeast point of it is overly Christianistic, so to
speak, in
psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case,
free soma
to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either
church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.
But
that
is
another
subject and one I have said
much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present,
were I
not minded of the principal topic of this article, which is of the
ratios
between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and
class. We
do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the
physiology which
conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to
supersensuousness in
metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in
chemistry.
Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware
of the
psychology which conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation
to
consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to
superconsciousness in metaphysics.
Needless
to
say,
both
these class positions are
incompatible, since you cannot, as a male, be conscious/unsensuous and
superconscious/subsensuous at the same time, any more than females
could
transcend their class distinctions and be both
supersensuous/subconscious and
sensuous/unconscious at the same time. But, then, compatibility is not
an issue
from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is
polar to
metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial
divide,
that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to
antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically
aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical
counterparts.
PERSPECTIVES
ON
CLASS
IN
MODERN SOCIETY
Class
comes
in
different
shapes and sizes, but
is always either noumenal or phenomenal, that is, of an ethereal or a
corporeal
nature. There are ‘upper class’ types in the former, and ‘lower class’
types in
the latter, but it is not simply a matter of upper and lower. Each of
these is
divisible between what could be called the alpha and the omega of
class,
whether in terms of upper-class types
vis-à-vis
classless types on the noumenal planes of space and time, or in terms
of
lower-class types vis-à-vis middle-class types on the phenomenal planes
of
volume and mass.
But
that
would
only
apply to the hegemonic
gender, not to their ‘upended’ antigender counterparts who make the
hegemonic
sway of the free gender, be it female (and upper-class/lower-class) or
male
(and classless/middle-class) possible and viable. Without
anti-classless
antimales in antimetaphysics, there would be few if any upper-class
females in
metachemistry at the northwest point of what I like to think of as the
intercardinal axial compass. Similarly, without anti-upperclass
antifemales in
antimetachemistry, there would be few if any classless males in
metaphysics at
the northeast point of the said compass.
Down
below,
in
the
phenomenal and/or corporeal
realms of volume and mass, it is equally fair to say that without
anti-middleclass antimales in antiphysics (the mass ‘male’ catholic
position), there would be few if any
lower-class females in chemistry
at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Similarly,
without
anti-lowerclass antifemales in antichemistry, there would be few if any
middle-class males in physics at the southeast point of the said
compass.
For
just
as,
in
the noumenal realms of space
and time (duly divisible between space and anti-time on the one hand,
and time
and anti-space on the other), the anti-classless preclude classless
competition
for the upper class and, conversely, the anti-upperclass preclude
upper-class
competition for the classless, so, in the phenomenal realms of volume
and mass
(duly divisible between volume and anti-mass on the one hand, and mass
and
anti-volume on the other hand), the anti-middleclass preclude
middle-class
competition for the lower class while, conversely, the anti-lowerclass
preclude
lower-class competition for the middle-class.
Therefore
a
polarity
axially
exists between an
upper-class/anti-classless reality and a middle-class/anti-lowerclass
reality
on the one hand, and between a lower-class/anti-middleclass reality and
a
classless/anti-upperclass reality on the other hand, the former
polarities
(subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that
undermines the
phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the latter
polarities (again
subject to modification in terms of strict gender polarity that
undermines the
phenomenal hegemonic position) constitutive of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, with, in
consequence, a kind
of British/Irish dichotomy between the two axes.
Such,
in
a
nutshell,
is how I understand class,
and it is as likely as not that I have the most logically consistent
insight
into class as is humanly or, rather, superhumanly possible.
ATTEMPTING
TO
DEFINE
GOD
People
speak
too
much
about God and not enough
about metaphysics, the religious context or element par
excellence.
Such
a
context,
which
is rather more airy than fiery, watery, or earthy
(vegetative),
is the element of soul par
excellence,
and
therefore
although
ego figures as the
other aspect of self which has to be addressed, it is less important
and
significant of metaphysics than soul, which corresponds not to God but
to
Heaven. God’s raison
d’être
is to attain to Heaven, ego into soul, via
bound will and bound spirit, for in metaphysics, a male context, self
is free
and determines the binding of not-self, as soma to psyche.
But
the
ratio
of
ego to soul in free self, as
of God to Heaven, changes from metaphysical context to context,
beginning, I
shall contend, with most ego and least soul in cosmic metaphysics,
progressing
to more (relative to most) ego and less (relative to least) soul in
natural
metaphysics, progressing from less (relative to least) ego and more
(relative
to most) soul in human metaphysics, and culminating, to anticipate the
future,
in least ego and most soul in cyborg metaphysics, the definitive
because truly
universal, or global, stage of metaphysics.
Therefore
the
religious
context
par
excellence
of
metaphysics – excluding the all-too-prevalent metachemical, chemical,
and
physical ‘bovaryizations’ of religion typifying most so-called
religious
traditions – is ultimately less about God than about Heaven, and the
attainment
of Heaven is, to repeat, God’s raison
d’être.
Unfortunately,
when
people
speak
about God or
theorize about God it is usually within one or other of the
‘bovaryized’
contexts of religion that owe less to metaphysics than to
metachemistry,
chemistry, or physics, viz. fire, water, or earth (vegetation), as the
case may
be, and thus to the diabolic, the feminine, or the masculine rather
than to the
divine as such which, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding,
has
tended to be marginalized if not excluded from Western and indeed most
Eastern
traditions.
However
that
may
be,
God exists in relation to
metaphysical ego, whether vis-à-vis the Cosmos, nature, man, or cyborg
universality, and will be more or less prevalent depending on the stage
or type
of metaphysics and its relation to Heaven. In the definitive
metaphysics there
will be most Heaven and least God, most soul and least ego, as noted
above, and
therefore religion will have come clean, detached itself not only from
lesser
stages of metaphysics, but from everything which is either contrary to
or
beneath metaphysics, including the starting point of most religion in
Devil the
Mother hyped as God the Father which is less metaphysical than
metachemical and
therefore more about Beauty (and Love … in Hell the Clear Spirit) than
Truth
(and Joy in Heaven the Holy Soul), less, in other words, about free
psyche than
about its gender opposite, free soma, which is ever fiery and
fundamentally to
do with free will rather than the true being of free soul.
WHAT
IS
RELIGION
AND
WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
Religion
is
about
God
and God’s raison
d’être.
God
is
truth
and
truth is a kind of knowledge germane to metaphysical ego.
Therefore
metaphysical ego, as an expression of truth, is God, and God’s raison
d’être
is nothing
else than to achieve Heaven and thus get from ego to soul, wherein
truth is
eclipsed, as it were, by joy. Because metaphysics is the sphere of soul
par
excellence,
it
is
also
the
context of Heaven par
excellence.
There
are
different
stages
and manifestations
of metaphysics, just as there are different stages and manifestations
of God
and Heaven, beginning in metaphysical cosmos with a metaphysics that is
least
evolved and therefore one in which there is most God and least Heaven;
progressing in metaphysical nature with a metaphysics that is less
(compared to
least) evolved and therefore one in which there is more (relative to
most) God
and less (relative to least) Heaven; progressing in metaphysical
mankind with a
metaphysics that is more (compared to most) evolved and therefore one
in which
there is less (relative to least) God and more (relative to most)
Heaven; and
culminating in metaphysical cyborgkind (to come) with a metaphysics
that is
most evolved and therefore one in which there is least God and most
Heaven –
the definitive or per se manifestation
of
metaphysics.
Therefore
definitive
metaphysics
is
still
something for the future, since we haven’t got beyond mankind as yet
and then
only some parts of the world have demonstrated an aptitude for
metaphysics to
any genuine extent. Most religious traditions are based or centred on
something
less, including the Western, which is basically chemical/antiphysical
and/or
physical/antichemical, with a metachemical/antimetaphysical anchor
derived from
the Middle East.
Even
Roman
Catholicism
falls
short of
metaphysics to the degree that it subsumes such metaphysics as is
postulated in the concept
of ‘Risen Saviour’ into antimetachemistry, ‘doing down’ what should, in
the
crucifixional paradigm of bound metaphysical soma, approximate to lungs
and
breath from fear that the TM cat, so to speak, might get out of the bag
of ‘sacred
lungs’ at the expense not only of the masses, but of Devil the Mother
hyped as
God the Father metachemically in back of both phenomenal and noumenal,
physical
and metaphysical, orders of sensibility.
Therefore
the
metaphysical
factor
is subsumed
into antimetachemistry ‘sacred heart’-wise, and that in turn
subordinated to
metachemistry over antimetaphysics in back, where Old Testament
criteria going
all the way back to the Middle East invariably obtain. The result – a
mankind
mode of perpendicular triangularity that can be so easily eclipsed,
when push
comes to shove, by natural and cosmic unequivocal modes of such
triangularity,
to the detriment of religious freedom.
For
metaphysics
over
antimetachemistry
spells
the end of perpendicular triangularity of whatever sort, including the
contemporary ‘cyborgistic’ mode of it dominated by cameras and, hence,
film.
But then metaphysics, as a male element, over antimetachemistry, its
upended,
or antifemale, corollary could only exist at the expense of
metachemistry over
antimetaphysics, with its female and antimale implications, and that is
something Western traditions, superheathenistically rooted in the
Middle East,
have never seriously countenanced, since it would imply a repudiation
of Devil
the Mother hyped as God the Father (or metachemistry hyped as
metaphysics, or
the polyversal cosmos hyped as universal) and a more elitist approach
to
religion reminiscent of the Buddhist Far East.
However,
even
transcendental
meditation,
as an
expression of divine ego utilizing lungs and breath to achieve heavenly
perfection in the soul, is of mankind, and therefore an Eastern
shortfall from
global requirement, which will require the transcendence of mankind in
and by
cyborgkind if a more or less permanent accommodation of soulfulness,
spinal-cord deep, is to be achieved, and achieved not, needless to say,
by
anything so naturalistic and elitist as TM, but through recourse to
synthetically artificial substances commensurate with global
requirement which
cyborgization will render viable (kind of Huxley rather than Jung).
However,
that
is
still
some way off, so we must
remain content with knowledge as to what God is and what He is about.
Metaphysical ego and soul have come a long way from their cosmic
manifestations
in the realm of planets like Saturn, to which certain kinds of natural
visionary experiences and a deeper or more sensible approach to
astrology would
probably be the nearest human approach; from their natural
manifestations in
the realm of winged seedpods on certain trees, to which sexual yoga as
practised by various Eastern adepts of a Hindu cast would evidently be
the
nearest human equivalence; from their human manifestations in the realm
of
transcendental meditation, to which breath-based meditation techniques
designed
to allow the self to recoil in self-preservation from the out-breath to
self
more profoundly (spinal-cord deep) as practised by various Eastern
adepts of a
Buddhist cast would doubtless be the optimum realization.
But
all
that
is
still short of a definitive
metaphysics, and in such metaphysics, commensurate with communal
cyborgization
motivated by synthetically artificial self-enlightenment, there will
ultimately
be least God and most Heaven.
SHOULD
THE
BIBLE
CONTINUE
TO BE USED FOR
SWEARING-IN CEREMONIES AND IN COURTROOMS?
They
say
the
Bible
is the word of God, but it
is a poor type of god whose word is printerly, i.e. in print, and not
of an
italic writerly character whose ethereal subjectivity would be properly
commensurate with a metaphysical disposition and/or dispensation – at
least
when monochrome, and preferably of a white-on-black rather than
black-on-white
nature, as though emphasizing psyche at the expense of soma, the Church
at the
expense, in other words, of the State.
I
don’t
believe
the
Bible as the word of God
for the simple reason that God has never figured in Western
civilization, only
Devil the Mother hyped as God (the ‘best of a bad job’ sugar-coating of
the
bitter pill of overwhelming female dominance of cosmic and even natural
realities and effective starting-point, in consequence, of
civilization) and
something extrapolated out from that which has been called ‘the Son of
God’ but
is really the son of something else, whether of Devil the Mother (an
antigodly ‘Antichrist’),
of Woman the Mother (an antimanly ‘Antichrist’) or, indirectly (in
sensibility), as Son of Man (‘Man the Father’ corresponding to ‘God the
Father’
being a virtually unheard of concept, though germane to psyche rather
than to
soma and, hence, to the church as opposed to the state) or Son of God
(sic),
since Devil the Mother has even the postulate of resurrection (a
nonsense from
any genuinely metaphysical standpoint in which the bound-somatic son is
already
correlatively in
situ under
a
free-psychic
father)
‘by the balls’, so
to speak, and he has never amounted to anything independent of Her,
like a TM
so-called atheist doing his own thing independently of Creatoresque or
cosmic
constraints.
Anyhow,
I
wouldn’t
want
to swear on the Bible;
I’d be more inclined to swear at what, to me, is an obstacle to true
godliness
which, at the mankind level (beyond cosmos and nature) is most
approximated to
in transcendental meditation, where the godly ego utilizing lungs and
breath to
recoil to self from the out-breath more profoundly, bypassing its
starting-point to hit the soul spinal-cord deep for a second or two,
corresponds to ‘God the Father’, the end-product of self-aggrandisement
to ‘Heaven
the Holy Soul’, the raison
d’être
of godliness, and the lungs and the breath to ‘the
Son of God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit of Heaven’ respectively.
But
that
would
still
be godliness in mankind, as
a penultimate and not ultimate, or definitive, manifestation of
godliness or,
more correctly, heavenliness, which will require an altogether
different
platform of self-realization if it is to succeed in bringing
metaphysics to
anything like its maximum soulfulness, so to speak – one dependent, in
all
likelihood, on synthetically artificial substances and coupled to
cyborgization
of a communal order.
That
said
(and
this
is quite another subject),
the Bible is a book, and no book is worthy of a metaphysical
otherworldly
status, being a kind of rectilinear worldly thing corresponding, when
monochromatic, to the physical/antichemical southeast point of the
intercardinal axial compass in what I normally describe as something
corresponding to a phenomenal mode of sensibility. Only scrolls, and
these days
e-scrolls (if italic writerly on white-on-black monochromatic terms)
are worthy
to be taken seriously as the ‘word of God’, and on that, especially in
relation
to my own more thematically-elevated examples which tend, in their
literary
collectivization, towards the communal, I would be more than prepared
to swear.
As for the Bible, forget it! One day it will be consigned to the
rubbish heap
of history, along with all those other religious and cultural
anachronisms from
the West or the East which fall well short of global requirement.
REFLECTIONS:
MY
FATHER
I
have
never
celebrated
Father’s Day for the
simple reason that I never knew or saw my father. To me he is the
Irishman from
Galway who drunkenly made the mistake of getting involved with a woman
whose
mother had wanted to return to Ireland from Aldershot in England when
her soldierly
husband (originally from the North of Ireland) whom she had originally
met
while serving in Ireland died, but whose daughter had no such desires.
Unfortunately
‘Mary
Aldershot’,
as
my father’s
family apparently called my mother, soon proved incompatible with their
Shamus,
who got cold feet and ran out on his marriage, returning to his mother
as a
sort of proverbial Irish Catholic SOB.
So
I
grew
up
(until I was taken away to
When
Shamus
subsequently
died
of pneumonia,
probably from over-drinking and over-smoking or at least partly in
consequence
of that, I was in Aldershot, where my mother and grandmother had been
obliged
to return when their pub license fell through or they could no longer
manage to
run the pub, as the case may be. But there was no mention of Shamus
ever having
married or produced a son, back in
Not
that
I
make
a point of going back there and
risk being singled out by some knowing folks and smartarses as Shamus’s
effective
bastard, or anything of the kind. I keep my distance, since I despise
everything those sort of people stand for,
not least
religious bigotry and social hypocrisy. If I had a father he was one in
name
only, without parental substance. He remains for me a nonentity, and I
rarely
waste any time thinking about him or what he might have been like.
I
don’t
dote
on
my mother either, since, born
and bred in Aldershot, she didn’t really want to go to Ireland with her
mother
in the first place, and when the mother died and was returned,
post-mortem, to
Ireland for burial, she lost little time in packing me off to a
Protestant children’s
home and effectively washing her hands of the whole sorry affair.
When
you
don’t
have
a father to protect you,
when you have only a mother and grandmother whom you saw too much of as
a child
and didn’t like much of what you saw, when you’re not in your rightful
country
but in one that has traditionally always been at variance with it if
not its
avowed ethnic enemy, there is no reason to suppose that your mother is
going to
be greatly thrilled to have the burden of bringing you up without the
benefit
of a husband or that she will greatly relish having you there in the
first
place, other things considered. The
death and repatriation of her mother cleared the way for her to address
that
problem and address it she did, even though I ceased to attend a
Catholic
school and became a reluctant Protestant in the institution (Baptist)
and schools
(Anglican) to which I was sent in Carshalton,
Parents?
I detest them! They screwed one another over
and up and they screwed me over and up, leaving me with nothing to
inherit, not
even a low-earning business from a father who apparently wasn’t smart
enough to
own one. I don’t have any interest in either of them, and I have not
become one
myself. How could I? I never had the benefit of a father to play with
or teach
me anything, and, growing up solitary and sedentary, I certainly
couldn’t play
father to anyone else without having had such a benefit personally. It
would be
asking too much of me, be too much of an imposition and unreasonable
responsibility.
So
I
am
an
outsider (in
As
for
the
Irish
... forget it. To me,
who is as it were reluctantly and in spite of himself Irish if only
because of
his father’s genes, which I can do little or nothing about, they are
guilty
until proven innocent and, because of their sin-wallowing traditions,
innocent
they very rarely are, especially of narrow-mindedness.
THE
PROS
AND
CONS
OF HAVING A Y CHROMOSOME
The
XY
chromosomal
integrity
of
the male, so paradoxically combining the
physical with
the metaphysical, has always meant that his Achilles heel, so to speak,
is the
X of physical departure from and, in an underlining sense, support for
the Y
which, no matter how inevitable and even humanly desirable, always
leaves him
vulnerable to female predation from the opposing chromosomal
standpoints of the
metachemical and chemical XX’s, with especial immediate, or short-term,
reference to the former, the fiery nature (supernature) of which is
commensurate with beauty and love, both of which conspire to exploit
the
physical vulnerability (old adam) of the male in the (ungodly)
interests of
reproduction (the ‘increasing and multiplying’ of Old Testament
sanction), so
that he becomes the plaything and, to some extent, devotee of female
beauty
(and love), deferring, artist-like, to the whorish freedom a plane
above him at
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where
metachemistry
reigns over pseudo-metaphysics, and ceases, in consequence, to live in
and for
his Y at the northeast point of the said compass, much as Adam fell
from his
Edenic innocence once he had allowed Eve to seduce him (with the apple
of
forbidden knowledge, i.e. carnal knowledge) and ceased to be true to
his self
(his metaphysical self), with consequences with which we are only too
familiar!
For
it
was
from
the
tree of forbidden knowledge, corresponding to the physical X,
that the
apple was plucked, and it was thanks to its appeal to the ‘old Adam’ in
him,
his baser or lower self, that he was seduced and duly found himself,
all too
inevitably, cast out of the Edenic paradise of perfect self-harmony in
metaphysical acknowledgement of and loyalty to the Y of his deeper and
higher
self.
Thus
from
the
curse
of
Adam, the self-divisions of physical X and metaphysical Y,
came
the ‘fall of man’ from his godly image or likeness, a fall at first not
self-evident if only because the offering of an XX-chromosomal
seduction by the
female has its roots in the metachemical self of beauty and love,
thereby
providing something higher than – and axially contrary to – the
physical X of
his lower self.
But
this
metachemical
X,
rooted
in somatic freedom, is only a means for the
female to a
lower end, the end, once the male Y has been twisted to a loving
admiration,
artist-like, of female beauty at the expense of joyful self-awareness,
of the
chemical X in the surrogate plenum (for someone rooted, as females are,
in a
vacuum) of maternal resolution, the X of strength and pride that has
little or
no time (or inclination) for the placating of physical knowledge and
pleasure,
duly carnally debased, through beauty and love because it has other –
and
better – things to do or to concern itself with, things that will
increasingly
marginalize the X of the male even as it was formerly held in an
XX-chromosomal
grip and unable to be true to its Y, something which in the XX-X
context (or
predicament) of worldly subjection is even more remote, and to the
point where
the justification for faith (by the Y-severed male, or pseudo-male) in
messianic intervention in order to return him, duly transfigured, to
the Y of his
youthful idealism and almost Edenic innocence, through the process of
deliverance known as salvation, is virtually inevitable.
For
salvation
(from
the
world
of his self-denying predicament at the hands of
maternal resolution of the female) is for the male, more specifically
the
pseudo-masculine male of pseudo-physics, and involves his restoration
to the
godly heights of perfect self-transcendence in Y-chromosomal truth to
metaphysical self, which is of the Soul. His rise, should it
transpire,
and restoration to an Edenic-like innocence, presupposes the
concomitant
counter-fall, or counter-damnation, of the chemical female, the
feminine
female, to the pseudo-devilish or pseudo-diabolic counter-depths of
pseudo-metachemical binding, wherein the free somatic X of metachemical
selfhood, duly severed from the free somatic X of chemical selfhood,
will be
neutralized, so that never again will beauty and love be able to seduce
knowledge and pleasure in the interests of strength and pride to the
detriment –
and exclusion – of truth and joy. Never again, in other words,
will the
free will of metachemistry, rooted in free soma, be able to seduce the
free ego
of physics from its support of the free soul, centred in free psyche,
of
metaphysics in the name of the free spirit of chemistry, rooted, below,
in the
somatic freedom of maternity.
In
a
world
–
necessarily
otherworldly in its metaphysical aspects – characterized,
on the
other hand, by free soul, there could be no place for free ego, much
less free
spirit or free will. Therefore the binding of will shall
accompany, in
pseudo-metachemistry, the freeing of soul through metaphysics, as the
Lord Y
(more than Yahweh, Yoni, Yogi, etc, and effectively the Yohalin
precondition of
perfect Y-ness for the religiously sovereign [a subject I have gone
into
elsewhere]) reigns over the neutralized X of the vanquished female, the
avenging angel, when necessary, of the Lord Y whose paradise will be
for ever,
lasting, in other words, for all Eternity in the cyborg-oriented
metaphysical
structure of a St George and the (prone or neutralized or slain)
Dragon-like
parallelism, a parallelism which, for all eternity, will signify the
dragon, or
lion, that, duly neutralized, ‘lies down’ ... in pseudo-metachemical
subjection
... with the lamb of God, whose metaphysical joy in perfect
Y-contentedness
will be all the sweeter.
THE
CONCEPT
OF
GOOD
AND
EVIL, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
People
tend,
erroneously,
to
think of evil and good as equivalent
to black and white, or bright and dark, or light and shade, as though
they were
two sides of the same elemental coin, say the beauty and love of metachemical
free soma
vis-à-vis
the
ugliness
and
hate of metachemical
bound
psyche, the absolute (noumenal)
female
actuality
of
metachemistry
(corresponding elementally to fire), so that the positive aspect of the
duality
is identified with good, and the negative aspect thereof with evil.
Wrong!
Applied
to
the
airy
element of metaphysics, truth and joy,
corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to God the Father and
Heaven the
Holy Soul, would equate with good,
and
illusion
and
woe,
corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to the
Son of
God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, would equate, by contrast, with evil.
But
would
Christians
accept
as gospel that they have a tradition
of worshipping evil …
in the form of the Son of God and the Holy
Spirit of Heaven, i.e., the bound soma of metaphysics which in simple
black and
white terms would equate with the latter, i.e., with what is dark,
negative,
vicious, etc.
I
rather
doubt
it!
Even if the other
elements,
like chemistry and physics, corresponding to water and earth
(vegetation), didn’t also
expose, when analyzed in such fashion, the absurdity of such a theory
or
approach to good and evil, metaphysics and even metachemistry
should suffice to do so; though in the latter case the discrepancy
would be
somewhat less obvious if only because traditional or conventional
religion is
less disposed to dealing with terms equivalent to the above (God the
Father,
etc.) like Devil and Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, never mind the
Daughter
of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.
For
the
idea
that
beauty and love, being positive, must be good
would be difficult for an average person to disprove even if he or she
were not
also of the opinion that ugliness and hate, the other side of the metachemical
coin, were
patently evil.
In reality, however, ugliness and hate are
not evil but
that which, appertaining to metachemical bound psyche, corresponds to crime as something
conditioned by the evil of free metachemical soma, i.e. beauty and love, as the negative
converse of a
positive precondition, soma preceding and predominating over psyche on a 3:1 basis in the noumenal absolutism of this particular female element.
Therefore
evil
precedes
and
predominates, in metachemistry,
over
crime,
as
beauty
and love over ugliness and hate on the aforementioned
ratio
basis which ensures that, come what may, evil corresponds to the
brightness of
free soma and crime to the darkness of bound psyche, with goodness and
its
corollary punishment having nothing whatsoever to do with such a
dichotomy
because axially polar, in pseudo-chemistry, to metachemistry
as
physically-conditioned bound soma to free psyche, the physical, or
masculine-male element, equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry in
the
phenomenal relativity of the context in question (at the southeast
point of the
intercardinal
axial compass) in such fashion that the
pseudo-feminine pseudo-element is disposed to exist on a basis contrary
to
female nature to the extent that its soma remains bound (and good)
while its
psyche becomes free (and punishing …
from a
female standpoint naturally intended, be it not forgotten, for free
soma and
bound psyche), and therefore establishes an
axial polarity
with metachemistry in terms of the goodness of bound
pseudo-chemical soma
vis-à-vis the evil of free metachemical soma
on the one hand, that of primary state-hegemonic criteria, and the
punishment
(or punishingness) of free pseudo-chemical psyche vis-à-vis
the
crime
of
bound
metachemical psyche on the other hand, that of primary
church-subordinate criteria, the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-divine male
position pseudo-elementally subordinate to metachemistry and
the physical masculine-male position equivocally hegemonic over
pseudo-chemistry constitutive, by contrast, of secondary
state-hegemonic (soma)
and church-subordinate (psyche) criteria on an axis that, stretching
from the
northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial
compass, is ever contrary to (and in schismatic opposition with) the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of chemistry over
pseudo-physics and
metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry that stretches from the southwest to the
northeast points
of the said compass virtually as an Irish Catholic alternative to
British
Protestant criteria.
Be
that
as
it
may, evil and good are not, like virtue and vice or
negativity and positivity, two sides of the same (elemental) coin, but,
as
argued above, are axially polar, and then, where their pristine (or
female)
manifestations are concerned, on unequal moral terms, the terms of
moral evil
and crime (3:1) vis-à-vis
unmoral
good
and
punishment (2½:1½) which
contrasts not only with their amoral and immoral counterparts (a
different
subject), but with the unmoral pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of
pseudo-metaphysics, and the moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom of
physics,
the moral positions always hegemonic and the unmoral ones
gender-subordinate,
while amorality corresponds to a descent from above (the moral
elemental
positions) and immorality to an ascent from below (the unmoral
elemental or,
rather, pseudo-elemental positions), about which I have theorized at
some
length elsewhere and will not further elaborate on here in consequence.
But
just
imagine
the
consequences
of applying the erroneous notions of
bright-good and
dark-evil to pseudo-chemistry! The punishing factor,
corresponding to
free psyche, would be regarded as good, and the good factor,
corresponding to
bound soma, as evil! This is, of course, a contradiction in
terms.
For goodness is bound, negative, vicious, and dark here, whereas
punishment is
free, positive, virtuous, and bright, if only on a 1½ as opposed to a
2½ ratio
basis (given the phenomenal female gender actuality of
2½-soma:1½-psyche), and
then only because of masculine-male, i.e. physical, hegemonic pressure,
wherein
the ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, and less in relation
to
psychic punishment and somatic goodness than to (in contrast with the
genuineness of metaphysics) pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, the
knowledge and
pleasure of physical free psyche and the ignorance and pain of physical
bound
soma, both of which, corresponding to an equivocally hegemonic element,
are
moral, if with virtuous and vicious, bright and dark,
implications.
Pseudo-chemistry,
of
course,
is
not about the free psyche of
knowledge and pleasure, and the bound soma of ignorance and pain, but
about
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (bound soma) and pseudo-strength
and
pseudo-pride (free psyche), the former pseudo-chemical pairing
corresponding to
primary phenomenal state-hegemonic criteria and the latter to primary
phenomenal church-subordinate criteria at the southeast point of the
axis in
question, polar, be it not forgotten, to evil and crime, and thus to
the
primary noumenal
state-hegemonic actualities of beauty and love on the one hand, and the
primary
noumenal
church-subordinate actualities of ugliness and
hate on the other hand, the latter owing more, in all probability, to
the Old
Testament than ever they do to the New, not least in respect,
traditionally, of
a King James biblical opposition to and/or contrast with the Gideon New
Testament pretensions to religious independence of the Puritans.
DISCUSSING
THE
CONCEPT
OF
MORAL
TRUTH
Although
I
have
written
recently
of distinctions at all points of the
intercardinal axial
compass between morality, amorality, unmorality and immorality, with
morality
and unmorality the standard distinctions compared to amoral and immoral
departures from above or below, as the gender-specific case may be, I
should
emphasize that I was generalizing rather than allowing, more
categorically, for
further distinctions between the genuine forms of morality, amorality,
unmorality, and immorality, and their ‘pseudo’ counterparts. For,
categorically
speaking, such further distinctions indubitably exist, and they do so
with
regard to the absolute standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis
the
relative standings of amorality and unmorality.
Now
since
the
intercardinal
axial
compass is divisible between noumenal and
phenomenal
positions, corresponding to ethereal and corporeal class distinctions,
it
should be logically feasible to contend that only in the noumenal
positions,
whether in terms of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical northwest
point of the
said compass or, contrariwise, in terms of the
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
northeast point of it, will both morality and immorality be genuine,
since such
positions, being noumenal, are absolute, as, in their opposite ways,
are
morality and immorality, with a 3:1 ratio of soma to psyche (female) or
of
psyche to soma (male).
The
amoral
and
unmoral
positions,
by contrast, will be ‘pseudo’, since existing or
transpiring within the absolute parameters of the noumenal. Hence not only will pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry be symptomatic of ‘pseudo’ manifestations of
unmorality,
but quasi-pseudo-metaphysical departures from metachemistry in the one
case,
and quasi-pseudo-metachemical departures from metaphysics in the other
case
will also be symptomatic of the ‘pseudo’ modes of amorality.
All
this,
however,
ceases
to
apply with the southwest and southeast points of the
intercardinal axial compass, wherein the phenomenal relativity (2½:1½)
of
chemistry over pseudo-physics and, across the axial divide, of physics
over
pseudo-chemistry will present the opposite case to anything noumenal –
namely,
a fundamental distinction between the ‘pseudo’ standings of morality
and
immorality vis-à-vis the genuine standings of amorality and unmorality,
whether
in terms of a 2½:1½ ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to
soma
(male).
Hence
both
chemistry
and
physics
exemplify pseudo-morality within the paradoxical
standings of their phenomenal relativity, even though amoral departures
from
either chemistry to pseudo-physics in terms of quasi-pseudo-physics or
from
physics to pseudo-chemistry in terms of quasi-pseudo-chemistry will be
anything
but ‘pseudo’ in their accordance with relative criteria.
Just
so,
both
pseudo-physical
and
pseudo-chemical modes of unmorality will be
genuine in
their relativity, but not the immoral departures from pseudo-physics
(or, more
correctly, antiphysics) of a quasi-chemical nature or from
pseudo-chemistry
(more correctly, antichemistry) of a quasi-physical nature, given the
absolute
requirements of immorality.
Thus
while
the
noumenal
positions provide logical evidence of a
contrast between genuine morality and genuine immorality, whether
metachemical/quasi-metachemical or, across the axial divide,
metaphysical/quasi-metaphysical,
their phenomenal counterparts, being relative, will logically attest to
a
contrast between pseudo-morality and pseudo-immorality, whether
chemical/quasi-chemical or physical/quasi-physical.
Conversely,
while
the
phenomenal
positions provide logical
evidence of a contrast between genuine amorality and genuine
unmorality,
whether quasi-pseudo-physical/pseudo-physical or, across the axial
divide,
quasi-pseudo-chemical/pseudo-chemical, their noumenal counterparts,
being
absolute, will logically attest to a contrast between pseudo-amorality
and
pseudo-unmorality, whether
quasi-pseudo-metaphysical/pseudo-metaphysical or
quasi-pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-metachemical.
In
each
class
and/or
gender
context, however, there will be a balance,
theoretically
speaking, between the genuine and ‘pseudo’ elements, the noumenal
exemplifying
the genuineness of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness,
so to
speak, of amorality and unmorality; the phenomenal, by contrast,
exemplifying
the genuineness of amorality and unmorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness
of
morality and immorality.
In
sum,
the
lower
orders,
whether chemical/pseudo-physical at the southwest or
physical/pseudo-chemical at the southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass,
are neither as moral nor as immoral as their upper-order counterparts,
while
the latter, whether metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical at the northwest
or
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical at the northeast points of the said
compass, will
be neither as amoral nor as unmoral as the lower orders.
For morality and
immorality, when genuine, are absolute (3:1), whereas both amorality
and
unmorality, to be genuine, can only be relative (
Everything
exists
or
has
the
capacity to exist everywhere, but not in the same terms or
to
a similar extent. The persistence of
morality, amorality, unmorality, and immorality at all points of the
intercardinal axial compass will continue to reflect opposing
approaches to the
genuine and the ‘pseudo’ even if, ultimately, it can only be a point of
philosophical principle approximating to divine judgement that
metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry should triumph over everything else,
and that
genuine godly/heavenly morality should avoid any pseudo-amoral
departure from
itself (in quasi-pseudo-metachemical terms) in order to keep the
pseudo-unmorality, corresponding to the pseudo-devilish/pseudo-hellish
nature
of pseudo-metachemistry, in its gender-subordinate place, the better to
avoid
the probability of an immoral quasi-metaphysical backlash from
pseudo-metachemistry (or, more correctly, from antimetachemistry, its
anti-diabolic
starting point) that would be extremely bad for metaphysics proper, a
context,
be it not forgotten, with a 3:1 ratio (noumenal) of free psyche (in
truth and
joy) to bound soma (in illusion or woe) that could only suffer,
possibly
fatally, from a 3:1 ratio of bound soma (quasi-illusion and quasi-woe)
to free
psyche (quasi-truth and quasi-joy) coming up, via antimetachemistry,
from the
pseudo-metachemical ‘below’, where, a plane down at the northeast point
of our
intercardinal axial compass, the pseudo-female absolutism of 3:1 bound
soma to
free psyche would normally or habitually take the form of
pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred to pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love – something
pseudo-diabolically
acceptable from a truly divine standpoint in metaphysics.
So
as
long
as
pseudo-metachemistry
is not encouraged (pseudo-amorally) to depart
from
itself in the aforementioned immoral manner, all will be well for
metaphysics,
the proverbial St George with his foot firmly planted on the
neutralized dragon
… of noumenal pseudo-femaleness, the pseudo-lion that not so much lies
down
with as under the heel of the genuine lamb, the lamb of God whose moral
raison
d’être, in truth, is the joy of heavenly peace in total
self-unity.
COMPARATIVE
ETHICS:
A
HISTORICAL
VIEW
Metachemistry,
the
element
of
evil
and crime par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the element of barbarity, which is vain.
Chemistry,
the
element
of
pseudo-evil
and pseudo-crime par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the element of pseudo-barbarity, which is pseudo-vain.
Metaphysics,
the
element
of
grace
and wisdom par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the element of culture, which is righteous.
Physics,
the
element
of
pseudo-grace
and pseudo-crime par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the element of pseudo-culture, which is pseudo-righteous.
*
*
*
Pseudo-metachemistry,
the
pseudo-element
of
pseudo-goodness
and pseudo-punishment par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the pseudo-element of pseudo-civility, which is
pseudo-just.
Pseudo-chemistry,
the
pseudo-element
of
goodness
and punishment par
excellence,
is
also,
by
definition,
the pseudo-element of civility, which is just.
Pseudo-metaphysics,
the
pseudo-element
of
pseudo-sin
and pseudo-folly par
excellence,
is also, by definition, the pseudo-element
of
pseudo-philistinism, which is pseudo-meek.
Pseudo-physics,
the
pseudo-element
of
sin
and folly par
excellence,
is
also, by definition, the pseudo-element of philistinism, which is meek.
*
*
*
Metachemistry
and
pseudo-chemistry
are
polar
elemental positions on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, like barbarity and
civility,
vanity and justice.
Pseudo-metaphysics
and
physics
are
also
polar elemental positions on
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial terms, like pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture,
pseudo-meekness and
pseudo-righteousness.
Metaphysics
and
pseudo-physics
are
polar
elemental positions on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like culture and
philistinism,
righteousness and meekness.
Pseudo-metachemistry
and
chemistry
are
also
polar elemental positions on
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, like pseudo-civility
and
pseudo-barbarity, pseudo-justice and pseudo-vanity.
*
*
*
Hence,
in
overall
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial
terms, barbarity and
civility,
corresponding to metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry, have to be
contrasted with
pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, which correspond to
pseudo-metaphysics
and physics, the former polarity primarily and the latter secondarily
characteristic of the axis in question, which is female-dominated, i.e.
rooted
metachemically in free soma.
Hence,
in
overall
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial
terms, culture and
philistinism, corresponding to metaphysics and pseudo-physics, have to
be
contrasted with pseudo-civility and pseudo-barbarity, which correspond
to
pseudo-metachemistry and chemistry, the former polarity primarily and
the
latter secondarily characteristic of the axis in question, which is
male-dominated, i.e. centred metaphysically in free psyche.
Such,
in
a
nutshell,
is
the gender distinction, ethnically speaking, between
British
(English-dominated Protestant) and Irish (Catholic) axial relativity, a
relativity torn between barbarity and civility in the one case
(British) and
culture and philistinism in the other (Irish).
*
*
*
As
regards
the
distinction
between
soma and psyche, state and church, whether
primary or
secondary or, indeed, genuine or pseudo, we should allow for positive
and
negative modes of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism,
according as
to whether our focus is on the free or the bound aspect of any given
element,
since that which is free, whether somatic or psychic, will exemplify
positive
(and virtuous) forms of barbarity, civility, culture, and philistinism,
whereas
whatever is bound, whether psychic or somatic, can only exemplify the
negative
(and vicious) counterparts of the above.
Thus,
on
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis,
the positive barbarity
(virtuous)
of beauty and love, corresponding to the evil of metachemical free
soma, has to
be contrasted with the negative barbarity (vicious) of ugliness and
hatred,
which corresponds to the crime of metachemical bound psyche, with the
former
standing to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this
noumenally
objective element.
Thus
the
positive
civility
(virtuous)
of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride,
corresponding
to the punishingness of pseudo-chemical free psyche, has to be
contrasted with
the negative civility (vicious) of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility,
which
corresponds to the goodness of pseudo-chemical bound soma, with the
former
standing to the latter on the
Likewise,
if
from
the
opposite
gender standpoint to anything female, the positive
pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy,
corresponding to the pseudo-folly of pseudo-metaphysical free soma, has
to be
contrasted with the negative pseudo-philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of
pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe, which corresponds to the pseudo-sin of
pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, with the former standing to the
latter on the
1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-subjective
element
(pseudo-element)
Likewise,
again
from
a
male
gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-culture
(pseudo-virtuous) of knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to the
pseudo-grace
of physical free psyche, has to be contrasted with the negative
pseudo-culture
(pseudo-vicious) of ignorance and pain, which corresponds to the
pseudo-wisdom
of physical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter on the
2½:1½
relative ratio basis of this phenomenally subjective element.
*
*
*
Thus,
on
the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis,
the positive culture
(virtuous) of
truth and joy, corresponding to the grace of metaphysical free psyche,
has to
be contrasted with the negative culture (vicious) of illusion and woe,
which
corresponds to the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma, with the former
standing
to the latter on the 3:1 absolute ratio basis of this noumenally
subjective
element.
Thus
the
positive
philistinism
(pseudo-virtuous)
of pseudo-knowledge and
pseudo-pleasure, corresponding to the folly of pseudo-physical free
soma, has
to be contrasted with the negative philistinism (pseudo-vicious) of
pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, which corresponds to the sinfulness
of
pseudo-physical bound psyche, with the former standing to the latter on
the
Likewise,
if
from
the
opposite
gender standpoint to anything male, the positive
pseudo-civility (pseudo-virtuous) of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love,
corresponding to the pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-metachemical free
psyche,
has to be contrasted with the negative pseudo-civility (pseudo-vicious)
of
pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, which corresponds to the
pseudo-goodness of
pseudo-metachemical bound soma, with the former standing to the latter
on the
1:3 inverted absolute ratio basis of this noumenally pseudo-objective
element
(pseudo-element).
Likewise,
again
from
a
female
gender standpoint, the positive pseudo-barbarity
(pseudo-virtuous) of strength and pride, corresponding to the
pseudo-evil of
chemical free soma, has to be contrasted with the negative
pseudo-barbarity
(pseudo-vicious) of weakness and humility (if not humiliation), which
corresponds to the pseudo-criminality of chemical bound psyche, with
the former
standing to the latter on the 2½:1½ relative ratio basis of this
phenomenally
objective element.
*
*
*
Metachemistry
=
vanity
=
barbarity
= noumenal objectivity (clearness);
Pseudo-metaphysics
=
pseudo-meekness
=
pseudo-philistinism
= noumenal pseudo-subjectivity
(pseudo-unholiness);
Chemistry
=
pseudo-vanity
=
pseudo-barbarity
= phenomenal objectivity
(pseudo-clearness);
Pseudo-physics = meekness =
philistinism = phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity (unholiness);
Physics
=
pseudo-righteousness
=
pseudo-culture
= phenomenal subjectivity
(pseudo-holiness);
Pseudo-chemistry
=
justice
=
civility
= phenomenal pseudo-objectivity (unclearness);
Metaphysics
=
righteousness
=
culture
= noumenal subjectivity (holiness);
Pseudo-metachemistry
=
pseudo-justice
=
pseudo-civility
= noumenal pseudo-objectivity
(pseudo-unclearness).
RECOGNIZING
THE
BIG
PICTURE
WHEN
CONTEMPLATING LIFE
To
contrast
the
science
and pseudo-religion of
the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the
religion and
pseudo-science of the northeast point of the said compass, as one would
contrast metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics with metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry.
To
contrast
the
politics
and pseudo-economics
of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass … with the
economics
and pseudo-politics of the southeast point of the said compass, as one
would
contrast chemistry and pseudo-physics with physics and pseudo-chemistry.
To
contrast
the
evil
and crime of metachemistry
and the pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysics … with the
grace and
wisdom of metaphysics and the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast barbarity and
pseudo-philistinism
with culture and pseudo-civility.
To
contrast
the
pseudo-evil
and pseudo-crime of
chemistry and the folly and sin of pseudo-physics … with the
pseudo-grace and
pseudo-wisdom of physics and the punishment and goodness of
pseudo-chemistry,
as one would contrast pseudo-barbarity and philistinism with
pseudo-culture and
civility.
To
contrast
the
superfemininity
and
submasculinity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subfemininity and
pseudo-supermasculinity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the
supermasculinity and
subfemininity of metaphysics and the pseudo-submasculinity and
pseudo-superfemininity of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
materialism/fundamentalism and pseudo-idealism/pseudo-transcendentalism
with
transcendentalism/idealism and pseudo-fundamentalism/pseudo-materialism.
To
contrast
the
femininity
and unmasculinity of
chemistry and the pseudo-masculinity and pseudo-unfemininity of
pseudo-physics
… with the masculinity and unfemininity of physics and the
pseudo-femininity
and pseudo-unmasculinity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast
naturalism/pantheism and pseudo-realism/pseudo-humanism with
humanism/realism
and pseudo-pantheism/pseudo-naturalism.
To
contrast
the
superheathenism
and
subchristianity of metachemistry and the pseudo-subheathenism and
pseudo-superchristianity of pseudo-metaphysics … with the
superchristianity and
subheathenism of metaphysics and the pseudo-subchristianity and
pseudo-superheathenism of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
vanity
and pseudo-meekness with righteousness and pseudo-justice.
To
contrast
the
heathenism
and unchristianity
of chemistry and the pseudo-christianity and pseudo-unheathenism of
pseudo-physics … with the Christianity and unheathenism of physics and
the
pseudo-heathenism and pseudo-unchristianity of pseudo-chemistry, as one
would
contrast pseudo-vanity and meekness with pseudo-righteousness and
justice.
To
contrast
the
supersensuousness
and
subconsciousness of metachemistry and the pseudo-subsensuousness and
pseudo-superconsciousness of pseudo-metaphysics … with the
superconsciousness
and subsensuousness of metaphysics and the pseudo-subconsciousness and
pseudo-supersensuousness of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast
free
will and bound soul with free soul and bound will.
To
contrast
the
sensuousness
and
unconsciousness of chemistry and the pseudo-consciousness and
pseudo-unsensuousness of pseudo-physics … with the consciousness and
unsensuousness of physics and the pseudo-sensuousness and
pseudo-unconsciousness of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast free
spirit
and bound ego with free ego and bound spirit.
To
contrast
the
supernaturalism
and subnurturalism
of metachemistry and the pseudo-subnaturalism and
pseudo-supernurturalism of
pseudo-metaphysics … with the supernurturalism and subnaturalism of
metaphysics
and the pseudo-subnurturalism and pseudo-supernaturalism of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast protons and pseudo-photons
with
photons and pseudo-protons.
To
contrast
the
naturalism
and unnurturalism of
chemistry and the pseudo-naturalism and pseudo-unnurturalism of
pseudo-physics
… with the nurturalism and unnaturalism of physics and the
pseudo-naturalism
and pseudo-unnurturalism of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast
electrons
and pseudo-neutrons with neutrons and pseudo-electrons.
To
contrast
the
virtuously
(free) and viciously
(bound) clear morality of metachemistry and the pseudo-virtuously
(pseudo-free)
and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unholy pseudo-unmorality of
pseudo-metaphysics … with the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound)
holy
morality of metaphysics and the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and
pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-unclear pseudo-unmorality of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast space and pseudo-time with
time and
pseudo-space.
To
contrast
the
pseudo-virtuously
(pseudo-free)
and pseudo-viciously (pseudo-bound) pseudo-clear pseudo-morality of
chemistry
and the virtuously (free) and viciously (bound) unholy unmorality of
pseudo-physics … with the pseudo-virtuously (pseudo-free) and
pseudo-viciously
(pseudo-bound) pseudo-holy pseudo-morality of physics and the
virtuously (free)
and viciously (bound) unclear unmorality of pseudo-chemistry, as one
would
contrast volume and pseudo-mass with mass and pseudo-volume.
Although
both
metachemistry
and
pseudo-metaphysics
on the one hand and metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry on
the other reflect parallel distinctions between the genuine and pseudo
elements, as regards an unequivocally hegemonic and an unequivocally
subordinate gender position, the same cannot be said of chemistry and
pseudo-physics
on the one hand and of physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, since
in each
case the hegemonic position is merely equivocal and the subordinate
position
likewise, if subject to primary (as against secondary) polar interplay
with its
corresponding gender element in the unequivocally hegemonic position to
which
it is axially polar, which element, whether metachemical or
metaphysical, indirectly
causes a subversive switch of emphasis on the subordinate position from
soma to
psyche or from psyche to soma, as the gender case may be, in
consequence of
which the equivocally hegemonic element, be it chemical or physical, is
forced
into a secondary (as against primary) polar relationship with its
corresponding
gender polarity in the unequivocally subordinate position contrary to
it,
making for either secondary (as against primary)
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate or
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
relativity vis-à-vis its primary counterpart on the opposite side of
the gender
fence, be that male or female.
Hence
the
secondary
standing
of chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry to pseudo-physics and metaphysics on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to
northeast
points of the intercardinal axial compass, and hence, too, the
secondary
standing of physics and pseudo-metaphysics to pseudo-chemistry and
metachemistry on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which
stretches,
by contrast, from the southeast to the northwest points of the said
compass.
But
even
without
overall
axial relativity, or
interaction between the noumenal and phenomenal like-gender positions,
chemistry would be pseudo-clear vis-à-vis the clearness of
metachemistry, while
pseudo-physics would be unholy vis-à-vis the pseudo-unholiness of
pseudo-metaphysics,
if only because two genuine or, for that matter, pseudo positions
cannot
co-exist as noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, absolute or
relative
pairings.
And
the
same,
of
course, applies to the
pseudo-holiness of physics vis-à-vis the holiness of metaphysics on the
one
hand, and the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry vis-à-vis the
pseudo-unclearness
of pseudo-metachemistry on the other hand.
The
clearness
of
metachemistry
is vain, whereas
the pseudo-holiness of pseudo-metaphysics is pseudo-meek.
Hence the viable co-existence of vanity with
pseudo-meekness, like space with pseudo-time, devilishness/hellishness
with
pseudo-godliness/pseudo-heavenliness, elemental particles with
elemental
pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely,
the
holiness
of
metaphysics is
righteous, whereas the pseudo-unclearness of pseudo-metachemistry is
pseudo-just. Hence the viable
co-existence of righteousness with pseudo-justice, like time with
pseudo-space,
godliness/heavenliness with pseudo-devilishness/pseudo-hellishness,
elemental
wavicles with elemental pseudo-particles.
Likewise,
the
pseudo-clearness
of
chemistry is
pseudo-vain, whereas the unholiness of pseudo-physics is meek. Hence the viable co-existence of
pseudo-vanity with meekness, like volume with pseudo-mass,
womanliness/purgatory
with pseudo-manliness/pseudo-earthiness, molecular particles with
molecular
pseudo-wavicles.
Conversely,
the
pseudo-holiness
of
physics is
pseudo-righteous, whereas the unclearness of pseudo-chemistry is just. Hence the viable co-existence of
pseudo-righteousness with justice, like mass with pseudo-volume,
manliness/earthiness with pseudo-womanliness/pseudo-purgatory,
molecular
wavicles with molecular pseudo-particles.
Thus
the
primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial
polarity of metachemical
vanity and
pseudo-chemical justice, with the axial polarity of pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-meekness and physical pseudo-righteousness secondarily
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate.
One
can
be
damned
from vanity to justice and
counter-saved from pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness.
Likewise,
the
primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial
polarity of metaphysical
righteousness
and pseudo-physical meekness, with the axial polarity of
pseudo-metachemical
pseudo-justice and chemical pseudo-vanity secondarily
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate.
One
can
be
saved
from meekness to righteousness
and counter-damned from pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice.
For, in ‘Kingdom Come’, the chemical ‘first’
(equivocally hegemonic at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass) will be pseudo-metachemically ‘last’ (unequivocally
subordinate at the
northeast point of the said compass), whereas the pseudo-physical
‘last’
(equivocally subordinate at the southwest point of the intercardinal
axial
compass) will be metaphysically ‘first’ (unequivocally hegemonic at the
northeast point of the said compass), as though in the final triumph
(global)
of St George over a prone (neutralized by counter-damnation) dragon, a
pseudo-dragon of absolute pseudo-metachemical subordination to the
metaphysical
triumph of our proverbial saint.
WHAT
DOES
FREEDOM
MEAN
TO YOU, AND DOES
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM EXIST?
To
contrast
the
doing
of
metachemistry with the pseudo-being of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would
contrast power with pseudo-contentment.
To
contrast
the
being
of
metaphysics with the pseudo-doing of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would
contrast contentment with pseudo-power.
To
contrast
the
giving
of chemistry
with the pseudo-taking of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast glory
with
pseudo-form.
To
contrast
the
taking
of physics
with the pseudo-giving of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast form
with pseudo-glory.
To
contrast
the
devility
of
metachemistry with the pseudo-divinity of pseudo-metaphysics, as one
would
contrast hell with pseudo-heaven.
To
contrast
the
divinity
of
metaphysics with the pseudo-devility of pseudo-metachemistry, as one
would contrast
heaven with pseudo-hell.
To
contrast
the
femininity
of
chemistry with the pseudo-masculinity of pseudo-physics, as one would
contrast
purgatory with pseudo-earth.
To
contrast
the
masculinity
of
physics with the pseudo-femininity of pseudo-chemistry, as one would
contrast
earth with pseudo-purgatory.
To
contrast
the
positive
absolute somatic
predominance (over psyche) of metachemistry with the negative absolute
psychic
preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-metaphysics, as one would contrast
elemental
particle protons with elemental wavicle pseudo-photons.
To
contrast
the
positive
absolute psychic
preponderance (over soma) of metaphysics with the negative absolute
somatic
predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-metachemistry, as one would
contrast
elemental wavicle photons with elemental particle pseudo-protons.
To
contrast
the
positive
relative somatic
predominance (over psyche) of chemistry with the negative relative
psychic
preponderance (over soma) of pseudo-physics, as one would contrast
molecular
particle electrons with molecular wavicle pseudo-neutrons.
To
contrast
the
positive
relative psychic
preponderance (over soma) of physics with the negative relative somatic
predominance (over psyche) of pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast
molecular
wavicle neutrons with molecular particle pseudo-electrons.
To
contrast
the
evil
(as against crime) of
metachemistry with the pseudo-sin (as against pseudo-folly) of
pseudo-metaphysics,
as one would contrast beauty and love (as against ugliness and hate)
with
pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe (as against pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy).
To
contrast
the
grace
(as against
wisdom) of metaphysics with the pseudo-crime (as against pseudo-evil)
of
pseudo-metachemistry, as one would contrast truth and joy (as against
illusion
and woe) with pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hate (as against pseudo-beauty
and
pseudo-love).
To
contrast
the
pseudo-evil
(as
against pseudo-crime) of chemistry with the sin (as against folly) of
pseudo-physics, as one would contrast strength and pride (as against
weakness
and humility) with pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain (as against
pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure).
To
contrast
the
pseudo-grace
(as
against pseudo-wisdom) of physics with the goodness (as against
punishment) of
pseudo-chemistry, as one would contrast knowledge and pleasure (as
against
ignorance and pain) with pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (as
against
pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride).
To
contrast
the
absolute
explosiveness of
metachemistry with the absolute pseudo-implosiveness of
pseudo-metaphysics, as
one would contrast noumenal objectivity with noumenal
pseudo-subjectivity.
To
contrast
the
absolute
implosiveness of
metaphysics with the absolute pseudo-explosiveness of
pseudo-metachemistry, as
one would contrast noumenal subjectivity with noumenal
pseudo-objectivity.
To
contrast
the
relative
explosiveness of
chemistry with the relative pseudo-implosiveness of pseudo-physics, as
one
would contrast phenomenal objectivity with phenomenal
pseudo-subjectivity.
To
contrast
the
relative
implosiveness of
physics with the relative pseudo-explosiveness of pseudo-chemistry, as
one
would contrast phenomenal subjectivity with phenomenal
pseudo-objectivity.
The
absolute
is
always
a three-to-one ratio in
favour, depending on the element, of soma to psyche (female) or of
psyche to
soma (male), whereas the relative is always a
two-and-a-half-to-one-and-a-half
ratio, depending on the element, of psyche to soma (male) or of soma to
psyche
(female), thereby enabling us to categorically distinguish between the
noumenal
and the phenomenal, as between ethereal and corporeal alternatives on
both
particle and wavicle, female and male terms, with respect to both soma
and
psyche.
WHY
MORAL
RELATIVISM
IS
WRONG
Since
I
often
write
about what is called the
intercardinal axial compass stretching from southwest to northeast and
from
northwest to southeast on a crossed diagonal basis of inter-class and
inter-gender polarity, I may as well add some new thoughts to the
corpus of
axis-inspired ideas which enable one to distinguish
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (southwest to northeast) from
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (northwest to southeast) axial
criteria.
What
I
am
especially
interested in establishing
is that neither axis is corrupt – although the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one is the secular fruit of
schismatic
heresy and is therefore open to allegations of religious corruption –
and that
both axes are corrupt, though not, assuredly, in the same way.
In
fact,
they
are
corrupt and not corrupt in
opposite ways – the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis in terms of
male
corruption in relation to an overall female dominance, and the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one in terms of female corruption in
relation to an overall male dominance.
But
there
are
two
ways of being corrupt, as of
course of not being corrupt, and we can define them as absolute and
relative, corresponding
to noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal axial polarities.
Let
us
take
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis first, where male corruption is
absolute in pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) under the
female
unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass, and relative in physics over the female
subordination of pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the
southeast
point of the said compass, the former order of corruption implying free
soma
and bound psyche under metachemical pressure and the latter …
bound-somatic
emphasis at the expense of free psyche in relation to pseudo-chemical
subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of
metachemistry -
metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry constitutive of primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, pseudo-metaphysics
and
physics their secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate counterparts.
Thus
male
corruption
is
absolute in
pseudo-metaphysics and relative in physics, females not corrupted
(uncorrupted)
in metachemistry where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to
be
absolutely true to their selves – free soma and bound psyche existing
on a
three-to-one basis of mother-to-daughter-like state/church relativity,
and only
partially corrupted in pseudo-chemistry, since free psyche and bound
soma, even
with somatic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of
physics, a
male element.
As
regards
the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis,
we have the converse situation
of
relative female corruption in chemistry over the male subordination of
pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the southwest point of the
intercardinal
axial compass, and absolute female corruption in pseudo-metachemistry
(from out
of antimetachemistry) under the male unequivocal hegemony of
metaphysics at the
northeast point of the compass in question, the former order of
corruption
implying bound psychic emphasis at the expense of free soma in relation
to
pseudo-physical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance
of
metaphysics, and the latter … free psyche and bound soma under
metaphysical
pressure - pseudo-physics and metaphysics constitutive of primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, chemistry and
pseudo-metachemistry their secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
counterparts.
Thus
female
corruption
is
relative in chemistry
and absolute in pseudo-metachemistry, males only partially corrupted in
pseudo-physics, since free soma and bound psyche, even with psychic
emphasis,
only follow from the equivocal hegemony of chemistry, a female element,
and not
at all corrupted in metaphysics where, being unequivocally hegemonic,
they are
free to be absolutely true to their selves – free psyche and bound soma
existing on a three-to-one basis of father-to-son-like church/state
relativity.
Of
course,
males
are
relatively corrupted in
pseudo-physics and females in pseudo-chemistry, but in overall axial
terms it
is still males in the one context and females in the other who are the
dominant
gender, and this is the distinguishing differentiation between
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate and
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria.
Speaking
as
a
male,
I can only contend that is
it preferable to live in a society in which the female is corrupted,
since male
dominance makes for the possibility, in metaphysics, of religious truth
and joy
and, hence, for godliness and heavenliness.
Neither
of
those
factors
are germane to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies, which, dominated by
females, are
less religious and more scientific, rooted, it could be argued, in
empirical
objectivity.
Yet
they
are
also
likely to be more economic
and less political, which is not female and male respectively but a
consequence, by contrast, of equivocal male and female hegemonies in
physics
(over pseudo-chemistry) and chemistry (over pseudo-physics), economics
polar to
science or, more correctly, to pseudo-religion … as physics to
pseudo-metaphysics, and politics polar to religion or, more correctly,
to
pseudo-science … as chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry.
But
the
polarity
on
the one axis of economics
to pseudo-religion is correlative, on secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity of pseudo-politics to
science … as
of pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry, whereas the polarity on the other
axis of
politics to pseudo-science … as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry,
is
correlative, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms,
with the
primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity of pseudo-economics
to
religion … as of pseudo-physics to metaphysics.
Therefore
genuine
science
and
economics only
exist in polar relation to pseudo-politics and pseudo-religion
respectively,
whereas genuine religion and politics likewise only exist in polar
relation to
pseudo-economics and pseudo-science.
On
the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis,
one
can be saved, as a male, from pseudo-economics to religion, as from
pseudo-physics to metaphysics, meekness to righteousness, poetry to
philosophy,
and counter-damned, as a female, from politics to pseudo-science,
chemistry to
pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, pseudo-drama to
pseudo-prose.
Conversely,
on
the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis
one can be damned, as a female,
from
science to pseudo-politics, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry,
vanity
to justice, drama to prose, and counter-saved, as a male, from
pseudo-religion
to economics, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pseudo-meekness to
pseudo-righteousness, pseudo-poetry to pseudo-philosophy.
But
the
latter
eventualities,
corresponding
with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, are only likely
to
transpire in the event of salvation and counter-damnation taking place
to an
unprecedented extent on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis,
not
independently of it, and for that to happen something more than the
Catholic
tradition would be required, as I have often contended from a radically
theocratic standpoint – the standpoint of Social Theocracy, about which
I have
theorized at some length in a variety of blogs and texts elsewhere.
THE
ROLE
OF
PHILOSOPHY
IN RELIGION
To
contrast
the
barbarism
of the
Vain with the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek, as one would
contrast
metachemistry with pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the
intercardinal axial compass.
To
contrast
the
pseudo-barbarism
of
the pseudo-Vain with the philistinism of the Meek, as one would
contrast
chemistry with pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the
intercardinal axial
compass.
To
contrast
the
pseudo-culture
of the
pseudo-Righteous with the civility of the Just, as one would contrast
physics
with pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
To
contrast
the
culture
of the Righteous with
the pseudo-civility of the pseudo-Just, as one would contrast
metaphysics with
pseudo-metachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial
compass.
To
contrast,
on
a
strictly female polar basis,
the barbarism of the Vain with the civility of the Just, as one would
contrast
metachemistry with pseudo-chemistry on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To
contrast,
on
a
strictly male polar basis,
the pseudo-philistinism of the pseudo-Meek with the pseudo-culture of
the
pseudo-Righteous, as one would contrast pseudo-metaphysics with physics
on
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms.
To
contrast,
on
a
strictly male polar basis,
the philistinism of the Meek with the culture of the Righteous, as one
would
contrast pseudo-physics with metaphysics on primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To
contrast,
on
a
strictly female polar basis,
the pseudo-barbarism of the pseudo-Vain with the pseudo-civility of the
pseudo-Just, as one would contrast chemistry with pseudo-metachemistry
on
secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms.
To
contrast
the
positive
barbarism of
metachemical free soma with the negative barbarism of metachemical
bound
psyche, as one would contrast the superheathen moral virtue of beauty
and love
with the subchristian moral vice of ugliness and hatred.
To
contrast
the
positive
pseudo-philistinism of
pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the negative pseudo-philistinism of
pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would contrast the
pseudo-subheathen
unmoral virtue of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the
pseudo-superchristian
unmoral vice of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe.
To
contrast
the
positive
pseudo-barbarism of
chemical free soma with the negative pseudo-barbarism of chemical bound
psyche,
as one would contrast the heathen moral virtue of strength and pride
with the
unchristian moral vice of weakness and humility.
To
contrast
the
positive
philistinism of
pseudo-physical free soma with the negative philistinism of
pseudo-physical
bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-heathen unmoral virtue
of
pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the pseudo-unchristian
unmoral vice
of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain.
To
contrast
the
positive
pseudo-culture of
physical free psyche with the negative pseudo-culture of physical bound
soma,
as one would contrast the christian moral virtue of knowledge and
pleasure with
the unheathen moral vice of ignorance and pain.
To
contrast
the
positive
civility of
pseudo-chemical free psyche with the negative civility of
pseudo-chemical bound
soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-christian unmoral virtue of
pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the pseudo-unheathen unmoral vice
of
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility.
To
contrast
the
positive
culture of
metaphysical free psyche with the negative culture of metaphysical
bound soma, as
one would contrast the superchristian moral virtue of truth and joy
with the
subheathen moral vice of illusion and woe.
To
contrast
the
positive
pseudo-civility of
pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the negative pseudo-civility of
pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast the
pseudo-subchristian
unmoral virtue of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the
pseudo-superheathen
unmoral vice of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred.
In
overall
metachemical
terms,
superheathen =
supernatural = supersensuous = superfeminine; subchristian =
subnurtural =
subconscious = submasculine.
In
overall
pseudo-metaphysical
terms,
pseudo-subheathen
= pseudo-subnatural = pseudo-subsensuous =
pseudo-subfeminine; pseudo-superchristian = pseudo-supernurtural =
pseudo-superconscious
– pseudo-supermasculine.
In
overall
chemical
terms,
heathen = natural =
sensuous = feminine; unchristian = unnurtural = unconscious =
unmasculine.
In
overall
pseudo-physical
terms,
pseudo-heathen
= pseudo-natural = pseudo-sensuous = pseudo-feminine;
pseudo-unchristian =
pseudo-unnurtural = pseudo-unconscious = pseudo-unmasculine.
In
overall
physical
terms,
christian
= nurtural = conscious = masculine; unheathen = unnatural = unsensuous
=
unfeminine.
In
overall
pseudo-chemical
terms,
pseudo-christian
= pseudo-nurtural = pseudo-conscious = pseudo-masculine;
pseudo-unheathen =
pseudo-unnatural = pseudo-unsensuous = pseudo-unfeminine.
In
overall
metaphysical
terms,
superchristian =
supernurtural = superconscious = supermasculine; subheathen =
subnatural =
subsensuous = subfeminine.
In
overall
pseudo-metachemical
terms,
pseudo-subchristian
= pseudo-subnurtural = pseudo-subconscious =
pseudo-submasculine; pseudo-superheathen = pseudo-supernatural =
pseudo-supersensuous = pseudo-superfeminine.
WHO
IS
VIRTUOUS?
To
contrast
the
smart
noumenal bitches
(females) of metachemical free soma with the stupid noumenal bitches of
metachemical bound psyche, as one would contrast the evil of beauty and
love
with the crime of ugliness and hatred, the former standing to the
latter on a
3:1 ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) objective
criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
noumenal pseudo-bastards
(pseudo-males) of pseudo-metaphysical free soma with the stupid
noumenal
pseudo-bastards of pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, as one would
contrast the
pseudo-folly of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the pseudo-sin of
pseudo-illusion
and pseudo-woe, the former standing to the latter on a 1:3 ratio basis
commensurate
with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-subjective criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
phenomenal bitches
(females) of chemical free soma with the stupid phenomenal bitches of
chemical
bound psyche, as one would contrast the pseudo-evil of strength and
pride with
the pseudo-crime of weakness and humility, the former standing to the
latter on
a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal) objective
criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
phenomenal
pseudo-bastards (pseudo-males) of pseudo-physical free soma with the
stupid
phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical bound psyche, as one
would
contrast the folly of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure with the sin
of pseudo-ignorance
and pseudo-pain, the former standing to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio
basis commensurate with relative
(phenomenal)
pseudo-subjective criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
phenomenal bastards
(males) of physical free psyche with the stupid phenomenal bastards of
physical
bound soma, as one would contrast the pseudo-grace of knowledge and
pleasure
with the pseudo-wisdom of ignorance and pain, the former standing to
the latter
on a 2½:1½ ratio basis commensurate with relative (phenomenal)
subjective criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
phenomenal pseudo-bitches
(pseudo-females) of pseudo-chemical free psyche with the stupid
phenomenal
pseudo-bitches of pseudo-chemical bound soma, as one would contrast the
punishingness of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride with the goodness of
pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (if not humiliation), the former
standing
to the latter on a 1½:2½ ratio basis commensurate with relative
(phenomenal) pseudo-objective
criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
noumenal bastards (male)
of metaphysical free psyche with the stupid noumenal bastards of
metaphysical
bound soma, as one would contrast the grace of truth and joy with the
wisdom of
illusion and woe, the former standing to the latter on a 3:1 ratio
basis commensurate
with absolute (noumenal) subjective criteria.
To
contrast
the
smart
noumenal pseudo-bitches
(pseudo-females) of pseudo-metachemical free psyche with the stupid
noumenal
pseudo-bitches of pseudo-metachemical bound soma, as one would contrast
the
pseudo-punishingness of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the
pseudo-goodness
of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred, the former standing to the latter
on a 1:3
ratio basis commensurate with absolute (noumenal) pseudo-objective
criteria.
Besides
bitches
and
bastards
on both noumenal
(ethereal) and phenomenal (corporeal) class and/or elemental planes,
one has to
allow for their ‘pseudo’ counterparts likewise, since bitches are only
hegemonic over pseudo-bastards and bastards only hegemonic over
pseudo-bitches,
the hegemonic gender requiring the upending and effective undoing of
the
subordinate gender if it is to remain hegemonic and therefore clear
over unholy
or holy over unclear, as the gender case, on both noumenal and
phenomenal
planes, may be.
The
significant
theological
notion
that the
‘first’ will be ‘last’ and the ‘last’ be ‘first’ in ‘Kingdom Come’
applies not
only across the axial divide between female-dominated and
male-dominated
societies, but also across the gender divide of either axis, as well as
across
the same gender distinction, noted above, between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’
types of
bitches and bastards, pseudo-bitches and pseudo-bastards.
In
the
salvation
(rising
deliverance from
southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) of
the
pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the correlative counter-damnation
(counter-falling deliverance from southwest to northeast points of the
said
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) of the chemical to
pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-physical ‘last’ will wind up
metaphysical
‘first’ and the chemical ‘first’ wind up pseudo-metachemical ‘last’;
but even
the ‘smart’ phenomenal pseudo-bastards of pseudo-physical free soma
will end up
‘last’ in metaphysical bound soma as the ‘stupid’ phenomenal
pseudo-bastards of
pseudo-physical bound psyche become ‘first’ in metaphysical free psyche. Correlatively, the ‘smart’ phenomenal bitches
of chemical free soma will end up ‘last’ in pseudo-metachemical bound
soma as
the ‘stupid’ phenomenal bitches of chemical bound psyche become ‘first’
in
pseudo-metachemical free psyche.
Therefore
not
only
absolute
‘firsts’ and
‘lasts’ between the genders, but relative ‘firsts’ and ‘lasts’ within
each
gender, notwithstanding the fact that either gender, in phenomenal or
noumenal
contexts, can be both ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ by turns or in relation to
the
overall relativity of their gender (somatic vis-à-vis psyche or psychic
vis-à-vis somatic) make-up, this in turn varying according, as noted
above, to
class and/or elemental circumstances.
Nevertheless,
distinctions
between
churchmen
and
statesmen, for example, are often reflected in individual
predilections
towards either freedom or binding in soma or psyche, making for
differentials
in behaviour and psychology which reflect our above-mentioned
distinctions
between ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’, irrespective of the ratio factors within
any
given gender.
LONDON
2008–9
(Revised
2011)
